Thanks for that link di ... I'd forgotten about that
So Kate changed her version of events, and, contrary to what she had told the police, later insisted that the curtains were closed when she went back to the apartment .... thereby accomodating the 9 .15pm 'abduction' as witnessed by Jane Tanner.
That would mean that the window was already open when Gerry McCann did his 9.05 pm check ( given that the abductor would have to have been 'hiding in the apartment at the time ... as intimated by Gerry himself ) .... and yet no whooshing of the curtains occured whilst he was there gazing down at Madeleine 'thinking how lucky he was'
... and the window would still have been open when Matthew Oldfield did his check, looking into the room long enough to notice that the twins were 'breathing' ... but again, no whooshing of the curtains.
It was only Kate who experienced this whooshing ... even though there was no open door or backdraft to have caused it.
It's like a badly written story, and it astonishes me that it goes unquestioned.
To think that Lee Rainbow's report was prior to the later versions that appeared!
I often wonder if people close to the investigation (english) (and other members of the holiday group) ever contemplate just how these two remain unaccountable.... or perhaps they are just used things getting brushed under the carpet?
Well actually bluebroom, as far as the police files are concerned, there was only ever one version given by Kate McCann.
On the 4th of May 2007, she told the police that when she went to check on her children at 10.00pm, she found the curtains drawn back, although she remembered having closed them before leaving that night.
That is the only description of how she found the room ( and curtains ) that Kate McCann ever gave to the Portuguese police.
The 'curtains closed' but whooshing up with a sudden gust of wind, was the version Kate McCann gave on the Oprah Winfrey show.
So two versions indisputably on record ... one given to the police, and the other to Oprah.
*edited to add*
Whether the curtains were open or closed when Kate McCann went back to the apartment that night, not only matters ... it is crucial.
In her first statement to the police, Kate said the curtains were open.
How could it be then, that the curtains were closed when Matthew Oldfield made his check at 9.30pm, after the 'abductor had already taken Madeleine, and been seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm ?
If Tanner 'saw' the abductor with Madeleine in his arms at 9.15pm, then the curtains would already have been left open by the time Oldfield did his check at 9.30pm ... they were not.
The only solution was for Kate McCann to change the original statement she had made, and say the curtains had been closed all along.
Which is what she did.
Morning
There is another version of them being closed at 10pm and with her opening them herself - this was a typed up collection of statements given to the police on 10th May
scroll down to the last photo and the description of 10pm events
In the very early days of the case there were 2 threads running on DS - one about the case and one about the reporting. Sadly, because they were 2 completely different aspects <sorry mods >, they were merged (which could be why people ploughing through the first thread find things a bit disjointed and choppy - well, that and the fact a number of posts when to the big post bin in the sky, usually between midnight and 6pm ...)
Anyway, that was exactly the sort of thing that was being said here way back in 2007.
You would often get, in the same article completely conflicting stories ... the reporting started off embarassing and just went downhill from there, basically.
MPs say reporters were under massive pressure from newsrooms during #McCann story. I have to say I certainly saw that myself ... http://twitter.com/KeirSimmonsITV
Aren't you interested that a profiler said Murat was a 90% fit for the perpetrator?
At least, thats what Amaral says. In his book. He says a lot more about Murat too, but I won't repeat it here, although I'd think Murat would have a good case for libel against Amaral.
Wonder whats happening with the Murat vs Tanner case that some people were working very hard to convince us was imminent, right about the time that Amaral got hammered in court. Again.
I don't see why Murat would want to sue someone who states he is sceptical about such allegations, and the source they came from.
