Madeleine McCann: A Titanic Struggle With The Germans And Slavery In Morocco
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “IS MADELEINE A CHILD SLAVE IN MOROCCO?”
“Madeleine McCann may have been condemned to a life of slavery working as a ‘little maid’ for a rich Arab family…” Or not
Page 5: “’Madeleine will be used as a little maid’” – so suggests Inspector Hicham Alaoui of the Moroccan Police in El Hajeb near Fez
Little maids, notes the paper, are “collected by rich families as ‘curiosities’ as well as servants. A woman from a group called Ecpatuk says such children are “vulnerable to abuse”. The Express sys the girls are abused “physically, emotionally and sexually”. Can Madeleine McCann be among them? Maybe…
“Sacked detective called in to help with the probe” – Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral is talking with new chief Paulo Rebelo
“Fury over magazine ‘sick’ ads” – German magazine titanic has lampooned the case, using Madeleine’s image in spoof supermarket adverts. Gerry and Kate McCann call it “sick” and “very hurtful”. The magazine says Madeleine McCann is “getting a bit much for many people”
DAILY MIRROR front page: “Clear us… you have no case”
Says a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann: “They are adamant they should now be cleared”, as are many suspects in ongoing investigations
Page 7: “McCann ‘clear us’ demand’” – Says Clarence Mitchell: “If the reports are true clearly it would indicate the police absolutely, and quite rightly, have no case against Kate and Gerry”
DAILY MAIL front page: “Oh. Come off it, Heather, how dare you compare your ordeal to Kate McCann’s?” Heather Mills is on the telly
Page 7: “Police pursuit of McCanns ‘is running out of steam’” – The public prosecutor in Portugal says Kate and Gerry McCann will not face further police interviews “unless detectives can produce stronger evidence against them”
Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective with Surrey Police, says the McCann’s private detectives could be on the wrong trail in Morocco. Or not
THE SUN page 24: “GERMAN MAG’S SICK JOKES ABOUT MADDIE – McCanns’ horror as spoof ad pokes fun at lost girl”
Ad advert in satirical Titantic magazine promises the kitchen cleaner will “remove all traces at the home” even DNA traces. The adverts warn that just because Madeleine’s face is on the product it does not mean they can be taken for free. The Sun is disgusted. It reproduces the images and the words to allow its readers to share in its disgust
A march on the German embassy is not yet in the planning
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE SICK NEW TWIST – Horror at German abuse of missing tot”
The Germans have her. A German paedo!
Page 7: “TOTALLY SICK – A full reproduction of the spoof adverts. “McCann’s agony as rag mocks hunt for Maddie.” Thanks to the Star and Sun, the McCanns now know that an obscure German magazines has made jokes about their case
Says Clarence Mitchell: “It shows Madeleine herself no respect… The magazine did not seek permission to use Madeleine’s image to be used on this so-called joke. It they had it would almost certainly not have been given”
So much for doing anything to keep Madeleine in the news
THE INDEPENDENT page 5: “Mills: I am treated as badly as Kate McCann and Diana.” More on Lady Mucca
THE TELEGRAPH page 9: “Madeleine police ‘consult sacked head of inquiry’” – chief inspector Goncalo Amaral is on the case. Sort of
The paper says detectives are “no closer to solving the case”. And the campaign to find Madeleine goes on…
THE TIMES and THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 1st, November 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,518) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
- yampster on Jeremy Kyle: Access All Areas: Kyle Meets The People Of Walmart
- eggman on Jeremy Kyle: Access All Areas: Kyle Meets The People Of Walmart
November 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
http://lh4.google.com/chronictonic1/RvshLlAScjI/AAAAAAAAALs/LAUe3_mr_zw/00.jpg?imgmax=400
When you zoom in on this picture, instead of focusing on the unusal iris that the McCanns made a big deal about, instead look at her eyelashes, and observe how the lipstick was applied.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
372
Peter O Says:
‘Claiming someone is ‘guilty’, or suspicious, in public would be ‘slander’? i.e. They are clearly NOT guilty of anything at the moment. Only a fool would make such a claim in public, whatever their private misgivings, if any, might be’.
Of course Peter O, but there should be a criticism (the reverse of slander) for the famous people who voiced sympathy (suggestive of evidence-blind assumed innocence) for K and G post arguido/a status. IMO they should not prejudice the case. Sympathy for Madeleine perhaps should not extend to her parent while they are arguido/a’s , but then again maybe they deserve sympathy whatever - but privately until the case is closed.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
377 john
That child on the right is a clearer image of the one debated in here a week or so ago. Like you say, who has the twins. Neither of those look like theirs.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
http://lh6.google.com/chronictonic1/RvshOFASckI/AAAAAAAAAL0/1dLWM-LwEs8/02.jpg
Be sure to zoom in on this picture, and draw your own conclusions. Remember, this photo, like others released by the McCanns, are presumably their BEST photos of the girl.
————————————–
Mods and Admin
Google
Error
Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL /1.1 from this server.
This is what i got whenI tried the link?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
392 - how does this pic show spine or neck problems?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I see that the fuss about a few bob paid on the mortgage still goes on .
By any sensible standards, the Doctors McCann were not rich - not dirt poor mind, but the money they were on was not vast - somewhere the wrong side £200,000
November 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
In LAW, an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
However, in FACT an individual is guilty as soon as he/she has broken the law, whether or not their guilt is ever proven.
Please be aware of this subtle difference, pro McCanners, although I suspect you are well aware of it and your repeated claims that these poltroons are innocent are rather disingenuous!
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
http://lh3.google.com/chronictonic1/RvshRVASclI/AAAAAAAAAL8/Vn6EKnl9EeA/06.jpg?imgmax=320
This picture shows that there is something wrong with Madeleine’s neck or spine. It is also the photo that was on the T-shirt Gerry was sporting in a pic someone posted previously. That T-shirt had this photo, along with a close-up of Madeleine’s eye.
But we have NEVER heard anything about Madeleine’s medical conditions, from her parents, who are doctors. Why? Wouldn’t that help in confirming suspicion of a sighting? Oh, I forgot, we are not really looking for her in the first place, we are PRETENDING to look for her.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Alas, poor Heather. Reuters tells us that a leading PR Agent has resigned. Phil Hall, former editor of the NOW, announced that:
“My view is that you need good relations with the media to turn the negative into the positive and I advise always to ignore the stuff thrown at you,” he explained.
So, presumably he’s not going for Clarence’s job anytime soon…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Jolie
You have asked for honest opinons … here is mine .
I think that your attempts to stir up feelings aginst Mike Hitchens and his blog are making you look very foolish.
It is his blog. If you dont like it dont post on it. Quite simple really.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
377 John.
Poor Gerry, he looks heartbroken and on the edge of a nervous breakdown in that picture.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pm
384 - stevo - exactly., I still dont get why, if they could afford a holiday in portugal, did they use the fund while they were still in portugal to pay the mortgage. surely if they were that skint a holiday should be the last thing to do. no wonder they set it up so fast, and makes me consider the ‘planned’ aspect.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
146 Dora
You are wrong
A day or so after they were made by their refusal to answers Q the Mail itself ,at the time being unbiased, printed the names and photos of all the super rich who immediately pulled their funs and backing out.
Sorry behind here playing catch up.Busy earlier
November 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
http://lh5.google.com/chronictonic1/RvshT1AScmI/AAAAAAAAAME/ORO4dVGKx44/11.jpg
This picture shows Madeleine holding Gerry’s balls. It is sure to be VERY helpful to you in “finding” Madeleine.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
A lot of people here seem to feel very strongly that the McCanns are guilty, or the opposite….. To me they seem distressed alright, specially in the first appeals. With time, I suppose that they got their feelings under control. However, many parents who have been convicted of killing their children have managed to look suitably distressed for the cameras, so they could have done it. Regarding the children care arrangements, I would think that regret them every day…. However, I disliked their media campaign from the beginning. The parents of Jessica and Holly didn’t need professional media handlers to get publicity for their daughters nor did they set up a fund to look for them: everyone was aware of their plight and public resources were used to find them -albeit it fell to a member of the public to find them. I would understand that you may need financial help to help with living expenses, mortgage, etc if you are very poor, but I find it distasteful that a family in the top 1% income bracket uses money given by people to find their daughter for making payment mortgage. I am aware that it falls within the stated scope of the fund, but to me it cringes. If with their income they have been so improvident that they did not have any savings, they could have asked relatives and friends for financial help…. and it seems to me more honorable to relocate to a smaller house than to take money from the fund to pay for the mortgage….. I would love to know how the issue of the mortgage repayments came to light….
