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
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
September 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Ian or Wanderer or anyone,
Do any of you have any idea how much money the fund makes on daily interest collected?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:25 am
970. Maria,
Why do you say ‘The Police should be looking for Madelein.”?
Do you have evidecen PJ are not looking for Madeleine?
There are professional law enforcement people looking for Madeleine. Some are even ex-Scotland Yard officials.
And then there are the nefarious professionals who are looking for Madeleine so they can collect that massive reward.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:21 am
970. It’s a “mistake” thousands of parents make all the time in such holiday resorts although they may not be being honest about that right now.
Our children come out to eat with us. If we feel like dancing, drinking, socializing we have a poolside party or we arrange something festive on the beach and the kids are with us. That’s what our friends do as well.
My parents never once left us alone when we were on vacation. Not until we were about 16 or 17.
I never heard of leaving babies unattended as a normal thing to do.
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.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:20 am
975 Wanderer,
Although we see a claimed total collected on the website, we dont know how much of that remains unspent.
We also dont know whether that is the net collected figure after Paypal fees, or it is the gross figure excluding collection charges.
We know the firm distributing the wrist bangles or whatever they’re called is being paid on commercial terms, we know the site has hosting and running costs, and we know they are conducting PAID Google advertising to re-inforce their claim “Madeleine was ABDUCTED”.
It would be another 15 months or so before they have to publish accounts, but even then, the public record wont show exactly how the money was spent. it will be summarised.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:17 am
(969) Ian Willis:
So do you think it is likely they’ll change the conditions soon? To open the funds up to the other missing children’s cases, before Madeleine is found?
I’m not sure that will happen and I realize it doesn’t have to, which is why I made that comment.
Also, the fact that they didn’t pay for the legal fees is something to consider, possibly they will be acting quite sternly with the money?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:16 am
972 Maria
The “fund regulations” are written by the Directors. they can amend them anytime.
It is not a charity, there are no other rules or laws governing what that Company can and cannot do. There are no government “regulations” regarding what a private Company can do with its money. It is exclusively for the Directors to decide.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:15 am
965. Very telling Brenda. I think Gerry is a dangerous narcissist. Others believe Kate is. A narcissist believes they are above the law, more intelligent than everyone else, perfect and beyond reproach.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:14 am
I think you need to read the details of the fund regulations, Ian!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am
(966) Brenda:
“As for her not realising the seriousness of the situation her daughter was missing for heavens sake was that not serious enough to her?”
I’m sure she took it seriously but that she just didn’t think they were questioning about her “involvement” seriously but merely as a way to confirm the timeline and events of the trip? Just a suggestion. Being accused of a crime is serious, but as one of O’Brien said:
“It is normal that we are suspects, and the DNA test is a consequence thereof. We were the closest people involved”.
I wish they would have taken this stance and I would have liked to hear that Kate didn’t meet the police with extreme hostility too, as that seems a logical action as to me (for reasons O’Brien stated). Of course, we really don’t know what happened.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Yes, the Real Stig, even those of us who would not leave children unsupervised (and I’m one) are sick of hearing this hurled at the McCanns time and time again. They made a mistake and have paid a price. It’s a “mistake” thousands of parents make all the time in such holiday resorts although they may not be being honest about that right now. When it happened a lot of people admitted they did the same, or similar, and said,
“There but for the grace of God….”
Now, fewer people will admit to it because there has been such a backlash about it.
Haven’t the McCanns been punished enough? We need to leave this now. They do not need to be reminded again and again that they would still have their daughter if they had not made that decision. Even if they recovered Madeleine well tomorrow, their tragedy is to have to live with that unfortunate decision for the rest of their lives.
Someone committed a terrible crime and NOTHING excuses that.
The interesting thing is that it is sometimes, illogically, the same people who think (or pretend to think) that the McCanns killed their daughter AND who blame the McCanns for leaving the children alone thereby allowing someone else to snatch her!
The police should be looking for Madeleine.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:11 am
956. Stig
I think the experiment you should conduct (and we have conducted it and it gave us very interesting results) is to have parents of children who are between say 2-7, tell their kids they are going out for a few hours and they are going to be alone whilst they sleep. Have these parents video tape themselves telling their children that mummy & daddy are leaving them alone at night to go out with their friends. What are the reactions of these children both verbally & non-verbally?
I make a bet Madeleine was a very sad frightened little girl at night on holiday - even if it is true she was drugged to drift off more easily.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:11 am
967 Wanderer
A limited company, whether it has shareholders or is limited by guarantee, is entirely under the control of its Directors.
The objectives they decide today, can be changed at the drop of a hat tomorrow. As long as they do not braek the law, nobody legally can stop them.
If they wanted, they could have a Board Meeting tomorrow and decide to amend the objectives of the fund to pay for Gerry’s haircuts and more washing powder for Cuddle Cat to be cleaned weekly.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:08 am
(965) Paulette:
Exactly. That’s why I think it would be wise to open up the purse strings for a few cases, but it is at their discretion, legally. I just hope Madeleine does find justice.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:07 am
959 Maria
I’ve seen cold-blooded murderers struggle to walk or stand up straight when they’re in the dock, and also struggle to breathe.
I have yet to see a facial expression (which show the most telling sign of genuine distress) of Kate Mccan at the time of the abduction. Can you send me links of actual dated pictures, as opposed to 2nd hand references from people at parties?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Yet another contradiction it seem….the mail has printed ……It can also be revealed that Kate McCann considered the Portuguese evidence to be so flimsy that despite being interviewed for 13 hours by police, it did not occur to her that she could be charged with her daughter’s murder.
A friend of the family said: “It hit home when Gerry said, ‘What if we are charged?’ Kate said, ‘What?’ Until then she had no idea or realisation of the seriousness of the situation.”
yet it was stated that her solicitor had told her she could be made a suspect on the night she was first required to go in for questioning.
As for her not realising the seriuosness of the situation her daughter was missing for heavens sake was that not seriuos enough to her ?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:05 am
958. Strange condition to have considering that if their story is true and Madeleine was really abducted searching for other snatched children who’ve disappeared from Portugal and Spain (especially), could very well lead them to Madeleine.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:04 am
(958) Maria:
“People who want to criticise will always find a reason.”
Indeed, there are plenty of explanations for all the so called “facts” in this case, both in favor and against the McCanns.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:04 am
959 Maria
Can you send me links to those pictures of grief from Kate Mccan?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:02 am
956. The McCanns were so gobsmackingly unlucky it hurts.
Sure you can call negligence ‘gobsmackingly unlucky’ but that’s not what it’s called in a court of law or by childwelfare experts.
And you are right “it hurts”. I’m certain “it hurts” Madeleine as well.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:01 am
956 The Real Stig
Crossing the road and flying on a plane is a risk but its not illegal.
Leaving 3 babies alone is illegal. Leaving them alone night after night makes it more damning. Leaving them alone while you go down the bar to get pissed with your mates is inexcusable.
Apart from abduction, paedophiles, child being sick or in need of medical help, there is also the childs psychological issue - young children feel vulnerable and need their parents or a trusted guardian near them at all times 24/7.
Do you have kids? Most kids wake up in the night for one reason or other - unless of course they’ve been drugged too!
September 19th, 2007 at 1:59 am
637 impressed
I stand my source for the spelling
September 19th, 2007 at 1:59 am
(956) Paulette:
“Yet I thought thes listed as part of the protocol for their Leave No Stone Unturned it was not only for finding Madeleine but to collect resources to be used for other missing children as well?”
Using it for other children is conditional on Madeleine being found, the support of the family (well that is something the fund could be used for apparently), and bring the abductor(s) to justice. Conditional on those facts, unless the McCanns or directors of the fund see fit otherwise (but they never have to).
September 19th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Yes we did, Ian. Just look back at occasions when she practically had to be held up even to walk at all. Look at back at the picture of utter despair and grief which she cut at the beginning. Someone I met at a party called her “a statue frozen in grief” and that was at a much later date, actually. (But maybe that was a clever ploy?)
It is another lie to say she never showed grief. Most mothers couldn’t bear to see her grief, it was so palpable. I remember women crying just to see her trying to function at all. At times she could hardly breathe. I hadn’t noticed this until a colleague mentioned it. The next time I looked more closely and it was true. She seemed to struggle even to breathe at times.
Of course, if she cried in public now, she’d be accused of acting. “Crocodile tears!” I can hear it now!
People who want to criticise will always find a reason. As I believe the Portuguese say, if a man wants to kill his dog, he says it has rabies. As we would say, “Any stick to beat a dog.”
Some people don’t need a reason or a fact.
Why can’t we simply wait to see what actually happens?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Perception of Risk
Without a shred of doubt, the single most common, infinitely repeating bleat is about the McCanns leaving their children unattended. They are hated, loathed, reviled, despised and condemned by one and all because any parent with their head screwed on in the approved manner - and that’s all of us right? - can see with horrifying clarity and foresight that they were just asking for it. God, it’s so obvious isn’t it?
Really?
How many holiday apartments do you think there are in Europe? I have no idea personally and it doesn’t really matter, let’s say it’s a million. Imagine that we could arrange an experiment. All of us, and a lot more to make up the numbers, each take an apartment and we put our kids to bed, wait till they are asleep for certain, then we close the door, not locking it, and nick down the road to the nearest cafe, pub, restaurant - take your pick - for a couple hours. Just for fun, we’ll even check back every half hour.
Before you all start screaming at me ‘are you mad’ - I forgot to mention, just for the nervous amongst you, that outside the bedroom we placed a Nokia PT-6 Remote Camera - if a kid comes out of their room or some unwanted person enters the apartment it’s movement sensor will send a picture (even in absolute darkness) by text message or email to our mobile so we will be alerted immediately. So they’re reasonably safe, calm down.
We all do this each and every night for 10 nights. So that is 10 million instances of the kids being left unattended. We run this experiment in a way that there is not the slightest possibility that anyone but us knows about it. So the predatory pedophiles out there absolutely do not know this is happening.
During the experiment, how many times do you think a predatory pedophile is going to enter an apartment and try and take one of the kids - out of 10 million? I doubt even once.
If it happened 10 times - come off it, you can’t be serious! - the chance of it happening to any of us, on a given night was one in a million.
But something else could happen to one of the kids you scream at me. Yes it could, but is it very likely? From my own personal experience, I am glad to say, touch wood, I have never had to wake up in the middle of the night and save the life of one of my children - that’s roughly 6205 nights to date. For my parents, the same applies, except the number is very much greater. I don’t personally know someone who has been in that unfortunate position, so the number of nights is getting quite large now. I am not saying it can’t happen or doesn’t happen, just that with normal healthy kids it is probably unlikely they will die or come to any great harm from other things while were all down the cafe waiting for Pedo’s to show up.
Lets say we change the experiment a bit, we don’t do it for 10 consecutive nights, we do it for one night each week, for ten weeks. It’s still 10 million blissful kid free nights, only we pile in the car and drive home in between. That’s 20 million car journeys…
Bugger! Sorry, some of you and your children are now dead, you were all killed in a car accident. There was a drunk, and he was overtaking.. There was a truck(Lorry) and it swerved..
Most of us will happily pile in the car and go on holiday and selfishly and stupidly risk our own lives and those of our children without a second thought. We don’t PERCEIVE it as risky. The McCanns leave their kids in a holiday apartment unattended - an apartment that is in a compound like resort which gives THEM a false sense of security, and we all criticise them for taking a stupid unacceptable risk when the REAL risk they took was almost certainly far smaller than we take regularly without a moments thought.
The McCanns were so gobsmackingly unlucky it hurts. The risk they took was actually minute, it’s just that most people PERCEIVE that risk as being huge.
So taking a big risk with your children’s lives - the car - is perfectly acceptable parenting while taking a minute risk - the apartment - like the McCanns did, is unconscionably bad parenting worthy of our collective censure and abuse?
Two days ago, Colin McRae - former world rally champion - took himself, his five year old son, his son’s 6 year old best friend and Colin’s old school friend up for a ride in his helicopter and it crashed, killing them all.
Where is the hue and cry from you all criticising Colin McRae? I haven’t seen a single word or slanderous critique from any of you! Helicopters are well known for being one of the most accident prone and inherently dangerous forms of transport ever invented - tolerated only because they are rather useful.
Come on, why isn’t he a thoughtless, reckless, self centred, bottom feeding, low life scumbag with criminally bad parenting skills?
Do any of you really think leaving kids alone in an apartment is more risky than taking them for a flight in a helicopter?
My condolences to Colin McRaes family and those of those killed. I meant no offence to Colin, implied or real - taking risks is part of life and I meant no criticism whatsoever.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:55 am
953. SPUDGUN
I too find it strange that they set up a company and not a charity. However, someone on Anorak had said they were told by the UK agency which gives charity status that they could not designate it as such because it was collecting money for their child and their child only? Yet I thought thes listed as part of the protocol for their Leave No Stone Unturned it was not only for finding Madeleine but to collect resources to be used for other missing children as well?
I wish I knew British law so that I could find out if it is true that they couldn’t create a charity with the money so had to create a company. Even if this is true, trademarking your childs’ eyes is really werid. I mean they’ve turned Madeleine into a brand, an image, a bizarre symbol. They’re making a lot of money on poor Madeleine’s image and in my unbaised opinion they are not using that money to find her.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:50 am
952 Maria
I’m not saying its acceptable to me. I am saying it may be in that culture to those people.
In some other countries, a policeman doesnt read you your rights and take you to a local police station to be questioned in the presence of your lawyer, while offering you a cup of tea - he’s judge, jury and executioner and if he thinks you stole the old lady’s handbag, he’ll beat you with a stick there and then.
Obviously, the world spotlight is on PJ at present so of course they’ve got to pretend its not the norm and they’re going to prosecute the inspector. That’s exactly what the US government did when its officers got caught out when photos of torture and abuse were expose at Abu Ghraib.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:48 am
949 Paulette
Not to mention the inescapable fact that the money is held in a BUSINESS account and the McCanns specifically elected NOT to apportion Charitable status on the fund, which would have meant that they would have HAD to disperse the money to established and legitimate causes. Stating that they’re going to ‘give it to good causes’ is one thing, but only a bona fide CHARITY fund would have enforced this. They can spend the fund money as they, and there alloted ‘fund guardians’ wish!! and there’s absolutely NOTHING that anyone can do to state otherwise.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Ian,
Why then is the detective facing charges?
You’re right that the fact that the police beat someone up doesn’t mean the person isn’t guilty. However, it casts considerable doubt on the soundness of a confession.
Breathtaking suggestion there, Ian. Not sure the Portuguese police would entirely appreciate your particular kind of support! Think they’d rather say it was NOT normal for them to beat the truth out of suspects?!
Still, they can’t slap Kate around a bit, as you put it. I guess something tells them it would be a tad unacceptable? Or maybe not, for certain posters here?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:44 am
To those who claim it is in Kate Mccans nature not to show emotion, take a look at this picture of her after she was questioned:-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007421076,00.html
That’s clearly a picture of a distressed woman.
Did we see anything like that look from her when young Madeleine was “abducted”?
September 19th, 2007 at 1:43 am
MARIA 943.
Sorry, crossed wires. In the Cipriano case, I DO believe that the Portuguese acted inhumanely here. Certainly, the evidence appears to support that. However, there was a LOT of pretty irrefutable evidence in this case, including her admission to the crime to another family member and the volume of blood and other forensics from her fridge. That doesn’t excuse the Portuguese handling of the case.
My BIG issue is NOT specifically what happened on the night of the 3rd, my angst is due to the fact that you can not possibly deny or doubt that there is a HUGE British action, aimed at the PJ, designed to ridicule and discredit, and unquestionably the British Government has been instrumental in working behind the scenes from day one to get this matter resolved, and to ensure that the Portuguese do NOT falter on the abduction angle.