Madeleine McCann: A House Of Love, Find the Body & What Kate McCann Screamed
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE. ‘FIND BODY OR McCANNS WILL ESCAPE’ – Prosecutors ultimatum to Portuguese police.”
The case against Kate and Gerry McCanns is “hanging by a thread”.
A police sources says: “There is a determination within the force to bring this investigation to a satisfactory conclusion but there is a growing fear that without a body, that goal will be impossible.”
Pages 4 and 5: “Our reputation is tarnished forever” – Each day the McCanns prepare themselves for the “worst case scenario”. No, not that they will be wrongly convicted, rather they will learn of Madeleine’s death.
Clarence Mitchell says: “In the middle of this people forget this is still a family who are potentially facing bereavement but are still in that awful limbo position of not knowing what has happened to their daughter.” Thankfully Mr Mitchell is on hand to remind people of this every day.
“Doubts on the McCanns by a lie detector expert” – THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER asks John Ryan, of International Truth Verification Technologies Institute, to listen to Kate McCann’s voice. Says she: “However I think there is some sort of deception when I hear the lady speaking, either over the event or in avoiding showing her true feelings”.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADELEINE – find a body or there is no case.”
Page 5: “Gerry and Kate have often talked about the possibility of Madeleine being found dead. That would be the worst news but it would at least give them some..CLOSURE”. So says a “source close to the legal team”.
Antonio Cluny, President of the Public Prosecution Service, says: “Without the little girl’s body, everything is complicated… In the Maddy case, there is no confession and, according to what has been made public, the evidence gathered up until now keeps all leads open – from abduction to homicide or at least to a simple accident”.
DAILY MAIL front page: “EXCLUSIVE: Eyewitness reveals Maddie’s mother DID shout: ‘They’ve taken her’ after four-year-old vanished. WHAT KATE DID SCREAM.”
Nanny Charlotte Pennington is in Praia da Luz. She hears Kate McCann scream: “They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her!” The McCanns say Kate screamed “Madeleine’s gone”.
Sensation. Front-page news.
Page 4: “Nanny Pennington, who worked at the Ocean Club, is pictured. She’s wearing a brown beret and a pink coat. Her tights are black. Her legs are crossed.
“I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone. When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: ‘They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her’… It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it.”
So…
“She also repeated Madeleine’s name and said: ‘She’s gone, she’s gone.’”
Anyone hear anything else?
THE SUN page 24: “MADDIE LAW CHIEF: NO BODY, NO CASE.” Antonio Clunes says: “There have been cases in which it was possible to obtain a conviction without a victim – but there were confessions.”
But the McCanns are innocent, says a source. And they are not confessing. They are talking through their spokesperson.
DAILY STAR front page: “COPS CLOSE IN ON MADDIE. Final pieces of tragic jigsaw falling into place.”
Pages 4 and 5: “FIND THE BODY OR THEY WALK. Law bosses tell Portuguese cops to step up hunt.”
“TWINS’ HOUSE OF LOVE” – Clarence Mitchell says the McCanns have built a “house of love” for their family. Mr Mitchell says the McCanns are living “every parent’s worst nightmare times ten”. Mr Mitchell used to work for the tabloid press.
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 13: “Case against McCanns ‘rests on finding body’.”
Clarence Mitchell says: “They did not harm, let alone kill her.”
THE TIMES page 11: “No body, no conviction says McCann police.”
THE GUARDIAN & THE INDEPENDENT: No Madeleine news.
Posted: 25th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,296) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
September 25th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Spindoctor - now see, this is a perfect example of the aforementioned “stinking vultures” picking through random bits of information they have read and picking out the parts that suit their own view of the events. You say the McCanns have never admitted they made a mistake, never expressed remorse for leaving their children.
And I could direct you, if I were so inclined (which I am not) , to a dozen interviews in which either Kate or Gerry have expressed absolute and utter remorse for having left their children that night, and have stated with absolute clarity that it was STUPID and WRONG.
