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
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
October 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
It’s really hard to believe anybody wrote
“they’re drunk” on their bar bill.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
1537 Ian.
So you’re not prepared “to present your point of view…logically”(1471)? It’s easy to say that the other person is speaking rubbish. It’s another thing to logically argue your case. I’ve NEVER seen you do that. I have several times seen Stig do that.
You say: “You cant reject ideas by saying ‘they are preposterous’…but not explaining why.” Evidently, if Stig were to show why each theory he has seen on this forum does not in his opinion stand up, he would need to use at least fifteen times as many words. But I am sure he could do that.
Now will YOU please answer my post that I posted at about the same time as Stig’s on that date: I asked you to argue to me logically why you believe the McCann’s are guilty. As I said, nobody on this site has convinced me yet, but I would like you to give me *logical arguments* and a well-reasoned case to support your point of view i.e. not just resort to name-calling as is your usual wont. Can you do that, Ian??
I won’t be looking at your argument tonight as I need to sleep (European time!) nor do I promise to answer your post. But I think it would be a useful exercise for you to actually argue in writing your case instead of simply slinging mud (so easy to do and so cheap!!), and it would be a useful exercise for me to read such an argument.
Thank you (in advance!)
October 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am
“The McCanns’ hotline is: 00 34 902 300 213″
…I wonder if anyone has phoned in reporting suspicious behaviour by a couple from Rothley, Leicestershire?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
1531
Stig, my point was that you were pointing to her background and experience with such drugs as an automatic voucher for her responsibility with such drugs. The higher than average incident rate of addiction in her profession proves that just because you have experience and knowledge of the drugs and the consequences, doesn’t mean you won’t misuse the drugs. Misusing the drugs could easily fall into using the drugs yourself, for no reason at all, or using them on someone else (including your child, although that is a step up).
I don’t think they sedated their children, the question you posed was why would anyone sedated their child with something stronger? People do, because they forget about the risks, and they know it will work. I know children of doctors who get prescriptions for muscle relaxants, etc. from their parents when they don’t need them. Does that mean the parent is horrible in all other ways of parenting? No. Do I personally think it is a mistake doing that? Yes.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:03 am
1542. Sorry Ian I don’t find any reason to believe the sexual stuff between the Mcs and their friends. I don’t think they would have brought their children along and I don’t think they would be in PdL if they were swingers.
As narcissists quickly approaching middle age, I think the partying angle (drugs and excess drink) work more logically.
If they’re are paedo or swingers I will need PJ to persuade me of this. If they have that evidence then I am certain it will be revealed within the next few months.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
1537 Ian
I clearly made the point that a lack of evidence of abduction did not mean one had not taken place.
Anyway, since I wrote that, there now seems to be some evidence for the abduction theory so there goes your whole argument - crashed and burned.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:01 am
70% dont believe mc canns
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/23189/70-don-t-believe-McCanns
October 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
1525 Butterfly,
They are asking us to believe in the impossible but it has nothing to do with their being “religious” because that’ simply another ruse in their “wide agenda”.
I think PJ was or is on to O’Brien having greater involvement. He reportedly had a hire car the day/evening Madeleine disappeared. He was also reportedly often missing from the table. I think the story of the O’Brien-Tanner child being sick is a lie. This was made up as an excuse for why he was absent so often or for so long from the tapas table. As PJ was examining his story and actions that evening more intensely Tanner suddenly had a “revelation” 2 months or more AFTER the alleged abduction?
People’s memories during harrowing events can be delayed but never by that long a time period. After one week at the very most everyone’s memory of the events would be solid as to what they know and what they saw or heard etc….
Jane coming out months later with the alien abudction story as well as Gerry’s terrifying “I Was In the Dark Apartment With Maddie’s Abductor” stories are ruses to make us look away from the correct information. They’re sending us and PJ on a wild goose chase. This causes the public’s imagination to run wild with all different sorts of theories and it has PJ spending valuable time and resources on dead end avenues of inquiry which is exactly what the McCanns want. They want confusion and liars and narcissists are very adept at thinking on their feet and creating the perfect atmosphere for their needs and desires. Or as Gerry calls it their ‘Wide Agenda’.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:56 am
1513 Wanderer
I forgot to address this bit:
“Also, pharmacies have those flavor things now, where they can make children’s medicine taste a certain way.”
My wife told me she heard an interview about this with a pharmacologist on the radio who said it would be extremely difficult to get a child to consume an ENTIRE bottle of say cough mixture. The flavour is only nice-ish it is not so wonderful a 4 year old is going to drink that much of the horrid stuff willingly.
And why do I say the entire bottle? - because he said that is how much a child would have to consume for there to be a serious adverse effect ,and even then, it would in no way be fatal. It might induce a coma but there would be many hours in which to get treatment.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:56 am
1530
Bob Says:
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Kitty and/or Judith
===========
Yes…….
October 26th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Last post of this suspect artist impression..now I must to bed to sleep off all the nonsense the Mccans and their supporters said!
http://s222.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/larmanil/?action=view¤t=Abductor.jpg
October 26th, 2007 at 12:53 am
1493: The Real Stig:
Your post is too long to paste and link, but one of the planks of your argument is that in the early days Kate was inconsolable, devastated by grief,frantic, etcetera. Yes, granted, the grief displayed so overtly could have been, probably was, prompted by the disappearance - at that moment (a phrase constantly used by both the McCs) - of their daughter. We don’t know, no-one knows exactly when she disappeared or even if she was dead or alive - at that moment. So could not the initial reaction of shock and horror have been the result of the child ‘being taken’ ?(after all Mrs. McC is reported to have said: “They’ve taken her” This would indicate possibly that Mrs. McC was not expecting to return to the apartment and find the child gone - although she may have been expecting to find the child dead.
