• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Madeleine McCann Disappearance

Spookdaddy said:
To be honest, if the constant repetition of the misunderstood, the downright erroneous, and the provably false was going to be the norm from now on, that would be the first thing I'd do if I was arrested (and had the cash).
Click to expand...

But they did this straight the next morning. Perhaps they first visited a clairvoyant who warned them about all of the suspicions which would emerge.
 
ramonmercado said:
But they did this straight the next morning. Perhaps they first visited a clairvoyant who warned them about all of the suspicions which would emerge.
Click to expand...

Again (and I'm really not being deliberately combative here - I am genuinely interested) - is this actually true? What's the source of that information?

The first mention of any PR hire I could find back when I first read this allegation - quite some time ago now, admittedly - was that of the later somewhat infamous Justine McGuinness. She was hired in June 2007 - around six weeks after the disappearance, by which time the McCanns would very much have known what a media shitstorm they were facing.

I'm not saying I'm correct - I might just be searching the wrong criteria, and I'm perfectly prepared to be proved wrong.

(Edit: I have to admit that my initial source for McGuinness hire date was the Daily Express - which is the journalistic equivalent of an old lady shouting at buses in her nightdress. So there's maybe a margin for error)
 
Last edited:
Just putting my two cents in regarding supervision of children. I grew up on a dairy farm. So we kids had the freedom to roam wherever on the farm but we were usually with each other.

We were often in the home at night and in morning for several hours by ourselves while my parents milked and took care of the cattle. I'm not sure for exactly how long as my bedtime, when 8-10 years old was 8pm. I do know that by the time I was in high school and stayed up past 9 pm, my parents were still in the barn.

My mom even tells me that I never walked until closer to 18 months, and never crawled, so when she was in the barn she could plunk me down wherever and leave me since I wouldn't go anywhere. So some nearby supervision, but probably not directly within sight.

I also detest babies crying and would go upstairs to get my younger (by 4 years) sister out of her crib and carry her downstairs to rock her. So even at age of 4, I was in house without parents immediately around while they did chores.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Again (and I'm really not being deliberately combative here - I am genuinely interested) - is this actually true? What's the source of that information?
Click to expand...

I read it or saw it on a doc. You'd make a great PR person for the Drs! Why do you question anything that might put them in a bad light?

Even if the six weeks is correct it shows that the Drs were more concerned with their image than with spending money on finding Madeleine.
 
A PR agency is not a bad idea. They can keep the story going and so ensure that the search continues. As it has.
 
Spookdaddy said:
(Edit: I have to admit that my initial source for McGuinness hire date was the Daily Express - which is the journalistic equivalent of an old lady shouting at buses in her nightdress. So there's maybe a margin for error)
Click to expand...
If I found a bus in my pyjamas, I would do more than shout at it.

As for the parents' actions after the child went missing, the one that seemed weird to me was visiting the Pope. Then again, I'm not religious so perhaps I don't understand why visiting a stranger in a different country is the best thing to do while your child is missing.
 
Xanatic* said:
A PR agency is not a bad idea. They can keep the story going and so ensure that the search continues. As it has.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. One of the core pieces of advice the Suzy Lamplugh Trust dispenses in every case I have ever heard that they've been involved in is the fundamental importance of keeping a story in the public eye – the squeezing dry of any and all potential for media coverage at every opportunity, and the absolute necessity of not allowing the case to lie fallow in the public mind for too long. Public Relations people have the knowledge and connections to do that in a way the average person does not.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Absolutely. One of the core pieces of advice the Suzy Lamplugh Trust dispenses in every case I have ever heard that they've been involved in is the fundamental importance of keeping a story in the public eye – the squeezing dry of any and all potential for media coverage at every opportunity, and the absolute necessity of not allowing the case to lie fallow in the public mind for too long. Public Relations people have the knowledge and connections to do that in a way the average person does not.
Click to expand...
I'd have thought a PR company would have advised them to be a little more contrite about leaving their kids unsupervised and show a little more emotion, hoping to get the press on their side.
I've seen people seem more upset when they've had their car nicked.
 
