"Madeleine" spotted in Chandighar, India

i havent got wings too yes i know how people will get pissed off with their little girls being looked at on holiday , in 2007 there was a woman and a man taking pics in the complex - hotel in majorca where we was and i thought omg if that was me id kick them right up the arse and i cannot believe that the mcanns think this is right

Panda wrote:

Keela wrote:Fred is definately a lady as I know her and her husband and little girl. Her daugher is a lovely girl but looks nothing like Madeleine. Fred!!!¬

Hi Keela......see, you never know who"s who" do you!!!! When fred starts posting again I will find it hard to change my conception of a burly tough guy.

No I'm deffo a girl My OH is the burly one. I've put this before, I was Notdeadfred on the 3as board, I got the name from a Marian Keyes novel at the time I was reading and liked the name (Gawd knows why!! ) when we moved over here it got shortened to fred, as most people when they replied to any posts they just used fred. It's funny how we build up images of people, mind you I've been accused of being a female chauvanist pig, more times than I can remember

fred wrote:

Panda wrote:

Keela wrote:Fred is definately a lady as I know her and her husband and little girl. Her daugher is a lovely girl but looks nothing like Madeleine. Fred!!!¬

Hi Keela......see, you never know who"s who" do you!!!! When fred starts posting again I will find it hard to change my conception of a burly tough guy.

No I'm deffo a girl My OH is the burly one. I've put this before, I was Notdeadfred on the 3as board, I got the name from a Marian Keyes novel at the time I was reading and liked the name (Gawd knows why!! ) when we moved over here it got shortened to fred, as most people when they replied to any posts they just used fred. It's funny how we build up images of people, mind you I've been accused of being a female chauvanist pig, more times than I can remember

Hi fred, wondered why you havn"t been posting, my Son says I am a literal thinker not a lateral one......I"d go along with that, but even though you
have told me, I"ll still think of you as a big burly Guy.

I've been on holiday Panda, to the lawless villages in the Algarve, didn't spot her there though. We rented a house through Owners Direct. The "Luxurious, high class furnished apartment" turned out to be a converted garage, boy not even a loo roll was there, so avoid at all costs that site.

fred wrote:I've been on holiday Panda, to the lawless villages in the Algarve, didn't spot her there though. We rented a house through Owners Direct. The "Luxurious, high class furnished apartment" turned out to be a converted garage, boy not even a loo roll was there, so avoid at all costs that site.

I"m just going to eat, if you can get U.K. Channels, Dispatches at 8pm on Channel 4 is dealing with the News of the World crisi....should be interesting.

I can't believe this is still happening either, it is totally unprecedented, alleged sightings of a missing child, with the result that an innocent child's face is splashed all over the tabloids with the headline....Could this be maddie....No, of course it isn't! Are there any apologies to the mis-identified child and their family...No, seemingly not! And of course the potentially harmful going and grabbing a child, that is absolute madness. I remember back in the summer of 2007 prior to me reading anything about the case (though I did have my suspicions because the parents just seemed so odd) having a conversation with work mates about this and one of them who was going to Spain on holiday saying "if I see her I'll just run up and grab her" now this was an intelligent, sane, educated woman, a mother herself, I couldn't believe what I was hearing and I told her as much, everyone was flabbergasted at me for seemingly putting the welfare of the 99.9999% of children who were not Madeleine above the one missing child...until I asked them how they would feel if a complete stranger came up and grabbed their child, screaming and shouting for the police and pointing out that the most famous missing child in the world is hardly likely to be taking a trip to the beach in a Spanish resort (or anywhere else for that matter)!

No, I find the whole thing very disturbing and I really wish I could do something about it, but it's difficult to complain to facebook about the posts that encourage this type of thing as the reporting options are very limited

susible wrote:I can't believe this is still happening either, it is totally unprecedented, alleged sightings of a missing child, with the result that an innocent child's face is splashed all over the tabloids with the headline....Could this be maddie....No, of course it isn't! Are there any apologies to the mis-identified child and their family...No, seemingly not! And of course the potentially harmful going and grabbing a child, that is absolute madness. I remember back in the summer of 2007 prior to me reading anything about the case (though I did have my suspicions because the parents just seemed so odd) having a conversation with work mates about this and one of them who was going to Spain on holiday saying "if I see her I'll just run up and grab her" now this was an intelligent, sane, educated woman, a mother herself, I couldn't believe what I was hearing and I told her as much, everyone was flabbergasted at me for seemingly putting the welfare of the 99.9999% of children who were not Madeleine above the one missing child...until I asked them how they would feel if a complete stranger came up and grabbed their child, screaming and shouting for the police and pointing out that the most famous missing child in the world is hardly likely to be taking a trip to the beach in a Spanish resort (or anywhere else for that matter)!

