Madeleine McCann: An Alternative Christmas Message From Kate and Gerry McCann
KATE and Gerry McCanns, parents to Madeleine McCann, have issued a new appeal for information and sent a video message to their daughter. It’s their Christmas message.
Channel 4 has been broadcasting an alternative to the The Queen’s Christmas Day Speech for some years. Have the McCanns missed the chance to follow in the footsteps of previous speakers Quentin Crisp, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, Ali G, Sharon Osbourne, The Simpsons and Zimbabwe-born Khadija, a Muslim freelance teacher wearing the niqab.
Kate McCann says in the McCanns’ Christmas message: “Madeleine, it’s mummy and daddy here.
“Just know how much we love you, Madeleine. We all miss you so much…Be brave sweetheart.
“Our only Christmas wish is for you to be back with us again and we’re hoping and praying that that will happen. Love you Madeleine.”
Says Gerry McCann: “This special time of year is all about families coming together with love and peace.
“Clearly for us and the rest of our family it’s going to be the hardest Christmas imaginable without Madeleine here.”
He adds: “Since Madeleine was taken from us on May 3, someone knows what happened to her and may well know where she is now. That person has it within their power to show us the compassion to end this terrible ordeal for us.”
Notes the Telegraph: “The McCanns, who remain official suspects in Madeleine’s disappearance, have not spoken publicly about what they have bought for Madeleine for Christmas this year.”
Not yet…
Her image features on the front pages of the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail…
Video coming…
Posted: 22nd, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (740) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- 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
December 24th, 2007 at 7:44 am
740
M.H.Cave Says:
December 24th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Where on earth are all these clever psychics and clairvoyants that are so clever in duping people not coming forward with any help re Maddie ?
One would think it would be a pure formality after watching their antics on T.V.
Malcolm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly !! that’s what most people will think but regular posters will be aware of the sayings of my friend Christine who has given detailed info to the Police in both countries, to at least six newspapers and to Sky News, and also to the McScams themselves. She has offered her services - for nothing - and has heard nothing back whatsoever, probably think she is a crank, but thus far she told of a dilapidated farmhouse ( the barn, near enough ) where there would be clues to follow ( the towel) and that Madeleine was in “still water” which she thought might be a well or a reservoir of some sort - they are supposedly inspecting a 14ft mine-shaft. So maybe it is the powers-that-be that have not taken up the offers for whatever reason.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Where on earth are all these clever psychics and clairvoyants that are so clever in duping people not coming forward with any help re Maddie ?
One would think it would be a pure formality after watching their antics on T.V.
Malcolm
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
737
dcb Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
oh dear - two mccann forums running at the same time - not sure which to follow
========================================
Always go to the most recent !! everyone else follows sooner or later
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
How many read the below article that appeared in the UK paper today?
“A British paedophile is under suspicion over Madeleine’s abduction, according to UK police sources.
Soon after Madeleine vanished, Portuguese detectives were sent details of 52 known sex offenders with links to the Algarve.
All but one have been eliminated from the investigation - but the man’s identity has not been revealed.
The information was supplied by the Child Exploitation and On-line Protection Centre, whose specialist staff arrived in Portugal within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
It has been reported in the past that Portugal is known to attract British paedophiles.
A ring of 20 Britons set up there around 1990, filming sex acts with local boys and sending the tapes to Belgium and the Netherlands.
Some were later jailed in Britain. The case helped to persuade the British Government to make it illegal for Britons to have sex with underage children abroad.
In the week following Madeleine’s disappearance Portuguese papers claimed that police saw paedophilia as a possible motive because there had been no ransom demand and there was no evidence of anyone having a grudge against the family. “
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
oh dear - two mccann forums running at the same time - not sure which to follow.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
735
Hideki Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
598
Meejician Says:
“Some of you talk about paedophilia as a distant and poorly understood issue. And that applies to both those of you who place the McCanns in the frame, and those of you who don’t.”
First, you say “some of you”.
“For you, and I stress that this applies to all of you, all of you, the reality of being the victim of this saleable commodity hasn’t actually hit your heart and your life. You don’t know what it means. You just bang it out as an argument.”
Then, you say “all of you”.
What makes you so sure that no one here knows how horrible is abuse by paedophiles? You claim people are ‘banging it out as an argument’ — was that the purpose of your little heart-wrenching story? To show that others have not been as affected as you have been?