Tunn11 said:
I'd have thought a PR company would have advised them to be a little more contrite about leaving their kids unsupervised and show a little more emotion, hoping to get the press on their side.
I've seen people seem more upset when they've had their car nicked.
Click to expand...
These are all assumptions (I'm not just commenting on Tunn's post) as to how you (outside observer) believe someone should react to what, thankfully, the majority of people will never experience.

No one ever reacts the same way to a tragedy. Shock, grief, disbelief can all be portrayed differently by different people. We know that even our own family members will not respond in the same way as we ourselves might. We do not have a template as to how to deal with the loss of a child.
 
Tunn11 said:
I'd have thought a PR company would have advised them to be a little more contrite about leaving their kids unsupervised and show a little more emotion, hoping to get the press on their side.
I've seen people seem more upset when they've had their car nicked.
Click to expand...

You can have real, genuine reaction or you can have PR company managed show.

Judging people becuase they don't match a Stepford Wife model... what does it get us?
 
When my son was about 7, my ex husband and new wife started taking him to a holiday complex in Malta each summer.
My son told me later that they woud leave him in their accomodation while they went to the bar in the evening-all in the same complex.
I felt a bit shiocked.
But years befrore,we had gone to Butlins and left his sister (15 years older than her brother) in the chalet and relied on the Butlins 'listener' to report any sounds coming from any chalets.

I think times have changed - a cliche I know.
I wouldn't leave a small child ANYWHERE on its own these days. We all know too much!
 
You can never judge people's guilt from the emotion they do or don't show. Look at that piece of filth who set fire to his own house with his children inside, or Shannon Matthews mother. They wept and wailed and pleaded for the guilty to turn themselves in...

And, when my mother died, I went in to work. When I was asked why I'd come in, my reaction was to say 'she's not going to get any deader if I come in.' I loved my mother, but I wasn't devastated by her death, and I'm sure plenty of people judged me for it, mostly those who were prostrated by weeping when they lost a parent.
 
Spookdaddy said:
No, all I'm really bothered about is whether 'facts' are actually facts - I'm not much interested which side of the road they congregate.
Click to expand...

They did have a PR adviser from the very start.

Alex Woolfall of the British PR firm Bell Pottinger, representing Mark Warner Ltd, dealt with the media for the first ten days, then the British government sent in press officers. This was apparently unprecedented.[87] "Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession", Channel 5 (UK), 18 November 2014, 00:15:48 Archived 5 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine.

The first government press officer was Sheree Dodd, a former Daily Mirror journalist, who was followed by Clarence Mitchell, director of media monitoring for the Central Office of Information.[88] Giles Tremlett, "With prejudice" Archived 15 August 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 17 September 2007.
 
ramonmercado said:
They did have a PR adviser from the very start.

Alex Woolfall of the British PR firm Bell Pottinger, representing Mark Warner Ltd, dealt with the media for the first ten days, then the British government sent in press officers...
Click to expand...

The McCanns were not the client - Mark Warner Ltd was the holiday company.

It makes sense to me that such a company might want to hire PR in these circumstances - in fact I'm pretty sure it would be towards the top of the crisis response list. It may even be that it was part of Bell Pottinger's brief to assist the McCanns with the press ( and it would have been insane for anyone in such circumstances to turn the offer down). But the fact that the McCanns were a secondary player, they were not the client and didn't do any hiring, goes against the implication that they were busy hunting for PR firms in the first 24 hours, rather than concentrating on far more important stuff - which is very clearly how the point has generally been spun.
 
Last edited:
Spookdaddy said:
Genuine question:

Is there any proof that the McCann's actually drugged their children?

Or is it just another supposed fact (because it is repeated as fact in so many places) that has successfully negotiated the journey between allegation and illusory truth?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the supposed fact comes from the mother herself? I'm sorry for linking to the Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around. There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up. I did consider with Madeleine perhaps she had been given something too.'

