Find Madeleine McCann On Facebook
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SAY the McCanns: “We strongly support and encourage this new initiative to use Facebook to increase awareness of missing children.”
Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, you will know that children go missing.
Although not if you’re watching the TV news of reading the newspapers because Madeleine McCann is no longer in the mass media.
But the campaign has not been in vain. She is on a press release.
And the better news is that no children have gone missing in the past few weeks. We look through the mainstream press every day. It’s a fact. But what of life on the internet?
The statement goes on: “Using the power of social media in this way will undoubtedly capture the attention - and hopefully the help - of a younger population who are a hugely valuable and resourceful group.
“We would urge the millions of Facebook users around the world to keep looking and to do what they can to help bring these children home.”
Missing People has set up a widget for Facebook users to download, which will mean information on current appeals will be displayed on their homepage.
Says missing People Chief Executive Paul Tuohy: “If every Facebook user downloaded our BT-powered application, millions of people internationally could see an appeal that could help us to reunite a family.”
Because BT cares…
Madeleine McCann: Fighting the PR war
Posted: 25th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Online-PR Comments (1,240) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
May 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
M and A
We should set up a fund to aid her in her quest… or bravely offer to assist her
——————————-
I’d vote for the latter; wouldn’t want anyone to mistake us for people cynically exploiting the loss of a corkscrew…
Ok, think the training teams can go along with this, but we do need some mug I mean sponsor to pay our way, bill’s very generous with his credit card abuse from all of us - he sleeps in an ashtray after all - DUNCAN?????????
May 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Hi everyone
I’ve been doing last minute cramming and tomorrow is No. 1 doomsday.
I expect Brandon is with the kids (it’s a bank holiday apparently).
M and A
You can tell by the weather
May 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Val 885
Essentially the secrecy rules apply to anything that is part of the investigation files (like witness statements etc.). The date for a proposed reconstruction is hardly something of significance to the inquiry.
What is true is that many people have been asked to attend the reconstruction. Therefore many people could have told the press when it is supposed to take place.
IMO there’s nothing particularly relevant in revealing this information. Except to say that it is now in the public domain that the T9 have been given at least 3 dates and at least in two occasions seem to have been unavaiilable to come - and we’re waiting for the 29th May to see if they come or not.
In this particular case, I think that revealing the dates can only work against the Ts that are refusing to come. If that is premeditated or not… I doubt it.
As I mentioned in my previous posts, the PJ or the prosecution think about criminal laws and investigation. They don’t think PR and spin. I believe that if they have asked for a reconstruction it’s not because they want to discredit the T9, but because they genuinely think that this reconstruction will help progress the investigation.
May 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Val,
I have just watched it and let me tell you my feelings random.
- I feel upset everythime I see a new video of them, perhaps because it puts me into the position of a voyeur, but if I have that feeling it must be because they are exhibiting themselves too, and talk about themselves, aboout their intimate feelings, as if it was normal for them to do so.
- I also feel filled with pity, for various reasons. Strangely, the fact that they have done something wrong stirs my pity.
- I feel split, completely, everytime I watch and I hear them. Part of me believes them, as they are emotional in a way, she sighs, they have tense faces, he is ill at ease. They seem like ordinary people who are willing to communicate, and who shouldn’t be suspected of lying. On the other hand, there is something in their behaviour which, to me, isn’t convincing at all. Their rhetoric isn’t straightforward. Their mimicks don’t match the meaning of what they say. I sway between a feeling that they are congenial, and a feeling that they are insensitive. A feeling that they are genuine and a feeling that they are manipulative. That they are caring parents, and that they aren’t. That they are meaning well, and that they couldn’t care less. Etc…
My conclusion being that the least I see them, the better it is for me. They are good looking, and it works while they are talking, but it is also a veneer, that covers up something which is not so limpid.
I wouldn’t have liked them for parents, as a child. They conveniently decided that something was safe for the children, that wasn’t. I say “conveniently” because it served their interest to think it was safe. And now they are appearing on TV screens, and I am wasting my time, wondering if they are telling the truth or not!
I don’t want to get too interested into them. In this case, I am interested by the child, and by the fate of some unfortunate children in general. It is the sort of case in which it is difficult to be both on the side of the child and on the side of the parents.
That is why I so badly want to know the truth. Suspecting them of not being good parents is tough. The question can’t be avoided, though. But it needs an answer.
I doubt my answer will be useful to you, Val!
M and A
Marie Nicholas, it is useful because no one wants to believe that parents can be so cavalier with their child’s welfare and well being, we want them to be innocent of all of our doubts, but as you say there is something they do that prevents us.
May 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
884 Whoops
I read the Door was left unlocked so it wouldn”t disturb the children by having the key turned in the lock.!!!!!
If the twins could sleep through all the commotion when Madeleine went missing, a key
turning in a lock isn”t going to wake them is it.
M and A
Hmmm agreed…..
May 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
883 Karen
Hi stranger…………how are you? Havn”t posted much myself the last few days, but a
lot of the regulars are missing, noseycow, ade etc, they will no doubt all come drifting
back when there is real news!!!!
May 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
883
Karen Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Where’s Brandon?
————————————–
Haven’t a clue.
On the other hand Smuddy is en route to Tuscany, in a commendable attempt to put a dent in the European wine lake; it’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it…
M and A
We should set up a fund to aid her in her quest… or bravely offer to assist her
May 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Saloman ES
Thanks, very informative, I cannot understand, if the secrecy rule still applies, why it
was common knowledge that a recon was planned and two dates revealed. If it was not
the PJ, I can only guess it is CM again, so why hasn”t he been warned? Also, he is
making statements on behalf of the Tapas 9 ie, the McCanns would like to attend but some of the Tapas 7 have certain reservations. He is not acting for them and I presume they would have their own Lawyers advising them.
You are right, If they don”t go it will be seen as a betrayal of their friendship with the McCanns that they do not want to help all they can, and also of course to maybe
finding out what happened to Madeleine. Kate is adamant that Madeleine was
abducted.
Maybe,the PJ are being very clever, knowing that the recon would not take place,
the Tapas 9 now look even more suspicious!!!!!!!
May 26th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I thought the Mccanns had admitted they had left patio and front door unlocked in case of fire-Don’t forget they’d left their valuables inside-mobile phones, watches…..
May 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Where’s Brandon?
M and A
Karen, long w/e, busy with off spring?
May 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Val 878
Sorry didn’t see your previous question about obligation to attend a reconstruction.
Let me try to clarify:
When the McCanns were made arguidos (before leaving Portugal) they were told what that status entails. It actually entails many rights, but also obligations. Amid the obligations they have to comply with Termo de Identidade e Residencia (ie report to local police there whereabouts) and also cooperate with the investigators if they are asked to. This includes requests to attend new hearings, concede further statements or subject to statements. Naturally it also includes other motions such as a reconstruction (provided that their rights as arguidos - presence of a lawyer, right to remain silent etc.) is observed.
Technically if the authorities have written to the legal representative of the McCanns (that was appointed before they left portugal) and request that the arguidos attend a certain motion, they are obliged to come to Portugal (unless they give a valid justification not to come that day and propose another day). I don’t know if they have been formally notified that their presence was required or not… but if they have been notified and they don’t turn up without a valid justification they would be breaching the obligations to which they are subject as arguidos.
The witnesses are not under any legal obligation to take part in the reconstruction. There are however moral reasons to cooperate with the authorities of any country if you could help clarify what happened. The denial to cooperate is examined on its merits if and when any charges could be brought against the individuals in question.
does this help?
M and A
yes it does, thankyou , clarifies a lot of points
May 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
878
val Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Chenier
Can you imagine the money they made doing all these T.V. interviews???? I had to smile at the remark in the CNN interview when, I think it was Gerry, said that everyone
would want the first Anniversary to be remembered. Joe Public has no interest at all, it”s only us, the unseen , unheard posters who are still interested!!!!!!!
I di ask Saloman ES, but he obviously didn”t see the post, is it the witnesses who have to go to a recon, but the arguidos don”t or vice versa. I don”t know how important this is to the PJ but feel they made a mistake in making the dates public. It could have
been done without any Press or Public knowing, but this will give ammunition to the
Tapas 9……….media circus etc.
———————————–
I’m not even sure that the PJ did make it public; I can’t find any official announcement, just the usual suspects.
It was Carmen who noted that the extension of judicial secrecy appeared to stem from the fact that the magistrate thinks a reconstruction is needed before any decision could be made to open the files and conclude the arguidoships.
Of course, the McCanns don’t want the files opened; they just want their lawyers to be able to get at them, which is a very different kettle of sardines.
And I must go before I incinerate lunch two days running…
May 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
492 Garth
EDIT
“We do know that the patio doors were unlocked. This may well have been apparent to the abductor/s had they observed the apartment from the ones opposite. ”
Garth, I don’t normally reply to your posts, but this is a very simple factual error.
There are no apartments ‘opposite’ the patio doors. That is in fact the whole basis for the McCs defence that they were not negligent. They said they could see the patio doors from the Tapas bar, although in fact it has been repeatedly shown that they couldn’t.
There are eventually apartments ‘opposite’ the front door and Madeleine’s bedroom window, but they are across the car park and some bushes and a wall and a road and a pavement and another wall and a garden.
If you are trying to support the McCs you should not start chopping into their only line of defence.
