Madeleine McCann: Paul Gordon Sees, Clarence Mitchell Knows And A Circus
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “New witness was worried by the creeps lurking near apartment.. just 5 days later Maddie had vanished”
“Paul Gordon said he was worried the dodgy-looking people had no business to be at the Portuguese complex”
Which means: “His shock evidence could mean child-snatchers had been staking out the complex before four-year-old Maddie’s family even arrived there”
Or not…
DAILY STAR: “PARENTS HAVE ‘NOTHING TO HIDE’”
So says…the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “At the end of the day the police won’t have enough evidence to prosecute Gerry and Kate because they were not involved in Madeleine’s disappearance in any shape or form”
THE TIMES: “My smashing idea for the circus,” by Ron Liddle
“Staggering somewhat bleary-eyed into the living room on the morning of January 1, 2008, I switched on the television to see what was new with the world. And lo, there were Kate and Gerry McCann staring out at me from BBC News 24. I watched for a few minutes trying to work out if there had been some crucial development in the case that I had missed, but it seemed not. Nothing whatsoever had happened, in fact. Like everyone else, I pray that Madeleine McCann will be found safe and well and that, in the meantime, the whole ghastly soap opera ceases to be the media’s preeminent obsession”
Thus producing more McCann coverage in the Times
THE STAR (South Africa): “Missing kids crisis”
“One child disappears every six hours in South Africa - 110 a month last year until the end of November… Statistics point to 80 percent of missing children being runaways, with 15 percent getting lost. The balance are allegedly abducted… In 2007, murdered South African children included Sheldean Human (7) of Pretoria, Mikayla Rossouw (6) of Swellendam, Annestacia Wiese (11) of Mitchells Plain and Sonja Brown (2) of Rawsonville. Internationally, the world was gripped by the disappearance of British toddler Madeleine McCann (3) from a Portuguese flat”
January 6th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Ist?
January 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Not even a hint of News today.
Not even the usual fake news.
Poor Clarence, he must be running out of ideas.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Hello,
I guess it has already been discussed, but anyway here it goes…
http://cuttingthroughtherubbish.blogspot.com/2008/01/was-madeleine-ever-in-praia-da-luz.html
January 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Amid squeals and howls it was wash day in Rothey.
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m44/oscardosc/McCanns/Washday_in_Rothley.jpg
January 6th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Updates - or not - to follow…
January 6th, 2008 at 8:01 am
3 Pepe Says: January 6th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Hello,
I guess it has already been discussed, but anyway here it goes…
+++++++++++
I guess it would be very easy for the authorities to confirm whether or not the McCann’s were in PDL prior to 2007? It seems such an obvious deceit that you would think that if this is what happened they would already have spotted it? (For those not following the link in post 3 above… The suggestion is that all the photographs of Madeleine allegedly taken in PDL are in fact from an earlier trip and not the April/May 2007 trip..)
Of course, this does not rule out all of those pictures of Madeleine wearing her pink top in PDL can’t have been photoshopped. No evidence, just expressing an opinion.
Morning all by the way!
January 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Do I detect………
January 6th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I think Madeleine was in PDL.
If the photo was faked I think the reason would be the McCanns search for human interest news stories.
The last photo is news.
Taking the bead out of Madeleine’s hair is a sentimental anecdote.
Releasing younger pictures of Madeleine emphasises how cute and vulnerable she is and newspapers will want to print them and the public will want to buy the paper to feel emotional when they look at the pictures.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Karen 8 — I agree that Madeleine was in PDL (and probably died early in the day of May 3), but I have come to think something is fishy about the Madeleine photos. My (unoriginal) guess is that no one besides Kate and Gerry saw Madeleine on May 3, and the photo by the pool is not from that date. I originally thought the talk of photoshopping was paranoid, but I think there may be something to it. Regarding the bead comment: I think everything Gerry McCann wrote about in his blog was purposeful, so I think his mentioning the bead was more than his being sentimental.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
3
Pepe Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Hello,
I guess it has already been discussed, but anyway here it goes…
—
Pepe,
I think that link provides food for thought. My only dilemma is, allegedly Maddie was seen at least by the creche staff in PDL May 2007, therefore, how does this fit into that theory? On the other hand, this emphasizes, in my opinion, my belief that there is much more to this whole saga than we, the public, know. Much bigger than just the disappearance of a little girl. I just can’t put my finger on it.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
CORREIO DE MANHA ARTICLE - 5 JANUARY (ROUGH TRANSLATION PROVIDED)
Not quite sure why they have re-published this; most of it has been made public before, I think:
QUOTE
The mystery starts here. What happened between 18.30PM and 20.00PM is the big doubt in Portuguese investigation, who thinks she suffered an accident and they believe she died short while after they left for the restaurant.
