Madeleine McCann: Allison Pearson Demands And Fact Checking Kate And Gerry McCann
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
Madeleine McCann is retuned to the front pages.
DAILY MAIL (front page): “ALLISON PEARSON ON THE McCANNS… If the Portuguese police had a shred of decency they would now make a public apology to Kate and Gerry”
Page 5: “Now clear out names”
Before the Mail’s columnist can voice an opinion – and what is the case of Madeleine McCann but one of opinion upon opinion – time to go over the fact that has been established in 14 months of reporting (a child is missing) and hear the McCann plead their innocence.
Oh, there is one other fact: the “McCanns are “both 40”. Remember that.
PEARSON: “The Maddie detectives must now apologise”
Now it seems the spectacularly incompetent Inspector Cluesnos are ready to admit they have no evidence against the McCanns
Yeah, those hapless amateurs. If only the Portuguese wooden tops were more like the British tabloid hacks who root their maybes in Portuguese press reports and hunches. What of Robert Murat?
Now, thank heavens, the ordeal of the inquiry is nearing an end. Nothing can make up for the loss of Madeleine, but at least the family can continue their lives without the poisonous cloud of suspicion hanging over them. It’s the least they deserve.
Yes, an apology will remove any doubt. Bring in the PIs. It’ll be over by Christmas. Case closed.
THE SUN (front page): “AS COPS GIVE UP MADDIE HUNT, WE SAY.. NOW CLEAR McCANNS”
Pearson of the Mail demands it. Now the Sun demands it. Can the call be resisted?
Page 7: “Little Madeleine McCann’s parents last night faced the nightmare possibility that they could remain suspects FOREVER”
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell, who may have a job for life:
If the case closes, who will hunt for Madeleine? And if Kate and Gerry’s arguido suspect status isn’t removed they will live under a cloud of suspicion. That is both immoral and inhumane… There are people in Portugal who have been arguidos for decades
Page 8: “End the agony – The nightmare goes on for tormented Kate and Gerry McCann”
“But it is clear to the whole world that they are innocent of any sinister act against their precious little girl”
At least the Sun and its readers know the truth and will not point fingers.
DAILY MIRROR (page 7): “”Maddy case to close with out charges”
Case not closed yet.
The 426-day police investigation into the four-year-old’s case ended yesterday
Case Closed.
Says a source: “If the case is shut without charges being brought, they cannot be arguidos, suspects, any more”.
Tell that to Clarence Mitchell (see above).
What of the facts?
Gerry McCann, a heart specialist, is “39”. Gerry is also 39 in the Sun.
Such are the facts.
DAILY STAR (page 7): “CLEAR THEM”
So says Clarence Mitchell.
Readers learn that police want to “shelves the case”. It is not yet closed.
Kate and Gerry are “both 40”
DAILY EXPRESS: NO MADELEINE McCANN
Is she deemed no longer newsworthy by this esteemed organ? Or are there other reasons for her absence?
Madeleine McCann: Let’s have a heated debate
Posted: 2nd, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (2,625) | 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
July 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Gandy, my wish is not that one day the truth MAY surface, my wish is that one day the truth WILL surface. And if I be proven wrong on that day about what I think happened in PDL, then so be it - I will eat my keyboard (as I promised to do over a year ago) - but at least then we will know the truth of what happened to a defenceless little girl.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Interesting quick definition of Ward of Court:
“In the UK, a child whose guardian is the High Court. Any person may, by issuing proceedings, make the High Court guardian of any child within its jurisdiction. No important step in the child’s life can then be taken without the court’s leave.”
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0031347.html
Have we actually asked the question in any depth, why is Maddie now a ward of court (or soon going to be one)? Why does the High court need to be her guardian now? What important steps in her “life” now need the courts leave?
I don’t think it is anything to do with the parents wanting to take legal action in Maddie’s name, there is another procedure for that called I think “litigation friend”, not the same thing at all, any thoughts?
July 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
chenier
Classic thanks
and sooooo true
July 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
2081
Gandolf Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
But until that happy time dawns, this will do nicely…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw
July 5th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
There is only truth Julie, even when the victors write history to validate their truths, truth is ever there it cannot be changed for something that is truthless, falsehood will always be just that. One day the truth of this case may surface, perhaps not for a long time, but like time truth is endless, it is always there awaiting discovery and liberation.
