Madeleine McCann: A Bedroom, A bed And A Blanket
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR front page: “FIRST PIC OF SNATCH SCENE – INSIDE MADDY’S BEDROOM”
A picture of the holiday bedroom from where Madeleine McCann vanished. Useful. Perhaps seeing it will jog your memory…
The Mirror highlights three areas of the room:
DOOR: “LAST LOOK. Dad Gerry last saw his daughter form this door”
BED: “HER BED - “Rumpled covers and pillow on mattress”
WALLS: “UNTOUCHED – Room is as it was after police forensic team finished work”
We commend to your attention the shards of sardine roll, cigarette ash dropping and big footprints
The picture is an “EXCLUSIVE”
MADDY COPS WANTS McCANNS SILENCED” – A plan to do harm to Kate and Gerry McCann?
Almost as bad: “Portuguese police may gag Madeleine McCann’s parents by keeping them suspects for the next 15 years.” So too Robert Murat. This one has along way to run
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – THE HUNT SWITCHES TO BOSNIA AFTER NEW SIGHTING”
Page 9: “Tourist spotted Madeleine – I heard her yell: ‘I want my daddy’”
The Express hears news from Medugorje, Bosnia, the site of a Catholic shrine. As reported on Anorak, the man sees a girl who looks like Madeleine. He reports it to local police. Police shrug. He tells the McCanns’ private detective firm. They check the expense account. They respond
The “father of six”, from County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland, who asked not to be named, says: “From the minute I saw them, there seemed to be something odd going on. They both had a very swarthy complexion and the toddler with them was a blonde, fair child.” Dark, you say?
“She was wearing a little pink coat and was very agitated and sobbing. The instant I saw her my heart skipped a beat because it struck me that she looked like Madeleine McCann. I felt sure there was something wrong and started to move towards them. As they saw me coming, they started walking faster away from me. I was sure the child they had was not theirs. I got right up beside them, and was about to speak to the child when the man put his hand over her mouth and shoved her into the car. He was pushing her into the back seat and was yelling in a language I didn’t understand.”
“First look at bedroom” – Unless you have already seen the Mirror that is
“New nightmare as McCanns could be suspects for 15 years” – Says Francisco Pagarete, Robert Murat’s lawyer: “The problem is that in Portugal a suspect can remain an arguido for 15 years without any need for police to reapply or extend the status”
No problem for the press
THE SUN page 11: “MADDIE;S BEDROOM.” This is the “FIRST PICTURE” of “Inside the McCann holiday flat”
For those readers unfamiliar with the contents of a “bedroom”, the Sun uses an arrow pointing towards a box-shaped presence and tells us: “Bed she was in before she went missing.” A second arrow points to a “Blanket”
Clarence Mitchell hears of the sighting in Bosnia. Says he:”We are not dismissing it. The witness was 99.9 per cent certain the child was not with her natural parents”
DAILY MAIL page 19: “First photo of Maddie flat as hunt switches to Bosnia”
“Its narrow beds have been stripped of their sheets so they can be analysed for evidence”
And in Bosnia, the “very swarthy” people are with Madeleine. Like the man in Belgian, perhaps…
DAILY STAR page 9: “BOMBSHELL BOOK POINTS FINGER AT MADDIE PARENTS”
Hernani Carvalho and Luis Maia have written Maddie 129. the Star says the book claims some of the Tapas Seven “had already given up searching for Madeleine and were in their own flats 90 minutes after the alarm was raised because ‘they already knew where she was’”
An American artist has been employed by the Star to make Madeleine’s hair from blonde to dark. (Non-experts can use a felt tip or boot polish)
DAILY TELEGRAPH front page: “MADELEINE DETECTIVES CHECK NEW SIGHTING AT BOSNIAN SHRINE”
Page 7: Says Clarence Mitchell: “But as with all these reports, the McCanns refuse to raise their hopes until it has been investigated fully”
NEW YORK TIMES: “European Tabloids Still Agog Months After Child Vanishes”
“Six months after Madeleine McCann, then 3 years old, disappeared from her family’s vacation apartment in Portugal, no development in the case seems too small to merit a banner headline — even the news that her father had returned to his job as a doctor. Similarly, no story is too speculative”
THE GUARDIAN, THE INDEPENDENT and THE TIMES: No Madeleine news
Posted: 12th, November 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (950) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on X Factor Watch: Cowell Wins, Lucie Jones Is A Stepford Singer And Jedward Kill
- Gandolf on The Ten Craziest Reasons Why Nidal Malik Hasan Did It
- Karen on X Factor Watch: Cowell Wins, Lucie Jones Is A Stepford Singer And Jedward Kill
- Karen on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward, Are Voted Out, But Then
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward, Are Voted Out, But Then
November 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
952
Peter O Says:
yep, figured that out finally
November 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
951 dork Says:
Way behind on reading today’s posting, but had an idea about BG’s clothing Edit….
