JB writes: Some weeks ago, on NT’s excellent and game-changing internet site nottextusa.blogspot.com/ I wrote in reply to one of its equally excellent posters that there is one thing that the McCanns and their active supporters on the net or the MSM, will never address: the proven evidence of the pair's repeated and utterly damning lies about their role in the case.
I had first discovered this back in about 2014 when the only person on the internet willing even to mention the question of the couple’s veracity*, let alone its importance, was nice Mr Nessling. Perhaps the fate of that dedicated enemy of the Bureau, who, among more important differences, never forgave me for innocently describing him as a motor mechanic, had a hand in determining the subsequent unanimous policy: shoot the messenger, hide the message, run away.
A search warrant was granted to enable the police to investigate the McCann's property and possessions.
Once GA had won his first victory - job done, as it remains - I stopped bothering too much about the case details and largely left the Forbidden Area alone, apart from idly wondering now and then, why is the subject too hot for the supporters even to touch or acknowledge? What is it that terrifies them?
Anyway, as readers of the last couple of Bureau issues know, we decided to have another look at the McFibbing recently. But before getting down to the tedious and unpleasant task of re-visiting the sources, I thought, let’s take a chance on this, let’s test the theory that they dare not try and counter the facts of the lies by making a public prediction anyone will be able to check. So I said to that poster on NT words to the effect of “they won’t address it, all they’ll do is abuse, check it out for yourself when it comes up”. The words are still there.
Dated August 2 2007 the court granted the warrant because the pair were suspects in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The warrant refers to the "suspects". Not "arguidos", which Gerry McCann has told us all did not mean suspects, but "suspects" - suspeitos on the warrant.
Then I went ahead, looked at the sources in detail and found myself bewildered – the lying was far, far worse than I’d ever written about, far worse than I’d believed possible. As those who’ve read the two issues will know it's the words of KM in her book and GM on his blog & public testimony placed side by side, over a period of four years. Four years!
Kate McCann has never admitted that they were suspects under warrant on August 2. On August 11 Gerry McCann posted on his public blog that the PJ had confirmed that "we are not suspects in Madeleines disappearance."
It was a lie, wasn't it?
If what Gerry McCann told the Commons select committee and the Leveson inquiry about the most critical periods of the investigation in 2007 was true then his wife had to be lying over many pages in Madeleine: it’s there in the record. And, of course, the converse is true: if KM is telling the truth in Madeleine, as she stated she was, then Gerry McCann’s testimony in parliament and at a judicial tribunal, literally has to be lies. And those lies revolved around a constant subject: the attempt to spread deception about the course of the investigation.
And no, you didn't have to be made an arguido to be questioned as a suspected person in a case - Kate & Gerry McCann were questioned at police headquarters as suspects on August 8, with the now head of the PJ telling KM, according to her account, that he suspected her of lying to the police about the disappearance.
Evidence-based predictions don’t get confirmed by accident. They get confirmed because they are true. On twitter yesterday and today - well you can look for yourselves if you wish. They squealed about the messenger. They ran. Then they hid.
For the McCanns this proof of lying about the investigation is, I think, a lethal one. I understand the necessity for the parent's silence and I can accept the inability of the pair to go near the subject until it comes up in court. But what about this running and hiding by their remaining supporters?
So, again, Gerry McCann was lying when he told the world on August 11 that the police had confirmed that they were not suspects.
And it would have been more truthful if he'd told Lord Leveson's tribunal that the "rumours" about the pair being suspects were absolutely true, rather than misleading it with the arguido nonsense.
Now we know.
Can't they see the obvious? Every time they run and hide they're telling us they don't believe in the couple any more. They're no longer claiming the innocence of the parents as they did, with justification, until the facts could no longer support them. No, they are now only mounting a defence case - where you select only the facts you favour and hide the rest.
Now we know.
1) Needless to say the MSM, having made up absurd lies about the pair after they were made arguidos - hello Jerry Lawton - and paid the legal price, are as silent about the pair's veracity as the supporters. But for very different reasons.
