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
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
July 4th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hey-ho, it’s sockpuppet time.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
i don’t think this anonymous is the same anonymous as June, I guess that’s thr trouble when u chose the name anonymous
July 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
There you go Frances, Molly did exactly what you predicted.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
welcome back Frances
July 4th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Wouldn’t any parent who has their child taken from them try any desperate measure to get them back, I would want to die if that was my daughter taken, So all those negative people just shut up and get a life and leave the parents alone, if you can’t say anything nice then don’t listen or watch just go away, The Mccanns are in no state to return to work so have to have money donated to the fund , its not about them its about MADELEINE! AND why aren’t more people thinking about what that little girl must be going through!
July 4th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
I think in earlier Anorak article threads Anonymous signed off her ‘anonymous’ posts as June, though she may actually have been trying to date the entries.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
No, not kidnappers - child traffickers and/or paedophile rings- which is I believe what the McCanns are saying?
Kidnappers - well they usually demand a ransom don’t they?
Human trafficking is a lucrative business and there are whole websites of statistics and information available if you wish to research this yourself - but if you feel inadequate to the task I can do a little summing up for you pet.
The majority of children trafficked are actually sold by parents in poor and developing countries - a more common practice than you might imagine. The rest are street children and runaways who’s disappearance will not be noticed by anyone who is in a position to make a fuss. Statistics show that Western Europeans form a very, very small proportion of all human trafficking victims and that those are usually teen runaways forced into prostitution. The people who deal in this trade make a lot of money and rely on their connections to each other to sustain their chain of supply and demand - after all this isn’t exactly a commodity listed in the FT. In order to continue making money and avoiding Jail they need to stay under the radar and avoid publicity as much as possible… abducting a western child from an affluent tourist resort is NOT a good way to avoid publicity, as we have seen.
Paedophile rings work in much the same way… this is an area that I have studied for some time for personal reasons. A Paedophile may snatch a child opportunistically and go on to share the child with his known paedophile buddies - but very, very rarely does even this happen, let alone setting out to abduct a child from an apartment. Most paedophiles groom their victims and select them from their own circle of family and friends… it’s safer that way. Like child traffickers they do not particularly want to attract attention, so whilst they might take a child on impulse in a situation where the risk seems low, it does not follow a normal pattern to stalk and abduct.
Try doing a little searching (or a lot, as I have) and see how many other cases you can find of children being ’snatched from their bed’ … I found TWO. One (thanks to another poster on Anorak) in Canada - but that was a kidnap for ransom and the kidnapper knew the girl already, and the Lindburg case. That limited amount plus the statistics and recorded patterns of traffickers/paedophiles behaviours should give an indication of just how unlikely this scenario actually is.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Perhaps Frances could answer:
Why the McCanns refused all babysitting services?
Why they are so adamant that an able-bodied child had no chance whatsoever of waking up and walking out of the open apartment?
July 4th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Oh Frances, you make me chuckle. You’re so obsessed with murder, and rape, and Murat. Shame CSI is finished this week.
No-one said they murdered her. Accidental death, covered up. That’s the consensus of a lot of people.
Don’t tell me you still think Robert Murat crept in there and took her?
July 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Anna - it wasn’t I who posted about Gerry lurking with a black sack, but I have come across this one before… I have not been able to track it to source so it is something that I have discounted as rumour and subsequently ignore… but is anyone wants to point me in the direction of a verifiable source I would be very interested to read it.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I’ve done some research into the babysitting facilities at Mark Warner resorts and it would seem that there are 4 options at this particular resort …
1. The baby listening service - where staff visit apartments in rotation to check that all is well…. this is included in the price of the holiday.
2. The Dining Out Creche - where children can be dropped off ready for bed and picked up after the meal… this is included in the price of the holiday.
3. An ‘in apartment’ babysitter - which is performed by members of the daytime creche staff… this carries a small extra cost.
4. A Walkie Talkie type baby monitor so that parents can listen to their childrens rooms.
I can understand not wanting to use the creche - why keep tired kids up?
But why not use any of the others? The in apartment babysitters are all staff who the children know from their normal creche visits (especially given that the McCann children were in there every daytime session of every day), so the not wanting strangers with the children really doesn’t wash.
Another Portuguese article has an interview with one of the creche staff, who states that, once they realised that the children were being left alone each night, the McCanns were approached and offered their choice of services. She quotes Gerry as saying ‘our children are fine as they are’ and refusing even a walkie talkie.
There is also this ‘pact of silence’ that the rest of the holiday party made with the McCanns - admitted to by one of the men when contacted by Sol - “Gerry and Kate want to control all the information released” … Why?
