PDA

View Full Version : The Pro-McCann's Media Machine


Dr. Creepin
09-16-2007, 09:19 AM
Thanks to Kevin2105 we have some new info on links between Gordon Brown and the Pro-McMann Media Machine.

Some time ago BBC News 24 announced that the 'Head of Media Monitoring and Analysis' was to review that day's papers. Her name was Julia Hobsbawm.

WE know that the 'Head of Media Monitoring and Analysis' is actually Clarence Mitchell - but the BBC misled the British Public by suggesting a government official was to review that day's papers.

Naturally Julia Hobsbawm went off on a rant saying that the idea that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance was ridiculous, and "it is time this country asked questions of the Portuguese police and Portugal itself, else we won’t go on there on holiday any more."

But Julia Hobsbawm is NOT a government official. Julia Hobsbawm is an independent PR consultant with deep New Labour Links.

Julia Hobsbawm was a partner in Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications with Sarah Macaulay, now known as Sarah Brown, the wife of British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Julia Hobsbawm is now the founder and chief executive of media analysis and networking company Editorial Intelligence
http://editorialintelligence.com (http://editorialintelligence.com/)

And this is where it gets very interesting.

Julia Hobsbawm's new company 'Editorial Intelligence' specialises in analysing and exploiting comment and opinion in both print and online media. In simple terms, 'Editorial Intelligence' helps realise the potential of controlling the shape and fabric of public opinion and (d)ebate by controlling what is published in comment areas, forum areas, letters pages and message boards. They have even coined a new word for the online/published British public; they call it the 'Commentariat' (a play upon the word 'Proletariat' - originally coined to describe the lower or working classes).

We, my friends are the 'Commentariat'.

Here's how Julia Hobsbawm's 'Editorial Intelligence' describes itself on its website:

"Editorial Intelligence opens a door to a vital and growing world of print and online comment and opinion. What the 'Commentariat' says affects and influences the direction of public opinion and policy alike and with it, corporate reputation ...

... e.i was established to create a definitive portal to the Commentariat – the word coined by us to describe the world of comment and opinion which has increasing influence, not only on “the debate” but the shape and direction of policy, legislation and public opinion. "

Editorial Intelligence is a new-media PR company. Amoungst other things these kind of PR companies employ people to write press releases, sit in forums, write letters, post comments - all with the expressed purpose of directing public opinion and safe-guarding the interests and reputations of companies or people in the public eye.

Ever wondered why there are so many pro-mccann forum members even now? PR companies like Editorial Intelligence.
Ever wondered who the phrase 'trolls' and 'keyboard monkeys' really refer to? PR companies like Editorial Intelligence.
Ever wondered why all the comments, letters and opinion pieces in newspapers like the Daiy Mail are unaccountably Pro-McCann? PR companies like Editorial Intelligence.

Companies like Editorial Intelligence literally employ people to sit in forums, write letters and posts comments. Naturally, this is somewhat of an over-simplification - but these ARE nethertheless - some of their more proactive tasks.

The brief has been to give the impression that the weight of public opinion favours sympathy toward the McCanns: to shape the heart and minds of the 'Commentariat' and apply peer pressure on public opinion.

And what's more, Gordon Brown's wife, Sarah Brown and Julia Hobsbawm are the people most likely to be responsible.

Rather tellingly, clients of 'Editorial Intelligence' include SKY News and the General Medical Council.

(Julia Hobsbawm is also a trustee of the Jewish Community Centre for London - supported by none other than Sir Philip Green - loaner of jet and reward provider to the McCanns)

Links:
Sarah Browne - The New First Lady
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6240852.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6240852.stm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brown_(Prime_Minister's_wife) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brown_(Prime_Minister's_wife))

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....a_Hobsbawm (http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....a_Hobsbawm)

Jon Corner - Godparent to the twins, family spokesman and owner of Online Media, PR and Marketing Company - River Media in Liverpool.
http://www.river-media.com (http://www.river-media.com/)

original thread:
http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12642[/quote] (http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12642</td></tr></table></p></blockquote><br />)

Further posts include the following opinion which is also noteworthy and very well said



Quote : Guess you're ready at this point to consider that this entire charade has been an experiment, an elaborate, scrïpted hoax, to assess the effectiveness of combined Keyboard Monkeys and Pimp media, in assaults against the public ?

Clarrie would have been very eager to learn how many of the Ones in Twenty frequent forums. If you're not familiar with the 'Ones in 20' --- briefly, it's been estimated that on average, out of every twenty people, one will be a natural leader, able to motivate the rest. In wartime, the Ones in Twenty were removed in the belief the remaining 19 would thus be rendered obedient and easy to handle.

It's easy to pick the I in 20 out of a crowd. That's why they film protest marches, etc. A good 1 in 20 can rouse and lead a nation. Ones in Twenty are the natural enemies of governments, repressive governments especially.

Internet has changed everything. Governments fear it. But now they're being told they can use internet to their advantage. Which is where media monitoring units and the Hobshawns of the world come in. They're selling a product to governments with promises of being able to control societies remotely, using 'opinion shapers' and the like online.

I think this hoax/experiment will have scared the wits out of politicians. Because I suspect that instead of discovering perhaps Ones in Twenty in forums, they've discovered the ratio to be closer to 5 in 20, possibly 8 in 20.

What Clarrie and the s.c.u.m. have learned is that Ones in Twenty gravitate to internet forums. They teach the rest how to navigate and dissect media spin until it becomes automatic to all. Internet forums create Ones in Twenty ! And everyone develops new and vital skills via exposure to them.

Look at this forum, for example. The media c.r.a.p. doesn't have a chance here ! Yes, it's still fooling Mr. and Mrs Average who rely on Sky and Daily Mail for the news. But that same media garbage is ripped apart in these forums as fast as the media pimps can spin it. That is NOT good news for Hobshawn or Gordie or the media monitoring industry.

They've learned also that Keyboard Monkeys are worse than useless. Duh, Clarrie ... as I've told you before --- pay peanuts and monkeys is all you'll get.

At this point, the Clarries and Hobshawns of the world might be realising that for 'opinion shaping and steering' to work effectively, you need to have a superior class of Keyboard Monkey. They need to be trained. That costs money. Up goes the price of the product the Hobshawn's are trying to sell. And it gets worse (if you're a Hobshawn) or better, if you're a One or More in Twenty. Because having expended all that money, time and effort training Keyboard Monkeys, you have to keep them long enough to recoup your outlay and then some. We can see Keyboard Monkeys being head-hunted, can't we ? A new growth industry, with spin-offs such as Keyboard Monkey Training Centres. Advanced Keyboard Monkey Degrees. Phd in Monkeying. etc.

The phase I'm personally looking forward to, is the Keyboard Monkeys' Revolt. After all, like professional debaters, highly trained Keyboard Monkeys will automatically become ambivalent regarding any subject. Flexibility would be their tool. On any given day, they might be required to 'persuade' people to endorse mandatory euthanasia and to drink toxic recycled water. Who would blame them if, for the hell of it, or to pay back a despised employer or in a fit of conscience ......... the Keyboard Monkeys Crossed to the Other Side

Or ........ maybe people like ourselves would accept Keyboard Monkey positions in order to sabotage our employer, especially in political matters. How would those employers know ? In order to control their Keyboard Monkeys, they'd have to pay people to monitor those Monkeys. And it's possible the monitors might have a few political or other agenda of their own.

In the end, organisations and governments will realise it's more costly and problematic to try to shape societies via online Monkeys than it to just leave the public alone. And the Hobshawns will have to find another middle-man role as a means of earning their living.

Right now, it's very possible that this entire McTan Scam is an experiment, a scrïpted hoax, right down to PJ searches and Portuguese media reports. The McTans may be MI5/6. They have that look to them. Madeleine may be no more than a photograph borrowed for the experiment/hoax -- with the Clarrie's of the world timing just how long each new item of media spin lasts in the cauldron that is this and other online forums. They may well be testing us, to see how swiftly and how much of this case we 'crack', as the raw data is fed to us by the pimp media. They need this information, for future reference. Because they've got lots of scams on the drawing boards with a lot more at stake that a couple of robotic actors and a million pound Fund.

They've learned a lot from this forum (and others of course). They are collating data. They now know (thanks to this and other forums) just how great a role intuition plays in the public's determination of what is and what is not 'believable'.

They've learned the importance of 'sympathetic personalities', because by now, they realise that people first began to suspect Kat and Jerry because of their 'detached' and 'unemotional' demeanor.

They've learned that WE learn fast. We might be fooled by something once, but not twice.

They've learned we're far more analytical than they would ever have expected.

They've learned that total strangers, sight unseen, from all corners of the globe, regardless of class, education, age, etc. are immediately accepting of each other and willing to share information and work co-operatively regarding complex topics, amid hundreds of details.

We have shocked the living ***** out of them. Now let's give them a collective Big Middle Finger ! Hi Clarrie. We see you ! One word for you luvvie --- it's backfiring. And so are Gordie's chances of winning the election ! Ciao



So, paid schills on forums and elsewhere spinning pro McCann coverage with links to Gordies wife? Plus suspicions by those tracking the case heavily, that its all a giant psy-op to test us with. They also mention links to intel/ millitary and IRA elsewhere but I havent had time to keep up with the arguments.

What do you guys think?

colomom
09-16-2007, 10:32 AM
Absolutely fantastic Dr. Creepin!!

While my first instinct has always been to balk at "conspiracy theories" because I abhor the thought of being manipulated in any form, this posting rings true.

I have watched, on a number of forums, the ebb and flow of information and I have "sensed" that there was something sinister working behind the scenes. It is especially apparent on the Mirror board in the UK. I have to give our British friends a huge amount of credit though, they are having none of it. They see it, and feel it and immediately call it out and expose it. Then it goes away. Only to fire up again as things return to a state of relative calm.

Here in the states it seems that we are one of the "targeted" boards. I believe we are being watched, and manipulated :furious: . When things are quiet and the discussion benign (repetative, more emotional, less questioning) the forum seems to include a certain number of souls that are more emotionally invested, for whatever reason. When the monkeys come out, they are relentless. Trying to wear us down and make us go away, to give up. It makes perfect sense that they would be receiving compensation for their efforts. I seriously doubt that they would be so persistent if they were not being paid. It is hard work to bait and antagonize others for very long. It goes against the grain of who we are as humans. We are conditioned to cooperate, to come together, to work together.

Once some important "news" is introduced then we see new faces with ofentimes inflamatory viewpoints and attitudes. It looks like a concentrated effort to create chaos and confusion. It feels like being poked with a stick. Some react, some don't. It would be possible to gather an amazing amount of information on the human psyche by watching and feeding these reactions. You could experiment in many different ways. Ugh, makes my skin crawl.

