Madeleine McCann: Gerry McCann Talks With Vanity Fair
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADELEINE: THE BIG INTERVIEW”
“Our regret”
“GERRY: I wish we have never gone to the tapas bar”
“KATE: I wish I’d seen the stranger watching us”
“READ THEIR HEARTBREAKING WORDS INSIDE”
Voyeurs, campaigners, police and handwringers come see the pain, the suffering the agony. Prepare to be heartbroken!
“Riddled with guilt, the distraught” Gerry will tell all to the Mirror. Well, not to the Mirror, rather to Vanity Fair magazine. Journalist Judy Bachrach spoke with Gerry in October near the family home in Rothley, Leicestershire
And the interview is not with Gerry and Kate. Only Gerry McCann was interviewed, says the Mail. Kate McCann’s words come via friends and family
Pages 4 and 5: “I WISH”.
It reads very much like a prayer, or a camping speech by Barack Obama. Says Gerry McCann:
“I wish I hadn’t gone to the tapas bar.
“I wish I’d have stayed in the apartment that night
“I wish I’d stayed in the room when I checked on her five minutes longer”
A wish…
Says Gerry McCann: “”At the time we did it, it was not irresponsible. Of course we feel guilty about not having been there and that is just something we have to deal with for the rest of our lives. You are not asking anything we don’t think about on a daily basis. We live this 24 hours a day”
Gerry says his world went “all black, with maybe tiny points of light” in the days after Madeleine vanished. “We can’t cry our eyes out every day because that’s not helping. So after three days I picked myself up…quicker than Kate could. Grief washes over you. It’s like a big wave, mostly I was able to beat it back”
And the Madeleine ‘Look into my eyes’ campaign? Says Gerry: “We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy”
THE SUN: “Life’s bleak but I cling to hope”
Says Gerry McCann: “People can support you in your darkest hours and in our case the darkest hour was of course when Madeleine went missing. Now it is just bleak”
In next month’s Vanity Fair: “The interview with Gerry came as it emerged GORDON BROWN has snubbed the McCanns’ request for a meeting; furious Kate EXPLODED when cops first told her she was a suspect; and family spokesman Clarence Mitchell has given a university SPEECH on the topic Missing Maddie McCann — the perfect PR campaign
“A pal of the McCanns said Kate, 39, believes the family were STALKED by Maddie’s kidnapper in the days before she went missing”. WOW
COUPLE hit back on film. Says Clarence Mitchell, the spokesperson: “It is not us being greedy. It is us being needy“
DAILY MAIL: “It’s all my fault, admits Maddie’s father”
Well, not quite. Gerry McCann is making no confession. He maintains that the fault lies with a kidnapper. Says the Mail: “Gerry McCann is tortured by guilt that Madeleine’s disappearance is his fault”
Will he tell all? Mr McCann tells Vanity Fair’s Judy Bachrach: “I can’t talk to you about the details of what happened. I live under threat from the Portuguese - if I do talk - of two years’ imprisonment”
“THIRD POLICE SUSPECT BREAKS HIS SILENCE” – Says Robert Murat to Vanity Fair: “All I can say is that I am innocent”
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE - MOTHER IS SHUNNED BY PRIEST”
Page 9: “KATE’S SCREAMS AS POLICE TOLD HER: YOU’RE A SUSPECT – KATE McCann screamed when told by police that she was a suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, it emerged yesterday. Opening the door of her rented villa to a Portuguese officer the family had come to know, Kate, 39, shouted: ‘Do you honestly believe that I would murder my own child?’”
Gerry McCann is a “39-year-old cardiologist”. Facts!
On the speculation: “Gerry says bitterly: ‘Yes, yes, I know. Kate killed her in a frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs – in which case you would have thought they’d have found her body. I’ve heard all of that. There are a huge number of theories in the media. But what I want to know is, who told them all that?’”
DAILY STAR: “Anguished and painfully thin, his wife Kate was too upset to answer even a single question during the interview with glossy US magazine Vanity Fair. Gerry revealed in the 7,500-word magazine article he had to be coaxed by a counsellor into talking publicly about his daughter in the days after she disappeared”
DAILY RECORD: “Maddie’s Dad: Slim Chance Of Getting Her Back”
“Distraught Gerry McCann has admitted the chances of him seeing his missing daughter Madeleine again are ‘slim’”
VANITY FAIR: “Unanswered Prayers”
“After three-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared on a family vacation in Portugal, her parents pursued a high-stakes strategy: media saturation. It succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings—winning the aid of everyone from J. K. Rowling to the Pope—and failed miserably. Getting the first in-depth interview with Gerry McCann since he and his wife, Kate, were declared suspects, the author re-traces their footsteps to their daughter’s empty bed”
And then a policeman appeared. His name Ricardo. “Because for months they used to have regular weekly meetings with the Portuguese police, and then they stopped,” recalls Gerry’s older sister Trish Cameron
“Do you have something to tell us?” Ricardo asked.