++++++++++++++++++
This is yesterday’s blog…
November 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
951 dork Says:
Way behind on reading today’s posting, but had an idea about BG’s clothing Edit….
++++++++++++++++++
This is yesterday’s blog…
November 13th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Way behind on reading today’s posting, but had an idea about BG’s clothing and how it might connect to Portugal.
I used to work at a daycare center. We always had a store of clean children’s clothing on hand to use when needed (potty accident, etc.) Most of it was left at sometime by parents and never claimed. Perhaps the creche in Portugal had a similar “grab-bag’? Surely Americans sometimes stayed at that resort.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
948 annie123 Says:
947 Peter O
I think one of the main reasons people are so hot under the collar about the neglect/abandonment/unsupervised for extended periods etc is because of what MAY have happened is a deep rooted fear of the majority of parents. The possibility that such a beautiful innocent child may be in the hands of paedophiles is every parents worst nightmare. Edit…
++++++++++++
Sorry, not an expert on the Children’s Act, so not fair to comment. However, the suggestion that it is the child/ren that have the right of contact sounds like a sensible provision.
I always need to be clear when I’m commenting about the way in which the McCann’s allegedly left the children unattended on successive nights. I still find it incredible that anyone can think that is acceptable behaviour, irrespective of whether or not any harm befalls the child(ren). I find it incredibly bizarre that anyone thinks you should have to point out that leaving young children unattended for even a short period of time is just an incredibly risky thing to do.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
annie123,
It does seem strange being advised not to advertise the fact that Madeleine has a colomba. On the one hand I can see the police’s argument that it would make the alleged abductors more likely to kill her yet on the other hand it makes her so distinctive and less likely to be confused with another similar child if seen. Once it was in the news that she had been abducted from Praia da Luz the abductor(s) would realise that the child they had would become the focus of an intense search, and that would make them likely to dispose of her, regardless of whether the colomba was mentioned or not. I’m not sure of any statistics, but I think that most abducted children who are killed, are killed fairly soon after the abduction & any abuse has taken place. The number of children who are abducted and passed around a group or network of paedophiles is relatively small. The number of children who are killed is, I believe, approximately 40% of those abducted. This may well vary depending on the age of the child.
If Kate McCann did knowingly lie about the police having been called then it does bring into question the whole allegation of an abduction. I know there are a number of posters who think this was all pre-planned by the McCanns but, if so, I’d have thought they would have chosen a less developed country to visit than Portugal (despite the various media comments regarding Portugal being corrupt etc)
I wonder what your views are on the theory that other members of the Tapas 9 are behind the disappearance of Madeleine, with or without the McCanns’ knowledge. Personally, I don’t put any credibility in that. If they were to abduct a child, it doesn’t make sense to take a friend’s child & risk being seen and recognised. Where would they place the child without that friend discovering what happened, especially in a foreign country?
Whatever has happened to Madeleine and whatever the parents’ level of involvement in that (or lack of), I think the friends are only guilty of misguided attempts to help, possibly at the parents’ suggestion. The recent news of possible changes to statements is the friends suddenly realising how deep a hole they’ve dug for themselves and the potential of facing charges of being far more involved than they actually were.
Regarding the parental contact. I’m no expert on child law but I think a parent does have a right to a relationship with a child, hence the access/visitation rights in divorce cases.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
947
Peter O
I think one of the main reasons people are so hot under the collar about the neglect/abandonment/unsupervised for extended periods etc is because of what MAY have happened is a deep rooted fear of the majority of parents. The possibility that such a beautiful innocent child may be in the hands of paedophiles is every parents worst nightmare.
For such a possibility to happen to the child of people we put our own lives and our childrens lives in their hands and it occured because of their wilful neglect is something that is hard to swallow. Yet the facts remain, G&K left the toddlers for extended periods resulting at some point in Maddie being removed from the apartment. Whether by abduction or by the hands of the Tapas9 is yet to be resolved.
I believe peoples anger stems from the possibility of the paedo story and the McC’s making this easy for any would be abductor.
If it is prooven that G&K were in someway responsible for Maddie’s death and they were charged and prosecuted, the twins would be placed with members of the family and would have supervised contact with their parents. It is the child’s right to know and have a relationship with both it’s parents, not the parents right to have a relationship with the child/ren. Children Act ????
