Madeleine McCann: Gail Cooper Says And Amy Fitzpatrick
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Potential Maddie witness snub”
“The British woman who may have seen Maddie McCann’s kidnapper has NOT been quizzed by Portuguese cops”
Gail Cooper says she saw a man. An artist’s impression of the man has been released
Gail, of Newark, Notts, says: “They never contacted me. He must be found, even if it is to rule him out”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Mum vows to continue search for missing teen Amy”
“Mari Luz Cortes vanished on January 13, as she went to buy sweets from a local kiosk in the Spanish town of Huelva, near the border with Portugal. A massive search for the five-year-old is ongoing.
“The disappearance has been linked to that of Madeleine McCann from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz, although police said they did not think the two cases were connected.
Ms Fitzpatrick yesterday said that her only daughter is “still just a kid”.
“She is only 15 and she has disappeared without trace.”
Amy Fitpatrick was 15 when she vanished after leaving her friend’s house near Feungirola, in Spain, at 10pm on New Year’s Day. She set out on the 20-minute walk to her own house, but has not been seen since.
Posted: 23rd, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,434) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
994 Sledgehammer Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
noseycow, make no mistake the libel big hammer applies to the board and the poster, there are no poor libel lawyers or silks.
++++++++++++
Your veiled threats are utterly transparent, in my opinion.
Of course no one should be using any medium whatsoever to rubbish another persons reputation by making persistent unsubstantiated claims about that person(s). That cannot and should never preclude reasonable discussion about the actions of people who are suspects in the most high profile missing persons case in recent history.
Team McCann have assembled a high powered well financed legal and PR team which spends a substantial amount of it’s time and effort rubbishing the investigation and releasing information that might directly impact the investigation rather than working with the PJ themselves, in my opinion.
Team McCann’s official spokesperson now appears to have entered a new phase where he speaks/publishes press releases without extending the courtesy of an open question and answer session. Therefore, in my opinion, there are few checks and balances to ensure the accuracy of the information being proffered for public consumption.
In my opinion, Team McCann would prefer to close down all discussions and media articles that do not emanate from their own spokespersons. All the while they are unable to achieve that it is perfectly reasonable for people to debate the veracity of their press releases/statements and to discuss any inaccuracies or contradictions with previous press releases/statements that may arise.
The plain simple fact is that Team McCann could generally speaking give a damn about wildly outlandish and unsubstantiated allegations, it’s actually reasonable debate they most fear, in my opinion.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
1002 noseycow
I was in Federal Court last week on a course. One category of case filing is a frivolous case. They are usually thrown out - because they’re frivolous. But, they have a purpose…they get a message out in the open and into the public domain by using official channels. Plus they stay on the court record forever.
Libel needs to be proven. I doubt the McCanns could claim they have lost money because of what’s been written about them. For one - I wrote to the McCann’s company to get answers about how the fund is going. I’ve had nothing but the runaround from them. This is as bad as sharks selling products and doing a runner. We’ve seen it all before on the Roger Cooke show. I think they are scheisters for behaving like this. From my experience of dealing with Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd, this is my experience - I don’t need to add “IMO” to it - it’s the truth.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
1003
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
========
maybe the pj ignored the sighting because it was bullshit
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
1006
noseycow Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Garth - that is actually not true - sorry. The PJ showed a picture of eggman as drawn by tanner (or was it G mcc) round pdl to see if anyone recognised him - how is that ignoring her statement?
——————-
Noseycow
You havent been nosey enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=453724&in_page_id=1770
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Stevo, The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and proud of it, and them.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
must dash - second taxi run of the night - back soon
x
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
1000 Cheryl,
You remember dr Watson, CoolandCalm remembers something that happened way before that occasion.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Garth - that is actually not true - sorry. The PJ showed a picture of eggman as drawn by tanner (or was it G mcc) round pdl to see if anyone recognised him - how is that ignoring her statement?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
1000
Cheryl
I don’t always agree with you Cheryl but it’s nice of you to write and put the record straight on my behalf. Why coolandcalm lied is probably because she has had frequent run ins with Tony Bennett as he exposed her months ago. I’m connected with Tony via my site so Bernadine feels the need to rubbish me as well.
The reason I complained to M&A is because when a blatant mistruth is quoted and not retracted, it’s quite possible for someone to read this page and this page only and without a retraction or denial, they could believe what she has written as gospel. Why did you find that part of my post interesting? I thought it was a normal thing to want to do if someone posted blatant lies in here?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
973, Stevo, yes, “mature” woudn’t be the IDEAL compliment, I guess
975, Totje, thanks for the Errol-Flynn-moustache-link. Wow, so small and already a moustache!
