Madeleine McCann: Clarence Mitchell Speaks, Make Madeleine History And Breastfeeding
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MAIL pages 10 and 11: “Madeleine cried for 18 hours a day. Kate tells of the special bond forged in the painful days of early childhood.”
Kate McCann is speaking with Portuguese magazine Flash!. This interview took place before Kate McCann was named as a suspect in Madeline’s disappearance. Kate says the first six months with Madeleine were “very difficult”. Madeleine had colic. “I had to carry her around permanently,” says Kate.
What does it mean, this interview that has “emerged”? That what you tell magazines can be taken out of context and used in evidence against you, or something else?
THE TIMES page 9: “McCanns go straight to the top in search for powerful backers.”
Gordon Brown is being kept abreast of the investigation on Kate and Gerry McCann, possibly by reading the British press and watching the news bulletins.
(Is any MP still wearing a yellow ribbon?)
The McCanns have a new spokesman. He’s called Clarence Mitchell. He resigned as head of the Government’s Media Monitoring unit to take this new post.
Mr Mitchell once offered: “There’s a whole level of debate taking place online which simply didn’t exist before and departments feel they need to be fully engaged in that.”
Look out for Kate’s blog.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “THE TIDE TURNS.”
“McCanns WON’T be ordered back to Portugal says Judge”
“Gordon Brown briefed on the case”
“New spokesman will declare Gerry and Kate innocent today”
Clarence Mitchell says: “They have nothing whatever to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.” And as the McCann’s new spokesman he should know.
Pages 4 and 5: “RAY OF HOPE.”
Madeleine has not been found but Kate and Gerry McCann will not have to fly back to Portugal for more questioning.
On the downside sales of the “Look for Madeleine” wristband are not going well in Portugal. In “LOCALS REJECTS ‘FIND HER’ BRACELETS,” this year’s Make Poverty History band is being turned down at a car boot sales in Praia da Luz.
Says one ex-pat: “It’s as if they want to forget something so horrible happened.” Or buy something less with their money?
Says another: “We can’t understand how they can carry on jogging after losing Madeleine. Gerry went to a hairdressers a few weeks after she disappeared and continued tennis lessons. The Portuguese feel they should b hysterical.” But not the British, who understand reserve…
THE SUN front page: “MADDIE COPS SLAPPED DOWN. KATE BACKED BY JUDGE. Mum won’t be hauled back to Portugal.”
Judge Pedro Anjos Frias rejected Portuguese police calls for the McCanns to return. “He is thought to have ruled the case to flimsy to justify the move.” Or, to put it another way, he has not received sufficient evidence to be convinced of the need for a trial.
Pages 4 and 5: “COPS CASE COLLAPSING.”
And: “McCanns tell Brown: We have solid defence.” Gordon Brown’s reaction to this news is not known.
THE INDEPENDENT page 32: Thomas Sutcliffe says the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been “yoked by journalists to another kind of story – the primal faction of fairytale”. Here “the beautiful child is swallowed by something that has emerged from the dark”.
It is, is it not, every child’s worst nightmare.
Page 4: “Kate McCann ‘will not be reinterviewed in Portugal’.”
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE POLICE CASE FALLS APART.”
“Judge refuses to recall the McCanns”
“Impossible to detect sedatives in hair”
“But slurs against the parents continue”
Slurs?
Pages 8 and 9: “My struggles to control Madeleine – BY KATE MCCANN.”
As told to Flash! magazine. The twins arrive. “The worst thing is that she started to demand lots of attention, especially when I was breastfeeding them.”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE ALL SEVEN McCANN PALS IN FRAME.” The seven dwarves, to continue Mr Sutcliffe’s analogy?
“Cops set to name them as suspects.”
Pages 6 and 7: “BRIT PALS ALL SUSPECTS.”
The Tapas 9 are in the frame. This will put the lid – the tapas – on the case. Right?
“Maddie cops jet to UK as group face grilling” – Portuguese police are “planning” to come to the UK to continue the investigation. British police will conduct interviews.
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 8: “McCanns to be interviewed by British police.”
