Unemployment Certification Process Georgia

Madeleine McCann case: "JUST LIKE THAT" - "AND SO, NO MORE"

McCann Files

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr. Martin Roberts
March 22, 2011

"JUST LIKE THAT" - "AND SO, NO MORE"

There was Gerry McCann, the computer, doing his imitation of Kojak, while PJ was trying to get his attention, without much success, on an alleged sighting of his daughter. No doubt he was busy planning the marketing strategy. "So and so" (momentarily removing the lollipops mouth). Even the unfortunate magician prepares its actions. Who could forget the late Tommy Cooper (a contemporary of Max Bygraves in "varieties") and the number Hysterical "Glass Bottle. Glass bottle when he found himself unable to control the persistent appearance of bottles hidden inside the cylindrical container - "And just like that." Kojak and Cooper both operated with evidence, one eager to establish the truth and the other showing what was not. While Gerry McCann could aspire to be a kind of Kojak, actually leans more towards Tommy Cooper.

"You can not prove a negative," said Gerry, once. Speaks the voice of experience. It will not be because he has not tried. Like the magician, Gerry outlined his stall to convince the world of something that was not. Jon di Paolo, Sky TV, reporting live from the court of Lisbon in January last year we reported:

12:24: The lawyer of the McCanns said that "evidence" normally sightings - suggest that Madeleine is still alive.

12:25: He says that the McCanns are not responsible for generating any of these "proof" that her daughter is not dead.

(Quote) However, there are two things (end quote). Evidence to suggest that Madeleine is still alive sightings usually as implying that, on occasion can be otherwise. However, whatever the form of these "tests", the McCanns are not responsible for generating them (ie, manufacture) - said the McCann's lawyer, defending against a charge that has not even been made. So it should surprise no one wanted to learn about that possibility, right?

"Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when they took the apartment. " That is encouraging, although it is difficult to see why Madeleine should not have been alive at that time, whenever that was. After all, left him sleeping. Although every belief has an element of uncertainty - otherwise it would be an act of faith, but a conviction based on fact. Given the scenario described so often in the past, this belief indeterminate invites two questions at once: "Madeleine was alive? Was Madeleine asleep? Considering that not even Kate and Gerry could not be absolutely sure, it stands to reason that they have provided a degree of caution on the part of your audience and also the best way dispel the doubt is, of course, provide supporting evidence.

All together now: The McCanns are not responsible for generating any of these "proof" that her daughter is not dead.

are not responsible for the sightings around the world, discredited almost as quickly as they are raised, and we must understand, those reported in Portugal, particularly in Praia da Luz, both before and after he was reported missing Madeleine. This would include the "evidence" attributable to Jane Tanner, the Smith family and, lest we forget, David Payne.

is important to that the McCanns and their friends put your disbelief mark very soon, to give the PJ a timeline representing a typed statement made on behalf of a committee. It follows from this simple act of collusion, if nothing else, that the many statements made by that person then can not in any way constitute a corroboration "independent" at all.

So, if you decided to challenge the "belief" of Madeleine McCann that was alive at 21h05 this Thursday night, based on the assertion that Gerry was asleep, we can not find confirmation the good health of Madeleine based on the sighting of David Payne a little earlier that afternoon. Although the membership of David Payne in this eventual "committee" should consider the veracity of his version in the light of their claims to have seen Madeleine last time, twice - at 17h00 and 18h40 later on! Therefore, there is no independent corroboration that Madeleine was alive this Thursday night. Just have a word for the McCanns, that is, the word of a couple who, for the duration of the official investigation, were considered suspects in the disappearance of her daughter. Alleged sightings that took place later (ie, those of Tanner and Smith) do not attest to the state it was the girl who witnesses may or may not have seen being carried through the streets. For one of the Smith had asked "Are you asleep?" Confirms that they could unknowingly be the case. Neither Jane Tanner could have deduced both a glimpse of legs dangling.

If Madeleine's physical condition Thursday night that can be questioned, you can question his drowsiness. "We believe" is clearly not sufficient to dispel any suspicion. But what to do about it? Well, if it had been taken that night her room so she should, without question, to be asleep. And if she was asleep would be dressed appropriately, that is, in his pajamas with a description. Therefore, to describe the pajamas would somehow confirm the version, is not it? Madeleine disappeared with this particular pajamas, especially for an audience emotionally prepared, a more convincing image of a nighttime abduction.

The first reference to pajamas comes from Madeleine McCann, in their witness statements on 4 May. For its part, the suggestible Jane Tanner quickly displays what can only be described as a progressive memory improved, skipping gears like a car with a faulty clutch, a man carrying something, carrying a child in pajamas, carrying what is supposed to a little girl in pajamas, based on a top "Pink", which is completely hidden from view and in spite of a street light "orange." Showed the same determination that the police officer who interviewed a year later in the course of the interviews Rogatory in Leicester Station "think pink".

