Madeleine McCann: No Portugal Return, Maddy TV And Paris Hilton
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
It’s the Mirror’s “MADELEINE EXCLUSIVE”. The news is – as Anorak reported last night – that the Tapas Seven (surely the Sangria 7? –Ed) will not be returning to Portugal to take part in a reconstruction of the night Madeleine went missing.
A source says: “They were asked informally to return, then asked again in an official letter last week. After some consideration they decided not to go back. They were concerned it would not be televised, and were bemused as to why it was happening so long after Madeleine disappeared.”
And who would play Madeleine? Her? Her? What about “Look Into My Eyes”, a TV talent show search for a Madeleine fronted by Trevor McDonald and GMTV?
Remember Kelsey: “Mummy, I could play Madeleine. I look just like her’”?
THE SUN: “No re-run for Maddie cops”
What does Lorraine Kelly think? It was she who said:
How could someone put their infant child forward as a Madeleine lookalike with the idea of making money? The child obviously has to be around the same age as Madeleine.
Is a Madeleine needed? After all, she is missing…
Unless it was to specifically aid the campaign, how could they all live with themselves for making money out of the tragic disappearance of a little girl?
It makes you recoil to think a lookalike agency would have a Madeleine on their books alongside someone who looks like Jack Nicholson or Paris Hilton.
Disgusting! To think that Maddy should be with the likes of Jack the lads or Hilton makes our flesh turn cold. It’s nothing less than sick.
DAILY MAIL: “Madeleine reconstruction scrapped after ’suspicious’ McCanns refuse to return to Portugal to take part”
The Mail has the details: The McCanns are “both doctors.”
Says a Source: “They also question why it was not to be televised and why police just want the nine and not other holidaymakers and staff to take part.”
GLASGOW DAILY RECORD: Says Clarence Mitchell:
“The friends had a number of serious questions about the value of the reconstruction and what it would do to help find Madeleine. After some discussion, they have informed the Portuguese authorities they do not intend to go back.
“Gerry and Kate have not refused to go back. They were aware of their friends’ view and they are now not needed for the reconstruction. There were a number of serious questions. For instance, why did they want to hold a reconstruction more than a year after the event?
“Why was the reconstruction not to be televised? That would have generated new leads and information but if it is not televised, how on earth is that going to help find Madeleine? Why did they only want the nine people back? Why didn’t they ask all the other holidaymakers back?
“Frankly, the police and the authorities in Portugal did not answer the simple question: what will this do to help find Madeleine?”
Do the police have to televise their police work to make it valid?
Madeleine McCann TV: are you sitting comfortably?
Posted: 28th, May 2008 | In: Celebrities, Madeleine McCann, Paris Hilton, Tabloids Comments (500) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- June on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- Tony on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
- Cheryl on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- cheekyappleblossom on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
May 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
165
Marie Nicholas
Good move from the PJ,you knôw
I just cant believe what absolute fools those people are
Unbelievable
May 28th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
166
Fair Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Val
If you’ve got sky Talk sport is on the radio ch 0108.
He wants one person to phone in that supports the Mc’s in not returning!!
———————————
Well, come on Rasi, what are you doing hanging around here when you could be phoning Gaunty?
I’d do it myself but I seem to have a touch of laryngitis…
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
163…chenier
Maybe he just doesn’t like to be asked probing questions.
Sorry, Clarence…if you really are speechless…I apologise profusely.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Val
If you’ve got sky Talk sport is on the radio ch 0108.
He wants one person to phone in that supports the Mc’s in not returning!!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The only thing that gaunt and Frank Cannon have is that both are big fat chappies and one is a tosser, which one ?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Well you know, now we know the Tapas know they know.
The police know they know. And they know the police know.
But you know, they don’t want us to know, I know!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
160
Matt. Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
158…val
Clarence seems to swerved an invite…repeated twice…to come onto
Talksport this morning on the J Gaunt Show.
Must be indisposed. IMO.