“No,” Kate replied. “Do you have something to tell us?”
“He nodded. “Yes. You are being made arguidos”…
Eight months of talking - read it all…
Posted: 10th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,344) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity Watch: Katie Price Is More Hated Than Baby P’s Mum
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- percy stilton on Newspaper Correction Of The Year: The New Jersey Rabbis
- Anorak on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
January 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
148
brandon flours Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
lone pigeon
heres your tea and one dips! :)x
Thanks gorgeous
Yum yum!
I think all thsi blurb coming oput now is their last attempt at pubnlic sympathy. They knwo they’re in the shit and they just want to ’seem’ like butter wouldn’t melt but they do not even realise just how crass they are. They obviously think the world is full of people like them that can never do wrong, even when they’ve done wrong. They don’t see it. They just don’t get it. . They haven’t got a clue. the support they get is from the trolsl so they think the whole world is behind them. GERRY/ KATE - if you’re reading this then FUCKING WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!! YOU FUCKED UP!! TAKE IT LIKE A MAN AND DO US ALL A BLOODY FAVOUR AND ADMIT IT. STOP BEING A SELF RIGHTEOUS ARSEHOLE AND DO THE RIGHT THING FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
192
Peter O Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
176 Will Says: January 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
169 Peter O
Having looked into ‘the fund’ I don’t actually see anything legally amiss. What ‘crime’ do you think they may have committed?
+++++++++++++++++
Possibly obtaining money by deception and I’d be interested in following the money trail to and beyond M3 for instance? Just expressing an opinion, no evidence to suggest my opinion is in fact true. (Or whatever the legal mumbo jumbo is that I need to put to express my opinion that I don’t trust Team McCann.)
——————————————————————
I suggest that you bear in mind that payments made by the Fund to Madeleine’s family would be taxable as annual payments. That in turn may require the Fund to with-hold tax from the payments, and then pay that tax to the ever welcoming arms of the Treasury.
Purely hypothetically, the officers of the company might find themselves presented with a very large bill for sums they should have deducted and paid over to the aforesaid ever-welcoming arms of the Treasury…
January 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
199 rockhopper
The thing is that G and K are allowed to benefit from ‘the fund’, hence legally the directors of ‘the fund’ have acted legally.
Not defending it - its just that there is a difference between legal and moral.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Brandon
He annoyed me with his first sentence.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Ian
His voice is a bit
shall we say……….grating after a bit
and he seems to be changing his tune
January 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Chenier 186 - French NGO case in Chad is a good and recent example.
Further confirms that any attempts to fight off extradiction are designed solely for the PR effect.
Ian + mk - I too would love to have a clearer picture of when the McCanns arrived in PDL, where they were every night until the 3rd of May. If Madeleine died on the 3rd of May or not may appear a less significant detail at this stage. However, for the public prosecution to press charges, and assuming that they are still pursuing the concept that she died accidentally in the apartment, the whereabouts of the mccanns on the date that she died is extremely important to accuse them of gross negligence. Some lawyers have said that them being within the resort (as opposed to being in Chaplins) would make it a lot more difficult to sustain gross negligence charges.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
201 Brandon
Why?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
192 Peter O
I take it ‘the fund’ were correctly invoiced for the services of M3. I would also assume that the directors authorised the payments. I would also guess that no director received payment from M3. If M3 paid money (say) to another party and the directors of ‘the fund’ knew nothing about it no crime has been committed by ‘the fund’.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
well
Gauntys getting on my tits now!!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
cant say no breeze on may third but one week later there was no breeze any night couldnt get enough air in had to use air conditioning.and if their resort was five star surely that was an option why leave windows open
January 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
195
Will Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
190 rockhopper
But would the Directors have known M was already dead?
Remember G and K were not directors.
—————————————————————–
Good point.