All of this stuff adds up - and all of these other people can’t be involved in a conspiracy against the McCanns (tapas staff, creche staff, resort manager, all the public who saw no forced shutter/window PLUS the alleged kidnappers who selected 1 child from the 1000’s who visit every year to stalk and abduct in a way that is completely contradictory to the way that they usually operate). So the McCanns are at best deluded and lying to cover the depth of their original neglect, or at worst involved in some way … either way the lying attracts attention because people want to know WHY? And in the ‘why’ MAY lie the answer as to what happened to Madeleine.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Somebody posted way back in this thread about Gerry McCann being reported by an anonymous witness as lurking around a supermarket bins with a black plastic sack that night. Where on earth did that report come from? I never heard it before.
My feeling about all this right from the start was that there was something odd about Gerry McCann insisting the window had been jemmied open when the police denied there was any damage to it at all. Then a few days later it turned out the patio doors had been left open all along, making it perfectly simple for Madeleine to wander off, or for a predator to get into the apartment. Why would Gerry McCann report that the window had been jemmied when it hadn’t? Because he was too embarrassed to admit the patio doors had been left open?
I did read one report that said Kate McCann felt it was better to leave the doors open in case of fire and the children needed to escape, which I can understand, but surely the risk of the children getting up and wandering off, or the risk of someone getting in - was far greater than the risk of fire?
I also read that they didn’t want to leave them with babysitters the children didn’t know, which actually I can understand. You don’t want to think of your children waking up with a nightmare only to be comforted by a complete stranger who would upset them even more. I also understand the fear of leaving them at night with strangers who could turn out to be dodgy when caring for children in the dark without supervision. But then if you’re that worried about padeophile babysitters or fire breaking out, why do you then do the mad thing of sitting 50 metres away out of sight with the patio doors open???
At the very least (and my hunch is that they’re innocent, actually), I don’t understand why they’re haven’t admitted they were incredibly, incredibly rash to leave them on their own like that, and that parents shouldn’t even think of doing it. After all, it’s NOT the same as being in the garden with your children asleep upstairs. From the garden you can hear things going on in the house - I could certainly hear my child calling out when he was small. And I wouldn’t have stayed out there for more than a few minutes in any case, so what’s with this ‘leaving them 50 metres away, unattended’? Unbelieveable, and frankly I don’t know any parents who would do it.
On the other hand, we used to let my son explore a small French seaside town for up to half an hour on his own when he was 11. If he’d been kidnapped on one of those independent explorations would we have been vilified as neglectful parents?
July 4th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
The Labrador of Truth and Justice is not a girl. The children of labradors are known as pups. Silly lady. What exactly are parents supposed to do and say to make you believe that they have children?
July 4th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
You most certainly did not sound like a parent with your statements.
Yes, I have been know to be quite vigilant when it comes to children in public places. It’s who I am. You know nothing about me. Don’t try to place a lable on me by telling me “not resort to your usual schtick of “You are obviously not a parent”. I haven’t placed any on you. Get a grip on yourself old girl….I have no doubt you have “pups”! I merely asked if you were a parent.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Molly,
I don’t think the British are any more or less neglectful of their children than us Americans.
I really believe the McCanns were maybe a little naive. They got too comfortable in their environment and excercised poor judgement.
So they may also be in the middle of an investigation by child welfare in Portugal?
We’ve all made at least one mistake with at least one of our children that could have taken the wrong turn. I did, and eveytime I think about it I cringe at the thought of what might have happened….
July 4th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Jan - I have pups of my own. Tell me wise American, have you ever been on a Mediterranean resort holiday? There tends to be an informal, relaxed atmosphere. Kids group up and play around the tables while the adults eat and drink. They’re never far from their parents, but no-one takes references from the children, locates their parents, pins a name tag on them. It’s certainly not unusual for children to be out in their PJs. They may well be staying in an apartment block attached to a bar, and mummy may have brought them down for some fresh air, and to ask Daddy to take over babysitting.
And you are seriously, honestly telling me that every single child you see in a mall, not physically attached to an adult, you track down their guardian? Children are attracted to other children. You may see a group of 5 following an adult, does not mean they are all together.
Please do not resort to your usual schtick of “You are obviously not a parent”. It will not work with me.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The Labrador of truth and justice,
Are you a parent? Parents at a Holiday resort are not likely to ignore a child walking around in their PJ’s at bedtime. Someone would have noticed a child. That’s just something parents do. Parents on holiday or parents who live in the area would wonder about a child walking around like that. They may not have approached her, which I doubt, but someone would have spotted her.
