MADDYWATCH: Madeleine McCann’s Family House
Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS: Front page, plus pages 4 and 5, with logo (“THE HUNT FOR MADELEINE: Day 117”). “MADELEINE: NEW SETBACK OVER CRUCIAL DNA EVIDENCE” announces THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER.
It reports that a “devastating blow” has been struck – which turns out to be the news that the DNA tests will not be ready for weeks. The tests are being carried out at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, so there is no opportunity to blame the Portuguese authorities on this occasion. The paper has to content itself with the comment that the tests are being delayed by “the nature of the evidence”.
The paper notes that as the McCanns try to come to terms with losing Madeleine “they continually face new accusations”.
It then lists these “vicious smears” and describes each one in detail: “Kate’s guilt”, “Drugging their children”, “Wife-swapping holidays”, “Excessive drinking”, “Children left to cry”, “Killed in the apartment”, “A body in the hire car”, “Emergency call delay”, “Intercepted phone calls and emails”, “Friends under suspicion”, “Forged birth certificate”.
For reasons best known to itself, the paper prints a picture of the McCanns’ home, with a caption noting that it is worth £600,000.
THE STAR: Most of page 9. “DIVIDED IN GRIEF: Pals fear Maddie parents’ rift. “Friends” are apparently “concerned about GP Kate’s crestfallen body language”.
Portuguese newspapers are accusing the police of driving a wedge between the couple to test their individual accounts of what happened on the fateful night. They also claim that a rift has developed over the media campaign.
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Small box, page 2. “Expert warns McCanns of long wait for DNA results” The paper reports on the delays, and says that the McCanns have been advised not to return to Britain until the results are known.
OTHER PAPERS: No Madeleine news today.
Posted: 28th, August 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (386) | 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
August 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
(135) Pat - I picked up that quote too at the bottom of my post. I just didn’t finish typing it and figured people would read the entire content on the blog itself. But Gerry should take his own advice. In his own words. On his own blog.
( 139) Jonathan - I simply quoted Gerry’s blog, in his own chlling words. Basic Psychology 101 (OK maybe it’s 303 - criminal psychology) will teach you that this is a common behavioral action especially for humans who have never done anything of this nature before. Guilt over their actions, remorse for misleading the public, becoming uncomfortable in their own skin etc. In a very high profile position, similar to the Ramsey’s, it makes them want to start preaching as if they are talking to themselves.
You may call it tabloid journalism, on the otherhand, I call it Freudian thinking. Everything we think and say has undertones of truth and self-recognition and realization. The Shame component is for anyone not willing or able to read between the lines. As I said, when left to their own devices, the mouse ususally comes out of the hole to find the cheese. Hopefully, there will be a mouse trap achoring this morsel of cheese when the real perpetrator to this crime rears his/her/their ugly heads. Until then, we sit, we wait, we sit, we wait. Tick tock, tick tock…
August 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
(142) Pepe (london) - I can’t respond for Jeeves but it is an opinion felt and expressed by many contributors based on day 119 of the investigation and little if any clues (revealed to the general public). With that said, two Television programs come to mind on the progress of missing Madeleine.
1. Without a trace
2. Cold Case
Let’s hope for a positive outcome and that the investigation shifts 180 degrees. But in the meantime, not much of the investigation is going well from the public’s standpoint. The news is limited and not forthcoming. And as you suggested, perhaps the British Police are to blame as well.
The DNA analysis is a whole different bull to wrestle, & sometimes it may take months to draw conclusions after a definitive clinical analysis on fibers and other material matter. But again, it’s just another component of a case not moving much at all in any direction.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Penstar, I agree. My kids would sleep through parties and barbecues! and no I didn’t drug them!!! Even on hols they went to bed at around the same time because that was when their body clock clicked in. Up early and bed early!
I remember my daughter aged around 5 suddenly falling asleep at the table in a hotel restaurant and her head falling face first into her dish of spag bol.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Sociopaths?
No… think of it this way …
Your daughter is dead - it was a tragic accident that no-one intended, but the consequences of the accident will be to destroy your career, your security, your image and possibly your freedom.
Nothing in the world is going to bring your daughter back, but why make it even worse?
