Madeleine McCann: McCann Incorporated, McCann Ink And Going Back To Portugal
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY MIRROR: “Tapas 7 in despair at all the ‘lies’”
They say they are also called the Tapas Nine? And the Sangria Seven
“The Tapas Seven are “in meltdown” over the failure of Portuguese police to make any meaningful progress in the hunt for Madeleine”
“IT’S OUR D-DAY - McCanns return to Portugal - EXCLUSIVE Kate and Gerry set date in April for Algarve showdown They’ll tell cops: show your evidence or clear us for good”. Like that D-Day back on November?
“Despairing Kate and Gerry McCann are planning to return to Portugal for a face-to-face showdown with police who think they killed their daughter Madeleine”
They are going back. Now..?
Well, not exactly: “A close friend said the the couple were likely to go back after their ‘D-Day’ of April 11, when their three-month extension is up, and added: ‘They feel they’ve waited long enough with this cloud of suspicion hanging over them. They know their return would be very high-profile. They believe investigators do not have the evidence against them to bring charges, and their presence in Portugal would embarrass them. They’ve so far held off going back there, but they see it as their trump card”
They will go back once they have been allowed to see the police first on them
Says the paper’s source: “They see April 11 as their D-day. They have decided to give the police reasonable time to clear them, or at least open the case files so they can see the evidence against them”
That’s good of them…
FIONA Philips, of GMTV writes: “Have a heart”. Yes, that Fiona Philips
“Unbelievably, every time I write about the McCanns I get messages saying, ‘I used to like you, until you started supporting the McCanns.’ Nice, eh? So I hope you’re happy now that Kate and Gerry have blamed themselves for Madeleine’s disappearance”
Happy?
“In a list of ‘if onlys’, Gerry said: ‘I wish I’d stayed in the apartment that night.’ Now, I expect more bile on praising them for considering making a documentary on the case. Surely you can’t tell me that there’s a parent out there who wouldn’t do anything possible to find their missing child?”
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “’We pray she’ll be at party for twins’”
“Brave Kate McCann is planning a huge birthday party for her twins - and dreams missing Maddie will be there too. Kate, 39, has vowed to go ahead with the bash for Sean and Amelie even though she is still waiting for cops to quiz her again. Mother-in-law Eileen said: ‘The party’s on and it will be an even bigger one if wee Madeleine is back. All we can do is hope and pray.’ Sean and Amelie turn three on February”
Touching stuff. Gerry McCann is a “heart specialist”
MAIL ON SUNDAY: “Madeleine: No film will be made unless she’s found - alive or dead”
“Kate and Gerry McCann have been told that the proposed documentary about their daughter’s disappearance can go ahead only if she is found – alive or dead.
A source says: “It was awkward to raise but there would need to be an ending – either Madeleine being found alive or a body being discovered. If this wasn’t the case, and there was a major development after filming and editing, it could render the documentary redundant”
Or the parents or some other person or persons are charged, perhaps?
THE OBSERVER: “A good week for … a bad week for …”
“A bad week for …
“Tradition – A Lib Dem MP called Lynne Featherstone has made a bid for the limelight by reporting the monarchy to the Equality Commission because it goes in for primogeniture”
“Marcus Agius The chairman of Barclay’s was the target of £10,000 fraud”
“Good Taste - Or indeed any taste at all. A London based agency which supplies celebrity doubles has employed a small girl to rent out as Madeleine McCann. 20 per cent”
It was a “good weeks for… Washing up”
“THE Maddie story is already a soap opera, so why the moral panic over a movie? - Don’t get me wrong - nobody wants to see Maddie: The Musical. However, needs must if the McCanns want to continue trying to find out what happened to their daughter and they do, despite the devastating expense (their somewhat unproductive detective agency alone costs £50,000 a month) and the increasingly shabby odds.”
Maddie: The Musical, eh..?
THE SUNDAY INDEPENDENT: “Strange case of the detectives trying to trace Madeleine”
“After a week when commercials deals were more apparent than clues, we investigate the investigators”. Why not investigate the case?
