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
- yampster on I’m A Celebrity’s Joe Bugner In ‘Hell’
- ptet on Dietmar The German Stork Has A Wooden Leg
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Nansubuga on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- yampster on Strictly Come Dancing’s Alesha Dixon Sparks I’m A Celebrity Race Row
January 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
677
RedRooster,
Have a look and see how people pass baby’s, todlers. Depends on the person on the “receiving” end if s/he holds the child as it is passed, or puts him/her to his/her shoulder.
Going out through the main door, smaller risk then patio door. Remember GM and JW?
Just guessing of course.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
531
chenier Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“[...] If they hadn’t been in the Tapas bar at all on the night before Madeleine’s disappearance I would have thought that he would have been told that by the waiters etc. After all, the waiters would have no reason to withhold that particular piece of information…”
********
It is my perception that they went to Chaplin’s AFTER Tapas bar.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
689
Sledgehammer
I think the contradictory reports in the media are all part of it, whatever it is. Trying to make a fair trial impossible? Perhaps. I don’t believe charges will ever be brought, and I don’t know what happened to Madeleine, but I do hope someone will eventually tell us.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
674 Pray For Little Soul Says:
“please explain why you say “no relevance for the police investigation”? because i’m sure the police would also have been told by Kate, at least, that the window had been broken by the abductor??”
Why should anyone tell the police the window had been broken when it is obviously not broken? And even if so, what more should the police answer her than “You’re obviously mistaken.”
January 13th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
695
Tony Bennett Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
671 coolandcalm says (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”.
REPLY: Or to put it another way, despite the ‘21 reasons for doubting the abduction story’, despite the list of ‘81 lies’ posted the other day, despite the contradictions, the changes of account and in the timelines, the barrage of stories of Madeleine being ‘found’ here there and everywhere, the misuse of the Fund, the cadaver dogs, and it being ‘hugely entertaining and fun’ to work out who would play what part in ‘Maddie the Movie’, you don’t entertain the slightest doubt that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9′ friends are telling us the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth.
Is it fiction or non-fiction books that you write?
============
it would be bloody laughable if it wasnt so serious dont you think??? what are these fools on???
January 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
#
632
chenier Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“I can see no reference to Chaplins in the article by the Express journos”
I have been searching for the report on google but i’m not able to provide a link yet, it was from early on in the investigation and has probably been archived. I may have taken a copy, as soon as I find it I will let you know !
It went something like “two nights before” blah blah blah “the night they all went to chaplin’s bar”
January 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
681
Ferdinand Says:
When the report first came out about the locked apartment and shutter jemmied, window broken, the very next day or later that day, someone from MW and the pj checked the shutter/window and told the ‘world’ the shutter had not been jemmied/forced and the window was not damaged.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
686
annie123 Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
There’s also the question as to how they didn’t notice the window and shutter open when Oldfied walked right past it at 9-30pm ish to check his kids, also JT would have walked right past it to go her apartment.
Besides forensics have proven NOONE entered or left via the window. By the size of it I doubt they would have been able to pass Maddie through it to someone waiting outside without disturbing the lichen.
Also Kate stated the bedroom door slammed shut when she entered the apartment at 10pm, yet Oldfield didn’t notice a cold breeze at 9-30pm (it was a cold night) and the bedroom door didn’t slam shut. If there was an abduction, it would have had to take place after 9-30pm otherwise the broken shutter and window would have been spotted by Oldfield and JT. If JT could tell the colour/sex of the ‘egg head child’, she would have definatly noticed a broken shutter and window which she walked right past.
———————
dont forget when gerry did his check maddie wasnt there and it was assumed she had gone to the toilet - something he didnt bother to check. Well how bloody strange is that, he goes to check his kids are ok but finds one not there and it doesnt concern him. So WHY bother to bloody check then FFS
January 13th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
671 coolandcalm says (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”.
