MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY STAR: “MCCANNS’ OPRAH WINDFALL”
MADELEINE McCann’s parents are planning a big bucks interview with US chatshow queen Oprah Winfrey to boost their search fund.
They’ve cracked America. In yer face Barbara Walters.
It is understood Oprah, 54, would be willing to break the bank for a cosy chat with Kate and Gerry.
How the Star came to understand this is unsaid. But let’s look out for the “cosy chat” - the one performed before tens of millions of people. Who’s looking for the missing child? We’re watching the parents.
Posted: 10th, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (693) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Elizabeth Peterson on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Graeme (aka eggman) on US Forced Fort Hood Murderer Nidal Hasan To Join The Army
- andrew smith on X Factor Live Blog: Olly Murs Marries And Danyl Johnson Does Prince Over
- ricmc on US Forced Fort Hood Murderer Nidal Hasan To Join The Army
- Montana on The Ten Craziest Reasons Why Nidal Malik Hasan Did It
July 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I wonder who or what are the McCanns and Mr Clarence Mitchell looking for. Not Maddie, certainly -[in my view.]
For a long, long time have they stopped talking about her, looking for her, crying about her. Madeleine disappeared __ full stop!
[In my view] They (McCanns, friends, Mitchell) are only interested in clearing up their names, in getting more money, in trying to intimidate the media, the Portuguese Law, thinking about new ways of getting more money from the saga they themselves have created.
Who, in the first place, created the ideal background for the accident (any kind of accident) to happen, by leaving three infants alone, night after night, in a strange hotel room abroad? Who set that enormous circus in the Algarve? Who sent for the media to come to Portugal? Who turned themselves into film stars giving intervews, travelling around the world, edit ?
Whose idea was that of using those special British dogs to help investigation? Who did not want to re-create the scene in order to clear up the doubts of the investigators? Who created that famous «fund» on behalf of the poor Madeleine? And now what are they doing? Are they griefing, looking for the missing child?
[In my view] Not anymore. They are using that Mr Mitchell, some kind of spokesman, to try to clear up their faces, to try to intimidate lawers, policemen, journalists, bookshops, newspapers, editors, trying to borrow more money from the Media, from the Portuguese State, from those who REALLY tried to work for Madeleine. We, Portuguese, are SORRY for the little girl. We, Portuguese, are tired of the tricks of people like the McCanns !
Ed:Artemis
July 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
The McCanns made a mistake and they have shown deep regret. IMO they have paid the highest price possible. I cannot comprehend all of the McCann bashing… Is it like most brits to rub salt in the wounds? I completely believe they’re 100% innocent and are attempting to move mountains to find their little girl.
I will await the show with great anticipation.
May God Bless them and Madeleine. We will continue praying for you here in the states.
July 14th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
veronica…I agree with you. IMO the Mccanns know more than they are saying about what happen to Madeleine. I believe all of this is a way to keep them out of jail. What parent leaves small children alone in a different country while they have a good time? This was suppose to be a “family holiday” when did they actually spend time with the children?…according to the news the children went to that camp during the day(while mom and dad played tennis and walked?) it also mentioned the children sometimes ate dinner with the staff and then they were left alone at night while mom and dad were out celebrating? Wht part of that says “family” holiday? I read today that they recently went on another “family” Holiday, I wonder if they did things differently this time around!!
July 14th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
was it the Mccanns that talked about children crying at night or was that the neighbor who heard them crying who reported it? Cant remember all of the details of this.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:50 am
In my mind it is A SAD DAY when parasites like the Mc Canns can even contemplate making money out of the disappearance of their child and have the nerve to try and educate the public on “how to efficiently locate missing children” when it is their fault their child went missing. The public and media are just as bad for going along with them. It is very clear to me they are doing everything possible to escape a jail term for child negligence and their plan is working splendidly. What a gullible public and Oprah shame on you. Where will this money go? to find Madeleine. I do not think so . This child is most likely dead and the McCanns know it. Sickening.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
682
noseycow Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Cheryl said
________
When I said ‘one’ the right to haunt them…I was speaking of the general public spending years harrassing them and writing blogs about them, not whatever action the legal authorities may or may not take.
