Madeleine McCann: ‘Bad Dad’ Gerry McCann, The Psychic Barber And Drugs
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “Madeleine was drugged but it was by kidnapper says her grandmother.”
Page 9: “Madeleine’s family: She was drugged…but not by parents.”
Eileen McCann, Gerry’s mother – says: “I really believe they [whoever took her] gave her a drug. There is no way they carried her out of there without her waking. If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
Alternatively, she was taken by someone she did know? Or Mrs McCann is just speculating.
“’BAD DAD’ GERRY” – Carlos Anjos, head of the Portuguese Police Federation, says Gerry, “a heart consultant”, is a “negligent father”. This is his “astonishing rant”.
THE SUN front page: “Mystics hunt for Maddie.”
Around 150 leads provided by mystics have been followed up.
Page 6: “ASK PSYCHIC BARBER TO HELP FIND MADDIE” – Clairvoyant Gordon Smith has been contacted by the family. Smith hosts TV’s Most Haunted show. He says he can tell if Madeleine is alive or dead. Mick is nicknamed “THE PSYCHIC BARBER”.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “McCANNS: SHE WAS DRUGGED.”
Page 5: “‘Madeleine must have been drugged..she would have screamed place down’” – GRANDMOTHER EILEEN McCANN YESTERDAY.”
“Couple call on psychic to help” – Ex-hairdresser Smith is a “wacky medium”.
Says he: “In order for it to work I need to sit with the closest relatives who would be the parents. Then I’d tune in and see what I can pick up. But I would always warn them that there’s a possibility nothing might happen.”
Best to warn them of that first…
DAILY MAIL page 5: “Now police leader mocks ‘negligent’ Gerry McCann over his fears that an abductor was in Maddie’s room.”
“Call for the ‘psychic barber’” – “Despite both being strict Roman Catholics, the couple have already made contact” with Gordon Smith.
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE I’LL FIND BODY IN DAYS. Parents call in psychic.”
Page 7: “MADDIE’S PARENTS CALL FOR PSYCHIC BARBER” – “I have offered my help for free,” says Smith. “I never charge for private readings. I have already assured them I will say nothing to the press.” Indeed, not. Best save it for the book.
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 15: “Police chief accuses McCanns of hindering inquiry” – Carlos Anjos accuses McCanns of using “diversion tactics”.
THE TIMES page 27: “McCanns ‘considering psychic help’”
THE GUARDIAN no Maddie new today.
Madeleine McCann: A Life In Headlines
Posted: 2nd, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,268) | 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
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Re the meeting with the priest. Isn’t there something about Roman Catholic’s confessing their sins and receiving absolution from God’s servant on earth? Not that that tells what someone might have confessed to. Could be anything from my last words to her were horrible, in the vein of “I hate you” and now someone has taken her, through to something more sinister.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Rosemary - very interesting point. I wonder if anyone knows when was the first time the McCanns friends started calling their families here. There was team of UK telecoms experts working with the portuguese at the beginning (at the time trying to identify movements of the main suspect Robert Murat).
Although, you would also have to consider the possibility that some (if not all) friends not being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. In which case they would behave as if it was an abduction… because they would have thought it was an abduction.
In fact, even assuming that the parents had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance (which I’m not saying is the case), if you look at the confusing and sometimes contradictory statements that allegedly they have produced to police, suggest that not everyone in the group would be aware of what really happened.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
226 Anonymous the 1st
You didn’t get it, but no matter.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Put yourselves in the position of the friends on the night Madeleine disappeared.
If I’d been close to the situation, helping in a search, etc., knowing news of it was about to hit the headlines, I’d phone family at home to tell them what was happening, and to reassure them that I and my own child were safe.
If such calls were made by the friends, I’d be inclined to believe that they believe an abduction took place, but I’ve never read reports about this aspect. Otherwise….
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I think a comprehensive objective analysis (which I have no reason to believe the PJ are not pursuing) would also have to consider the possibility of premeditated murder or premeditated abduction.
Premeditated murder explains a lot of the REAL problems raised by those who question the ‘accident plus cover-up’ scenarios - but it in turn presents other problems of its own, the main problem, of course, being motivation.
The best (worst?) motivation I can imagine is ‘returning a dud IVF product to whence it came’. This does imply a truly monstrous psychopathology in the parents, but I don’t think it can be 100% ruled out. But on this scenario, why not just arrange an ‘accident’ in England. Why complicate things, and increase the risk of detection, so unnecessarily? Monstrous psychopathology?
