Madeleine McCann Linked To Claudia Lawrence Case
MADELEINE McCann Watch: Anorak’s at-a-glance look at Madeleine McCann in the news: Because all missing persons must be put in the context of Madeleine McCann, that benchmark for the vanished, the mother of missing Malton chef Claudia Lawrence is ready to talk to the McCanns.
Frustrated by the lack of progress in the police investigation, Joan Lawrence said she was thinking of going on the speaking circuit to spread the word about Claudia’s mysterious disappearance.
Why not? Her announcement of a possible plan is already keeping his daughter in the spotlight.
Joan said she also had plans to contact the family of Madeleine McCann “just to talk and share experiences”.
And there it is. The McCanns have become the media face of the missing, a shortcut to promoting your own cause. Context is given. Everyone’s at it, even the Archbishop of York prates with Google keywords in mind to hightlight his own vested interest, in this case Easter:
“In both Claudia and Madeleine’s cases, someone knows where they are,” Archbishop Sentamu told the News of the World.
Who would not solicit the McCanns’ advice and patronage, which can result in an impact on the web (see here) where Our Maddie is still a big story?
Claudia Lawrence was 35 when she went missing. Madeleine McCann was four. The cases are similar in two ways: Both Madeleine McCann and Claudia Lawrence are missing; the media glare has not led to either being found.
She said she had rejected interview requests from the national media because she was disgusted with the way Claudia’s private life had been portrayed, with lurid allegations about relationships with married men.
“It’s time to stand up for Claudia,” she said. “Anyone who really knows her knows that 90 per cent of it isn’t true.”
In both cases media involvement has not resulted in either missing person being found. In the end, the media just exploits them.
Posted: 11th, September 2009 | In: Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (85) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
September 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Point taken.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Mods, I only saw my first post at first, the one without a comment from you. I’ve now read the other one.
Sorry, I thought the Tal & Qual thing was quite well-known so didn’t think it in itself would be libellous.
Moderator - each libel repeated is in itself another libel, whether well known or not
September 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I wonder why is my comment still awaiting moderation?
September 18th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Hi C&C
Yup, We are/were talking about the same guy. The lover boy.
My clue is : who went to Florida to check a playground castle?
(Yampster’s got it right).
Until now there’s been 77 supportive comments on Chesty’s site. Err no, make that 76 as he clearly didn’t understand my sarcasme and posted my message (never happened before, all the others got stuck in moderation).
Wonder if they’ll really donate to his ‘fighting fund’ and doubt it’ll be enough to pay the bills in the end. Poor miss Orange Stalker will be the scapegoat and she’ll have to pay most of it. Website is still up, not a clever move of old Chesty.
GA’s book and interviews show how he (still) doesn’t understand what the experts told him. By the many, many mistakes that were made right from the start, the language barrier , cultural differences), tunnel vision, bias, xenophobia, misogyny, ego (need I go on?) Madeleine once again became the victim.
And now these horrible men are playing the victim card, making themselves the issue, trying to get fame and fortune on the back of a missing child. If only all their energy and efforts was used to find Madeleine, who knows what might have happened?
September 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
C&C Check your inbox for flight details
September 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
AZ Thanks, I wasn’t aware of those procedures.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
AZ said…. Having said all that it seems maybe someone wants to be sued come what may.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve thought that for a long time. Like the child who pushes and pushes until it gets told off because getting told off = attention.
There is a hidden agenda / obsession there that I find both spooky and fascinating with both of the main offenders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Totje… hi there. Clue for you re phony translations:. Another journo/blogger who claimed to have insider info etc etc. He was one step from God to the anti’s but then it was discovered he was really a big fat fibber making it all up as he went along!
Now give me a clue about the flight simulator. I missed that…….
September 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Rockhopper, that would be because their shirts aren’t worth very much. Probably wouldn’t run to much more than a Clifford Chance lingerie allowance.
After all, who’d pay the legal fees?
September 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
AZ,
He’s backed off pretty quickly on the Kennedy accusations. I’d be surprised if it took long for him to fold on the rest.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Rockhopper, it is because they have to follow the Civil Procedure Rules.
Not like the good old days when a solicitor’s letter began with an accusation and ended with a threat then wam-bam a writ.
Having said all that it seems maybe someone wants to be sued come what may.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Why are Carter-Ruck being so nice to old chesty and co?? After all the irritation they’ve caused for team Mc I’d have expected C-R to have come down hard on them, straight into court and have the shirts off their backs!
September 18th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Hi Maria (and everybody else)
Don’t you think it’s fun-fun-fun the Flight Simulator has been sacked?
He always seemed to be a pretty revengeful character. Wonder what he’ll do next.
Doubt if GA will make it to the 2nd “international” conference. Chesty was already making excuses for him. Imagine GA’s disappointment (and the lovely mrsGA) if they turn up and there’s not the hundreds of adoring fans he thinks he’s got.
Cool you are right, there’s been malicious translations circulating all over the Internet.
Though I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same person. Care to give a little clue?
Night all, John Boy, Sue Ellen etc.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Hello again, Maria. So on 2 September 2007 we were promised a “courtroom showdown”, doesn’t time fly?
