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
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
September 26th, 2007 at 12:36 am
1164 Annike
My pet rabbit could pass as a blonde 3-year old in a blurry photo
September 26th, 2007 at 12:36 am
1155
thank god it werent brian then
bloody nightmarish to say the least
Jeeze
his next painting will include
doors hinges
house of love
morrocoan people carriers
anoraks
ginger bisquits
grandmas
September 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
1161 Michael
I agree entirely. And note how he found time to update the blog daily when the search for Madeleine was supposed to be in its prime, but now when he is accused he hasnt updated his blog for over 9 days.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:33 am
You’re singing to the choir Ian Willis.
My own daughter could pass as Madeleine in a blurry photo.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:33 am
1112 Newtothis:
SEE THIS recently in ‘The Scotsman’.
You’ll notice a terrible inconsistency in this report where Gerry McCann on the one hand said he saw Madeleine asleep in her bed and on the other hand says she might have gone to the toilet or for a drink.
See for yourself below and then please tell us what you make of it! —
Gerry McCann ‘came close to Madeleine’s abductor’
JOHN BINGHAM - PA Chief Reporter in Praia da Luz
MADELEINE McCANN’s father believes he might have come within a few yards of his daughter’s abductor when he saw her for the last time, a friend said today.
Gerry McCann has become convinced an intruder was already hiding inside the family’s holiday flat when he left his meal to go back and check on his children on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance.
Madeleine, now four, went missing from the apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve on on the night of May 3 while her parents were dining with friends in a tapas restaurant nearby.
It was Mr McCann’s wife Kate who raised the alarm at about 10pm when she is said to have gone back to the apartment to check on the sleeping children and found Madeleine missing.
Mr McCann is believed to have gone to check on the children at around 9.05pm and saw them still asleep, including Madeleine. He spotted that the door to her room was ajar but thought nothing of it at the time, a friend said today.
But over the months since Madeleine’s disappearance he has become increasingly convinced that the intruder was already in the flat.
“He believes there was certainly something odd,” a friend said today. “The bedroom door was ajar when he got in and he thought: ‘That’s strange’. He went into the room, checked that Madeleine was still asleep in bed; she was and he came out, closed the door.
“Initially he thought that she might have got up and gone to the toilet or gone to get a drink or something but now he thinks that the abductor must have been in there hiding.”
The friend added: “He believes he came in, opened the door and didn’t have time to close it [as he went to hide before Gerry arrived].
“Once Gerry had left he would have known he had to come out very quickly and because Gerry went out through the patio door, went out through the window. He has no proof but that is what he believes.”
It is believed that when Mrs McCann went to check on the children a gust of wind in the room caused the door to slam behind her. It was then that she realised that the bedroom window was open and Madeleine was gone.
It emerged earlier today that the McCanns, who are official suspects or “arguidos” in the case, were prepared to take a lie-detector test to show they have nothing to hide.
But Clarence Mitchell, their spokesman, said that the couple would only do so if asked by the Portuguese police, adding that there were some doubts about the reliability of such evidence.
He said: “Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie-detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolute reliability of the equipment being used.
“However, it is my understanding that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question marks over their reliability.
“Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely that such a request for a test would come through.”
The couple were declared arguidos two weeks ago after DNA traces in a car they hired several weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance appeared to suggest Madeleine’s body could have been in the car.
The couple strenuously deny any involvement.
Police have been told to continue keeping all options open in the case and have no plans to reinterview the couple in the absence of new evidence.
A judge is now believed to have completed his review of a 4000-page dossier of evidence in the case from police, and handed the files back to prosecutors.
No details of any rulings have so far been made public.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Night Simon?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:32 am
754 Gerry’ Blog 24/9/07
Don’t you notice its flat. Its primarily about their own difficulties. I know I would be in afury if it was my kid that I had lost whether they accused me or not. It would be the kid and the kid alone that i would be going on about! I would forget myself.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
TonyB - if your’re still there…
I see you’ve changed your mind on the ‘Gerry as lookout scenario’… I wanted to check last night some variations between two of your intresting posts yesterday, but I think you might have left befioore I posted the (very long, sorry) query. So here it is again:
September 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
TonyB:
I think your first outline scenario today (way above) went along the ‘accidental OD’ line - and with various possible subordinate variations it seems pretty much the most likely type of scenario, and the one that was central to the PJ’s inquiries, at least up till the recent interrogations - when they started talking about possible murder charges, since the McCanns wouldn’t tell them where the body was.
