Madeleine McCann: Bobby Hands, Cannes And A Hunger For Publicity
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
As Leslie Felperin, the excellent reviewer for Variety magazine remarked to me: the newspaper-reading public can’t be persuaded to react in the same way: they care about Madeleine McCann in a serious mood, or in a non-serious mood, they care about Sir Alan Sugar or Simon Cowell. The idea of actually caring about a violent arthouse film investigating the life of Bobby Sands is a very tall order indeed.
Fact and fiction - the story of Madeleine McCann
Posted: 27th, May 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann Comments (562) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
May 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
44…Maria
I don’t think they mentioned anything on day 1 regarding being neg.
Perhaps it was on on day 2…that they said “It was like sitting in our
back garden…and within the bounds of legality”…or some such words.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
8 [edited]
M and A
Most of the multi posters are pros, not anti. [..]
********
Why don’t you just tell us who they are [the ‘pro’s’ as well as the ‘anti’s’] in stead of feeding the speculation. I’m sure my personal stalkers will be encouraged by this reply.
********
One more remark:
NON of us knows! It’s all speculation, whether it’s a [hate the labelling] pro/anti/fence post. Maria’s stand has allways been very clear. Though she seems to be able to look at things from both ’sides’. Which could be confusing for people who only look at things from one side.
Back to work, much more fun! Awhoooooooooooo
Mods and Admin
We can’t reveal current posters details so carry on guessing.
In a live debate Maria would be shot down in flames, and fairly so, you cannot see both sides.
If people cannot take the heat , they leave the kitchen. If she doesn’t wish to debate, and it seems she doesn’t, she wishes to perch on the fence, thats fine so long as we know. But its not a place to debate from.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
13…M & A
I don’t think that Ferdy mentioned registration in his post.
Just something about legal age for compulsory heducating.
M and A
But if you don’t offically exist? But I suppose on the other hand some people get an earful from the authorities for dying and without notifying said authorities, lots of finger wagging down at the cemetery….
May 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
44
Maria Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
- only thing I’ve heard them admit is that they were naive AT THE WORST - and that certainly took quite a while for them to compose those words!
As yet, I have seen no compelling evidence for their guilt, other than, of course, leaving their children vulnerable. That is beyond dispute; they have admitted it from day one.
—————————————–
That’s a load of hogwash! “They have admitted leaving their children vulnerable from DAY ONE!?”
May 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
___________
25
Sledgehammer Said:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
This place could do with some action
____________
Such as?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
44
Maria Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
—————————————–
I propose to save Maria’s post and enter it in the World Passive-Aggressive Championship Stakes, to be run in Moscow alongside the Eurovision Song Contest, 362 days and counting.
I’m quietly confident that we have an almost sure-fire winner…
May 27th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Garthy - when you’re around!
Re the opposite/adjacent peeping tom abductor theory you had.
We concluded last night that you’d made a slight “error” with the use of the word “opposite”, but then you came out with the word “adjacent” - which in my books means “next to” - Yes?
But, weren’t the Oldfield’s in Apartment 5B? Which is adjacent/next to 5A? And from the pics I’ve looked at even if your theory is correct that the supposed abductor was hiding in the adjacent apartment, there’s just no ways that he/she/it/they/them could have seen that the patio doors were unlocked - unless it was a bloody ostrich that took Madeleine!
(I’ll await your answer)
M and A
JULIE, well done you’ve solved it! But it may have been a stork, come to retrieve her?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mods and Admin
“Its no good saying you believe they are innocent, unless proved guilty, and then you will change your mind.”
——————————————————
Well that’s pretty NEAR to what I think, I’m afraid, but not quite.
As yet, I have seen no compelling evidence for their guilt, other than, of course, leaving their children vulnerable. That is beyond dispute; they have admitted it from day one. I don’t know if that would qualify for a charge of negligence under Portuguese law or not. It would not, IMO, excuse an abductor IF there was one.
As to anything else, I simply can’t say more than I’ve said many times. What I said yesterday was that IF they know what happened to Madeleine, IF they killed her and/or dumped her body after an accident, IF they are lying about that, IF they set up a financial scam, IF they are wasting huge amounts of police resources etc. etc. etc, then I would regard it as extremely serious. It would of course be for the courts to decide which laws had been broken and how culpable, under the law, they were, and to give an appropriate sentence. As regards personal, moral culpability, that would be between themselves and God (if there is one) or their consciences. I would make no attempt to judge either legal or personal culpability but, objectively, I would regard the offences as very serious. Similarly, I regard what Fritzl has done as (much more) serious but a court might judge that he was insane ….I think you know what point I’m making.
With regard to hares and hounds, I just don’t see this in those terms. I don’t think in simple anti or pro terms. I cannot pretend to a certainty I don’t have but, as yet, what I have read and seen in the media does not lead me to suppose them guilty. BUT, if such evidence emerged….I would change my mind! Sorry!
I hope that’s reasonable? I am certainly happy always to state what is an opinion. But if you prefer only posters with 100% certainty one way or the other other, please nip my ankle and I’ll limp away with no problem at all! It is, of course, your decision which I would respect totally. I have never posted as anyone else and would never try to return in a different guise!! My boring style would be obvious anyway!
Sorry to take up your time. And I know you object to this being said, but I must snatch a sandwich before going to my 1.00pm meeting!!
Thank you very much.
Mods and Admin
So, you don’t know. At least now we know.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
41
Matt. Says:
Yes…he certainly got up Maggie’s nose.
yes, thanks for the link matt.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
36
PeterMac Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“The idea of actually caring about a violent arthouse film investigating the life of Bobby Sands is a very tall order indeed.”
I’d almost forgotten about him.
He was voted “Slimmer of the Year - 1981 ” wasn’t he ?
———————-
And I just spat my biltong out all over the keyboard - what a bloody waste!
May 27th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
39…sam
Yes…he certainly got up Maggie’s nose.
http://tinyurl.com/6xcgnv
May 27th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
37
Rasputin Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
‘That question didn’t carry much weight.’
that’s quite funny
May 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
36
PeterMac Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
‘
“The idea of actually caring about a violent arthouse film investigating the life of Bobby Sands is a very tall order indeed.”
I’d almost forgotten about him.
He was voted “Slimmer of the Year - 1981 ” wasn’t he ?’
i didn’t know who he was, he was in the Maze and went on hunger strike and died. my father did a six month tour there too when we were in the army.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
35
Matt. Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
34…sam
Indeed….very strange alliances.
No prob re the referral….only mentioned it in case other’s may misunderstand.
perhaps mods could add in the reference ? mods is it possible to add in to post 32 that the quote is from the third way ?
53…Third Way Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 9:32 am
888888888
Mods and Admin
Ok have clarified the posting,but do try a link instead next time?
May 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
That question didn’t carry much weight.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“The idea of actually caring about a violent arthouse film investigating the life of Bobby Sands is a very tall order indeed.”
I’d almost forgotten about him.
He was voted “Slimmer of the Year - 1981 ” wasn’t he ?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
34…sam
Indeed….very strange alliances.
No prob re the referral….only mentioned it in case other’s may misunderstand.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:48 am
33
Matt. Says:
‘I too think that he was lain on the Political Altar…but time will tell.’
one wonders just why there is this much political involvement.
‘But the actual post was written by The Third Way.’
oh yes sorry, i did realise that but forgot to keep in the attributes.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
32…sam
I too think that he was lain on the Political Altar…but time will tell.
But the actual post was written by The Third Way.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
29
Matt. Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
‘Amaral could not win. He was in a good position for a promotion into one of the top posts in the PJ - but now it was very obvious that he’d not get that. If he was to stick to the strategy of admitting to an abduction, his failing to properly conduct the investigation would prevent him from getting that promotion. If he was to break ranks with the agreed strategy, he’d be removed from the investigation and again he’d fail that promotion.’
if this is true then it does sounds like he was sacrificed. i found the first paragraph very interesting too.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:33 am
30…Maria
Not so fine a line that I haven’t escaped being slapped on the wrist,
now and then.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am
#
26
Matt. Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
23…Maria
You don’t have to “source” personal speculation.
You have to “source” what you may state as Fact…and is not personal opinion.
IMO.
———————————-
Yes, but it’s a fine line, Matt. You know that!
In any case, I’ve been, IMO, especially careful of late to state that I was posting only personal opinions.
I could give hundreds of examples of what I mean but I wouldn’t waste the time of anyone here now. It’s extremely interesting reading through posts though, and seeing what was and wasn’t acceptable! That’s an opinion, of course! Some might find it very boring!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The posting that follows isn’t Matt’s own, just there as a discussion between himself and Bounty Hunter about ‘The third Way‘
(but not too many discussions of other posters needing an example, perhaps just a link next time?
24…Bountyhunter
Ah….found one….
53…Third Way Says:
November 14th, 2007 at 9:32 am
The Third Way - the only possible way is back after a period of intense undercover investigation.
The Third Way comes back with a question to the anorak tribe:
Does anyone know why Amaral was sacked from the investigation - especially since the new super-cop is now admitting that after a careful review of the last six months of investigation, the only thing that was confirmed were the suspicions that they had already?
1. McCanns involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance has been there since June. Many within the investigation team thought that before making the McCanns official suspects, they should keep them sweet with informal interviews as a means to let them make mistakes while a solid set of evidence was compiled against them. They did not want them on the spotlight and even thought that through these informal updates with them, they’d be able to actually get more information.