———————–
It’s that laryngitis; can flare up without any warning. One moment he’s perfectly fine, the next moment he’s taking the fifth, sorry, incapable of speech…
May 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
157
Ferdinand Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
135 sam Says:
” what’s this about me talking to you re dna in the car ? must’ve been some time ago as i don’t remember. or it was someone else. but it is a mystery how it got there. do you have any ideas of how it got there ? ”
What kind of DNA is it? Is it nuclear DNA, which is “like a fingerprint”? Or is it mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother?’
i don’t know. it was only spores which i think they had to put through a type of growth medium to get a sample. i can’t comment on the rest as i don’t have that knowledge.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
143 Rasputin Says: May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Could you tell me Duncan, if posters who make scurrilous and unsubstantiated remarks, would be liable to be charged with perverting the course of justice, as well as libel’
——————————
Not likely according to this article, although nothing seems to be impossible for the McCanns if they are concerned about what some of their supporters are saying in their name
Some extracts below from http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm
—————–
“Law and the Internet - Regulating Cyberspace” Defamation and the Internet: Name Calling in Cyberspace by Lilian Edwards
…’So what steps can be taken to reduce the risks to ISPs and other parties of being sued for Internet libel? As we have discussed above, national legislation such as the Defamation Act 1996 is of little use when attempting to regulate, and provide defences in respect of, transnational Internet libel. …
Most legal (as opposed to “net lawyer”) commentators accept that in this field, as in others such as breach of copyright, trademark infringement, obscenity and pornography on the net, single nation legislative strategies are pointless and that the way forward is by multilateral agreement leading to an international convention,,, but there is increasing agreement in the computer industry and among politicians and businessmen that over-regulation of the Internet at this early stage of its commercial development may be harmful. …
An alternative approach is international co-operation on voluntary or self- regulatory approaches to control of offensive material…’
May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
158…val
Clarence seems to swerved an invite…repeated twice…to come onto
Talksport this morning on the J Gaunt Show.
Must be indisposed. IMO.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I don’t believe the Tapas 9 are still mates.
At least not all of them, among themselves.
They got in trouble against their will.
We may not forget they must have relatives and other friends who could be commentig this case with each of them.
Advising them to get off this situation.
Why sacrifice themselves for other people?
They should have gone
This is my opinion about this aspect of the story.
edited jj
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -part.html
Madeleine reconstruction scrapped after ’suspicious’ McCanns refuse to return to Portugal to take part
By Daily Mail Reporter
on 28th May 2008
Maddie: A re-enactment of her disappearance has been scrapped
A planned reconstruction of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann involving her parents and their friends has been scrapped over suspicions about the motives of Portuguese police.
Kate and Gerry McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven - the friends they were dining with in the resort’s tapas restaurant when Madeleine vanished - had been due to fly to the Algarve tomorrow.
The plan was to re-enact their movements leading up to the discovery that the three-year-old was missing. But a family friend revealed yesterday how some of them had pulled out after growing uneasy about the decision to stage the replay more than a year on.
The friend said the McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, believe it would have done ‘absolutely nothing’ to help find their daughter not least because police had refused requests to televise it.
The couple and the Tapas Seven - friends Matthew and Rachael Oldfield, David and Fiona Payne, Russell O’Brien, his partner Jane Tanner and Dianne Webster, Mrs Payne’s mother - were due to take part in the reconstruction at the Mark Warner resort in Praia da Luz.
Their decision to pull out will further damage relations between the police and the McCanns, who were made official suspects in the case in September.
Madeleine disappeared from the bedroom of the family’s holiday apartment on May 3 last year. Her parents deny any wrongdoing.
Kate and Gerry McCann: Maddie’s parents had been due to the fly out to the Algarve
A friend of the couple said: ‘It was a case of all nine of them take part or it doesn’t happen at all from the police’s point of view, so the whole thing is off.
‘The whole group have had grave reservations about the value of it. They want to help the police but keep asking themselves “Why now, more than one year on? What on earth is it going to achieve?”
‘They also question why it was not to be televised and why police just want the nine and not other holidaymakers and staff to take part.’
Mrs McCann, 40, her 39-year-old husband and their friends had originally been asked to return to Portugal two weeks ago. But the date was extended because the couple had been undecided about the trip.
——————————————————–
Morning all, can”t stay but thought this would interest you. On breakfast T.V. this
morning reference was made to the recon cancellation and apparently Jon Gaunt
has not minced his words. He was on http://www.3talksport.net/ this morning asking since
when were the McCanns Colombo etc and “suggested they should all go back to
Portugal”. I think this might well gather momentum.
I tried to get talksport but it hasn”t worked.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
135 sam Says:
” what’s this about me talking to you re dna in the car ? must’ve been some time ago as i don’t remember. or it was someone else. but it is a mystery how it got there. do you have any ideas of how it got there ? ”
What kind of DNA is it? Is it nuclear DNA, which is “like a fingerprint”? Or is it mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother?
