Madeleine McCann: Michaela Walczuch At The Door, JonBenet Ramsey And Metodo 3 ‘A Pup’
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY MIRROR: “Did they want my girl?”
Karen Sixsmith is in conversation with the Mirror. It is an “EXCLUSIVE”. She is in an apartment at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz. It is a month before Madeleine McCann went missing
A woman knocks at her door. She claims to be a Jehovah’s Witness. “German-born” Michaela Walczuch is a Jehovah’s Witness, or has been. The “mysterious woman” at the door is with a man.
Says Sixsmith: “It was a blonde woman, 35 to 40 years old, English-speaking. She had a pamphlet and I knew straight away that she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She asked if she could come into the apartment to talk about her faith. I took the pamphlet from her and closed the door. I now think it may have been Murat and his girlfriend”
Michaela Walczuch is 34
Karen has a daughter called Kate – “Kate is strikingly similar to Madeleine…Kate would have stood out a mile with her blonde hair and blue eyes - just like Madeleine”
Says the Mirror: “Her testimony - given to the Sunday Mirror so we could pass it on to the McCanns’ private investigators Metodo 3 in Barcelona”
NEWS OF THE WORLD: “Snatch bid last year at Maddie flat”
“A man tried to kidnap a child at the same apartment Madeleine McCann vanished from SIX MONTHS before she went missing,” says a British nanny who “caught the pervert trying to climb in through the ground floor window while a baby slept inside”
DAILY EXPRESS: “BABYSITTER SAW WINDOW MAN”
A source says “A babysitter has given detectives a statement in which she claims she caught a man trying to climb in through a window of apartment 5A – the apartment later occupied by the McCanns”
THE PEOPLE: “SICKENING SMEAR CAMPAIGN - FAMILY’S EMOTIONAL PLEA FOR MISSING DAUGHTER’S RETURN”
“Cops spent days investigating a theory the couple did it because they were desperate for cash”
It is a “sickening smear” making headlines in Portuguese paper 24 Horas
“NO QUIZ FOR MURAT LOVE” - Tuck Price, “a pal of German born Walczuch”, reveala: “I know for sure she’s been going to her Jehovah’s meetings and I know for sure the police haven’t contacted her. If this was true I’m sure the police would have been on to her”
“Find Maddie and give us a miracle for Christmas..” - “Maddie’s grandfather Brian Healy revealed how the family are convinced that she is alive and how they are now hoping for the ultimate Christmas miracle.” Says he: “We will all buy her a Christmas present and they will be under the tree waiting for her when she comes home”
GLASGOW SUNDAY MAIL: “Fury Over ‘Maddie Sold’ Slur”
An “outrageous slur”
A source says: “For several days the judicial police team investigated the possibility that the child had been sold by her own parents because of financial difficulties”
DAILY STAR: “MADDIE: 10 NEW SUSPECTS”
“Spanish investigators hunting for Madeleine McCann have narrowed their search to a hit list of ten paedophiles, we can reveal. Detectives working for the Metodo 3 agency are blitzing locations in Europe and Africa to find the known sex offenders”
Why this ten? Why ten?
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We have every confidence in Metodo 3. They can get to places faster and work quicker than anyone else and have the capacity to work worldwide”
BURNLEY EXPRESS: “Girls’ symbolic silence for Madeleine McCann”
Chelsea Gallagher and Gemma Lee, both 13, raised £450 for the Madeleine McCann Fund with a sponsored cuff-and-silence.
“For an entire school day, Chelsea and Gemma, 13, were handcuffed together and remained silent.” Says Chelsea: “The handcuffs symbolised the people who will be caught, and the silence because we haven’t heard anything about Madeleine”
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Madeleine McCann: is there no hope left?”
“Bristling with bravado before the television cameras last week, Francisco Marco, the portly boss of the Spanish-based detective agency Metodo 3, sneeringly dismissed the Portuguese police investigation into the disappearance of the couple’s daughter, Madeleine, as ”bumbling”, and boasted: ‘’We know who the kidnappers are and we are very, very close to catching them.’ Off camera, he admitted: ‘No, I can’t disclose any more yet. But I will be proved right.’”
