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
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- 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
September 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
ggod night to all….and keep the debate going…..tomorrows gong to a big news day…
September 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
#704 I don’t know. I am curious, do they bug the bedrooms and listen?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
(698)
There are a few reasons why a woman could appear to have put on weight, bloated, or mask the stomach area. It doesn’t mean they are pregnant.
She could simply be bloated for whatever reason. She may have resorted to comfortable eating, possibly drinking more than average, when on anti-depressants/anti-anxiety medication you can put on weight, or simply, a decrease in the amount she exercises as she is so stressed out. Of course, it could always be the camera, the clothing she is wearing, or her posture.
Anyway, even if she is found to be pregnant, pregnancy doesn’t always equal someone to be a murderer, nor does the time of the pregnancy (as some women don’t show that well, and she could have been impregnated before Madeleine disappeared). I understand why people who think Kate McCann may have had problems with Madeleine and did something wrong, might conclude that having another child could be seen as “replacing” her, or some other red flag.
As I said, things can be explained many different ways. One thing to consider is that the Chamberlins had another child after their child went missing, although I am sure there is a case of parents who were cruel to their children having more and more children, as well.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
698 flower
Watched the video. Even tho Mitchell resigned from his post to become the McCann PR, I guess he’ll cut all ties he has with powerful people he worked with in government. I really cannot believe how many influential people these McCann people know. When I first read they hired a top notch law firm and had this huge PR campaign going, I’m thinking, these aren’t ordinary doctors.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Wow, #704 What is the point?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Mitchell just said it is “Ludicrous”…. blimey.!!!!!!!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“CLAIM: The McCanns have been monitored by satellite since May 3, the night Madeleine went missing.
Every move that the couple and their friends have taken has allegedly been observed using telephone triangulation.
UK sources have conceded that the McCanns have been under surveillance, with phones and emails tracked, but it is not known how detailed the monitoring has been.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wmaddy218.xml
The police have had them under surveillance since May 3? And by satellite? How is that even possible?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I suppose the UK took the sniff dogs to Portugal because they need to know if they are looking for a live child? Are they?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
700 ~ Patricia …why thank you… i appreciate your feedback
September 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Snow on Channel Four News just told Mitchell that three portuguese police men with “accreditation” where on their way to the UK. Mitchell said he/they hadn’t heard anything.
I don’t spend long periods at the computer, so apologies if I seem to jump in and out!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Response to impressed,
impressed [OtF but AM] Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
361 ~ Moderation … on a serious note … you’re right the truth will out … but whilst sir clarence and his team reduce this whole sorry tale into farce… then us cynics on anorak will questio each aspect … some of it will involve humour … some of it will involve wide of the mark theories…. but you know what …. the truth will out and you will read it here…. on mccanorak … till then happy research
BEST POST OF THE DAY
September 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
697 ~ Wander …. that was a good analysis of yours…. as i said in an earlier post i think the journo is a touch naive…
we the mass public have always sat in judgment of our peers …just look at back at the romans…. and many times since then….
what forums like this have done is allow us to share our views with a bigger and more diverse audience. did the explosion of the net [given a lift by broadband] cause this mass out cry…no it did not…. we have always cried out loud…but now more people are listening…more people are replying…more people are becoming free thinkers……
September 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/home
heres her looking pregnant video again
September 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
It seems any of the DNA evidence that we’ve heard about (blood, hair, saliva), seems to be circumstantial at best, along with the questioning of its accuracy.
Impressed, that Times article (by India Knight), is interesting. I still can’t understand how the press think the way the public are responding has nothing to do with them. First, people are chastised for assuming anyone is guilty or innocent, when the press jumped on the Robert Murat fact and then have mostly ignored all caution when claiming the innocence of the McCanns. That fact, along with the endless, mostly uninformative, “news” the papers have been contributing to the public’s views for months. Then she talks about journalist and libel laws, and how they try to keep objective, I’m sorry but papers generally are the people reporting twisted facts and get called out for libel. I quote:
“Despite popular thinking about journalists “making things up”, the traditional media are regulated. Things have to stand up from every angle. Facts matter. We have lawyers; we try not to libel or slander; to keep objective. The public, through the internet, can – and does – say anything, no matter how degrading or toxic, and keeps on saying it until, by a sort of insane osmosis, it stops being an outright lie and becomes a half-truth.”
All of these “facts” people are commenting on (favorably or not), stand up at every angle? Because I thought the only fact we were sure of was that a little girl is missing, so what exactly is filling the endless journalist authored reports?
Then India, goes on to quote and republish the comments. “Here are a few examples of the kind of vitriol out there. Trawling through the sites to find these quotes is like a trip through the darkest recesses of people’s most ungenerous minds.” Surely any journalist, who are so much more knowledgeable than the unintelligent public, should know that by republishing such comments, if the people who wrote such comments are charged with libel (by the hawk eyed Mitchell) that she too could be charged with libel for republishing them?
Of course she isn’t be even slightly sensationalist, just purely objective. The proper journalists haven’t been biased at all in their coverage; no, no, no!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
694 ~ oops screen blindness correction….. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
September 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
691 - but for their involvement theres………………….
4000 page dossiers - would contain details of the investigation, interviews and evidence to date. If it contained conclusive proof of a crime charges would have been brought.
non lying sniffer dogs - irrelevant without factal proof of what they found.
emails,texts, - at best may give an indication of possible motive. Cannot contain any substantial incriminating evidence otherwise charges would have been brought.
hair,dna - inconclusive and could have simply been transferred during the move between apartments.
forensics - see above
behaviour - not what you would expect, but hardly proof of a crime.
bizzare statements - see above
AND NEGLECT FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GUILTY
September 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
691 ~ BF … well said… when it comes to abduction….evidence of absence is not absence of evidence…. but when it comes to some other possibility … then the PJ’s have something more than nothing….
September 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Damage control appears so intense that guilt and something awful to cover up is appearing more and more likely?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
#683 Canada , what sights we are all seeing!
September 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
684
I agree that there is no proof of abduction, but that is not the same as saying there is no evidence of abduction. Evidence is simply something (other than assertion) that tends to prove or disprove a matter of fact.
but for their involvement theres………………….
4000 page dossiers
non lying sniffer dogs
emails,texts,hair,dna
forensics
behaviour
bizzare statements
AND NEGLECT FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reason that nothings been done yet IMO is
give them enough rope………………….
September 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Wow damage control is in motion big time!
Where is Stefanie?
September 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
683 ~ Canada…if you’re referring to clarence mitchell …he was a civil servant not a politician and in any event he claims to have resigned his post wif…
September 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
686 - OK I inferred that, had she wandered off, she would have been found - how far could a 3 year old walk - further than the area searched?; what are the chances of her meeting with an accident and her body disappearing without trace? The prospects seem vanishingly small. Facts can be determined inferentially.
But, more broadly, looked at from an evidential point of view, where is the evidence that she is dead - if there was compelling DNA evidence and we cannot know what there is, then, why have charges not been brought already - if death cannot be proved, than that is the end of any wrongful death charges.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
We were home all last evening, however our second eldest wasn’t where Mr Cynic expected him to be, after a frantic hunt , he was found: asleep in the conservatory and not the lounge. He is 11 and 6 months and a golden retreiver….
September 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
(684) Your assertion that she would have been found it not evidence that she did not wander off surely? You cannot have it both ways.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
587 - Veres, are you still out there?
Addedum to my posting - I’m mistaken - the Swede owner/founder of IKEA is Number 4 on the Forbes 400 list of richest people in the world.
An oversight - haste makes waste!
But he is not the richest man in the world nor is Roman Abramovich as you guessed. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are still #1 and #2 respectively and have held their dominance for nearly 10 years.
The 80 year old Swede, Ingvar Kamprad, is just that, old. And since this is a list for individuals, and not families, I suspect he’ll be knocked off soon enough once he crosses over the proverbial bridge.
I am surprised that the founder of IKEA would rank so high on the list. Personally, I can’t stand their “assemble it yourself” product line.
Not sure how or what relevance it has to the case of the missing Maddy, but I saw your posts asking questions on the topic and thought I’d lend a hand.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
If she had just wandered of (and not knowing the height and type of door handle etc that is a possiblity), she would have been found.
I agree that there is no proof of abduction, but that is not the same as saying there is no evidence of abduction. Evidence is simply something (other than assertion) that tends to prove or disprove a matter of fact.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I still don’t understand how UK politicians can involve themselves by helping the McCanns. Is that not illegal?
September 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
(681) It doesn’t make sense for the abductor to be so concerned about the putting a toy away when he was kidnapping a child.
But…there is always the possibility the parents simply forgot that they, in fact, put the cat on the shelf themselves.
Anything is possible, and there are quite a few ways to explain all the puzzling happenings of that night, both in support of the McCanns and against them.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Why would an abductor place Cuddle Cat on a top shelf. I would thing he would just grab Madeleine and run. But the parents would be stupid enough to put it there. That was the reason they were going to use to say she was abducted.