From the report:
47. Of course, it is impossible to say for certain that untrue articles were written in the McCann case as a result of pressure from editors and news desks. It is, however, clear that the press acted as a pack, ceaselessly hunting out fresh angles where new information was scarce. Portugal was also a foreign jurisdiction, where contempt of court laws were unclear, and no consideration was given to how reporting might prejudice any future trial. It is our belief that competitive and commercial factors contributed to abysmal standards in the gathering and publishing of news about the McCann case. (Paragraph 351)
48. That public demand for such news was exceptionally high is no excuse for such a lowering of standards. Nor could the efforts of the McCanns to attract publicity for their campaign to find their daughter conceivably justify or excuse the publication of inaccurate articles about them. (Paragraph 352)
49. While the lack of official information clearly made reporting more difficult, we do not accept that it provided an excuse or justification for inaccurate, defamatory reporting. Further, when newspapers are obliged to rely on anonymous sources and second-hand information, they owe it to their readers to make very clear that they are doing so, just as they owe it to their readers clearly to distinguish speculation from fact. (Paragraph 353)
50. The PCC Code of Conduct states in paragraph 1a that 'the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures'. In paragraph 1c, it states that 'the Press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.' We believe it was obvious as early as May 2007 that a number of newspapers were ignoring these requirements, yet the PCC remained silent. That silence continued even though the coverage remained a matter of public concern through the summer and autumn of that year. It was only in March 2008, after the Express Group settled in the McCanns' libel case, that the PCC spoke out. By then, as we have seen, hundreds of false and damaging articles about the McCanns and others had been published across a large number of titles. This was an important test of the industry's ability to regulate itself, and it failed that test. (Paragraph 364)
51. While we understand Mr Dacre's regret that the McCanns did not make a formal complaint to the PCC, we do not believe that justifies the PCC's failure to take more forceful action than it did. Under its Articles of Association, the PCC has the power to launch an inquiry in the absence of a complaint; such provisions were in our view made for important cases such as this. Nor does the McCanns' decision to sue for libel justify inaction: they did not sue until early in 2008. (Paragraph 365)
Excellent conclusions reached there, I hope the press take notice and particularly hope the PCC realises how badly it performed and changes its "sit back and wait" attitude.
three versions indisputable on record (well the Oprah and this one I guess are the same) she graphically illustrates how she found the room in the mockumentary:-
Also this thing about the door being open more than they had left it (mockumentary) she knew that Gerry & Matt had been in before; how was she so sure that they hadn't left it opened more than her & Gerry originally had?
no wonder they refused to go back and do a reconstruction.
And how did she know that Madeleine hadn't got up to go to the toilet and left it open more than .............. etc
It's quite bizarre, isn't it? Why on earth would she walk all that way from the Tapas bar, right into the apartment and then even consider leaving it again without looking at her children?
What sort of parent checks on their kids by not bothering to look at them? Her decision to look at them is given as a complete afterthought. If the door hadn't slammed shut, then she would have returned to the bar without checking the kids and the party could have continued for another half hour!
The difficulty with photo's is they can show you how things are at the time they are taken. The only way to know the position of the cots at approx 10pm that night would be to have a photo of the room as it was at 10pm that night.
Trying to extrapolate anything from pictures taken hours after the event, especially when we know that the scene was altered anyway is difficult. The photos below appear to show an earlier furniture position - but is still not necessarily what the position was at 10pm.
Ahhh, the Holiday crew and their amazing Go-Go Gadget eyesight. Still, what they gained on the vision roundabout they lost on the memory swings.
The blue cot has mesh ends, so whichever twin was in that one would have been seen, but the brown one has solid ends, so the twin in that one could not have been seen unless Oldfield was near enough to look over the cot, not through it. He's tall, but I don't see how he could see into that one without entering the bedroom.
It's quite bizarre, isn't it? Why on earth would she walk all that way from the Tapas bar, right into the apartment and then even consider leaving it again without looking at her children?
What sort of parent checks on their kids by not bothering to look at them? Her decision to look at them is given as a complete afterthought. If the door hadn't slammed shut, then she would have returned to the bar without checking the kids and the party could have continued for another half hour!
It's ridiculous.
Why were they so sure that the children would not have woken or got up? Listening at the door!!!!!!!!The apartments have tiled floors not carpet, they could have fallen from the bed and hit their heads.
It's quite bizarre, isn't it? Why on earth would she walk all that way from the Tapas bar, right into the apartment and then even consider leaving it again without looking at her children?
What sort of parent checks on their kids by not bothering to look at them? Her decision to look at them is given as a complete afterthought. If the door hadn't slammed shut, then she would have returned to the bar without checking the kids and the party could have continued for another half hour!
It's ridiculous.
Yes it absolutely bonkers!!
In fact. it's as if she had gone to check that the flat was OK, not the children.
It's hard to believe.
Or maybe it just shows her general attitude towards the children? Relaxed parenting.
But I don't think anyone was ever referring to Calpol nighttime - they brought plain calpol and it really really is not a sedative, no matter how many mums on mumsnet claim to use it as such. So I believe Calpol is a total red herring. The only thing you are likely to do giving too much calpol is to possibly permanently damage the recipient's liver - certainly not aid their sleep unless the cause of sleeplessness is pain or fever.
