"Madeleine" spotted in Chandighar, India

http://www.whohub.com/japs


What is your specialty? What subjects do you deal with?
I specialise in sniffing off-beat, unusual stories. I have special nose for such stories. You give me a clue and I will find the story. I am an aggressive reporter with knack for investigative stories. I write opinion-editorials and Middles besides poetry occasionally


Hmmm....

First contact with Singh:

I have already been quoted wrongly in many British newspapers. I just reported a drama and my story never said anyone was detained, any passport was confiscated or any DNA sample taken. The police official let the French woman with the girl go. He committed a grave error. Why would he admit it now? He did not record the incident in the Daily Diary Register. I wonder where is Carol and why is she quite.

Second contact with Singh:

The police official let them go taking a copy of the passports but retained original passport of the Belgian guy. He then narrated me the entire story. I tried talking to Carol but she said she was tired and too upset that she was doing her duty as a citizen but it seems she has landed herself in trouble.

It seems Mr Singh's account is a bit like some witness statements - inconsistent.

Add to that initially the police were denying it because they cocked up. Now it seems they are denying it to protect the tourist industry although quite why recovery of a kidnapped child from foreign tourists should impact adversely on the local community is beyond me.

carmen wrote:

Chris wrote:First contact with Singh:

I have already been quoted wrongly in many British newspapers. I just reported a drama and my story never said anyone was detained, any passport was confiscated or any DNA sample taken. The police official let the French woman with the girl go. He committed a grave error. Why would he admit it now? He did not record the incident in the Daily Diary Register. I wonder where is Carol and why is she quite.

Second contact with Singh:

The police official let them go taking a copy of the passports but retained original passport of the Belgian guy. He then narrated me the entire story. I tried talking to Carol but she said she was tired and too upset that she was doing her duty as a citizen but it seems she has landed herself in trouble.

It seems Mr Singh's account is a bit like some witness statements - inconsistent.

Add to that initially the police were denying it because they cocked up. Now it seems they are denying it to protect the tourist industry although quite why recovery of a kidnapped child from foreign tourists should impact adversely on the local community is beyond me.

Do we know who actually made contact with Mr Singh to obtain this info?? Mr Singh hasn't actually published it himself, has he??

Perhaps I should have added "if these accounts can be relied upon".

ann_chovey wrote:http://www.whohub.com/japs


What is your specialty? What subjects do you deal with?
I specialise in sniffing off-beat, unusual stories. I have special nose for such stories. You give me a clue and I will find the story. I am an aggressive reporter with knack for investigative stories. I write opinion-editorials and Middles besides poetry occasionally


Hmmm....

I have a special ass, in which I keep my stories, before I pull them out of it.

Gosh, I was hoping one of the citizens of Leh would stop milling about the market place being uncooperative, and come forth and corroborate this story, otherwise, it might appear that both the reporter MADE up the sighting and Clarence legitimized, it -

I wonder if this will become public knowledge.

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

Well, you know me and my real lack of understanding of the situation.

Perhaps this'll be the story that puts Leh on the map.

Leh travel poster motto: Visit Leh! 80,000 79,995 tourists can't be wrong.

Why is the Daily Star now reporting on other kidnappings in the UK which have nothing to do with this apart from that they are allegedly "Maddie style" kidnappings ie by a stranger, when there is this story to uncover?

Maddie style kidnappings are from a hotel in a foreign country and of a 3 year old, while their parents are "out" and with no sign of an abduction - doubt there are 200 of those.

There is an investigative saying, can't recall the name, that says that a criminal leaves something of themselves behind and takes something from the crime scene (fibers, blood, etc) yet not in this case.

On the other hand we're not seeing a bashing of the Indian police which is an improvement. Perhaps TM is lightening up on the attacks on LE now.

If Scotland Yard are doing their job, they should be investigating this supposed sighting, IMO. After all, they're either reviewing this missing child case and will be interested in EVERYTHING to do with it ... or they're just faffing about, ignoring potential leads. This woman was supposed to be certain the child was Madeleine and she saw her up close, whereas we're told all Kate had was a photograph. Clarence seemed pretty sure there was something of interest there - at least to begin with, when he was talking of their liaising with the police in Leh. So if the police in Leh say they know nothing about this, wouldn't you think SY would need to do a little bit of investigating of their own to find out just what the heck is going on? Such as who is telling the truth and who is lying, who this woman who supposedly took the photograph was and exactly when she sent it to the McCanns, who was liaising with whom and why the Leh police were said to be involved but then said NOT to know anything about it at all.

Much food for thought there, plenty of questions that SY could be asking the McCanns, Clarence, the woman with the camera, the Leh police, the Indian journalist, the grab-happy American - the thing is, have they bothered to ask anything at all? Or are they content to sit back and let those with an agenda run rings round them? If £3.5 million is being spent on this review, I hope SY let nothing past them, that they follow up everything just to see where it leads. I've a feeling they might be in for a few surprises if they do.

Yes, but if it turns out to be a scam, then clearly the REPORTER will be painted as the bad guy - the rotten media, once again! And Clarence's remark painted as being just in the nature of preemptive - We WILL liaise with police and await the dna. He could claim to have said that and the paper who reported his phrase got it wrong by one verb form (will liaisebeing turned to "are liaising") or there will be some innocent explanation for Clarrie's response - there always is.

No explanation for the photos if those don't exist however, if the woman doesn't exist then the photos don't exist and that can't be explained away. Would they be arrogant and stupid enough to claim photos coming in to UK LE if none exist? here's hoping.

widowan wrote:Yes, but if it turns out to be a scam, then clearly the REPORTER will be painted as the bad guy - the rotten media, once again! And Clarence's remark painted as being just in the nature of preemptive - We WILL liaise with police and await the dna. He could claim to have said that and the paper who reported his phrase got it wrong by one verb form (will liaisebeing turned to "are liaising") or there will be some innocent explanation for Clarrie's response - there always is.

No explanation for the photos if those don't exist however, if the woman doesn't exist then the photos don't exist and that can't be explained away. Would they be arrogant and stupid enough to claim photos coming in to UK LE if none exist? here's hoping.

Don't worry, they can always photoshop a few to keep the proles happy.

Yes, anyone can photoshop but if any police investigators were intent enough on discovering just what is going on with these supposed sightings that get so much publicity in the British newspapers and on Twitter, etc. they could find out who was doing the photoshopping and why. They could also find out if there really is a woman who says she saw this child, if there really is an American who tried to grab her, etc. None of this would be beyond their ability if they really wanted to do it. Trouble is, of course, that they may well conclude none of this will help find Madeleine if she is still alive, and so they just won't bother. A big mistake, IMO, because while - as widowan says - attempts could be made to throw all the blame on to the media for getting it wrong, there are many things here that could actually be checked to see if they fit in with what Clarence and the McCanns have said.

It's very interesting how the publicity racheted up a few notches recently, especially in view of the McCanns' action against Dr Amaral, due to take place in the near future (I think). That hearing will obviously have the question of whether or not Madeleine could still be alive at its heart, if not in strictly legal terms, but in the opinions of those who will have to make a decision in the case and also in the reporting of proceedings in the media. I think most of us here could have predicted a 'sighting' or two before this case is heard, as we noticed before how these 'sightings' often seem to come along at opportune times ... strange how this happens but of course completely random, far be it from any of us to suggest anything else.

So it's been neally 3 weeks since this sighting....why hasn't this person been Tracked down?


Why hasn't this person sold their story?


Like the passengers on the plane that never saw Gerry and the heart attack man..


Or the police that never got information regarding his wallet snatch ...or

The drunk man that Kate and Gerry stumbled across and took home....

kitti wrote:So it's been neally 3 weeks since this sighting....why hasn't this person been Tracked down?


Why hasn't this person sold their story?


Like the passengers on the plane that never saw Gerry and the heart attack man..


Or the police that never got information regarding his wallet snatch ...or

The drunk man that Kate and Gerry stumbled across and took home....

or the guy Smiths saw at 950 carrying a kid.

Dimsie wrote:Yes, anyone can photoshop but if any police investigators were intent enough on discovering just what is going on with these supposed sightings that get so much publicity in the British newspapers and on Twitter, etc. they could find out who was doing the photoshopping and why. They could also find out if there really is a woman who says she saw this child, if there really is an American who tried to grab her, etc. None of this would be beyond their ability if they really wanted to do it. Trouble is, of course, that they may well conclude none of this will help find Madeleine if she is still alive, and so they just won't bother. A big mistake, IMO, because while - as widowan says - attempts could be made to throw all the blame on to the media for getting it wrong, there are many things here that could actually be checked to see if they fit in with what Clarence and the McCanns have said.

It's very interesting how the publicity racheted up a few notches recently, especially in view of the McCanns' action against Dr Amaral, due to take place in the near future (I think). That hearing will obviously have the question of whether or not Madeleine could still be alive at its heart, if not in strictly legal terms, but in the opinions of those who will have to make a decision in the case and also in the reporting of proceedings in the media. I think most of us here could have predicted a 'sighting' or two before this case is heard, as we noticed before how these 'sightings' often seem to come along at opportune times ... strange how this happens but of course completely random, far be it from any of us to suggest anything else.

I think you are right, SY may decide chasing up fake sightings is not going to help find her, but is that their job? Or is their job to help find what happened to her? If TM has a wider agenda about putting live sightings of Maddie out there to whip up "awareness" that she was kidnapped and is working together with the papers on such an agenda, surely that would help in some way in terms of what this Campaign is all about and how that fits in to an abduction scenario vs another scenario. SY may not investigate the sighting but maybe there is another group that will be investigating the papers and their alliance with those they make into "top stories" - even without that just knowing that this is going on would make me suspicious as a detective, when has this happened before? Is this how innocent parents behave? Go get a spokesman and have him feed the papers stories, have him comment on things that are fantasy? The whole concept of how the spokes man behaves and what his job is seems dodgy and out of place here. you can't really review this case without the one constant popping up wherever you look and that is the media involvement here and how it has impacted the investigation from putting photos out and calling Sky when the pJ said NO MEDIA, all the way up to this latest. And this has all been part of their campaign.