As for the negligence re driving, Noseycow, even over here it is an offense to hit someone from the back. I did one time and got a heavy duty fine - even tho that person stopped very quickly in front of me, I was too close to them to stop in time, which the police said and that was true - you know that old rule about so many car lengths between cars - and I was following close in traffic. No one got hurt it was rush hour traffic and very slow traffic and really no damage to their rear end but I got damage to my front bumper. The other driver and I were both surprised I got fined and only reason police knew about it was the damn cop was in traffic right behind me.
However, Noseycow, it becomes a whole different ballgame when a life is taken in cases like that. In fact, Noseycow, if through your negligence a life is taken or someone dies because you didn’t take care of them properly (example, an elderly very ill parent or spouse is dependent upon you for round the clock care and you run to the store and they fall and die while you are gone for only say 10 mins.) you get charged with that act of neglect and go to jail unless you have one fantastic lawyer to cut you a deal. Truthfully over here the McCanns would have been charged by now with neglect is my guess knowing how strict our laws are.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Ferdinand
Last time I looked it wasn’t ILLEGAL to have a crash
Negligence is surely what leads to neglect…
He was deemed to be negligent and neglected to break in time.
Why are you so pedantic?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Totje
If you read this, have a brilliant holiday!
July 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Does anyone know whether the oldest link in the internet is listed in the Guinness book of records?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
“A source close to the legal team said: “The idea of carrying out an independent investigation is that if the Portuguese police claim one piece of evidence points one way, we can immediately use the same evidence to prove a different point.”
The source added: “We are leaving no stone unturned on this one.”(same link)
You bet! Made my day!!
Best quote so far…jajajajaja
Coco
Ive got an other idea: painted stones!
Some with k or g heads on,then Keela & Eddie,cuddle cat etc….wot you think?
We must not leave any stones unturned on that one….
July 11th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Good morning
Since “thing” are churning here is an interesting link,showing the arrogance of some people in the mccanns defense: their very own lawyers sending “warning” to a portuguese prosecutor….
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know she would have screamed the place down.” says Eileen mccann,the granma
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/mccann-lawyers-warning-to-prosecutor.html
July 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am
682 noseycow Says:
” We recently had a case in the UK where a man driving using a handsfree mobile phone ran into the back of a van and the susequent accident killed one of the passegers in that van.
The driver was doing NOTHING that was against the law in this country, but was found guilty of neglet and sentenced to a prison term. ”
So you want to say it’s legal to run into other people’s cars? And are you sure it was “neglect”, not “negligence”?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Cheryl said
Maria, one cannot over look the fact they committed a serious act of neglect, even if they didn’t do it deliberately thinking it was okay with periodic checking on them, it put their children in danger and indeed it was danger — their child is missing. That is something no one will ever forget. Does not give one the right to ‘haunt’ them the rest of their lives about what they did - no need to do that to them, they will never forget what they did and will forever live with the guilt in their mind and heart
————————————————————————
Cheryl
We recently had a case in the UK where a man driving using a handsfree mobile phone ran into the back of a van and the susequent accident killed one of the passegers in that van.
The driver was doing NOTHING that was against the law in this country, but was found guilty of neglet and sentenced to a prison term.
People in the UK are responsible for their actions and even legal actions that have dire consequences, if deemed neglectful are punishable bythe law.
In UK law, no account is taken of the consequences of those actions on the person deemed to have committed the negligence.
So for example, if I drive my family somewhere following a night shift and I fall asleep at the wheel, I will be prosecuted even if a member of my family dies, or I am disabled as a result of the accident.
