Madeleine McCann: Stephanie Bysh And Ariella Encroach On Praia Da Luz
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann
STEPHANIE Bysh is mother to Ariella d’Gama, who has passed a while in a children’s home.
What has it got to do with Madeleine McCann. Well, get this:
DAILY MAIL: “British mother whose daughter was taken into care by Portuguese police after she ‘went out drinking’”
A British man told police that her mother Stephanie Bysh, 44, had been ‘drinking heavily’… The town is five miles from Praia da Luz, where missing toddler Madeleine McCann disappeared in May last year from a rented apartment.
Yes, just five miles.
Yesterday, it was all just 15 miles from where our Maddie went missing.
The day before that it was all occuring 25 miles from Praia da Luz.
Anorak estimates that inside week, little Ariella will be actually inside the apartment used by the McCanns that fateful trip…
Such are the facts…
Posted: 29th, August 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (952) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
August 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
They have never actually admittted that they did wrong in leaving 3 under 4’s alone. The best Kate did in one interview was to say ‘our mistake - if you want to call it that’
They are almost the exact words Kate used .
they really should be campaigning to make sure noone else leaves young kids alone. But they don’t.
I never realised until pointed out today, that noone in the group had admitted to seeing Madeleine on 3 May.
Those obviously altered photos are so intriguing, especially the one in the playground where Madeleine appears to have arrived from nowhere, in a hurry, from a big jump, but noone is looking at her at all, even though she has lost a right kneecap and foot and arm, and gained an extra left foot! Plus the man looking on has an almost impossible angle to his feet when you consider his body is facing another direction, unless of course he is a ballet dancer.
Certainly we can see now that they were not a lose knit group and the poor McC kids were the only ones to be continually dumped into that creche. I recall holidaying every year, with my sister and her son (aged 7 - 11)and we would have loved to lose him for a few hours in the kids club, just once to do waht we wanted for a change, but as he clearly did’nt want to go, he was never ever made to. It was his holiday too. It doesn’t sound as if shy Madeleine would have been keen, especially as the other kids appear to have been taken to the beach in the afternoons by their parents. but hey - tough - in you go Maddie, and in you go twinnies even though we now beleive abductors are about after maddie’s disappearance.
Why were there no pics of any of the others in the group comforting the McC’s?
this case gets curiouser daily, even after this long time.
Have they reeased the priests statements yet?
August 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
What do you want me to do Anorak? Start arguing? Remigus is wrong and the wikipedia quote says exactly what happened. If you don’t trust Wikipedia, trust the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2846941.stm
August 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hello, Coco,
Nice to hear from you.
You know, what makes the Madeleine McCann disappearance so interesting is that it is so UNTYPICAL of any abduction.
Back to Pamela for a sec, the Groene murders and the kidnapping of the two youngest children….again, no similarities. The Groene kids’ mother and her biker boyfriend lived in relative obscurity in a small house in Idaho on a road seldom traveled. They were in total isolation. They WERE tokers–marijuana. In fact, at first the police thought the family had been murdered by several people, because they were all killed with a claw hammer, and who would be hanging around to wait once the first victim was whacked?
But the autopsies showed that the victims were stoned at the time.
In fact, both mother and boyfriend had lengthy drug histories.
The Groene family’s killer was a career sex offender who was just drifting around, and took advantage of the complete isolation of the Groene’s home, and their friendliness to strangers.
And unlike the bogus sitings of Madeleine McCann, the Denny’s employees moved really quickly to call police, keep the killer and his victim at the scene….
The Groenes weren’t killed and kidnapped at any kind of vacation resort!
Pamela is just very, very far off the mark.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Right. My comment is awaiting moderation. It was merely an excerpt from Wikipedia describing the abduction, in the night, at knifepoint, of Elizabeth Smart.
—
M&A
Artemis
Actually, it is a hefty chunk quoted from Wikipedia with no explanation and no discussion.
It is a waste of bandwith.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
AZ! Thanks for this - I thought all the savvy posters had run off!
Remigius - Well stated! It’s probably falling into Professor Pam’s blind-spot again - but thanks for trying to put her in her place. She just likes to see her own words on the page - bit like the CuckooClam.
