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
- Trismegistus on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- 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
February 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
1896
clouseau Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Garth
somebody who has a good taste in music…why are you so deluded with the Mccanns…honestly are you on the payroll …anybody has there price…..oh and by the way I saw you offer a job to another poster wheres mine arsehole
—————-
Deluded with the McCanns.
Whats your excuse? Are you on the wine you muppet? And anyway, I offered you a job (complete with company van) which would probably be more apt for your description of arsehole.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
1889 Garth
I do like it when you take your time to spell things out, instead of just giving people the razz.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
2000?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Totje
Are you a he or a she?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Dont believe the tabloids??????well how do we know anything then?hell how do we know maddie even existed,or she was abducted if we are not to believe the papers etc???? come on you cant have it both ways…..
But what we are told is FACT………..selfish b8stard parents left kids alone and went on a piss up…….FACT thats how maddie ended up where she is now, ????God Bless Her………..
February 20th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Gath
i was not refering to the showaddywaddy clip
February 20th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
1893
jajajajajaja
Saul
Youre a romantic then?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Garth
somebody who has a good taste in music…why are you so deluded with the Mccanns…honestly are you on the payroll …anybody has there price…..oh and by the way I saw you offer a job to another poster wheres mine arsehole
February 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
1867
pppy
Oh dear, and I thought I’ve had my share of troubles with Orange already a couple of months ago.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
1883 SpongeBob
You did bring up a good point about TB’s use of statistics on abductions, which I think he was partly pulling out of his hat and not being scrupulously careful about.
Even though I am highly suspicious of the McCanns, there is enough reasonable doubt within me that knows it is possible that their child was abducted without their knowledge. Everything I’ve read and watched about the case leads me to believe it is very unlikely, but I know that they could be innocent. If the UK government would have stayed out of this case and allowed the PJ to proceed without impediment and let the press be free to investigate and report what it wanted about the McCanns and their friends (which certainly doesn’t seem to be the case, as UK coverage has been noticeably slanted in favor of the McCanns), I would be less suspicious of the McCanns. There is too much manipulation of the public in this case for there not to be something stinking at the center of it, imo.
Thanks for your well-written, thoughtful post.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YT56YizyR2o
It is less than 2 minutes, watch it all
February 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Gandy/Saul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BApaVMqAVtc
February 20th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
1885
clouseau Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
———-
Tanner!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
jo, Rocker to the tips of my Elvis sideburns, lets trip the the light fandango, rockchic.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0tDgzBd2hD4
February 20th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
1455
Ian Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
1445 Garth
Good points as ever Garth, thanks.
My response…
1. One of the arguments made that they didnt do anything on 3rd of May is that they didnt have time to sort it out. If this argument is valid, then an event prior to that removes the problem. I dont think all were involved, I suspect 4 of them and I think they did think it through and plan it for 3rd May.
————————-
My reply
1467
Garth Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ian
Regarding point 1
If (as you say) by waiting till the night of the 3rd it thus enabled them to plan the events leading up to a false abduction then why claim that Madeleine was at the creche on that day? Knowing full well that the likelyhood of anyone giving them an alibi to be zero? They could quite easily have gone away for the day instead of parading around the pool side etc. And do you think (with all this planning needed) that Gerry would have time, let alone the arrogance, to play tennis?
—————
And your answer?
But just to add…….if you’re saying that the possible reason they waited until 3rd to claim abduction was because it gave them more time to plan it, then I assume you believe that there is no way it could possibly of happened on May 3rd due to that very reason ie lack of time. But I see your point. To concoct such a story in such a short space of time (and to fool everyone for 9 months) that scenario is very unlikely.
However, if this theory you gave is wrong then are we to assume that infact abduction is more likely?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Gerry and Kates wedding song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMsGvYzedjA
February 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
1882
Gandolf
Are you a good dancer? Do you dance rock n” roll?
I mean like really really?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
again on the subject of inaccuracies….. I find it odd that anti-McCann ‘blogs’ are copied here verbatum and inferred as being facts.
Blogs are just one persons thoughts and ideas…. tthere are several biased anti-McCann blogs and there is also a very pro-McCann blog out there that makes me smile sometimes! But none of them are factual… they are the words of the blogger and facts are twisted to suit the leaning of the blog. Either way.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Garth
ok i have one question for you please take your time to answer if you want……please provide i piece od evidence to support the abduction…..i must have aske you 20 times to do this and i am still waitng……..( not star witness Tanner please)
February 20th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
1876
Gandolf
British portuguese,the law….why bother?
