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
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
http://www.mysurfergirl.info/2007/09/on-my-mind-lately.html
read the last paragaph
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Cuddle Cat is a red herring.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
If she was certain that the abductor had placed Cuddle Cat on a ledge why on earth didn’t she pick it up with gloves,place it in a bag and hand it to the authorities for inspection??
Furthermore, just supposing there was a kidnapper, his putting the toy up high seems directed at the parents, some sort of subtle warning. Earlier on I was wandering:
The parents in question and at least another couple from their group are involved in something very immoral or illegal; there is no way these
facts can come to light and these people not end up in jail. Someone kidnaps one of
their children to either blackmail them or somehow get something from them. Hence the “they’ve taken her” and their not doubting that the child is alive. Also saying that the child wasn’t taken because of negligence on their part but due”to other circumstances”.The involvement of the other couple in whatever they had to hide would explain their willingness to cover up.
But I know this theory is full of holes. 1.Wouldn’t the abductor have taken a younger sibling? Easier to carry and then conceal, but then again no, a younger child needs more looking after, nappy changing etc. 2.Why then talk of dirty nappies and rotting meat, if child is somewhere safe there can’t possibly be evidence of any bodily fluids in a car hired long after her disappearance.
3. What could they have been doing that’s so terrible that they’d rather cover up than own up?? 4. Who are “they” some maffia, secret group or sect??
Too far fetched, I know. Time to walk away from this and clear my mind
Back to thinking they did it themselves,albeit accidently
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Now that Murat is apparently out of the picture, what if Maddie was kidnapped for money. I know it has been mentioned before but looking back on the parents reaction at their first interview it fits with them knowing someone had her and them trying to say to the kidnapper ‘take care of her, we will do what you want’.
What if there was a ransom note in the bed and maybe it accounts for Kate saying ‘they have taken her’. Maybe this is why they did not follow up sightings from all over the place. For a long time they really seemed to believe they would get her back, this hope only seemed to disappear on about the 100th day.
If your child is kidnapped and you are told by the kidnapper to say nothing - you say nothing.
I know it was assumed they were keeping quiet because of police law in Portugal. Not talking about things is so that a criminal can be punished when found.
If I was them and I thought she was abduced by a stranger for an unknown reason I would have risked talking about the case to have a better chance of finding her, even if the result was that the abductor was not able to be punished.
The only reason I would have been able to have such self-restraint is if I knew she had been kidnapped and I had been told not to talk.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Post 441 - blunger says (September 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm): “I’ve been thinking about Cuddlecat being on the high shelf…I’ve thought of a third (rather unpleasant) explanation. What better way to punish a child than put its favourite toy out of reach but in sight. “If you don’t be quiet, CuddleCat will go back on the shelf”.
Forgot to take it down until others had seen it, then needed an explanation other than the true one. But ‘abductor put it there’ is just about impossible for me to believe. Sounds ‘ludicrous” in fact. By guess is it was part of a punishment regime, and if so, a sufficiently sadistic one as to raise serious further questions”.
REPLY: I confess to having had similar thoughts, though I think if she’d been injured in such a fall, the McCanns could have simply called for an ambulance (’she’s had a bad fall - come quick!’).
I still cannot fathom the extraordinary way in which Cuddle Cat is clutched by Kate and even left half out of her handbag, so the cameras can see it, even when she could easily stuff it inside the bag and hide it. It is there for the world and the world’s media to see. All the time - obsessionally so.
Is she sending us some kind of a message? I think she must be.
I agree that it was almost certainly Madeleine’s favourite toy - and if she was in any way an unhappy child, it could have had immense significance for her. No doubt she talked to it.
So why is it paraded all the time? Is it a way of saying ‘It wasn’t me that did it’. Or perhaps ‘It was me that did it’? Or is it just of extreme sentimental value?
Is it meant to be a clue of some kind as to what really happened?
Btw, if Madeleine died in the apartment, then maybe it was soon after that 1.29pm photo was taken. Gerry looks intense and morbid in it. As he did on the ‘bus - angry and preoccupied.
I am also wondering whether the four ‘Tapas 9′ men (including Gerry McCann) were really playing in ‘a social tennis event’ (’Daily Mail’, 19 September) around the 5pm to 7pm mark?
