Madeleine McCann On Your Doormat And In The Loire Valley
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: MADELEINE: Parents are to sue over claims they gave her fatal overdose. (Plus page 7, with logo: THE HUNT FOR MADELEINE: Day 120).
THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER brings the news that the McCanns’ legal action is against the Portuguese publication Tal & Qual. (The Express, of course, has dutifully repeated all the allegations and smears that have emanated from the Portuguese press, for the delectation and disgust of Maddywatchers back home.) Spokeswoman Justine McGuinness says the McCanns “are not going to be a doormat any more”.
Meanwhile, the paper says the hunt has switched to a campsite in the Loire valley after sightings by holidaymakers.
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 2: Madeleine parents to sue newspaper
The Telegraph reports that the McCanns say they are suing to clear their name, not for the money.
THE TIMES page 5: Candle of hope for Madeleine
The paper says that Madeleine’s classmates “said a poignant prayer” yesterday, on what should have been her first day at school.
DAILY MAIL page 6: McCanns to sue over ‘killers’ slur
The paper says the McCanns believe it is time to stand firm against the allegations.
DAILY MIRROR page 11: Maddy school’s prayers
The paper says the McCanns spent a quiet day with their twins in Praia da Luz.
THE STAR page 22: SCHOOL’S SAD WAIT FOR MISSING MADDIES: Chair and locker are saved for her
The empty chair, locker and coat peg are once again invoked. Bishop Ellis headteacher Gail Neill says: “We are deeply saddened that we cannot yet welcome Madeleine McCann.”
THE SUN page 12: MADDIE SCHOOL PRAYER TRIBUTE
The paper also reports on the candle that is being kept burning at the school.
THE INDEPENDENT and THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news today.
Posted: 31st, August 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (459) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- ptet on Dietmar The German Stork Has A Wooden Leg
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Nansubuga on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- yampster on Strictly Come Dancing’s Alesha Dixon Sparks I’m A Celebrity Race Row
- Lonnirose on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
November 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hello
What do you think about this? When it happens?
October 10th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
All the portuguese police have done is show the world what a bunch of incompetents they really are!
September 30th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Oh, dear oh, dear! So now the McCanns are going to consult a “Psychic”. How sad that presumably intelligent and educated people, with scientific training moreover, should contemplate condoning such nonsense. “Psychics” never solve crimes ,and never have, though they often claim otherwise. Please don’t say, “well, they want to try anything if there’s the least chance.” This option does NOT offer the least chance.
Psychics are at best self-deluded loonies, and at worst, and more often, callous confidence tricksters exploiting the suffering of their clients. The McCanns might just as well get a map of Portugal (and maybe North Africa), shut their eyes and stick a pin in it. There is the additional point that the Church disapproves pretty strongly of mediums and spiritualism, which you would think might give the Catholic couple pause.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Michael Says:
September 14th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Hi Tony,
The account you give is a very good analysis.
What happened to Madelaine becomes more of a mystery by the second.
I see what you mean about all these accounts, there are a lot of conflicting stories.
It does sound as though confusion may have been as a result of all that drinking.
There is a scenario that if something happens if people are worst for wares through drink accounts will be different and the truth maybe hard to determine.
I’m very impressed with your analysis, saddly it’s not looking so good for little madelaine
The mcGuiness woman was given the boot for some reason
regards
September 14th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Hi Tony,
The account you give is a very good analysis.
What happened to Madelaine becomes more of a mystery by the second.
I see what you mean about all these accounts, there are a lot of conflicting stories.
It does sound as though confusion may have been as a result of all that drinking.
There is a scenario that if something happens if people are worst for wares through drink accounts will be different and the truth maybe hard to determine.
I’m very impressed with your analysis, saddly it’s not looking so good for little madelaine
regards
September 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I won’t comment on this directly myself, but does anyone else notice anything strange about this quote - from Gerry McCann’s personal blog on Monday:
QUOTE:
“Kate and I are totally 100% confident in each others innocence”.
UNQUOTE:
September 12th, 2007 at 7:30 am
We need a few more facts injected into this debate.