“Just when the Madeleine McCann saga couldn’t get any more agonising, along came a raft of developments last week that began to achieve what you would hope would be impossible: turning a little missing girl into an industry – Madeleine Inc. Item: a London agency hawking around various small girls as Madeleine lookalikes. Item: US television bringing a team of psychics to bear on the disappearance as part of what they no doubt hoped would be a money-spinner of a show. Item: her parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, exploring the possibility of selling the book and film rights to the case”
Madeleine became a brand long ago. Brand McCann…
“Madeleine Inc bring benefits to some, but not, so far, to the girl herself or her distraught parents”
Or Madeleine Ink – see the press
THE SUNDAY TIMES: Ron Liddle writes:
“So, get yourself ready for Maddie – The Movie (PG, until you fancy nipping out for something to eat). Kate and Gerry McCann’s press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, has confirmed that the couple met with representatives from the US entertainment company IMG before Christmas and that while nothing was agreed, the meeting had been ‘positive’. A day later Gerry McCann hastily backtracked and said no, no, they weren’t planning a movie. Who to believe? And which British actors will Hollywood cast as the parents if there is a film? Sacha Baron Cohen and Catherine Tate? Am I bovvered? Look at my face – is it bovvered? And maybe Matt Lucas as the shady-looking Robert Murat? Norman Wisdom as the Portuguese chief of police?”
Madeleine McCann: Fiction, faction and a single unbearable fact
Posted: 13th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,025) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- 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
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
January 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
remember not to look where the magicians hand wants you to look.
they want us to argue about the ludicrous timeline on 3 may
it all happened 24 hours earlier so all the timelines and claims/counterclaims for 3 may are irrelevant
it seems that the pj may be thinking this way too
see:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:NxrIJaQmU_wJ:express.lineone.net/posts/view/30260/Madeleine-probe-file-to-stay-secret+mccanns+at+chaplins+on+may+2nd&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
and look at the first comment by sueb
January 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
653
RedRooster Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
im not for a moment disputing that the shutters are not easy to break into….im trying to find out why the mcs lied about the shutters
=========================================================
……..They probably lied because they think we are all a bunch of fecking gullible eejits and we are going to believe everything they say! But we are not, judging by the amount of posters on here who believe otherwise.
By the way RR, or anybody, do you know if the apartment windows had grilles on them. Ta.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
well I’m not ‘Team McCann’ and I’m still of the: ‘ spotted, stalked, snatched’ school of thoought! Nothing has convinced me to change from that and I’ve been on this forum since last May.
Just nailing my colours to the mast once again.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
668 I meant ‘changed it to the back’
January 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
665 Maybe they used the term ‘broken into’ without knowing if that was a fact - ie not having checked? Then it got confused (chinese whispers) by the family?
January 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
660 Redrooster
Unless passing her from one person inside to another outside?
I think actually the shutters are only in the story because for some reason the claims were that the shutters and window were broken open - I think the initial intention was to say that the apartment was secure. Then they thought they’d say they left the front open, then relaised how bad that would look and changed it to the front, then Jez messed it all up - so leaving the apartment through the sliding doors would have meant an exit via a route blocked by Jez and Gerry chatting.
I really think Jez messed things up - so Tanner even had to change the direction she was supposed to be heading.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
654
Sledgehammer Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
No FACTS then, why am I not surprised. Some more speculation for you…….http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece
===============
try leaving a space after the ……. before the http. The link tends to work better then. It also stands out as a link. I thought someone as intelligent as you would know this???
January 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
663
Tony Bennett
Phone records should indicate when everyone was informed of what had happened.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
652 Pray For Little Soul Says:
“sometimes being questioned by family and friends for our stupid deeds can feel worse than being interrogated by the police. she told family and friends they’d locked the doors and that the window (an ooooold window…) had been broken into…”
Quite possible. And if so, of no relevance for the police investigation.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
642 Rosemary
Ferdinand
The newspapers (I know nobody is supposed to believe anything they write) quote Phil McCann, Gill Renwick and Jon Corner (and others?) on the jemmied shutters.
If you want an answer why not say “the abductor” opened the shutters to see if the coast was clear and exited via the front door (described in first reports as “hanging open”)?
*************
Or to pass the child to an accomplice? It could explain how JT described the position of the child [close to the chest]??????
January 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
638 Ferdinand says (January 13th, 2008 at 8:26 pm):
“So I think there is no relevant “made up shutter thing” at all, or more precise, it was made up only by the press. The statement of Auntie Phil in an interview is no evidence for anything”.
