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
July 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
2079
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm e
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? )
****************************
Nosey,
It really is difficult to give you a one sentence reply to this. I would struggle with a comprehensive reply in less than 20,000 words!
The GAL’s are but one branch of litigation on behalf of a child. There is also the Official Solicitors Office which will undertake such litigation. There is also the Court of Protection, better known to most people for their handling of little old ladies funds.
Certainly Madeleine could be said (and most probably would be said by a cautious legal advisor), to have an interest in the fund, under the heading of ’support of the family’, she is/was part of the family. In such matters, the COP would step in and look after her interest in the fund, since it could be in conflict with the interest of other beneficiaries.
If it was thought that the COP could/should step in, then one route to mitigate this would be for the parents to make an application to be ‘Receiver’ - this allows them to petition the court to spend money on her behalf. The alternative would be for the court to appoint a specialist Receiver. If it is a COP order that has been made, then the COP would act on her behalf in any legal proceedings, probably using a GAL to do so, and certainly through the Family court in matters concerning her welfare.
In the case of say, the West children, a different route was taken, whereby the Official Solicitor acted on their behalf to secure their rightful share of book royalties - for the simple reason that they were not below ‘age’ and could spend the money as they wish. Madeleine is only 3/4 (hopefully) and any money would have to be looked after in trust for her. This the COP would do until she was 18 and they could take a view on the advisability of her having access to her money.
If there was no money involved, then a straightforward WOC order would enable her to make a legal application in her own right.
So, three routes, depending on whether money, legal action, welfare decisions or ‘protection’ is involved. If it’s all three, it will be the COP, if it’s just welfare, WOC, if it’s just legal action Official Solicitor.
All three of these routes could end up in front of J Hogg, but in none of these routes would the hearing be held in open court.
Thus, irrespective of Madeleine’s position, there must be another action involved.
So, very complex business, a lot of red herrings, a lot of room for Clarrie to wriggle and string together a bit of truth from here and a bit of truth from there. The one thing Clarrie can rely on absolutely is that the security in terms of leaks, especially from the so-called ‘celebrity division’ of the High Court is total and unimpeachable. They will not respond in the way that the PJ eventually did - however, senior judges are not known for their ‘cheek turning’ ability, nor for their reticence when they find someone squatting in their left nostril; he’s playing with the big boys now, world class experts. Subtle revenge is their party piece.
Which is why I wasn’t surprised to see the name McCann followed by Open Court on the list, as Chenier said, a first where a child is concerned.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
BabyJane
Jo
Chenier
June
CoCo
The only times I’ve ever heard of a kid being a ward of court is when there is some kind of conflict between their best interests and the parents. One example that springs to mind was when some Jehovah’s Witnesses refused a child a blood transfusion so Social Services stepped in, made the kid a Ward of court and then the transfusion proceeded.
Are we sure Leics Social Services weren’t involved in this? What do we make of Clarry’s statement that K&G “instigated” it - and as June says, having instigated it why keep it a secret? And what about Sean and Amelie, has anything been instigated for them?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Coco
Just for you- here’s THE Irish man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz-OA_V4d8&feature=related
July 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
2110 th
July 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Me
July 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Whoops! I have discussed this with Jo on occasion and she reckons five minutes to the beach.
Coolandcalm said I was boring and repetitive for asking a similar question twice recently.
It is feasible that a person/s could have strolled down to the beach and passed a small child-sized bundle dead or alive to a man on a jet-ski.
FERDINAND! The bag is one of the biggest bug-bears in my tiny brain.
The ‘abductor/abductress’ could have placed small child in such a bag and given this to a Milk Tray-type man who was hanging about on the beach in the dark ………
July 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
2106
Garth
Who is her father then?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
2103
coco
Lets behead him on the 14th of july
That will teach him
July 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
2103
coco Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
edit
BRING ON THE IRISH MAN!
—————————————————————-
Coco
I didn’t realise you were a Chris De Burgh fan aswell
July 5th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
#
2100
Ferdinand Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
2098 coco Says:
” WHERE IS THE IRISH CHAP WHO SWORE ON HIS OWN LIFE AND HIS OWN BOLLOCKS THAT HE DEFINITELY SAW M BEING CARRIED BY HER OWN FATHER??? ”
Hiding and protecting his bollocks methinks.
cocopops
The dopey irishman never ever said it was her father.
You’re on planet zonk again!
July 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Jo! Yeah!Yeah! Yeah!
It is seriously bugging me! And it makes the Milk Tray Man theory just that little bit more plausible. What say you?
I keep looking out the window for the Men in Black.
If I don’t appear on Anorak - will you let RTE and CNN know that I might have been’done in’ for being a nuisance?!
July 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
2047 Carmen Says:
” Xlamation is publishing an updated translation as we speak……………….
joana-morais.blogspot.com/ ”
A bit dissapointing. Cadaver dogs alerted - we knew that. DNA inconclusive - we knew that.
What about the “damning standalone piece of evidence”? What about the blue bag?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
WHOOPS! LOL! You know me - no manners - just an oicky bird!
FERDINAND! I hope that there isn’t another MI5/MI6/FBI pay-off going on. Roswell? Conspiracy/conspiracy/conspiracy ………..
BRING ON THE IRISH MAN!
