McCanns To ‘Sue’ The Madeleine Foundation
MADELEINE McCann Watch: Anorak’s at-a-glance look at Madeleine McCann in the news - “McCanns to sue” The Madeleine Foundation “over leaflet distributed in their OWN VILLAGE blaming them for Madeleine’s disappearance”…
A source told MailOnline the couple intend to pursue legal action and may even bring in the police.
Read why here.
But know that the Mail’s scoop is - as is the way with so much tabloid news - tempered by other facts:
A family friend said the couple were were ‘devastated’ by the campaign and may sue for libel.
What can the odious The Madeleine Foundation be sued for? And if you are a legal expert do tell the innocent McCanns what they can do.
Posted: 15th, August 2009 | In: Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (87) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
Recent comments
- Anorak on X Factor Does Pride Watch: Cheryl Cole Patronises Joe McElderry
- davie bassest on X Factor Does Pride Watch: Cheryl Cole Patronises Joe McElderry
- Anorak on Susan Boyle On Pride Watch: Holly Willoughby Patronises The X Factor Singer
- Cheryl on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- June on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
Regular Features
August 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Near to credible? Not on my planet.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Is Blackwater/CIA still doing contract wet work?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Fact, ATLANTIS PROJECT can be linked to an untested theory that a person can be seen in more than one place at the same time, Ring any bells?
Indigo Children is a project by new age geeks, who think these children are the future intelligent source for the twenty first century, having been born with an aura about them. children such as hyper or autistic have been looked at.
Could skin from a grazed knee, left to rot have the same effect of the scent of a dead corpse ?
Could blood from a syringe be used to lay false evedence?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
admin whats up!
Just posted a bit more info and you never posted it, perhaps it to near to credible eh!
August 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Just one more thing.
Amber Alert has now had it’s bill passed in the EU
Madeleine is not gone for ever, I believe she was fostered legally hence K&J happy.
faces and will be returned.
Fact, Blood samples taken in a syringe can be used to lay false evedence leading the crime detectives on a false path.
Could clothes tinged by rotting flesh, such as off a scraping of skin from a knee might be enough to set the sniffer dog wild and have the same effect as a dead body rubbed on clothes, it could leave a false accusations.
Madeleine will be returned in a blaze of media publicity and personified as a miracle
(Indigo child) another one of A Harts discription, Indigo meaning a child with an aura
around them, some new age fantasist believe that these children do exist and are the new humans inteligent children of the 21st Century such as the autistic children, and hyper children.
Who know maybe thas where Madeleine was destained?
August 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Amanda Jayne Hart - Psychic…
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2876
August 25th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Cheryl how’s this for true
Regarding Kate’s telephone list leading up to the alledged abduction.
Kate McCann was reported to have told the inspector on their case when he enquired about one particular phone call she made the day before the 3rd of May.
(I phoned my friend Amanda!
K&G are and have been for a long time into Amber Alert.
A Hart the psychic on the Madeleine case who was already out in Portugal working on the Atlantis Project and had set up a web site called Amber Connections days before Madeleine’s alledged abduction.
There is an Atlantis Project can be linked to the experiment of a person being in more than one place at the same time, ring any bells?
Amanda Hart says she had a 4yr old child called Madeleine snatched from her and was told she would see her again when she was sixteen. that time as now past,
What she failed to say her kids were taken from her.
She also gave a remarkable account of what had happened to Madeleine, adding (Madeleine is now at peace) in Psychic speak.
I have linked together a very possible scenario at what happend tp Madeleine and have linked many people involved.
Psychic Detectives is quite a popular Channel4 Programe! even did a programe on the Jonbenet murder blaming the Peds
August 19th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Has Anorak solved the problem of possible libel on these threads? Is that why I keep being told my mail has failed the spam detector and been rejected? Posting becomes too much of an effort under those circs.
I’m waiting to see what happens to this…….
Moderator - I have checked spam and I cannot find any post other than this one, however I shall fwd a copy to teccie
August 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Seems to me we’ve harnessed several dead horses together and increased speed and pulling power.
June, me ol’ luv …………….. high window ledge?
http://img40.imageshack.us/i/windowapartment5a.jpg/
Unless you’re a bleedin midget then I fail to see what long arms has got to do with it.
You do realise apartment 5a was on the ground floor don’t you?
Moderator _ Garth keep to the topic.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Garth loves a good flogging…
August 18th, 2009 at 9:03 am
June - maybe he didn’t have long arms but he was sitting on a horse - not a dead one I hope.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I wonder if anyone ever actually saw the person with extraordinarily long arms who could reach over a high windowsill and lift a child out of bed …which was the gospel according to Garth for a long long time…and some very deceased equine tall story that was too
August 18th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Is flogging deceased equines ever socially acceptable?
August 18th, 2009 at 7:22 am
2 June says:
August 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Garth
As she could not describe either the man or the childs face, its hardly a viable sighting.
And that is a reasonable answer
—————————
Bless
If that’s a reasonable answer to assume she ‘ wandered off’ then me gets the impression I’m flogging dead horse here!
August 18th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Gotta wonder:
if any of you saw some man holding a child walking down a street (didn’t see their faces).
Later you find that a child was taken - would you just stay quiet?
Have to hand it to Jane - she has taken so much humiliation and ridicule from the people of her country. I would not be surprised that after what she has gone through, another in a similar situation would just stay quiet.
Who would want to deal with this, after all?
August 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Garth
As she could not describe either the man or the childs face, its hardly a viable sighting.
And that is a reasonable answer
August 17th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Seems a few things didn’t become relevant to Tanner until after she was told,Murat suddenly became relevant after a reporter told of their suspicions,the design on the PJ’s which in the begining may or may not have been PJ’s became very relevant after she was told ,potato man suddenly developed a face relevant to the person possibly seen lurking by another witness after she was told,there are other instances of suddenly becoming relevant but enough for the time being.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
By: June
17 August 2009 20:08
Garth
It was darkish , there were NO facial recognitions whatsoever, just M&S(possibly) pyjamas on a child. Unless the McCann group were the only people there, wasn’t it possible it was some father carrying his own child back from the creche?
If I saw a child I thought I recognised being carried by someone I did NOT recognise I should have stopped the person and asked them and seen for myself.
However Ms Tanner assumed it was Madeleine.
Were the McCann group the only people there?
—————————
June
You seem to ignore the fact that not one person has come forward to be identified.
You also seem to ignore the fact that there was another sighting of a child being carried by an unidentified person who also hasn’t come forward to explain their total innocence.
And to add, I don’t think the relevance of Tanners’ sighting became apparent to her until after she had been told what had happened. Why would it? As like you say, it could have been anybody carrying a child, although a little odd at that time of night and in pyjamas admittedly; even more reason to be suspicious don’t you think - especially given that the creche was in a completely different direction to the one from where this person was seen carrying a child.
And what about the creche itself? Surely they would have known?
June, I’m not saying that any of the above mentioned is proof of anything. But to ignore or have no reasonable answers to any of the above factors does speak volumes.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Garth
Re other witnesses seeing person short while after JT.
I have read reports that this other family didn’t see the person carrying a child until approx 40 mins after the supposed sighting by JT and also in the opposite direction to that taken by person supposedly seen by JT,common sense tells me there are questions to be asked as to whether this was the same person or who has given true information with regards the timeline.
I have absolutely no idea as to the fate of Madeleine but neither can I believe given these supposed discrepancies that all is to be believed.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Cheryl says:
August 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Gandolf, note your views may have changed in statements you are making
==========================================
No Cheryl, reality kicked in, for what it is worth I have my doubts as to the validity or existence of this alleged “senior banker witness” more sort of as has been said, PR rather than PI. The story gets more and more like a bad film script and MBM gets further and further pushed down the cast of characters.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Garth
It was darkish , there were NO facial recognitions whatsoever, just M&S(possibly) pyjamas on a child. Unless the McCann group were the only people there, wasn’t it possible it was some father carrying his own child back from the creche?
If I saw a child I thought I recognised being carried by someone I did NOT recognise I should have stopped the person and asked them and seen for myself.
However Ms Tanner assumed it was Madeleine.
Were the McCann group the only people there?
But, lets agree had the McCann parents been in Apt 5A instead of the tapas bar , then they would have known what was going on….
August 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Clive
Not everyone walks the streets with their eyes shut.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
By: June
17 August 2009 18:55
Garth
You do wade right in, don’t you? she could be mistaken.
I never said she was lying.
But what proof is there that Madeliene was abducted? No one , including her parents, have the foggiest idea what happened.
What proof do YOU have that she didn’t wander off
——————————–
Of course I don’t have any proof of anything. I never made claim to have had. I tend to just go on the common sense approach.
Unfortunately common sense doesn’t go with the idea that she was mistaken. And in that I mean that if Tanner wasn’t sure of her sighting then why would she confirm the thoughts of Kate who was hysterical at this point? Surely you wouldn’t make such a claim unless you were absolutely certain?