There was a thorough analysis of what is known about Madeleine’s last hours in yesterday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’, by a very thorough journalist, Gordon Rayner. Here it is. He claims that the police were notified at 10.14pm. If Madeleine died, it is possible she did so any time after 2.20pm:
———————————–
The night of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, May 3, has been subject to claim, counter-claim, conjecture and scurrilous rumour.
[Heading: Madeleine McCann DNA 100 per cent match]
[The final picture, 2.29pm, May 3: Madeleine [right] enjoys the sunshine with her father Gerry and younger sister Amelie]
Today The Daily Telegraph pieces together the known facts about the fateful night, as reported by the McCanns themselves and key witnesses.
2:29pm The last picture of Madeleine was taken at the swimming pool at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, where the McCanns and the three other families with whom they were staying played together.
7:00pm Madeleine and the other children were put to bed. Reports of when she was last seen before this vary, with some accounts putting it as early as 6pm. This would be crucial as the police might put forward a theory that the McCanns killed Madeleine and hid her body before they went for dinner.
8:30pm Around this time, witnesses agree, the McCanns arrived at the tapas bar near their apartment, meaning there was a “window of opportunity” of up to 2hrs 40 mins for them to kill Madeleine and hide her body - a scenario dismissed as “ludicrous” by their family.
The couple then settled down to dinner and take part in a quiz organised by the Ocean Club’s aerobics teacher, Najova Chekaya.
The McCanns say checks were made on their children every half-hour, sometimes by other members of the party, comprising Dr Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, from Exeter, Dr Matthew and Rachael Oldfield, from London, and David and Fiona Payne, from Leicester, together with Mrs Payne’s mother Dianne Webster.
Yet Mrs Webster has reportedly told police that each couple was responsible for checking their own children.
9:05pm Gerry McCann left the table to check on his children, who were all sleeping soundly, he says. Returning, he bumped into another British tourist, Jeremy Wilkins, with whom he had played tennis.
They chatted for several minutes, as Mr Wilkins has confirmed.
9:15pm Jane Tanner told police that at this time she went to check on her daughter, who was ill, and recalled seeing Mr McCann talking to Mr Wilkins. As she went into the apartment, she saw a man aged around 35 carrying a little girl wrapped in a blanket.
She thought nothing of it but is now convinced this was the kidnapper. The child’s pyjamas matched the description of those Madeleine was wearing. Mr Wilkins apparently saw no such man, and does not remember seeing Miss Tanner. He has told police: “It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing.”
9:30pm Dr Matthew Oldfield left the table and offered to check the McCann children. In his first police statement he said he merely listened at the door of apartment 5a but later said he had gone in and noticed that the room seemed lighter than the others, as if the shutters had been opened. He cannot be certain whether Madeleine was there.
Gerry McCann invited Miss Chekaya to join the party at 9.30. Her account apparently contradicts Mr Oldfield, as she claims that no one left or returned to the table in the half-hour she was there.
10:00pm Kate McCann left the table at this time. One tapas bar worker has even claimed that only one person left the table during the evening, a tall man thought to be Dr O’Brien.
There are also conflicting accounts of how much the party drank. One Portuguese newspaper claimed the nine friends downed 14 bottles of wine. The McCanns insist they drank three or four.
Kate McCann ran back to the restaurant at 10pm, saying Madeleine was missing.
10:14pm Police were called after the friends made an initial search. Detectives are said to be intrigued by one witness report which quoted Kate McCann shouting out: “They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her!”
They believe her immediate assertion that Madeleine had been snatched - and the implication that it was by more than one person - is suspicious.
But other accounts have claimed Mrs McCann in fact said: “Madeleine has gone. Somebody has taken her.”
September 12th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Does anyone know how long it took them to contact the Police after Maddie was noticed missing because if it was say 30 minutes for example, they would never have the time to cover-up this crime that everyone seems so convinced happened.
Someone in a pub told me it was 3 hours, if this was true, it seems a long time, however if this was true, what were the parents doing, there would be people aware that they were looking for maddie at that time. ate there any witnesses to the parents frantically searching for their daughter, such as hotel staff or dinner guests.
