Friday 31 August 2018

Now we know

JB writes: Some weeks ago, on NT’s excellent and game-changing internet site 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.  

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.




Wednesday 29 August 2018

The Show Goes On

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 disappearance102, 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?

Complete Exposure

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.
GM: Yes.
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?
GM: Yeah….
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?

























Tuesday 21 August 2018

The Foundation Lie

"My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth"
Kate McCann's preface to "Madeleine"

Nothing To Lose

Nothing has done more to damage the myth of McCann “innocence” than Kate McCann’s decision to admit lying about  August 2 2007, when the couple put together an elaborate, if rushed, deception plan to conceal their own actions and the real course of the police investigation.
Under different circumstances that plan, and those lies, could have been defended by a clever lawyer as an aberration, a singularity in an otherwise spotless record, brought on by the stresses of the moment.
But the facts make that impossible. In inventing an illness, a virus, as a cover, Kate McCann was more prescient than she knew: the lie had uncontrollable consequences, was itself like a virus - first destroying  Kate McCann’s remaining credibility, then calling into question that of her husband’s version of the day, then running rampant through the supposed truthfulness of his blogs and, finally, exposing his public statements about the whole period from mid-July to the end of August as a pack of lies.
Why did Kate McCann make the 2011 admission? The answer to that is straightforward: at a few, critical, junctures of the case the couple haven’t been free to lie without restraint due to the presence of other parties.  In this case the PJ have the logs of their officers’ actions and the couple’s movements on August 2 so, of course, the truth was already known to investigators. But not to the outside world, yet.  Back in England during that brief period from 2009-2011 when possible acceptance and respectability rather than lifelong notoriety seemed to beckon, KM took the considered decision to get her version out first. Perhaps she felt she had no choice.  

The Foundation Lie

The Foundation Lie, as we can call it, the start of the contagion, has a feature almost unique in the case: full admission. The detailed admission in writing and without legal duress in a book she claims is "the truth" is effectively accepted by all “sides”. The lie is what is called in the legal process an “Established Fact" - one that is not in dispute and is therefore settled once and for all.
Remember here that we are not talking about newspaper stories or anonymous claims or suspicions or even typed timelines: we are dealing solely with what the McCanns have said, publicly and under their own names, free of third party corruption or spin.  But in a way that Kate McCann could never  have anticipated, the virus spread from the Foundation Lie outwards. All anyone has to do is turn from Madeleine and KM’s assertion that on August 2 they had invented a Gerry McCann  illness as cover, and look at Gerry McCann’s wretched blog about the same day written four years previously.

First infection...

There it is:  “Today was a bit of a write off for me as I was laid low with a probable viral illness which meant I could not stray too far from the house!”
And confirmed the next day, August 3: “We were meant to go [to Huelva] yesterday but had to cancel because I was ill.”

Wider infection...

It is now the most natural thing in the world to ask ourselves, “hang on, forget Kate McCann - if he’s been caught fibbing there twice, is he also lying elsewhere in the blogs?”
So we can turn to adjoining days.  Ignoring his untrue claim to have "taken the children out of the Kid's Club" on August 9 (they had no part in the decision to exclude them) as trivial, we find August 8. The blog has a brief and colourless short paragraph about an uneventful day, the highpoint being the departure of KM’s parents “early this morning”.
There is one dull sentence about the investigation, boringly reminiscent of those other uninformative one liners that readers found in many of the earlier blogs - met with the Portuguese and British police for an update on the investigation, (June 26); our frequent meetings with the police help us stay informed, allow us to feed information into the investigation and clarify information with senior officers (July 3); we had a longer meeting than usual with the Portuguese police because I had gone back to London last week .We have a good relationship with them (July 18) - all very chummy and routine. As was August 8:  GM writes: “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.”
Wait a minute. KM’s take on  that encounter is somewhat different. These are some of her words about it:
 “The PJ had always been optimistic that Madeleine was alive, but now things had changed…Gerry was asked to leave the room…I was afraid… the sirens in my head were deafening… tell us about that night, they said… they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads. I was reeling with confusion, disbelief and panic… Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events…I was sobbing… I began to wail hysterically…desperate gasps…. Gerry  gave the police his account of the events of 3 May and the reasons why he didn’t believe Madeleine had been killed in the apartment. Through his tears he pleaded…”
What? What's  going on?  Why has he concealed every single thing that his wife said happened? But wait another minute, if that's his version of that police meeting then what about those other ones we just quoted from weeks earlier but that his wife hasn't "revised" - how are we to know they were truthful? Looking further ahead,  how do we know that any one of the blog entries is  true?  And, again,  if a person's blog demonstrates clear evidence of lying and concealment about the investigation into his child's disappearance, of all things, then what about his police statements about that same disappearance? Are they true? And what about their endless public interviews that the police allowed them to get away with until April 2018 - how truthful are they?
Well Kate's Foundation Lie and resultant virus  give us a firm answer about the period she was covering in those chapters. Watch.