They don’t actually have anything to say about anything - but butt in anyway - and then when somebody pulls them up they have hissy-fits and tell us the site is no longer the same and the posters are crude and misinformed! lol
August 30th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping
Ed and Lois Smart, with their six children, resided in the upper class neighborhood of Federal Heights in Salt Lake City, Utah.[1] On the evening of June 4, 2002, the family attended an award ceremony at Elizabeth’s school. After the family returned home and got ready for bed, Ed made sure the doors were all locked, but he did not turn on the alarm. “If the children got up and moved (in the night), it would set the alarm off. And so we just said we’re not going to bother with it,” Lois later explained.[2]
In the early hours of the morning, Brian David Mitchell broke into the home and came to the bedroom that Elizabeth shared with her 9-year-old sister, Mary Katherine.[3] While Mary Katherine pretended to be asleep,[4] she watched the abduction,[5] and later gave these hints as to what happened:
A white man about the height of her brother Charles (5 ft 8 in)[6] about 30 or 40 years old, wearing light-colored clothes and a golf hat.[7][8] (He was actually wearing black, did not have a golf hat and was 49.)[9]
He had dark hair, and also dark hair on his arms and on the back of his hands.[8]
The man threatened Elizabeth with a gun.[8] (It was actually a knife, but Mary Katherine thought it was a gun.)[9]
When Elizabeth said “ouch” after stubbing her toe on a chair, Mitchell said something that sounded like: “You better be quiet, and I won’t hurt you.”[10]
She heard Elizabeth ask “Why are you doing this?” and though the answer was not clear, Mary Katherine thought the answer might have been “for ransom.”[11][12]
Mitchell was soft-spoken — even polite, calm, and nicely dressed.[8]
Although Mitchell spoke to Elizabeth quietly, Mary Katherine thought Mitchell’s voice seemed somehow familiar, but she couldn’t pinpoint where or when she had heard it.[13]
She never got a good look at Mitchell’s face.[14] This fact was kept a secret by the police during the investigation.[15]
By listening to the creaking floor as Elizabeth and Mitchell walked, Mary Katherine thought she could tell where Mitchell and Elizabeth were, so when it seemed safe she hopped out of bed to tell her parents, but froze in terror when she nearly ran into Mitchell and Elizabeth as they seemed to be looking into her brothers’ bedroom.[16] Fearful that she had been spotted by the abductor, she crept back into her bed. “I thought, you know, be quiet, because if he hears you, he might take you too, and you’re the only person who has seen this,” Mary Katherine said in a later interview. “I was, like, shaking.”[9] She hid for an undetermined amount of time. Investigators later concluded that she may have been hiding over two hours before she felt safe enough to come out.[17]
Just before 4 a.m., Mary Katherine came to her parents’ bedroom and woke them up. She told them Elizabeth was gone, but her parents thought she was having a bad dream. Ed went from room to room, and didn’t find her. Mary Katherine told him, “You’re not going to find her. A man took her. A man took her with a gun.”[18] Still, the parents found this hard to believe until Lois spotted a screen window downstairs that had been cut with a knife.[19] They immediately began contacting authorities, neighbors, family, and friends. The neighborhood was searched thoroughly and many of the neighbors were immediately there to help.[20] Although this caused some problems with crime scene contamination, it was not considered a major cause for problems in the investigation.[21] One of their neighbors who came to help was Jake Garn, a retired United States senator.[22]
That morning, Ed went on television and asked the kidnapper to return his daughter.[23] A massive search for Elizabeth began.[24]
—-
M&A
Artemis
Gailen, quoting vast chunks from Wikipedia simply wastes Anorak’s bandwidth.
I am sure that you are capable of making whatever point you wish to make.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Off out to dinner - but will check in later to see if I’ve got the chop.
I may just set my own satirical and detective sites up and ask for at least three references for people to join! LOL!
Guess who won’t be getting on it!
Love to all the Lovelies and bah-humbug and boils to the rest of you! X
August 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Pamela
Hello, Mods & Admins, I do believe that Pamela is commenting on my post. I stand by it. Elizabeth Smart was not abducted by a stranger. She left her house with an street person who she herself brought home to her meet her parents, and they gave him a job working on their house, where he saw Elizabeth and her other siblings frequently.
this is just a fact. sorry if the facts upset Ms. Pam, but that’s just life.
Interestingly, another example Pamela gives is that of Jessica Lunsford, who was not kidnapped by a stranger, but by a man who lived in her neighborhood.
another “Pamela” example, that of Polly Klass, also falls far short of the mark. Polly Klass was much older than Madeleine–age 12. And interestingly, Klass’s own grandfather made strange remarks similar to those the Drs. McCann made–that she was “sold” and “kidnapped to order.” Indeed, the two young girls with Polly at the time she was taken said that the kidnapper approached them with a knife and asked them to identify which of the three girls “lives here?” The man then said, “I’m just doing this for the money.”
Polly Klass’s grandfather made quite a big fuss, claiming that Arabs had kidnapped Polly, and that she is STILL ALIVE, probably in Saudi Arabia.
does this ring any bells?
As for JonBenet Ramsey, the same DAs in Colorado who absolved her parents of any wrongdoing also claimed a hapless pedophile, who was miles away having Christmas with his own family, was JonBenet’s killer. they extradited him from Thailand for purposes of prosecuting him, but in the end, it was all bollocks.
