Madeleine McCann: Adopted by Angelina Jolie, And The Changeling
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann
DAILY MAIL: “A mother leaves her child while she goes out - and returns to an empty house. No, not the McCann case but the true story behind a gripping new film”
Fact. Fiction. Can you spot the difference?
She was a devoted mother, hard-working, determined and tough. Then, one spring morning, Christine Collins kissed her little child goodbye (leaving him under the eye of neighbours), before returning in the evening to an empty house. Her beloved son had vanished without a trace.
A continent-wide hunt was launched and a shocked nation was kept agog by a string of leads - only for their hopes to be cruelly dashed as each clue led to a dead end.
The child was never seen again, the mother was heartbroken and the community was left divided by suspicion and mistrust.
Terrible. Just terrible. Does it work out in the end?
It could be the tragic story of Kate and Gerry McCann and their three-year-old daughter, Madeleine, who was abducted last year while on holiday in Portugal, and who remains missing to this day.
It could be, albeit with better lighting, a decent cast and a 15 certificate… Gone, Baby, Gone…
But, in fact, it is the plot of Clint Eastwood’s latest film, Changeling, which opens in Britain later this month.
But it’s all false, right? Angelina Jolie is only acting, right? Unless she adopted Madeleine?
It is all the more powerful because it is based on a horrific true story. The so-called ‘Wineville chicken coop murders’ took place on the outskirts of Los Angeles in 1928.
And while they happened 80 years before Maddie McCann disappeared, there are startling parallels between the two.
The McCanns’ grim experience in Praia de Luz - and how they were made suspects by bungling local police - was widely reported.
But Christine Collins suffered even worse treatment at the hands of the LA Police Department. As the investigation into her missing child failed to yield results, she was even locked up in a mental asylum.
It’s enough to drive you maaaaad. Maaaaad, I tell yer…
As in the McCann case, rumour followed rumour.
Each one recorded for posterity…
Posted: 8th, November 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (853) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- 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
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
November 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
November 13th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Your concern to my propensity for vertigo is touching agw if somewhat misplaced, if you are aware of the selective requests for links and see that as fair, then on that point we shall have to disagree.
-agw: I do not debate in here. The situation is fairly simple. You and others have on many occasions been asked to provide links or cross references. I neither know nor wish to know the exact reasons for those specific requests. Often slip-shod, badly translated or doubtful cross references have led, not to to censure but removal of whole posts. That is fact. This has happened rarely, if ever, in your case and, I think I’m right in saying, other issues may have caused any clashes you may have had with Mods.
When posters make the ‘I believe’, or ‘don’t you know’ claims…that is exactly what they are.
I will not get into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of these tedious debates on exacting detail in this case. It bores me witless but I accept there is still a demand for such debate.
What you may not do is attack the Moderators.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:13 am
You honour me agw with your interest, do you have an opinion that is for public consumption. I take it from your indicitive statement that links are no longer required, and aspersions can be cast as a matter of course. As for your “arsehole alert” have you tried any of the various ointments available for your affliction ?, piles must be very embarassing, all that squirming.
-agw: The alert was for the totally unnecessary snipe at the Moderators. You know much better than that. I repeat Moderators can not and do dictate what SHALL be written …nor do you rise to those giddy heights. Your cross refs are good but nought to crow about.
You get a fair crack of the whip here.
Do not make me use it differently. ..and I sit reasonably comfortably, thank you for your concern.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:06 am
We must join in projecting harmonious thoughts in the direction of Madeleine, and hope that her abductor(s) are soon to be apprehended.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Excellent post from earlier in the thread, lots of eggy faces on this one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++On the locations and the pieces that were marked and signaled by the blood dog, forensics tests were performed, especially at a reputed British laboratory (Forensic Science Service – check Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
FINAL REPORT.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
November 13th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Or have them withdraw their statement, or enlarge on actually what did happen and who is responsible for any crime against Madeleine, remember be careful.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:17 am
In an astonishing U-turn, police revealed that “human remains” found at the former home were almost all animal bones, and that only three were “possibly human”, which dated from between 1470 and 1670.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do like to supply a link, perhaps mods can have the “no abduction” afficinados supply the same courtesy, full official and unabridged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3446050/Jersey-abuse-case-detectives-rubbish-claims-of-murder-or-torture.html?mobile=true
Arsehole alert. That was no need for that crack and Moderators are not responsible for the construction of posts. Content is their only concern, and they do a good job.
