Lying in the Sun

Why Lie?

Why Lie?


The Mirror bringing to our attention their 'McCann Gallery' an interesting move.  It prompted me at least to read their previous articles, some I had before, others not.

Of course, like their recent articles of past weeks, some of the content will be incorrect, but it is the McCann quotes, what they have actually stated that always interests me rather more than 'heresay' I found myself reading over some of the old articles and it was enlightening to look back and compare the McCann versions 'then and now.'

And what better time to look back at the old material when the Metropolitan police, or at least reports telling us that the Metropolitan Police have so many people lined up as potential witnesses, potential suspects, and not a sign of the tapas group on their list?

Perhaps that is the position 'for now' until persons are eliminated.

Those who are considered potential witnesses and they must be the majority surely - I wonder what they have to say?  Did any of them see perhaps, Gerry, Jez, Matt, Russell, Jane on that night, or even Kate?  You never know...someone might have witnessed some or all of them doing whatever it was they were doing?  Did any of them see the man who Tanner saw, the one carrying the child/or the bag/bundle depending on which story you have read, which version of Jane's story was available to you.


We know the Smith family saw a man carrying a child - I wonder if anyone else saw him after the Smith family did?


The Smith family sighting has got to be 'way up there' in importance to this case.  How can it not be!

Tanner sighting?  Well that is rather dubious, but the Smith's? Different ball game!

But back to the Mirror article my observations:


It is incredible that Kate and Gerry McCann continually defend their decision to leave three little ones under the age of 4 years of age alone in a holiday apartment which they claim they decided also to leave unlocked, that is leave a patio door unlocked which only required anyone on the outside to slide it open, no key necessary.  Equally, Madeleine could easily slide it open from the inside!  Never do they accept that what they did was wrong.  Not a chance of that.

I guess they have to continue to defend their reckless decision as if they were ever charged with child neglect – their defence would be that they acted responsibly – so would not do to tell anyone at all that they regretted their decision, that they now see that it was cruel reckless in the extreme to treat children as they did – and, being medical doctors!

 

Kate stated ‘you don’t expect a predator to break in and take your daughter.’

Agreed no one does, that is, no one does in a normal safe environment, in a secure home with adults present in attendance to look after little ones.


But when one creates a dangerous environment as the McCanns did, leaving children alone, in a dark holiday apartment, surroundings unfamiliar to them, a door left unsecured for anyone who chooses to enter for the children to be able to leave - one can then EXPECT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO HAPPEN.  One, if one is even half way sensible, can fully expect that something bad might happen!   

If one was to contemplate leaving ones children as the McCanns did, and also to then decide to leave the holiday apartment unlocked – I am sure one would at some point consider: 

‘Mmm, but if we do that, our children may be able to go outside and harm may come to them, Mmm, and if we do that, someone will be able to come inside and do harm to our children…in fact if we leave them at all on their own at such a young age harm could come to them’

 

According to the McCanns – the dangers, not only of a predator entering (I say ‘entering’ the apartment, as there WAS NO BREAK IN, though McCanns, to this day insist on stating that there was.) and taking their child but ANY OTHER OBVIOUS DANGER, did not cross their minds.  Zilch, nothing – they are telling us they toddled off each night not a care in the world as to the safety of their three children.

"I always had this little prayer I'd say at night - 'Please keep them safe, healthy and happy'. But safe in my head was about the children falling over or getting hit by a car.”

 

(Interesting she ‘had’ this little prayer, she no longer has it?)

 

Unfortunately and sadly for the three McCann children, their mummy did not practice this – keeping them safe, healthy or happy, at least not when on holiday in Praia da Luz.  And her prayers fell on deaf ears too - but then her prayers only accounted for 'falling over' or 'getting hit by a car.'  So I suppose, looking it that way, her prayers were answered! 

Her children who cried when alone in the unlocked apartment, crying for lengthy periods of time as confirmed by a witness – that was not because they were happy.  It was not because they were safe or felt safe.  It was not a healthy environment for them.

