Put Up Or Shut Up

Witnessing the McCann PR onslaught, with it's bevy of fans in the British media, it is not difficult to understand why people in totalitarian regimes don't rebel. After a while you just become
immune to it. The latest contradiction of yesterday's 'proof', brings not a cry of outrage, but a weary sigh.

I noticed this piece of pseudo science in the Times.

I should warn you that Professor David Canter is from Liverpool University, and his book is published by Virgin. Personally whenever an 'expert' from either Liverpool or Leicestershire is paraded before us, I automatically assume bias in favour of the McCanns.

If you wish to see this bias in action, Mr Canter provides it at an early stage of his article:

"It appears that the Portuguese police may have fallen into the trap of having first formed a view of who the guilty party is, then seeking out the evidence to support it. "

Mr Canter clearly is unaware of Robert Murat, Danilo Chemello, the criticism of the police wasting time chasing false leads such as those given by mediums. And it ignores the 'fact' that the British government was influencing the investigation to be treated as an abduction from an early stage. But never let hypocrisy stop an 'expert'.

Now rather than deconstruct this person's nonsense.... I do wonder how these people get to be 'experts'... they must have certificates or something. They clearly have never heard of impartiality or objectivity.

In order to understand what this learned man is saying you need look no further than:

"This does not accord with what I call the first law of criminality: people who are criminal in one situation tend to be criminal in other situations. It is remarkably unlikely that parents who committed a crime so heinous would have no previous background that pointed to their evolving evil."

So according the the professor criminals commit crimes, and not only that, only convicted criminals can commit crimes of this nature. This is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. A fallacy that is capped by use of the word 'evil'.

I at a loss to understand why it would be a sign of 'evil' for the McCanns to be involved in their daughters disappearance.

Indeed use of the word 'evil' in this context, and in most contexts, is misleading.

The suggested scenario of the McCanns being involved in the death, (if the child is dead)(and if the McCanns are involved), is that it was an accident. They were subsequently caught up in a series of events of which they had little or no control. Does this make them 'evil'?

I would say not. But then I tend not to think in terms of absolutes. Indeed I would argue that the people do the things they do is because they can.

The one aspect that Mr Canter chooses to overlook is the parents refusal to answer police questions and their charges of conspiracy.

I would sugget that the first law of criminality is that the prisons are full of innocent people who were fitted up by the police.

Perhaps the most interesting piece of 'news', amid the whelter of spin is tacked onto this story in the Daily Mail:

"Kate and Gerry McCann are preparing for a lengthy legal battle which could last years.

A source close to them said: "The ball is in the Portuguese police's court - they need to put up or shut up.""

Excuse me but I was unaware of this being a game.

For a family whose daughter has gone missing, and might be in the hands of paedophiles (with all that entails), this is a remarkable attitude to take. Call me idealistic, but the Portugese police, the target of this taunt, are looking for that child. If the ball is in anyone's court it is the McCanns.

It is the McCanns who by fleeing from Portugal have stalled the investigation. And it is one thing to explain alleged discoveries of DNA through the media and to make noises about hiring expert witnesses to demolish that 'evidence': but since that evidence is known only to the police this is a smokescreen, the whole exercise is cynical self justification.

I find it odd that both they and their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, repeatedly say they are happy to return to Portugal and co-operate with the police at any time; when they have engaged a lawyer known for fighting extradition cases; and they patently have no intention of returning to Portugal and are doing all they can to avoid those questions.

I am also skeptical of the claim that the case could drag on for years. I am willing to predict (assuming that they are involved) that if the day comes, when their political connections fail, and they are arrested and remanded within a very short time one or other of them will crack. And should that day come, the suppine British media, cut off from planted stories, will turn against them and begin reporting the case 'objectively' (or at least as objectively as they report anything).

But as I said that is assuming they are involved. And I, and I suggest you, don't know if they are or not.

One other thing, that I have not mentioned thus far, is that the priest, Father Pacheco, is still missing. He has not been seen for the best part of a week. Reports say that he disappeared shortly after being informally questioned by the police. You will recall that he recieved criticism from his bishop for giving the McCanns a key to the church.

And the other thing of note is that there is now confusion surrounding the allegation that a cafe owner saw Madeleine dancing with Gerry McCann at around 6pm on May 3rd: these quotes are from a 'friend' of the McCanns:

""Madeleine had high tea at 5.30pm with staff at the Kids Club. She was picked up shortly before 6pm by Kate and Gerry.

"After that Kate and Gerry went home, got the kids ready for bed and got ready to go out for their meal."

The friend insisted: "Kate was never alone with Madeleine that afternoon. There were always other witnesses present. These details were all given to detectives during police interviews, so they know what Kate and Gerry said happened that day."

The new account contradicts previous reports from two waiters and the owner of the Paraiso restaurant in Praia da Luz who insisted they were "certain" Madeleine had eaten her last meal there, and watched her excitedly dance with her father by the icecream freezer.""

And if you fancy a smile, and an example of the way in which the McCanns continue to flout the secrcy laws (ignoring the friend talking about what was said in police interviews):

"Asked to comment, the McCanns' official spokesman Clarence Mitchell said Portugal's strict 'secrecy of justice' laws prevented the couple from speaking about the investigation

"We cannot and will not comment on any matters that go to the heart of the police investigation. However my understanding is that these particular reports, about the restaurant are inaccurate.""

And the Daily Mail notes:

The denial was made despite the McCanns being aware of the CCTV claims and being told yesterday that they were being used to illustrate alleged conflicts in their version of events.

But this mass of contradictions might be part of the PR campaign. If it is it seems to be working:

"The Portugese Police are a load of idiots, they come up with different stories evey day.
A Walker, Bradford"

Yes Mr Walker, it is the Portugese police feeding these stories to the press.

btw if you want 'proof' of journalists cobbling together stories from McCann press releases, then look no further than this report from the Telegraph. Yes folks, you read it right, we are back to the 40 yard claim.

peace:)