“They entered in restaurant by 20.00PM. Was a large group and every day they dined in Tapas. They did it once more and we saw nothing strange” said an employee who served the couple to Correio de Manha.
Kate, Gerry and their friends were in an oval table in the centre of the restaurant. Before dinner, they asked for strawberry daiquiris and only after 21.ooPM they started to eat. The group was in high spirits.
“I can’t say who took the table or when.The only thing I can say is that they didn’t leave the table every 15 minutes to see the children”, said another employee, remembering that when they saw the group had kids they felt astonished.
“The group came every night without kids. We presume the kids stayed alone in their bedrooms every night”.
21.00PM the dinner is served. One of the employees remembers that was missing one person -Russell O’Brien - I remember because I had to serve him a little later”.
That is coincident with what Russell said to Police.
It was a bit after 22.00PM when it all happened. Kate went to the bedroom and shouted from the balcony. The employees can’t remember how long before Kate went to the apartment. They only remember that when she asked for help she already was near the house of another woman in the group.
“She was shouting and seemed hysterical and only could say someone took Maddie. Everyone went from the table and went up to the apartment.”
The same employee finished to call the police by 22.40PM. More than 30 minutes had gone and we know now that Kate already had contacted Sky News. Also, Pamela Fenn, the first floor neighbour asked if they needed help, but Kate refused and took more than half an hour to ask police help.
“What is most strange is that Kate never left the apartment. We were all looking in the nerarby places for the girl. We run to every place and yet she stayed home. Obviously she was shocked but not a move to search for her daughter.”
At 23.00PM the Ocean Club managers came to the place. Local police had already sent to the place two agents, but they didn’t speak English. They tried to understand what was happening and called the Judiciary Police because there seemed to be a kidnapping.
“In all that time the mother didn’t shed a single tear. What disturbed me more is that I only realised it was her daughter when she gave the police the ID papers. Till then I didn’t realise that she was the mother. For the next few hours she remained in the apartment, never looked for her daughter. Was quite calm and was talking to some of the women of the group. Gerry was running in the street yelling for Madeleine”.
By 2.ooAm, next day the Judiciary Police asked the Mccann to leave the apartment because they needed to see it.
“It was one of her friends who came for the twins. They were deeply sleeping, even with all that mess. They never woke up”, said the same witness, who still says that she can’t remember seeing the cat toy [Cuddle Cat] Kate started to use later everywhere”.
UNQUOTE
http://www.correiomanha.pt/not…..;id=258916
January 6th, 2008 at 9:10 am
CORREIO DE MANHA 6 JANUARY 2008
========================================
“THE PJ ARE FACING A GIGANTIC PROPAGANDA MACHINE”
========================================
[We know!]
QUOTE
2008-01-06
Metodo 3 - Low credibility : : : The PJ is questioning the testimonies
The Judiciary police is questioning the several testimonies that 8 months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann point to the thesis of kidnapping. The tourists that the Spanish detectives agency Metodo 3, hired by the McCanns, managed to find in the last weeks led the authorities to believe that we are facing a gigantic propaganda machine.
This week it came to light that an Irish couple swore they saw a man leaving with a child in his lap at the same time that the parents claimed that it was a kidnapping. They never said that before, but the case assumed a huge media profile never seen in all of Europe.
The increase of witnesses that assure that Robert Murat was that night near the resort is also seen with equal incredulity. Many of those that now come to light to incriminate him have given different versions in the first days when the memory was fresher and less subject to media exposure.
END QUOTE
http://www.correiomanha.pt/not…..&p=200
January 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Has anyone checked whether the McCanns were overseas earlier in 2007. Did they take holidays or breaks often. Someone should approach the kindergarten to find out whether Maddie had a previous break in 2007. Could prove interesting.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am
11 Tony Bennett
January 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
CORREIO DE MANHA ARTICLE - 5 JANUARY
“Not quite sure why they have re-published this”
Good Morning. (Reyes here in Spain, so all the children get their presents today. More Biblical than Father Christmas.)
My guess - possibly to keep the pressure on, and hope for Clarrie to let something more out of the bag.
The friend who collected the twins, confirms they were sound asleep, but did not see Cuddle cat.
Waiters did not see any leave the table, and did not even know they had children. And this is on day 6 !
KM near another womans apartment when she started shouting.
And so on. All stuff we hope Clarrie will respond to, or will be assumed to have accepted by his silence.
(By the way, Sir, you did not respond to my Everest jibe the other day. May I take it I won ?)
January 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’d still like to see a compilation of all photos which have been released of Madeleine, but in date order (not the dates they were released, but her age in the photographs). I think we’ll spot a couple of “odd ones out” if they’re put into sequence!
