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
- June on Global Warming: Every Time You Breathe A Bangladeshi Dies
- June on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Bat E Bird on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Anorak on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Chris on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
February 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
1923
Ian Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
1912
AyeRight
This above all else triggers suspicion. Why the 100% (103% ) certainty?
Why leave the vicinity of the apartment and go back to the Tapas bar?
Why not call next door and speak to Tanner?
Why not initially assume that Madeleine was WITH Tanner?
As so many others were checking the McCann children, surely the initial response would be ’she must be with them’?
If you lose soemthing, dont you assume the least painful option first and work your way up to the worst?
——————
I totally disagree with you.
If finding the window and shutters open with her daughter missing you are immediately going to think the worst. And we still dont know if she went back to the tapas bar as the waiter claimed she shouted from the balcony, which, in all honesty, seems more likely.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
1911
Gandolf
Remember I’m dutch. What’s a mouser????
February 20th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
1923 Ian
That is a very good point. Why, indeed, did Kate not go to Tanner first? She must have known that Jane left the table after O’Brien reported back and asked her to go back to the apartment to look after their sick daughter. The empty bed and cuddlecat toy placed up high (if it was) could have been from Jane coming to comfort and awoken Madeleine and bringing her back to her apartment where she was caring for her own child. For all Kate knew, the open window and shutter could have been Jane’s doing–to air out the room, remove a smell–how would Kate be sure, it was an abductor that had been there at that point , without checking with Jane next door, when she ran out of the apartment crying “They’ve taken her! They’ve taken her!”
February 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Thanks Jolie for posting that link.
A pity, the sighting raised my hopes the girl is still alive.
Back to thinking she’s most probably dead.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
1920
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
“[....] I’m a GIRL!
[...]
*****
I’m too …
However…
trying to catch up with posts …
….
I’m gone.
Good night to “all”.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
1908
Ian
Thank you for putting me on the list.
But you forgot to mention my dearest friend an hero : Garth
Back to the old bullying tactics?
kssssst
February 20th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
1919
Gandolf
Party’s at my house tonight. I thought we’d won. I’m typing to the tune of Athenrye.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
1915
Jolie
Easy to make cash out a tragedy as long as you have a strong marketing inclination and precipitation.
Easy.
Just have to foresee the benefits with a team of ultra fast thinkers/designers/”conceptualist” of “a” product.
The rest is cash to lash and keep the ball rolling
February 20th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
1908 Ian
Excellent post summarizing the child neglect aspect of the case in clear, convincing terms, without being overly emotional.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
1912
AyeRight
This above all else triggers suspicion. Why the 100% (103%
) certainty?
Why leave the vicinity of the apartment and go back to the Tapas bar?
Why not call next door and speak to Tanner?
Why not initially assume that Madeleine was WITH Tanner?
As so many others were checking the McCann children, surely the initial response would be ’she must be with them’?
If you lose soemthing, dont you assume the least painful option first and work your way up to the worst?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
IAN 1908 Well said . I agree 100%
February 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
1912
AyeRight Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
—————-
I have said why I believe she claimed someone had taken her, but anyway, if it were you and you came back to the apartment and found her gone with the shutters up and window open then I hardly think it likely that Madeleine clambered out of the window herself and wandered off.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
1899
jo
I’m a GIRL!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uOXDoftTTCw
February 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
We got beat no we got gubbed, but we gonna party tonight.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmNx3_0oEE
February 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
1882
Gandolf
oh, Sledgy you’ve not changed. Told you sometimes you were nice to me.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
1908
Ian
Thank you Ian.
I wish all of them and many more would understand that if madeleine had been attended to at all times like the small child she was she would be with us now.
Whatever happened.Very clear.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
1906 Jolie
Are we surprised?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
1909 jo
I know. Although it would have been in poor taste, we could have made some money betting on the odds that it would be her.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
1904
I asked about the private prosecution case that was attempted. I had understood that it had been refused, but I was informed that it had been refused in England and that he is attempting to raise this PP in Portugal
Why do you ask?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
1901
Jolie
You may note that the name ‘Garth’ does not appear on the list of shame. This is no accident.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Garth
Still looking for your reasoning as to why any parent coming back to a house (where the 3 year old was left babysitting the 2 year olds) would instantly assume abduction.Rather than…..
1) She’s woken up and gone looking for us in nearby restaurants/bars
2) She’s woken up and gone looking for her holiday friends at their appartments
3) She’s woken up and wandered off to the pool or other fun place
Unless of course that parent had reason to know these were not possibilities because she wouldn’t wake up because she was sedated or she couldn’t have got out because the doors were locked.But we have the parents’ word that sedation and locked doors didn’t apply.
Sorry if you did actually answer this and I missed it
February 20th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Totje/1892, nice mouser.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xi_7iBskm94
February 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
1905
jo Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
————
I like Hawkwind
February 20th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
1906
Jolie
Nooo…ooh OMG!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
For the attention of:-
AmusedBystander.
The Real Stig
Sledgehammer (Gandalf - spelling corrected)
coolandcalm
Totje
..and anyone else who chooses to defend the parents of Madeleine McCann against criticism of their approach to child care or seeks to distract us from discussing the likely cause(s) of her disappearance.
A child of less than 4 years old was (allegedly) left unattended by those who owed her a duty of care.
This was not because some emergency or unavoidable distraction required their attendance elsewhere.
The officially recognised father and one of those responsible for her safety and welfare has been reported to have stated on 2nd May 2007 that he was glad that he could dine without his children being present. This is the only explanation of motive for leaving the children unattended in an insecure location.
We do not know if Madeleine McCann was abducted or not. We do not know if Madeleine McCann was alive on the day she was reported missing by the parents.
We do know that there are suspicions regarding the disappearance and that people close to the investigation have suspected or do suspect that the parents may have been involved - that a stranger abduction is not certain. The police have reviewed the case and continue to suspect the parents of some involvement - what form the suspected involvement may take we do not know.
The only certainty is that Madeleine is no longer in the care of her parents and the primary single root cause reason for this is that they failed in the duty of care they owed her. They left the door open, they left the apartment. Whatever happened - this is incontovertable.
At the very least they had provided both the opportunity and the knowledge of that opportunity…at the very least.
They are medical professionals, trained to identify signs of child neglect and aware of the legislation and the content of the legislation which pertains to child neglect. These are not naïve teenagers.
To allow them to be seen to escape reprimand and to allow them to continue to in their previous roles is, at the least, wrong.
If you are happy to allow this then I must question your morals and your judgment and, indeed, your motives.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I think it is fairly obvious that TB had his own agenda, but hey, he is hardly the Lone Ranger here.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Just to verify what was reported earlier, the little girl spotted in France is not Madeleine McCann, according to this AP news article:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8IURKRaEgI3P3hj53sMZ5EvQcqgD8UUA4P01
February 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
1902
Garth
About music swing on 1890 post.
Good fun!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
1883
SpongeBob,
didn’t you ask about the fund/or about he trial Tony Bennet attempted to start?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
1890
Gandolf
Am your man