I have always believed Gerry McCann to be Narcissistic (I have studied Personality Disorders in some depth) … to cover something up like this, in order to preserve self image as well as the above, would not be out of the range of Narcissistic behaviour.
Tell yourself a lie often enough and it can become your truth - such is the basis of denial.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
This is new, a syringe? Tell me, do you think they found it before or after it was let out to other holidaymakers?
It does not surprise me that Maddie was removd silently. Some kids sleep through anything, especially after a big day swimming and playing. They’d have been exhausted.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Moderation All I can think is if people have been using the syringe or done any of this chances they make a mistake somewhere. Possibly if that is not where the syringe is usually kept they forgot, in theory that is.
I don’t know if they had a syringe or used one or anything else. All I think is if they had a syringe expect a lot of trouble for them. A syringe could explain all the happenings, big and small, that people have been contemplating day after day.
Typically I would refuse to consider but with the dog info too the circumstances are getting harder and harder to defend. An attempt to pull of what appears would require some serious sociopaths, wouldn’t it? Where is Rosemary?
At the same time, where this is going is hard to comprehend. If I wake up and this is not gone what will be the rest of the story?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
One thing that I have noticed though …
“The father, Gerry, says its normal for the children to sleep through without waking”
But in relation to his check of the children at 9.05 on the evening Madeleine went missing, Gerry says that he saw Madeleine was not there and “assumed that she had gone to her parent’s room as the twins crying had disturbed her”
So which is it?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Here is a translation of the TVI item, courtesy of Ozzy (Mirror Forums)
As for the Madeleine case, the PJ are investigating a syringe with tranquilizers found on a stand in the parents room. According to the newspaper “Correio da Manha” a significant fact is that the twin children of the McCanns never woke up on the night of May 3rd, before or after the disappearance of their sister Maddie.
The father, Gerry, says its normal for the children to sleep through without waking, discarding the hypothesis that the two children slept with the aid of injectable tranquillizers which the inspectors found on the stand in the couples bedroom. Meanwhile, Rober Murat, the only suspect in the case awaits being absolved of the suspicions attached to him.
The results of the blood sample analyses have not yet arrived from England and the PJ say this is required for further interrogations.
*********
Personally I’m not ready to believe it, but here is the item that has led to the current discussion on here.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Pat Says:
August 29th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Crimson&Clover You found that at the blog?
Hello Pat. Yes, right there on the Gerry’s blog. Home page.
http://www.findmadeleine.com
I’ll read it every day before posting. Or at least check to see what the PR machines are up to for the moment. But this one, HAD to have slipped thru the radar. It’s far too resonant with undertones of a self-confession. Yes, Yes, my degree in psychology is on the wall. But this is accessible to the naked eye. I suspect Philomena’s PR agency is on Holiday this week and Gerry is left to his own endeavors. Not lookin’ good for him is it? I in the process of shifting my allegiance and votes towards the other direction…is that OK to do this late in the game?? I hope so!
August 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
LOL Penster … perhaps the syringe was used to place the ‘essence of corpse’ in the room
August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Where is Helen Mirren when you need her? She would have solved this yonks ago!
August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Can I also add.. where have the twins been?! We hardly see them now?! The twins are never with the parents… I would have thought they would keep the twins with them wherever they go…
A senior police source said: “They say that abduction is no longer the main lead and that accidental death is the strongest theory they are working on.
“They are awaiting test results on forensics from inside the apartment but even without them, they say they have another lead which points to Madeleine’s death.
“It could be a murder or it could be an accident, and at the moment they are leaning towards the latter.
“The apartment is the key – all the answers lie there, they say – but they are far from resolving what exactly happened and why the body disappeared.”
August 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Birchell, that’s a pretty wild suggestion. The staff nicking the kid to teach the parents a lesson? I may never travel again.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Missing child, blood and essence of corpse in the hotel room and now a syringe in the drawer? Dangerous place if you ask me.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
A syringe could easily have been found in the garbage or at any time in the apartment. It may have been in one of the McCann’s suitcases or amongst their belongings.
I have long been stunned by the “They’ve taken her” cries of Kate McC when she discovered Madeleine missing. Why not “Someone’s taken her.”? or “She’s been taken”? ………Who are “they”?
Has this ever been asked of the McCanns?