I’d be more impressed if you’d have told your own story, and not someone else’s. Why didn’t you respect her privacy? It’s improper for you to be blabbering about that cyber relationship on this forum. You owe her an apology! JMO.
So why have the McCanns said they know “without a doubt” that paedophiles were involved in the so-called abduction? If truthful, this means that they have an association, direct or indirect, with paedophiles. There’s no other way they could know. IMO.
—
I do not feel that he was implying that nobody in this forum has ever been abused or suffered at the hands of a paedophiles. He/she was making a point about not to take it lightly and joke about it.
With regards to the McCanns knowing that these type of rats are involved, it is possible that they have information provided to them by the authorities/police, that has not been revealed to the public. Can you honestly tell me that you think the police have revealed/leaked everything the know to the press/public??? I don’t think so!
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
598
Meejician Says:
“Some of you talk about paedophilia as a distant and poorly understood issue. And that applies to both those of you who place the McCanns in the frame, and those of you who don’t.”
First, you say “some of you”.
“For you, and I stress that this applies to all of you, all of you, the reality of being the victim of this saleable commodity hasn’t actually hit your heart and your life. You don’t know what it means. You just bang it out as an argument.”
Then, you say “all of you”.
What makes you so sure that no one here knows how horrible is abuse by paedophiles? You claim people are ‘banging it out as an argument’ — was that the purpose of your little heart-wrenching story? To show that others have not been as affected as you have been?
I’d be more impressed if you’d have told your own story, and not someone else’s. Why didn’t you respect her privacy? It’s improper for you to be blabbering about that cyber relationship on this forum. You owe her an apology! JMO.
So why have the McCanns said they know “without a doubt” that paedophiles were involved in the so-called abduction? If truthful, this means that they have an association, direct or indirect, with paedophiles. There’s no other way they could know. IMO.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
732
can’t say No Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
731
Daisy
Do you think that both the Portuguese & British Police are stupid ????
The first line they follow was the abduction line !!
Guess what ,the <british police ,ask for the sniffer dogs to come here to Portugal
Are you saying ,you no more ,then the Police ?????????
–
Of course I do not know more than the Police, but I would put my hands on fire that the Police have not revealed/leaked all the details/information to the press/public and they have more info than all of us know. Historically, it has that Police services only reveal certain facts to the public either to generate some reactions from the ones they consider suspects or somebody who they believe could have some information about a particular case. They do manipulate the Media as well, with the intention of gathering additional info or finding one more clue.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
729 Hideki
This was a very interesting and fascinating post.
You speak as though you personally know the McCann family (or have some personal knowledge of them) and absolutely know that Madeleine did not have a coloboma. Are you saying that the real child born as Madeleine McCann died, or disappeared, some considerable time prior to the holiday and that another child, who DOES have a coloboma, was put in her place. Are you saying that you think that this “new” child may still be alive in the hands of a paedophile ring and that, if found, dead or alive, her coloboma will identify her as Madeleine McCann?
What would have happened to the original M? And why would they now wish to dispose of the new M to make it look as though the original child had gone missing? Furthermore, who is the “fake” Madeleine?
Hideki, you are highly articulate and obviously not a nutcase. As I see it, there are two possibilities (and I apologise for being over-suspicious if I am not justified in so being):
1. Either you are propounding a fantastic theory to draw the attention away from the truth or
2. You have some inside knowledge and there is really is substance in what you propose.
It is very difficult, from a site such as this where posters are anonymous, for me to decide exactly how much weight to attach to either possibility. I will continue to watch your posts with interest.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
731
Daisy
Do you think that both the Portuguese & British Police are stupid ????
The first line they follow was the abduction line !!
Guess what ,the <british police ,ask for the sniffer dogs to come here to Portugal
Are you saying ,you no more ,then the Police ?????????
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Good evening all!
I can’t help it but make some comments about some of the posts in the 600-620 numbers or thereabouts.
I have stated before that my gut feelings point to the abductor possibility and most in here do not agree. That’s okay. But I consider myself an educated, intelligent woman, who cannot believe that if the McCanns are directly responsible for Maddie’s disappearance, they would now go to such length as to spend the rest of the Fund’s money in search of the poor little girl. In my humble opinion, they are genuinely now desperate to find her and, if their motives all along where just to rip off the public and get donations, they surely would not now got to the end and spend the money searching, but would sit quiet and keep using the money for what ever reason other people specualte about.
I have read Meejician’s 598 accounts of his unimaginable experience helping that abused girl (and I admire you for that) and I myself have come across some information on the net about what really happens to kids who get abducted by poedophile rings, which in many cases involve people who have high ranking posts or are in positions of public trust. It is a horrific reality of this World and it seems that corruption is allowing these rings to continue for ever and ever.
Why can’t it be possible that Maddie is/was a victim of these disgusting groups? (Again, I will clarify that the parents are guilty of neglect and no-one seems to dispute that and neither do I.) If Tony Bennett has taken it upon himself to try and seek action because of this, I admire him.
But, in reading many posts here, there is so much hatred for the McCanns status in society, their professions, their nice home, etc. What has that got to do with Maddie’s disappearance? Becoming a doctor involves hard work and many years of study, and the life of a doctor is one of long hours, endless shifts and therefore, well paid jobs. If Kate decided not to continue in her specialization and become a part-time GP (as it has been reported), why is she being punished by many here about that? Maybe she did not want the long hours anymore and they could afford for her to only work part-time. Again, what’s that got to do with Maddie’s disappearance?
I think people should not look at their social status or professional achievements and only judge them for what has happened with regards to neglecting their children. Neglect happens in all socio-economic fractions and is, from what I understand, more prevalent in the lower ends, due to lack of resources, alcoholism and lack of education.
Is is clear that the McCanns were selfish as parents, but that doesn’t make them guilty of her murder/manslaughter. Responsible for it, yes, but not guilty. There could be other scenarios and much information which nobody in here is aware of.
Many here are punishing the McCann for their wealth, their looks, their make-up or hairdo’s, which has nothing to do with this case.
Okay, I’m ready for the attacks!
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
729
Hideki
I wich . they can be arrested here ,in Portugal,and have Mr. Amaral, making them the questions.
That would my second xmas present
the first one is for my son
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
727
Logic Says:
Hideki
“In your opinion, do you think it likely that the McCanns harmed Madeleine? ”
Very likely. I agree with the initial Portuguese opinion about “eventual intention” to kill.
“Chenier seems to think you are trying to show they didn’t, but that someone else did. ”
Chenier is either a member of T9 or one of their friends. She has constantly lied about my posts. Recently she claimed that it is important to blame the McCanns for advertising the coloboma. This is a typical *pretending* to criticize the McCanns. Actually, Madeleine had no coloboma. Chenier is willing to “criticize” the McCanns for advertizing the coloboma, because her main point is to bolster the false idea that Madeleine did indeed have a coloboma. It’s Team McCann strategy, and Chenier is following their instructions. Beware!
“You speak in such a mysterious code, saying what monstrous parents they are, hinting at prior abuse, but sometimes give the impression that, in the final analysis, the only (and I am not undermining this) condemning factor for the parents is that they left the children alone.”
You have misunderstood me. I do not say the “only” thing is child neglect. I say the first and fundamental thing is child neglect. Moreover, in Portugal they can get 10 years in jail for what that alone. And after the monsters are imprisoned, other investigations can continue.
It is the pro-McScum that want to gloss over the child neglect and talk about “innocent” of murder — because they know that these charges are harder to prove by police, and even moreso in a forum like this.
“What actually is behind your continual assault on the parents’ characters?”
There are many aspects. One is that to me it is obvious the McCanns have absolutely no feelings of love for children , and only callous disregard for them. They are also proven liars. So it is easy to suspect that they are “capable of anything”.
The McCanns have stated that they know “without a doubt” that paedophiles are involved. In order for them to KNOW this, they must have extensive information about paedophiles. This shows their character as well.
Examine their statement as true or false:
If they are LYING, and they in fact DO NOT KNOW that paedophiles are involved, then they are misleading the public and police. Obstruction of justice, and shows they are not interested in solving a so-called abduction.
If they are TRUTHFUL, then the police could demand to be informed about how they know this. But they refused to answer police questions. Obstruction of justice, and shows they are not interested in solving a so-called abduction.
And whether true or false, the statement has a PURPOSE for the McCanns, as do all of their statements. It is intended to “set up” various contingency plans.