November 13th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
943 annie123 Says:
940 Peter
910 Hideki
Edit…
Now for my pen’orth:
Peter and Hideki can you agree to disagree a no win arguement which is swamping this forum with the mile long (ok half mile long) posts, this forum should be changed to the Peter Hideski debate the way it’s been swamped over at least the last 2 days with the extended posts. It’s very off putting.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Apologies, but I’m not about to let anyone make unproven claims about my supposed allegiances. If my posts bother you probably best you press page down through them?
Thank you for your ‘balanced’ assessment of the likely interest of SS in the McCann’s child minding arrangements. I think you’re pretty much on the money as to what would likely as not happen, which is why I don’t understand why people are so hot under the collar about starting a third party child neglect case.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
powder monkey
I believe the call to the police was made at 10-40pm, the police arrived at 10-50pm. There have been some ‘witnesses’ who offered to call the police, I believe Kate told one woman she had already called them, this was around 10-20pm which was just one untruth she told.
If Maddie had been abducted, her trademark colomba being announced to the world would have gone a long way towards her ‘abductor/s’ ‘getting rid of her’. This is what really astounded me about the case at the begining. I am certain the police would have advised them not to mention it. I have no doubt that Maddie is dead, how/when etc. is the question.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
annie123,
It does seem a long time, 40 minutes. If Kate McCann found Madeleine missing at 22.00 - 22.05, allow 5 minutes to check the apartment herself & run to the tapas bar, 5 minutes for people to respond & return to the apartment, 15 minutes (minimum I’d say - the police themselves say it took 10 minutes for them to arrive, so I’m allowing 5 minutes from someone saying to phone the police to explaining what happened on the phone), then this leaves a period of about 15 minutes in which a large number of people checked the apartment, the immediate vicinity - car park, pathways, streets etc. I don’t think this is too unreasonable a time frame.
I’m not totally convinced there was an abduction, based on the amount of opportunity for an offender & some of the points discussed on this and other forums - evasion of questions, changing of statements, for example. I am leaning in that direction, so to speak, as there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead or that her parents killed her.
The various sightings, not withstanding, I think it almost certain that Madeleine is dead, given the amount of time since her disappearance. If a sighting was reported that details the colomba and it isn’t investigated & dismissed, then I’d hold out hope that she is still alive. I still would want to see all sightings checked, until evidence of her death is presented.
I can remember when my daughter was about the same age your son was, and went astray in a supermarket. I’ve never felt that sense of panic before or since and I’ve never moved as fast either - not even for cakes!
Not sure about the child snatched from the bed, but there was a six year old in December 2005 or so who was snatched from her bath whilst her mother was in a nearby room. She was found very quickly, having been abandoned naked in a snow covered alley, but she had been raped. The scum bag who did it was given 3 life sentences (abduction, rape & sexual assault) with a minimum of 10 years.
If the McCanns are charged with child neglect, will others from the Tapas 9 share the dock? I believe they also left their children alone to go drinking & dining. Will the police check for other instances of this, not only with the Tapas 9, but also with other holiday makers? Imaging the future Mark Warner brochure - “We have excellent child minding facilities but if you choose not to use them & leave the kids alone, you’ll be charged with child neglect”. I wonder how that will affect bookings?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
942
powder monkey
IF it was an abduction - if the McC’s can waste 40 precious mins worrying about how they would be treated for leaving 3 toddlers unattended before calling the police, they are capable of anything, including altering the ‘last’ photo IMO.
My son went missing many years ago aged about 2. In total, from the last time I saw him, searched the house twice, a 3 bed house not apartment, checked up and down the street, asked neighbours and called the police, a max of 15mins had passed. When a child goes missing, speed is essential.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
940
Peter
910 Hideki
As this was probably the first time (yeah right) that the McC’s neglected the kids, SS’s involvement with this ‘highly respectable’ couple would be to point out the dangers of leaving such young children unattended for any length of time. Had no harm befollen the kids, they would get a slap on the wrist, don’t do it again and probably one more follow up visit then filed away.
Had a child been injured or as in this case abducted/disappeared, SS would do as above. They would offer assistance, see if the family were coping, needing help etc. They would NOT be seeking to punish the family further by bringing charges or threatening to take the kids off them. REGARDLESS of what a large % of the world population think happened that day, they have not been charged with any crime, SS have visited the McC’s and are probably satisfied with their care of the twins, with it being such a high profile case, SS are probably reassured that no harm will befall the twins.
There was another child 2/3 yrs old snatched from her bed in the UK while the mother was downstairs. The child was snatched by a known paedo and was returned safely when the police caught up with the group of 3? I think. This was only a year or 2 ago, anyone remember?
Now for my pen’orth:
Peter and Hideki can you agree to disagree a no win arguement which is swamping this forum with the mile long (ok half mile long) posts, this forum should be changed to the Peter Hideski debate the way it’s been swamped over at least the last 2 days with the extended posts. It’s very off putting.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Kris,
I, too, am surprised at the number of people who treated Stevo’s ste as even remotley credible. Mind you, Ive seensome prety stupid theories on the Anorak forums, including one regarding a novel & tracing people who had bought it at airports & then travelled to the Algarve. I was going to respond to that one but I fell of my chair laughing.
By the way, as I’m not up to speed with all the abbreviations, what does OCD stand for?
May,
I’ve just had another visit to Stevo’s site. The only links not working are 3 for the Mirror. All the others, about 20 or so, are working. Not exactly almost ‘all are unobtainable’. What evidence is there to show the photo was “staged well after the disappearance”?
Hideki,
I certainly agree that the McCanns should face some form of child neglect charges. I don’t think that a custodial sentence would be a good idea though. If both were imprisoned, then the twins would be “punished”, asit were, by the loss of their parents. I am struggling to think of an appropriate sentence, though.
Peter O,
Wasn’t Madeleine at the creche that afternoon, or have the statements by the staff been discredited? If not, surely that shows Madeleine alive after 14.29? I find it impossible to believe that that an older photo was altered. Do you believe that they just used the best photo available or actually took the photo with some form of future alteration in mind?
I said no such thing about a box travelling across the Atlantic. I merely pointed out the discrepancies between the descriptions of Baby Grace and Madeleine.
Stevo devotes a whole page studying lonks between the two, even to naming a ship. That surely implies he/she thinks Baby Grace & Madeleine are one & the same.
The McCanns visited Huelva on 03.08.07. The ship arrived 17.08.07. & sailed 18.08.07. (using Stevo’s information). If Madeleine was put in that box & loaded on the ship, where was the body between 03.08.07. and 17.08.07.?
I know you don’t believe that Baby Grace & Madeleine are the same but, for pity’s sake, please don’t gove any credibility to this ridiculous idea. Stevo is all “what if” with nothing to support these wild ideas.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
934 Hideki Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 6:24 am
930 May Says:
924 Hidelki
“Apologies for confusing your views with Peter O. An insomniac’s brain gets confused! ”
Peter O ’s argument is hard to follow, mainly because he pads it with a bunch of empty meaningless stuff. It’s worth reading closely , though, to see how someone can conceal their wholly pro-McCann stance.
COMMENT - You ought to try applying the same degree of ‘analysis’ to your own posts!
BTW, in case anyone else is fooled by Peter O’s unfortunate plagiarism of my post, I will explain. I stated that his views AGAINST prosecution are pro-McCann and that he has been posting pro-McCann views that he deliberately tries to camouflage.
COMMENT – You stated an opinion, for which you have no evidence. This being a satirical site I merely re-used your lame claims to show how easy it is to claim that just about anyone is really a crack undercover agent batting for the other side. Whoever the ‘other side’ needs to be to support whatever ridiculous assertion someone is trying to make.
Peter O then copied my words verbatim, inserting my name into the text, ie. claiming that I am in some way pro-McCann for advocating prosecution.
COMMENT – It’s a satirical site……
My personal opinion is that the McCanns should spend several years in prison BASED ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ALONE. If convicted on other charges, they should then of course spend an even longer time behind bars.
COMMENT – You’re entitled to your opinion, however daft it may be. I have problems comprehending what world you inhabit. Even if found guilty of neglect, what the McCann’s have been alleged to have done, keeping strictly focussed on their evening child care arrangements, is at the far end of the Richter scale in terms of child neglect. In any normal circumstance, and I accept this case is far from normal, if their actions resulted in any more than a note on their files as to their future conduct I should be very surprised.
Another opinion I hold is that the actual killing of the child is not nearly as important as PROVING THAT SHE DIED, and issuing an injunction against the McCanns to immediately halt their campaigning to “find Madeleine”.
COMMENT – I have a problem with the words you use but concur with the overall premise that ending this publicity charade by the McCann’s is a very laudable objective.
Various charges of child neglect, obstruction of justice, illegal body disposal, sedation, etc could give the McCanns a very stiff sentence if they are convicted. By comparison, the actual incident of accidental killing would (without all these other heinous circumstances) probably not result in a very long sentence. This is why I am less concerned about whether or not they actually killed Madeleine, but am more concerned about showing that they knew she was dead, arranged for the disposal of the body, defrauded the whole world,etc.
