Reminder: the crucial “Foundation Lie”
The delayed Huelva stunt. Gerry McCann has made a miraculous recovery
1. On August 2, KM writes, the McCanns were due to drive to Huelva to hold one of their “campaign” stunts, this time being filmed erecting Madeleine posters by a media pack.
2. The previous day, however, and following dog searches, the police had been granted search warrants to examine their apartment and car and seize any relevant evidence. KM says she was informed that the police were coming early on the morning of August 2 – but only vaguely by hearsay from GM. (!)
2. Accordingly the pair had to abandon the trip but decided to deceive the journalists, and therefore the public, as to the real reason. They invented an illness which would prevent Gerry McCann from making the journey.
3. The next day GM repeated the deception, this time to a much wider audience, the unmediated public, in his so-called “blog”.
All this is described in the couple's own words. It should be noted, however, that even in her belated "truth-telling" – and on the same page that she admitted lying - KM is still not telling the full truth or anything like it.
In particular she carefully conceals the knowledge of when each found out a search warrant existed – that morning, with the PJ call to Gerry, which meant that her Madeleine story of vagueness and innocent bemusement as to the reasons for the "visit" was as false as GM's blog-and- Edinburgh claims of bemusement about "rumours"? Or when the PJ arrived and waved the warrant at them, thus making it certain that they were under investigation?
Either way, of course, from then to the end of time any statements, or pretence, by the couple that they were not under investigation - suspects - from August 2 onwards are certainly untrue. That is what makes the GM blog, with its utterly dishonest insouciance about their position, such a tatty and sordid piece of deception.
Day 93, August 4, "The most recent searches by the police have attracted a lot of renewed media interest with satellite trucks arriving...94, I note there was a lot of coverage of Kate's interview in the Sunday newspapers today. I managed to read one of them and certainly seemed to sum up very well how we are feeling and coping without Madeleine...95, We are pleased that the investigation remains so active and we are cooperating fully with the Portuguese and British police, as we have done since day 1…97, At our meeting with the Portuguese police today we reaffirmed that we have to believe Madeleine is alive until there is concrete evidence to the contrary..."
99,"If the current police activity does uncover new evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed we should be the first to know…100, There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleines disappearance … 102, waiting, like everyone else, for the next development in the police investigation…106, Obviously we are desperate for a breakthrough in the investigation…"109, [the day he engaged a criminal defence lawyer!], "We keep in regular touch with both the Portuguese and British police but there has been no major news in the last couple of days...110, We were also asked about what is being written about the investigation and pointed out how much of this is pure speculation."
And the wonderful 113, template for the future, "...pooled telephone interview for the press to talk about the media coverage of the campaign to find Madeleine in advance of my interview at the Edinburgh International TV festival…"
So the lies pour out, day after day, like a gushing tap. As they've done ever since.
Why Did They Do It?
Clearly the pair considered it of supreme importance that the English-language media must not find out about the search warrant. So vital was it that KM uses the phrase that “we just didn’t seem to have a choice” but to lie, even though she says they “had never lied about anything” - an unusual claim from anyone.
But what exactly made it so important, so dangerous to them, that they had to take the risk of lying?
She won’t tell us. Or she can’t. Instead, in a pattern you will find at other crucial points, such as the "shall I confess?" section of Madeleine, she once again turns to windy rhetoric: “Can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa?”
Well no, we at the Bureau, at least, can’t. It would certainly have made huge headlines and blown open the truth world-wide about the true course of the investigation. But why should that matter so critically? How, exactly, did it threaten them? They knew they were innocent and in the book, KM wrote about the raid, after they’d been turned over, “We were even quite pleased this was happening, that something was happening which might help find Madeleine.” Uh?
What we want to know is what Kate McCann thought would happen that gave them no choice but to lie and deceive even though they were bound, eventually, to be found out. And she won’t tell us.
Which one of them was lying?