Some have suggested that we should not be allowed to speak on this board about feeling or instinct. Our only discussion should be based on facts and irrefutable evidence. It almost comes down to logical vs emotional thinkers. Of course there are some variations and degrees. I think it might actually be easier to manipulate the logical thinkers than the emotional ones. Emotional thinkers draw others because of their basic honesty and integrity. People can sense that in others. Those among us that feel they have a "gift" of insight in a spiritual sense are the most difficult to steer. Interesting...

Well, you have got me thinking. I will watch with new eyes. I will refuse to allow an anonymous poster to poke me with a stick. Editorial Intelligence can bite me....want to bet they are taking notes on that reaction alone?

One thing though, if I find out that this:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/74127950.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/74130782.jpg(a child at a church service for Maddie)

is the result of some kind of social experiment...there will be H E L L to pay!!

Thanks again Dr. Creepin.

KOOL LOOK
09-16-2007, 10:56 AM
I agree. I have felt in the past few days this has been occurring here on maddy's thread. Not when it was one thread, but when the forum opened up, then wham.

I love getting all kinds of posters, new and old, but I feel something different this time is going on here. I felt this way for two days. I've been poked (a nice word to use), for I can think of another word that better describes it.

I refuse to continue in dialogue. Ignore ignore ignore!

My intelligence tells me this: Maddy is missing, someone did it. The most likely perp is the parent, they haven't been ruled out yet and they darn should have already been ruled out by this point. They themselves should have been able to convince the public, and at least some police investigators of their innocense to where these persons would be going to bat for them regardless of laws. Someone credible with information to declare their innocense, it's not happened here at all. The parents keep getting moved in closer and closer as suspects, instead of being moved further away.

I know the innocent has been falsely accused, but we don't have tons and tons of cases to fit that scenerio to compare with. I'm glad I'm not the only recognizing this here.

Salem
09-16-2007, 11:19 AM
Okay - this is very interesting stuff here! I know since Maddie's thread turned into a forum it has been impossible for me to keep up with, so I have faded out some, mostly just reading the Port. translations (thank you colomom) and a few of the other threads.

That it is a hugh psy. experiment, I'm not sure I agree with, but I would agree that someone is taking advantage of the situation.

Very interesting.......

Salem

englishleigh
09-16-2007, 11:28 AM
I refuse to continue in dialogue. Ignore ignore ignore!

My intelligence tells me this: Maddy is missing, someone did it. The most likely perp is the parent, they haven't been ruled out yet and they darn should have already been ruled out by this point. They themselves should have been able to convince the public, and at least some police investigators of their innocense to where these persons would be going to bat for them regardless of laws. Someone credible with information to declare their innocense, it's not happened here at all. The parents keep getting moved in closer and closer as suspects, instead of being moved further away.

.

Exactly. I've been a member here for 3 years and I have never seen the level of rudeness & attacking, esp. from brand-new posters, that I have seen in the Maddie forum, and that includes even the Laci Peterson forum.

The last straw with me came yesterday when a new poster on the thread "Gone Baby Gone", about the new film that has similarities to the Madeleine case snottily attacked posters on that thread just because they thought that there was a resemblance between Maddie McCann and the child playing the part of the abducted girl in the film. Anyone who would get their knickers in a wad over such a trivial matter-of-opinion thing as whether two little girls looked like one another is out just to argue and bait and cause trouble.

This same poster also wrote on another thread this morning that some people here are "far too emotional" about this case. I think anyone with children of their own, or even with a HEART, would be emotional about a beautiful little 4-year-old girl who is missing/abducted/possibly murdered, and esp. if that child's parents are SUSPECTS.

I don't want for one instant to think that this sweet little angel's parents have done anything to hurt her/cover up her death/commit international fraud on a HUGE scale. But the fact remains that no matter what else they did/didn't do, they left her alone and vulnerable with her 2-year-old siblings in a strange apartment in a foreign country while they went out drinking with their friends. THEY WERE NEGLIGENT. And too much of the parents' stories do not add up about that night and the days and weeks that followed, and they have been named suspects in the disappearance of their child. That is not something I can just ignore in thinking about and watching this case unfold.

My motto has become IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE here for posters who are just rude and do nothing but shill for the McCanns...luckily this wonderful place has a feature for automatically doing just that.


ETA: My prayer for this case is that there will be justice for sweet Madeleine and that she will be found, alive or dead...and that WHOEVER is responsible will have to pay, whether it is her parents or whoever that may be. If the McCanns ARE innocent (except for leaving the children alone), then they should be exonerated. If not, they should be charged and found guilty.

ceeaura
09-16-2007, 11:33 AM
I don't know whats going on.When I first heard about Madeleine,My first thought was on my goodness that poor baby and oh what her parents are going through.Granted at the time I was only hearing bits and pieces of the news.It was about a week into it that I sat down and read the first reports to the recent reports of news,their interviews ect.
I am not believing the McCanns are guility because of the news reports.I do not trust the McCanns for what has come out of their own mouths.Period."Its like dining in our back garden" "its 50 yards away" "we were at best naive"

I am the type of person who belives that the truth lies in the details.No matter how small or big they may seem.So when little details are changed or left out then I have little warning bells go off and I can not believe that person anymore.

The past couple of days I too have seen new posters and have noticed that baiting was going on big time.This forum has had its moments where posters disagreed ect but nothing like I have seen here the past couple of days .Is it part of a conspiracy?? I don't think so but hey I could be wrong.Just like I could be wrong in my distrust with the McCanns.

I don't hate them.My heart lies with Little Madeline and the twins.First and foremost.I don't want to see them "hung" either as some may like to believe.I pray everyday to all that is holy to let this little girl be alive and her parents had nothing to do with her being missing.

That said I can't help it that I feel she is not with us anymore and it breaks my heart.Can't help that feel the parents are hiding something.

I just want Madeleine to be found.

Texana
09-16-2007, 11:34 AM
The CEO of Whole Foods was charged recently (I think he worked out a little plea bargain with his corporate lawyers) with stock manipulation, because he posted repeatedly about a competitor on a stock/investment forum. (A competitor Whole Foods was coincidentally seeking to purchase.)

You'd be very naive, indeed, to think he was the only one out there trying to manipulate public opinion in such a way. I read in a article about his actions that many corporations are hiring people to constantly surf the net now and post opinions or rebuttals about their company products.

docwho3
09-16-2007, 11:34 AM
And there are space aliens controling the white house and other world leaders . .maybe. :)

Are there media companies always struggling to learn how best to present products and people to the media? Probably so. Is that necessarily sinister? Probably not. It is what it is. Everyone wants to make a buck and media, whether it is advertising in commercials or in forums, is a tool.

What we should be careful of is when people start saying that anyone who disagrees with their one special theory is part of some sinister "dark side" conspiracy of evil. That is another tactic I see used on forums more and more often and it is not usually done by any ad group or media spin moguls. It is usually tried by forum members who want to control the thread they are in and bully other members who might not agree with the one theory into shutting up and/or leaving.

Once one is labeled as being from the "dark side" their posted case points no longer have to be paid attention to or responded to on the merits of the case point. Because the post came from one of those on the dark side it can be put down as being an attempted deception/deflection from the "truth" and thus whether the poster stays or goes become irrelevant.

The good news is that this tactic seldom works for long because people usually see through it.

ny_
09-16-2007, 11:43 AM
This is my first post here as I've only recently started following this case in detail when the McCanns were named as suspects. Usually, I find missing children's cases so upsetting that I'll just note the photos and what the child looks like so that on the off chance I sight the child, I can notify authorities. I usually don't follow details.

Since a lot of the evidence, etc. can be interpreted in various ways, I'd kept an open mind & had been a "fencesitter" up until this weekend. I started going back & looking at photos & video of the McCanns. Now, I know not everyone's going to cry & break down in public. I don't expect that of them to "prove" their innocence. But it seems like they're smiling an awful lot. And not just with the twins. Even when exchanging a tshirt of Madeline with some dignitary. They also seem extremely defensive whenever anyone brings up any role they may have had (either leaving the kids alone in the first place or as suspects). Their behavior contrasts sharply with that of Mark Klass (father of Polly Kass) who cooperated fully with police, even though he was a suspect at one point. Not to mention Gerry McCann's blog entries seem a bit to carefree to be that of a grieving parent.

The final convincing moment for me was this morning when I saw the new photos they've released. They are of Madeline when she was younger, the parents wedding and other family members. At best, we are being manipulated, at worst, maybe they do have something to do with their daughter's death and are trying to distract us. If she were truly abducted, wouldn't they want only recent photos of her in the public's mind so if anyone sees her they can help rescue her?

shrinkydink
09-16-2007, 11:44 AM
And there are space aliens controling the white house and other world leaders . .maybe. :)



I thought that point about the White House had already been proven:p

colomom
09-16-2007, 11:47 AM
This same poster also wrote on another thread this morning that some people here are "far too emotional" about this case. I think anyone with children of their own, or even with a HEART, would be emotional about a beautiful little 4-year-old girl who is missing/abducted/possibly murdered, and esp. if that child's parents are SUSPECTS.


Morning English!!

If you look at that post you mention above in the context of this thread, it is very interesting how some people might react by feeling bad about themselves ie: "yes, I am too emotional involved, I am weak, I am neglecting (something), I should just hang it up" and then others might react as you have above. Personally, I think your reaction is a sign of a healthy recognition of your own self, a strength, a leader not a follower.

Either way, as a social experiment to try and judge just how many people react one way or another or as a concerted effort to turn your head away from the truth, which you might be getting close to, it is wrong to manipulate people that way. It makes me really angry to think that some stranger out there in cyberland thinks they have the right to mess with my mind like that. Only in an anonymous forum could this be attempted (with me anyway) because if they were in my face...it would not be for long!

STEADFAST
09-16-2007, 11:51 AM
The reason there are "so many pro-McCann forum member even now) could very well be that people just naturally differ in the weight they give to different aspects of what they see. And this case has no "AH HA!" fact connected to it yet that hasn't sort of dissolved in a sea of contradictory reports, and the waters are quite murky at this point. I've got lots of doubts about the McCann's guilt and loads of scepticism regarding much of the "information" from the media, both in Portugal and the U.K. (And, frankly, also from the McCann's PR agency.) But it looks to me like this couple may be being railroaded by the police or the media because they are such easy targets, being obviously poor parents and hugely unlikeable on top of that, and their readers want someone to blame for this heinous crime. On the other hand, maybe one or both of the McCanns ARE murderers. I wonder if there's a PR firm in Portugal that posts anti-McCann info. (I know from the Natalee Holloway case that foreign victims in resort areas can be subjected to extremely viscious misinformation campaigns for what may be economic reasons.)

colomom
09-16-2007, 12:02 PM
The reason there are "so many pro-McCann forum member even now) could very well be that people just naturally differ in the weight they give to different aspects of what they see. And this case has no "AH HA!" fact connected to it yet that hasn't sort of dissolved in a sea of contradictory reports, and the waters are quite murky at this point. I've got lots of doubts about the McCann's guilt and loads of scepticism regarding much of the "information" from the media, both in Portugal and the U.K. (And, frankly, also from the McCann's PR agency.) But it looks to me like this couple may be being railroaded by the police or the media because they are such easy targets, being obviously poor parents and hugely unlikeable on top of that, and their readers want someone to blame for this heinous crime. On the other hand, maybe one or both of the McCanns ARE murderers. I wonder if there's a PR firm in Portugal that posts anti-McCann info. (I know from the Natalee Holloway case that foreign victims in resort areas can be subjected to extremely viscious misinformation campaigns for what may be economic reasons.)

