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
- THENTHEREWERE4 on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Anorak on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- James Mcdiffett on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
850
Aardvarko Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
829 Garth - you are correct, that’s what she said, but that doesn’t mean that’s what happened - so as far as that goes you could call me a non-believer.
Her “enhanced” memories only came out much later, and now she claims the new picture of Beatleman is the man she saw, even though she previously said she hadn’t seen a face. If she had genuinely seen that face, she’d have remembered it, I’m sure.
————————————-
Well she did say it as you know. The PJ will have recorded what she said on the night so they will know if she’s lying. And I would find it a bit hard to believe she changed her story to suit the Panorama programme knowing full well she had already given a statement to the contrary.
With regard to her enhanced memories, I have already answered my suspicions about that in my last post!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
852, Totje
No that you mention ist, Totje: Could it be that eggman was the work of a newspaper/journalist? I will google for it!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
853
Sledgehammer Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ian, you really should check what is admissable under Portuguese law as evidence, and how that evidence is attributed to a source and the process of it being validated by a presiding judge, that apart you are having a laff.!!!
==============
of course you know all about portuguese law dont you sledgy….yeah right you know fuck all.
When you produce “facts” they are normally months out of date and total bullshit
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
853
Sledgehammer
You havent a clue have you. Gerry’s blog entry is evidence.
You arent a lawyer - you wouldnt make the grade, so please spare us the stupid posts.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Coolandcalm
Oh, and I promise faithfully I will never ever send you a nasty email.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
842
BabyJane Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
807
Hi Garth
But you have to admit that Jane Tanner’s first “description” (faceless eggman) was not very helpful. A friend of mine has been collecting identikit pictures for two decades (for fun fun fun, as Ade would say) and he almost fell off his chair laughing when I showed him Tanner’s eggman.
================
BJ
The description is rediculous like you say. And I know JT comes across as a bit wet behind the ears, but I find it hard to believe that she would just give that description when we know she has already mentioned the blanket! So, what Im getting at, was Tanners initial description actually what was publicised? I think not.
And of course we later learn that it wasnt a blanket but a child. Then a child wearing pyjamas. Common sense tells you that somethings not quite right. But I dont believe it was Tanners description that was the problem, in my opinion it was misrepresented to make it look daft. And thats what I find curious!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
your daily reality check folks
THERE WAS NO ABDUCTION
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
826
Tinsel Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“I[...] Tanner [...] she truly seemed to enjoy lying, in my opinion. As if she felt she were quite good at it and it had become fun. [...]”
******
That was exactly my feeling too ….
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
851
chenier
20/1/2008
‘The man Jane saw walking away from the apartments where we were staying was carrying a child, around 9.10pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. Jane described pyjamas matching those Madeleine was wearing without knowing what she had on that fateful night.’
First part negates the story, as Gerry says he was jsut leaving the apartment at 9:10.
Second part doesnt tie in to relaity.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Coolandcalm
I checked the website out. It looks great.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ian, you really should check what is admissable under Portuguese law as evidence, and how that evidence is attributed to a source and the process of it being validated by a presiding judge, that apart you are having a laff.!!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
842 BabyJane,
Re faceless eggman
I’m still wondering who made that sketch. Was it JT herself or someone working on behalf of the PJ? Couldn’t the artist do a better job? Did they take her statement serious [remember it was at the very beginning of this terrible story]?
Why didn’t they use the identikit tools? Did the police from day 1 search the area and witnesses with that drawing or the description? And in case they didn’t : why not?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
844
Ian Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
838
Sledgehammer Says:
Ian, evidence you are taking the piss! LOL.
Of course I am not, Gerry’s blog is written evidence and would be accepted as such in a court of law. He has stated on his blog that Tanner saw an abductor carrying Madeleine away at 9:10.
Why do you not think that is evidence?
——————————-
Ian,
When did Gerry post this on his blog?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
829 Garth - you are correct, that’s what she said, but that doesn’t mean that’s what happened - so as far as that goes you could call me a non-believer.
Her “enhanced” memories only came out much later, and now she claims the new picture of Beatleman is the man she saw, even though she previously said she hadn’t seen a face. If she had genuinely seen that face, she’d have remembered it, I’m sure.
She is, to say the least, not a very reliable witness, which may be why Gerry is now apparently throwing her to the wolves.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Yesterday I saw a quote by the PJ to the effect that they are planning to interview the McCs and T7 ‘very soon’ in ‘a matter of days’. Has the timing been made public? Are they trying to spook them?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
845
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
837
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
821
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
812
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
———————————————–
===============
why do you talk such utter bollocks at times garfy i used to think you had a certain level of intelligence
—————————————————
Do woosters have a funny period?