January 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
14 PeterMac says (January 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am):
“(By the way, Sir, you did not respond to my Everest jibe the other day. May I take it I won?)”
REPLY: Missed that one, though I try to view all posts, sometimes it’s impossible to keep up. Please re-post. I don’t like to lose. I think I posted that Sir Edmund Hillary topped Everest on 2 June 1953, the day Queen Elizabeth II was crowned
January 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Tony Bennett
One thing that I would like to know is the mood of the people at the table on 3rd May - was it jovial like people are happy and relaxed on holiday or was it serious conversation and serious faces. I wonder if the waiters reported on that? It could reveal a lot couldn’t it.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
¡Felices Reyee a todo el mundo!
Kat’e’s initial reaction has always seemed extremely strange if you place it in context. Supposedly, she had gone to check the children and found Madeleine missing. This would obviously be a great shock (if we assume, for a moment, that the story was true). For some reason, she immediately assumed abduction. Now, as far as I can see, she would either not know how long ago it had occurred or would know that it had taken place since the last hypothetical check. Surely, anybody finding themselves in this situation would immediately call the police and would immediately start to look for M themselves - after all, M might still have been in the vicinity at that time. The police might have been able to get road blocks in place. If still around, the abductor might have had to abandon M on seeing all the search activity.
Why, then, did she stay in the room? Apparently, the twins had been taken to another flat and were being looked after. Even if this were not the case, surely, as M’s mother, she would have asked one of the friends to stay with the twins and gone to look herself. If M was hiding or scared, would she not respond more to the voice of her mother than to the voice of a stranger? Why, at that early stage, this apparent assumption that M could not be found?
January 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Sorry, I mean “Felices Reyes” - my keyboard’s gone wonky.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
#
17
Chloe Spain Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Why, at that early stage, this apparent assumption that M could not be found?
********************************
My opinion on this? Because they knew that no much how they looked for her, she was not going to be found!
Hi there Chloe
January 6th, 2008 at 10:27 am
-agw: I thought you may all be interested in this: The Spam function caught it earlier.
Two Comments:
I appear to have been totally correct re this filth and;
not one of my comments has been deleted.
This will be the last time any Moderator or Administrator alllows this poster anywhere near you.
It really really is something special; a first in psychotic posting
Enjoy..
From: Hideki |
McPetero: “I guess it would be very easy for the authorities to confirm whether or not the McCann’s were in PDL prior to 2007?”
Who said it was “prior to 2007″? It WAS prior to April/May 2007.
BTW, has the ANORAK “Adminitstrator” Alan decided that the only way he can score points in debate with Hideki is to
1) first DELETE the posts that he, Alan, then contemptuously commented upon
2) block Hidkeki’s access so that Hideki cannot respond to those comments, or other comments/questions by June Johnson
??
Alan, YOU claimed that Hideki cannot debate?!? What a joke!!!
I’d have to say that YOU look like a pompous arse with no gumption and little education or intellect to speak of. But it’s “good enough” to oversee a forum like this, “eh”? You embarrassed yourself, Alan, but then again you deleted your own extremely stupid posts, before too many people could read them. Wise decision.
But what a cowardly way to deal with people whose opinions YOU found unacceptable.
Maybe Hideki was right, and you are just another “manager of McCann criticism”. After all, no one on this Forum has the sense to ask some simple questions:
1) is Gerry McCann a paedophile or not?
2) does Gerry McCann unambiguously condemn paedophile behavior? (he has never made any comments, despite his confidence that a paedophile abducted his daughter)
3) WHO photographed Madeleine in those studio shots, and what was the purpose of the photograhpy?
4) how many known paedophiles are there amongst Gerry McCann’s acquaintances?
5) how does Gerry “know” that a paedophile is involved in his daughter’s disappearance?
6) according to Gerry, what is the difference between a “predator” and a “paedophile”?
7) how does Gerry define ‘treating Madeleine like a princess’? Does he mean feeding her lots of ice cream cones?
ANORAK, you are a wimpy little bullshite shadow of British scum media. You think that because you allow a wee bit of McCann criticism people will think you allow “free expression”.
The reality is that there is a VERY long list of people banned from your site, simply because they asked questions which, if answered, would bring us much closer to the truth.
And also the reality is that the Moderators/Adminstrators are posting pro-McScum nonsense under a variety of names.
Ends Hideki:
….and, believe me, this does end it for this poster…-agw
January 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
15 Tony Bennett
Reposting form two days ago
“Oh, come, Sir !
“… 2 June 1953, the same morning that Sir Edmund Hillary became the first person to climb Mount Everest, along with the Sherpa, Tenzing.”
1 The announcement was made in the press on the day of the Coronation. The event had happened some time earlier
2 Neither man ever told who was the ‘first’. I believe I am right in saying that to their last days they insisted it was a joint affair - and rightly so.
