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
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- percy stilton on Newspaper Correction Of The Year: The New Jersey Rabbis
- Anorak on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Patricia on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
it says gerry left the apartment with a suitcase (maddie inside?) and a bucket and spade on th 5th of may, perhaps the body was stashed in the airconditoning thingy til it could be moved.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
394 judge Dread
Ask the tapas 9. They know exactly what happened to her.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
(394) Judge Dread:
I believe someone in the forum section of this website, stated he couldn’t believe “alien abduction” hadn’t come up yet…it does make you think, lol!
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
382 the horse from the north…
Yes there was and yes there is - missing child, eyewitness report of a man carrying a child. I posted a little scenario in the previous thread showing how an abduction can take place without leaving a trace.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
382 - On that basis she wasn’t abducted, wasn’t murdered, didn’t have an accident, in fact nothing happened, because there is no evidence of anything. So what in hells name happened to her then, because the one thing we do know is shes missing.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
itsall a terrible shame. I’m just surprised that there is not even more media attention on this terrible case. and what about mr murat?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
(384) The Real Stig:
“What on earth makes you think a Kids club is a bad thing for children? They have the resources and dedicated staff to provide a fun time for the kids where they can play together etc. You can’t take all the kids toys and such when you go on holiday. The kids club has all that kind of stuff you can’t bring with you and kids miss.
All the evidence, eye witnesses, photos etc, shows clearly that the McCanns played and interacted with their kids in what I would think was a normal fashion. The Kids club was probably as much for the kids benefit as the adults - win win.”
They can be good for children and people raise their children differently..I’m not saying the following is true for everyone, but in my own personal experience…
The people at the kid’s club said Madeleine was quite shy. When I was around her age, I was quite shy too, and while my parents encouraged me to interact more and all of that good stuff, they did so while I was in a comfortable, familiar environment.
When I was on holiday and at that age, I was around my parents like glue and they didn’t mind because it was a family holiday and they realized it wouldn’t be as fun for me to go and have to deal with that new environment at that age and “make do”. This may be different, as O’Brien’s daughter was the same age and there, but that doesn’t mean it had to be..
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Is it possible the McCons whole family have a drug-dependancy problem.
Do they pay for these prescription sedatives or are they stolen from the NHS?
Do all doctors have this problem?
Is there a way to get them onto alcohol as an alternative?
Ooops forgot, they do alcohol big time as well…
Silly suggestion.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Carmen 370
I don’t know why we all tend to label the supposed abductor as “he” perhaps it’s just a matter of speech and really no one seems all that convinced that there was an abductor.
I myself think that if a woman had taken the girl more than likely it would be a childless woman who very much wanted a child of her own and for some reason couldn’t have one. Putting myself in that frame of mind I think this hypothetical “abductress” would have taken the younger sister. At the age of 18 months a child’s personality is not as developed, also memories of family would fade much more quickly, at that age although of course at first she’d miss her parents if the child’s physical needs are met the parents are slowly going to become just a faint memory, whereas a four year old is going to keep asking for her mum and dad for a much longer period of time. Also Madeleine would be much more recognisable than her siblings; the distinct eye for a start. The speech skills of an 18 month old child are much less likely to give you away as even though they realise you are not their beloved mum, how can the child convey this in an intelligible way? also their appearance would change much quicker, as children at that age are constantly changing. After a short period of time the child would be as yours
This is just a thought though and of course you’re right to ask why we all assume if there ever was a kidnapper, why it must be “he”
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
370 Carmen
Perhaps I should have written s/he. Just my mind jumping to assumptions of paedophilia when associated with a 4 year old child. Had it been a baby I probably would have automatically written she.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
(376) Murder:
Ahh, you bring up a good point. After waiting so long to share their story (while going against secrecy laws for some time), now that they have all of the big short lawyers, their stories can come across as “more thought out”.
