Madeleine McCann: The Carnival Of Spotters Reaches Brazil And Yeremi Vargas
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY STAR (front page): “Maddie is seen alive & well in Brazil”
Madeleine McCann is on a plane bound for Sao Paulo. She has also been spotted in Argentina and Chile. The Star says 11 million people live in Sao Paul. It’s the world’s fifth biggest city.
Such are the facts. Gerry McCann is a “heart consultant”. Kate McCann is a “GP”. Facts.
Madeleine has also been seen in: Portugal, Spain, Malta, Morocco, Belgium, Bosnia, France, Australia and Dorset.
Says Clarence Mitchell: “There have been a handful of sightings of Madeleine in South America. Some have been reported, others have not.”
How do editors decide which sightings got on the front page and which are ignored? How do the McCanns?
Have you seen Madeleine?
DAILY MIRROR: Maddy is ’seen’ on Brazil jet
Interpol was yesterday investigating an apparent sighting of Madeleine McCann in Brazil. The child was reportedly with a man on a flight to Sao Paulo six weeks ago.
Interpol’s chief in Brazil, Jorge Pontes, said: “The sighting is still under investigation so we cannot reveal details. All I can say is that we have a witness insisting they saw the child on a flight.”
THE SUN: “MADDIE ‘IN BRAZIL’”
Sao Paulo is South America’s biggest city. Fact. Ten million Brazilians live in Sao Paulo. Fact. Taking the Sun and Star’s figures into account we deduce that one million foreigners live in Sao Paulo. And one of those is Madeleine McCann. The search is still hard but now looks a whole lot easier.
Marila Moreira, an Interpol delegate, says a man called Mark called saying he had seen Madeleine at a book fair in Rio de Janerio. How many people live there?
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesman, says: “Our investigators are looking into this”.
DAILY EXPRESS: “Brazil jet link to Madeleine”
The paper says that Brazil has “excellent air links” with Portugal. The county “attracts millions of holidaymakers each year”.
BBC: Yeremi Vargas went missing in Gran Canaria in February 2007.
Across Europe, the case of this missing child has been eclipsed in the headlines by that of Madeleine McCann. But Yeremi’s family are the first to say they have learned some lessons from the McCanns and are determined to make their campaign as far-reaching.
They are not naturally at ease with the media, far from it.
In the weeks following Yeremi’s disappearance, his mother, Ithaisa Suarez, beside herself with grief and heavily sedated, was hardly in a fit state to give interviews anyway.
Will any more of them spot Madeleine?
Posted: 14th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (288) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
May 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Yeremy Vargas’s mother showed the right response for a mother devastated by grief when her child went missing…… Mrs McCann has had some botox or other treatment to look better on TV, and she is using her TV appearances to proclaim her innocence about any child neglect….. She seems to be a cold and calculating lady only interested in herself.
When my dog went missing I could not speak to people for days ……
May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
June,
I just want to acknowledge that I read your answer.
Goodbye
May 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Mods and Admin
To Ferdinand
You were asked for source for your claim hat PJ were smokescreening the issue, or for some real proof that PJ were not looking for Madeleine.
These questions were put not in the spirit of debate, but as a request from us to provide a source.
The statement you made was actually libellous, and we have a duty to the site.
You also queried who was speaking, it doesn’t matter who of M and A were speaking, as sometimes our duty time has gone when a poster gets back, but we still expect an answer, not a challenge.
You failed to provide a source, or reasonable proof, and then YOU chose to leave the site.
We have an absolute right if people choose not to answer us to spam them.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
264 Mods and Admin [i. e. June]
” That is your prerogative, but if you are offended by being asked to clarify a remark and provide a source, and then question a reasonable request from a Moderator, you clearly have not understood the basic ground rules. And you are not quitting whilst ahead, you are evading the issue.
Goodbye ”
I have no problem to clarify a remark. In your contribution you asked about my belief in the PJ authorities and my feeling about them acting in Madeleines interest. Those are questions of opinion and as such a reasonable contribution to the debate. I have therefore answered to your comment as if I was answering to a debater.