COMMENT – That preceding paragraph is er, nonsense! You’ve taken your perhaps overstated, but not unreasonable belief, that leaving the children unattended constitutes child neglect, and linked to a series of currently unsubstantiated allegations. The whole point of this investigation is that no one in the public actually knows what happened to Madeleine, there are lots of opinions. Leaks, rumours etc, just no evidence in the public domain at the moment.
I hardly think my view can be characterized as pro-McCann. Peter O’s glib effort to say that I am pro-McCann because I support prosecution for child neglect shows his disingenuousness and superficiality. JMO!
COMMENT – Just about any position in here could be construed as being either pro or anti-McCann. I happen to believe that a third party child neglect charge in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation could be of benefit to the McCann’s. You don’t believe that, I can accept that. Given that you seem so keen to do something that I believe would benefit the McCann’s, I could make the assertion that you therefore are here to promote a course of action that Team McCann would actually prefer at this time. That would be a silly assertion, wouldn’t it?
November 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
910 Hideki Says: November 13th, 2007 at 4:54 am
342 Peter O
I’ve split your last post up and annotated it to hopefully aid readers understanding of who is saying what.
======================
Peter O - “However, if this was the only thing they had done[child neglect], no abduction, no missing Madeleine, no public furore, I would be very surprised if any ‘official’ action were taken, in my opinion…”
Hideki - It goes without saying, that if there had been no disappearance of the child, the neglect would likely have passed unnoticed and unreported. So?
COMMENT – Please don’t avoid the question. My point is that had the McCann’s child minding habits not resulted in Madeleine’s alleged abduction, it doesn’t in any way lessen their unacceptable behaviour. Leaving young children unattended for any length of time is a risky practice. That said, had their actions come to light, I very much doubt that any ‘official’ action would have been taken against them. I am not condoning this, just stating what I believe.
==================
Peter O - “However, you are very specific in your demands? You want them pursued for neglect and it can’t happen soon enough for you can it? Why? What’s your agenda here?”
Hideki - Why? Because according to their own statements they have committed child neglect, and others corroborated. Indeed, because of their neglect the child disappeared
COMMENT – And this is *EXACTLY* what the McCann’s would like you and everyone else to believe, that Madeleine disappeared whilst she was left on her own. If the McCann’s are involved in Madeleine’s disappearance then they must above all else keep up the deception that Madeleine and the twins were alone in their apartment between about 9.00 PM and 10.00 PM on May 3rd.
=================
Peter O - “I believe that Team McCann would welcome neglect charges because they probably believe they could win such a case. ”
Hideki - You believe that the McCanns believe… Good proof of nothing other than that you hold unsupportable views.
COMMENT – Only “unsupportable” in your opinion. I’m stating my opinion, you’re stating your opinion. We differ in our opinions.
=================
Peter O - “I don’t believe a child neglect case would concern itself with the body of evidence relating to the alleged abduction and the circumstances leading up to it. ”
Hideki - What body of evidence relates to an abuction? None whatsoever. Your remark is absolute nonsense.
COMMENT – You really do need to learn to answer questions and not just dismiss people’s comments as ‘nonsense’.
Any criminal proceedings relating to child neglect charges will focus on the events that prove the neglect. The McCann’s allege they left the children on their own but checked on them regularly. The neglect case will not focus on events post 10.00 PM nor prior to about 8.30 PM on May 3rd, with the exception of questioning childcare arrangements on the evenings prior to May 3rd. i.e. The time period when the McCann’s really want the world to believe that the children were alone in that apartment.
================
Peter O - “The case would probably be forced to focus on the McCann’s alleged baby listening service. ”
Hideki - That is to say, it would be forced to focus on the fact that the children were left alone while the parents were drinking. The parents and friends DO NOT constitute a “baby listening service”, by the way. This is more pro-McCann spin — nicely injected. You would do well to consider all the reasons the Mark Warner system IS considered a “service”.
COMMENT – I’m on record on multiple occasions criticising anybody who believe that EITHER the McCann’s ‘baby listening service’, the service offered by Mark Warner, or any other similar service, is acceptable for young children. Leaving young children on their own for any length of time is an extremely risky thing to do.
================
Peter O - “I believe the McCann’s could win such a case. In winning that case they would probably prove their version of the timeline and prove themselves innocent of child neglect to boot. ”
Hideki - More unsupportable speculative opinion. Who cares what you believe, when you cannot show the slightest basis for such a belief? And if they could “prove” any single version of the contradictory timelines, that would be a step forward. As for how that is going to “prove them innocent” — I guess one just has to be a Team McCann player like you to see that.
COMMENT – My opinion is no more ‘speculative’ than yours. We differ in our opinions.
I can just imagine the Comical One uttering some such gumph as “The McCann’s welcome the opportunity to prove in a court of law that they are a happy loving family who very much care for their children…..”
If the case of child neglect was NOT proven, “The family feel vindicated that the court accepts there was no child neglect involved precisely because they had adopted a rigorous pattern of checking on the children. I would just add that McCann’s trust that this decision once and for all will put to rest the ludicrous notion that they were in any way involved in Madeleine disappearance. And finally, it is the families wish that the Portuguese authorities shift their focus to the search for Madeleine.” – Allegedly, in my opinion, etc.
And some rubbish such as this if the case of child neglect IS proven, “Despite the court accepting that the McCann’s checked upon their children at regular intervals, the family nonetheless accepts the judgement of the court. They do wish for me to remind everyone that had they at that time had any doubts about leaving the children for short periods, then there is absolutely no way they would have done so.. I would just add that McCann’s trust that this decision once and for all will put to rest the ludicrous notion that they were in any way involved in Madeleine disappearance. And finally, it is the families wish that the Portuguese authorities shift their focus to the search for Madeleine.” – Allegedly, in my opinion, etc.”
================
The remainder of your post isn’t worth repeating. You miss the point that this is a satirical site and I merely re-used your own nonsensical arguments that I was some how in the pay/control of Team McCann to assert that you yourself are the Team McCann ‘plant’. Perhaps if you stopped looking at the world from your own narrow perspective you might spot humour when it was being used?
I have problems comprehending what world you inhabit. Even if found guilty of neglect, what the McCann’s have been alleged to have done, keeping strictly focussed on their evening child care arrangements, is at the far end of the Richter scale in terms of child neglect. In any normal circumstance, and I accept this case is far from normal, if their actions resulted in any more than a note on their files as to their future conduct I should be very surprised.
I must correct another piece of misinformation that you created regarding myself. I have NEVER stated that the McCann’s should not be charged with child neglect. On the contrary, I think they should be charged with every crime possible, including child neglect, at the appropriate time in the PJ’s criminal investigation. I do not however believe that it will benefit the investigation for a third party to press for a Child Neglect charges whilst the PJ’s investigations are still underway.
I would like to believe that we have a difference of opinion about the timing of child neglect charges, that’s all. I am however suspicious of your motives for pushing this agenda so forcefully given that I believe the McCann’s would be the greater benefactors of any third party child neglect charges in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:36 am
907 Kris Says:
897- Powder Monkey
In your recent list of issues with Stevo’s site, I’d like to call special attention to :
#2 “WHY IS THIS RELEVANT?”
Stevo repeatedly (and I do mean 4 or 5 times since I started coming on Anorak six weeks ago) gets all OCD (and even hostil OCD) over certain issues– the Last PHoto, the Baby Grace issue, etc. Edit…
++++++++++++++++++
Can I just say that I disagree with you.
The information in the public domain that Madeleine was alive later in the day on May 3rd is ‘questionable’, that does not mean she was definitely missing by this time. You would hope that the PJ have much more substantive information.
Given that I and others question whether Madeleine wasn’t already missing by 6.00 PM it is not unreasonable to then go on to question the other information in the public domain that allegedly confirms Madeleine was alive and well on the afternoon of 3rd May.
Your appear to believe that Madeleine had not gone missing by 6.00 PM on 3rd May, so of course any discussion about the ‘last photo’ being faked is at odds with your current opinion.
The ‘last photo’ was not released until three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance. The McCann’s were/are very specific about the date and time that the picture was taken, down to mentioning the time difference on the camera. This claim is/was still posted on the Find Madeleine website until recently, and may still be there.
Why the need to be so specific about the time, why was the picture not released for so long? Now, a perfectly reasonable explanation is that by mentioning the time and date, it may jog people’s memories about other people/events that may have been around when that photograph was allegedly taken. Delaying the release of the picture could just be good media management and drip feeding ‘news’ to keep the story fresh. I cannot however prove what I’ve just typed, it may be close to the truth, it may be fabrication. However, I couldn’t really argue with someone who stated that this is what they believed had happened, in their opinion.
Why then should I require any more ‘evidence/proof’ to question whether that last photo is genuine? I can equally state that the last photo could have been either doctored (I don’t believe that by the way) or taken on an earlier day (which I believe is the simpler explanation).
What Stevo did was demonstrate how someone with the requisite skills, time and software could doctor that ‘last photo’. He’s never claimed, so far as I am aware, that the photo was doctored. I’ve equally asked people to prove to me that the ‘last photo’ wasn’t taken on the 1st or 2nd May. I have no evidence to support that assertion, merely trying to make the point that we in the public domain do not currently have access to any evidence that allows us to be absolutely certain that the ‘last photo’ is genuine.
Regarding Baby Grace. What Stevo has demonstrated is, as you say yourself, how it may have been possible for a box containing a child’s body to get across the Atlantic. He has not suggested that this is actually what happened. I personally don’t believe that Baby Grace is Madeleine however I’m prepared to wait for the results of the DNA before dismissing the possibility out of hand.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:48 am
936 Tracy
From their present track record, YES.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Do you think if Baby Grace was in fact Madeleine, that the Government would cover it up??
November 13th, 2007 at 6:42 am
933 Hideki
Fully understand and agree with your views for wanting the McCs to be sued for child neglect. The high profile they adopted to detract from their fundamental neglect should not be a deterrent from achieving some kind of justice for Madeleine.
Can also see the supposedly subtle ways in which some pro McCs attempt to disguise their intentions or hijack and distort the views of those not perceived to be on side.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:35 am
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/20934/MADDIE-SIGHTING-WAS-CRUEL-HOAX-/
“Last night, detectives in Portugal ruled out the theory Madeleine had been buried at sea after a hi-tech navy search failed to find her body. But they remain convinced Madeleine is dead. ”
Any one have details about what is involved in the ” hi-tech navy search”?
November 13th, 2007 at 6:24 am
930
May Says:
924 Hidelki
“Apologies for confusing your views with Peter O. An insomniac’s brain gets confused! ”
Peter O ’s argument is hard to follow, mainly because he pads it with a bunch of empty meaningless stuff. It’s worth reading closely , though, to see how someone can conceal their wholly pro-McCann stance.
“Can already hear Kris mouthing off about how I shouldn’t be allowed to contribute anything with my half baked brain and lack of reasoning powers…”
I doubt it, because Kris just posted that she could not follow it either, even after reading three times. LOL.
BTW, in case anyone else is fooled by Peter O’s unfortunate plagiarism of my post, I will explain. I stated that his views AGAINST prosecution are pro-McCann and that he has been posting pro-McCann views that he deliberately tries to camouflage.
Peter O then copied my words verbatim, inserting my name into the text, ie. claiming that I am in some way pro-McCann for advocating prosecution.
My personal opinion is that the McCanns should spend several years in prison BASED ON THE CHILD NEGLECT ALONE. If convicted on other charges, they should then of course spend an even longer time behind bars.
Another opinion I hold is that the actual killing of the child is not nearly as important as PROVING THAT SHE DIED, and issuing an injunction against the McCanns to immediately halt their campaigning to “find Madeleine”.
Various charges of child neglect, obstruction of justice, illegal body disposal, sedation, etc could give the McCanns a very stiff sentence if they are convicted. By comparison, the actual incident of accidental killing would (without all these other heinous circumstances) probably not result in a very long sentence. This is why I am less concerned about whether or not they actually killed Madeleine, but am more concerned about showing that they knew she was dead, arranged for the disposal of the body, defrauded the whole world,etc.
I hardly think my view can be characterized as pro-McCann. Peter O’s glib effort to say that I am pro-McCann because I support prosecution for child neglect shows his disingenuousness and superficiality. JMO!
November 13th, 2007 at 6:15 am
“Medical narcissism is a term coined by John Banja in his book “Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism”[7][8].
Banja defines “Medical Narcissism” as the need of health professionals to preserve their self esteem leading to the compromise of error disclosure to patients.
In the book he explores the psychological, ethical and legal effects of medical errors and the extent to which a need to constantly assert their competence can cause otherwise capable, and even exceptional, professionals to fall into narcissistic traps.
He claims that: “…most health professionals (in fact, most professionals of any ilk) work on cultivating a self that exudes authority, control, knowledge, competence and respectability. It’s the narcissist in us all—we dread appearing stupid or incompetent.”
“
November 13th, 2007 at 6:06 am
927
Kris Says:
“Hideki, that post is really very confusing. Even upon third reading, iIt’s hard to tell who’s arguing what…”
I agree that Peter O’s argument is peculiar, but if you could not follow our debate after three tries, I would suggest some remedial reading is in order, and/or a little rest.
WHO’S ARGUING WHAT
Moreover, I’ve already posted a short explanation(924) to May — to the effect that Peter O is arguing that the McCanns SHOULD NOT be charged with child neglect, ie. they SHOULD NOT be prosecuted.
I, oppositely, think that they SHOULD be prosecuted.
Peter O wrote literally that he “believes that the McCanns believe” facing prosecution for child neglect would be beneficial for them, and that therefore they would “WELCOME” such a prosecution.
