The 3 Arguidos Web Forum

Gentle Reader

Within the McCann Gang, there is the potential for enormous tension. Members of the holiday party (the Tapas 7), family, friends, lawyers, spokespersons, public relations advisers , voluntary helpers, private investigators, financial advisers, counsellors, and so on - all of these have agendas of their own, as well as that of the McCanns. What some posters see as some monolithic conspiracy is in reality a confederation of individuals and groups with varying and sometimes conflicting objectives. Let us examine this further.

Some of the above persons /groups will sincerely believe that Madeline is alive and can yet be found. For this they hope and pray, and work their fingers to the bone.

There will be others who, to be blunt, could not give a stuff about Madeleine, whether she be alive or dead. They may prefer others to believe she’s alive, but only because this prolongs the time they can keep their snouts in the trough.

We have the Tapas 7. It is unlikely that their interests coincide entirely with those of the Drs McCann. Originally, the policy seems to have been to “hang together lest we hang separately" – a policy apparently implemented in the form of the famous pact. Yet, if half of what we read is true, some may have already defected. Whether true or not, there will certainly be tensions.

We might even enquire whether Dr Kate McCann’s interests are the same as those of Dr Gerald.

It is surprising then how little discord has been reported. Some rumours of marriage problems - a little discord with Methodo 3 - a high turnover rate among the fund directors - Mrs Susan Healey possibly off-message on occasion - and that is about it ...

Apart, that is, from one notable and public spat …


Do read on – author







Daily Telegraph – 17 October 2007

Earlier today, Mr McCann contradicted the family's official spokesman and said that he does not accept the fact that his daughter is probably dead.

Writing in his online blog [ed., see entry for 16 October 2007, day 166] Gerry McCann said: ‘Contrary to some other reports Kate and I do NOT accept that Madeleine is “probably” dead'.

'We know it is a possibility, however the fact there is no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed gives us ongoing hope that she will be found alive.’

Previously, the couple's spokesman said that the balance of their feelings about what has happened to the four-year-old had tipped towards accepting the worst possible outcome, nearly six months after she vanished.

‘Kate and Gerry are realistic enough to know that there is a probability she is dead,’ Clarence Mitchell said.

‘They have not given up hope that she could still be alive and is being looked after somewhere.

And they cling to that and have not given up, but human nature is that you always fear the worst and they need to know what has happened.

This open-uncertainty cannot hang over them for the rest of their lives.’


The denial is surprisingly bald. There is no - “Our spokesman’s words have been widely misinterpreted ...”

Mr Clarence Mitchell may or may not have fouled up, but the upshot is that he is hung out to dry.

Link to Telegraph article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080717182012/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566420/Madeleine-Police-'allowed-to-seize-Kate's-diary'.html

Link to Blog – where you may see that the Telegraph accurately reports the “NOT” in upper case:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080717182012/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id15.html


Reading the Runes

At the time, some posters saw the need to maintain fund income as being behind the denial. Others saw it as key to a defence against unlawful killing and or concealment of a corpse. For, if Madeline is alive those charges fail.

It is conceivable that both of the above form part of the picture. But, on 7 July, in the High Court, another dimension was revealed.


High Court Case - 7 July 2008

In her Judgement, Mrs Justice Hogg states:


“At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.”


By “at all times”, Mrs Justice Hogg is referring to the period from 17 May 2007 up to the time that she is speaking.


Prior to Mrs Justice Hogg’s judgement, Mr Tim Scott, Q.C. (International Family Law Group) acting for Gerry and Kate McCann stated in relation to Madeleine:


“There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not.”


The importance of both of the above is as follows. The Court would have some difficulty continuing to assert its jurisdiction if the balance of probabilities (the normal standard of proof in civil law) led to presumption that Madeleine is dead.

If the presumption that Madeleine is alive falters, the McCann’s capacity to wield the power of the High Court to its advantage is finished.

No wonder Dr Gerald McCann wrote so sharply in his blog.



Mr Mitchell Gets it Right!