In cases where samples are of bad quality, mitochontrial DNA is often easier to harvest because of the greater number of copies of mtDNA per cell. But in this case a “100% match” with Madeleine’s DNA would in fact mean that it could also be from Kate, or from one of the twins.
Since DNA can only prove that someone was somewhere, and even this is not true since DNA can also be transferred, any match of Madeleines DNA which is found in the vicinity of the McCanns would be more likely to have an innocent rather than an incriminating explanation - without further knowledge of the nature of the sample of course.
Things would obviously be different if Madeleines DNA would be found in your car or in my car.
People who refer to previous convictions based on DNA evidence often overlook that in these cases the DNA was found with persons who could not give an explanation how they came in contact with the victims.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
looking at the newspaper discussion groups it seems that 95% of the posts are of the opinion that if they want to find M they should go back and help the PJ in any way they can ……………………….this case is so high profile that they could not be “stiched up” they have the best legal team money can buy so they shouldnt be worried just do the right thing and go back to help……………………unless
May 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
152 - Chenier
Good advice - worth hearing twice !!!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
147 Trainer,
I think the same.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Maria… 148 I too wish I was paid but sadly my opinions and views are all my own and I post because I want to.
Weird huh that there is more than one take on the disappearance of Madeleine?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
My apologies, Mods; first of all I duplicated the url and got spammed, then I did it right and discovered you had fixed it…
May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
143
Rasputin Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Could you tell me Duncan, if posters who make scurrilous and unsubstantiated remarks, would be liable to be charged with perverting the course of justice, as well as libel’
———————————
You need to consult the Crown Prosecution Service Legal Guidance on that one, Rasi.
‘It provides guidance to prosecutors and caseworkers in relation to many criminal offences and procedural issues. The Legal Guidance is used as an aid to guide Crown Prosecutors and Associate Prosecutors in the use of their discretion in making decisions in cases, and is subject to the principles as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.’
It’s online at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/index.html
May 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
143
Rasputin Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Could you tell me Duncan, if posters who make scurrilous and unsubstantiated remarks, would be liable to be charged with perverting the course of justice, as well as libel’
———————————
You need to consult the Crown Prosecution Service Legal Guidance on that one, Rasi.
‘It provides guidance to prosecutors and caseworkers in relation to many criminal offences and procedural issues. The Legal Guidance is used as an aid to guide Crown Prosecutors and Associate Prosecutors in the use of their discretion in making decisions in cases, and is subject to the principles as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.’
It’s online at:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/index.html
May 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
147 Trainer Says:
” are the tapas legal costs paid for by the Mc’s? ”
Which legal costs?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
142
Garth Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Anyway im off, to let some serious debating continue.
——————————
Ho! Ho!
I’m of too. Work again. Looks like I may be going to Madrid. Work-related but would be good nonetheless. Came up at meeting yesterday.
And no, Trainer! I’m not a paid poster! Wish we were. Garth and chenier would be stinking rich…..! I’d have quite a bit of cash myself!
Still, only way to pay mortgage for me (!!) is to work, so…….
Bye!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
are the tapas eaters still mates? or are the fragmenting ?
are the tapas legal costs paid for by the Mc’s?
i bet theres some discussions going on behind the Mc’s back between the lesser tapas eaters …after a year alot of evidence that may have tied them all together will have faded ie toxins in hair etc ( if ever there were some in the first place)
May 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am
143 - Rasputin
Beyond my competance to offer a reply to your question.
Perhaps those with more knowledge of the law/police procedures could shed some light here ???
May 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
#
141
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
140
Garth Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:32 am
137
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
———
Ive heard that one before…..
———————————-
You’ve missed the point, Garth.
It is you who is asking the questions…
———–
Not at all Chez, I’ll say it again……….I’ve heard that one before!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
132 Trainer Says:
” anyone with any ideas if “perverting the course of justice” could be applied to paid posters on web discussions? ”
Certainly, and not only to paid posters. The police does closely monitor the web discussions. Therefore every single entry is a case of “waisting police time.”
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Could you tell me Duncan, if posters who make scurrilous and unsubstantiated remarks, would be liable to be charged with perverting the course of justice, as well as libel’
May 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Anyway im off, to let some serious debating continue.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
140
Garth Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:32 am
137
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
———
Ive heard that one before…..
———————————-
You’ve missed the point, Garth.
It is you who is asking the questions…
May 28th, 2008 at 11:32 am
137
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
———