Madeleine McCann: Missing Hours, Found Again And A PR Disaster
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
THE SUN front page: “MADDIE DAD AGONY. Fiend hid from Gerry. He was already in room he tells cops.”
A source close to the family says: “When Gerry went to check on Madeleine at 9.05pm he realised the bedroom door was open. Gerry is firmly of the view the abductor was already in the apartment.”
It’s another theory.
“When he went in he saw Madeleine was asleep but the bedroom door was slightly open. He thought, ‘That’s odd’ because he had left it firmly closed. But all the children were asleep. So he just went in and closed the door again and came out about 9.10pm.”
Good to hear Gerry McCann joining in the mood of speculation?
“Gerry is convinced the man must have been hiding, and once Gerry went through the patio doors the only way out was through the window. The front door was locked so the kidnapper took Madeleine and climbed out the window.”
DAILY MIRROR front page: “HOW SHE WAS TAKEN. The McCanns’ story.”
“Stolen to order after being spied on for days
Abductor hid in flat as Gerry looked in on kids
He got in through patio doors and out by window”
Gerry is a “heart specialist”.
Says a source: “When Gerry leaves, the man realises he has only a few minutes. He thinks the only way to get out without being seen is through the window.”
And: “Initially he thought Madeleine might have got up and gone to the toilet, or to get a drink or something.”
So what has changed? Why a new theory now, with a new spokesman on hand and the McCanns named as suspects?
DAILY STAR front page: “SEVEN HOURS TO KLILL MADDIE. Police probe her ‘lost’ final afternoon”
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: THE MISSING SEVEN HOURS.”
Police sources reveal that “despite exhaustive inquiries they cannot confirm the whereabouts of part-time GP Kate, 39, and her daughter after 1.29pm on May 3”. A source said Kate’s movements were “unaccounted for until she sat down to have dinner with friends at a tapas restaurant within their holiday complex at around 8.40pm”.
The last photograph of Madeleine was said to have been taken by Kate at 2.29pm on May 3.
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns: What we really did in the missing six hours.”
“Madeleine had high tea at 5.30pm with staff at the Kids Club. She was picked up shortly before 6pm by Kate and Gerry.”
The friend insisted: “Kate was never alone with Madeleine that afternoon. There were always other witnesses present. These details were all given to detectives during police interviews, so they know what Kate and Gerry said happened that day.”
So no missing hours, then?
THE TIMES front page: “MADELEINE McCANN: Matthew Parris laments a PR disaster.
“The fatal flaw of David Cameron and Kate and Gerry McCann” - Our correspondent looks at the baleful influence of the marketing men.
“Look what they’ve done to Kate and Gerry McCann. Here were two people deserving of the most intense public sympathy. On a superficial level they got it – by the media bucketload. Yet did you not sense from an early stage an undertone of irritation at the couple? I’ve sensed it everywhere I go: not a sign of doubt about their innocence, which most of us take for granted, but a feeling, nevertheless, that they in some way invited trouble – though we banish the thought as brutal and wrong.
“Which it is. So why the ungenerosity? I believe it is because Kate and Gerry McCann have allowed an impression to arise that they and their advisers are marketing their own tragedy. Where we would have expected to see parents distracted and disorganised by grief, we have seen a professionally run campaign to find out what the media want, and give it to them.
“This has been done for a most defensible reason: to enlist the entire European public as amateur detectives in the search for Madeleine. But now her parents have ended up looking like film stars in a Hollywood weepy.”
“Put up or shut up, Madeleine McCann police told” - Friend of McCanns counters claims of ‘lost’ six hours before girl vanished
DAILY TELEGRPAH: “Madeleine McCann: Gerry certain he was in bedroom with kidnapper”
THE GUARDIAN: “From prime suspects to hounded victims - how parents turned the media tide”
Posted: 22nd, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,536) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Paul Wainwright on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity Watch: Katie Price Is More Hated Than Baby P’s Mum
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Sheeple. I know what you mean by parents acting like children and I do know some parents who want to play all the time but the playful ones enjoy their children the most. The McCann’s do not strike me as these type of parents. They seem intellectually aloof and distant but I doubt they are really irresponsible. It is because they are so very responsible that they are being allowed to maintain custody of their twins. I bet their relatives would say that leaving the children alone was very out of character for them. I think they were either set up by someone they knew who gave them the idea of leaving the children alone and that it was really safe, OR they were intentionally establishing a bizarre pattern.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
1428 - I have said from day one that Madeleine was not in the apartment when Gerry checked. I believe she was handed to someone, (a known accomplice), before the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar, and the whole thing was set up as a hoax abduction to raise a fund.