Having worked myself in Hotels, Catering all my career I wonder whether the McCann’s may have upset the staff at the Complex. The refusal to use the babysitting services and the complaints from neighbours may well have inspired someone, some people working at the complex to have a “Teach them a lesson” motive. They could have easily hidden her away, be holding her somewhere. Maybe they didn’t expect all the Media Circus, involvement and are now too scared and waiting for things to die down. The staff, probably local would have found it so easy to remove the child, hide her and get her away from the complex even after all the hoo ha started.
The McCann’s belief that she is over the border in Spain may come from their knowledge that one of the staff took the child. Maybe the police know this, know of the disappearance of one of the staff around the time of Madeleine’s disappearance.
I believe the complex staff hold the answer to what happened or where Madeleine is. Yet very little has been discussed on their possible involvement.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I’m not neutral in so far as I don’t think the McCanns had anything to do with any of it other than leaving the children in the apartment. But I am neutral in that I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and we are entitled to debate the opinions.
I am however 100% against the crap being put out as fact. Every day its an even wilder accusation.
Come on ‘I wonder’, do you really really think that they would have left a syringe by the bed?
Same as Murat…. did anyone really believe that Medeleines pyjamas would have been buried in his garden?
August 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Moderation….
Your stance is as neutral as a Swiss bank filled with Nazi gold.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I Wonder ??????????????
August 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
The syringe story has now made it to Portuguese TV (TVI).
Personally I find it pretty unbelievable that evidence such as a syringe would have been left in a drawer… but I guess it could have been one of several and just rolled to the back of a drawer?
However, I would also like to make the point that a syringe does not necessarily have to be used with a needle. When my own children were small I always used a ‘blank’ syringe to administer medications to them - especially ones which did not taste pleasant!
A struggling, reluctant child can easily knock a spoon of liquid, and the spoon itself is difficult to get through determinedly clamped teeth … a syringe however offers a perfect ml measure, is unspillable and can be insinuated into the corner of a mouth and directed to the back of the tongue with extreme ease.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
With reguards to the syringe, if one was found this could be for anything. I really don’t think if it was used to sedate the children it would be left lying around, especially in a bedside drawer.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
No, no, no, not a new theory pat. A new loads of old nonsense.
No syringe was found beside the bed! Can you really imagine that happening? Come on……….
Even if they were mass murderers on a rampage they would move the weapons of destruction immediately!!!
No, no, I’m truly stunned that my irony was taken as fact. Now we know how the rumour mill keeps turning.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Molly In the past I have tried to afford people the benefit of the doubt, sometimes to my disadvantage. What you say flows smoothly and makes sense, although I was unable to rule out an abduction. I started to worry with the dog reports.
If there is any truth to the syringe my mind is blown…
By some chance this has all been a cover up where people in many countries were invited along for the ride all while documented on live tv WOW talk about a show I’ll never forget. The Pope too?
I better sleep on this one.
Stefanie come out come out where ever you are!!
August 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
From Gerrys Blog
“We had dinner with Kates family who are over here just now. Sean and Amelie are particularly enjoying having some older kids around”
I bet they are Gerry. Are they babysitting whilst you are out for dinner ?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Richard Moderation WOW everytime I get settled down here comes something else! I can’t read Spanish so I don’t know if the syringe was allegedly discovered at the time of the disappearance or later?
Oh, Pear I see okay but I mean suspect as seen as or in a position to appear supicious sort of somehow… From now on I will say could appear suspicious.
Moderation It is not uncommon for doctors to have access to drugs or unheard of that some of them use drugs. Having a syringe would not surprise me. If true is the question. I don’t know.
Without reading the info about the syringe I have trouble knowing much but a new theory could develop? such as an explanation for some of the unusual behavior? or a new reason for the false sense of security? or could that be why the people oversee the money don’t want to let go?
The suggestion of possibly injecting children is a catagory I haven’t heard much about NO. In a situation like that YES I do see how motivation could kick in but if something like that could have happened that is too much for me to imagine.
All I can say, at this point, is obviously there will not be any hushing of the media. Having Portugal, also the Dutch involved in some way too, the most people can hope is that they have nothing to hide.
Richard what do you think about the syringe? You didn’t say??
Hopefully someone will translate the article.