No, I find the whole thing very disturbing and I really wish I could do something about it, but it's difficult to complain to facebook about the posts that encourage this type of thing as the reporting options are very limited

https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign?sk=wall
at last the voice of reason on the McC's facebook page..............

I would just like to say to all of those people who go up to little girls they don't know and look them in the eye, be very careful, you may find yourself being charged by the police or at the very least getting a smack in the face from an irate parent. I cannot believe that the McCann's encourage this sort of thing, an innocent little child being grabbed and stared at by strangers would be a very traumatising event. I think people should think more rationally about this!

and the McC's reply re the latest 'sighting'

as much as we would like to comment, we cannot discuss investigation-related info on this page. Thanks for understanding.5 hours ago · 2 peopleLoading...

webmaster must be awol.....

Why don't Gerry and Kate use the money from the Madeleine fund to re-open the case and stop wasting it on lawyers and publicity managers to help shield them from viable questions regarding discrepencies in their stories?

ann_chovey wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign?sk=wall
at last the voice of reason on the McC's facebook page..............

I would just like to say to all of those people who go up to little girls they don't know and look them in the eye, be very careful, you may find yourself being charged by the police or at the very least getting a smack in the face from an irate parent. I cannot believe that the McCann's encourage this sort of thing, an innocent little child being grabbed and stared at by strangers would be a very traumatising event. I think people should think more rationally about this!

and the McC's reply re the latest 'sighting'

as much as we would like to comment, we cannot discuss investigation-related info on this page. Thanks for understanding.[/b]5 hours ago · 2 peopleLoading...

webmaster must be awol.....

[b]Why don't Gerry and Kate use the money from the Madeleine fund to re-open the case and stop wasting it on lawyers and publicity managers to help shield them from viable questions regarding discrepencies in their stories?

Perhaps they should be a bit more understanding about the trauma their supporters are subjecting innocent kids and their families too. Perhaps one of the kids' parents will do the sensible thing and press charges when their child is "grabbed" and send a wake up call.

yes, I "saw" (cough) that FB post but there is no point in trying to reason with the braying mob...I think that many of them are made up profiles, some are from very young and the rest are just sad, deluded people...hearts maybe in the right place...reasoning and rationale not present!

I'm amazed that the post is still there at all....

susible wrote:yes, I "saw" (cough) that FB post but there is no point in trying to reason with the braying mob...I think that many of them are made up profiles, some are from very young and the rest are just sad, deluded people...hearts maybe in the right place...reasoning and rationale not present!

I'm amazed that the post is still there at all....

I did wonder.

I don't wonder.With alll Kate has been willing to reveal and confess to in her book you can only imagine that what she has not addressed - namely the whole Campaign and Clarence's relationship with the press, etc etc. Her byewk is at least as telling for what it leaves out as what it brings in.

I can imagine that the entire chapter on Clarrie's contribution was either not written or whooshed - becaues it said too much or because Kate has a bone to pick with Clarrie - she has short shrift for Murat despite his dis arguidification, (to coins phrase) IMO because unlike the Tapas who also sued he did not donate his settlement to the Madeline Fund ie Kate and Gerry's personal contingency fund.

How did Clarence fail them? In her byewk she damns him with faint praise.

widowan,
i feel that clarrie's contribution was skirted around for a very good reason,
ms mccann would rather that all the good works were down to her,
rather than a paid lackey....that does not look as good!

blossom45 wrote: widowan,
i feel that clarrie's contribution was skirted around for a very good reason,
ms mccann would rather that all the good works were down to her,
rather than a paid lackey....that does not look as good!

Well, true - she is claiming to have worked so hard, her and Gerry, on the campaign except that we know it was ALL done thru hired lackeys.

Kate's got herself managing the investigation, in her byewk. I wonder if the results of that will ever dawn on her that perhaps it might better be left to those who have some faint clue of how to go about it such as via cooperating with the police.

what can she say about Clarrie though? He was our spokesperson. why do parents of missing children need a spokesperson? He was our media handler. Well, why do you need a media handler, you have the big story of the year, surely you weren't having a problem with high visibility and awareness? There is no need for an expensive suit to go around working his media contacts, every red top was gagging for another Maddie story? Well, to make sure the story got told OUR way and we could comment on it - via a third party who would stoutly maintain our innocence and put an innocent "spin" on everything as it arose ... that is in fact the case, it's not hard to figure out what Clarrie was being paid for as they had lawyers to do everything else like get super injunctions and sue for libel. Maddie case had plenty of awareness.

What it lacked til Clarrie arrived was pro McCann spin and innocent explanations for everything and "friends of the family" saying helpful things about them. A thankless task to be their spin meister or as someone put it spokeswh*re.

widowan wrote:

blossom45 wrote: widowan,
i feel that clarrie's contribution was skirted around for a very good reason,
ms mccann would rather that all the good works were down to her,
rather than a paid lackey....that does not look as good!

Well, true - she is claiming to have worked so hard, her and Gerry, on the campaign except that we know it was ALL done thru hired lackeys.

Kate's got herself managing the investigation, in her byewk. I wonder if the results of that will ever dawn on her that perhaps it might better be left to those who have some faint clue of how to go about it such as via cooperating with the police.

what can she say about Clarrie though? He was our spokesperson. why do parents of missing children need a spokesperson? He was our media handler. Well, why do you need a media handler, you have the big story of the year, surely you weren't having a problem with high visibility and awareness? There is no need for an expensive suit to go around working his media contacts, every red top was gagging for another Maddie story? Well, to make sure the story got told OUR way and we could comment on it - via a third party who would stoutly maintain our innocence and put an innocent "spin" on everything as it arose ... that is in fact the case, it's not hard to figure out what Clarrie was being paid for as they had lawyers to do everything else like get super injunctions and sue for libel. Maddie case had plenty of awareness.

What it lacked til Clarrie arrived was pro McCann spin and innocent explanations for everything and "friends of the family" saying helpful things about them. A thankless task to be their spin meister or as someone put it spokeswh*re.

The fund should be called in my opinion

The McCann Family and Friends Fund: Cant Be Bothered Looking Under Stones.

I wish I'd marked the page in the Byewk so I could put the exact quote in here but Kate basically admits the Wider Agenda was not helping OTHER missing kids - but the wider agenda was around their defense - reputation - etc. That makes a ton of sense when you see how they used Clarence to not only raise awareness of Madeleine's tale but to salt every story down in claims about their innocence and innocent explanations for all that was coming out. The big agenda was to use the popularity of their daughter's case - story - get them off the hook. Ah, it takes a swine to show you where the truffles are as granny used to say.

I wonder if they'd be quite so busy trying to silence people if it was their own money they had to use to do it. Say if they had to sell the house to do it. Rather than getting donations from people who think their money is going to look for a little girl and not to thieves like Halligen and to lawyers trying to silence the truth.

Kate says in her byewk that when they got back to the UK (in the "The Fight back begins!" chapter) they all had jobs and that getting themselves out of trouble was job ONE and Madeleine number two, big surprise,from the most famous child neglectors in the world eh. Her job was to document everywhere they had been in the Renault since they rented it and his, Gerry's job, was to dig up dirt on the cadaver dogs.

I wouldn't have BELIEVED that this bit got past their legal team editing it, it makes them look so horrible and selfish and guilty.

It's possible that they are trying to distance themselves from CM and Kate skating over his role in her Book just in case any of his statements come back to bite them. Which could indicate nervousness on her (their) part.

Angelique wrote:It's possible that they are trying to distance themselves from CM and Kate skating over his role in her Book just in case any of his statements come back to bite them. Which could indicate nervousness on her (their) part.

I agree. I always thought the usefulness of Clarence to them was precisely because he could tell everyone what they wanted made known, but without any direct quote from them. Without any direct quotes, they can simply deny they said this or that, if they want to; they can say he got it wrong, they didn't say that or that's not what they meant. And not just Clarence either; we had lots of 'sources', including unnamed family members and friends speaking up on their behalf, relaying what the McCanns were thinking or saying or doing or planning; these were duly reported in the newspapers but again, no direct quotes. The infamous 'Find the body and prove we did it' is, I think, a good example of this; I'm pretty certain there's no actual evidence they ever said this, no quote of the McCanns' own words about this, but there does appear to have been someone feeding this to the press because IIRC it was reported in more than one newspaper at the same time.

And who could forget Clarence's famous line: 'There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.' What an utterly ridiculous statement for anyone to make; I'm afraid his credibility as an intelligent adult took a nosedive on that one. I have no idea how he could have had the stupidity to say such a thing, when he could have had no idea what the police might or might not have found or be about to find.

Dimsie wrote:

Angelique wrote:It's possible that they are trying to distance themselves from CM and Kate skating over his role in her Book just in case any of his statements come back to bite them. Which could indicate nervousness on her (their) part.

I agree. I always thought the usefulness of Clarence to them was precisely because he could tell everyone what they wanted made known, but without any direct quote from them. Without any direct quotes, they can simply deny they said this or that, if they want to; they can say he got it wrong, they didn't say that or that's not what they meant. And not just Clarence either; we had lots of 'sources', including unnamed family members and friends speaking up on their behalf, relaying what the McCanns were thinking or saying or doing or planning; these were duly reported in the newspapers but again, no direct quotes. The infamous 'Find the body and prove we did it' is, I think, a good example of this; I'm pretty certain there's no actual evidence they ever said this, no quote of the McCanns' own words about this, but there does appear to have been someone feeding this to the press because IIRC it was reported in more than one newspaper at the same time.