When that day comes it will be the kiss of Angels.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Questioned about the fact that the McCann were not accused of negligence or child abandonment, Amaral said that “it was clear they (the McCann children) were not safe”, when Madeleine disappeared, but reminded that it’s easier, with UK laws, to charge parents in those kind of situations, once the Portuguese Law is more complex, it requires the existence of intention to left the children in a dangerous situation. Gonçalo Amaral refused to comment any decision from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of from the Courts and refused to admit that he was “frustrated” with those decisions. Asked about his removal from the investigation, the former PJ inspector told the journalist that he had no contact with PJ director, on that day, and he only knew the reasons when he had a “private conversation” with Alípio Ribeiro – refusing to give details about it.
Gonçalo Amaral revealed that the “statement” he gave to Diário de Notícias – and was the reason for his removal, according to the PJ director – was not correctly reproduced and it was not a statement to a newspaper, but just an informal talk with a journalist from Faro, “very close to the family, a friend of my wife”, who called him to ask about the email sent to the web site of Prince Charles, denouncing a former employee of Ocean Club as the kidnapper. “What I said, talking not to a journalist, but with a friend, a personal talk, was that Police should concentrate in what was the common conclusion of British and Portuguese Police: the child was dead and it was necessary to consolidate the existing evidence and move forward, to find where she could be and what happened.” At that moment, the kidnapping line of inquiry was “already closed”, and “another door was opened”, Mr. Amaral said. When asked about the existence of political interference in the investigation, is answer was short and clear: “I think there was more politics
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/
July 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Carmen
I have no knowledge or the courts or how they work, but tend to think that Chenier has a point when she says that the McC’s would have no ground to petition the courts for information on behalf of Madeleine, and that if they wanted information they would not be going to the family court to get it.
Which leaves me speculating about what Mondays case is really about.
If the McC’s were responsible for petitioning the courts to make Madeleine a ward of court (I assume that this may have been done to give added weight to the ’she’s still alive’ theory), then would it be reasonable to assume that they could also petition the courts to remove the WOC status when it suited them?
I was trying to make some sense of some information I have been reading about WOC status, which seemed to focus heavily on protecting the WOC’s assets.
Would the ‘Find Madeleine Fund’ belong to Madeleine? or does it belong to the directors as it is a company? Would the courts have made a ruling on what assets Madeleine has/had and if so what do you think would be included? (ie could they deem that her trademark was her asset? or part of her home? )
July 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
2077
Carmen Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
2076
chenier Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm e
All of which lends credence to my theory that there was already one application in to the court, when someone decided to make another related one a few days later.
And then someone - further down the food chain that J. Hogg? Shurly not! - said Bugger this for a game of ludo, you’re not using my court to play games, we’ll have this one in open court……and there we go, names on a family court list, virtually unheard of where a child is involved.
—————————————————-
Virtually unheard of is absolutely right; about the only thing that comes anywhere near it that I can find is X Council v B & Ors [2008] EWHC 270 (Fam) (18 February 2008), where Justice Munby said:
‘I have considered only the question of whether Mrs B, J and W should be permitted to identify themselves in public as persons involved in these proceedings. Consistently with the approach I have adopted, I have not considered the wisdom of their doing so. That in the case of Mrs B and J is a matter for them; in the case of W a matter for his parents. It is not, for the reasons I have sought to explain, a matter for the court. It is not for me to express any views on the subject, let alone to give advice. I confine myself to two observations which, no doubt, all those involved will bear in mind:
a) Once they have waived their anonymity, if that is what they choose to do, Mrs B and J and W will not be able to control the media or the use the media make of all the information in the public domain, including all the matters referred to in the judgment of 16 August 2004, [2004] EWHC 2015 (Fam).
b) That judgment contains references to a number of private and personal matters to do with Mrs B, J and W. If they waive their anonymity, those matters which, although in the public domain, are at present merely linked with an anonymous Mrs B or an anonymous J or an anonymous W, will be publicly linked with the identified [Mrs B, J and W]. Is this really what they want?’
I suspect that the McCanns failed to ask themselves that question…
July 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
2076
chenier Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm e
All of which lends credence to my theory that there was already one application in to the court, when someone decided to make another related one a few days later.