My reason for this belief is simple. Various people have tried fake kidnaps and to my knowledge not one has succseded. With a hoax abduction there is no ransom note, no money pick up, both of which are usually the reason a kidnapper gets caught.
The motive was money, hence the fact that solicitors were called in within days, and having been refused charity status for finding one person, they refused to expand their remit to include other miossing children thereby safeguarding the donated fund money. As an alternative, the company was set up, and the mission statement expanded to include financial assistance for extended family members. Being a company, the directors can change the possible usage of the money any time they like, once the media circus has died down.
If Madeleine had been killed in the apartment there would not have been time to dispose of a body before going to the Tapas Bar, so the Mccanns killing her is a non starter.
Looking at alternatives.
A stranger abducting her is feasable, but unlikely. There would be too many things going in favour of the abductor.
Firstly they would not have known the patio door was unlocked, therefore, given the fact that it is common knowledge that patio doors can’t be opened from outside, an abductor would not have even bothered trying the door. The front door was locked as were the windows.
Even if they got into the apartment, they would have had to rely on the road outside being empty when they left carrying Madeleine, at a time when people were coming and going all the time.
They would then have had to have left the area undetected.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
1443;Tony Bennett - The company’s exact role in the hunt for Madeleine has not been made public.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
LET THE GRIEVING MCCANNS BE
See the last paragraph of this New Zealand news item:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4212913a1861.html
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
1440
It doesn’t seem from this report that this - the McCanns’ decision to hire the S.A.S. - is about bodyguards:
QUOTE: “CRG has been paid more than £ 112million over three years by the Government for security work in Iraq, where its Baghdad station was set up by Jamie Blount, a former Foreign Office official and cousin of singer James Blunt (who dropped the “o” from his name). The company’s exact role in the hunt for Madeleine has not been made public, but it is thought to be investigating paedophile networks and vetting the backgrounds of potential suspects”. UNQUOTE
But I’d like to know who’s paying. The ‘Find Madeleine Fund’, I suppose
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 pm
WHY KATE AND GERRY ARE AT ODDS
Question is, whether the ‘friend’ quoted in this story is
(a) a friend of Kate’s
(b) a friend of Gerry’s or
(c) a friend of both and authorised to put out this story?
Also, did the lawyers approve it?
Did Clarence Mitchell approve it?
Just how many ‘McCann sources’ are talking to the press right now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483486&in_page_id=1770
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Has anyone woken up to the fact that the mcCanns have hired ex SAS men not to hunt for Maddie?
Come on guys what do SAS men do best? Is it detective work or bodyguard work????
That is right - you got it - well done - the McCanns have hired ex SAS bodyguards to protect them for whatever they are expecting to come their way!
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I don’t agree about forgetting the simple well established child neglect until the bigger issues are sorted, KeepCops.
Why ? Several reasons.
1 The main issue is complex, fraught with difficulty with regard to evidence, and currently being subjected to a huge well funded PR media resulting in distraction and confusion for all. And aimed at painting the McCanns as absolutely innocent. Even if this case ever makes it to court, a verdict is probably 2 years away. Failure to prove guilt will be taken as “complete innocence” and I fear the child neglect will be forgotten.
2 The child neglect seems simple, being largely publically self-confessed. An investigation to see if there is a case to answer could be very quick, and if a trial resulted, I guess there could probably be a verdict in six months.
3 This would take the focus off the main case, which would allow the investigation to continue soberly and thoroughly and without interference. It would also puncture the hysterical sanctification of the suspects, and inevitably take much of the force out of the spin campaign. There would not be much room for argument about evidence. The only real question would be - what exactly is the law on this in portugal ?
We could all get away from spin and hypothesis for a while, and focus the discussion around easily established facts. At least some others of the Tapas9 would, of course, be under investigation too, since it seems likely they did the same.
So I think you have it the wrong way round. Child neglect investigation/prosecution quick and soon. Bigger issues soberly over time. And it defuses the disgusting rich-man’s PR campaign, which whatever it serves, does not serve calm rational impartial justice.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
1431 keepcopshonest*
Said: “…it’s contradicted now by the restaurant owner’s and waiter’s claim that they saw the McCann children till 6pm…”
REPLY: In one of the papers - today I think - this has now been denied. The restaurant owner has admitted that the video was ‘grainy’ and says he can’t be sure if it really is Madeleine and her father and family. The McCanns have not been able to show to PJ’s satisfaction that *anyone else* apart from them saw Madleine alive after 1.29pm (possibly 2.29pm of the camara timing was an hour behind) when that photo was taken
——————————
* P.S. How do you do that (keep cops honest), especially in Essex which is notorious for bent coppers in every police station?
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Psssst…..Is she gone yet?? God almighty. Does that woman ever give it a break??!!!! She should change her name to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. OCD for short.
1366 - he, he, he, I have been posting. Under a different name. Just like you have done.. We’ve been getting along quite nicely, I might add. We’re a good match up - you just come off as a know it all though.. I personally don’t care that you’re posting under others names but don’t insult the intelligence of others and lie about it. Or worse, condemn others who do the same thing you’re “guilty” of doing. You’ve already had the McCanns committed. Why are you immune from speculation on this forum? You’re not.
1367 - Yes, Chloe. She is Paulette, and Judge Judy is Paulette. There’s no way that anyone could come on this forum and post as voraciously as Ade has over the past two days and claim to have just joined the group and never heard of Paulette. She who rained on this forum for the past one to two weeks. I hope you’re a better Arm Chair Detective than that, Me thinks you are….
Therefore, Ade is both Paulette and Judge Judy. Do they pay you to agree with her? I know they’ve got others working on this forum in collusion. I didn’t realise you were one of them as well.
.The fact that “Ade” comes on here as the know all, be all, just like Paulette, and Paulette injected a few British slangs along the road too, not a big deal to figure that one out.
Ade, do you want some humour? Here you goL
Ade does need some Aide. And it seems many have blindly rushed to Ade’s Aide. Why is it necessary to give aide to Ade? I mean, it’s not like she’s got…ah fergit it. I’ll quite while I’m ahead.
As a blogger and a writer, it’s quite easy to see the similiarites in syntax between the three aforementioned women. At least she doesn’t try to be a man. That’s what others have done. Men pull it off much better than women (i.e. men, pull off being a woman better than women pull off being a male poster).
Hick up. I think I have another blip on my screen. Must go finish my blogging on other matters now. Good night to Anti and Pro McCanners. I must say that the Pros are a bit more cordial than that Anti’s. Maybe it’s all in the cordials….
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
righteous indignation - or just ordinary parents capable of reading basic body language, knowing when someone is showing no remorse and spotting an obvious liar ?
Yes we have the righteous indignation of parents who have all seen these traits in our children - we know when they are lying!
This pair are not capable of looking after their own children - they cannot spend 5 minutes with them without getting panicky and dropping them off at childcare facilities - we all know someone like this - they are CHILDREN !
The McCanns are CHILDREN not responsible adults such as we are!!!!
The question should not be should they have left their children alone - but rather should WE have left the McCanns alone with children?????
I do feel sorry for them - they really do have no remorse and they really do think they have done nothing wrong - dollys head just fell off thats all!!!!!!!
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I think the reason why the public has never bonded with the McCann’s is because they intentionally left three 2/3 year olds alone and unprotected, not just for a few minutes, which most parents could relate to, but for the whole evening. If the parents actually did this every night, as has been reported, then the only single logical explanation in the whole world is that these two forty year old, highly educated professionals were intentionally establishing a bizarre pattern of behavior.
Whatever the reason, it’s extraordinarily abnormal behavior for a well off, intact family.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
where the hell is the (All speaking all seeing) SMELL OF DEATH!!! Gone a bit Quite lately!!
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Bloggers propounding ‘wild theories’ are lambasted in this article tonight in the Sydney Morning Herald, for hounding the ‘probably innocent’ McCanns.
Talking of ‘wild theories’, Gerry and Kate…
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/23/1190486132036.html?page=2
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
My previous post, of course, assumed they were never found guityt of anything worse than the admitted neglect. That would be another ballgame entirely.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Is this board about attempts to find what happened to a missing child or for venting about parental negligence in general? These may be related, true. But negligence is common and this case is not.
Even if negligence was involved, getting bogged down in a morass of righteous indignation may thwart the process of crime solving. To move things along, wouldn’t it be better to take negligence for granted, figure it in, suspend outrage and work the options, e.g.:
1. Possibly, negligence led to opportunity for the child to be snatched/harmed by an acquaintance or a stranger. Where’s the evidence for this? The PJ’s trail seems to have run out with the initial pursuit of Robert Murat, but did they spread their net wide enough? If not, why not in, a country which until very recently was plagued by decades of governmental corruption and police and judicial blindnesss to pedophile crime? How thoroughly have they interviewed all the staff at the hotel? Why has this CC video of Madeleine around supper time never been mentioned before (when PJ judicial secrecy means series of leaks to tabloid press)?
2. Or, possibly, negligence led to a misadventure covered up by the parents. Parental negligence is commonplace but where is the evidence for such an extraordinary, sustained, complicated coverup? The PJ figured they had it in the DNA, but that seems to be melting away.
Back to last week when the restaurant owner and a waiter made noise about seeing the child dancing with her father while the mother fed the twins their supper. Evidence for this, the owner says, is an unduplicated CC video which he gave to the cops in early May. Yet PJ, claiming Madeleine was not seen in public after the 2.30 pm photo, have never mentioned this video. Have they lost it, do they have reason to discount it, or are they suppressing it to shore up their own timeline?
Timeline is crucial for at least 2 reasons, I think — not only
a) if Madeleine died at home in the early afternoon the parents would have had hours to hide or dispose of her body before calling the cops.
but also
b) their meal at the Tapas bar that evening then would have been a deliberate charade for purpose of an alibi — look, we were yards away from the apartment, people saw us, not only we but others made trips to our apartment at intervals and all was fine until after, say, 9 pm.
Making use of the Tapas bar meal for an alibi would take tremendous nerve and gall. If Madeleine were already dead and stowed before they left home, they might have expected the friend who failed to go into the room (just listened at the door) to make the actual discovery that she had disappeared. How on edge would make them? Yet no one noticed (e.g. Wilkins noticed nothing amiss in his chat with Gerry in the alley).
Well, is this credible? If it’s partly credible as a murder mystery plot, it’s contradicted now by the restaurant owner’s and waiter’s claim that they saw the McCann children till 6pm. Are they mistaken? Also contradicted by the McCann’s claim that Madeleine was signed in at the kiddie club (records still extant?)
If, in fact, the whole family were out and about till 6 pm and something happened to Madeleine at home, would the parents have gone out only to announce her missing as early as 10pm? The police timeline allows for a leisurely revving up of a fiendish coverup. But that timeline looks weak. If on the other hand a child dies through negligence or worse between 6 pm and 8.30pm, wouldn’t conspirators need more TIME and several hours of privacy to decide what to do and cover their tracks? Wouldn’t criminal conspirator parents have delayed “finding” that the child was gone until the next morning? That would have added advantage of avoiding brouha over their trip to the Tapas bar (instead — “Our child’s been stolen while we slept! Someone broke in!”).
Just a few thoughts. My main point is, righteous indignation is fogging the scene.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I am afraid I don’t go along with “suffered enough already” - so no punishment.
Think of the normal, empathic decent car driver who gets drunk after some emotional trauma, and mows down an innocent pedestrian.
In the “not drunk” aftermath he may face a genuine lifetime of terrible guilt and remorse. Is this enough ?
No. Why not ? Partly because we cannot look inside his head and be sure of it. Partly because of the feelings of the victims relative’s about natural justice.
But most of all because he has to “be made an example of” to discourage others from ever risking the same, however emotionally hard pressed. As they get into the car, they have to remember his case, and put down the keys.
The same for the McCanns, I’m afraid. If they are charged and disgraced, every Brit holidaymaker parent will get a big message - “no, don’t leave them”.
If they escape scot free and with no public condemnation, the law has in effect confirmed those who claim this is acceptable parenting, laying many more children open to risk in the future.
It’s a pity, but they chose and created this hugely public image, and it makes it vital that the disapproval of the state is equally public.
Having made their bed, they should lie in it.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
o.m.g.
All i can say is the plot thickens,Anyone who doesnt work is getting nothing at home done!People who DO work are using up their lunch hours OR risking their job!!The world is gripped (obsesed)with Madeline Maccann,We all need answers or our lives are out of control,What did we do BEFORE? What will we do AFTER??
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
1420 Judith C
It’s hard to keep up with all the different versions coming out from Team McCann but yes I think you are right, he said originally he ‘wasn’t absoultely sure if Madeleine was in bed (AS IF!!).
Moreover, Oldfield says he wasn’t sure either (AS IF x 2!!).
