Looking back through the statements, i don't believe they were left
alone each night as they claim, again the minimizing.
They could admit to child
neglect and maybe serve 10 yrs maximum for neglect resulting in harm
except they would and could plea deal down to a couple of years at worst, and more likely depending on how good their expensive lawyers are, maybe even probation and a hefty fine
This
would be their best option since, if charged for neglect, they couldn't
then be charged with homicide, concealing a corpse and filing a false
police report.
It was the lesser of two evils, heck they might even keep
their licenses after a suspension, retraining or supervision.
Each
night one adult was away from the table, it was blamed on sickness
either of the adult or a child.
The children weren't left alone as
claimed.
The mccanns had to claim this as it was the only way an
abduction could take place.
No abductor is going to go into a house with
a wide awake adult watching the kids, it would be too damn risky.
Gerry
himself told us all the children were in one apartment when he said:
"Anybody
with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at
night.
During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too
much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was
one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying,
so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her
about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we
thought, "Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first
putting them down in that period when they're really tired".
Of
course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of
Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's
put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasized that
to the police."
Dermot Murhaghan interview with the mccanns, 01 May 2008 Sky News
Firstly he talks about one of the other twins.
There
was only one set of twins, that was Sean and Amelie mccann.
Therefore there
couldn't be one of the other twins.
What we see is him self editing, ie editing as he talks, looking to stop anything incriminating slipping out,
this leads to disjointed speech with lots on nonsense sounds, stuttering
and pauses.
What was he going to say?
One of the other children.?
He realized what he was going to say (all the children were in one place)
and stopped himself although he still messed it up as we can see.
If all the children were in one apartment and being babysat by whichever adult was missing from the table that night, there was no neglect.
If there was no neglect there could be no abduction.
No abduction meant awkward questions for kate and gerry mccann and one or more of the tapas 7
Gerry realised he was about to open mouth and insert foot so he stopped himself.
However he may have prevented that marble from escaping, he failed however to notice the other marbles of truth leaking out when he spoke about crying and the children being bathed, or being put to bed.
This truth slipped out without him realising.
He has just admitted all the children were in one apartment being bathed and put to bed by one or more adults from the group but not by kate and gerry.
Hi Tania
ReplyDeleteSpot on! The McCanns 'self-edits', as you describe them, were prevalent from the word 'go'. This one is particularly significant.
Ironically, had Gerry simply left his tongue in gear and said 'children', as he most probably intended, it would have appeared less suspicious, since twins are children after all. It is the fact that he insists on reinforcing the identity of HIS children as twins that drops him in it.
I believe the PJ cottoned onto the significance of the 'tummy bug' rosta early on, realised that child minding was at the back of it and deduced that that the phoney 'negligence' was in support of a phoney abduction. And here we have an instance of verbal 'behaviour' that meshes perfectly with that supposition.
Keep up the good work!
Hi Martin, Thanks.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to hear what they want to hear,rather than what the subject is actually saying.
Even the dimmest listener to the mccanns or reader of their words picks up on the tells, the incoherent language of two professional people, the contradicting of what they have already said and the retrofitting.
They may not know why they aren't buying the mccann and chums(and clarrie)stories, they do know that something just isn't right, something is off.
Even body language is picked up on, again they may not know why they are feeling annoyance, disbelief etc, they are picking up on the micro expressions, something we all do instinctively.
I await with interest how their supporters are going to spin the newly released accounts of the fund, which is even more vague than usual.
Keep up the good work Martin, i love reading your posts.
Have a great new year :)