Madeleine McCann On Your Doormat And In The Loire Valley
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: MADELEINE: Parents are to sue over claims they gave her fatal overdose. (Plus page 7, with logo: THE HUNT FOR MADELEINE: Day 120).
THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER brings the news that the McCanns’ legal action is against the Portuguese publication Tal & Qual. (The Express, of course, has dutifully repeated all the allegations and smears that have emanated from the Portuguese press, for the delectation and disgust of Maddywatchers back home.) Spokeswoman Justine McGuinness says the McCanns “are not going to be a doormat any more”.
Meanwhile, the paper says the hunt has switched to a campsite in the Loire valley after sightings by holidaymakers.
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 2: Madeleine parents to sue newspaper
The Telegraph reports that the McCanns say they are suing to clear their name, not for the money.
THE TIMES page 5: Candle of hope for Madeleine
The paper says that Madeleine’s classmates “said a poignant prayer” yesterday, on what should have been her first day at school.
DAILY MAIL page 6: McCanns to sue over ‘killers’ slur
The paper says the McCanns believe it is time to stand firm against the allegations.
DAILY MIRROR page 11: Maddy school’s prayers
The paper says the McCanns spent a quiet day with their twins in Praia da Luz.
THE STAR page 22: SCHOOL’S SAD WAIT FOR MISSING MADDIES: Chair and locker are saved for her
The empty chair, locker and coat peg are once again invoked. Bishop Ellis headteacher Gail Neill says: “We are deeply saddened that we cannot yet welcome Madeleine McCann.”
THE SUN page 12: MADDIE SCHOOL PRAYER TRIBUTE
The paper also reports on the candle that is being kept burning at the school.
THE INDEPENDENT and THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news today.
Posted: 31st, August 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (459) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
September 1st, 2007 at 11:23 am
I didn’t mention re-routers, I’m talking about straightforward tracing which anyone with knowledge can do.
As I said, check out Private Eye. Its in there how someone got caught! My son (works in IT) reckons he could trace anyone if he set his mind to it and was paid enough!!
I’ve always been careful about what I put up anywhere….. even an Amazon book review! I am very very aware of libel laws. As Mods and Admin have said…. each individual poster is responsible for their own post. Not Anorak.
Am I right Mods and Admin??
That hairdresser stuff is prime for legal action IMO.
———————————————–
Mods and Admin
On our current host server, the posters are liable for their own statements.
Once we change however, we shall have to be more vigilent about what is said
September 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am
LOL at your last sentence Penster - that seems to sum everyone up very nicely!
September 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am
Molly the simplest theory for me is that it was noted during the week that the kids in that party were routinely left unattended. Someone pounced. Easy. I believe that there was more than one person involved. Poss a staff member, a local who knew the lay of the land.
Gerry certainly comes across as arrogant, Murat comes across as creepy, the PJ come across as incompetent. Means nothing.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
I know what you mean Penster - the overdose theory appeals to me as the simplest explanation, in view of the cadaver dog findings … as for the publicity and hoping to hoodwink the police, well as Gerry himself pointed out in his blog the other day, sometimes people do things on the spur of the moment and do not consider the consequences
Plus, whatever your opinion about the level of the McCanns involvement - from completely innocent, to utterly guilty - it has to be said that Gerry McCann (like so many in his profession) is a very arrogant man… is it possible that he considers himself to be more intelligent than the mere police?
September 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
Then don’t Richard.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:10 am
I cannot take any more of this. That is the McCann’s and their deplorable behaviour, and the disgusting relish which so many of the regular Anorak posters (mostly ladies I’m afraid - lead by the sanctimonious Moderation) display with their endless and pointless gossip.
This site has become the modern day equivalent of the garden fence, except none of you are hanging the washing out. What on earth will you do when this is all over - wonder why your husbands walked out??
September 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
154 Yes Tessa I still think someone took Madeleine. With regard to Robert Murat, I remember reading that he vehemently denied having child porn on his computer. That’s a shocking allegation to make about someone if it’s not true. He can deny it till the cows come home but that sort of mud sticks like shit to a blanket.
Molly the sedative overdose theory does not sit well with me b/c it makes me wonder how they disposed of her without a trace and assumed that they could successfully outwit the police. And why court publicity if you did it? I’m also mindful that a bit too much is being read into Kate McCann’s reaction.
Maria that theory about why the libel case may have been brought is very interesting, that they’re doing it to circumvent the secrecy laws. Yes, I’d sue anyone who accused me of murdering my child.
