Phone Hacking... If I may highlight a point.... Isn't MADELEINE the VICTIM?

Source: Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html

"

McCanns and JK Rowling among host of names to give evidence at phone hacking inquiry

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 12:08 AM on 15th September 2011

• Comments (3)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

The judge leading the inquiry into phone-hacking and the press yesterday named 46 individuals who will be invited to take centre stage.

They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann and murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

The list also includes Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, former motor racing boss Max Mosley, former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, jockey Kieran Fallon, and Paul and Sheryl Gascoigne.

Looking for answers: Kate and Gerry McCann will be part of the group of alleged phone hacking victims represented by a barrister in the first stage of the inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson awarded them ‘core representative’ status, which means they can have a lawyer to speak for them at the tribunal hearings.
However, the judge said yesterday that he will press them to share just one lawyer between them and that he will name a single barrister to speak for them if they cannot agree.

More...

• James Murdoch to face fresh grilling by MPs following new evidence from News International executives
• George Osborne 'owed' Andy Coulson after NotW editor 'downplayed' sex and drugs scandal coverage, claims lawyer acting for escort girl
• Criminals must fear the police again, vows new Met chief as he scoops £276,000 post

Lord Justice Leveson also indicated that he would be reluctant to allow lawyers for the 46 – who say they are victims of hacking or press malpractice – to cross-examine other witnesses.
The judge said News International should be a ‘core participant’ at the inquiry because one of its titles had been at the centre of the phone hacking scandal and it had a ‘significant interest’ in the outcome.
Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, have also been given the right to play a full part, alongside Northern and Shell, publishers of the Daily Express and the Daily Star, and Guardian News and Media.

J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and actor Hugh Grant are also in the group of alleged hacking victims

Left out: Former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, pictured in July with Rupert Murdoch, will not be giving evidence at the inquiry

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html#ixzz1YdIXVucd "


DAILY MAIL (ONLINE), my thoughts for your attention:

"They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann "  Well is the British press now allowed to judge on an ongoing investigation??! The answer is NO. The truth is that once again, any article from the Daily Mail relating to the MCCANN CASE is deliberately BIASED and PREJUDICED.

I for one would be VERY curious as to what the hacking reveals and wonder why this wasn't officially done by the POLICE in the first place. People who lie and cash on their daughter's "disappearance", "missing" state need to be monitored, this has already been done for people involved in other cases so why weren't these investigated on with the same means as other SUSPECTS?

Yes I know, they are EX- MAIN SUSPECTS now BUT, sorry, HEY! This is an ONGOING investigation, when the public asks questions to the police with a Freedom Of Information act this is the answer we get, so what gives any "right" to the Daily Mail / MAIL ONLINE to state that the McCanns are the "VICTIMS" of a crime?

Was HUNTLEY the VICTIM of his crimes you think? What did you print when his investigation was ongoing, you "professional" journalists? And if he was hacked, taped by the police, would anyone had gone crazy about it?

So DAILY MAIL, will you EVER stop trying to INFLUENCE, CONDITION your readers? Why do you do this, because people like me did protest in 2007 claiming you did NOT have any right to print that "Maddy was abducted", so is it in frustration, or greed, or WHAT, that you're still trying what you ever can to push THEIR side of the "story"?! I wish someone would sue you and take your LICENCE OFF for this sentence. And that you explain to me WHY you state that THEY are VICTIMS of a crime, when you don't even know whether they were not actively involved in it! It's MADELEINE who is THE VICTIM, not them who left her ALONE at THREE YEARS OLD, HOME ALONE "because ot was safe". What is this? The Maddy Circus at Comedy Central??!!! It was SO SAFE that she hasn't been seen since the 3rd May 2007 - or perhaps even before - depending even if her identity is correct...... According to THEIR story - which you don't doubt for a second I could believe- it was 'perfectly safe to leave three children under four years old alone in a holiday flat abroad' 'while we dined and drank not far away'... Give your heads a hard SHAKE, the lot of you. The money is flowing, but not the truth, get as much compensation as you can for tomorrow you will still get up wondering if the Maddy Circus at Comedy Central is the right thing to carry on milking on.

