Madeleine McCann: Gerry On The Telly And It Could Be U
“MADELEINE: It’s not too late says mum.”
The front page of the Express contains a “Dramatic Plea”.
But it’s not dramatic so much as it is desperate. “It’s not too late, please give her back,” says Kate McCann.
As ever the Express tells readers that Mrs McCann is a GP. Gerry McCann, we learn is a “consultant cardiologist”.
Says she: “Every day is hard. Every day is very difficult… The important thing is getting Madeleine back and we hope that what we are doing increases the chance of that.”
What’s The Story?
Indeed, that is the important thing. It is the only thing. But the press want more.
Says Gerry McCann: “We have a mix of very positive days, when we have done big things and achieved things or big events with the campaign, but we are aware these things are secondary.”
He’s right. Of course he is. But the press have been pointing fingers at the police, gawping at “creepy” men, listening to anyone with a paedophile story, looking for bodies and signs. They have not been on the trail of Madeleine. They follow the McCanns around, first Spain, then Germany, then the UK, the Vatican and Morocco. They are watching the parents. The parents are the story. And we are invited to look on like voyeurs.
We can wear braclets. Find Madeleine is this year’s Make Poverty History campaign.
Infotainment
The Sun says Gerry McCann is to appear at the Edinburgh TV Festival. No, not because he’s given us hours of great telly. Although he is taking the slot once occupied by Simon Cowell and Michael Barrymore. Gerry will be “quizzed” by Newsnight presenter Kirsty Walk on the media campaign to find Madeleine McCann.
Peter Barron, organiser of the event, rated the Find Madeleine campaign a “new and moving phenomenon”. What was that about good telly?
But it’s scaring the children. The Star says an appeal to find Madeleine is being screened before cinema showings of U-rated Shrek The Third.
Children with faces full of popcorn and crisps hear that Madeleine was “snatched” from her bed. “Madeleine’s parents are devastated, but they haven’t given up hope.”
A mum says it’s “unfair” to show this to children. “It makes them fear that they too could be abducted.”
It spreads the fear. It creates anxiety. And it shows no sign whatsoever of finding Madeleine nor the person or persons who might have taken her…
Posted: 4th, July 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (669) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on Climate Gate: Politicians Investigate CRU’s Emails And The BBC Sat On The Story
- lone pigeon on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
July 9th, 2007 at 4:07 am
correction: ‘ As the Americans say: ‘ You can NOT make an omelette without breaking eggs’.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:04 am
.
.
Denise says: [quote] Get the true facts and most people would not be putting the parents down,
we all make mistakes, aren’t we only humans? not perfect robots!!![end quote]
This is a very Frankist response.
It’s upside-down thinking.
Asking valid and highly pertinent questions is *NOT* ‘putting the parents down’.
Asking valid and pertinent questions is intelligent.
It is also greatly warranted.
The parents were extremely willing to place themselves and their missing child — AND the alleged circumstances surrounding that alleged ‘disappearance’ before the cameras and in the public eye.
This has been amply demonstrated by the parents.
They have behaved in the manner of international celebrities and have shown no reluctance to participate in a media-circus: continual media exposure; publicised meetings with the Pope; website in which even the parents’ meals and outfits have been described BY the parents, etc.
The parents claim such is motivated by their hope members of the public will remain observant and vigilant regarding Maddy and that such will result in Maddy’s rescue.
We can hope this campaign will be successful.
However, those who utilize the mass media as a tool and place themselves constantly in the public eye CANNOT legitimately complain IF and WHEN that bombarded public demonstrates interests in the principles and their story.
What constitutes ‘interest’ ? Keeping in mind that the McCann’s deliberately instigated interest revolves around the *circumstances* surrounding the alleged disappearance of their tiny daughter.
The McCann’s deliberately stoked ‘interest’ in the disappearance.
The alleged disappearance contains mysterious elements. Almost exclusively ‘mysterious’ elements.
At no time have the McCann’s or their army of personal and professional assistants — OR the police in either UK or Portugal — offered up any non-mysterious elements.