What about the woman that saw a child being wrapped in a blanket or the girl being bundled into a car at a petrol station, there is not much being said about this?
September 11th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
It seems to me there are three possibilities in this case:
1. Madeleine was abducted roughly between 8pm and 10pm on Monday 3 May
2. She was killed by one or both parents as a result of either over-use of a sedative, or posssibly a fit of temper
3. She died as the result of an accident e.g. she woke up, tried to climb out of a window and fell, fatally injuring herself, while her parents were out of the room i.e. at the tapas bar.
For reasons I may explain later, I think Options 2 and 3 best fit the known facts. If either of these is the case, the McCanns claiming that there had been an abduction would be one of the biggest smokescreens ever thrown up to cover a murder, or a death caused by culpable negligence.
For 18 months I worked as the lawyer for Terry Lubbock, father of Stuart Lubbock, who died in mysterious circumstances in the early hours of 31 March 2001 at Michael Barrymore’s Roydon mansion. I recently published a 400-page book analysing the case. I suggest in the book - with I think persuasive reasons, supported by the facts of the case - that this was a ’staged’ drowning, and I think I marshalled enough evidence to suggest that Stuart Lubbock was *never* in the swimming pool as four witnesses all claimed. A few extracts from the book are at http://www.thelubbocktrust.org.uk. I claim that the ‘body found in the swimming pool’ was a gigantic (and highly successful) smokescreen - a hoax. It may be recalled that the Coroner was frustrated by a ‘wall of silence’ by the eight witnesses who I am sure know what really happened, some of whom actively particpated in the cover-up.
I am currently investigating another highly suspicious death - that of Lee Balkwell, who died in mysterious circumstances in the early hours of 18 July 2002. In this case, it was claimed that he was accidentally caught in the rotating drum of a cement mixer at 1.00am. But the facts seem to point more to a violent assault on him having been committed an hour or so before the alarm was raised at 1.03am. There is a bit about it on Wikipedia (look under Lee Balkwell), and his father - who has had to wait an unbelieveable 5 years for the Inquest, due to start on 4 October 2007 - has set up a website (a touch exaggerated in places, but understandable under the circumstances).
My point?
That when you have done something terrible, you immediately invent a believeable ‘cover story’ to cover your tracks - unless you can perhaps claim a believeable alibi. Then, having invented your cover story, you have to stick with it at all costs.
I fear that Madeleine is dead and that the McCanns know the truth about how she died.
I think they may also lose the care of their other two children (I am an ex-social worker as well as solicitor).
September 11th, 2007 at 3:43 am
I feel like i would like to point out this in the defence of madelaines parents:
From what i understand:
1. There is no clear motive for killing their own daughter.
2. Approximately 9PM they had someone check on their children and they were ok. 9.30PM they had someone check on their children, again they were ok.
10PM The mother checked on their Children and Madelaine was missing.
3. They are devout Catholics and would have a great understanding that they could not hide such a crime from the eyes of God.
4. If they were responsible it would be more appropriate for them to wish that the investigation and publicity would go away rather than keep it going and risk getting found out.
I realise their emotions do look out of place, however it is fair to point out that people deal with grief or trauma in different ways.
When my mother died of Leaukemia it took me longer to grieve than it did my brother. My brother didn’t understand at first why i never cried like he did. Eventually i did and it went on for a long time.
The only one thing that suprises me somewhat is that they never used psychic detectives, however God makes it clear in the Bible that people should not contact Mediums or try to contact the spirits of the dead, which is why i would assume they are not taking this option. They may believe strongly that God shall reunite Madelaine with her parents. Sometimes God can be slow to answer Prayer, this has happened throughout time and the only thing you can do is keep hoping.
I don’t know it it means anything and could be my imagination, but i was praying for madelaine in early June and at the point of where i started falling a sleep i saw a brief vision of a black tower on a tree top hill and red roofed houses at the background and it was as if someone was staring at this hill from the second floor of one of these houses, i felt in the vision their was 3 people and one of them was Madelaine, though i saw no faces, only that picture.