Why should I believe YOU and the MCCANNS? Why don't you produce a new article to recapitulate what has been highly inconsistent in the "story"? This would bring you more income, and wouldn't be seen as a comedy number, comedy which people get tired of, BORED with. Mind you, with such dull slush, is it really surprising?
-And Oh, do you know why I don't believe the McCanns? Because they LIED in the first place.

How did they lie?

1. They called their family and friends to claim that the shutters and the window had been DAMAGED. It WASN'T.
2. They said that once the shutters are down and LOCKED as they had set them, anyone could lift them up from the outside (Gerry even boasting he tried them himself on that 3rd May night, despite his 'state of nerves / grief '...). This is a SHEER LIE. No one can normally lift this sort of shutters up from the outside as the locking security system perfectly works.
3. Gerry claimed he came in using his key which means using the MAIN door but a while after, he said he entered via the PATIO, through the French windows. What is the truth, Gerry?
4. Kate Healy -his wife- claimed she discovered that her daughter was missing at around 10 pm, whereas on 2 occasions - occasions that are separated in time by FOUR YEARS!- she slipped up to reveal that the time of the EVENT was in fact 9 pm! (see previous blog posts, one being about the Late Late Show, RTE, Ireland).

But don't ask me WHY they lied... Or why YOU don't want to write articles in a neutral and interesting manner... Doesn't the TRUTH interest you?

Is the BOOK the SCRIPT of a "STORY"?

Chapter Seven

As we can see hereunder the same script was used both for tv-speech scenes and the book "madeleine" -Yes I repeat there is NO capital M to its title, made of Madeleine Beth McCann's Name. I find this chapter, "AFTERMATH", particularly disturbing. At some point Kate Healy or McCann describes when herself and her husband were stepping out of the church on Portuguese Mothers Day 6th May 2007. It is included as a normal part of the book, but is in fact a recited piece of speech by Kate at the time - in front of the tv cameras. Isn't it quite a little curious how Kate would have kept her mini-speeches notes? Why would she have kept this? Surely she would remember thanking the People without having to keep the precise note, so why would she keep such token, which surely only reminds her of horrid memories?

 If she kept the note (as opposite as having it it beforehand), with which intention: to write a BOOK? (if the case, wow! she knew so long in advance that Maddy would NOT be found for YEARS! -of which we have many other instances in the PLANNING of events!)
-Or, could she be reading from a PRE-WRITTEN SCENARIO SCRIPT? She has actually read and -perhaps- kept many other notes, that she also includes in the book. I wonder who wrote these scripts.

- and if I am putting my finger onto an element of truth, I might as well broaden my speculation and wonder when exactly the whole scenario of this story could be written: before 2007?

I find all this as it is happening too surreal. Since I have started reading the book I have found it mind-boggling. For example in the SECOND chapter called MADELEINE (the first is called GERRY...), for the finally positive pregnancy with Madeleine, Kate explains that TWO embryos were implanted into her womb via IVF treatment. But there is no further mention at all as to what happened to the other embryo since that the only Embryo who is talked about, became Madeleine.

-Yet on much photographic material Madeleine seems to have a twin. Clarence Mitchell also mentioned the "other twins", slipping up.

Chapter Two Extracts:

"This time the cycle didn’t go quite as smoothly. Once again I responded well to the drugs – maybe a little too well, because my ovaries became over-stimulated. I’d swear they were the size of melons. At any rate, I was very uncomfortable. It was agreed with the team that we would go for a day-three embryo transfer. On day two, however, we received an urgent call from the embryologist, who told us the embryos weren’t looking as good as before. He recommended that I come into the hospital for the transfer immediately. Suddenly, we both felt very despondent. If a ‘perfect’ cycle hadn’t worked, what were the chances of this one being successful? Two embryos were placed inside my uterus but this time we did not allow ourselves to get even slightly excited and the cotton-wool coddling went out of the window. I arrived home from the hospital and headed straight into the garden to do some planting. If this was going to work, it would, I told myself. But I wasn’t holding my breath."