I think attempted administration of an adult medication in a reduced quantity but resulting in an accidental overdose would be the more likely hypothetical scenario. Obviously this far down the line there is no way to say one way or the other . A slightly dodgy interview performance and some slightly odd questions and statements really aren't enough to show anything. So I think this will have to be filed along with all the other "who knows?" scenarios.
However, Fiona Pyne's description of KM repeatedly checking the twins for breathing and heartbeat is rather disturbing. If you were seriously worried enough to do that, why not take them to A&E to be sure?
Yep, definitely not Calpol or phenergan. Neither of those would have had the twins as dead to the world as everyone noted they were.
Kate's breathing-checks on the twins point to something far more potent. Ditto the McCanns' suggestions that the abductor might have sedated their children: if the McCanns WERE trying to cover themselves against any toxicology traces that might turn up (in the twins or Madeleine's body), they'd clearly be expecting some serious chemicals to show up.
It would have to be something adult, administered "off label". Many doctors - especially male doctors - take a weird pride in playing fast and loose with dosages and age restrictions. A lot of them consider these recommendations to be ridiculously conservative, and it's almost a macho point of principle to flaunt them when offering medications to friends and family (I have plenty of personal experience here).
In a docs-on-holiday situation, you can easily imagine how it might all go wrong. The kids have been whining at night and spoiling your fun... someone remembers they've brought along some valium or whatever, and suggests giving the kids a quarter each, "perfectly safe", blah blah, someone else says how about a half for the elder ones... later, after a few drinks, someone else forgets that their kids have already been dosed-up and gives them another half....
At any rate, something along these lines would go a long way to explaining collusion. Doctors zonking out their own children on serious adult hypnotics, and leaving them zonked out while they go out on the p1ss... it's a sure-fire career-ender, and probable imprisonment.
I'm still doubtful, though, if we're talking a fatal overdose. The blood dog's alert behind the sofa (in the same place as the corpse dog's alert) to me hints more at a drugged and groggy, head-first fall from the furniture.
I do suspect, though, that there's some connection with Russell's long absence from the table, during which he's admitted he discovered his crying daughter had been sick so violently that he had to change the sheets.
His story is that she'd been ill all day - so ill, he says, that she didn't go to the kids' club. He also mentioned in his statement that she'd been sleeping badly. Yet we're asked to believe that knowing all this, her parents STILL thought it would be fine to go out and leave her all alone while they went out on the lash, as long as one of them popped back every so often.
No matter how much their parenting skills leave to be desired, I just don't believe a word of that.
Why were they so sure that the children would not have woken or got up? Listening at the door!!!!!!!!The apartments have tiled floors not carpet, they could have fallen from the bed and hit their heads.
Exactly. Not to mention little things like blankets falling off and the child being cold etc.
From the report:
47. Of course, it is impossible to say for certain that untrue articles were written in the McCann case as a result of pressure from editors and news desks. It is, however, clear that the press acted as a pack, ceaselessly hunting out fresh angles where new information was scarce. Portugal was also a foreign jurisdiction, where contempt of court laws were unclear, and no consideration was given to how reporting might prejudice any future trial. It is our belief that competitive and commercial factors contributed to abysmal standards in the gathering and publishing of news about the McCann case. (Paragraph 351)
48. That public demand for such news was exceptionally high is no excuse for such a lowering of standards. Nor could the efforts of the McCanns to attract publicity for their campaign to find their daughter conceivably justify or excuse the publication of inaccurate articles about them. (Paragraph 352)
49. While the lack of official information clearly made reporting more difficult, we do not accept that it provided an excuse or justification for inaccurate, defamatory reporting. Further, when newspapers are obliged to rely on anonymous sources and second-hand information, they owe it to their readers to make very clear that they are doing so, just as they owe it to their readers clearly to distinguish speculation from fact. (Paragraph 353)
50. The PCC Code of Conduct states in paragraph 1a that 'the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures'. In paragraph 1c, it states that 'the Press, while free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.' We believe it was obvious as early as May 2007 that a number of newspapers were ignoring these requirements, yet the PCC remained silent. That silence continued even though the coverage remained a matter of public concern through the summer and autumn of that year. It was only in March 2008, after the Express Group settled in the McCanns' libel case, that the PCC spoke out. By then, as we have seen, hundreds of false and damaging articles about the McCanns and others had been published across a large number of titles. This was an important test of the industry's ability to regulate itself, and it failed that test. (Paragraph 364)
51. While we understand Mr Dacre's regret that the McCanns did not make a formal complaint to the PCC, we do not believe that justifies the PCC's failure to take more forceful action than it did. Under its Articles of Association, the PCC has the power to launch an inquiry in the absence of a complaint; such provisions were in our view made for important cases such as this. Nor does the McCanns' decision to sue for libel justify inaction: they did not sue until early in 2008. (Paragraph 365)
I thought it would be that The Mccanns (and others) were "defamed" with no proper info.