The posts are really good tonight and respectful of each other’s view which is great.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Never heard of ISP re-routers Moderation?
Most of them are out of the UK and will not divulge originators without a court order from the police in respect of a criminal case.
It is of course possible to re-route through several different services, thus clouding the trail even more.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
I honestly think the PJ know what happened that night and I don’t think it involved the McCanns.
However,we have to wait and see.
The PJ reiterated yesterday that the McCanns are victims and witnesses, nothing else. What more do you want? apart from a public hanging of course!! Maybe just get EVERYONE and drag em up on cranes to swing slowly and appease Angry’s bloodlust! McCanns, their friends, Murat, Malinka etc etc etc
As for being charged over the children being left……
as far a the PJ is concerned the children were left within the complex where the parents were actually staying. It is not a crime according to a Portugese lawyer quoted some weeks back. Check it out before making even more allegations!
I saw in Private Eye how easy it for individuals to be traced via their IP servers etc. Unless you’re in an internet cafe using an registered machine you can be traced. Again,, check it out in this weeks PE.
Be careful with the unfounded accusations I would say.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Wierd comment in the ‘Have your Say’ section on the Express site:
“I was in a hairdressers in a posh area locally a few days back, not that far from where Kate Mc Cann’s family live, and to make conversation with the hairdresser whom I had never met before, I asked her “What do you think of this Mc Cann’ case then”? She replied “Well to be honest I am well sick of it, my friend who lives not far from here, knows Kate’s family and she is always saying to me that she just wishes that they would own up and get it all over with, and that Gerry was bad for hiding the truth and that something must have been amiss for the Uncle of Madeleine who was also out there in the party with his daughter who took ill and was left alone in his apartment, left very fast once the police were called in over Madeleine, and it caused a blazing row between everyone as he is the sort of guy who won’t mince his words, he tells it the way it is and refused to be a party to lies and so they told him to make a swift departure as he would drop them all in it ad so he left fast the same night as Maddy was abducted leaving others to suspect he was responsible for something too” (quote).
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/17809/McCanns-in-legal-move-on-newspaper
Not at all sure what to make of this!
September 1st, 2007 at 10:42 am
It is my understanding that in Portugal, libel cases can take many months to come to court… the chances of the McCanns being able to take the witness stand in a libel case BEFORE the investigation is complete are slim.
Plus in Gerry McCann’s own statement, he mentions that they will fight the criminal case all the way to the courts, then IF they win they will be able to pursue for civil indemnity (libel).
My own take on this libel action is that it is a warning shot designed to end speculation - I would be very suprised if it ever makes it to court, especially while the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance remains open. Apart from anything else the PJ will continue to refuse to comment one way or the other, which will effectively halt civil proceedings.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
I cannot quite fathom how a libel case can be brought at this stage against the newspaper when, to begin with, the case that is in question, viz. what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann, has not yet been resolved NOR closed.
No judge in my mind, can make any sort of fair decision in this libel case, as quite frankly, there are too few FACTS available on anything in this case. It has not yet been proven that RM had nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance. And it is also not yet been proven that her own parents had nothing to do with her disappearance.
Should a judge hear this case, and decide in favour of the McCann’s and then, say for argument’s sake two years down the line, conclusive evidence is presented that proves that they were responsible ….. could you possibly imagine the libel cases that would spring out of that one? Everyone would be suing everyone for all sorts of things. I cannot imagine that ANY judge would risk his career to even listen to this libel case at the moment !
September 1st, 2007 at 10:25 am
Yes Molly, the alcohol perception’s always been top of my lists! Who knows if the alcohol they consumed at the Tapas Bar that evening was their first for the day? Perhaps a glass of wine or two with their lunch, another couple with afternoon tea … who knows … they were on holiday!
And then … already in a party mood … and definitely NOT wanting kids bugging them for the evening, they do what I suspect they did.
Consumption of alchohol diminishes a person’s sense of time, thus leading to the conflicting statements of what times the children were checked upon. Yet there are statements from staff at the Tapas Bar stating that at no stage did they see anyone get up from the table and leave the Tapas (under the presumption that they were checking on the children!) at the times that there were “supposed” checks made.