I've never looked after tiny children but I'm intrigued to hear what people think about whether that would be typical behaviour.
 
Eponastill said:
Interestingly, the supposed fact comes from the mother herself? I'm sorry for linking to the Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around. There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up. I did consider with Madeleine perhaps she had been given something too.'

I've never looked after tiny children but I'm intrigued to hear what people think about whether that would be typical behaviour.
Click to expand...
I know from others (my kids were all shockingly bad sleepers), that very tired small children can sleep like the utter dead and you can walk about and play music and everything and they won't wake.

Wish I'd got a bunch like that. Mine were AWFUL and I had about ten years of very broken nights.

But surprising that their mother thought it strange, perhaps the twins were usually wakeful? Or perhaps she wasn't thinking straight? Because if one of my children had gone missing, the first thing I would do would be to grab, and hold tightly, the remaining children, not leave them sleeping while I walked around.

But who knows how they would behave in such a situation, until it happens to them.
 
catseye said:
I know from others (my kids were all shockingly bad sleepers), that very tired small children can sleep like the utter dead and you can walk about and play music and everything and they won't wake.

Wish I'd got a bunch like that. Mine were AWFUL and I had about ten years of very broken nights.

But surprising that their mother thought it strange, perhaps the twins were usually wakeful? Or perhaps she wasn't thinking straight? Because if one of my children had gone missing, the first thing I would do would be to grab, and hold tightly, the remaining children, not leave them sleeping while I walked around.

But who knows how they would behave in such a situation, until it happens to them.
Click to expand...
Thing about little kids though, as we all know, is that you can't rely on their sleeping through.
They might wake up and go for a wander. It's natural.

I never relied on my lot to stay asleep all night. Most nights they might, but sometimes not.

It's those sometimes that are the problem. That's why parents can't leave them. Common sense really.

They reach a certain age when it's their life's ambition to get out of the house and explore.

Techy and I caught one a couple of years back strolling along a counry road. We chased him home and I strongly advised his mother to keep the front door locked from then on.
 
escargot said:
Thing about little kids though, as we all know, is that you can't rely on their sleeping through.
They might wake up and go for a wander. It's natural.

I never relied on my lot to stay asleep all night. Most nights they might, but sometimes not.

It's those sometimes that are the problem. That's why parents can't leave them. Common sense really.

They reach a certain age when it's their life's ambition to get out of the house and explore.

Techy and I caught one a couple of years back strolling along a counry road. We chased him home and I strongly advised his mother to keep the front door locked from then on.
Click to expand...
I know some mothers who do rely on their children sleeping. Not to the extent of leaving them, but there's a surprising (well, surprising to me, given my experience) number of smug mums over on Mumsnet who say that their children go to bed at seven and they don't hear a peep until six the following morning, particularly once the children are past the baby stage. So I think their entire experience of parenting will be vastly different to those of us who had to keep half an ear out for YEARS. If you always expect your child to wake and/or get up out of bed then your bound to be more alert and aware of what could happen than those lucky buggers who put the child to bed and don't hear or see it for hours.
 
catseye said:
I know some mothers who do rely on their children sleeping. Not to the extent of leaving them, but there's a surprising (well, surprising to me, given my experience) number of smug mums over on Mumsnet who say that their children go to bed at seven and they don't hear a peep until six the following morning, particularly once the children are past the baby stage. So I think their entire experience of parenting will be vastly different to those of us who had to keep half an ear out for YEARS. If you always expect your child to wake and/or get up out of bed then your bound to be more alert and aware of what could happen than those lucky buggers who put the child to bed and don't hear or see it for hours.
Click to expand...
Yup, my point was that you can't ever be sure they'll sleep through.
Even if they do for 99 nights on the trot, on the 100th night they might not, and that's the night you'll be sound asleep and won't hear them falling down the stairs.

This is because they are growing and their sense of adventure moves ahead of their knowledge of danger.
 