May 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/26/europe/EU-GEN-EU-Missing-Children.php
Sorry if this has been posted already
It is time they DO NOT appear at the end of every single article related to children
Action time
Meanwhile and very discreetly the Cortes have an interview with Zapatero.
The agenda is wide and related to childcare
One millions signatures is needed to be able to bring the project of an international register of paedo gangs and all
They did not need to set up a pathetic show to be where they are now and making a favour to society on their very child”s account,did they?
M and A
Jo, do you know if the McC’s used the number in that article in any of their useful list of phone numbers?
May 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Chenier
Can you imagine the money they made doing all these T.V. interviews???? I had to smile at the remark in the CNN interview when, I think it was Gerry, said that everyone
would want the first Anniversary to be remembered. Joe Public has no interest at all, it”s only us, the unseen , unheard posters who are still interested!!!!!!!
I di ask Saloman ES, but he obviously didn”t see the post, is it the witnesses who have to go to a recon, but the arguidos don”t or vice versa. I don”t know how important this is to the PJ but feel they made a mistake in making the dates public. It could have
been done without any Press or Public knowing, but this will give ammunition to the
Tapas 9……….media circus etc.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
875
Salomon ES Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
865 Chenier
I’m sure Portugal has a lot to learn from the UK and vice-versa.
However, I should at this stage point out two things:
-We don’t know if the obstacle in progressing with this case is really on not knowing who did it. If that is the case we’ll know soon and then we could entertain the legislative measures that could help improving the situation. I have not heard of a case in Portugal where both parents got away with murder because the police didn’t know which of them perpetrated a criminal act. So… maybe it’s premature to be suggesting that is what is happening in this case.
- Introducing the legislative changes that you suggest would not be retroactive and therefore would be inconsequent to bring the McCanns or the T7 to justice.
————————————–
I wasn’t suggesting that anyone in Portugual has got away with murder, but they did do here.
In this country the introduction of the ‘causing or allowing’ offence was precisely because in a number of cases it proved impossible to identify the culprit within a household, though there was indisputable evidence that someone within the household was responsible for the death of the child or vulnerable adult.
And my suggestion that Portugual copy this, together with the provisions in 98(1) of the Children Act 1989, was somewhat tongue in cheek; my point is that Team McCanns’ claims about the alleged harshness of Portuguese law is either simple ignorance of the relevant provisions here, or disingenuous if it does know that our law may be a great deal harsher on people like the McCanns…
May 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
872
val Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
……I really think they have lost the plot now and see themselves as Celebrities, which their PR team has made them.!
—————————————-
There is an irony in that the story that the McCanns displaced in our media also featured a rags to private jet and back again story line…
May 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
865 Chenier
I’m sure Portugal has a lot to learn from the UK and vice-versa.
However, I should at this stage point out two things:
-We don’t know if the obstacle in progressing with this case is really on not knowing who did it. If that is the case we’ll know soon and then we could entertain the legislative measures that could help improving the situation. I have not heard of a case in Portugal where both parents got away with murder because the police didn’t know which of them perpetrated a criminal act. So… maybe it’s premature to be suggesting that is what is happening in this case.
- Introducing the legislative changes that you suggest would not be retroactive and therefore would be inconsequent to bring the McCanns or the T7 to justice.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
857 Maria
It’s a judge… (not the same magistrate that oversees the investigation) that will be in court if the case goes to trial.
I always learnt at school that judiciary, legislative and executive powers should be separate. This I thought was paramount for democracy and the rule of law.
I personally am very happy with the Portuguese system in which judiciary and government don’t mix. In so far as the role of the PJ is not policing but criminal investigation and prosecution, it appears to me that there is a lot of logic in preserving the PJ status separate from the Minister of Interior.(unlike other forces who’s role is to police the streets - and not necessarily criminal investigation).
This for example gives me reassurances that the PJ is able (if they so want) to investigate any member of Government. Perhaps this independence would be hindered if the PJ was reporting into the government.
In the UK we’ve seen better than elsewhere in the western world how mixing government with justice is not always in the interests of finding the truth. But I’m glad you’re happy with the workings of the judiciary in Britain
May 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
869 Marie Nicholas
I just posted a video to Matt, but he”s gone, you have a look and tell me what you think.
To me, for their British T.V. interviews they put on a different face, almost defiant,
but here they are much more forthcoming. Mind you, don”t know what Kate is so busy with, she doesn”t work at all now., and the twins are in full time nursery I believe.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
868 Matt
Ho…..you are funny!!!!! http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
this is a CNN video made the same day, watch Gerry fiddling with his ear and nose!
Kate seems a lot more relaxed than when she is on British T.V. and Gerry is more than
happy to let her do most of the talking, Still evading the main issue though if you
notice, ie., do you feel any guilt over your neglect. I really think they have lost the plot now and see themselves as Celebrities, which their PR team has made them.!
