Madeleine McCann: Four, Three Men, DNAboost And Risk
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY STAR: “Cops slam pics of Maddie suspects – Innocent people are put at ‘risk’”
“Four” people who look like the drawings inspired by holidaymaker Gail Cooper have now been questioned by police
So says the Star. Although on closer inspection Jose Marques plus Joaquim Agostinho plus a Portuguese builder in Gibraltar makes three, not four
Celebrity criminologist Francisco Moita Flores says: “It is manipulation and propaganda.” No, not the Star’s reporting, rather the sketches
DAILY MAIL: “Fourth man questioned in Maddie e-fit probe”
When is an e-fit a drawing? Compare and contrast
The Mail sees the Portuguese builder questioned and then freed. “At least” three other men have been questioned
THE SUN: “SUPER DNA ‘WILL CLEAR McCANNS – They welcome new-style forensic tests”
A tiny sample is, reportedly, found in the McCanns’ Renault Scenic hire car. How did it get there? From her clothes, say the McCanns. “Another theory was that Maddie’s younger brother and sister may have similar DNA,” says the Sun
And there’s a new test. It’s called DNAboost. DNAboost “can separate or ‘clarify’ profiles and unravel tiny samples”
With DNAboost what you thought had gone comes back with a bang!
DAILY MIRROR (online): “McCann pics fury”
Always the “fury”
Police in Portugal “claim Kate and Gerry McCann are hindering the probe into missing Madeleine by releasing sketches of the possible kidnapper.
One detective says the drawings were too vague and could “identify dozens or hundreds of people”
“But McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell hinted more sketches could be on the way ‘if we get any more information’”
THE INDEPENDENT: “Alastair Campbell: The Cudlipp Lecture”
“In an era of more pages, more space, more access, more talk, there is less said and done that is truly memorable. Even in Dacre’s apologia he could only draw on Stephen Lawrence – again - as the story where he felt the Mail made an impact and did some good. Similarly, in his Mactaggart Lecture Jeremy Paxman said the BBC constantly pointed to Planet Earth as evidence of good TV combining with good ratings, but did so precisely because it is a rarity. And with every front page screaming headline that doesn’t quite deliver the big story, every exclusive that isn’t, every whooshing breaking news that isn’t really breaking news at all, every new twist in the McCann case that isn’t a new twist at all, the public gets a little wiser every time”
We recognise the spin, says Mr Campbell – “Media spin to fill media space.” And we might even recognise the irony…
Madeleine McCann: A media feeding frenzy
Posted: 29th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (930) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
January 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
473 Garth
Oh really? So they werent being watched then?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Goodnite.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
452
Garth Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
************************
dont be bloody daft garfy, we dont know anything for certain, apart from the lies, more lies and a few more lies…..Oh i forgot yeah we know the mcs are bloody liars. Oh sorry have i already said that
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
469 Garth
We dont know what the PJ think - I know what I think, you dont seem to know what to think.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
472
Sledgehammer Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
———————————————–
And it doesnt take much to work that out IMO.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
459
RedRooster Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“Châtelaine
and a very good evening to you, it is I the RealRedRooster And how are you on this fine evening… ”
***
I’m fine, thanx RRR. And yourself?
Hope I can stay a bit on line. However fear that 90-year-old Maman will want to play cards soon[and win, of course]
January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
464
Ian Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
———————————————-
Hang on a mo. The night in question is the 3rd. Remember? The 2nd the 1st are totally irrellevent to the disappearance of Madeliene.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
clouseau, something is very strange and it is in my opinion, at the Portuguese end.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
442 clouseau
Remember the ’sheet imprint’.
What further proof is required?!!!
(I know I know - an abductor would be nice, but you can’t have everything - so sheet imprint will have to do)
January 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
461 Sledgehammer
You admit that the possibility of abduction is as likely as the possibility of accident and concealment by the McCanns?
This is a new and welcome stance.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I wonder what other ways the McCanns could have disposed of Madeleine prior to the 3rd? Quite a few I would have thought. It would certainly have been easier than trying to concoct a bleedin abduction in the middle of PDL.
Even the PJ think if anything did happen to Madeleine, it happened on the night of the 3rd. And why I wonder. Because the McCanns have alibis. They claim Madeleine was at the creche. Well someone bleedin nanny must have looked after ffs. I mean, lets use a bit of sense here. If she did die before the 3rd why make stupid claim about the creche knowing full well they’d need an alibi to back it up? It gets worse doesnt it……….
:lol:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
457
Sledgehammer Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Châtelaine [...] to solve this suspicious death.””
****
Sledge, Sir, but with all of the combination of “facts” we have assembled, isn’t a death the most likely explanation? By facts I mean, as many times mentioned before, statements [voice, video, printed media, all literal quotes] of parents, friends, family, which simply don’t make sense in terms of an abduction.
IMO & allegedly
January 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
cmon sledgy honest truth…do you not agree something is strange here
January 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
450
Amused Bystander Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
*********
You seem to confuse verbal diarrhoea with erudition.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Ian 460 8:55 pm
QED
CU in 3 months perhaps…
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
452 Garth
So much for ‘regular checks’ …. does twice count as ‘regular checks’?
How many times and at what frequency were the checks on the other nights? Funny how we hear nothing of those other nights isnt it?
Go play on the Xbox (360?) - its would add more value than spending time here to protect these people who I doubt would give you (or I) the time of day.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
erm err u know well i decided to wash the curtains and cuddlecat said i would take a lie detector test then i was advised that i cant ( coz i am guilty) said i would not leave Portugal then i had too before they arrested me…….