The police do NOT say ‘ah bless look she has to live the rest of her life with the consequences, lets not bother about the law in this case’.
So it bothers me that some people think that the McC’s are above the law BECAUSE the consequences of their actions are deemed ‘heartrendering’.
In fact it bothers me that the British Judicial System seem to be taking this stand aswell.
The law applies to all, some can not be ’selected out’ because they have their pictures in the paper on a daily basis.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Cheryl
Hi again.
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link. Will chat about that again.
I’m sure you’re absolutely right about the actual blog sites (as opposed to Anorak, which, as you say, is a satirical news site!) and the venom therein but how many people actually read them, never mind believe what’s written in them? You’re right if you’re implying that the influence of such sites is a subject worthy of serious consideration, though. As they’re relatively new, the law is rarely tested with regard to any such site.
You’re also correct about the press. IMO, what appears in the regular press, or on TV, still has a greater influence on the general public. My impression from talking over the months, both in different parts of the UK , and in other countries, is that most people have pretty well “forgotten” about it all but think the Mcs are innocent of killing their child or of covering up an accidental death and disposing of the body themselves.
As you say, judgement is often harsh of the fact that they left the children asleep without adult supervision, out of earshot. (It’s equally harsh of the early police investigation though.) However, I won’t lie! I have also heard a lot of people say that they have done the same thing, or similar, in such resorts, for example, using the baby-listening service. But as I said, the fact that lots of people may do the same sort of thing NEVER makes a wrong a right.
A lot of people have said that it was wrong to have published details of M’s coloboma, it being the only thing that could not readily be disguised by a supposed abductor.
Anorakers point out that the publicity they gave to M in general was against the PJ advice. The PJ didn’t even arrange for a description to be put out; they did that themselves. I think it’s fair to remember that their friends and family moved very quickly and will have been receiving different advice from the UK police and experts, especially in the US, who insisted that widespread, repeated publicity generally has the best chance of success, eg. the Amber Alert system itself. I suppose one has to put oneself in their shoes on this one. The whole group tried to do what they could as early, as rapidly and insistently as they could. A lot of the “activity” was probably undertaken also with the idea that it was comforting to the Mcs to know how much was being done. It created a sort of hope that M would be found.
Finally, some people think they are basically innocent but that there may be things they don’t want to come out, all the same. However, the fact that their conversation with M the day before (about her and and Sean crying), whilst it naturally went against them, precisely because it showed them in such a bad light also made people think they must at least have told the truth to the police. After all, if they’d simply wanted to create a diversionary impression that someone might have been lurking round the apartment the previous night, they could have put different words into M’s mouth, eg,
“Did you hear that funny noise last night, Mummy?”
The fact that they told the police about the crying thing did make a lot of people think they’d at least been honest with the police.
Sorry if I sounded even a little bit patronising when I asked you not to take Anorak as representative of UK views. I didn’t mean to be! I know very well you have your own independent views and make up your own mind…..!! I had noticed that!! In fact, maybe I myself have allowed Anorak to influence or depress me too much! I stayed away for quite a while. When you look only at mainstream news sources, and chat casually to people, a very different view comes through. I think that’s what made me say what I did last night.
Have a good day. I am up early to go away to work today and will be busy much of the weekend.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Keep up to date, the rags are picking it up now. http://tinyurl.com/56d2qu
July 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
676
coco Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Would somebody tell BBC24 that some of these women newscasters are very fucking scary in a morning. Especially when I have been up all night. Thanks.
