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 10:23 pm
Ze Grim one has got a hood…
September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
The Bill are going with their missing child story tomorrow night.
Tonight we had a trailer… (viewable at thebill.com)
“Someone’s taken them! I know it!” sang out single mum Zoe, who had just popped out to work leaving her 6 year old son and her 4 year old daugher MELANIE home alone.
Cut to mum’s false tears and strange beahivour at the televised appeal for information.
And tonight’s episode apparently there was also a MisPer story line.
This one turned up dead.
A cadaver detecting canine officer cracked the case.
I think Anorak will be strangely quite between the hours of 8 and 9pm tomorrow.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
851 garth
Such a shame that you were not blessed with a brain, nor did you get an education - blame the tories I say.
Some get one or the other but clearly you neither. Perhaps you should do something more vocational than to post here - but hey, what other sitting-down work is there for a cretin.
I’m really off now - byeee folks. Plenty of material for the antiMcConn song - enough for an album in fact.
Bye for good - Maddie’s good
September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
838 EmmaV
Funny you say that- I read briefly today some of the Maddywatch stuff in Private Eye when I was in the supermarket- seems one of the Telegraph guys in particular is on/off in terms of sympathy in comments/reports. Didn’t pay too much attention, might buy it tomorrow
September 26th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
830…I’m really Jan. I don’t use any other names. Soemone got so pissed at me once that they made their user name on here Jan, but that wasn’t me. I’m the original Jan.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
LOL!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
839 Tony Bennett
I agree with you entirely about the Church leaders/clergy being more interested in protecting their organization than serving their Lord or their parishioners. That much has become evident with the exposure of the widespread priest pedophilia and coverup–even more so when Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, was asked to say a mass at the Vatican after Pope John Paul II died. The Cardinal should have been sent to prison for his crimes. Instead he was forced to resign.
Abuse scandal forces out Boston Cardinal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2572517.stm
Cardinal Law Leads Mass for the Pope and Some Protest
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/international/worldspecial2/12vatican.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Vatican%20City
Abuse in the Catholic Church http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
September 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
hood
September 26th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
852
The twits been here all night…………whats wrong with you?
September 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Judith C
Moderation has already pointed that one out. Wake up!
I think ‘noonethere’ is more apt for that twirp ‘ade’
September 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
846
Touched a nerve me thinks!
Now yu’ave been sussed - stop boring us with your petty little gripes and bog off!
FOR GOOD!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I just hope the British sniffer dogs are back at work…
September 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
(835)
Moderation Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Judith C said to Garth……….
“And who’s asked you to join a club called ‘anti-McCann’ we don’t want you.”
Moderation: You’re quick on the trigger, as usual. I didn’t say it to Garth I said it to noonethere, unless he has just changed his name to Garth.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Tony bennett. I might have made you joint first but my page refresh was just too late. Read your web site and you must be commended for seeking the truth. That is integrity at its best.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
840
Innocent mistake Moderation. lol
Anyway, where’s all our friends disappeared to all of a sudden hm?
September 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
830 garth, our little Cretin au Celebre that you are
Here is a simple lesson in English
Your means belonging to you. Like I’m your friendly cretin.
You’re is an abbreviation (that means “short for” to cretins like you) for you are. As in You’re just a cretin i.e. You are a cretin.
Now it’s your (look up…) turn. Go away for four and a half months and see if you can find what the word cretin means… or just look to the left or right of you at the McConn team at their keyboards and you get what I mean straight away.
I’m off from here - I did my self-imposed 5-days research - now it’s music propaganda time…
September 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
831 Good post Tracy.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
741 Julie
I think a twitchy eye indicates stress of any kind, not necessarily that one is guilty of something or lying. I’ve had a twitchy eye in times of high stress–very bothersome. Having a missing (or dead) child and being suspected of being connected with it, whether innocent or guilty, would certainly be a high stress situation for anyone.
770 - Momo
I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I agree with The Real Stig (781) and Moderation’s (790) comments about the key to the church. Overwhelming sympathy and compassion for someone in an extraordinary situation such as a child’s disappearance/suspected abduction would cause someone such as a priest to do something beyond his usual practices in providing comfort and assistance. I do think it is likely the reason he did it was to give the couple a place to quietly pray and gather strength, a respite from being in the public eye.
It is also possible that the McCanns used the opportunity to do more than pray while visiting the church, with or without the priest’s knowledge.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
tony bennett- 839- fantastic post
September 26th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
cheers Judith!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
835 Meant to say nononethere not Garth….. (who usually gets the flack)
Tracy, well said!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
699 A fan of St.Francis of Assisi says (September 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pm)
re: 685 - 686: “I will say it again, because I have already responded to this question in my second post, but apparently no one read it carefully. I am calling for Father Pacheco to come forward and tell the world what he knows”.
REPLY: Precisely so; agreed 100%. It may or may not be that Kate and/or Gerry McCann made a confession to Father Pacheco, though the very fact of their taking the extraordinary decision to visit a priest hours after their daughter’s ‘disappearance’ does indeed point to extraordinary events having occurred that night (and I don’t mean an abduction).
The powerful Roman Catholic belief in the efficacy of and necessity for the last rites may well have played a part in the McCanns’ actions. I do not know if Madeleine was ‘baptised’, but I guess she must have been now that I’ve read that the McCanns are ‘devout Catholics’ (cough).