They did benefit from the proceeds when the mortgage payments were made, that might tie them in.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
192 Peter O.
Laundering is not limited to soft toys in the McCann household I suspect.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
169
Peter O Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
159 Salomon ES Says: January 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
130 Chenier
Combating extradiction seems to be the main strenght of their legal team if you look at their backgrounds. I’m just not sure they’ll ever use this strenght.
I mentioned this before a few days ago when a portuguese newspaper suggested that they would face trial in britain.
+++++++++++++++++
I wonder if any of the Limited Company, colloquially known as “The Fund”, issues (assuming there are any of course) might fall within UK jurisdiction?
===================================
Yes.
It wouldn’t necessarily cover actions by the company outside the uk; that would fall within the jurisdiction where the actions took place.
But if you are thinking of potentially fraudulent actions by the officers of the company in the UK then it’s difficult to see where else it would be tried…
January 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Confuse to deceive - its a simple strategy and one which has been used by posters here.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
190 rockhopper
But would the Directors have known M was already dead?
Remember G and K were not directors.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
John Mccan..
can be confused with Michael Wright, Kate”s cousin in law from Skipton.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Ian
I think you could be right. Gerry did say he wasn’t much of a believer before.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
176 Will Says: January 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
169 Peter O
Having looked into ‘the fund’ I don’t actually see anything legally amiss. What ‘crime’ do you think they may have committed?
+++++++++++++++++
Possibly obtaining money by deception and I’d be interested in following the money trail to and beyond M3 for instance? Just expressing an opinion, no evidence to suggest my opinion is in fact true. (Or whatever the legal mumbo jumbo is that I need to put to express my opinion that I don’t trust Team McCann.)
January 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
185
man on a hill Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
19 BrandonFlours
Sorry i was late with the smelling salts. Good dramatic collapse though.
———————————–
Thanks
I might have another one, stick around ( maybe not, I forgot you look like Jesus, I might think I’ve died!!!lol )
January 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Will, if they knew Maddie was already dead then ‘obtaining money by deception’ would probably start the ball rolling.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
187 Peter
How interesting! Its full of inconsistancies then!
Delibrate perhaps? The more inconsistancies coming out of the press etc, the more the McCanns can claim ‘the real story was’ - catch my drift?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
182 Karen
But if you are a practicing catholic and then do something bad, yes I can understand hiding. If you are not and then do something bad, running for forgiveness or to confirm your reasons for doing the bad thing seems likely - to me anyway (accepting that i know nothing about these ’sects’).
January 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Oh Ian…. Here is a Vanity Fair quite you will absolutely adore!
Thus the most important clue to the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance was initially ignored. At around 9:15, another friend, Jane Tanner, emerged from her own villa to see a white man in beige trousers—five feet six, brown hair (longer in the back), and perhaps 35, she later told the police. In his arms he cradled a child wearing pink-and-white pajamas.
Notice where Jane was emerging from, allegedly?
I’ve just suggested that this article would never have seen the light of day without serious editorial “input” from Team McCann, now I’m beginning to have my doubts?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
159
Salomon ES Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
—————————————————-
Yes; I agree.
I do wonder who put the stuff about being tried in England into the media.
I don’t believe it will happen, since I’m not aware of any precedent in that area.
You may recall the claim that the Chad kidnappers should be tried in France; that was shot down in flames and they were tried and convicted in Chad.
They will serve their jail terms in France…
January 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
19 BrandonFlours
Sorry i was late with the smelling salts. Good dramatic collapse though.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
152 bountyhunter
Big hello to Mr & Mrs Bountyhunter. How’s RSA today? Warmer than the UK I guess lol
January 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
170 catkidd
Doesnt quite work! Few are further from any church than I am, and few are further from any ‘god’ than I am either!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ian
Yeah, it’s suspicious. But then when I’ve done something bad I avoid the Church for weeks and I hate confession, I think I’m going to be sick if I’ve done something bad and then afterwards I’m never sure if I’m really forgiven or if I’m off to hell and the Priest is just being kind.
Yes - Sledgehammer - I did say Priest - I’m a Catholic Rangers Supporter!!! - the old git will be having convulsions (Protestant father). Apologies to anyone not from the West Coast, just ignore our embarrassing hang-ups.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
John Gaunt talking about the Mc’s on talk sport.
Sorry if it’s already been mentioned!
January 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
162 mk
There is no way they are going to answer questions like that and its not a good idea to interfere with the investigation either!
But I like your style!
Maybe we could (between us) define a set of words and then one of us makes the call?