IMO the PJ know everything, and the McCanns will not be able to execute any of their contingency plans. The fake Madeleine will either continue her existence as it is now, or she will be killed. Unless the PJ somehow manage to save her. JMO.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
408
Trismegistus Says:
” Many people that I know commented very close to the start that they did not believe that the McCanns were for real. Most of these people haven’t bothered to keep up with the case. Sometimes I wish I hadn’t either - it turns my stomach.”
Team McCann is counting on time and attrition. It’s really too bad the McCanns were not swiftly brought to trial and convicted for child endangerment. That is a 3-10 year sentence. They should be in jail now. Instead, they are begging for money, and swindling the public. It’s unforgiveable.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hideki
In your opinion, do you think it likely that the McCanns harmed Madeleine? Chenier seems to think you are trying to show they didn’t, but that someone else did. What do you think happened? You speak in such a mysterious code, saying what monstrous parents they are, hinting at prior abuse, but sometimes give the impression that, in the final analysis, the only (and I am not undermining this) condemning factor for the parents is that they left the children alone. What actually is behind your continual assault on the parents’ characters?
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
724
Chenier
3rd para 2nd line - should’ve read “noticed” not “not noticed”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
681
Trismegistus Says:
“Well, as I suspected, it’s an insult to cold-blooded reptiles to refer to the McCanns as such. I shall stop calling them reptiles, out of respect for reptiles. How about “abominations” or simply “monsters”?”
I have been referring to them as monsters, firstly because they are monsters and their child neglect/abuse was monstrous, and secondly in case a newbie appears and has heard that the McCanns are saints.
Priest Pacheco called them “lost souls”, which is one way of saying that they are morally depraved to the extreme. One poster called their child neglect a “mortal sin”, something that not even animals do.
They left their children alone, subject to all kinds of danger. And the police (as reported in the news) DID want to charge Kate with “eventual intention” to murder. I think this means she allegedly gave the girl sedatives, knowing (based on medical history) that eventually there would be a fatal allergic reaction.
The twins need to be taken from these Monster McCanns, and turned over to some decent parents.
I am earnestly praying that the McCanns, whatever they are charged with, are given maximum sentences on all counts. Anything less than 20 years would be lenient. JMO.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
436 Chenier
Strange, Chenier, that you so rubbish my observations. You say that paediatricians look at probabilities not possibilities. Well, they shouldn’t then, should they? Just because something is probable doesn’t mean that it is definitely so. And all possibilities should also be considered, especially in the field of medicine because, as you will know, many cases are not “textbook” but veer from the norm. If doctors only consider probabilities and not possibilities, then they will make some very wrong diagnoses! As happens frequently!
I know exactly how steadily and well my own children executed actions, thank you very much. They did not topple over as you suggest. They were both advanced, but there is no reason why the twins could not be advanced also. We simply do not know. I think that the twins look too small to be 23 months in the video - but I may well be wrong, because children also vary enormously in size as well, and Madeleine was admittedly a small child.
As far as paediatricians go, they are taught a theory about mid-parental height as well. And yet I have not noticed in practice that this does not follow through. Boys are far more often the height of the father than midway between the mother’s and father’s heights. So often they get their predictions about height wrong. When shown to be wrong, they will say, “Oh well, we always say it can vary by a few inches each way.” Which means that the whole idea was a load of old cobblers in the first place!
However, I actually watched the video with a paediatrician friend last night and she thought the same as me, that the twins looked and acted younger than 23 months.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
716
Trismegistus Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
712 Julie…
Maybe the freezer was being used for something else…
********************
A very plausible speculation. Odd that the McCs, as visitors, had to replace the existing freezer.
Wonder when Gerry’s blue tennis bag will turn up?
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 am
otterburn?
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 am
or of course
3) She could just continue to live where she is living, with her present paedophile abuser. Ie all plans cancelled.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
TWIN PEAKS MADDY AND LAURA BOTH DEAD
MCCANNS SUSPECTED…
Tony Bennett Says:
282 Daisy: “Early walking this is not. There are no arms out for balance, no staggering, no near misses”.
It’s too brief a clip for that. An 11 month old early walker tends to move quickly between points of stabilzation.
TB: “I agree. I wonder whether you would also agree that their walking looks if anything underdeveloped for 23-month-olds?”
Not sure what you mean. Of course it would be ‘underdeveloped for 23-month olds’ if they are 11 months old in the image.
Anyway, our focus is on Madeleine. The photo with the baby in the background is definitely 2005. The video footage may include images from both 2005 and 2006, but no footage showing Madeleine is from 2006.
