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
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- 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
August 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The Real Stig
Hmmm…so much name-calling! Wonder what that means….
but anyway, your racial remarks aside….if I remember correctly, there were actually two sets of clothing found, but nothing else. Just do explain to me, mate, how the first set of clothing was found, neatly set out on a rock, I think….
I think the missing baby’s “onesey” was found with NO trace of dingo saliva or anything, no signs of chewing….and the baby’s socks were found neatly INSIDE the little onsey.
Like I said, maybe it was a dingo that killed the little girl. but who knew a dingo would be so neat and fastidious?
As for a dingo dragging the body away….did I say the trackers were wrong? No. Perhaps…perhaps what most likely happened (given the neat and careful removal of the clothing) is that the child met with some fatal misfortune. And THEN the dingo picked it up and dragged it off.
although it is kind of unusual for a dog to wolf down a human baby WHOLE, head and all, isn’t it? Not too many recorded cases of that.
The second clothing “find” was made later, just in the nick of time, I think, and it was the little baby jacket, which was found near a known dingo lair. AGain, no signs of dingo saliva, no other typical wild dog marks, etc., if I remember correctly. And we can check it out.
Was the evidence planted to save the day?
All jolly good questions!
I do believe that the married couple in question divorced afterwards, didn’t they? So much stress….
August 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
M&A–You guys really going to let that stand? A fourteen year old girl is kidnapped from her bed, raped, and held by two certifiable lunatics for a year, but a.) she chose to go and “marry” the kidnapper, and b.) it was her fault he was there in the first place? Her abducters are hospitalized, not because they’re crazy as the day is long, but to prevent them testifying against her parents??? I can’t even bite my tongue hard enough to be able to respond to his comments on the Klaas, Lunsford, and Groene cases. Suffice it to say, the poster is clearly misinformed of the facts.
I mean, Coco is, well Coco–annoying but harmless (at least as long as you keep her on your side of the Atlantic), but this guy isn’t only factually incorrect, his statements could easily be legally challenged. I’d also like to keep him well away from my own fourteen year old/
——
M&A
Artemis
Earlier today I asked you to quote the section of the post that you were referring to, so that we could see exactly what you were commenting on.
You have chosen to ignore that perfectly reasonable request and instead launch another round of rewording someone else’s posts, so that you can express your outrage at what you claim they said, as opposed to what they said.
Once is unfortunate; twice looks like carelessness.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Remigius
Pamela was right about your habits. I didn’t believe her remark was anything but a dig but that piece of stunning ignorance makes me think she was possibly right.
Parts of Azarias clothing were found next to a dingos lair, which is part of the reason the case was re-examined and Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated.
The highly skilled Aboriginal trackers who were first called in at the time of the babies disappearance, were absolutely adamant they were tracking a dingo dragging the baby. Of course the white Fellas (except the white police and rangers who frequently worked with them) chose to ignore the ‘insignificant’ opinions of the inferior black fellas and an enormous miscarriage of justice ensued.
You are pig ignorant about this one, mate.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
abraham, it looks like there isn’t one.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
While we’re about it does anyone have the Wikipedia entry for Ricky Holland?
August 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
remigius, i actually do believe the dingo version of events.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I think the Aussies who blamed the Dingo were very lucky, and they should spend the rest of their lives doing charitable deeds.
as soon as I am done with this delicious morning crack, I am going to search for the book of which you speak.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
remigus, yes i know. i think the mother and someone else together wrote it, it reads like a pact, especially the signatures to me. i looked at it quite closely for a long time comparing things but i’m no expert. the book sounds interesting.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The Real Stig
Wasn’t a wild dog seen leaving the scene in PDL, right behind eggman?
Funny how the dingo ate every single thing, and never pooped it out…except for the baby clothes, which he/she very neatly removed and placed on a rock prior to devouring….
That is one smart dingo!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Pamela and Gailen
Oh, the other really interesting thing about the Smart case is that (and I might be wrong, so please do check), I don’t think that the authorities have EVER tried her alleged “kidnappers,” have they?
I mean, they claim insanity or something…..