Then I think, in a later post on this thread, you suggested accidental death as a result of Kate lashing out in frustration. That was also, clearly,a main line of inquiry the PJ were following.
The PJ had/have to follow EVERY line of enquiry not completely ruled out by well-substantiated evidence. They see a vast mountain of circumstantial evidence as a very clear sign of K & G covering up for SOMETHING. Clearly they (PJ) still don’t know what that SOMETHING is.
The evidence suggests strongly that the very least the McCanns are covering up is sedation with something more exotic than Calpol. I’m not sure the PJ have yet completely ruled out abduction by person(s) unknown - but as Gerry’s new lawyers have pointed out to him recently, this would pretty much imply the intruder must have been in the apartment with him at 9:05 (not enough time between 9:25 and 9:30 to enter through the patio windows, get Madeleine, and leave through the window onto the garden & street without being seen.
As that’s now a very unlikely (but maybe just possible) scenario, we’re left with sedation + violence, or sedation leading to something (some have suggested failed emergency tracheotomy following allergy-induced throat blockage) that would cause bleeding (on the floor and windowsill, and perhaps curtains).
Apparently the blood on the windowsill was a ‘cleaned drop’. Whoever criticized the relevance of the blood forensics book on this thread was wrong to base their criticism on the fact the blood had been cleaned away. Ultraviolet detection of remaining cells and decomposition products would show the pattern of the original deposit, which is fundamental to possible scenarios of how the blood might have got there.
Then there’s the fact that a body would have had to have been lifeless in the apartment for at least 2 hours before removal for the cadaver dog to react as it did. On the face of it this seems to rule out the otherwise interesting and viable possibility that O’Brien alone (with or without Tanner - they could even stored and disposed of the body unknown to the McCanns) was responsible for death, not the McCanns, as suggested by another poster today.
Finally there’s the question of motivation for accomplices. O’Brien as source of the sedative seems the most likely motivation for a very risky role as accessory to manslaughter, and perverting the course of justice (10 years?), and quite possibly disposing of the body (while the McCanns were on their European tour). I really can’t buy the involvement in any of those roles of the remaining Tapas 5, since a few years in prison and the wreckage of their careers and families is probably too much counter-motivation, and also, the more people are brought into the loop, the greater risk of divergent stories, one link breaking &c.
So - sorry for the very long post, but are you more inclined to OD or lethal trauma? On the OD hypothesis, how do you account for the blood remains?
(BTW - what was Madeleine supposed to be doing ‘under the couch’ - I think it’s actually a folding bed inthe living-room, and must have been quite a squeeze:
http://www.bookmyvillas.com/viewphoto.asp?piccaption=Kitchen%20from%20lounge&picture=/photos/10002_6.jpg )
September 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
1157 1158 Annike
Thats so strange! i saw a similar story just last week of a tourist taking a picture of Elvis….
September 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Sorry, forgot the link
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22484639-2,00.html
September 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Has anyone watched this clip? (apologies if it’s in an earlier post)
They believe the girl is Madeleine….
September 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
1150 Simon
That clip is not about killing their daughter, its about credibility.
In a court a judge hears contradicting statements from 2 sides. If a witness is shown to have lied or appears most probably to be lying about one issue (sedation), he can then be deemed to have the capacity to lie about other matters (ie. killing and covering up).
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Here is the bio-stuff regarding the artist who painted those disturbing paintings.
Biography
Arti Leimbacher uses old like new media for his works. He is known for installations like the ants city ‘La ciudad prometida’ in the lacasadelcactus, or for his paintings and drawings reflecting views on an archaic and allegoric countryside reaching surrealistic attitudes in sculptures like the standing sheep figures ‘Three graces’. Arti Leimbacher is born 1956 in Switzerland and lives in Mallorca.
http://www.arti-leimbacher.info
Doesn’t say he is psychic or anything, but that painting is very dark.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Simon - the (legitimate) question was how do you know the video was cut?
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 am
SEDATION
1121 and 1123. Absolutely re the body language
But, we also have
Body fluids in the car.
Don’t forget them.
They show sedation.
No, I haven’t seen the toxicology report myself.
