Madeleine McCann: Praia da Luz Calls, Maddy Shunned And Portugal On The Edge
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MAIL page 36: “Madeleine: Portuguese detectives trawl thousands of phone records”
Police are looking through phone records of Praia da Luz’a 27,000 residents at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance. They are looking for unusual call patterns. Bugging calls
A local resident of Praia da Luz says the police questioned her, saying: “We are investigating all calls made within Praia da Luz from 9.30pm onwards on May 3″
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “Any information could prove vital”
THE SUN page 15: “Maddie cops seize local phone bills”
“They are using a method of triangulation which pinpoints a person’s location via their mobile and are also checking land-line calls”
Can it work? Says the Sun: “Mobile phone evidence exposed holes in the alibi of Soham murderer Ian Huntley”. And that is similar to this case because..?
DAILY MIRROR front page: “MADDY – Blitz to fined phone clues”
Page 10: “COPS CHECK EVERY CALL ON DAY MADDY VANISHED”
Well, not every call. Just calls made in the area of Praia da Luz by those 1,000 persons on a police list
DAILY EXPRESS page 19: “Now Madeleine police seize all phone records”
The papers says the search is in light of talk of a “massive conspiracy”. The Express is belived to be fond of a conspiracy
Says Clarence Mitchell: “Kate and Gerry are encouraged by this police work because it shows the investigation is now active and thorough…Crucially they also hope it may lead to them being reunited with Madeleine”
DAILY STAR: “PARENTS SHY AWAY FROM NAME ‘MADDY’”
Or Madeleine, for that is her name
The name Madeleine is “now lower than at any time in the past five years”. It is now the 80th most popular name. Says a child psychologist called Ruth: “The majority of people who hear the name Madeleine automatically associate it with her”
What the top girl’s name is readers are not told, nor where Kate features. The Telegraph says it is “Grace”, as in Baby Grace
NEW YORK TIMES: “Portugal Polishes Its Image as the ‘West Coast of Europe’”
Portugal wants to reposition itself. Portugal is exciting, shiny, new and historical.
But: “The unsolved case remains a big story for the British tabloids, and there have been reports of declines in tourism from Britain, an important market for Portugal.
“Over all, though, tourism remains strong, Manuel Pinho, Portugal’s minister for the economy and innovation said. ‘This is a tragic case, of course, but it has not affected the numbers,’ he said. ‘It’s a very peaceful country, a very safe country’”
The demonising of Portugal and the case of Madeleine McCann
Posted: 20th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (547) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Trismegistus on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Bernie Morgan on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 am
550 Allison
You write as if the parents are not suspects but considered innocent by both the PJ and British police. Why?
The reason other parents are not disliked when in the same situation as the Mccanns is obviously because they are not suspected of harming their child. You seem to totally ignore the fact that there is suspicion that they are involved. When there is a likelihood that parents may have contributed to the demise of their daughter people are hardly going to feel sorry for them are they? Coupled with their weird and odd behaviour, inappropiate remarks and flippant, lighthearted demeanour after M went missing, it is no wonder people can’t stand them.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
549 Hideki Says: December 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
548 Peter O Says:
547 Hideki
+++++++++++++++
“One alternative possible explanation for their ongoing insistence regarding paedophilia is that it was intended to be part of their “sympathy smokescreen”. ”
You are suggesting that the McCanns are LYING about having no doubt about a paedophile being involved. Yes, possibly Gerry is lying, since he has lied on many occasions. Or possibly, the suggestion that he is lying about this is the smokescreen.
Edit…
However, Petero, in this case so far, EVERY SINGLE EMBELLISHMENT the McCanns have made to their fantastic abduction story has had a specific purpose in providing an “explantion” for something that happened? Why should we not think that the insistence on a paedophile predator is not the same? — For example, it could be the ingredient necessary to “explain” the fact that paedophiles were seen lurking around the McCanns wherever they went. Right from April 30 in Sagres, a suspected paedophile was seen near the McCanns. Why are paedophiles orbiting the McCanns like planets around the sun? Were they tracking Madeleine, targeting her? OR WERE THE ACQUAINTANCES OF THE MCCANNS?