These children were alone, afraid, unhappy....and Kate McCann by her own admission knew this – her daughter Madeleine told both her parents that she and her baby brother were crying, wanting them to come to attend then…the parents never came…because they did not hear their children cry, upset, unhappy in the unsafe apartment…Kate and Gerry McCann too far away to hear their children’s cries, too far away to see the apartment where they had left them.  Through the darkness from where they sat at the tapas bar having dinner, they could not see the door to the apartment, and the McCanns by their own admission stated that they were not when sitting in the bar, facing the door of the apartment.  They therefore could not see or hear a thing, did not have a clue what was happening to their children in their absence!

 

Kate a mother of three small children, a GP and “safe” in HER HEAD’ stretched only to – the children perhaps falling over or getting hit by a car!    Utterly astonishing!

 

She prayed to her God to keep them safe, yet she the ‘man on the ground’ just didn’t see A SINGLE DANGER in leaving the children alone in the circumstances in which she and her husband did.

 

She may never have contemplated someone kidnapping her child/ren either when in Portugal, UK, in her head, or in her prayers – but that does not negate excuse in any way, the simple fact that as a mother responsible for the care and protection of three very young children, that she neglected and abused them, their rights, in the way that she did.  And it is abuse make no mistake there, to treat children in this way…

Every day we hear of children not properly cared for, their parents, like the McCanns - not thinking of their safety - putting their own needs, enjoyment before that of their children.


What the McCanns did is no different from the many others who maltreat their children in the various ways which they do.


For some unfathomable reason, we are asked though to excuse the McCanns.  Why?  Because they lost their daughter!  But they lost their daughter because they did not provide adequate care and attention as was their duty to these children.  They failed in their duty of care - too busy caring about themselves!


We are not to think of the fear they put Madeleine, Sean and Amelie through night after night, the danger in which they placed them.   We are to accept, on their 'say so' that what they did should be accepted as being 'within the bounds of responsible parenting?'    The very fact that they have stated they gave no thought to what they were doing as being unsafe, demonstrates absolutely that they have no understanding whatsoever as to the meaning of 'responsible parenting.'   Should some other parents do the self same thing, abuse their children in the self same way as the McCann children were, they have to be dealt with in law, their children perhaps removed from their care, if not this, certainly punished in some way.  And rightly so!


So why not the McCanns, what makes them different from others who like them do not act any where close to responsibly when it comes to caring for and protecting their children?


To McCanns themselves, i
t is as ever, a clear case of the McCanns not accepting any responsibility whatsoever for the loss of their child.

 

"I never worried someone would watch us, break in and then take our daughter away. Why would I?"

 

Indeed, but according to the statements given by Gerry and Kate McCann they never worried about the safety of their children at all during that weekduring the periods when they abandoned them in the unlocked apartment – the McCanns said – it felt safe to leave them!


How can it possibly feel safe to leave three tots in an unlocked holiday apartment when they know their children wake and cry?

 

But that statement in itself, is contradictory.  They say they never gave any thought to what they were doing, as it felt safe, but if they say it felt safe, it indicates that some sort of consideration was given – that they did assess the situation – and they decided there were NO dangers involved in leaving three young children alone in an unlocked holiday apartment demonstrating their complete and utter lack of good judgement as to how to care for their children.

 

Kate speaking of Madeleine’s soft toy:

 

"In a way I wish THEY’d taken it with her.”

 

And Madeleine’s soft toy was going to give her the comfort she needed having been taken by a paedophile from her bed? That is, according to her parents she was taken from her bed.  Terrified alone and afraid wanting mummy and daddy, anyone in her family I would imagine who she would feel safe with, and Kate McCann – ‘in a way’ wishes “they”had taken the toy too when they took her daughter?

“They” the alleged abductors really were not packing for a family holiday or a day trip!

But interestingly in the light of the recent revelations by the Metropolitan Police re this childless couple who wanted nothing more than to have a child of their own and took matters into their own hands to achieve this - Would they not have taken Madeleine's soft toy, her blanket, the items which were considered her comforters at night?   A lovely couple would I imagine take something belonging to the child with them.  They would wrap her warmly when taking her into the cold dark night.  They would have brought along for sure, after all their planning a blanket to do so?  They would have had a car?