The McCann’s have not claimed it was common for Maddy to vanish for two or three months, after which she’d return.
They have not claimed Maddy had indicated she intended to leave home shortly prior to the alleged disappearance.
They have not claimed Maddy had already informed them she intended to return to UK on her own.
No. The circumstances were and remain inexplicable and mysterious.
And the public, world-wide, has been actively encouraged *BY* the McCanns, to become involved.
In short, the McCann’s have publicly sought involvement of the public in an affair that remains mysterious and was so from the outset.
So ….. the public has been invited by the McCann’s to participate in the equivalent of a real-life Agatha Christie mystery.
Yet in forums and message-boards, we see nonentities who presume to CONTRADICT the clear wishes and intentions of the McCanns !
These nonentities for some reason take it upon themselves to ABUSE the public when that public complies with the clear wishes of the McCann’s and discusses the mysterious elements of the case in the desire to solve it or at least solve some of it.
Perhaps it’s the nonentities way of gaining ‘attention’ ? Perhaps they hope that by swimming against the tide and playing the role (unasked, incidentally) of misguided ‘McCann supporters’ — then in this way they’ll gain for themselves in a virtual world the attention, power and control they obviously lack in real life ?
As the Americans so aptly say: ‘ You can make an omelette without breaking eggs’.
It’s entirely appropriate in the alleged Missing-Maddy case.
Questions NEED to be asked. And asked AGAIN and again.
Too much about the claimed circumstances MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL !
Those who leave three sleeping tiny children in an unlocked apartment for hours at a stretch in a foreign country and who allegedly chose NOT to avail themselves of child-minding and/or intercom facilities *cannot* legitimately complain when the public they have themselves INVOLVED in the case seek to make sense of the alleged abduction.
Are the McCann’s complaining about the public’s involvement and interest ??????
WHERE have either Mr or Ms McCann publicly complained ? Show me the evidence.
No. The McCann’s are not complaining.
In fact, they continue to actively SEEK public participation.
So maybe those who interrupt legitimate discussion of this case with their complaints need to seek psychiatric help and NEED to cease attempting to play the totally assumed role of ‘McCann discussion supervisors’ and self-assumed roles of ‘McCann Case Thought and Speech Police’.
No ‘maybes’ about it. These self-assumed discussion-police need to walk away and get on with their housework and cleaning their toe-nails and paying their bills.
And let those with functioning minds get on with analysing just how Maddy came to be ‘missing’, in order, hopefully, that Maddy may still be rescued.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Sally says: [quote] Yes you are right - it would be - ” You ! Call the police ! You ! Go look down there ! You ! Go look up there ! You ! Go look upstairs ! You ! Go look downstairs ! You ! Search the apartment ! You ! Search the street ! You ! Get off that toilet right now and look down it ! You - fat lady ! Let me check under your clothes ! “
Because people listen to you when you start giving out orders and telling them what to do when they`re on holiday enjoying themselves - don`t they…? [end quote]
YOU are correct, Sally.
Yes, people *DO* listen when commanded by the voice of urgency.
From your post, it’s clear you’ve either been present at such a situation
or have taken command in similar circumstances
or have possibly had training in how to galvanize others
Doctors behave in precisely this way at the scene of an emergency.
They do it because they’re trained to.
So do police
And firemen
And ambulance
And military
Etc.
They bark out precise and specific instructions . They do it to break through the gawp-and-blink fog that people retreat into when faced with calamity, disaster, shock, inadequacy, the unfamiliar, fear, etc.
When issued precise instructions — yes, people snap out of it and get on with it.
And parents confronted by the disappearance of their child — at night — in unfamiliar surroundings ………. they assume control.
*ESPECIALLY* if they are trained medicos.
Barking out instructions comes naturally to them.
In such circumstances, doctors are in their element.
As to ‘people on holiday’ — people are people wherever they are.
People are naturally curious. They are drawn to others’ disasters. People are voyeurs quite often. Many people however are ‘natural helpers’.
