Madeleine McCann: Finding Kate McCann, Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign For Change
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
What the tabloid columnists are saying
THE SUN (front page): “MADDIE – 8-PAGE SPECIAL”
Yesterday’s special was 12 pages long. How soon we lose interest.
“Kate’s tears over hate mail threats”
The McCanns keep their post sorted into boxes: “Nice”, “Nutty” and “Ideas”
THE 8-Page SPECIAL on finding Kate McCann:
HER face crumpled in despair, tears streaming down, Kate McCann lays bare her utter grief at being separated from her daughter. Speaking as never before, Kate says she cannot believe it has been a year since Maddie went missing. And she tells how seeing the little girl’s best friend in their home village makes her think about how much Maddie must have changed in those long 12 months.
Her voice close to breaking, she says: “I see Madeleine’s best friend from time to time. I can’t help but wonder what Madeleine would be like. Would she be that much taller? Is her hair as long as that? Would she be writing her name too?”
That’s Kate McCann. But what about Madeleine?
“She’s good company, she’s like my — you know, she’s like a little buddy to me.”
DAILY MIRROR (front page): “We nearly didn’t go to that tapas bar”
This is “KATE McCANN ONE YEAR ON”
It’s an anniversary marked by four front-page stills of her face and a trail for a “sensational interview”.
Pages 4 and5: “’Being made an arguido made me feel invincible. I felt angry, I felt strong. I I would do whatever it took to fight for the truth’ - KATE McCANN”
Tonight we can all watch the ITV1 documentary Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign For Change. Come see the entertainment.
Says Kate McCann: “We were all going up to the Millennium again [a family restaurant], with the kids, which is what we did on the first night. But the Millennium was a good walk away and we didn’t have a buggy with us. It didn’t open till half-six and our kids usually go to bed around seven, so they were really tired and they were walking.”
It’s the sympathetic background story; contested with the sympathetic foreground story.
“So we ended up trying to carry three of them between two and we decided we couldn’t do that again. It wouldn’t have been good for anybody.”
LETTERS OF HOPE AND FURY – Kate McCann says 99 per cent of the letters they receive are supportive but there are some less so.
Gerry McCann reads: “Gerry and Kate. How can you use money given by poor people in good faith to pay for your mortgage on your mansion. You f***ing thieving bastards. Your brat is dead because of your drunken arrogance. Shame on you. I curse you and your family for ever.”
“Very charming,” says Gerry.
DAILY MAIL (front page): “Why DID you think it was OK to leave her?”
The consultant cardiologist said they had devised their own system of putting the youngsters to bed, going to dinner at the tapas bar in the apartment complex and taking turns to check on the rooms.
Says Kate McCann:
“You’re in the middle of a horror movie really, a nightmare. Pressure such as I’ve never felt before. You’re under attack in one way or another. The speculation takes you to the worst places and the worst place would have been being charged, potentially being put in jail, certainly being detained to face charges that could have taken years to materialise, being separated from Sean and Amelie.”
Mrs McCann said: “As soon as I realised the story or theory was that Madeleine was dead and that we’d been involved somehow, it just hit home. They haven’t been looking for Madeleine.’”
The Portuguese police. What they do to you?
Police told Mrs McCann she would serve a lighter jail sentence if she confessed to her involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. She told of her furious reaction, saying: “I’d have fought to the death at that point. There was no way I was going to be railroaded into something.
“I felt almost invincible at that point. I just don’t know what kicked in. I just thought my children deserve that, Madeleine deserves that. Someone has to be fighting for Madeleine.”
She said she felt like a “lioness and her cubs” in her determination that she would not be separated from the twins.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
First for a change?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Posted on an earlier thread:
Hi all, just poppin’ in, not sure which thread is active.
Just curious about the following reported in today’s Times online:
[In a documentary to be screened tonight on ITV1, Mrs McCann describes the moment of sheer panic when she first realised that their elder daughter was not in her bed at their rented holiday apartment in the Portuguese seaside resort.
“I rushed round the apartment, really quickly, just opened up cupboards and things and then just went flying out down to the tapas restaurant, shouting someone’s taken Madeleine,” remembers Mrs McCann. ]
Just curious - did Kate take the twins with her when she flew down to the tapas restaurant, or did she leave them in the apartment despite thinking someone had taken Madeleine? If the latter, did she lock the doors on the way out? I’m just puzzled and need anorakian clarification. Thanks.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hurray!
Her hair looks dark! Does it mean she is afraid of going to even a hairdresser?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“She’s good company, she’s like my — you know, she’s like a little buddy to me.”
A little buddy,a mother figure….
What about being just a tiny little defenceless little girl?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Salomon - Does this look correct to you?
21 Steps
1 - Police has knowledge of ‘occurence’. Decides if it likely to be a crime
2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).
4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ)
5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.
6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why’s that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.
7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Ministério Público will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.
8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:
9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.
10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. ‘overseen’ as in the inquiry phase).
11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.
12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido
13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.
14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase
15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.
16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal ‘get together’ where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.
17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)
18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn’t.
19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it’s null.
20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is ‘adjusted’ at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A ‘BULL’S EYE’ CHARGE!
21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“So we ended up trying to carry three of them between two and we decided we couldn’t do that again. It wouldn’t have been good for anybody.”
Completely stoned or what?doctors? responsible? caring?trthful,reliable etc….
April 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Gandolph
Are you acting thicker than normal!!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
5
SteveT
It looks very correct to me
This is far from being finished,unfortunately
They will be arguidos for a much longer time and they sincerely hate it
April 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Are we on this thread now?
Or the other one?
Jo…
Bollox. Couldn’t Maddie walk?
And coming back - Gerry carry twins, Kate carry Madeleine.
Not rocket science is it?
Dear God in heaven.
Doctors ??????????
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
It appears bf that you are unable to make a direct accusation, as to naming who was killed by whom, very wise backtracking.