I think the report is a very good one. It seems to be saying, generally, that reporting should not be "stifled" by superinjunctions etc but ALSO that the press had to take responsibility for reporting accurately, or where they have no named sources or are speculating they have to make it clear that this is the case.
I don't think the report sounds "bad for The Mccann's" really - I DO think it sounds good for the interests of reporting overall.
Why were they so sure that the children would not have woken or got up? Listening at the door!!!!!!!!The apartments have tiled floors not carpet, they could have fallen from the bed and hit their heads.
The checks that were done (if indeed they were done as told) a lot of the time, were not really checks at all.
Am i right in thinking that the Mccanns used to employ a nanny who went back to her own country or something? I dont know if i am correct in this assumption. Was she ever questioned? I am sure the nanny at the kids club made a statement.
What about media manipulation by spin doctors like Clarence. There were a lot of pink finger prints on many articles in the press. Where is the balance in reporting there.
What about media manipulation by spin doctors like Clarence. There were a lot of pink finger prints on many articles in the press. Where is the balance in reporting there.
Well,exactly. But with accuracy of reporting, it should be made clear that a report based on a PR guys say so is exactly that.
Am i right in thinking that the Mccanns used to employ a nanny who went back to her own country or something? I dont know if i am correct in this assumption. Was she ever questioned? I am sure the nanny at the kids club made a statement.
There was talk of a nanny at the beginning:
Valerie Armstrong, landlady of Rothley's Royal Oak pub, where the McCanns sometimes go for lunch or dinner, said: "They are lovely, gentle, caring people." She said that they would let only their nanny or relatives babysit the children, and chose the Mark Warner resort precisely because they thought that it was safe.
So they used to tell the local pub landlady they had a nanny, but AFAIK this nanny has never spoken publicly about her time with the McCanns. I wonder if being at the local pub was just like being in the back garden?
Excellent conclusions reached there, I hope the press take notice and particularly hope the PCC realises how badly it performed and changes its "sit back and wait" attitude.
One must remember, of course, that a considerable amount of false information was provided to the media by friends and family of the McCanns themselves.
I don't recall the McCanns ever making a complaint about that, or in most cases, attempting to put the record straight.
One must remember, of course, that a considerable amount of false information was provided to the media by friends and family of the McCanns themselves.
I don't recall the McCanns ever making a complaint about that, or in most cases, attempting to put the record straight.
Yes indeed.
I think we need to remember that this report is looking at things overall, of course while we in this thread are interested in what it says about the Mccann case inparticular, in reality this is one example used and is not what the report is about overall.
Take the Mccann's out of the equation, and the report, I believe, is a good one with good points.
Comments
To think that Lee Rainbow's report was prior to the later versions that appeared!
I often wonder if people close to the investigation (english) (and other members of the holiday group) ever contemplate just how these two remain unaccountable.... or perhaps they are just used things getting brushed under the carpet?
Morning
There is another version of them being closed at 10pm and with her opening them herself - this was a typed up collection of statements given to the police on 10th May
scroll down to the last photo and the description of 10pm events
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Thank you Donald
That is interesting.
In the very early days of the case there were 2 threads running on DS - one about the case and one about the reporting. Sadly, because they were 2 completely different aspects <sorry mods
Anyway, that was exactly the sort of thing that was being said here way back in 2007.
You would often get, in the same article completely conflicting stories ... the reporting started off embarassing and just went downhill from there, basically.
http://twitter.com/KeirSimmonsITV
Pressure....financial?
I don't see why Murat would want to sue someone who states he is sceptical about such allegations, and the source they came from.
Excellent conclusions reached there, I hope the press take notice and particularly hope the PCC realises how badly it performed and changes its "sit back and wait" attitude.
And how did she know that Madeleine hadn't got up to go to the toilet and left it open more than .............. etc
It's quite bizarre, isn't it? Why on earth would she walk all that way from the Tapas bar, right into the apartment and then even consider leaving it again without looking at her children?
What sort of parent checks on their kids by not bothering to look at them? Her decision to look at them is given as a complete afterthought. If the door hadn't slammed shut, then she would have returned to the bar without checking the kids and the party could have continued for another half hour!