Be fair: they are.
-agw
November 13th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Good Boy Eddie :raz:
November 13th, 2008 at 1:59 am
“It is important to note that a substantial amount of animal bone has been recovered from the site as a whole. The EVRD has ignored all such material whilst alerting to confirmed human remains.”
EVRD - Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog
November 13th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Stig I checked out the blog you refer to, apart from being about 3 miles long, the whole could be covered with a Whitewash brush!
November 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am
the real stig, where is the false positive ? human remains were found, that is not a false positive.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Grande Finale
The 1950 ‘possible dating’ is the less likely option for that particular bone fragment, the more likely date was 1650 or so. There is no confirmation that the three bone fragments are even human at all:
““possibly” human” timesonline
Read here how the dogs were employed in detail, what they reacted to etc, then compare it with the reality which has now unfolded.:
http://tinyurl.com/6at3cn
False positives.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Rasputin Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am
*******************
A reversal of arguido status doesn’t rule out being charged with a crime with the presentation of new evidence, does it Raspie ?
I do agree with you though that there is no forensics to back up a claim of kidnapping!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:32 am
yes, try that montaillou. wish i could help but i don’t know either how to do such.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am
The parents have been released from suspicion along with RM, there are only two remaining possibilities if there is nothing to implicate the three former arguidos. That does not include the nonsense in the over active minds of the conspiracy mongers.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Thanks GF and Sam, I do have flash installed and the latest update but it doesn’t always seem to trigger when it should and someone told me the other day that it was an issue with Vista. For instance I can’t run videos from Sky News or sometimes YouTube. Obviously needs a bit more investigation at my end. Unfortunately my iT guy is in hospital with cancer at the moment, so I’ll have to consult my olng-suffeing son remotely, should have thought of it last night.
Thanks again.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
montaillou, it just occured to me, and you did say it, but if your flash isn’t working then no, you wouldn’t see it, if that box is flash.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Montaillou Says:
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I give up, I think it’s me. No moving headlines or names anywhere.
*************************
It is flash based you must have flash installed and enabled.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:17 am
good night montaillou
November 13th, 2008 at 12:15 am
As far as the Maddie case goes the dogs were an indication, along with numerous other indications. These numerous indications were not pointing to a kidnapping.
As I believe Rasputin will tell you there is no forensics to back up a claim of kidnapping!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:14 am
I give up, I think it’s me. No moving headlines or names anywhere. I’ll try it with XP tomorrow at work then at least I’ll have a clue as to what’s doing it.
Thanks for your help everyone, off to bed xxx
November 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
montaillou, strange, have no idea then, i’ve just checked on the vista machine and it definately displays both sides with a stripe.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:12 am
The Real Stig Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Grand Finale said”
“Human remains were found!”
Yes, but not thanks to Eddie and Keelas indications! a large scale archaeological dig costing 4.2m pounds is what found them
Three were human and two of these dated from between 1470-1670 and 1650-1950 respectively. .”
They dug up a 20cm thick concrete floor and found a shard of coconut shell, and nothing else - all on the dogs say-so.
*************************
a) The Cadaver dogs were involved in an operation in which human remains were found.
b)Human bones possibly from 1950 may not interest you, but it would if they had belonged to you!
c)The Cadaver material may have been trapped in the concrete, just because forensic material wasn’t recovered doesn’t mean it wasn’t or hadn’t been there.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:07 am
right at the top of the thread which you can only see if you click view all comments montaillou.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Sam I’ve only got the stripe down one side and I suppose it is a sort of pale blue rather than grey.
Real Stig - I’ll try Firefox, don’t really like it and haven’t tried it with Vista but I’ll give it a go, thanks.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Get the feeling the “new” site is not compatible with all browsers - a bit like we used to have 10 years ago with Netscape [remember?] and Netscape … Bye again
November 13th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Mods & Admin 11.43 p.m.
What moving healdines and names???? There ain’t any where I’m sitting??
November 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
and don’t you have the stripe on both sides ?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
on the vista machine it looks more blue. monitor must be rubbish.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Montaillou
If Firefox will run under vista, get it.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Yes = to Montaillou