++++++++++++
I wasn’t suggesting that paedophilia was not a possibility in this case. I agree that it is one possible explanation. I was just pointing out possible alternative scenarios.
One of the reasons that so many people are suspicions of the McCann’s is that a lot of what passes from their lips is fabrication, in my opinion. One of the challenges we have is trying to figure out which is complete fabrication, which might bear some relation to true events and indeed which is the truth/just plain bad PR.
I wasn’t aware that there were confirmed sightings of known paedophiles arund the McCann’s? Can you explain please?
December 21st, 2007 at 8:47 am
Don’t know why so many still hate the McCanns. It seems so strange that people continue to hang onto those feelings towards the parents. They are obviously in much pain and guilt over their daughter being stolen from them. They want her back and are trying to do everything to get her back. Why people blame them so much, I don’t understand. It’s like they think they are the criminals, fraudulent or something. I’ve never witnessed this level of hatred towards the parents of a missing child before. Usually, there is much empathy for them. I’ve never personally experienced my child being a missing child, but it must be the most horrible experience of anyone’s life. I really can’t imagine how any parents would be able to survive this happening to them, to their child. It’s a horrible crime and the people who steal children couldn’t be well by any means and are the true criminals for causing so much pain to a family. The world has felt pain over Madeleine due to such high media coverage of her, so whoever took her has actually caused the world pain, plus her family and anyone who ever knew Madeleine. I do hope she is alive and can still be found eventually. It’s the most tragic thing to hear of a child being ripped from her family. There needs to be a good ending to this case. The world has learned of missing children from Madeleine which is wonderful, because awareness might help end these crimes. The parents are in enough pain, so hope the people who continue to hate the parents give them a break. It’s really strange to me that this still goes on. The only thing I can think of is that it’s easier to blame the parents than to really ‘take in’ that predators do abduct children and harm them. I think a lot of people would rather stay in denial about such a horrible crime towards our most innocent.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
548
Peter O Says:
547 Hideki
+++++++++++++++
“One alternative possible explanation for their ongoing insistence regarding paedophilia is that it was intended to be part of their “sympathy smokescreen”. ”
You are suggesting that the McCanns are LYING about having no doubt about a paedophile being involved. Yes, possibly Gerry is lying, since he has lied on many occasions. Or possibly, the suggestion that he is lying about this is the smokescreen.
“They have… always sought to play down their culpability in the alleged abduction by talking about the “evil predator” being the real guilty party in all of this.”
Talking about an “abductor” has the same effect. Introducing an evil paedophile predator does not further “play down” their culpability.
” i.e. They needed to paint someone else as the greater evil than themselves and their alleged child minding.”
They needed to invent a paedophile because they neglected their children? Someone who kidnaps a child for other reasons was not evil enough to cover up their culpability? Good smokescreen, Petero.
A much simpler explanation would be because they fear that the police have evidence of sexual abuse. They fear this because they KNOW that paedophilic activities were taking place. Back to the same question: HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? or if you prefer, WHO TOLD THEM THIS?
“This does not of course exclude the possibility of the alleged abduction itself also being a part of the “sympathy smokescreen” itself…”
True, possibly no abduction took place — that was a smokescreen. In addition you are suggesting that possibly no paedophiles are involved — that being an embellishment to the smokescreen.
However, Petero, in this case so far, EVERY SINGLE EMBELLISHMENT the McCanns have made to their fantastic abduction story has had a specific purpose in providing an “explantion” for something that happened? Why should we not think that the insistence on a paedophile predator is not the same? — For example, it could be the ingredient necessary to “explain” the fact that paedophiles were seen lurking around the McCanns wherever they went. Right from April 30 in Sagres, a suspected paedophile was seen near the McCanns. Why are paedophiles orbiting the McCanns like planets around the sun? Were they tracking Madeleine, targeting her? OR WERE THE ACQUAINTANCES OF THE MCCANNS?
December 21st, 2007 at 8:10 am
547 Hideki Says: December 21st, 2007 at 6:49 am
544 Dave Says:
“No doubt 543 you will be providing a link for these statements attributed to the fragrant duo…”
I did not quote any statements by the McCanns that require attributions. I merely said that they have KNOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PREDATOR PAEDOPHILE. Strangely enough, not a single inquisitive journalist has asked them point-blank how they could possibly know such a thing.
+++++++++++++++
One alternative possible explanation for their ongoing insistence regarding paedophilia is that it was intended to be part of their “sympathy smokescreen”. Just my opinion.
They have, again in my opinion, always sought to play down their culpability in the alleged abduction by talking about the “evil predator” being the real guilty party in all of this. i.e. They needed to paint someone else as the greater evil than themselves and their alleged child minding.
This does not of course exclude the possibility of the alleged abduction itself also being a part of the “sympathy smokescreen” itself, in my opinion.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:49 am
544
Dave Says:
“No doubt 543 you will be providing a link for these statements attributed to the fragrant duo…”
I did not quote any statements by the McCanns that require attributions. I merely said that they have KNOWN WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PREDATOR PAEDOPHILE. Strangely enough, not a single inquisitive journalist has asked them point-blank how they could possibly know such a thing.
As for the validity of MY interpretation, there are plenty of sources, from May to December, that show the persistence and consistency of the McCanns HAVING NO DOUBT about a paedophile network being involved. Gerry said it. Team McCann said it. And Metodo3 obediently followed too. They have proffered NO OTHER EXPLANATION, and have always insisted on this one.
Here’s just one example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494747&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
“In a video diary to be shown in tonight’s documentary, Gerry McCann speaks of his fears that an abductor had watched the family for days.
He said: “I’ve no doubt Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core to think that someone was watching us and our daughter. I think the true word is a predator.” “
December 21st, 2007 at 6:37 am
http://gazetadigitalmadeleineandthemedia.blogspot.com/2007/10/pj-spokesman-and-chief-investigator.html
“Saturday, 6 October 2007
PJ spokesman and chief investigator accused of mocking Madeleine’s parents
The PJ former spokesman for Madeleine’s case, Olegário de Sousa and its chief investigator, Gonçalo Amaral, were today accused by Sharon Hendry, from The Sun, of “mocking the harried parents” of Madeleine McCann, while in the middle of a lunch, at Carvi restaurant, near the police headquarters in Portimão. The newspaper wrote that both detectives were having lunch …Olegário de Sousa and Gonçalo Amaral “asked for the Portuguese TV news to be switched on and sat at the table watching it (…) Madeleine’s parents had given a press conference in Berlin . . . The police were laughing and joking among themselves while it was on. They seemed to be sharing some sort of in-joke.”
If it was an “in” joke, I would think a journalist would be curious enough to ask them about it. Then maybe he could get a good laugh too, and a scoop as well.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:30 am
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/09/1178390346409.html
“According to a police description, the man was believed to be a pudgy British citizen around 35-40-years-old, of medium height, with a tanned complexion, and dark, slicked-back hair.
He was seen a week earlier in the southern Sagres region taking pictures of children. He had even tried to force one child into his car, according to the Publico daily.”
Maybe this is the McCann’s friend who owns the disused barn near Sagres? Perhaps the McCanns were in Sagres to pay him a visit and exchange niceties?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:27 am
No doubt 543 you will be providing a link for these statements attributed to the fragrant duo, which we can add to the ever bulging dossier.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:23 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21725163-2703,00.html
“Crime experts said last week that it should not be assumed that Madeleine had been taken by a child abuser. Ray Wyre, a consultant on sexual crime and abuse, said: “You need the message to go out to potential witnesses that no one should be discounted.” ”
Oh, well, I guess the McCanns felt no need to heed the advice of crime experts, for they KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that Madeleine was abducted by a PAEDOPHILE PREDATOR. It’s just surprising that no one , in any interview, thought to ask them HOW they know this.
