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
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
July 5th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
2174 Nosey….
You wouldn’t say such things if Kate had bigger breasts and looked more maternal, now would you?
July 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Tris
At least she’d had ‘the best day ever’ according to her ever loving mummy.
Well if you discount that fact that she complained about being alone and crying…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Does as I have been told, the letters PO before the last four digits of the court listings, as their are two cases listed for that time, one open one closed, does PO stand for Parental Order.
IN OPEN COURT
FD07P01121 McCann
Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers
FD06P01276
July 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
2169 Nosey…
Yes, they have been very successful in their bid for celebrity status, and that is what is so troubling.
Does anyone remember an individual called Madeleine McCann? She might have existed before the logo and the media machine created by those who were supposed to protect her…
Yes I know worse things happen to kids every day somewhere in the world. They die and suffer in anonymity. Madeleine disappeared in a blaze of glory - and what possible good did that do her?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
But Chenier how could you possibly say that when SS weren’t invited to Rothley Manor until a week or so later
July 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
2164
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
‘The other thing that struck me as odd is the sudden decision (soon after their return to the UK) to have all pictures of the twins edited so that their faces were blanked out.
Deduce what you will…’
———————————————
I am ready to wager folding money that the Social Services insisted that the twins ceased being used in photo-opportunities for the media; as I recall the ’soon’ was about 24 hours…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
2167
Trismegistus Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
So these McCanns…
They left their kids alone routinely, and eventually one disappeared.
Then they raised the hue and cry (sort of, a little, when it wasn’t too much bother)
Then they tried to get themselves celebrity status, new careers and great wedges of cash on the back of whatever happened to the poor little mite.
Whether they know what happened to her or they don’t know what happened to her, they are behaving in horrible ways. It is a synthesis of coldheartedness and melodrama that is quite chilling.
—————————————————————————
They have actually been very sucessful haven’t they
July 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Carmen
The cost of care at home is unbelievably high.
During term time she would need 118 hours cover by a state registered nurse, thats 3 full time nurses, average salary £3-400 per week so employment costs of say £600 per week each.
total £1800 per week.
However in school holidays (15 wks a year?) that would rise to 168 hrs a week - or 4.5 full time nurses, then there is cover for holidays and sickness, plus an agency fee on top to provide the staff…
Yep I can see why they charge £4000 per week.
The shame of it is the charity probably only just covers their costs while the nursing agency makes a nice living for doing bogall .
July 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
So these McCanns…
They left their kids alone routinely, and eventually one disappeared.
Then they raised the hue and cry (sort of, a little, when it wasn’t too much bother)
Then they tried to get themselves celebrity status, new careers and great wedges of cash on the back of whatever happened to the poor little mite.
Whether they know what happened to her or they don’t know what happened to her, they are behaving in horrible ways. It is a synthesis of coldheartedness and melodrama that is quite chilling.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
2152
Carmen Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
2148
chenier Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm e
I just realised that it could explain the apparent ‘hole’ in the fund that people have been commenting on - Madeleine’s (and the twins, come to that) share snaffled by Archway!
———————————-
And then there’s those nice people at Bootle…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hotwater
Fortunately for the McCann’s, the man who wrote that piece for the Lord Chancellor’s Abduction unit is Michael Nicholls - their solicitor.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hotwater
There was lots of discussion about the ward of court issue.
There was also some thoughts that the status was imposed and not requested by the mcc’s, and whether it covers the twins aswell.
I have thought about the oddity (is that a word) about some of the stories released by team McC, who usually only release stories for a reason imo.
Ones which have struck me as odd.
McC’s not going back to Ireland for their usual Easter get together.
McC’s considering a holiday.
Now if I think that perhaps they do not have the twins’ passports for some reason then these stories can be seen in a different light.
The other thing that struck me as odd is the sudden decision (soon after their return to the UK) to have all pictures of the twins edited so that their faces were blanked out.