REPLY: Or to put it another way, despite the ‘21 reasons for doubting the abduction story’, despite the list of ‘81 lies’ posted the other day, despite the contradictions, the changes of account and in the timelines, the barrage of stories of Madeleine being ‘found’ here there and everywhere, the misuse of the Fund, the cadaver dogs, and it being ‘hugely entertaining and fun’ to work out who would play what part in ‘Maddie the Movie’, you don’t entertain the slightest doubt that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9′ friends are telling us the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth.
Is it fiction or non-fiction books that you write?
January 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
you guys still belivie in SHUTTERS STORY ?
IMPOSSIBLE
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Lydia 675
You are a woman of few words, please tell me (and us) what do you mean?
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
519
Ian Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“[...] Correction, should have read…’For the purposes of explaining the night of the 3rd of May, it certainly seems likely that the ‘accidental death’ was not on the 3rd of May and they were there (in Chaplins) that night.”
******
At danger of repeating myself:
Thinking of the simplest explanations
IMO
* IF there was some sort of “accident” whatever, it must have been May 2 [Chaplin’s night]
* IF it was an “abduction” on May 3, it must have been premeditated and planned long in advance
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
685
Totje
Not for me
But impossible to open the shutters without damaging,and it would make a lot of noize
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
683,
Red Rooster,
I can’t remember the source of the lichen detail offhand, but it sounds like a good reason to say nobody climbed through the window if it wasn’t disturbed. Wasn’t there a report of blood on the window as well? I have no way of knowing which reports are true or not.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Ian, the main reason that I have not formed an opinion is, because of articles like the link I put up. Countless articles contradict one and other, polarising contradictions and straightforward bent reporting, Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, as the saying goes, the press have made a fortune out of this story…….Rosemary……… I do not believe the latest postings have been the real Soothsayer, Soothsayer was pointed but never pig ignorant. Soothsayer posted before it was reported in the press about the useless DNA and that there was no CCTV footage from the tapas or the complex, saying that his information had been revised by his informant, that the PJ had nothing concrete also the phone records and taps were utterly useless, I may be wrong but I think he said in the very early threads, that he was involved in investigating mobile phone fraud with some sort of fancy software, with some big airtime company.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
The more this goes on, the more I realise the PJ will have so much evidence available to them which we dont - and they seem pretty sure this is no stranger abduction.
They are sure to know exactly what happened. For example, we assume they went to Chaplins leaving the kids alone. The PJ probably have proof of the McCanns presence there and when it was (as I said earlier, unless the McCanns and friends used cash and wore masks).
Im 99% certain that there was no abductor, with the evidence available to me.
Ironically, if it turns out the McCanns and their friends have been less than frank, its likely that they will be much more clearly guilty of neglect in everyones eyes, but the case for stranger abduction will actually be stronger!
They’d be much better off admitting the neglect and taking it on the chin - lost careers but at least the focus would then be on finding an abductor!
Its the apparently greater effort on self protection than on actually looking for Maddie which has increased my suspicion of them.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
681
Ferdinand Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
663 Tony Bennett Says:
“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.”
Pray For Little Soul has given a possible explanation. My point is that it would make no sense that Gerry McCann would have ever claimed in a police interview that the shutters have been jemmied, because the police would have never asked him for speculation, instead they would have found out easily that they were not jemmied. Therefore I don’t believe that this story is relevant for the investigation
=============
if you really beleive this is irrelavant then you really are even more stupid than you first appear
January 13th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
There’s also the question as to how they didn’t notice the window and shutter open when Oldfied walked right past it at 9-30pm ish to check his kids, also JT would have walked right past it to go her apartment.
Besides forensics have proven NOONE entered or left via the window. By the size of it I doubt they would have been able to pass Maddie through it to someone waiting outside without disturbing the lichen.