The continuing grief and anguish could be tremendous suppressed guilt as well as genuine feelings of loss - as far as Mrs. M is concerned anyway, Mr. M has always appeared to be as emotional as a lump of concrete. It is also possible, is it not, that the Portugal period coolness displayed by both Mr. & Mrs. M (to be displaced, on advice, by agitated behaviour because it plays better with the audience) was simply because they both came to terms with what had happened and made their peace with whoever they thought it necessary to do so.
I would have thought that the present ‘gaunt’, ‘near to collapse’ ‘emotional’ ‘haunted’ Kate is this way not because of Madeleine, although she sometimes remembers to mention her, but solely because of herself and possibly her husband, though there’s little love lost there. She’s feeling hunted, and with reason.
This is my opinion.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:51 am
1531, I suspect the truth is worse than we imagine - there is sexual activity here somewhere, gene sharing has occurred we know (Gerry firing blanks, O’Brien providing the ammo to load Kate ‘hotlips’ Mccann.
We may never know - we can only know that neglect resulted in this lost child.
And once again the church in ill repute.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:50 am
1536 fucking ridik
Please someone in the know
correct me if I am wrong
1 witness logged
2 witnessess followed up
3 wit”"”"”"”"”" taken seriously
4 wit”"”"”"”"”" considered fact
October 26th, 2007 at 12:49 am
1527. Trainer I don’t know but my own experience in working with children and being the neighborhood babysitter is that little kids will eat unusual things even if they don’t taste nice. Lipstick, glue, paper, crayons, household cleaners, dirt etc….
October 26th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Bob, Are you drunk?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
1509 brandon flours Says:
peter O
nearly ate your balls then saw smiley lol
+++++++++++++++++
Ahhh… Lifes simple pleasures
October 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
1483 Stig. I am dissapointed. This argument fell on the first fence.
Rejecting all theories except the one that has NO supporting evidence?
You cant reject ideas by saying ‘they are preposterous’…its like Clarence or Gerry saying they are ‘ludicrous’ but not explaining why.
Using these words is an excuse for not tackling the theories. There is nothing wrong with proposing the preposterous and ludicrous anyway, its like using a ‘blue sky’ no boundary approach - the heart - the source - of innovative thinking.
So this was the post being referred to? Very disappointing. Id so love to have a verbal debate with you - you would crash and burn!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
1526 -brandon flours
I would find it hard to put an age of 30 to 35 to the person on that drawing. He also has a very long body and short legs. Doesnt Gerry have short legs?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
The artist’s impression appears to be of Ms Tanner.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
1493 The Real Stig Says:
1451 Ian
Edit…..
I am not opposed to contemplating that it was not an abduction. Edit……
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then perhaps you ought to start by considering that **IF** it wasn’t an abduction as alleged, that whatever did happen didn’t necessarily happen during the very narrow time window certain people would like us to believe.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Butterfly.
Where?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:43 am
LOL @ Bob!
Off now - have fun!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
1513 Wanderer
I do recall you earlier making that point, however, That really relates to personal abuse of substances by the anaesthetist. I do not see how that relates to an anaesthetist dealing with their own child. It is a bit like arguing there are occasionally bent coppers so they are all bad.
I have yet to see anyone logically make a convincing case as to why any parent, be they an anesthetist or not, would need to resort to, or would for a moment even contemplate, using anything stronger than an antihistamine?
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Kitty and/or Judith
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
They did it full stop -did you see her lying eyes on `tv’ and he holds her like a puppet - now BBC2 is running a programme questioning DNA evidence - its like they’re pulling strings everywhere when the only known evidence leads to them - they will crack they will be convicted the child is dead and was dead that night, all the pj needs is the final evidence if they and the British police don’t have it already …which I suspect they have but we are waiting for an unflawed trial from the Police basis
October 26th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Butterfly.
Kitty remembers shoes.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am
sorry im not the party animal so have to ask what does coke ( not the drink) taste like? ie would a child eat a lot ? or just spit it out?
tapas 7 hiding something ? sex and drugs would not be a good thing for doc’s to own up to
October 26th, 2007 at 12:40 am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2741672.ece
appoligies if posted before
October 26th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Going on the photofit - we could be looking fo an illegal alien.
If you are going to do a photofit that shows the public exactly what you saw that night you would have to add in faint lines for where the features should be - otherwise you are suggesting that this person had no face.
Even someone who cannot remember a face in detail could tell you if they are sure the person had eyes, nose or mouth.
We are being asked to believe parts of the description which are detailed whilst ignoring the rest.
Women do not recall shoes, trousers and tops - they look at faces!
So if we are to believe all the image is true we have to consider the high possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a faceless alien!
I am not kidding - if the woman cannot remember if he had a nose, mouth or eyes then perhaps he didn’t!
The Alien theory is just as probable as any other - maybe even an Angel - considering how devout the couple were - or did the fairies take her to fairyland - in which case she will be returned exactly one year later.
Laugh if you want but this is what the McCanns are asking us to believe - trust them!