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
November 13th, 2007 at 5:13 am
915 Kris
Stevo’s points are self evident and don’t need further amplification from me. Why delay further delightful invective from you?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Hideki- Are not Peter O’s comments in quotes and yours after??
Please excuse me and redirect my insults at Peter O then!
November 13th, 2007 at 5:11 am
Geez. Nevermind. No sense talking logic. May doesn’t even know who is arguing what. Hideki is your guy there, May, not Peter O.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:10 am
911
Kris
“The single-minded Hideki goes on… and on… and on… about the Neglect Issue… once again! How helpful! Why, by golly, these are arguments I have not heard before!”…Really, do you mean, the McCanns were wrong to leave their kids alone??”
Try reading a thread before commenting, Kris. I was RESPONDING to Peter O, who believes that the McCanns believe that prosecuting them for child neglect would work in their favor. His opinion is that child neglect charges should not be pressed.
“What a mind-opening analysis of the case!! ”
Your mind is too closed to even understand what the analysis concerned, so not much chance for you of anything opening but your big mouth.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:09 am
912- May- and while I’m at it, PLEASE, by all means, do cite the “evidence to the contrary” about madeleine being around that afternoon. Please. Tell me. What evidence exists she was dead by 2 p.m.???
November 13th, 2007 at 5:08 am
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.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:08 am
912- may- I notice you artfully avoid all real issues in favor of blindly supporting Stevo’s irrelevant sleuthing. Thank you for conttributing to the rampant idiocy on this forum!
November 13th, 2007 at 5:06 am
holy shit– I think one of the most frustrating feelings I’ve known (well, OK, this year at least) is to be at heart an Anti-mccann on a forum filled with true blue dumb fucks who are also Anti-mccann. It really turns a person, repeatedly, into a Team McCann member, because as evil as they might be, the McCanns are not stupid. Which is not something I can say for you OCD lot here on Anorak sometimes.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:04 am
295
Will Says:
288 Hideki
“To attempt to prevent another human being from appearing stupid is one of the friendliest acts somebody can perform.”
Well then, I hope you are able to make some friends soon.Good luck.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:01 am
907 Kris
Thank heaven for people like Stevo who do not accept all released information as fact. Deception is only uncovered by those who take time to investigate the smoke and mirrors.
897 Powdermonkey
The ‘author’ of the investigation into the possibility of ‘the last photo of Madeleine’ being a fake posted many sites for check purposes. Almost all of these came up as unobtainable. Why? You appear to ignore the possibility of this photo being staged well after the disappearance, simply to endore the assertion that Madeleine was around at the time stated, when there is evidence to the contrary.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:01 am
909- Hidekis. Oh look. The single-minded Hideki goes on… and on… and on… about the Neglect Issue… once again! How helpful! Why, by golly, these are arguments I have not heard before! Nay, not here, nor anywhere. Gee whiz. What a mind-opening analysis of the case!! Really, do you mean, the McCanns were wrong to leave their kids alone?? Say it ain’t so!!
November 13th, 2007 at 4:56 am
642- Pili– as a newspaper reporter, several times I covered cases of newborn babies abandoned in trashcans or whatever in the streets or ditches, and their subsequent burials. In no case, did I ever see a body kept around for months on end while police figured stuff out. They get their reports, they get their forensics, they get their chemical analyses, and they (thankfully) put the body to rest. Have some respect for the dead, for goodness sakes. Of course they laid the poor girl to rest.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:54 am
342
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…”
It goes without saying, that if there had been no disappearance of the child, the neglect would likely have passed unnoticed and unreported. So?
“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?”
Why? Because according to their own statements they have committed child neglect, and others corroborated. Indeed, because of their neglect the child disappeared (unless you support Gerry’s early claim that even had they been in their bedroom they could not have helped Madeleine anyway).
“I believe that Team McCann would welcome neglect charges because they probably believe they could win such a case. ”
You believe that the McCanns believe… Good proof of nothing other than that you hold unsupportable views.
“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. ”
What body of evidence relates to an abuction? None whatsoever. Your remark is absolute nonsense.
“The case would probably be forced to focus on the McCann’s alleged baby listening service. ”
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”.
“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. ”
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.
“And yet, you are so eager to press such a case. Why I wonder?”
You are repeating yourself. I’m eager to press the case against them because there IS a case against them, according to their own statements, corroborated by others.
“Could it be, to paraphrase your claims of me a few days ago:
…You are good, Hideki, but not that good…”
That is not a paraphrase — you are just copying my remarks, substituting my name for yours. This shows nothing but your lack of originality. Another trait of a deceptive, tricky little pro-McCann poster. Do what you are told, and write what we tell you to… you ARE very good at that, Peter O.
“You’re a smart “fellow”, Hideki, but you have discredited yourself. You are nothing but a pro-McCann voice advocating the enforcement of child neglect laws to further the McCann’s strategy of discrediting the current investigation into much wider criminal charges.”