I tend to agree with you that alcohol had a very large part to play in the tragic turn of events that evening.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Nicely put Maria. I agree with you.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:21 am
This is all speculation, or a little more, because I have listened very carefully to Kate’s words, in particular, in interviews, but my feeling is that there were significant facts about the state of the apartment, and, indeed, the events of the evening, which made the couple certain that Madeleine had been snatched. At the moment, they are unable to reveal all of these, although the fact that the child’s cuddly toy had been put up on a shelf which she could not have reached hersefl, was mentioned by Kate in one interview. At the same time, she said there were other facts which she was not allowed to refer to because theu were central to the investigation. If the libel case goes to court, they will be able to reveal everything because, although they are bound by the secrecy laws at the moment, and have taken them seriously, they would NOT be bound by them if involved in other legal proceedings (eg. in court for the libel case).
My guess (it can’t be more) is that the libel case will not only be aimed at dispelling rumours and silencing irresponsible journalism, but will also finally give them the opportunity to reveal all the details of what actually happened and why they were so convinced Madeleine had been snatched.
As someone said, saving their reputations perhaps ought not to be uppermost in their minds (although I personally would certainly sue a newspaper which stated, incorrectly, that the police believed I had killed my child! They also have their respective families’ suffering to think of), but this case will give them complete freedom to speak as well, which I suspect they desperately want. It should also return the focus to where it belongs…the search for Madeleine, or her remains, and the perpetrator of the crime.
So I’m not at all sure that I agree with the poster who suggested that the McCanns are guilty of poor judgement in bringing this case. I suspect they and their advisers know exactly what they are doing.
Madeleine’s fund is not going to be used to pay the legal fees for this case.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:09 am
That is true Julie - anger would be my first response I guess … could humiliation and drink explain a more hysterical reaction I wonder?
Who knows with these people?
September 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
That’s kind of my point itsme … if Kate first assumed that the Hotel Staff had removed Madeleine to the creche - that would explain the “They’ve taken her” … is it possible that those who KNEW what had happened to her, siezed on that and ran full pelt with the abduction claims from that point onwards?
It is common knowledge on here that I believe in the sedative overdose theory - it’s simple AND explains the subsequent cover up. It could also explain the silence of those of the Tapas 9 who also know what happened, if one of them was complicit in providing the sedative.
Now Kate would probably know about the sedative, but perhaps at that point she was not aware of subsequent events.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
Molly, very interesting points. However, to my mind Kate’s tone of voice to the comment “They’ve taken her” would have been one of anger (supposing she presumed that the resort management had taken Madeleine to the creche). I don’t recall it ever being reported that she was “angry” when she reported the “They’ve taken her” fact?
And she should have realised at that point that if Hotel Management had decided to remove Madeleine to a safer point in the resort, there is just no ways that they would have left twins (only two years old) behind in the apartment!!! Nope … more I think about it …. I don’t think she was referring to Hotel Management at that time.
But … carry on Molly … enjoy your posts immensely … and I’m not trying to knock your views at all here :o)
September 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am
first natural thing crossing ones mind after the kid disappeared would be:
she ran off (the door was open, and she obviously woke up a several times at nights before).
MCs, that night, both called it an abduction.
- KM “they have taken her”, after discovering her missing
- GM - “shes abducted”, in the apartment when police arrived, repeatedly screaming this (read in forum).
BOTH claimed from second one she was abducted ?
usually one tries to calm down the other then in such situations…
especially when i left doors open, all other possibilities are more likely than an abduction…
and WHEN they believed the MW-staff could have done so, WHY did they still drop their twins at the kids club afterwards, regulary ?
all together one gets the impression they instantly tried to push the abduction theory, even by visiting the pope and involving the british politican to release the man-carrying-child-story. this information was not released by the police, because it was NOT helpful in any way - except of founding an abduction theory.
another question - why called RM this sergio that night ?
it came to my mind that RM heard about the disappearance of a little girl and called sergio asking briefly (20 seconds or so were reported): youve anything to do with this ?
September 1st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Back to my post 160 - this would also explain why Kate did not think twice about leaving the twins behind in the apartment while she went back to the bar … another previously inexplicable point.
Could this be where the ‘abduction’ theory was born?
September 1st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Yes, exactly Julie … a few weeks ago someone tried to sabotage the Mirror discussion threads about Madeleine by posting extremely pornographic images on the site.
Every single person who logged onto the site that day and saw those pictures will have a trace of them on their computers - even if they were deleted immediately AND cleared from the recycle bin!
As regards Murat - my understanding is that the PJ have never said that they found child porn on his computer … the reports came from the British press only.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:25 am
Tessa, there was categorically no child porn found on Murats PC, his lawyer denied that when the rumour mill started and the PJ supported the denial.
Do you really think he would still be walking around a free man? in Portugal where it is as serious an offence as it is here? Maybe even more so….
I find it tasteless that you are naming so many people who have been convicted of nothing.
Patsy Ramsay has been cleared in the eyes of the police dept despite being convicted by the National Enquirer.
The Dutch boy in Aruba has not been proved to have done anything despite being convicted by Fox News.
Robert Murat is still on trial because he looks ‘creepy’ according to a journalist.
I’m stunned and I am so pleased to live in UK where, on the whole, we don’t try, convict and sentence people according to the leaning of particular publications /tv channels.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
My attention has just been drawn to something which may explain Kate McCann’s “They’ve Taken Her” when she discovered Madeleine missing - something which has been inexplicable from the outset.
This REALLY makes sense to me!
Now the day before she went missing, on Wed , there was a complaint to the Gen Manager Mr Hill (from Mrs Fenn). Mr Hill (or his second in command - Sylvia ?) spoke to Gerry the next day and asked if there was a problem with leaving the children uncared for while they dined. Gerry said no, Mr Hill offered him a walkie talkie which Gerry refused.
Could Kate have assumed that the Hotel Management had removed Madeleine to the evening creche because she was crying?
“They’ve Taken Her”
Makes perfect sense to me, and answers that always elusive question of WHO she thought had taken her.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:54 am
Tessa, just to go back to the porn that was supposedly found on Murat’s computer. I am by no means a computer expert, however, there are many ways that this sort of stuff can find its way onto a computer’s hard drive!
If the stuff was deliberately saved onto a file/folder, then yes, he is guilty thereof. However, I myself have found all sorts of strange things popping up on my own PC … stuff that I haven’t even gone near …. it is immediately deleted though, saying that, if items are not removed from your recycle bin, they are still lurking on your PC! One evening I was very very shocked when I went onto our Missing Children’s website, and there in full view, for everyone who accessed the site were graphic pornography photos. Now as this site is saved as a favourite of mine and is accessed numerous times a day, would this then not be seen that I had porn on my PC?
And just for the record, I am NO paedophile, rapist, child molester, child abuser or anything remotely associated with the ill-treatment of any fellow human being!
September 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
An interesting point from SA on the Mirror Forums:
The BBC mentioned today about the Ms legal proceedings against T&Q and added that the Portuguese police have said that the Ms are not suspects.
This is something they will never understand.
In a case of this nature, if the PJ acknowledge that the Ms ‘are suspects’ they have to declare them ‘arguidos’.
An ‘arguido’, what the British understand as suspect, has the right to refuse to answer any questions, he can even to lie to avoid incriminating himself, and the police can do nothing about it.
The PJ is wisely treating the Ms as witnesses because witnesses cannot make ‘false statements’ to the police. Making a false statement (as a witness) is punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment (suspended) plus a fine.
As somebody said to me this morning: Let the British think they are not suspects. We just think they had a lot to do with it.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:41 am
Tessa, too late? LOL I’ve just got out of bed!
Really, really interesting post Tessa (155), I think it just about covers exactly IT! And I think Horror Movie is probably a mild way of explaining my suspicions!
September 1st, 2007 at 7:12 am
155 - should have been directed at 150 not 147. Ugh, too late to be posting. Going blind now…..as in 3 blind mice…..
September 1st, 2007 at 6:24 am
147 - Yes, I completely believe in karma both good and bad - as in what goes around comes around. I’ve seen it happen in every aspect of my life and most others that I’ve observed closely. It’s the 8th wonder of the world!
To your points here, like you, I take a more comparative style approach to thinking this thru and understanding what has transpired. Drawing on life’s experiences and observations; more on the human psychology and contextual side, less on the arm chair sleuth slide.. Conversely, I find the forum’s general style here to be more about deductive reasoning dissecting specific issues and causes. I don’t know, maybe that’s not really accurate, but it’s just very different from the way I approach, analyze and observe things. I also happen to believe in the phrase, “paralysis by analysis”. A tolerance for redundancy and patience has never been a real virtue of mine
But with regards to the Mccanns, I think about an analogy about them being so uncomfortable in their own skin all the time. It’s sort of like accepting an award to something that you never even earned. But ten times magnified because the whole world is watching. And people are in camps with those who know they are not telling the truth and others who think they can do no wrong. And the guilt is paramount. You know, I swear if this was not not 2007, I’d swear it was right out of a Thomas Hardy novel. Can you imagine if they are bs’ing the world on this, what their living hell is like each nite when they are alone in bed together? Too afraid to talk to each other, for fear of being recorded. Maybe not knowing if one is taping the other?? Yet who else can they talk to now? I invision them going to bed at nite, and waking up in cold sweats with visions of their daughter haunting them in their dreams, saying stuff that I can’t even print here. But I’m sure you’ve seen enough scarey movies, enough Twilight Zone episodes to know where I’m going with that. Overwhelming Guilt and personal torment is all consuming and will deprive anyone of a normal life in the end. Ken Lay, OJ, and let’s not forget Patsy Ramsey. I am also waiting to hear how far into adulthoold before Vandersloot (can’t recall his first name - don’t want to either) screws up his life. Oh, there are many many more. Too many to even count. As for the Mccans. I am a convert. I had been on their side, in their camp, believing every ounce of their story, never questioning any of it because it never occured to me that anyone with a daugther as loved as their’s could do anything to jeopardize her safety and existence - up until a few weeks ago. I have never found myself in this situation before and I do attribute it to this forum. Where I was so sure of one side and never could fathom moving away from those beliefs. Until slowly, it just started adding up. Or not adding up. It’s like going to see a suspense thriller movie the first time around, and not knowing any thing about it. Then going back a second time and the views you have are so diametrically opposed. Things you missed the first go around become so crystal clear and obvious once you have more and more of the pieces of the puzzle and of course it makes you realize that you were not looking at it the right way during the first go ’round. So yes, this has been sort of like watching a horror movie play out. I’m sorry if that analogy offends anyone. I certainly don’t mean it to come off that way. It’s just the way I view it. Like I said, a bit differently.
As for the ending of this very sad drama, I seriously do fear what will become of this family who otherwise were probably not much different than many upwardly mobile young families (they are big on class distinctions in the UK and I’ve read many posters on here where they call the mccans middle class commoners or working class because they came from what we call blue collar families. I find that to be very Victorian age thinking. Instead I see it as everyone in life has the right to try to improve upon themselves and their livelihood regardless of what background they come from. Some people call it building the American dream. I call it drive and ambition; to excell and progress is a right everyone should be afforded). It will not be the fault of the media this time around. It’s will be the inability to live a life where you can not sit with or get out of your own skin. Like I said, a horror movie becomes a real life scenario for the cute little family with the adorable kids who had it all but one nite changed everything.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:14 am
152 - do you really still believe someone took Madeleine??
153 - there was evidence and documentation that child pornography was on his hard drive. The cops still have it. So much of this stuff is old news now that I had it all at one point, but would have to go back and dig it up again. But if you trace it back to when he was arrested the first time, you’ll find it. The diff. btwn me and others on this site is i just don’t have the time and inclination to keep going back over the same old stuff….stuff that transpired weeks and even mos ago. But it’s there. I never heard the phrase “a relevant sexual history” talk about legal jargon. Give me a break! He had kiddie porn on his hard drive when they first came to his house, and confiscated his PC. That was back in May, right?
I just refuse to have any pity or sympathy for this scum bag. And the big differeence btwn me and the others who do think the mccans are involved, is that they feel protective of Murat and I do not. One wrong does not make a right. It’s just not right. I don’t think Murat is involved w/ Madeleine. My gut instincts based on what has unfolded and continues to unfold thus far. I did think he was guilty in the beginning. I also believed the mccanns too. Today I am on the polar opposite side but I still think Murat is not an innocent man. The thing is, one door closes and another one opens up. Investigators stumble on extraneous information all the time when trying to crack a case. It’s just what happens.
The Richard Jewell story keeps coming up - the Atlanta bombing suspect. It’s weird that he just died this past week and everyone was comparing him to Murat on this forum. But do you know that he was not innocent either? He had some involvement but they could not totally pin it on him. He did a bunch of other really f’d up things too. So where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
September 1st, 2007 at 5:07 am
Tessa I think it’s interesting and maybe significant that Robert Murat has not been released of his arguido status. I wonder if he chooses to retain that status given the protection it affords ie lawyer present, right to remain silent etc?
How do you know that he had child porn on his computer? I read about a “relevant” sexual history but that does not really say anything. Relevant to what? It was also reported that the PJ were interested in him prior to the journo drawing attention to him. Would the investigation have taken a different course if his face was not all over the world? I wonder why he is still an arguido.