May 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Why they don’t want that re-construction is strange, though. To the little victim of the case, there is a duty of truth. Society owes it to her.
————————————————-
Particularly since, in this case, it seems that her parents aren’t interested in establishing the truth.
After all, how can they claim to leave no stone unturned when they won’t even honour their word and return to Portugual?
May 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
869…Marie Nicholas
No reasonable excuse for them not to fully co-operate…if innocent.
And with that….Time for some Sunshine.
Good sleuthing !!!!
May 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Matt
I agree. One would expect the parents to do all they can to help establish the truth.
I don’t think they should fear the Portuguese police and justice the way they do. The best people have been put on the case, the Mcs have the best lawyers, they are supported by powerful, influential people. They have all the trump cards on their side, supposing they were engaged in a fight with the Portuguese authorities. I can’t see them wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. So, why fear?
May 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
867…val
Hokay !!
May 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
856 Matt
To explain fully, Iv”e been racking my brain (don”t laugh!!!!) to come up with a story,
but there are 4 parties involved. Later on, when I”m not posting, I”ll try to imagine
something, and catch you next time we are posting at the same time.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
864…Marie Nicholas
“” To the little victim of the case, there is a duty of truth. Society owes it to her.”"
I think the Parent’s and their Friends owe it to her …first and foremost.
And they should all get over to PDL pronto….no moaning…no excuses..no
nonsense.
Just do it….and show genuine “support” and concern for Madeleine for once.
m and A
I think THAT is the saddest part, those who are closest to Madeleine just seem so indifferent to her fate
May 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
857
Maria Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Salomon
“There is therefore a close proximity and synergy in the work of the PJ and the judiciary.”
—————————————-
Precisely. Some people might think there should be separation.
It is even the judge who decides what evidence will be allowed in the file used in a trial. (And yes, I know there are checks and balances.)
The jolly old UK does have certain advantages, IMHO!!!
———————————————-
You are quite right.
In this country two individuals cannot play the get out of jail free card of alleging that it was the other one wot done it; we have the offence of ‘Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult’ in which the Prosecution doesn’t have to prove which person caused or which person allowed the death of a child or or vulnerable adult.
Equally, under section 98(1) of the Children Act 1989 a person may be compelled to give evidence even when that evidence might incriminate him.
I really do think Portugual should learn from the example of the jolly old UK, and introduce both sets of legislation!
May 26th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Maria 836
I asked myself also why the “tapas friends” would help with a cover up, in case there was one, which seems to be one of the options of the PJ, and though bizarre, no more than the abduction theory.
It seems established that the group of doctors were not very worried about childcare during the holidays, and supposing it was admitted in England to leave such young children on their own at night (which I doubt, knowing plenty of people in England who wouldn’t), it didn’t worry them too eithr much to trespass the Portuguese law, which they were told about on their arrival in the MW resort, allegedly. So, we have a group of people who, apart from having very unusual views avbout the safety and feelings of their children, don’t care much about the law of the country they are visiting, a behaviour which you don’t expect from most doctors. They also alledgedly seem to enjoy a bit of alcohol, to a degree which, to me, sounds more than a light consumption, if I am to believe the rumors. What they are said to have drunk would be enough to forbid you to drive a car, as it certainly would impair your judgement and reflexes. Sorry to insist, but it could be part of the problem, according to me, even if they were used to it.
Suppose that, while the child was left alone, and for whatever reason, she harmed herself, the way a child can ; all hospital emergencies see injured children day and night : suffocation, bad fall, poisening (a friend’s child one day swallowed a whole packet of medecine), allergic reaction, etc…. I don’t even need to say the children were given stuff to make them sleep, and reacted badly to it, to back up this theory.
They find the child injured, and in a bad condition, and they try to do something to save her, and it turns out into a diaster. Those who gave a hand are responsible, not only personnally ; their professionnal responsibility is at stake too. They may be tempted to say the child has disappeared, especially if they don’t foresee the consequences of such a statement, because they have been drinking a little, because they underestimate the local police (it is only a small resort far away from London), because they have to react fast.
Of course, I am just imagining things, and maybe the abduction scenario is much more likely. (The MCs speak of it as if it was a certainty). My theory leaves to be desired on some points, especially how they could hide the body, but the abduction theory in my opinion leaves a lot to be desired, compounded with the contradictions and changes in the statements of the parents and witnesses (shutters jemmied or not, doors locked or not).
It is only a theory, and maybe the parents and their friends are completely innocent of such a cover up. That is what they claim, but the investigators don’t seem to be so convinced about it.
Why they don’t want that re-construction is strange, though. To the little victim of the case, there is a duty of truth. Society owes it to her.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
861…Maravilha
Bye for now, Maravilha.