5 Comments

Kate, the Priest and the Bible

mythbusters1Again last night, another myth was being spread about Kate McCann and the bible.  Everyone thinks that Kate had that particular passage marked in that bible because of the demise of Madeleine.

How wrong can they be?  Totally wrong for a start.

In his book, Goncalo Amaral, who these people believe without questioning a word, states this:

Kate seems to be in mourning: numerous photos of Madeleine are pinned to the wall or placed on her bedside table. Spaced between them – as though watching over the child’s soul – a representation of a saint, a crucifix or a rosary can be seen. A bookmark bearing the effigy of a saint is slipped into a copy of the Bible, opening on the second book of Samuel, chapter XII, where the following verses can be read:

“[13] “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said.
Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. [14] But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” [15] Then Nathan went home.
The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very ill.
[16] David prayed to God that the child would get well. He refused to eat anything and every night he went into his room and spent the night lying on the floor. [17] His court officials went to him and tried to make him get up, but he refused and would not eat anything with them. [18] A week later the child died, and David’s officials were afraid to tell him the news. They said, “While the child was living, David wouldn’t answer us when we spoke to him. How can we tell him that his child is dead? He might do himself some harm!”
[19] When David noticed them whispering to each other, he realized that the child had died. So he asked them, “Is the child dead?”
“Yes, he is,” they answered.
[20] David got up from the floor, had a bath, combed his hair, and changed his clothes. Then he went and worshiped in the house of the Lord. When he returned to the palace, he asked for food and ate it as soon as it was served. [21] “We don’t understand this,” his officials said to him. “While the child was alive, you wept for him and would not eat; but as soon as he died, you got up and ate!”
[22] “Yes,” David answered, “I did fast and weep while he was still alive. I thought that the Lord might be merciful to me and not let the child die. [23] But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Could I bring the child back to life? I will someday go to where he is, but he can never come back to me.”
[24] Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba. He had intercourse with her, and she bore a son, whom David named Solomon. The Lord loved the boy [25] and commanded the Prophet Nathan to name the boy Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him.”1

For David life had to go on.

Well I take it before Goncalo Amaral penned that pile of pants he never managed to read the case files, where there is an explanation as to why that passage was marked. Oh and by the way, the bible in which that passage was marked was not given to Kate until after Madeleine disappeared and it was given to her by a friend.

You see in the files Peter Neal Patterson states about that particular passage:

The passage which is marked in my wifes bible I believe is Samuel 2:12. This passage is very significant for me and my wife but likely has so significance for Kate. I interpret this passage as saying that even though we cannot be with the two children that we have no lost, we will find them one day.

Yes Peter, known as Paddy in Kate’s book, tells us that passage has great meaning to them. This couple also had trouble conceiving children and due to tragic circumstances where this couple lost two children, one to a miscarriage and one to an ectopic pregnancy.

Mr Patterson also explains about giving the bible to Kate, he says:

On Friday the 11th of May 2007 we heard rumours that the Portuguese were going to stop the searches. After having passed this information to Kate we met up in the Tapas bar in the resort between 9:30 and 9:45 in the morning. We met for only a half hour to 40 minutes as Kate had to attend a police interview.

During this meeting, I offered Kate a bible. This happened in the sequence of emotions that Kate was obviously feeling and after our having sat down to speak. We did not know each other well as she is predominantly my wifes friend. I am the leader of a South Wigston team run out of the Corporation for Exercise and Salvation, Leicestershire. I have a particular interest in the bible and the form in which it was written. I frequented the course ?Alpha Course? (an introduction to Christianity) a recommended to Kate some of the passages in the bible that she could rand to help comfort. There was a dedication from me to my wife on the first page, as it had previously been a gift from me to her. I have a tendency to mark pages and passages in the bible and even though this was my spouses bible, there were many marked/tagged passages relevant to the both of us. This happened before Madeleines disappearance.

Kate confirms this in her book, she says:

I had asked Paddy if he had a Bible with him I could borrow.  He brought me one that had been a Christmas present from him to Bridget several years earlier. That Bible is still sitting next to my bed.  I must get round to returning it one day!

So there you have the reasons for the passage being marked.  Not because they were grieving that Madeleine was dead but simply because it was a loaned bible, and because the owners of the bible had suffered heartache themselves.