And who could forget Clarence's famous line: 'There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.' What an utterly ridiculous statement for anyone to make; I'm afraid his credibility as an intelligent adult took a nosedive on that one. I have no idea how he could have had the stupidity to say such a thing, when he could have had no idea what the police might or might not have found or be about to find.

That's exactly the reason you have a spokesperson, to say things you do want "out there" but DONT want to be responsible for saying; plausible deniability. However, it's also true that Kate is the hero of "My book about Madeleine and my neverending search for her", therefore she is the one running not only the media campaign (while Gerry is snapping out fancy phrases about "event driven media" and "media driven events" otherwise known to you and me as a balloon launch, clearly he's picked up some of the jargon) but the investigation as well. Oh - and the timeline of every single thing they did after May 3rd to prove that they had no time to move a body, ever. And that all the mileage was accounted for.

The fact that Clarence orchestrated this whole thing - and was feted, was he not, at some kind of dinner for the World's Greatest PR Campaign (also known as, cleaning up the McCanns)? Kate wants credit for this because it's part of the hard work she was doing instead of looking for her daughter.

carmen wrote:The blog post

Still laughing at "the British woman saw the French woman with the Belgian husband" -- the Texan woman finds this Indian reporter hilarious.

Don't tell me the Indian man is a blogger and not in a REAL newspaper!

widowan wrote:Don't tell me the Indian man is a blogger and not in a REAL newspaper!

No he is not simply a blogger. That suggest a real lack of understanding of the situation. Have you not even done the basic research of looking at the original article? His CV has been posted on this forum at least once in the last two days.

lifeisforliving wrote:

widowan wrote:Don't tell me the Indian man is a blogger and not in a REAL newspaper!

No he is not simply a blogger. That suggest a real lack of understanding of the situation. Have you not even done the basic research of looking at the original article? His CV has been posted on this forum at least once in the last two days.

FGS lighten up. I've read his CV.

Have you read Pat Brown's yet?

I've also read Clarence's and Rupert Murdochs CVs and some of their ilk. I bet Tony Parsons even has one that looks legit. That doesn't mean they are professionals whose word we can count on.

I'm trying to picture a story getting into the Houston Chronicle about an Japanese tourist who thought he saw a missing Canadian child with a Mexican and Swedish couple at the Farmer's Market in Katy and police were called and nooooo one knows a thing about it but him - somehow I think the editor would catch that and send it back for some more work.

susible wrote:I can't believe this is still happening either, it is totally unprecedented, alleged sightings of a missing child, with the result that an innocent child's face is splashed all over the tabloids with the headline....Could this be maddie....No, of course it isn't! Are there any apologies to the mis-identified child and their family...No, seemingly not! And of course the potentially harmful going and grabbing a child, that is absolute madness. I remember back in the summer of 2007 prior to me reading anything about the case (though I did have my suspicions because the parents just seemed so odd) having a conversation with work mates about this and one of them who was going to Spain on holiday saying "if I see her I'll just run up and grab her" now this was an intelligent, sane, educated woman, a mother herself, I couldn't believe what I was hearing and I told her as much, everyone was flabbergasted at me for seemingly putting the welfare of the 99.9999% of children who were not Madeleine above the one missing child...until I asked them how they would feel if a complete stranger came up and grabbed their child, screaming and shouting for the police and pointing out that the most famous missing child in the world is hardly likely to be taking a trip to the beach in a Spanish resort (or anywhere else for that matter)!

No, I find the whole thing very disturbing and I really wish I could do something about it, but it's difficult to complain to facebook about the posts that encourage this type of thing as the reporting options are very limited

I don't think you have to worry about an innocent child's face, other than Madeleine's, splashed across the newspapers. I don't think the American man and other American woman who agreed with the British woman that this could be Madeleine (what a lot of tourists! Leh must be lovely in July) actually tried to nab her and photographed her.

But if they did, I am sure it's very encouraging news that people are behaving like this, because it means that the hysteria about Madeleine has been whipped into a frenzy that jeopardizes little girls from age 2 to 10 all over the globe.

Leh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leh_Ladakh_002.jpg

80,000 foreign tourists visit per year! 5 of them died there last August in a flood that wiped out nearly 200 people. Average high in summer 90 degrees, altitude of over 11,500 feet. Gateway to the Himalayas, conveniently located between Srinagar and Manali.

As of 2001 India census, Leh town had a population of 27,513

Surely one of them saw something.

Dont be ridiculous widowman, its in the press what more do you want. Evidence? pmsl.