“If you’re shopping, or out at night on holidays, it would be exhausting to try and locate the parents of every wandering child. “…this is not a statement a parent would make. I think most parents would be concerned and would go out of their way to find help for a lost child.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Personally I prefer Pixie’s last suggestion - that she wandered off and was picked up by an opportunistic paedophile, who having given into impulse then killed her to cover his tracks. It’s a scenario that everyone is familiar with - wrong place, wrong time.
What irritates me (well I have a whole list actually, but some grate more than others!) is that this is NEVER offered as an explanation, even though it is the most obvious one… yet the ’snatched from her bed’ theory (HIGHLY unlikely if looked at closely and with a full measure of statistics and precedents) is offered as ‘FACT’ by everyone except the PJ and some of the foreign press.
In fact the main reason that people suspect the McCanns of having something to do with Madeleine’s disappearance (be it accidental death or an elaborate hoax) is their total insistence, right from the first moment that they discovered her gone, that she couldn’t possibly have woken up and therefore MUST have been abducted from the apartment. Then there was all the claims of ‘Jemmied’ windows and doors hanging off, which supported the abduction claim but were completely untrue…. people smell a rat.
The McCanns will never offer advice to other parents regarding not leaving their children - they can’t. It is against the law in Portugal to leave children under 8 unsupervised, and they could face prosecution for that (hence the £500 per hour lawyers)… it looks to me as though they are trying to cover themselves by claiming that this is common practice in Britain. They are aided in this by the fact that British Law has no minimum age for children to be left, and they have re-inforced this idea in interviews with their ‘at worst we were naive’; ‘1000’s of people do it’; ‘like having dinner in the back garden’ and similar. If they were to come out and admit that leaving small children is wrong and should never be done then they would be destroying their only defence … that they didn’t know it was wrong because everyone in Britain does it.
Unfortunately for them (but striking a blow for us normal British parents who are in danger of appearing to be the most neglectful child carers in the world) the Portuguese papers have had the intelligence to consult with child protection offices and lawyers over here and have been put in the picture (that if this had happened here they would have been investigated to ascertain exactly how often the children were left and then either had the children taken into care or, more likely, given a warning and made to attend parenting classes).
July 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hey Marian, you say
Are chimps so intelligent, Sherry?? I didn’t know that they let people strap them into rockets and fly them to the moon. They’re also fucking ugly.
…and you posted this for what reason? Are you trying to introduce a new chimp joke to the automaton patter?
Are you getting a little angry Marian? The nasty, bad language would suggest so…
Poor angry Marian…
July 4th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Hey Marian, you say
>>
…and you posted this for what reason? Are you trying to introduce a new chimp joke to the automaton patter?
Are you getting a little angry Marian? The nasty, bad language would suggest so…
Poor angry Marian…
July 4th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Goodness, pixie girl. For someone who is tired of us heartless sickos, insulting lot, and debating-skill challenged, you sure spend a lot of time here, don’t you? Maybe you get a perverse kick out of it?
Considering that there has been no evidence of an abduction or murder, then it would also be likely that Madeleine wandered off. Kids and pets get into the strangest and most unlikeliest places, hence the need for vigilance. What if Madeleine wandered off, fell into a disused sewer hole or well, and then the next day, the hole was covered? Madeleine may have been knocked unconscious by the fall, so no one would hear her crying. So she could be close by and yet no one would realize it.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Quite possible, I was a sleepwalker myself and hearing the stories my parents tell me, anything is possible when you are sleepwalking.
Like I said none of us know what happened, I’m just not prepared to start apportioning blame and scrutinising the parents until the facts have come out.
Though I haven’t read anywhere she is a known sleepwalker, that isn’t to say it isn’t true, I just haven’t seen it.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
See, I’d thought about the ‘crying, bewildered’ child thing too, but apparently Miss Madeleine was known for being quite the accomplished sleepwalker. If she has indeed gone calmly through a busy area, she’s probably less likely to have been spotted. If you’re shopping, or out at night on holidays, it would be exhausting to try and locate the parents of every wandering child. That’s what kids do. If the child creates a fuss then it’s more noticeable, but if it’s in a sleepwalking state then the poor mite could’ve been invisible within a crowd.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I still don’t buy that theory, half a mile on a busy resort with people milling around wandering out for dinner etc, and not one person spotted a 4 yr old in her nightclothes alone, who would be I assume crying for her mother or at the very least calling her. I believe if that was the case there would be witnesses who would have seen her or a body would have turned up.