The McCanns presumably know a lot about paedophiles — much more than you, me, or crime experts…
December 21st, 2007 at 6:20 am
538
pam Says:
December 21st, 2007 at 5:32 am
So the police say theres more than one person involved in the abduction, well so there was an abduction!, knew it!!!! most on here believe the police, so do you believe them now?????
************************************************************
I have been saying that since May, two men, “speak like Dora” which could mean Spanish or Portuguese to the untutored ear.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:18 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21725163-2703,00.html
“The McCanns are believed to have stayed once before in Praia da Luz and had returned because they considered it a safe resort.”
WHEN? Did they bring the children then too? Isn’t this an important point?
December 21st, 2007 at 6:11 am
Old Telegraph article from May 2007…
“Abductors could have spied on girl for days
By Richard Edwards and Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 2:26am BST 12/05/2007
“Detectives have discovered that the McCann family went to the town of Sagres, on the southern tip of the Algarve, on April 30.”
This is the place said to be 25km away, not far from the disused barn. What were they doing there?
“A witness has told police that on the same day he saw a suspicious man following families and photographing children, including his daughter, a blonde girl “strikingly similar” to Madeleine.”
“Detectives are working on the theory that the abductors may have seen Madeleine in Sagres and tracked her back to the family apartment in Praia da Luz, 18 miles away.”
The Telegraph does not know what theory the detectives were working on.
“A witness, Nuno Lorenco, said he saw a man following his family down the beach and taking “discreet” photographs. He said he challenged the man, who fled with a blonde woman in a Renault Clio.”
Is this the same witness mentioned above? If so, it’s a poorly written article for Witness A sees someone following “families” while Witness B sees someone following “his family”. I will assume B is the real thing, and A is the spin applied to make that “someone” seem like a PREDATOR.
So, who is Numo Lorenco, and why was someone taking pictures of his blonde daughter?
The presumption in this article is that the same guy taking pictures of Numo’s daughter also noticed Madeleine, and made her his target. But turn it all around, and it could be a member of Team McCann taking pictures of blonde girls. BTW, big question: WAS MADELEINE IN SAGRES WITH THEM ON APRIL 30? You would think so, since the suspicion is that she was photographed and targetted there.
But, alas, not a single photo of Madeleine in Sagres. Maybe she was already dead and buried at the disused barn, eh? Were the McCanns taking photos that could be used for some purpose or other, perhaps via photoshop alterations?
“Police have asked the McCanns for all the photographs from the trip to Sagres, and the rest of their holiday, looking for suspects in the background.”
Or maybe the police asked themselves the same question I just asked. Now, did the McCanns turn over any pictures to the police, or did they make up excuses for not having any?…
“In a statement on behalf of the family, he [Gerry] said yesterday: “We have now seen at first hand how hard the police are working in the search for Madeleine and their strong desire to find her.”
That’s nice, Gerry. Did you cooperate and turn over all your pictures?
“We are doing absolutely everything to assist the police with their investigation and we will leave no stone unturned in the search for our daughter, Madeleine.”
That’s nice, Gerry. Did you cooperate and turn over all your pictures?
“David Beckham, the Real Madrid footballer, made a television appeal yesterday… He said: “We need to do everything possible to help police.”"
The McCanns have not done what Beckham said needs to be done. I wonder how Beckham feels about that?
Now, then, where are the pictures of Madeleine in Sagres? Where is the FIRST picture of Madeleine taken at PDL? Why did the McCanns go to Sagres? To meet the owner of a disused barn? That was April 30!
December 21st, 2007 at 6:04 am
536 Tinsel
Thank you very much for that information. All very interesting indeed!
December 21st, 2007 at 5:32 am
So the police say theres more than one person involved in the abduction, well so there was an abduction!, knew it!!!! most on here believe the police, so do you believe them now?????
December 21st, 2007 at 3:19 am
I’m done with the whole mess………………..
StTEVO, you’e fucked….. me boy……
Slainte to you all for the New Year!!!!
December 21st, 2007 at 3:04 am
535
lyn Says:
December 21st, 2007 at 1:52 am
534
Is there any way that the information and technology could be tampered with. Also, if the McCanns knew this about mobile phone tracing and landlines, why were they not more careful.
