MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann
NEW STRAITS TIMES: “Keep the candle lit”
Spotting our Maddy in Malaysia?
A YEAR after the abduction and murder of Nurin Jazlin Jazimin, we must take pause to observe this sad anniversary in all sympathy for her bereaved family — as indeed for that of Sharlinie Nashar, lost in similar circumstances eight months ago and not yet found.
Other children go missing.
The contrasting fates of the children in these two cases raised the most awful conundrum: would it be kinder for such families to know their child is dead, to retrieve her remains for a proper burial in a consecrated grave where they might mourn and pray for her, or to never know what became of her, the better for hope to remain? Such unthinkable dilemmas are universal; the cases of Briton Madeleine McCann last year, American Jon- Benet Ramsey in 1996, and even the Azaria Chamberlain “dingo” case in Australia 28 years ago, all strike to the same depth of anguish.
Ramsey was fond dead 8 months after she went missing. Chamberlain’s body was never found.
The press sees Madeleine McCann buying party goods in Amsterdam…
Posted: 21st, August 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (446) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- James Mcdiffett on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- 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
August 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
And let’s not forget Dianne Webster who is reported to have said all parents only checked their own children.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Marie N
Unless they planned a story from the start, I’d expect inconsistencies, even contradictions. There always are in a real-live situation. Only when people have made up a series of lies does everything hang neatly together. IMO.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I re-read myself, and am afraid I am not very comprehensible, when I say we will see later that Gerr’ys first statement has been amended. I think what we read now is definitely G’s first statement, but he and his friends later gave other statements that amend the first one
August 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
lets not forget Jez ( fly in the ointment) Wilkins……….
August 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Grande
stop it now…lol…….as we have always thought a complete and utter charade
August 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Maria
I also think Jane Tanner saw something, but I very much doubt it could have been Madeleine being taken away while her dad is chatting with a friend at the foot of the building. He would have to have been specially swift too.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Maria
Tanner says convinced because of the Pyjamas…listen for yourself I am not a liar or a fantacist you know
August 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
coco Says:
When my friend arrived yesterday I showed him with wig, without wig - with wig, without wig - with wig, without wig - and it was all very childish - considering she had called to see some proper work that I should have produced yesterday.
———-
*lol*!
I should have produced some proper work yesterday afternoon, too, but all I did was trying to place a sardine into Barbra-Streisand-Abductorman’s mouth. Right in between those thick lips. Via Photoshop. Took me hours and didn’t work properly. The bloody fish was too big.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
clouseau Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Maria
get a grip luv……………..Father carrying back his child in a blanket who just happens to be wearing the same jimjams as M….
*************
It was a good job bundleman returned “Maddies jammies”, so they could be held up at their press conference .
August 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Maria
This isn’t an account from the files, it is what is written in the files. (I trust Enfants Kidnppés, as they said they wanted us who read their site to know what is written precisely in the files, and make our own opinion about it).
As they translate it little by little, we will probably see later that this first statement has been amended, we’ll see when and how.
True to say, we have to trust their translation. If it wasn’t accurate, I think somebody else who also has the files would say so. At least, they are the first ones who allow me to have an idea of the real thing. I am very grateful to them for that.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7098703.stm
Maria just for you
August 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Marie N
OK, thanks. So where did the story of MO listening outside at 9.00pm come from? The written timeline? Sorry, I haven’t been following very closely the last week or two.
Clouseau
JT simply refers to the “pinky aspect” of the jim-jams, doesn’t she? Panorama? That’s vague enough.
(I was simply saying that, like Marie N, I had also wondered if it was someone else she saw, and nothing to do with Madeleine.)
In any case, I’m only saying I have “wondered” if that might be the case.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Abraham Z
Thank you for telling me I am a star. I am going to photocopy your post, and hang it on the wall in the hallway for my family to understand that they have a star shining at home and they don’t even notice it!
The site Enfants Kidnappés doesn’t say when the friends’ statements will be translated. But they have been fairly quick with the two first translations, so I hope we get them soon. I must say, this is the first time I really see the contents of the files as they are (except that they are translated), and there are things that I picture much better now. I understand why they speak of inconsistencies since the start. Maria realises there are inconsistencies, as she notices that not taking Gerry’s first version into account is “the only way the timesline hangs together”.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Marie Nicholas Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sam
Sorry to call you Spam!
it doesn’t matter
August 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Maria, if you read what G said to the PJ on the 5th of August, while reporting the events of the night of the idsappearance, he didn’t say what you are saying now.