Just like Pamela’s comparisons, sad to say.
In almost all these cases, the children were done in by people who they knew, and who may have even been their close relatives. Which is typical.
The Polly Klass case is similar to Madeleine McCanns mostly for its complete weirdness.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Does the Portuguese AG speak for the Leics Police and SOCA, and are they now busily filing away their 11,000 pieces of information on this case?
So busily that they haven’t had time to announce their shelving of the case????????
August 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
PROFESSOR-PAM. Fuck off back to the realms!
How dare you accuse posters on here of smoking crack and calling me crazy.
I don’t care what the fuck your qualifications are - you are fucked when it comes to communicating! Carry on and I will wipe the fucking floor with you. You have no business on here that I can see.
Go and post on the other threads about other stuff and let’s see how the other posters respond. You are well out of your league here.
And when you make comments about people being cleared - what you should be saying is that the police could not find sufficient evidence to prosecute - it does not not mean that people are cleared or that they are innocent. Got it? Simple? You patronising pillock.
And by the way - you are not being bullied by me! You are the fucking bully and an inarticulate one at that!
August 30th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Rasputin
Your assertion that this topic is in decline sounds like wishful thinking. Look at the number of posts. If you call that decline, I don’t.
I recall days of 2000 posts plus.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
interesting so far in the statements….not one confirmed sighting of M…….none
August 30th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
The AG has already sen the statements, nothing is cracked , he said no evidence of involvovement in ANY crime.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
SAINT MARIE NICHOLAS! You give selflessly of your own time to do superb translations that I suspect are copied all over the World. I am sure that the vast majority of us are very grateful - to say the least! XXXX
However, sometimes they obviously fall on blind eyes! Some people still don’t believe the translations of the statements in The Files and come on here pretending that they don’t exist.
If ever you get a mo - put the line up about what the AG said in his conclusions!!! It’s absolutely indisputably unambiguous in its ambiguity! lol
August 30th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
marie n,
‘I think the parents were considered the victims, even more than the child herself, and everyone wanted to show their sympathy to them, police included. Being photogenic, even when filled with anguish and sorrow, they became icons. We shared their agony through the media, and they acquired a sort of religious status.’
yes, that certainly was so.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Coco, you wouldn’t be on the debate team, dear. This one thing I can guarantee with absolute certainty. And as there is no “crazy” team, you’d be hardpressed for extracurricular activities.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Pamela Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
‘Sorry, I just can’t let this slide. ‘
well then you understand why people are still here.
‘Do you not think that maybe, just MAYBE, the standing ovation could have been a way of saying, “We’re with you. We sympathize with your loss and are hoping against hope that your child can be recovered.”?’
it’s possible, yes.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Rasputin, lighten up, we have almost cracked the case - just 3 more statements to go then it will be topped and tailed.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Oh, for GOD’s sake! Elizabeth Smart left WILLINGLY with a FRIEND? Dude, you want to watch that crack smoking at breakfast!
And, if you’ve been paying attention, the Ramseys have been officially CLEARED of any involvement in the death of their daughter, and the investigators are attempting to find a DNA match for non-family samples recovered from the body of their daughter. This, of course, happened too late to be much comfort to her mother, who died of cancer.
Of all the cases, this one should be the most cautionary. The Denver police have admitted that they were pursuing a single line of inquiry, focused on the Ramseys, within twenty-four hours of the child’s death. Were the parents model parents? Probably not. Did they kill their child? Absolutely not. The evidence proves otherwise, the police and the press have admitted as much, and both have been held financially accountable. In the meantime, the family was ostracized and harrassed, their son’s childhood is irreparably lost, and the mother has died a terrible and lonely death. You want to keep kicking them? What the hell? You think one more is going to hurt extra?
Whatever.
—-
M&A
Artemis
I don’t believe the poster claimed that Elizabeth Smart left willingly with a friend.
I would ask you to quote the section of the post which you are commenting on.
That way we all avoid endless repetitions of comments which were never made in the first place.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Professor Pam! It has everything to do with M because you have not read around your subject -like Dazey!
You know jack-sh*t! And then you come on this thread talking bollocks and trying to be reasonable and objective voice making out that we have no idea what we are talking about. You were obviously not born with a great deal of intuition.
Put it this way - If I joined a debating group at your University and the people were like you - I would fuck off because you wouldn’t be my kind of people! So I am inviting you to do the same if you don’t like us!
CLOUSEAU - Hi! I’m hanging in here and just hoping the Mods don’t wipe the threads about M from memory.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Coco
I am proud of the title you gave me.
I wish I could dispel all the mystery about the case. It probably is pathetic, and ugly.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
A revolting poster who should have been eaten at birth would like this thread put to bed and completely whoosh-clunked.
