Madeleine McCann: Legal Action Fury
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “Fury over McCanns’ poster girl”
There are 17,400 A3-size prints of Madeleine McCann in Spain and Portugal. The posters show Madeleine McCann, four, Mari Luz Cortes and Jeremy Vargas, seven, both missing.
Juan Jose Cortes, father of the missing girl, says: “Why didn’t they ask us? The three cases are not connected. We are with our lawyers.”
McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell says: “We did have permission from the family”
Fury – always fury
THE SUN: “Fury over McCanns’ poster girl”
DAILY EXPRESS: “Madeleine: Now Mari’s parents hit out at poster”
DAILY STAR: “McCANNS RAPPED OVER POSTER OF MISSING GIRL”
Posted: 19th, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (2,071) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
February 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
1405 Totje Yes but they wouldnt have been approaching it from the angle required - why would they at that point (the social services will be very nervous about all the publicity, lawyers etc)!
I have seen such things taking place, in controlled environments with cameras etc, so it is possible. However, I dont think its worth discussing as its not going to happen.
Better to focus on the possibility of charges on existing available evidence (like Kates mum is providing - albeit possibly unintentionally).
***************************************************************************
This sessions ‘List of shame’ (ad hominem and ‘low or no’ value posters - supporters of the parents not defenders of the child):-
1. Gandalf (spelling corrected, suspected AKA sledgehammer)
2. REPORTER
February 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
1397
dcb Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
1391
Rockhopper Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
They wouldn’t even be brought to court - it is the wider circle of family and friends that I mean.
==========
Sorry if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, do you mean if the twins blurted out information to the extended family? If so, I don’t know what the recipiant of the info would do, I’d like to think that they’d do the right thing and pass the info on to the relevent authority but who knows.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I wonder when kate will feel shannons parents pain?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
–> gone. I have to read MikeSA’s post and answer it. And do some work, pay the bills, write some letters…. etc. I’ll be back!
ps Loved that movie with Jamie Lee Curtis and her stripping act.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
1404, I direct you to your previous trashings.
I picked this mode up from Will, excellent tactic.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
1403
Totje
Yes of course it is! Thats why I am ignoring them (easy in terms of debate, they never actually involve themselves in a debate) but highlighting their methods.
To attract such a response from supporters of the McCanns is higly indicative of the fear they have of posters like myself.
For sledgehammer to have slipped back in using a new identification (I suspect, ‘balance of probabilities’ and all that!) rather than being honest and admitting who he is illustrates the category of person who support the McCanns.
***************************************************************************
This sessions ‘List of shame’ (ad hominem and ‘low or no’ value posters - supporters of the parents not defenders of the child):-
1. Gandalf (spelling corrected, suspected AKA sledgehammer)
2. REPORTER
February 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
A conspiracy of silence between adults can be SAFE.
Telling children something wrong is UNSAFE.
Drugging children in the hope that they forget is UNSAFE.
Hoping that children will not be believed because they are young is UNSAFE.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
1404
Ian
I think they’ve been visited by some child care experts when they returned to Rothley?
Don’t they have a nanny at Rothley? She’s an adult, she should know.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
1395 Totje
Actually it would be very informative to haver a professional child care expert given access to the McCanns children, questions about mummy being cross and ‘bed time medicine’ may well provide some valuable clues!
However, I’d not feel comfortable with that and I doubt it will ever happen, so not really any nore valuable to discuss than trying to hold a debate with sle…I mean Gandalf (spelling corrected) or REPORTER!
***************************************************************************
This sessions ‘List of shame’ (ad hominem and ‘low or no’ value posters - supporters of the parents not defenders of the child):-
1. Gandalf (spelling corrected, suspected AKA sledgehammer)
2. REPORTER
February 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
1398
Ian
Don’t you think it’s getting a bit childish?
February 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
1398, I direct you to your previous trashings, this is soooooooooo easy.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
1393
dcb,
I don’t believe anything happened before May 3rd. I can’t be sure of course, but I just don’t believe it. If anything happened before that date, that would have been suspicious [at the least] and if the pj knew that and/or could prove it, they would have been arrested, months ago! imo.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
When I say one doll for each member of the family, I mean each doll representing members of the family.
I did it to know if a little girl liked her nanny. We played Mum and Dad, the doll was our child, and we had to go to work. I suggested Nanny X could take care of our chiild, and I immediately knew what the real feelings were. Which I would never have known by questioning directly. The child herself was unaware of her own feelings. They try so much to please their parents.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Who mentioned the priest.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Oh dear! Poor old REPORTER joins sledgehammer (oops, Gandalf - spelling corrected) on todays list of shame immediately!
List of shame (ad hominem and ‘low or no’ value posters):
1. Gandalf (spelling corrected, suspected AKA sledgehammer)
2. REPORTER
February 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
1391
Rockhopper Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
They wouldn’t even be brought to court - it is the wider circle of family and friends that I mean.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
1392
Marie Nicholas,
yes, she was laughing, while I felt embarrassed.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
1391
Rockhopper
“Barrister versus 10yr old…… it’s a non starter.”
May be it doesn’t seem right, but it happens. And these barristers have to be very careful.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
1391
Rockhopper Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++
It is family that were not involved that I am talking about - or is absolutely everyone in on the act?
February 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
1390
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Which, if something had happened before the night of the 3rd, I find very strange.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
1387 Totje
I bet this lady in the wheelchair actually loved it !
February 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
1388
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
1381
Rockhopper “And how can what they say be used?”
Doesn’t that depend on their age? But for sure it can be used as a clue for the investigation. imo
===========
But unfortunately that’s all, a pointer for ongoing investigation. It’s impossible to take it into court without giving the defence the opportunity to challenge it.
Barrister versus 10yr old…… it’s a non starter.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Or like dcb says in case some relatives [granny, aunt, uncle] talked to them they would have done the parrot act. As far as we know, the family still supports them though.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
1384 dcb
I don’t think chatting would be very useful.
Play with them, for instance with dolls, one for each member of the family, and see what happens to the dolls. When playing, it would be important not to influence the game. (Imitate the children, let them take the initiative).
But what would come out would be the children’s feelings about the loss of their sister, and the way they understand her disappearance, not the way things happened. IMO.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
1381
Rockhopper “And how can what they say be used?”
Doesn’t that depend on their age? But for sure it can be used as a clue for the investigation. imo
February 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
1379
dcb
Sure!
First experienced it when I went with our neighbours son to a shop [3yrs]. Earlier that day his parents took him for a walk, he wanted to sit in the buggy, like his little brother. His parents told him he shouldn’t be lazy, be a big boy and walk.
When we were in the shop a handicapped [disabled?] lady in a wheelchair said hello to him. The little &^%$ said to her : “are you to lazy to walk too?”
February 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
1383
Marie Nicholas Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Their drawings and their games might give an idea of what they gathered, and how they feel about “the disaster”. Not what happened really.
=================
But these would have to be interpreted by ‘experts’ in psycho-babble.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
1383
Marie Nicholas
Yes to observe the twins with a doctors play kit would be very eye opening!!!!
My mum said that when I was 3 I was pretending to use tweezers in the garden.
She was mortified that instead of doing my brows, I was doing my chin!!
February 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I am not talking about questioning the twins - I am talking about conversation/chat - say with granny, uncle, auntie - children remember
February 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Their drawings and their games might give an idea of what they gathered, and how they feel about “the disaster”. Not what happened really.