Most commonly, people are relieved to be issued instructions in an emergency: it ‘gives them something to do’.
And yes, if either of the parents (or their friends, also doctors, also used to issuing commands) had been genuinely interested in the child’s welfare ABOVE ALL ………… then instructing people in precisely the way you described is what they would have done.
And ‘contact the police’ would have been uppermost amongst those instructions.
Ergo: the police would have been on the spot very swiftly (considering these were UK tourists whose child had allegedly disappeared in the middle of the night).
If the police HAD been called to the spot immediately —— then there would *NOT* have been the opportunity for upwards of 20 people to trample all over whatever ‘evidence’ would have existed, HAD that child been taken from her bed in the manner the parents claimed.
As we are aware however, the parents chose NOT to call in the police for two hours or more.
And the question continues to remain —- WHY not ?
July 8th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
a good many of you bloggers are seriously fucked up with your warped thinking and whats really scary is you think you’re so on it and believe you have something intelligent to offer………….I pray my kids never ever come into contact with you in the real world let alone the cyber. GOD BLESS YOU quick.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
WHO SAID THAT KATE SAID ” THEY HAVE TAKEN HER”?
OR YOU JUST LISTEN TO THE MEDIA ONCE AGAIN!!
Get the true facts and most people would not be putting the parents down,
we all make mistakes, aren’t we only humans? not perfect robots!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
The madeleine fund does not directly go to the parents, and would you be in a state to work if your daughter went missing?
And once madeleine is found the rest of the money will go towards finding other abducted children, I don’t think the money is a priority for them, and they do go out most days looking for madeleine, WHAT would most people know anyway excepet what is written in the media, which half of it would be bull shit! Give the parents a break, and ask yourself if it was your child missing wouldn’t you do the same?
July 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
.
Then there are other issues which no-one has come even close to ‘explaining away’.
For example, it’s stated here that a member of the family stated on tv that Maddy sometimes sleep-walked.
People in Portugal have stated that the McCann apartment was at the end of the row and was protected from the outside world by a wall of only two feet approx. in height.
It’s now stated as fact by news sources that the McCann’s admitted they had not locked the patio doors.
And it’s also been stated that the apartment was not in line of sight (visible) from the bar in which the parents were occupied.
As has been pointed out already in above posts, why would you leave children in an apartment in which the doors were not secured , knowing full well that you could not see (from the bar in which you remained) if one or more of the children (especially the one who sleep walked) had opened the doors or departed the apartment? Nor could you see if anyone had entered the apartment in which, allegedly, three small defenceless children lay asleep.
And why, when you allegedly returned to discover a child to be missing, would your first claim be: ‘ They’ve taken her’.
WHO had ‘taken her’ ?
WHY would you immediately state this? What reason would you have to *immediately* claim that ’someone’ had ‘taken’ your child ? Unless you had reason to EXPECT someone would or had taken your child.
And IF you had reason to suspect or believe that ’someone’ intended to take your child ————- WHY would you leave that child in an unlocked apartment, asleep, alone, unprotected, while you repeatedly returned to a bar ?
Wouldn’t that be INVITING the suspected/known ’someone’ to TAKE your child ?
Same with the sleep-walking. If you already KNEW your child sometimes walked in her sleep ———- WHY would you knowingly, deliberately, leave that child in an UNLOCKED apartment and ALSO place yourself in a position where you could NOT keep your eye on the apartment at least ?
WHY ?
July 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
.
When your child’s missing, you don’t react in the same way as when you lose (for example) your keys.
You don’t move or think at normal speed. It’s heightened survival mode.
A normal parent, under those circumstances, reacts on several levels simultaneously.
For example, while they’re searching and calling for their child, they’re also firing off instructions to others, and one of those in this instance, would be: ‘ Call the police. Quick! Hurry ! Tell them it’s an emergency ! ‘
Yet the McCann’s reportedly did not summon the police for approx. two hours after discovering Maddy was missing.