3 In any event the discovery of Mallory’s (or Irvine’s) body on the ice fall some years ago lead to a fascinating forensic argument, the conclusion of which is that they (M&I) had ‘probably’ been first on the summit.
But in the absence of direct first hand evidence the case would have to be left for people to argue about for generations … Oh, bugger. Rather like this one in fact.
Good night.’
I have just looked it up again on wikipedia,
“The summit was eventually reached at 11:30 a.m. local time on May 29, 1953 by the New Zealander Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay from Nepal climbing the South Col Route. At the time, both acknowledged it as a team effort by the whole expedition, but Tenzing revealed a few years later that Hillary had put his foot on the summit first.”
So I concede point 2.
Score 2:1. Let’s call it a draw !
January 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Tony Bennett
With regard to the time of Madeleine’s death (assuming the PJ are correct in believing she is dead), it would appear that one of the following is likely to be true :
The Correio de Manha doesn’t know what the police think now and is just rehashing old thoughts.
It does know but is deliberately misleading the public.
It thinks it knows but the PJ are deliberately leaking incorrect information to Portuguese journalists.
It is correct and the PJ believe Madeleine died between 6.30 and 8.00pm on the evening of 3rd May.
Do you think this report, or any other, for that matter, can be trusted? After all, one cannot just cherry-pick from press reports those bits which fit in with one’s current theory, can one? Aren’t most newspaper reports just a mixture of facts, rumour, speculation, mistakes and lies? Isn’t that why it is dangerous to construct theories on them? Especially when such a serious matter is at stake as who is responsible for an appalling crime?
Even yesterday’s Daily Mail raised the question of who suggested to KM that she keep a journal of her thoughts and feelings. It doesn’t much matter whether it was the trauma counsellor (and the idea does sound like one such a counsellor could well have suggested), as the article said, or Philomena McCann, which I believe both she herself and KM’s mother have said was the case. The point is that both accounts can’t be quite true. It may be that one suggested it and the other agreed that it would be a good idea. It may be that the counsellor suggested writing down thoughts and feelings and Philomena suggested the diary format. The point is that, even with the most innocent and unimportant things, genuine mistakes are made by reporters. How much more so when their main aim is to sensationalise, make up for non-news, sell more papers? How much more so given that they don’t really care about the truth?
Don’t we have to very careful indeed about believing anything at all we read? Any of us can post articles which support a particular viewpoint, as I did when I posted the article from The Resident (local Praia da Luz paper) in which the priest denies what had been said about him in the Express etc, calling it, in fact, a “barbarity” and assuring readers that prayers for Madeleine are still said every Friday and that the ribbons etc. had been removed from the church only because some other event was about to be celebrated. (In any case, it’s high time they were removed, say I. Brian Kennedy, KM’s uncle, made sure they were removed from the monument in Rothley a very long time ago, to “return the village to normal”, or words to that effect. He was right. You can’t go on for ever with that sort of thing, even if you like it in the first place!)
But who knows the truth about any of this?
None of us, I suspect.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
19 agw
I don’t mean to be thick, but I can’t follow who said what to whom or what part is quoted and what part is yours.
-agw: I’m shocked you can’t tell the difference. It has been modified slightly, thanks.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
22
Chloe Spain
19 agw
I had the same trouble Cloe.
-agw: I’m shocked you can’t tell the difference. It has been modified slightly, thanks.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
agw
I’ll miss the insanity - but Anorak would definitely be sued for libel if Hideki continued in that direction.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
19
agw Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 10:27 am
***********************
All I can say is thank heavens for Mods & Admin on this site (and the thing called the spam “devil” - even though it catches me every time!). The subject of Madeleine’s photos (supposedly suggestive according to a certain poster) as well as paedophilia was become a little bit extreme and way over the top! It appeared to me that a certain poster had first hand knowledge of these subjects.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Chloe nt Cloe.
January 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
A thought re the timing of the publication of that “last photo” by the pool..
I wonder if something(s) were happening in the PJ investigation that required the McCann’s to create a distraction at about that time? It has often been suggested that the timing of the photo release had more to do with drip feeding the media, to keep the story on the front pages, regular news reports etc.. What if it was yet another distraction technique?
Anyone have any links to anything that may have been going on in the investigation three weeks after Madeleine disappeared?
January 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
21 Maria
I do agree with you on this in general terms. Not long ago, I was talking to a lawyer who said that any coincidence between what actually happened in his court cases and what the press reported was pure chance. And I think this is generally true.
But I do think there are some aspects that can be discussed. An obvious example: the last photo. If it is a Photoshop job and was not taken at 14.29 on the last day as the McCanns claim, there must be a reason and maybe we can contribute to finding it, if only be keeping the issue alive.