Madeleine McCann: Lie Test, The Final Word And A Pet Crematorium
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “McCANNS: WE’LL TAKE LIE TEST.”
A source tells the paper: “They’re happy to do anything that will clear them. If they were asked to take a lie detector test by police, they’d agree.”
To borrow the brand slogan, look into their eyes.
Given the McCanns media savvy, why not take one on Trisha, the daytime TV show. Those results after the break…
Pages 4 and 5: “MADELEINE’S GONE..MADELEINE’S GONE..What mum REALLY sobbed night she vanished.”
A witness tells all. The paper says Kate McCann did not discover Madeleine vanished and say “They’ve taken her, they’ve taken her”.
“’BODY WAS BURIED IN DAD DOG’” – The Mirror sees the latest “crackpot theory” explored by Portuguese police, who questions the owner of a “pet incinerator”.
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE BODY BURNED. Cops search remains at pet crematorium”
Pages 6 and 7: “HOW MADDIE MAY HAVE BEEN ABDUCTED.”
Ready? Here goes. And feel free to join in and add your own ideas:
“An intruder climbed through the window after forcing open the shutters…
“The culprit would have sneaked past the sleeping twins…
“The McCanns could not see the patio doors from their restaurant…”
Page 8: “Father Jose Pacheco is alive and in good health. He went missing, as you recall. And whatever Kate and Gerry McCann told him, if anything, he will not say. As the headline thunders: “I’LL TAKE SECRETS TO THE GRAVE.”
DAILY MAIL pages 12 and 13: “She’s gone, she’s gone: what Kate really cried.”
“THE KEY SIGHTING” – Friends of the McCanns claim the stranger seen walking away from the holiday complex “apparently with a child in his arms, was heading towards former chief suspect Robert Murat’s home”.
THE SUN front page: “Maddie parents: We’ll do lie test.”
Pages 14 and 15: “NEW WITNESS BLOWS HOLE IN COPS’ CASE. Madeleine has gone.”
Mark Warner holidays are treating 30 travel agents to an all-expenses paid trip to their compound from where Madeleine went missing.
Page 42 and 43: “SUN COLUMNISTS GO HEAD TO HEAD ON DEBATE THAT’S SPLIT THE NATION.”
JOHN ‘GAUNTY’ GAUNT says: “McCanns left 3 children alone…they’re bad parents, Get them in court.”
LORRAINE ‘KELZA’ KELLY says: “They made a mistake, lost a daughter..and have nothing to do with it.”
THE TIMES page 5: “Bomb man questioned in Madeleine hunt.”
Eef Hoos, who owns the pet incinerator, is a convicted terrorist. He was jailed for seven years for a “series of bomb attacks” in the Netherlands.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE. BODY HUNT AT INCINERATOR.”
“Was she burnt at pet crematorium?” That question to you, Lorraine Kelly.
Pages 4 and 5: “The Express has a picture of “convicted bomber” Eef Hoos. The furnaces are in two converted freight containers. He says he has never spoken with the McCanns.
The Express see seals on the doors of the incinerators and deduces that that they have not been used since March when condemned by police.
THE INDEPENDENT page 31: “McCanns shock at finding daughter missing was genuine, says witness.”
THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news.
Posted: 21st, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (883) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on Climate Gate: Politicians Investigate CRU’s Emails And The BBC Sat On The Story
- lone pigeon on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
December 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am
They both as guilty as fuck!anyone who knows anything .knows that.poor little kid-!