I will be back later. This is much for my wee brain for now.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
June/Themis
I seem to have posted the same comment twice, although both are in moderation at the moment (presumably because of the length as there are no links) - please could you delete one of them … many thanks
August 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
“There are few of us on here who have not given this case some serious thought, and whatever our opinion is, we have generally arrived at it through a series of thought processes. Those processes though, and the opinions which result, may not always be clear to others - so just for clarification here are mine:
1. Well the McCanns themselves certainly weren’t with Madeleine - their presence at the dinner table is well documented and verified by outside witnesses.
2. A babysitter certainly wasn’t with her.
3. One of their friends could have been with her - most likely O’Brien and/or Tanner as the two who’s movements are least accounted for during the ‘missing hours’. But if this were the case - either the friends were involved (in collaboration with the Mc’s) in a false abduction OR the friends accidentally harmed Madeleine and disposed of her body. But if that were the case then WHY would the McCanns be covering for them?
4. Someone else was with her … someone the McCanns knew about.
But who?
The ‘biological parent’ theory doesn’t hold water at all - right back at the beginning of this case the PJ took DNA samples of both Kate and Gerry McCann and confirmed that they ARE Madeleine’s biological parents.
If it had been anyone else then why would the McCanns not have pointed fingers and screamed names from the rooftops?
5. An abductor watched and targeted Madeleine and siezed the opportunity on that night to take her.
Why?
International Paedophile rings and Child Traffickers operate secretly - they have to in order to avoid capture and publicity (which could well lead to capture). They do not need to abduct western children from affluent resorts to fuel their business - the world is sadly full of children who’s parents will sell them, or who’s disappearance will barely raise an eyebrow. The absence of such disappearances in similar circumstances serves to reinforce the unlikelihood of organised involvement.
A lone paedophile is much more likely, but most paedophiles operate by ‘grooming’ children (and families if they are an outsider), so as to reduce the possibility of being caught, to prolong the abuse period for as long as possible (often years) and to satisfy their own belief that they have a ‘relationship’ with the child.
This is not always the case though - some will opportunistically snatch a child impulsively and panic later, some will obsess and plan and take the opportunity to snatch a particular child, if such an opportunity is offered to them. That however would be a pattern of behaviour, not a one off, and there are no similar disappearances in PDL (so unlikely to be a local).
A tourist then? Well the PJ, the British police and others have interviewed all of the tourists who were present at MW when Madeleine went missing. They have undoubtedly checked their backgrounds and locations against any other missing children as well… so it is a possibility but becoming less so.
*****************
For myself I always prefer the simplest explanation, and to move upwards on a scale of likelihood as each simple answer is eliminated.
Thus I early discarded the idea that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment (too complicated), but tended to think that she had wandered off and been picked up by an opportunistic paedophile … simple, a scenario we all recognise.
The discovery by the cadaver dog inside the apartment, plus the lack of sightings of her wandering made my initial simple explanation less likely … I had to ‘move up a step’.
So - if Madeleine died inside the apartment, why wouldn’t the McCanns just simply report her death?
To cover something up.
What would they need to cover up?
Well not that they left the children alone … their own explanations already admitted to that point.
So it has to be something else…what is the simplest explanation?
Sedation, and an accidental overdose (not choking on vomit as otherwise vomit traces would have been found). Now THAT makes sense - it is relatively simple AND affords a reasonable explanation for a cover up, particularly if the sedation medication was not something that can be bought over the counter.
Medical personnel can be quite cavalier with medications - my own mother (a senior nurse) is renowned for her tendency to dole out cocktails of medicines to children, in adult doses at the slightest provocation. I remember her pouring phenergan (the anti-histamine of the day) down my infant sister’s throat on regular occasions to make her sleep. If we coughed at night then we would be presented with a large glass of mixed drugs, with scant regard to dosage or combination. For this reason neither myself or my siblings have ever left our children in her care. I seriously doubt that she is alone in her profession in this respect … when you deal with seriously strong drugs on a day to day basis it is only natural that you develop a casual disregard for day to day medicines, and medical staff KNOW that the dosages printed on bottles are, for the most part, way below a dangerous level.
