Madeleine McCann: Tabloid Columnists On Harry Potter, Frtizl And Bile
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to the columnists’ views on Madeleine McCann and family:
JANE MOORE (Sun): “Silence is not an option for the McCanns”
“Just suppose little Madeleine is trapped in a cellar somewhere, hidden from view while her warped captor conducts a seemingly normal life upstairs.”
Like Elisabeth Frtizl? It’s Tabloid Bingo. Eye down…
LORRAINE KELLY (Sun): “They deserve sympathy, not condemnation”
Since my daughter Rosie was a baby, she has always come everywhere with us when we go on holiday, especially to child-friendly countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece. We wouldn’t have dreamed about leaving her behind to go for a meal because we go away to spend as much time as possible together as a family.
JON GAUNT (Sun): “I have little support for them”
Do you remember when you put your first baby to bed with a listening monitor and sat downstairs watching the box almost with subtitles on so you could hear every heartbeat?
If you heard an unexpected cough or belch you would sprint up the stairs faster than druggy Dwain Chambers on steroids to check on your little angel. That’s called parenting, isn’t it?
I wonder if the McCanns were as casual with their passports and valuables when they went out at night because as far as I am concerned there is nothing more precious than your child and they appear to have had scant regard for their safety.
ALLISON PEARSON (Mail): “The McCann campaign must NOT go on for ever”
Since May 3 last year, how many parents have mentally run the “Maddie safety test|” before daring to turn away from their children even for a moment? That may be her lasting legacy and our greatest burden.
Still, my small boy is not satisfied. “Maddie” is the big story of his childhood, bigger even than Harry Potter and infinitely more disturbing.
Harry Potter is Madeleine McCann? It’s all just stories. Any others?
There is a fascination in a momentary mistake that can never be undone, no matter how much a mother persecutes herself. In Greek tragedy, Antigone, the daughter of King Oedipus, cannot rest until she has recovered the body of her brother after his death in battle and given it a proper burial. One suffering leads to another. And there is some of that obsession, and that remorselessness, in the case of the McCanns.
But:
Do the two doctors really deserve two whole hours of prime-time when so many other people’s kids are lost and thousands are dying in Zimbabwe? Even those, like me, who have never doubted Gerry and Kate’s innocence must feel a flinch of unease.
Madeleine McCann: A year of easy copy
Posted: 30th, April 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (544) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
April 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
407
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
403 Agenda Wilde
They don’t have a body.
If they did find a body they would be most likely need to keep the results of the analysis to the body secret until the end of the inquiry phase.
************
What if the PJ had found the body and kept it.?I am not sure if they could keep it and say nothing about it.
Of course,it is a wild idea but in this case anything can happen
April 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
417 Garth - Dear, Dear me.
The reference to the new british law is relevant to this case in so far as there would be similar provisions in Portugal.
But you’re even one step behind. Not only you cant’ distinguish charges from convictions, but you’re not even familiar with different jurisdictions - and therefore start applying a new English law to a crime perpetrated in Portugal…
makes sense.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Knock Knock…can i come in please?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
417
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
———–
April 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
411 Garth
oopps… you’re wrong again.
The Crime of Abandonment of Children is sanctioned in the Portuguese Criminal Code. The crime is aggravated when you are a parent or the guardian responsible for the child and further aggravated if serious harm or death results to the child.
So, you’re wrong, even if no harm results to the child, the McCanns could be CHARGED. I will repeat again slowly CHAAAAARRRRRGEEEEEDDDDD….
You then enter the discussion - in Instruction Phase and very possibly in Court as follows:
The arguments articulated by defense lawyers would most likely be. We challenge the charges because:
- we were within the perimeter of the resort
- we were checking the kids every 20 minutes
- all our mates were doing the same
- MW did not have a listening service
- and last but not least… we didn’t have a buggy
I would then elaborate on the prosecution arguments. But I wont because that would be too informative for the happy band that may ocasionally look into this site….
So, all in all Garth, you don’t know portuguese criminal law and have a very blurred understanding of the meaning of being charged as opposed to being found guilty.
Do keep trying - good bye.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
am i in the right place? hello guys
April 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
410 Salomon ES Says:
‘Surely Max Clifford would be the only man on earth able to combat this wave of spin. Would he be interested in coming head on with Clarence the Clown MitchelL?’
It would be nice to think that counterspin isn’t the answer.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
409
firestar Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
402
no it isn’t.
people have been charged with negligence for leaving their kid locked in a car while they were in a shop.
