I think I have heard it all now

Seriously, some people are clutching at straws trying to tie in Murdoch with the McCanns and there being some grotesque crime being committed hence the reason why Murdoch and others are helping the McCanns.

And when they base their assumptions on something that is totally false, then the only thing you can do is laugh at the sheer stupidity of these people.

Yes Kate and Gerry McCann, were offered support and friendship by Sir Clement Freud who owned a villa in the Algarve.

And his son Matthew Freud probably believes in the McCanns because he knows his father and knows damn well that his father wouldn’t have anything to do with people who could have possibly harmed their child.

Richard Branson, David Beckham, Christian Ronaldo, Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall Camila and J K Rowling, to name but a few, have expressed their support for Kate and Gerry McCann, but because they offer support it does not automatically mean there is something sinister and there is one massive cover-up.

And when people on forums start to post wild comments like:

Sir Clement Freud was in the employ of the McCann’s as a cook.

That is when you start to think hang-on, Sir Clement Freud never was in the employ of the McCann’s, he offered them dinner and cooked for them at his villa.  Kate McCann in her book is open and honest about their friendship with Sir Clement Freud.

But no, in the eyes of some people that friendship just can’t be a friendship where a person is just being supportive to the family of a missing child.  It has to be sinister.  It has to be murky. It has to be a cover-up.  These people  just can’t accept anything other than that.

And one thing that does amaze me, up until Kate’s book I don’t think we ever knew about Sir Clement Freud and his association with the McCanns.  So ask yourself this, if Sir Clement Freud was part of some big cover-up protecting the McCann family why would Kate risk losing that protection by naming him in her book?

Kate McCann is being open and honest in her book about their friendship.  But no because Sir Clement Freud’s son Matthew is married to Elizabeth Murdoch, that association by marriage is enough in some quarters for the friendship between the McCanns and Sir Clement Freud to be sinister.  And it is because of that association that leads these people on the misguided path of believing it has to be some massive cover-up where everyone is in on it. Well everyone except Goncalo Amaral and the anti-McCann brigade.

Just like these so-called truth-seekers go around saying people are paid by the McCanns to post in the McCann favour.  Come on get real, I for one am now supportive of the McCann family in their quest to find out what happened to their daughter and where she might be, but I can assure you that I am not being paid by the McCanns.  And I have had no communication with the McCann family, any of their legal team or Clarence Mitchell. And I have not sold my soul to the devil.

People just can’t accept the fact that I have just changed my opinion.  And my opinion changed after reading, researching and above all listening to both sides of the argument. And I came to realise that it was wrong to sit in judgement of people without knowing the full facts, especially the parents of a missing child.  I realised that I was basing my opinion on partial files (which when read properly prove the McCanns played no part in their daughters disappearance) and a book written by an ex-Detective who was removed form the case and later found guilty of perjury and falsifying documents.

And what amazes me even more, is this so called anti-McCann group complain about the nastiness directed at them from the people who support the McCanns.  Well my change of opinion has proven one thing to me, some of these so-called anti McCann posters are worse than those they have criticised in the past.  Along with proving to me that they can be just as nasty, and in some respect worse, when they post their remarks and comments to people who don’t think along their lines of thought.  And that line of thought being “That Madeleine McCann is in fact dead.”

Some people just can’t seem to accept that there are people out there, who don’t stand in judgement of others, they offer help all they can, they just want to show support.  Just like Sir Clement Freud did.

And some people can’t accept that people change their minds, people see things differently, some people might see it a lot sooner than others, but it doesn’t matter how long it takes for the penny to drop, once the penny has dropped I tell you, you are in for quite a surprise when you accept that things are not what they seem from certain quarters.

Well I had a quick google of Famous people who own villas in the Algarve, the list is quite amazing, it even includes Madonna and Bonnie Tyler along with the Sky weather reporter Jo Whelan.  Don’t tell me they are all in on this massive secret cover-up.

Perhaps it would be easier to list who is not in on this cover-up.  😀


11 comments on “I think I have heard it all now

  1. So true, they will find a conspiracy in just about any damn thing.

    I see the photoshop queen is back with a bang on MM.

  2. Hi Samantha, which one is that, there are many that are up for the title of photoshop queen.

    All I know is that there is not one photo I have come across that gives me cause for concern.  All I see is happy family snaps, that must be heartbreaking for the McCanns to see knowing that their first born is missing.

    How these people can interpret what they do from these photos makes me cringe at what sort of mind they must have.

    An innocent little girl and photos of her are being dissected for the pleasure of armchair detectives, so bloody disrespectful to the child.

  3. Yeah, right. So, Sir Clement Freud was their cook/nanny, presumably before the disappearance so as to be willingly complicit in the “cover-up”. What can one say? Whatever floats the boat of the conspiracy theorists… 

  4. Hi Carana,
    Wonder if he had a spare freezer.

  5. Off topic here, but I DO have a point where I don’t necessarily agree with what I read elsewhere. It concerns a witness statement concerning a previous holiday and who bathed the kids. 

    There seems to be a dispute concerning the translation as to whether “pais” means parents or fathers. “Pais” seems to mean either.

    As the statement seems to have originated from an original statement in English, which then got translated into Portuguese, and then got retranslated into English… it seems impossible to know whether the original term referred to “parents” or “fathers”. 

    On the one hand, if mentioning that detail in the statement was to make it clear that it was the “parents” who bathed the kids during that holiday… is there anything to suggest than anyone other than the parents normally did so (outside of holidays)?

    On the other hand, if it was normally the Mums who bathed the kids, and on holiday, the Dads had decided to get together to dump similarly-aged kids in the bathtub and give the Mums a break during that time… What’s the problem?

    The original statement could well have stated “fathers” as opposed to “parents”. 

    I’m fairly confident that AlbyM would have translated that as ” [parents, fathers] “

  6. Hi Carana and Samantha, about the freezer, please don’t give them ideas. LOL You know we could end up with a leaflet at best case scenario or even worse a book detailing the plausibility that Sir Clement Freud had a side-line in freezers and was known by certain elements to loan them out in order for crimes to be committed.

    Yes Carana, with reference to that statement, it has been taken in English, translated and then re-translated back to English and I think it will only be the proper statement that clearly tell people whether it was fathers or parents and you are right about Albym they would have put the two different meanings in brackets.

    And I agree with you about them all being on holiday and them dumping the children in the bath together and giving the mums a break.  And when you think about it, little kids love having fun in the bath, splashing around and I know we did the same thing when we holidayed with our friends who had kids.  The kids were all little and they had great fun in the bath. 

    Think at times there was more water outside of the bath than inside.

  7. Yes pais could be parents or fathers.
    A professional translator wouldn’t translate word for word but look at the context of what is being said.

    Just MO I would think that the context of the statement would be fathers.

  8. Daisy my love, I nor anyone else needs to sign up and post anything to destroy the credibility of that forum.  Bennett and Pat Brown do a good enough job between them.  All we need to do is sit back and watch the nutty professor show.

    Seriously, read the OP Daisy, it is libellous now ask yourself why Bennett replied to it and agreed with the vast majority of it?  Ask yourself why he never edited that post or removed it? Could it be that Bennett put on another head and decided to post that up so that he could comment on it and agree?

  9. Catching up… Yes, Samantha, I agree. The hard part about translating is it’s not just a matter of words in isolation. It also involves trying to find the most appropriate way to convey the meaning in the original context. That said, translation (unless it’s just purely technical) is open to subjectivity.  

    In this particular instance (as in many others), the original statement in English was translated into Portuguese, then retranslated back to English. To be honest, I’d have translated it as fathers as well in the original context, although I find Albym’s usual solution even better in offering alternatives in the context of the baying crowds.

  10. Sorry, Bren. I expect freezer theories will indeed take off again. I’m sure at least one person will have a theory about a hitherto unknown neighbor who just happened to pass by and offer a spare bit of space in a cryogenic deep freeze in their holiday flat. 

    As one does. 

  11. Oh yes, naturally, it is quite easy nowadays and say to your neighbours, “Could you do me a favour and store this body in your freezer for a couple of days.”

    And all this with Pat’s theory of the Smiths sighting Gerry running around PDL with a deceased child and burying that said child in the sand.  Does she not realise how hard it is to dig in fine sand with your hands? 

    So whilst Gerry was supposed to be burying Madeleine in the sand on the beach, can someone tell me what he did with the child whilst he dug the hole with his hands?  And if they were doing this all before 10pm can someone tell me where everyone was or are the Smiths the only other people walking around  in PDL.  I know it was out of season but surely it is not a ghost town in low-season.

    Honestly their theories fall down at the first hurdle and that hurdle being getting 7 other people to lie for you and help you conceal the body of a child.  With each of them knowing full well if ever they got caught they would loose everything.

    So Carana I had better prepare myself for the barbecue with sources and cold metal sheets again.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: