Madeleine McCann: Gerry McCann Against John Smeaton, Madeleine Alive And A U-Turn
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE IS STILL ALIVE”
Madeleine McCann appears on only one of the newspapers’ front pages. And she is alive! Maybe…
“Madeleine McCann may still be alive and living with her captors, Portuguese police admitted last night”
In time they might admit that she could be hiding, playing gin rummy with Lord Lucan or learning the bagpipes
For now a police source says: “We do not have proof the girl is dead. If we had that kind of evidence we would not be considering the theory she was abducted. We are no longer sure that she is dead”
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “Madeleine did not die in the apartment. The police should be focusing on who took her – and finding her. They must also accept Kate and Gerry should be eliminated from the inquiry”
THE SUN: “There’s no proof Maddie is dead”
“Portuguese police made an astonishing U-turn yesterday — admitting they have NO evidence that Maddie McCann is dead”
And didn’t British police believe she was dead, too? One in the eye for Anne Enright. And hasn’t Paul Rebelo, leading the investigation, said all lines of enquiry remain open? But, still, the Sun sees a U-turn…
Do you remember Robert Murat? His lawyer Francisco Pagarete says that under Portuguese law, evidence-gathering against suspects could only last eight months. Mr Pagarete says: “At that time we will see all the decisions for all the defendants”
January 3 is eight months after Maddie vanished
January 14 is eight months after Murat was named a suspect
THE TIMES: “Decision due on Gerry and Kate McCann”
January is approaching
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “McCanns in plea to potential witnesses”
Not all the holidaymakers staying at the Ocean Club at the time of Madeleine’s vanishing have been located
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We would appeal to any UK residents who have still not been spoken to by British police and who were in Praia da Luz on May 3 to please come forward and to contact their local police or the confidential phone line based in Spain”
Call Metodo 3. But aren’t they focusing on Morocco?
DAILY EXPRESS: “MADELEINE PARENTS MAKE FRESH PLEA FOR WITNESSES”
Yesterday Gerry wrote on his blog: “We would like to thank everyone who has come forward with information. The smallest detail may provide a clue that leads us to find Madeleine. Someone, somewhere knows something and Madeleine needs their help”
GREAT SCOT! – “Gerry McCann has been nominated for a special award as Scot of the Year. The Glasgow-born cardiologist is one of 12 candidates for the honour put forward by a Scottish newspaper”
Can he see off Gordon Brown, John Smeaton and Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist who was held? The full Scotland on Sunday list is here
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “The girl Italians are calling ‘Luciferina — with the face of an angel’ - The investigation into Meredith Kercher’s murder took a twist this week with the extradition of a suspect from Germany. But the focus is on a beautiful middle-class American girl, says Mary Minihan in Perugia”
What has the murder of Meredith Kercher got to do with Madeleine Mccann’s disappearance?
Says the paper: ““Meanwhile, Meredith Kercher’s name is now as tragically well-known as that of Madeleine McCann” – Is it?
THE SCOTSMAN: “Scots tycoon attacks ’scurrilous allegations’ as he comes out as McCanns’ secret funder”
The McCanns backer is: “Stephen Winyard, who owns the luxury Stobo Castle spa in Peebleshire, has spoken publicly for the first time since pledging £100,000 to help meet the escalating legal costs of Gerry and Kate McCann”
Says he: “Some of the reporting in the British press has been less than fair. The blanket coverage of every aspect of their lives, the littlest things that they do, creates, I think, the impression in people’s minds that they are somehow responsible for what happened to Madeleine”
THE GUARDIAN book review: “A Kind of Vanishing, by Lesley Thomson (Myriad, £6.99)”
“The disappearance of Madeleine McCann may have muted the reception of A Kind of Vanishing. If an actual crime is vividly appalling, the prospect of reading a fictional representation of a similar case will make one feel queasy. It would be a shame if this unfortunate coincidence were to obscure the merits of Lesley Thomson’s thriller”
Fiction and reality… Do you get confused?
Madeleine McCann:All the faction
Posted: 8th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (943) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
December 10th, 2007 at 11:14 am
949 Hideki Says: December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 am
948 Peter O Says:
Edit…
But I do understand your affinity for your fellow McScam supporters…
++++++++++++++
Unsubstantiated nonsense.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 am
948
Peter O Says:
“You’re posts would carry so much more credence if you avoided the temptation to descend into personal attacks on other posters, in my opinion.”
Nonsense. You know the context of this thread. These two posters attacked me, and blatantly lied about what I have written.
My derisive responses are not attacks, but rather a bit of bantering intended to show I now no longer have the slightest respect for either of them.
Your own posts would carry more credence if you refrained from accusing others of “attacking” posters when they are in fact defending themselves.
But I do understand your affinity for your fellow McScam supporters…
December 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
946 Hideki Says: December 10th, 2007 at 8:23 am
And
947 Hideki Says: December 10th, 2007 at 8:33 am
You’re posts would carry so much more credence if you avoided the temptation to descend into personal attacks on other posters, in my opinion.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:33 am
940
Totje Says:
931
“Hideki you are contradicting yourself.”
You are unable to show any contradiction.
“Waist of time to discuss the matter with you.”
Haist makes waist. You’re not a very thoughtful poster, IMO.
“About who’s doing the lying, I suggest you use a mirror.”
Your lies were specifically pointed out. I suppose you and Chenier cannot win any arguments without lying. It’s become a habit, eh?
“Your verbal diarrhea says it all: your talking nonsense.”
“Your” unable to think clearly and have trouble writing sentences. Verbal constipation, I suppose. lol
“Have a nice life.”
“Your” so cute, for a troll… good luck at learning to write English, dearie. It might come in handy some day.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:23 am
937
chenier Says:
“And the paid paedophile point… derives from his/her posts 204
‘And as for the trolls on forums such as this, the idea that there are certain sensitive points that must be protected at all costs explains why there are certain pro-McConn trolls (I will not name names) who prowl around pretending to be critical of the McCanns on all of the points that are NOT sensitive. This puts them in a position to steer discussion away from the sensitive points, without exposing themselves as pro-McConn.The most obvious pro-McConn posters are just a foil for the ones who are doing the serious patrolling and damage control. Reading and posting very carefully, one can see what are the “sensitive points”. How very fascinating.’”
Hmmmm… THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL IN THAT QUOTE ABOUT you or anyone being a “paid paedophile”. YOU ARE LYING again. I was talking about trolls on this forum — some are sophisticated and some are not.
“And then at 242 Hideki cited a post of mine, saying:
‘Remigius, this is an example of what I meant…’I find it hilarious that Hideki could imagine that I am ‘doing the serious patrolling and damage control’…”
Post 242 was not referring to Post 204. I certainly did not mean that you were capable of anything serious requiring competence. I merely meant that you are a McScum troll, IMO.
“though rather less hilarious about his/her inability to grapple with the idea that s/he is doing his/her best to provide, unintentionally, I am sure, Clarence with an easy ride…”
You should try writing posts that make some sense, express well-defined opinions, and avoid habitual lying. Even trolls should aspire to that much. Good luck with it.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
944 wendycas Says: December 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
What is this talk about pole dancing for heavens sake? I know this is supposed to be a satire site but come on, we are here for that child are we not? We all want to know what happened dont we? She has just vanished, gone, disappeared can one of you really intelligent people ( and there is a few) give me your true opinions about what you think really happened that night
++++++++++++++++
If we knew the answer to your question we wouldn’t be here discussing the ‘possibilities’ endlessly. I don’t have an opinion about “what” happened, because I don’t know. I do however believe that Madeleine’s parents, and possibly some of their friends and family, know rather more about the events leading up to and after Madeleine’s disappearance than has come to light thus far, in my opinion.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
What is this talk about pole dancing for heavens sake? I know this is supposed to be a satire site but come on, we are here for that child are we not? We all want to know what happened dont we? She has just vanished, gone, disappeared can one of you really intelligent people ( and there is a few) give me your true opinions about what you think really happened that night
wendycas
December 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
God help me, I read all the posts about this pathetic case, the same things day after day, day after day ,on and on and on until I am doolally ( nothing new there) , Please can somebody please tell me what happened to that child? She, it seems, just vanished into thin air.for God,ssake, does anyone have at least an intelligent thought about whata really happenend¬ It does not compute in my mind after everything, that the parents killed her - that is crap. And you all know that, I’m sure. So what? Was she taken, do you think, or not ?Please, before I lose it altogether
December 9th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
941 Remigius Says: December 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
938 Peter O
Sorry to be late, just jumping in here….
Listen, there are many factors that come in when judges and/or jurors evaluate witnesses, but if a witness appears to seek celebrity or publicity in ANY small way, such actions (like posing for newspaper pics or giving interviews) tend to put them into the “unreliable” category.
Pole dancing, hanging in bars, per se won’t matter. But when it’s done publicly, with pics in the news, I think the average judge/juror would tend to think their eyewitness testimony would be less credible than that of a like-minded person who sought no celebrity, who didnot behave sensationally.
The pole-dancing thing shows a certain amount of immaturity. NOw of course, young people do tend to be immature. Perhaps the nannies just like to have fun. And that’s cool! But testifying in murder/homicide/kidnapping inquiries and trials (should it ever get so far) means that prosecutors are going to be carefully combing for mature witnesses who seem reliable and trustworthy.
The prosecutor may not even put the nannies on the stand if he finds their stories unworthy of belief, and designed to merely promote their own celebrity. If, say (and only for example) the McCanns are accused of murdering their daughter and altering the crime scene, the only choice is for the McCanns to call the nanny/ies in their defense. And at THAT time, the prosecutors can then elect to cross-examine the nannies, and bring up all the pole dancing and drinking, etc. And it is relevant–i.e., one could ask, were you drinking or pole-dncing on the night in question? No? Well, why not? Didn’t you take the nannyjob to have a good time in Portugal and earn a few bob so you could return to Londan and have even more good times?
Yes, the pole dancing thing does affect their credibility.
and it opens the door to a plethora of other questions about their personal lives.
+++++++++++++++++
As I remarked to others yesterday. My wife and mother in law have both been photographed pole dancing. They have both been known to over imbibe, albeit very occasionally. Would I believe them if they appeared on a witness stand somewhere and declared they really had seen pigs flying over our house? Absolutely!
Character assassination, because that’s what it is, is commonplace in courtrooms. Responsible people get shit faced occasionally, some more than others. Whether someone is a self seeking publicist or a shy retiring wall flower is actually irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the evidence/testimony they offer is credible. Either side can/will seek to credit/discredit a witness.
The “news value” in that “story” is that someone with a link to a famous missing person case likes to party. There is no “news value” in reporting that presumably thousands of people around the country do much the same thing on any given Friday or Saturday nights. i.e. The girls behaviour is not “unusual” and therefore it can equally be argued their actions do not effect their credibility.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
938 Peter O
Sorry to be late, just jumping in here….
Listen, there are many factors that come in when judges and/or jurors evaluate witnesses, but if a witness appears to seek celebrity or publicity in ANY small way, such actions (like posing for newspaper pics or giving interviews) tend to put them into the “unreliable” category.
Pole dancing, hanging in bars, per se won’t matter. But when it’s done publicly, with pics in the news, I think the average judge/juror would tend to think their eyewitness testimony would be less credible than that of a like-minded person who sought no celebrity, who didnot behave sensationally.
The pole-dancing thing shows a certain amount of immaturity. NOw of course, young people do tend to be immature. Perhaps the nannies just like to have fun. And that’s cool! But testifying in murder/homicide/kidnapping inquiries and trials (should it ever get so far) means that prosecutors are going to be carefully combing for mature witnesses who seem reliable and trustworthy.
The prosecutor may not even put the nannies on the stand if he finds their stories unworthy of belief, and designed to merely promote their own celebrity. If, say (and only for example) the McCanns are accused of murdering their daughter and altering the crime scene, the only choice is for the McCanns to call the nanny/ies in their defense. And at THAT time, the prosecutors can then elect to cross-examine the nannies, and bring up all the pole dancing and drinking, etc. And it is relevant–i.e., one could ask, were you drinking or pole-dncing on the night in question? No? Well, why not? Didn’t you take the nannyjob to have a good time in Portugal and earn a few bob so you could return to Londan and have even more good times?
Yes, the pole dancing thing does affect their credibility.
and it opens the door to a plethora of other questions about their personal lives.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
931
Hideki you are contradicting yourself.
Waist of time to discuss the matter with you.
About who’s doing the lying, I suggest you use a mirror.
Your verbal diarrhea says it all: your talking nonsense.
Have a nice life.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:23 am
929 Hideki Says: December 9th, 2007 at 6:56 am
338 Remigius Says:
328 Hideki
Edit
You have said it much better than I could. McCann sympathizers like PeterO are very comfortable with this sort of behavior, but how typical is PeterO? If the trial is one by jury, will the jury consider that this witness’s testimony is as unreliable as the (then) defendants? That seems likely to me. JMO.
++++++++++
More unsubstantiated nonsense.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:22 am
928 Hideki Says: December 9th, 2007 at 6:49 am
344 Peter O Says:
Edit…
Just another typical example of a pro-McConn’s distortion of another’s posting. I clearly did not state any opinion that “there was nothing wrong” with the girls’ behavior; nor did I say there WAS anything wrong.
Edit….
++++++++++
More unsubstantiated nonsense.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:50 am
934
Hideki Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 7:41 am
635
chenier Says:
“Stevo’s grasp of the rules of English grammar appears to be somewhat slim. The ‘appears to’ governs the first part of the sentence, not the second. I can only suggest that s/he goes away and embarks on an educational tour of clauses and sub clauses.”
My apologies to Totje, for in my last post I mistakenly ascribed this ridiculous comment to her. Therefore, there was no particular irony in Totje having written an impenetrable meandering nonsensical sentence.
” the use of the word ‘defendants’ to describe the arguidos ”
As already explained, I used the word “defendants” because I was talking about a hypothetical future court case in which the Wild Nanny was testifying.
“Claiming that Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is wholly unsustainable…”
I didn’t claim that. Both you and Totje have been lying about my statements.
” and enables anyone with a vested interest in deflecting criticism from the fragrant duo to dismiss this blog as the rantings of ignorant fanatics. ”
They will dismiss this blog as a Playground of Liars if too many people make posts like you do.
“Stevo’s descent to ad hominem abuse is on a par with Hideki’s claim that I am a paid paedophile.”
A disgraceful lie. I never called you or anyone else a paedophile. And I have no idea what you are being paid for, either. Are you being paid to tell lies about anti-McCann posters? Just a question.
————————————————-
I see that Hideki’s unique brand of revised reality has struck again.
As I pointed out yesterday, in a forum where all we have are words, it seems distinctly strange to tell lies about the posts which are there for all to see.
Claiming that it’s all right to decribe named individuals as ‘defendants’ is unacceptable, however vivid one’s fantasies about the future are. The mods and admin have made that point clear.
Claiming that ‘I didn’t claim that’ ‘Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is downright farcical: see Hideki’s post 116, 8th December in which s/he said:
‘But do you have any EVIDENCE that it was a “personal” donation, and not a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage. I didn’t think so.’
And the paid paedophile point, which Hideki has helpfully edited to exclude ‘paid’
derives from his/her posts 204
‘And as for the trolls on forums such as this, the idea that there are certain sensitive points that must be protected at all costs explains why there are certain pro-McConn trolls (I will not name names) who prowl around pretending to be critical of the McCanns on all of the points that are NOT sensitive. This puts them in a position to steer discussion away from the sensitive points, without exposing themselves as pro-McConn.
The most obvious pro-McConn posters are just a foil for the ones who are doing the serious patrolling and damage control. Reading and posting very carefully, one can see what are the “sensitive points”. How very fascinating.’
And then at 242 Hideki cited a post of mine, saying:
‘Remigius, this is an example of what I meant…’
I find it hilarious that Hideki could imagine that I am ‘doing the serious patrolling and damage control’, though rather less hilarious about his/her inability to grapple with the idea that s/he is doing his/her best to provide, unintentionally, I am sure, Clarence with an easy ride…
December 9th, 2007 at 8:50 am
748
Meejician Says:
“Can I say that before chenier and Hideki disappear… It was no big deal, there isn’t a gulf between their POVs, but it was just a minor glitch.”
Could be. I’m not overly familiar with Chenier’s long-term POV. I’m responding to specific posts on specific topics.However, Chenier’s propensity for outright lying and deliberate distortion does not seem “minor” to me.