For the authorities to go to all this trouble they must have a reason to do so and it may turn out to be really big.
***
ABC news announced just a few weeks ago that you can be traced down to within a few feet by a cell phone and the microphone can be activated even when the phone is off. All it needs is a working battery.
Now that the PJ-detectives have the legal authority to do so, they can look at all the records for the summer in PDL and reconstruct the movements of everyone physically near the MW complex. One by one they can account for anyone in the area that would had a phone.
If also means that they could listen to any of the Tapas conversations any time they wanted to, provided they had the warrants to do so, and the technology from a crime center.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:52 am
534
Is there any way that the information and technology could be tampered with. Also, if the McCanns knew this about mobile phone tracing and landlines, why were they not more careful.
For the authorities to go to all this trouble they must have a reason to do so and it may turn out to be really big.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:29 am
It is heartening to know that every phone call in PDL is going to be traced, and every signal plotted on a map.
If everyone in the MW area has an alibi, they are free and clear, but the Tapas are firmly in the frame!
It’s a two-edged sword, this cell phone technology. Seems they can track us and listen to us any time they want too.
On the other hand, if the technology solves the case, this will actually end up being landmark detective work in and of itself. They have the man power and the information to do it.
It’s really going to be interesting to hear the results!
December 21st, 2007 at 12:32 am
Four days to Christmas Day - where is Madeleine. A promise was made that she would be home for Christmas. Time is running out. Madeleine won’t be back for Christmas we know that, and she never will be home.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:29 am
Gillyflower … southern tip of African continent.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am
Here it is:
An article in the Correio da Manha today argues that it was diplomacy from the British Embassy- not police incompetence- which subverted the early investigation, and prevented officers from persuing anything other than the abduction theory favoured by the PTB. The orders, according to the writer in question, came from no less a source than John Buck, the British Ambassador himself; who called the head of the Policia Judiciaria on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance to advise on the direction in which the police work should proceed.
So why is a British diplomat giving orders to a native chief of police? And who gave the word to John Buck in the first place?
‘Alípio Ribeiro, national director of PJ, received a call from John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, on the night Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club, on May 3.
Around 11 p.m., approximately two hours after the child’s disappearance had been communicated to the police, Alípio Ribeiro had to interrupt a private dinner in order to listen to the diplomat. That phone call was the first sign that the British were very keen on accompanying the PJ’s actions very closely, and in forcing the investigations to follow the abduction theory.
“The PJ lost too much time investigating the abduction”, a source connected to the investigation told Correio da Manha. The pressure of the British diplomacy apparently only slowed down after the arrival in Portugal of British police agents who gave support to the redirectioning of the investigation to the possibility of murder. The biological evidence found in the apartment were decisive in the changing the inquiry’s direction, or, at least, for the PJ to admit that change publicly.’
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/madeleine-portuguese-police-under.html
December 21st, 2007 at 12:26 am
Got to go to bed now.
Will catch up on the rest of today’s posts tomorrow.
Night all.
Sweet dreams.
X
December 21st, 2007 at 12:23 am
526 Meejician
I’m up for the calender!
You conjured up horrible images of HH !
I think you should add a bad tempered scowl, and very little neck, with a slight moon face to make the picture complete!
Not forgetting a slightly misshapen ear ( from the tugging!)
IMO!
December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 am
#
522
Châtelaine Says:
December 21st, 2007 at 12:02 am
Nr. 1 item for me for today [not having read all posts] was having the UK paper having the news about the disappearance within 2 hours from MM going missing. If this could really be substanciated …
***********
It was substantiated on various fronts. The PJ say they got a call from the ambassador, John Buck, that night. Someone was called out of dinner to take the call. Meeja/diplomacy was on to this within the first hour or so. I’ll see if I can check it out………….
December 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am
525 Julie.
Glad I amused you, and gave you food for thought in the bath.
Stevo seems to be A1 with his thoughts on the photo’s and his explanations of how to alter and amend in photoshop are fascinating.