Kate and Gerry are also keen to reach Gordon Brown. A source tell the paper: “The McCanns do not expect help or influence to be exerted on their behalf but want to get messages to the very top that they are innocent.”
Does Brown read the Telegraph?
THE GUARDIAN page 35: “Never mind the high street: Branson sells his Virgin Megastores.”
No mention of Madeleine McCann, granted, but this news one day after Branson pledged to help the parents clear their names looks like interesting timing?
Posted: 18th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,047) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- June on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- eggman on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Trismegistus on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Bernie Morgan on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
September 19th, 2007 at 3:51 am
“In 1999, the Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, told the parents of JonBenet Ramsey to “quit hiding behind their attorneys, quit hiding behind their PR firm.”
Hmm, maybe it is more similar than I thought? Don’t people commonly believe the Ramseys are innocent now, after private detectives (with good backgrounds), wrote books on the case? Hmm, wonder if that will happen here?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am
With the country’s top criminal defence lawyer being paid for by one of the country’s richest men, I am sure the Mccans can “explain” anything and everything.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:41 am
As I’ve said above, let the McScam brigade dig themselves a bigger hole. Time will expose them and one of the “pact” group will sooner or later slip up or split.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:41 am
As I’ve said above, let the McScam brigade dig there hole deeper. Time will expose their lies and one of the “pact” group will sooner or later slip up or split.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Also, regarding the moving to another villa. It would seem they had luggage that would hold the majority of all the clothing they took on holiday with them (except a few things, we all know how we usually come back with an extra bag or two full of stuff!). So why throw everything (clothing and such) directly in the car without putting it in something? That seems a bit more tedious when unpacking. Plus, the luggage could probably fit in the car, as they said they took out the seats, meaning, I doubt the whole family had to be transported with all the luggage at the same time. Just a thought, I’m sure there are explanations..
September 19th, 2007 at 3:36 am
(1002) Ian Willis:
“Firstly, lots of people had already trampled all over the apartment. preserving DNA would be the last thing for them to consider.”
I really don’t understand that either, most people know that you shouldn’t be in the area within a crime such as this, as it could destroy DNA. I know that you can never know how someone will react or what caution they will take, but surely some of the other “intelligent doctor” friends would have pointed that out, let alone the police (if they didn’t after the x amount of time they were called).
Also, they were positive she was abducted instead of just wandering off, etc. which means they really should have thought more to preserve any DNA from any potential abductor there was.
I know people would think this is similar to the Ramsey case, but with the Ramsey case, the friends were wandering all around the home (not really just in the locations where she was taken, her bedroom wasn’t that tampered with I don’t think, mainly the main areas). In this case, the McCanns could have taken the children into the other bedroom and really gathered there and kept the other room off limits as well.
I have a problem with the “pact” thing and leaving “all information to come from the McCanns”. Aren’t the McCanns under the secrecy act, so why would they tell their friends not to say anything as they wanted to be in control of all information that came out? When in reality, other than leaking it through a friend, they really couldn’t say much directly to the press themselves? (or so we’re told)
September 19th, 2007 at 3:33 am
The Mccans and the other Tapas 9 all seem to have a memory of convenience.
They can recall “facts” like how many dead bodies they handled before going on holiday, but they cant say for certain what happened and when on the afternoon/evening/night their daughter disappeared.
Why do the Mccan brigade feel they need to take out paid advertisements on Google to forward their claim that “Madeleine was abducted”?
There is no evidence whatsoever that can be independently verified of an abducter, other than the discredited and contradicted report of one of the Tapas 9.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:28 am
(1002) Ian Willis:
I don’t really agree with those explanations I stated, I’m just saying, if they are asked those questions, if they don’t just dismiss the questions or refuse to answer, I’m sure we’ll be hearing something like that.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:25 am
No, I disagree.
Firstly, lots of people had already trampled all over the apartment. preserving DNA would be the last thing for them to consider.
Secondly, if your daughter went missing, and the experts all confirm this - just read the reports - you would want to stay at the place you last saw her.