Spookdaddy said:
That's really a bit of a non sequitur, though - that is, in response to the question of whether there's any proof that the McCann's drugged their children? There's an entirely different implication there.
Click to expand...
Yes admittedly not answering your question. just that it's interesting that it's a speculation that came from the mother herself. The implication only being that 'drugs could have been administered'. Which is kind of the base line we're interested in? Working out how it happened can only come if it did happen?

The Evening Standard says tests were carried out on the twins' hair https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front...at-we-didn-t-sedate-our-children-6672667.html but by the McCanns legal team themselves. I don't know if the portuguese police asked first and were refused (this seems to be an internet rumour but I think one would have to trawl through the Portuguese information to find out... I was just doing a quick googling.)
 
brownmane said:
...No one ever reacts the same way to a tragedy. Shock, grief, disbelief can all be portrayed differently by different people. We know that even our own family members will not respond in the same way as we ourselves might. We do not have a template as to how to deal with the loss of a child.
Click to expand...

On an aside. I actually wonder if this variation in responses might be an evolutionary thing. Even before our more admin heavy times, death was - in a purely practical sense - a complicated thing to deal with. Maybe the cold fish are a necessary part of the mix - dealing with the practicalities while everyone else gets to grieve. This is me, up and dressed. Not that I'm a cold fish as such - it's just that I tend to be what you might describe as emotionally neutral in the first instance, the grief not kicking in until much later (often months after the fact). And guess who gets to do the bulk of the organisational stuff?

Another thing. I think we tend to view the McCanns as the parents of a dead child, rather than a missing one - and I suspect the processes involved are a potentially very different kind of complicated in the case of the long term missing, when compared to the known dead. I've heard of cases where those close to a missing individual actually resist the normal processes of grief, because the abandonment of hope feels like a betrayal of their loved one. Or where, if they do feel grief, it's accompanied by a terrible sense of guilt - for the same reasons. It's got to be one of the most awful things for a human being to deal with.
 
Spookdaddy said:
On an aside. I actually wonder if this variation in responses might be an evolutionary thing. Even before our more admin heavy times, death was - in a purely practical sense - a complicated thing to deal with. Maybe the cold fish are a necessary part of the mix - dealing with the practicalities while everyone else gets to grieve. This is me, up and dressed. Not that I'm a cold fish as such - it's just that I tend to be what you might describe as emotionally neutral in the first instance, the grief not kicking in until much later (often months after the fact). And guess who gets to do the bulk of the organisational stuff?

Another thing. I think we tend to view the McCanns as the parents of a dead child, rather than a missing one - and I suspect the processes involved are a potentially very different kind of complicated in the case of the long term missing, when compared to the known dead. I've heard of cases where those close to a missing individual actually resist the normal processes of grief, because the abandonment of hope feels like a betrayal of their loved one. Or where, if they do feel grief, it's accompanied by a terrible sense of guilt - for the same reasons. It's got to be one of the most awful things for a human being to deal with.
Click to expand...
There are some people who don't have any empathy. I'm not saying the McCanns are necessarily like this, just that people exist who don't feel things like the rest of us. I was watching a BBC documentary about psychopaths, one of them said he felt nothing at the death of his parent and another was bemused why people were upset after the Twin Towers collapse ("I don't live in New York"). And those people certainly can behave in ways that other people would find morally unacceptable and not twitch an eyebrow. That's more than being a cold fish or super stoical.
 
Eponastill said:
...The Evening Standard says tests were carried out on the twins' hair https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front...at-we-didn-t-sedate-our-children-6672667.html but by the McCanns legal team themselves. I don't know if the portuguese police asked first and were refused (this seems to be an internet rumour but I think one would have to trawl through the Portuguese information to find out... I was just doing a quick googling.)
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier, the Portuguese police tested well over 400 hair samples. If there were drugs involved, I find it difficult to believe that evidence wouldn't have shown up somewhere in those samples; I mean, it's possible - but likely? (And as far as the timeline goes - the alleged early doors refusal doesn't really dovetail with the idea that it was the McCanns themselves who were the originators of the conversation about drugs, which seems to have actually taken place a fair time after the abduction.)