Deduce what you will…
I can’t wait for Monday..
July 5th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
And finally:
“SUMMARY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE HAGUE CONVENTION
AND THE WARDSHIP JURISDICTION
1. Warding a child by issuing an originating summons
immediately places legal control over the child in the
High Court thus giving it “rights of custody” for the
purposes of Article 3, BUT
2. wardship probably does not prevent those with parental
responsibility and those looking after a child having
“rights of custody” as well as the court.
3. The absence of rights of custody does not prevent a parent
or anyone else from getting a declaration from an English
court that the child’s removal or retention was wrongful
or from making an application for return under the Hague
convention.
4. Occasionally, warding a child before a Convention
application is made can prevent a subsequent change in the
child’s habitual residence and in that sense can determine
the outcome of a later Convention application. HOWEVER
5. since under English law a Convention application takes
precedence over any wardship proceedings, a foreign
applicant cannot be prevented from obtaining a remedy
under the Convention merely by the defendant warding the
child.”
My best guess is that if Maddy turns up alive Leics Police want to be among the first to speak to her and they don’t want her taking out of the jurisdiction.
Wardship seems to have no relevance to a dead child.
Conclusion: I still can’t make head nor tail of it.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
2157
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm e
I take your point absolutely and was aware of that.
Another dodgy stat for you.
Thalidomide victim. No arms, no legs, deaf, dumb and blind. Less than two foot in height and weighs less than a two year old child. Peg fed, no means of communication whatsoever. In full time education (!!!) by law, leaves premises at 8am in day care bus, returned for bath and evening meal at 6pm. Can you explain why major children’s charity charge her fund £4,000 a week, a week!, for caring for that scrap of humanity in the evenings?
The fact that the fund exists is the only answer I can come up with.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Some more from the same document:
“THE POWER TO MAKE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF WARDS
Wardship gives the Court very substantial powers to make orders
to protect children — it can, for example, forbid anyone to take
them out of the jurisdiction; require their passports, or any
passports containing details of them, to be lodged with the
Court; require anyone to disclose information about where they
are; require a High Court official (the Tipstaff) and through him
any police officer to find them and bring them before the court;
give leave for them to have medical treatment and restrain the
publication of information about them. It is a serious contempt
of the High Court to disobey a wardship order, and someone who
does may be imprisoned or fined, or have their assets taken away.
However, the Court’s power to make certain key orders giving the
care and control of a child to any individual or providing for
contact (access) with a child or for education is restricted by
the Family Law Act 1986 and, except in an emergency, can only be
exercised if the child is habitually resident or physically
present with the jurisdiction. FN 09″
To me, the only one that ties in with Clarry’s explanation is to “restrain the publication of information” about Maddy, it could be that of course.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Maravilha
Yes!!
Coco’s gone to a BBQ
July 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
any news since this afternoon?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
This is interesting England’s attempt to explain wardship to other EU states who were “puzzled” by this concept unique to England and Wales:
THE NATURE OF THE WARDSHIP (OR INHERENT) JURISDICTION
There still exist in English law an ancient jurisdiction which is
not based on any statute but upon an inherent power in the Crown
(sometimes referred to as the parens patria power) to protect
children. FN 01 This jurisdiction is exercised by the judges of
the High Court. Wardship is a status which can be conferred on a
child by the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. It is
unusual because the status is conferred immediately upon issuing
what is known as an originating summons in the appropriate
Registry (local office) of the High Court. As soon as the
summons is issued, legal control of the child is conferred on the
High Court FN 02 and from then until the wardship comes to an end
FN 03 all important decisions in the child’s life, including
leaving England & Wales, require the prior consent of the Court.