As for returning to the UK, they swore publicly time and time again, they would not leave Portugal until Madeleine’s fate was known. Then, at the first sign that they may be locked up, they’re packing their bags and running home to the UK!
September 19th, 2007 at 3:18 am
(1000) Ian Willis:
Yeah but that could be easily twisted.
They didn’t want to tamper with the evidence in the room further, but needed a room for the twins, so they moved to a another villa/suite on the property. They also took some of her belongings so that they stay close to her possessions. Also, there is a lot of criticism concerning their choice to go back to the UK, well that is really where Madeleine’s room and most of her possessions were.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but we have to remember that such things can be excused for.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Thats my point , Wanderer. The experts say parents WANT to stay close to their missing childs room and possessions.
It would only be a child-killer who felt guilt who would want to move away and forget the memory and smell of their child and his/her things.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:09 am
(997) Ian Willis:
Well, I suppose they wouldn’t want to stay in the place their daughter was taken? Plus, they’d have to keep going in and out of the room as that is the room the twins were staying in.
I find it unlikely the resort would force them out of the room, I wonder how long the police, if at all, requested the resort to not rent out the suite?
This wasn’t their home, so it would be harder to leave everything in its place, but I’m sure with a bit of a kicking and screaming they could have had the room locked down for a bit longer or locked down in general (by either the resort company or the police).
September 19th, 2007 at 3:09 am
993 Ian WIllis Says:
LOL. It makes the mind whirl and the stomach turn doesn’t it? How they can say and do what they do and feel okay with themselves?
For the allegedly grieving parents of a missing 3 year old girl. Who in their allegedly crippling mind-bending grief have some how kept their wits about them (alleged wits that is) and summoned allegedly magical-like strength and assembled a brilliant PR team they make A LOT of statements and decisions that really boogle the mind and are frankly sickening to anyone with any common sense, compassion and empathy for abused, missing and exploited children.
Yeah, I’ve often thought that they’re going to invent, design and market: a child monitoring system; a cuddlecat; Madeleine’s colombo as a design for Kate’s jewelry line…………..So many choices so little time (especially for Madeleine).
September 19th, 2007 at 3:03 am
If you look at all the experts reports, they all say that parents of missing children always leave the childs room and possessions untouched.
With all Mcccans political support, I am sure the resort could not have forced the Mccans to vacate their original apartment. Even if they did, I am sure someone lie Sir Branson would have stepped in and bought the place!
So it just adds to the inconsistencies that they moved at all, that they moved M’s things, that they chose to wash Cuddle Cat but not the alleged nappies with “skin, sweat and bodily fluids” on them!
September 19th, 2007 at 3:00 am
The whole DNA thing is difficult, even if true and belonging to Madeleine.
It could easily just be transferred from the poor parents moving her stuff around.
Or, it could be because the car was used for something more sinister.
We don’t know, and it is just annoying. The longer this goes on, the more unlikely Madeleine’s safe or quick (yes quick, as some abductors keep these children for years on end) return seems possible. Along with finding evidence left by her abductor, if there is one, before he strikes again.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:51 am
(991) Ian Willis:
I have no idea when they moved villas, I thought they were staying in another villa on the resort, which may or may not need the help of a car to move things. If hired 25 days later, before seeing the Pope, maybe they moved again after seeing the Pope? I wouldn’t know why, other than the suggestion of not wanting to be at the Warner resort any longer (even though it could have been free accommodation?). It is odd, as at first it seemed to be claimed that the “DNA” evidence was flawed or that it simply belonged to one of the other family members (as the family shares DNA markers), meaning they didn’t even think it could be Madeleine’s.
“A family source said: “Who is to say what happened when they moved to the new villa? The seats were ripped out and everything including Madeleine’s sandals and the twins’ nappies were dumped in the car — which would have included traces of skin, sweat and bodily fluids.”
The twins nappies? Do they use cloth diapers? Not related I know, I just found that odd.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Paulette,
Do you think the McScams, with their proven ability to raise money, will next be auctioning off Madeleines toys on ebay?