More clever plagiarizing from the Man With No Argument. Unfortunately for your so-called reasoning, bringing charges of child neglect against the McCanns in no way furthers their strategy, and in no way discredits the current investigation into other charges, such as obstruction of justice, illegal disposal of a body, etc. A guilty verdict in a child neglect trial would still leaves them open to facing the other charges. A not-guilty verdict would also leave them equally open to facing the other charges.
The McCanns benefit from NOT being charged with child neglect in several ways. To mention one– it allows them to continue seeking public sympathy by sweeping this issue under the carpet, continuing to lie about the distance to the apartment, etc.
“It’s all just my opinion of course and I can’t prove a single word of it!”
You didn’t even try. No wonder. Of course, it’s not just YOUR opinion that the McCanns should not be brought to trial for child neglect — it’s the McCanns’ opinion too.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:48 am
902= Pili = Yes, what if indeed~! What if Gerry did just that?! What if he came to America, went to Walmart , and bought clothes for his daughter’s burial. (I know if my daughter died, I’d want her laid to rest in Walmart Style!). Yes indeed, what if!? What if Gerry went back, and altered his daughter’s age, and her dental records, glued on a wig twice the length of Madeleine’s real hair, messed with her post-mortem DNA, and laid her to rest at sea — Walmart style of course (perhaps they ate corn dogs at the post-funeral picnic!? or some cheese-product nachos?!). And then what if they gave a box with a frozen body dressed in Walmart clothes to a random guy on a ship in Huelva, and told him he must NOT look inside, but to set the box to sea somewhere in the Atlantic?! And what if this aroused NO suspicions in our simple-minded shipmate, and he did as requested!? And what if, after that, the box came to rest on the shore of a deserted island in the Galveston Bay, and what if police there… gasp! … suspected it was Madeleine, but , OMG!, what if the police were PAID FROM THE FIND MADDIE FUND (just like the journalists, the nannies, the Tapas 9, the waiters, etc) and what if the police LIED about the situation, and pretended it was not Madeleine, when in reality, it was?, just to get their $2,000??
Oh what fruitful sleuthing! I”m so glad Stevo has proven it all “possible.”
Personally, I’d say this is a really likely scenario we should all waste weeks pursuing in great detail. Hey, did you hear : Gerry played tennis and got a haircut AND went jogging on May 4!!! And did you hear there were bloody elastic bands in the bag found on the road to the airport in Faro?? OBVIOUSLY they were from Madeleine’s hair!!!
November 13th, 2007 at 4:38 am
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. He will go on, and on, and on, and on, proving his point (ie, “it’s POSSIBLE the last photo was doctored” or “it’s POSSIBLE Baby Grace is Madeleine” (under some bizarre set of circumstances he dreams up)…
But if you try to say, Golly, Stevo, so what? The police say Baby Grace isn’t Madeleine!
Or if you say, “The last photo is not doctored because the ONLY reason to doctor it is to pretend Madelein was alive at 2 p.m. May 3 and we already have proof of that elsewhere”
he ignores you!
And then he denies completely that he ever suggested this was true!
So in other words, Stevo goes on for DAYS, literally, trying to show how Baby Grace COULD be Madeleine, nevermind that police have already said it is NOT Madeleine, but if you try to have an argument with him along those lines, he says “I’m not saying Baby Grace is Madeleine, only that she COULD be!” and you wonder, “Well why the FUCK are you wasting space proving this could theoretcially have happened? Why don’t you go write a novel in which this DOES Happen? Because in real life it DID NOT?”
Of course, I am in the minority here. People on Anorak seem to think Stevo is some kind of brainiac, even though all his sleuthing is focused on pointless evidence with no relevance to the actual case.
If you want real sleuthing/thinking, by all means, Tony Bennett and Murder seem to me to have the most reality-based sleuthing going on. Stevo is like some kind of bizarre and off-key back-up vocals to their music here.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Can anyone tell me what happened to the “OTHER” little blonde kidnapped girl that Metodo 3 claimed was found in Morocco? Remember, she was “perhaps American”? No word in 10 days. Huh. Go figure.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:02 am
253
Will Says:
252 Hideki
“The Brian Kennedy issue is totally 100% discounted because it isn’t an issue. Nothing personal just reality.”
Let’s see. The reality: Tycoon Brian Kennedy donates a large sum of money to the Legal Defense and then gets put on the Search Fund Committee, where he is eligible to RECEIVE money from that fund. The REASON given for donating money to the Legal Fund was that the McCanns would not use money from the Search Fund.
Yeah, you’re right, that’s not an issue for people like you. LOL.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:25 am
902
Pilimary
OMG! How do you come up with this stuff!
November 13th, 2007 at 3:14 am
…And maybe pigs can fly.
…And maybe Tilt will yet again excite sad loners with IMPORTANT revelations - or rather self-important hints, clearly based on HIGHLY PRIVILEGED access to IMPORTANT people, next week too.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Stevo
Look the time! I was in bed (naturally) but I couldn’t sleep. What if Gerry bought pretty new clothes when he was in the United States trying to see Laura Bush and brought them to Portugal to shroud her daugher… Madeleine should be frozen or conservated someway until they decided to plan a “burial” in the sea. And maybe they dressed up the child with her new clothes and her favourite shoes (and sealed the plastic coffin for her to remain untouched and beautiful as a princess)
November 13th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Get Ready guys!