He sayed that he went at 9.05, he saw the 3 children, everything OK. He went to the toilets, then left, stayed in the street for a little while, at the foot of the building, talking with his tennis pal. Then Matt went to check at 9.30, and checked on the 3 children. This isn’t hearsay, it is the report, and moreover it is what Gerry himself said to the police.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Maria
get a grip luv……………..Father carrying back his child in a blanket who just happens to be wearing the same jimjams as M….
August 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Marie Nicholas, you’re a STAR!
Do you know when we will get details of the statements of the Tapas staff?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Marie N
I have often wondered if JT just saw a father carrying his own child back from the creche and it wasn’t Madeleine at all. But that person would surely have to be an alien from outer space not to have read all about this and come forward in the meantime??!
I assume the PJ must have checked that very carefully?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
clouseau Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
so if Gerry did his check at 9.05 who did the next check?
*****************
Mo checked at 9.00pm listening at the shutters ? so GM went half an hour later at 9.05pm………easy isn’t it ??
JT left 20 mins BEFORE she last checked?? at 9.10pm
JT arrived back at 9.20pm so R O went 15 mins later at 9.30pm
They were checking at precise times you see.
But they weren’t clock watching they were on holiday ??
August 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Chatelaine and Marie N
I’m not certain because I’ve read so many accounts from the files, but I got the impression that MO didn’t do an actual check inside the apartment at all at 9.00pm. I thought he just listened outside, on the way to check his own, and heard nothing. He also saw the shutters closed.
Then at 9.05pm Gerry went to do a proper check. Maybe he didn’t even know that MO had just listened at the windows? Or maybe they often listened at each others’ windows when on the way to check their own properly? Then at 9.30pm, Kate should have done the next check but MO said he would do it for her as he was going to check his own again. This time he did go inside the apartment but didn’t actually see Madeleine in her bed, only the twins. I thought that was why he came in for a lot of suspicion. Bear in mind that this was only 15 minutes after Gerry had stood outside the apartment for several minutes talking to JW. That’s corroborated by JW.
I think that’s the only way the timeline hangs together. Aren’t both of MO’s “checks” mentioned or am I wrong about that?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
yeh so how many bundlemen?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Sam
Sorry to call you Spam!
August 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I just made a mistake, at 9.30, it was Matt’s check (and not russell), which according to G, was a real check of the 3 children at the time of his first statement to the PJ, on the 5th.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
so how many bundlemen are there?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
What appears in Gerry’s statement is that Russell did the next check at 9.30. He said then that Russell checked on Madeleine.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Châtelaine,
Since the first report says that R checked on Madeleine, I would stick by it. Also I can’t understand that a doctor checks by not checking really. It doesn’t make sense. Why take the trouble to go there, go up the stairs, and get into the appartment, if not for having a quick glance at the children? Usually, doctors are trained to be a little obsessive with safety issues.
Was the change later brought to give some veracity to Jane Tanner’s statement?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
so if Gerry did his check at 9.05 who did the next check?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Marie Nicholas Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Spam,
hah, that’s funny :), maybe my new username yes ?
‘Instead of talking about the files, “Enfants Kidnappés” decided to give the interesting pages, translated into French, so that we can make up our own mind. They say, if you want to understand the reports, you have to remember that at the beginning, the PJ didn’t question the MC’s story. Though Amaral says they had doubts from the start, seems to me they led the investigation without heeding those doubts, until maybe it was too late to get some evidence which would have been useful. They must have been impressed by the political and media pressure.’
yes, i’ve read amaral sayiong similar.
‘If the MCs had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter as they claim, I think it would have been better for them and the tapas group in the long term to be thoroughly investigated.’
yes, agree with that too.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Clouseau
I checked : Jane Tanner saw bundleman between 9.10 and 9.15.
Gerry took his round at 9.05, checked on the children, went to the toilets, came down and met his tennis friend. It means if Bundleman came after Gerry to snatch M., when Gerry was still speaking with his tennis pal, he used the door which wasn’t on the side of the building where the two men were talking, and Jane Tanner passing by.
Maybe jane Tanner saw someone carrying a child in a blanket. Not Bundleman and not Madeleine. Was it possible to ask people staying in Praia at the time if it could have been them? Did the Pj do that?
August 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
ok see Russ was with daughter at 9.30