Madeleine McCann: Francsico Marco Hopes, God Wills And Bridget O’Donnell Tells
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR front page: “I’LL GET MADDY BACK BY CHRISTMAS – McCanns extraordinary claim by detective”
Using your skill and judgement, can you work out if the detective making that vow works for the Portuguese police or Metodo 3, the private detective company hired by the McCanns?
Of course, it’s Francisco Marco head of the Spanish Metodo 3 telling us: “I have always said publicly Madeleine is alive. God willing, I hope she’ll be back with her parents before Christmas. We know who kidnapped her and we have a fairly certain idea who she is with”
“Hope”. And if God lends a hand. But if Madeleine is not found by December 25, he will continue to search, and bill
Page 7: “When I get home at night, my children ask me: Have you found Madeleine yet, daddy?” So says Marco. Sure the McCanns are paying his company £50,000 a month to look for Madeleine, but it is his children Marco does not want to fail
Says he: “It’s the highest pressure case I’ve ever had to deal with because of the press and because of my own family,” says Marco
THE SUN page 17: “Maddie ‘home by Christmas – DOUBT OVER TEC’S NEW BOAST”
Last month Marco told the BBC’s Panorama show he was “very close” To finding Madeleine. He was to have found her by Guy Fawke’s Night
Now he says: “We know who kidnapped her”. And a source within the Find Madeleine Fund offers: “The agency seem too vocal. If they’re genuinely close to finding Maddie, surely they wouldn’t announce it to the world first”
“Anger at sick artist” – “Cruel artist” Enrique Marty has “five twisted paintings” on show in Barcelona. They could be yours for £4,300 each. (See picture)
Says he: “This is a conceptual project, not an economic one. I don’t understand why people would find it offensive.”
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “This appears to be another disgusting attempt to make money out of their plight.”
What Mr Mitchell earns is not revealed
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE – She’ll be home by Christmas”
Page 4: “MADDIE WILL BE HOME BY XMAS” - Mr Marco says: “We believe she is in an area not very far from the Iberian peninsula and north Africa… I cannot say who she is with because we are putting together conclusive proof that we can present to the authorities”. Madeleine the blonde
And: “We have proof of her movements after her kidnap and we know she was alive the day after her disappearance. We are not certain when she left Portugal. I talk of certainties because we know which group may have her or could have kidnapped her to then sell her on”
A source “close to the Find Madeleine Fund” says: “It also is fair to say they don’t appear to be the most private of private eyes”
DAILY MAIL page 5: “She will be home by Christmas, claims the private eye searching for Maddie”
Says Marco: “One of the things that makes us believe Madeleine is alive is that every day she’s worth more to them. In principle we’re talking about paedophiles. I don’t think they’re Spanish. It’s obviously not a kidnap carried out by professionals for economic reasons. The McCanns are a middle-class family, two doctors, without vast financial resources”
The McCanns are doctors. This much we know
Says Marco: “A professional kidnapper would have done something with Madeleine by now. He would have given her back or left her”
DAILY EXPRESS page 9: “’Madeleine will be back home with parents by Christmas – Amazing claim of the detectives paid £50,000 a month to find her”
Does Metodo 3 get the full value of it contract paid up and the reward should it find Madeleine before that contract expires?
Robert Murat and his “German girlfriend” Michaela Walczuch are “threatening to sue the agency for suggesting they were involved in the abduction”
THE TIMES page 37: “Investigator ‘knows who took Madeleine McCann’”
Metodo 3: “The Barcelona-based agency, which specialises in corporate investigations, has no expertise in looking for missing people”
So why were they hired and not another firm?
THE TELEGRAPH page 7: “Madeleine ‘cold be home for Christmas’”
Last month Metodo 3 said they were “100 per cent” certain Madeleine was alive
THE GUARDIAN front page: “At 1am there was a frantic banging on the door…I knew it was bad” – Bridget O’Donnell on her holiday with the McCanns
The picture on the cover of the paper’s G2 supplement is of Madeleine holding tennis balls. It is not the portrait produced by Senor Marty
G2: “My months with Madeleine - It was a welcome spring break, a chance to relax at a child-friendly resort in Portugal. Soon Bridget O’Donnell and her partner were making friends with another holidaying family while their three-year-old daughters played together. But then Madeleine McCann went missing and everyone was sucked into a nightmare”
More on this can be read here…
And much more on the story of Madeleine McCann can be read here
Posted: 14th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (750) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
This Metodo circus ironically tends to exonerate the McCanns more than any other single factor. Had they been guilty of causing death by misadventure, could they have bore to watch their Find Madeleine fund frittered away in this appalling manner when they had such large financial commitments as they do? No, they are guilty only of naivety.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Ah.. the brief life of a butterfly…
December 15th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Well… at least I now know how to call for Mods & Admin’s attention (teehee).
And thanks again, and night-night on this thread at least.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
[PS: you can at last be any age you feel in cyberspace... that's another nice thing about being able, occasionally, to switch names when the feeling takes you... I think after a while a fixed mask takes on a rather rigid character, and you can't then easily be all the wonderful different things lurking undeveloped within a maturing RL frame]
*************************
You rot pot!!!!
December 15th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I’ll do my theatrical voice:
Thanks for everything, darling.
(Babe was a response to honey, my dear).
December 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
OK June babe, you’re probably right…. but I posted my (and the fifth Earl of Shaftesbury’s) thoughts On Satire, as the discussion recently turned to the question of multiple identities.
I do think it would be rather a pity if the option of (occasionally) ‘playing a different part’ or using a different mask (like my ‘Uncle Tommy’ teasing Garth) ceased to be available, except through delayed Moderation, which quite changes the dynamic of interaction (as an extreme case, the BBC’s moderation makes the site just about unusable for anything resembling dialogue).
Could you perhaps consider allowing some ‘trusted’ IP addresses free to post, um, immoderately (of course I’m not necessarily assuming I’d qualify, but I could at least then live in hope).
88888888888888888888888888888888888888
M&A
Well you are through here now as Moider (luv the Brooklyn pronunciation the best) and V the I.Its actuallythe teccie side stopping you. But I note your email etc and shall let you through when I see you queueing impatiently.
Not too sure about the Babe bit,not anymore, not for a while, maybe we should move on a bit in the seven stages,sweetie will do……
December 15th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
OK June (?), as I say, it’s your site, and I don’t mean to bite the hand that feeds me the space to interact with other users… it just seems a pity to me to change the wonderfully free flow which (amongst other things) made this site so special, through something that seems from the ‘outside’ here as a user, like a self-denying ordinance.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Murder /Vlad/ honey. once we all settle it’ll be the same. I just fervently hope Cherie doesn’t read Anorak or we are in it…………
December 15th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Mods and Admin
Murder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! eek I have replied to Vlad,it explains the current situation.
Presently there are 2 of us registered as Mods, agw and me (June) but very soon there will be two more
December 15th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
OK, so perhaps comments where the IP doesn’t match some previously logged moniker are automatically referred to ‘Moderation’ aka June (Again, I suppose I shouldn’t complain if the owner’s representative has the privilege of posting under multiple names, but not other users).
Maybe that’s a response to the posters who feel threatened by a bit of satirical theatre (who’s that guy on the stage pretending to be Prince Hamlet - we all know he’s really Laurence Olivier… goodbye theatre, goodbye Shaespeare)…
Still don’t understand , though, why my posts last night as Vladimir Putin (whoops, I mean, Uncle Vlad the Impaler) were finally rejected…
Again, never mind, I don’t make the rules. I just think it’s a pity - as with the disaster-prone web redesign a month ago - that people should feel they need to fix something that wasn’t broke, and which I thought functioned better (for most users, at least) before it was ‘fixed’.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
OK, I’ll try posting that comment under my primary alter ego (rather than the one whose comments were rejected by Mods and Rockers last night:
Vlad the Impaler Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
June / ‘Mods & Admin’
Sorry if this has already been answered… but as I can’t understand the rules of the new - to me rather paranoid and arbitrary - ‘moderation’ filter, following the move to a UK server, can someone explain the (on the face of it) rather strange decision to switch from an ‘offshore’ to a domestic host?
Given the very blurred and subjective line between satire and defamation, offshore location seemed like a very clever choice. And it was wonderful to find (a couple of months ago) a free-flowing and irreverent chat site untrammeled by the delays and self-consciousness that hampers exchange on so many other sites.
Can someone please explain the rationale for the move?
PS: it’s your site, of course, not mine or the ‘community’s’, but all the same…
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Mods and Admin
Murder, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr just written a lengthy reply to you as Vlad…………..
December 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
June / ‘Mods & Admin’
Sorry if this has already been answered… but as I can’t understand the rules of the new - to me rather paranoid and arbitrary - ‘moderation’ filter, following the move to a UK server, can someone explain the (on the face of it) rather strange decision to switch from an ‘offshore’ to a domestic host?
Given the very blurred and subjective line between satire and defamation, offshore location seemed like a very clever choice. And it was wonderful to find (a couple of months ago) a free-flowing and irreverent chat site untrammeled by the delays and self-consciousness that hampers exchange on so many other sites.
Can someone please explain the rationale for the move?
PS: it’s your site, of course, not mine or the ‘community’s’, but all the same…
——————-
Mods and Admin
The rationale for the move? we needed a host server who could cope with the high demand of postings and not constantly ‘crash’ with a high of 1500 posting per day, the average for any site is normally about 100,frequently less, all very teccie and beyond my remit.
The former host /server was in the US, where in law the poster is wholly liable for any slights, libels etc they choose to make. The current host/server is here in the UK where the site owner is ,liable for any untrue remark which could be deemed libellous.
These are not the reasons you were in limbo, just a change of user name, even one letter will put you in Moderation.
But, if any posts do appear to contain whatcould appear tobe seen as a libellous statement, then youshall be put in Moderation when we or I for now see anything untoward.
Free speech is one thing, but why should Anorak pay for anothers ‘privilege’ - we retain the right to edit posts
December 15th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
658 chenier Says: December 14th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
653 Judith C Says: December 14th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
(567) Peter O
**************************
I’m sorry too, but you are in a minority of one in your determination to not allow me to express the commonly held view.
—————————————————
I don’t think that Peter O had any interest in not allowing anyone in general, and Judith C in particular, to express a view.
There is a very large gap between disagreeing with a view, and attempting to prevent someone from expressing that view.
And since this is Anorak’s blog, the only people around capable of preventing someone expressing a particular view here are the mods and admin…
++++++++++++++
Better said than I would have done. Thank you!
December 15th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Pat, true about the stereotypes.
I also think B. o’D’s version of before the disaster is idealised. (Like in a Hollywood picture : everything was perfect, then… - when we all know everything isn’t ever perfect).
Besides, I bet The Guardian didn’t wish to print anything similar to the tabloids stuff, yet was eager to provide the readers with a slightly controversial article. The misleading title shows there was some hype behind it.
That said, the way she saw it is interesting, not meaning we have to buy it without a critical mind. I agree with the posters who say that after all, -and maybe unwillingly- she puts a huge question mark as regards the McC’s. sense of reponsibility as parents.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:06 am
740…chenier
A Crocked Roo. gee
December 15th, 2007 at 10:04 am
New page up now.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:59 am
was the kate silent scream like that of the scream by Munch /? How could he have known, surely Kate could not have sat for it ?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:56 am
morning everyone!!
December 15th, 2007 at 9:47 am
735
Matt. Says:
December 15th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Wakey, wakey, Anorak.
—————————————————
Anorak is probably still receiving istructions from his reptilian paymasters; I had to out him last night when he cynically claimed that a kangaroo had been attacked by a shark…
December 15th, 2007 at 9:43 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2227354,00.html
Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. “Is this your daughter?” he asked.
IMO the policeman was establshing the fact that a picture had been circulated of Madeleine without the go ahead and approval of the police investigation.
Bridget O’Donnell is writing merely from her own perspective and cannot be relied upon as any relevant witness as she was merely an onlooker from a distance and is just writing her views and non of it adds anything to the investigation.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:41 am
The truth fairy according to a reliable source will be calling in Rothley shortly after new year!
December 15th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Wakey, wakey, Anorak.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
729…Ian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2227416,00.html
December 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=502095&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&ct=5&expand=true#StartComments
my comment above was to this link.
Heidiki- my previous post on this ’story’
426
pat Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Imo - in this creative short story by Bridget O’ Donnell she deliberately employs stereotypical language to create a gulf between Kate and Gerry and Murat by seperating them into two camps of good and evil.
This is how she describes Murat:
“Later, there was a knock on our apartment door and we let the two men in. One was a uniformed Portuguese policeman, the other his translator. The translator had a squint and sweated slightly. He was breathless, perhaps a little excited. We later found out he was Robert Murat. He reminded me of a boy in my class at school who was bullied.”
In this short description he is depicted quite clearly as the ‘baddy’, with sexual suggestion of sweaty and excited, with the added- “He reminded me of a boy in my class at school who was bullied.” Suggesting he is not liked.
As opposed to Gerry- “Gerry was outgoing, a wisecracker, but considerate and kind, and he invited us to join them. ”
Kate is described as the good woman: - “She watched his boyish demonstration with great seriousness and patience.” She serves the interest of her husband - the patient wife/martyr as opposed to the villanous Murat.
In the use of her language she has woven into her story the stereotypical view of the ‘players’ in the game and guess who comes off worse?
……………..
Also the reference was to her peg labelled Madeleine- not her bag on it.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
About Mrs o’D’s article again. It seems to me that she genuinely believes the child was abducted. The whole article revolves around the idea : why their child and not mine, or any other, since they all looked alike and were all equally pretty?
As a rule, the survivors of a disaster feel guilty, and wonder “why not me?”. She is no exception to the rule. Her answer is that little M. was an easy pick, perhaps because of the flat overlooking the road, and surely because the children were left alone at night, while the parents were openly enjoying themselves and having a lot of fun.