It's ridiculous.
Didn't one of the people checking say they thought Madeleine might have gone to the loo? Or am I getting confused?
The blue cot has mesh ends, so whichever twin was in that one would have been seen, but the brown one has solid ends, so the twin in that one could not have been seen unless Oldfield was near enough to look over the cot, not through it. He's tall, but I don't see how he could see into that one without entering the bedroom.
Why were they so sure that the children would not have woken or got up? Listening at the door!!!!!!!!The apartments have tiled floors not carpet, they could have fallen from the bed and hit their heads.
Yes it absolutely bonkers!!
In fact. it's as if she had gone to check that the flat was OK, not the children.
It's hard to believe.
Or maybe it just shows her general attitude towards the children? Relaxed parenting.
Kate's breathing-checks on the twins point to something far more potent. Ditto the McCanns' suggestions that the abductor might have sedated their children: if the McCanns WERE trying to cover themselves against any toxicology traces that might turn up (in the twins or Madeleine's body), they'd clearly be expecting some serious chemicals to show up.
It would have to be something adult, administered "off label". Many doctors - especially male doctors - take a weird pride in playing fast and loose with dosages and age restrictions. A lot of them consider these recommendations to be ridiculously conservative, and it's almost a macho point of principle to flaunt them when offering medications to friends and family (I have plenty of personal experience here).
In a docs-on-holiday situation, you can easily imagine how it might all go wrong. The kids have been whining at night and spoiling your fun... someone remembers they've brought along some valium or whatever, and suggests giving the kids a quarter each, "perfectly safe", blah blah, someone else says how about a half for the elder ones... later, after a few drinks, someone else forgets that their kids have already been dosed-up and gives them another half....
At any rate, something along these lines would go a long way to explaining collusion. Doctors zonking out their own children on serious adult hypnotics, and leaving them zonked out while they go out on the p1ss... it's a sure-fire career-ender, and probable imprisonment.
I'm still doubtful, though, if we're talking a fatal overdose. The blood dog's alert behind the sofa (in the same place as the corpse dog's alert) to me hints more at a drugged and groggy, head-first fall from the furniture.
I do suspect, though, that there's some connection with Russell's long absence from the table, during which he's admitted he discovered his crying daughter had been sick so violently that he had to change the sheets.
His story is that she'd been ill all day - so ill, he says, that she didn't go to the kids' club. He also mentioned in his statement that she'd been sleeping badly. Yet we're asked to believe that knowing all this, her parents STILL thought it would be fine to go out and leave her all alone while they went out on the lash, as long as one of them popped back every so often.
No matter how much their parenting skills leave to be desired, I just don't believe a word of that.
Exactly. Not to mention little things like blankets falling off and the child being cold etc.
I thought it would be that The Mccanns (and others) were "defamed" with no proper info.
I think the report is a very good one. It seems to be saying, generally, that reporting should not be "stifled" by superinjunctions etc but ALSO that the press had to take responsibility for reporting accurately, or where they have no named sources or are speculating they have to make it clear that this is the case.
I don't think the report sounds "bad for The Mccann's" really - I DO think it sounds good for the interests of reporting overall.
The checks that were done (if indeed they were done as told) a lot of the time, were not really checks at all.
I'd say it's what should be happening anyway!
Well,exactly. But with accuracy of reporting, it should be made clear that a report based on a PR guys say so is exactly that.
There was talk of a nanny at the beginning:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id1.html
So they used to tell the local pub landlady they had a nanny, but AFAIK this nanny has never spoken publicly about her time with the McCanns. I wonder if being at the local pub was just like being in the back garden?
http://thentherewere4-mccannunravelled.blogspot.com/2010/02/nouns-adjective-and-verb.html
I only offer the link so you know what I am talking about!
Have we discussed this before?
No but I can be sure it proves absolutely nothing and that it does not constitute evidence that Madeleine has been harmed in any way!
Might as well get that point in first!
Indeed.
One must remember, of course, that a considerable amount of false information was provided to the media by friends and family of the McCanns themselves.
I don't recall the McCanns ever making a complaint about that, or in most cases, attempting to put the record straight.
Yes indeed.
I think we need to remember that this report is looking at things overall, of course while we in this thread are interested in what it says about the Mccann case inparticular, in reality this is one example used and is not what the report is about overall.
Take the Mccann's out of the equation, and the report, I believe, is a good one with good points.