All things are possible Steadfast...;)

englishleigh
09-16-2007, 12:03 PM
The reason there are "so many pro-McCann forum member even now) could very well be that people just naturally differ in the weight they give to different aspects of what they see. And this case has no "AH HA!" fact connected to it yet that hasn't sort of dissolved in a sea of contradictory reports, and the waters are quite murky at this point. I've got lots of doubts about the McCann's guilt and loads of scepticism regarding much of the "information" from the media, both in Portugal and the U.K. (And, frankly, also from the McCann's PR agency.) But it looks to me like this couple may be being railroaded by the police or the media because they are such easy targets, being obviously poor parents and hugely unlikeable on top of that, and their readers want someone to blame for this heinous crime. On the other hand, maybe one or both of the McCanns ARE murderers. I wonder if there's a PR firm in Portugal that posts anti-McCann info. (I know from the Natalee Holloway case that foreign victims in resort areas can be subjected to extremely viscious misinformation campaigns for what may be economic reasons.)


For me, it's not that people differ on the weight they give different aspects of the case, or even the people who do feel it's more likely that the McCanns did nothing to hurt Maddie (except neglect her which to me is bad enough), but it's the rudeness, the snottiness and the attempts to make people who DO give credence and weight to the fact that the McCanns have been named official suspects, feel small and like their opinions don't matter, or that they are lesser or hysterical people b/c they are emotional about Madeleine and what may have happened to her.

ceeaura
09-16-2007, 12:05 PM
For me, it's not that people differ on the weight they give different aspects of the case, or even the people who do feel it's more likely that the McCanns did nothing to hurt Maddie (except neglect her which to me is bad enough), but it's the rudeness, the snottiness and the attempts to make people who DO give credence and weight to the fact that the McCanns have been named official suspects, feel small and like their opinions don't matter, or that they are lesser or hysterical people b/c they are emotional about Madeleine and what may have happened to her.


Well said englishleigh!! :clap: I feel the exact same way.

KOOL LOOK
09-16-2007, 12:11 PM
This is my first post here as I've only recently started following this case in detail when the McCanns were named as suspects. Usually, I find missing children's cases so upsetting that I'll just note the photos and what the child looks like so that on the off chance I sight the child, I can notify authorities. I usually don't follow details.

Since a lot of the evidence, etc. can be interpreted in various ways, I'd kept an open mind & had been a "fencesitter" up until this weekend. I started going back & looking at photos & video of the McCanns. Now, I know not everyone's going to cry & break down in public. I don't expect that of them to "prove" their innocence. But it seems like they're smiling an awful lot. And not just with the twins. Even when exchanging a tshirt of Madeline with some dignitary. They also seem extremely defensive whenever anyone brings up any role they may have had (either leaving the kids alone in the first place or as suspects). Their behavior contrasts sharply with that of Mark Klass (father of Polly Kass) who cooperated fully with police, even though he was a suspect at one point. Not to mention Gerry McCann's blog entries seem a bit to carefree to be that of a grieving parent.

The final convincing moment for me was this morning when I saw the new photos they've released. They are of Madeline when she was younger, the parents wedding and other family members. At best, we are being manipulated, at worst, maybe they do have something to do with their daughter's death and are trying to distract us. If she were truly abducted, wouldn't they want only recent photos of her in the public's mind so if anyone sees her they can help rescue her?

Welcome. My aha moment came when this news broke, when the parents left the children in the apartment alone to go party. Then to learn they both were doctors, affluent and had the means to provide all adequate avenues.


Time went on, and I have seen no physical strength or efforts by the entire family to physically search for Maddy. All talk about finding her, just talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk takl talk talk talk talkt alk atlk talkt alka tlakt klattakl alkt atkl altk taltk alkt alkt lalk talktaltkalktatlkatlktalktalktalktalktakl

My nose to a door, knock knock, answered. Have you seen my daughter who was taken out of my unattended vacation flat due to my negligence and sorrow? Please help me!

I would have back packs, water bottles, snacks, sneakers on me and the twins walking and searching that land up and down daily. Every day would be a new land search activity for me and my twin toddlers. Maybe along the way we could smell a flower on our search. That would be the picture of my mccann possee.

STEADFAST
09-16-2007, 12:32 PM
For me, it's not that people differ on the weight they give different aspects of the case, or even the people who do feel it's more likely that the McCanns did nothing to hurt Maddie (except neglect her which to me is bad enough), but it's the rudeness, the snottiness and the attempts to make people who DO give credence and weight to the fact that the McCanns have been named official suspects, feel small and like their opinions don't matter, or that they are lesser or hysterical people b/c they are emotional about Madeleine and what may have happened to her.

I feel your pain! Have been in your shoes lots on WS, even though it is the most well-moderated forum I've ever read. Here are my problem areas -- the ones that keep me from being satisfied that the McCanns are guilty of murder or manslaughter: 1. News reports about the evidence keep changing and are contradictory. Plus, they can only be based on leaked "secret" info, so easy to manipulate. 2. The self-centered, unfeeling actions of the McCanns are exactly the same after Madeleine disappeared as before, so it doesn't seem like an indication of guilt. 3. I see much speculation that goes way beyond what I would personally interpolate from information given. And I have seen instances of that speculation being discussed later as information in itself. It makes me very sceptical of what I read. 4. The difficulty of hiding a body and leaving such meager and questionable forensic evidence in a small window of time in a foreign country with a glaring media spotlight on them, compared to the comparative ease that these things could be accomplished by a local resident or long-term visitor who is relatively anonymous. 5. There is no fact, no action, no quotation, no picture that has yet convinced me of the McCann's guilt. (There have been some, though, that keep me from being convinced they are innocent!) Does that help?

ny_
09-16-2007, 12:55 PM
Kool Look, I agree it's irresponsible to leave kids alone. Especially when they obviously had the means not to. It's not like they were dealing with Kim Brathwaite's dilemma (a single mom in Brooklyn, NY USA, supporting herself & her children who was hesitant to leave work early when her sitter didn't show). She was afraid to lose her job, so she tried getting a neighbor to check in on them, but couldn't get through. They died in an arson fire. She was criminally charged. Even though she was wrong to leave her kids alone, I can understand her reasoning more than the McCanns'. She had tried to set up childcare, it fell through. And she was afraid of losing the job which supported her family.

KOOL LOOK
09-16-2007, 01:09 PM
Kool Look, I agree it's irresponsible to leave kids alone. Especially when they obviously had the means not to. It's not like they were dealing with Kim Brathwaite's dilemma (a single mom in Brooklyn, NY USA, supporting herself & her children who was hesitant to leave work early when her sitter didn't show). She was afraid to lose her job, so she tried getting a neighbor to check in on them, but couldn't get through. They died in an arson fire. She was criminally charged. Even though she was wrong to leave her kids alone, I can understand her reasoning more than the McCanns'. She had tried to set up childcare, it fell through. And she was afraid of losing the job which supported her family.

Aaw, how sad. I agree too with your outlook. I don't feel this particular mother should have been charged, really I don't.

SleuthMom
09-16-2007, 01:18 PM
For me, it's not that people differ on the weight they give different aspects of the case, or even the people who do feel it's more likely that the McCanns did nothing to hurt Maddie (except neglect her which to me is bad enough), but it's the rudeness, the snottiness and the attempts to make people who DO give credence and weight to the fact that the McCanns have been named official suspects, feel small and like their opinions don't matter, or that they are lesser or hysterical people b/c they are emotional about Madeleine and what may have happened to her.

Nobody should feel bad about their opinions about this case, nobody has the right to tell others that are too "emotionally involved" that's why, I tell it like it is if they don't like my posts then they can cover their eyes. lol

BloodshotEye
09-16-2007, 01:44 PM
This is a reeely good thread!

Yes! To what Englishleigh and Sleuthmom said! Couldn't quite articulate how I felt, about this. You read my mind. I want to feel that I am not going to be asked to "prove my empirical sources", when I spout off one of my wild scenarios. And yes, some of my theories may speculate that the parents are guilty, without any proof whatsoever.

Thanks you guys.

The "Pro-McCann Media Machine" indeed. This is one of the elements in this case, that really creeps me out. I feel that the McCann's, and their media hacks, didn't anticipate the back-fire this would have, on public opinion.

Watching this machinery, is like watching the Wizard of Oz, and seeing the Wizard pulling the levers behind the curtain. Ooops...we weren't suppose to know/see that. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Pretty hard to shape public opinion, when we see this machinery at work. This "machinery" certainly has it's price. And that cost is way more than the fees charged by the PR/media spinners, to the McCanns. The McCanns seem to have been sold on a campaign to shape public opinion, at the expense of their own ethics and integrity. Maybe that was a fair trade-off, if the McCanns had neither. If you get my drift...

Texana
09-16-2007, 02:54 PM
I agree, Blood Shot Eye.

Here's a good example of that media campaign:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=456348&in_page_id=1770#

englishleigh
09-16-2007, 02:56 PM
I agree, Blood Shot Eye.

Here's a good example of that media campaign:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=456348&in_page_id=1770#

:silenced:

:sick:

SleuthMom
09-16-2007, 03:05 PM
Interesting "Campaign"

Is it me or I always hear this "business-like" tone when they speak about the search for Madeline?

BloodshotEye
09-16-2007, 03:11 PM
Here's a good example of that media campaign:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=456348&in_page_id=1770#

Ok, this is me...rolling my eyes.
This campaign of their's is ridiculous. It doesn't look like it "is all about finding Maddie" anymore, but rather "Make the McCanns look loving and cuddly". I wonder what Mark Klass would say about this privately. He is such a gracious man, I doubt that he would even want to comment about their "campaign". This is a very weird couple. Did it or not - who knows! But without a doubt, and imo, based their own statements and this lame photo-journal, they are very weird.

But seriously, how incredibly lame is this? Spending this kind of money, to have photo-shoots? Publish daily journal entries, to counter act the effect of her journal entries made in Portugal?

You can see by the few posts, underneath that article, that this little cuddly photo-journal, manages to sway the opinion of noodle-heads.

Texana
09-16-2007, 03:14 PM
Interesting "Campaign"

Is it me or I always hear this "business-like" tone when they speak about the search for Madeline?

No,I hear it too. I can't decide if it's Gerry's personality or the PR people's voice coming through, but I hear it. Maybe a combination of both?