November 18th, 2007 at 3:24 am
You know what seems really interesting is the fact that the girl’s mother does not look upset at all. She has not really cried, she seems calm and nervous. From what i have seen in previous cases similar to this one is the mother of the child is always stressed out and is mostly crying. I mean if you had a child and that happened to you no matter what you do you will end up crying. No matter how hard you cope but you can at least tell that they are really worried. Not her though she looks fine and calm. If you also think about the fact that they are putting this in the media and doing flyers etc to make it seem like they are not involved and are actually worried and she was abducted. They are trying to do a distraction and you can tell they are lying are probably involved because the child’s DNA was found in their rental car 100% after the situation. Also dogs have scented the smell of a death in their apartment that is why that have been named primary suspects. They did it and they are trying to hide it and make it seem like they are truly worried about her and looking for her. Her friend after 6months now says she saw a man with the kid. Why didnt she say it for long until she realized that the Mcanns were in trouble. I mean look at the evidence and their reaction to the situation. They look calm and not distressed and from where they were located they would notice if someone left or enter their apartment because the bar was nearby. You see they were establishing their alibi at that bar. I believe they are responsible.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 am
[...] Latest ArticlesAnorak - - Press Release Of The Day: Rememb .. - Press Release Of The Day: Sea Fo .. - Education: Fat Kids In Denver Do .. - Madeleine McCann Watch: Ben Affl .. - The Biggest Boobs In Westminster .. - Pole-Vaulting For Allah: Atilla .. - Rugby World Cup [...]
October 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
[...] Latest ArticlesAnorak - - Press Release Of The Day: Rememb .. - Press Release Of The Day: Sea Fo .. - Education: Fat Kids In Denver Do .. - Madeleine McCann Watch: Ben Affl .. - The Biggest Boobs In Westminster .. - Pole-Vaulting For Allah: Atilla .. - Rugby World Cup [...]
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 am
[...] Madeleine McCann: Lie Test, The Final Word And A Pet Crematorium [...]
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
837 judge judy
you posted at 682
“Just one of very many things that still don’t make sense to me. Is there any firm record of Madeleine actually being seen alive on May 3?”
So I posted a link to an article where I thought there was some information that would answer the question you asked. Just trying to be helpful, no ulterior motive like sarcasm, trying to be smart or anything like that - just trying to answer what I thought was an honest straight question with a reply in kind.
I am an atheist, not a catholic.
Libel laws in the UK and Australia are much more stringent than those that apply in the US. Earlier in this thread this question popped up. This is a UK sit owned by a UK registered company but the server where all this takes place is in the USA. A poster here - Seymour Laws, who I think really is a practicing UK solicitior, gave an opinion about all this at item 628.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
868 John continued…
Then there’s how to explain why the twins slept through all the fracas. I bet they are terrified that someone might take a blood test looking for sedatives. Storyline solutions might include a change of story from the current they don’t drug their kids to they did just once that night.
Then we have Cuddly Cat. I have said before I think this is a new one and the original was cremated. KM must be terrified that they will get hold of it and give it to the Birmingham team for forensics. New or carefully-washed old they will find something.
Next storyline is why she took her book on forensics (probably No Stone Unturned: The True Story of the World’s Premier Forensic Investigators by Steve Jackson) on holiday with her (light beach/cafe reading?) and why she wore her dirty clothes that she wears in the morgue on holiday. Must get a bit smelly methinks… Perhaps they were skint and couldn’t afford holiday clothes - not skint now, folks
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Ade
FSS will check that the evidence stands any defence lawyer objections before releasing the findings to the PJ.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
a new thread has come up.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 am
868 John
Well the gang seems to be giving a renewed focus to frame the Murat chappie. They have synchronised their new versions and 5 month old new recollections to finger him. That’s a non-starter I reckon as the PJ chaps saw through that one right from the start.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the female tapas 9 accomplice suddenly had a new recollection that the pink pyjamas had “Find Maddie” written on them - just to prove it was her (or someone wearing her pyjamas). Their appreciation of timings and events is so crap this is quite possible in this fairytale web they are weaving.
I think we need a new version of exactly who did exactly what checking every half hour as they have not got that story right yet.
I’d like to see the bar bill to find out just how many bottles of plonk they hoofed back that night. Should still be on the tapas till - if it’s not gone missing with the priest, of course. Explained away as a coincidental robbery. I assume any paper receipts are well cremated by the junta PR machine - which implies the number was more than the 4 they admit to (demonstrates yet another lie/cover-up perhaps?).
I also think they have a problem with foresnics that has not come out yet. I think the Birmingam lot are very smart and hugely respected. I’ve seen hints that they may be able to demonstrate that Maddie was drugged. Having a mother who specialised as an anaethetist and admits to having trouble in coping with 18 hour days of crying is pure coincidence of course…
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
That’s what I wanted to write:
866
good morning everybody, are you on it again? This is worse then gambling.