Or not?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
(511) Blunger:
I was just speaking of the mental state afterwards because I was wondering if it connected with the gender issue that was being discussed earlier.
If there was an abductor, for them to take that much time out to put a toy away, does that imply a female gender? Especially if we are going to go by Gerry’s theory, that the abductor was scared of Gerry’s presence and ran with Madeleine right after he left. Does this even sound like a pedophile/murderer because of that point? That was the undercurrent to my question, it seems to be a huge oddity. It just doesn’t seem to make sense, as most already assume it would be a male (because the twins weren’t taken) and also the fact that a blanket may have been taken, but not a toy?
I imagine the experts are baffled by this as well, because it doesn’t seem to fit.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=1500895&objectid=10463239
for those who think a body cant be put in a suitcase
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Re Wanderer and the shelf:
“I personally don’t understand why an abductor would ever do that, that is why I am curious about it.”
Don’t you see, to those willing to consider all possibilities, it makes one more tiny suggestion that just possibly there might not have BEEN an abductor.
I “don’t understand why an abductor would ever do that” either. I absolutely agree with you.
But it makes me doubt his existence, not his mental state.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
(482) Blunger:
“What a remarkable demonstration of how (probably all of us) twist things to our own point of view.”
It simply wasn’t that or that remarkable, I offered doubt into the abductor theory in the first segment of my comment, which I admit, as I didn’t label that I was correcting and adding to the previous comment, it could appear that way.
I also pointed out in my first comment that my response was to the sudden weight the police are giving to the abductor theory. It was hardly remarkable, especially on this forum.
It was my own fault for not clearly marking my posts so some continuity could be established.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
500 - Julie Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hair DOES NOT grow after death, neither do nails.
Thanks Julie! That makes much more sense to me. There is a post from Molly earlier today that says hair does grow after death. And my eyes shot out of my head when I read that. I knew it couldn’t be biologically correct.
But traces of food and ingestibles, are a different story. They are already pre-existing conditions. So they can be traced to DNA in the hair. That makes sense.
Thank you for clearing that up!
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
505 Brandon - the article says that members of the family had flown out by then. The suitcase obviously contained snacks for Auntie Phil - or her bathing suit.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Wanderer
I said “how (probably all of us) twist things”.
We all do it.
It was just that your “abnormal mind” explanation for something so odd seemed equally usable to cover huge chunks of evidence in any direction any of us don’t like.
I think we are all learning lots here about how our perceptions change once we start firming up an opinion.
Not just you. Not at all. All of us.
You buy your first Volkswagen. Suddenly you see them everywhere.
Interesting, innit ?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Emilie - 501. Sadly I have no on-line link. I saw it live on TV before I went out and bought my anorak. If I find it I will post it. He was so sad and he looks unwell. Now HE I had sympathy for.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=find-prime-suspect&method=full&objectid=19053687&siteid=93463-name_page.html
another one
we need to see that case
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Does anyone know if it has been confirmed that Madeleine was at the Mark Warner crèche after noon on May 3rd as the parents claim?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
497 - Judith C. Pay no need to the double negative. Lots of people say things like ‘I don’t know nothing’ when they really mean ‘I don’t know anything’.
In this case I think you have unwittingly stumbled upon something! Clearly at some subconscious level Gerrypops was influenced by his favourite TV show (where the slogan is actually ‘Trust No One’. Would link in immaculately with the alien abduction theory.
They don’t have cats on Planet Zog so the alien just left Cuddle Cat behind.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
On wakin’ da dead they do stuff like photos of the scene man an’ dat. Briwlyantt ‘cos it mean youse can eyeball stuff like dem cats on da high shelf and blankets dat aint been nicked an blood…
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
483 - hear, hear Puzzled!
Any chance you’ve a link to the interview on Skye News you mention in your post? The one with KM’s Father as the interviewee? Can you post it here? I’m afraid I missed that one.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hair DOES NOT grow after death, neither do nails. Any poisons, etc. that a person has ingested prior to death will however, remain traceable in hair folicles for decades after death. So the vital DNA lies in the hair!