However I don’t want to dispute on topic with moderators, when they appear in the role of a moderator, because that’s pretty much like disputing with a referee in a football match. The administrator AGW has repeatedly discouraged posters to argue with moderators, and I think he is right. It does’t make sense to argue with a referee, that’s a situation where both sides can only lose. Actually I thought that to be one of the “basic ground rules”.
I have little understanding for offering me adressing the spam folder. That’s pretty much the most unnecessary offer one could have made to me, because the last thing I want to do is post in forums where my contributions are regarded as spam. I find people who are told not to be welcome, but nevertheless try to attend other peoples parties, or websites, most embarrassing. So a simple hint that my comments are not welcome would have been sufficient - albeit at the same time I was invited to elaborate my opinion.
Even less understanding I have for being abused in absentia by a moderator - while insisting that she talks as a moderator. I understand that calling a fellow poster a “wuss” is more or less within the laws of the game, and might at worst result in a “yellow card”. I did not expect that insulting posters while in the role of a moderator was covered by the “basic ground rules”. Again a hint that I am not welcome would have been entirely sufficient.
But that’s all water under the bridge. As I said already, it was an interesting time for me to follow the story on Anorak. I thank especially the moderators and administrators who make this site possible. Meanwhile I have the feeling that we are going round in circles, and maybe the moderators are also sometimes a bit frustrated about this. After alI I could at least understand that.
So let me promise that I will from now on spam your side only occasionally, in case of major developments. I might as well send some kind of aftermath reflexion, should there ever be some kind of conclusion. But that is still a long way off.
Tschö, wa!
And again thank you!
May 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
253
Ferdinand: ” But I’m talking about the other witnesses. The parents will attend the reconstruction anyway, after all it’s about their child. But the witnesses, or some of the witnesses, might meanwhile be fed up to be used for the smokescreen operations of the PJ. ”
Mods and Admin [i.e. June, F.]: ” Ferdinand,
somewhat ambiguous to say the least, could you explain and back up with proof that the PJ have ’smokescreen operations’
Do you truly believe the PJ have some activities that are less than open and honest, and if so why?
Do you really feel they are NOT acting in Madeleine’s best interests? ”
——–
These are 3 questions.
Actually I didn’t say that the PJ have smokescreen operations, but that the Tapas7 might be fed up with the smokescreen operations. They are British citizens, they don’t deserve to be used as pawns in the game of a foreign police force.
With smokescreen operations I mean in particular the delay tactics in connection with the “interviews” and the “reconstruction”.
If the interviews were such important, why have they been delayed for more almost 8 months? In the end it were voluntary interviews, there is no indication that the Tapas7 ever refused to give voluntary interviews at any time earlier. Such was never suggested even by the more dubious sources available to us.
If a reconstruction is important, why is it delayed for more than a year? It should have been done as soon as possible after the crime.
And finally, if a reconstruction is now considered, why were the second round of interviews necessary anyway? Any inconsistencies could be best ruled out during the reconstruction. Remember that the issue of the reconstruction became public shortly BEFORE the interviews took place!
For your second question, I think it is save to say that the operations of the PJ are less than open. Are they also less than honest? How could I judge this? They don’t tell us what they do.
I see two possibilities:
1) They are playing for time because they are onto something. If they are planning an operation to solve the case they would not tell us, because of the secrecy laws and because it would be unwise anyway.
2) They are playing for time simply for political reasons. They cannot present a solution (for which I never blamed them), and they are in need for a face saving way out.
Which possibility it is I can’t tell.
For your third question, I don’t think that the whole secrecy matter is in the best interest for Madeleine. I would prefer to see the Portuguese authorities, the British authorities, and the parents to pull together. But as it stands, such are the laws in Portugal.
—
So much in answer of your questions on topic. I will send a final post later this day with some general remarks.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Gloria Smudd Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
———————————————-
But can you dance?
