Madeleine McCann With Britney Spears And David Beckham
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Maddie resort ‘perv’ snaps Brit”
“A suspected pervert who fled the resort where Maddie McCann vanished is taking photos of Britney Spears in LA, The Sun can reveal.
“Christian Ridout, 32, is wanted for questioning in Praia da Luz, Portugal, for allegedly trying to groom a 12-year-old girl”
DJ Shifty..?
“But for several months Ridout has used the name Dexter Troy to work as a paparazzo in Hollywood, where he has trailed the likes of Britney, David Beckham and Kiefer Sutherland”
Says Ridout: “These allegations are ridiculous. At the time of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance I was in London. I have not been to Portugal for three years”
But Britney Spears. Madeleine McCann. Both in the same story. Remarkable stuff at the Sun. has Ridout every taken a picture of Princess Diana? We demand to be told…
DAILY MIRROR: “McCann: Clear our name bid”
“Kate and Gerry McCann are planning a formal appeal to be cleared as suspects over missing daughter Madeleine, it was revealed yesterday. Lawyers for the couple, both 39, in Portugal and Britain, held talks to decide the timing of an application to lift their ‘arguido’ status”
McCanns talks with lawyers – read all about it!
Madeleine McCann: Cleudo for your armchair
Posted: 9th, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,164) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- 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
February 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
259
Jolie Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
*****************************
with all this pissing about from both the brits and the pj its not looking good though is it.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The mobile phone records for the 2nd and 3rd.
Its not all about the forensics.
We dont know everything the pj have, and neither do they.
They are just bluffing in case!!
February 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
252 Pilimary
I am not sure, but I think I remember someone on this site said that lifting the arguido status would’nt be a problem at all for further charges.
But it is no use lifting it really now, according to me, since the “suspects” have been warned now, and the clever lawyers are in in it. Besides, would it look good for the PJ? Could it help the clever lawyers in any way? We have t ask someone who knows about legal matters.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Brandon
(contratulations for your marriage)
I always have thought the same. The seven children was in Madeleines apartment, because Madeleine
a) dissapeared on May 2
b) dissapeared on May3 and was dead in another apartment, her body waiting to be dispossed of
February 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Don’t be disheartened yet. It was only a week ago that the rogatory letters were returned to Portugal from the Home Office for ‘correction.’ Supposedly, these issues have been addressed, and the letters have been returned to the UK. Why give up now on the case having a satisfactory prosecution? Let’s hang in there and hope the PJ has got the goods.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Police sources told Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas they had ’significant evidence’ that seven of the group’s eight children - all under the age of five - had been in the McCanns’ apartment on May 3. They gave no explanation as to the whereabouts of the eighth child.
A source close to the family said the group had regularly visited each other’s flats during the six-day holiday before Madeleine vanished, but insisted the children all slept in their own apartments.
11th October 2007 Daily mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=486646&in_page_id=1811&ct=5
_____________________________
’significant evidence’
CCTV? witnesses?
8th child Madeleine already gone on the 2nd.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
252
Pilimary Says:
“Red Roster”
**************
you appear to have removed some of my feathers “ouch”
February 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
wealthy donators
sorry sorry… the rush
February 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
240
Ian Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
***********
dont kid yourself ian. Its been on the cards for a while now, and lets face they dont appear to any nearer to being charged. Only a matter of time mate. I really hope im wrong
February 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
THEN, NOT ARGUIDOS
sorry
February 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
watcher
It is.
Trouble is it happened in Portugal!
February 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Red Roster
Are we sure (SURE) that Portuguese law -yes, it’s bloody complicated- does not permit to do that (now arguidos, then now arguidos, then charged)?
Frankly, I don’t now either. But I bet that that people, Rebelo & co., who has worked soooo hardly, and against of that crap (political protection, healthy donators, lies, spin, blind journalists) WON’T GIVE UP EASILY!
February 9th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
perhaps mr bennet can give us the details but i remember feeling shocked at the time that in uk law it is not illegal to leave small children alone
February 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
244 hannasus
At the moment i feel we are being woolly minded liberals unaware of the forces that slowly encircle us. Your hammock sure sounds nice, Just what i need.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Ian Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
222 the watcher
Hold on, that one single attempt is not the end of the story by a hell of a long way!
He was told that the Magistrates court in Leicestershire didnt have jurisdiction - I think that might be challengeable. What about in the Portuguese equivalent - where they couldnt argue not having jurisdiction?
