All mouth no trousers

As they say.

Yes day in and day out we have seen them, all bravado on twitter begging for their chance to tell people what they think, if only people gave them a chance, instead of blocking them.

Yes they have invaded twitter, forums and blogs and condemned Carter-Ruck and the way they have helped the McCann family, but when push came to shove they bottled it.

Carter-Ruck started a blog and their first entry was about the Leveson Inquiry and the evidence that the McCanns gave (Link).

I tweeted the link yesterday on twitter and have sat back and watched to see who was brave enough to post a comment.

When I posted that tweet at 12.53 pm on the 30th November 2011 there was not a single comment.  By the way Isobel Hudson it is a brilliant blog piece.

Only three people have commented on this article one comment was posted at 1.21pm on the 30th November 2011 when Brit said:

How did these diaries find there way from the Portuguese police into the Portuguese media and later to the NOTW.

This should be investigated and made known.

Followed by two further comments one at 6.04 pm, 30th November 2011 when Jen said:

The trouble is that no matter how many times the press admit they lied and made up stories in order to increase revenue, those that swallowed the lies are refusing to budge. Either through ignorance or the need to hate someone, they refuse to give up their stalking and harassment. The media cannot undo that damage. Only by regulating the internet and applying harassment and stalking laws more rigorously can the damage be rectified.

And the other at 8.53pm on the 30th November 2011 when C4 said:

Brit, I don’t think you need two guess’s as to who this was.
Someone had a habit of leaving things on desks for journo’s to copy.

I have even put up a tweet this morning at 8.10 am to see if there would be any takers who would practise what they preached.

All those that have mouthed off about Carter-Ruck on twitter, forums and blogs about the McCanns must have seen the blog entry or at least my tweet as it is on the #McCann tag and #Leveson tag on twitter and other forums which I know for a fact they read.  Yet not one of them has had the balls to post a comment and make their opinion known on that comments section.

Not one of them has had the courage of their convictions despite all their bravado of saying ‘I would tell them’ along with ‘I am not scared of Carter Ruck’ etc etc etc.  Well it seems to me they are frightened of Carter Ruck, otherwise they would have voiced their opinions, wouldn’t you agree?

Funny how these people can troll the Official Find Madeleine Facebook page, spend countless hours on twitter, forums and blogs vilifying the family of a missing child, yet when given the golden opportunity of actually saying something direct to the engineer and not the the oil rag , they don’t.

Could it be that all the time they are on someone else’s platform spouting their venom they feel safe.  Again that is the sign of cowards if they haven’t got the courage of their convictions, wouldn’t you agree?

It rather does speak a lot about the anti-McCann tribe doesn’t it?  All mouth and no trousers as my mum would say or all tweet and no action in this case.

Just one more thing, I do have the courage of my convictions because I have also left a couple of Comments (Comment 1 and Comment 2) (which is awaiting moderation), saying:

Yes you got that correct C4, it really doesn’t take a lot of guessing, but the burning question is this.

A judge ordered the copies to be destroyed, yet it seems they were not as Kate’s diary appeared in CdeM on the 28th July 2008.

The McCann family under oath, told the world things that many of us have not heard before of how bad their lives were with press intrusion. And how scared their children were at times.


Jen that is the danger, those lies and made up headlines are still to this day being peddled as fact and people are still believing them. Even e-books are being produced all based on made up headlines and a thesis that has no grounds and still these people refuse to retract what they have written and apologise ,when the proof is shown that their research is flawed.

Nobody wants to see such stringent regulation of the internet but I think maybe it has come to a point that it might be required.

The internet is a powerful tool, but unfortunately in this case, it has been used and abused by some in order to abuse and accuse others.

Of course I am awaiting the counter argument that they did leave a comment but Carter-Ruck refused to publish it, but I won’t be believing that for one second without proof. Which can easily be achieved by providing screeenshots, like I have above.


34 comments on “All mouth no trousers

  1. Hi  Bren

    Just realised something.  Google: Kate McCann diário. There are all kinds of references to Portuguese newspapers having published extracts on or around 13 September 2007.

    Here’s just one example: 

    13/09/2007 14h06 – Atualizado em 13/09/2007 14h06

    Jornal publica diário da mãe 


    • So they were printing them even before the News of the World took to the stand.  So did the News of the World contact these journalists to ask for the low down on what they were printing?

