Madeleine McCann: Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters And Rape
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS: “MADELEINE: £1M WAR FOR MCCANN INTERVIEW”
“AMERICA’S top chat show hosts are locked in a bidding war for an exclusive interview with the parents of Madeleine McCann. Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters have each pledged £1million in an attempt to get them in front of the TV cameras, it emerged yesterday”
Winfrey and Walters - the Pope and Queen Mother of Ameican TV chatter…
Do those shows take advertising? They do. What will the ad-breaks induce viewers to buy? What is the point of the interview? The McCanns cannot discuss the case.
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “We are not in the market for selling Kate and Gerry’s story to the highest bidder. And we are not impressed by big names. We talk to media from all over the world”
But money is important. The fighting fun is running low
DAILY MAIL: “Kate and Gerry McCann in £1million deal to tell all to Oprah Winfrey”
“Kate and Gerry McCann are at the centre of a bidding war between Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters.
“Both celebrities are desperate to land an exclusive deal for the couple to talk about their missing daughter. If it goes ahead, it will be the largest publicly-known amount ever paid for a broadcast interview”
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We have been approached by representatives for both Oprah and Barbara,” he added. “They want an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry. We are discussing it but it doesn’t mean we are definitely doing it. Nothing has been agreed”
Why wouldn’t they do it?
PRESS ASSOCIATION: “US chat shows approach McCanns”
“Kate and Gerry McCann have been approached to appear on the Oprah Winfrey show and for an interview with American network ABC, their spokesman has confirmed.
It was reported that the McCanns were at the centre of a bidding war worth £1 million between Winfrey and ABC star Barbara Walters who both want an exclusive interview with the couple.
THE SUN: “Maddie sketch farmer raped girl”
“The gun-toting pig farmer quizzed in the Maddie McCann hunt was once jailed for raping a British teenager — in Praia da Luz. Joaquim Jose Marques, 31, who bears a resemblance to the sketch of a mystery suspect, served five years. Portuguese cops who grilled him twice at his ramshackle farmhouse nearby are now convinced he is NOT the man in the drawing”
NOT the man. So why is he in the papers?
“But we can reveal Marques and a pal carried out a brutal attack on two British girls, aged 17 and 18, after prowling the beach in July 1995 at the resort where Maddie vanished”
A heinous crime for which he was punished. But what has it to do with Madeleine McCann?
DAILY STAR: “MADDIE WEIRDO RAPED TEEN BRIT”
“The gun-toting Portuguese pig farmer quizzed over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance raped a British teenager yards from where the four-year-old vanished. Joaquim Jose Marques put his 18-year-old victim through a horrific late-night sex ordeal while an accomplice targeted her pal”
Eighteen..
“Now locals fear he is the same man pictured on a ‘wanted’ poster issued by the McCanns as they step up the hunt for their daughter”
Local residents, or local reporters? And is “fear” really “hope”?
DAILY MIRROR: “Madeleine McCann suspect spotted ’spying on little boys’”
“Five women holidaymakers - three British and two German - have seen the “strange and disturbed” man in Altura, close to the Portuguese-Spanish border, in the past two weeks. One of the British witnesses noticed him on the beach on January 21 bending down to talk to the boys, aged about four or five.
“Clearly worried, one of the youngsters started shaking his head mid-conversation. Then a woman ran out of a nearby villa, shouting in alarm. She scooped the children up and hurried them away.”
Adults. children. Run, children, run!
DAILY TELEGRAPH (Aus): “Oprah’s $2m bid for Maddie chat”
“Mr Mitchell said the McCanns would only agree to a deal which would widen the search for their daughter. The couple, both doctors, also want to campaign for a better Europe-wide alert system for missing children, based on an American model”
A campaign
Madeleine McCann: A media event
Posted: 26th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (730) | 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 27th, 2008 at 12:11 am
697
dcb Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
691
Denzylle Says:
[...] Presumably because they knew the children had been abandoned whilst the parents went out to dinner (best case scenario).
++++++++++++++++
697
dcb Says:
Not a scenario - one of the few known agreed facts.
———————————————————————-
Yes, I accept that.
I meant that that was the ‘best case’ as opposed to other scenarios - that the family might know already (at the time, the first 24 hours when they made that statement) that there was more to the parents’ involvement than ‘just’ leaving the children alone.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Tris - goodnight gracie
January 27th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Denzylle - you are very brave replying to our cheryl - her posts remind me of someone….
yes thats it she reminds me of aunty phil
January 27th, 2008 at 12:07 am
699 noseycow Says: January 27th, 2008 at 12:05 am
peter - don’t start on the chocolate again
+++++++++++++
Drinking my chocolate Ovaltine and then off to bed!
