David Bret posts a warning on his Blog – that he opinionated. He certainly is!
Also, in Discussion on the Amazon board, David Bret posted this:
I do not like this couple, quite simply for the way they have conducted themselves during this enquiry. I find them arrogant, rude, and totally unsympathetic to what has happened to their daughter. Any other couple persistently leaving their children unattended while off wining and dining with friends would have found themselves pilloried to the highest degree. This couple have not, so far as I am aware, expressed the slightest regret–or apology–for doing so. In filmed interviews, their body language (and studying body-language was an integral component of my previous profession) tells me something that I will not and dare not write here. What other couple would hire a public relations man and spokesman for an alleged £75,000 per year? And why would they wish to do this? Ben Needham’s mother didn’t–neither have the grieving parents of Claudia Lawrence. Do they have something to hide, that they may not speak directly to we mere mortals?http://www.davidbret.co.uk/blog/
This arrogance, in my opinion, peaked when the McCanns asked Prime Minister Cameron to review the case–they did so by way of a non-impartial tabloid newspaper, and, rather than having the good manners to thank him personally for his action, chose to do so via their spokesman. Yes, even the country’s leader is from the way I see things beneath these two.
I would also like to see published accounts of where the vast amounts of money raised for The Madeleine McCann fund have actually gone. I do know, if press reports are correct, that some of this has been used to pay the McCanns’ mortgage. I would also like to know exactly why they felt it necessary to have their own spokesman–well, I think I know why, but again I will not say here.
The $64,000 question will always be this, until this mystery is solved: did Kate Healy and Gerry McCann kill their little daughter?
I cannot and will not answer this, because I was not there. What I can do is draw attention to the two tracker dogs, alleged to be 100 % effective in previous police investigations. These dogs, the Portugues police say, sniffed out evidence that a corpse had been hidden in the McCanns’ apartment and car. The Portugues police also believed, back in 2007, that Maddie had died accidentally, and that while Kate Healy may have wanted to go to the police, her husband forced her to help him hide Maddie’s body. The Portuguese police also believe that the story of an abduction was made up, so that Maddie’s parents could cover their tracks. I’m not saying this is what happened–just what one source revealed to The Daily Telegraph. So if Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, wants to sue me for this, he will have to also sue the newspaper from which I copied it.
The McCanns have also allegedly hampered the police investigations here and in Portugal by steadfastly refusing to answer certain and many questions–questions which on the surface seem very pertinent. Why? And why have their statements and those of their witnesses–particularly Jane Tanner–been so very inconsistent. One could imagine this happening to questions asked four years after the event, but these “blips” occurred within days and sometimes even hours after the little girl disappeared. Nothing will alter the fact that three children–just two, if Maddie was already dead–were neglected by their parents–an act for which no action has been taken. Were this a couple from a council estate in Barnsley or Hackney, would not Social Services have been involved?
This is a sad, sad affair. I for one believe that Madeleine McCann is dead. I believe this solely on the evidence of those tracker dogs. How and when she died, I cannot say but only summise. Whatever happened, the culpability rests solely with their parents for leaving them unattended.
I have an uneasy gut feeling on how this will all end. It is a feeling shared by many many people throughout the world, who like myself believe that there is allegedly much more to this case than a missing child. Again I dare not repeat this here–but I do wish with all my heart that I will be proved wrong.
Also, in Discussion on the Amazon board, David Bret posted this:
“Several of my books have been serialised in the Express, along with articles I’ve written for them on commisson, therefore last week I submitted a piece regarding my letter to Cameron–nothing nasty or even controversial. I just wanted to know if it was morally and legally acceptable for the McCanns to be using money from the Maddie fund to pay for libel action they are allegedly taking. Number 10 responded favourably, but the sub-editor of the Express explained over the phone yesterday that no papers will print anything regarded as unfavourable regarding the McCanns, and that the couple’s “office” had complained that a picture of them laughing was unfavourable at it is a “misrepresentation” of how they feel, which was why they insisted it should be removed. As happened with Canada, the press have now been instructed NOT to publish any more pictures of them which do not portray them as looking sad, or on the verge of tears.http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2PJO4QDTC7GE7/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxWDHW83Y3DXTL&cdPage=1&asin=B004ZGLD74&store=digital-text&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx3E1A7K4GRLDUZ#wasThisHelpful
All of this will of course only go towards making matters much much worse for them if this case turns out as many of us suspect it will–we will see some of the most poisonous headlines in publishing history.”
