Madeleine McCann: Kelsey Lynn Kudia For Hire, Paris Hilton And Propaganda
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN front page: “’MADDIE’ FOR HIRE”
Tonight Kelsey Lynn Kudia is Madeleine McCann. Kelsey looks likes Madeleine McCann. She’s not in Morocco. She;s nopt Bouchra Benaissa. She not in Malta. But for the right fee she might be. Kelsey is a working Madeleine McCann double
Pages 4 and 5: “The boss of a lookalike agency who hopes to make a fortune out of a little Madeleine McCann double said last night: ‘It’s not sinister – it’s entertainment’. Shona Adams reckons three-year-old Kelsey Lynn Kudla’s similarity to missing Maddie could earn her £9MILLION for starring in a proposed feature film about the vanished tot”
Well, someone would have to play the missing child, unless she is found alive and well…
Says Shona, owner of London’s Juliet Adams Model Agency: “If the film about Madeleine is ever made, then the world is Kelsey’s oyster. If someone like Steven Spielberg made it, she could make £9million easily – of which I’d take 20 per cent. She will become a name in her own right and make it as a child model or actress because she’s got her foot in the door”
Just when you thought it was safe to holiday in Portugal…Dum-dum…
Of course, great acting careers have begun with less. Didn’t Tom Hanks play the baby in a Cry In The Dark?
She continues: “And from there, her earning potential is limitless. It’s not sinister. And if the McCanns are upset, there’s nothing they can do because it’s a democracy. I wouldn’t back away from it because, if a film is being made, then it’s entertainment”
Kate and Gerry McCann are “doctors”.
Says Shona: “I wouldn’t put Kelsey in a position of doing anything bad taste”
SLAP IN FACE FOR McCANNS: Sun columnist Lorraine Kelly says: “It makes you recoil to think a lookalike agency would have a Madeleine on their books alongside someone who looks like Jack Nicholson or Paris Hilton”
Whatever could she mean? Neither Nicolson nor Hilton were available to defend themselves…
DAILY EXPRESS: “The Madeleine lookalike on hire for £600 an hour”
Do you want to get your resort or country in the papers? Hire Kelsey to be a “Madeleine” and attract the world’s media to your locale as she is spotted time and time again
Kelsey is American
“PARENTS trying to ‘distract’ police
A source “close to the official police” investigation says: “Who do the McCanns think they are? The discovery of new witnesses in the last few weeks lead the authorities to believe they are at war with a gigantic propaganda machine. The McCanns have some very powerful people on their side - millionaires, celebrities, even politicians”
Says Robert Murat’s lawyer: “Robert Murat does not have millionaires supporting him, nor campaign funds. “He just wants to see his name cleared in this case as he has nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance, despite every day people emerging trying to forcibly incriminate him”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE – The £600 an hour lookalike”
Page 7: “MADDIE DOUBLE FOR HIRE”
“A sick mother is touting her daughter as a £600-an-hour Madeleine McCann lookalike,” says the paper, amid adverts for “adult fantasies”, “nasty sex” and FILTH”
She is an “unnamed American girl” - see the Sun above
Says Clarence Mitchell: “This is an offensive way to make money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. This is deeply offensive to parents Kate and Gerry”
MADDIE: THE MOVIE: “Yesterday, Channel 4’s head of documentaries Angus Macqueen said he had attended a meeting with the McCanns’ representatives to discuss a movie. He tells us: “Of course we are interested in making a film about this compelling story. We have a history of making quality films about crime matters”
That’s entertainment: “Meanwhile, producers of US psychic TV show Haunting Evidence have been in Praia da Luz planning their own show about Madeleine’s disappearance”
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns are ready to sack detective agency”
Says a source: “We will carry on the search for Madeleine, but not necessarily with Metodo 3. We are stuck with them to the end of the contracted period. The question of whether it is renewed or not has still to be decided. They have faced not having their contract renewed every since Francisco shot his mouth off… It was made clear what they were doing was foolish and unhelpful”
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “US TV psychics join hunt for Madeleine McCann”
“Three clairvoyants from the hit show will travel to Praia da Luz in a bid to find the missing four-year-old”
Come in Madeleine…
Kate and Gerry McCanns have received “1,500” offers from psychics hoping to find Madeleine. Like the Psychic Barber…
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We did receive an offer and chose on this occasion not to respond. We are grateful for any assistance they bring to bear in the hunt for finding Madeleine. We thank them for their concern and any demonstrably checkable fact is passed on to the police or the private detective agency”
Tune and pick up into Madeleine on the telly…
Madeleine McCann: the entertainment, speculation and lookalikes…
Posted: 11th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,399) | 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
January 12th, 2008 at 12:45 am
1293…jo
Yes….Clarence full of double standards as ever.