Jane Tanner (member of the test do not forget) supports the story of pink pajamas after 21h05 but for some reason that only he himself knows, David Payne fails to point out this detail. He would like us to believe that Madeleine was perfectly fine in the McCann's apartment that afternoon. In his interview Rogatory mentions having seen all the children, but dressed in "sleeping dress" predominantly white. Interestingly Kate also declines to clarify what Madeleine was wearing at this time. In his statement of September 6, 2007, describes what she was wearing (a green long sleeve shirt, blue jeans, sneakers and white socks) and "putting on pajamas and diapers twins, "but does not reveal how, exactly, was dressed Madeleine.

Therefore, once again, just have a serious claim to the enforcement of an important detail. And once again attributable to the McCanns, who "are responsible for generating any of these" proofs "that daughter is not dead."

Leaving aside the question of whether Madeleine McCann was actually kidnapped on Thursday night, actually there is no evidence in the form of independent corroboration, that was healthy earlier this afternoon, or withdrawal of the apartment while he slept, as the insistent reference to his pajamas should make us think. And if you think this is a kite in the air, then please remember another notorious grammatical slips Kate McCann:

"I know that what happened is not due to having left the children sleeping. "

" I know it happened under other circumstances. "

The crux of this verbal contortions in particular is that" circumstances "in this case are not in themselves grounds. Leaving a child sleeping is not necessarily committing an act which contributes to the negligence that leads to an unfavorable outcome. Parents do it all themselves when they go to bed (that is, leave their children sleeping). Kate McCann clearly equates "leave the children sleeping" to "other circumstances." Whatever what "happened" was independent of both.

However sightings ... sightings!

Very well then. The sighting (that of Jane Tanner can send it to the realm of Hans Christian Andersen.) The only remotely credible reference to a little girl seen on the streets of Praia da Luz the night of Thursday, May 3, 2007, is the one offered by family members Smith, for reasons totally disinterested, they contacted Portuguese police in relation to their collective experience, which gave a detailed report in due course - on May 26, 2007. Here are three statements that relate more to the little girl who were being transported on 21h55.

Martin Smith

• She was wearing light colored pajamas. You can not say for certain color.

Aiofe Smith

• The material WAS Could Have Been and light cotton. He was wearing light trousers, white or pink, that could have been a pair of pajamas. Can not remember if they had a drawing and it was dark.

• Also has a clear top, long sleeves. Did not see it because the guy with his arms around the girl. Not sure if the above was part of the same color as the pants but the pants were clear.

Peter Daniel Smith

• Can not remember the dress very well but believe it was summer clothing, light colored.

bold and frankly would be speculative to conclude even that the girl seen by Smith in the dark wearing pajamas, but one pink, rose a much less similar to that allegedly belonged to Madeleine, as revealed by the unauthorized release of the time was short sleeves.

"Madeleine was alive when he was" taken "? The McCanns believe so. Were you asleep when he was "taken"? The McCanns have told us that he was. Is there an unequivocal confirmation of an independent party with respect to any of these details? No. And just like that.

Mercedes Translation

Best Ever Remedies For Oily Hair

Madeleine McCann case - I Want to Tell You A Story (I want to tell a story)

McCann Files

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr. Martin Roberts

March 16, 2011

"I WANT TO TELL YOU A STORY" - "I WANT TO TELL YOU A HISTORY "

As Max Bygraves would

According to tabloids, Kate McCann 'wants to give an explanation / version of the truth about Madeleine."

to second the usual abuse apostrophe in English the preposition must come inadequate. Assuming that this "explanation / version" is even vaguely coherent, given that we know is now complete (384 pages, according to the Daily Express) why, in addition to worrying about the truth "about Madeleine", rather than her or its disappearance, is represented as a future desire, when it is a fait accompli? "I want" (as in, "I wish") is rather doubtful tone of an intention not yet performed. Instead of "in my book (or even" I have ") a complete (or accurate) explanation / version of the facts ... "etc., etc. we intent to present a futuristic version of the truth.

To the casual observer, the conduct of the McCanns and their idiosyncratic turns of phrase, it must seem totally foreign. Here, the author of what purports to be an important book, at least in volume, on the theme of the disappearance of her daughter while on vacation is the same person as a rebuke to see a journalist with the states "I I know. I was there, "after he complained publicly that he was not there at the minute."

Based

delivered in multiple versions so far as evidence by the McCanns and their friends, the latter variation does not need, in fact could not be extended to 384 words, much less to 384 pages.

"Madeleine was sleeping while we were out drinking and when I looked it was gone. I did not look after that. "FIN.

A short story, but nothing to send Maupassant.

Another short story inserted in the notice of the book in the Daily Express McCann, essentially as ambiguous and misleading Kate the statement, "Every penny we raise will be spent in our search," where it should be emphasized "our" rather than "search." "A few weeks after being abducted Madeleine ... the public's money came in abundance to help fund the massive search."

From the perspective of the generous public that is undoubtedly why people split your money - to help finance the huge search for Madeleine. But the scale of our search, ie the company should not be understood as "massive" in any way. Nor should be mistakenly associated with the massive search undertaken by the Portuguese immediately after Madeleine's disappearance - the largest search operation ever carried out in Portugal and one in which even participated willingly citizenship. What the McCanns received in return? "Plenty of thanks? No. Only criticism. Certainly not money. Nowhere in the published accounts of the Madeleine Fund, you will see an entry covering the inconvenience to the Portuguese.