And then someone - further down the food chain that J. Hogg? Shurly not! - said Bugger this for a game of ludo, you’re not using my court to play games, we’ll have this one in open court……and there we go, names on a family court list, virtually unheard of where a child is involved.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
2051
Carmen Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
If,
If,
If, it was my job to protect the McCann’s reputation, and it was felt that come August information might come into the public domain which would be damaging to that reputation, then I might view the situation through Madeleine’s eyes, and say that releasing the content of the files might jeopardise her safety, in that it might alert a suspect who had thought he had been over looked.
If it was my job to protect Madeleine’s safety, then I might make an application to the HIgh Court for that information to be released to my agents only, so that they could go about their business in secrecy.
If it was my job to publicise Mr Amaral’s book, I would tell him that he is going to have world wide publicity after the August deadline anyway, and not risk infringing the Portuguese secrecy laws for the sake of a few weeks.
Strange that this leak of information has come about very suddenly, just before a High Court hearing which may or may not, insist that nothing be published in their legal domain that would jeopardise Madeleine’s safety. Strange that Mr Amaral is suddenly not concerned with infringing the law.
Application to Judge in chambers before the Sunday media gets going, anybody?
Emergency injunction?
————————————–
Why not? The lawyers are getting rich enough already but there’s always room for more…
The difficulty from the McCanns perspective is that our Courts have no power to bind other domains; if the Portuguese legal system says that the information becomes public then it becomes public.
The Court here can prohibit publication of that information in England and Wales but it can’t prohibit it elsewhere. It’s a big world, and the McCanns made it a big story. And as long as Google has an autotranslate facility anyone who is interested can read it on the web.
The Court can, of course, bring itself into disrepute by making orders it hasn’t a snowball in hell’s chance of enforcing, but, on the whole, judges do try not to make themselves a laughing stock.
I don’t believe the Court has any power to force the Leicestershire police force to disclose anything; that is, nominally, what at least one of the hearings is about.
As for Amaral, I haven’t the faintest idea of what is going on. I do recall Amaral’s lawyer objecting strongly to the Press publishing statements said to have been made by Amaral when he had said no such thing, but I haven’t the foggiest as to whether this just another exercise in creative writing…
July 5th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
#
2056
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hotwater
you’ve never worked for the NHS I take it?
@@@@@@@@
Noseycow are you asking a question, making a joke or obliquely suggesting that Amaral’s investigation was hijacked by some of his own rank and file?
If the former, you are right I have never worked for the NHS.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Given the aclarity with which the UK media picked up on the erroneously translated articles from the Portuguese press when they thought the McCanns had been exonerated, it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, picks up on this new Portuguese press report.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
2067
Julie Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm e
Just thinking about it (while I’m cooking and painting and bathing small one and feeding dogs and cats and parrot and running back here ) - why has Mrs Fenn’s niece remaned “nameless” in all newspaper reports - as far as I remember, she has only ever been referred to as “Mrs Fenn’s niece” - what with nosy reporters around, it would have been fairly easy for them to find out her name - possibly they were prevented from naming her by the PJ?
****************************
Excellent point Julie.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
#
2069
Gandolf Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
……………….. However the longer this goes on the more ridiculous and further from the truth it gets.
____________________________
I assume that is your theory and not the truth that you are hiding from us
July 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Laura Robson just won the junior ladies!
Never heard of her before the other day - what a lovely young lady
July 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
and didn’t JT say on the panarama programme - that she thought it was the childs father??
was this a freudian slip or the actual memory before her ‘cognative therapy’ sessions?
July 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire, named one of the suspects as being somewhere that suspect denied being, is this the same suspect the niece saw. However the longer this goes on the more ridiculous and further from the truth it gets.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I always found it odd that the very first description of bundleman matched G McC to a tee . Funny how G McC decided to change the height of the ’suspect’…
July 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Just thinking about it (while I’m cooking and painting and bathing small one and feeding dogs and cats and parrot and running back here
) - why has Mrs Fenn’s niece remaned “nameless” in all newspaper reports - as far as I remember, she has only ever been referred to as “Mrs Fenn’s niece” - what with nosy reporters around, it would have been fairly easy for them to find out her name - possibly they were prevented from naming her by the PJ?
