Madeleine McCann: Irvine Welsh, French T-Shirts And A Halo
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY HERALD: “I don’t believe we get rewarded or punished, but I believe we have a responsibility to try to get the best out of life and make it comfortable for other people”
IRVINE WELSH arrives at the Irish Film Institute in Dublin carrying a holdall in two-tone, light beige leather; it gives the impression that he has just walked in from a picnic. Natural atrium light swamps his head and in a flash he’s almost on top of me, swapping his bag from one set of fingers to another and shaking my hand. His face contorts: he is an hour and a bit late and he’s sorry.
A halo?
Welsh’s jacket is reversible yellow. His T-shirt, in French, says “What would you do if this was the end of the world?” Well? “I don’t know,” he says, apparently uninspired by the question he is advertising.
Well, he could plug his new book: Crime:
“It’s the most difficult thing to write about,” says Welsh. “Child sex abuse tests the limits of our liberalism to the full. You have the whole idea of whether rehabilitation is possible or even desirable.” He was about halfway through the first draft when the Madeleine McCann story broke and forced him to stop writing for two months. “I couldn’t look at the novel or at the newspapers,” he says. “I thought I was never going to finish the book.”
Fact and fiction - can you spot the difference?
Posted: 23rd, June 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (318) | 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
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
M and A
Cheryl, Kate herself announced it on a 2 hr ITV special, no one leaked it .
Apparently Madeleine asked her mother why no one came when she and Sean were crying for her….
__________-
Yes, I saw that myself the other day on one of the links that was put on here. But did she say that before it was printed in that newspaper, which caused all the outcry by Clarence, or did she admit it afterwards on the Special? That is the part that I can’t grasp, which came first?
***********
M and A
There was a very confusing ruckus over what Clarrie said, but Kate did say that Madeleine and Sean were crying and they put it down to children being children. It would be unfair to say it was leaked though.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
193
Cheryl Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
….. was it ever decided who leaked to the Press about the child crying for her Mummy?
____________________________
Cheryl, quick reminder …… “the child” happens to have a name - it is Madeleine - if you put a name to the face it may help you to remember that it’s Madeleine who needs our sympathy, support and demands for justice - and NOT her so-called parents who left her alone in the first place
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Chenier….. Clarence allegedly accepted there had been virtually no leaks from the PJ AFTER Amaral had gone. It is common knowledge that prior to that there were many leaks.
However the info re: Kate WAS leaked but not confirmed who by and explained by the PJ as not being covered by secrecy laws as it was in her original witness statement, not her statements made at the time of being made arguida.
All this has been covered before. Very Groundhog Day.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
193
Cheryl Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
……was it ever decided who leaked to the Press about the child crying for her Mummy?
————————–
Sadly for Clarrie his wheeze backfired, as you would know if you cared to look back at Anorak’s helpful summary on 15th April. One moment Clarrie was announcing that:
“It’s the same old game. We know what they’re up to. We are not happy and the gloves are off.”
and the next he was crying:
“I don’t want to get into a row with them.”
and saying not a word about his previous claims. And after that all was peaceful for quite a long time.
It is mere speculation on my part, of course, that the combination of the formal denial by the PJ and the offer made by the head of their professional association to fund libel actions sufficed to button Clarrie’s lip, in much the same way as Mark Warner managed to dry Kate McCann’s tears.
There is, of course, the point that he had accepted at the LSE public lecture, freely available as a podcast at their website, that there had been virtually no leaks from the PJ. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to explain that away to the satisfaction of a libel judge…
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
112
Carmen Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
110
Cheryl Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm e
______
Carmen, I was presuming that most police don’t waste their time if someone comes and says they got an anonymous email or letter saying they wish they were dead! Frankly, at times, Carmen, throughout my life the thought has crossed my mind about people that I wish they would drop dead! Now, does that mean I’d take their life - hell no, those kind of people I wish would drop dead are not worth my taking their life.
But to be receiving the kind of letters that McCanns must be for the police to be investigating I would think are not just your ordinary I wish someone would drop dead.
But now that you’ve managed to have the occasion for the first time in over a month to get a nasty shot at me, would you please answer the rest of my query - was it ever decided who leaked to the Press about the child crying for her Mummy?
********
M and A
Cheryl, Kate herself announced it on a 2 hr ITV special, no one leaked it .
Apparently Madeleine asked her mother why no one came when she and Sean were crying for her….
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
190
Lawener Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
…..’Mr Smith’s sighting is similar to the one reported by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCann family…..’
——————
I love that line.
Which description by Jane Tanner are they referring to?
There’s been rather a lot of them…
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Thank you for that Lawener (M&A would I guess prefer a link though as well).
I have one huge problem with their “sighting” though!
“Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.”
If Jane Tanner’s sighting is to be believed, then her sighting was closer to 9 than 10! I doubt very much if an abductor is going to wander around PDL for over 1/2 an hour in the hope that he doesn’t get spotted! What was he hanging around for - waiting for the taxi to pick him up? Obviously this is why the police didn’t take much notice of their sighting - the timing is totally wrong, and goes against everything the McCann’s and Tanner want us to believe?
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Irish Tourist ‘Clears’ Suspect Murat
John Kelly Updated:06:57, Friday January 04, 2008
An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat.
Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.
The Smith family’s suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.
“He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year,” said Mr Smith.
Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn’t make the connection.
“We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken,” said Mr Smith.
“We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.
“We’ve all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we’d remembered the next day.
