And sure as hell I think my suspicions are slowly being confirmed one by one. And the more I witness the more it is confirming to me that there is a concerted effort being conducted to paint Kate and Gerry McCann as black as black can go whilst painting Goncalo Amaral as whiter than white, as the driven snow.
Yes we all know the email I am referring to, the one sent to a Forum Admin from Paulo Reis back in September 2007.
You know the one, where there was no evidence in car and the bait was set for journalists and they sure as hell took the bait.
Well yesterday as Paulo Reis was on twitter I asked about this email and the bait:
To which Paulo Reis replied:
And I replied back by saying:
Then I received this reply
We know from Kate McCann’s book that Ricardo Paiva became quite flustered when Gerry McCann, her husband, asked to see the DNA report and was refused, she states:
When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’
Hold on a minute, the dogs are only indicators it is the DNA report that either concludes or dismisses what the dogs find, isn’t it?
There is no mention in the files that Gerry was given the report to read. So during that interview Gerry was being told the dogs scented this and they scented that and he was refused to view the DNA report.
So why would Gerry McCann, having been made an arguido, allow the McCann PR team to issue a statement about the bait as Paulo Reis is eluding too?
It doesn’t make sense does it? There Gerry and Kate were, arguidos, frightened that they could be charged at any time and they allow their PR team to manipulate the headlines of the papers that are due to hit the news stands.
Gerry did NOT know what the DNA report stated. Surely he would have not gambled with such a high risk, would he? Of course not. No sane person would, especially if they had not seen the results of the DNA tests.
Mind you though, clever now in hindsight how that email was written, no party was ever named, just the insinuation that the bait had been cast and the journalists bit.
Sorry Paulo Reis but somehow I am not quite believing your reasons, of who instigated that information being released, behind that email.
Because we all remember this, taken from a posting on your Blog, back on 26th June 2007, you made and have subsequently deleted, luckily Steel Magnolia has a copy on their blog:
My opinion about Gerry and Kate McCann
“I don’t believe, as a journalist, that the McCanns are, in any way, related with the abduction of Madeleine. I’ve been following this case, not only in the Web – I was also at Praia da Luz, for one week (May 17 to May 23). For the last two months, I also have followed the news on the Net very carefully and closely.
So, based on all the information I collected, either during my stay in Praia da Luz or in the Net, as a journalist, I CAN’T SEE THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT GERRY AND KATE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH HER DAUGTHER DISAPEARENCE.
And I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE, WITH THE INFORMATION I HAVE, NOW, THAT THERE IS NOTHING THE MCCAN CAN BE ACCUSED OF, FROM A LEGAL OR CRIMINAL POINT OF VIEW. I may be wrong, but I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE CHANCE OF BEING WRONG IS VERY SMALL: 0,1 per cent, as I’m 99, 9 per cent sure of what I say.
As a human being, a common man, father of two boys (one, 22 years old, the other 11) let me tell you this: I was at an arm’s distance from the McCanns, when they gave a Press Conference at Praia da Luz. I looked into the eyes of Kate McCann and I saw so much pain and suffering that I had to take a deep breath to control myself, to avoid tears coming to my eyes and not let emotion overcome me! I was schocked to see so much pain in her eyes and in her look! That’s someting that only people that has kids can understand and feel! “
You have read the files, the inconclusive forensic report, the Martin Grime report where he states that only Keela’s markings can be corroborated by forensic analysis. And the files have backed up everything you said in that post, so one final question, “Why the change of opinion?”