It all drives you to the conclusion that by this time Madeleine wasn’t in the apartment.
Most if not all of the Tapas 9 knew that - and incidentally if they have covered up a death and lied about it, they have either perverted or interfered with the course of justice, or both.
Maximum sentebce under English law is I think 14 years.
I hope the sentence under Portuguese law is greater
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
What are the thoughts on the CRG (Control Risk Group)- ex SAS people and the like - that the McCanns employed THREE WEEKS after Madeleine went missing, in order to make private checks on the abduction scenario for them. I don’t think this has been mentioned before. The justification for employing them (even though Portuguese law says you can’t employ private ‘tecs) was “they didn’t trust the police”!! I thought it was all hunky-dory with them and the PJ until the spot was turned on them which wasn’t until September. I don’t know if this link I’ve pasted below will work, I’m not all that computer literate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2517988.ece
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Hey I found footage of the night - it shows The Tapas Supper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb8V5q9MYc&mode=related&search=
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
1338 and my post 1413
In posy 1413 I quoted the ‘Times’ reporter saying Kate ‘waited in the apartment for news’.
Then I saw this in post 1338:
QUOTE: “But last night an unnamed waiter at the tapas bar shattered the claim, telling the Correio da Manha newspaper: ‘What surprised me most was how she never left the flat. We looked right round the area. We searched everywhere for that girl and her mum stayed indoors. It’s clear she was upset but she didn’t look for Madeleine.”
But he went on to claim:? “The only thing I am certain about is they weren’t going to check up on the children every 15 minutes.” Importantly, the waiter recalled seeing Kate McCann next to her apartment with another woman as she cried for help around 10pm”. UNQUOTE
COMMENT: Wouldn’t it have been better to give the police your mobile ‘phone number and go out looking for your missing daughter?
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
1420,no Judith absolutly right that is what was reported!
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
1420
Judith please see my posting 1298 today.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Does anybody know when the SPECIAL 150 days are up that some people have pridicted ! would be the time Madeleine would re-appear????
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
(1413)Tony Bennett Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
quoted from Sunday Times:
“…,Gerry went to check on Madeleine and the twins Sean and Amelie at just after 9pm, perhaps at 9.05pm. He says all the children were safely asleep.”
I know I’ve mentioned this two or three times previously,and I can’t quite understand why others don’t seem to see it as fundamentally important: Mr. McCann, when first asked about his checking visit at 9.05 pm said that he DIDN’T see Madeleine asleep in bed but assumed she’d wandered off to his and his wife’s bedroom, BUT HE DIDN’T CHECK. Doesn’t anyone else remember this being reported? And doesn’t anyone else think it immensely important that this particular bit of ‘evidence’ has changed? Please post an answer to this otherwise I shall think I am nuts to be worried by it.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
For those who find it hard to believe that kids can be left on their own. My ex did it with mine, and the eldest told me, then aged 6. I rang the tour operators. they said our hotels are safe, some of our guests do it. We don’t allow kids under 3 to be left alone. Do you have baby sitters i asked? No, they said. Listening devices or service? No. I thought this is wrong, so I rang a social worker and said I planned to do it, she said if your ex finds out she’ll get a prohibitive steps order and stop you from taking them.
Nowadays my ex has to write a letter saying she won’t leave them alone. And by the way, yes, she was discovered to be involved in emotional abuse of one of them. So I believe this behaviour arises from a lack of empathy for the kids. And that allows for the neglect and the abuse.
Certainly the Mccanns had the knowledge to know they should not have done what they did, maybe they lacked the emotional awareness, the empathy too.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Portugal News -English Language newspaper
Madeleine: Police look for ‘body’
16/9/2007
Portuguese police have spent the latter half of the week following up on claims that Madeleine McCann lies buried 15 kilometres from where she was abducted on the night of May 3. Police sources admitted on Thursday searches in the area north of Odiáxere had commenced as early as Wednesday…
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
1410 carmen
Hic…
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
1402 Carmen et al.
On the priest confidentiality bit, the Father Ted episode that covered it was probably close to reality. Ted and Dougal were having a great laugh about the sexual complications of a parishioner juggling between his wife, mistress and the au-pair - all from confessionals. If bishop Brennan wanted to extract some detail he would do it by shouting at Ted and Dougal.
Problem is that it would be extremely difficult to use that material in court as evidence. So the church could put the frighteners of the fragrant ones but only hope that they themselves confess to the fuzz.
Innit