Gerry's story

Those who have followed this case will be familiar with how these sly ingredients find their way into the story, going almost unnoticed among the current ennui that surrounds them. Such is the nature of narrative for the McCanns. And these are the details of the eventful journey home from Gerry McCann on June 19, 2007. You know, that during which provided medical assistance to a passenger on the plane. The plane was met by an ambulance and taken to evaluate anonymous passenger his unknown status, a hospital indefinitely. Not been heard from since. Now you might think that one of our tabloid newspapers at least had been interested in publishing an "I owe my life to the story of Gerry McCann. A missed opportunity.

A feature of the McCann's narrative that quickly involves the whole family, to the point where the players are capable, like Marcel Marceau, to take center stage without saying a word, while explanations, comments, etc. . arising in its name. In this case the exciting story has two chapters, the second related the loss of a wallet (and they say that lightning never strikes twice ...).

Gerry McCann's behavior at Waterloo station with his backpack, his wallet and "something else", is reminiscent of that puzzle Collegiate animal breeding, where a ranger is responsible crossing the river in a boat with a fox, a sheep and a duck in three trips or less. You can not bring with him more than two animals at a time, remembering that the fox will eat either other creatures if left alone with them. McCann version of the puzzle is, as usual, articulated by all except the author.

For starters, here's the synopsis of the Daily Mail:

"The pickpocket Gerry McCann acted while withdrawing cash from an ATM, just an hour after he arrived in London on a brief visit to organize the campaign to help find the girl of four years. "

In other words, while making the process of withdrawing money from an ATM, Gerry stole his wallet. (So \u200b\u200bis before the clerk.)

The Mail gives us then the corroboration of the family:

"Susan Healey, mother of his wife Kate, said it was" another kick in the teeth "

" He added: " Gerry is not clear exactly how he stole the wallet. "

"It was like she was dragged away."

again how operates an ATM? Credit card / debit card. And where we usually keep our cards? In our wallet. So if you are in a process of withdrawing money from an ATM, the card is in the machine and wallet in hand, until you're about to take the money, at which time all three will be a your hand (s ) (four items if you include the receipt).

But Gerry was not clear exactly how his wallet was stolen. Not see how she was dragged away. "

therefore clearly not happened," Gerry McCann while withdrawing money from the cashier, is not it?

Following the example of Mail, we will introduce a new commentator at this point - Philomena McCann:

He said: "Gerry was in the bank to get some British currency, because there was none at all.

"He withdrew £ 100 from a wall machine, put them in your wallet which in turn got into the back pocket.

"He bent down to put something in his rucksack and some dirty animal took his wallet from his back pocket."

The sequence of events here puts Gerry completing your transaction with the cashier before you put your wallet, which now contains the card you just used, along with the only English coin above it in the back pocket, where the rise was unfortunate as our busy tourist putting something else in your pack (using the hands that had just contain a wallet card, plastic and folding). What was this "something" and where it came? If it was large could not have been in their hands while driving the other objects. Still, if your wallet is going to walk from the back pocket, it is reasonable that you did not see the "hand" taking her. But would know exactly how it was stolen, although only in retrospect.

Best Man for a crisis, Gerry, who knew how and was not your wallet in your back pocket, acted spontaneously to an emergency, as he had done before in the plane. As Philomena told the Daily Mail:

"It is what it is trained, it is who you are. He did not do much about it because it's the kind of thing that makes all the time at work. "

The shrewd Gerry immediately canceled his credit cards (" He was forced to delay a series of meetings had planned while canceling their credit cards. "- Daily Mail).

Presumably, the pickpocket in question will think twice to register the other pocket looking for Gerry's mobile phone (or maybe it was this that is getting in the pack). Really lucky. Meant that Gerry was able to phone your bank immediately and report your loss. But where was he when he did? And how did it get there? Or was the cashier at the door of the bank branch to Gerry? Is that the only negotiable currency Gerry had in his possession had disappeared with his wallet (that's what she said Philomena) in a robbery in which the victim did not realize at the time (that's what you said Susan Healy). So Gerry was in a taxi moving to one of those meetings that was destined to be late, when he much he could not pay the fee, but at least had all the numbers stored in its memory banks of phone (well, you do not erase those, right?). Or was summarily dismissed by the driver in front of the branch concerned and cancel at least got one of his several cards at the counter. What about the others?

Or was, in fact, about to board a bus and found to have no money to pay the ticket, so I went back into the building Waterloo Station, where he denounced the robbery, first to a police service (who could not care less. Apparently, the police have no record of theft) after the cashier of the bank there. And, like Gregory Peck when he showed his note of a million pounds for the film of the same name, upon presentation of your passport and saying something like "You know you're talking to Miss", Gerry immediately gave him a loan window for living expenses.

Or perhaps coincidentally had a copy of The Big Issue hand and a broker who was passing by took pity on him.

Mercedes Translation

ITEM: In this article, Mr. Roberts failed to mention something to that recorded in the official process, the document sent by the British police authorities Portugal where, as noted, Gerry McCann did not have ANY credit card or debit .