McCann Files
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
Dr. Martin Roberts On February 5, 2011
JUST LISTEN - LISTEN ONLY
During a taped interview, the great violinist Zino Francescatti said: "When I say something I hope people listen." Of course, that was a metaphor for musical creation. The stern countenance totally hidden Francescantti to interpret its charm as a person. Gardener was governor. Another great "violinist", which still stirs debate was Jascha Heifetz. Does it indicate its position nearly static while playing and unchanging facial expression a man devoid of emotions? The pragmatic answer to that question is accepted by the majority today - "Just close your eyes and listen."
Of course, similar questions have been raised in discussions on the McCanns: Where are the tears? Are they crocodile tears? "We are telling the whole truth? Are they saving something? Etc., etc.. Whether intentionally or not, seem to be very confusing to business groups, contradicting themselves and others through time, so that having only opposite poles to choose from, in reality there is no average "happy" that one might take as a consensus view. Consequently, at least in public, questioning is suppressed by the constant uncertainty. Analogous to the current situation in Egypt, while there is a poisonous dispute between factions there can be no resolution. And that suits the McCanns very well, thank you very much.
"It lies with all the teeth in her mouth," said Carlos Anjos Clarence Mitchell. Well, I do not know about that. Unless a person is a psychopath evil, it is not easy to lie convincingly spontaneous. Furthermore, "spokesmen" paid as Mitchell and the various "legal eagles" of the McCanns used the language very judiciously. They have to. It's your job. They are perfectly aware of the consequences of not doing so. Because what they say is largely "correct" Thus, although expressed in words carefully chosen in order to wrong channel, one can not be wrong to seek truth among the many issues. And because the McCanns have enjoyed a number of meetings with both Clarence Mitchell as their legal representatives, with reasonable justification for a search evidence (examples if you like) of them following the same script.
Following the lead of others, you can say something about the adoption of qualified view of the legal system's approach of "truth", especially when one is with comments like these legal coordinator (and developer millionaire) for McCann, Edward Smethurst:
"One of the reasons why we're revealing evidence today instead of" Keeping Our powder dry "(to be prepared and save your resources until they are needed) is the recognition that there were two lines of action in this case, one party is criminal case, but another is the speculation of the media and media perception, we consider it our responsibility to portray the truth to the media and in particular try to suppress any unfounded theory about the involvement of Gerry and Kate to the attention of media can once again focus on the abduction and therefore the fact that we have a missing girl out there. "
Frankly, if someone came with" truth "rather than submit to me, with all its flaws, but "portrayed." A portrait is a representation not a presentation and has absolutely no basis in reality. Smethurst Did exactly what he was saying? You bet your life it is. And Mitchell, most recently in a couple of radio interviews, he also knew very well what he was saying, this time to Peter Levy:
"... Today is a minority but vocal voice online, the Internet joy. Internet is a wonderful thing but, as we all know, has its drawbacks. There is a very noisy but small minority of people who believe that Kate and Gerry were negligent and today's rant and cry against him. They can do nothing, know nothing and it is ... is completely irrelevant. But keep a ... a sharp eye on what they are saying and if in any case, you must take action, then we will. "
My first interpretation of this sentence was on, not without reason, that was used to qualify activities of the "vocal minority online." There are, however, an alternative association - with the belief that "Kate and Gerry were negligent." And if the correct reading is that "negligence" of Kate and Gerry are completely irrelevant, then what? Given that, given all the versions, the abduction of Madeleine McCann could not have happened if Kate and Gerry had not been negligent to some extent what is advertising / portends that? Kate herself has expressed regret, in more than one occasion, for not being there "in that moment / moment."
And yet Kate may well have been there when it "happened." He understood both the court of Lisbon after the famous injunction hearing. It was there that rebuked the inquisitive reporter. "I know more than you. I know what I saw. "(I doubt that some people find an empty bed particularly informative. While announcing his state, does not explain. So Kate must have seen more than this, I do not mean a door or window.) Arguably, a dress rehearsal to be honest and poignant.
If the irrelevance of negligence is in fact true, then it is certainly disturbing. Much as one may have been surprised by the recent lapse of Gerry McCann, referring to "the night he found," Kate's claim to primacy in these matters places it in a more central position. And how the "find"? Of course, "Missing" the answer would be naive. But you can not find something that is not there to be found, only traces of its former presence may (except of course, in the case of Madeleine).
undoubtedly be those who argue that the sometimes careless use of English of the McCann mean it mean it is not necessarily what the listener / reader thinks it means. If only the McCann eliminate the ambiguity of its various inadvertent double meanings. Some have hope! However, there is at least one issue on which we can do it ourselves.