He and the lady who has the lookalike business were interviewed on the
radio tonight. Clarence full of outraged bombast….accusing her of trying
to profit from such a situation. She argued her point.
Then Clarence asked her if she would Donate some of her profits to the Fund.
Hilarious….
January 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Isn’t British (in)justice wonderful+++++++++++++http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1961033.0.Marriagefear_girl_victim_of_vile_murder.php
January 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Nite nite Batman, sorry about my Krypton mistake.
Nite nite JohnBoy, Sue Ellen [or was it Mary Ellen?] etc.
Now where’s Yampster when you need him?
Btw I’m not leaving [YET]
January 12th, 2008 at 12:42 am
1289
Totje Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:40 am
1239
RedRooster,
I missed you too. Couldn’t catch Ian, he was running to quick.
And computer restarted suddenly.
Now where’s the wine?
I need another one, just like the other one.
………….
come here then i’ll give you one
January 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
McCanns furious over Madeleine lookalike……they must be joking! they are furious coz someone is going to make the money they”re not going to make.This is exactely what I dont like about them.They are sooooooooooo full of themselves,its just unbelievable….
January 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
1283
Sledgehammer Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
You are obviously unwilling to accept the law as it is worded, you for reasons best known to yourself keep using in fact, in fact has nothing to do with it, in law is what the presumption states. I may not like it and you may not like it, but I hope you would agree it is a bad idea to try and second guess anything to do with law, most certainly here in the UK.
i am english, and i can understand the language when i read it.
you stated they were innocent, you made no mention of the law or the legal system.
you seem to have problems distinguishing between what you write and what you mean.
or don’t like admitting you’re talking pigwash, one or the other.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
1266 Meeji
Good luck with your FUD, Phd. You’re brave taking that on. Hope it goes well! Join in when you can with your reasoning
January 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
1283
Sledgehammer Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
You are obviously unwilling to accept the law as it is worded, you for reasons best known to yourself keep using in fact, in fact has nothing to do with it, in law is what the presumption states. I may not like it and you may not like it, but I hope you would agree it is a bad idea to try and second guess anything to do with law, most certainly here in the UK.
……………….
ffs sledgy shut the hell up
January 12th, 2008 at 12:40 am
1239
RedRooster,
I missed you too. Couldn’t catch Ian, he was running to quick.
And computer restarted suddenly.
Now where’s the wine?
I need another one, just like the other one.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:39 am
1285
jo Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
1276
RedRooster Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
*************************
They are definitevely guilty of child neglect….the rest is speculation,spin…yo que se!I have a wild theory but nobody wants to listen to it,so Id rather shut up
……………….
hey honey i’m all ears…..let the floor be yours im listening
January 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
1278
jo Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
1267
RedRooster Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
********************
We want the truth,friday night or not.I wish the Mccans would speak it up,arguidos or not.I would if I was innocent,I just would open my big mouth even having full knowledge of the entailed consequences=jail.
I truly do not know anymore…..as a parent,as a blogger,as whatever-yo-want….but I do care.
……………
i think you’re just gonna have to hang in there a bit longer…..we’ve got a way to go yet i think
January 12th, 2008 at 12:37 am
1285
Jo, I imagine people would like to hear your theory, this isn’t the best time of night (as the boards aren’t as active).