January 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
442
clouseau Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
ok i am willing to listen….convince me
one piece of evidence that gives the abduction creditibility
****************************
sorry to dissapoint you but you may be waiting some considerable time
January 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Clouseau, you are not waiting on me, for I have never been as presumptuous to think that I know what happened, perhaps you can enlighten me and give me the facts of what really happened.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
450 Amused Bystander
January 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
453
Châtelaine Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
And how are you on this fine evening… 
*************************
and a very good evening to you, it is I the RealRedRooster
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
er umm i knew straight away it was an abduction because the window wasa jenmied and cuddlepussy was on the shelf
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Châtelaine +++++“”Home Secretray Jacqui Smith, urging her to give maximum help to the PJ in their efforts to solve this suspicious death.””++++I distinctly remember Duncan R requesting for clarification about this statement, has any been forthcoming, about and to whom this statement refers.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
447
Justlooking Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
———————————————–
Sorry but I cant be bothered. I can go and play on my sons xbox if I really want!
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
445
Ian Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
it can surely only be money ???
************************
assuming they are not completely mental
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
garthy sledgy
i am waiting
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The PJ have stated yet again that the key to the McCanns down fall is the waiter who served them. His alibi ( after being questioned 3 times) puts clear contradictions as to the frequency of their tot checks. And where is this bleedin waiter? He’s done a bunk because he doesnt like the fact that he’s caught up in the middle of all this? Get on?
And yet those times? From 20.30 to 22.00. Well we know for definate that Gerry checked at 21.00 because he was yapping to Wilkins after. And we also know that Kate checked at 22.00. So if, by the McCanns checks at least, only the 21.30 check is missing! How bleedin questionable is that? Streuth………
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
443
RedRooster Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“Good Evening all, having a nice friendly debate are you??? ”
***
Good evening to you RR
or is it RRR?
January 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
441
Garth
Of course you are, you just did it again.
There is no doubt whatsoever that they failed to protect their child - an unacceptable position for healthcare professionals, one of whom is a senior healthcare professional.
Their careers are over in that field and they know it, you know it, we all know it.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
430 Ian 8:37 pm
Who’s the fool?
Oh and Ian, you’re always accusing the “pro-McCanners” of “cutting and running” when called upon to defend their position. But who’s doing the “cutting and running” now??? This seems to be very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Your silence in the face of my invitation (five times in the last five days) to defend yourself against my refutation of your argument for non-abduction is frankly, well, deafening. Almost uncharacteristic, may I say! What a contrast with your ranting and shouting when you are attacking the “pro-McCanners” with your non-rational, ad hominem slurs! Which frankly gets nobody anywhere in a sensible debate, does it…?
Do you perhaps feel uncomfortable, Ian, when you find your logical thought processes being put under the microscope??
On a lighter note, while I have seen several examples on this blog that have demonstrated to me the condition of the “pots”* (you lot!), I have certainly not yet been convinced that the “kettles” (us!) are equally black in this regard!!
Never have I seen you back up that totally mischievous and scurrilous allegation 
with concrete examples (unless you’re talking about some of the more faint-hearted among us being pissed off and so driven away from this site by your – and various other posters’ – constant mud-slinging). Anyway, I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it, Ian. 
Getting serious again, my whole point in this exercise was to try and show why I think there are fundamental weaknesses and flaws in this whole Anorak debate. I did that by taking one argument presenting the rational and evidential basis against abduction (after all, this is what you anti-McCanners are always goading us pro-McCanners to do with our standpoints, so why shouldn’t we demand the same of you?), just one, and then thoroughly research it in order to demonstrate the flagrant and, might I say, even puerile (in this instance at least) errors and holes in that argument. Indeed, the three points you made, when looked at properly and closely, actually point towards the CREDIBILITY of what the McCanns are saying!! This was, for me, the surprising and startling discovery. Congratulations Ian, you scored a home goal! But then to understand how and why you did that, you would have to READ my argument, and do so THOROUGHLY. But perhaps that requires too much cerebral effort on your part? A word of advice, Ian: don’t go into the law. You’ll be crucified!
I thought Increasingly Incredulous summed up well the problem with the debate on this site when he said: “Ian, in that you demonstrate a good deal of the confusion in the tangled psychology of the anti-McCann brigade; you can’t separate a bad parenting decision from guilt for a major crime.” Imho, I agree with Mr Incredulous. His underlying point, of course, being: although you’re the most typical example of that tangled logic, you are far from being the only one.
Anyway, I’ve hung around long enough now. No sign or acknowledgement from you that you are working on a response… (CERTAINLY I wouldn’t have minded waiting…after all, you bloody had to wait for me!! But no acknowledgement at all on your part of activity on this front… So: “cutting and running”, is that???
) I rest my case. As for me, other matters beckon. And as for the future, who knows??? Maybe I’ll be back again in three months!!!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
*Talking of “pot”, whatever happened to soooothsayer? Remember, Matt (if you’re out there), what I said about her/him almost exactly three months ago?? I often wondered whether s/he wasn’t just getting as high as a kite and then using her/his psychedelic trip to take the piss out of everyone on this blog (and very successfully too, judging by the way virtually every anti-McCanner including you seemed to be struck in awe and wonder at her/his “oracles”). On the very rare occasions s/he posts now, I’ve noticed that those “Delphic oracles” are now most definitely OFF the agenda! I wonder why?? Lol!!
http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/179785.html?cp=all post 447