In rubbishing this theory people ask why, if they are involved, the McCanns would embark on such a high profile media campaign? The answer is pretty simple … firstly, in order to divert any suspicion at all they had to get the abduction theory out there as a ‘fact’. Once they had done that Mr McCann’s extended family more or less took the story and ran with it… it snowballed completely out of control. They really had no choice but to go along with it - it was what his family and then, (thanks to the family), the public expected to see … what could they say? They could hardly tell them the truth. A classic case of ‘oh what a tangled web we weave’.
From a far less logical, and more ‘gut feeling’ angle … developed personally from the experience of raising 3 children to late teens… it has always been my experience that, when tracking down the perpetrator of some domestic ‘crime’, - the one who shouts loudest about their innocence and puts on the best display of wounded virtue, is inevitably the guilty party. There is nothing quite like the fear of deserved punishment for producing the best look of wide eyed innocence and the most eloquent and elaborate smokescreen.
Yes of course the truly innocent will also claim no knowledge - but there is something about the sheer ‘over the top’ quality of the perpetrator’s denials which sets the alarm signals off… and, for me, the behaviour of the McCanns has had those alarm bells ringing since Day 1.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:59 am
The problem with the ‘I can’t answer that as it is part of the investigation’ posturing is that, it only seems to apply to certain questions …
We have Kate expounding on Cuddle Cat being left on a high shelf (personally I have never seen a child’s ‘comfort’ toy in such good condition).
We have both Kate and Gerry denying that they were drunk on the evening that Madeleine went missing.
We have Kate and Gerry denying that they sedated the children.
We have Trish Cameron and Phil McCann on Richard and Judy, claiming that one of the McCanns’ friends definitely saw Madeleine being carried away.
and on, and on - there are many examples…
Yet, when asked about their REACTION to the blood specks being found (not about the blood specks themselves), and about whether Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine, we have indignation and claims that they are bound to the secrecy of the investigation
August 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
‘I wonder’,………. the evidence for abduction was the finding of ‘dna of an unknown person’ in the apartment.
I’m not arguing the fact because I really don’t know the basis of finding it / analysing it etc but that was in one of the statements by Sousa weeks ago(when he was making them!)
Richard…. I know many people who show no emotion in traumas, probably more than people who emote openly.
Many years ago a female friend lost her 15 year old son suddenly. She had a history of fragile mental health and everyone feared for her. Yet she pulled through, dealt with organ donation / funeral etc etc. Now she says she can’t really remember much about any of it as she was on autopilot.
Again, who knows how one would react?
Pear.. The secrecy thing is fine if it applies across the board. It is unfair that no-one has the right of reply yet the Portugese press can make up whatever they want/ receive leaks form the PJ, safe in the knowledge that the supsects / witnesses aren’t allowed to respond.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
There are few of us on here who have not given this case some serious thought, and whatever our opinion is, we have generally arrived at it through a series of thought processes. Those processes though, and the opinions which result, may not always be clear to others - so just for clarification here are mine:
1. Well the McCanns themselves certainly weren’t with Madeleine - their presence at the dinner table is well documented and verified by outside witnesses.
2. A babysitter certainly wasn’t with her.
3. One of their friends could have been with her - most likely O’Brien and/or Tanner as the two who’s movements are least accounted for during the ‘missing hours’. But if this were the case - either the friends were involved (in collaboration with the Mc’s) in a false abduction OR the friends accidentally harmed Madeleine and disposed of her body. But if that were the case then WHY would the McCanns be covering for them?
4. Someone else was with her … someone the McCanns knew about.
But who?
The ‘biological parent’ theory doesn’t hold water at all - right back at the beginning of this case the PJ took DNA samples of both Kate and Gerry McCann and confirmed that they ARE Madeleine’s biological parents.
If it had been anyone else then why would the McCanns not have pointed fingers and screamed names from the rooftops?
5. An abductor watched and targeted Madeleine and siezed the opportunity on that night to take her.
Why?
International Paedophile rings and Child Traffickers operate secretly - they have to in order to avoid capture and publicity (which could well lead to capture). They do not need to abduct western children from affluent resorts to fuel their business - the world is sadly full of children who’s parents will sell them, or who’s disappearance will barely raise an eyebrow. The absence of such disappearances in similar circumstances serves to reinforce the unlikelihood of organised involvement.
A lone paedophile is much more likely, but most paedophiles operate by ‘grooming’ children (and families if they are an outsider), so as to reduce the possibility of being caught, to prolong the abuse period for as long as possible (often years) and to satisfy their own belief that they have a ‘relationship’ with the child.
