Tuesday, 18 July 2017

Don't Ask!

You think so?

A shorter version of this piece appeared on the Amazon KM forum today.
AJS writes: Among so many mysteries, one  thing I am quite certain of is the Anglo-Portuguese agreement to insist that the McCanns are not suspects. The bitchy Mail tested it once again last week with a needling piece hinting that Grange's targets, whoever they might be, certainly aren't in Portugal but a great deal nearer to home.  

What possible sense could the "not suspects" claim make without such an agreement? Facts don’t need re-iterating in irritable police interviews; something that is self-evident never needs saying; something which is settled doesn’t need, let alone demand, insistence.

And since the McCanns are not suspects, then there is no possibility of a future trial, is there? In which case there is zero need to avoid any prejudice. Which leaves what? An attempt to help an unfortunate couple finally put the case behind them out of the goodness of their dear, uniformed hearts? If so, who are they trying to convince? The media?

Hardly. The MSM either stays away from the subject or, like the Mail, needles in we know and you know and you know that we know terms that go right over the head of the "average reader"; both  are impervious to unconvincing Yard assertions made without background. So who are they aiming to convince?

Well, the Yard explicitly  mentioned social media in their response to the Sun last week. Perhaps it's all of us.  You can just imagine the anti-McCann websites solemnly posting, no more criticism of the couple please, the Yard has told us again they aren't suspects, can't you?  Social media is lost to the McCanns forever, writs or no writs, and the Yard and the PJ know it.   
No, pull the other one: they say it because they've agreed to do so, knowing it won't convince anyone but lacking any other way of keeping a lid on a possibly explosive pot until they announce a conclusion.  Neither the Portuguese nor Scotland Yard have made any attempt to  lighten the rumour burden on the McCanns apart from this one claim – no stressing that Smithman is definitely not Gerry McCann, no helping the couple distance themselves from the glutinous Clement Freud, no insistence that, apart from Jane Tanner’s Bundleman “mistake”, the Nine are good, honest witnesses, no reassurance for the pair that "the child may not have been alive when she left the apartment" has no negative implications for them. Oh no, of course not,  none at all.  And no statements at the libel trial by Ribeiro or Rebelo (who was supposed to give evidence for the pair) or any other police officer that the couple are not  persons of interest.   Funny that - until you remember that they were on oath.

The testiness and obvious sticking-to-the-script caution* account for the constipated nature of police/media interviews whenever the subject is broached: whatever happens they will not expand upon the answer in any way, because they can't - for if they do  they at once  open a Pandora's Box of follow-up questions, beginning with  why aren't they suspects? That, of course,  is why Rowley, Redwood, do Carmo and Co., when discussing the subject with the usual mixture of silence and bluster, sound rather like the evasive  McCanns themselves in their TV interviews, who also have areas where we are not going to go. "Period!" as  Pedro do Carmo says.

Do Carmo’s response was particularly noteworthy. He was asked if it had been a mistake to make the couple arguidos, which, contrary to the claims of Gerry McCann and their child-like  acceptance by Leveson counsel (now judge) Jay, means either “defendant” or “accused” in English.** His answer was to talk about “nao ‘suspeitos’” about which he wasn't asked. His hapless attempt to stick to the script was the reddest of red flags. It also included the superb, "ask the dogs" reply:

“I do not want to talk about what happened up to 2008. This has been sufficiently debated at its appropriate place.”

Where was that, Pedro? In the Portuguese Supreme Court?
Mind you, those fellow posters  who take the view, or rather aggressively insist,  that Grange is being deliberately run into the ground, adding helpfully  that the Bureau is "desperate to claim that Grange will succeed", might ask themselves what  do Carmo’s statement means for them.  If he's supporting Grange, then the Grange conspiracy, or whitewash or whatever they agree it is, isn't just a British conspiracy but an international one. Really?

The McCanns are NOT SUSPECTS.
Easy to say, isn't it?


* Latest: "Speaking exclusively to The Sun Online, the SY spokesman said defiantly [our italics]: “We should not have to explain or justify how many times we are going to Portugal. Whatever we do, and we are doing our very best, someone always wants to criticise the actions of the police regarding Madeleine McCann."

 **  https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-PT-en.do?clang=pt&idSubpage=2

Note particularly the definitive  "Uma vez constituído arguido, deve considerar-se suspeito da prática de um crime"  ["once constituted an arguido a person must be considered a suspect (suspeito) in the commission of a crime"]but the entire content of the statement gives the lie to this endlessly repeated invention of Gerry McCann - most recently in the Sun last week:

'In September of that year, Gerry and Kate, who are both doctors, were sensationally named as ‘arguidos’ by Portuguese police. While arguido is often translated as ‘suspect’, it actually means a person being questioned under caution.'

It doesn't.