People online have explained in defence of the McCanns, claiming they and others in their party were searching the vicinity during those two hours.
Two hours. That’s a long time. Especially when your mind would (normally) be working overtime. In an emergency, ten seconds can feel like ten or more minutes. With the adrenaline pumping (as it should have been under those circumstances) two hours would have felt like half a day.
There were nine of them in their party. Plus all the hotel staff and other guests.
Yet no-one summoned police assistance throughout two hours?
Why? It would have taken only seconds to do so and would have meant professionals would have been there to organise and assist.
The media would usually have gone over the available information with a fine-tooth comb, interviewing other guests and the hotel staff in minute detail.
Had the media chosen to investigate the numerous discrepancies in this case, rather than impose a virtual black-out on the story — then perhaps we’d at least know why the police weren’t called sooner and we’d very possibly know if one or more persons was responsible for delaying contacting the police.
Have the McCann’s explained why they waited for two hours?
Have they explained why they left the twins alone even after discovering Maddy was missing ?
Have they explained why their first reaction was to say: ” They’ve taken her “, rather than ‘She’s gone’, ‘ She’s missing’ , or ‘ We can’t find Maddy’ ?
The lack of information in this case is beyond belief.
In fact, it’s matched only by the detached website tone and manner of the parents.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
What would be the average parent’s first reactions, in the McCann’s place?
If the parent discovered their child to be missing from her bed, they would — within seconds — dash frantically from room to room, beginning with the bathroom, most probably.
During that time, the parent would be desperately calling the child’s name.
In all liklihood, the parent’s voice would be loud and would grow louder by the second, in case the child was hiding or had fallen asleep in some odd corner.
When the parent had raced through the premises, they would run outside and begin an almost tearful calling of the child’s name.
Concern for others’ sleep and worry about waking the twins (if they for some reason weren’t already awake) would be the last thing on the parent’s mind.
In fact, under such circumstances, the parent would actively enlist anyone in the vicinity, whether or not they were asleep. And such aid would be enlisted by calling loudly for the missing child and possible distracted calls such as: ‘ Please — please help me. My little girl’s missing ! Please — help me find her ! ‘
The parent would be frantically running around by this stage, calling loudly and desperately for the child.
Yet we’re told that Kate McCann returned to the bar and said: ‘ They’ve taken her ‘ .
Not: ‘ Someone’s taken Maddy ! ‘
or: ‘ Maddy’s gone ! Where can she have gone too! Where IS she? ‘
And she left the twins in the apartment while she ran back to the bar, despite that as far as she knew, someone may have taken Maddy only seconds before and could return and take the twins in the time it took her to run to the bar and back again.
None of the reports of the mother’s actions or comments make sense.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
If I returned, expecting to find my three children safely asleep — only to discover that one was missing — why would my first thought / statement be: “They’ve taken her ” ?
Why not: ‘ I can’t find her ! ”
or … ” Maddy’s missing. Where’s she gone ? “
July 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
No they live off their child’s disappearance, (not abduction) in a resort Nice one McScams! The rest of us pray for your child’s return.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Keep up the flow of information about these parents. All is relevant.
Public is especially incensed as time goes on about the amount of $ in their fund. What a hoax! Especially since we know/see they are NOT SEARCHING FOR MADELEINE, not paying an investigator to do.
This last fact has elucidated parents’ motives above all of their other actions/interviews, etc.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I am flattered by the wannabe Marians. Thank you, Thank you. I know I know its hard being inimitable but your envy hangs out a mile.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
So check the forums I am there and legit
July 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Thankyou ‘marian’ now be a good girl and do not post in Marian’s name
Themis
July 8th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Good morning everybody,
I am the newly appointed Moderator (offically ). My name is Themis, she who is atop the Old Bailey with her scales of justice.
I have started a thread in the Forums, so if anyone has any genuine grievences I can be contacted there. You will have to register to post there.
Some of my duties are to prevent libel cases, so I shall ask you now to think very carefully what you say before you post, read it through very carefully BEFORE you hit submit, and edit it then.