The only other form of ‘premeditated disappearance’ (with similar motivation) would be the ‘planned abduction’ scenario - a sort of alternative to adoption, without the social stigma for two doctors, one of whom appears to have entertained ambitions for a public role, perhaps in politics. Again, highly improbable, but not 100% impossible.
One of the strangest things about this very strange case is that ALL scenarios are highly improbable. Yet one of them must be true.
But the VERY STRANGEST thing about this case is its media profile. I find this almost more difficult to understand than the confusing forensics.
And, also very strange, on a site devoted to analysis of the workings of the British press, this, easily the most significant aspect of the whole affair, has hardly been discussed.
So apart from the combination of scary folktale (child abduction) and the xenophobic crowd mentality of the football stadium, can anyone here please try to begin to explain the REAL STORY here?
Not the new-media version of global interactive Cluedo, which is as many complain an intrusion into the personal tragedy (on any scenario) of people almost nobody personally knows - but the ’story of this story’, and the way it has seized the popular imagination in Britain and around much of the world for the last five months, and the way it has been treated so selectively and one-sidedly by the patriotic British media, from tabloid to the BBC, that Goebbels and Stalin would be envious.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
mods and admin
——————————————-
simply the best
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Washing Cuddle Cat… Don’t know if we would wash our child’s favourite toy a few days after an abduction, that does seem an odd thing to do. Trust me however that we have washed their favourite cuddly toy plenty of times… Absolute necessity given the number of times it’s been chucked up on, been eaten, peed on and occasionally come into contact with dirty nappies!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Million -
NOTHING beats your psychic Berber comment. Made me laugh right out loud. Thanks again for starting my day off right!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
196 m.e
Well I enjoyed you point by point well argued rebuttal of my arguments, at least you were brief.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
193, Judith C,
A deep reservoir next to a dam in Portugal was mentioned by a poster here several weeks ago as a good place to hide a weighted body, as no movement of water would mean it would never surface - google map reference was provided. When looking into the von Aesch case, I noticed his house in Benimantell was close to another large reservoir. I’m sure others have also remarked on these facts.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Five things that COULD make me change my mind about the McCanns:
(1) Show the bills / invoice from the mark warner or restaurants attesting how much they drunk on the night Madeleine disappeared and evidence of children’s meals. This would discredit the suggestion that they were on the piss every night and wouldn’t be with their kids.
(2) Take a lie-detector test. They have suggested it themselves. Why not do it now? They’ve even been challenged by a Portuguese newspaper? What better opportunity to start turning public opinion?
(3) Provide a detailed explanation or alibis for those 2 hours in Huelva when nobody saw them and they have not explained where they were.
(4) Provide a detailed explanation or alibis for those 6 hours between 2 and 8 pm when allegedly Kate McCann was with Madeleine and the twins near the swimming pool, but nobody saw them there.
(5) Explain what exactly is the role of Clarence Mitchell in some of the recent media stories, notably about Moroccan Gangs and scam emails to Prince Charles. Has Mr Mitchell been involved or not in placing these stories in the press without the clues being checked by police? Any of these tips – if they were true - the media dissemination could cause harm to Madeleine… why would Mr Mitchell jeopardize the life of Madeleine McCann by divulging these stories?
None of these things would violate secrecy laws in Portugal and they would bring a lot of clarity to this case. I know that you could also ask police to give some more information about their findings and the facts behind their sometimes loony theories. But here, the McCanns could lead by example. Get these answers out in the public and start clearing your image.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
227,
I really must go now Will but I think you and poster 224 might have some common ideas to debate. BYE!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
http://tinyurl.com/2fl8ul
is as funny as f***!
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
227,
where are you getting your info from? Sorry I just don’t buy your murder theory. The stats on child abuse would suggest that if a family member killed their child willfully there would have been a previous history of physical abuse. Most woman who are murdered by their partners in a fit of rage have a backlog of evidence of prior physical abuse.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
186 m.e.
The only murder around here is that of the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Great post from Peter O. Yes, it is the lack of passion that rings false. Imagine if you believed your daughter had been snatched by a paedophile and the unspeakably suffering that she would be undergoing - you wouldn’t be that calm and detached. No one could be. I don’t know if they killed their daughter but I’m increasingly convinced they don’t believe she’s in danger. Which could mean they know she’s dead. Or safe somewhere. Either way, this is at odds with the official explanation of her disappearance.