IMO the McCanns have not shown any clear photos of Madeleine from Dec 2006 to May 2007. The reason could be that they do NOT want her identifified — too inconvienient when the fake Madeleine is introduced.
They have been deliberately producing images that resemble the fake Madeleine. Some of the photos probably ARE the fake Madeleine.
They have pretended that Madeleine has a coloboma, because the fake Madeleien has one.
Now one of two things can be done with the fake Madeleine, first and second choices:
1) She can be “found” alive by Metodo3. Kate was already setting up that scenario, with her plea for someone to ignore “misguided loyalty” and tell where Madeleine is hidden. Golly, the McCanns know an awful lot about these paedophiles! The fake Madeleine will be too traumatized (in fact a traumatized girl) to reveal much; she will have amnesia, etc and has been being addressed as “Madeleine” for 8 or more months. The Madeleine Fund will be overflowing with donations from people sympathizing with the poor child and her parents.
This did not work out? No problem, for
2) she can be killed, and the body planted somewhere. If the body is found shortly after her death, it will be claimed that Madeleine was alive up to that point, ie that this is proof she was abducted. The McCanns take a little heat for risking Madeleine (possibly causing the death) by broadcasting her identifying details, but this is nothing criminal.
These are merely speculative scenarios, not allegations.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Do any of you Anorakers think they are preparing for another runner, Paraguay perhaps?
I mean, whitewashing, oops, spending 600000 in one time indicates they are rather in a hurry now.
I wonder what their house of love will look like there and if Sean will be around deserving stars and will Amelie be treated like a princess?
I think they can deserve a lot of stars on those lonely nighs when the McMonsters are at it again drinking like templars in those cheap Paraguay watering holes.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
673 lyn Says: December 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
.661 - in the space of 4 months Maddie’s hair has grown 5 inches and she too has grown and put on weight! What is going on.
++++++++++++
While I agree there may be some conjecture about how much Madeleine may have grown in four months, I think we should also keep an open mind about the provenance of some/all of the recent photographs of Madeleine that we have been allowed to see. i.e. Are we really sure they are always Madeleine?
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Anorak slept late this morning … new forum just popped up.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
712 Julie…
Maybe the freezer was being used for something else…
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
710 Moriarty…
Not I… but left so hopping mad by the media developments last night that I checked out the situation first thing in the morning.
Once the tribe gets out of the kitchen I’m going off to refactor it in preparation for Christmas dinner…
I can stop anoraking any time I want to, really!
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
709 lilith…
“It’s like they just KNOW Madeleine will not pop up any time soon…”
NO! Really???? You mean… this whole thing may have been a carefully planned scam? NO!
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
688
Garth Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
683
May Says:
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
——————————————-
Yes……………but where are the criminals here?
————————–
The ‘criminals’ are the parents who contrived the situation whereby their daughter disappeared. They subsequently employed a so called detective agency, with no experience in finding missing children, whilst at the same time covering their own backs by engaging top lawyers in Portugal and at home. They have been unscrupulous in spending money sent in by well intentioned people, who were not amongst the wealthy, but were probably contributing “the widow’s mite”.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
And why would they possibly allow the meat to go rotten? Surely the villa they got loaned had a freezer?
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
704 Ann…
In the spirit of fairness, I shall try to make an argument for the McCanns and their rotting meat.
This occurred after the disappearance of their daughter, when they extended their holiday in PDL beyond its natural life. They moved from the full-service Mark Warner apartment to a private villa - which they were not paying for, their adeptness at media manipulation and emotional manipulation got them a free place to stay in the resort.
They were living a life that was not exactly the normal holiday existence. Perhaps they had to do some things, such as haul their own rubbish, that normal holidaymakers wouldn’t have to think about.
That said, having rented private villas in similar places throughout the Iberian world, I’ve never had to do anything more strenuous than haul a bag of rubbish up hill 50 metres to a public rubbish bin.
The police said that they found “DNA and the Scent of Death” in the hire car. The Fragrant Ones explained the DNA as leakage from dirty nappies from the twins, who of course had the Happy Family DNA… whereas the smell of death must have come from some rotting meat that they were transporting, along with the smelly nappies, in leaky bin bags to the local tip.
In general, the willingness of the McCanns to come up with “pat” explanations for everything without even pausing to think about it is about as telling as anything else in this egregious case.
May Justice Prevail.