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
September 24th, 2007 at 1:38 am
1481
I thought caring for your kids did
obviously not for some
he was an alibi
he also was used
funny after all the planning who actually saw/ spoke to eachother that night?
September 24th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Judge Dread said 1457 “In this instance the McCanns were guilty of negligence. That negligence allowed Madeleine to go missing. It makes no difference what the circumstances are, that led to her being missing, or if anyone else was invloved, the McCanns are guilty of reckless endangerment and could be prosecuted for that if Madeleine had gone missing in this country.”
And Judge Dread said in 1461: “Anyone whose actions causes harm to a child whether intentional or not should be prosecuted.”
Most countries already have procedures in case of child injury or other harm for checking out parents for child abuse. But here it’s reallyurgent, a priority, to find out more about what happened to the child, alive or dead, far more than “her Mummy and Daddy left her alone in the apartment.”
Moreover, if you prosecute for reckless endangerment for any harm caused to a child “whether intentional or not,” in an emergency how many will report harm to their child? Who will take a child to hospital knowing that draconian judgment like this will come down on them whether or not any harm was intended? Accidental injury is fairly common in children and the priority is to get that child to competent medical care, not to have more parents hide mishaps or lawyer-up before calling an ambulance.
Ironic of course that the parents and most of their group of friends are physicians. Possibly that factored to lull them into a false sense of security in the “family-centered” resort. Possibly, worse, if some in-family mishap occurred and they chose to “treat” it themselves, then botched it, then covered up. Or covered up a fatality as soon as discovered to protect their status as doctors.
But to stick to this particular issue at hand. I remain wary righteous indignation as an investigative tool and I do believe heavily punitive focus on the parents’ negligence in and of itself is likely to interfere with discovery of what actually happened. If the child is still alive, her recovery will not be helped by punishing the parents for neglect. If she is dead, finding out how she died will help lay her to rest.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:34 am
1478 Perhaps Gerry found Jeremy Wilkins better company that the group of friends. Plus, it’s only polite to stop and chat. Being sidetracked for 10 minutes talking to an acquaintance happens all the time.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:32 am
1476,1477
every few days i swing from neglect to murder
but abduction from flat i never accepted
if she was found in the month dead by drowning or shallow grave maybe
as she wandered off
taken by order?
I think in desperation that night they remembered ben needham and abused his case
and if she was she might be better off
I pray its a pam ewing type fellow holiday maker every night
but i fear we would have known by now
and they would be innocent like ben needhams mother
September 24th, 2007 at 1:30 am
1477 Carmen, I think the answer is yes, an abductor, or maybe a pair of abductors would have all of that worked out.
The McCanns had the most exposed apartment, making it ideal for an abduction and quick getaway.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I’ve asked this question before, but why would Gerry hang around for 10 minutes talking to Wilkins in the alley outside the apartment?
Wouldn’t he have been keen to get back to the booze and quiz - after all, the McCann and O’Brien kids were almost certainly routinely sedated so that the parents could have their fun, and Gerry couldn’t be bothered in his ‘quick check’ of the apartment minutes before to see where Madeleine had gone (on the first version of the visit, anyway)?
If somebody else was ‘abducting’ a probably-dead (blood on curtains & windowsill &c, not to mention the scent of death) Madeleine down the street outside the kids’ bedroom window (and at the end of the alley), perhaps Gerry was in fact STALLING Wilkins until the coast was clear?
Oh - and all the changes in the stories over the last week are probably the result of discussions with the new lawyers, who are doubtless trying to get their clients to establish a consistent story at last, even if it involves changing quite a few earlier ‘facts’.
The most amazing thing though, is the way that all the Sunday papers I’ve seen today seem now, after beginning to lose the faith a fortnight ago, to have made the McCanns and their spokespeople more infallible and unquestionable than the Pope, as if over-compensating for their brief moment of doubt, or attempting to still any remaining doubts with an implausibly certain new consensus.
It’s like a repressive regime with complete state control of all the media, which all spout the same propaganda regardless of what the readers can see with their own eyes. Only here, it’s in a supposedly open democracy.
If nothing else, it’s a good lesson to British readers (well, the critical ones, anyway) of the unreliability of the media in general.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:25 am
1475 brandon flowers - I’ll buy the neglect part
September 24th, 2007 at 1:22 am
are you all regular posters for other news?
or like me got so annoyed by bias press kept googling till you stumbled on here?
I’ve never, not since, ian huntley at soham felt so strongly about a case and the usual body language and hunch and oh my god feeling after reading that!
do you all do it all the time or just this one?
I have never felt so repulsed or so angry at the media before!!!
My house is untidy ( not dangerous)
my husband cant believe my extensive knowlege on it
I ask everyone i know about it
But i still dont know why they are getting away with it all
neglect, murder, manipulation, social heirarchy cover up and denial ………………………………………….
September 24th, 2007 at 1:20 am
The Real Stig - to try to defend them leaving their children the way they did is a losing battle. I guess maybe you’re not out and out defending them, but you’re attempting to trivialize it.
I would venture a guess that most people, whether they think the parents killed their child or think someone abducted her, agree that the parents leaving the children that way was irresponsible, stupid, and despicable.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:17 am
It’s getting late so I’m off - goodnight all.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Stig
“The risk of the children coming to harm was minuscule. The McCanns were exceedingly unlucky. The chances of what happened, actually happening, was easily as tiny as the chances of wining the Euro Millions lottery - probably even smaller, given that several people have won it while cases like this are extremely rare.”
Forgive me, Stig, but are you being deliberately obtuse ? Or do you simply not read other peoples responses.
We are NOT (or at least I am not) basing our neglect accusations on the very tiny risk they took of abduction. I have no need to accuse them on the basis of ignoring something so unlikely. Lets assume that I AGREE WITH YOU about that.
My objection is to all the OTHER RISKS they exposed their children to. Not the risk from strangers. All the other risks from themselves, each other, their panic, objects in the apartment etc etc.
PLEASE try to grasp this point. SCRAP the ABDUCTION RISK - EXCLUDE IT. In my eye they are guilty of serious neglect even WITHOUT IT ?
If you have no experience of such children perhaps you find it hard to comprehend these other risks, or to belive they exist. Ask parents.
These kids climb everywhere. They run everywhere, They open everything. They plan and carry out complex activities in the way they see adults do. They collect things. Carry them about, pile them up, climb on them. They can open almost any unlocked door. They pull heavy things, leaning back and straining at it just like an adult. They talk to themselves as they do it, making their plans. They climb up and try to cook. They want tools and knives. I have hardly even started.
I upset (carer even leaves room to go to loo) they can sometimes go berserk, throw themselves against walls or doors, hurl things across rooms to maybe hit other children.
All this and more I saw this afternoon, from a little two year old. And she isn’t particularly naughty, she’s very sweet. But she is absolutely in love with discovering EVERYTHING about everywhere she is, and testing her ability to control and alter it.
If you knew all this, if you had just seen it, you could NEVER say it is OK to leave such a child completely unsupervised for 30 minutes, even if you thought it asleep at minute zero. And they are even capable of pretending to sleep.
Please, just try to absorb what i am telling you about the nature of kids, and think again.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:11 am
1465 sheeple
Yes I have kids. not once in over 4700 nights, have any of them ever gotten up in the night and injured themselves or come to harm in any way - not even a scratch.
The same goes for my late brother and I. Apparently I did once fall from the top bunk to the floor of the carriage onboard a train in France, when a baby, but apart from the shock, I was uninjured.
In fact, I am not aware of the child of anyone I know, or have known, getting up in the night and coming to harm.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
1446 - hold on Judge Dread - usually you are pretty reasoned, but you’re suggesting the McCanns just handed off their daughter to someone to fake a kidnapping so they could set up a fund and get rich?
What about the McCanns history or criminal record suggests they would do such a thing? They don’t seem to be gangsters. They also don’t seem to be in need of money.
So then where is the daughter now? Does she come back one day or are you suggesting they just sold her off?
This is a pretty wild theory. It’s way down on the probability scale.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:02 am
1461 judge dread
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/7000213.stm
I think the death toll may be higher now. so obviously they need to be jailed.
The same goes of course for Colin Mcrae, former world rally champion. he aught to be prosecuted, but he is dead, but had he survived you would have to argue that even though it was an accident, the two children were put at risk, so jail him.
Actually the parents of any child should always be jailed if they take them in a car and there is an accident in which the child is killed or severely injured. Even if the accident is not the parents fault - putting them in the car and driving them in it was taking a risk.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:53 am
1462. Have you got kids?
The chances of one child getting up in the night and coming to harm may be miniscule.
But with three children those chances were increased by three!
However I agree that the chance of an abduction were miniscule - but not of an accident!
September 24th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Look - the McCanns are pouring huge money into a campaign and strategy, openly trying to influence the media and thus public opinion.
The viewpoint they are pushing is one of certainty with regard to their clients - that they are innocent of all wrongdoing.
In this situation there could be nothing morally wrong in a campaign to balance things up. A campaign to push the certainty that they are guilty of involvement might be considered, but I wouldn’t support it, because the honest truth is that this is fraught with UNcertainty.
So my response to their campaign is to assert not a counter-certainty, but the moral and judicial necessity of embracing DOUBT.
Apart from the McCanns, only the PJ have access to a decent body of evidence, and the power to test it and gather more. The rest of us are fed dubious dribs and drabs, distorted and confused by the McCann spin machine, and coloured and filtered via PJ leaks for purposes we cannot know.
On the involvement issue, I feel it is our duty to push, not GUILT (we can’t know it) but POSSIBILITY OF GUILT. In support of the legal process, whose duty it is to evaluate all sufficient possibilities.
I see the most rational people here as those asserting their uncertainty, and calling for open minds and full investigation. And theorising too. Thats fine and healthy.
Uncertainty except on one issue. The charge of openly self-admitted child neglect. If what has been admitted, or is easily further discovered, is actually a chargeable offence under either Portuguese or English law, or both. Then I think it should be tried, regardless of the wider enquiry.
The idea that you can only charge any offenders if you charge all the others is palpable nonsense. One major function of the law is deterrence. The conviction of one really high profile offender can achieve more than that of hundreds of minnows. With limited prosecution resources, this is inevitable, and I see nothing wrong with it.
Think about prosecutions for speeding. Impossible to do them all, so deterrence is maintained by random prosecutions of a few plus the occasional heavily-reported celebrity. Heraing the reports slows our driving down a bit, at least.
Same for child neglect.
So I say - campaign AGAINST EITHER CERTAINTY on the involvement thing. For calm investigation to find whichever truth.
Campaign for IMMEDIATE PROSECUTION for child neglect if the evidence and law support it.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:52 am
1453 carmen
I think you misunderstood me. I did not say Madeleine was their property.
The property I was referring to was the resort - the Mark Warner property. So long as the McCanns were still in the resort ‘on the property’ it isn’t negligence under Portuguese law - or so I have read.
I think it was Moderation who said it, so I think it was reliable.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:46 am
1454 blunger
I am not sure what you meant by divorcing law from morality.
I am fine with the McCanns doing as they did. I would not personally have done it but I do not judge them for it.
The risk of the children coming to harm was minuscule. The McCanns were exceedingly unlucky. The chances of what happened, actually happening, was easily as tiny as the chances of wining the Euro Millions lottery - probably even smaller, given that several people have won it while cases like this are extremely rare.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Anyone whose actions causes harm to a child whether intentional or not should be prosecuted.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:30 am
1449 judge dread
“I agree with 1430, parents who neglect their children to the point of placing them in danger should be prosecuted and imprisoned.”
What about endangering them on purpose - leading to harm. It would not be neglect, but they still come to harm.
So would you say the same thing about punishing the parents - or is it somehow OK and better if the harm occurs with, and as a result of, the parents participation and action?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:29 am
1455
You seem to have been Mcnabbed last Xmas in your stocking as well as a chocolate orange and a pair of now old socks, as well as that dreadful paperback.
The PMC involved was founded by Ex SAS. It does not mean the people actually in Portugal, are EX SAS. Generally more ex military, Paras, Black Watch, RMC etc.
Real money is not in Portugal, but where there is oil. Besides, detective work is not surveillance work.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:20 am
1450 - There is only one victim in this case and that is Madeleine Mccann.
In English law, if a person commits a crime, and during the process of that crime an innocent party is accidently killed, the person committing the crime is responsible for the death of that person.
That means that if an innocent person were hit by say a police car, the person committing the crime can be charged with manslaughter.
The reality is that if a police officer killed someone accidently and the person they were chasing were convicted for manslaughter, the police would be accused of making the criminal a scapgoat, so the CPS never bother to carry out the law as written in legislation.
In this instance the McCanns were guilty of negligence. That negligence allowed Madeleine to go missing. It makes no difference what the circumstances are, that led to her being missing, or if anyone else was invloved, the McCanns are guilty of reckless endangerment and could be prosecuted for that if Madeleine had gone missing in this country.
However again the CPS take no action because of public feeling. All this crap about them having to suffer for the rest of their lives doesn’t hold with me. I have seen no evidence of that suffering to date, so why should they start suffering now.
As someone said if they were prosecuted in Portugal, it wouldn’t do a lot of international relationships and the tourist inductry so chances are they won’t be prosecuted.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:17 am
marie (1452):
QUOTE: “In the video,
a) Gerry’s voice loses strength,
b) he smiles,
c) looks away and
d0 he scratches his ear.
While none of these are clues to deceit by themselves, combined - and compared to other instances of Gerry talking - his behavior here is unique - and that is a red flag. That is about all that can be said about this video.
Does this video change my original position that I believe the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter? No, it does not”.
REPLY: So, Gerry’s 4 signs of lying, in response to this difficult question, means, to put it plainly, that THE MCCANNS SEDATE THEIR CHILDREN
September 24th, 2007 at 12:15 am
1440 sheeple
“Come on guys what do SAS men do best? Is it detective work or bodyguard work????”
The SAS is a deep penetration and covert surveillance and reconnaissance unit.
Military equivalents of private detectives if you like. Their main role and function involves NOT being seen, while seeing themselves - to secretly find out information. They can handle themselves well, for sure, but if they get into such a situation of having to do so they have quite probably failed their mission.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:12 am
“someone said the law in Portugal relates to the property.”
I’m sorry, I don’t give much credence to “someone said”.
Why are you so keen to see law divorced from morality ? Where do you stand on morality, anyway, Stig ?
Do you genuinely believe that 30 minutes totally unsupervised is OK for such small children ? Or (as it seems) do you think that somehow irrelevant in the face of “real politic”.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Seen this? McCann interview. Apologies if already posted.
http://www.eyesforlies.blogspot.com/
September 24th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Good evening to all here. Rather late for me to be popping in but just had to get on here for a while to see what the latest is.
Been mulling over Madeleine for the whole day today, and this is what I’ve now decided (from my point of view):
There are TWO FACTS in this case :
1. The parents of Madeleine, Sean and Amelie McCann were neglectful (that’s three counts of neglect and child endagerment).
2. Madeleine is missing, and as far as I am concerned, presumed dead (whatever the outcome on this poor little innocent child - her parents should be held fully liable for her “disappearance”).
Regarding who should be held responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance :
1. Two people - Mr & Mrs G & K McCann. - their actions of exactly whatever time Madeleine went missing, either through disposal as a direct result of an accident or through abudction (which I don’t hold in high regard) caused the current circumstances.
2. Further members of the Tapas9 who knew what was going on …. there are a lot of ’selective memory recollections” popping up at the moment, which are going to discredit the witnesses original statements. Selective memory does not suddenly reappear 4 1/2 months after an event out of the blue … as far as I’m concerned plenty of what is coming out now is a load of bollocks!
There is definite media manipulation and corruption in this case:
There are too many highly involved politicains, business men and the like who are twisting and turning every little item reported to shine directly back on the McCanns and those that are hard done by in this case.
Last sighting of Madeleine by INDEPENDENT witnesses :
Only real piece of “Evidence” is the photograph that was taken by the poolside …. however this photo has even been questioned as to the day and time of actual clicking of the button to take the shot ….