On the steps of the High Court after the hearing, Mr Clarence Mitchell said, referring to the Judge’s comments said:

“She made the point, quite rightly, that in the absence of any evidence to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed, or, is indeed dead, as many people assume, the presumption has to be that Madeline is alive.


“And that’s what we are all working on. We are all working to find a living girl being held against her will.”


The reader will note that now, everyone is singing from the from the same Hymn sheet.


Isn’t that nice?



Link to Court statements:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080717182012/http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17692&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Video link to CM above, 2 min 28 sec in, transcription by the by the author:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080717182012/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7493306.stm

Many thanks - much food for thought here.

Good work brunty, and maybe you have even begun to solve the twiglet-riddle.

In academiquese, are you saying that the high court is the McCanns' route to getting information out of the enquiry which may help their defence at some point in the future, yet to have this power the high court needs to work on the presumption that Madeleine is alive?

If so why would the high court be complicit in this presumption?

<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16861&hilit=if+she%27s+dead<!-- l -->

If she's dead, she's dead said Clarence .

Hi Martin,

Thank you for the summarising of the two schools of thought.

Madeleine is dead.

Madeleine is alive.

Who be brunty?

Who be Martin?

Eh?

Gentle reader.

TheAuthor, great post.

Just a question though.

Did the Judge say those words last year as well, or is that a typo on the highlighted date?

Regards.

_____________

Why do you keep reffering to Author as Brunty is it he.

very much doubt it - the Brunt is a moron

___________

Brunt the Gullible C**T , rhymes with runt, that what I call him

Good post
Tension...I'd have thought plenty!
It is reported (somewhere!) that they all have the same Lawyer...is this true? Would that in effect mean the same firm because surely one person (lawyer) looking at all their cases would be huge workload and tension. would this even be allowed?
Tension in the Mccanns marriage would be considered to an extent normal however we perceive them but if for arguments sake they got charged and at least got 10 years a piece, one of them might think "Hang on I'm not doing that long for you...you did it not me!" Mind you I possibly answer my own Q in that being an accomplice would make you guilty as hell too.
I hope we see 'breaking of ranks' in plenty soon...

Am I reading this right? Is the use of the word proof in the first half of the sentence and evidence in the second half, relevent here? Is this the McCann's admitting in court that Madeleine is probably dead, but not dead enough for them to be convicted?

Interesting; Merci.
Just, if Madeleine was made Ward of court the 8/4, the remark of G.MCCann correcting Clarence Mitchell on his blog last year, sounds more like a way of carrying on with the Funds just for money, and the remarks of Clarence Mitchell (and McCann's councel and Mrs Hogg?) last monday , heavily insisting on the fact she is alive, are a way of countering the fraud's accusation (they carried on the Funds knowing she was alive) that is apparently investigated. Now both intentions are linked isn't it?

I felt like a piece of the jigsaw was falling into place when I read an article on the Enfants Kidnappés site this week. The article was about the Irish witness, Martin Smith and he was said to have been carrying a child, "sous son bras." Now, others have translated that as, "in his arms," but it actually translates as, "under his arm."

I gave that careful consideration and had one of those, "light bulb," moments. I recalled that Jane Tanner's original description was that she had seen a man, "carrying a bundle that could have been a child," at 9.30pm as she was on her way to the tapas bar. Why would she use the word, "bundle."? Would it have been because of the way the person was carrying whatever they were carrying? And if someone were to be in a great rush to carry a child who was no longer alive, would they carry them carefully in their arms, over their arms, or just under one arm?

Jane Tanner takes pains to explain that the man was not rushing. Maybe he was. Her original description of, "bundleman," was of someone who looked like Gerry, but that changed, as we know, and the timing of her sighting changed too, so that she saw the, "abductor," as Gerry was talking with Jeremy Wilkins.

Did Jane Tanner's version have to change because in the dim lighting conditions she did see someone who looked like Gerry, at 9.30pm, rushing along with a bundle under his arm?

or was it 7 july 2008??