…………….
I told you: cant’ act, can’t sing, can dance a little.
————————————–
In the pursuit of truth, I think I ought to own up to possessing a sonorous alto voice - does that make me a Tena lady?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Veritable- go to new thread
May 14th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
279 Christine Says:
Here’s a theory re Madeleine’s eye and IMO only.
When it was reported that M had the Colomba, the police advised the McCann’s not to mention it as it would be dangerous for M. McC ignored that advice and went ahead and made a huge thing of it and widely promoted it. Why?
Perhaps they didn’t want sightings from all over the place/world and have to go to those places to check them out.
–
makes sense to me
May 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Go to the new thread
May 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
265 Whoops
277 Chenier
Here’s a theory re Madeleine’s eye and IMO only.
When it was reported that M had the Colomba, the police advised the McCann’s not to mention it as it would be dangerous for M. McC ignored that advice and went ahead and made a huge thing of it and widely promoted it. Why?
Perhaps they didn’t want sightings from all over the place/world and have to go to those places to check them out.
Remember Gerry saying it was a good marketing ploy? And this is stuff you see with your very own eyes on either TV interviews or Youtube and they’re absolutely jaw dropping moments.
Personally, I think M had two normal eyes. Joe public would not necessarily (in the early days) even doubt their word. There’s more to the eye condition than meets the eye if you know what I mean).
May 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
254 Julia
I guess none of us know them but what we do know is that they talk with their feet when it comes to sightings and, strangely enough, they’ve never worn a pair of shoes out so far.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
275
whoops Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
271 Well hello Nemesis-As I remember it was them who first mentioned about Madeleines eye-not K&G.
—————————————————-
No; it wasn’t Kate’s parents. It was Trish Cameron:
“She’s an absolutely beautiful, wee blonde girl, blue-green eyes - one distinguishing feature is that one of her pupils runs into the iris of her right eyes. She’s an absolutely gorgeous wee girl.”
BBC, 4th May 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm
May 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
New thread just started on Reconstruction to Go Ahead.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
271 Well hello Nemesis-As I remember it was them who first mentioned about Madeleines eye-not K&G.
I think they know nothing more than we know-and I feel genuinely very sorry for them as they have lost a dear grand-child.
What they think and what they say are probably 2 different things as a Mother’s love must mean they stand by their child however horrified of the seeming abandonment of their grand-daughter.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
We do!
I’m better with picking out prize winning dogs than men, not that it matters
—————–
Well, it does to the dogs…
*********
Thats true!
May 14th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Rogério Alves also said
“What results from the secrecy of justice in this case is that it prevents the access of a father and a mother to what they would like to know, which is what the police are doing to discover a thing that for them is fundamental: what happened to their child”, he concluded.
For a bright guy that’s a very silly statement.
It is quite obvious that the PJ want to know what happened to Madeleine; what the parents don’t like is any suggestion that they were what happened to Madeleine…
May 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Is Clarrie married? in a civil partnership or is he just working for the Mccans?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Whoops - what is your opinion of Ks mother , do you think she has more knowledge of the case ? Mrs H once said at a TV interview that K was surprised that G had been made an arguido??What do you think of the family involvement–they seem to be saying less and less these days?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
oooh M&A - you can be quite cutting sometimes!…Is that a requirement of the job or learned upon taking up post.
M and A
Am self employed and have had to learn when to cut my losses - its a tough old world out there. But my request was reasonably and politely put initially, his response to it wasn’t reasonable, and we don’t argue
May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I am sick of all these sightings, but I would Love to know what would happen if a Maddie was sighted in portugal. Would the doting parents rush over to identify the child? I think not.
Think I may book a holiday in PDL, courtesy of M3 of course.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Some minor differences from Telegraph article, especially the lack of conditions imposed by Tapas 9. Telegraph article suggests CM is waiting for answers to questions before the 9 will agree to return.