“I didn’t know whether to step in and do a mediation service, but I’m a newbie, and don’t have that right.”
Well-intentioned mediation is appreciated. Being a newbie, though, I wonder if you fully understand Chenier’s true position re: the McCanns. The posts I read put her firmly in the pro-McScum camp.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown slams popular True Crime Author Corey Mitchell for Producing Gore Films and claiming he is a victims’ advocate
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2007/12/gore-and-slasher-films-are-no-laughing.html
December 9th, 2007 at 7:41 am
635
chenier Says:
“Stevo’s grasp of the rules of English grammar appears to be somewhat slim. The ‘appears to’ governs the first part of the sentence, not the second. I can only suggest that s/he goes away and embarks on an educational tour of clauses and sub clauses.”
My apologies to Totje, for in my last post I mistakenly ascribed this ridiculous comment to her. Therefore, there was no particular irony in Totje having written an impenetrable meandering nonsensical sentence.
” the use of the word ‘defendants’ to describe the arguidos ”
As already explained, I used the word “defendants” because I was talking about a hypothetical future court case in which the Wild Nanny was testifying.
“Claiming that Jaqueline Gold’s offer of reward money constituted a ‘a donation intended to thank the McCanns for their patronage’ is wholly unsustainable…”
I didn’t claim that. Both you and Totje have been lying about my statements.
” and enables anyone with a vested interest in deflecting criticism from the fragrant duo to dismiss this blog as the rantings of ignorant fanatics. ”
They will dismiss this blog as a Playground of Liars if too many people make posts like you do.
“Stevo’s descent to ad hominem abuse is on a par with Hideki’s claim that I am a paid paedophile.”
A disgraceful lie. I never called you or anyone else a paedophile. And I have no idea what you are being paid for, either. Are you being paid to tell lies about anti-McCann posters? Just a question.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Oooops. Sorry about that.
Talk about instant karma.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Good morning all from a beautiful sunny southern south africa.
The rest of the country is flooding - sorry for you.
Does anyone else think that perhaps kandg have already confessed and now evidence is being accumulated against the mysterious party member?
I can’t even read the headlines anymore so as part of our reality show today let us create some of our own.
Mine are
George Bush given a sex change and sent to Afghanistan in mini skirt and vest.
Tony Blair tarred and feathered and put on display in the Tower of London for his lies.
Bill and Hilary Clinton are sent to Siberia to run a children’s home.
Robert Mugabe is dead.
People pledge support for the Darwin couple and offer to pay back the insurance claims in order to avoid charges.
Taxes will not be collected this year due to lack of interest.
Any others.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:25 am
711
Totje Says:
“Hideki, or should I call you hiccups?”
What you should endeavor to do is eliminate personal remarks.
“Didn’t feel good, did it, my little attack?”
Your attack showed your incompetence and dishonesty (among other things).
“Now imagine, just imagine, I know it’s hard for you, that the McCanns are innocent about what happened to Madeleine -except for leaving her and the twins alone, thus opening “the small window of opportunity” for an abductor…”
The McCanns have defiantly insisted that a paedophile network is involved. They give no reason. So therefore they are NOT ” innocent” in that they are definitely hiding some kind of knowledge that permits them to be sure a paedophile was involved. JMO. Moreover, they can never be “innocent, except for ” child neglect. The child neglect makes them directly responsible for the disappearance.
” how do you think your innuendo would hurt them? ”
What innuendo? Do you mean the POSSIBILITY that Gerry is a paedophile, and/or is involved with paedophiles? That is NOT innuendo. That is a mere logical possibility. To reiterate for you, the logical reasoning is as follows:
IF AND ONLY IF
Madeleine was “taken” (abducted or body removed) by a paedophile.
AND
Gerry took Madeleine OR knows who took Madeleine.
THEN
Gerry is a paedophile OR Gerry knows a paedophile.
Now, on top of this logic, we have the McCanns, (from the beginning, and now through their paid detectives Metodo3) pointing their finger at Murat. Murat was once (in news reports) linked to paedophile networks by his computer. Gerry refused to answer a simple question whether or not he knew Murat.
“Or your remark about those girls, who just had fun…”
Your opinion is that the nannies “just had fun”. My opinion is that the Witness Nanny amongst them probably further damaged her credibility as a witness for the McCanns.
“So it’s ok you can hurt … in that case you should expect a boomerang effect. Duck!”
I suppose this is your justification for attacking me, and for lying (several times) about what I wrote. No need for me to duck. To the contrary, I learn from pro-McScum responses such as yours.
“Btw I don’t mind discussing the possibility she was accidently -or not- killed, or wandering out of the apartment and got killed or abducted, abducted from the apartment for illegal adoption, nor the possibility she was abducted by a paedophile (although it makes my stomach turn, thinking about that) but this is in fact irrelevant.”
I find it amusing that you were lecturing Stevo about clauses and sub-clauses, and then wrote a meandering sentence like this.
“Relevant though is to try to find out about existing paedo networks, where they are, how they work and who’s in it. And trying to find out where they could/would have taken the little girl.”
Luckily for us the McCanns have done that, and their Metodo3 private detectives have already determined where Madeleine was taken — Morocco. BTW, how do YOU propose to “find out about existing paedo networks” — do you propose to ask Gerry for information?
It’s also worth remembering that Rebelo, who replaced Amaral, is an expert on the subject. IMO that is why he was put in charge.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Good morning all.
Another gorgeous day in southern south Africa.
Believe the rest of the country is flooded.
Have the couple returned home yet?
Anyone else think that kandg have already confessed and this is all just to lure the “mysterious tapas guest” out somehow?
Too scared to even look at the headlines so thought maybe we should make up our own.
My first one for the day is “Gordon Brown resigns”.
Second one is “George Bush is impeached.”
“Tony Blair is incarcerated in the Tower of London for his lies leading to British involvement in Iraq.”
“Robert Mugabe has died.”
“Madeleine is found alive and well and will be placed in a loving and caring home.”
“Clarence Mitchell is with Tony Blair.”
Philomena has lost 5kgs since this ordeal started.
Any others you could think of on this auspicious “Create your own reality day”?
December 9th, 2007 at 6:56 am
338
Remigius Says:
328 Hideki
“The real question about the nannies is whether their behavior shows immaturity, unreliability, which will attach to the worth and reliability of their testimony at time of trial.
A pro stripper could be a reliable eyewitness. But a gal who goes on a tear…well, you’d want to know how much she drinks regularly, was she drinking on the night/day in question when she saw whatever it was….classically, behavior like that described, which is, in a bar or in public, could be seen as dangerous, inciteful, self-degrading, impuslive….”
You have said it much better than I could. McCann sympathizers like PeterO are very comfortable with this sort of behavior, but how typical is PeterO? If the trial is one by jury, will the jury consider that this witness’s testimony is as unreliable as the (then) defendants? That seems likely to me. JMO.
December 9th, 2007 at 6:49 am
344
Peter O Says:
Peter: “Could you possibly try explaining quite what it is specifically that you think is so wrong about what the nannies were allegedly doing?”
Hideki: “I did not say that I thought there was anything wrong.”
Peter: “Ah good, so at last we agree… There is nothing wrong with the “girls being girls”?”
Just another typical example of a pro-McConn’s distortion of another’s posting. I clearly did not state any opinion that “there was nothing wrong” with the girls’ behavior; nor did I say there WAS anything wrong.
I was discussing how the prosecution would use such behavior to discredit a witness. As for your own characterization of them just “having a good time”, you obviously think making(and publishing) lewd photos while showing the Madeleine bracelet is good old fun. Descriptions of the photos make it clear that they are sexually provocative. Young girls do this everywhere, in cities, according to you.
Go to the Mark Warner site that advertises for nannies, and you will see that they emphasize that nannies often receive generous tips from vacationers. I wonder how many tips the Witness Nanny received, and were the McCanns amongst those tipping?
So this is a witness that may be said to lack crediblity for 3 reasons now:
(1) contradictory statements, a sort of “junior Jane Tanner”
(2) possible conflict of interest, since she took care of Madeleine and may have received extra compensation from the McCanns
(3) demonstrated lack of judgement in displaying overtly sexual behavior publicly, having photos published, including promiscuous or seductive poses, mooning, pulling down of trousers, etc.
Is this witness, like her friend the other nanny, also wearing a Madeleine bracelet?
December 9th, 2007 at 6:17 am
5
Ian Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Great to see that the noose is tightening though! Mobile phone records and the mdia types getting quizzed - excellnt! Looks like they arent ever going to be able to appear on Parkinson! LOL!
************************************************************
Parkinson has retired…he could see what was coming !! Last show will be aired 15th December on ITV
December 9th, 2007 at 6:14 am
925
brandon flours Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 2:23 am I would still think them neglectful, self preserving, greedy, insane, vain, lying, NPD pending, unremorseful, unworthy, using, distasteful, not parental, still worried about themselves now, opportunistic,strange, weird, unfathomable, lying, bastards………..
because they took a gamble with their flesh and blood innocent baby daughter
and she will pay the price, and they will cash it in!!
**********************************************************
Amen to all of that !! anyone who still harbours any sympathy for these two must have their head in the sand. Wake up and read and re-read and re-watch everything about these two that has come up since the first day Madeleine disappeared. The things they, and their colleagues did and said, were weird and unfathomable from the outset, they have NEVER behaved like parents whose child may have been kidnapped, murdered, raped, being held in captivity and continually raped, and what in Heaven’s name do you think would be the state of mind and soul of the child that comes back - if she comes back ? She would require counselling for the rest of her days !!
Re-watch all the “YouTube” clips, the classic Gerry and his ear-tugging denial of sedating the children, Kate’s sideways-upways-downways clips where she is looking anywhwere but at the camera while she “pleads” …”don’t hurt her, don’t scare her” ..bloody Hell !! my cat gives out more emotion when asking for it’s tea !!
Then there’s the classic ” clonk…and she’s gone ” clip …oh come on !! these people do not deserve any consideration whatsoever, Madeleine is the only one here deserving of all our sympathies, not just because she is still missing presumed dead, but because of the horrendous parents she had.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:23 am
705
annie123 Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Here’s a hypothetical question to ALL anoraks, pro’s and anti’s.
Lets just say (hypothetically) that Maddie turn up alive and well.
1) What would your feelings be towards the McConns?
2) Why would you feel this way?
__________________
I would still think them neglectful, self preserving, greedy, insane, vain, lying, NPD pending, unremorseful, unworthy, using, distasteful, not parental, still worried about themselves now, opportunistic,strange, weird, unfathomable, lying, bastards………..
because they took a gamble with their flesh and blood innocent baby daughter
and she will pay the price, and they will cash it in!!
December 9th, 2007 at 2:12 am
705
annie123 Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Here’s a hypothetical question to ALL anoraks, pro’s and anti’s.
Lets just say (hypothetically) that Maddie turn up alive and well.
1) What would your feelings be towards the McConns?
2) Why would you feel this way?
__________________
I can think of nothing more wonderful to have happen for them. I harbor no wrong feelings towards them; as I don’t prejudge them; just my heart goes out to them and what I sense they must be going through right now
I feel this way because I went through this same thing with very close family friends - one of whom is one of my children’s godfather. Their child has never been found and they were forever changed. I’ve observed in the McCanns as I watched in them in person - walking around like zoombies void of emotions; begging all of us and neighbors for help in finding their child, which we freely gave from our hearts searching woods, etc. everywhere; they constantly called the police for updates; I’d see the broken looks on their faces every time it was announced on the news a body or bones were found in the woods. They lived consummed by horrible guilt that somehow they were responsible for the child’s disappearance. Both worked full time jobs out of necessity. Cindy was 12 and a lovely girl, would come home from school and Mary will always arrive an hour later. She came home one day and Cindy’s coat, purse, school books were there but no Cindy.
By the way, are you or did you major in behavioral psychology? You are on the correct site. I found the abnormal psychology courses more interesting.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:09 am
916
Lulu
Give me abig big hug then
December 9th, 2007 at 2:01 am
maybe I am the only one thinking it.
I know you are still there. But you have worked out that I am not stupid. I will carry on playing your games, but be sure………slash of the claws.
xxx
December 9th, 2007 at 1:57 am
must be behind had no time to catch up since yesterday
blimey
December 9th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Night Patch
Night Brandon
Night Yampster
Night Sam
stuff