Police have to think about anything, we too. Maybe it wasn’t an abductor ,-how Gerry says now-,maybe it was the Lover hiding in the wardrobe.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 am
I tried to write something about a lover. A page comes up telling me I’d posted already, but the post does not appear.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 am
865
Jane Tanner is a woman - though her pictures leave this open to question!
I think Tanner removed Madeleine’s body to their appartment (while Gerry was talking to Wilkins?), then O’Brien left the Tapas Bar at 9:30pm and removed the body to a different location, returning to the bar just before 10:00pm.
My theory is that Dr Oldfield was possibly supposed to find Madeleine ‘missing’ on his check before 9:30pm - but he didn’t do his job properly (tut! some parents!), and probably only mentioned that he merely listened at the door AFTER Kate had ‘discovered’ Madeleine missing. This meant Gerry would have been the last person to see Madeleine ‘alive’ (and Wilkins could have confirmed this.) CAN’T HAVE THAT! So later Tanner invents the story of ‘the mystery man’ - and later still, lo and behold, Gerry invents the ‘predator in the bedroom’ theory.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 am
If the McCanns are innocent of any direct involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance (and I will presume they are) they would be better off saying nothing. They and their PR man are beginning to sound desperate now. The McCanns will not be framed/stitched up and they know it - too much at stake for both the UK and Portuguese authorities. If the evidence from Portugal does not stack up then they will not be charged. Why they think they should be above suspicion is beyond me given the inconsistencies in the witness statements.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 am
869 No worries John
Bloody hell, maybe we’re onto something…
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Version numbers
I’ve found that I’m getting bogged down in all the developing versions of events, new witnesses, breaking new evidence, key recollections, discrepancies etc. over the last 4 months.
I reckon it’s time to have a reference system that shows details like:
“source” (i.e. tapas 9 accomplice name), date said, link to particular forensic evidence/tricky question that needs rubbishing, story line version number etc.
I’m sure the PJ lot are already doing this which is why McCann junta are currently rattled enough to hire expensive lawyers and sympathetic scientific “experts”.
Anyone got any experience of this sort of referencing?
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Sorry Ade I seem th be repeating some of what you have just written.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Does anyone foresee any more embellishments to the witness statements of what happened on 3 May? It took a long time for the abductor in the room scenario to surface - all this talk of paramount secrecy would not have mattered on the night of 3 May or during 4 May. It has taken nearly 5 months to concoct a new scenario something that I in fact concocted on Thursday’s forum -not that I am claiming to be the first person to have thought of the possibility. The timing of the revelation is there to heighten the pathos of the situation.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
866 Interesting Holme
A woman - and maybe a mother - or THE mother.
In his latest version of events cuddly Gerry is “convinced” the “intruder” was behind the bedroom door. This didn’t prompt him to have a look, of course as he had to get back to the bar pronto. Or maybe the reason he didn’t look was ‘cos he was married to her. He also referred to the intruder as a HE. Clever one that as it subconsciously links to the other imaginary person carrying a child in various forms of attire in each version as seen by one of the tapas 9 female accomplices.
Pure conjecture of course and I’m sure McCann junta are now dreaming up yet a new version for us for a big Sunday papers spread…
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
THE ABDUCTOR WAS A WOMAN
…Obvious really. Women don’t create suspicion - even if discovered in someone else’s apartment. They can pretend - in a moment - to be a chambermaid and merge into the background.
Only a woman have the powerful misplaced maternal instinct to want to TAKE AWAY a kid and hold onto it permanently and make it “theirs”.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 am
864 Well Swannie
I’m with you there and made a prediction earlier…
See 686 “Looking ahead a few days I reckon we will see increasing news evidence of support being withdrawn.”
