Why Shannon Matthews And Madeleine McCann Are So Different:
ANORAK reader Marie Nicholas on why Shannon Matthews and Madeleine McCann are so different:
I am pleased that little Shannon was found alive, and hope the aftermath of her story will not weigh too heavily on her future. That said, I must say I never took the same interest in her story as in the MC’s story. It made me understand what fascinates me there.
I found the MC’s reaction to their loss extremely unusual and intriguing. Apart from the amount of money they collected, and their strange media campaign, which were already astonishing, to use Pat Brown’s language, a number of red flags were raised about their veracity, and by themselves. Yet, those red flags raise questions without bringing answers.
Apart from the bare facts : The children left alone at night, the little girl disappearing, no trace of a kidnapping, no trace of a murder, no ransom asked, which in itself is asking for answers, we have this other big fact : the PJ is suspecting the parents, due to some unknown evidence, and the parents claim the PJ are wrong, the child was abducted. Two contradictory statements, and no hope of getting more information before long. The longlasting struggle of influence between, on one side, the MCs-their family-their powerful friends-their PR-their lawyers-the media-Met3, and, on the other hand, the silent PJ, is catching, especially as we, the public, are taken to witness it via the media.
But most people, while being kept informed by the media, either don’t care about the case, or don’t make comments.
What makes us Anorakians share our feelings and thoughts by hundreds every day, I still don’t know for sure. On Anorak’s forums, I search information which is different from the media information, as it is shared for free, by people who aren’t journalists, and who doubt the press. I also enjoy the mixing of opinions and reactions, and the fact that we, posters, are all on an equal level. I enjoy the debate, I enjoy the company. And the mystery keeps me at bait; the fact that it is a real one makes it all the more interesting. It is exciting for the mind.
What worries me is that, by getting caught the way I am, I am playing the part which the media expect from me. And I resent the fact that the media thrive on a deformed image of reality, by selecting one story, among thousands, and seasoning it with hot pepper to make it more palatable.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
1st
March 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
1st
March 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
-ish
March 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Perhaps 2nd. But definitely not 3rd. That’s gone to someone with a hyphen instead of an initial before “ish”. Is it that bloke who used to sing for Marillion and if so, why is he suddenly bashful about the “F”?
March 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I’d never call Derek bashful!!
March 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Seriously.
Yes, an excellent post, Marie Nicholas.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Marie Nicholas, have always admired your way of putting things down on paper. I now have the utmost, unending admiration for you. You are a very wise woman, and could teach many people who post on Anorak (myself included) the meaning of the word diplomacy! Well done Marie, one of the best posts I’ve ever read on Anorak for a long, long time.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Yes, Marie Nicholas … like you I am caught up by Madeleine’s story and cannot let it rest. I have to keep searching and trying to make some sort of sense out of all the reports and spin.
With regard to Shannon I see that details are emerging that she was found hidden in/under a mattress in a house belonging to a member of her extended family, and that a 39 year old man has been arrested. How much of this report is true remains to be seen.
I too am very pleased that Shannon has been found alive and hope that whatever ordeal she has been through will not scar her for life. I do not expect for Madeleine to be found alive - sadly, she won’t have the chance to have a life at all and it is possible that the truth will never be known. I think it’s that possibility which disturbs me so much.
On another track ………….. does anyone here know if The 3 Arguidos site has been closed down? Am unable to find the site ……….. hope its not another WHOOOSH … CLUNK like MF. ???????*!!
March 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
ooops sorry ….. how did I manage to miss this post about Shannon http://www.anorak.co.uk/tabloids/182026.html
Only excuse to offer is that I had just woken up …. its morning here in Godzone!
March 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
i am not sure it was only when the PJ named them as suspects that it became intriguing- i find that idea rather revisionist. i don;t think it is the balance between them being suspected and them asserting their innocence that is the hook with this case.
it is us that propogate the focus on maddy as an anomolous incident. we feed on it every day, posting habitually rather than intelligently.
so many children go missing, not just her and the other few that get any attention at all. your assertion that it is somethign particular about the case that is the reason for it is too simple, too convenient for this audience of habitual posters. the case, the reporting of it have manipulated all of us on here. it has become inordinantely important to us. other stories more worthy of our attention are ignored, simply because we don;t have the emotional capacity to engage so wholeheartedly with the maddy case AND other cases.
our focus remains with maddy, more out of habit than out of reason. the facts of the case have not changed much in months, but we all still feed and propogate the issues.
may be these are alternative reasons for the dwelling on maddy, not the simplicity of it being a ‘them against the law’ dynamic.
maybe not.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Well said Craig.
