Madeleine McCann: Blonde Child Seen In Morocco
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MAIL front page: “Could this be Maddie?”
Readers see a picture of a child being carried on a woman’s back - “The intriguing picture being probed by Interpol.”
Pages 10 and 11: “Could this really be Maddie?”
This is the picture of a girl “in the clutches of a group of Moroccans”. The picture was taken four weeks ago near Tangiers by Spaniard Clara Torres.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADDY IN MOROCCO?”
Readers see the same picture. The Full “astonishing story” is on pages 4 and 5.
Pages 4 and 5: “COULD IT BE?” Less the full story than another question.
“GERRY: I KNOW WE WILL BE CLEARED” – Gerry McCann says he and his wife “wanted to be eliminated from the enquiry as quickly as possible”. Some news.
THE SUN front page: “MOROCCO PHOTO SENSATION. IS THIS MADDIE?”
The picture is “sensational”. It has been described as “convincing”, but by whom is not said.
Pages 4 and 5: “GERRY & KATE: IT COULD BE HER – MADDIE PARENTS HOPE AT SIGHTING SENSATION.”
Clara Torres is talking on Spanish radio. She looks at the photo. Says she: “It sent shivers down my spine.”
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “NOW A ‘PHOTO’ OF MADELEINE IN MOROCCO.”
‘Photo’ is placed in quotes lest readers mistake the picture for a ‘SNAP’ or a ‘SHOT’.
Spanish Government official Jose Herrero Arcas says: “The National Police received a photograph by email taken by a young Spanish couple who believe it shows Madeleine McCann. The quality of the photograph is not very clear and it was taken from around 200 metres away. However, the National Police are taking the claim seriously enough to have sent it on to their colleagues at Interpol. I cannot give any more information than that.”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE – AMAZING PHOTO IN MOROCCO.”
Pages 4 and 5: “MADDIE SEEN IN MOROCCO – Bombshell new photo is probed by Interpol.”
THE TIMES front page: “Police start investigation into ‘picture in Morocco of Madeleine McCann’.”
Page 5: “New photograph shows child like Madeleine on African woman’s back.”
A source close to the McCanns tells one and all: “The McCanns are not going to get their hopes up until the photograph has been sent for forensic examination.” And, dare it be said, a DNA test.
DAILY TELEGRAPH front page: “Is this Madeleine in Morocco?” The search for the missing child has taken a “dramatic turn”.
Page 9: “Gerry McCann is “confident” he and his wife will be cleared. A source tells us: “It is very unlikely that British police would question the McCanns on behalf of the Portuguese now.”
Robert Murat responds to claims by nanny Charlotte Pennington that on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance he was by the McCann family apartment: “I certainly was not there that night. At no point was I there.”
THE GUARDIAN & THE INDEPENDENT no Maddy news today.
Posted: 26th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,153) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
September 27th, 2007 at 1:27 am
1014 - What’s a Weegie?
September 27th, 2007 at 1:27 am
It never ceases to amaze me how people who are “believer” mentality always modify what they see or hear to fit their ideaology. I have a scientific upbringing and have never believed in anything. I choose to examine evidence or scientific results or whatever data is available and decide what to do based on that.
But then the McCanns “believe” Madeleine is still alive. They “believe” Madeleine had been taken to wherever they “believed” at the time. Now they have a string of “believers” who ignore the facts and go on words written by Sun journalists or other dodgy tabloid writers. God help me if I was ever on trial faced with a jury full of those “believers”.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Spud, points lost on a technicality - Gordon Brown not from Glasgow, born in Kircaldy, a Fifer.
From a Weegie.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:22 am
1009 firestar
You have entered the twilight zone - leaving isn’t an option.
Speaking of twilight - nighty night all.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:22 am
a woman who fancys the fella from the killers
aka brandon flowers
please google him for a pic
September 27th, 2007 at 1:22 am
I have to go soon. There’s a full moon tonight and I have to do some baying (for the blood of the McCanns, obviously).
September 27th, 2007 at 1:21 am
999 - Stig
The nanny’s actual words were that Kate was hysterical. She didn’t say she was sobbing. Plus, you’ve only read what a journalist wrote in the paper after Ms. Pennington was given a cheque. Armed with a thesaurus, the journo most likely modified what she said because the article wasn’t written as if she said it verbatim. Articles in the paper hardly ever are…they’re edited most of the time.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:20 am
1000
you have no chance tracy.
i came in a couple of weeks ago to find out how to spell ‘ludicrous’ and i can’t get out.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:20 am
996 brandonflours
“but we are here because we care”
Examples?