————
There is a blanket law against that. Full stop!
April 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
409
AgendaWide Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
395 chenier Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
384
AgendaWide Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Salamon ES
BTW your points about the leniency of the Portuguese judicial system and the max charge for abandonment leading to harm being 10 years and the max charge for accidental homicide being 5 years makes it all the more strange that the McC’s opted to play their stories out in public. Being aware of the treatment given to celebrities in the media they must have known they would be facing jury and judge and tried in the public eye through the media spyglass, especially since they were named suspects. imo Portuguese justice might be a better option.
——————————————————–
Not necessarily.
It may be that their initial total panic reaction was based on vague recollections of the introduction of the new legislation here, which Kate, as a GP, should have been familiar with.
14 years in jail here might make Portugual look remarkably attractive…
————————————
I’m not sure if I follow you. Do you mean they should have stayed in Portugal because they may be tried in the UK and receive a longer sentence?
——————————————
I’m pointing out that they did stay in Portugual; they also mounted a massive campaign to try to get everybody to believe that there was an abductor, whilst glossing over trifling details like repeatedly leaving their children unattended at night.
They only returned here when it became obvious that the PJ, having looked long and hard at the possibility of an abduction, had concluded that there was buggy all evidence to support it…
April 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
407 Salomon ES
I wonder when strong indications of Madeleine’s death becomes conclusive proof, changing her status as missing person. When the secrecy is removed I expect we will know more about the evidence which appears to have convinced the pj.
Thanks and bye now
April 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
#
406
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Garthy 402 - what about charging someone for neglect as a result of leaving 3 children unattended in an unlocked apartment? (even not knowing if any harm resulted to Madeleine) would that be acceptable?
——————
Well i was rather hoping Chenier would come up with that one, but since you asked.
What you have stated above is the whole point. How can you charge anyone (with the way its interpreted in Cheniers post) f0r neglect when you werent aware of the dangers of a child snatcher in the vicinity?
And would you charge MW at another resort for the same, because they apparently have a ‘baby listening’ service? Would they be charged for encouraging this act knowing full well the chances of an abduction? Of course, unless they made sure the parents signed a disclaimer to the effect.
Hardly eh?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Does anyone have Max Clifford’s email address?
Surely Max Clifford would be the only man on earth able to combat this wave of spin. Would he be interested in coming head on with Clarence the Clown MitchelL?
Can someone check?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
395 chenier Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
384
AgendaWide Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Salamon ES
BTW your points about the leniency of the Portuguese judicial system and the max charge for abandonment leading to harm being 10 years and the max charge for accidental homicide being 5 years makes it all the more strange that the McC’s opted to play their stories out in public. Being aware of the treatment given to celebrities in the media they must have known they would be facing jury and judge and tried in the public eye through the media spyglass, especially since they were named suspects. imo Portuguese justice might be a better option.
——————————————————–
Not necessarily.
It may be that their initial total panic reaction was based on vague recollections of the introduction of the new legislation here, which Kate, as a GP, should have been familiar with.
14 years in jail here might make Portugual look remarkably attractive…
————————————
I’m not sure if I follow you. Do you mean they should have stayed in Portugal because they may be tried in the UK and receive a longer sentence?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
402
no it isn’t.
people have been charged with negligence for leaving their kid locked in a car while they were in a shop.
what’s ludicrous is the way team mccannare trying to make people believe abandoning 3 babies is a normal and safe thing to do.
something only a cretin or a liar could state.
and they keep letting us know how intelligent they are, so what does that leave?
and, for that matter, why should sympathy for the parents of a missing child justify not charging them for the selfish stupidity they showed towards the safety of that child in the first place?
you are effectively saying, oh dear they’ve lost their daughter, so it doesn’t matter whay the fuck the selfish arseholes did.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
403 Agenda Wilde
They don’t have a body. They have however officially mentioned by their spokesperson Olegario de Sousa that there are strong indications that Madeleine died in the apartment and that this should not be discounted.
If they did find a body they would be most likely need to keep the results of the analysis to the body secret until the end of the inquiry phase.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
401
naughty
chenier Says:
‘I wonder why Gerry and Kate aren’t campaigning for a similar provision to be introduced across Europe?’
April 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Garthy 402 - what about charging someone for neglect as a result of leaving 3 children unattended in an unlocked apartment? (even not knowing if any harm resulted to Madeleine) would that be acceptable?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
#
400
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
390 Hola Garthy
How can I be of help? You know what happened to Madeleine? erm….please share.