Clarence Mitchell (back to Peter Levy): "Kate and Gerry" know "know Mad ..." know "know their daughter well enough to" know "know that it went out on his own walk from the apartment, as often speculated. "
If we let go of what we were redundant with the following:
Kate and Gerry McCann know that Mad ... (Eleine) did not leave the apartment their own feet, as often speculated.
How did they know? If we follow the trail of evidence to the contrary, and should be a "test" for the McCanns and others have provided, we even more disturbing question that if Madeleine McCann exercised or not their choice to leave because of the 5A a fire or other emergency.
The courtyard of the apartment door was "closed but not locked." There would have meant more difficulty for a child decided to open a sliding door jamb. Did not even need a handle, as was evidenced by the comings and goings of Kate and Gerry McCann, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne, who opened successfully (and in most cases closed) the patio door from outside, without power achieve the integrated handle to the latch, which was inside. Therefore, the impediment to that Madeleine was not able to leave the door itself.
Nor was there any dangerous obstacle between the children's bedroom and the rear of the apartment. Matthew Oldfield, despite not knowing the layout of the apartment (previous audits have been limited to listening outside the window), made the trip into the night of May 3, almost in the dark without bumping into anything. The bedroom door of the children were "much more open than we had left," said Kate McCann, Madeleine so have not had to struggle to open that door either. We also know that he was not afraid to cross the living room to the bedroom of her parents. In his statement as "arguido" Gerry explains that could have been Madeleine who opened the door (the bedroom) after waking and get up to go to the room of their parents. However, we also suggest that Madeleine was last seen by him sleeping in his room, so there is no doubt where you should have left.
That puts into his room without obstacles between it and the patio door open. And yet, Gerry has been vociferous, "there is no way that she ... she had gotten out on their own." What could stop it? Not even the bedding, since they left Madeleine sleeping on the bed with the quilt folded down, not within it. The "chorus" apologist, "No, no, Gerry did not mean "could not" meant "would not" because "she was more ready," ie, knew not to leave the apartment alone. In which case they would roast in the same fire which had adopted the contingency McCann left the patio door unlocked to begin with, along with his twin brothers, whom she alone was responsible in the absence of their parents.
not work, right? Especially when awake preschoolers are able to dial the phone number of emergency services in case of a domestic emergency. Are we to infer The Madeleine McCann expected to be obedient to commit suicide?
The key issue then, one that can only be answered by Kate McCann, as only she says, indirectly, have been there when "it happened" (we might add that in different circumstances to that of the sleeping children) should be this:
Why should we accept that Madeleine McCann could not have got up and left alone in the apartment 5A, ie "wake up and wander? To do so requires us to assume that either that Madeleine was not able to get out of bed and walk or, worse, he could not even wake up.
The "complete mystery of Madeleine McCann" is neither complete nor a mystery. Mitchell, being totally honest with Peter Levy has confirmed a lot.
"That's the working hypothesis which is also based private research. That someone, maybe one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened, there was an element of premeditation and there was prior planning. "
A couple of people (at least) know what happened and what happened had been planned. But Kate has not told us that she knows what happened? ("I know that what happened is not due to having left the children sleeping. I know it happened under other circumstances." - Daily Mail 17/09/2007. Being able to attribute this way cause and effect, author must know what happened). If one had to understand that she is one of the "two or three people" then who could be / the one / s? (Check 01 to Gerry McCann, Clarence Mitchell 02. The lines do not close at midnight).
Although little by little, the McCanns and their environment have given us the truth behind the disappearance of Madeleine and they have since the beginning. People just do not has been listening. There is no mystery to solve, because "two or three people" already know the answer. We are not obliged to consider his disappearance as mysterious because of these few people who remain tight-lipped. The McCanns, meanwhile, are no longer limited by the sub judice and could easily bypass all the elements of speculation in a moment clarifying the truth as they know and have been told. If there is an inherent mystery in this case lies in the fact that they do - ever. As the world awaits the release "true" of the events in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007 for the McCanns, the bet that the word "Hijacking" appears many more times throughout its pages that the word "why"?
Mercedes Translation
0 comments:
Post a Comment