Madeleine McCann: The Witnesses See, A Sketch And Killer Bob
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MAIL: “Madeleine: Four witnesses say they saw suspect pictured in new poster campaign”
“Four key witnesses in the Madeleine McCann investigation could have seen the man shown in a new sketch of a potential suspect, it emerged yesterday”
But there were no witnesses? And “could” and “potential” in one line…
“But four witnesses may have seen the unidentified man - first on the night the three-year-old went missing, then later with named suspect Robert Murat, and finally in Morocco”
“Jane Tanner, who told police she saw a man carrying a child away from the McCanns’ apartment, said she was “80 per cent sure” he was the one depicted in the artist’s impression”
“Isabel Gonzalez, who said she saw Madeleine with a Berber woman in Morocco, said the sketch looked ‘very similar’ to a man she saw immediately after the sighting”
Amanda Mills, 34, from Basildon, Essex, claimed to have spotted a man trying to break into a bedroom window at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz a week before Madeleine disappeared from the complex.
“Last night she said there are “strong similarities” between the man she saw and the new sketch.
“Nanny Charlotte Pennington’s description of a person she saw with Mr Murat also matches the man shown in the artist’s impression”
DAILY EXPRESS: “New manhunt ‘another diversion by McCanns’”
One Portuguese policeman “stormed”: “The purpose of this exercise by the McCanns is the same as always. It’s another diversionary tactic”
DAILY STAR: “YOU WON’T THROW US OFF THE SCENT”
“Cops blast Maddie sketch as McCann tactic”
DAILY MIRROR: “Madeleine witnesses: This is him”
Witnesses says the sketch cold be a picture of the man they saw. Or it could not be
DEFAMER: Or does the new sketch of the man suspected of snatching young Madeleine McCann look a lot like Killer Bob?
NEW YORK POST: “SKETCHY SUSPECT IN MADDIE MYSTERY”
A picture of the man and he caption: “WANTED – SOUGHT IN KID SWIPE”
Posted: 22nd, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,210) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- 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
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Stevo, your letter reminds me, I never did get a response to the letter below…sent to mirrornews@mirror.co.uk because the published addresses for her didnt seem to work!
Stevo, why dont you send your letter to them too?
This is what I sent….
Can you pass this on to Fiona Phillips? I doubt she’ll read it – as she is likely inundated from angry parents!
Dear Fiona, in response to your comment…
“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.
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?”
Contrary to what you say, the McCanns have never admitted that they are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. They do not admit it was a mistake to leave their children every night but one of their holiday. They say they regret not being with her when she was abducted, they wish they’d stayed 5 minutes longer! They have never admitted it was not the right thing to do, despite the NSPCC and BUPA guidelines saying that children under 10 (under 10 mark you) should never be left alone, even for short periods. Show me where they have!
Its worth remembering that abduction by stranger is the least likely risk, the risk of accident is much greater and they were willing to accept it. Why do they cling to that explanation so doggedly? Because it is the least likely option and legally defensible.
These people are doctors who must be beyond reproach, they have the power to separate parents and children should they judge them to be neglectful. They hold an incredibly responsible position in our society and if they are seen to escape formal punishment or even reprimand, thousands of children are at potential risk as others use their example.
Admittedly they sit between a rock and a hard place. They need a window of opportunity to allow an abductor time to do his foul deed yet they need to protect themselves against accusations of giving an abductor time to do the deed.
At 9:10 Gerry says he looked down upon the sleeping form of his daughter. At 9:15 Jane Tanner claims that the abductor strode purposefully across the main thoroughfare used by the people staying in the apartments (under sodium street lights – yet she saw pink).
This 5 minute window of opportunity is all that was available to an abductor, they would have us believe.
The reason they focus with such single minded desperation on the search for Madeleine and away from any investigation of how she came to be missing is simple, they need us to forget the cause, forget the failure in their duty of care.
Never mind cross border communications and border checks and Europe wide networks to find lost children – the focus should be on PREVENTION.