Also Kate stated the bedroom door slammed shut when she entered the apartment at 10pm, yet Oldfield didn’t notice a cold breeze at 9-30pm (it was a cold night) and the bedroom door didn’t slam shut. If there was an abduction, it would have had to take place after 9-30pm otherwise the broken shutter and window would have been spotted by Oldfield and JT. If JT could tell the colour/sex of the ‘egg head child’, she would have definatly noticed a broken shutter and window which she walked right past.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
650
irish girl spain,
RE shutters,
I appreciated your efforts and the description you gave of your startled hubby.
Made me almost choke.
However I must say it IS possible to open shutters from the outside, even without many noise and damage. It depends on the system [how old are the shutters in Pdl OC?] and the material. When we lived elsewhere the neighbours had shutters at their patiodoors. We had dogs. The dogs were barking [we heard nothing else]. I went to the garden and had a look [hubby allways lazy]. Saw someone entering the shed. Thought it was neighbour. Wasn’t. Was a burglar. Not much damage on the shutters. They weren’d completely closed/down. Approx 3-5 cm space from shutter to bottom.
Btw I don’t think IF an abductor was at PdL, he entered through the shutters/window. I think he should have used the patiodoors. And may be opend the shutters to see which child was Madeleine [dark in the room] and/or to see if it was safe to leave the apartment by the front door. Or to pass the child to an accomplice. So the shutters [if they were opened and the parents weren't mistaken about closing them] were opened from inside.
Orrrrrrrr, why hasn’t anybody thought of Oldfield opening them? He “checked” [if he did] at 21.30 isn’t it?
January 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
682
Rosemary Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
677
Red Rooster
And none of it relevant at all if she disappeared earlier.
==============
“dissapeared” an interesting word dont you think????
January 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
678
Rosemary Says:
January 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
668
Ian
Overlooking the unscathed lichen, if that is to be believed
===========
is there any reason why this shouldnt be beleived???
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
677
Red Rooster
And none of it relevant at all if she disappeared earlier.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
663 Tony Bennett Says:
“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.”
Pray For Little Soul has given a possible explanation. My point is that it would make no sense that Gerry McCann would have ever claimed in a police interview that the shutters have been jemmied, because the police would have never asked him for speculation, instead they would have found out easily that they were not jemmied. Therefore I don’t believe that this story is relevant for the investigation.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
This shutter thing. The initial reports of the shutters being jemmied (as said by KM initially), just suggests to me that IMO, they were in a hell of a hurry to get a story together, so the timeline was (a) either very short indeed or (b) they’re not seasoned travellers to European countries because, if they were, they would know how shutters work and that they are always very noisy in operation. I would go for (a) myself.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
668
Ian Says:
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.
===============
which ever way you look at it, it just doesnt add up
January 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
668
Ian
Overlooking the unscathed lichen, if that is to be believed.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
664
Totje Says:
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]??????
………………………
if JT really did see egg man carrying a child then why not carry the child with its head on your shoulder. Its a damn sight easier to carry a child in that way. Also if this was maddie and she had been passed through the windowto an accomplice its ludicrous to think the abduductor wouldnt follow. So why not???? Why risk going back out through the main door.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
620 chenier says (January 13th, 2008 at 8:02 pm):
“As far as I am aware Martin Brunt did not claim that the McCanns were at Chaplins. If you think he did it would be helpful if you could note where in the programme he said so…”
REPLY: You’re quite right, I did not make myself clear. I was only confirming that there was a very strong point made in the Brunt programme about the *2 hours* of Madeleine sobbing ‘Daddy’, ‘Daddy’. Which night that was, was not I think made explicit in the programme. As you say, there was no reference to Chaplins in that programme.
References to Chaplins come in mostly earlier press reports and most mention 2 May but some 1 May
January 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
to julie who asked was i psychic when i left my last post sorry not to respond earlier
i just know things, no explanation i cant say how but i do
people who carry out horrible things have this presence on their left side cant explain why i know that either
January 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
665
Ferdinand Says:
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.
******
Erm, Ferdinand,
please explain why you say “no relevance for the police investigation”? because i’m sure the police would also have been told by Kate, at least, that the window had been broken by the abductor??