So, who can fathom why you believe only that they defend their actions? Certainly not I. Possibly because you “don’t like them” and “don’t like the way they look” and feel “something isn’t quite right here” and prefer to ignore information that doesn’t fit with your gut feeling.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
1105 - challenge to you Krissie. Find one single instance - just one - where I have ever ever accused the McCanns of murder/man slaughterdeath my misadventure on these threads. Just one. Go on.
More hysterical over-reaction based on falsehood.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
1099 Diane. It was reported by a barman ‘I think’ that they were seen without the kids one night in Lagos.
May the 3rd was their 6th night on holiday. The first night the group ate at an out of town restaurant (with the kids) about 10 minutes from the apartments. The following 5 nights they had a standing reservation for 8.30 at the Tapas bar.
5 continuous nights with exactly the same routine.
It doesn’t get better than that if you are a paedophile.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
1102 - brandoflour. Well it flummoxed my computer and is pretty disturbing. What does it mean?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Diane77
It was in a number of press reports and was also said to be one of the 40 unanswered question (obviously not in the Murdoch papers or many UK). i dont have the link to hand, do a search on google.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
1105 brandoflour
thank you. I just thought these paintings were weird., and wondered WHEN they where made.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
========================================
EVEN IF THE BEDROOM DOOR OPENS INWARDS
========================================
I see several posters here are doubting whether the children’s door opens outwards, as is clear from the ‘Bild’ representation (and has not been denied by Clarence Mitchell, Gerry McCann and their coterie of ’sources’).
Well, even if someone provides me with proof that it opens inwards, I still have these problems with Gerry McCann’s story:
1. He seems to have returned to ‘check’ on the children very soon after arriving at the Tapas bar - possibly only 7 minutes afterwards according to a neutral witness. In any case, his claim that he and Kate were the ‘first to arrive at the Tapas bar at 8.30pm’ is uncheckable unless someone from Mark Warners confirms it, and the Mark Warners girl says they arrived at 8.58pm
2. Most of the time he was away from the Tapas bar from 9.05pm to 9.25pm he was talking to Jeremy Wilkins (not sure of the surname without checking) - and this was in the vicinity of his apartment, not near the Tapas bar
3. First Gerry McCann version - children checked by me and all O.K.
4. Second version - might not have seen Madeleine after all. She might have gone to the loo or to get a drink.
5. Third version - I left the door closed (I think) and it was open - it made me wonder a bit, thinking about it now, maybe I should have checked at the time but I didn’t.
6. Fourth version - might have been the abductor hiding behind the door - I’ve only just thought of that the last few days(!)
PLUS
7.
a) Abductor needs to know exactly when to strike
b) Abductor must have been staking out the joint for days without being noticed
c) Abductor very lucky to find the patio door open, or not locked anyway (note - I don’t think Gerry or Kate have ever told us whether they always left that patio door open to the public, or was it just that night???)
d) Abductor enters through patio door at around 9pm - not seen by anyone
e) Gerry pops back just as he is in the children’s room about to snatch Madeleine
f) Abductor hides behind door, heart thumping twenty to the dozen
g) Gerry checks through the door that the children are OK (later says he’s ‘not sure’ if Madeleine was there or not)
h) Gerry doesn’t see or hear abductor
i) Gerry leaves
j) Abductor breathes heavy sigh of relief
k) Abductor makes decision to opt for exit via children’s bedroom window instead of through the patio door he has just come through(!)
l) Abductor picks up sleeping Madeleine from her bed
m) Abductor notices ‘Cuddle Cat’ in the bed and deliberately places it on a high shelf for some reason
n) Abductor then arranges the room in such a way that when Kate and Gerry McCann arrive at the flat, each of them ‘instantly knows there has been an abduction’ (they have never explained why they believe this btw)
o) Abductor carries the presumably-still-asleep Madeleine - or woken-up Madeleine who makes no sound - and climbs with her 3-stone (?) weight through the window, which is around 3 to 4 feet off the ground
p) Abductor carrying Madeleine isn’t seen
q) Dr Oldfield checks the McCanns children around 9.30pm (or so he says). He too is very hazy as to whether he saw Madeleine or not - he definitely saw the twins - and he ‘thinks’ he might have noticed ‘more light’ in the bedroom - but he’s not sure (more light than *when*, we may ask?). He decided to offer to check Gerry and Kate’s children (as well as his own) barely 5 minutes after Gerry McCann has returned to the Tapas bar (9.25pm).