July 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
2065
Gandolf Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pm e
Carmen, I am paid salary for being at home with my now not so mangled leg, but mangled none the less, about another 6 Months should see me tripping the light fantastic, or so I am told.
**************************
Thank-you, I’d forgotten the leg!
_______________________________________
A puzzle. if the statement alleged to Mrs Fenns niece is true, she gives credence to Jane Tanners statement, just a thought.
**************************
Yes and No. Tanner only gave a description, no name, or at least she didn’t admit to knowing the person. What if the new witness said that ‘bundleman’ looked like someone she recognised from the resort?
She could then become a mighty inconvenient witness for Tanner’s version.
Just a thought?
July 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Carmen, I am paid salary for being at home with my now not so mangled leg, but mangled none the less, about another 6 Months should see me tripping the light fantastic, or so I am told.
A puzzle. if the statement alleged to Mrs Fenns niece is true, she gives credence to Jane Tanners statement, just a thought.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
2063
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm e
Carmen
The battle for Public opinion is as ever intriguing and one of the most suspicious aspects of team mcc’s actions imo. Ameral is certainly seeming confidently untouchable about what he is saying, which I find blooming confusing if indeed it is accurate.
Perhaps Yvonne Martin is the employee who was ’smoking’ outside at the time that Eggman was spotted. There were always rumours that there was another witness who saw JT walking back to her appartment at the time she spotted the mabducter.
************************
I take your point, but Yvonne Martin is described as a ’social worker’ ….unlikely to be doing something as politically incorrect as smoking (only kidding coolandcalm!). I suppose she could have taken a summer job at MW, but I’m more inclined to think that she was yet another social worker taking a well earned break in PdL, as was coolandcalm.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Carmen
The battle for Public opinion is as ever intriguing and one of the most suspicious aspects of team mcc’s actions imo. Ameral is certainly seeming confidently untouchable about what he is saying, which I find blooming confusing if indeed it is accurate.
Perhaps Yvonne Martin is the employee who was ’smoking’ outside at the time that Eggman was spotted. There were always rumours that there was another witness who saw JT walking back to her appartment at the time she spotted the mabducter.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Saliva?
July 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
QUOTE
In the end, the exams of the vestiges collected from the Renaul Scénic rented by the McCanns were not conclusive and it wasn’t even possible to determine the quality of the material, that is, to know whether it was bodily fluid or vestiges of blood.
END QUOTE
There they go, the bodliy fluids. The only alleged evidence that, if true, would have made me think…
July 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Gandolf,
Can I ask you a personal question?
How do you manage to earn a living and spend so much time on here?
I struggle to combine home husband and Anorak, and I don’t have to earn money as well!
July 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Thank-you Gandolf, I don’t have any problem with the Telegraph article. Most useful of you.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
2054
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 5:29 pm e
Carmen
Amerals willingness to talk at the moment is playing straight into team mcc’s hands - yet again.
**************************
Maybe, but then, maybe not. I don’t think he would have spoken out so forcibly unless he felt secure that there would be no repercussions.
He does seem to have done a good job of making sure that information is in the public domain.
I have a copy of an August 18th 2007 Daily Express article, which I don’t intend to reproduce here - and will put my Moderator’s hat on and pull if anyone else attempts to do so - it is one of the pulled articles!
However, it concerns Mrs Fenn and her ‘niece’, who was with her when she heard the child crying, and who was ‘due to fly out to Portomaio to be interviewed by the PJ’ at that date.
Perhaps the niece is Yvonne Martin?
July 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Pamela Fenn, 70, who lives in the apartment above where the McCanns were staying, and her niece, who is flying to Portugal from the UK, will be among those spoken to.
Mrs Fenn has said that in the weeks leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance she scared off an intruder in her apartment.
There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may have had a key to let himself into the flat. She will be making a formal statement today at police headquarters in the city of Portimao. There was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which police also suspected the intruder had a key.
Mrs Fenn’s niece was staying with her aunt in the week that the McCanns were on holiday. She saw a suspicious-looking man hanging around the McCanns’ apartment about the time Madeleine vanished.
She has spoken to British police and told them that he matched the description of a suspect seen leaving the scene with a child wrapped up in a blanket on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560785/New-suspect-in-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
July 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hotwater
you’ve never worked for the NHS I take it?