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
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
659 - Spudgun. Thank you.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Moderation. I know you were not asking his name. I am talking about anorak identities and the right to post honest debate without the football crowd mentality. It seems anorak id’s are more like football shirts when it comes to the debate into the disappearance of a 3yr old girl. Sometimes to present truthful and reasonable argument a cloak and not a football shirt is far more subtle.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
751
plod Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
741
Herbert Lom’s eye twitched a lot in the Pink Panther movies - concealing badly his desire to do away with Clouseau
———————————–
Good point. Didnt Columbo have a dodgy eye too? And as for Kojak? He was as bald as an egg.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
755
What do you mean ‘if’ it makes the McCanns look guilty?
I rest my unbiased case!
September 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I just copied Spudgun’s video. It’s absolutely great, succinct. Great stuff Spudgun. Are you a film-maker or is it a hobby? Here’s the link.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2296203136219895848&hl=en-GB
September 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
753
Where did you get the ‘majority’ of the British public from?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
742 St francis of stirring
“Father Pacheco, please tell the world what you know and please guide and counsel the McCanns towards redemption.”
Presumptuous stirrer. There may be nothing they need redemption for other than their own personal feeling of guilt for having left the children in the apartment.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Can’t get Spudguns video up. Is it anywhere else?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
libel…. Anorak have warned before that because the site is US hosted they are not responsible for any libel but posters are liable for their own posts and could be sued.
Observer… I should have said that Christoph is not his name, it was his other Anorak name. I wasn’t asking his identity and certainly wouldn’t expect it!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
750 - “If he doesn’t know anything, Madeleine’s fate has nothing to do with him. IF he did know something, her fate would still be whatever it is. His knowing or not knowing isn’t going to change anything for her”
I have addressed these two issues 4 times already in all of my posts.
You need to re-read them. I am not going to reiterate it for each poster that asks the very same question as you. I take offense that you accuse me of somthing, yet you have not done your homework properly.
Twaddle? No, I don’t believe in name calling. That is uncharitable.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Moderation. I am not interested in your personal gripes thankyou. I was asking Mods and Admin not you. If you are concerned in personal threats I believe there is a discreet mechanism that Anorak deals with such matters. However, reading your comments on the subject of dual identity of the friend of the st etc etc, it struck me that you were more interested in scoring points.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
753- Are the majority of the British public all wrong just because we are not famous??
September 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Just watched Spudguns video and was very impressed, I am somewhat on the fence with the whole thing, but one thing i can say for the video is that it is sooooo true!!!!
Garth from your post you said
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?
This video i feel is pretty damn factual, and if that makes it look like the MCs are guilty then it looks like im falling off the fence!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
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.
I am Glad you are not upset. But let me extend mea culpas none the less…
Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa. I don’t think anyone other than you thought I might be a priest. I didn’t get that question from anyone else. And I never said otherwise. Just a fan of St. Francis.
I did however get a rather rude remark from Moderation - who has tried to dilute my posts by accusations of being some other poster - even labeling me a “fundamentalist”. LOL. My acclaimation to religion is as far from fundamentalism as you can get and still be perceieved as a Catholic. It’s strange how this poster is permitted to make such overt accusations. I would consider looking into this character called “Moderation”.
None the less, I have a right to request Father Pacheco to come forward. I am asking him to tell us what he knows. Most likely, between your admonishments and that of two other Catholics on the forum, he will not do so. Alas, we have missed yet another opportunity to seek the truth. I do wish that people would truely live by the freedom of speech act rather than selectively choosing what they allow or disallow.
Peace be with you.
————————–
Mods and Admin
You misunderstand my interest; this site may be satire based, but when people diversify into belief of faith which many do hold dear, then it has to be accurate, and within the teaching of that belief. As I said earlier I am a completely lapsed RC, I have not practiced that belief for many a long year, and in fact have a sea change in personal belief. But the seal of confession is one of the most important tenets of the RC Church, and its practice is absolute.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
740 firestar
The BBC, Sky, the british press , Gordon Brown, Richard Branson…..the list goes on!
Unbelievable isan’t it………….you know……..that their all wrong.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
746 Observer….. yes in general but I am entitled to know as he has threatened me in the past and was banned after being generally abusive. Am I bothered about him? Yes I am actually because i feel he is slightly unhinged.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
741
Herbert Lom’s eye twitched a lot in the Pink Panther movies - concealing badly his desire to do away with Clouseau
September 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
696 a fan of st francis asisi
“Madeleine’s fate lies in the lap of Father Pacheco today. He needs to come forward and tell the world what he knows about Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Twaddle. You are trying to imply he knows something when you actually don’t have a clue. If he doesn’t know anything, Madeleine’s fate has nothing to do with him. IF he did know something, her fate would still be whatever it is. His knowing or not knowing isn’t going to change anything for her.
This argument is a dead end. The priest has not said if he knows anything or not - he isn’t likely to either, so speculating about it is not going to lead to anything.