I read somewhere (not sure where now…) that it was the press who initially named her ‘Maddy’, as ‘user friendly’ name that could be more readily identified with by the public than the rather upmarket ‘Madeleine’.
Apparently her parents and family always called her ‘Madeleine’.
You will note my deliberate use of the past tense….
March 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The fascination I think stems from the dramatic tension. Either this was an incredibly unlucky and devious abduction by an intruder, or an incredibly devious crime and cover-up by the parents. And it HAS to be one of them. The ultimate cliff-hanger.
In most cases, poor girl is clearly abducted. Tragic but no dramatic tension. This case is unique. Almost a Colombo-style drama: Crafty PJ trying to find the flaw in the McCanns near-perfect crime. And as sunday-afternoon couch potatoes all know - Colombo is strangely fascinating - and always gets his man…
March 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I think what caught Annoraks attention and wiggled the anntenae was within the first week of MM’s disappearance. The parents being made suspects may have wiggled a few more anntennae and ‘justified’ some people who already had doubts about the case.
I was introduced to annoraks quite late into the case, some 5/6 months later. Many annorak’s had already made their minds up by then, some sat on the fence, some trolls, some who wouldn’t see the wood for the trees etc.
Admittedly, I was excited that I had found other’s who doubted the parents version of events and their inconsistencies. And like many became embroiled and lost sight of the heart of this case, a missing 4 yr old.
A lot of the information annorakians have commented on has been in the media, I find it illogical that people can take onboard some things written in the press and ‘poo poo’ other written information with regards this case. The parents behaviour certainly isn’t logical or ‘human’.
Today I bought a newspaper, something I haven’t done for several weeks. I read about Shannon’s recovery and although it was an occassion to celebrate, I had tears rolling down my cheeks, yes, happy tears. I’m sure there are hundreds of other people who also shed tears of happiness, relief and hope when the news of her safe recovery was announced and also I think because I do not believe there will be the same outcome for little Madeline.. The only time I recall KM shedding any tears was after being asked an awkward question?
Sometime ago a poster suggested the pro’s tried to see things from the anti’s point of view. That day I was busy so didn’t post but did post under this suggestion a couple of days later and asked if the abduction could have happened later in the day/night? My suggestion was dismissed instantly. No discussion, no debate. I came to realise that unless you were wholeheartedly anti, your opinion didn’t count. I thank Ian for that.
I also thank Ian for opening my eyes. I have looked at some of the interviews by Mc’s and heard the inconsistencies for myself. This does not mean they harmed their daughter. Yes, they tried to hide the fact they left the patio door open, this does not mean they harmed their daughter but it does show they knew it was wrong for them to have done this.
They have made many stupid comments ie they wish they had been there for Maddie when she was abducted - I doubt she would have been abducted if they had been there.
How many of you could think clearly let alone speak clearly if your 3 yr old child had disappeared? You can argue they shouldn’t have left the kids unattended, I agree but if the worst came to the worst and one of your kids disappeared, could any of you think/speak clearly regardless of their age?
Take away your prejudice of them leaving 3 kiddies under 4 alone in a unlocked apartment, then put yourself in their shoes (if Maddie was abducted). I know I would be beside myself, it is human nature to think the worst and in this case, a paedo, murder? I am torn as to whether I would want my child killed instantly, painlessly or suffer at the hands of a paedo but still alive with the hope of her returning to me some day. Which is worse if your child disappeared?
I have tried to look at this logically but having a 3 yr old it is too painful to imagine the worst.
For the past few weeks, maybe month or 2, Annoraks has changed. The ‘war’ between pro’s and anti’s has intensified. Any logical ‘arguement’ is shot to pieces unless it’s in the anti’s camp. Some Annorak’s appear to take great pleasure in the Mc’s ‘fury’ or discomfort. I was guilty of this at one time. I took a reality check, thanks to Ian and spend every waking moment with my kids. I no longer read annoraks for the daily Mc’s bashing, I read to see if Maddie has been found, alive or not, that’s all I care about. I no longer care about whether her parents are guilty or not, all I want is for Maddeline to be found, preferably alive, which I don’t think will happen, but if her body is found, she deserves to be put to rest properly. Whether her parents are guilty or not is no longer relevant to me. 2 little twin kiddies have lost a sister, do we really want them to lose their mummy and daddy aswell? If the Mc’s are innocent, is it fair the twins will one day stumble across Annoraks and read all the bad things about their parents?