They talk in terms of the next step of the campaign or meetings and if you inserted a product name instead of Madeleine's it would still sound reasonable.

SleuthMom
09-16-2007, 03:28 PM
They talk in terms of the next step of the campaign or meetings and if you inserted a product name instead of Madeleine's it would still sound reasonable.

Weird.

BloodshotEye
09-16-2007, 04:09 PM
Had a thought. I was browsing through Dr. Creepin's other cool thread, entitled "What's Really Going On Here?".

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53481

I am trying to recall some of the missing/abduction cases, over the past 7 years or so. Especially the ones that were very high profile, and seemed to garner a lot of coverage. My objective was to evaluate my own perception of the "next-of-kin", and whether I suspected them of being involved.

My conclusion is that:

1. The amount of media coverage that targets one or more individuals, did not cause me to suspect them. e.g. parents, a husband or a boyfriend. And we all know from past cases, certain family members have had ever aspect of their private lives exposed.

2. The strenuous efforts to keep a case "alive", made by the family (parents, husband, or other), did not immediately cause me to suspect that person or family member.

So what is it, that is different about the McCann's supersized media campaign, that chills me to the bone? Possibly that they have put themselves out there, in the spotlight, rather than letting the issue take the spotlight. Big difference. Garnering the personal attention of photographers, as they gad about the globe, was very weird. Very self centered. They could have had a media buyer and PR person go FOR THEM, and place coverage/insertion stories with all the major news sources around the globe.

My gut tells me, that using/manipulating the media in the way the McCann's have done, is like casting a very wide - glamourous net. It uses attention-getting little baubles of news, intended to snare the general public's interest, and direct it. It smacks of a celebrity publicity campaign, more than a Find Maddie quest. It smack of something disingenuine and opportunistic, rather than sincere.

I have never before, had this opinion of a parent's use of media interviews etc., in their attempt to find their loved one. Never.

Texana
09-16-2007, 06:16 PM
These are the things that to me are different about the McCanns' media campaign:

1) There are many interviews and articles in which the twins are pictured as well as photos of the parents interacting happily with the twins. Photos of Madeleine, on the other hand, feature only Maddie. Maybe the parents got cropped out of those. There is a repetition of the "life must go on for the twins' sake" theme. (see link below.) Kate talks about how "fantastic" the twins are, how funny they are, etc. It is not only themselves the McCanns put in the spotlight, which would be understandable. It is repeatedly and inexplicably (for parents with one perhaps "stalked" and kidnapped) child done with the twins.

2) Kate McCann says that it would not be fair to focus only on Madeleine without thinking of all the other missing children. She says that they found out the the problem is "massive." This is very early on, the tying of Madeleine into other missing children cases, as a kind of "poster child" for missing children. This is also unique.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3636882&ft=lg

3) For all the references to "massive" numbers of child abductions, we never hear any actual numbers or facts or anything concrete (other than buying a bracelet and looking at children's eyes) anything people should do to counter act this.

In one interview, Kate referred to the "hundreds" of mothers who have told her that they've done exactly the same thing (left their children alone.) She doesn't say "And we must stop this! It's clearly not safe!" There are some meetings and talk of putting Amber-style Alert laws in European countries, but there doesn't seem to be any emphasis on letter-writing campaigns or other things that people could be doing to stop the number of missing children each year.

CaliKid
09-16-2007, 07:20 PM
For all the doubters who don't think something is wrong with the way the McCanns have acted, you really need to read the early Gerry blogs. They were not about Madeleine, not even in the beginning. They were about meetings with their campaign managers, haircuts, photo ops, etc.

In the past, the British media has been brutal in investigating people even on the fringes of a scandal or crime. So how come the newspapers in the UK just shut up when Madeleine disappeared? Why didn't they ask any hard questions about whether her parents were telling the truth and why they left the children to go out and party? Why didn't they delve into their past and talk to their friends and colleagues? After all, that's what the media is known for doing. No, all they did was cozy up to the McCanns and write "poor, poor parents" stories about how they were soldiering on in the face of adversity.

Connections with people in powerful places? You betcha. Conspiracy? Maybe.

BloodshotEye
09-16-2007, 08:04 PM
You guys make a good point. That is, the McCann's publicity campaign smacks of a lot of image-fluffing. No real activism.

Recall the efforts by Erin, Samanths Runnion's mother; and Adam Walsh's father (The 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection Act); and many others I can't seem to call to mind at the moment.

And other efforts, that have been spearheaded by everyday mothers and fathers, who have endured the heartbreak of a child's death, due to unsafe toys, malfunctioning escalators, and the like. All bravely leveraging the publicity surround their child's death, to heighten the awareness about a certain condition. And to effect change that is intended to protect children.

Yet I don't see any of this "activism" on the part of the McCanns, as you guys so astutely point out.
We are supposed to buy a bracelet and send in money, and wish the McCann's a bon voyage, as they globe-trotted around to pass out flyers.

Again, I have never found fault with any parent or family member, who has endeavored to keep the case alive. This does not appear to be what the McCann's are doing. imo.

CaliKid
09-16-2007, 11:59 PM
I like that term. Image fluffing.

In the past when something negative came out about the McCanns, they released a flurry of interviews, often contradictory. The message wasn't important; the need to look good and move the negative news off the front page was.

It just seems to me that the McCanns are doing the same thing they've done for the past 4 months. Get their faces and names in the paper for their own sake, not for Madeleine's.

txsvicki
09-17-2007, 12:04 AM
These are the things that to me are different about the McCanns' media campaign:

1) There are many interviews and articles in which the twins are pictured as well as photos of the parents interacting happily with the twins. Photos of Madeleine, on the other hand, feature only Maddie. Maybe the parents got cropped out of those. There is a repetition of the "life must go on for the twins' sake" theme. (see link below.) Kate talks about how "fantastic" the twins are, how funny they are, etc. It is not only themselves the McCanns put in the spotlight, which would be understandable. It is repeatedly and inexplicably (for parents with one perhaps "stalked" and kidnapped) child done with the twins.

2) Kate McCann says that it would not be fair to focus only on Madeleine without thinking of all the other missing children. She says that they found out the the problem is "massive." This is very early on, the tying of Madeleine into other missing children cases, as a kind of "poster child" for missing children. This is also unique.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3636882&ft=lg

3) For all the references to "massive" numbers of child abductions, we never hear any actual numbers or facts or anything concrete (other than buying a bracelet and looking at children's eyes) anything people should do to counter act this.

In one interview, Kate referred to the "hundreds" of mothers who have told her that they've done exactly the same thing (left their children alone.) She doesn't say "And we must stop this! It's clearly not safe!" There are some meetings and talk of putting Amber-style Alert laws in European countries, but there doesn't seem to be any emphasis on letter-writing campaigns or other things that people could be doing to stop the number of missing children each year.


Wow. So it's not fair to focus only on Madeline where's other missing kids? What a thing for a mother to say and to me, it's insane to even get involved helping with anything so soon after a child is abducted. The parents should be getting and demanding help not the other way around, especially since they claim that police aren't looking for Madeline.

STEADFAST
09-17-2007, 12:06 AM
For all the doubters who don't think something is wrong with the way the McCanns have acted, you really need to read the early Gerry blogs. They were not about Madeleine, not even in the beginning. They were about meetings with their campaign managers, haircuts, photo ops, etc.

.

I've said before that it's possible the parents weren't all that attached to Madeleine. However, I think Kate McCann does look like she's grieving. We've also heard that Gerry wasn't as involved with the children as she was. Maybe he's just that self-centered to make this all about him. Maybe he's star struck. Doesn't necessarily mean he murdered Madeleine.

Salem
09-17-2007, 12:21 AM
I've said before that it's possible the parents weren't all that attached to Madeleine. However, I think Kate McCann does look like she's grieving. We've also heard that Gerry wasn't as involved with the children as she was. Maybe he's just that self-centered to make this all about him. Maybe he's star struck. Doesn't necessarily mean he murdered Madeleine.

So why would it be that the night Mrs. Fenn claims she heard Maddie crying, that Maddie was crying for her father, not her mother?

This one puzzles me if mom was the one who did most of the "caretaking."

Salem

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 01:05 AM
So why would it be that the night Mrs. Fenn claims she heard Maddie crying, that Maddie was crying for her father, not her mother?

This one puzzles me if mom was the one who did most of the "caretaking."

Salem

Hi Salem,

I don't think Madeleine calling for her father instead of her mother is that big a deal, especially if you take what Kate's diary says at face value. If she had such a difficult relationship with her oldest daughter, it makes perfect sense for Maddie to want to be with Gerry more. Why would a child who was constantly being scolded by one parent call to that parent for help? But if you want to look, discussions on this subject are sprinkled throughout these threads.

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 01:13 AM
I've said before that it's possible the parents weren't all that attached to Madeleine. However, I think Kate McCann does look like she's grieving. We've also heard that Gerry wasn't as involved with the children as she was. Maybe he's just that self-centered to make this all about him. Maybe he's star struck. Doesn't necessarily mean he murdered Madeleine.

Regardless of whether the McCanns are guilty of Madeleine's death or not, I think they are grieving. I believe they love(d) their daughter and feel sorry for what happened.

Texana
09-17-2007, 07:25 AM
Wow. So it's not fair to focus only on Madeline where's other missing kids? What a thing for a mother to say and to me, it's insane to even get involved helping with anything so soon after a child is abducted. The parents should be getting and demanding help not the other way around, especially since they claim that police aren't looking for Madeline.


Here's the link to the video where Kate talks about helping other children and maybe something good will come out of it. I put the wrong link in my other post.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91210-1279448,.html

Here's where she talks again about the "bigger picture."

"Once you know all that you can't turn a blind eye to it. Madeleine is our priority but we have to help. We can't just ignore those other children.

"Whatever comes out of our experience, anything that can make the tiniest bit of difference to make the world safer place is going to be a good thing. I feel a moral obligation.

"Madeleine means so much to me, but you can't take it away from the bigger picture."

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1590&id=1223682007

Trino
09-17-2007, 07:31 AM
I have an unanswered question about Madeline's crying. How could the twins sleep through her wailing if they weren't drugged?

ny_
09-17-2007, 07:46 AM
I get that they feel they can do some good for other kids by publicizing, but if that's truly the case, why do they get so defensive about people questioning the decision to leave the kids alone? And why do they still insist that was ok? If it's such a common practice, then why not raise awareness to change it? If she was abducted, while it doesn't take away the responsibility/guilt of the abductors, the fact is if she had an adult or older teen with her, she'd probably still be with her family.

april4sky
09-17-2007, 07:56 AM
Regardless of whether the McCanns are guilty of Madeleine's death or not, I think they are grieving. I believe they love(d) their daughter and feel sorry for what happened.

I think you are absolutely right Calikid.