2. Amaral initially agreed with this strategy, however at one point (more or less around the time of the appointment of Mr De Meneses as magistrate in charge of the case and his initial meetings with the detectives), Gonçalo Amaral realised (in his mind) that there was no political will by the Ministerio Publico (eg Crown Prosecution) to move the case forward. What was initially a strategy designed to get solid evidence against the McCanns, was soon unveiled as a strategy designed to strenghten the abduction theory (avoiding political and diplomatic alarmism).
3. At that same time, Amaral was already getting indications from his colleagues within the PJ that he should accept the political sensitivities of the case and should stick to the agreed strategy otherwise he’d be removed from the investigation. It was now very clear that the intention would be to blame the PJ for failing to investigate properly a case which is simply of an abducted little girl.
Amaral could not win. He was in a good position for a promotion into one of the top posts in the PJ - but now it was very obvious that he’d not get that. If he was to stick to the strategy of admitting to an abduction, his failing to properly conduct the investigation would prevent him from getting that promotion. If he was to break ranks with the agreed strategy, he’d be removed from the investigation and again he’d fail that promotion.
4. Not being able to win, he decided to mitigate the loss. Almost unilateraly, Amaral (and 2 of his close aides) decided to break ranks with the strategy mentioned in 1, and called Kate and Gerry for a formal interview. Unlike what was reported across most portuguese and british media, Amaral’s objective with that formal interview was never to seek a confession. His sole purpose was to declare both Kate and Gerry formal suspects (for refusing to answer questions).
5. This action (perceived as hostile by the Crown Prosecution) left Mr De Meneses with a serious problem in his hands. There was no way back now - Gerry and Kate McCann were formally suspects of involvement in Madeleine McCanns disappearance. His colleagues in Lisbon (eg the spokesperson who kept saying that the McCanns were victims) was also taken by surprise - and soon after this episode he resigned from that function (claiming it was now a matter for the prosecution to comment on the case and no longer for the PJ).
At this stage Amaral is removed from the investigation, but guarantees that by now there’s no way the prosecution can close the case - or dismiss the case as an abduction - without releasing the files of evidence compiled (to date) that suggest the McCanns have been involved in MAdeleine’s disappearance.
Maybe this case will never be resolved because political interests have unfortunately hindered the objective competences of the magistrature. However, anyone with a genuine appetite to know what happened to Madeleine McCann should be grateful to Inspector Gonçalo Amaral.
Allegedly, this is what happened, but the Third Way may be wrong. We all believe what we want to believe - yet the Third Way is the only Way.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
24…bountyhunter
I remember The Third Way…but I can’t exactly remember the content.
Am next to useless at retrieving old posts…so can’t help you there.
Re Mr Kennedy…I think that he is merely a middleman…despite his wealth.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ferdie
Upcoming events? Do you mean the proposed reconstruction?
May 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
23…Maria
You don’t have to “source” personal speculation.
You have to “source” what you may state as Fact…and is not personal opinion.
IMO.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
This place could do withnsome action, lock n load show time! pussies.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
MATT
Do you remember the poster ‘The third Way’ ? Could you try to find one of his more lucid posts ?
Why is Kennedy so generous with The Mac, are they holding him over a barrel ?
Please try to find, am on dial up here and i have to get back to work outside, will look in later. thanks !
May 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
18
Matt. Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
15…Maria
I think you are being rather unfair to M & A…they have the right to
insist on proper sourcing and referrals…and most poster’s comply
quite happily.
————————————————————–
They do have the right, of course, but they also choose when to do so.
Most posters never even think of sourcing their speculation!!
May 27th, 2008 at 11:01 am
1227 coolandcalm
Thanks, but the point is that it’s impossible to have any kind of discussion or debate with different rules for different posters.
Not saying people with “anti” views are not sometimes dealt with similarly, where libel is concerned, but hundreds of posts (got ‘em all here!) are allowed through with the wildest speculation, opinions, and not a word of censure!!
If it isn’t enough to be courteous and make it clear when one is posting an opinion, then it’s not really worth participating.
The ankle-snappers (great term!) are tedious and annoying and I often do scroll them, but I’m referring to M and A here as they run the site.
Mods and Admin
Maria could you clarify for us whether you are pro or anti or on the fence or simply do not know.
You have posted a lot, but its as clear as mud what you are trying to say.
If you are presenting something as fact we need a source, this has been discussed with you before now
If you are merely speculating then say so.
But you can only in fairness present one opinion of your views, not 4.
Its no good saying you believe they are innocent, unless proved guilty, and then you will change your mind.
At the moment you are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds and if you continue you will get nipped not only by the ankle biters , but by us as well.