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
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
September 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
725 firestar Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
632
this is an english site.
the first amendment doesn’t apply here.
——————————————-
To the contrary matey, it is only because Anorak, though an English company running a site primarily concerned with UK Tabloids, had the wit to find a US server on which to host this farrago of gossip and libel that they can get away with it cf. whether UK poster can - ref the writing of the learned Seymour Laws - this site is all about the joys of the First Amendment rights
September 26th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
689
did you put it on u -tube?
google vids seem a bit crappy with their bandwidth.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
728. Or he’s a very rubbish Priest - which can happen.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
BTW Spudgun … very well put together video … the TRUTH hurts for some!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
689
excellent.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Garth - you’re always pro-McCann and quite rude about it, so who are you to talk about bias?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
724 Garth
P.S.
And, as for open-minded fairness, you couldn’t bring yourself to watch more than 5 minutes of a 10-minute video, because it didn’t fit in with your own personal views–who knows what you missed in the second half that might have made you think twice about the McCann group’s behavior.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Great video spudgun. Anyone got a problem with it? Feel free to make your own. But that’ll take some beating.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
722. They wouldn’t have received communion if he knew they were lying to the press and the police - their sin wouldn’t have stopped.
Absolution only comes if you genuinely repent - you can’t repent while you are still compounding your sin.
He might give them a blessing - but if they took communion, then they didn’t confess to Madeleine’s murder or accidental death.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Good evening all!
Every day that goes by with this little girl missing (I shall no longer refer to her as a “beautiful” little girl - as some seem to take offence to this), my heart gets heavier and heavier.
Not because of the fact that she is still “missing” - my true belief is that she is no longer with us - but because of the fact that those who truly know what happened to her continue with their “vow of silence”. How much longer will they be able to keep this vow until one of them decides that this little child’s memory is worth far more than an elaborate “cover-up”?
This innocent little child deserved far better than the hand she was dealt by those who “supposedly” loved her.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
689 Spudgun
GREAT VIDEO! http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2296203136219895848&hl=en-GB
Have you also put it on youtube?
724 Garth
You’re welcome to make your own video from your own point of view and upload it. Spudgun is presenting his/her own views and is not obligated to show ‘both’ sides of an issue as if he/she were a journalist–he/she is making a point.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
632
this is an english site.
the first amendment doesn’t apply here.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
689 Spudgun (think I’m out of sinc - 688?)
I got half way through and had to turn it off. Did you put that together? - wouldn’t be surprised!
Has it been made with a balanced view so people can make their own minds up? Obviously not. So what is the point of the vid? - other than to compound the bias of whoever put it together that the McCanns are guilty?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
717 - Unfortunately, not. The Vatican would not be making this sort of a request. Highly unlikely. Although anything is possible…I’d like to think they’d back me up on this too.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Just popping in to say, Moderation, that it will be a race with that book! That’s why I still look in.
Actually, I don’t think penance is always prayer alone. Reparation would have to be made, if poss, eg. in a case of theft. I think absolution could not be given unless a crime such as killing a child was openly confessed to the police. (Google it.)
I did read the article posted by Jolie earlier from the “Daily Snack:Bite-size News and Gossip”. I was very puzzled by one thing in particular. It said the priest only became “confused” once the police began to point the finger of suspicion at the McCanns. Why? Surely, if they had confessed their crime to him at the beginning, there would have been no cause for confusion? Surely he would actually have been relieved? After all, for months he’d been openly praying with and for them, welcoming them and their family regularly to mass, praying for the little girl to be found, giving them the key to the church, comforting them etc. Is it being suggested that he knew all along they were guilty but only became “confused” when they were made arguidos? I don’t get it. He might have been “anguished” (word in another report instead of “confused”) earlier on when he was playing a black cover-up charade with the family but the police suspicions must have come as a relief, releasing him from any bad feelings he had about having to keep quiet about child murder, desecration of a body etc.
The poor man must have found it very difficult to continue giving them communion if he knew they were child-murderers and had not confessed to the police. He must have found it even more difficult to keep up a pretence of warm welcome, sympathy in their loss, praying for the little girl to be found, etc. etc. if he knew all along that they had killed her and hidden her body between high tea and dinner on 3rd May. He might also have thought twice about giving them the key to the church, especially if there was a way to an underground crypt, or whatever, where they might have moved the body, especially if they also confessed that they’d only hidden it the first time round. As a pastor, he would have had to continue trying to bring God’s grace and consolation to them. He could not have abandoned them BUT I doubt if he would have been able to collude so actively, openly and warmly in their cover-up conspiracy if he’d known about their crime.
One of the papers does suggest that he may have been worried after the arguido business because he knew something from confession which proved their innocence, not their guilt, but still could not reveal it under the seal of the confessional. I don’t really think that’s likely. I’m just saying it’s mentioned in a report. Can’t remember which one. (Google his name.) I don’t know if the McCanns use confession anyway. I understand a lot of Catholics don’t any more.