An evil paedophile - well he wasn't going to give a damn about her soft toys, or a blanket to keep her warm - but he too I would imagine would still want to wrap the child in a blanket, put her in a bag, he would for sure want to conceal her in some way.  He would also one would think after all of the planning we are led to believe took place, the monitoring of the family, have much better planned this kidnap.  And for sure he would not have dilly dallied out onto the open road carrying the child and not having concealed her in some way, and not when her father was standing outside the door of the apartment.  And surely a car close by in which to escape the area speedily would have been on his list of 'must have kidnap items?'  And for anyone to have taken her, loving childless couple or paedophile, would the careful planning of either have involved - walking straight out into the path of Gerry McCann, or even to walk in the direction which they knew the group would be using on their checks of the children? Seems unlikely.


And for talks sake, if the parents were involved in any way - Would they wrap the child in a blanket when they took her body to dispose of it?  Cannot imagine a father walking through the streets with his dead child and the child not being covered in some way, a parent would still want to 'protect' the child even if not alive.  It would be natural instinct to do so. But then we have to consider, if it had come to this, that Madeleine's body had to disappear, to take a blanket from the holiday apartment would be something they perhaps considered would be noticed would throw up problems for them.  Do they dispose of the body and blanket together, do they return the blanket?  Or best just to keep it simple, no blanket?

But what of the McCann companions, is it not possible that one of them is the person who removed Madeleine from the apartment. O'Brien and his partner Tanner for instance - those two were bobbing back and forth between the tapas and the apartments as though on a mission? Could they have taken Madeleine, would they chance taking a blanket the property of Ocean Club/the renters?

Tanner was never in a month of Sunday's close enough or able to describe Madeleine's pyjamas in the situation she described - but if she did know what they were like - was it because she had been with Madeleine on that night?

And back to Kate-

Madeleine though would have given “them” a taste of her forceful character JOKED Kate McCann!

 

This was August 2007 – Madeleine missing 3 months and Kate is joking around about Madeline giving her kidnappers a taste of her forceful character.

 

She added to this:

 

 "I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

 

As 3 /4 year old children often do when in the hands of a paedophile gang for three months!

 

What goes on in this mother’s head is difficult to absorb or understand, that three months after her daughter vanished and she is able to JOKE about Madeleine in the hands of paedophiles?  Not something I am sure any parent whose child was subjected to such torture at the hands of the scum of the earth could ever joke about, not under any circumstance.   It truly makes me sick to the stomach that she or any mother could joke about their child with a paedophile.

 

But then we know now what we did not then – Kate forgives the person/s responsible for taking her first born child from her!

 

Gerry McCann has other views on this – he states as he does not know who has taken her or what has happened to her, he cannot forgive in advance.

 

Not stopping at joking Kate states:

 

"She hated it when we called her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.”

 

Did I read that correctly?  I wondered, as my understanding was that the McCanns never addressed Madeleine as Maddie.  Why did I think this?

 

A little matter of a story Kate McCann told.  When speaking in her usual derogatory manner of the now retired Portuguese detective, and in reference to his book ‘Maddie – A Verdade da Mentira (The Truth of the Lie) she had this to say: 

 

“My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the media have invented.  We never called her anything like that.”

 

So two quotes from Kate McCann, not misprints in the press but two statements given by this lady when interviewed, so how do we end up with:

 

"She hated it when WE CALLED her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.”

 

and

 

“My consolation is that on the cover he calls her Maddie, the name that the MEDIA have invented.  WE NEVER CALLED her anything like that.”


(another example of the lovely Kate not only telling lies, being nasty about others - the retired police officer - but laying blame on the media accusing them of inventing the name 'Maddie' when she knows that this IS how she and her family referred to Madeleine)


Read McCannfiles 'Madeleine or Maddie' a real eye opener  http://www.mccannfiles.com/id169.html

 

Kate and Gerry McCann may not have murdered their daughter, I am sure few if any believe that to be the case.  The Portuguese Police did not believe this to be the case, they believed the child met her fate due to an accident in the apartment when alone unattended.

 

They also believed that the McCanns and their cohorts and with good cause – had lied to them when they were interviewed as part of their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.

 

The police witness statements available online – confirm that the group were far from truthful in their accounts.

 

At every turn, every interview the McCanns give, again we see this same pattern of lies.  Kate in particular seems to have a problem with regards the truth!


