Pages

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Some notes from Kate McCann's diary

Some notes from Kate McCann's diary.
"Left a message for Gordon Brown to call us in order to increase the political pressure" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May
"Gordon Brown called and spoke with Gerry – very sympathetic and gave strength. Somewhat emotive feeling afterwards" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May
"Clarence spoke to us about a possible visit to the Vatican. Rome is already preparing itself. Francis Campbell was spoken to" – Kate McCann,

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


Francis Campbell was spoken to" << An interesting turn of phrase.

Spoken to implies perhaps a telling off, a verbal punishment.

'Police captured the suspect and he was given a talking to before being sent on his way'

"Left a message for Gordon Brown to call us in order to increase the political pressure" – Kate McCann, 23rd of may

Notice all the dropped pronouns.
Even though it was in her personal diary, use of pronouns is instinctive especially pronouns such as i, me, mine.
She knows how to use them.

Why would they need Gordon Brown to get involved and apply political pressure in a criminal case, a purported abduction.
This was not a civil case it was a criminal case.
Why the need to demand political pressure be applied?
What kind of pressure and applied where?

Did the mccanns realize the PJ weren't buying their version of events and were looking at possibly arresting and charging them?
Was this a case of calling in favors to protect their sorry asses or else they will take others with them, perhaps those that would be embarrassing to brown.

"Gordon Brown called and spoke with Gerry – very sympathetic and gave strength. Somewhat emotive feeling afterwards" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May.

This isn't as good as it sounds.
With indicates distance, normally we would expect to see something like
Gordon Brown talked to gerry, indicating closeness.
Notice also the distance between Gordon Brown and gerry, this meeting wasn't all niceness and light happy clappy.
I suspect it ended with heated words and possibly even threats.

Notice the dropped pronoun in front of very sympathetic.
Who was very sympathetic?
Kate doesn't tell us so we can't assume
She also doesn't say who gave strength and again we can't assume.

It may have been Brown, it could just as well have been gerry reassuring Brown that he would say nothing.

She doesn't tell us who was emotive afterwards nor what kind of emotions they were,
It could have been reassurance or i suspect, more likely anger.

Note also she says "somewhat emotive".
Qualifiers are additional words that when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
She doesn't say he or she were emotive nor that brown was emotive, only that 'someone' was somewhat emotive (somewhat - a little, a bit, a little bit, to a limited extent/degree, to a certain degree, to some extent, to some degree, (up) to a point, in some measure)
Somewhat is a minimizing word.

Why would a phone call from Brown make them feel somewhat emotive?
Was it good or bad?
Would he help or would he distance himself from the case?

Why would he help a couple of doctors suspected of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter?
Why would he help suspected criminals?

What would he gain by helping criminal suspects , by applying political pressure in a criminal case?

Someone with something to hide may be persuaded (blackmailed?) to help cover up a crime especially in a foreign country.

Would Brown be willing to face obstruction of justice charges or perverting the course of justice charges just to protect 2 doctors who are involved in the disappearance of their daughter, of whom there is a CATS file number and another of the group who liked to bathe other people's children, who was overheard and seen making inappropriate comments about Maddie and who was recognized by a social worker working in child abuse cases.

Since the case was reopened in Portugal and also opened by NSY, all their celeb supporters have gone real quiet,
The mccanns clearly struggled to find witnesses to testify for them in court.
Not even tapas 7 members were called to testify.
Why was this?

Did the tapas 7 refuses on the grounds of perjury in court would mean a long jail sentence.
Were they, like the mccanns, averse to actually going into court to testify and be cross examined?

We know everything would go bosoms up under cross examination, heck, even those who did testify needed crib sheets and prompting and still managed to screw it up.

I wonder how close they and the tapas 7 are currently?
Do they still visit and call each other or are the tapas 7 distancing themselves, preparatory to perhaps securing a deal?
Immunity from prosecution or minimal time for whatever part they played in the disposal and subsequent cover up.

They know if push comes to shove , the mccanns will toss them under the bus without a second thought, especially gerry.
One or more of the tapas 7, if they haven't already, will have talked to their attorneys to see where they stand and what kind of deal they could get if they co-operated.

Kate so kindly helped the prosecution by writing her bewk, which has been and will be, compared to all her Rog statements and also all the interviews etc.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a comment