“not for some of the fund money”
I can always dream.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:19 am
well what piece of S**** are they going to give us t
so lets guess tomorrows tit bit of information
morrocon cigar butt found near window ?tappered one?
“Never thought much at the time” says Gerry “i thought the smell was maddie getting up for a quick smoke in our room.”
“but now i think it was a morrocon gang leader hiding under the sofa who might have caught himself shaving or something !”
Kate is convinced now a morrocon man was following her all holiday
“Thats why it felt so right to leave them alone
We have a morrocon gardener at home!!”
morow?
September 27th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Brandon are you a girl or a boy? I have to type something because if I don’t it makes me scroll down the entire forum when I press the refresh button.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:18 am
1004 - Stig - In your opinion…so let others have theirs too.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:13 am
993 stevo
“It’s not unreasonable to think of a multitude of things a doting parent may say and ask “why didn’t she say…”
Oh, but it is.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:08 am
5 month old truths!!!!!!!!!!!!
she was sacked by the resort for drinking
wants her pounds worth
reminds me of somebody mmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????!!!!!!!!!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 1:08 am
1000. What mob? It’s not like they can’t get to Church because of the crowds hurling abuse at them. The only people they have to get past are the photogs and they want them there.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:04 am
982 Just the facts ma’am
Yes and I couldn’t resist the F5 button either
You are quite right though, although I wasn’t debating unknowns, just nonapologies, or non explicit apologies of the sort that satifies demands of the mob
.. no more of it now. begone
September 27th, 2007 at 1:04 am
984 stevo
“That’s definitely not Kate then is it?”
Well it is according to the nanny’s eye witness recounting to the press, but shit, lets not worry about inconvenient truths.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:01 am
997
well said and you’re not me or ade or firestar etc……
can mods and admin confirm?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Tracey - don’t you ever talk to anyone? Me and my friends have been talking about Kate and Gerry for hours and hours.
A forum isn’t a spectator sport or even really a debate, it’s a chat.
People - esp. women, chat to come to a consensus about social values as well as to bond. In this case there’s three major things to come to an agreement about :
1. Child care - is it right to leave small kids alone?
2. The P.R. - is it helpful or has it mushroomed into something grotesque.
3. All the usual who, what, when, where, why questions that always get asked.
It’s not illogical. It’s more illogical to lurk around a forum and then slag the posters off for posting. What do you do when people are chatting in the pub? Throw a drink over them?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:59 am
991
thats fine stig just fine! but alot of us do
but we are here because we care
not for some of the fund money
September 27th, 2007 at 12:57 am
973 The Usual Arguidos
Thanks, but could you just do that for the post I did yesterday, I really need a new car.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:57 am
978
no garth thought ade was me and you and others
see 829
it took me half an hour to get it posted
in the end the last became the first so read it as 945 then 946
they think we are all the same at team mc cann just like them
can mods and admin check?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 am
986 - Stig
It’s not unreasonable to think of a multitude of things a doting parent may say and ask “why didn’t she say…”
Huntley was the master of misdirecting the press and police and I saw through him as did many other members of the public. In that case, the police were biding their time until they found the incriminating evidence - i.e. the clothes in the school. Until the police find more evidence or enough evidence to charge the McCanns, it’s reasonable for people to analyse comments or gestures of the two main suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:54 am
989
you have to remember she’s being prompted by clarence now.
most of the trouble they’re in has been caused because of things they said before the pr people got involved.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:53 am
969 brandonflours
“or the family turn it into a bizzare campaign of self promotion of innocence
dragging up witnesses that come out the woowork and photos for a little piece of news everyday to turn the spotlight away from them”
I do not agree with your interpretation of events or your opinion on this.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:52 am
987
could be that, ty.
or maybe she’s just drunk.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:52 am
My point was that she said ’she’s lovely’ and NOT ’she was lovely’
The word ’sobbed’ was not part of the quote I pasted from the Guardian (not my words either). I haven’t used the word ’sobbed’ in any of my posts either
September 27th, 2007 at 12:51 am
I find it hard to reconcile these pics whith parents whose child went ‘missing’ 3 1/2 weeks previously.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,91210-1267634-12,00.html.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:49 am
978 firestar
Brandonflour is not the same as Brandoflour. I could be wrong though
I probably am.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:48 am
967 brandonflours
“Why didnt she say”
Because she isn’t you, or me, or anyone else but herself. She does not have to comply with your idea of ideal behaviour or speech. You have no right to set standards for her to meet, because her life is hers, not yours or mine.