G. is described as a joker, loud, yet considerate, but not very mature, and K. is described as in love with her husband, a spouse more than a mother. Mrs O’D. stresses the fact that no way she could have left her children on their own, she would have been too worried to enjoy herself anyway. She also says that all of a sudden, the fun was over for the MC as she dramatically stresses the contrast between their happy-go-lucky attitude before, and the nightmarish atmosphere after.
From her description, the theory that everything was planned ahead doesn’t seem to be satisfying.
She is honest in the fact that she asserts what she believes, but doesn’t try to influence anyone, and doesn’t rule out other possibilities.
I was put off by the style when I only read little bits, but to me it makes sense, and tI find it inersting, though I think that the PJ and English police have stong reasons not to satisfy themselves with the aduction theory.
December 15th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Well there you go it has to be Murat, “sweaty” “Excited”. Arrest him forthwith! Of course Jess would not be sweaty after walking around pushing a push chair for an hour and going up to the fourth floor would he, or anyone else for that matter, Kate and Gerry certanly wouldn’t?
And Kate so beautifully still- in comparison. How dare anyone suggest such an idea that she is nothing other than the perfect parent?
I can’t understand it, it is so simple, thankyou Bridget O’Donnell for clearing it all up- look at them- who would you pick as the guilty one?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
732 found it!
December 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
731
He makes some good points.
Its probably worth noting each line and debating it - there is a lot in there for a short piece. Its ’silly’ writing and its intention is somewhat confused. Whatever anyone says, they just dont seem to be able to avoid dropping the McCanns in it deeper and deeper.
I dont have the link to the full article, do you?
December 15th, 2007 at 8:52 am
347
Stevo Says:
“I’d like to know why the cop asked who the photocopied picture was of. Also, how did they do all that so quickly? Like…where did they get a photo of Madeleine to be photocopied in such a short space of time?
Is that another clue with the policeman asking who it was? All the police had to go on were photos. Madeleine was abducted remember….”
I over looked this point too (as well as the bag on the peg). The cop’s question was portrayed as a bumbling (not even knowing who the girl was) but perhaps the initial photo used was NOT Madeleine? Or else the police had already noticed that photos presented as being Madeleine were not her?
And O’Donnel does not even give her answer! She does not say, “why, that is Madeleine!” In fact she can’t, because she herself has admitted that she too doesn’t recognize the girl. Her title “my months with Madeleine” is ridiculous — it could be “my months with the Madeleine story” or some such. She spent no time with the girl, and could not even recognize her in a group. And yet she (seemingly) expects a policeman to know that night what Madeleine looks like?
So many odd things in one short article — no wonder many are saying it is deliberate hinting by the author.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:25 am
RE:
720
pat Says:
December 15th, 2007 at 3:22 am
I’ll just corrrect my post above with: “Art imitates life.”
It was used this way though: “Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life.”
Oscar Wilde
December 15th, 2007 at 7:11 am
hideki
yes they are all of the same ilk
careers and money are more important than the life of a child
after all she was the parents responsibility not theirs
December 15th, 2007 at 6:42 am
469
Ian Says:
The Guardian ‘Womans Own’ story is an excellent piece of work - very clever indeed - the McCanns must be spitting feathers! The juxtapositioning of a couple who give a damn about their kids with a party of people who were there for a good time - a child free good time.
Clearly this lady and her partner didnt like having the ‘Doctors’ at the resort. Noisy, not looking after their children, Gerry one of those awful loud ‘jokers’. I can so identify with them!
‘Jes’ and Gerry discuss child care arrangements? Two men on holiday after a few drinks discuss child care arrangements? Hmmm why I wonder? The topic of conversation? These people were clearly hoping for a quiet break - spending time with their children (even mentions not going out because of the children!).
One of the Doctors (not named) bangs on the door to tell them they dont need any help? At that time of the morning? Oh really?
Clever mentioning jsut how many little kids there were, how she couldnt identify if Madeleine was there or not, lots of pictures taken (so where are all these pictures!).
441 Vera, its an absolutely brilliant move! [the prejudiced remarks about Murat]“\
————————————
reply– Could someone explain how they KNOW B. O’Donnel has deliberately put these damning things into a piece that only pretends to be supportive of the McCanns? At first I thought you people were being ironic! (you aren’t?) But the piece states at the bottom that the fee will be donated to the Madeleine Fund.
So if this is all just pretend support, what is the purpose? Why would B. O’Donnell not write a more straight-forward criticism of the McCanns? Why does she need to make it appear on the surface that she is sympathetic? Is this peer pressure of British society?
I read the article as being supportive of the McCanns but NOT supporting them for the simple reason that any time facts are stated these facts do NOT support the McCanns. Even Clarence Mitchell’s statements have, on the whole, seemed quite damning. Is he also only pretending to support the McCanns? Perhaps NO ONE really supports them, and everyone is pretending?