“But the resort people say this wouldn’t have been possible, sicne there would have been no spare sheets in the apartment, and O’Brien would have had to request clean sheets, which he didn’t do.”
Did the resort really say that?
I don’t understand why we are back at the window being the point of exit theory again. Even if there was an abduction, the doors were open (and there were two sets). I thought the common belief among the McCanns and the police was that the abductor walked out through a door? Why has this changed?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070624/28138_More_Madeleine_Sightings_Reported_in_Malta.htm
We will do everything to find our daughter!!!!!! HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH read this
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
382 Agreed the horse…
No abduction - just dubious “checking” trips, drugged-up kiddos and a massive cover-up. Bit like 4 weddings and a funeral but not as neat…
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
124
“Not even the McCanns could explain sedatives being kept in a nappy”
Wanna bet?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
304 dean
“Why did they even bother taking the kids on holiday with them if they just bundled them off to kids club?”
There are photos of the McCann’s by the pool with the kids, Gerry playing with them at a park and so on. There are eye witness reports like this:
“Mr Matias said: “It was a perfectly normal, relaxed, happy, family scene. The little girl was even dancing on the esplanade with her dad to the sound of music that was playing.”
“Kate and Gerry McCann, the children and their holiday friends spent an hour at restaurant Paraiso on the beach of Praia da Luz, where the youngsters ate their dinner. Mr McCann played with his eldest daughter in the sand in front of the balcony and pushed her on a swing before calling her to the table for food and an ice-cream.”
Having dinner with the kids, shame on them. GOD! if I ever see parents behaving like that with their children I’m going to call Social Services
What on earth makes you think a Kids club is a bad thing for children? They have the resources and dedicated staff to provide a fun time for the kids where they can play together etc. You can’t take all the kids toys and such when you go on holiday. The kids club has all that kind of stuff you can’t bring with you and kids miss.
All the evidence, eye witnesses, photos etc, shows clearly that the McCanns played and interacted with their kids in what I would think was a normal fashion. The Kids club was probably as much for the kids benefit as the adults - win win.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
379 Very helpful Brandon
Seeing the church reminded me to phone Father Larry Duff but at first I think his mobile was switched off. Fr Dougal McGuire later answered and said something about falling off a roof. He assured me Mrs Doyle has not seen the priest who went missing from Portugal.
Anyone else heard of the missing witness? Bishop Brennan wants a word too…
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
372 wanderer….just wandering wanderer what you’re talking about - there was no abduction, there never has been the slightest bit of evidence pointing to abduction!!
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
371. Wanderer.
I don’t know if they used a babysitter on other nights, although I don’t think they did.
What I cannot get my head around is someone entering the apartment to abduct Madeleine. Even if they had been observing the family, how would anyone know who was at the Tapas restaurant and when. How would anyone watching the patio doors know whether anyone left the Tapas restaurant to enter through the front door?
Another thing that niggles is where were the other holiday makers? At every complex I’ve stayed on there have been people out and about almost 24 hours a day. People hang around the pool long after the sun goes in, people nip out to have a cigarette or a walk. People sit on their balconies drinking. The way the McCanns story plays out they make the place appear almost deserted, badly lit and full of places for “abductors” to hide until they pounce.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
(375) Carmen:
“Are small twins more or less difficult than one three year old to climb out of a window with? Anyone with twins who can answer this?”
I’d hope there wouldn’t be too many times when a person with twins would have to climb out the window with them (I imagine it could happen if there was a fire or something).
From what we hear…”the twins slept through everything that night (including their mother screaming”, maybe it would have been easier to take them.
But they would be harder to take care of and conceal for an abductor, as with just one baby you wouldn’t attract much attention, but with twins you would. Plus, they need constant caring, also if it was an abduction linked with pedophilia, I’m not sure if they’d be interested in waiting for the twins to grow up? That sounds awful, I know, but I’m just trying to think of why Madeleine was targeted out and the reasons why she could have been taken.