BRING ON THE IRISH MAN!
BRING ON THE IRISH MAN!
Help us in our hour of need. I think that this is the most helpful witness!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
How far is the ppartment from the sea-Jut wnderng if Madeleine could have wandered out of the appartmen , onto beach and drowned
July 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
2098
coco
Hopefully the Emeral Isle will organise a hunt and put up posters with “WANTED”
Reward 2ooo.000 Pounds .After all,if he has any clue whom took her then,caome and speak up,you bloody cretin
May be this is being dealt with and we dont know?
We should be told
July 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
2098 coco Says:
” WHERE IS THE IRISH CHAP WHO SWORE ON HIS OWN LIFE AND HIS OWN BOLLOCKS THAT HE DEFINITELY SAW M BEING CARRIED BY HER OWN FATHER??? ”
Hiding and protecting his bollocks methinks.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
2096-Say it as it is Coco.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Methinks it’s because they have no other leverage to get information about who saw what and when and at one time so that another timeline can be set up by the Defence.
WHERE IS THE IRISH CHAP WHO SWORE ON HIS OWN LIFE AND HIS OWN BOLLOCKS THAT HE DEFINITELY SAW M BEING CARRIED BY HER OWN FATHER???
Get Thee on Anorak and get Thee on Oprah or CNN news - coz the British TV won’t touch you with a barge-pole!
I AM WILLING TO LEND ANEAR TO THIS GUY!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
On the WOC topic, so are we under the impression that the McC are just calling a bluff over the status of Madeleine, that this would come out?
Being an absolute legal lay person, I fail to see the benefit of a child being a WOC if the parents are NOT in dispute over such matters of custody or well being.
I can understand if she was kidnapped that there could be issues and advantages of the WoCship, but why conceal that until now, in fact why conceal it at all? And why the sudden revelation?
July 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Gandolf …… Loved the piece of prose! Very true.
Not being a poet myself, I would have just said that the truth will out coz they are a bunch of fucking liars, prevaricators and dissemblers.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Jo! We don’t NEED them but I have ordered a batch of cloned puppies.
Noseycow, Carmen and me and you will have one each.
You never know when they could come in handy!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
2093
coco
We dont even need Keela & Eddie!!!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hi Jo! ‘Smells fishy’!!!
That’s an understatement! It smells like a geriatric ward in the middle of Arizona at mid-day!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
2090
jo Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
It smells fishy.
A Family Court and a Police Force?Sounds rather heavy
Are charges for neglect being brought forward/is this a possibility?
There are 2 other children in the family….
————————————————–
Well, they are certainly not being brought forward in the Family Court on Monday; neglect charges would be dealt with in local courts, not in the High Court here in London.
And if it had anything to do with the twins there would be no identification in the Court list…
July 5th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
2084
HOTWATER Says:
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?
————————————————–
According to Clarrie Madeleine was made a Ward of Court shortly after she disappeared; I have no evidence to dispute that.
I believe Carmen has already pointed out that there will be a Guardian ad Litem, sometimes known as a litigation friend, for Madeleine, and Carmen has specialist expertise in these matters.
An application under the Freedom of Information legislation- which is the only possible route to obtaining information from the police or other public bodies- can only be made by a person legally competent to do so.
Where a child is a Ward of Court the parents would not have that capacity; the Court, on the other hand, does.
I don’t think there is any realistic chance of the Court sanctioning a vastly expensive and almost certainly fruitless attempt to extract information from the Leicestershire Police Force, but this looks to me like yet another ill advised PR stunt…
July 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
It smells fishy.
A Family Court and a Police Force?Sounds rather heavy
Are charges for neglect being brought forward/is this a possibility?
There are 2 other children in the family….
Where are they now on holidays?They cant be very far,can they?
Did they fly back to the uk from Strasbourg or did they go straight back to rothley,with reinforced “security” after receiving “death threats”?
July 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
2084
HOTWATER Says:
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?
———
She was made a Ward of Court last summer …
July 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Noseycow, thanks for the response, please see my subsequent post. If ever anyone comes up to me and says “i’ve just lost my little boy/girl have you seen them?” I’ll be sure to tell them about this Ward of Court procedure.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Here is one explanation:
“The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: “I can state that on the instigation of Gerry and Kate McCann Madeleine is a ward of the High Court of England and Wales.
“An application has been made on Madeleine’s behalf by her parents for disclosure of certain documents. The hearing is currently scheduled for July 7 in the High Court in London.
“It has been the stated intention of Gerry and Kate McCann to leave no stone unturned in doing everything necessary to search for their daughter, as would any parent.
“This application is just part of their search for Madeleine.”
Madeleine’s status as a ward of court has never been disclosed by her parents, who quietly made a wardship application in the High Court just weeks after she went missing.
The couple’s legal team had advised them to ask for Madeleine to be made a ward of court because wardship status gives the courts certain statutory powers to act on her behalf in legal dispute.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents‘-court-bid-for-information.html
Something strange about this, can’t quite put my finger on it.
Obviously no one was expecting Maddie to appear last summer or any time soon, why go to all this bother if a missing child could turn up any moment?
Were Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman made wards of court as “just part of the search” for them eh Clarry?
July 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hotwater
the pink one’s statement said that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court within a few weeks of her disapearing .