Commentariats - please ignore him. Please. He has Weirdness Syndrome and is a carbuncle with no chance of being lanced - unless we allow him to do so.
The Mods may get very pissed off with having to keep watching out for him and his compadres. They have enough trouble with people complaining about my swearing without having to look out for this Fuck-Wit!
So if we ignore him and carry on posting about M and the people she went on holiday with - we may eventually learn the truth about what really happened.
DAISY - The fact is that you are completely out of your depth if you don’t read around the subject - Professor Pam being terrifyingly educated will second this - But not publicly of course lol!
I refer now to a question that goes through my head many times a week - WHY DID KM BELIEVE THAT THE UK GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT PRESSURE ON THE PJ IF THEY DID NOT FUCK OFF AND STOP MAKING HER AND HER HUSBAND SUSPECTS????
What gave her the power and bottle to be such a cocky cow?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Dickens and Greene are boring enough without any help from me, thank you very much! (You know, I’d bet that, if you ‘d just check that thesaurus, there must be a word that means “boring” but starts with a “p”.)
By the way, what exactly did THAT have to do with Madeleine, dear?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Coco
me old mucker hows it hangin…..
Remigus is Pamela saying she also believes in the Smart thing…f*** me it worse than I thought
August 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Rasputin
Your assertion that this topic is in decline sounds like wishful thinking. Look at the number of posts. If you call that decline, I don’t.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Pamela,
Actually, you have made a lot of erroneous conclusions here. Elizabeth Smart was “abducted” (if you want to call it that) by an itinerent beggar man hired and befriended by her parents, who paid him to work on their home. so he knew Elizabeth and also her siblings–in fact, it was reportedly Elizabeth and her brother who took him off the street and home to meet their folks! No stranger, not a bit. And Elizabeth, for whatever reason, does not seem to have been forced from the bedroom she shared with her sister, who successfully hid herself for hours and hours–mostly because Elizabeth and her male friend-abductor wandered about the family home before leaving!
Strange, yes, but hardly a typical abduction.
As for JonBenet Ramsey, it is unknown who and how she left her bed after her father placed her there. Some detectives believe the mother did it in a rage over bedwetting and other psychological trauma. some believe that her younger brother did it for sexual purposes. Her father is still looking for her killer, whom he believes to be an unrelated third party. But there is no pattern similar to Madeleine McCann’s disappearance that I can see, unless Madeleine’s supposed abductor also chatted with Mad for hours, fed her pineapple from the refrigerator with a large spoon, changed her clothing, then somehow bludgeoned her head, then carted her off to the basement, tied her up with fake ligatures, and then sat down at the kitchen table using a yellow pad with the name “PATSY RAMSEY” written at the top, and took a black Sharpie pen out of the handy kitchen bowl and wrote a lengthy ransom note, which they then left on the staircase.
nah…..
August 30th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’ll try again, on the right thread…
chenier Says:
August 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Pamela said:
‘It still isn’t a good idea to leave children unattended. A lesson Madeleine’s parents have learned the hard way, and one which I have heard them admit. I’m sorry so many people seem to have missed that part.’
Probably because we didn’t have our hearing aids switched on.
It would be nice therefore if you could direct us to where you heard them say this…
August 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Clouseau! Ace! (As in tennis! Straight on the line)
Professor Pam doesn’t come on here to post - I think she just likes a bigger voyeuristic audience to hang out with than a group of students - who must be bored to fucking death with her.
I bet Professor Pam could make Dickens and Greene boring! lol
August 30th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
It appears that this topic on this board is in terminal decline.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Daisy & JO
Hello! Actually, the McCanns’ claim (or admission?) that they did not naturally conceive Madeleine, but used IVF, does raise MANY issues that would not be raised in other circumstances. Police would be looking for any signs of strain on the part of the parents, any physical problems that might contribute to this strain, any mental issues….
Infertility is highly associated with parental stress. And many fertility docs say that if egg and sperm are not lining up naturally to create conception, there might be some fundamental physiological and/or genetic issue, i.e., this particular combination of woman and man should perhaps adopt their children. In Vitro fertilization might work to circumvent the egg/sperm lining up aspect, but Mother Nature will not be fooled for long. In vitro may just create and sustain fetuses that carry problematic genetic conditions that would abort naturally.
The study has not officially been done yet as to whether parents who conceive their children in vitro have higher levels of genetic problems, or–the true test–whether the in vitro children go on to have successful natural pregnancies with surviving offspring who do not carry lethal genes.
It would indeed be tragically ironic if modern, space-age mommies and daddies used the very ancient “solution” of infanticide to solve the genetic problems in vitro has the potential to create.
But I am not saying in any way that this is what the McCanns may have done. Not at all.