      I still can’t get over the fact that a Judge ordered that copies of the diaries must be destroyed and yet they still found their way to the Press.  Now unless the PT press were going through the bins in Portimao, how the hell did they get copies?

  2. Well, hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, a huge amount of  references appear on google (mainly dated 13 Sept. 2007) referring to Portuguese press leaks about the diary. These leaks may have been published the day before, depending on when the rest of the press started reporting on them.

    And mid-September was, of course, just a few days after the McCanns had left Portugal. With everything that was going on, I’m not sure they even realised.

    The official file copies (in whichever language) may indeed have been destroyed. However, it would seem that copies had somehow been accidentally mislaid and accidentally recuperated at least 10 months before the destruction order…

  3. Yes Carana, snippets of info of what was in those diaries were reaching journalists well before the destruction order.  Talk about secrecy, it seems to me that the only people who were bound by the judicial secrecy were the McCanns and their friends.

    And I love the way they keep on about how Gerry did not help Kate and she was finding it hard.  Having three children under the age of 3, running around, trying to run a home, go to work is flaming hard-work.

    And how many of us have had days where the kids have driven us mad and the old man walks in, sits down and says, “What’s for dinner?”

    Dinner, you have been lucky all day to have a coffee without it going cold and he speaks of dinner…. grrr

    And there are a lot of women that say men don’t help around the house, doesn’t mean to say they have pigs of husbands, just they don’t get much help.

    • I realise what the “hysterical” thing was about. An entry about a two-year-old having a half-hour late-night crying episode. Who hasn’t known that kind of situation?

      From there it got morphed in the press. Again.

  4. I’m off on a thought:

    Are the dates of the diary releases significant?

    – Sept 2007 – well, obviously high media interest at that time
    – July 2008 – a certain book to promote?
    – Sept 2008 – supportive extracts due to case shelving?

    Dum, dum, dee dee, dum, dum.

  5. I guess they are big and brave when they can hide behind their computers and spew vitriol at the Mccann’s, but, loose the courage of their convictions when they have to face down CR. By the way I did see a couple of Fb posts today where they are saying beware of posting on the CR blog because it is a trick to get their addresses… huh?

    Oh and also it is a Mccann conspiracy… I swear if the mccanns had the power these idiots think they have, surely they would have found Madeleine by now?

    Oh and David Bret was taking the bow for having complained and gotten the blog removed…. until someone pointed out that it was still there…. ha ha

  6. Ha ha ha, that is funny don’t they realise that Carter Ruck’s logs will already have their IP’s listed as visitors.

  7. Interesting bit here. The initial diary leak indeed apparently appeared on 13 September 2007 in the DN, given by an “impeccable inside source”, according to David Rose’s report. I can’t imagine what that week must have been like.- The stress and worry of the interrogations, not knowing what on earth the PJ was up to- Facing the idea of going home without Madeleine, the horrendous trip, the press pack parked outside and all the rest of itAnd add the press:- Kate’s dad’s innocent comment being wildly misconstrued- And highly negative insinuations regarding the contents of her diary. Lies, beatings, secret trials: the dark side of police handling Madeleine caseBy DAVID ROSELast updated at 18:57 16 September 2007

    The claims about the diary’s contents were first published on Thursday by Jose Manuel Ribeiro, crime correspondent for the Lisbon daily Diario de Noticias.

    By chance I ran into him that same afternoon, outside the apartment where Madeleine disappeared.
    I congratulated him on his scoop, but he shook his head, disconsolate. Already, he complained, it was turning to dust.

    Ribeiro said he had been given the story by an impeccable inside source, but already officials in Lisbon were denying it, and the source himself could no longer assure him it was true.

    “Why is bad information getting out to the public?” he asked. “Because we’re being given it.”

    Somehow, however, the denials that had made Ribeiro so angry did not get through to the foreigners.

    If the questionable leak had been planted for a purpose ? to increase the pressure on the hapless McCanns ? it may well have succeeded.

    And, in the foreign public’s mind, the germinating notion that Kate might have killed her daughter because she could not handle her had been nurtured by a further dollop of manure.


  8. And don’t forget the false 100% DNA rubbish that did the rounds a few days earlier. 

    I know poor old Brunty’s been slagged for that one, but I expect he received the info via an earpiece during his live report. From memory, the BBC also reported the same thing (taken down pretty quickly). 

    Unfortunately, I expect it’s beyond the scope of the Leveson inquiry to find out where that “info” came from as it was presumably one of those inevitable glitches that can – and do – occur in live reporting. (I’ve actually heard far worse.)

    “A similar, apparently sanctioned but inaccurate leak had already gone around the world to still more devastating effect.

    Early on Monday evening, TV channels began to report that British forensic scientists had made a “100 per cent” DNA match to Madeleine from “biological material” ? said to be hair and “bodily fluids” ? recovered from the Renault Scenic that the McCanns did not hire until 25 days after she vanished, suggesting that they had hidden her body on May 3 and moved it weeks after her death.

    With no time for reporters to make checks before their deadlines, the story spread like foot and mouth to almost every British front page the next morning.

    It was only in the ensuing days that it began, spectacularly, to unravel.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482007/Lies-beatings-secret-trials-dark-police-handling-Madeleine-case.html#ixzz1fTDXF65e

  9. Yes wasn’t it Steve Kingston on BBC News 24 who reported outside the Police Station about Madeleine suffering from a broken neck and there were cerebral fluids or something…. which was quickly pulled.

    Now where were these leaks coming from?  
    And of course the conspiracy theorists then said it must be true because it was pulled.  Didn’t they consider it was pulled because it was in fact inaccurate?

    • I never actually saw the BBC report: I just remember people arguing whether it was Steve K or someone else who’d reported it. By the time I’d seen the argument and went to check it had been taken offline.

      • I remember hearing it on BBC News 24 which was on in the background as I was doing something…he was outside the Police Station, if I remember rightly it was 7th September 2007

    • Who are “they”, Bren?

      It was obviously pulled because it was not accurate. 

      However, you will never convince a handful of people that it wasn’t taken offline because it was ordered by the highest authorities to cover up secret cloning by extraterrestrial beings, or more mundanely, some sort of diplomatic exchange process. 

      • The most dangerous part of all this, where they keep rehashing inaccurate information, is that because the McCanns have now appeared at the Leveson Inquiry people might actually start looking for information and then they stumble across all this spin, myths and lies and twisted facts, being spouted by Brown, Bennett and co and stupidly believe it.

  10. Oh it seems one of them has the courage of their convictions, Jill does.  But again she fails to understand the chain of events.  I will copy BB1’s chain of events as she has summed it up nicely.

    Siezed without authority by PJ > returned after a couple of days > copies ordered destroyed > copies illicitly sold/passed to CdM > passed to NOTW by ‘Portuguese reporter’.

  11. Oh not forgetting that CdeM is in Portuguese so the original dairies would have been translated from English to Portuguese and then back again.

    • Hmmm.

      Jill’s question seems to be an expansion of PB’s question.

      Fair enough question. Except, who says NoW received it directly from the PJ?

      – NoW’s extracts appeared a YEAR after the first leaks in the PT press.

      – Was the original simply photocopied, then scanned, or immediately scanned? I’m wondering as Kate’s handwriting might have been a bit difficult to decipher and a subsequently scanned photocopy would have made it even more difficult.

      Even details such as the colour of paper or ink, ruled paper or not,  could influence whether certain words were legible or not. 

      Kate could well be right that what was published in NoW originated from a re-translation. The other possibility is that certain words appeared blurred and it was just guesswork as to what the indecipherable words may have been in the overall context.


      • Well according to McCannfiles it states:

        On 14 September 2008, the News of the World published extracts from ‘Kate’s Diary’. The newspaper claimed that the 135-page ‘journal’, written on an A4 pad, had been passed to them by a Portuguese reporter.

        In their article the News of the World stated:

        Now, for the first time, the News of the World can fill in the blanks and nail those lies. The 135-page journal covering April 28, 2007 to Tuesday, July 31, was passed to us by a reporter in Portugal appalled by the sickening smear campaign against the McCanns.

      • LOL Interesting that a “sickened” PT reporter took a year to think about it…. 

      • Personally Carana, it would not surprise me if snippets were told to journalists over a beer and they went to print on that and it was a good few months later before the actual transcripts landed in a journos hands.

        Not accusing but what does it take to go to a photocopier and copy something and take it home to read or use at a later date?

      • Will reply below. Getting too small here 😉

  12. Just reread the “under oath” bit of Jill’s comment.

    What’s the insinuation? That Kate was lying under oath?

    Come on, she was simply stating her personal conclusion – she doesn’t state it as a proven fact, does she? 

    • Nope she doesn’t this is what she said at the Leveson Inquiry:

      MRS McCANN:  You’re right, this was totally out of the blue.
      5    It was Sunday lunchtime, we’d just got back from church
      6    and I got the text message from Gail, who works in the
      7    nursery where Madeleine, Sean and Amelie went, and it
      8    just said, “Saw your diary in the newspapers.
      9    Heartbreaking.  I hope you’re all right.” And it was
      10    totally out of the blue, and I had that horrible panicky
      11    feeling, confusion and, you know, what’s she on about?
      12    I didn’t have a clue.  We rapidly found out, it was the
      13    News of the World.  I went and looked at it online,
      14    which was five pages, including the front page.  I got
      15    my original handwritten copy of my diary out and sat
      16    there, and it was lifted in its entirety and put in the
      17    newspaper without my knowledge.  Apart from the odd
      18    word, which was — I think it was a translational error,
      19    that had obviously been taken — translated into
      20    Portuguese, and then a Portuguese copy had then been
      21    translated back to English, which was slightly different
      22    from the original, but pretty verbatim and it had been
      23    put there.

  13. Off topic… but the title reminded me of something. 

    Was any female PJ officer part of the investigation into either the Joana or Madeleine cases? If not, why not? If so, who were they? If not, did their assumptions of the “normal” behaviour of distraught mothers come from their own “masculine” assumptions? Could a female perspective have added something?

  14. I’d normally agree about the idea that snippets could have been exchanged over a beer in a pub – but this seems to have been quite different. 

    I have to admit that I hadn’t tried to place myself in Kate’s position when the NoW diary bits were published. At the time, I actually thought she’d authorised it to counteract the nasty insinuations published elsewhere. I was wrong, obviously. And I do now understand how upsetting it must have been to have any private thoughts published for the world to see. 

    If NoW had the diary as of Sept 2007 (and bearing mind they’d helped to finance a reward at some point), WHY did they not publish those extracts back in 2007? Did they not have them? Did they think the tide was turning and chose not to? WHY wait a whole year?

  15. Shout-back to BB1 LOL

    I was trying, no doubt unsuccesfully, to be rhetorical 😉

    Seriously, the first “nasty” obvious leaks appeared in the press on 13 Sept. 2007 (I posted on this earlier today or yesterday). I’ll have to check if there were allusions prior to that. 

  16. I could be very wrong here, but the misinterpretation of the Calpol issue plus the exaggerated diary allegations all within a few days back in Sept 2007 make me think that certain quarters were trying to give the impression of some kind of sophisticated pincer operation via the media. Most odd.

    The CdeM leaks came later. By total coincidence, just in time for the promo of a certain book. 

    • Oh yes the Calpol issue, again The Sun, this time, that added a bit from the interview that Sky News did with Kate’s dad.  And the PJ picked up on that, hence the request to interview Brian Healy to clarify.

      You only have to listen to that interview to see that the Sun embellished it.

      And the article has now been removed from online. But I found a picture of the article online

    • Yep. I wasn’t about to repeat everything we’d discovered all over again. But links back to facts are helpful. 🙂

  17. Ahh. I can see why some people assume that the NoW obtained the “info” directly from the PJ in Sept 2008.


    Did  the NoW get the extracts directly from the PJ in Sept 2008? 

    What was the, albeit unofficial, chain of custody of this diary (bearing in mind selected leaks a year previously)?

    “MR SHERBORNE: Sir, I understand that. It’s not just the byline, if I may say, with respect, because that’s the person who wrote the story. There is also the question, which I’m sure the McCanns would like to be dealt with, if possible, which is who obtained and in what circumstances they obtained the diary from the Portuguese police.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: