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 8:19 am
1536
The Catholic Church isn’t as powerful as they’d like to be here. It couldn’t stop the abortion issue from passing and the only reports I’ve read about lately are of a Catholic priest who drives too fast and has been reprimanded by the Vatican.
I doubt they’d give evidence. They take confessions quite seriously.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Bogeyman Bogeyman who are you
lurking about in the ladies loo?
Bogeyman Bogeyman I don’t know
I will find you before I go
September 24th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Chloe,
I don’t know the answer. Maybe there is not a new forum on Sunday.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Carmen, I’ve been known to wear a hairnet
Patricia, I think Halloween is going to be wild and I have a gut feeling that there are many bogeymen on here. The longer this drags on, the more there will be and I suspect they’re all from the same camp.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Patricia, I would swear there were 2000 and something posts on here last night. Or is it my imagination?
September 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am
If the Catholic Church is as powerful in Portugal as in Spain (in spite of the fact that Spain is officially non-confessional), I don’t think a priest would ever be forced to give evidence. I’m not sure if it’s legally possible but it wouldn’t happen. There have been many Basque priests close to the terrorist organisation ETA but none of them has ever been called to appear in court as far as I am aware.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Anorak,
Will there be a new forum by tomorrow night? Hopefully noticing there are 1534 posts on this site. Someone spending too much time in the loo? LOL
Also, I am curious what happened to the Wonderful Wandering poster?
Edna, do you think there is one bogeyman or more? Knowing that will help some, yes.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Edna,
You noticed too?
Ohhhhhhhh I wonder what it will be like here for Halloween?
September 24th, 2007 at 7:40 am
I think it’s Ade Edmondson.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Ade,
You found the right site from what you say… YEs.
There is a bogeyman on this site!!!!! One observation is when Stefanie is around the site is safer. Stefanie is usually around during the day. The bogeyman trolls late at night most of the time. Every so often he is lurking around places when you don’t expect it. YEs.
For now no one will leave here until 5AM. I came back expecting to find Winky Dink. Winky Dink appeared okay to me but not knowing who the bogeyman is I have to use caution.
Oh, and I read people accusing other people on this site of cross dress. Although much is unclear, there is a BOGEYMAN and he likes to sneak up on the ladies at night.
So much worry about what to make of it all that when people started talking about the bogeyman in the picture I actually became curious if he is on here. I don’t know what to think. NO. What I am convinced is there IS more to all of this than meets the eye.
So much for finding something better to do but most of the other is boring in comparison to the tripping that goes on here, including a bogeyman. Wow.
My hope is that before this is all over I can know who these people really are. YES. Maybe the site is like Mad Hatterville but there is also some element more intense than that. I am convinced.
Whilst I love a mystery there is some point in time to get to the bottom of it, bogeyman and all! YES.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:34 am
1505 Murder
If the O’brien apartment was right next to McCanns what was Jane Tanner doing on the other road? She would have been walking in the same direction as Gerry back to the tapas bar. Do we actually know where her room was.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:21 am
”McCanns are lying”
Portuguese police believe Gerry and Kate McCann are using friends to hide their role in killing Madeleine.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/19984
September 24th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Could the wrong time on the clock be anything to do with british summer time? Some of my videos show the wrong time. For example New Years Eve was an hour out because I had not changed the clock. My video was not sophisticated enough to change on its own.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:27 am
1437 et al.
I’m not sure what Eliza has to gain from my alleged sex change and multiple personality but OCD about these wretched parents is a fair cop. I want them nailed - desperately. I have been following the McConns since day one and only on Thursday stumbled on this excellent site. I am fascinated by the concept of collective problem-solving.
I’m sure the moderators/administrators can confirm that I joined last Thursday and that I’m here under one name. Please feel free to do so…
As I’ve said before I can’t see the point of being two people. OK I’m a smartarse with an enquiring mind and I have lots of smart qualifications - in smart mathematical subjects. I also have a lot of time on my hands so I can spend hours on a forum like this if I choose to do so. My choice, I fear.
As for this Paulette or Judge Judy male/female poster(s)’ identity(ies) I really do not give a toss.
I’m going out for the day - nice early start - some fresh air after 4 days is in order so do not expect any posts from me (Ade that is) until later.
Let’s hope it’s today they get it in the neck…
September 24th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Hello Anorak,
Before I go I came back to ask, who is Stefanie?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:23 am
“Detectives investigating the disappearance of Hampshire teenager Rosemary Edwards have told her parents a body has been found.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7009799.stm
This is the real tragic face of the horror of missing children, unlike the titilating farcical soap-opera surrounding poor Madeline McCann. I believe that Gerry and Kate are guilty of child-neglect at the very least - the rest is speculation, stimulated by their own seemingly suspicious behaviour in front of the media. Perhaps such speculation is groundless or they are simply trying to save their reputations (and salaries), or covering up some dirt little secret, such as wife-swapping (http://www.bbc.co.uk/lifeonmars/series2/ep4.shtml). We may never know, or perhaps the truth will come out in another 20 years when some investigative journalist actually decides to do their job. It does seem, though, that British journalism got its wings clipped in the wake of the Dr Kelly/WMD controversy - again, suggesting government involvement in the McCann “spin”. However, we do all need to remember that this is really about an innocent missing (not necessarily abducted) child who may no longer be alive.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:03 am
1522 WAI
The most sense I have heard from the start !!
September 24th, 2007 at 4:29 am
1521, 1522 YES.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:24 am
1520 in theory, as always. YES. Patricia
Winky Dink I came back to tell you in case you come to the site tonight I must go out of town. Hopefully you will be around tomorrow night.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Brandon + Rab:
I don’t dismiss the abduction theory either, but there is no evidence. It is what we must believe is true to believe the theory.
That of late:
Gerry felt on the very day they were linked to the the crematourium, probably innocently so, it was neccessary to out his belief that an abductor was there when he checked and he now remembers it was 9.05.
The camera has to be lying as the McCann’s say and not them. What are the odds, hey, that when this camera is used in a case of this magnitude, it has to be the one in a million that gives an incorrect timestamp. The McCann’s unlucky streak began on the day Maddie went missing and it’s never stopped since, ay?
Is Tanner lying? I think so and if so why?
Are the McCann’s lying or Murat lying about who knows who? I can’t see why Murat would lie unless it was him.
Why was Murat fingered AFTER he became an Arguido and not before?
It was you I saw. Tanner is not protecting the other two by doing this if this is the reason.
Why leave a door unlocked to an unattended home containing three young children, which are out of sight? God they are unlucky? And stupid. How the hell did they qualify?
Why was Maddie taken? The other two were younger, more maleable, less distinctive, why Maddy if it’s not phaedophilia?
They are indisputable facts, unanswered, next is only some of the rumour.
Why do the witness statements of the McCanns conflict with the others who conflict with each other?
Why do the Mcanns and the others conflict with third parties who conflict with other others?
If my daughter was missing the first thing on my mind is getting a timeline for the first 48. I would be pressing everyone to get clear movements. I would know without doubt everyones movements and I would not be excusing myself for her disappearance on my failings. I would adamant to do everything within my power to help in her search, I would not go on trips around the world and bring Oli to England? Why do that. Don’t bring Sousa to England and infact send a rep.
Stuff protocol I would be out there months ago with a clear timetable of events and telling the world. “Staggered infrequent intervals” sounds like bull to me!
I wouldn’t care about anything but getting her and her being safe, every moment would be like torture. Going to Rome would be totally impossible for me. If I had been screwing O’ Briens wife, having swingers parties and sedating the children so I could, I’d be saying it, I would tell all. Yes, I would lose the other two, but I would stand a chance of getting them back as well as my other daughter. She would be priority over everything. I would honest, consistent from day one and transparent. I don’t see this in the McCann’s. Retraction, excuses, inaccurracies, imblemishments and rebuttals.
According to the mcCann’s (in interview) when Sousa was controlling the inquiry they were satisfied and had faith in their abilities. So why turn on them and compete with them, ironically reacting to speculation and giving case details away, which they are not to do and couldn’t dare think of doing when they were seen as innocent. If your innocent, there is nothing to hide or defend, so they think you did it, so what, who gives, just find Maddie. Defending yourself by media does nothing to helping the enquiry. It’s revengeful and detrimental to the concentration of finding Maddie. And there’s more……….
September 24th, 2007 at 4:06 am
my bet is the case will remain unsolved, and the mccans will fade into the background. too much fuck up in all this.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:56 am
This is info from an article about the private investigators
Reports that her hair, bodily fluids and even traces of blood were found were described as key to the investigation. A source close to the FSS said the results had been “exaggerated” by the Portuguese to try and put pressure on the McCanns.
Exaggerated? not really a denial but an attempt to discredit.
How many NOODLES have been working on this case now Anorak?
If you look back there are times when the McCann team hint early on what is to come later. YES. I thought is was odd when Mr. McCann went on and on about how Madeleine didn’t cry when she fell getting on the airplane thinking that the cut was really bad blah blah… What about when I notice that out of nowhere an article appears suggesting a woman was beaten and framed. At the time there appeared no reason for importance. Eventually, the cut is used to explain blood and the frame job is used to indicate how Mrs. McCann is being framed. FUNNY though, exposing corruption might not have been such a good idea now that people will be watching carefully and looking for exactly that in this case. YES. So, the McCann team pointed out Portugal COVERS UP rings, officials are shady, CORRUPT, CORRUPT, CORRUPT but all of us are to believe there will be no corruption in this case? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA The reason to think about corruption is because the McCann team did such a knock out job of exposing it themselves.
Mr. Clarence gets credit for playing hard ball when obviously he is brought in because he is Mr. Curveball. How INSULTING to the public are the tactics?
Strongwood, a study independent of Portugal and the UK, explained their findings a while back. At least an attempt to make determinations while otherwise possibly, in theroy, the rest could be playing out under the table. YES.
Strongwood, in my opinion, at least stood up and said something. The rest of the Noodles in this case are far more suspicious!
Considering the McCanns appear on television asking for assistance in finding Madeleine but then attempt to discredit all of the reported evidence is worth notice. Other than the PR, lawyers, and money contributors, all of the people who have been trying to establish what happened to Madeleine are discredited? The Portugal police are discredited, the UK dogs, the dna, Strongwood, reporters, etc. The most humorous to me being the BIG DEAL about the Portugal police having a two hour lunch while searching for Madeleine who is missing due to her parents leaving her alone while having a long dinner and drinking. That is very ironic to me! YES.
The most fascinating aspect of this case to me is that other than the night Madeleine vanished the rest is on tape.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:44 am
This part has intrigued me:
Friends ‘appalled’ at Kate McCann news
07/09/2007 - 14:33:50
“….On the night Madeleine disappeared, Dr O’Brien left the table at around the time she is believed to have been snatched. But it is understood he was looking after his young daughter, who was ill and vomiting in her room.”
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhcwgbidcwql/
“He told police that he was looking after his young daughter, who was vomiting. The girl is the same age as Madeleine,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2303356.ece
OK. When one young child vomits, children they’ve played with quite likely are vomiting also (shared bugs, shared food, cross-contamination). So, it’s possible Madeleine became sick at same time as other child. If so, possible she vomited alone in bed, breathed some in and died. To be discovered by ….?
Did Russell O’Brien and his partner Jane anner know their child was sick before they went out to the tapas bar? Yes. Guardian says at 9.10 pm “Jane Tanner, Mr O’Brien’s partner, is coming late to the dinner, one of their children having been sick…”
So, Kate and Gerry lefy their 3 children alone and Tanner and O’Brien left theirs (albeit later) even after one of them was already ill. Presumably Tanner thought her child was OK, settled. But that proved otherwise according to the press.
“9.30 Mr Oldfield goes to the McCann’s apartment; he doesn’t raise any suspicions at the time but later says that he noticed there was more light in the apartment.
Russell O’Brien leaves at the same time, to discover that his daughter is vomiting
9.35 Mr Oldfield returns to the table
9.55 Mr O’Brien returns …”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2165019,00.html
So, O’Brien comes back even though he knows for sure now that his daughter, same age as Madeleine, has been vomiting (and could throw up again).
Then there’s the Sol account:
“Russell O’Brien, one of the doctors of the group, who was absent for most of the dinner and who returned to the table 5 minutes before Kate went to her apartment and noticed Maddie was missing. Russell then explained that his daughter was sick, and even vomited so it was necessary to change her bed sheets”. One of the employees of the Ocean Club, who was heard by Sol this week, contradicts his version: “If that had happened, he would have to ask the housekeeping service for some clean sheets, which did not happen”.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/176015.html
Well, would Dr. O’Brien fail to recall or lie about changing his daughter’s bed sheets? Why? Doesn’t make much sense. How would that employe know for sure that no spare sheets were in the room? That aside, if it’s true that none of the group asked for clean sheets or had any on hand - if Madeleine had vomited (and passed out or died), the parents could not have hidden this from the police that night. That *should* dispose of any speculation (my own) that possibly this is how Madeleine died.
Unless, say, an accident to Madeleine, discovered not by Kate nor even by Gerry, but by one of the friends, was transformed into a story about time spent caring for the other little girl. That would entail a monumental conspiracy. No sane reason for O’Brien to enter into such unless he or Jane Tanner had some proximity to Madeleine’s death and felt in some way to blame and/or felt a lot of empathy for the suffering that their friends the McCann’s would go through if revealed that their daughter had died while left alone.
This isn’t going anywhere but contradictions as per the bedsheets are endemic in this case.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:40 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0HiiDuP5yU&mode=related&search=
not seen before family and friends not interveiwed as i recollect on here before
food and drink rest offerred
rotten flesh and dirty nappy removal not i believe
it says 2.5 million
where did 1 million go?
September 24th, 2007 at 3:15 am
24 September 2007 View all news | Send to a friend | Print
Madeleine McCann family - trial by media
James Button
Kate McCann
It is one of the biggest stories in years, regularly topping the lists of most-read articles on newspaper websites. Put it on page one and sales soar by 30,000, one tabloid editor says. At the top of its website, between the categories UK News and World News, Sky News lists the subject simply as Madeleine.
Nearly five months since her disappearance we still do not know the fate of the British girl Madeleine McCann. But we have learnt a few things about the media and their relationship with the public - all of us.
I do not mean simply mainstream media, but the online world of websites, bloggers and instant public feedback. The old and new media have not just reported the McCann story. They have changed it.
After Madeleine went missing on May 3, British reporters invaded the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz. They wrote reams of stories about the alleged incompetence of the investigation: the failure to seal off the crime scene, properly interview witnesses and take DNA samples.
Fair or not, the coverage incensed the investigators and stung the national pride of the Portuguese press.
It began to run allegations, some clearly leaked by police, that were damaging to Kate and Gerry McCann: their accounts had inconsistencies; they and their friends were “swingers” who had drunk 14 bottles of wine on May 3; finally and explosively, that Kate McCann had accidentally overdosed Madeleine with sedatives then tried to hide the body.
British tabloids mocked many of these stories yet, hedging their bets, also reported them. The most lurid example was the Daily Express, which ran a headline, “Gerry may not be the father”, above a story that began: “The smear campaign in Portugal against the McCanns continued yesterday…”
The resulting spiral - unsourced British reports of unsourced Portuguese reports - created a perfect storm: huge media fascination with almost no facts to feed it.
The McCanns are partly to blame. Well-educated doctors, they have hired spin doctors and tried to harness the media to their cause. Their stated reason is understandable: they want to keep the focus on finding their daughter.
But the journalist Matthew Parris wrote in The Spectator last week that their savvy media strategy - down to Gerry McCann’s daily blog and constant photos of Kate McCann clutching Madeleine’s pink cuddle-cat - was starting to hurt them. With both reporters and the public alert and resistant to spin, the McCanns had proved “unwisely media-wise”.
Parris is onto something, but I am not sure it is the media that have turned against the McCanns. While some have reported dodgy rumours, the overall British coverage has been sympathetic, and sceptical the McCanns had a role in Madeleine’s disappearance.
The online public, however, has been far more hostile. When the Daily Mail last week ran an article, “McCanns’ DNA dossier to demolish Portuguese police’s ‘pathetic’ evidence”, the 60 readers who emailed feedback to this positive story came out two to one against the McCanns.
Evi Labi of London wrote: “It’s terrible for a child to disappear but would it be possible to get some peace from the McCanns’ organised and very well-orchestrated publicity?”
from canberra aus
A newspaper in the McCanns’ county of Leicestershire had to close an online discussion forum because of vicious comments about the couple. More than 17,000 people signed an online petition asking social workers to find the McCanns unfit parents to look after their two-year-old twins. An internet poll found that only 20 per cent of Britons thought they were completely innocent.
What does this tell us? Perhaps what Graham Greene once observed: that everyone everywhere believes what is bad. Some readers found Kate McCann “too composed” and “cold”. But Lindy Chamberlain was said to be cold, as was Joanne Lees before she was cleared of involvement in the death of Peter Falconio.
Is it everyone, though, or is it the on-line world? Old media are usually constrained to report facts and to show where they differ from rumour. New media, while they may improve and democratise journalism in many respects, allow anyone to trot out the wildest opinion or theory, unconstrained by rules of evidence.
The blogosphere, like talkback radio, is full of people who simply like to sound off. It all shows why the law matters. Trials allow evidence to be tested, rumours to be upheld or scotched. But there may never be a trial in this case: Madeleine’s presumed killer may never be found.
Although the tide of the investigation seemed to be turning in favour of the McCanns, they may live on with a vague air of doubt hanging over them. If they are innocent, as the known evidence suggests, that would be desperately unfair, though even such an injustice pales before the monstrosity of having their daughter snatched from their lives.
James Button is the Sydney Morning Herald’s correspondent in London
September 24th, 2007 at 3:13 am
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=lifestyle%20news&subclass=news%20extra&story_id=1058599&category=news%20extra
one before bed
night concerned people
September 24th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Mrs Fenn
- maybe all it needed was for someone (her daughter even) to point out the stress of being a major witness in a trial in Portugal. The need to attend. The press attention. The attacks she will face as the huge machine tries to discredit her.
Is she 81 ?
Anyway - it may not matter. I have received the impression that under Portuguese law a properly gathered statement early on when recall is good will override any attempts to retract it.
But we’re still guessing, aren’t we? We can’t confidently assert what she said, first or last. Either or both reports could be wrong.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:04 am
1505
they only say what they were told
remember no one believed the mc canns were capable of it at first
and now as they have to go over it im sure someone will crack
has someone any footage of todays trip to mass?
looked earlier cant be rsed now
i wonder how many doctors do medicate their own kids?
September 24th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Why is Ms. Fenn recounting her testimony? Is she getting paid. There is an awful lot of bribe money in the fund right now.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:59 am
1505 Brandon, an interesting post. If Tanner and O’Brien are the only friends involved does that mean the alleged statements of the remainder of the Tapas 9 are accurate? I had a feeling that some of these statements were possibly suspect with respect to accounts of who went where and at what time.
Despite writing in my pervious post that the pre-meditated event appeared outlandish, I have considered it. It may actually be more plausable than the accidental theory. However, for the pre-meditated version, would there not have to be historical characteristics to suggest these people could commit such a crime? Also, would there not need to be a motive?
I have read some motives, but none that really strike me as feasible.