Here in Opinions, views are just that, you may disagree, of course you will, but your point can and will be made without rudeness, and in the Madeleine threads without accusation of insanity,paedophilia or other perversions.
There have been serious complaints about multiple user names and abusing other peoples user names, including Anorak’s own. This will stop soon especially after Mods and Admin have stepped in officially and exposed the violators for who they are.
Posting of any email address is to stop, if any are posted ,please do not use them in any circumstances as they could introduce virus’ to your own machine.
Thankyou for your attention
Themis
July 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Sorry you were victim of the ‘impersonations’ as well Frances (I have used inverted commas as, like my own, they were not exactly convincing).
So, if we are to follow the theory that Madeleine was taken outside the apartment by a passing opportunistic paedophile, are we to follow that with the likely assumption that the person concerned acted on impulse and has no connections to child trafficking or paedophile rings? Most don’t, even those who look at child porn.
If that is the case then we have a choice between a local or another tourist (the last time that a British girl went missing in the Algarve it was a British friend of the family who was responsible). Either way it would be highly unlikely that Madeleine ever left Portugal, but there would be a big difference in where she is likely to be.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:03 am
“I`ll tell you what - - go online and look through all the pictures of madeleine mccann and then come back and tell us - does she show any signs of being a child who is ‘regularly sedated’…? ”
Her pictures are precious…some of them she looks happy…some serious. If you view the video of her on her way to the family holiday, she seems very sad. It may still be on her website.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Jan (USA) Says:
July 4th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I wonder if Madeleine knew how to call the police or if she knew her telephone number and home address? All these things can be taught to children Madeleines age by incorporating it into a song.
I just tried to call 911 from England…….dur…….dur……dur! I replaced the handset and tried again incase it was 991 remember this is a small child (& my memory also)…….dur………durrrrr……..durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr……!!!!!!
Stupid me to educate my child to dial 999 (England) if needed but to expect that child to know foreign emergency numbers or to teach is not especially a part of a holiday I had planned.
Do you do that with you kids Jan????
Sorry if 999 works around the globe, you got me on that one!!!!
(From anywhere other than the UK then so far)
‘999’ dur dur dur
‘999’ dur dur dur
‘999’ aint getting me nowhere
jus ‘999’ dur dur dur
Aint appenin…what am I going to do now as my parents told me to ring 999 and nobody will help me?
Cheers the rappin was my own as far as I know and if not please be assured I will credit it to who ever did it in the first place once I know.
July 7th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
It is interesting to read in the Post Chronicle about Gerry McScams vision he had. He had a revelation in the church that he should set up a campaign fund, to raise monies to search for Madeleine.
I wonder if he will hand over a fraction to secure the release of Margaret Hill. It would maybe put someone else out of the torment and agony the McCanns are going through.
Somehow I doubt they are the philanthropic type. Doctors, Catholics, no.
July 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
What on earth has happened. Hecate leaving and Frances/Winks/Anonymous being civil?
I think we should be told.
Hecate if you are leaving I am sorry, I will miss the verbal fencing and you were one of many nice people who did not descend into feral insults and personal slights. I am sure the Chimps will miss you too.
Maybe when Madeleine is found you might come back?
July 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
David,
I’m not sure any info I would give you would be first hand knowledge as there is nothing much at all now in the Canadian press about this little girl, and most of what I have picked up has been from online British press, and people posting on here.
A cousin of mine who is UK resident is married to a UK Police officer, and he is very doubtful of the family’s veracity, but I do not want to implicate him as that was a private conversation
Alice
July 7th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Marian, Molly, queen b, Hal and others
Something has come up suddenly which means I cannot continue posting on here.
Sad the reason why we have all met, and I hope that Madeleine will be found, as I know you all do too. Maybe one day we can celebrate her return?
Blessed Be
Hecate the real Anonymous
July 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Who is this smarmy David Bruce, this is a discussion site, stop it with your come to my office at once crap.