But the fact that NEITHER supposed criminal has faced public trial and interrogation for their actions means that, significantly, NOTHING the SMARTS say can be publicly contradicted!
the SMARTS get to write their own version of events. AGain, and again, and again.
Interesting.
who does that remind you of? I mean, if someone convinces the public that there is an evil kidnapper, an evil pedo out there, somewhere, and hires scads of pro publicity folks to church this story endlessly, well, in the end, the only story that gets heard is the that one.
Unless you can read Portuguese or something.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Clouseau
Damn, I forgot the dingo! Make that three abductions in the presence of adults.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
sam
Actually, most people think that Patsy Ramsey wrote the letter.
The question is…why?
Who was she protecting? herself, or someone else?
The FBI called it “The War and Peace of Ransom Notes.” No pro kidnapper would pause to write anything that long. It’s like a Unibomber letter. If they were going to be long, they would have written it before they came. But the letter was very clearly written on Patsey Ramsey’s yellow pad, with one of her pens, in handwriting that looks a lot like hers. The National Enquirer published a whole book on the note a while back. it’s still kicking around in paperback, and it’s very interesting.
Yes, the Enquirer is a tabloid. But they are the same tabloid that just busted former U.S. Senator John Edwards for lying about his sexcapades. They do their homework, that lot.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Gailen
If you like wikipedia, why don’t you look up “Martha Moxley?”
Learn a bit about how the rich and powerful evade justice.
A letter from the DA makes it all better?
I mean, that letter cracks me up! But of course, there is tragedy behind it, so it’s really not very funny. And lookee there, I used the word “cracks,” so…Pammy must be right, no?
Facts, man. How convenient for all the Ramseys, dead and alive, that the DNA remains “a mystery.”
Funny how you don’t hear too much about JonBenet’s younger brother, except for that pesky tape recording of his voice on the morning of the murder, when both his parents swore to the police (and still claim, I think), that he slept through the whole thing.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Clouseau
Thank you kindly for the offer but I was hoping for something with more immediate gratification potential.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
i thought in jo ramsey’s case that the letter had been written by two people, it’s a very odd ransom note, if anyone’s interested i could try to find the link again.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Gailen
Look here, lad, a letter from a DA is no proof of anything!
But we do understand why Mr. Ramsey would want such a letter, based on, apparently and purportedly, a very, very miniscule trace of DNA found on JonBenet’s longjohns that could have come, frankly, from many places, including from one of the many onlookers Patsy Ramsey called to be with her in her hour of need. Including, but not limited to, the invited onlooker who helped John Ramsey find his daughter’s body in the basement, and then threw the crime scene into a tizzy by hauling the corpse and its coverings up the stairs and throwing their bodies on it in spasms of grief.
Lessee…who did that kind of thing most recently? who invited over hoardes of friends and relatives and laid waste to the evidence and the crime scene?
Oh no, if I tell you who did that, then I might get banned from the site, or admonished, or be accused of….what was it? “Smoking crack for breakfast….”
Just keep looking for that one-armed man, seen fleeing the scene….oh, wait now, that’s another show…..
August 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Oh I just bet that goes into moderation too. Just in case, it says you were wrong over Jon Benet Ramsey as well, Remegius.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Stig
I read it in a book ….wanna copy
August 30th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Remigius - re Jon Benet Ramsey this is from Wikipedia:-
“Letter from District Attorney
On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney’s office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case.[14] In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[15] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:
“This new scientific evidence convinces us…to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. … The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder. … To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. … We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. … I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence, …”
So you are wrong again, Remigius. I have nothing personal against you, You seem like a polite poster, but you make sweeping statements with no back up.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Pamela and Mods & Admins
I do want to add that Pamela’s claim that I “smoke crack at breakfast” is a fascinating one. See, this is what psychologists call “projection.”