Gotta go, hope to read you all soon. It’s such a nice webspace here. I’m still glad I found it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
l Totje
Well your point is bang on imo.
.
The sighting by Cooper is another example of the PJ’s either arrogance or lack or incompetance or both. They have dismissed her sighting as of no importance. Yet how do they know? Did they put an e-fit together so every tom dick and harry could check it out? Of course they didnt. Like I said before, her statement probably went straight to the shredder.
With regard to the ‘eggman’, this is another, typical example, of the PJ’s incompetance. We all know now that that picture didnt come from Tanner but from a certain Mr Russell who owns a video store!
This whole charade IMO has been created by the PJ. They are incompetant and are guilty for causing all the suspicion towards the McCanns, but ultimately, they’ve hindered the search for missing Madeleine!
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
994 - sledgey darling (and agw) my point was not that it does not apply!! am i right in thinking that the complainents need to prove both bits - that the libel is incorrect, and that it has affected their public standing?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
990
noseycow
A normal libel case is one or a small group versus the damaged party. A Class Action suit is normally many damaged individuals fighting a common party. I say that because the McCann case (if it involved libel) is more like a Class Action suit in reverse i.e. many people being accused of libel by the few (Team McCann).
This is not normal at all. Given that there has been thousands of comments recorded and some of them quite vicious, it would be inconceivable that they would be able to be victorious in suing one or two people. The closest thing I can think of like this is a record company going after those people who copy music. In that case, there’s a clear theft. But look at those cases in reality - the record companies go after the prolific music copiers who probably download/distribute thousands of songs.
I don’t believe a record company has ever sued an individual for downloading 1 song. I don’t believe Team McCann would be successful in suing one or two people for saying that they believed the police story over the McCann’s story.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
934
Stevo Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
810 coolandcalm
“It was Stevo himself who boasted about collecting everyones details and threatened to publish them online.”
______________________
Bernadine…I see you’re just as much a liar as firestar.
Mods and Admin.
I request that coolandcalm retract this comment or produce proof of this slur. I know it’s only a blog but someone could read this blatant lie and believe it.
_____________
Stevo - it was NOT you, I recall the exchanges quite clearly - they revolved around Dr. Watson’s statement to having the capabilities to expose someone’s IP he was having a disagreement with. Now, how your name came up I believe was someone said they thought you had the same capabilities BUT it was never said you did! In fact, didn’t you make a statement around that time that you DID not the capabilities? Whatever, go back I think to either the 2nd thread back or 3rd…it is there as the Mods and Admin addressed it also to lessen the people’s fears on here by someone with such capabilities.
By the way, Stevo - this sentence is ‘interesting’ you stated on here re worried about people believing something said not true about you:
“I know it’s only a blog but someone could read this blatant lie and believe it.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
989:Sledgehammer :
Windsor Davis in ‘It Ain’t Half Hot Mum’….. I’d have thought was more your style!
http://www.myvillage.com/newham/celebs&gossip-windsor_davies.htm
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
992 Sledgie,
Oh how I long for the day to see that… :sigh:
You could use photobucket or postimage [rising hopes]
I saw mrT in a full dress uniform
Must admit it was many, many moons ago, and I’m sure it doesn’t fit any more!
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
chenier - you forgot the point - that she immediately thought it odd because the man had long trousers and a jacket on - on holiday in portugal - never, and then goes onto say that it was a cold night and she herself had a jumper (or something - blue fleece perhaps
) on.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
On the basis no one seems to know what Gail Cooper is currently up to…
Would anyone care to take a guess as to how long it might be before this witness is paraded in front of the sycophantic media again? This time I suspect the story will go something like, I flew out to Portugal to assist the police and I’ve been here for – insert some allegedly embarrassing time period – and no one has contacted me. Queue much wailing and gnashing of teeth about important leads not being followed up…
Allegedly, in my opinion, etc.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
989 Sledgehammer
…or Dirk Bogarde…
Were you in the army or did you just use the RSM as a reference?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
noseycow, make no mistake the libel big hammer applies to the board and the poster, there are no poor libel lawyers or silks.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Well, according to Jane Tanner’s interview with the Sun:
“I only saw him for a few seconds. It was very dark.”
And she did, of course, need a ‘cognitive technique’ to help her remember that ‘the girl was wearing pink and white pyjamas’.