The supposed sighting of Madeleine at 6pm that evening having dinner … now even the CCTV cameras are not concluding that can be taken as actual evidence.. camera recording was too fuzzy, and the chap at the restaurant cannot even remember 100 % if it was Madeleine & Co. eating at the restaurant, at the exact same time Daddy McCann was supposedly involved in a social tennis tournament.
The “requent visitors”to the McCann room that evening :
For a statement to come out over 4 1/2 months after the fact … that is now trying to put forward reliable witness statements is a bit of a farce!
The Find Madeleine Mand :
Biggest money-making farce I’ve ever come across! THey have a separate fund for the ransom payment (should it ever be needed), and at the moment are being supported financially by some rather high-flying rich dudes! So we can leave our little NEST EGG (the one in the little fund to cover the costs to leave NO STONE UNTURNED to find their little girl. Plus a couple of thousand in interest charges for a while, and for future purchases as needed by the family. THis fund has been used for nothing more than to promote a couple of yellow/red bracelets and a couple of pamphlets/ribbons/balloons to help in finding her.
Lately, actions from Clan McCann show the clear indication that they are starting to claw at thin air. They are running out of answers fast and furious. Shortly one of those involved will make a vital mistake … that is the day I am waiting for.
To dear little Madeleine - sweet dreams little girl
September 24th, 2007 at 12:04 am
1439 blunger
“what exactly is the law on this in portugal ?”
On one of the threads during the last four days, though I think it was more recent, had a post wherein someone said the law in Portugal relates to the property. If the McCanns, were on the property, which they were, then it is unlikely any case could or would be brought against them.
If it ‘were’ possible to prosecute the McCanns, to be fair, you would also have to prosecute others who had done as they did.
I am sure Mark Warner and the Portuguese tourist interests would be thrilled by the stink caused.
Do you not think it would look odd on the world stage, to prosecute parents who have suffered such a loss, while everyone is absolutely aware that the person/persons really responsible - most likely a predatory pedophile - have not been caught and have gotten away with it - escaping any form of retribution or justice.
Keep dreaming, if it makes you feel good, but the exigencies of ‘real politic’ will prevail.
Justice is not served by punishing the victims of the crime.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Tony Bennett 1444- I had just read that article too!
I refuse to think about it - what an excellent way to bring up kids.
Could there have been a fire? Could she have got up for a pee in the dark and cried for her parents and fallen down the steps after opening the front door that was unlocked? Could she have tried to get a drink and drowned in a bath? Or fallen off a chair trying to get a glass and fallen onto the broken glass?
Or perhaps an intruder or burgular may enter the room?
That reporter refuses to think about it!
But if you do not think about these things you will most likely put your child in similar dangers like this again.
Doctors lectured me about child safety when I gave birth - not to leave a child alone and to use window locks…cupboard locks etc…
The difference between that reporter who chooses not to think about the dangers of leaving a child alone and the McCanns is simple.
The McCanns KNEW what the dangers were more than most. The McCanns thought about it regularly as they spoke to parents with new born babies and treated children that have fallen down stairs…been scalded by hot water in a bath….fallen with a glass in their hand….etc….etc…etc….
The only danger they did not think of was abduction - but for that whole week they knew about the other dangers and did NOTHING!!!!!!!
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
1431 - “Even if negligence was involved, getting bogged down in a morass of righteous indignation may thwart the process of crime solving.”
What rubbish.
I agree with 1430, parents who neglect their children to the point of placing them in danger should be prosecuted and imprisoned.
When saying “Even if negligence was involved”, there is no ‘Even if’. If they were not involved in the fact Madeleine is missing, it was their actions that led directly to that fact. They had a responsibility to nurture and care for the children they brought into this world, and to keep them safe, but failed on all fronts.
I have said many time we are too tolerent of negligent parents and if one or two were imprisoned that would make others think twice.
I see children as young as 4 playing in a playground with a climbing frame, slide, and see-saw, unsupervised. Vans with side doors regularly park next to the playground fence even though parking is prohibited. The parents can’t even claim to be able to see the playground, and there is a major road less than 30yrds from the playground.
People just don’t care anf that is fact. You tell that is acceptable behaviour on the part of the parents.