Who’s smoking crack at breakfast, again?
that would not be me.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Remigius - re Jon Benet Ramsey this is from Wikipedia:-
“Letter from District Attorney
On July 9, 2008, the Boulder District Attorney’s office announced that as a result of newly developed DNA sampling and testing techniques, the Ramsey family members are no longer considered suspects in the case.[14] In light of the new DNA evidence, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy gave a letter[15] to John Ramsey the same day, officially apologizing to the Ramsey family:
“This new scientific evidence convinces us…to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. … The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder. … To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. … We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. … I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence, …”
So you are wrong again Remigius. I have nothing personal against you, You seem like a polite poster, but you make sweeping statements with no back up.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Gailen
you are flailing about, aren’t you! Why?
The fact is that Elizabeth Smart knew her kidnapper. Even her sister, the witness, said to the police that his voice was one she recognized.
Quite a few books have been written about the Smart matter, and I followed all the press reports closely (which of course, as we see with the McCanns, means nothing!). But it is uncontroverted that in fact, Elizabeth Smart met her kidnapper on the street with some of her siblings, and her mother encouraged him to come to their home and fix their roof and work on their house. And he did!
He talked to Elizabeth and her siblings about his religious beliefs….they knew who he was. Unwisely, the adult Smarts allowed this odd man to enter not just their social circle, but their very home.
Most kidnappers/abductors/murderers/abusers are people who the victim knows. They are usually, but not always, within, or brought into, various interlapping circles of trust, if they are not actual relatives themselves.
From her actions, it does not appear that Elizabeth Smart was particularly alarmed. She took time to put on her shoes, even turning on a light. She was very calm. And she and her “abductor” walked around the family home. I believe they even entered another bedroom, if I remember correctly.
Surely a 14-year old fit child could have safely bolted! The whole thing puzzled police for a long time.
Like I said, though, the good thing is that she was found safe and, well…uhm…apparently “married.”
It is ironic that the Mormon community called her abductor a religious fanatic, when his aim was to have multiple marriages….!! Just kidding.
the mail point is that there is NO commonality with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
There is no case under investigation in the uk, it is a purely Portuguese remit, with assistance from the British police.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
clouseau
Have you got a link or some search terms please - I haven’t heard about that one.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
From the BBC website:-
Night-time abduction
Elizabeth was snatched from the room she shared with her nine-year-old sister as the family slept at their home in an affluent suburb of Salt Lake City.
The sister, who pretended to be asleep during the abduction, said Elizabeth was taken by a man who threatened to hurt the elder girl if she did not keep quiet.
Mitchell, who is described as a beggar and self-appointed prophet for the homeless, had been hired by the Smarts to help work on their roof for one day in late 2001, according to the family.
He and Barzee are being held by police on suspicion of kidnapping.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Remigus - that’s not what you said, you said:-
“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.”
Now you are backtracking. You were wrong.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Coco, I would like to translate the conclusions of the AG, but I haven’t got them in French. I’ll look if I can find them somewhere, as I think I read them.
I checked yesterday on Enfants Kidnappés, it said in July that the case was going to be archived under the label “homicide and concelament of a body”. I wish Salomon ES was there to help. I know he sometimes visited other sites, so if someone sees him on another site, ask him please to visit Anorak, and help us with a few questions we have.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Stig
you can also add the strange going ons in Mallorca
August 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Gailen
Well, I quite enjoy wikipedia, but the facts of the Elizabeth Smart “abduction” are well-known, although the Smart family does try periodically to rewrite and spin them. NOt that I don’t sympathize with that.
But in fact, Elizabeth Smart shared her bedroom with her sister, who witnessed the “abduction.” She claimed the man had a gun….but later it was determined he had a knife which he just showed to the girls. Elizabeth took time to dress, and then she and her “abductor” wandered about the family home for hours. In fact, her sister had hidden in a closet, and had to hide again because the two were still hanging about!
Questions that have never been answered….
Of course, everyone is just glad that Elizabeth is home and alive. And I do understand that. But to compare the Smart matter with what happened (or did not happen) in PDL with Madeleine McCann is…well, to quote Philomena….”Ludicrous!”
August 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Pamela
Excellent points regarding children being taken with adults nearby,
You can add to those examples the case of a 6 year old girl who was snatched from her bath in her home in Tyneside in the UK and the case of a British girl assaulted in a youth hostel in France.