And the man was dressed in a smart european casual way, which seems distinctly odd since she now thinks that Mrs Cooper’s dirty unkempt and definitely not smartly dressed man looked remarkably similar.
And then there’s the bit about her visiting her child who had been unwell for some days and had vomited that night, and then returning to the Tapas bar where her partner was.
All in all, it’s not terribly surprising that she has stated that she could not give evidence in court about her ’sighting’…
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
983
Totje , you never saw me in a full dress uniform………:lol:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
985 Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Totje
I guess the article you’re referring is with regard to the PJ acknowledging the sighting by Cooper but stating it having no significance to this case?
********
No, the one you quoted [partially] and BabyJane found the link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=453724&in_page_id=1770
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
986 - re libel laws - i also thought that in the uk the complainent had to prove that the ‘libel’ was inaccurate (how would they do that) and that it had some negative effect on their status / reputation, which again would be hard to do bearing in mind that the mcc’s have been classed a formal suspects in the dissapearence of their daughter by the portuguese police.
I can’t see the libel laws applying to internet forums in this case - but perhaps that itself doesn’t stop the threat from being made.
personally i think the libel laws may be a way to get the evidence out into the public domain, if, eventually charges are not bought.
As for trying to get a miss trial - the mcc’s would have enough evidence already of public discussion about this case - so closing forums now would not make a difference IMO
That leads me to one conclusion - a tip off
well - i’m ever hopeful 
Administrator: If you defame anyone or repeat a defamation (tort) that is actionable. No one has been charged in any case or potential case under discussion here (in which case a totally different set of rules apply in Britain). Anorak policy is simple. You must exercise care and NOT libel anyone. If you do it will be deleted. You also run the risk of being barred from the site. If you attempt to deliberately involve Anorak in an action for criminal libel to prove a point you may find it is us that proves the point. You will be gone, history a fond but distant memory. I have said this before and I repeat it: this is not a threat it is the way it will be.-agw
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Take your pick Stevo, Gable, Hughes, Flynn even a young George Cole had one.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
977 chenier Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
962 Grande Finale Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
922 chenier Says: January 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“the million posters that comical Clarrie promised to have up in Iberia and northern Africa”
You’ve made me think now…… the only places these items are going out, is in the UK press in English where none of us can do a damn thing anyway! where is all the stuff translated into Spanish and Portuguese.
Further to that even in the early days everything was in English which proves IMO that it was just made to appeal to English sympathies! (which includes USA and Australia and many other English speaking countries)
So the campaign has NEVER been about the issues that it should have been.
—————————————————
Indeed it hasn’t. One of the really curious things about Clarrie’s latest claim is that:
‘A million posters appealing for information in English, Arabic and French about the suspicious character are now being distributed throughout Morocco and the Iberian Peninsula ‘
What on earth is the point of distributing them in Iberia where the population would presumably speak Portuguese and Spanish?
Or is it just a publicity stunt, and there are no million posters, and Clarrie was simply straightforwardly misrepresenting the facts?
++++++++++++++++
I’m sure Clarence gave full and frank answers to all those media types that queued up for their 1-on-1 interviews after he’d finished his Detective Chief Inspector Comical Clouseau routine a few days back.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
980 Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
970
Totje Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
958
BabyJane,
I’ve read the article. Strange story. Also [unnamed] sources, and it rises even more questions.
Like how are they ever going to find an unknown suspect, without publishing a description?
—————————–
Which story Totje?
**************
That article: No photofit, the sketch, the alledged “tension” between police-officers.
________________
I can understand why they wouldn’t take JT serious, although it was very early in the investigation, surely all clues should be investigated then? Headaches it causes me [so to speak].
———————
Why wouldnt they?
].
************
Very vague description [and you don't want me to write down all other things that are mentioned in hindsight
My point is: at that time they should have investigated everything asap!!! And try to get as much help as possible. Remember : a child’s life is/was in danger! [in case of an abduction]
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Libel Laws in Canada for instance have a “fair comment waiver”:
Fair comment on a matter of public interest
Comment or opinions (as opposed to statements of fact) that are honestly made without malice on matters of public interest are considered to be “fair comment.” For this defence to be successful, a defendant needs to prove that the defamatory statement was an honest opinion based on accurate facts that are set out in the publication, so that the reader may form his or her own opinion. The fair comment defence will fail if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was motivated by malice, for example, printing something the defendant knew to be false.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Totje
I guess the article you’re referring is with regard to the PJ acknowledging the sighting by Cooper but stating it having no significance to this case?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sledgehammer
Talking detail now but is that the same style of mousetache as Errol Flynn or Howard Hughes?