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
anyway i’m going to bed.
night all.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
1276
RedRooster Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
*************************
They are definitevely guilty of child neglect….the rest is speculation,spin…yo que se!I have a wild theory but nobody wants to listen to it,so Id rather shut up
January 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
You are obviously unwilling to accept the law as it is worded, you for reasons best known to yourself keep using in fact, in fact has nothing to do with it, in law is what the presumption states. I may not like it and you may not like it, but I hope you would agree it is a bad idea to try and second guess anything to do with law, most certainly here in the UK.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
1211
Châtelaine
No need to reply like you did. No smokescreen nor satire. Merely pointing out to you this meeting could be seen as suspicious or innocent. Depends on what you want to make of it.
Suggest you read back the posts.
End of discussion.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
1277
firestar Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
1275
firestar Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:30 am
you become guilty the second you commit the offence.
the rest is just to try to prove it.
guilty is when you call for a priest, not a judge.
……….
or sky news but not the police.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
sledgehammer
quick, call a priest, my child has been abducted.
wonder how many times the church has heard that one.
and the pope, who knows a thing or two about guilt and repentance didn’t hang about in shifting the madeleine stuff from the vaticans website now did he?
January 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am
1274
Sledgehammer
Way past your bed time old boy.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
1267
RedRooster Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
********************
We want the truth,friday night or not.I wish the Mccans would speak it up,arguidos or not.I would if I was innocent,I just would open my big mouth even having full knowledge of the entailed consequences=jail.
I truly do not know anymore…..as a parent,as a blogger,as whatever-yo-want….but I do care.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
1275
firestar Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:30 am
you become guilty the second you commit the offence.
the rest is just to try to prove it.
guilty is when you call for a priest, not a judge.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
1274
Sledgehammer Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Talking of old cock firestar, in a court trial they only become guilty,when the verdict of guilty is returned, sorry perhaps the judge gets it wrong when he/she imposes the not guilty verdict, how inconsiderate of them.
………………………….
how so baffoon features….surely the judge is just announcing they have been found guilty…they were guilty all along
January 12th, 2008 at 12:30 am
1274
Sledgehammer Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Talking of old cock firestar, in a court trial they only become guilty,when the verdict of guilty is returned,
and in what way does this mean the mccanns are innocent?
January 12th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Talking of old cock firestar, in a court trial they only become guilty,when the verdict of guilty is returned, sorry perhaps the judge gets it wrong when he/she imposes the not guilty verdict, how inconsiderate of them.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:28 am
1269
Ferdinand Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Still there, Todje?
I found a link which would give an example for what I think might have happenend. I have sent you a private mail with it. Note the date! But it’s just an example…
………………..
oh come on ferdi there no need for secrets we’re all friends here….come on spill the beans you obviously want to. why anounce your sending a private email otherwise???
January 12th, 2008 at 12:28 am
1265
Totje Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:23 am
We don’t know Madeleine died. We don’t know when she died. We don’t know what really happened and who did what.
We’re speculating.
******************+
Very true.Were just a bunch of “cotillas”=gossipers.
Deep down in my heart I do wish she hasnt died,like most of us here.I sincerely think we all wish to know the truth and finish this endless speculation to everybody”s relief.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
we should start a fund and hire the lookalike.
i’m sure we’d get plenty of suggestions of what to use it for.
we could even have our own reconstruction.
i’ll be the good looking, laid back portuguese cop with the sunglasses and the cigarette ash.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
1258 Firestar
January 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Still there, Todje?
I found a link which would give an example for what I think might have happenend. I have sent you a private mail with it. Note the date! But it’s just an example…
January 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
1262
Sledgehammer Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:20 am
well logically, i’d say it’s obvious to a blind man.
they’re one or the other.
your claim that they are innocent has no basis in fact.
you’re assuming someone only becomes guilty when convicted, which, as you know, is a load of old cock.