————-
Ummm……….. not quite. I just said yes to your last paragraph. Have i missed somefing?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Salamon ES did you see my questions in post 368
Why would the PJ not announce that they had enough evidence that Madeleine died in the room.?
Salamon ES says ‘If this evidence - whatever that may be- is included in the inquiry file it is under secrecy of justice. There’s no way that they will announce it until the closure of the inquiry file.’
I can see why this may be secret given the complexity of the case and alleged involvement of parents in a missing child investigation, but did this happen in the Rachel Charles case, for example? Normally it appears to be possible to state when a body has been found because the criminal investigation does not depend on this secrecy?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Chenier
Firstly we dont know what (if any) harm may have come to Madeleine.
Secondly, i think it to try and charge someone for neglect as a result of their child being taken from their bedroom, is a little …………. well ludicrous really!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
392
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Chenier 383 - thanks. I understand now.
I have to say I’m not sure - but i don’t think that a similar provision would be found in portuguese criminal law.
———————————————-
Thank you.
I wonder why Gerry and Kate aren’t campaigning for a similar provision to be introduced across Europe?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
396
i didn’t think you were.
that’s what i meant about a quirk in the system.
but i would imagine at the very least it would have been enough to keep her in portugal.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
390 Hola Garthy
How can I be of help? You know what happened to Madeleine? erm….please share.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
394
Garth Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
384
chenier Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
‘Investigating officers should remember that a victim can be put at risk by neglect. If a child dies of neglect and other household members knew of the significant risk of serious injury from neglect, they could be guilty of the new offence.’
—————-
And thats where, in the Madeliene case, the above statement falls flat on its face!
———————————
Garth,
May I ask you to break the habits of a lifetime- as the Mother Superior said whilst ordering a new uniform- and explain why the perfectly predictible dangers of repeatedly leaving small children unattended by a responsible adult should not be classed as neglect?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
394
you’re confusing
‘will not admit to knowing’
with a reasonable expectation that injury would occur.
with 3 kids of that age, a eive year old could tell you there was a risk of injury.
no question at all, no matter how good they allege they thought their ‘checking system was’, if indeed there really was one ,no one in their right mind leaves children that age unattended while they go out on the piss.
common sense, no argument needed.
there’s already enough legal precedent for it.
only people who are satisfied there was no negligence are team mccann.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Firestar 391
I know what you’re saying and I’m not being cynical. But my point about “What If Kate confessed” is the following:
- In portugal a confession whilst being questionned by the police is not worth a great deal unless the suspect repeats it in court. Of course if the suspect confesses to the police and then goes to court and decides to say actually I only told the cops I did it because they were torturing me… then it will be investigated. But the statement in court is what stands, and the one to the PJ is seen as indicative and to support the lines of investigation.
- What would naturally happen had they obtained a confession is that the PJ would ask her to provide the details of what happened and with those details they would try to reconstruct the case to explain what happened with the help of forensics or other pieces of evidence like the body. To go to court relying on a confession and a few pieces of circumstancial evidence would seem to me unthinkable in the portuguese system.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
384
AgendaWide Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Salamon ES
BTW your points about the leniency of the Portuguese judicial system and the max charge for abandonment leading to harm being 10 years and the max charge for accidental homicide being 5 years makes it all the more strange that the McC’s opted to play their stories out in public. Being aware of the treatment given to celebrities in the media they must have known they would be facing jury and judge and tried in the public eye through the media spyglass, especially since they were named suspects. imo Portuguese justice might be a better option.
——————————————————–
Not necessarily.
It may be that their initial total panic reaction was based on vague recollections of the introduction of the new legislation here, which Kate, as a GP, should have been familiar with.
14 years in jail here might make Portugual look remarkably attractive…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
384
chenier Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
‘Investigating officers should remember that a victim can be put at risk by neglect. If a child dies of neglect and other household members knew of the significant risk of serious injury from neglect, they could be guilty of the new offence.’
—————-
And thats where, in the Madeliene case, the above statement falls flat on its face!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Finally, can I just point out that it’s not only the arguidos that are subject to observing secrecy rules. It’s also the witnesses or anyone else.
————
in that case, as mitchell was using the reanault mccann, they could effectively shut him up with a lot of his comments by making him a witness couldn’t they?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Chenier 383 - thanks. I understand now.
I have to say I’m not sure - but i don’t think that a similar provision would be found in portuguese criminal law.