Is that a credible account?
P.S. Why is it on these threads that Mccann-sceptics mainly answer McCann-philes’ questions, whereas McCann-philes usually refuse to answer the questions of McCann-sceptics, and frequently resort to name-calling such as referring to anyone who criticises the McCanns’ actions in any way as ’sad bunch of losers and negative no-hopers’ etc. etc. ‘with nothing better to do’?
Just asking…one takes much more notice of posters who argue their case carefully and back it up, and politely try to answer the genuine questions of opponents, than those who come on just to insult those who take an opposite point of view
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Miss Take Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
1097 brandoflour - I just want to know where Moriarty is (he is one of the few posters here who actually have information). Pretty please
—————————————————————–
milisoreja not moriaty sorry my tired memory confused
just goes to show you cant really rely on anything remembered by someone else
even so those pics are chilling!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
1094
Portuguese law prohibits disclosure of the precise details of a criminal investigation by police or witnesses. Here are some of the questions detectives could have asked – and the likely responses they would have received – before making the McCanns formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3
‘HERE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS DETECTIVES COULD (COULD) OF ASKED - AND THE LIKELY RESPONSES…………
So thats the whole story is it…………..unbelievable comes to mind!
Sells papers though granted. And a nice picture too!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
krissy you are doing exactly the same as you are acusing others of doing on here just that you are doing it from the oposite corner please its nice to hear your views but accept that others dont all think the same way as you do
September 25th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
And Ian, I would like to point out, there is ZERO EVIDENCE the McCann’s gave their children even ONE sedative tablet, much less five. Shame on you for pretending this is fact, when it’s nothing but rumor and innuendo!!
(And thank you, Natalya, for your support. I’m really going to have to go, very shortly, because my own darling children shall be arriving home from a visit to their grandmother’s house. I’m sure I shall be missed, but I might just start coming by EVERY DARN DAY and having a go at you numbskulls.)
(And Puzzle dearie, by golly, I might be just hurling insults unecessarily, but at least I’m not hurling ACCUSATIONS OF MURDER at potentially INNOCENT VICTIMS of a HORRIBLE CRIME.)
September 25th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
1097 1093
milisoreja Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I’m just posting the link to some new illustrations, which have come out on the matter (madder?), but I have no intentions to enter the trap today.
http://www.flutgut.com/maddie/
—————————————————————————–
that was a link i used before
but this poster came on and went just to tease us i think
they may have been sketched at the weekend i dont know
i will wait for him to come back
September 25th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I’ve been following the case closely for less than a week. I have not accused them of murder (others have) but I SUSPECT that it is possible they may have–big difference. Statistically speaking, when a young child is killed, accidentally or otherwise, (and we don’t know if that’s what happened to Madeleine), the overwhelming majority of the perpetrators are relatives of the child. And surprise! They even often have pretended that it was someone else who did it (or the child was missing/abducted) until the truth is discovered. So to say that the people on this forum are crazy for accusing the parents and being suspicious of their behavior is unrealistic on your part.
It will be most interesting to learn about the results of the DNA testing.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
1097 brandoflour - I just want to know where Moriarty is (he is one of the few posters here who actually have information). Pretty please
September 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Umm, 4 bottles of wine between 9 people over 2 hours? Oh, what a crime of alcohol consumption we have here!
