Madeleine McCann: Kate McCann Sobs, Gerry McCann Points And 14 Questions
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR front page: “KATE’S TORMENT – ‘I think she is being held by someone in their house..as Madeleine’s mummy I feel in my heart she’s out there’”
“Distraught” Kate McCann is on Spanish TV. She is being interviewed. Says she: “I don’t know how anyone could harm anyone as beautiful as Madeleine”
Pages 4 and 5: “TEARS OF KATE – After six months of holding her heartbreak in check..Madeleine’s mum breaks down on TV”
Three pictures of Kate McCann:
“SO EMPTY: Kate tries to explain her loss on TV”
“TOO MUCH: She can’t hold back the tears”
“SOBBING: Kate and Gerry on TV”
“14 questions Portuguese police are flying to Britain to out to the McCanns and friends” – So reports Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas. Why would the police publish the questions and allow the McCanns and their friends to prepare answers? Why only – or as many as - 14 questions? Unless these are questions made up by the media, questions the police are “expected” to ask…
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – POLICE WANT ANSWERS TO 14 QUESTIONS. What detectives demand to know”
Pages 4 and 5: “Kate breaks down during TV grilling.” Kate and Gerry McCann are on the telly. Says Kate: “I feel sad and I feel lonely and our life is not as happy without Madeleine…we want people to try to reunite us with your beautiful girl”
And: “We know the truth. We know we are totally innocent. That is why we are calm. We know each other”
Says a “British detective”: “The detectives could be giving the suspects enough rope to hang themselves. It is a common tactic in police investigations to let those under suspicion speak on television in case they trip themselves up”
THE SUN front page: “KATE WEEPS FOR MADDIE – I feel in my heart she is out there”
“Distraught” Kate on the telly. Kate and Gerry are publicising a telephone hotline. No, not 999, their own number
Pages 4 and 5: “MADDIE NEEDS US – So lonely without our lovely girl, sobs Kate”
Three pictures of “Precious..the happy Maddie her mum longs to see”
Three pictures of the McCanns:
“Anguish…Gerry faces TV quiz”
“Ordeal…Kate fights back tears”
“Brave…but the McCanns struggle with their emotions as they relive the night Maddie vanished”
The hotline. Says Kate McCann: “We want to appeal to the people of Spain, Portugal and North Africa to help us and to tell them we have a new central phone number for them to call”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE MUM FINALLY CRACKS – Suspect Kate sobs on TV as she is quizzed”
Pages 8 and 9: “MADDIE’S MUM TV BREAKDOWN – Torment as Kate’s sobs halt interview four times”. Spanish TV journalist Roberto Arce sees Kate “prostrate with pain”
The McCanns hotline number is 00 34 902 300 213
DAILY MAIL pages 8 and 9: “I’M SAD AND LONELY…LIFE IS NOT HAPPY”
Says Mrs McCann: “Somebody knows something. It is not about us. It is about Madeleine.” Is it? We are watching the parents
Gerry McCanns is a “consultant cardiologist”. He says: “We have not been charged with anything”
“Will they find her in Spain?” – Gerry McCann tells El Mundo newspaper (Spain): “The possibility that Madeleine is alive and in Spain is real…If someone had a car, it is clear they could cross into Spain. There is no border guard and no one closed the border the night Madeleine disappeared.” And we look again at the police
THE TIMES page 3: “Sobbing Kate McCann insists that Madeleine is alive and being held”
“Days of hope and despair” – The Times looks at some key dates: June 21 (Madeleine in Malta); August 3 (Madeleine in Belgium); August 23 (Madeleine in Morocco)
DAILY TELEGRAPH front page: “’I’M SO SAD AND LONELY’ – KATE McCANN WEEPS FOR MADELEINE ON SPANISH TV”
Page 5: “’Sad, lonely’ Kate weeps for Madeleine in TV interview” – Kate McCann wept “uncontrollably”. Says he:” I feel anxious she is not with us”
THE GUARDIAN page 12: “McCanns set up phone line to seek Madeleine”
THE INDEPENDENT: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 25th, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,754) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
October 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Is dodgy footwear important? No, not normally, but when someone is receiving constant critasism for being always well dressed and presented I think it was a cynical ploy.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
1451 Ian
This was originally written in answer to someone some while ago.
————-
I am not opposed to contemplating that it was not an abduction. I have contemplated the idea but I do not see any way to reasonably argue for any of the alternatives that have been raised. Many of the alternative theories are at best, convoluted, and at worst, utterly preposterous. So applying Occam’s razor, that seems to leave abduction.