This is not always the case though - some will opportunistically snatch a child impulsively and panic later, some will obsess and plan and take the opportunity to snatch a particular child, if such an opportunity is offered to them. That however would be a pattern of behaviour, not a one off, and there are no similar disappearances in PDL (so unlikely to be a local).
A tourist then? Well the PJ, the British police and others have interviewed all of the tourists who were present at MW when Madeleine went missing. They have undoubtedly checked their backgrounds and locations against any other missing children as well… so it is a possibility but becoming less so.
*****************
For myself I always prefer the simplest explanation, and to move upwards on a scale of likelihood as each simple answer is eliminated.
Thus I early discarded the idea that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment (too complicated), but tended to think that she had wandered off and been picked up by an opportunistic paedophile … simple, a scenario we all recognise.
The discovery by the cadaver dog inside the apartment, plus the lack of sightings of her wandering made my initial simple explanation less likely … I had to ‘move up a step’.
So - if Madeleine died inside the apartment, why wouldn’t the McCanns just simply report her death?
To cover something up.
What would they need to cover up?
Well not that they left the children alone … their own explanations already admitted to that point.
So it has to be something else…what is the simplest explanation?
Sedation, and an accidental overdose (not choking on vomit as otherwise vomit traces would have been found). Now THAT makes sense - it is relatively simple AND affords a reasonable explanation for a cover up, particularly if the sedation medication was not something that can be bought over the counter.
Medical personnel can be quite cavalier with medications - my own mother (a senior nurse) is renowned for her tendency to dole out cocktails of medicines to children, in adult doses at the slightest provocation. I remember her pouring phenergan (the anti-histamine of the day) down my infant sister’s throat on regular occasions to make her sleep. If we coughed at night then we would be presented with a large glass of mixed drugs, with scant regard to dosage or combination. For this reason neither myself or my siblings have ever left our children in her care. I seriously doubt that she is alone in her profession in this respect … when you deal with seriously strong drugs on a day to day basis it is only natural that you develop a casual disregard for day to day medicines, and medical staff KNOW that the dosages printed on bottles are, for the most part, way below a dangerous level.
In rubbishing this theory people ask why, if they are involved, the McCanns would embark on such a high profile media campaign? The answer is pretty simple … firstly, in order to divert any suspicion at all they had to get the abduction theory out there as a ‘fact’. Once they had done that Mr McCann’s extended family more or less took the story and ran with it… it snowballed completely out of control. They really had no choice but to go along with it - it was what his family and then, (thanks to the family), the public expected to see … what could they say? They could hardly tell them the truth. A classic case of ‘oh what a tangled web we weave’.
From a far less logical, and more ‘gut feeling’ angle … developed personally from the experience of raising 3 children to late teens… it has always been my experience that, when tracking down the perpetrator of some domestic ‘crime’, - the one who shouts loudest about their innocence and puts on the best display of wounded virtue, is inevitably the guilty party. There is nothing quite like the fear of deserved punishment for producing the best look of wide eyed innocence and the most eloquent and elaborate smokescreen.
Yes of course the truly innocent will also claim no knowledge - but there is something about the sheer ‘over the top’ quality of the perpetrator’s denials which sets the alarm signals off… and, for me, the behaviour of the McCanns has had those alarm bells ringing since Day 1.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Hi Pat. Glad to be of service.
Jonathon. Whilst accepting a lot of the points you raise which balance some of the more wild postings on this site, I would take issue with you on one point.
The McCann’s foremost role - in this situation - is as parents not doctors, whatever your professional training has been it will not prepare you for the loss or disappearance of your own child. There is also a big difference between wearing your heart on your sleeve and showing virtually no emotion.
It is their behaviour before, during and since May 3 that make me suspicious.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:07 am
I have read a lot of posts on this and it seems to come down to two theories.
1 The abduction theory
2 The accidental death theory
So lets try the ‘if’ test.
Okay IF she was abducted, why after all the media forensics etc is there not one shred of evidence.
So If there had been a death due to say an accidental overdose or parental neglect what due you think the dynamic duo would have done, gone straight to the police to confess ?
Given their behaviour I suspect the latter.