==========
not sure garfy whats a wooster???
—————
Wooster, thats not even funny!
===============
i think you misunderstood i wasnt trying to be funny, you were and i wasnt laughing with you but at you ya knob
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
832
Sledgehammer Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“”sledgehammer and coolandcalm both told me to stop going on about it”” Ian ?
===============
why do you always post such crap sledge?? At least garfy is occasionally amusing (sort of) but you sledge, well you’re just a bloody BAFFOON
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Karen… my name(above) links to my website (out of date at the mo. can’t get the staff!)
No point in anonymity anymore after the previous broo haha!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
837
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
821
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
812
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
———————————————–
===============
why do you talk such utter bollocks at times garfy i used to think you had a certain level of intelligence
—————————————————
Do woosters have a funny period?
==========
:lol: 
:lol: 
not sure garfy whats a wooster???
—————
Wooster, thats not even funny!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
838
Sledgehammer Says:
Ian, evidence you are taking the piss! LOL.
Of course I am not, Gerry’s blog is written evidence and would be accepted as such in a court of law. He has stated on his blog that Tanner saw an abductor carrying Madeleine away at 9:10.
Why do you not think that is evidence?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
829
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
818
Aardvarko Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Garth,
I don’t think JT’s theory was even formed by the 3rd………..
—————————————————————————
Well she did say on Panorama that she informed the PJ on the night of the 3rd. So either you thought wrong or you’re just a non-believer, hmm?
==========
hmm
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
807
Hi Garth
But you have to admit that Jane Tanner’s first “description” (faceless eggman) was not very helpful. A friend of mine has been collecting identikit pictures for two decades (for fun fun fun, as Ade would say) and he almost fell off his chair laughing when I showed him Tanner’s eggman.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Didnt I hear on the final trip home moneybags paid for the car to be flown over?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Karen
830
Just click on ‘coolandcalm’ in blue and that takes you to her website.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
793
BabyJane Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
763, chenier Says:
I did look back at some early Standard articles; do you recall Gerry telling the assembled journalists:
‘”We feel sure that this sighting of a man with what appeared to be a child in his arms is both significant and relevant to Madeleine’s abduction.”
Strange how, over the months, it became transmuted into the claim that not only was it a child, but a child called Madeleine McCann..
———————-
Yes!
And wouldn’t it be interesting aproximately how many men/fathers are regularely wandering through Praia da Luz at night carrying their children from the kiddie club to their apartments?
As Bridget O’Donnell wrote about the babysitting service in the evenings in the kiddie club: >> The children would watch a cartoon together and then be put to bed. You would then wake them, carry them back and put them to bed again in the apartment.<<
Maybe the PJ know exactly which (wholly innocent) father carried home his own child on May 3rd around 10pm and was seen by Jane Tanner.
—————————————————-
And maybe they have been wholly unable to trace anyone other than Jane Tanner seeing a man with a child where she claims to have seen them.
As things stand she has to revise her story about what may have been a child into definitely a child called Madeleine, and change her claim that she didn’t want to tell the others because they thought Madeleine had wandered off into Kate knowing immediately that Madeleine had been abducted and not wandered off, which leaves Tanner with the embarassing task of explaining why she didn’t mention it.
I can see why Jane Tanner told Panorama that she couldn’t possibly identify anyone in court…
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Ian, evidence you are taking the piss! LOL.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
821
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
812
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
———————————————–
===============
why do you talk such utter bollocks at times garfy i used to think you had a certain level of intelligence
—————————————————
Do woosters have a funny period?
==========
not sure garfy whats a wooster???
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
735
gillyflower Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm …
**************
In connection with your discussion, when Gerry went home from Portugal on the occasion to which you refer, I remember reading how he received VIP treatment and went straight through with none of the usual formalities.
I particularly recall this because when I posted sometime last year about the difference in the treament of Robert Murat as an Arguido and that of the McCs, I referred to the fact that Robert Murat hadn’t been allocated a Clarrie nor been offered the preferential treatment received by GMcC, allowing him to bypass the normal formalities when going back home.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
831
Julie Says:
———————–
Indeed. Thats why I asked if this ones having a funny period?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
catkidd
Maybe the unsuspecting relative or friend had no idea what was in the boot wheel carrier?
The DNAtool has just been passed according to that ” press association” news today, or did I read it wrong?