If they were to say, ‘we were wrong, never leave your little ones as we did’ then they might attract far more sympathy than they do.
My own sympathy is with Madeleine and other neglected and abused children, not with the parents who have failed them – they can look after themselves. I would ask you to consider directing your own sympathies toward Madeleine and other children who have no voice of their own, use your privileged position to ensure that parents realise – they are responsible for the protection of their children, once that first line of defence is gone, its usually too late!
Ian
Parent.
Removed your surname Ian, jj j22 17.15
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
unless of course it was directed at brandon, irish girl in spain, julie, miss match - shall i go on?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
firestar
Ade and I have one too
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
717 PeterMac Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
699 Stevo
In a child would very possibly cause vomiting, choking on vomit, falling over, falling down, falling off things, trying to fly,
________________________
Precisely. There’s allsorts in Amsterdam…magic mushrooms…space cake etc. If a child accidentally got hold of that stuff the consequences would be awful.
Ian
Yes, the silence is very deafening! Did you see the super hi-res close up of Gerry’s sunglasses?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
BF - I don’t think the said policeman had the McCs in mind…
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
chenier
One of the few outspoken comments slightly critical of the Mc Canns that I have read!
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Any sign of the one million posters yet?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
656
Profiry Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Purely hypothetical and no names mentioned, I am simply relating a fairy story told to me by a friend …..
———
i actually posted this same thing in a much more simplified form some months ago, when i was trying to find what connected the tapas.
this is when i came to the conclusion that it was a medical experiment gone wrong, and that the doctors were a committee involved with it all.
but people just took the piss.
to me, a medical explanation is the only one that would connect them, and also explain why they are such arrogant bastards and don’t think anyone will find them guilty of anything.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
695 - coolandcalm - my industrial action is designed to stop that particular option from happening. but if it does get to that perhaps me and matty can start a black cats glamourous devorcee club
?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
531 Stevo
Nice one Stevo. Prepare for deafening silence!
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
699 Stevo
In a child would very possibly cause vomiting, choking on vomit, falling over, falling down, falling off things, trying to fly,
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
712
brandon flours Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
chenier
very interesting
————————————
Well, it’s always good to see someone in an English police force making precisely the points that we have about parental responsibilities.
And it probably suggests how the Nottinghamshire police feel as well…
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Matt. Thank you.
Although one definition of spoof is ‘A gentle satirical imitation’
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
man on the hill
I was getting worried about you!
Have you made a statement yet
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
656 Profiry
I enjoyed that. But i can’t help but think that blackmailing the british government would be a very stupid thing to do, and quite possibly the last thing you would do. I always work on the assumption that ‘the government is just another gangster’.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
chenier
very interesting
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The blokes above have got far too much hair t be ‘cartoon man’ anyway.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
simon - i know who i am - the question is who are you ?
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
700…SC46
Not a Spoof…a spoof is to be deliberately misleading.
Stevo’s post was satire.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
686 PeterMac…
Walrus, eggman… fantastic! psml
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
701
brandon flours
Hello Brandon. Just popping in quickly, back tomorrow.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
702…noseycow
Not a thing.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
yes you - you know who you are…
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
#
698
Will Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hello BF, Hello all xxx
Stevo to be fair the old soothsayer liked a cuss or two and was a tad direct, but made some decent points.
_______________
Hmmm….not sure. I remember soothsayer used to always come in here with some gems that turned out to fizzle out to nothing. Since he/she got discredited because too many of his/her stories were “bollox”, he/she came back abusive.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
698…Will
Wasn’t a confession made re the “inside info” was all nonsense. ?
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
matt
so nothing to be sceptical about then?? 
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
steveT
Where have you been?
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Only a spoof eh. And here was me getting all excited…
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
686 PeterMac
Talking about Yellow Submarines, the McCann case has a psychedelic character to it. I still wonder about Amsterdam connections etc. What if some magic mushrooms were in the apartment and accidentally ingested?
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Hello BF, Hello all xxx
Stevo to be fair the old soothsayer liked a cuss or two and was a tad direct, but made some decent points.