I prayed several days later and i thought i saw a vision of someone staring up at the top of a tree as if half buried. and this person could not move.
What this meant, i don’t know
Since then i have seen nothing, but it may just be my imagination.
Lets just hope that she is ok and that the nightmare will end for her parents and that little maddie will be in the arms of her mother very soon.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Now the McCanns are back in England jurisdiction and extradition are relevant. If the parents were charged with a crime in Portugal, unless they voluntarily returned extradition proceedings would have to begin. They can then either not contest it (and get flown to Portugal at government expense, saving some money) or fight it.
English law only has jurisdiction over limited offences such as murder, treason or some sexual offences commited abroad by Britons, or torture or war crimes (under Geneva Conventions Act) committed abroad by anyone. So only Portugal would have jurisdiction over child abandonment.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I am new to this, just heard about her missing today. Did I read it right, when she became to be missing her parents left her & her siblings alone in a vacation apartment while on vacation & they were at dinner & came back & she was gone?
If they left her alone, omg who knows how she disappeared. Tell me this, how in the world could these parents ever leave 3 small children alone?
September 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Marylebone… I really, really hope you mean it you’re not going to post stuff like that anymore.
We’ve all been got at at some point or other but that’s what you get if you check onto an ironic forum. If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen!
Oh and the Moderation thing has been covered also many time….. ‘I am moderate in my opinions’. ok? comprendez? If you’ve really been stalking the forum for months then you’d know that!
September 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Actually - No. I am not interested in contributing or participating anymore. I have to believe that you know what I am talking about.
I have cut and pasted examples of where you have told Pat not to do EXACTLY what Johnathan was doing to me. I am not “trying to be you”. But I do have the right to show him how he complained about the very same thing to you just the other day when Pat did what he did to me. I cut and pasted because it was from a different thread rather than direct him to it. How is that any different than posting the thread number???
Thank you for settign the record strait about this “Karalyn” mis-identity. I do not appreciate Spudgun spreading nasty rumours about me. What Newcomer would like that???
I won’t allow Spudgun to tallk to me or anyone else in the most abusive manner that he does. I have also given examples of others who have complained about him just yesterday. Rosemary and Garth posted this about him yesterday too. I have not been abusive to anyoen on this site. I have been helpful and I have agreed with some posters on certain things they have said. As others have done.
Moderation - when you say “go June” you not only come across as the petty person that many have described you as here. But calling yourself Moderation is ssimply a way to confuse new comeers and misrepresent yourself. It is terribly misleading and it imakes people wonder why you need to do that. That is something I have not done. Nor would I need to do. I think you should really wonder why you have the need to do that on a fourm. It says a lot about who you are and what you think about yourself.
Spudgun is the most abusive male poster I have ever met in my life. I’ve been reading all the cursing and horrific comments he has made towards women for the past few months. To say he’s never been abusive, when just yesterday morning, 3 posters on Monday’s thread complained about him, is
I have been accused of being someone else. I have just registered on this site as of yesterday for the VERY FIRST TIME. You even acknowledged me when I came on board and said ” I see you just registered with us for the frist time” And that is exactly right. Last nite, Spudgun tells me the he’s looking up my IP Address and my ISP. How does an everyday user on this forum have access to that? You tell me that he does not have access here. So why does he tell new comers that stuff?? That’s again, very misleading, and dishonest. He should never be permitted to say such things to people on your forum. Never!
But, you continue to protect him, when you KNOW what he says to other newcomers (women) and all the Anti - American comments are truly horrific. I am of Indian decent. Born in London. But grew up in America and now have a U.S. passport which my family and I are quite proud of today. We worked hard to get here and take great pride in our country no matter what others may say or think. It’s been a place where our family has been accepted and has flourished. To hear Spudgun say such awful things about it breaks my hearts knowing what my parents have sacrificed to get us here. How can you possibly turn a blind eye and allow that type of prejudice rhetoric coming from him? I don’t believe it’s right for you to censor out yesterday’s posts but not his posts. Let People draw their own conclusions. If no one ever comes on this forum complaining about Spudgun again then I would be delighted - then I along with others who have adamently complained about him, as evidence on many threads, will have accomplished much!! I would like nothing more than him to stop his abusiveness and prejudice comments towards new comers and women.