________
Hey Coco, I never said I didn’t like your name and I am sure it is a given one. We have Cocos over here also…Isn’t it more a French name — Coco Chanel or something like that?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:44 am
662 coco
Perhaps it is all a big spin. Oprah is so straight and she is a strong lady who won’t be told what to do either by any of her guests. I have seen some very sticky moments on her show that will be hard to forget. Actually, Oprah would have made a jolly good detective! So, if the Mcs are allowed to go on, the show will be worth watching. It won’t be live though, so anything can happen. Clarrie will be biting his lip though. One slip and they will be gone.IMO.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
676 - coco
Not half as scary as Mrs D looks first thing in the morning
July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Would somebody tell BBC24 that some of these women newscasters are very fucking scary in a morning. Especially when I have been up all night. Thanks.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Don’t suggest a chauffeur. I’ve done that and they drive like twats and fuck about showing off in your car all day.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:11 am
If anybody wants a business idea - I have spotted a gap in the market.
I won’t be able to have a cigarette for about two and a half hours now because I am catching a train.
Is there anybody on Anorak loaded enough to set up train and plane carriers where I can have a cigarette with my coffee? Contact me through Anorak.
I would drive but I like a drink when I’m working so I would never get home.
Thanks in advance!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:02 am
meercat LOL If you would like any other good ideas …… Just let me know.
I have been known as the Queen of Original Thought since Uni days LOL
July 11th, 2008 at 5:59 am
I childishly made sure that I did 666 again! lol
July 11th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Veritablequandary! I’m in a veritable quandary! I don’t know whether to take my CM doll to work with me today. He’s looking really rather sad and worn-out.
I remember hearing that KM took the Cuddle-cat to work so I don’t want Cheryl calling me a saddo if I do take the dolls to work.
Have a super day today. Don’t get fractious with each other. I noticed some falling out here and there.
Nobody’s got all the facts here but there are some seriously intelligent and informed people writing on Anorak. Of course I am not one of them. I am a feeble-minded unwell person. But there are some contributors who are hitting nails on the head day after day.
Hi Ho Hi Ho ….. Off to work! Big day.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:59 am
669
Here’s with you kid!
July 11th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Might not be on ’til Saturday coz might have to stay in London overnight.
I reckon it’s the calm before the storm this weekend.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:50 am
I’ve just left a note for my wonderful lady who comes to sort my house out today.
It’s just to remind her when she empties the bins to put the cat-bob and sanitary towels in the boot of my car from now on. And when she cleans the pet-brushes to save the hair and put that in the car as well.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:44 am
I know which doll is implicated in this!
July 11th, 2008 at 4:42 am
PROPER BREAKING NEWS …… PROPER BREAKING NEWS ……….
Remember me telling you all that it was aliens?
Well it was discovered some months ago that the Egg Man is an alien who can take on human form and disappear at will.
Egg Man can turn into anyone he wants and look like whoever he wants. In fact he could turn into me or VQ or one of the Clan or Cheryl or DuncanR or …………
No wonder JT etc. thought they saw RM when they he was at his Mum’s. No wonder JW didn’t see him when JT saw him.
No wonder she couldn’t distinguish his features.
He could have been in the apartment when GM checked on the kids but because he was in invisible mode GM could not see him.
KM said it was possible that somebody was watching them all the time and Egg Man could have been watching the family but she wouldn’t have seen him if he was deliberately invisible.
BUT - What the police want to know is why M didn’t scream or cry when she was taken from her bed and wake the twins up.
How come the twins were out for the count. Even GM himself was reallly suspicious about the twins staying asleep and wondering if they were drugged.
The other BUT is this - Exactly what did the parents think constituted a ‘checking’ of the children.
At least one of them has said that M was not visible to him. Was he going back to the party to say, ‘Hi! Just checked on the kids and one of them is missing. Run back to the apartment and see if you can see her.’
How does this constitute checking? Should that not have been the point when this prick should have thought he should tell the parents that M was not visible?
Spooky!
July 11th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Coco, hang with your dolls.
Let the sardines and aliens go.
Trust me.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:28 am
662 coco Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:22 am
VQ! You are ace! But …. I told Cheryl she was articulate, eloquent and balanced!
Of course you would say so, knowing that she is a lamebrame!
Need to keep the unbalanced ugly American off-balance.