Frankly, I think most people rather assume that the McCanns DON’T WELCOME facing such charges. And I merely pointed out that Peter O gives no reason that prosecution for child neglect will benefit the McCanns in any way, other than his unfounded “belief”. Nor would it make prosecution for other crimes, such as illegal body disposal, obstruction of justice, etc etc any more difficult.
Since I cannot come up with the slightest rationale for Peter O’s bizarre belief that prosecution of the McCanns for child neglect benefits them, I offered my opinion that Peter O is presenting this weird unfounded argument/belief only as a way to persuade people to NOT support such prosecution.
Peter O says he believes that the McCanns would WELCOME prosecution. To the contrary, I stated that Team McCann WELCOMES such nonsensical arguments as his.
Anything to persuade people to forget about child neglect prosecution!
” only that someone is going on and on once again about the (sigh) neglect issue.”
The issue is whether or not the McCanns should be prosecuted RIGHT NOW for their unpardonable neglect of the children. Many, like me, say YES. Some, lie Peter O, say NO. Very few who say NO say that based on Peter O’s reasoning that such prosecution will benefit the McCanns.
“Jesus, give it a rest already. We all know it was wrong to leave these young children alone. Let’s get on with it.”
I would suggest that AFTER your own rest, you try re-reading the thread and see if you can finally comprehend who is arguing what. How odd that you admit you couldn’t even understand that much, and yet you go on to say that you have already heard this discussion before.
Nothing worse than opening your mouth to opine forcefully about something you have just said you do not yet understand. To “paraphrase” Will, it makes you “look stupid”, Kris. Just some advice, not meant to be taken as in any way friendly.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:35 am
924 Hidelki
Apologies for confusing your views with Peter O. An insomniac’s brain gets confused! Can already hear Kris mouthing off about how I shouldn’t be allowed to contribute anything with my half baked brain and lack of reasoning powers…
November 13th, 2007 at 5:28 am
923 Kris
I have no way of knowing whether BG is M, and nor do you, unless you have had the benefit of seeing the DNA comparison. However, my point about smoke and mirrors is that anything COULD be possible, when there is so much obvious deception going on throughout the whole M investigation, and blocks put on the release of information which is relevant.
You clearly want to present yourself as a hard bitten journalist who has seen it all and can only marvel at how obtuse the rest of us remain. Continue to feel good about yourself.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:25 am
925- Hannasus. I think I saw something about him banging the tennis coach. I don’t know. TB is either completely full of shit or right on the nail — I can’t decide– but at least he’s got some theories and some information, unlike certain other posters here, who choose to repeat falshehoods and half-truths and irrelevancies.
No really, then, goodnight.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Hideki, that post is really very confusing. Even upon third reading, iIt’s hard to tell who’s arguing what, only that someone is going on and on once again about the (sigh) neglect issue. Jesus, give it a rest already. We all know it was wrong to leave these young children alone. Let’s get on with it.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:21 am
But in order to not delay any further invective, let me say: May, darling, you have only an estimated one-quarter to one-half the intellect of your Hero Stevo, and I won’t be bothering with any more arguments here with you tonight, due to the fact that I need to pee and it would take too much work to get back here to discuss something with someone who can’t even intellectually comprehend the issue at hand.
And so. Goodnight.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Does anyone recall an earlier post by Tony Bennett where it is claimed that Gerry was on a beach with another woman.
Was I hallucinating?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:19 am
916
May Says:
909 Hidelki
“Your diatribe against Peter O for wanting to bring a neglect charge against the McCanns completely ignores the fact that they have played the injured victims, raising huge amounts of money along the way, when the true injured victim is Madeleine.”
Please re-read. Peter O’s obtuse argument is a bit hard to follow, I admit. LOL.
Mine was a “diatribe against Peter O for”
NOT
“wanting to bring a neglect charge against the McCanns.”
Peter O’s opinion is that the McCanns should NOT be charged with child neglect. My opinion is that they SHOULD BE charged.
So I did NOT “ignore the fact that they have played the injured victims, raising huge amounts of money along the way, when the true injured victim is Madeleine.”
Indeed, I indicated as one reason the McCanns should be charged with child neglect is to PREVENT them from continuing to seek public sympathy by downplaying their child neglect.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:18 am
Yes, Stevo’s points are definitely self-evident. Stevo’s point seems to be “well anything is POSSIBLE!” and then he goes about proving how things that did not happen COULD have happened. So are we to believe him accurate, then?
Do you believe, May, that Baby Grace is actually Madeleine?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:16 am
921 -May- well obviously you are unable to respond to the slightest detail of fact, preferring instead to blindly support the most brazen of idiots, and therefore decline to engage in reasoned discussion!