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
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
May 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
194…Maravilha
I was listening to the Radio Programme.
Clarence did contact TalkSport a few minutes ago….and said that as he
is not the Tapas7’s Spokesman, he could not comment.
Hmmmm….hasn’t stopped him “commenting” about them before.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
195
Maravilha Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
How do some of you know Clarence was invited to answer a Radio interview and he did not, this morning?
***********
Bah…I dont think it is very relevant at this point but if you come accross a link,please,post it
May 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Chenier
“On the other hand we may be in unknown, unknown territory, where we don’t actually know that we don’t know…”
——–
No, no, no, Chenier, you only think that you actually don’t know that you don’t know. Actually, we all know, the same way they know. And we know that we know, you know. Now!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
192
Matt. Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
186…jo
I have Great Expectations.
********
Do,do my friend
191
AgendaWide Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
….. you knôw
185 Matt
An EAW is not what I would describe as a non-event if that is what you mean?
Will check later
*************
An EAW? could be……. but somehow I dout it
I think the prosecutor has other plans for our friends,the international mccFOOLS
This is an other long process and the PJ wants to finish up that freaking case BEFORE the full season.They had a tad enough with it
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
185 Matt. Says:
” Indeed not….much sooner…..perhaps within a few days. ”
Hmm, but there are non-events every day. In order to be revealing, it must be something that is being discussed. What meaningful event do you expect not to happen within the next days?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
How do some of you know Clarence was invited to answer a Radio interview and he did not, this morning?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
190…AgendaWide
Who mentioned an EAW ??
Not I……an event is not a non-event in any case.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
189
Marie Nicholas Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jo 169
I knôw, I knôw, Jo!
But do you know if they knooooooow we knoooooooow?
**********
You knôw,they knôw the PJ knôw and they do knôw we also knôw
Some just cant SEE
I consider this a serious problem,you knôw mrgreen:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
186…jo
I have Great Expectations.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
185 Matt
An EAW is not what I would describe as a non-event if that is what you mean?
Will check later
May 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
183…Ferdinand
Be prepared for a giant sardine attack
May 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jo 169
I knôw, I knôw, Jo!
But do you know if they knooooooow we knoooooooow?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
186
Matt
May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
183
Matt.
179 is my post/answer to Ann
What is it now, you know I dont know?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
183…Ferdinand
Indeed not….much sooner…..perhaps within a few days.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
182 Matt
Rotter
Some of us have less time for this sleuthing than others
A forthcoming non-event you say Hmmm
Bye for now - I’ll still give you a smile
May 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
175 Matt. Says:
” I am waiting for the next non-event, which should be soon…and which
will be extra revealing. ”
You mean in about two weeks?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
179…AgendaWide
Not yet….but with a bit of good sleuthing thought it should become apparent.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
174
chenier
May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
173
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The hell with it, I’m going for the full Rumsfeld:
‘Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know’.
and strangely enough, it makes sense.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
175 Matt.
Any chance of elaborating on what you think the next non-event might be
May 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
175
Ann Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
So now what happens?
Call M3! they will know what to do
Dont worry…the PJ has got it all very secured and well under control
Soon JUSTICE will be done to Madeleine
May 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
170
chenier Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
‘On the other hand we may be in unknown, unknown territory, where we don’t actually know that we don’t know…’
story of my life that
May 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
156 Trainer
I can’t see anyway to positively spin the decision not to attend the reconstruction. They wanted one last year but didn’t get one, so what! They are not the police and not running the investigation. They said no and challenged the authority of the police - an attitude that will encourage criminals and boost crime statistics.
Innocent people would be worried about cooperating with a police investigation in a foreign country but would surely find the courage to support an enquiry into the fate of a little girl who so many people are concerned about.
imo the Tapas friends who are willing to attend should distance themselves from other cowardly (at best) or guilty (at worst) Tapas 9 people. It’s a disgrace
May 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
174…Ann
Sometimes a non-event is much more revealing than an event.
I am waiting for the next non-event, which should be soon…and which
will be extra revealing.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
So now what happens ? the Dippy Seven won’t go back, K & G won’t go back, why ? is it because they are afraid they can’t remember what it was they said they were doing and where they said they were ? …..are they afraid of being banged up in a Portuguese jail for abandonment ? I thought they would all do anything, move Heaven and Earth etc to help, so ….what then ? …all goes away now does it ? ….Madeleine still missing and no-one bothering to look/help ? Still smells to high Heaven, still something terribly wrong with it all and they all seem like they just want to forget it ever happened
May 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The hell with it, I’m going for the full Rumsfeld:
‘Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don’t know we don’t know’.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
170…chenier
Strewth….Donald Rumsfeld must have been more influential linguistically
than I thought.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
But we definitely know that we don’t know anything.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
164
Marie Nicholas Says:
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!
———————————-
Very true.
On the other hand we may be in unknown, unknown territory, where we don’t actually know that we don’t know…