Kate McCann’s Madeleine description of the six weeks or so following mid-July – please remember this figure of six weeks – is one of melodramatic and apocalyptic hysteria and rage against a world that has turned on her and a police force that, having told her early in August that they no longer believed her version of events, has brought more terrifying news week by week and is now talking of a murder inquiry and mysterious dog searches suggesting death in the apartment. Life had been turned upside down, so fast was the police investigation developing.  
It “…felt like an eternity. It was like being on some kind of endurance course run by sadists… we had no idea what was happening with the investigation… anger, bitterness, frustration, desperation… We felt like two lone figures with catapults fighting an army…" until, on August 20,  "Gerry contacted Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a human-rights lawyer in Lisbon…"
You get the picture.
What has Gerry McCann got to say about that? According to repeated statements made by Gerry McCann, public, on the record and transcribed, nothing  had happened in the investigation during those six weeks! Literally nothing.

Show it to us

Let’s see samples of how  Gerry McCann described these nightmare developments at the time,  talking on August 25 to numerous broadcasters and interviewers when he was in Edinburgh during the festival. The reliably supine BBC had invited him up.  All the italics are ours.
GM1: ... there clearly is a lot of pressure on people to write things just now, because they're in Portugal, when there's not actually very much happening. Uh, huh.
GM2: Absolutely, because, you know, there has been huge amounts written with no substance. Uh, huh.
GM3: things have gone back to a degree of normality again and some calmness has settled in…Uh, huh.  
GM4: Even early on, there was saturation coverage with nothing to report, and there are commercial decisions being made with filling column inches and time on TV…Particularly in the last six weeks, other than the recent searches, there has been nothing. Uh, huh.  
Coo-eee sur-prise! Nice Mr Abreu's here...
So little had been going on in the investigation, apparently,  that the couple had got themselves a criminal lawyer, according to wifey, five days before his Edinburgh stunt. Lucky that: twelve days  later and  he was in the nick trying to get them out. get you out of the nick
We've never been bothered to go through the records to find further confirmation of the pattern: enough is enough. Again, after all this, which of the two do you believe?  The answer, obviously, is neither; they are a dead loss, useless to any investigation, any search, anything to do with their daughter since May 3. Nobody can safely accept anything from them without independent evidence in support. That goes for us, McCann supporters, opponents, police, lawyers and judges. All the way. If any of them, or our readers,  has a way of knowing when the pair  are telling the truth then, in Menezes’s immortal words – show it to us.
It follows, as night follows day, that it is impossible for their version of what happened after 7.30 PM on May 3 2007 ever  to be accepted. By that  we mean something much stronger than disbelief or “some people think they’re guilty”. We mean impossible, as in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the investigation of which  cannot begin, let alone proceed or conclude, until independent evidence for their account of that evening is found. Sure, people can try but without that independent evidence any investigative attempt will collapse at the first judicial hurdle. As the Portuguese, unable even to establish formally what crime they were investigating, were the first to discover.
No such evidence has been found by any of the three investigations over seven years active work– otherwise the parents would have been told by the police and the evidence would then have been leaked. Bureau readers can, therefore, decide for themselves whether the investigations are all a “farce” and no investigation has actually begun, or whether the two current investigations have  long ago written the pair off completely and proceeded on their way by, using a cricket term, "playing around them". Without admitting it.
Next time we’ll look at this business of “no other choice”.

Quick “source stuff”

The relevant Madeleine passages will be found in Chapters 13-15. We have "sampled"  many of KM's hysterical sentences about the "six weeks" rather than quoting them separately at full volume and inordinate length.
The deadening “GM blog” is to be found at: Unlike Kate McCann our professor does not give a preface to his blog - instead the first pages are, most appropriately, filled with financial details of how to give him and his fund money.
Gerry McCann’s Edinburgh publicity blitz can be found in: The reader should scroll down past the “telecinco” stuff.
A vintage performance of Professor McCann fibbing at Edinburgh  can be found here: Note the immortal “there’s not much happening” at about 54 seconds, reminiscent in many ways of the words so shockingly alleged to have been uttered by a past mayor of Hiroshima.

The Portuguese inability even to establish the type of crime without the independent evidence: official finding - "Type of Crime: Unknown".
For those with excessive time on their hands, suffer from aimlessness and have no fear of suddenly going mad, the Bureau's philosophy and allotments correspondent, Herr-Dr Karla  Spade, adds: the profound epistemological and legal problems posed by Frau Kate McCann's opening words about her book,  quoted above, are outlined here: 
"In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox, or Karla Spade dilemma   is the statement of a liar who states that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying" or "everything I say is false". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar is lying.

