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
February 21st, 2008 at 12:01 am
2019
Scarlett Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
“[...] There are people who think they can ignore or discard the cadaver dogs evidence but they never explain why.[...] the whole case STINKS.
****
1. Dogs don’t lie
2. It stinks
Good night Scarlett
February 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
2020
AyeRight Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Any other possibilities Garth ?
—————
Only the one I’ve already mentioned which seems the most obvious imo.
Anyway, to bed I must…….nite
February 20th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
2015
didnt that work, never mind 
Gandolf Says
*************
and you are a blithering buffoon at the very least sledgy….. why are you still hiding sledge ??? :wanker:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Garth.
The only explainations I can think of for those “They’ve taken her” words, if true, are
1.not true/misquoted (best place to establish that would be a court)
2. muddled words under pressure. (possible, but she’s usually articulate under camera pressure -and I don’t agree with her always being castigated for that)
3.made-up pre-arranged shout,which fails to take account of fact that nobody can know who “they” are or who “her” is because she hasn’t said yet
4.she knows who “they” are and assumes her audience does too. (I tend to dismiss this one as too dark)
Any other possibilities Garth ?
February 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Jo 1985
Grande Finale 1997
No I’m not incandescent, just suspicious. There are people who think they can ignore or discard the cadaver dogs evidence but they never explain why.
But it’s not just about the smell of death, the whole case STINKS.
Nite-nite:-)
February 20th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
2012
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
2009
Châtelaine
It took you long to realise it. My compliments…..
*****
Not that long.
Don’t flatter yourself.
We Dutch speaks many tongues
Some one too many …
Now
Good night
February 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
2011
SpongeBob Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
1966
Ian Says:
‘
But, on this point, I admit, I am torn. While I have never, and (hope) I would never leave my children alone, there is a part of me that wonders if, under the circumstances of a ’safe’ resort and a relaxing holiday, I could be persuaded by the ‘oh, they’ll be fine, we’ll check on them all the time’ (assumed by me attitude between the friends). That it not to say that it is right. And I think I would not. But I can see how it could be done.
—————-
Well said. And I th ink it was no more than that!
February 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
2011 SpongeBob
It may be that Kate was pressed into it by Gerry - clearly he is the one who told strangers what they were doing (not sure I understand why he was doing that, though I have a theory - deliberate ground laying!).
I’d say Kate would have thought it wasnt a good idea - Gerry would have been an instigateor I believe. We will see in time - she will not forgive if she was pressed into it.
Personally I know 103% that I would never ever have left my kids at that age like that. Even now we worry like hell about our kids and they are well beyond the age where its fine!
But why am I so sure? Self righteous? Maybe, but the actual reason is that if we wanted a holiday spent away from our kids and with pals, we would have asked our relatives to take care of them whilst we went alone. However, I loved the time with my kids when they were little, as I was usually at work and missed out on a lot og their growing up. Holidays were for family. The idea of being ‘glad to dine without them’ as Gerry is reported to have actually said to a strnager is abhorrent to me.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Totje, some people just aint got no class, you are a Queen Troll at the very least.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ErZl3ZM3Uto
February 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Scarlett. I am having a good try, troops are on their way to party on down to the rockin sound.
Soother said there is no DNA, no official source including the FSS, has contradicted that, so sniffer dogs probably most certainly a press invention, same as the sweater from the house in Exeter. He as you know said previous info was flawed and corrected it, no CCTV and no phone corroboration. So until some one proves it wrong I will stick with that in the meantime.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Police said they had taken Ms Firing’s claim seriously but had now discounted it, the Associated Press reported.
After viewing closed-circuit video footage, police investigators spotted a man and a young girl who indeed resembled the British girl, but determined it was not Maddie after a thorough inspection, an unnamed official said.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23250421-5005361,00.html
February 20th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
2009
Châtelaine
It took you long to realise it. My compliments…..
February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
1966
Ian Says:
‘Hence my preference for not pursuing the issues for which we do not have direct view of evidence - negligence and failure of duty of care (there is a legal charge there - but in civil law).’
- Yes, I agree there is an argument for that.
But, on this point, I admit, I am torn. While I have never, and (hope) I would never leave my children alone, there is a part of me that wonders if, under the circumstances of a ’safe’ resort and a relaxing holiday, I could be persuaded by the ‘oh, they’ll be fine, we’ll check on them all the time’ (assumed by me attitude between the friends). That it not to say that it is right. And I think I would not. But I can see how it could be done.
There is nothing I can say further to defend/argue this point. I can understand this deficiency, shortcoming, crime; call it what you will. There it is.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
2004
jo Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
2000
Garth
The smokescreen you mean?
I know …I know a bit easy that one
—————-
Jo
You should know better
February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
2005
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
2002
Châtelaine
Sleep well stupido
***
Aha
you speak more than one language
Congrats
February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
1992 Garth
All we have done here is uncovered another huge inconsistancy - a pleasant story of teasing and amusement from Gerry (how incongruous these little stories are - from people whose daughter is at the very least missing and being cared for and at worst…well, I’m not going there).
Seriously are we supposed to believe she didnt say ‘you go check them you lazy bastard’ - and how late were they planning to stay anyway!
Another example of others looking after the McCann children whilst they enjoyed their freedom!
I dont buy this. Their making it up to defend not checking at all, why?
Two possibilities in my opinion - (1) the child was already dead that night or (2) they left a much bigger window of opportunity than they claim.
I tend to favour (1) but would pursue (2) as without access to more proof, I’d be happier that a conviction would stick.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
1998
Saul Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Milady.
****
Will study, dear Saul.
But not now.
Too late and have togo to bed.
Looking forward to “meeting you again tomorrow.
And bid you good night
February 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
2002
Chateleine
jajajajajaja….good news for Maman for le petit dejeuner demain!
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
2002
Châtelaine
Sleep well stupido
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
2000
Garth
The smokescreen you mean?
I know …I know a bit easy that one
February 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Ian
read my posst 1889. Interested in your views…………..
February 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
1995
Totje Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
1991
ignore
***
with pleasure, Flappie
February 20th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
2000
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
1994
Ian Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
1977 Garth
What!
The ice maiden! The woman who sleeps just days after her child was abducted! A GP!
Garth, please, even a pro-McCann can see how ludicrous that claim
—————-
Your judgements are made by what you see on camera. What went on behind the scenes neither you nor I know.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
1992
Gandalf
Nobody can say they heard her scream :MAAAAAAAAAAAAAADELEINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Milady.
http://memetix.blogspot.com/2006/06/netvocates.html
February 20th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
1982
Scarlett Says:
February 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
*******************
CONVENIENTLY SKATES AROUND THE CADAVER DOGS
—————————-
Amazing isn’t it the farmer from somewhere (south UK) who’s wife was missing has just been taken into custody on the indications of these dogs!!
February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
……..and ayeright
It doesnt take einstein to work out why she may have said the things she did. Well thought out on my part? Hardly………..
February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
1991
ignore
February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
1977 Garth
What!
The ice maiden! The woman who sleeps just days after her child was abducted! A GP!
Garth, please, even a pro-McCann can see how ludicrous that claim is.