Oprah Winfrey interview with the McCann’s.
The famous Oprah Winfrey interview and documentary regarding Madeleine’s disappearance.
So far unavailable in the UK. In English with Portuguese subtitles, since this was only shown outside the US on Portuguese TV.
The sound quality is diabolical! Sorry about that, but out of my control!
Chanel 4 are showing their own version of the McCann story tonight at 9pm.
The documentary made by Goncal Amaral, the Portuguese policeman in charge of the investigation, which is not available in the UK is still available on my site here
Edited to add:
Why is nothing ever simple with the McCanns?
Why when they are asked ‘and did you see the children’ – why do they have to ‘split the answer up’ – ‘yes, the twins were sleeping, and Madeleine was lying just as I left her’, why the earlier reference to her ‘lying in the recovery position’, why always the slightly odd turns of phrase that can be taken in different ways?
Why do they still go on about dinning ’50 yards, or 25 yards, or ‘within eyesight’ that night, and carefully omit to say that the earlier in the week they were dinning at the Millennium restaurant – a brisk 20 minutes walk away.
Why, two years later are they still going on about ‘borders not being closed’, even if they were the only people in Europe who did not know that night that there were no borders, they have surely had it pointed out to them a million times since.
Why, when asked to comment on the closure of the Portuguese investigation do they say ‘how upsetting’ that was – they had the opportunity to keep the investigation open, it was closed because they refused to answer the police questions when interviewed, and declined to take part in the police reconstruction, although they didn’t refuse – it was left to the Tapas 9 not to be available. They knew perfectly well, still know, that the investigation could have stayed open, if they had co-operated.
Why can’t Gerry McCann say ‘I want to believe, or I need to believe, that Madeleine is still alive.
Why does he keep saying ‘there’s no evidence that she has come to any harm’ -with that heavy Glaswegian emphasis on ‘evidence’.
Why does he have to make it so damn hard to stay neutral as to whether they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Why do I feel that neutrality slipping away every time he opens his mouth?
What is it about the man?
May 17, 2009 at 17:57
-
How can anybody say that the McCanns come across as an ordinary couple? If
there is one thing they do not appear, it is ‘ordinary’. They haven’t appeared
as ‘ordinary’ from day one when they were on tv and began the fairy tale of
Madeleine’s disappearance. Gerry McCann appears to me to be a real poker-faced
creep and Kate McCann looks as though she’s on the verge of a breakdown.
Of course, hiding the body of your three year old daughter can cause those
symptoms.
Both the Portuguese police and the British police long ago stopped
believing the abduction fairy tale. There are only two people who know where
the body of Madeleine can be found. However, they’re too busy covering up and
evading responsibility.
Step forward Mr and Mrs McCann. Tell us how Madeleine died and where her
body is. You’ll get lots and lots of lovely media attention if you do …
-
May 9, 2009 at 21:30
-
What a sham of an interview. Oprah goes nowhere near any of the
controversial points. Why didn’t she ask about the blood in the apartment and
the hire car that the sniffer dogs found? Why didn’t she pursue the cuddle cat
question? Any parent out there knows they would never ever again wash a
child’s favourite toy that had disappeared – it goes against every instinct, I
don’t need explain why. Why did the priest to whom Gerry make his confession
end up a mental wreck? And why did the Vatican drop the case from their
official website like a hot potato the minute after that same priest went to
Rome?
This is not even a real interview because when not primed Kate is
incapable of stringing three words together coherently, which is weird since
she’s a doctor, but lots of things don’t add up about these two.
The only
positive thing I could say is that they are extraordinarily good actors.
- May 9, 2009 at 20:41
-
“These are actually the pajamas that Madeline was wearing when she was
taken”
WTF the ‘actual’ pajamas, really. I wonder how they got them back or did
Daddy kidnapper leave them neatly in a pile for the press? Considerate really
if you think about it…..
“There’s no evidence at all to say that something has happened to her”
uh-huh. I just don’t believe them at all, our MSM has completely cultured
the portrayal of the Mc Cann’s for their benefit and to perpetuate the myth
that she is alive. Goncal Amaral’s documentary was very eye opening.
- May 9, 2009 at 17:40
-
You know what really does it for me? It is the return to “normal life”. I
don’t know about anyone else here, but if my daughter was taken, I would be
moving heaven and earth to find her, and the devil with everything else.