But I have no reason to doubt that France Soir was shown the report and duly reported its contents.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
1149 JuneJohnson
What if its my opinion that my opinion of something is a fact?
———————
Mods and Admin
It was quite clear that Opinions being presented as fact when they are not.
It might rain tomorrow - supposition
it will rain tomorrow and spoil the parade - emotion
sunshine tomorrow - met office - lies
it rained today - fact
September 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
1149
“Any further posts containing derogatory personal remarks/insults about other users will have that part edited out”
Well, I guess that explains what happened to most of Krissie’s posts.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
1143 But nobody had accused them of killing their daughter. Watch the video again.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Tony, you must be psychic.
Come on Simon (1124), we’re all waiting.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Mods and Admin
To all users
The petty name calling/ hair pulling and eye gouging and then whinging at us will stop.
The whole point of debate and discussion is that there will be disagreement, its a measure of maturity how you cope or deal with it, if you cannot take the heat….
Please do not forward your emotions or opinions as fact , they are not. Speculation is not fact either, but most people who are speculating say so, and don’t present it as fact, those who are emoting do not.
Any further posts containing derogatory personal remarks/insults about other users will have that part edited out
September 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
1111 Diana, it’s in here.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/18752/Questions-for-the-McCanns-
September 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Come back Tony Bennett (I love your music).
September 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
1144
and to assist you simon, here’s the link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMUdynuECbE
September 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Brian is a pshycic who has lucid dreams and paints them in a trance
as i said i only know the post 99
the rest is guessing from 2 weeks ago posts
at the time much was being mentioned about a cross and / or crossing that held a clue
still hopefully 99 m will explain
i am waiting to be sleepy i have no dreams to recall them
September 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am
============================================================
HOW EXACTLY DID THE MCCANNS EXPECT THAT TV INTERVIEW TO BE ‘CUT’?
============================================================
1124 Simon says: (September 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am)
QUOTE: “1121 - Tony, check the video again. That is not what was asked and the film was cut differently to the way the McCanns expected it to be…” UNQUOTE
REPLY: Very interesting, and highly illuminating, Simon.
Could you please therefore tell us:
1. What exactly was the question that was asked?
2. How do you know it was ‘cut differently’ to the way the McCanns ‘expected it to be cut’? You obviously have a first-hand source of information to be able to make that statement on this Forum. What is your source, please?
3. How did the McCanns ‘expect it to be cut’?
4. How was it cut?
Your post 1124 clearly implies that you are in a position to answer each one of these four questions. If you cannot do so, I would suggest that we cannot place any reliance on your statement
September 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Simon,
I disagree. If soeone accused me of killing my abducted daughter, I would be furious and I would want to tackle that allegation head on, regardless of “portugese laws” or anything else.
If you read the experts reports of body language and psychological behaviour, my reaction is more consistent with someone who is telling the truth, Gerry Mccons is not.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:16 am
I think Krissies ginger cookies came about because Ian mentioned ginger hair - a bad attempt at a lie if ever i saw one!
I am orf now but do hope that you lot manage to stop Krissie nipping your legs - keep that leash tight!
September 26th, 2007 at 12:15 am
718 m.e
What did I say?
“I don’t really like mentioning this one, though I have before, because it can all too easily be called into question and doubted because I am not in a position to point to any source material saying - ‘there it is.’”
You said:
“Did we not all see Rhys Jones’ mother. That was grief Stig. Are you blind?”
So you claim the moral privilege to be able to say that, but I have no right to say something like this:
‘Did we not all see Madeline McCanns mother. That was grief M.E. Are you blind?’
Here you are doing exactly as I predicted - questioning my perception. I hadn’t considered, though, that anyone could then have quite the nerve to claim their own perception was superior.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:15 am
1132 - Ian
I don’t think a lack of emotion or anger proves anything. I doubt you really beleive no emotion + no anger = killer. I’m not feeling angry or emotional. Are you? Killed anyone lately? Me neither.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:15 am
1133
Why has Krissie deleted all her postings?
The same reasons the Mccons put unattributed stories in the press from “a source close to the family” or “a friend of the family who did not wish to be named”. They are all lies.
Krissie can protest all she wants about the Mccons being innocent - until she can provide answers to normal intelligent people about the inconsistences, continuous story changes of “witnesses” and bizarre behaviour of the “grieving” parents, she wont influence anyone.