It also doesn’t explain why another family described a person dressed similiar and carrying a child in the same fashion shortly after does it? Do you think that is pure coincidence? Of course, we also have to bear in mind that not one person has come forward to be recognised. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
So I ask again, not for proof however, but just for your logical reasoning as to why Tanner was mistaken and Madeleine just wandered off?
August 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Gandolf, note your views may have changed in statements you are making. I thought it was found there was no evidence to charge any of the three? Granted the first four months investigation was worse than a sick joke but Investigator Rebelo, a true professional, did a thorough job in his investigation, so it seems. The McCanns have been quite vocal and gone public in their attempts to find their missing daughter. Only a total fool would keep themselves in the pubic eye on TV, give interviews, hire detectives, and go on international talk shows if they had something to hide. Granted they committed a very foolish act by leaving their three children alone but one foolish act does not make one a total fool.
There has always been a smell to this case, Gandolf, but in my personal opinion that smell was not and is not coming from the UK.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Garth
Surely the fact that a child has been missing for three years is pretty strong
evidence that a crime has been committed.
Of course, the issue is what was cause of this.
You state that common sense and the law of probabilites make you believe the
McCanns are innocent. Surely it is the law of probabilities that dictates that
any police investigation is put on the parents of a dead or missing child for
simple reason that in the majority of cases, it was the parents what done it.
My own common sense makes me think there must be some other cause
rather than abduction when there is zero evidence so far to support such a supposition.
It seems a standard statement from the McCanns advisors that they will be suing whoever but this is still to happen. They know it will open a whole new can of worms.
Lastly, I agree with Gandolph that lifting suspect status is not the same as
saying the suspect is innocent, only that at that time there is insufficient evidence to proceed.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
agw I don’t think this a pro or anti thing. I think it is a general wondering about the hidden agendas of the big three… Chesty, Dobbie and Photoshop.
No-one puts that amount of time and effort into something just on a whim. There is a hidden agenda, is it financial? is it publicity seeking? Its the same as the Barrymore case… why?
I believe the ’spotted, stalked, snatched’ scenario but I am no fan of the mcCanns. How can I be? I don’t know them. I just believe what I believe and others believe something different.
But what baffles me is the sheer hatred from some quarters and the glee with which they pounce on every negative and ignore every positive. They don’t know the mcCanns but they hate them anyway, with a passion. They don’t want them to be not involved.
But regardless, right now its karma to see them running scared instead of being playground bullies as is the norm!
August 17th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Garth
You do wade right in, don’t you? she could be mistaken.
I never said she was lying.
But what proof is there that Madeliene was abducted? No one , including her parents, have the foggiest idea what happened.
What proof do YOU have that she didn’t wander off?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Garth.
I don’t have a problem differentiating between the two and don’t agree with MF’s distribution of leaflets but neither do I see why the McC,s are allowed to drag whomever they choose into the limelight without their PI’s at least making an attempt at investigation before feeding drips of information to the world press.
I don’t think I’ve seen an apology through the press to those exposed in this way but I may be wrong.
Both tactics are wrong and both should be stopped.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
32 June says:
August 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
But there is no evidence of a crime being committed, I think Madeliene wandered off, and her parents were very remiss in leaving the children, but it doesn’t mean they were involved in any foul action against her, no matter how sure certain parties are.
——————————
Just to clarify; there is no such thing as Pro McCanns. Anti McCanns - indeed there are.
June
Forgive me for picking up on your post but I believe a lot of people who go with the notion that the McCanns are innocent tend to do so from a common sense point of view and balance of probability and/or likelihood.
If, as you believe, the young girl wondered off (which is possible) then we have to assume that Ms Tanner is lying. And if Ms Tanner is lying then we must have a reasonable explanation as to why. Do you have one?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Very bad move to sue anyone, lots of cans of worms to be opened in a court,it aint gonna happen. As a matter of interest were the darling duo absolved or merely had their arguido status lifted, which I understand can be reimposed at any time as the arguido papers are still live in the case file.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
June, got the addresses from the Dark Side of town? No doubt they did as they sure as heck didn’t get them out of Anorak. You know you can buy from companies in the business lists of many thousands of names and addresses for mass mailings and even have them do the mass mailings for you for a high price. The trouble is once you get on one or more of those mass mailing lists you are deluged with mass mailings from everywhere and companies you never heard of. So hope if they bought mass mailing lists they got one with my name on and I am on some, unfortunately or rather it would be fortunate this time.