And no matter what happens I think they will live with guilt and sorrow for the rest of their lives. Even if a miracle happens and Madeleine is recovered safe and well.

gord
09-17-2007, 08:18 AM
anyone who thinks that the British Press - especialy the tablods can be in anyway manipulated is 100% wrong . Believe me if they smell blood they would be the first to go in hard .

The tabloids first concern is to sell copies - and a lot of copies . The press here is highly compettitive and every one will be looking for an angle .

At the moment the tabloids probably think that public opinion is still on the side of the Mcaans - and they are going with this . The story is huge at the moment . The British Press bow to no-one and the link between Brown / his wife and the PR company putting pressure is excuse my french - just pure pie in the sky . The last thing any politician would ever want to do is seen to be in any way trying to manipulate a story .

It does look like though that the case against the Mccaans is beginning to unravel a bit

Texana
09-17-2007, 08:58 AM
anyone who thinks that the British Press - especialy the tablods can be in anyway manipulated is 100% wrong . Believe me if they smell blood they would be the first to go in hard .

The tabloids first concern is to sell copies - and a lot of copies . The press here is highly compettitive and every one will be looking for an angle .

At the moment the tabloids probably think that public opinion is still on the side of the Mcaans - and they are going with this . The story is huge at the moment . The British Press bow to no-one and the link between Brown / his wife and the PR company putting pressure is excuse my french - just pure pie in the sky . The last thing any politician would ever want to do is seen to be in any way trying to manipulate a story .

It does look like though that the case against the Mccaans is beginning to unravel a bit

The British press can't be controlled but it most certainly can be manipulated. Diana was a master at it.

Politicians and celebrities hire PR firms to do just that as well.

Why else do you think that the media is alerted for McCann outings or trips? How do you think the press was on hand to take the photos of the McCanns returning to Great Britain--and does anybody think it was accidental that as they walked off the plane each one was carrying a child?

Politicians don't want to be seen manipulating stories but of course they do it as much as possible. "A senior government official..." "Unnamed sources..." You bet there are certain associates of every politician who have certain reporters on speed dial.

As long as what the McCanns are selling is what sells the newspapers, they'll be presented favorably, no matter what the news actually is.

gord
09-17-2007, 09:19 AM
The British press can't be controlled but it most certainly can be manipulated. Diana was a master at it.

Politicians and celebrities hire PR firms to do just that as well.

Why else do you think that the media is alerted for McCann outings or trips? How do you think the press was on hand to take the photos of the McCanns returning to Great Britain--and does anybody think it was accidental that as they walked off the plane each one was carrying a child?

Politicians don't want to be seen manipulating stories but of course they do it as much as possible. "A senior government official..." "Unnamed sources..." You bet there are certain associates of every politician who have certain reporters on speed dial.

As long as what the McCanns are selling is what sells the newspapers, they'll be presented favorably, no matter what the news actually is.


oh I agree you can do all that - but the day you think you are actually got the upper hand with the tablods is the day that they will turn on you

In the UK we like to build people up and then knock them down - and you deal with the tablods at your peril - as soon as the papaers have ahd enough of the Mccaans they will turn on them -

Rino
09-17-2007, 09:34 AM
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1590&id=1223682007


From this posted article ....She (KM) says she cannot contemplate ever returning to the family home in the village of Rothley. "I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to go back into our family home," she says. "I can't bear the thought of it. We'd lived in that house for a year and it was a really happy family home. We have so many happy memories in that house."


Well return they did as soon as they were named suspects.

I am a lot harsher than a lot here, I know. There are hundreds of missing children and their plights are well known, in this case alone it was not necessary for them to make the pretense that they and only they could bring awarness to the issue. Maddies story became huge in-of-itself in the press and around the world. I think they act like martyrs so the focus is drawn away from the facts and for the sympathy play.

Harsh because the fact is for me, even if they are innocent of killing and hiding her, I still feel the same way about their actions. As people have brought up many times the similarity to the van Dam case, unlike the van Dams the McCanns will do anything to avoid being scrutinized.

Texana
09-17-2007, 09:42 AM
like I said, as long as the McCanns are selling the same thing that sells tabloids, they will keep getting the positive spin on everything they do.

Check out this article, if you haven't already seen it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482027&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5

It emphasizes what a "perfect mum" Kate is, as told by two of her best friends.
And it even includes photos of Kate and Gerry's wedding, and Kate's first Communion.

The friends say repeatedly that "any" focus at all on Kate and Gerry is taking away from the search for Madeleine. This is a standard message from the McCanns, which you see them saying in one of the Sky interviews, in response to being asked how they feel about possibly being considered suspects. "Unfortunate because that would take away from the search for Madeleine."

It's a talking point for the McCann PR: Any examination of Kate or Gerry is cruel to Madeleine as it takes the "focus" off her.

Ironic, though, that this article includes photos of Kate and Gerry, which contradicts the message of any focus on them takes away from Madeleine.
We are only supposed to look at these photos, I guess, and remind ourselves what nice people Kate and Gerry are, and then go back to focusing on Madeleine.

I mean really, do we need to see photos of Kate's first Communion? How the heck does that affect the search for Madeleine?

It doesn't, of course. It's there to counteract the feeling that the McCanns might be involved.

ny_
09-17-2007, 09:51 AM
Texana, I hear you on the wedding & communion photos. A columnist in the Daily Mail put it rather well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/dailymail.html?in_article_id=481916&in_page_id=1790&in_author_id=463

Rino
09-17-2007, 09:56 AM
Such tactics serve only to succour the cynics who argue that the McCanns are more worried about their image than anything else.(Snip)


Thats how I see it.

Texana
09-17-2007, 10:40 AM
Such tactics serve only to succour the cynics who argue that the McCanns are more worried about their image than anything else.(Snip)


Thats how I see it.

Exactly, if the focus needs to be on Madeleine, then we don't need any more articles about the perfect mum, wedding photos, Kate-as-little-girl-snapshots.

Madeleine is the only photo that needs to be printed, and as someone suggested here a while back, pictures of how Madeleine might look with her appearance altered. We get little postcards all the time that have a business ad on one side and a Have You Seen Me missing child (usually with noncustodial parent abductor photo as well) on the other side.

The children's photos are always computer aged to show how they might look now, although as my teenage daughter noticed one, they are impossibly clean cut--a Hispanic kid ended up looking like Jerry Cleaver. Still, it's a start.

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 12:52 PM
like I said, as long as the McCanns are selling the same thing that sells tabloids, they will keep getting the positive spin on everything they do.

Check out this article, if you haven't already seen it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482027&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5

It emphasizes what a "perfect mum" Kate is, as told by two of her best friends.
And it even includes photos of Kate and Gerry's wedding, and Kate's first Communion.

The friends say repeatedly that "any" focus at all on Kate and Gerry is taking away from the search for Madeleine. This is a standard message from the McCanns, which you see them saying in one of the Sky interviews, in response to being asked how they feel about possibly being considered suspects. "Unfortunate because that would take away from the search for Madeleine."

It's a talking point for the McCann PR: Any examination of Kate or Gerry is cruel to Madeleine as it takes the "focus" off her.

Ironic, though, that this article includes photos of Kate and Gerry, which contradicts the message of any focus on them takes away from Madeleine.
We are only supposed to look at these photos, I guess, and remind ourselves what nice people Kate and Gerry are, and then go back to focusing on Madeleine.

I mean really, do we need to see photos of Kate's first Communion? How the heck does that affect the search for Madeleine?

It doesn't, of course. It's there to counteract the feeling that the McCanns might be involved.

Right on, sista!

SleuthMom
09-17-2007, 01:27 PM
Who cares about Kate first Communion? Geez.:rolleyes: Is she the one missing here? Are they "celebrities" that people want to see how they looked like years ago? :rolleyes:

Texana
09-17-2007, 02:49 PM
Who cares about Kate first Communion? Geez.:rolleyes: Is she the one missing here? Are they "celebrities" that people want to see how they looked like years ago? :rolleyes:

Apparently. And you would be a very bad person to suspect someone of being involved in a cover up, who looked like that in their First Communion photo.

Have you seen any photos of just Maddie with a parent, other than that studio portrait of the whole family together? Birth shots, baby pics, etc? Me neither.

BloodshotEye
09-17-2007, 05:51 PM
Oh man; tell me I am not seeing holy communion photos. Is this incredibly lame, or what?

And so, I shall continue my "assessment" of the McCanns. As will the press in the U.K. and Portugal, and the PJ, and the other threads here. For what it's worth, for whomever reads my posts, who might make a giant leap of fact, I do not engage in attacks. Of anyone. Perps, victims or their families. I do, however, engage in thoughtfull assessment and discussion about them. About their childhoods, their choices, whatever. And that is what is most fascinating about WS. The ability to analize these aspects of various people's behavior.

communion photos...geez.

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 06:14 PM
Here's a lovely little PR piece from Kate McCann in today's Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482238&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

Highlights:
Mrs McCann also insisted that she and her husband were "truly responsible parents" and had committed no crime

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Asked about whether she and her husband were responsible for their daughter's disappearance, she said: "It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but not us."

You really have to read all of this incredible article. So many touchy-feely, butt-saving misrepresentations.

BloodshotEye
09-17-2007, 06:28 PM
Unbelievable, CaliKid. Unbelievable to me, that they can word-smith around the fact that they left three toddlers alone. They did not "leave them asleep".

What is it with these people? Who on earth is advising them to make these preposterous statements? Rather than looking at the lense of the camera, and say, how profoundly guiltly they feel, about making this seemingly lighthearted decision to try to do both. Visit with friends, and have their children in bed. How profoundly they wish they could take back that moment in time, that they made this decision..etc.

But no. They appear to be in denial of their own hand in these events; and absolve themself of all responsiblity. I am agast, that Kate would pronounce, "Someone committed one, but not us".

And yea, just because she refuses to take ownership of the decision to abandon their three children, and let come what may - doesn't make her a murderer...bla bla bla. Yea. I get that.

But these two people are certainly a bitter cup of tea to swallow.

Rino
09-17-2007, 07:25 PM
Here's a lovely little PR piece from Kate McCann in today's Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482238&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

Highlights:
Mrs McCann also insisted that she and her husband were "truly responsible parents" and had committed no crime

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Asked about whether she and her husband were responsible for their daughter's disappearance, she said: "It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but not us."

You really have to read all of this incredible article. So many touchy-feely, butt-saving misrepresentations.


.....I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.....

Gives me goosebumbs, this sounds so much like a confession. :(

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 07:37 PM
Not only that, but her words are in direct contradiction to every statement she made over the summer about Madeleine's disappearance:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1267568,00.html
"We will never stop blaming ourselves."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2199226.ece
"Maddie, I'm so sorry I left you alone."

concernedperson
09-17-2007, 07:39 PM
.....I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.....

Gives me goosebumbs, this sounds so much like a confession. :(
Doesn't it though? She is wound up tight and trying to justify a 3 year old's behavior to her adult behavior and inability to cope. I am not feeling that she is involved less but more.

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 07:58 PM
Or, could she be pointing a finger at one of their friends?

It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but not us.

SleuthMom
09-17-2007, 07:58 PM
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

My goodness!!!! These people DO NOT see ANYTHING WRONG with leaving three toddlers alone while they dined with friends??????

And some people STILL have the nerve to defend their parental skills as it is a "cultural" issue? Geez....:rolleyes:

BethInAK
09-17-2007, 08:08 PM
Here's a lovely little PR piece from Kate McCann in today's Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482238&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

Highlights:
Mrs McCann also insisted that she and her husband were "truly responsible parents" and had committed no crime

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Asked about whether she and her husband were responsible for their daughter's disappearance, she said: "It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but not us."

You really have to read all of this incredible article. So many touchy-feely, butt-saving misrepresentations.


Why can't they just say "I screwed up terribly and was irresponsible and someone took my child as a result"

CaliKid
09-17-2007, 08:19 PM
Better yet, why can't they tell other people not to do what they did because they might lose a child that way?

Dr. Creepin
09-17-2007, 08:34 PM
I am still open to the possibility that there is something far more sinister afoot, considering the instant support the McConn’s received from extremely important people in high places, not least billionaire retail mogul Sir Philip Green who ferried them around random places in his private jet. It seems Green’s colleagues Julia Hobsbawm and Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah McCaulay of ‘Editorial Intelligence’ are responsible for spinning the “faultless” McCann tales. The latest from a Daily Express web-monkey who says, “Anyone who thinks they are guilty is an idiot.” So, that must include the Portuguese police authorities and me! Then there is Sir Richard Branson, shoring up their funds and Sir Alec Jeffreys, the father of DNA fingerprinting who is prepared to testify in court that his discovery is not worth a jot. In which case everyone who has been acquitted or convicted on DNA evidence should have their cases reopened. Now I hear the Prime Minister himself is going to review the McCann case! I didn’t know Gordy was a part-time detective? With so many Knights of the Empire pulling strings for them, I can’t see a trial materialising, far less a conviction.

STEADFAST
09-17-2007, 08:39 PM
I am still open to the possibility that there is something far more sinister afoot, considering the instant support the McConn’s received from extremely important people in high places, not least billionaire retail mogul Sir Philip Green who ferried them around random places in his private jet. It seems Green’s colleagues Julia Hobsbawm and Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah McCaulay of ‘Editorial Intelligence’ are responsible for spinning the “faultless” McCann tales. The latest from a Daily Express web-monkey who says, “Anyone who thinks they are guilty is an idiot.” So, that must include the Portuguese police authorities and me! Then there is Sir Richard Branson, shoring up their funds and Sir Alec Jeffreys, the father of DNA fingerprinting who is prepared to testify in court that his discovery is not worth a jot. In which case everyone who has been acquitted or convicted on DNA evidence should have their cases reopened. Now I hear the Prime Minister himself is going to review the McCann case! I didn’t know Gordy was a part-time detective? With so many Knights of the Empire pulling strings for them, I can’t see a trial materialising, far less a conviction.

Or maybe just a lot of people don't want people they believe are innocent to be railroaded. It could be as simple as that.

SleuthMom
09-17-2007, 09:27 PM
I think the reason they did not/do not say they screwed up is because it will admit negligence and negligence = possibility of losing the twins.

I recall them saying in the early stage of the investigation that they were told by the police that what they did (leaving their three tots alone) "was within the parameters of good parenting". Do you all recall that?

Shazza
09-17-2007, 10:00 PM
The McCanns need to get their heads out of the clouds and admit some responisibility for the disappearance of their daughter, she would still be here if she wasnt left alone, why can they not see that is wrong.

We dont know yet what happened to Madelaine, but by the children being left alone, they put their children in danger, and that is noone elses fault but the McCanns.

Do they think they are above everyone else or a just in denial.

Texana
09-17-2007, 11:02 PM
This is a pre-emptive strike on Kate's part, to admit to difficulties in the early days with Madeleine, to get the public wearied with hearing this from the "perfect mum."

Her words are absolutely corroborating the leaked evidence in the journal, that she wrote negatively about Maddie's behavior.

It's a well-known PR tactic, if something negative is about to blast openly on your client, you have your client reveal it first, and steal the thunder from the actual announcement, by admitting to it and putting as positive as possible a spin on it.

The continued lack of ANY responsibility in Madeleine's disappearance is inexplicable and sickening. If the abduction story is true, then she would be here today if she'd been left in the night time creche or if they'd engaged a sitter in the room.

The one action, if the McCanns are telling the truth, that would have stopped all of this tragedy, would have been to leave the children with a supervising adult. It's the critical point.

That the McCanns still refuse to acknowledge that in even the least way is just beyone amazing.

ny_
09-18-2007, 07:52 AM
This is a pre-emptive strike on Kate's part, to admit to difficulties in the early days with Madeleine, to get the public wearied with hearing this from the "perfect mum."

Her words are absolutely corroborating the leaked evidence in the journal, that she wrote negatively about Maddie's behavior.

It's a well-known PR tactic, if something negative is about to blast openly on your client, you have your client reveal it first, and steal the thunder from the actual announcement, by admitting to it and putting as positive as possible a spin on it.

The continued lack of ANY responsibility in Madeleine's disappearance is inexplicable and sickening. If the abduction story is true, then she would be here today if she'd been left in the night time creche or if they'd engaged a sitter in the room.

The one action, if the McCanns are telling the truth, that would have stopped all of this tragedy, would have been to leave the children with a supervising adult. It's the critical point.

That the McCanns still refuse to acknowledge that in even the least way is just beyone amazing.

See, if they had done anything responsible, such as using the night creche, a sitter or maybe sat on the patio/balcony with some takeout tapas & wine where they could still keep an eye/ear on what was happening in the apt. I'd say the diary and the interview are what most normal parents, especially mothers, go through. No kids of my own, but I know from my friends & relatives who are parents, they can be exhausting and try your patience. But my friends & relatives would never leave their kids alone at such a young age.

Even when they're in the same home, accidents happen. They fall, they cut themselves, they get into things. And when they're asleep, they don't always stay asleep. That's why when my friends & relatives need a break, they hire a sitter or get one of us to watch them. There's nothing wrong with a parent or couple getting some well earned, well deserved me or couple time. As long as they've made safe & responsible provisions for the care of their children. Some of the folks I know will take romantic getaway vacations. They leave the kids with the grandparents for a long weekend & enjoy themselves. Since the kids were in the creche most of the day & sleeping at night, it seems like this was the type of vacation the McCanns wanted. Which in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with wanting that. So why not leave the kids with the grandparents or the various family spokespeople? They could have had the leisurley vacation they wanted & their children would have been safe.

hcc2007
09-18-2007, 11:11 AM
I am still open to the possibility that there is something far more sinister afoot, considering the instant support the McConn’s received from extremely important people in high places, not least billionaire retail mogul Sir Philip Green who ferried them around random places in his private jet...

I'm with you. This morning there's an all-out PR assault on cnn.com, which previously just carried a headline here or there. Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying: "... I have [resigned my position in the British Government] because I feel so strongly that they are innocent victims of a heinous crime that I am prepared to forego my career in government service to assist them." How the heck can he know they are innocent? Was he there?

Thirty minutes later, they have this article about how Gerry loves to play golf and Kate had "dreams of a large family." Man, this is sickening. They care more about their reputations than about finding Madeleine, obviously.

This is the rich and powerful "closing ranks". And this couple has rich and powerful friends, indeed.

I've no doubt this is also why news from Portugal has dried up. Pressure coming from the British Empire, eh what, old chap?

Elphaba
09-18-2007, 02:52 PM
This has turned political... it is no longer about Madeleine. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth... :(

SleuthMom
09-18-2007, 02:59 PM
y.

This is the rich and powerful "closing ranks". And this couple has rich and powerful friends, indeed.

Do you think they will believe the same thing if these couple were coming from a low income family, no education, no money? :rolleyes:

All this defense and justification about the Mc Cann's behavior come from how they look, their professions, the money they have, their rich buddies, etc. Pathetic but true! :mad:

BethInAK
09-18-2007, 03:24 PM
I think the reason they did not/do not say they screwed up is because it will admit negligence and negligence = possibility of losing the twins.

I recall them saying in the early stage of the investigation that they were told by the police that what they did (leaving their three tots alone) "was within the parameters of good parenting". Do you all recall that?

i recall reading that.

Texana
09-18-2007, 04:44 PM
Why can't they just say "I screwed up terribly and was irresponsible and someone took my child as a result"

I know. It would actually do far more for them than all the First Communion and wedding photos in the world.

Pinkhammer
09-18-2007, 04:50 PM
I think you are absolutely right Calikid.

And no matter what happens I think they will live with guilt and sorrow for the rest of their lives. Even if a miracle happens and Madeleine is recovered safe and well.

Looking at recent pics of Gerry and Kate, I see guilt, remorse, and sorrow in Kate's face and demeanor. In Gerry's face and body language, I see arrogance and defiance.

I really think he is the one that caused the "accident". Who knows what he has threatened his wife with if she speaks out with the truth?

teacherbees
09-18-2007, 04:56 PM
Pinkhammer, I don't like to get into writing about how the McCanns look, but I'm going to have to go on record as agreeing with you one hundred percent.

Pinkhammer
09-18-2007, 05:17 PM
Thanks. There's a lot to be said about facial expressions and body language. And the McCanns' neverending publicity campaign afford us with plenty of fodder for our diagnoses.

I honestly wish they would give it a rest, and stay off the front pages for about a month or so.

Seeker
09-18-2007, 06:03 PM
The McCanns need to get their heads out of the clouds and admit some responisibility for the disappearance of their daughter, she would still be here if she wasnt left alone, why can they not see that is wrong.

We dont know yet what happened to Madelaine, but by the children being left alone, they put their children in danger, and that is noone elses fault but the McCanns.

Do they think they are above everyone else or a just in denial.
See bolded.
I don't think we can know that for an absolute certainty. What if the McCanns had been in their room asleep after returning from their dinner party and someone still took Madeleine? What if she and the others were not left alone, isn't it possible that she could still have been taken?
A perp who is determined will still find a way to grab a child....we've seen it to many times now :( to know that it's true.

Jeana (DP)
09-18-2007, 06:04 PM
See bolded.
I don't think we can know that for an absolute certainty. What if the McCanns had been in their room asleep after returning from their dinner party and someone still took Madeleine? What if she and the others were not left alone, isn't it possible that she could still have been taken?
A perp who is determined will still find a way to grab a child....we've seen it to many times now :( to know that it's true.

I believe we know this didn't happen because during the party, they went to check on the kids and Mrs. McCann came back claiming that "they took her."

philamena
09-18-2007, 06:07 PM
I believe we know this didn't happen because during the party, they went to check on the kids and Mrs. McCann came back claiming that "they took her."

Exactly what I was going to post. IMO there is no way little Maddie would be gone if her parents would have been with her or if a baby sitter was with the children.

Rino
09-18-2007, 07:43 PM
See bolded.
I don't think we can know that for an absolute certainty. What if the McCanns had been in their room asleep after returning from their dinner party and someone still took Madeleine? What if she and the others were not left alone, isn't it possible that she could still have been taken?
A perp who is determined will still find a way to grab a child....we've seen it to many times now :( to know that it's true.


See bolded ;)

Non-sequitur. It did not go down that way. They were gone and the children were left alone. Those are the facts, to argue anything else is just a willingness to be blind.

CaliKid
09-18-2007, 07:52 PM
i recall reading that.

Yes, but up until two weeks ago, the PJ also said the McCanns were not suspects. I think telling them that it was "okay" to leave the kids alone was LE's way of not alerting them of the focus of the investigation.

CaliKid
09-18-2007, 07:54 PM
See bolded.
I don't think we can know that for an absolute certainty. What if the McCanns had been in their room asleep after returning from their dinner party and someone still took Madeleine? What if she and the others were not left alone, isn't it possible that she could still have been taken?
A perp who is determined will still find a way to grab a child....we've seen it to many times now :( to know that it's true.

Children who are supervised by an adult and not left alone stand a much, much better chance of not being abducted. Period!

SleuthMom
09-18-2007, 08:02 PM
See bolded.
I don't think we can know that for an absolute certainty. What if the McCanns had been in their room asleep after returning from their dinner party and someone still took Madeleine? What if she and the others were not left alone, isn't it possible that she could still have been taken?
A perp who is determined will still find a way to grab a child....we've seen it to many times now :( to know that it's true.

Leaving three tots by themselves at night in a lonely apartment for a whole week while they party, it is almost like an open invitation. Creepy parents.

teacherbees
09-18-2007, 08:04 PM
And whether a child is abducted or not, it is NOT good parenting to leave three children ages three and under alone, under any circumstances.

You can argue "cultural" differences from now til Kingdom come - those rationalizations don't work with me. People get arrested for leaving young children home alone for a reason.

And this is another case where Kate and Gerry can't have it both ways. They can't talk of Madeleine as a difficult, "hysterical" child and then convince me that it was a great idea to leave her alone with her two baby siblings.

gord
09-18-2007, 08:22 PM
And whether a child is abducted or not, it is NOT good parenting to leave a three children ages three and under alone, under any circumstances.

You can argue "cultural" differences from now til Kingdom come - those rationalizations don't work with me. People get arrested for leaving young children home alone for a reason.

And this is another case where Kate and Gerry can't have it both ways. They can't talk of Madeleine as a difficult, "hysterical" child and then convince me that it was a great idea to leave her alone with her two baby siblings.


oh for gods sake - everyone know it wasnt the best thing to do - leave the kids alone - that is not the debate - we can all pontificate and point fingers . but the only important question is are they murderers ,implicit in her death. Or just parents who made a very bad call on how they dealt wth babysitting.

If Maddie has been abducted then the parents will live forever in the guilt .

teacherbees
09-18-2007, 08:30 PM
oh for gods sake - everyone know it wasnt the best thing to do - leave the kids alone - that is not the debate - we can all pontificate and point fingers . but the only important question is are they murderers ,implicit in her death. Or just parents who made a very bad call on how they dealt wth babysitting.

If Maddie has been abducted then the parents will live forever in the guilt .

I beg to differ. That does seem to be the debate. We've got Gerry letting us know we're hurting his tender feelings when we dare to question the judgement of leaving babies alone and we've got people on this forum who will argue that in England it's a perfectly natural thing to leave children alone.

I'm saying it's not. It's criminal and regardless of the scenario, that negligence may well have been a contributing factor to Maddie's death. Maybe the parents overdosed her so they could "safely" leave her alone, maybe they underdosed her and she woke up and injured herself, maybe an abductor monitored the family and knew the kids were easy pickins'. Maybe Kate and Gerry got angry with her for crying and ruining their chance to leave her once again so they could go party....no one knows. But every one of those possibilities gets right back to the McCanns being too (insert adjective of your choice) to hire someone to watch their children, rather than leaving them alone.

SleuthMom
09-18-2007, 09:07 PM
I beg to differ. That does seem to be the debate. We've got Gerry letting us know we're hurting his tender feelings when we dare to question the judgement of leaving babies alone and we've got people on this forum who will argue that in England it's a perfectly natural thing to leave children alone.

I'm saying it's not. It's criminal and regardless of the scenario that negligence may well have been a contributing factor to Maddie's death. Maybe the parents overdosed her so they could "safely" leave her alone, maybe the underdosed her and she woke up and injured herself, maybe an abductor monitored the family and knew the kids were easy pickins. Maybe Kate and Gerry got angry with her for crying and ruining their chance to leave her once again so they could go party....no one knows. But everyone of those possibilities gets right back to the McCanns being too (insert adjective of your choice) to hire someone to watch their children, rather than leaving them alone.

:clap:

concernedperson
09-18-2007, 09:09 PM
There really is no other way to look at this. If someone can argue a valid point I would be glad to listen.

Jeana (DP)
09-18-2007, 09:41 PM
Children who are supervised by an adult and not left alone stand a much, much better chance of not being abducted. Period!

Yeah, that's one of the major reasons God created parents.:rolleyes:

GonzoReiter
09-18-2007, 10:03 PM
Leaving three tots by themselves at night in a lonely apartment for a whole week while they party, it is almost like an open invitation. Creepy parents.

agree, for sure...that's criminal.

BloodshotEye
09-18-2007, 10:39 PM
Oh man; I really cannot take that boob-for-hire, that is the current McCann spinmeister. Bla bla bla tragedy bla bla bla loving parents bla bla bla.

And all the while, I'm thinking - not only did they leave the three children alone...in the evening...and were situated in a Tappas Bar quite some distance away...where it was impossible to hear any cries or calls for the parents - they left the bloody door unlocked!

The audacity of these parents and their spokes-mouth, to say these "hurtful things" to me, (such as spin, re-crafting of their actions, attempting to manipulate my opinion of them, etc.), is simply beyond belief.

For this alone, may their karma serve them well. It is out of my hands.

Pinkhammer
09-18-2007, 11:38 PM
The Karma Train is speeding down the tracks towards the McCanns. Just as the McCST (McCann Spin Team) launches their latest media blitz, the Portuguese investigators are expecting to receive crucial evidence in the form of the hair analysis.

McCST must think we all just fell off the turnip truck. Their latest fantasies include the info that the DNA in the car trunk was from Maddie's belongings being transported in the boot. Oh, yes...the DNA is "sweat from her sandals".

Texana
09-19-2007, 08:46 AM
The McCanns' new spokesman is a former Cabinet official who was in charge of media monitoring as well as a former BBC journalist himself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7002052.stm

"On Tuesday, their new spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he had resigned from his Cabinet Office job to act as the McCanns' spokesman, because he "feels so strongly" the couple were innocent.

As the then director of the Central Office of Information's media monitoring unit, the former BBC journalist spent a lot of time with the couple in Portugal."

My question: Why would he have spent so much time with the McCanns in Portugal? From the very beginning, the McCanns have had the most influential people working on their behalf.

SleuthMom
09-19-2007, 08:54 AM
I can't wait for those DNA results. I really want to know the amount and what they really found.

KOOL LOOK
09-19-2007, 09:08 AM
The McCanns' new spokesman is a former Cabinet official who was in charge of media monitoring as well as a former BBC journalist himself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7002052.stm

"On Tuesday, their new spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he had resigned from his Cabinet Office job to act as the McCanns' spokesman, because he "feels so strongly" the couple were innocent.

As the then director of the Central Office of Information's media monitoring unit, the former BBC journalist spent a lot of time with the couple in Portugal."

My question: Why would he have spent so much time with the McCanns in Portugal? From the very beginning, the McCanns have had the most influential people working on their behalf.


To answer your question, "Money". Must people don't up and quit their job, to support their own livlihood and family to go to another job. The mccanns have all kinds of monies and funds available to them. Amazing. Amazing.
I want to know this, Is he being paid then? Case Closed! He just feels so strong about the mccans innocense, is he putting his money where his mouth is?

Texana
09-19-2007, 10:25 AM
To answer your question, "Money". Must people don't up and quit their job, to support their own livlihood and family to go to another job. The mccanns have all kinds of monies and funds available to them. Amazing. Amazing.
I want to know this, Is he being paid then? Case Closed! He just feels so strong about the mccans innocense, is he putting his money where his mouth is?

If he's not getting paid or he's getting a token salary, then he's certainly independently wealthy enough to take on a charity job.

Which just goes to show again the McCanns have a network of wealthy and influential people backing them--and it was that way from the very beginning.

SleuthMom
09-19-2007, 10:44 AM
Texana, yes BUT how come they have these network of wealthy and influential people backing them? I mean we are speaking about doctors here not politicians...how many doctors have these kind of "friends"? What am I missing?

Texana
09-19-2007, 12:35 PM
Texana, yes BUT how come they have these network of wealthy and influential people backing them? I mean we are speaking about doctors here not politicians...how many doctors have these kind of "friends"? What am I missing?

The friend Gerry called almost immediately the night Maddie went missing (the one who is an associate of Gordon Brown, PM) was a friend from university days. That's all that we know, other than of course they would have some successful professional friends from their positions as specialists (even though Kate had changed to more low-key GP work a couple of days a week.)

Rino
09-19-2007, 01:19 PM
Texana, yes BUT how come they have these network of wealthy and influential people backing them? I mean we are speaking about doctors here not politicians...how many doctors have these kind of "friends"? What am I missing?
If needed I could get support from State Senator and the Gov. local mayors, more than a few police chiefs and some famous artists if my plight was such as theirs.....it's sometimes all about who you know and the circles you travel with

SleuthMom
09-19-2007, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the replies guys. It seems to me there is more to this story than just some wealthy friends willing to help. Not sure what though.

Texana
09-19-2007, 02:32 PM
If needed I could get support from State Senator and the Gov. local mayors, more than a few police chiefs and some famous artists if my plight was such as theirs.....it's sometimes all about who you know and the circles you travel with

I think that's what it is in this case, as well. They happen to know a few people who happened to know the right people.

And they are also "the right sort" of people themselves. Educated, well-spoken, professional, perfect family, photogenic.

Jeana (DP)
09-19-2007, 03:09 PM
Children who are supervised by an adult and not left alone stand a much, much better chance of not being abducted. Period!

I think we need to have that printed on a bumper sticker. ;)

Jeana (DP)
09-19-2007, 03:17 PM
Texana, yes BUT how come they have these network of wealthy and influential people backing them? I mean we are speaking about doctors here not politicians...how many doctors have these kind of "friends"? What am I missing?

I would think that there are a great many doctors who have those kinds o friends. Aside from the fact that they make good money, they usually are associated with some form of charities. At black tie fundraisers you can meet all sorts of people. Its good for business, but it also puts you in contact with a lot of influential people from all walks of life who just may be in a position to help in a sticky situation.

BloodshotEye
09-19-2007, 04:31 PM
PinkHammer: You "nailed" the McCann Machinery, when you spoke of the latest DNA-related b.s. The part where the McCanns offer an explanation for the transfer of DNA to the spare wheel well in the boot of the car: that it could simply be due to the sweat on Maddie's sandals. I don't know where the hell the DNA is from. We don't even know the quantity. But seriously...sandal sweat?

Ok. That does it for me. I'm done sitting on the fence. I am going to leapfrog over all the nitpicking facts in this case and disregard all theories pro and con. If that's what the McCanns think is a truthful disclosure, and a reasonable/honest explanation for the source of DNA - I am throwin' down a big yellow penalty flag, and squeezing the bulb on the air horn. HONK, if your b.s. detector just went off.

Sweat from Maddie's sandals? Please.

As much as some would like to hold off on their theory/judgment of the McCanns, until "facts" are made known - I think their impartiality is being exploited by the McCanns and their spokes-mouth. And I am saying that loud and clear.

Does this exploitation of honest people, such as many here, mean that the McCanns murdered their daughter? Nope, but it should seriously cast doubt on the truthfullness of any and all statements that the McCanns have made, from May 3 to the present date. Their exploitative PR tactics suggests that 1. Honesty is an expendible commodity; 2. It is easy to dupe honest people, because they are the least likely to expect it; 3. They abandoned their three children to party, left their apartment door unlocked, and partied at a location that was so far away, they would not have heard one little wimper. For that, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of applicable Portugal law.

Texana
09-19-2007, 04:34 PM
I think we need to have that printed on a bumper sticker. ;)

:clap: You bet!

Seeker
09-19-2007, 04:53 PM
I didn't mean to start a fight or anything. I was responding to the speculation that if the McCanns had not left Maddie alone she would still be here. We will never know and yes, IF (big if) someone had targeted her to take then they would have waited for the oportune time. I.E. even if the parents were there but when all were alseep.

I agree that they should not have left their children alone at all. To me it still is possible that had they not done so that this abduction (or whatever) was still destined to happen. I just don't believe anything that happens does so without a reason.

SleuthMom
09-19-2007, 05:03 PM
I didn't mean to start a fight or anything. I was responding to the speculation that if the McCanns had not left Maddie alone she would still be here. We will never know and yes, IF (big if) someone had targeted her to take then they would have waited for the oportune time. I.E. even if the parents were there but when all were alseep.

A fight? Nobody is fighting. :) Love is in the air. :p

I agree that they should not have left their children alone at all. To me it still is possible that had they not done so that this abduction (or whatever) was still destined to happen. I just don't believe anything that happens does so without a reason.

I guess I don't agree with that. I do not believe in "destiny". I think by the choices we make (in this case by the choices the parents made for Maddie) resulted in her disappearance. We may all be "destined" to die one day (if you want to call that destiny) but it does not mean we are going to put ourselves or our kids in danger to let it happen faster. ;)

In this case, that's what the Mc Canns did by letting their kids by themselves for a WHOLE WEEK when they went to party. The saddest part is that they STILL think nothing was wrong with it and the scariest part is that because of it, they may be putting those twins in danger in the future if they fail to admit that their irresponsibility led to the disappearance of their daughter.

KOOL LOOK
09-19-2007, 05:36 PM
A fight? Nobody is fighting. :) Love is in the air. :p



I guess I don't agree with that. I do not believe in "destiny". I think by the choices we make (in this case by the choices the parents made for Maddie) resulted in her disappearance. We may all be "destined" to die one day (if you want to call that destiny) but it does not mean we are going to put ourselves or our kids in danger to let it happen faster. ;)

In this case, that's what the Mc Canns did by letting their kids by themselves for a WHOLE WEEK when they went to party. The saddest part is that they STILL think nothing was wrong with it and the scariest part is that because of it, they may be putting those twins in danger in the future if they fail to admit that their irresponsibility led to the disappearance of their daughter.

I agree with this post. Our choices, prayer does change destiny. If it didn't, where would be our hope? Why pray, believe in Heaven? So many things could fall under this philosophy. But this topic could get deep also, because it raises lots of questions and curiosities for those that haven't yet answered that within their own mind and soul.

Texana
09-20-2007, 07:08 AM
Clarence Mitchell's salary is reportedly being paid for by an anonymous wealthy McCann supporter, and he will continue working for the anonymous donor after the McCanns are cleared. (their words, not mine.)

I expect stories about Von Aesch and all kinds of rumors about him to increase over the next few days as well.

SleuthMom
09-20-2007, 09:12 AM
Holy cow! He must be getting A LOT, and I mean A LOT of money. Funny how all these donors are helping the Mc Canns defend themselves on this case...and Madeleine once again is left in a corner.

Like a convicted guy in death row said once "The only difference between me and someone else who did the same thing I did is MONEY".

Money speaks ladies and gentlemen.

ThoughtFox
09-20-2007, 10:16 AM
Children who are supervised by an adult and not left alone stand a much, much better chance of not being abducted. Period!
I think we need to have that printed on a bumper sticker. ;)
Seriously! :clap:

Now the McCanns are Doctors with Spin Doctors, and I can't believe the numbers of articles with quotes from "close family members" that are coming out, such as this one that I posted on another thread:

Daily Mail ~ "Madeleine's Gone, Madeleine's Gone!" What Kate Really Said (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=482870&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow)

They are trying to revise every detail of the case and muddy the waters.

browneyedgirl
09-20-2007, 10:54 AM
Here's the link to the video where Kate talks about helping other children and maybe something good will come out of it. I put the wrong link in my other post.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,91210-1279448,.html

Here's where she talks again about the "bigger picture."

"Once you know all that you can't turn a blind eye to it. Madeleine is our priority but we have to help. We can't just ignore those other children.

"Whatever comes out of our experience, anything that can make the tiniest bit of difference to make the world safer place is going to be a good thing. I feel a moral obligation.

"Madeleine means so much to me, but you can't take it away from the bigger picture."

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1590&id=1223682007

Did anyone else notice on the last link how KM referred to Maddie when asked about the engraving on her locket? The engraving says "Tower of Strength - that's what she WAS to us, a tower of strength"

Why would she use a past tense to describe what Maddie IS to them? Kinda reminds me of SP when referring to Laci in past tense. Very telling, to me anyway.......

CaliKid
09-20-2007, 12:30 PM
The McCanns have been mixing up past and present tenses since early June.

browneyedgirl
09-20-2007, 12:52 PM
The McCanns have been mixing up past and present tenses since early June.

That was kinda my point....I know if it were one of my children, I know that until I knew FOR SURE that they were gone, I would never talk of them in the past tense....I think when that is done, it is a tale-telling sign of guilt....IMHO, of course.....:innocent: My brother has been gone for nearly 13 years now and I still catch myself at times referring to him in the present tense. JFYI

browneyedgirl
09-20-2007, 12:58 PM
PinkHammer: You "nailed" the McCann Machinery, when you spoke of the latest DNA-related b.s. The part where the McCanns offer an explanation for the transfer of DNA to the spare wheel well in the boot of the car: that it could simply be due to the sweat on Maddie's sandals. I don't know where the hell the DNA is from. We don't even know the quantity. But seriously...sandal sweat?

Ok. That does it for me. I'm done sitting on the fence. I am going to leapfrog over all the nitpicking facts in this case and disregard all theories pro and con. If that's what the McCanns think is a truthful disclosure, and a reasonable/honest explanation for the source of DNA - I am throwin' down a big yellow penalty flag, and squeezing the bulb on the air horn. HONK, if your b.s. detector just went off.

Sweat from Maddie's sandals? Please.

As much as some would like to hold off on their theory/judgment of the McCanns, until "facts" are made known - I think their impartiality is being exploited by the McCanns and their spokes-mouth. And I am saying that loud and clear.

Does this exploitation of honest people, such as many here, mean that the McCanns murdered their daughter? Nope, but it should seriously cast doubt on the truthfullness of any and all statements that the McCanns have made, from May 3 to the present date. Their exploitative PR tactics suggests that 1. Honesty is an expendible commodity; 2. It is easy to dupe honest people, because they are the least likely to expect it; 3. They abandoned their three children to party, left their apartment door unlocked, and partied at a location that was so far away, they would not have heard one little wimper. For that, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of applicable Portugal law.

Honk Honk Honk - sandal sweat? Their that educated in medicine and that's the best theory to explain Maddie's DNA in the trunk? Come On........

Texana
09-20-2007, 04:30 PM
Honk Honk Honk - sandal sweat? Their that educated in medicine and that's the best theory to explain Maddie's DNA in the trunk? Come On........

I think the hope is you are not that educated in DNA...:doh:

Pinkhammer
09-20-2007, 05:24 PM
I wonder if we in the US are more aware of all the complexities of DNA analysis because we have been exposed to cases like the OJ case; the Laci Peterson case; the JonBenet case, etc.

Brits may not be quite as up on it as we are. It is these naive folks that the McCST is aiming their propaganda at.

ceeaura
09-20-2007, 05:47 PM
I wonder of we in the US are more aware of all the complexities of DNA analysis because we have been exposed to cases like the OJ case; the Laci Peterson case; the JonBenet case, etc.

Brits may not be quite as up on it as we are. It is these naive folks that the McCST is aiming their propaganda at.


I dunno those guys and gals over on the mirror forums sure are not buying the dirty diapers and sandle sweat exscuse.The majority of them anyway ;)

Texana
09-20-2007, 10:12 PM
I dunno those guys and gals over on the mirror forums sure are not buying the dirty diapers and sandle sweat exscuse.The majority of them anyway ;)

I really do think most Brits that follow crimes/mysteries on a regular basis are more sophisticated about DNA than the elite might think.

Pinkhammer
09-20-2007, 10:22 PM
Well, I guess they are, especially if they are devotees of Detective Inspector Jane Tennison (Helen Mirren). I'm expecting Jane to do a program similar to the Madeleine Case. Of course, she will solve it in two episodes.

Pinkhammer
09-22-2007, 04:24 PM
I dunno those guys and gals over on the mirror forums sure are not buying the dirty diapers and sandle sweat exscuse.The majority of them anyway ;)

The folks on the Mirror forum seem a lot smarter than the ones at the Express.

Texana
09-22-2007, 06:43 PM
Did anyone else notice on the last link how KM referred to Maddie when asked about the engraving on her locket? The engraving says "Tower of Strength - that's what she WAS to us, a tower of strength"

Why would she use a past tense to describe what Maddie IS to them? Kinda reminds me of SP when referring to Laci in past tense. Very telling, to me anyway.......

You were smart to catch that! I read the article several times and I didn't catch on to the past tense. I was just too floored by the "tower of strength."

The necklace has an awfully memorial-like aura about it, doesn't it?