January 27th, 2008 at 12:06 am
697 dcb Says: January 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
691 Denzylle Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
…….Presumably because they knew the children had been abandoned whilst the parents went out to dinner (best case scenario).
++++++++++++++++
Not a scenario - one of the few known agreed facts.
+++++++++++
Not necessarily so, and even if true, possibly not what happened on the evening of May 3rd and, even if that was what happened on the evening of May 3rd, it still doesn’t confirm beyond doubt that an alive and well Madeleine was one of the children left alone….
Remember, their alleged admitted “child neglect”, for which they have been assured they have done nothing “legally” wrong, may well be a significant part of any deception that might have occurred, in my opinion.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:06 am
passing out now… too much doom bar. Is Ade around?
Say goodnight, Gracie…
January 27th, 2008 at 12:05 am
peter - don’t start on the chocolate again
January 27th, 2008 at 12:03 am
nite chenier
January 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
691
Denzylle Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
…….Presumably because they knew the children had been abandoned whilst the parents went out to dinner (best case scenario).
++++++++++++++++
Not a scenario - one of the few known agreed facts.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
nite jo / can’t sleep well
January 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
690 Peter O Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
686 chenier Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
665 Peter O Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
——————————————————-
Well, my incredibly secret sources lead me to believe that the ‘article’ was a wind up which I fell for, but I would love to see if anything vaguely similar emerges at any point…
+++++++++++
Well, there are so many wind ups in this case one does have problems separating fact from spin and spin from wind up!
++++++++++++
Added to which of course some of the claims made by allegedly official sources have been so incredible and/or have backfired in such a spectacular fashion, that just about anyone could release something allegedly from a source close to ……… and some aspect of the media , in its very widest sense, is likely to repeat it!
Cuddlecat valentines, Easter eggs anyone?
January 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
671 Christine
I still don”t think Gerry is looking at Kate.
When they gave the interview on Spanish T.V. some months ago, even when Kate was
“crying”, Gerry made no move to comfort her and barely looked at her when she was speaking
to the Interviewer.
It”s a far cry from the beginning when they were always holding hands and standing close
together
January 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I think it must be a wind up - can’t find anything on google- actually can’t find any press reports about the closure of the MF at all - is this not news then?
January 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
668 & 669… noseycow and can’t say no…
what, are you two telling me that it was all a pack of lies???!
Oh well, at least Kate can look forward to her new career in child care…
*dancing*
If you believe in faeries, clap your hands!
January 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
511
Denzylle Says:
to
501
Bountyhunter
I’d say the reason they came out so quickly with the ‘IVF baby’ point was to show how much MM was wanted - that they would go thru’ the trauma and financial expense of IVF (ie. it’s about them).
Another very early point - from a family member - was ‘they are doctors, they care for other people!’ meaning ‘why should this terrible thing happen to such caring people?’. Once again, it’s all about the parents, not the child.
_______________
622
Cheryl
If I’m not mistaken and the MODS and ADMIN have pointed it out many times - this is suppose to be all about finding that young child who has disappeared.
——————————-
Well, exactly.
And this is why I find it so suspicious that the parents come out with their IVF story and the family comes out with the ‘they are doctors therefore such caring parents’ line. Both of these focus on the PARENTS, neither is about the child.
And also, the family statement about ‘caring’ was one of the very first, certainly in the first 24 hours. Why did the family find it necessary to start defending the parents so early on? Presumably because they knew the children had been abandoned whilst the parents went out to dinner (best case scenario).
January 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
686 chenier Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
665 Peter O Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
——————————————————-
Well, my incredibly secret sources lead me to believe that the ‘article’ was a wind up which I fell for, but I would love to see if anything vaguely similar emerges at any point…
+++++++++++
Well, there are so many wind ups in this case one does have problems separating fact from spin and spin from wind up!
January 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
682
can’t say no Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
681
chenier
Almost 15 for tomorrow
——————————————
And that is a beautiful thought which I deserve after my heroic onslaught on the slopes of Mount Cheryl.
Sadly, however, tomorrow bright and early some doctor is going to have to put another line in so I can have the last 2 lots of antibiotics.
So I really must get sleep.
Good night all, and thanks for the fun…
January 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Till tomorrow
Sweet dreams All
January 26th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
684
dcb
January 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
665
Peter O Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
——————————————————-
Well, my incredibly secret sources lead me to believe that the ‘article’ was a wind up which I fell for, but I would love to see if anything vaguely similar emerges at any point…
January 26th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Off to bed!