But as ‘A fan of St.Francis of Assisi’ correctly says, Father Pacheco may have useful information to impart to the Portuguese police, even if the McCanns did not ‘confess’. For example, the time the McCanns contacted him, the time they arrived to see him, exactly what they said about Madeleine, how long they were there with him, their emotional state etc. etc. They seemed to be thinking straight enough to urgently seek to visit the priest rather than to continue to hunt for an alive Madeleine.
If you add on top of that the fact that Father Pacheco hands over the keys to them, you simply have to question his actions. The McCanns had only been out there for 5 days - and I doubt that even being ‘devout Catholics’ whether they attended midweek ‘Midnight Mass’ after drinking the nights away in the Tapas bar with their three young kids all under four in an unlocked apartment. And he entrusted them with the keys to his church??
It’s been said by some posters that priests have ‘a strict duty of confidentiality’, making it sound rather like the sort of duty one has to one’s employer which is in competition with other business rivals and needs to maintain business secrets.
I don’t want to come over as ‘anti-Catholic’ - I’m sure any caring Catholics on this Forum will have been equally horrified by the McCanns’ actions, lies, manipulations and deceit - but, seriously, what kind of religion is it that imposes a rule like this on all its officials: “Don’t ever reveal *anything* ever said to you in the confessional booth, no matter if it’s murder, rape, chid abuse or robbery with violence”? Hardly surprising, is it, that the R.C. Church covered up the abuse of tens of thousands of young boys - to its eternal shame - and is now having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars compensation to the priests’ victims. Even Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor covered up abusing priests in his diocese, transferring them to other parishes and thereby allowing them to go on abusing still more boys. The R.C. Church has vast experience of covering up crimes, quite apart from committing them on a vast scale (the Inquisition).
Such a religon puts its duty to its own organisation and its rules above its duty to humanity and to God. And let us not forget that a prime purpose of the confessional is to provide a world-wide intelligence network for the Vatican, which in consequence is the best-informed political organisation in the world, contributing to its enormous political power, quite apart from its status as by far the world’s greatest landowner.
There is a very Roman Catholic dimension to this bizarre and tragic case: the Pope, Archbishop Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Father Pacheco, devout Catholics Kate and Gerry McCann - and a visit to the ‘holy shrine’ of Fatima.
If Father Pacheco truly believes in a ‘day of judgment’, he would be well advised to consider very careful preparation for the question he will eventually face: “Why didn’t you tell the PJ all that you knew about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?” It won’t have done him much good to have repeated 3 or 5 ‘Hail Mary’s or even a whole rosary or two. No wonder there are reports of him havig a ‘tortured mind’.
Finally, the confessional booth is not Christian, just as the secrecy of it is not only not Christian but positively anti-Christian. The Christian is taught to confess his/her sins directly to God, and seek forgiveness for them directly to God (source: Bible)
September 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Tracey I am with you on this and other so called ‘pro Mccann’ posters. The reason I started looking at Anorak was the ‘Keeping tabs on the tabloids’ tag on the website. Its all gone a bit Jeremy Kyle in this case……..which is sad as I think there is space on the net for a ‘Private Eye’ style news website for those of us who question what we are fed by the media.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
831 Tracy
Unfortunately you’ve got to put your point across in video format.
However, I totally agree with you.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Spudgun
I like your video but I think you should lay off the british government conspiracey stuff. I think Brown was innocently roped in early on - someone knew his brother - I think he’s just guilty of naivety and has managed to extract himself from the McCanns. Mitchell, well, my first thought was that he might be a government plant for damage limitation re KMs hysterical insults towards PJ, framing her etc. Still wondering on that one but I’m sure it’s not a government protection halo for the McCanns.
Rest of vid is excellent!
September 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Judith C said to Garth……….
And who’s asked you to join a club called ‘anti-McCann’ we don’t want you..
Sorry to have to tell you this but this isn’t your club and anyone can hang out here and join in the games!
Yep. Even Garth and Stig and Me and Maria et al.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Atropa
LOL LOL LOL
September 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
judith c 823 you win post of the day
September 26th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
What next do you think? “Blonde girl spotted in Norway - could THIS be Maddie?”
September 26th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I have been reading this site for a couple of weeks, and I have been upset by it on a number of occasions.
I will declare myself to be a non believer that the McCanns did anything wrong other than leave their children. Whilst I don’t defend their leaving them, I can see how they might have been ‘persuaded’, by themselves certainly and also by the fact that some of their friends were doing likewise, to believe it was somehow ok. Not an excuse, certainly not, but neither I’m know they are not the first, nor will they be the last to do so.
For the rest of the blog..how can you debate when there are so few facts? It’s just not logical. I can certainly understand someone taking the position that they were out of order leaving their kids, but much of the rest of the debate is pointless when there are no knowns, in a logical sense. You can suspect, perhaps. But I’m sure you can suspect lots of things and there’s not a lot of difference between debating speculation that has come from unsubstantiated, unproven, unknown leaks and that which any of us might make up. Or not - some ‘facts’ may be true, but we don’t know which ones. From a logical point of view, it is madness to try to make a story when we don’t know what is true.
I’m sure a lot of people feel very strongly, and I can understand the disapproval for leaving the kids, nor do I wish to defend it, but I can’t, from (for want of a better term) a moral sense, think people guilty of a terrible crime just because there are lots of rumours. I feel that I what I am going to say might be imposing my opinion or come across as sanctimonious; but, I have felt quite depressed reading this forum in the last week, as there seems to be many people that will condemn very easily without good grounds, and I think that is very wrong