Because of its instantaneous effect and wide powers to protect
children, wardship remains useful both as a means of preventing
children from being abducted from England and Wales and for
dealing with children abducted to England and Wales. It is still
the pre-eminent jurisdiction for dealing with children abducted
to and from non-Convention countries, and can also provide a
useful insurance in Convention cases if the Convention
application fails.
http://www.hiltonhouse.com/articles/Wardship.uk
July 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Carmen
Another dodgey system…
A child is damaged by medical ‘professionals’ and needs care for life - payout £6 mill
A child is accidently killed by medical professionals - payout approx £7000.
Now how much effort are we going to put into the resuscitation attempt…
( Disclaimer - I don’t work with Children… honest
)
July 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
2155
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm e
Carmen
and are they ALL woc???
************************
They are all under the Court of Protection. Whether they are also WOC is another matter.
But you must remember that most legal people are confused by all this, and certainly most journalists, so WOC is a term that is loosely bandied round and not necessarily accurate, just the one that most members of the public would understand.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Carmen
and are they ALL woc???
July 5th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
2153
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm e
Carmen
No its not a great system but I suspect that most Children who are under the courts juristriction are not rolling in cash…
*********************
On the contrary, my dear, the average whole life settlement for full care these days is circa £6 million………and there are many of them, week in, week out.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Carmen
No its not a great system but I suspect that most Children who are under the courts juristriction are not rolling in cash…
I just thought that perhaps Justice Mrs Hogg is satisfied that (the probability is) Madeleine is no longer alive in which case there is no reason to hold the session behind closed doors, and may even have removed her status, and the mcc’s are appealing that decision??
July 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
2148
chenier Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm e
I just realised that it could explain the apparent ‘hole’ in the fund that people have been commenting on - Madeleine’s (and the twins, come to that) share snaffled by Archway!
July 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
2142
Noseycow Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm e
Carmen
Sorry - just one more question
Do the family courts treat deceased children the same way that they treat living children? In terms of anonimity?
********************
I did suspect that one reason for the WOC would be to establish a legal ‘entity’ for Madeleine. In terms of copyright for instance, you can’t (currently) libel a dead person.
However, if the reason relates to financial matters in origin, then sad to say, if the child is deceased, then the file closes instantly - and a cheque for the balance held is sent the very next day to……..the parents.
Considering that in most cases it is the parents that the court have done battle with over the years to prevent them spending the child’s money, and the parents who attend to the child’s day to day needs, it has always seemed to me to be an oxymoron. Forget to change little Johnny’s peg feed one day, and the argument with the court as to whether you can have a new car fades away….they send you a bloody great cheque, no questions asked.
Notwithstanding that you cannot inherit as a result of murder etc., etc., - but they would have to prove it was murder first.
Not a great system is it?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Chenier
Given certain parties obsession with a certain fund, I can’t see them wasting legal fees on anything else
except their clearing their names of course, but I doubt that could be done in the Family Court.
(actually I doubt that could be done in any court 
July 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
2146-Condolences to poor Coco’s neighbour! Bet they’ll be praying for rain in half an hours tie. Tee Hee.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
2115
Carmen Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
—————————
About the only thing that I would add is that it is incredibly easy to create a settlement whether you want to or not.
I assume they had the best advice going, but it would be just about impossible to draft something which identified Madeleine’s existence as the raison d’etre of the fund without giving her a beneficial interest in the fund.
And a minor with a beneficial interest in a lot of dosh has rights, not least that the dosh is not dissipated into the apparently bottomless pit of M3’s wanderings. Or paid to lawyers who undertake to read every single piece of paper in the PJ’s files…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Noseycow! As usual NO! Because I am crap on a computer and don’t save all the links. I think RTE might be worth having a look at.
Other than that somebody else will know. Like SteveT says - where’s the bag? Where’s the fleece?
Bits keep being taken off the net when they could be used by the prosecution - I know that.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
This little vegetarian is off to a neighbour’s BBQ now the rain has stopped - But - I will be back ……….
Back with a vengeance - if I am allowed to drink. Just polished off half a bottle of Tia Maria so am raring for a party.
Have a pleasant evening and send Garth to bed if he gets lippy!
God Bless! XXXX