Maybe I am wrong. And as I have already stated on an earlier thread, if I am wrong, if the McCanns turn out to have ‘done her in’ or any of the other theories banded about on these forums I will not ‘disappear’ I will come back and publicly state that i was wrong and sadly duped.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
It’s a half-mile walk to the sea from the apartment. Half a mile. A strong, healthy 4 year old could easily cover it, I mean I presume she wasn’t pushed around in a pushchair every day? Walking around the shops is more than half a mile. The sea is an untamable entity. Sad to say that there is no guarantee that such a tiny little body would ever be washed up. There’s scrubland around the hotel, maybe with deep crevasses that would be stepped over or even unnoticed by an adult, but that would easily swallow up a little girl.
What this humble labrador cannot grasp is why so many people are so obsessed with the idea of a predatory paedophile (or several) stalking and snatching the little miss. If it were one of my pups I’d prefer to think of a tragic accident, not dwell on the horrid possibilities, the worst of the worst.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Well then humble labrador, maybe you would like to answer my question. If she got up and wandered out of her room. Where is she? After all how far can a 4 year old child get in her pyjamas and bare feet alone in a busy resort without anyone spottting her and no body ever turning up.
I do agree she may have wandered from the room, but I think that theory only ties in with the abduction theory, because the only way I can see she would not have been sighted or at least found dead somewhere is if she had wandered out of the room and then been picked up by an opportunistic peodophile (IMHO)
July 4th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“I have never said beyond a shadow of a doubt that she could not have walked out of the door, however I did say that I thought it was ‘unlikely’ she had wandered off as nothing was found in the search of the area.”
Sorry Pix, didn’t mean you. I should’ve clarified. I was referring to her sainted mother, who has repeatedly claimed that there was no way whatsoever that her child (a healthy, almost-4 year old) could’ve woken up and walked off. Don’t you find that odd?
I like chimps. They’re cute. You shouldn’t be so offended. I’m only a humble labrador, I mean very little harm.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I think the McCanns need to start making statements like “don’t let this happen to your child….” and incorporate tips on how parents can protect their children from being snatched by strangers. It’s time to publicly admit some guilt in all of this. I’m sure they have a lot of “We should have, we could have and, if we only?”….. going on.
The McCanns should speak with experts about stranger abductions and make public announcements, along with their pleas, on how to educate children when faced with strangers trying to abduct them. This would lend crediblity to what they’ve alleged has happened to Madeleine. It may also help to gain some respect from those who believe Madeleine was not abducted…..”don’t make the same mistake we did”
Whoever is running the find Madeleine campaign should start incorporting “tips for children and parents” on the McCanns website on how to talk to children about stranger abductions and what to do if a stranger approachs them.
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.
Unfortunately in this day and age we need to teach our children at a very young age how to protect themselves from strangers and how to find help. Who knows if Madeleine is still alive? Who knows how many opportunities she’s had to ask for help or to escape but because she does not know, she wont? Does Madeleine even know how to read yet?
I keep thinking how the social worker who claims to have seen Madeleine said she heard the little girl as when she will se her mummy. A stranger can gain the truast of a child by telling them they are on a mission from the parents. But if the child was told that a stranger should know a secret code, that child may not be so willing to go…….
July 4th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I have never said beyond a shadow of a doubt that she could not have walked out of the door, however I did say that I thought it was ‘unlikely’ she had wandered off as nothing was found in the search of the area.
And yes, to me who spends a lot of time with her children I find it strange that they take them on holiday and don’t spend much time with them, but I used to find it strange when my youngest went to creche a couple of mornings a week to find that a lot of the children there were in there 5 days a week 8.30 am- 6.30 pm. I don’t think the parents who left them are callous murderers though, I simply think we all do what we think is best for our children and many people think that bringing in 2 good wages and providing everything they need is the way to be a good parent. I don’t think this is true, but it’s a differing of opinion, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say my way of parenting is right though.
Now on your final comment, I have not insulted you, i respect our opinions differ and although I don’t agree with you, your points are well put across in a well thought out and intelligent manner. Is there really any need to resort to insulting me?
July 4th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
OK, your kids are ‘dropping on their feet’. Fairy nuff. However, you’re missing something here. Could you absolutely and unequivocally guarantee that all of them would stay asleep for a set amount of time, not wake up at all, and not move from where you left them?
If you read the Sol article you’ll see that the regime was very strict.
Kid’s Club from first thing in the morning
Kids have an hour with parents for lunch
Back to Kid’s Club
Picked up when it closed
Parents go to Tapas bar at the same time every evening.
The non-childminder staff at the resort say they were not even aware that anyone in the McConn party even had children on holiday with them, as they were never seen. Weird eh?
And how can anyone, without shadow of a doubt, claim that there is NO WAY at all, whatsoever, that a 4 year old could not have woken up and walked out of an open door. How? Unless they have a reason for it.
Thank you for your time, banana or peanut?