I am gald that you have set the group straight here and told them that I am NOT Karalyn - I don’t even know who she even is other than someone who Spudgun despises apparently and so do others here. I have read through the postes where she had exchanged words with Spudgun too and that is how I first heard of her. Yesterday, both Spudgun and Jonathan accused me of being her after Spudgun started a vicious rumor. I have the right to defend myself and to counter it with what I believe is true - the he is BullDump. That has been my observations and I am entitled to continue to think as I choose. You can not tell him that he can do and say anything he wants to me and others and that I can not do and say as I please. Does he work for Anorak? Is he above the rules that other posters must follow? That’s what it sounds like to me.
While I appreciate the offer to stay on the forum, I believe that this is not the type of company I want to keep. Nor am I welcome here it seems. Unless he changes his tune over nite, which is unlikely to happen, I do not have the inclination to participate. I will continue to check in and out as I care very much about the developments in the Madeleine Mccann case and this is one of several forums I read to see what progress has been made on her abduction or what have you. As I said, I stood on the sidelines reading the posts for weeks until I could not tolerate this Spudgun person’s behaviour any longer.. Then I came on board and told him exactly what others have been saying to him who are no longer on this forum. That includes Pat, Tessa, Rosemary, and Karalyn too. They also had big issues with Spudgun. As did Garth and Jessie yesterday. If you continue to allow him to alienate quality contributors on your forum, then you will never grow it. You will have the same level of attrition as you have new sign ups on the forum. There is no reason you can not speak with him and get him to tone it down at the very least. Towards women and towards Americans. He doesn’t have to make comments like “today’s message is brought to you by two letters F.U.”. That is outrageous behavior. He said that on Saturday’s forum. I was shocked to read that and see that he was not given a warning for it. I must say that truly don’t want to actively participate in any forums that allow perpetrators like Spudgun to run loose. Or to allow him to do and say the things that he wants with absolutely no censorship. While myself and others have not been afforded the same privliges.
Apparently, it’s not OK for me to say that I believe Spudgun and Bulldump are the same people. But it is OK for your regulars - Spudgun, Jonatahn, to make accusations against me. . I’d love to debate the logic in that. But I feel, there is no logic to debate there.. So it would be a waste of my time.
I would be more concened with Spudgun (and Bulldump) on here if I were you. And the liabilities that they create for this site with the cursing and libelous comments. He should NEVER be allowed to tell posters that he has access to IP addresses and ISP information if it’s not true. That is outrageous abusiveness! Yes, you set it straight that he doesn’t have that access. But why would he be allowed to make such comments? And how come you have not reprimanded him for this? You seem like a nice person. And your site is interesting too. But I am afraid that I don’t like the double standards that I am seeing on this forum for new comers that the regulars don’t have to live by. It is very double standard rules.
I wish you lots of success here.
—————————————-
Mods and Admin
As you say, Marylebone, you are the newcomer here, so in that event you try to fit in, not throw your weight around telling people where to get off.
You came in a critical note, you clearly do not like the forum, so why stay?
I’ve left all your posts as they are, so people can see exactly what your contributions are.
But any further posts from you after this one shall be deleted.
And to clarify, there are 2 Moderators on site and NO ONE else has access to anyone elses emails or IP or ISP, and neither of them is Bulldump or Spudgun, who by the way, are two seperate posters.
You made a rod for your own back with your aggressive ‘I am a know it all’, no one elses fault.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Clicked too soon in my enthusiasm…..
A good spat and ‘lively exchange of views’ is one thing but the madness of yesterday is bizarre! Interesting I must admit, but bizarre.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Go June!!
September 5th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Mods and Admin to Marylebone
Firstly you will not submit posts that look as though they are posted by us.
I have been on here forthe past hour reading all your abusive posts to Spudgun and others. Your style is very reminiscent of Karalyn who was banned for being abusive, and initially contributing to the forum but very quickly causing trouble. I know you are not Karalyn, the others do not have the advantage I have to know that you are not.