I think there is a lot to be learned from people’s initial reactions to an accusation. I posted this a week or so ago, but I’m strong reminded of a sports scandal from 2004, when a likeable American cyclist (Tyler Hamilton) was suddenly accused of taking a blood transfusion to help him win a race. He attended a press conference to deny that there was someone else’s blood in his veins and totally failed to summon the disgust and horror that a false accusation of this kind would prompt in anyone who was innocent. Instead of saying “I’m supposed to have someone else’s blood corpuscles in my system, let’s go to the nearest lab and get this checked out publicly, because I KNOW I did not transfuse,” which is the only logical defence if innocent of the accusation, he chuntered on about consulting with lawyers. And his body language was completely wrong. Subsequent events proved that Hamilton was as guilty as sin (and had been warned by the authorities some four months earlier that they suspected him of doing this), but his body language and demeanour is hideously reminiscent of the McCanns (particularly Gerry).
I’m not accusing them of killing their daughter but they give every indication that they are hiding something. And when you consider the implications of this, it gets a bit scary. And these discussions prove I’m not alone in wondering if something very dark has happened here.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
told you so
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Do headlines really sell newspapers?
The reason I ask is because everyone I know buys the same paper day in, day out regardless of what the headline says.
Are there really people out there who scan over all the front pages before choosing which paper to buy that day?
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
in an effort not to stangle you teddy boy I am indeed psychic so watch out……if you know whats good for you.
made me laugh though well done
—————–
Mods and Admin
teddy boy I do realise you were just having fun, but we are awfully short of bandwidth, and only deleted for that reason
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Got to get some work done…have fun folks….
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
228 Sunny
It is so - a high percentage of murders are committed by family members in the heat of the moment. Those convicted often have no previous criminal convictions and have been described in glowing terms by family members, co-workers and other members of the family.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
213
The fact that there is no discovered/reported history of abuse.
That does not mean there is none.
The worst abusers are the ones that are never caught.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
230 Stig says “No wonder you’re history. Have you noticed a marked absence of anti-McCann voices during those same hours?”
Have a guess why that is Stig…
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
As many disappointed visitors here have complained, a descent into bickering between ‘Pro-McCanns’ and ‘Anti-McCanns’ - as if this were a football match between England and Portugal - is to most people pointless and unreadable.
So what about all going ‘back to basics’?
Rather than starting with some conviction that things went this way or that, on the basis of a selective collation of third-hand rumours, why not start from the other end - cover-up or NO cover-up.
To me the evidence suggesting that there is some degree of intentional misrepresentation of the events of 3 May by the McCanns is pretty conclusive, but not 100% conclusive.
But IF there was indeed a ‘cover-up’, the next question is WHY?
Try working backwards from there, rather than forwards from some ‘faith’ one way or the other.
Here’s my attempt to do that (from last night’s thread):
IF THERE WAS A COVER-UP, THEN WHY?
If the PJ think that inconsistent and changing stories and behaviour are attempts to conceal the real story of what happened on 3 May, then what follows from that?
Why would ‘the real story’ need to be concealed?
Something that looked like a tragic accident (falling down steps) would not need to be concealed.
A death resulting from sedation would however give reasons for a cover-up by those responsible.
How could death result from sedation?
An overdose would not lead to reported blood patterns.
But emergency surgical intervention following an adverse drug reaction might - an improvised tracheotomy in response to laryngeal oedema, for example. Such oedema might be caused by the second oral administration of a drug whose first use on 2 May (following complaints of a sleepless child crying for her father on 1 May) had sensitized the child to the new drug.
The PJ clearly believe that Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ was motivated by the need to avoid an autopsy. Given the (non-)babysitting patterns of the McCanns and O’Briens, the failure of the twins to wake in the panic after 10pm on 3 May, and reported blood patterns in and around apartment 5a, I would imagine something like the scenario just described must be central to their investigation.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Bugger !!!! Missed #230 by a gnats nadger.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
176 piers morgan
No wonder you’re history. Have you noticed a marked absence of anti-McCann voices during those same hours?
Eyesight not that good these days, obviously.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
222,
that is not so and you know it.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
216 Stig. Thanks for clarification on number of questions answered. Must go. Work to do.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
216 Especially if you were guilty Stig
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
213 Sunny
‘The PJ know there is no history of abuse or criminal activity in the family. In fact all their working colleagues and employers speak highly of them and their characters. The PJ know there would be no motive for murder.’
In that case let’s empty the prisons because that fits the profile of a high percentage of convicted murderers.