I am trying to insert hubby into some of our holiday photo’s at the moment.
Not sure he’ll appreciate where I’m putting him, but there you go!
Which part of Africa? Broadly speaking of course ! I loved Kenya- many years ago now though.
I totally agree with your comment about Mrs Webster. She may be completely horrified by the antics of the professional people her daughter is involved in. If it were my daughter I would be cautioning her to be very careful about what she’s been caught up in. Possibly even advising her that her best option would be to “come clean”
All imo of course.
And I’ve just broken my paper shredder.
Damn.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am
#
515
Gillyflower Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
514 Meejician
Seconded.
Please can I come to the pub quiz?
I’ll be good.
And I’m over 50!
****************
We could do a nekkid calendar for Harry, all carefully airbrushed by Stevo, and scare the living daylights out of the hindsighted dinosaur. My view is that he wears slacks and shirts and has a pot belly and varicose veins in his feet (like a sleb I met who’d just had a face-life but forgot to wear socks with his Gucci slip-ons - ugh! The varicose veins were SCARY!). But I may be doing HH an injustice. He may just have dentures and piles.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
520
Gillyflower Says:
December 20th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
516 Julie.
Guilty!
I admit to the imbibing of wine in the bath. And I stand by my comment!
**************************
AHA … knew I’d gotcha …. nothing sinister …. just remember that hysterical comment all the time ….. strangely enough …… when I’m in the bath ….
I must admit, in my ever so humble opinion, it would appear more logical for something to have happened to Madeleine earlier in the week. The timescale of the “abduction” is so tight as to be unbelievable.
************************
Yep, that “non-existent” timescale is even unbelievable in Africa time … will explain that in detail one day when everyone’s bored stiff here!
For it to have happened that night, the clean up operation et al had to have been carried out by Mary Poppins and her clicking fingers, or Samantha and her wiggly nose in Bewitched. ( The Elizabeth Montgomery version - not Liz Hurley!). But if they had more time then the clean up, including the washing, drying and rehanging of curtains would appear to make more sense.
****************************
Use Africa paraffin and everything goes away ….. even entire houses!
And those excavations would have still been open that night. Were’nt they filled in before Madeleine officially went missing?
*********************
Yes, the excavations were still open around that time as I believe from the reliable/unreliable press …. but somewhere in amongst that lot there has to be a smidgen of truth!
The photos, as lots have said, look contrived.
***********************
Stevo has done a lot of “snooping” around the photos (OMG he will hate me for that comment), but the inconsistencies that he puts forward are realistic, I believe that he is a genuine person that is not around to get his “little minute of fame”, but someone, like myself who believes in children being protected …. there are too many people around who are prepared to turn a blind eye ….. I can for surely say that I’m not one of them …. as are many posters on this forum.
And maybe Mrs Webster is the Tapas 1 who wanted to change her story?
*********************
Mrs Webster, I feel has been caught up in something that she did not foresee coming when she booked her ticket to PDL!
December 21st, 2007 at 12:12 am
Evening all. Very briefly looking in and see that more and more people are coming around to my long-held view that whatever happened did not actually happen during the timelines the fragrant ones would like us to believe.
One of the most compelling reasons for this is the complete reluctance/refusal of the McConns to say what they were doing earlier in the day - for example in the morning. On the famous Woman’s Hour programme when Genni Murray asked KM what they had been doing during the day, KM responded something along the lines of ‘we can’t really go into that…mutter mutter mutter’.
Why not?
I have suggested before that if indeed these people ARE innocent, it would help jog people’s memory if they knew that the family had been at the beach in the morning. Someone might have seen one of the smelly, greasy Moroccan/Arabian/Spanish/Bosnian/Russian paedophiles sitting near them watching the children.
They have bored most people to distraction with their stories and twisted lies. Hope Pilimary is right and that the PJ are resolute.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
Off now, really. Bye all.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:02 am
Nr. 1 item for me for today [not having read all posts] was having the UK paper having the news about the disappearance within 2 hours from MM going missing. If this could really be substanciated …