Is it at all possible that the McCanns went to the priest for help, comfort, prayer etc rather than to confess a crime? If they were covering up this dreadful deed, it would seem strange to do something which could later (as is proved here on Anorak) be interpreted as a confession of guilt. Not very clever. It does seem as though they turned desperately to lots of people for help at that moment. Maybe they wanted him to help them persuade the police to take the disappearance more seriously than they did at first. I think this is at least possible. Wasn’t he local? Maybe they thought the police would take more notice of him than of them?
I don’t think they could realistically have gone to the priest to pray for Madeleine’s soul and to do the “right” Catholic thing or for forgiveness. I don’t think Catholics think you can OK infanticide and desecration of the body just by telling a priest, do they? The priest would certainly have had to tell them, in no uncertain terms, exactly what to do. He wouldn’t just have helpfully SUGGESTED that they tell the police what they’d done! He’d have TOLD them.
It seems unlikely that people who went to a priest to, in some way, put things right after killing their child, would have gone on to construct a world-wide cover story and then move her body in their car, burying her without any priest at all.
Now off for another few days. Can only take it in small doses!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
694 - “By contrast, when a child dies, Catholics must summon a priest to carry out those Catholic rites which would speed the passing of the soul into Heaven.
The McCanns summoned a priest that night”
you are correct with one caveat: Catholics ’should’ summon a priest. Not ‘must’. The difference is that a devout (very religious) Catholic would think it’s imperative to do this. A more liberal Catholic might not.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
691 Spudgun. I admire your production. Not only the content, but what you have done with the MM tribute genre proliferating on YouTube etc.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Thank you, Jolie!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
333 m.e.
Late review of the posts so far today - I’m very impressed with this one (added to the bulging odd/suspicious McC dossier)
September 26th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
698 The Real Stig
So he was gone for 4 days (which days by the way, and why was he missing?)
Why hasn’t he been interviewed by the police, like normal people?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
712. I think they phoned a friend who phoned GMTV sometime in the early hours after the first search stopped.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Mods and Admin
Could I ask a personal question, are you a priest?
If you are , were the vows you took to your God, or to any children.
What if Madeleine has not been murdered, and its the lesser crime of covering up and manslaughter.
If you are not a priest , could you find one who can back up your views.
I feel you are transposing responsibility and burden from someone who commited a crime onto someone who didn’t
LOL - You want to ask a personal question on a public forum??! That’s sort of ludicrous, isn’t it? I am NOT a priest. As my name suggests, I am a fan of St. Francis of Assisi - the patron saint of animals and children.
I am not transposing anything - I am sorry you feel that way. I am asking Father Pacheco to tell the world what he knows. On the upcoming Anniversary of St. Francis of Assisi the protector of Children and Animals. There is no mention of me doing any of the things you have accused me of. I think you are misconstruing and creating issues that are not there. I never once said I was a priest. It’s strange how one poster accused me of being someone else named Christoph and you are asking me if I am a priest.
I am a Fan of St. Francis of Assisi who is asking Father Pacheco to tell the world what he knows about Madeleine’s disappearance. That is a legitimate request from a Catholic - which I revealed I am upfront.
I am sorry if this has upset you - this is not the intention - the intention is to seek the truth.
——————
Mods and Admin
Hasn’t upset me at all, but I do think Church dogma and beliefs should be confirmed by clergy and not laity. I just asked if you were a priest, and if you are not as you have admitted, then it is not your place to tell someone who may be heavily burdened by his vows what to do.
Now that this is purely your own take on the matter, and not Church teaching, you must make that very clear, and you so far have not, several people are under the impression that the priest is free to talk, he is not.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Just wondering, to throw another theory in to the mix, what if the MCs did confess to the father who then told the PJ, hence why they think Maddie is dead. This could be why they are looking for a body yet have no major evidence. Like someone posted earlier it would be the fathers word agaist theirs and would not stand up in court. The Priest may have spoken to the police off the record which has given them a certain line of enquiry.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Sorry to be an idiot (and this is not relevant to the discussion) but can someone confirm:
Is it true (surely it can’t be) that the McCann’s rang Sky television at 10.11 pm. Is that confirmed? Have I remembered it wrongly? Is there are site where all these snippets of information are documented by fair minded sceptics?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
689 Spudgun.
Nice piece of work. I’m still not convinced though.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
696 momo
If a Catholic priest hears confession from someone he will not divulge what he has heard to anyone. In the eyes of the Catholic church, yes he is above the law in this regard. Since Portugal is largely a Catholic country I doubt very much the PJ or anyone would even ask him to divulge anything he had heard as confession.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
701 ponchik
Thanks for posting the news. Sorry no one responded to you earlier. It’s been discussed earlier in this thread, one or two hours earlier.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
It is Christoph! The clues are there………. there couldn’t possibly be two of the fundamentalist nuts!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
684 mods and admin
don’t tell give him clues. keep him guessing. spoils the sport if you give clues away, if you know what i mean
September 26th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
699. I’m not pro-McCann, but I would be shocked if a Priest broke the seal of confession. If they are guilty, he should put pressure on them in private, not betray their trust.
——————
Mods and Admin
Karen, not betraying their trust isn’t the issue really, its not betraying the seal of the confessional thats important, yes?