Implying that he does know something, as you have done, is just poisonous speculation.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Actually you have got to hand it to St Francis for bringing this point up- is it beyond doubt that th McCanns, or at least one of them did go to the Priest on the night of 3 May.
If so, all sorts of possibilities arise. Just maybe the Priest has tipped the nod to the PJ and that, rather than the barking cadaver dogs has get them running.
Just when I was losing interest. Damn that meddlesome Priest
September 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
714 I’m troubled.
You insist that St Francis is he patron saint of animals and children. That didn’t sound right to me.
I’ve been googling around and discovered that St Nicholas is the patron saint of children. That sounds much more likely.
St Francis seems to have cornered the ‘animals, birds and the environment’ bit of the creation. Quite a big remit. Children as well might have been a bit much.
Anyway, I thought it best to checkout the website of the Catholic church and they too see to be of the opnion that St Francis of Assisi is the animals guy, not children.
So who is right? You or the Catholic church?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
737
although you’re wrong.
the law of libel still applies.
the content is being viewed in the uk, so the first amendment is irrelevant.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Mods and Admin (posts 684 & 706)
actually on a serious note I’ve just had a thought. I think you should not give an answer to the question …. is he so and so …… If the guesser is right then either you have to lie, which I doubt very much you would do, or you have to give the correct answer (thus proving the guesser right) but by giving the right answer this would remove the chance to offer debate from many different perspectives, which as you know full well, is happening. In other words if the guesser were right would you say so.
I would be interested on your view on that.
————————————-
Mods and Admin
I can quite freely confirm that it wasn’t who Moderation thought it was, a negative isn’t giving away any secrets, but I cannot tell her who it was. Obviously we know all the different user names, one we had was a maximum of 42, which was quite entertaining for us, and we also get to know peoples’ style too. A person with too many does get watched, but so long as they are not causing us trouble, we let it pass.
If the guesser was right, it has happened, the person usually admits it. But even so, so long as they are not using another users name to inflame, defame or any other abuse, we don’t worry over much.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Karen. good point. He is the priest giving Kate communion……….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/05/10/nmaddy5.jpg
September 26th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Garth 739 … just for the record, my post commending Spudgun on his video was nothing against your opinion of it. You are fully entitled to your opinion.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
737
good point.
i didn’t realise it was hosted in the us.
i expect that means i can shoot you then.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
728 - That is not correct. IF he is covering for them, then he would continue to cover for them in all aspects - including communion - otherwise it would not be covering for them since the world would then be aware of them not receiving communion. Hence raising a red flag of suspicion.
That’s naiive to think otherwise.
728 - “Absolution only comes if you genuinely repent - you can’t repent while you are still compounding your sin”
Exactly. IF they committed a sin, then full confession and genuine repentance needs to be put forth. Which is why, I started off by saying, Father Pacheco, please tell the world what you know and please guide and counsel the McCanns towards redemption.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Carmen 734 … have you noticed that KM’s right eye tends to twitch ! Twitchy eye … sure sign of hiding something!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
724
garth
are the bbc and sky news broadcasting with a balanced view so people can make their own minds up? Obviously not. So THAT is the point of the vid?
September 26th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Karen, Jolie and Julie for that
Spudgun made his point…………I made mine. I wasn’t rude! I felt I was quite diplomatic under the circumstances!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
The priest doesn’t matter. He is an extra with a speaking part.
What matters is ‘what are we going to do now?’ The Moroccan connection filled a few column inches, then died a sudden death, as the pictures were probably shown to the family within hours of the story breaking. More pictures will follow. What still troubles me is where this will all end. I have a premonition of a future hot summers day, with spokesperson(s), outside of the Old Bailey, giving statements following a lengthy, microscopically followed trial of a mother and father. This, I fear is getting away with it.
After I retired last night, I read Krissie 1131 last blog.
——————————————————————-
And I could direct you, if I were so inclined (which I am not) , to a dozen interviews in which either Kate or Gerry have expressed absolute and utter remorse for having left their children that night, and have stated with absolute clarity that it was STUPID and WRONG.
—————————————————————-
My heart nearly stopped. We cannot as a nation allow the behaviour, which I feel is not in dispute, to become the norm. Children under three are not able to fend for themselves. They are capable of wandering/sleepwalking/falling out of bed. What would possess a parent to think it was OK to leave those kiddies? we have a responsibility to shield children from harm, no matter what this does to our social lives. Our society has let children suffer, time to take a stand. Wilful neglect is a crime, and should be punished (Old Bailey). The MW resort looked safe enough, but roads through it seem to leave a network of escape routes for criminals. The witnesses could easily have become disorientated (Murat/pyjamas/blanket).
No matter, K&G know what happened, and will tell all in the fullness of time. To repeatedly (allegedly) leave your children in a flat alone is just not done by any moral, let alone practicing Catholic, parent. I will never accept, no matter what the outcome, that their actions were anything other than conscious and with aforethought.