Apart from the mistake with the Bible and the wrong interpretation, this never stopped during the investigation, Kate was also condemned for wanting a Priest during the early hours of the morning of the 4th May 2007, when her daughter had not been found.

Silvia Batista said in her statement the following:

The deponent wanted also to state that around 03h00 Madeleine’s parents asked [about] the presence of a priest in the area. They didn’t explain their reason for wanting a priest but the deponent found it strange since there was no indication that the child was dead and it is usual only in those circumstances that one would ask for a priest.

The OlivePress reported this:

KATE McCann’s request to see a priest on the night of her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance was used as evidence against her, it has been revealed.

The devout Roman Catholic claims she came under suspicion because of the belief that people in Portugal ‘only called for a priest when they wanted their sins to be forgiven.’

Well then they really do need to catch up on British culture.  Because I have known, that in times of desperation, for many people to turn to the Church even those who are not religious.

Yes, normal people,  people who are not religious and people who have never walked through a Church doors, in their time of need have found themselves praying in a church.

You all remember the Zebrugge disaster, don’t you?

Well I know a woman who went down to our local Church and prayed that her grandson might be found alive.  She had been told that her daughter and son-in-law had died, but they had no news of her grandson.  She prayed like it was going out of fashion, only no-one heard her prayers because the next piece of news she had confirmed her worst fears.

People turn to the Church when they are in times of need.  They might not be devout Catholics and they might not have previously attended Church regularly on a Sunday morning, but it hasn’t stopped them believing and during that night Kate’s faith was being put to the test.

Have we not seen and witnessed with our own eyes, when people are waiting for news about an aircrash or a bombing or a terrorist attack, people of different faiths attending the Church nearest to the place where there are waiting for the news?

All faiths being joined under one roof, praying for good news, praying that there are survivors and praying that the ones they love will be one of those survivors.

People in times of need, have walked into Churches of a different faith just to speak to God.

It is as obvious as the nose on your face, Kate McCann that night wanted a Priest to help her through the troubled night she was having to endure whilst waiting for news that her daughter had been found.  Over four years have passed and still Kate McCann is awaiting that news.  And still after 4 years Kate McCann is being condemned for wanting to see a Priest.

You might only call for a Priest in Portugal when someone has died, but here people call for a Priest for all sorts of things.  They ask the Priest to pray with them and to bless those that they are waiting news about.  It is not a crime and it is definitely not suspicious.

So I think we can say couple of Forum myths, inspired by a witness and an ex-detective can be well and truly busted with regards to those particular passages that were marked in a diary and Kate acting suspiciously by wanting to see a Priest, don’t you?

Advertisements

5 comments on “Kate, the Priest and the Bible

  1. Yet another example of 2 + 2 = 5. I expect that this added to a certain former cop’s conviction of “Everything I know tells me…”. 

    I can understand why the coincidence of these details appeared as a potential red flag. However, I don’t understand why the first PJ team didn’t investigate it further. It seems as if they had come to a certain conclusion and were trying to use any detail to retrofit the hypothesis without a) considering other potential explanations or b) seeking input on what may or may not be considered as understandable behaviour in people from a different culture. 

    I can understand that being the coordinator of a high-profile case was an exciting career-enhancing challenge. However, he ended up in the spotlight in a case that seems to have been way out of his depth, not to mention the fact that he, himself, was made an arguido a few hours after the alert was given over Madeleine’s disappearance.I can understand that he was upset that his career in the PJ came to an end (and I’m not convinced that it was a voluntary decision). However, I don’t understand why he seems to feel that that McCanns were responsible for that. 

    To be fair, he does not appear to be the only person who was out of his depth in that first team: the interim report, signed by Almeida, has to be one of the most bizarre concoctions I have ever read. 

    As for a younger police officer who  is allegedly convinced that the child is dead due to the reactions of the dogs…. I just can’t work out why. 

    I am perfectly aware that some people think that Harrison/Grime may have overstated the reliability of the dogs. I’m still fence-sitting on that issue as Grime has repeatedly stated that the reactions were of no value unless corroborated by forensics. And, in this case, forensics did NOT corroborate. On the other side, people tend to conveniently forget that the apartment had been rented 4 times since the child disappeared prior to the dogs’ arrival (and which must have included cleaning in between rentals and possible maintenance people coming in and out). Almost forgot to add: various PJ/LE people also visited the apartment.