Spudgun has made many valuable contributions to the forum and you are the first to complain about him, the complaint is invalid. Incidentlly Spudgun just has one user name.
I shall be editing out the part of your post that looks as though it was from me. And would you now care to contribute to the forum something other than aggression.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:29 am
bulldump Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
erm… potsy tea is at 4. unless you are american, in which case you’ll eat it on the hour, every hour from lunch.
SAME SYNTAX as Spudgun. One in the same person. He can use 20 different IP Addresses and ISP’s. Doesn’t matter. He’s the very same person. Switches screen names. Duh!!!!!
And the Anti - American remarks. Are the SAME! And so is the Misogyny!!! Adn the fat “jokes”. SO LAME!!!!
September 5th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Pat Says:
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Why, is there a theory about who Johnathon was that suddenly showed up the other day? I am trying to understand the references to Johnathon?
——————-
Mods and Admin
I’ll step in here Pat, there is no reason that Jonathan must be expressly named, he is a regular contributor,and there is no need to understand the references.
And in addition Isla has declared she has left as she took over when Mike left, there is NO other reason why she left. I posted that any more references as to whether or not she was McCann related or involved were to be stopped. The original poster(Alice) who claimed she might be, DID stop, other people will now let that matter rest , otherwise I shall be defending Alice, is that understood.
——————————————————
Mods and Admin
A large chunk of post removed by me as not posted by me.
September 5th, 2007 at 1:32 am
September 5th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Well may I speculate (reckon, ideate, surmise, et. al.) that posts suspicious of the Ms are “unhelpful”….
September 4th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I dont, know if anyone else has noticed but, when gerry first announced that they would be suing, someone posted a brief smokescreen allegation. Well what d’ you know. The posts are now not about wether gerry mccanns purposely or accidently killed Maddie, they are not about the mccanns concocting the abduction theory themselves they are also not about whether the mccanns are good parents or not.
Well, why did they choose to pour the glycol based fluid into the heating chamber (smoke machine) at this point,?
because the stories were hurtful and unhelpfull to the investigation.
I’m told the truth always hurts
September 4th, 2007 at 9:24 am
REALLY?? Wow - I am quite shocked! Why bother? Not that it’s any of my business but I am curious because that seems to be very generous of you and your time - and I don’t know anyone who does work for free. Unless they have equity in a company. As a trade off.
And to my point, speculation is accepted because this is an amateur forum - not a professional Private Eye service. Or Investigative Journalism. Arm Chair Sleuths do just that. They speculate. With or without
the facts.
——————————————–
Mods and Admin
Gather you are referring to our mental state and well being? I shouldn’t worry about it too much, we go out walking dogs /shopping /speeding on the M25, one goes sailing to get away from it all. And one of us (me) has wild Alan Rickman fantasies, these include lots of choccy. The men? well I can’t answer for them, but I think lots of evidence of semi nude floozies might tell you something…
On the topic of censorship, we don’t, posts are as they is writ etc, but we do not allow abuse of posters user names , or ours come to that, and if there is any ganging up either way we intervene. Teddy Boy however seems to revel in being a target, for now his problem, not ours yet.
Noticed you are new to the boards, the site is US registered and therefore the poster alone is liable for any libellous content. The domain is UK and Anorak himself is English
September 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
435 - Hello Moderation. I must tell you that an Opinion or a thought can indeed be speculation. Conversely, Speculation can be an Opinion or a thought. This forum says “Opinion? What do you think!” above the message box.
So why tell someone to stop speculating on this forum. Speculation is totally acceptable in an Opinon forum. No one here is getting paid to post - I don’t think they are at least - unless they are working for Mods and Admin possibly.
But posters are not supposed to be paid. So let’s presume that I am correct. That this is forum where posters are not trained investigators nor are they investigative reporters as this is an amateur forum. Arm Chair Sleuths are not professional sleuths. They are amateur. And they speculate. And they give opinions. And thoughts. And that is perfectly fine. So why tell them not to? Why say such things as “Do you understand th workings of lawyers in Portugual?” And then …..GASP! Even RESPOND for them too: “No? well stop specualing then!!!”.