You’ll get fresh news tomorrow!
November 13th, 2007 at 2:25 am
785
Garth
ref.
Simon 767
I second you, twice.
And brace for the backlash….
November 13th, 2007 at 1:51 am
“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.”
near the end of this new article
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/20934/MADDIE-SIGHTING-WAS-CRUEL-HOAX-/
November 13th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Re: the last photo of Madeleine.
Gerry seems to be wearing the same shirt the he had the day he arrived in PDL via the airport tram. He even has the same slump and expression to his face (very bad mood that day).
So, it is possible that the photo was taken the first day of vacation … although the time stamp would be wrong.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Stevo,
Just looked at your site and there’s a few points I’d like to raise regarding the last photo of Madeleine. I’ll number them the way you did on your site.
1. It’s a group photo. All 3 are the subject not just Madeleine, which is why she wasn’t centered in the phot, plus it’s an amateur photo.
2. Why is this relevant?
3. Madeleine is probably slightly in the foreground due to the curvature of the pool. Hence
her arms etc appear overlaid on Amelie, and Amelie appears overlaid on Gerry McCann.
4. No it doesn’t. It suggests (correctly) that Kate McCann took the photo. Nothing else.
5. It was reported in the Daily Mail on 25.05.07. , when the photo was released, that Sean
was in the pool with Kate McCann.
6. To clarify the time the photo was taken helps establish Madeleine’s (& the family’s)
whereabouts on the day she went missing.
7. Are you seriously suggesting that the McCanns’ pre-planned this, to the extent of forging a
photo?
Your conclusion states “TruthforMadeleine.com cannot conclude that this photo is not fake or forged but does find that the family are not helping their own cause by releasing this image three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance.”
You have no evidence support that yet you do not say “TruthforMadeleine.com cannot conclude that this photo IS fake”.
Apart from making you sound pompous (I’m sure you’re not) it’s at odds with your claims that “The objective here is to present factual material with verifiable sources of information.” and “This opinion of this site is neither pro or anti-McCann.” Your site is not balanced, it is firmly anti-McCann. That is your choice but you should not claim otherwise.
Regarding the use of “verifiable sources” : who then, may I ask, is “Author” who makes an “analysis” of the last photo. I’m just wondering about his/her expertise, qualifications etc or if, like the rest of us, “Author” is an “enthusiastic amateur”.
Finally, Baby Grace does not match the description of Madeleine. Baby Grace’s hair is much longer and there is no mention of a coloboma in the right eye.
Before anyone jumps in with the usual “TeamMcCann” comments - I’m not. As I’ve said before on Anorak forums, I think there are serious questions to be asked of the McCanns, but some of the theories I’ve read are outlandish to say the least.
Stevo, this is not meant as a personal attack on you but as counter points to your posting & site.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:31 am
495
Tinsel Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Translation snips of most recent article from websleuths.com
Original article http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/…n-effraye.html
“My customer did not accept the smallest personal support by British authorities, if it is the one only him in receipt via COUPLE MCCANN “. ”
………………………………………………………………………………..
Comment: It would appear, if what we read above is true, that from an early stage information was to come and go through the McCanns and not the police. This is interesting in the context of the new helpline bypassing the police and also , alledgedly, making a hefty profit in the process. I have read that calls cost over 80c per minute but cannot confirm that.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:27 am
877
Dr. Watson Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Totje and to all,
Does your name mean “tot je” - “the same” in Malinka’s language?
Does your name mean you have been posting here before under some different name?
Just out of interest…
************************
Thank you for your interest, the answer is no. I was, am and will stay Totje. In my language it means “little rag”. It’s a nickname and has something to do with one of my habits. You don’t want me to explain it further…….::0 And now I’m really off. Bye.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:21 am
893 Totje
Dutch?
Well, considering the possibility that the initial scene or the group dynamics already had such elements that the other friends were “obliged” to do this favour to the mcCann’s - out of sense of guilt, “debt”, gratitude… They wouldn’t be back for revenge later in that case, I assume.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Night all. Loved it being around here. You were all so kind explaining things to me. I really hope this forum contributes anything to finding MM (or her body and the person(s) who did it). Keep up the arguments about the who, why, when, how… There some very inquisitive and sharp intelligent people around here…..(smile, I’m not so arrogant to think it’ll be me solving the case).
So last question: has anyone already an explanation why the (supposed to be) very clever dr GMcC would be so stupid to get himself exposed to blackmail in the future by his friend(s) by pulling them in a complot to cover what happened to his daughter? I hope to read an answer tomorrow, I really can’t comprehend that.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:12 am
887 Tinsel
You are right.
One lawyer for the homogenous herd of seven people that allegedly have own, different statements?
Think I read that KM and GM - which makes two people - have separate lawyers.