    I was hunting, yet again, for a link which seems to have disappeared. I have come to the conclusion that it could have been taken off due to copyright issues. It would have corroborated what Kate stated in her book. 

    Anyway… whilst hunting, I re-found several links to scientific articles.

    I do feel guilty chuckling over certain aspects of this case (apologies to the family)… but here goes: in theory (yes, I could be wrong), Eddie should have reacted to halitosis (bad breath), and I can think of more than one person with potential halitosis who has been bad-mouthing this family. 

    More seriously, the following link simply illustrates that the odours involved in decomposition do not necessarily imply that anyone has died: someone could have simply vomited and the odours developed before it was cleaned up. 

    Time profile of putrescine, cadaverine, indole and skatole in human saliva.M Cooke, N Leeves, C WhiteCentre for Chemical Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX, UK. mcooke@moorymeadow.freeserve.co.ukThe concentrations of putrescine, cadaverine, indole and skatole were determined in the saliva of healthy human volunteers upon waking and at time points during the day. Putrescine was found to be the most abundant of the amines studied, followed by cadaverine then indole. Skatole could not be detected in the saliva samples at any time point. The amines were found in the highest concentrations immediately upon waking (mean concentrations (microg/ml): putrescine 33.0+/-19.0, cadaverine 17.6+/-16.7 and indole 0.4+/-0.4) with a rapid decrease following consumption of breakfast and brushing their teeth (mean concentrations (microg/ml): putrescine 7.0+/-6.4, cadaverine 3.1+/-4.7 and indole 0.04+/-0.09). Putrescine and cadaverine then increased in concentration during the day apart from a decrease post-lunch caused by increased salivary flow and mechanical cleaning due to mastication. An analytical method based on high performance liquid chromatography and fluorescence detection has been developed to quantify amines in human saliva. Sodium fluoride has been shown to be an effective inhibitor of amine formation in saliva at room temperature allowing samples to be collected and kept without requiring cold storage.http://lib.bioinfo.pl/paper:12663078

  2. Carana I know what you mean about chuckling, but I did laugh when Kate said in her book that she and Gerry went to dinner with the Paivas.

    From the outset GA et al were supposed to have suspected them of being involved in what happened to Madeleine.  Seriously do you ever hear of the Met or any other Police Officer inviting the suspects to dinner?

    Perhaps it was true, that some of the PJ did rely on what the missus said and hoped her indoors would crack the case before serving dessert.

  3. I wondered about that as well. I do suspect that the invitation was to gather any details that might have incriminated them as in non-slippery staircase techniques. 

    Re my previous post – I guess the bottom line was that Eddie could have alerted correctly, but for a reason that did not imply a death. 

    I can understand that the 1st PJ team thought that that was the last bit of information that they needed to close the investigation… but what I don’t understand is the fact that certain people continue to refer to that as if it were gospel. 

    At some point in 2007, I became a fence-sitter. I was led to believe in a certain “inescapable fact”. At the time, I thought, OMG, if THAT is true, then YES they could have been involved and I should step back. I hunted high and low through the files… checking, cross-checking. No, this so-called fact is nowhere in the files, not even in any of the statements of those who had clearly got messed up with dates. I could only conclude that this “fact” was either  a total invention or a case of mistaken identity. 

    I won’t even repeat what the so-called “fact” was – it will only set the fruitloops off again. 

  4. Perhaps I should add that once I realised that that “fact” had no basis whatsoever, then I started becoming suspicious in the other direction: what else was not true? I took my time to slowly, slowly wade through the files. 

    I’m still a fence-sitter: my basic question is still the same – what happened to this child? That said, despite extensive wading though files, I have found nothing of substance to indicate that the parents or T7 were involved. 

  5. And I’ve found nothing tangible to indicate what happened to little Joana. I have found no proof whatsoever that she is dead, either. 

    And before anyone starts on a rant against me, two little Belgian girls survived for quite a time. Sadly, they were not found in time. Two others were, though. 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: