Saturday, 29 October 2016

Kate McCann's Freudian slip.

Whilst gathering some information for another post, and getting lost down a rabbit hole (no pun intended), I came across a quote that I just couldn't leave.

The following exchange took place at the trial McCann V Amaral, 8th July 2014:

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro - "Do you recall an  interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã on 24th July 2008 called Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold."

Kate Healy (McCann) - "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 24 days later]."

"Exaggerated", not lied, not fabricated, but "exaggerated".

An example of exaggeration is provided within Kate's reply, when she states Goncalo Amaral claimed Madeleine's body was "taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later"

Snr. Amaral actually said "twenty something days after"

In that instance, a foundation of fact is present (car we had rented), but the length of time (seven weeks later), is "exaggerated" by Kate.

Snr. Amaral's claim consists of two elements:

"...the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold"

"Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car"

Of those two elements, I wonder, which does Kate believe was the factual foundation, and which went on to "exaggerate" the fact?




2 comments:

  1. It's wonderful how the brain trips us up. Lying is very difficult. The lie cannot be stored as a memory so must be stored elsewhere - a construct.

    The post preceding this one has one of my all time favourite answers: Pike saying he knew the McCs were innocent because they told him so.

    It's quite amazing how few - if any - credible witnesses TM fielded, surely Alex Wolfson from Bell Pottinger might have put a word in? Or perhaps he wasn't keen. Or indeed asked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tigger, always a pleasure to see you here. I have to confess, it took me a while to read the court transcripts in their entirety. You're quite right of course, the witnesses the McCanns called, were, by and large, utterly useless; the McCanns themselves were no better. As happened with this trial, their sense of entitlement could ultimately be their undoing. We can but hope.

    ReplyDelete