The FBI categorizes kidnappings according to the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim: family member, acquaintance, or stranger. Most perpetrators of child kidnappings are parents or acquaintances. Strangers account for less than a quarter of child abductions

Lıke Schrodıngers Cat

And how many are under 5?
How many under 4?
How many female
From their bedroom


Where does that leave statistically ''stranger'' abduction, from a room, female under 4.

Just because the odds of it happening are microscopic, does that prove that it didn't?

Thanks Author, very clear post. Very nice indeed! (And that's some ‘technical advantage’!)

For all of it I guess the biggest assistance there has been has come from the Portuguese system itself… the McCanns, the team, the campaign, the PR, the defence team, - all able to take advantage of the secrecy laws and spin to their little hearts content! And officially, as I understand it, there has been no evidence/proof presented to the Court or public that M. is dead, (or indeed alive for that matter). However, I do think that the Portuguese system does allow a great deal of support and respect for the innocent which is why I'm loathe to criticise. I guess there will always be those who when offered an inch will take the full mile and more.

Another personal view, - I’ve always thought Mitchell a major liability but strangely not as big a problem to the McCanns as the McCanns themselves, - but then I guess they have little choice. Imho the only place that McCann is master is in his own home and whilst at the golf course/pub etc. (I would not include work here). His wife is allegedly frightened to go out for fear of what she might face from the people she meets and the quality of their everyday and personal lives must be pretty miserable.

However, before I mistakenly convey any sympathy, I would add that I believe they deserve every thing they complain about and more, - if only for their apparent refusal to even pretend to care about ‘the situation in which Madeleine finds herself’. (Once the truth is officially discovered and presented I would consider my own feelings about what else they deserve to be very fair game too but they are not for now).

As for any of the Tapas 7 and indeed any others who have educated suspicions I would agree that there certainly must be huge tensions. I’m not sure it will help to hear all the blow by blow accounts of happy family holidays either, particularly if their own movements are restricted. I just hope for their sakes, as well as for the sake of common decency, that they have told all they know. (As for those who know (whether or not they were directly involved), and who have not said anything, I can only hope they get all they deserve too, and preferably before too many more ‘happy family holidays’ come to pass).

But back to Mitchell. Imho he will always be a thorn in their side because the PR and defence campaigns will not always be at one with the other, and the McCanns need to run with the hare and the hounds just in order to survive. (Remember the example of the reports that claimed discourse within the McCann family because Mitchell allegedly wanted Mrs. McCann to take part in a photoshoot wearing a bikini….?! I’d wager that was a bit of a tricky decision in reality.)

And to think…. if they had resisted the urge to jump in bed with the press and instead made a few noises about how stupid it was to leave their 3 babies alone, things could probably have been so different, for an awful lot of people…..

I used to believe that some of the Tapas group may have been duped and would do the right thing as soon as they realised Madeleine was not abducted but that hasnt happened despite the cooperman farce and Jane Tanners assertion of being 80 per cent certain it was him and all the other inconsistancies . Their recent refusal to attend the reconstruction and their decision to sue the same newspapers that reported that decision would indicate that they are hoping to make afew easy bucks -why should Kate and Gerry get all the loot? All imo ofcourse

Hi Brother

Do not like the use of the term complicit in this context.

Certainly not suggesting that the High Court colluded with the Mccanns in relation to the achievement of their objectives.

So far as can be seen, however, it does look as though the High Court has complied with many of the McCanns' wishes, when it might have taken a more critical view.

This resulted in that piece of judicial nonsense which for sheer folly and wrong-headedness takes some beating: the serving of a High Court Order on the Chief Constable of Leicestershire, requiring him to make available to Official Suspects in an on-going criminal investigation, information relating to that enquiry.

Risible!


Yours - author

Hi londonboy

Many thanks for pointing out this slip. Have altered the OP to 2008.


Yours - author

Who "owns" this high court order? One would presume that it is owned by the court as it is a court document and they are seemingly responsible for Madeleine as a ward of court.

As such can we not all use it?

As an example, could we not seek a copy of it and pitch up at Jane Tanner's house?

All such enquiries should be directed to TheAcademic - author