[...]

"The next morning at the hospital the positive pregnancy test was confirmed. Everyone was ecstatic but no one, of course, more so than Gerry and me. Inevitably there were more tears, but this time they were happy tears. I felt like a different woman: taller, buoyant, instantly radiant. I could not stop smiling. I thanked God every hour. We didn’t tell anyone, family or friends, for a couple of weeks – we were too concerned about tempting fate and somehow, at that early stage, it just didn’t feel real. For days on end I would repeat to myself, ‘I have a positive pregnancy test, I have a positive pregnancy test,’ rather than acknowledging, ‘I’m pregnant.’ It wasn’t until I had an ultrasound scan at six weeks and we saw a little beating heart that I allowed myself to believe it.
And that was the first time we saw our little Madeleine. Even then she was beautiful."

At the same time as I was reading the book I was re-visualising Kate, Gerry, their friends and all, remembering how I had, at the time, the feeling that they were actors. They were reading their appeals from notes. Their emotions seemed misplaced, somehow. Changes of expressions and attitudes were puzzling me, like Gerry laughing on his patio a few days after the "abduction", or Kate giggling rolling her shoulders, filmed by a male friend, explaining "the tiny window of opportunity" that the 'raptor' had used to steal her daughter.

Kate often mentions the need for violent outbursts, taking her anger out on objects or verbally onto people. Her choice of words and topics are highly explicit and I hide the book away from my Children. She often says, things had to come out. Has she written this book to exorcise herself onto her readers? Comes to mind: the Disturbed that wants to disturb. Or is she playing the part that is written on the script again when she presents the book on mediatic shows?

This whole case reminds me of a macabre machination, a play that is well orchestrated with different episodes a bit like some tv series nowadays, all at once while much script is getting written, followed by months without any show because a new script is being prepared for the episodes to come, and the actors  and the directors are having a posh holiday. A good analogy would be The Matrix. (Or is it The Omen?) It's all about media and production. -And of course, MONEY. Like a scenario project that needed, to be born and valid, a good selection of staff... but that appears distrastrous.

Gerry was talking outside his holiday flat just while his kid was getting snatched apparently, to his friend Jeremy Wilkins who is a TV director. An article was published at one minute past midnight on that night... A Media Monitoring Unit magna came to help... And Alex...

This is the short extract that has suddenly made me realise that the book is just like a script- it is not the only extract that gets me to think this:

"Everybody prayed for Madeleine. [...]At the end of the Mass,

every mother and child came to the front of the church to hug and kiss us. ‘She will be back,’ they told us. Three words were whispered to us over and over again

and have remained with us to this day: esperança, força, coragem. [...] Alex was keen for us to leave the church by the side door, where we could be escorted out quickly, past the media and the gathering crowd, [...]but on that

occasion, I think we were probably right to walk out of the main door along with everybody else. At that moment I suddenly felt I wanted to speak to everyone, to

thank them for what they had done for us, and as we approached the few steps leading down into the street, that’s exactly what I did. It’s all a bit hazy now – it was

then, for that matter. I know I was crying. The fact that I said anything at all, especially given my antipathy to speaking in public, is a measure of how important it

felt to me to do so, and every word came from the heart.

Gerry and I would just like to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to everybody but particularly the local community here who have offered so much support. We couldn’t have asked for more. I just want to say thank you.
Please continue to pray for Madeleine. She’s lovely. "

Haven't we clearly heard this somewhere before? Watch the first listed video.
-And, when did Kate get the time to learn to say something like Please give us our daughter back and these other Portuguese words she mentions in this book extract?




They now say that the coloboma is a mere fleck in Maddy's right iris, it was different then:

 o0