Marco will get his man. A PI always does. Sign the contract. Pay the fee…
A source “close to” the McCanns says: ”The harsh fact is that they were pinning their remaining hopes on Marco’s outfit when they hired them on a six-month contract in September. But, in the past few weeks, they have conceded that they might have been sold a pup. There’s no doubt they’ve worked round the clock, but they don’t have a lot of experience with this type of investigation”
But there are for months left on the contract…
THE GUARDIAN: “Panorama walk-out over McCann film”
“Why did TV journalist David Mills, the producer of a Panorama film on the McCann affair, quit the project before it was transmitted last week? The Observer’s David Rose reveals the inside story of the latest row to hit the BBC’s flagship show”
Sensationalism? Tabloid journalism? Crime as entertainment?
Mills wrote a script. It was not used. “His original film would have compared Madeleine to the JonBenet Ramsey case in Colorado, about which Mills has made three previous documentaries. After the body of JonBenet, a child beauty pageant winner aged six, was found in her parents’ Boulder home, they were vilified by the police and media, despite their continued insistence that they had nothing to do with her death. They claimed she had been killed by an intruder…Years later DNA evidence proved beyond doubt that JonBenet had been killed by an intruder. John Ramsey told Panorama: ‘It’s a life-time damage. No question about it.’”
Posted: 25th, November 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (680) | 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
November 25th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
375
May Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
269 Judith C
If we can believe my letter from 10 Downing Street stating that consular officials will continue to follow Madeleine’s case closely and provide on-going assistance to her family, “as we would for any British national in these circumstances”, Robert Murat should be afforded every consideration and certainly not be hounded without bountiful evidence….”
********************************
That’s right. So what about the idea of writing back to your MP and asking him to raise this in the House - that Murat, far from being hounded, should be protected as were/are the McCanns as per his letter, and sending a copy of his initial letter to you and your subsequent letter to him to the newspapers - probably “The Express” — or whichever you think suitable — with a short covering letter drawing attention to the precedent which has now been created. They might publish. When I get a letter back from my MP, if I do, I will do the same. What do you think?
November 25th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
381
Ian
Hello there!!! Howzz the spreadsheet?? Love to see it..
November 25th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Totje
Alleged and assumed neglect? Form the very first they have admitted abandoning their children in favour of a night out. Regardless of any fragile ‘checking’ for periods of up to 30 minutes (there are allegations of longer periods) they let their three tiny children alone, unsupervised and unprotected.
This is no assumption or allegation - it is an arguable degree of risk strategy (in my opinion it was an ‘unnacceptably high’ risk strategy) they admit they took.
In my opinion the risk was primarily one of ‘accident’ as the older child (3 years old at the time) was able to leave her bed and may have had access to cleaning materials or have been exposed to other risks (obviously I do not know if these medics had in their possession any potentially harmful substances which could have been accessed by the child). Further to this, I understand that the apartment had been left unlocked - so the risk of her seeking her parents and leaving the apartment seems higher than would normally be acceptd by responsible competent parents. Additionally, there is the obvious and much discussed risk of abduction. Frankly this would not be first in my mind as a risk, though I understand that the McCanns did have some apparently substantial reasons for beleiving it might happen - as they quickly decided it had happened.
Lets be clear here. I do not know Portuguese law, but it would appear that the conditions are not met for neglect charges to be brought in this case.Apparently the English law courts do not have jurisdiction in Portugal. However, just because the law has failed and cannot, it would appear, be applied and charges brought, does not mean that it is ‘right’ and that justice has been done. Clearly, in the view of many, justice has not been done for the child whose fate was sealed when the parents decided that it was worth risking their children, all three of their children, for their own entertainment and pleasure. There are many who beleive that these kind of decisions to take risks should remain with parents. I am not one of these people. I had, naively, always believed that the age at which a child could be left alone was controlled. However, I and my wife applied common sense - perhaps we were wrong to do this, as clearly had we been as stupid as these ‘professional medics’ then we may have thought the age was 2 and 3. We assumed it was about 14 - to be left alone in a house - and 16 to be left alone in charge of younger than 14 year olds. Clearly Madeleine at 3 was too young to be left as the eldest child. We now realise that we were wrong to assume, but luckily werent as stupid as the McCanns and erred on the upper ages. Clearly this needs clarification and the law needs to be strengthened to improve understanding. Perhaps a campaign of awareness of the risks needs to build on the failure of the McCanns. This would be a real legacy and better use of the money raised to ‘find Madeleine’. Perhaps its time the McCanns stood up and said ‘We were wrong - dont do as we did’ instead of ‘We regret not being there’ and other ‘mealy mouthed’ attempts to look as if they are taking responsibility whilst making very sure that they are not made ot account for their failure to protect Madeleine.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
283
PeterMac Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
228 Pat
I’ve just plugged in again today.
Photo ID is governed by proper rules.
Minimum of 12 photos must be used, on each sheet.
photos must be the same size
They must show people of broadly similar appearance, (race, approximate age, facial hair, no outstanding characteristics, unless of course the suspect has them)
and so on.
Just showing one photo is utterly useless, and amounts to gross negligence, for which a British Police officer would be severely censured and very probably disciplined. What came out of such a showing would not even be classed as evidence. It could never even be submitted to the Crown Prosecution service, CPS, (another of our favourite TLAs) except to alert them to a fact of which the defence should be made aware.
And a statement under oath ?
Accused persons’ “voluntary” statements are made under caution
Witness statements are simply made. The witness signs a formula at the top stating that they have been aware of the rules relating to perjury, but “under oath”?
The mind simply boggles. Who is actually alleged to have done this ? Surely not Metodo3 ?
Even if it is simply sloppy journalism someone ought to get grip.
Or as someone once said, “What looks at first sight like sloppy use of language may in fact be very precise use of language to describe sloppy thinking.”
(Sorry I don’t know the reference.)
…………………….
Hi Peter thank you for your info on photo id’s. I am sure in Portugal they are stingent too. I have been searching for the newspaper article I read earlier today- for some reason can’t find it now. apparenlty a nanny caught a man climbing in a window and when she accosted him he ran off shouting no, no , no! Whatever that would be about GOK’s - apparently she was shown Murat’s picture ( by whom I know not)and she identified him as the said man.
I don’t know who is supposed to have leaked this or who the source is but I can’t see it being the pj - another spin mccann I suspect.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
378 Peter O
Great post. So balanced (and critical too). Although I would change your last alinea by adding they also might know more about events after Madeleine’s disappearance.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
360 Maria Says: November 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
238 Cheryl
Exactly. I agree that it could be difficult now to bring a successful charge against the McCanns even if some evidence of motive, opportunity etc. were found. The case has already been far too prejudiced.
Edit…
Even the Panorama programme has caused a huge BBC row because the original programme asked far more searching questions about the dubious PJ and media role in building up some sort of “case” against the McCanns and the totally inconclusive nature of the forensics. Of course, that original programme was not allowed to be broadcast. So much for real investigative journalism. And so much for the rubbish about the media being prejudiced in the McCanns’ favour.
Let’s have a programme which allows BOTH sides a FULL airing.
Edit…
++++++++++++++
If evidence is ever produced that clearly demonstrates anyone’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance there will be no problems bringing charges.
With reference to the Panorama program. One thing that none of these people, like David Mills, are honest about is that they do not have the slightest clue what evidence the PJ have against the McCann’s, nor any of their friends. On the basis that all they have to go on is pretty much the same gossip, rumour, innuendo, leak and the very rare “fact” that we on Anorak and folks on other forums re-cycle time and again, they have about zero chance of ever producing a totally unbiased program.
I’d have had more respect for them if some undercover operative had managed to get the Panorama team access to the PJ evidence files. Then they may have been in a position to comment upon the case against the McCann’s. As others have remarked however, investigative journalism is dead on the BBC.
Instead, we were treated to the unchallenged ramblings of two of the main suspects in the case and their seemingly unreliable ‘key witness’.
Much of what gets posted here as pseudo-fact is nothing of the sort. I suspect that none of us will get remotely close to the truth unless charges are eventually brought or we’re still about and in possession of our ‘marbles’ when the evidence is eventually released into the public domain.
In the interim, I guess we’ll all continue to post with varying degrees of detachment or bias. For the record, I believe the McCann’s know rather more about the events leading up to Madeleine’s disappearance than they have admitted to thus far, though I don’t actually have a clue what they may be guilty of. Just my opinion.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
331 Ian Says:
“Ah is this the Pamela Fenn who changed her story about the kids crying out for their Daddy?”
Why has nobody suspected her so far?
November 25th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
354 Cheryl
Excellent. Of course the McCanns’ friends would not protect them to the extent of throwing away their lives and careers, even supposing them to be sufficiently immoral to wish to help them hide a murder or even the cover-up of a fatal accident and the subsequent desecration of the child’s body.
That’s presumably why some posters here believe that they are all in it together. But if they are, I think there’s a fair chance they would have concocted a better story. It’s also likely they would have kept a much lower profile and slunk home a lot earlier, delighted with the early police incompetence rather than constantly pushing the PJ for a MORE thorough investigation, FBI advice etc.
If they are guilty, then, when it comes out how it was done, it will appear obvious, I suppose. But at the moment there simply is no evidence to suggest they had motive or opportunity or are the sort of people who would have wanted to murder their child. People who know them well, including clergy and journalists who met them after the event, colleagues and old friends, believe that they could not have had anything to do with a crime against their child.
If the little girl had an accident, ONLY if it was temper loss (or group abuse) would they have had even the ghost of a motive for wishing to hide it. (It’s nonsense to say they might have hidden it to keep secret the fact that they left the children asleep in the apartment while they ate nearby. That was going to come out anyway and no attempt to deny it was ever made.)
If a temper loss accident occurred, I think it would have been easier for them, especially as doctors, to arrange things to make it look like a genuine accident than to dispose of a body, appear normal at the tapas bar, fool their family and closest friends into believing in their innocence and carry out a huge worldwide hoax etc. Their personal histories (and even the prurient press seem to be able to find nothing against GM and only the fact that KM was once referred to as “Hot Lips Healy” in a student mag!) and the respect and affection in which they appear to be held by colleagues, friends and family seem to make that an unlikely course of action for these people. The priests who knew them and comforted them after the event appear to have taken them to their hearts and a number of interviewers have said they were impressed by them.
Now, of course, they may be guilty. The whole group may be involved in sinister activities. But hard evidence is needed to justify such horrendous accusations against the McCanns or their friends. The police seem to have done little to investigate that possibility properly. Pulling the McCanns to pieces for a whole lot of irrelevancies such as their accents, their looks, dress or whatever, really will not do. And when in comes to mocking the poor sick and distressed grandfather for his comments about last Christmas, we’ve surely reached “the pits”. It wasn’t even G and K who made these comments, as far as I’m aware.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
269 Judith C
If we can believe my letter from 10 Downing Street stating that consular officials will continue to follow Madeleine’s case closely and provide on-going assistance to her family, “as we would for any British national in these circumstances”, Robert Murat should be afforded every consideration and certainly not be hounded without bountiful evidence….
November 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Maria:
“not that I have ever claimed to be either gentle or kind!”
True, but that never stops TB writing that you have.
Sincerely, I have read all your posts today with admiration. Keep it up and don’t let the bullies get you down. Lets return to some healthy and amicable discussion on here.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
365 Judith C
I think Stevo is referring to the fact that, after I made a suggestion re the term ‘autistic’, I asked him (innocently, as I know nothing about Strongwood) why 105,000 Dutch people gave money to fund the Strongwood investigation. If I remember rightly, it started some criticism about Strongwood. Perhaps it was you or maybe Thea who made some critical remarks? I honestly don’t know why an innocent constructive criticism and equally innocent enquiry about Strongwood has provoked this! Any ideas!
November 25th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
315
Bishop Brennan Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
310 - Ian. Which means that our man has in 5 minutes flat:
- Emerged from under the bed / cupboard
- Whisked the girl out of her bed
- Vaulted out the window
- Legged it along the path the main entrance
- Pegged it down the street (presumably kicking himself for remembering a blanket but forgetting a get-away car!)
All carrying a sleeping kid.