Who knows with 100% accuracy that either Kate or Gerry killed Maddeline either accidentaly or on purpose?
If you think you do, where’s you evidence, I’m not asking for circumstantial.
Scarlett’s mum may face child abandonment charges and could get a 6 month jail sentance. If evidence shows conclusively Maddie died in the apartment and her body disposed of, her parent/s should also face these charges. BUT if no evidence, they must be treated as innocent until evidence prooves otherwise. We may not like them, BUT without evidence, they are innocent (at least in the laws eyes).
March 16th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Why some say Madeleine won’t be found alive is amazing to me. She hasn’t been found dead. We really know nothing about what happened to her at this point. If no body has been found then she absolutely could be alive. She is so young without her own voice to save herself if needed and it would be very easy for anyone to hide such a young child. Just the baby proofing items available to anyone would do the job. A child as young as Madeleine could be anywhere and after almost a year brainwashed to believe any story her captors might tell her. Most four year olds live in complete fantasy, have no idea of ‘real time’, and basically believe anything you tell them. If she’s on the other side of the world who would know? She probably wouldn’t look the same as her pictures either. Madeleine may not be alive, but she might be. I like to be hopeful for her until there is evidence that she is not alive.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:13 am
13
annie123
Not quite sure what point your use of me in your long post is intended to make.
I’d simply like to point out to you that none of the people who support the McCanns on here actually discuss alternatives. They say ‘it was abduction’.
When asked why Kate needed a priest in the first few hours when any normal person would still be searching, not turning to a god. I am told that ’she was distraught and not thinking straight’. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t ring true.
When I ask, why did Kate not turn immediately to her next door friend who was in her apartment at least to check if Madeleine might have been taken there, I am told ’she was hysterical with grief’. Sorry, again, I don’t buy it. A GP who gets hysterical so quickly yet clearly is not a demonstrative person - and why hysterical before just making that simple check with the friend next door, especially as she new they had all been checking her children.
Another simple question, why did the McCanns not check anyone else’s children yet everyone was checking theirs? Sorry, I don’t buy that either.
Look at Gerry, the sedation comments - he thought his kids might have been sedated BUT NEVER HAD THEM CHECKED? I’m sorry, I don’t buy that either.
And Jon Corner and Gerry’s words about how ‘gorgeous and lovely’ Madeleine was. Their descriptions send a chill through me.
Something is not right - millions of people have recognised it - the police in Portugal know it. Just look at the happy pictures of the McCanns in Portugal, it just doesn’t look like they are suffering - look at Kates makeup - perfect. The cuddle cat ‘badge of courage’ - washed?!!! It doesn’t add up.
Whatever your point is, I am not anti-mccann and have discussed possible theories which include an abductor, but the so-called pro-mccanns will never do that, they immediately get nasty - garth, Gandolph, the insidious Maria (who doesn’t get nasty but speaks in media spin template format).
I am anti-neglect, anti-abuse. The McCanns have admitted neglect (and how glad Gerry was to not have the kids around at dinner) and told us of their abusive use of star charts to keep Madeleine from bothering them when she woke at night.
I hope you agree that you’d never dream of leaving your child as they left theirs - not on 3rd of May, but when they are alleged to have been late into the night at Chaplins - a bus ride away!
March 16th, 2008 at 2:19 am
14
Allison
Answer me this, why did Kate rise into hysterical panic so quickly and not at least knock on the door of Jane Tanners apartment to check Madeleine wasn’t in her care, before allegedly screaming across to the bar (or running back to the bar, leaving her twins alone again!).
We know Tanner wasn’t told - yet there she was in the apartment next door.
Kate needed a priest within an hour of allegedly finding Madeleine gone - I’m sorry but it doesn’t add up to me as normal or even religious fanatic type behaviour (and even Kate’s mum said she wasn’t religious before Madeleine was ‘taken’).
In my view Madeleine is dead, the McCanns know it - I am convinced - their behaviour tells us and has told the police that. No police force makes someone suspect for nothing - especially not with the cameras of the world on them!
March 16th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Posters on the 3A’s (which is still there!) are saying that the PJ have arrived, I wonder if this is true this time!
March 16th, 2008 at 3:16 am
‘Tis true!
March 16th, 2008 at 7:13 am
13 annie : ‘Today I bought a newspaper, something I haven’t done for several weeks. I read about Shannon’s recovery and although it was an occassion to celebrate, I had tears rolling down my cheeks, yes, happy tears. I’m sure there are hundreds of other people who also shed tears of happiness, relief and hope when the news of her safe recovery was announced and also I think because I do not believe there will be the same outcome for little Madeline.. The only time I recall KM shedding any tears was after being asked an awkward question?’
hold on a goshdarned minute there, cowgirl… you describe the tears running down YOUR cheeks at the news of shannon’s return (really.. real tears, streaming uh?) and you then go on about how you don;t think you recall seeing KM shedding tears…
that all sounds a bit dodgy to me. do you mean you didn;t see her sheding tears about shannon being discovered safely? did kate not feel the same gushiness at the news as YOU? or… you think she is a cold nasty woman who is incapable of feelings unlike YOU who are in touch with your tear ducts?
did you shed a bucketful of tears for the two faced baby?
did you cry for 40 nights when natascha kampchuk (sp.) gave her interviews about her kidnapping?
do you weep for every missing child that is found or for every child never found?
were you that wailing embaressment on the side of the road during the Diana funeral procession, bellowing out THEIR own grief for the sound recordists benefits as Diana’s sons walked silently past?
do you think you feel it more than other folk?
March 16th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Ululation is a very popular dry-eye version in some parts of Yorkshire
March 16th, 2008 at 7:42 am
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Anorak, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth
(Matthew 8:11-12).
March 16th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Posted this before …. were all the children in one apartment room. If so, they could have go into mischief and Maddy came to grief. Bears thinking about, seeing the Tanner children were next door and KM apparently didn’t go in. When one of the T7 put their head around the door, he probably saw most of the kids asleep and went back out. Not all good have been well IMO, when someone came back and found Maddy had come to grief.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
22
lynn
or alternatively, angels took her.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
23 craig - you are probably right, and after all this time they say she has probably gone. If Maddy is alive, lets hope she is in a family that is OK, I mean, she wasn’t wanted by the last one. On the other hand that may not be so, possibly not. Her passing would be a relief for her. All so sinister.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
13
annie123 Says:
March 16th, 2008 at 12:04 am
———————
Good for you.
I find Ian very helpful too. Shame he doesnt realise!
March 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Denzylle Julie
Thank you for your kind words. You can’t inmagine what it means to me that my English has been deemed good enough by people whose language is English. It is a beautiful tongue, and I sometimes get the feeling that it is impossible to master. That is why I feel so honoured!
March 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Marie-Nicholas
Your English was so good that early this morning someone accused me of having written it under your name…….!!!!!!!
I was very flattered but I put them right!
March 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
annie 123
Your post made me think about the forum. I don’t see it the way you do, though I understand why you find it difficult to say your mind.
I found that you can say what you want here, nobody will stop you (unless it is gross libel of course). You don’t write under your real name, nobody knows you, The only risk is that someone will send back a post calling you names. It isn’t a problem. It can even be fun.
Besides, my experience is that if you are honest, and don’t mind what names you’ll be called, nothing bad is going to happen, and you’ll be listened to, even if you don’t agree with the mains streams on the thread.
I, personnally draw a line between condemning some behaviours shown by the MCs, and the MCs themselves. I don’t wish them to go to jail, to hell or whatever, and I consider it isn’t my job to judge them. All I want is to to know the truth. When I read vigorous diatribes against child neglectors, it doesnt upset me,though, even if it isn’t my type of language. I have explained myself about it, and nobdy called me bad names.
Anorak is what we make it, so if we think it has changed (good thing it does, it can’t stay the same for ever), we can add our views to help it change the way we wish.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Carmen
I am not far from my birthday. The honour is a great present from Anorak, a little more than a week in advance. I am beaming, honest !!!
March 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
15
Ian Says:
There’s a lot about this case that you don’t ‘buy’ Ian. You say you are anti neglect, anti abuse but not anti Mc’s. That’s not alltogether true is it?. KM asking for a priest doesn’t constitute neglect, GM saying the twins may have been sedated and you jump on the band wagon with your anti abuse and why didn’t he get them checked? Possibly he never thought they may have been sedated until the press made an issue of it.
As for you saying your prepared to debate any possibility including abduction is also not exactly true. When I posted the possibility of a later abduction time, your response was, it’s impossible. So I guess your ‘it’s impossible’ remark is your way of debating? I must remember that.