You could describe it your way, sure, or you could say, Two parents made a completely innocent but really huge error in judgment and are paying for it horribly. I pray that if you ever make an error in judgment with your kids (which we all have done, and all will do again) , you do not pay so dearly.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
‘Fiend’….It’s a typo error! I’m sure Gerry must have said “my friend was waiting in the apartment”. After all they said David Payne ’saw Madeleine being put to bed (another voyeur??) at 7-pm so perhaps he’d hung around, and that’s who Gerry felt was still there! Surely…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
1092 krissie - Spot on - I said the same on a post a few days ago.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
1098 and yes I can spell - I clearly mean ‘xenophobic’
September 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
1079 Ian
Where did you hear about their going tt a town 5km away at night without the kids? Can I have a link?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Arguments are weakened when personal insults are bandied about. I would especially ask people to stop being enophobic. It is not smart to be rude. It is just rude.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
some people on this site are in denial of their own shortcomings of parenthood
and need to justify ” weekend parenting ” at its best or complete negligence at its worst just to sleep at night
DENIAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
1088 - brandonflour
It’s the same link. It doesn’t give any new things.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Krissie a mistake is when you forget to check the temperature of water before putting your kid in a bath.
A mistake that has a consequence that involves your child being hurt is followed by guilt…remorse…then an overwhelming need to warn others of the danger so that is does not happen again.
The McCanns and some friends left their kids alone all week - kidnapping was the least likely event to have happened - more likely was a bad accident!!!!
This was no mistake - this was premeditated abandoning of children!!!
This was never followed with remorse - a denial on TV came of any guilt feelings!
This was never followed with a warning message to parents - a denial on TV came that they did anything wrong or different to other parents!
Harsh? They have got it easy girl!!!!!!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
1088 Garth
So you want to look at the whole picture do you?
Lets start with this picture then:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/18752/Questions-for-the-McCanns-
is it whole enough for you?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
1088 - brandoflour. Nothing at post 99. Has it disappeared? And why, when I click on your nasme, do I end up in a Daily Mail article??
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
There was a poster yesterday who gave a new angle on something I don’t think the rest of us - certainly not me- had encountered or considered. He explained:
the three witnesses to Murat were saying that they saw him on the night post
Maddie’s disappearance. NOT pre the “abduction”
I remember reading it and thinking “hang on, how do you know that?”
Pre this, I can’t remember a single article that said the three people who had to confront Murat had claimed to see him outside the flat after the disappearance.
Only the Tanner story about seeing him head one way or the other - church/beach? Murat’s house.
Now we have the Nanny news.
This, just after press reports claiming he was no longer a suspect- though still is on paper.
Then today the Standard headline “No Charge” for McCann’s
I like to think of myself as quite media savvy. The headlines are so diverse between papers. And the written report is a joke - anywhere you want it to be on a given day.
The broadsheets are shrinking the story. The tabloids are all over the place.
What am I trying to say?
I’ve lost all faith in the “news”
But maybe it’s a game of chess - McCann’s versus Press. Would be great if it was..
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
JOLIE, as I’ve said repeatedly, I have no clue whether the McCanns are guilty. I’ve been probably as absorbed by the case as you for the past month, minus the few days I unfortunately had to work (god forbid), and guess what? After all that reading, I have NO idea whether they are guilty. And guess what?? NEITHER DO YOU. But you are publicly accusing potentially innocent parents of murdering their own daughter, while I am simply reading every news story I come across (well, OK, and occasionally lashing out like a madwoman at the disgusting behavior of people who want to publicly convict the parents without any evidence!)
September 25th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Krissie
“The wine amount is disputed” is like saying they only gave her 2 sedative tablets, not 5. They do admit ordering at least 4 bottles in that night session.
The point is you admit they were getting drunk while there 3 babies were left alone out of sight and hearing distance, in a foreign country, late at night.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
1074 Krissie - Garth
Agree with you - keep going Krissie - I love it when you have a go at Judith!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
1079
How do you know they were pissed? And how many more times are we going to keep bringing up that they were negligent. For pete’s sake - give it a rest.
krissie is absolutely right. You have a gripe with them because of their negligence. I don’t like it any more than you do. But unlike some posters on here, I put my personal grudges aside and look at the whole picture. And I don’t take everything I hear as fact.