It’s just SO likely!
++++++++++++++++
It was obviously the bloke from the old Milk Tray adverts.
Just for the record, here’s what I found in Hansard about the McCann case.
Does anyone know if Sarwar, the Member for Glasgow Central has any interesting connections, or why he was involved?
***
Hansard, May 16, 2007
Q1. [137247] Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 May.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply. As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Washington today for discussions with President Bush ahead of the G8 summit in June. Later today, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and I will meet members of the family of Madeleine McCann, at their request. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with them at this terrible time.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his expressions of sympathy and support for my constituents Kate and Gerry McCann, who are in Portugal, and their family. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that what has happened to the McCann family is every parent’s worst nightmare? Will he join me in expressing the thanks of the House and of this country for the support of the authorities and people of Portugal in their efforts to find Madeleine, and will he express the hope that their efforts will be rewarded by success as quickly as possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is indeed every parent’s nightmare, and like everyone in the country, we hope and pray for the safe return of Madeleine. We are doing everything that we can to support the McCanns in Portugal. The Foreign Office has been actively involved, the Leicester police are involved and we are doing everything that we possibly can to assist Madeleine’s parents in this most difficult situation. The investigation is of course the responsibility of the Portuguese police, but our people are assisting where they feel that that is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and I will meet Madeleine’s relatives at about 1.15 pm, and I will express what I know is the full feeling of this House in these difficult circumstances.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks) (Con): May I begin by echoing what the Deputy Prime Minister said about Madeleine McCann, her family and their terrible worries at this time? In all parts of the House, and throughout the nation, people will be praying for the safe return of that little girl.
18 Jun 2007
Lord Eames asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the level of co-operation between the police authorities in Portugal and United Kingdom police authorities in the case of Madeleine McCann has been satisfactory. [HL4199]
18 Jun 2007 : Column WA6
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): We are confident that the level of co-operation between the Portuguese and UK police authorities is satisfactory, and we have been assured by the Portuguese authorities that they are doing everything possible to find Madeleine and return her safely to her family. The UK is lending support to the Portuguese investigation, at their request. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has the overarching national co-ordinating role for the UK contribution, and several UK agencies are lending support.
***
November 25th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
369
May Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
326 Stevo
“perpetuating a fraud” - what a strangely inappropriate comment. All the poster has done is draw attention to the McCann connection and their concern that you are on the right track.”
****************************
I’m not a spokeswoman for Stevo, but isn’t this what he himself is saying in his (326)? That the person who-e-mailed him accused him of “perpetuating a fraud” and that in Stevo’s words, “is a strangely inappropriate comment from an intelligent member of the public”
November 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
320 Stevo
I have much admiration for your site and am a firm supporter, however I have to disagree
with you on this. Of the 10 points you list for Madeleine, I think they are all proveable but to list
8. Madeleine is a kid with a disability (autistic) which could explain her behavior (Strongwood)
is misleading. Her name, age, eye colour are all fact. Her parents state that she cried 18 hours a day as a baby so that is fact also. I, for one, think it’s extremely like that she had some degree of disability but I don’t think it should be listed with the things we know as fact, such as name, dob etc. Perhaps it should be listed as a ‘possibility’. I think that McCann supporters will seize upon anything they can to discredit your site. It wasn’t meant as a criticism at all, just a suggestion. Yes, it’s your site but I was only trying to make a suggestion. Seemed like a good idea as sometimes we need a little input to see how our words appear to others. I hope this doesn’t provoke any ill feeling.
—————————————–
Mods and Admin
Patch, it would be preferable and polite to both Stevo and Anorak if you emailed him privately on this matter.
Infact any suggestions for anyone’s site shouldn’t be done on someone else’s
November 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
326 Stevo
“perpetuating a fraud” - what a strangely inappropriate comment. All the poster has done is draw attention to the McCann connection and their concern that you are on the right track.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
131 Logic
“With Eric Voglin pretending to be German and Dot using identical language to Philomena McCann, I must ask - where are Garth, Maria and Totje”
Here I am! I’m back……
Thank you for calling me in one line with Garth (whom I think sometimes funny, sometimes irritating, sometimes nice arguing) and Maria who’s in my point of view a very nice person, and giving people the benefit of the doubt, she’s educated, investigative and questioning rumours.
So what’s your point? Or are you just being illogic?
195 Fair
252 Matt. ):
191 chenier ….only if it’s Golden
102 Tony Bennett
Edit…
Don’t tell Totje. She got a bit upset when I told her yesterday that villains choose other villains to help them out.
*******************
If you refer to me, I’d prefer if you quote it correct.
You didn’t tell ME this, it was a general statement. As you don’t seem to understand, I’m not “upset” by a remark like this, but you “pose” at this forum as some sort of “authority” and the “hero of the common people, who care about kids” and I oppose that YOU make a remark like that, I consider it childish and hoped you’d be wiser.
If any “Joe”, “Mary” or “Stephen” would make a comment like that, I would smile. Now don’t get me wrong (again) I do appreciate it you care about the well-being of a child and you fight the “assumed/alleged” neglect by parents (although there are many more children in the UK who might need your support). I objected your remark because I expected you to behave in a more adult and cautious manner. Disappointing, pyromaniacal.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
363
LOL Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
358 Say yes says
Authors are known to be rather sensitive just look at what Naomi Campbell did when the critics ripped her book apart - she threw her mobile at her maid, so be easy on Judith C.
*********************
Thanks for the sympathy. The only thing is I’m not quite a super model nor as thick as Naomi Campbell and, don’t worry, I’m not sensitive. 25 years in Fleet Street and 7 years since writing a book on a highly controversial subject which no-one knows much about but everyone has a view on, has seen to that.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Firestar this Tanner has become quite a bone of contention maybe I became dyslexic,when I also read about the blanket.Portuguese police believe the McCanns and their friends are hiding the truth and fear they may never solve the case if they do not break an alleged pact of silence.
The claim Jane Tanner and her partner fingered Murat early on in the investigation - and now want to change their statements - will fuel further speculation he is being made a scapegoat.
Jane Tanner helped police produce an E-fit of a man she claimed to have seen runhing away from their Ocean Club holiday complex with a child in a blanket.
Today’s claim that she identified Murat as that man comes amid reports police are preparing to make her and three other members of the Tapas Nine official suspects because of inconsistencies in their original statements
November 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
320
Stevo Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Not sure if Patch is in here today but I have to draw attention to a post you made on Nov 23 and a comment which Judith C seized on and makes an incorrect inference:
“I admire Stevo considerably but his site has put Madeleine as autistic as a ‘fact’.”
************************
Stevo, in which post, did I make the comment ascribed to me above? Or is this comment ascribed to Patch. Not clear. Would you care to elaborate?
November 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
362, Eric Voglin
Spot on Mate!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
358 Say yes says
Authors are known to be rather sensitive just look at what Naomi Campbell did when the critics ripped her book apart - she threw her mobile at her maid, so be easy on Judith C.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
118
REPLY TO: Rationalist Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
111
Tony Bennett
My problem with this assessment of yours is that it lacks detachment…it is too obviously biased to be taken seriously by anyone impartial….
RATIONALIST, THIS IS THE TROUBLE WITH 100% OF WHAT TONY BENNET WRITES!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
358
Say Yes Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
As for the “green eye,” Judith C, why would someone with zero interest in writing a book be jealous of someone who has? That’s like me accusing you of being jealous because I know how to design a bridge that won’t collapse.”
***************
Your banal remark speaks for itself!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
238 Cheryl
Exactly. I agree that it could be difficult now to bring a successful charge against the McCanns even if some evidence of motive, opportunity etc. were found. The case has already been far too prejudiced.
To think what the press disinformation has done in this case is too depressing and infuriating. I feel as strongly about the immoral press and its foul influence in our society as Judith C does about the state of the nation. (Actually I feel as strongly as she does about that too but I don’t come to the same conclusions.)
It amazes me that some posters think the press here has given the McCanns a fair deal. Agreed, there have been a few articles, especially in the “quality” (Ha! Ha!) papers supporting the view that they could not have been involved, but FAR more have repeated every bit of unfounded rumour, speculation and innuendo against them in a massive wave of abuse.
Even the Panorama programme has caused a huge BBC row because the original programme asked far more searching questions about the dubious PJ and media role in building up some sort of “case” against the McCanns and the totally inconclusive nature of the forensics. Of course, that original programme was not allowed to be broadcast. So much for real investigative journalism. And so much for the rubbish about the media being prejudiced in the McCanns’ favour.
Let’s have a programme which allows BOTH sides a FULL airing.
If these people are innocent…..and we do not know yet…… it’s unimaginable to think what they are going through now and how the media have contributed to their suffering. Of course they courted the media, but for a different reason. The wild beast was quiet for a time before rising to devour another victim.
TONY BENNETT
I only suggested to Judith C that she should stick to her original thought of ignoring my posts since they annoy her so much. Seems a gentle and kind enough thought to me…..not that I have ever claimed to be either gentle or kind!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
357
Say Yes Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
233 Judith C- I’ve read enough of it to know I shouldn’t bother with the whole thing!
**********************************
What, sort of reading with your eyes closed you mean?
November 25th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
As for the “green eye,” Judith C, why would someone with zero interest in writing a book be jealous of someone who has? That’s like me accusing you of being jealous because I know how to design a bridge that won’t collapse.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
233 Judith C- I’ve read enough of it to know I shouldn’t bother with the whole thing!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
349
Bishop Brennan Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
345 Chenier. I hope you are right, but the cost to GM / KM / Tanner / O’Brien ‘breaking’ is so high (struck off / kids taken into care) that this means an external breakthrough is probably necessary.
Mind you, I would not like to be any of the 4 of them - imagine the fear, every time the phone rings, or the door-bell sounds… Is this the one with Plod coming to take you away for a very long time…
——————————————————-
Yes, I don’t think that their lives are very pleasant at the moment, but that is an inevitable consequence of the paths they have walked.
And, given the way they have set out to destroy others in the hope of saving themselves, I doubt that there is much sympathy for them beyond the ranks of the besotted.
In fact, the people who believed in them at the outset may be the ones who turn them in; it takes a while for people to get over being fooled, but when they do it tends to be a Damascene conversion…
November 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
229
Say Yes
That is exactly what I think!!!
November 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
303
The Real Stig Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
238
Cheryl
Very good points you raise. I actually think there are closer simmilarities with the case of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia. If you ar not aware of the case, you might find it of interest.
http://www.lindychamberlain.com
REPLY: Yes, I know of that case and thought of posting it, also. Thank you. People forget that when a member of a family is missing or found murdered the first thing the police do is investigate the family members. That is proper police procedures.
What is bothering about all this public condemnation of the McCanns and the others is there is no evidence - direct or indirect - at this time to prove them guilty or even close to being charged. IF and that is a big IF the McCanns were directly responsible I can’t fathom the others willing to be charged or go to jail as accessories to whatever….by now one or more would have gone to an attorney for advice to protect themselves and ‘cut a deal’ with the authorities…there has been no mention of any one approaching the authorities yet. Trust me watching what is going on over there - that couldn’t and wouldn’t be missed or could even be kept a secret. We all have very close friends who are there for us through thick and thin but you tell me of any friend who would be willing to go to jail for you - I wouldn’t even ask or expect one of mine to. These others are professionals and have children of their own - no way they are going to sacrifice their ‘freedom’ and families.
I read some have asked, forget which one or ones, to speak again to the police to straighten out some misunderstandings of what they said. One can only imagine the height of the emotions that took place when the child was found missing - minds weren’t clear, people running around trying to find the child, the shock they all must have been in…under pressures like that one couldn’t think clearly …
Ian mentioned to me about the papers in the UK are on the side of the McCanns. I forgot to tell him that many times newspapers soft peddle keeping in mind the huge monies they stand to lose if charged with libel and slander and lose. Over here there was a case some years ago the person was hounded and life destroyed via the newspapers, public speculation, employers talking about them to the papers, FBI even adding fuel to the fires re them. They were not even charged with the crime they were suspect in. When the real criminal was found, that person ‘laid paper’ on everyone directly involved in smearing their name and collected quite a tidy sum! The FBI was forced to give a public apology!