- May 8, 2009 at 08:46
-
There is a cover up at the highest level. Tapas nine involved
There is a telling scene just in the first 35 seconds where Oprah mentions
something and Kate blinks as the word comes out. She knows what the full story
is but they would lose their house and their income over night if they ever
told the truth hence the elaborate deception. I would love to be proven wrong.
I think the whole world would be but I have this notion that she indeed does,
as one commenter has mentioned on my blog, “sleeps with the fishes”.
- May 8, 2009 at 06:20
-
I don’t care that much about the McCann’s. I haven’t followed the story
throughout. I would never leave my children in an appartment alone, having
administered calpol to sedate them, because I can, I’m a dcotor and go out
with friends. I would never NEVER do it.
My partner was horrified I was expressing any interest in last night’s
programme. We watched it together but gained no further insights into what
happened. We know the McCann’s want as full media exposure on this as
possible. We also know they want their privacy to remain intact. A dilemma me
thinks that leads to them controlling the output under the guidance of the
press guy, what’s his name.
But, just like Gordon Brown’s expense claims, something stinks ……..
- May 8, 2009 at 03:35
-
Superb piece of cute and insightful journalism over at The Times today.
Thank you to Tim Teeman. The sales of The Times may go up when people realise
that they have their balls back.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6243550.ece
- May 8, 2009 at 03:07
-
Lost my link again ………… Ignore that. This one is good though.
- May 8, 2009 at 03:04
-
I wonder what the Clan’s lawyers think about all this. Clearance the Media
Monitor must be absolutely furious! …………. Crumbs! But will he start talking
about about sueing again? ………….. If I was completely innocent, I would sue
Amaral for making this fim. :drin:
It’s enough to make you wonder why the case hasn’t been re-opened ages ago.
grin:
- May 8, 2009 at 01:56
-
I have always made it very clear that I am absolutely convinced of the
Clan’s complete innocence in all of this. Complete innocence. Of all of them.
All of the Clan. Even the really, really dodgy-acting ones that people have
said the most shocking things about. ……….. Even though those shocking things
were put in police statements by two other doctors who used to go on their
holidays with the Clan – I will not hear any of it. One set of doctors has to
be lying ……… I know that. Some warning bells go off ………. but I ignore them.
The Clan are innocent.
Nothing in K Woman’s or Merry Gerry’s behaviour leads me to think
otherwise. Not the wrong eye movements that they make in conjunction with
their speech ………… Not their body-language. Not the measure of their voices
when using certain phrases ………… Not their choices of certain words. Not the
uncomfortable way they handle their twins. Not the complete control and the
focussed directorship that they have over every scene they perform on and off
camera.
………. Why does everybody else who I know think that they look and act really
shifty and are guity of horrid things? I am sticking to the original theory
that I formed the very second they appeared in their first TV moments. As they
posed for the cameras I could see that they were a very professional and
decent couple who would definitely not have had anything to do with
Madeleine’s disappearance …………. even though I know it is nearly always
somebody known to a child that does them in ……….. and that sometimes parents
pretend there has been an abduction. ……….. (But really – they have actually
done their kids in – and are just giving the police a bit of a run-around.)
Anyway, the theory I formed is that it has to have been Aliens – and I will
never swayed to the contrary ………. Not even when Mr. Amaral proves me wrong.
Which I know he will …………. because he will get the support he needs to re-open
the case. But I do think that although Mr. Amaral and the dogs have some
pretty hot evidence, he should not knock the idea of looking for Aliens from
Outer Space!
Aliens came and ate the child in apartment 5A. That is why the dogs got all
those scents. An Alien must have used K’s clothes as a napkin ………… and shook
it about a bit ………. Anyway – that’s where all the answers lie. With them! The
Aliens. Out there!
- May 7, 2009 at 20:37
-
How can Kate state, categorically, that when she went to check the kids,
the 3rd check, her check, that she discovered Madeleine had been taken?
How could she possibly know this? There has been no evidence of a break-in?
Yet this comment has come to dominate the public consciousness and lead the
media story????
Why haven’t the social services or the police visited them to assess their
ability to look after their children?
- May 7, 2009 at 21:09
-
May 7, 2009 at 20:29
-
Why can
- May 7,
2009 at 20:08
-
Two years on and you’re asking the questions and raising the points that
still niggle away at me.
I can rationalise most of these away, but I’m
still left with a gut feeling that something terrible happened and that it’s
still being covered up and the same old falsehoods are still being trotted out
and still blindly accepted as fact.
- May 7, 2009 at 21:03
{ 15 comments }