Site Meter

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Tory blogger tries to score cheap political points over Madeleine's dead body

Tory blogger tries to score cheap political points over Madeleine's dead body

Whilst the MSM are reporting the strange twist in the tale of the McCann saga, there has been a twist in the blogosphere. Firstly, I remember Iain Dale stating that on 18doughtystreet.com he was going to keep out of the McCann affair. However, Iain has become famous for his hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another, in other words, telling lies. It is strange that the Tory blogger should try to score political points over the disappearance and possible death of Madeleine McCann. How low can you get? It has been suggested that "Dale attempted a cheap slur on the LibDems" with this post and that the comments from "'Big Andy' and 'Dr Shipman' were not entirely unrelated to Iain Dale".

Surprisingly, Iain Dale concludes with the view that the McCanns are being 'fitted up' by the Portuguese police.

Secondly, as if by magic, another Tory blogger suddenly felt the urge to jump onto the McCann bandwagon with this post. I don't find hiding a body for 3 weeks as difficult as maintaining the facade Gerry and Kate McCann put up for as long as they did.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where there's a will there is a way.
Why are these McCanns being supported by the British Press? Why are they misleading their readers? Last night's Time on line said yet again that the Mccanns were dining ONE MINUIT AWAY FROM THEIR APARTMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!SUCH LIES.

Anonymous said...

John, I have to say I think Iain is being rather unfairly smashed for this post. But that's not really the issue here. Like the Anon above me, I find the MSM's support for the couple truly amazing. This is a link to a Telegraph article which almost reads like a closing statement for a defence counsel:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/07/nmaddy807.xml

Examples include:

"How, for example, could she have killed her daughter, removed her body from the apartment and hidden it while her friends sat just yards away in a tapas bar?"

This assumes that if Kate did kill Maddy, the only time to do it would be during dinner. Why not several hours earlier?

"And how, four weeks later, was one of the most watched women in the world able to bundle a body into a hire car and dispose of it under the noses of her family, police liaison officers and the world's press?"

4am drives can be remarkably quiet...

Yes, I'm speculating, but the MSM is actually speculating and presenting it as truth.

jailhouselawyer said...

David: I wasn't going to pick him up over the post, but then his sock puppets came out to play which makes him fair game...

As you say, the MSM support for the leaky boat is a bit much. I saw that link. I don't think that the MSM likes to face the truth and then admit they were fooled.

Anonymous said...

I haftagree w/David. Assuming that Kate did kill Maddie and by accident, and if the report about a syringe being found in the apt. is reliable info, then it is quite possible that the child was injected with something "to make her sleep". Then the parents go off to eat, with the ensuing parental and others checking all the children throughout the evening. Only when Kate or both parents returned to apt. did they realise that the injection was lethal - at which point pure panic takes over. For starters, both being doctors, they would know that people would find it odd to believe that a doctor (of all people) would be so foolish as to be in the possession of sedatives that perhaps they should not have had with them; after all, how does one explain a dead child as being unintentional, especially at the hands of a doctor. So, instead of reason taking over, sheer panic did; with Kate rushing out shouting "they've taken her, they've taken her". Who, exactly? And why the immediate claim that Madeleine had been abducted? Would this not be the remit of the Police at some point, or even perhaps the Media, to suggest that a missing child may be an abduction? How would anyone know that their child had been abducted, unless they witnessed that abduction?

Futhermore, the almost obsessive clinging on to the Cat toy. Consider the parents of Rhys Jones and their extraordinary dignity in the face of terrible suffering; or the parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. For Kate McCann to continually carry the child's toy is odd on several counts: how could a child be abducted and leave its favourite toy behind? Even the abductor would give it to the child to keep it quiet. So, for it to have been left behind, all too conveniently discovered on a window ledge of an apartment that was claimed was broken into but with no forensic evidence to substantiate that claim, would then enable Kate to carry it as she does; which could imply guilt for what had happened, rather than grief. As if in not letting go of the child's favourite toy, she is not letting go of the child.

With regard to the hiding of the body etc. One previous blogger suggested that the appearance of the car after 25 days coincided with a report in one newspaper about a body being found, so it is possible that the child could have been moved on the night of the "disappearance" - for the Police were criticised as being slow to react/respond and did not do so for 15 hours or more, time enought to temporarily hide a body, to later remove - hence the blood stains appearing in the car 3 weeks later.

The ensuing media campaign is interesting too, in that once the ball got rolling, it simply exploded, instead of just trotting along at a sedate pace. Knowing that they had created a monster made it so much easier to shift responsibility and to introduce the world to the concept of the nice, caring, sharing, loving McCanns, as if in so doing, it would make the eventual truth easier to accept. For nice people don't mean to hurt their children.

But what of the IVF treatment? Catholics are violently opposed to any form of such treatment, in much the same way as they are contraceptives, so how come this is not mentioned, or highlighted? If the McCanns view their faith as something to adhere to only when its suits, what about the success of the IVF, with Madeleine? Any parent who underwent 5 years of trying for a child would not then willingly, knowingly, leave that child and others alone. It simply does not compute. That child, in particular would be overly loved, not all but ignored.

Finally, Gerry states that there is a mental link betweeen him and Madeleine in Portugal. He did not say emotional. In other words, he is distancing himself from his daughter but why would he do this? And, as John says - who declares there will be a release of 50 balloons two weeks prior to the 50th day of Madeleine's disappearance, unless it was was already known that the child would not be found by that time. A parent who had genuinely lost a child (in the sense that it had not yet been found) would be unable to think beyond the moment, let alone two weeks hence.

All pure supposition, of course....

eric the fish said...

thank you liz for outlining some of the major questions. It is significant that even the Daily Mail now has journos being paid for 'come to think of it I always knew Harold Shipman was a bit shifty' stories. If no guilt is found they will then revert to type.
As a lawyer (stop it..)I always take the prof. stance of innocent until...etc. and will always adhere to this. However we all have gut feelings. We may also have gut feelings about the 2.30 at Uttoxeter.
As this blog has consistently held, there are questions that need answering. The McCanns alienated a lot of people with their glib insistence that everyone with children goes out on the piss on holiday. The biggest crime is the media's support of them.
They are, at the very least, negligent.

I think it is important, though, to be distanced from the lunatic fringe on some forums etc. They are either deluded or paid by the McCann media machine.
(witness amount of references to 'ludicrous' after GMcC's blog.)

My 80+ mother (fan of Morse and Poirot) was first on the case. I defend the unconvicted. She responds with move after move - the contrast with the family of Rhys Jones may not be anything concrete but my Queen is at risk.

Anonymous said...

Robert Murat's property could have been used for temporarily hiding the body.

The trips abroad could have been used to dispose of evidence.

Kate McCann appears genuine. If Gerry did it and covered his tracks she would have no reason to suspect him.

The blood on Kate's clothes and in the car could have come from something that touched the body but had no significance for her.

A doctor would know what chemicals destroy biological matter.

dizzy said...

"bandwagon"

:rolleyes: