Madeleine McCann: Kate And Gerry’s Blood, Threat And Tears
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
THE SUN front page: “KATE’S AGONY – CONFESS & YOU’RE OUT IN A YEAR.”
“Deal of blood, threat and tears.” Kate McCann is being interviewed by police. This is a “highly-charged confrontation, Portuguese officers citing forensic evidence told the GP she would receive a jail sentence of between two and three years if she signed a confession.”
Kate McCann is “horrified”. Says she: “How dare you?”
A source tells the paper: “The police were trying to get Kate to say she had amnesia or was in shock or had a breakdown. They said if she signed the confession she’d serve a year and that her husband would not be charged and could go home. It was effectively emotional blackmail.”
“SHOCKED” Gerry McCann has been named as a formal suspect.
THE SUN SAYS: “But the allegations made yesterday against Madeleine’s distraught mother Kate are astonishing and, in places, farcical. A suspicious page of the Bible left open? A call to a priest on the day of Maddie’s disappearance? Not exactly a smoking gun.”
Do all crimes involve a smoking gun?
The Sun concludes: “The Sun desperately wants justice for Maddie. But the greatest pity is that she is the one person who seems to have been forgotten in this mess of incompetence.”
And the Press continue to watch the parents.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: DEATH ON MUM’S BIBLE.”
THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER writes of “THE DAY THE JEERING STARTED”.
“Just two days ago Kate McCann, 39, was regarded almost universally as a victim who had suffered unimaginable agony. Families everywhere shared her heartbreak at losing her beautiful daughter. But it was clear yesterday, as the GP arrived to be formally named as a suspect in her daughter’s disappearance, that much of that sympathy has now gone.”
The crowd outside the police station – 400-strong – goes into a “frenzy” when Kate McCann arrives. “There were whistles, then jeers and boos before some in the crowd began to shout insults. ‘Whore… daughter of a whore,’ some yelled in Portuguese.”
The Express translates.
A local man says: “They will find this more and more because in Portugal harming a child is the worst thing…The Portuguese people took them to their hearts and now we feel cheated. It will not be nice in Portugal for them now.”
Kate is “cool and collected”.
DAILY MAIL front page: “THE ACCUSED. Portuguese police’s staggering grilling of Madeleine mother.
• Why was her blood in your car?
• Did you drug her that night?
• Confess and get just two years.”
DAILY STAR front page: “YOU KILLED MADDIE.”
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADELEINE SENSATION. We have found her blood in the boot of your hire car.. DID YOU KILL HER BY ACCIDENT?” This is “what police asked Kate McCann during 16-hour grilling”.
THE GUARDIAN front page: “Mother, victim…suspect: police target Kate McCann.”
THE TELEGRAPH: “Kate and Gerry McCann named as suspects,” says the headline.
“Mr McCann stared straight ahead as his suspect status was announced and refused to answer questions from awaiting journalists. A crowd which had been attending a concert in the town square earlier listened to the announcement and several people gasped audibly.”
In “Villagers back Madeleine McCann’s parents”, the paper journeys to Rothey, Leicestershire, the McCanns’ home town. Michelle Canilleri, who lives in Rothley, shares with the world: “I can’t believe it. This is such a shock. They have got the wrong people. No way in the world would either Kate or Gerry harm any of their children.”
THE INDEPENDENT front page: “FROM ANGUISHED PARENT, TO GRIEVING MOTHER, TO SUSPECT.”
“Shortly before 11am, Mrs McCann’s spokeswoman, Justine McGuinness, revealed that the 39-year-old GP was being made an arguida – official suspect – in the case. And then she uttered the six short words which will be inconceivable to some who have followed this case and a confirmation of long-held suspicions to others. ‘Kate fears she will be charged,’ Ms McGuinness said.”
THE TIMES front page: A picture of the McCanns meeting the Pope.
Madeleine McCann The Public Spectacle
Posted: 8th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,454) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Wyvern on Bolivian Police And Maddie McCann Introduce The Worst Photo-Fits Ever
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- Nomadic View on Bolivian Police Release Video Of World’s Worst Photo-Fit Killers’ Capture
- June on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- Katie Norman on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
September 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
(from the Daily Mail)
“Her husband, by contrast, strides purposefully between meetings with senior politicians and religious leaders. Zealously banging the drum for missing children, his pugilistic Glaswegian chin juts defiantly towards anyone who dares to question him, or his motives”
I love this quote - it is eerily reminiscent of how arrogant Scott Peterson was described in the press right after they began looking at him and his odd behavior from crocodile tears to the selling of his house and furntiure and of course the infamous porn channel purchase over the Christmas holidays less than a week after Lacey went missing. He was organizing hunts for Lacey and thoroughly enjoying the publicity he was getting as the victim’s husband. Although he was forever the charmer (as sociopaths often can be) not a defiant type.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Who’s going to catch them with a body in the boot? It’s not like anyone is opening it every 10 minutes.
Hiding a body is by definition risky. Hiding a body further away from the likely search points is safer than hiding it nearer.
I don’t know where or if they hid the body… but time in the boot wouldn’t be the main concern, nor would crosses.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rosemary (176). Yes, this comment of Gerry’s was very strange, especially as he knew at the time that he too was likely to be made an “arguido”. Maybe Kate did not, in fact, have anything to do with it.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
183. I’m not assuming anything at all - I’m trying to take a balanced view, reading the comments with interest and sticking to ‘innocent until proven guilty’ until I know better. I find it bizarre that people think they know everything that happened just because the PJ have let a few things slip. We definitely don’t have the full picture yet - that’s all I’m saying. It’s still speculation at this stage.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Grieving mom, I want to read your comments because I think you have some interesting things to say.
To make it easier for us to read so more people can benefit from your insight, can you please break your ideas into smaller paragraphs?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find those a lot easier to follow. Capitalization and punctuation, consider those optional if helpful, but huge blocks of text are very tough to follow.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
169 Oh absolutely!
Red herring? you wouldn’t know a red herring if it smacked you in the mouth.
Far from being mystical I was thinking more of them being scared of being caught with a body in the boot!! Duh.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
thanks sally for not commenting on my comparison with sara payne, wonder why you didnt there, as ofcourse she was some one who has been through exactly what the mccanns have if the abduction theory was to be believed. i could not and would not have walked infront of the cameras the way they did id be so emotional that alsternative arrangements wouldbe made or id be in the nut house. also gerry stood their when the lawyer addressed the press with a stony silence. id be in tears as would my partner. any mum in similar situations - sarah payne, rhys, et al has appeared emotional, its impossible to hold it in if its your child. And the mothers falsely accused over baby death have only ever been photographed beary eyed, weeping and looking depressed not steeley reserve usually associated with the guilty as hell stances of proven killers. Also i buried my son that day and i didnt deserve to and more importantly he didnt deserve his whole life being taken away. if maddie is dead i feel for her and her siblings and family but not parents, one way or another they are responsible through neglect or otherwise they are not blameless by any stretch of the imagination
September 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Molly 185.
A dumb public. (Just look around.)
And ratings.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
ANY opinion expressed by the extended family as to the innocence of the McCanns is worthless, and I simply cannot understand why responsible news sources such as the BBC are quoting them as if they are founts of all true knowledge!
I do not doubt that they believe in their innocence, and will move heaven and earth to continue believing that - but equally I do not suppose for one second that they would know about if if the parents are guilty!
September 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Sally 181… maybe they’re waiting for that golden moment in child abduction cases, 6-months after the child is abducted, when most cases are broken wide open and the child is safely returned home, to spend the money?
/end sarcasm
September 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Sally
Speak for yourself.. your assumption of innocence might fit the phrase better
September 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
133 - To quote the famous line in the Natalie Holloway story allegedly spoken by Joran Vancersloot’s father (an Aruban magistrate).
“No body, no crime”
Unfortunately, it’s true. As in Natalie never being found, despite overwhelming evidence from many sources.
So, unless they’ve have retrieved Madeleine’s body, it will be very difficult for them to prosecutle any one on this case. Regardless of the speculation and even with DNA evidence suggesting the body has been in the rented car. The defense can always claim it was planted by someone else.
Most troublesome in all this is that this sends a message to many would be criminals; if you can dispose of the body ‘properly”, even in a high profile case, you can get away with the crime in the end. The mob wrote the book on this theory, how many of their targets were never found??
September 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Moriarty - it would be great to have all the answers. I just think it’s foolhardy to make such judgements when we’re not in full possession of the facts. I don’t pretend to know why the fund money hasn’t been spent, but I think that the old adage that ‘to assume makes an ass out of u and me’ could be pertinent in some cases here…
September 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
m.e. Fair point, well made. It’s similarly dangerous to take any speculation as fact… (not saying you personally were doing that… Just making the point)
September 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Sally. It isn’t a different point because if they truly believed Madeleine was alive they would have spent all the money searching for her….. They didnt because they know she isnt alive
September 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Rosemary 176. What a great source. Well, that’s convinced me.
I was wrong. Sorry everyone.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
That would be kinda nice, wouldn’t it?
But unfortunately a waste of money if the McCann’s did it. Might as well leave it in the pot so after they’re convicted, if they are, it can be redirected to helping children.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
163, Martin, 165 m.e., looks like things will get much more sinister as more leaks slip out. From Gerry’s last blog on 6th September:”Anyone who knows anything about the 3rd May knows that Kate is completely innocent.”
September 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Moriarty, That’s a different point again…not what I was getting at really.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
sally
didnt say they were guilty. just said correctly that now they’re suspects you cant take what they’ve said previously at face value. it has to be questioned as to whether it was all lies until such time they are no longer suspects.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Did you miss the part where m.e. said they are “suspects”?
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle I support fully. That’s why I’ve said they should have good council and, indeed, the family should not be leaking anything unless this is inline with the strategy of their counsel and, indeed, that strategy should be inline with the law if it is.
However, people still express their opinions. This isn’t a court.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
(171) Sally
Whatever happened to spending the “fund” money looking for little Madeleine???
September 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
m.e. - hmmm…so whatever happened until ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
sally 167
What Gerry and Kate say or have said in the past has now been deemed untrustworthy now they are suspects.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Huh?
Because of their deep devotion to Catholicism and God, they could kill and secretly bury their child, they could allow an innocent man to be suspect and throw the police off the trail, they could lie to the pope, and they could collect a million pounds from an unsuspecting public, but they just love God and Maddy so much they’d have to bury her with a cross?
Was this red herring designed to throw me off your even weaker point about them being unable to travel far with her in the boot for some mystical physical reason that just escapes me?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I don’t think they have to search far for her if the McCanns are the perps (gee I love CSI) no way would they have been able to travel far with her in the boot….. surely she would be buried nearby and because of their religion I bet there would be a cross. They wouldn’t be abe to NOT do that. Trust me!!
September 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
160 - To be fair, Kate and Gerry always said that the thing that kept them going was their belief that Madeleine was still alive. If they are innocent (and we have no evidence yet to the contrary) they had to think like that. If Madeleine’s body had been found and this was a murder investigation, you might have seen rather different behaviour from the ‘grieving parents’. If you choose to believe them, they’ve not been grieving parents - yet - they’ve been in limbo. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t actually know what state they are or aren’t in right now, with regards to “shouting, screaming, crying”, . They’ve only been seen for a few seconds on the way into/out of the police station haven’t they?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
(163) Martin
What was supposed to have happened in the O’Brien Tanner flat?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
rosemary 159
you cover up a death as much as possible if sinister or sick motives are present.
We live in an age where nobody is to be trusted. Open your eyes and accept this. The families’ comments are understandable but rather boring and irrelevant. What the hell do they know? The only people who know are the McCanns. And maybe the police……
September 8th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I read your link, Rosemary. The sister says:
… referring to them looking at an accident theory.
What balderdash. Look, I have no doubt she believes her brother. If she means to say the theory is nonsense, fine. I disagree. Intelligent people do. But she’s entitled to her opinion.
But to say it’s “unacceptable” that the police look into the theory that it’s an accident the parents covered up… shows exactly why you can’t take family members opinions particularly seriously during an investigation.
My mom, bless her heart, agrees with me fully. We both are disdainful of mothers who say their adult children could never have done such and such. Yes, they could. People are capable of both enormous good and great evil.
The question is whether they did or not.
So, my mom fully (and correctly) acknowledges I am capable of violence. Heck, I was trained in it.
The question would be whether I did it or not in X situation.
In point of fact, I believe in good over evil and am very unlikely to use violence except to defend myself, another person, in war, or in accordance with the principles of justice.
Which, 99.9 times out of a hundred should be administered by the courts.
But to say it’s unacceptable for the police to investigate her brother is just retarded.
———————–
Mods and Admin
But wouldn’t it be interesting to say the least if a family member said ‘Oh I agree they are murdering swine ‘ or words to that effect? isn’t this the reason that family members are exempted from character references. Another point worth clarifying is Justine McGuiness’s relationship with the McCanns, is she a relative, or ‘family friend’ or plain spokesperson?