Dicky Bollocks starts off with his usual rant about the Mainstream Media. He then witters on about the previous films. You can pretty much hear the flecks of spittle hitting the microphone.
For some unaccountable reason he revisits the ''Polish tourist'' craporama. He describes him as being "strangely dressed''
Strangely dressed? What like?
A ballgown and elbow-length gloves?
Half a pantomime horse?
A gimp suit and mask?
He was wearing trousers and a jacket. I suppose the addition of a jacket must seem strange to a Geordie, but other than that..........
|Every girl crazy 'bout a strangely-dressed man........|
We are then treated to a long diatribe about the timings on the evening of 3rd May. This is delivered as a series of numbered bullet points, and is so clearly written by the Malodorous Tramp, in that sneering, "I put it to you that you are lying" cobblers way that he has. He has probably cried many angry, bitter tears that he can't go on the telly and read them himself, but Carter Ruck would take his remaining testicle.
As usual it is full of what can really only be deliberate untruths - for example, he states that according to Kate, when she got up to make her check, Matthew Oldfield said to her
''I'll check on Maddie for you"
This is actually presented as a verbatim quote in the film. He then witters on a bit longer, making the point that there were three children in the apartment, so why would he only check on one?
There is just one problem. Kate McCann never said this. Those words were not used in any of her statements.
I suspect Baldy - because be in no doubt, Dicky is merely reading out Baldy's words - has taken those words from a newspaper report or TV interview, but it most certainly IS NOT what she said in her statement.
He then makes a big deal about how far the door was or wasn't open, and again switches to quotes from unnamed 3rd parties about Gerry's thoughts about an abductor being present.
He then ''quotes'' Gerry as saying he spent
''an exceptionally long time in the toilet"
Dicky also says that in another statement - he does not specify which - Gerry claimed he visited all four rooms in the apartment when he did his check. This too differs from what Gerry actually said.
Why am I mentioning this? Am I just nitpicking?
Well, believe me, this is just the start. These really amount to little more than minor discrepancies but the point to take on board it that, presumably for the purpose of adding colour, or drama, he has embellished the account, attributing words that were never used and doing so in order to cast doubt and aspersions - like claiming that 'Matt only offered to check on Madeleine and not the other children, and wasn't that weird?'
Because of course that never happened, nor has anyone used the words he claims.
This is a recurring theme. If one is going to analyse something dispassionately, there is no room for invented quotes, 3rd party accounts or second hand versions. He however uses them in conjunction with a sneering tone and an air of disbelief. There is only one reason for this. It's to present a dishonest impression of what took place. He ignores the content of their statements in favour of 3rd party accounts in newspapers, and crucially accords those 3rd party accounts as much, if not more, weight.
I'm going to finish this post by making two observations
There are two fundamental problems with this entire film
Firstly, any investigation should develop a theory from the evidence and not the other way round. If one starts with the theory then the tendency is to over-amplify evidence which supports it and ignore or disparage that which does not support it. In this film, the theory is everything. He even goes to the point of inventing evidence which doesn't exist, such as the imaginary quotes above, to bolster a weak position. Later we will see how he attempts to discredit information which supports a different conclusion to the one he wants you to believe, which is the other fundamental issue with the film.
For now I am going to leave you with an hilarious bit where he describes Gerry's account of what he did on his check as a ''Self-serving statement''
It isn't. It is an uncorroborated account as no-one else witnessed it, but an uncorroborated account and a self-serving statement are two entirely different things
If he had said "I am a respectable person, a doctor, in good standing in the community, and I would never do anything like that'' then THAT would be a self-serving statement. Specifically, a self-serving statement is one which offers no evidence and serves no purpose other than to seek to argue or reinforce the legal position of the person making it. Gerry's statement whether true or not is offered as a statement of fact and as an account of events - ie, it is evidence which relates to the case.
Presumably, Kavanagh QC must have told Dicky this, which goes some way to explaining why he is no longer a solicitor.
That's just a few of the plump, shiny porkie scratchings sprinkled on top of the first instalment. We're only about 15 minutes in, and believe me I have skipped over quite a bit. Hopefully, you get the idea - he uses pejorative language wherever possible and makes claims which cannot be supported unless you count a version of events as reported in the Plymouth Gazette (free every Thursday, turn to page 7 for our regular feature - "Hello Sailor"; the wartime memories of a local slapper)
Next time, we'll get onto some of the really ridiculous cobblers; this is just the warm up.......