Are you dictating what a person can and can’t do on this forum when it comes to speculation? Are you sure you want to do that?? I think you should let them speculate all they want. Why?? Remember what I said earlier?? This is an Opinion forum and it is for Amateurs, not paid professionals.
So try it. SPECULATE til your heart runs dry. And try have some fun while you’re at it!!
—————————–
Mods and Admin
nope we work for free
September 4th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Do you understand th workings of lawyers in Portugal? No? well stop speculating then!!
September 4th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Just read “The Times” article Sept 4, by Wark….WHAT???
Is this the same British press that hounded Princess Diana if she had a square inch of cellulite on her thigh?
What happened to balanced reporting?
That article is bizarre…..
September 4th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Molly - wouldnt it have to be a civil case not criminal one ? If the McCanns themselves decide to sue - then it becomes a civil case (instigated by a civilian, and not by the police) If there had been criminal activities levelled at the McCanns they could have taken their case to the police and they would have acted on their behalf if they had considered the action to have been a criminal one. I think that this is the way it works. If somone had been arrested and found guilty of the abduction of Madeleine and then the accusations had been made then presumably the McCanns could have instigated a criminal libel case using the police - Not sure, but I think that this is the way things work
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
RE:412 “Well said” from that soap box!! As a teacher, I am trained to sort out abuse, based on child behavior, what they say, how they react, their appearance, etc etc…I need to report my suspicions. I do. The children who I have seen abused were abused by someone they knew (friend, relative, neighbor, etc.).. Very explosive situation to sort out. I have been threatened by perpetrators, criticized by coworkers, etc. etc. But as stressful as it is, I hang in there. I am an adult and the child is helpless…
The fact that the McWhatevers are using some media-hyped BS campaign against SEX OFFENDERS (translate: similar to the bogeyman who “took” their little girl) to blow more smoke up peoples ***** is a disgrace!! It is hurtful to children who are abused. It hinders understanding of the REAL problem (most children are abused by someone they know)…I cant even think of a word appropriate enough to describe this behavior…despicable (sp?)…..
Is the Tower of London still available for prisoners…Have they discontinued boiling people in oil? Just asking…
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Jonathan - I have read mixed reports about Gerry McCann and his occupation. I thought he was a cardiographer - but recent reports are referring to him as a heart sugeon - If the latter is the case, which I did’t think it was - then I really do think that he should get back to work asap - surgeons are few and far between and in great demand. If his job is being kept open for him (which I sincerely hope it is) then by now he really should be back in place removing the pressure from his collegues and leaving the search for his daughter to his wife, family and the police. If he is - as was originally reported, a cardiographer, then perhaps his slot may be able to be filled for a little while longer by other members of the staff.
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Moderation (180)
Sheese I go away for a couple of days and you are at it again. You said:-
“Maybe just get EVERYONE and drag em up on cranes to swing slowly and appease Angry’s bloodlust! McCanns, their friends, Murat, Malinka etc etc etc”
I don’t have a bloodlust, its too messy.
Yes the McCanns should be punished for neglect, and if it turns out Madeline is dead, for negligent homicide. As for their friends, if it turns out they lied to pervert the course of justice then yes they should be charged. As for Murat and Malinka, I believe they are innocent victims used to avert the police’s real suspicion that the McCanns were involved.
If the McCanns had the slightest suspicion that they were suspects they would have left on one of their globe trotting trips and not gone back.
Chloe (417)
Sousa saying that the McCanns are victims not suspects, merely continues to direct any suspicion away from the McCanns.
The police would not have told them to stay in Portugal if they were not suspects in some way. Keeping the Mccanns in Portugal against their will is actually false imprisonment under UK and European law.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Mod and Admin I didn’t read the most of the posts on this forum until today. Only now am I trying to read over some of it.
As of now I still don’t get it but all I can say is this case just gets stranger and stranger! If the threats continue it is possible to have more people to round up than not? This is absurd if what I think. Sorry for having that thought too, which is not directed at you by the way.
I’ll throw in my e mail address in case anyone wants to read it too.