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 am
This newspaper article in today’s Express is very interesting and seems to be shifting away from the Pro Canns to the Anti Canns
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/19829
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 am
Put up or Shut Up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/22/nmaddy621.xml
A popular phrase used by politicians on the advice of their spinmeisters. Norman Tebbitt was my favourite - Didn’t work though and got him as far as his “My dad had a bike and used it” gem. John Major used it too but in a shade of grey…
Interesting one this. The PJ are currently silent and the ones with verbal diahorrea as usual are the McCannClan. So all the PJ need to do is carry on as usual but the junta has just given itself another home goal by appearing to be just a PR machine with no interest in finding “abducted” little girls…
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 am
The fatal flaw of marketing - too late to get of the merry-go-round now though…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2507926.ece
I like this angle taken from the Lib Deb recent conference:
QUOTE
Look what they’ve done to Kate and Gerry McCann. Here were two people deserving of the most intense public sympathy. On a superficial level they got it – by the media bucketload. Yet did you not sense from an early stage an undertone of irritation at the couple? I’ve sensed it everywhere I go: not a sign of doubt about their innocence, which most of us take for granted, but a feeling, nevertheless, that they in some way invited trouble – though we banish the thought as brutal and wrong.
Which it is. So why the ungenerosity? I believe it is because Kate and Gerry McCann have allowed an impression to arise that they and their advisers are marketing their own tragedy. Where we would have expected to see parents distracted and disorganised by grief, we have seen a professionally run campaign to find out what the media want, and give it to them.
This has been done for a most defensible reason: to enlist the entire European public as amateur detectives in the search for Madeleine. But now her parents have ended up looking like film stars in a Hollywood weepy. Do those who have contrived this, or the couple themselves, have any inkling of the damage that professional marketing has done to this family’s image? And does Alastair Campbell, even now, have any inkling of how he and his trade damaged the Labour Party?
UNQUOTE
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 am
844 murder
“Unless there were something actually IN THE IMAGE (like a newspaper from May 3) that itself could not have been there at a different time or date, it means nothing.”
Nice one… There was a very old Perry Mason episode where they did precisely that. Mind you that was in the days of real film and the resolution for blow-ups was better. I expect the posh tapas 9 lot have got 10 megapixel cameras so it should work here too…
Hoisted by their own petard - or is that Picard?
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 am
I heard that Teddy Boy was dragged off the forum tonight. Is it true that he committed acts of libel and attacks against a poster had him hauled off to jail?
Where is everyone now? I’m still up. Is anyone else around tonight?
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 am
I heard that Teddy Boy was dragged off the forum tonight. Is it true that he committed acts of libel and attacks against a poster had him hauled off to jail?
Wow - If that’s the case, I think that’s a good thing. He really got what he deserved. He’s been saying such awful things on this forum for a very long time. Mostly Anti-American things. Paulette and I talked about this on the forum a few weeks ago. She agreed it was bad what was going on.
Where is everyone now? I’m still up. Is anyone else around tonight?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 am
What difference would it make if an abductor was in the room when Mr. McCann checked or if the abductor was in the bushes waiting for him to leave? Mr. McCann believes an abductor was in the apartment while he was there? Maybe that belief is important in some way that goes unrecognized? I don’t know.
#350 LOL
After reading all the posts I need coffee before responding. A wake up call.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 am
(856) Murder:
That Mitchell is a gem! So does that mean the CCTV restaurant footage we heard about yesterday isn’t true? Or…? (open to anyone!)
I agree with the third thing, one just assumes that the family members are speaking for the couple; especially now that we’ve heard they had a pact for their friends, saying that the McCanns wanted to control the information that was released (what about those secrecy laws?!).
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:29 am
Few quick remarks:
1: The British ‘authorities’ have certainly leaned on websites in the past - I particularly remember attempts to prevent the name of a certain royal servant emerging a couple of years ago, in relation to an alleged scandal in which a senior member of the royal family was allegedly involved.
But maybe they’ve realized that it’s now no longer worth the effort to try and control international cyberspace.
2: I’ve never seen the reported times of 10:11 [!] for the call to Sky, and 10:40 for the call to the local police, contested.
3: It’s funny how in the British media, one constantly reads “The McCanns are prohibited from commenting on the case, but a friend / source close to the family says…” Why not just say: “The McCanns aren’t supposed to comment on this case, but here are their comments anyway”.
Clarence Mitchell’s version yesterday was one of the best:
“We cannot and will not comment on any matters that go to the heart of the police investigation. However my understanding is that these particular reports, about the restaurant are inaccurate.”
Note the ‘however’…
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 am
86?? NAH!!! 69