“But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time.”
The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.
“I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone,” said Mr Smith.
“They asked me to make a statement to the Gardai, which I did, and two days later Leicestershire police got on to us.
“My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn’t seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.
Madeleine McCann is still missing”I don’t know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.
“We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time and it had a terrible effect on them - they all wanted to sleep in the same room as us.”
But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an “arguido” in the Madeleine McCann investigation.
“I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn’t as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I’d met him several times previously.
“He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn’t think he was Portuguese.”
Mr Smith’s sighting is similar to the one reported by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCann family.
A spokesman for the McCanns said detectives from the Spanish agency hired to investigate the case are now hoping to speak to the Smiths.
Retired Mr Smith, 58, does not wish to appear on camera in order to protect his family from media intrusion.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
188…Julie
That’s what we like….concrete evidence.
Time for eats.
Good sleuthing !!!!
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
#
187
Julie Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
……. nothing concrete came out of any of them.
____________________________
Ooooh nooooo - that sounds awful
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Yip Matt, I don’t seem to recall much fuss being made over them sighting the ABDUCTOR
, and they also appeared to have just faded away, like all the other “independent” witnesses that popped up from time to time - nothing concrete came out of any of them.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
184…Julie
Weren’t the Smith’s reported as having said that they saw Dr G P…or
someone like him. And then retracted their story after being visited by
M3 ?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Oh, and are the Smiths any relation to the McCann’s?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Is it a known fact that the Smiths witnessed the abductor as well? I don’t seem to recall much being said about this, and if there were “independent” witnesses then surely this would have been shouted out from all angles (mainly the Pinkness?)
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
182…jo
True….but he did tell the Telegraph that it “was within weeks of Madeleine’s
“disappearance”. Does “within weeks” mean within a forthnight…or within
24 weeks….or more or less ?
Clarrie please Clarify….thank you. !!!
There’s a good boy.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
*talking about a minor
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Carmen, I doubt we will ever know if tests were requested by the PJ and carried our or not. Info re: madeleine is one thing as she is missing, maybe dead, but the twins, as minors, would (and should) have their privacy respected for the future.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Carmen
“It just occurred to me that what we might be seeing here is the end game of a tussle involving the twins, rather than Madeleine, and Leicester Police carrying out their duties under the rogatory letters rather than the McCann’s demanding information”
Bingo! and…..all this is happening before the release of the files (the supposed release)
mmmmm
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
174
Matt
Well…we talking a minor
Good argument after having sold her “aux 4 vents”
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
175…Lawener
I think the legal term is “presumed innocent”.
And we know what presumptions are like….(as you have berated us about
suchlike so often).
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
172
coolandcalm Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm e
Carmen 162….. said…..
What in your experience would be the legal position if say, bloody tests, or physical interviews were required with the twins? Would Social Services have been happy to see WOC proceedings for all three children and thus let the court decide, rather than stand in the middle of endless requests via Leicester Police trying to carry out rogatory requests?
…………………………………….
I’m not quite sure what you mean in that paragraph but I doubt there would ever have been any debate about questioning the twins, they were far too young and any physical tests could only take place if there was strong evidence of abuse.
I think there are so many unfounded rumours on the forums it sometimes clouds the truth rather than reveals it.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
************************
I would have thought that Gerry’s statement in the Panorama interview that he thought the twins might have been sedated was strong enough evidence for the PJ to want to carry out tests. We are told that the McCann’s carried out tests privately - we have never been told if the PJ also requested tests. If they did the McCann’s may have resisted on the grounds that they had had such tests done privately.
It just occurred to me that what we might be seeing here is the end game of a tussle involving the twins, rather than Madeleine, and Leicester Police carrying out their duties under the rogatory letters rather than the McCann’s demanding information.
The twins could well have been made WOC’s to prevent such action without the highest scrutiny (or to delay such action).
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
http://www.familylore.co.uk/2008/06/madeleine-ward-of-court.html
Gone
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
167
Julie Says:
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Lawener, in your opinion - do you think there was an abductor? If so, how do you think said abductor managed to collect Madeleine from the apartment without being seen?
……………………………………………………
My personal opinion is there WAS an abductor. I think he WAS seen by Jane Tanner and the Smith family. How he got in? Through the patio doors and out of the window. Or back out through the patio doors. However, this is only my opinion. I do not state it as fact.
What I do state as fact is that the McCanns are innocent unless proven guilty.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
173…coolandcalm
Clarence still being extremely vague regarding when the WOC was “instigated”.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Sky news….
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1319849,00.html
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Carmen 162….. said…..
What in your experience would be the legal position if say, bloody tests, or physical interviews were required with the twins? Would Social Services have been happy to see WOC proceedings for all three children and thus let the court decide, rather than stand in the middle of endless requests via Leicester Police trying to carry out rogatory requests?
…………………………………….
I’m not quite sure what you mean in that paragraph but I doubt there would ever have been any debate about questioning the twins, they were far too young and any physical tests could only take place if there was strong evidence of abuse.
I think there are so many unfounded rumours on the forums it sometimes clouds the truth rather than reveals it.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
165
bye brandon flours
lol Jo and Matt
must go too but BBC may have a report this evening so I will check on that
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
162
Carmen
Have you not yet learnt to UNread the spins?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
163
AgendaWide
For some reasons, it looks like he would not be made one of the twins legal tutor if it was coming down to this….
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
165…brandon flours
Goodnight, brandon.
Take care.