Madeleine McCann: Anjos Calls Mitchell A Liar And Madeleine One Year On: Campaign For Change
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Cop: McCanns’ spokesman ‘lies’”
Carlos Anjos, president of Portugal’s Police Federation, says of Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman: “He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth.”
The accused the former BBC man of leaking police statements Kate and Gerry made within hours of Maddie disappearing last May. These were aired on Spanish TV last week. Anjos said the aim was to give the McCanns an excuse not to attend a reconstruction.
Says Mr Mitchell: “It is categorically untrue that I leaked them. There was absolutely no benefit for us to do that.”
THE TIMES: Andrew Billen on TV:
“It was going to be called Madeleine McCann, but now ITV1’s exclusive, has a longer name: Madeleine, One Year On: Campaign for Change. The programme will follow her parents as they campaign for an American-style Amber Alert system, in which law enforcement agencies are empowered to commandeer airtime when a child goes missing. Ah, lack of television coverage. That must have been the problem.”
Indeed.
Madeleine McCann: A show with punch
Posted: 16th, April 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,584) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
April 16th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
901
Cheryl Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
652
chenier Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
624
____________
You have a point there…
———————–
Indeed I do; one which you are unable to answer, so you have ignored it. So, for the benefit of those who didn’t see it earlier, I will repeat it.
Clarence Mitchell has called for the FBI to investigate alleged leaks from the PJ.
You claim that the FBI should do so.
I cited the case where the British police made a formal protest about the FBI leaking information about an ongoing investigation here in Britain.
I pointed out that this makes it clear that the FBI are the last people to be trusted to investigate leaks alleged to come from an ongoing investigation.
And yet you still claim that the FBI could be trusted.
Please explain why…
April 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
920 sc46
Probably loads of them will come out of the woodwork! Pardon the pun!
April 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
915 julie
Theres no such thing as the perfect crime, and i agree not all of them are involved. thats why i cant get my head around the fact that gerry denied seeing tanner, if she was with them on it, doesnt make sense does it?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I wonder if there will be a story in 20 years of somebody claiming to be Maddie…
April 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
best get my spoons..
April 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
915 - agreed
April 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
#
910
Nostradamus Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
….all I want is to see Madeleine return home safe and well.
———————————–
Nostradamus, what do you honestly believe the chance of that is?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
914 sc46
April 16th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I don’t believe that there are more than a handful of people who were involved in the “untoward” in Madeleine’s disappearance - I honestly don’t believe that the entire Tapas group knows what happened to Madeleine. If each and every one of them knew, the chances were even greater that one of them would have had a “consience-slap” by now, and revealed something they shouldn’t. Those that were involved were extremely clever in covering their tracks IMO, but I still don’t believe they were clever enough, and will be caught out eventually.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
will the dish have gone cold by then? Shall I keep it warm?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
And another thing, i don’t believe for one minute the apartment was left unlocked, imo they just made that up because the broken window excuse was foiled
April 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Dee
Because we don’t know, we make up bizarre stories, like a sacrifice. The truth must be much much simpler than that, with nothing mysterious about it.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
909 sc46
Due at 6.30 now
April 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
matt
866
There are two camps , anti and pro-McCann and no matter what anyone says we will never agree, I realise that I have entered your domain , and expect to be attacked,so let me just say that whether pro or anti , all I want is to see Madeleine return home safe and well.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
wtf - do I have to make that dash now?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Dee 881
I read it, but I think it is in the book about the case, by the ex-cop, who doesn’t say what is fact and what is fiction in his book.
It made me instantly think of Q. oedema, an allergy, which can cause asphyxy, and could have brought the necessity of a tracheotomy. Which tracheotomy might have been performed by one of the other docotrs, and turned into a disaster. The other doctors being involved, would then have had some reason for helping with the cover up.
But the PJ themselves never said spoke of a tracheotomy. They spoke of an accident, either indoors or outsoors. Besides, it doesn’t explain the spinal fluid that was mentionned at a time.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
905 dee
Ooh thats made me go all goosepimply!!! Seeriously though, that would not surprise me in the least with those two, they have the cold look of criminals, could be part of a sect. Thats why they show no remorse and believe what they are doing is right. Poor maddie
April 16th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Matt
For sure though I have yet to convince myself that all their friends are involved in anything untoward. Well anything other than getting their facts wrong
April 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
WTF, funny you should say that, but a while ago a mad theory was spoken of, about an old ceremony that was written about, something about a child being sacrificed, but the whole world would know it’s name for a year before the act was commited!?!!
April 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Dee - I think the “pros” have been mixed on their thoughts of child neglect. Some seem to accept they were neglectful and others not.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
893…SC46
Parents “caught” in an “accidental” situation could indeed panic in that
manner….but there were 7 other people, all educated and professional people,
around who would not be so emotionally involved….and surely one or two
would have given sensible counsel re the situation ?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
652
chenier Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
____________
http://www.out-law.com/page-2824
April 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
652
chenier Says:
April 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
624
____________
You have a point there but I was thinking of other aspects where our countries have worked together. And I won’t get into the he did/she did aspect of terrorism considering you all harboured one of the masterminds of the 9/11 attack against us for years prior to us being attacked.
Let’s see do to the fact I can only paste one link I’ll do this one first for you as to what is being discussed between our countries. I presume Anorak would not appreciate me taking up bandwith to post numerous links to cases we’ve worked on together or your Police attending our FBI schools to help them over there with crimes.
And then another quick posting link which might of interest of the 7,257 paedophiles the FBI notified your country you had in operation in 2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/15/nfbi115.xml
April 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
896 dee
things are slowly unravelling for them too. Maybe they had to sign something, everything seems to be for a year doesnt it, gerry stating last year that he wanted to organise a large concert for the anniversary, clarrie taking a years contract to be their spokesman, not very optimistic of them is it?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Dee
885
suggest you read post 845
April 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Funny though isn’t it Julie, that up until recently the pro’s weren’t even saying there was neglect to answer for, it’s only because of what has come out that they have changed what they are saying
April 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Hi Julie.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Wtf, i’m sure a lot of people who have ‘pulled strings’ for them are starting to wish they weren’t in this position or associated with them anymore (imo), i mean they must do???
April 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
846 Ian
I agree with you that it should be clear for everyone that neglecting their children is wrong, and forbidden by the law. Until it has been clearly stated that what they did was wrong (not a mistake, wrong and unlawful), some of us will go on thinking it is OK. They will say, like that stupid journalist, that only paranoid people worry enough about their small children’s safety as not to leave them alone at night with the doors unlocked.
Of course they are sorry for it, but the question is, if nothing had happened, would they be sorry to act against the law, or proud not to be one of those paranoid parents?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
887 julie
Welcome back, clean shiny you