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
January 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
716 Ian - Agree!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
705 Totje
No probs!
The point is that it wasn’t the normal time….it was early! Like it never usually happened with them.
But of course we can agree to disagree
January 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Before I go,
What if Gerry had this all planned?
What if Kate is an innocent but easy victim?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
699
Ian Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
679 chenier
I take your point.
Of course judges themselves interpret the law and what was meant in a statute (for example) in different ways and using different ‘rules’ - literal, golden, etc. The ‘ratio decendi’ and ‘obiter dictum’ can be extracted and analysed separately out of the context of a case judgement.
The key point Dr Watson was trying to make was that ‘not guilty’ doesnt’ mean ‘innocent’ and people using the legal terms to seek to prevent us challenging the innocence of the McCanns out of court on a blog like this are mis-using the term.
Joe Public knows the term from ‘Crown Court’ and movies, but doesnt really understand it.
I think thats all he was really saying.
——————————————————–
And you have perfectly described the reason why judges strive for accuracy of expression; the idea is that you don’t then end up with someone having to try to work out what it was the judge was really saying.
Which is why you are learning law and Dr Watson isn’t…
January 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
716…Ian
Always a getout clause within most of what Dr G P says.
If his “belief” turns out be misplaced….he will be saying
“she decieved me”
January 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
You know what? I might take the weekend off this and do some work!
See you all later!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I looked up Anna Maria Franzoni. Wow.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
708 Miss Match
I thought the ‘We are both 100% sure of each otehrs innocence’ or words to that effect, statement was interesting.
It separated them - rather than being somethign that pulled them onto the same side, if you know what I mean?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
358
Fair,
You said [..]If someone forced me to make a bet one way or the other then I would put my money on them being involved in some way or another.[..]
Generalizing and thinking about statistics, in 80% of the cases regarding missing children [of that age] a family member or someone with access to the family is involved.
That leaves 20% who aren’t involved.
Mr Healy obviously thinks his daughter and son-in-law belong to the 20%.
I’m not going to bet, I stay [although I despise these machines] in my rollercoaster.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
708
Miss Match Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Tpny Bennett: REPLY:’ I wonder when the father first suspected that his wife had done it?’
He claims his wife is innocent. Now whether he genuinely believes that or not, and just doesn’t want to be publicly associated with a child killer, hence protesting her innocence, who knows….. Interesting question though!
***
The McCanns never really say they are innocent … what they say is “We each believe in the others innocence 100%.” Sly.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Clouseau
Are you Coldwater on another forum. I saw someone ask you that in here on time but I didn’t notice a reply. Carmen from M&A was on my case because I innocuously asked if soothsayer was female but if you don’t want to answer this it’s fine. I only asked because then I could go check out your list if you were and then I could ask you about it.
And when’s that replay up at St James’ Park?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
709 chenier
This is heading toward personal abuse methinks!
Dr Watsons point was well made and he didnt intend it to go as deep as its going!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#
680
Stevo Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
638 Julie
Hi Julie. I fixed the bug that was stopping you SA people with weird IP addresses from accessing the forum. Apparently the same thing was happening with people in PNG.
I’ve been looking for Amelie wearing the same clothes she had on by the pool…to no avail. One would expect her to be seen again in that orange top in the months after May 3.
I’m so glad you didn’t mix up the words there, and state …. stopping you wierd SA people with IP addresses …… 
…. shall visit shortly!
****************************
Thank you kindly sir!
Very odd that you cannot find another photo of Amelie with that orange top on again, there were just so many photos taken of them directly after Madeleine went missing, and at that stage they would have only had the clothes with them that they’d taken on holiday?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
704 Karen
I doubt he wrote this, actually.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
686
Stevo Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
679 chenier Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Actually, had you followed the link you would have realised that it is not an article; it’s the full report of the judgement in the Court of Appeal.
REPLY: I read it the other day when you posted the link. Not today.
——————————————-
But you couldn’t distinguish between an article and a full judgement in the Court of Appeal? There is a very large difference, and I had assumed that your memory was adequate…
—————————————————
If you believe that what Dr Watson said is an accurate reflection of what Lord Justice Judge said then you clearly do not understand what Lord Justice Judge was saying.
REPLY: I said I understood Dr Watson’s point and I had read the content of the link you sent. What part of “I understood it” do you not understand?
———————————————————
But clearly you don’t understand it, do you? If you are incapable of grasping the difference between what Lord Justice Judge said, and what Dr Watson said he said, then you clearly don’t understand it.
———————————————————
Judgements depend on absolute precision of language. Describing an accurate quotation as ‘micro-analysis’ simply reflects ignorance of what a judge sets out to do.
REPLY: No they don’t. Some may do but not all case judgements depend on absolute precision of language. That’s an oversimplification.
———————————————————–
Tosh.
What am I oversimplifying?
Are you really suggesting that judges decide not to bother with their language in some cases?
What do you imagine the Court of Appeal would have to say on that?
Have you overlooked the vast array of appeals systems here in which virtually all judgements can go all the way to the House of Lords?
And then Europe?
I appreciate that you like to hold yourself out as an expert on everything but it’s unlikely that anyone is going to be consulting you on this…
January 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Tpny Bennett: REPLY:’ I wonder when the father first suspected that his wife had done it?’
He claims his wife is innocent. Now whether he genuinely believes that or not, and just doesn’t want to be publicly associated with a child killer, hence protesting her innocence, who knows….. Interesting question though!
January 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
694 chenier
Sadly you arent wrong. I say sadly because the world we live in hands justice to those who can afford to pay to drive home the law. Those who lack the funds have no real defence.
One justice for the rich or famous and one for the rest of us (oh, another for the very poor as they can get support too).
Robert Murat seems to be a bit hard done by in all this for that reason.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
693 Fair
Exactly. The reason for punishment is simple really. It’s basic training. It’s like a fork in the road. You can go down path A or path B. One is the right choice and the other is the wrong choice. A lie is like this. I think we’re all aware as well that we are all capable of lying and it’s sort of like an undesired characteristic that we can’t shake off. Sure, we try to live our life without lying most of the time because of that basic training. But the compulsive liars work out that they can play the game down path B just as easily as path A and nothing happens to them and it becomes compulsive. I think GM is like this and KM too. For these types of people it doesn’t take much to want to lie and cover something up. I really don’t think there’s high level involvement in this. I think there may be some background criminal motives like recreational drugs but I genuinely think this is more fueled by egos than anything else.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Fair,
Re your posts, mine and Cheryl’s.
I think the three of us agree it was amazing the twins were asleep at their normal bedtime [they might have been exhausted].
GM apperently wrote in his blog he and his wife were amazed about that [too].
So we agree and disagree [
] because I don’t consider his remark a blunder.
He made the same remark/observation as the three of us did.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
What newspapers is Kate’s Dad reading? Everything is positive - whenever there’s a negative seeming headline it’s always followed by supportive adjectives and reiterations of the McCanns torment etc.
—————-
Mods and Admin
Well he would say that, wouldn’t he? The Clary Clear Cataract?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
697..Grande Finale
Reading about his greed and selfishness….he would probably be charging
any takers-up of his offer by the hour.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
669 - Miss Match says (January 11th, 2008 at 5:57 pm): “662 - Wanderer - no, she was not a single parent. She was respectable, (to outsiders at least), happily married, well presented, fairly attractive and middle class. (Sound familiar?) Father was at work when the child was killed and ruled out as a suspect early on”.
REPLY: I wonder when the father first suspected that his wife had done it?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
697 Grande Finale
I thought he wasnt too bad a chap until that one! How cruel - to make us spend time with the ice maiden.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
664 Fair
‘Have been wondering if an announcement will be imminent ‘
I’ve wondered this myself too! I am also sure that the McCanns are aware of the Anna Maria Franzoni case and are trying not to make the same blunders. (Bit late for that though IMO).
January 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
679 chenier
I take your point.
Of course judges themselves interpret the law and what was meant in a statute (for example) in different ways and using different ‘rules’ - literal, golden, etc. The ‘ratio decendi’ and ‘obiter dictum’ can be extracted and analysed separately out of the context of a case judgement.
The key point Dr Watson was trying to make was that ‘not guilty’ doesnt’ mean ‘innocent’ and people using the legal terms to seek to prevent us challenging the innocence of the McCanns out of court on a blog like this are mis-using the term.
Joe Public knows the term from ‘Crown Court’ and movies, but doesnt really understand it.
I think thats all he was really saying.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
dont want to upset June coz i like this forum otherwise i would list it again
January 11th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
From the father of Kate McCann,
“There have been some good, positive and helpful stories written about the search for Madeleine, but it seems to be the more sensational and negative stories which get the main headlines”
Oh! So another one that doesn’t rate Clarrie then…….
“Some people don’t seem to want to know about the real Kate
But I would love them to be able to spend just one hour in Kate’s company”
WHY what did I ever do to you ?
January 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
691 clouseau
Sorry, I didn’t see it here. I would have liked to though.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
687 Matt.
Could be, I haven’t seen the Anorak list but have read it was ‘tweaked’ dramatically.
The other poster’s list was very severe, very damning and quite possibly an itemised list of grounds upon which the poster could be sued for libel, so perhaps Anorak was acting wisely to trim anything like it on this site to the bare minimum.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
660
Ian Says:
January 11th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
647 chenier
Thank for the clarification - bottom line is, not guilty doesnt mean innocent - in law.
So using it to argue we shouldnt debate or assume the McCanns arent guilty is inappropriate.
———————————————–
I think it’s a bit subtler than that; remember he was talking about verdicts not concepts.
But it’s certainly perfectly appropriate to discuss the events provided we remember that false accusations are unacceptable, whether it’s alleging that the PJ didn’t seal off the apartment when in fact they did, or alleging that T9 were a witches coven when we know perfectly well that they are not…