And if we write "this sentence is false" is true, then the sentence is false, but if the sentence states that it is false, and it is false, then it must be true, and so on. This is what this loony pair of McCanns haf  done to our heads, Godammit. But if it gets them into jail, then who cares? Eh?"

Wednesday 8 August 2018

Suggestive Spin and Suggestive Silence

 Anonymous Sourcing is Bad for the Health

The Bare Bones

1. In late April 2018 the McCanns provided an exclusive newsfeed to the Sun via their own anonymous source. It said that Scotland Yard had been in contact with the pair on the subject of their public media statements and interviews.
2. Gerry McCann, according to that source, said that he had been “specifically advised” by the Yard not to undertake such media initiatives because they “could” – his word – hinder the Operation Grange investigation.
3. McCann was quoted as saying that he had complied with police wishes and that “if police don’t want them to discuss publicly their life without Madeleine they will not do so”.

Eternal Recurrence

It is a remarkable newsfeed, isn’t it? Like a tiny history of the McCanns’ use of the media since  May 2007. Now, as then, its first, unwritten,  text is how do we cover our tracks? How do we disguise our aims, how do we hide what was actually said to us, how do we hide what we want to get across with trashy soundbite irrelevancies?
Hence the use of a deniable “source” so their version of events cannot be exposed as untruthful or playing with the facts; hence the pathetic, oozing, soap-opera conversion of a significant event into a sentimental narrative drama suitable for thick, easily fooled people – their target audience ever since May 4: coping for all these yearsthe twinsthe search... always compliant with police wishes. And, inevitably, the regular little implant for the thickos' brains  that they are victims and equal co-workers in the investigation,  not in any way under suspicion: operational reasons...really appreciative of the police...first to know from them of any updates...fully informed. 
In a remarkable symmetry this feed, quietly announcing the end of their unfettered use of the UK media after eleven years, is a mirror image of the first ones. The deniable sources – in McCann-world family members, however close, are always, like Mitchell, dispensable and deniable, as the “shutters” feeds prove; the greasy and misdirecting sentiment laid on with a trowel within hours of the disappearance; the careful editing or omission of police instructions – no media! for example; the public praise for the police effort even while, on May 5 2007, a “family member” - anonymous of course -  was  saying the police had "let them down".
Nothing has ever changed. One of the reasons for the surreal, groundhog-day nature of this interminable affair is the rigid constancy and repetitiveness of the McCanns’ behaviour over the years. That same flat, dead monotone and deader eyes reciting the script year after year for a decade under the harsh studio lights and the mean gaze,  pinched cheeks and tight clasp of her icy husband, over and over until the innocent watcher  is almost screaming just stop, please, just stop!
But they cannot stop. They can never escape from the narrative they and their friends put down on paper that week in May and can never amend or rescind it, so they are condemned to repeat and repeat until the end for fear that this time - every time - they might let something slip.

And their remaining supporters follow the couple's lead and do the same on the internet - Amaral and the dogs, bad Martin Grime, Amaral and the dogs! Bad Amaral and the dogs - as though nothing at all has happened in the intervening eleven years. For they cannot ever comment on, or even refer to, the developments in the case since - including the firm evidence of the couple's incessant lying, the exposure of the supposed "deal" and all the rest  - without risking making a slip themselves, the poor sods. Gerry's handclasp reaches a long way, doesn't it?


Who Knows?

What exactly did the police say to them?
They won’t tell us, even though Scotland Yard made it clear they were free to comment publicly – factually – about the matter. They could have given a simple, neutral statement – even as one writes the words one laughs at the impossibility of such a thing – or they could have said nothing. Instead they spin, including pushing the limits of what the Yard will let them get away with by suggesting - "but if police don’t want them to discuss publicly..." - that the constraint only applies to them "talking about their life without Madeleine". Oh no it doesn't.
And why did the news come out in April? Clearly the police wanted to act ahead of  anniversary time, the spoilsports. Now why would that be?
Nothing to do, of course, with what the Bureau has been writing about for four months now: the conspiracy to damage Grange -  you know, the one that has so successfully brainwashed our "anti-McCann" Usual Suspects into attacking the only large-scale, comprehensive and well-funded investigation ever undertaken into the disappearance as a criminal fraud that should be killed off.  
Since 2015 these  carefully planned media disinformation initiatives by the conspirators have largely  taken place in the spring – before and around both anniversary time and, of course, Grange funding renewal time. Disappearance Day guarantees peak annual  media demand for McCann stories and peak annual deception time for the conspirators.
But not this year. Not only have we been spared the greasy breakfast TV McCann-fests, the Mudelin drone and the desperate - don't slip! - handclasps but, unlike spring 2016 and 2017, the annually planted fictions about the failures and absurdities of Grange and the pressing need to withdraw its financing have been mysteriously absent.
What a coincidence! Why, you’d think that the conspirators working against Grange and on behalf of the McCanns, whoever they are, have also been called out and told to shut up, wouldn’t you?