(I had a wonderful meal.I am 103% sure you would love it.Hom made and all.
Om shanti)
February 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
1738
Jolie
I agree with you. I did start replying to the 20 points, but ultimately, the majority of them are based at best on (arguable) points from the media.
For me to reply, with most of my replies being ‘based on what - sources please.. (not just the same regurgitated story from the redtops please!)’ seemed just tedious and interesting to noone. So I decided to have a cocoa and read my book instead.
As far as I got in my draft reply, it seems that stranger abduction is more common than the 1% (i.e. 99% were not) that he quoted, based on the limited research I did…. 10% in Canada (over a 10 year period) were ’stranger abductions’, for example. Additionally, on the same searches (a basic initial search) there seems to be a large amount of ‘unknowns’, related to abduction, which could take the figure far higher. Even if we accecpt Mr Bennet’s stats, it does still leave 1%, which still leaves the possibility, however unlikely it might seem. It is certainly not ‘implausible’.
As to the rest of it, certainly there are some arguable points, but most are based on little but speculation, even if you take the media as a source, as often, as can be seen on this boards, there are ambiguious reports. The arguments go back and forth, and there is no conclusion.
The ‘truth’ of this matter is that noone really knows. People will believe in their opinion certainly, and take certain reports to support their position. I’m of course not exempt from that either. I think it is fairly evident that I come down on the side of either abduction, or possibly, that she wandered off. That is not to say that I could be wrong.
As far as the McCann’s ‘errors’ are concerned, I am willing to believe many of them as good intentions given exceptional circumstances. In retrospect, and certainly having read this board, it may be the case that some of the decisions were ill advised. Having said that, I have never met anyone who believed the McCanns guilty of sinister action against their child.. occasionally I have heard the view of ‘ I can’t believe they left those children’, but certainly not anything like some of the views I have read on this board. Reading Anorak has been, illuminating.. Perhaps I’m naive..
The ‘evidence’ re the dogs, DNA etc is at this point, irrelevant. Who knows what evidence there is. But I do know this: if it meant something, they would have been charged.
If I had anything to question at all re. their judgement, I would question the appointment of the Pinochet lawyer, given that Gerry was said to be an active Labour supporter. An activist of his generation would have known well about the abuses in Chile. But then, desparate times etc etc, and if I were in his position, terrified of being ‘framed’ then I might well be at pains to employ Beelzebub himself. I think that is their biggest PR disaster…. But, hey…my children are safe in their beds, so I can’t say what I would do….
I know you have a different view from me, but given neither of us know, I agree that these 20 points are highly contentious, particulary as the author is a laywer.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Ciara-Louise, lets rock into the closet, sugar.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7OnlCfNBLqI&feature=related
February 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
1879 Garth
Well, I’m not surprised that you would be in favor of me questioning Tony B’s list of 21 reasons.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
1825
Gandolf
Sledgy, come out of the closet.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
1852
Jolie Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
——————-
People have to be careful not to be manipulated by people, particularly those who claim to represent causes that you believe in. Insist on honesty and transparency.
————-
You made the right decision. Good for you.
Ian
Tuber came across as most definately anti McCann imo.
Anyway, would you like to answer to put an answer to my last post?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
the press would make mincemeat out of these people…sadly there is a d notice…but me thinks somebody soon is going to make a name for themseleves
February 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Night everyone.
Sleepless 5 year old beckons.
:yawn:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
One of the greatest if not the greatest tenets of British law, is that the prosecution proof guilt, easy innit, next. Recently and frequently trashed windbags need not reply.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
1857 Marie Nicholas
Thank you very much. I don’t want to be proven ‘right’ about my suspicions that the McCanns being guilty of more than being piss-poor parents at the expense of the truth (on most days–some times, I can have evil thoughts, too, though
) I know the great majority of McCann skeptics feel the same way, too.
We just want to know the truth and we would prefer it can be proven and made public for all to know and that those guilty of whatever happened to Madeleine pay the legal price for it.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
1859
Scarlett
Are your “sources reliable”?