Oh dear, seems like Gerry shot himself in the foot by doing the interview. I bet Clarence gets it in the neck today. Gerry didn't like the "drugging " question and almost stormed out ...again.And almost 70% of callers in the poll thought the pair were lying.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489404&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5
Your thoughts ?
2007-10-24 23:36:50 · 20 answers · asked by little weed 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Jamand..... Notice Kate said,"It's not about us ,it's about Madeleine."
Well you could have fooled me.
2007-10-24 23:43:27 · update #1
SKIDOO.... I found this link... it's a bit slow to connect though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7060000/newsid_7061000/7061072.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1
2007-10-24 23:48:41 · update #2
Snettert.... It's irrelevant who runs the Daily Mail. What is relevant is what this pair said in this interview. This is not the Mail saying all this ,it's from K&G's mouths .
2007-10-24 23:52:33 · update #3
Faith.. How do you know he didn't commit a crime ? For a start he left his babies unattended.....
2007-10-24 23:58:19 · update #4
INTEL Everything they do is preplanned and stage managed for greater effect.
I posted the video link above.
2007-10-25 00:00:28 · update #5
Elsie... The McCanns only want to do interviews on their terms when they can chose the questions. It's not about Maddy at all ! Sadly.
2007-10-25 05:36:35 · update #6
They didn't say NO - did they! Just skirted around the houses in another blatant attempt to appear sweetness and light!
Added: Yes I noticed that as well - as soon as an apparent valid point is raised - they immediately refer to old faithful - 'It's not about us'.
Again, my point is - they did not deny it and say NO, we did not drug her - they avoided a direct answer and stated it was ridiculous to ask the question - also note that she could not look at the interviewer, straight in the eye when answering - her attention was continually drawn away as questions were asked - recalling memories or segments of stories told.
2007-10-24 23:39:04 · answer #1 · answered by jamand 7 · 10⤊ 1⤋
He made a mistake, as others have pointed out, by saying that there is no suggestion that the children were drugged,when actually it has been the main suggestion for months! I think the interviewer should have pointed this out and pursued it. Also they could have been asked to clear up speculation as to his professional roles. I know that doesn't immediately affect the search for Madeleine. But it was an opportunity to clear up a lot of what has been said about them. If the object of the interview was to gain some more public support, they should have been willing to discuss anything that has been written. It may have earned them some respect if they had. I also think that Kate is not a very articulate person, which goes against her. But that's not to say I don't still think they are in some way involved, or know more than they are prepared to say. Refusing to answer the question was a bad move. Why they didn't give an out and out no is beyond me.
2007-10-25 02:08:01 · answer #2 · answered by jonquilblack 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A very weird choice of words again "absolutely no suggestion" from Gerry that they had drugged the children. Why not simply say NO, we do not drug our children?
I think Gerry is missing the point again, there has been a LOT of suggestion that the children were drugged. Again he's skirted around the issue. He can't just answer a simple YES or NO. Very odd behaviour and I'm sure they're hiding something.
2007-10-25 01:17:38 · answer #3 · answered by Ysanne 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Full interview at sky news. Out take of Gerry's comment "dont say anything until you take the microphone off" can be seen at "transfattyacid blog - whatever" see the section "see kate cry"
Whether they are guilty of the tragic death of the child is something for the PJ - however they are guilty of neglect - on its own it is bad enough but if sedatives were involved this affects their ability to practice in an ethical caring profession...this is why he was so agitated and uncomfortable...always thinking ahead is old Gerry
2007-10-24 23:57:11 · answer #4 · answered by Two Pints Lager 4 · 9⤊ 0⤋
I suppose you would call me a Pro McCain as I think they are innocent, However this interview does them no favours, It appeared to be a shameless attempt at a PR job to be viewed by the Spanish and the Portuguese people. It came over as very stage managed. I would sack Clarence.
2007-10-25 00:12:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
They avoiding giving a straight answer to the drugging question. They came across as a pair of ham actors.
2007-10-25 01:03:08 · answer #6 · answered by trancebabe 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry to say that Gerry is a bit of a puzzle "I was the last to see her I saw her and thought how beautiful she was and how lucky I was to be a father of three children.This statement has me puzzled I thought he didn't see his daughter he only saw that the door was ajar and he didn't bother to check.
2007-10-25 00:09:45 · answer #7 · answered by Muriel L 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I've not seen all of the interview yet but watched skynews bit about it. there was a clip of the McCanns walking along and a movement of Gerry's interested me. He raised his right hand to touch his head and in doing so 'flicked' his sleeve back which then exposed two yellow bands on his wrist that were not visible whilst he was walking along. This seemed to be done to expose the bands. It just seemed a considered action. I think i have been playing too much Cluedo!!!!
2007-10-24 23:53:53 · answer #8 · answered by botticellilady 3 · 10⤊ 3⤋
Kate says....she needs us she needs her family.....
um.....helloooo?...where were her family on the night she was left alone with her siblings??
And the interviewers were told they could not ask questions about the supposed drugging?....why not? is that too delicate question for them to answer...bit close to home maybe?
2007-10-25 04:02:22 · answer #9 · answered by elsie1912 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They're a strange pair, Little Weed.
I thought the interview was a waste of time. No appeal to the 'abductor' and some forced emotion that we maybe should have seen 5 months ago.
2007-10-24 23:41:59 · answer #10 · answered by Dellyxx 2 · 14⤊ 3⤋