We saw last week that the Foundation Lie swept outwards like a scythe, slashing away the cover in the GM blog, exposing his fibs and calling into serious doubt the reliability of other entries, and then whistling through the Edinburgh charade to expose the lies about the "nothing happening for six weeks" period.
You might think that would be the extent of the damage but the harmful range of Kate McCann’s desperate “admission” appears almost infinite in space and time, right up to today. What do we make now of the Team McCann House of Commons performance?
Roll-Up, Roll-Up - It's the Mothers of Democracy!
Has there ever been an institution that hasn't been degraded and besmirched, all dignity removed, by involvement with the couple? The BBC? The Press Complaints Commission? The judiciary? The bar? The mother of parliaments itself? The list is almost endless and reaches the Vatican.
In 2009 Gerry McCann had "no option" but to repeat his story rather than clash with his own Edinburgh evidence, when he and the Team gave their House of Commons media committee evidence. It was a richly comic, as well as an utterly squalid, event. Still, the professor actually began with a truthful statement!
Mr McCann: Thank you. I am Gerald McCann, the father of Madeleine.
Chairman: Ho, ho, ho, that's a good one.
No, we made the chairman's bit up. But that was the tone of this farcical and horribly undignified scene, a Mad Hatter's tea party on acid, complete with the presence of a skeletal and offensively bald Tony Bennett, looking like he’d been winched out of a grave into the seat behind Gerry McCann to make the latter’s neck itch. And no theatre-of-the-absurd farce is complete without the sepulchral Clarence Mitchell, seen below holding his hand up in a vain attempt to stop his porkies tumbling out of his mouth. The tone of the occasion is well illustrated by:
Mr Evans: [pompously] Are you suggesting that some of the stuff that we read in the newspapers was fuelled by alcohol?
Mitchell: [for it is he] Blah, blah [backtracks] blah-blah. Blah, blah, blah.
Amid the bedlam, Mr McCann, perhaps the most single-minded person in the UK, and by no means someone to trip with, keeps his eye on the ball. His testimony can be summed up here.
Chairman: Your impression was that the newspapers wanted to go on reporting stories about Madeleine's disappearance and, if there were no new facts to report, they started to resort to making up things?
Mr McCann: I totally agree with that.
Note the disintegrating corpse propped into position by unknown persons behind a hunched Professor McCann. It must not be mistaken for Dr McCann's conscience.
Another two years saw Gerry McCann bring the latest performance of the well-loved Edinburgh Tale to the Leveson inquiry. It is November 2011 and the show is threatening to outlast Agatha Christie's Mousetrap for long and rewarding runs. But what can he do? It's too late to change the story now so off he goes, GM repeating yet again, straight-faced, that while the media had been supportive - yes, yes, we know - and helpful for a while - yes, yes, get on with it - as real developments in the case dried up and there was nothing to report (from early July onwards) - yes, tell us! - so the media made everything up – meaning no police raid on the apartment, as described by KM, no seizure of their car, no screaming confrontation with the police on august 6/8, no direct accusations from the PJ they’d lied about May 3, and thus no need to engage a lawyer. No, no, none of that had happened.
Which one is lying?
Extracts - all italics are ours. You will be amazed at the new revelations Dr. McCann brought to the tribunal - like these.
GM: We decided we had to stay in Portugal to be close to Madeleine, to be close to the investigation, and certainly didn't feel capable of leaving at that point, so it did surprise us that there was so much ongoing interest when there really wasn't very much happening.[after mid-June.]
The Bureau says: No! Really?
Counsel: The next section of your statement deals with accuracy of reporting and you point out that after a period of time, there was little new news to report.
The Bureau says: Never!
Counsel: The date you give for the shift of the emphasis of the media reporting is about June 2007, is it…Or perhaps a bit later than that?
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.
Back in the real world, under the avuncular gaze of a doting Judge Leveson, KM sat beside her husband saying little, as she had done, we remember, on arguido day. No conflicting stories there. In 2018 the performances go on. Isn't show business wonderful?
In her solo show Kate McCann sings a different song of "calm August", doesn't she?
Which one of them is lying?
Which one do the police believe?