She has given interviews to various magazines, in the Mirror article they refer to her interview with Woman's Own magazine.  The readership, as the name suggests mainly female, most probably the majority mothers. Mothers who will I am sure have had sympathy for Kate McCann, the loss of her child.  What I am sure Woman's Own and their readership will not be comfortable with is the mother of the missing child - lying to them!   Treating them like fools, deceiving them.

 

Madeleine or Maddie? 

To some this may seem an unimportant issue – but it is very relevant as to not only the question of the honesty of the McCanns, or rather, their lack of, but it demonstrates that they are more than prepared to lie about others, that they will lie to inflict harm on others, above all else they will LIE and have done, to protect themselves!

 

Tragically for Madeleine it would appear that many others have been complicit have aided them. 

 

Clarence Mitchell:

“Madeleine called herself ‘Madeleine’ and that was very much the name in the family as well, so that makes us wonder if this is indeed Madeleine.”

 

These statements by Kate McCann are proof absolute that we are not dealing with people who understand the meaning of truth.   That truth appears to be an alien concept to them.  And when to compound it she states: 

 

"We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice."

Kate McCann- 'Madeleine'
 

The extent of the lies by this lady one can only conclude that Kate McCann has found herself in a multitude of ‘tricky situations.’

 

I would imagine the LAST thing on earth the McCanns would wish is to find themselves in a Court of Law giving evidence, as their statements in all areas, thus far are not entirely truthful, they do not stand up to scrutiny, and in Court, they (and their holiday companions)  will be ripped apart.  Even a junior barrister would be 'done with them' in minutes!

Their behaviour in this regard - truthfulness- also brings into question how reliable would be, any evidence they may give. 

I think most will agree, based on the McCann track record, they would not trust them as far as they could throw them.

This is not 'people on the internet' being nasty.  This is people on the internet reading, listening to what has come straight from the mouths of the McCanns - and seeing that the couple have on many occasions - not been truthful, embellished, been economical with truth, misleading, and much of the time told downright lies.

So often we see this when Kate McCann speaks of little Madeleine it seems she was a child with super powers.  She could do everything tasks way beyond her years from looking after her two year old siblings to standing up to paedophiles her forceful nature allowing her to give them her tuppence worth.   How terribly sad that this little girl gets described as she so often does.  As someone very much older very much wiser, very much more able than she was.  She was a little girl, days short of her 4th birthday.  A little girl like any other who needed her mummy and daddy, who needed to be looked after, not the weight of the world thrust upon her young shoulders, being left alone to care for her baby brother and sister.  To experience the fear she did.  That should NEVER have happened, NEVER!  She was but a baby herself.

So no, Kate McCann, as you make NO EXCUSES, NO APOLOGY to your children for your conduct towards them, towards Madeleine, nor do I when I say that -  not even as a JOKE could any mother/parent  accept your thoughtless and unkind comments that this little girl, your little girl would be fine, giving her tuppence worth to a paedophile.  How tragic a comment to have made!

Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese Police authorities, the Leicestershire Police and all other ex members of British Police and other legal bodies who have made comment on this case have reached the SAME conclusions – The McCanns and their companions have something to hide causing them to be less than truthful, less than co-operative.

 

Kate McCann?

I suspect that she may have been prone to telling porkies, embellishing any tale she ever told, before Madeleine vanished, just as part of her 'make-up' perhaps.  She clearly is prone to flights of fancy.  Her statements even in general terms disturbingly ‘off- the- wall.’   To the extent that I am sure should Court, and the ‘stand’ ever beckon, her legal team will experience more than a few headaches and sleepless nights.  Never knowing for sure how she will ‘perform’ we all know when Kate is on a roll – there is no stopping her – Gerry more than anyone else!

 

The McCanns may not have directly harmed Madeleine, but almost certainly they know VERY MUCH MORE about what happened on that fateful night when their little girl Maddie vanished without trace.

Whether that be, the child having an accident in their absence, a paedophile gang, or a lovely rich couple...

 

As John Stalker said – they are hiding a BIG secret!


No matter ones stance as to whether one considers the McCanns and their companions to be free of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, what no one can ignore is the inconsistencies, the contradictions.  


We must all ask - Why the lies?




l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
21st July 2013

Website Builder