I also wonder if the abductor thought about splitting up the twins (taking just one), I’m not sure under what circumstances they’d think to do that, but it would seem a woman would be more likely to do so, doesn’t it? As she wouldn’t want to take all the children away (after longing for one of her own), yet she may have wanted Madeleine to have some of her family there or something…I’m not quite sure how it would work out. In any case, the abductor (male or female) needs serious help and to be put away.
(378) Ade:
I agree with you, I’d love to know what was being done with the money/what they plan to do with it in the future. I think some people are so upset by everything, that they would go ahead and set one up themselves, just to see where their money is going; but I doubt the McCanns would give anyone such information. I agree, I think it would be a big PR thing and a common courtesy, sadly, under law they don’t have to do that.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1284399-33,00.html
Heres some pics on windows and other scenes of interest
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
369 Wanderer
All I meant was if you set yourself up touting for money for a cause it’s just good manners to let people know what you are doing with it. Sheer bloody common sense too if you want more donations - that’s why McCannClan PR haven’t thought of it.
Look at Oxfam.org.uk
You can find out easily through the Oxfam in action button what they are doing. And I know Oxfam is a charity. But both are doing the same thing. Raising donations to achieve a stated cause.
All you get on Findmaddie is various buttons that take you to the same place- where to donate! Gives the impression of moneygrabbers. Bung 50k (and someone with brains) at it and it could sing!!!
Trouble is you know and I know (and THEY know) she aint gonna be found so they can’t be bothered. Well that’s the PR “image” they present.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
http://portugalresident.com/portugalresident/showstory.asp?ID=21334
Please read this if you think the twins arent in danger
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Gerry’s lawyers have probably worked out that there wouldn’t have been a big enough window for abduction between the time Gerry left Wilkins in the alley (where did Wilkins go in the next few minutes?), having checked the kids at 9:05, and Oldfield’s approach to the flat a couple of minutes later.
So Gerry now realizes, that for his stories to hold up, the abductor would have had to be in the flat with him at 9:05 (but he didn’t notice the ‘raised shutter’ giving the extra light Oldfield reported in the kids’ room at 9:30, so the ‘abductor’ was gone by then.
Now this is fascinating stuff. I think it’s quite possible that the ‘abductor’ / removal man was indeed with Gerry in the flat at 9:05, by prior arrangement, and that Gerry had to stop Wilkins in the alley to cover his accomplice’s getaway.
I think the accomplice might even have been Murat. Gerry would have known that, but wouldn’t have briefed Tanner to report something different in time. The fact that Murat’s story and some of the Tapas 9’s accounts (but not Gerry’s) apparently conflict is no big deal if that conflict can’t be resolved either way - and Murat knows there’s no good evidence against him, apart from a few contradictions in his statements (not speaking to Malinka &c). The conflict might even help to confuse the PJ and throw them further off the correct track.
Or the accomplice might have been O’Brien. He was away for an awfully long time, supposedly ‘changing the sheets’ after his daughter (apparently a Maddy lookalike, born ?the same day?) had vomited. But the resort people say this wouldn’t have been possible, sicne there would have been no spare sheets in the apartment, and O’Brien would have had to request clean sheets, which he didn’t do.
Either way, I don’t see how someone would have climbed out of the bedroom window with a body/corpse, and I think it’s more likely that Gerry handed the body out of the window to an accomplice, before stopping Wilkins continuing on his way and possibly seeing the accomplice.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Given the fact that the Times report was written just 3 days after the abduction, I still thing it is more reliable than the changes we are now led to believe.
Originally Gerry checked his children at 9.30pm.
That has changed to 9.05pm
The children were sound asleep, with Madeleine lying with her comfort blanket, (cuddle cat).
That means he saw Madeleine in bed. Now he claims he didn’t, and cuddle cat was found up high.
Thirty minutes later his wife returned and found Madeleine gone and the shutter of the rear window open.