2) This is page one of the search warrant for the August 2 search of the McCann residence.
In paragraph 3, beginning "A busca …" you will see that the warrant refers to the suspects
"suispeito(s)" - "The search should include the entire property, even the part occupied by people other than the suspects, including annexes and rented areas."
3) On August 8 the pair were interviewed at Portimao police headquarters. KM's version is, as usual, a partial one and full of rhetoric but it is quite clear that the PJ stated that evidence that the child was no longer alive would be forthcoming and, in an interview filled with tears and hysterics, she was accused of having lost control of herself and blacked out and then lying about what had happened with the child. Kate McCann herself describes it as an "interrogation". So it wasn't a witness interview, was it?
Finally, she deliberately obfuscates over what she was told about the further course of their questioning. Disguise it as she might they were told that further, more formal, interviews were to follow. As they did, until they were made arguidos on September 7, by which time, as we know, they were all ready with a fully briefed criminal a lawyer. Witnesses!
4) The entire conflation of suspect and arguido for the English-speaking audience was part of the continuing - and quite successful - tactic of the pair to deny that police suspicions and theories of the parents' involvement had grown throughout the investigation for multiple reasons, not suddenly appeared as a result of the dog (misleading and unjust) searches. "Nothing was happening in the case" so the media homed in on dodgy police links to pass the time and invented mad rumours that the pair were under serious suspicion before they were made arguidos, which just wasn't true. The plan and, once again, the deception can be clearly seen in G. McCann's Leveson testimony.
Counsel: One key event in this narrative is you becoming, if I pronounce it right, arguido, under Portuguese law, which occurred on 7 September 2007, and this is paragraph 34 of your witness statement. To be clear about it, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong because you know more about this than me, arguido does not mean "suspect", it means "person of interest"; is that correct?
McCann: That's what we were advised was the closest correlation or translation within UK law at the time, and I think it is probably important to emphasise that as a witness in Portugal at that time you were not entitled to any legal representation. So if the police wanted to ask any question, which your answer may give incriminating evidence, then they must declare you arguido, then you were entitled to have a lawyer there. And in many ways you could argue that all parents of a missing child, certainly those who would have been the last to see them, could have to answer questions like that. So being labelled arguido was not necessarily such a bad thing.
As stated in Point 3 above on August 8 Kate McCann describes the police rightly or wrongly "asking questions to which her answers could have been incriminating" while being a suspect but not an arguido. The police asked them anyway. GM's reply is therefore untrue.
Counsel: Maybe there are two points here. The first point is the obvious one that needs to be stated. There isn't an equivalent concept of arguido in English law?
McCann: No. And I think the aspect on that is we've never been arrested, we've never been charged with anything. We've never stood trial.
Counsel: Do you happen to know whether under Portuguese law they have a category of suspect?
Wait for Professor McCann's answer to this one. It's a beauty
McCann: I think it is loosely used, but you could have multiple arguidos within any investigation, and at that time, the title "arguido" stayed with those involved until the file was closed.
Did you hear that, to the most important question of them all? The only answers to the question were "yes", "no" or "don't know". Instead he ran away from the question and bull-****** his way along according to plan.
Counsel: Do you think, rightly or wrongly, the British press somehow interpreted "arguido" as equivalent to “suspect", which carried with it, therefore, its own connotations?
You won't be surprised at this answer: it was a "green ink" one.
McCann: Yes. I mean clearly the word was used that way almost exclusively.
And with the help of the appalling counsel Jay, who became a judge, McCann can now come to the point that all his answers were leading up to. Remember it? Nothing happening in the case, all lies.
Counsel: At this point we are in the late summer, obviously, or early autumn of 2007. If I can move you forward to paragraph 39 of your statement. You're making the point that the story in terms of objective fact is beginning to run dry and reporters now are thrashing around for something new.
That's right, Mr Jay. We repeat: whatever rubbish the MSM printed about the pair later on, the British media reports in the English language that the McCanns were suspects, an English word, during August were not rumours but completely true.