Good night all
January 26th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
lets a long breath out
January 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
675 noseycow Says: January 26th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
looking forward to it can’t
Peter O (hero of the aviation world) do you have a link to the claims about moderators giving email addresses etc???
++++++++++
Nope, cos I didn’t make such claims. Sorry.
January 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
681
chenier
Almost 15 for tomorrow
January 26th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
637
Cheryl Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
553
chenier Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
543
Cheryl Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Chenier, you said below:
I have a question I haven’t seen answered or may have overlooked - was he the same man seen lurking around the resorts by several different people?
As for the Portugese being able to find and successfully prosecuting a rapist - something tells me that he and his friend were not hard to find since two teenagers were involved who could readily identify them. But as for their success in finding missing children over there and adults over the years may I suggest you do what I did quite some time ago and do a quick search on the net and google “Portugal - Missing People”!
Onc again it is all in the eye of the beholder but when I read the accompanying story that came out with the picture of the person seen lurking around to it asked if that person would please come forward if they were innocent or whoever ended up not coming forward then one could presume they could have something to do with the young child’s disappearance. But one may ask themselves, considering Portugal has no register of their sex offenders, why the police wanted to go to ask him questions.
I myself don’t believe for a second the new Investigator has shoved under the rug in his investigation that this was not a possible abduction case. One forgets he was the lead investigator in very bad children abuse scandal(s) over there a few years ago.
———————————————————————–
I really don’t know.
You may care to bear in mind that the man has allegedly been spotted in Chile with Madeleine visiting a museum, as well as working in Gibralter.
Men in Morocco shown the sketch are reported as ‘laughing almost hysterically’, pointing out that there are a million men who look like like that in Morocco.
I do appreciate that Clarrie claims that this sketch is so good that anyone who knows the man will recognise him, but the people with the most experience of north African men, ie north african men, flatly disagree.
So who are you going to believe?
____________
REPLY TO THE ABOVE:
Let’s face it, many people here and yonder are going to think they see that child. How many millions of young female children have blond hair, cute as button and look like her? Walk around your local stores, malls - you’ll see them without having to look hard. As for Clarrie’s remark he just didn’t stop and think it is my presumption. I don’t think it was a deliberate error on his part at all.
**********************************
Reply to your comment above:
I’m sorry, but your comment makes no sense. The sketch is of the alleged suspect in Madeleine’s disappearance, not Madeleine herself. Millions of people believing they have spotted Madeleine is completely irrelevant to the question of identifying the man in the sketch. Perhaps you would comment on what I actually said, rather than what you say I said?
__________________
As for finding and successfully prosecuting men for rape, I suggest you take a look at the figures here; barely 6% of cases reported to police end in conviction in England and Wales. A teenage girl claiming that she has been raped here may well be able to identify her attacker; very few rapists are total strangers. A successful prosecution is a very different matter.
_______________________
REPLY TO THE ABOVE: We take rape very seriously over here in the US and a person convicted of rape spends many years in jail. Unfortunately we have had rapists who have gotten off via a jury trial; we have had men go to jail with life sentences only to find out years later the victim identified the wrong man.
****************************
Reply to above.
What relevance does your comment have to the points I was making? You claimed that it was easy for the Portuguese police to have successfully investigated the men convicted of rape because the young tourists had identified them. I pointed out that this was untrue, since in this country barely 6% of rapes reported to the police result in successful prosecutions, even though the vast majority of rapists are known to their victims, and are thus easily identified. Do you actually have any evidence to support your claim that it was easy for the Portuguese police to successfully investigate the rapes?
_____________________________________
I am not aware of any evidence that a man attacking a teenage girl is likely to be a paedophile; if you know of any evidence it would be good if you cited it.
_____________________
REPLY TO THE ABOVE: I never made a statement that a man attacking a teenage girl is likely to be a paedophile. My statement wondering why the police questioned him was one of curiosity if they knew something the public didn’t know. Once again the problem with people interpreting what they want to read not the whole context of what was said.
*********************************************
Reply to the above.
But the context of what you said was the suggestion that the police had questioned him because of something the public didn’t know. What you are doing is implying guilt of some nebulous kind and then claiming that I unreasonably construed your implication. It is a common tactic of those trying to smear by innuendo, but you are being overly optimistic if you imagine that the people reading the smears don’t realise what is happening…
_________________________________
Equally, if you have any researched evidence as to child and adult abductions in Portugal it would be helpful if you cited that too. Most people who go missing go missing because they want to. If you really imagine that there is some vile gang abducting people in Portugal you shouldn’t be wasting your time posting on the web, you should be providing the information to the proper authorities. As you yourself have noted, the Portuguese police have conducted important investigations into child abuse; why are you not providing this information to Mr Rebello?