Occam’s razor is my logical reason, but being semi human, I have another illogical reason - an emotional reason. 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.’
I have followed all this from the beginning. In the first few days, there were TV reports which showed Kate in grief. I am pretty cynical and not exactly the most emotionally demonstrative person you will likely meet. I am not exactly young either, but I tell you that in all my life I have never seen a greater expression of utter profound grief than I saw in Kate those first few days. The nanny saw it, Maria saw it and my wife saw it. I suspect Moderation may well have seen it also. It wasn’t an act or faked.
So to me, I have Kate’s grief, and to me it is evidence of an emotional state. So when I try and reason through some of the proposed scenarios, as logically as I might try, I can not put aside the illogical clue of the grief. For instance, If you take a scenario like sedation, death, coverup - the grief clue doesn’t fit. Sedation, discovery of accidental death, hide body, concoct story, return calmly to Tapas, carry on as if nothing happened, return later and explode into body wracking, paralysing, hysterical grief as witnessed and described by the nanny and others. I don’t think so, personally. You can’t turn it on and off like a tap that close in time to the trauma.
There are logical problems also. Kate trained as an anaesthetist. This might sound silly but I think an anaesthetist would be one of the least likely of people to ever sedate their child for the sake of convenience. Even if they were to, such a person is also LEAST likely to use a strong sedative or get the dosage that wrong. I have seen an expert opinion that it would be very difficult to persuade a child to consume enough oral sedative to constitute a lethal dose. If you want to get really loopy and start talking about intravenously administered sedatives - I would sooner believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Why any of that complicated nonsense when in reality, anyone wanting to ensure sleep would most likely administer a very mild sedative - an antihistamine of some sort such as contained in cough mixture. Even if that were the case, death by overdose becomes away with the fairies again. A surgeon/anaesthetist doesn’t know the difference between one and ten, twenty, thirty spoonfulls? - yea right! Try to get just one spoonfull down a small child!
Allergic reaction? - No, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you suspect nightly sedation while the adults do the Tapas, you can’t turn around and claim Madeleine had an allergic reaction after several nights of sedation, a profound allergy sufficient to cause death would have shown up the first time.
None of the other hypothesised accident,coverup scenarios work for me either, but I am not going to go through them all.
I think that about leaves the pathological monster scenarios. For any of those to work you have to have a cold blooded pathological monster, which as we all know, must be Gerry. Have you heard the expression ‘if you want me to believe an extraordinary claim, you must first show me an extraordinary proof’? I have seen articles where Gerry has been described as a hands on loving and devoted father, I have seen pictures of him playing and cavorting with his children to back that up and so on. Circumstantially I have inferred that if your colleagues willingly choose to go with you on holiday, not just once, but at least twice, they must like you just a little. That’s it. Nothing put positive anecdotes, visual evidence and inferences. There is just absolutely nothing to indicate he isn’t a loving husband, devoted father and likeable in the eyes of his colleagues. There is not an iota of anything that comes within a light year of the extraordinary proof you would need to reasonably consider he was the monster any of the other scenarios require.
So, however I try and assemble the pieces, the only theory I can get a sandwich out of is the abduction hypothesis. But there is no evidence for this. That is not the same as ‘there WAS no evidence’. I have seen criticisms and suggestions that the herd of people to pass through the McCann apartment that night were as a result of a deliberate attempt to eliminate or conceal forensic evidence. I do not think that is the case. Everyone was utterly frantic, Kate was inconsolable and from the nanny’s depiction and other witnesses, I doubt she was capable of thinking about the niceties of forensics. There are accounts that similarly suggest Gerry was frantic also, rushing around in the dark shouting for Madeleine. I don’t think anyone was thinking too clearly in those first few minutes, and why would they? If they had been cool, calm and collected, I would have found that suspicious.
Another reason why there might not be any evidence of abduction is that the PJ stuffed up almost everything it was conceivably possible to stuff up, procedurally and forensically. Can someone please explain to me how it is the McCanns fault that their apartment was allowed to be thoroughly cleaned and put back into use after they left it to move into the premises they later leased? It has become almost politically incorrect to insinuate the PJ are anything other than highly professional with unquestionable motives and integrity. Well I don’t pray to the idol of PC so I beg to differ about the PJ.
There is another reason why there might be little or no evidence of an abduction - I think it perfectly possible there was little or none in the first place. I have tried to think through what an abductor might have done, and what trail of evidence you might expect them to leave in doing it. I did this before in a previous post which you can find in a previous thread so I am not going to repeat it. If you do want to look at it, please bear in mind it is not a hypothesis for what did happen, it is a hypothetical ‘modus operandi’ - a method of carrying out the abduction that would leave virtually no trace. The scenario was not meant to explain facts, timelines or any of that, just what a perpetrator might have physically done and the traces of that which would have been left on the real world for people to find later.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/176493.html post 441
We live in a world where innumerable crime based TV fodder like CSI (Crime Scene Investigation), Waking the Dead and more mainstream police and detective shows have swamped us with the automatic expectation that every crime scene contains a subtle but rich trail of faint and convoluted clues for acute forensic senses to follow. These shows have created a popular mythology that every crime scene must have a magical essence of clues to follow, but this isn’t the reality. There are innumerable cases of missing persons and other crimes for which insufficient clues can be found to allow them to be solved.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Doesnt the song go ‘Bob the builder, he can build it’ Not ‘Bob the wanker, he cant understand anything anybody tells him!’
So, Bob, Mddies pj’s turn out to be on the picture!
http://s222.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/larmanil/?action=view¤t=Abductor.jpg
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
peter o …….pog?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Kitty.
I was asking about the dodgy footwear.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
1247 & 1468 Scarlett Says:
Edit….. THEN STRINGS WILL BE PULLED, DEALS WILL BE STRUCK, THE REAL GUILTY PARTIES WILL GET AWAY WITH IT BAR ONE - WHO WILL BE TREATED LENIENTLY DUE TO AN “INSANE INTERLUDE” THEN “DENIAL.” Edit…..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That would ‘imply’ the one suffering the “insane interlude” could prove they acted alone? i.e. No one helped them move said body to Spain?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/nmaddy225.xml
picture of man holding child on night
bollox
wheres blanket?
and was suppposed to be head on shoulder straight down
October 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
They not only left them alone they left the door unlocked. They can’t claim that the door was unlocked so that if an emergency arose they could get out because they were too small and weak to open a heavy patio door.
Does that make sense?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:24 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/nmaddy225.xml
where is the blanket?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Bob,
Oh yeah, all the time. Last week I made my son late for school because I couldn’t find my car keys. I regularly burn the dinner ‘cos I spend too much time on the computer, all sorts of ‘bad mum’ stuff…
I can’t remember the last time I went out on the lash with my old mates at the tapas bar though, even though (strangely enough) I have a tapas bar closer to my home than the McCanns’ did in PdL.
What about you? Do you have a nice convenient tapas bar ?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
1481
Pardon?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
1478 lol - idiot. They forgot they bought wine on their credit cards.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
1408 Pilimary
“You are much better that Mitchell. He should be back to his former job and you should substitute him as PR”
If that happened, everyone here would get terribly bored because I would advise them to say nothing and keep their heads low.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Bob Says: “Hmmmm…it sounds like someone is getting very
close to calling me a moronic idiot.” I’d say it was more than close.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:22 am
1477
I think you need to reread it.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
1468 80% say they arent.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Someone wrote on the bar bill “they’re all drunk?”
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
1466 - Bob - No it reads as written.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:21 am
1457
Because I read it twice and it didn’t make much sense.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am
1473 yep
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
1468
Scarlett, can we ask why you were so cryptic before?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
The bar bills say they were drunk?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Did the McCanns thank people for supporting them?
Did they thank people for giving them money?
Did they thank the searchers?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Before Stig re-posts his 21 October post, let me say this to you, Ian. Read and digest what he says carefully. Because you may actually learn something!! You may learn how to present your point of view coolly, calmly and logically (But is this really humanly possible for you??? We’ll see…)
October 26th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Testing
October 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
1461 - I cant imagine why.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
No one has swore at me or called me a nutter (yet), hmm…
Judith C, the fund will go to Portuguese and UK Childrens charities. One doctor will get a backroom job in research, case not proven, similar with others involved. Ian, yes, loads of people are angry but also loads say Mc Canns are innocent.
SteveT - deals happen all the time, Muddywaters, your name describes the whole charade now.
Goodnight from the Empress of Lancashire
October 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Couldnt believe recent drawing!!! lol
just when you thought clarrie would resign for crap job!
Barrats wouldnt have him as a salesman
To be fair
The Mc Canns
Till the day K was considered a murdering bitch whore
I believed you face value
I didnt really take to much notice
then since you got rid of that bird who was sincere
when you got questioned the pj
I looked
I read
I went back
and all because
of
CRAPPY CLARRY
I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt
Also I found this site same week
and now I think you are fucked anyway
you’re going daaahhhhnn!!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
1457
Did you mean to say that they can’t claim to say the door was locked?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
1437 The Bar bills do.