REPLY: I have to chuckle at everything you write, Ferdinand, because it so so transparently coming from a prepared Team McCann script.
You know perfectly well that the ’shutters jemmied open’ story came NOT ‘from the press’ but from carefully placed relatives and friends of the McCanns who had all been informed by the McCanns right away that the shutters had been forced/jemmied open. Oh, and that there had been ‘a disaster’. What Antie Phil said in an interview within 24/48 hours of the ‘disappearance’, along with other relatives, is very signifiant indeed.
But you’ll never admit this. Because Team McCann members are strongly advised never to make any concession, save of course ‘they were wrong to have left their children on their own’, which is offered as a sop now and then to McCann-critics
January 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
660
Red Rooster
It only makes sense if whoever passed her out of the window had help.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Actually, Sledgehammer, Im beginning to realise I actually agree with you regarding facts. I tend to use the articles and videos etc and use them to expose any inconsistancy. The thing is, however, I find all the inconsistancies in the stories of support for stranger abductions and the stories from the T9.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
656
Rosemary Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
649
Red Rooster
The only other reason for opening the shutters (besides checking whether anyone was outside) would be to pass M out through the window. Could be an abductor, if there was a bigger time window and the checks were hourly, as first reported, or, even worse, less frequent
=========
yes and i would agree with that but why would someone pass maddie through the window, but not go through themself afterwards. it just doesnt make sense does it???
January 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
658
Ade Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
wasn’t the shutter story made up to cover a problem about locking/not locking the doors and potential neglect charges? i seem to remember an early version stated the doors were locked - then they weren’t.
remember at the beginning they were peddling the abductor pack of lies but being careful to be seen as “caring” as at that time they were very worried about being accused of neglect.
************
:D
January 13th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
wasn’t the shutter story made up to cover a problem about locking/not locking the doors and potential neglect charges? i seem to remember an early version stated the doors were locked - then they weren’t.
remember at the beginning they were peddling the abductor pack of lies but being careful to be seen as “caring” as at that time they were very worried about being accused of neglect.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
654 Sledgehammer
Thanks, I love this account! It holds so much evidence that contradicts the idea of abduction, yet is presented as if supportive.
I love the use of precise angles (Gerry carried a protractor? How unusual).
One thing I dont like is the language used, ‘gorgeous’? Never described a child of mine using such a word!
January 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
649
Red Rooster
The only other reason for opening the shutters (besides checking whether anyone was outside) would be to pass M out through the window. Could be an abductor, if there was a bigger time window and the checks were hourly, as first reported, or, even worse, less frequent.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
649 So you open a shutter - with the associated clatter - to make sure the coast is clear?
Oh and then you take a route which exposes you to the person you most want to avoid, by taking a route right across the road which all the tourists frequent?
More time eaten up? That 5 minutes is under a considerable amount of pressure now isnt it!
I have to say, this is the most ludicrous reason yet for having an abductor open a shutter!
January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
No FACTS then, why am I not surprised. Some more speculation for you…….http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece
January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
650
irish girl spain Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Good evening to you all.
Anything interesting or new news happening?
Thought Miss Match and myself solved the shutters prob last night.
It’s virtually impossible to jemmie them. When they are closed, they are closed. Clunk-clicked right down to bottom of window. Only way up is from the release pulley on the inside of the window. Works a bit like a seat belt in a car. They MW ones are same as my house here, and roll up into a concealed box concreted in above the window. Dead secure i’d say.
=============
im not for a moment disputing that the shutters are not easy to break into….im trying to find out why the mcs lied about the shutters
January 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
638
Ferdinand Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
625 RedRooster Says:
“why has it been stressed that the abductor left the appartment through the shutters when it has been ascertained that no one came in or out of through these shutters. I mean why make up the “shutter thing at all” ??? What im trying to say is WHY lie about this??”
This is one of those typical cases where I dismiss the rumours about “lies” because I see no sense in this story at all.
Why should the police have ever asked Gerry about the shutters other than “Did YOU open the shutters?” They have their forensic experts who will have examined whether the shutters were jemmied or not. They were simply not interested in Gerry’s speculation should he have ever speculated. So I think there is no relevant “made up shutter thing” at all, or more precise, it was made up only by the press. The statement of Auntie Phil in an interview is no evidence for anything.