Proven to be a lie.
Trish Cameron, McCann’s sister, said: “Kate came screaming back to the group crying, ‘They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her’.
Kate McCann’s own sister would have been certain of what Kate shouted and her recolection after 3 days is more reliable than the changes being put to us now.
It’s time the McCanns came clean and say what really happened as far as I am concerned.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
(370) Carmen:
I don’t think they suspect a woman if the abductor was really in the suite that night. A woman would have been more likely to go for the twins, as they would form more memories with her. I think, because the twins were left, and Madeleine was taken, the odds are more in favor of a male with a history of pedophilia taking her.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
(367) Andy:
I agree a bit there. Plus, there were quite a few adults hovering around at all times (with a group that size hanging around together). Also, do we know if they secured a babysitter during the other nights? If they did, I imagine that would deter a kidnapper somewhat, if they didn’t, why didn’t the kidnapper strike then?
There are explanations for everything, but the truth is a bit more interesting than the explanations…as the explanations can go on and on forever.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
(356) Ade:
I don’t know how anyone would get the information though. I doubt the McCanns would ever do something like that, although it would be cheap PR?
It seems like before the police focused on them, the McCanns seemed happy dealing with the authorities in Portugal.
It seemed like before the public turned against them, the McCanns seemed happy to invite all the press and such. Given, some of that was a tool to find their daughter, but now it seems more like they are clearing their name, when in reality, they only need to prove that to the police, not the public at this time. It seems like they are trying to prove their innocence to the public and the police at the same time, which just doesn’t need to be the case.
Also, they asked some governmental official to get the press attention to die down (apparently, that isn’t exactly confirmed) and then we always hear about the secrecy laws, but more and more information is rolling out, daily, from the McCann group. If they were that worried about their public image (with the neglect thing) or the case, they could have leaked what really happened during the “6 missing hours” before hand, and in doing so, I doubt the public would have ever swayed against them.
Now everything is just a bit tainted when it didn’t have to get this way, that is why I was questioning if this is because of the secrecy laws or if they would have made things known if this happened in the UK (as everyone says they are private, controlled people)? If the police source wasn’t leaking things if this wouldn’t have been focused on so much. It would be interesting to see how this would have played out under different circumstances…not that any of it matters really, as a little girl is still missing.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
From Sky
“The Briton’s home has been searched and he has twice been questioned by police, who named him as their first “arguido” - or official suspect.
But a report in the weekly newspaper Sol reported that Murat had now been told that police have no case against him.
However, the 33-year-old is to remain an arguido until the investigation is complete to avoid compromising other ongoing inquiries, the newspaper said.”
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
361.
“Madeleine’s relatives and crime experts now suspect that she was targeted by someone who had been watching the family during their holiday. Roy Ramm, a former Scotland Yard commander, said: “This is somebody who has planned this abduction quite carefully. He has probably looked and observed this child during the day.”.”
I’m surprised that anyone managed to observe Madeleine at all considering that she was in the kids club all day and in bed at 6.30 every night (allegedly).
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Hmm, the timestamp on the photo apparently said 1:29, but the McCanns actually seem to have thought there was a 1-hour time difference with Britain that week, placing the photo at the much-reported 2:29 local time, just before the ‘kid’s club’ opened at 2:30.
I find this, like so much else, inconclusive but highly suspicious. It strengthens my suspicion that the time/date stamp on the photo may have been changed, probably before the photo was taken, perhaps the previous day (just as the famous CCTV footage of the Tapas 9’s drunken ‘high tea’ supposedly had the wrong datestamp (weird expression, that ‘high tea’ - but maybe it refers to the alcohol intake of the older members, and the doping of the younger McCanns and O’Briens around that time).
A time or datestamp adjusted to fit in with the abduction story while Madeleine was still alive, would of course be evidence of premeditated murder, rather than accidental manslaughter.