They’d probably put some spin on that too…some bulls*** about wanting to help poor children…
September 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Thanks Ian for the answer to my interest gained question.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am
I’m sure they just use Paypal because it is thought to be secure and they want to assure the public that their information will be kept safe by using a company that is thought to be secure.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am
988 Wanderer
I’m confused now. I understood the Renault was hired the day before they went to see the Pope - ie. several weeks after M disappeared.
So how can M’s things have been in that car when they moved villa? When did they move villa and why?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Yeah I hate PayPal. PayPal is owned by Ebay?
What is the weirdness of this though? Do the McCanns own stock in Ebay? SOrry it’s really late/early here & I’m terribly sleepy & need to get to bed.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:39 am
(986)
Well that was a rubbish article. Nothing new, and what DNA? I’ve heard it wasn’t even Madeleine’s and that of the twins or the parents and just mistaken? Now the DNA could belong to her yet again? Can we please have someone tell us which it is?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:37 am
They are also stupid enough to use Paypal for collecting on-line payments!!!
See:-
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-15176.html
Paypal (a private, greedy, ruthless, unregulated online trading company) takes 3.4% of all online donations!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:37 am
This is both funny and contains a lot of truths and serious questions which I think will resonate with those who are suspicious of the McCanns: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JcRCpcJnuW4
Thanks to Stevo who posted it much earlier.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:36 am
“We Can Explain the DNA in the Car.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2485260.ece
September 19th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Paulette,
The amount of interest would depend on how much money remains unspent.
If we assume they have spend half of it, and £500,000 remains, I estimate they would be getting about £2,000 per month in interest, excluding tax.
It depends on what type of bank account the money is being held in. They may earn even more if the unused money is invested in short-term schemes.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:32 am
(981) Ian Willis:
“I can bet you, with clever accountants and lawyers, if they really needed to access the fund for legal fees they would find a way, legally and easily.”
I think it could have been too, as the vague statement is “support the family” or something like that (for the fund usage). I also liked how, on the fund page, they make it clear the McCanns did not ask for money from the fund to pay for the legal fees, yet, in articles there were many statements that they were “looking into it”, implying they’d like to if it would be legal and wouldn’t incur the backlash of the public. The same thing seems to be happening with Mitchell’s powerful contacts, it states he’s taken the contact information for the almighty and powerful with him (when he left) and that he will continue to use the contacts. Yet, “The McCanns do not expect help or influence to be exerted on their behalf but want to get messages to the very top that they are innocent.” Hmm.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Maria,
By the category of people accusing the Mccanns placing the emphasis on that, they are actually focusing on finding Madeleine.
They want the parents to tell what they did with her and where they’ve hidden the body so it can be dug up.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am
(977) Ian Willis:
So you’re saying most of the money may have been spent already? I don’t really know how much it would cost to run all of those things you’ve mentioned, so I’m asking.
I just think if they did donate money to the families of other missing children, it is more likely we would have heard about it from now. Because the family would be so grateful and the McCanns’ PR guy could use it, that’s all. If they don’t have much money left (which I confess, I don’t know), I understand that they’d want to keep it in case something develops in Madeleine’s case.
(977) Paulette:
“I especially think O’Brian and Tanner negligent along with the McCanns because they not only left their child alone - but their child was sick and had been vomiting.”
I suspect the excuse could be, “I’m a doctor, I’d know if she was better or feeling well enough.” Not saying I agree with it, but I suspect that would be up on the list of excuses.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am
The legal fees thing not being paid by the fund was a PR move, not a legal move.
I can bet you, with clever accountants and lawyers, if they really needed to access the fund for legal fees they would find a way, legally and easily.
eg.:-
1. Mr Branson gives them £100,000 for “legal fees”
2. One of Mr Branson companies sells plastic bangles to the Mccan company, which he buys in Taiwan for £0.01 each and sells them 200,000 of them at £0.50 each plus £0.01 shipping costs.
3. Mccan company pays bangle company 200,000 x £ £0.51 = £102,000
and then the McScam brigade can still claim the fund was not used for legal fees, although indirectly it can be used to pay for anything!