————————-
Ferdinand,
i’m sure that somewhere in the PJ’s line of questioning to Kate, in particular as she detected that Madeleine was missing, would be for her to have given a description of the crime scene.
sometimes being questioned by family and friends for our stupid deeds can feel worse than being interrogated by the police. she told family and friends they’d locked the doors and that the window (an ooooold window…) had been broken into. family and friends would have been dumbfounded that they could have left their 3 young children alone in an unlocked apartment. saying the doors were locked helps them appear to be responsible. they could have also said the break-in was via the door, but this may be more difficult to execute (if part of the plan) or prove depending on the sturdiness of its locking mechanism, ability to keep noise to a minimum etc. so it had to be a break-in via the window. and there had to be some consistency in the stories told to Family and Friends and later to The Press, which would later be read by Family and Friends.
maybe the open window may not even have been part of the original plan. Some Genius may have thought it a good idea to add it to the picture before Kate’s check and just didn’t mention it to her. a bit like how Oldfield went to check on the children, didn’t see Madeleine, returned to the group and FAILED to inform her parents, most of all, that he hadn’t actually seen her. just forgetful people, really.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
648
RedRooster
I don’t know, but given the stories of “jemmied shutters” I doubt the official story.
That is why the pre 3rd May phone and email records are of interest. But don’t expect to
hear from anyone what they contain - unless soothsayer knows
January 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Good evening to you all.
Anything interesting or new news happening?
Thought Miss Match and myself solved the shutters prob last night.
It’s virtually impossible to jemmie them. When they are closed, they are closed. Clunk-clicked right down to bottom of window. Only way up is from the release pulley on the inside of the window. Works a bit like a seat belt in a car. They MW ones are same as my house here, and roll up into a concealed box concreted in above the window. Dead secure i’d say.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
647
Ferdinand Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
642 Rosemary Says:
“If you want an answer why not say “the abductor” opened the shutters to see if the coast was clear and exited via the front door (described in first reports as “hanging open”)?”
Yes, why not? I think the PJ will indeed have considered this while they were testing the “abduction” theory. And what is their conclusion? Nobody other than them knows.
====================
so is that your theory on why the shutter were “opened” ???
January 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
646
Rosemary Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
644
Red Rooster
It did sound as though there was a shutter story to run with, but for some reason the jemmying did not happen, but nobody knew.
=========
so what are you saying then, you beleive the shutters were opened by the “abductor” or you dont???
January 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
642 Rosemary Says:
“If you want an answer why not say “the abductor” opened the shutters to see if the coast was clear and exited via the front door (described in first reports as “hanging open”)?”
Yes, why not? I think the PJ will indeed have considered this while they were testing the “abduction” theory. And what is their conclusion? Nobody other than them knows.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
644
Red Rooster
It did sound as though there was a shutter story to run with, but for some reason the jemmying did not happen, but nobody knew.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Julie (can’t remember post number bad eyes at the mo!)
The star chart is a standard recommendation in UK and also I understand in USA and Scandinavia? (maybe originated from there? not sure) My kids are too old to have ever been part of this but it is recommended by Social Workers etc..
The original idea was to fall in with legislation about smacking children but it is now used pretty much everywhere, inclduing in nurseries.
Good? Bad? who knows. Advice on everything changes all the time!!
January 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
639
Pray For Little Soul Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
625
RedRooster Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
623
Ferdinand Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
621 RedRooster Says:
“i have a serious question for anyone who believes the “abduction scenario”
any takers??? ”
Just ask.
============
ok my little feathered friend i will
why has it been stressed that the abductor left the appartment through the shutters when it has been ascertained that no one came in or out of through these shutters. I mean why make up the “shutter thing at all” ??? What im trying to say is WHY lie about this??
******************
RedRooster,
The answer to the question (the motive) may lie in who the Shutter Lie was first told to and when. Do you know if this was first said to MW staff when the alert was raised or on the phone to family and friends back in the UK?
also, in case you’re wondering, i’m not sufficiently sold down the river to be pro…
================
not sure but it was definately the mcs who tried to make out it had been forced. So the question is WHY?? The only reason i can think is to fake an abduction. If anyone can show me a reason why im wrong then please go ahead