___________________
REPLY: Once again, this is why I seldom like to post on here - total misinterpretations or not reading what I tried to say. I was merely telling you to research the children/people missing in Portugal - if you had done what I suggested you would have found yourself in the Police files with pictures of children missing and adults missing yet to be found. Why in the hell should I tell them about the missing children/adults since it was put on the site by them?
***************************
Reply to above
I appreciate that if you spend enough time reading Clarrie’s press releases you may come to believe that telling people what to do is appropriate, but when people debate they are expected to put forward their arguments.
Your assumption that others posting on this blog are ignorant of the basic facts of the case is offensive.
Your assumption that others posting on this blog are ignorant of Mr Rebello’s career is offensive.
Telling someone to search Google does not constitute debate or discussion. It simply suggests that you you are incapable of debate and discussion…
*****************************************
Once again if you had read exactly what I wrote Mr. Rebello is the one who investigated cases oof child abuse in Portugal and brought the perpetrators to justice! You may-and please read my words carefully on this: do your own research, as I did, and read of the cases that took place over there in institutions in Portugal of the terrible abuse of the young children and who in Portugal was charged with doing it.
Very simple, nothing sinister meant by it and I was in fact praising the fact that Mr. Rebllo was put in charge of the McCann case since he had been involved in investigating other cases.
***********************************
Reply to the above
As I have pointed out above, your assumption that others are ignorant of Mr Rebello’s career is offensive.
Your apparent belief that I have not bothered to familiarise myself with his career is offensive.
Your attempt to suggest that I am ignorant of child abuse is offensive.
______________________________________
And why are you objecting to the Portuguese police checking again on an individual? Surely you should be glad that the Portuguese police not only check, but double check?
REPLY TO ABOVE:: What are you talking about? Where did I state I objected to the Police investigating the individual again? Once again, as always on here, one reads what they want to read not what is written.
**********************************
Reply to above
What you said was ‘But one may ask themselves, considering Portugal has no register of their sex offenders, why the police wanted to go to ask him questions.’
How can that be construed in any other way than you objecting to the police wanting to go ask him questions?
Unless, of course, you were trying to imply that the police had some reason, unknown to us, that led them to believe that he was implicated in the disappearance of a small child, as opposed to the PJ carrying out the normal and proper police procedure .
If that is the case then we are back yet again to smear and innuendo…
——————————-
As for your bizarre belief that anyone who did not come forward and identify themselves to the press officer of two private inviduals must be presumed to be guilty of involvement in the abduction of a small child, I can only suggest that you pray, for your own sake, that you never live in a country where that assumption is applied….
______________
REPLY TO ABOVE: Your responses get more ridiculous as I read them above. Where did you read that I said ‘must be presumed to be guilty”?????? YOU SHOW ME THOSE EXACT WORDS YOU CLAIM I SAID! GO AHEAD POINT OUT THOSE EXACT WORDS TO ME. AND IF YOU CAN’T THEN DON’T BOTHER WRITING BACK TO ME AGAIN UNLESS YOU MAKE IT A POINT TO READ VERY CAREFULLY EVERY WORD I WRITE AND WHAT I AM SAYING. I very carefully chose my words “could presume” I didn’t say would presume or should presume or must be presumed at all. Those are YOUR words NOT MINE.
***************************************
Reply to above:
What you said was:
‘whoever ended up not coming forward then one could presume they could have something to do with the young child’s disappearance.’
That is an assumption of guilt. I do appreciate that you may have convinced yourself that you left yourself an escape route, but no reasonable person reading that clause would take it to mean anything other than an assumption of guilt.
Put it another way; if you spoke of a named individual in those terms and s/he sued for libel s/he would have no difficulty in persuading the Courts in this country that s/he had been libelled.
And may I suggest that you avoid shouting; it simply makes it obvious that you have no arguments to put forward…
January 26th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
674
val Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
wasnt me ! 
January 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
676 - we’re an intelligent lot here in the UK - what what
well some of us
January 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
#
672
can’t say no Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
think that long post
will be tomorrow
+++++++++++++++++++
Good job I didn’t hold my breath
January 26th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
665
Peter O Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
***************
so does the PJ!
January 26th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
What fascinates me ,is all those ,in U.K. ,can see trough all the rubbish thrown at them .
Bravo !!!!