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
New to This
I also remember she said she was sleeping OK? Is that right? I thought at the time that she wasn’t acting out any expected “No, of course I can’t sleep etc. etc.” She talked about their daily routine and I got the impression she was so shattered that she was sleeping now, whatever about the early days when she certainly looked as if she hadn’t slept for a couple of weeks.
She struck me as being calm and honest really, in that interview. I know some people won’t like me saying that, but that’s the impression I got. I thought that, if she’d been acting, she’d have handled it very differently.
What were your impressions?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I’d just like to say I’m amazed that no matter how much I read this page, I am constantly learning new stuff about this case.
Thanks everyone, I know the news before it’s on telly these days!
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
(484) Puzzled:
Yes, re.the anagram DUN EN TRUST NO ONE with a Somerset accent, I think it could be written as DON’T TRUST NO ONE which, of course, as it’s a double negative (if one is being literal) means ‘Do trust everyone’ but let’s forget being literal. I didn’t know it had connections with the ‘X Files’ That’s interesting!
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
(493) Emillie:
“It can’t be right that hair can grow after the body is deceased. What would be giving it life or sustaining it?
Can anyone explain this phenomenon?”
They don’t continue to grow, it is an optical illusion.
http://www.snopes.com/science/nailgrow.asp
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
489 - Carmen. No. Ireland. Why? Am I that far off the mark? My brother lives in Somerset and I was trying to remember from my visits there. Sorry if I have offended anyone and please tell me what the macabre meaning is. I am intrigued.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I’m going to go ahead and paste these…I don’t think it is twisting anything.
Wanderer Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
(466) Blunger:
I think that is one odd fact about the whole thing. If we are to go along with Gerry, then the abductor would be in haste and not bother to put Cuddle Cat on the shelf…
I still think there is always the possibility that Kate may have forget to give Madeleine Cuddle Cat.
Wanderer Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
forgotten*
I wonder if the placement and worry over the cat, when you are stealing someone’s child, gives any insight into the mindset of the abductor? (For those professionals that would be able to profile such people)
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
(417)
398 megz…i wouldnt be supprised if gerry took the body back to the uk on first visit. He might have even buried her in his garden…stranger things have happened
Could be ….but a more practical theory is, did they (Gerry) take her ashes back to the garden and plant them there? Much easier to get ashes v. a dead body back on a plane through customs. This would explain the PJ’s interest in the flying Dutchman’s incinerator.
Who said that hair grows after death? I think it was Molly earlier today. I’ve read that is not true, that all cells cease growing, mutating or changing in any way post-mortem. It can’t be right that hair can grow after the body is deceased. What would be giving it life or sustaining it?
Can anyone explain this phenomenon?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
New to this
I heard that interview. Mind you, I have read and heard so many that I wouldn’t guarantee remembering exactly what she said!
I do remember (I THINK!!??) that it was in this interview that Kate McCann mentioned the cat being on a high shelf??? She certainly said that, although she wasn’t allowed to say too much, the state of the apartment when she went back did lead to know at at once that Madeleine had been taken. The business about the cat having been put up oon a high shelf had already been leaked at that time, if I remember rightly? Maybe that’s why she felt it was OK to mention it, if she did. Am I right about that?
I get mixed up between that interview and the one in Woman’s Own around the same time, though, so I could well be wrong. ???
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
spoken…
I believe I usually give a fair assessment over the whole door/Tapas location as well, as that as lots of possibly holes and explanations.
Anyway, I don’t think it is fair for you to point me out and say I was twisting something, especially with all the other examples on this forum.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
I’m pretty sure a surviving teenage Maddy would want to escape from the indelible mark of her deformed eye. I wonder if surgery can repair this hole in the iris (colaboma) ?
I’m not sure she would be pleased to find her poor eye had been “logo-ised” and trademarked and spread round the whole world. Where can she ever hide ?
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
480 lunalunera
Good point indeed and what about the missing child (people) agencies who have to deal with thousands of cases with inadequate resources? I bet they are well pissed of with McCannisms stuffed down their throat day and night. Can’t see anyone using the MC junta in their promotional material. Wouldn’t stand a chance at their prices anyway…
By the way, thinking of the tapas bar’s central function in frivolities just like alcoholics follow alcohol, people who follow the McCanns are surely McCannics…
got me coat already…