How best to respond? Well if I were to receive a “cease and desist” letter from Carter-Ruck I’d be inclined to do just that - at least until I’d spoken to an expert in that field. Protocols and all that.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Oh dear He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is not playing it very clever just now
September 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Maria/Mods
Maria, hope you don’t think I’m ignoring you, my response to your earlier posts did not find favour with the moderator. Perhaps I could round off the debate by suggesting that the quote may have been a forum myth, possibly arising from an unreliable “leak” to a Portuguese paper. When I raised the question earlier I genuinely believed that the quote was authentic but this belief could have been erroneous.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I’ve sent it to editor@
September 17th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Sorry Mod, I meant what address at Anorak? There’s a couple the bottom and I don’t know which one to use.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hi all, sorry no time now to discuss or read it all.
Seems Carter Ruck has been busy too.
Poor old Chesty and the Stalker got a nice letter of them….
He really should have paid more attention during those lectures about libel or harassment.
Take care. Bye.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Which address?
It’s on loads of sites now but I’ll still send it if you like
Moderator - the link that would be rejected one
September 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
AZ
Yes, I also remember de Sousa saying they thought Madeleine could well be dead. I don’t remember him reverting to the abduction theory but I have to google everything to check! I got the impression that he felt he wasn’t being kept properly in the lop because of all the unofficial leaks. I really wish I’d kept a file. I suppose the mccannfiles are the best source of info from beginning to end of this case. although I haven’t used the site recently.
I definitely remember Rebelo as being strictly neutral but very thorough and more or less going back to square one in the investigation..at least for public consumption.
Moderator - there have been teccie problems again on site, but your posts should appear
September 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
AZ
Definitely Sousa. Just google key words with his name. Any number of articles.
Mods
I’m not quite sure why my post can’t appear? (It would answer AZ’s query.) Do you mind if I ask why? It’s only a quote from an old Daily Mail online article, together with the link. I didn’t think there was anything contentious in it. Apologies if it breaches some rule but I am honestly in the dark as to why it might.
Maybe I’m only supposed to give the link itself? If so, perhaps I could send it?
September 17th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Thanks for the great news, Bat E Bird. It is said what wrongs one does to others comes back two-fold on them and this is long over due.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I’ve just been reading that a certain website’s owners have been contacted by “The leading and most expensive firm of libel lawyers in the country”.
Apparently it seems more than one letter has been sent and one contains a list of requirements. I can’t give the link because one of the owners was banned from here ages ago.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Moderator - send it to Anorak
September 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Hi, Maria, I can’t be sure whether it was Rebelo or de Sousa who made that comment and I can’t find any reference to it now (though I’m not the world’s best googler.) My memory of de Sousa is that he originally expounded the abduction theory, then later on he said the PJ were looking at whether Maddy died in the apartment, then not long before he resigned he reverted to the abduction theory.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I think the difference Vimes, is that they had already been named, arrested and charged and of course they were acquitted.
Being the type of males they were, they had no concerns about being called murderers by the media. In fact it was almost a badge of honour and, in the circles they mixed in, it did them no harm at all so there was no reason for them to sue or pursue.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Vimes
Interesting! I must look at that case!
September 17th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I remember the Daily Mail, on 14/2/97, printing the names and pictures of the 5 men acquitted of the Stephen Lawrence murder, under the headline “Murderers: the Mail accuses these men of killing – if we are wrong, let them sue us” – pot, kettle, black, or sauce, goose, gander?
September 17th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Garth
Thanks! That’s his name. If I remember rightly, he said something to the effect that the McCanns were not suspects, they were victims. I can’t remember exactly when it was but it was obviously before they were made arguidos! I think it was when rumours that they might be made arguidos were first leaked to the media. I think he simply meant that they were victims because they had lost their child. In fact, those were actually more or less the words I recall him using.
I’ll now google his name and see if I can find a link. I feel pretty sure about it but I know how easy it is to misremember.
I suspect you’re right that the case can only go one way but, as you know, I tend to be cautious! Hard to see what GA could have up his sleeve to justify his book as anything but defamatory given the result of the police investigation.
I would think he might find it easier to defend his OPINION that Madeleine was dead. However, I don’t know what evidence he could possibly have for that opinion.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Maria
It was Olegario Sousa who you refer. Whether he made those claims of unfairness is unclear but as you say, once Rebelo took over the case the leaks stopped. However, I can’t help but believe that when images of Rebelo and his officers were seen and photographed by the press outside apartment 5A, that this was more of a publicity stunt to show the world that the Portuguese were addressing all angles of investigation, unlike his predecessor.
Like C&C has stated, the so-called ‘evidence’ that Amaral claims, needs to be judged in a court of law and not claimed as fact in a commercial book. However, as I see it, the whole point of Amarals book and the reasons he believes he was outed was because of Government intervention, or as he believes, a conspiracy.
Surely the title of his book ‘The truth about the lie’ is a very strong claim. He has a lot to answer for and I see this case going only one way!
September 16th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Maria, my reading of the injunction is that the plaintives are demanding that all profits from the boo should be paid to them! I would estimate that that could run to over 2,000,000 Euros ( a conservative figure perhaps) shared between GA and his publisher. They are also demanding 1,200,000 Euros ‘at least’ as damages. Perhaps with these potential losses if they do nothing will stir them into fighting this through every court in Portugal and if needs be in Euroland.
September 16th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Rockhopper, I agree about police often knowing whodunit but not having the evidence to back it up but according to the detective there is plenty of evidence….. if that is true surely the place for it to be tested is in court not in a commercial book?
anyway, off to tesco now! Ugh.