And yes, the McCanns legal team commissioned the drugs test, which I'm sure will indicate a hint of collusion to some. But those labs are incredibly stringent with their processes; they have to be, because even the slightest anomaly can undermine every single individual test they have ever carried out.
 
Last edited:
Eponastill said:
There are some people who don't have any empathy. I'm not saying the McCanns are necessarily like this, just that people exist who don't feel things like the rest of us. I was watching a BBC documentary about psychopaths, one of them said he felt nothing at the death of his parent and another was bemused why people were upset after the Twin Towers collapse ("I don't live in New York"). And those people certainly can behave in ways that other people would find morally unacceptable and not twitch an eyebrow. That's more than being a cold fish or super stoical.
Click to expand...
And as @catseye @Frideswide and others have said we all react differently and we shouldn't judge solely on that reaction. I only took time off to organise the funeral, etc. when Mum died, what was the point of sitting at home? What I found odd with the Mc Canns was that both parents behaved in essentially the same way.

Most interviews I've seen with parents/relatives in this situation there is a difference, one "holding it together" the other obviously upset. It looked (only looked) carefully rehearsed. I'd have thought any PR company would have advised against that but perhaps the Mc Cann's resisted that advice.

Also I don't recall anyone it that situation not putting themselves through the "If only we hadn't done such and such" torture however unjustified. That, to me, made me think that they were aware that their actions on that night (and others) were open to criticism if not prosecution.
 
Tunn11 said:
Also I don't recall anyone it that situation not putting themselves through the "If only we hadn't done such and such" torture however unjustified. That, to me, made me think that they were aware that their actions on that night (and others) were open to criticism if not prosecution.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they knew. They realised that it was their leaving the children unattended that precipitated whatever happened. Sometimes the only way to work through that kind of guilt is to absolutely nail it down and work purely with the practicalities. It does require a certain mindset, but I can imagine that doctors - who have to live with life and death decisions every day - are pretty good at compartmentalising their thoughts. If they worried constantly about 'what if I was wrong with that diagnosis?' 'what if that person was right and they really DO have cancer?' 'perhaps I should have sent them straight for tests, not told them to come back in a week?' they would go mad.
 
Mikefule said:
When I was at primary school (aged under 11) I was left to look after a toddler and a baby while my parents went to the pub. I had no way of contacting them, and cannot recall any advice, instructions, or procedures being in place if anything happened.

We have an irrational way of assessing risk. If something becomes normal, it is perceived as risk free. If other people do it, it must be normal.

However, now I have a 3 year old grandson, his safety is top priority.
Click to expand...
From age 9 I was trusted to get a bus ride and follow it up with a half mile + walk to get to my primary school. The way we assess risk has changed dramatically over the last 50 years or so. I hesitate to suggest a certain amount of paranoia has crept in, but it seems that way to me. You say safety is the top priority - but what if over-protective safety prevents a child from growing up with natural interaction with the wide (wild) world out there? Generations that have grown up without playing on the streets or going off to explore seem to me to be stuck as half-adults in many cases.

There always have been child molesters and abductors, there are recorded cases going back to the 1880's at least, and before then i suspect its lack of records rather than lack of crimes.

If the risk is greater now I'm in no position to assess. We'd have to know how many crimes in the past were never reported for one reason or another.
 
catseye said:
compartmentalising their thoughts. If they worried constantly about 'what if I was wrong with that diagnosis?' 'what if that person was right and they really DO have cancer?' 'perhaps I should have sent them straight for tests, not told them to come back in a week?' they would go mad.
Click to expand...
^this^ bolding is mine. I learned long ago, when I found my husband in a diabetic induced coma, and he was told that he'd been close to death.

I was working that day and had walked to work (15 minute walk) and left half hour later to my regular end of work time. But I got a ride home with a coworker. The what ifs started as soon as he was taken to hospital. I learned quickly to not to go to the "what ifs". I reminded myself constantly, "Stop. That didn't happen". There in lies madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top