———————-
From McCannfiles
‘Reconstruction can take place in May Destak
14 May Pedro Junceiro for Lusa (translated)
Rogério Alves one of the Portuguese lawyers that defends the McCanns said today in Faro that there are “strong indications” that the reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance can still take place in May
“[The reconstruction] was scheduled this month”, he said, underlining that there are “strong indications” that the same can take place till the end of May, although he did not gave a precise date.
The lawyer talked to the journalists outside a seminar “Penal and Penal Procedural Reform” that ended today in the University of Algarve, in Faro and intended to launch the debate about the reform that is in progress.
Rogério Alves reiterated that the MacCanns did not impose any conditions to participate in an eventual reconstruction of the disappearance and added that their only reserve has to do with the “effectiveness” of the proceeding.
“Both showed their intention of being present but as to the witnesses that is not dependant on them”, he said, adding that the parents are sceptical as to the effectiveness of the procedure due to the fact that a year has passed by.
Questioned by the journalists to comment on the extension of the secrecy of law in the investigations into the disappearance of the British child, Rogério Alves said that the extension of the deadline was totally “predictable”.
Rogério Alves also said that the advantage of lifting the secrecy of justice lies in the fact that the parents could know what has been done in the search for their daughter and if the police are close to finding a solution.
“What results from the secrecy of justice in this case is that it prevents the access of a father and a mother to what they would like to know, which is what the police are doing to discover a thing that for them is fundamental: what happened to their child”, he concluded.
The McCanns left Portugal on the 9th of September of 2007 but they admit to return to Portugal to raise the attention about the disappearance of their daughter.
Gerry and Kate McCann are convinced that the child was kidnapped, contrarily to the PJ, that believes in the death thesis.’
May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
M and A
A wuss! shame really i quite liked him
—————————-
We all have our foibles…
**********
We do!
I’m better with picking out prize winning dogs than men, not that it matters
May 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
264
Ferdinand Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
259
” Ferdinand
Mods and Admin
You will clarify your statement about the PJ and smokescreen
Or you may be addressing the spammer ”
No reason. I understand that my comments are not welcome. So I leave.
I was an interesting time, but there’s a saying that you should rather leave at the height of the event. I missed that already.
Bye all
—————————————–
That’s utter tosh.
Classic example of someone who can’t support his arguments so pretends, instead, that he’s leaving for another reason…
M and A
A wuss! shame really i quite liked him
May 14th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Oh Lord-is there anyone here who wants to discuss the topic-or am I wasting my time.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
259
” Ferdinand
Mods and Admin
You will clarify your statement about the PJ and smokescreen
Or you may be addressing the spammer ”
No reason. I understand that my comments are not welcome. So I leave.
I was an interesting time, but there’s a saying that you should rather leave at the height of the event. I missed that already.
Bye all
Mods and Admin
That is your prerogative, but if you are offended by being asked to clarify a remark and provide a source, and then question a reasonable request from a Moderator, you clearly have not understood the basic ground rules. And you are not quitting whilst ahead, you are evading the issue.
Goodbye
May 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
261
âde Says:
May 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
nite all
48 hours and no sleep
———————————-
Sleep well, ade…
May 14th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
249 Jo .. Who is it to be then ?! Murat and his lineage or Pinkie Clarrie with the balls..such a difficult choice,eh? Remember that little M had balls ,but she still disappeared…
May 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
nite all
48 hours and no sleep
May 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
258 Carmen S
You’ve missed the Bergerac Jazz festival…..brilliant.
sadly i can only do one thing at a time
and plymouth calleth recently
and that’s when me cock is working
i love bergerac as a place
on the channel islands allegedly
just kidding
May 14th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
256 Ferdinand Says:
” June, and I wish you to clarify what you have said, as a Moderator, so who it is doesn’t matter ”
I do never discuss the topic with moderators. You may however address me as a disputant.
Mods and Admin
You will clarify your statement about the PJ and smokescreen
Or you may be addressing the spammer
May 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Ade
You’ve missed the Bergerac Jazz festival…..brilliant.