November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
370 just_me
I know it might sound controversial but in a way, I’d suggest the fund money being confiscated by the PJ. They’ve spent over 500,000 Euros on the case so far. I know it’s not nice to give the money to something like that but it would be a great deterrent to people in the future who blindly give to these causes. Sometimes I think those telethons and comic relief things get out of hand and the real targets of the so-called funds receive less than a third of donations. It seems to me that any million+ fund always has some controversy surrounding it. What happened to the good old days of rallying around locally to help your neighbour?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
377 - John - thats interesting. Perhaps the young child that was seen with Kate on 3rd was the child she is seen with in the photo. Maybe people at the resort didnt know which child was which if they take each others children out and about.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
377 John
And anyone doubting the degree to which Gerry McCann is suffering should look at the photo you posted.
http://picasaweb.google.com/chronictonic1/MarkWarnerResort/photo#5117326575294117506
November 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Sorry about this half-arsed way of posting bits and pieces, but I’ve already spent too much time trying to get the system to take the entire post all in one bite!! ARGHH!
Last paragraph from my ‘original’ message:
I thought people who might be ‘believers’ of Mike Hitchen’s blog would be interested in reading today’s blog post and, particularly, the comments that follow it. They were a real eye-opener for me.
And please respond here with your comments on this subject. I’d like to hear your honest opinions.
THANKS!
http://ionglobaltrends.blogspot.com/2007/11/mccanns-why.html
November 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Here is a “typical” McCann photo of Madeleine:
http://lh6.google.com/chronictonic1/RvshWFAScnI/AAAAAAAAAMM/chjkwkdybZo/14.jpg?imgmax=320
Have you seen a girl looking like this? If so, pick up the phone and call the McCann Modelling Agency — they would be interested!
November 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
This is for the benefit of Jane Tanner and anybody else in the future who should see a person carrying a child in the manner Tanner described. Below is a link to show how a person would carry a child roughly Madeleines age asleep and awake. If you should see anyone carrying a child of said age in the manner Tanner described please approach them if safe to do so or alert someone immediately.
Why did she not realise at the time something was amiss, if that is what she saw, not in hindsight after Madeleine had gone?
Why again have I not read anywhere ,apart from on here, that the lay of the child is very unnatural?
No challenges from the media again?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/09/madeleine-parents.html
November 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
(continued from previous posts)
And here’s Mike Hitchen’s response to my final comment on his blog today:
Mike Hitchen said…
By Jolie. And thanks for including the word “sycophants” as has been used so many times by others of your persuasion.
So has obvious that you aren’t looking for degbate or differences of opinion here.
But then originality is not your strong point is it?
I am sure we will meet again when you appear once more with the same pattern, same words, same phrases.
Feel free to start your own blog by the way, I am sure I would be a welcome visitor.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
http://picasaweb.google.com/chronictonic1/MarkWarnerResort/photo#5117326575294117506
This must be the McCanns taking the O’Brien/Tanner children out or does another couple have an under one and a 3-4 yr old? Who has the twins?
November 1st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
This was my final comment to Mike Hitchens on his blog:
Jolie said…
Don’t worry, Mike, I won’t be staying or returning to your blog. I was waiting for your response to my post before going, though.
You’re so full of yourself, aren’t you? I can’t believe I was taken in by your previous posts and had actually posted links to your blog on Anorak because I thought you had something interesting to say. I will definitely give those folks a heads-up to read this posts and the comments, though, so they can assess for themselves what kind of a person you are. The regulars there know me and know I am a reasonable and fair poster and will be interested in learning what I have discovered.
All you had to do was ask reasonable questions of me or anonymous 8:59 and respond with respect to have a real conversation but you chose to belittle and ridicule us. That doesn’t speak well for you.
I will leave you and your sycophants alone in your ‘harmonious,’ conspiratorial world. It’s obvious that you aren’t looking for debate or differences of opinion here.
(I will post his response on my next post….)
November 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
http://lh6.google.com/chronictonic1/RvsheFAScsI/AAAAAAAAAM0/XBNfavU_dEc/soreface.jpg?imgmax=512
This picture looks like one of the twins has been beaten, and the other has the face covered up. Perhaps the parents are telling them that if they don’t behave, they might have to join Madeleine…
November 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Gerry’s face on here is an absolute picture:
http://picasaweb.google.com/chronictonic1/MarkWarnerResort/photo#5119564704226899906
November 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Damn, I’m back here again. Hey ho lets’s look at today’s “news”.
I wish I was an “expert”, I would have made a packet by now.
And Heather Mills doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
324 AgendaWide Says:
Edit…
Famous people who voiced sympathy (suggestive of evidence-blind assumed innocence) for K and G post arguido/a status (not before that).
Edit….
Famous people who voiced evidence-blind presumption of K and G’ s guilt
eh anyone?
Edit…
++++++++++++++++++++
Claiming someone is ‘guilty’, or suspicious, in public would be ‘slander’? i.e. They are clearly NOT guilty of anything at the moment. Only a fool would make such a claim in public, whatever their private misgivings, if any, might be.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
QUOTE
Jolie said…
Don’t worry, Mike, I won’t be staying or returning to your blog. I was waiting for your response to my post before going, though.
You’re so full of yourself, aren’t you? I can’t believe I was taken in by your previous posts and had actually posted links to your blog on Anorak because I thought you had something interesting to say. I will definitely give those folks a heads-up to read this posts and the comments, though, so they can assess for themselves what kind of a person you are. The regulars there know me and know I am a reasonable and fair poster and will be interested in learning what I have discovered.
All you had to do was ask reasonable questions of me or anonymous 8:59 and respond with respect to have a real conversation but you chose to belittle and ridicule us. That doesn’t speak well for you.
I will leave you and your sycophants alone in your ‘harmonious,’ conspiratorial world. It’s obvious that you aren’t looking for debate or differences of opinion here.
UNQUOTE
Mike responded back to me:
QUOTE
Mike Hitchen said…
By Jolie. And thanks for including the word “sycophants” as has been used so many times by others of your persuasion.
So has obvious that you aren’t looking for degbate or differences of opinion here.
But then originality is not your strong point is it?
I am sure we will meet again when you appear once more with the same pattern, same words, same phrases.
Feel free to start your own blog by the way, I am sure I would be a welcome visitor.
UNQUOTE
————-
I thought people who might be ‘believers’ of Mike Hitchen’s blog would be interested in reading today’s blog post and, particularly, the comments that follow it. They were a real eye-opener for me.
And please respond here with your comments on this subject. I’d like to hear your honest opinions.
THANKS!
November 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Re. Mike Hitchens’ Nov 1 blog The McCanns: Why?
Someone posted a comment anonymously (8:59) that they thought this post was a marked departure from his recent ones that led people to believe he had inside information about the McCanns’ past (some deep, dark secret from the 90’s) that is the reason they are so sheltered by higher-ups and government types. He also has hinted recently that he knew behind-the-scenes activities that were close to bringing the McCanns to justice. Anonymous was attacked for this simple observation, which I agreed with. I stood up to support him/her and was quickly painted with the same brush of being a supporter of the McCanns, which I denied. After the insults, I made a final post, which I’d like you to read (see my next post–I’m posting it in piece meal, hoping to get it to show up)