If someone heard of black garbage bags let them ask without you playing FBI, CIA, NCIS piss off. No one owes you any explanations. If someone wants to talk about DNA, fingerprints, alien abductions or kidnappings this is the site to do it on.
Now take your e-mail and shove it in a black garbage bag, you’ve been told its not encouraged you silly person.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Molly, I think you’re right - and this theory would go a long way towards explaining the anomalies; the lies about the jemmied windows, the use of the word ‘naive’ when describing their actions in leaving the children, their immediate seizing of the idea that she’d been snatched from her bed rather than the street outside.
I think it’s highly likely that Madeliene woke up and wandered into the street outside looking for her parents. She may have even got as far as the supermarket, hence her scent trail reaching there and then running out. Perhaps someone - even Murat - ran into her there and took her? Why would he do that? No one knows whether he’s a paedophile or has connections to paedophile rings or not; there were those reports saying paedophile images were found on his computer but he vehemently denies it and we all know how newspapers just invent stuff. Or on the other hand it’s true, the Portuguese police know they have their man and are just waiting till they can collect more evidence about him?
July 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I totally agree with your entire post Anna.
It has always been my feeling that the simplest answers are the most probable (a view that has crystallised over 18 years of child rearing and sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to ‘explanations’ for various occurrences and wrongdoings). Granted that this is not always the case but I do feel that an excess of crime shows, thriller films and detective novels give us a tendency to try to make things more complicated and dramatic than they actually are.
In this case the simplest theory is that Madeleine wandered from the apartment of her own accord and met with opportunistic evil on the street. Tragic and (if this is so) in this case avoidable - but a story that we have sadly seen many times before. Granted it would be a sad indictment upon her parents that their first thought was for themselves, but still more palatable than believing they colluded to kill their own child or conceal her accidental death.
Perhaps it would be most charitable to believe that they are unable to face the consequences of their choices themselves and that believing that she was snatched from her bed is the only way forward for them in order to live with themselves.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Correction, ‘fifth person’ probably just means somebody they don’t know about, since DNA profiling has ruled everybody else out.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Did the Portuguese police take the DNA of all the people who went into the apartment after the abduction? I have a feeling they did, in which case they could well be still waiting for the DNA sample of Murat, which would prove whether or not he lied about having never been in the apartment. If he has lied, you’d have to ask why.
On the other hand, why did they say ‘fifth’ person, when a whole load of people apart from the McCanns went into the apartment that night?
I don’t get it.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I have been on the fence all the way through these ‘discussions’. Ihave noticed that the pro MCCann crowd do not help ‘discussion’, in fact prevent it from happening.
I understand that to be that the anti Mc’s have touched some raw nerves?
A black sack would just be rubbish in all senses, the PJ would check all bins etc.
I think Murat is a red herring too; DNA from a 5th person when how many were crowded in there.
There are a lot of questions unanswered here
July 7th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Well it did seem like an odd story. If a parent was going to dispose of (god forbid) their child’s body, they wouldn’t choose a nearby bin - they’d go as far away as possible, like the middle of nowhere.
Regarding becoming more understanding, I think people here just want to be free to mull over the known facts with other people, and try and make some sense of it all. We have that right; heaven knows the media blasted the story at us on a daily basis for weeks on end. I know a child aged 9 who has become very traumatised by the events in Portugal and now fears she’ll be snatched. The story been impossible to ignore, so for that reason alone I think it’s quite acceptable to mull over the anomalies and wonder if there’s anything else we haven’t been told. This doesn’t mean anybody’s insensitive to the trauma the parents are very likely to be going through if they’re innocent in all this.
Another thought - the McCann’s would hardly choose to draw attention to the possibility Madeleine could have wandered off - this would lead to far more criticism of them for leaving the doors open and allowing the possibility in the first place. If they were prosecuted for neglect it could result in them both losing their careers so I suppose you can see why they’d want to keep the press on their side by pushing the ’snatched from her bed by someone who came through jemmied windows’ angle.