Dont worry, the legal possibilities are by no means exhausted.
as i remember it is not against the law in the uk
February 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
245
Pilimary Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
****************
yes but can they do that…we all know how bloody complicated the legal system is in portugal
February 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
223
jo Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
*****************
please jo what are you trying to tell me???????????
February 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
222
the watcher Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
******************
yes i know that but they are guilty of neglect. All that really tells us is maybe the level of corruption in this lovely country. imo
February 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ian 240
That would be a good strategie: remove their arguido status, what would mean free interviews, obligation to answer ALL QUESTIONS and NO LAWYERS presence. Think it over! Maybe PJ is ready to clear them, interview then, AND THEN, after gathering all evidences, testimonies and the news interviews results, CHARGE THEM DEFINITELY
IMO
February 9th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Man on the Hill,
One can never have too much skunk, but from personal experience it does lead to extreme bouts of pessimism.
This case is not going to close. And not only that it is going to go for the very big fish as well.
How do I know this, I have been eating fruit only for three weeks and am imbued with insight.
Insert smiley face here.
Saturn, enjoy your posts. I guess Brian Kennedy is also one of the one’s being looked at.
Am back off to the hammock in the garden. Happy sleuthing.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
239 Marie Nicholas
Thanks for the extra info.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Ian
238
Personally, that’s my line of thinking.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
221 Stevo
Hi there, your”e conspicuous by your absence these days, I know, pressure of work.
Isn”t Brian Kennedy a Director of No Stone Unturned? He is also paying Clarrie”s wages, so just what is his real interest in all this…….how close is he to the McCanns.
Also, do you remember a poster, cant remember his/her name who had done some sleuthing
and found the Funds from NSU were being diverted to an Offshore account? We both were
answering his/her posts at the time..
February 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
236
man on a hill
I think there is a great deal more leaking to be done and a great many things we dont know about. However I agree with the opther poster who said ‘reality check’.
They want status lifted, two points - this may not be a bad thing as it will release them to refuse to answer intereviewers asking difficlt questions, increasing their appearance of guilt in the public eyes, second point, wanting is not having.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
man on a hill
Did you see my post yesterday about how to make links? I don’t think my explanation was clear. I also have a mac and safari. I am really hopeless at computors, and I can make links.
Either you copy the address with the copy and paste function (on the menu, on top of the screen, in the editing menu). Or you type it, but don’t forget the http:, and slashes. When you send it by e-mail or by post on a forum, it will turn blue automatically, and work as a link. I guess it is the http thing that tells your computer to make it work as a link.
I use it a lot, as I have a photo site, of which I send the link to my friends. To check that I typed it correctly, once I sent the e-mail, I go and fetch it into the “posted e-mail” box, to see if it turned blue.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
234
Denzylle
I still dont follow the reasoning supplied by Kate, all kinds of different scenarios could account for imprints etc. Its almost as if she was dead - so when she was gone, they knew she couldnt have got out of the bed herself!
Was she dead and someone took the body, changing the intended ‘finding of her dead’ plan? ‘They’ve taken her’?
Didnt someone use the words ‘Thats not how it was supposed to be’?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
lets take a reality check here…..no news of their status being lifted…..no news from those who matter the PJ…..they are still prime suspects
February 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
217 Ian
The evidence has already been leaked remember?, that’s why we think their guilty after all. They have already gone on T.V and given the game away but our leaders did nothing. The horse has gone Ian, isn’t it time to shut the gate now? I haven’t the strength to climb the hill today, sorry.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
221 1984-89 seems to have been profitable for him. I wonder where he made his money across those years.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“Police have been told Kate KNEW instantly little Madeleine had been snatched because there was still a clear imprint of the youngster left in the unruffled bed sheets. ”
This would seem to be at odds with GM’s assertion that, the last time he looked down on her, the child was ‘lying almost in the recovery position’. This would suggest the sheets were ruffled (assuming she were still alive, of course).
The only way I can think of to leave ‘a clear imprint … in … unruffled bed sheets’ would be to have a child who did not move for whatever reason when removed from the bed and for the child to have been lifted out ‘horizontally’ (ie. towards the had of the bed), perhaps with hands under her armpits.
I’m sure this has been commented upon before, but it came to me last night as I was (lying in the recovery position) in bed, trying to go to sleep.