Yet another naff sighting.

[Redblossom]

Martha, it is not a new article, to do with SY,  it is an exact copy of a Mail one written in August 08. It wasn't even in the paper yesterday. The comments section also shows it's an old closed article. Some admin work by the Mail perhaps to have made the date change.

 

[icabodcrane]

I think you've answered your own question there - it was dismissed by the Portuguese and SY are reviewing everything they didn't bother following up on properly.  That's why these old reports are being re-visited.  You obviously think it's not worth the time and money to make sure that every avenue is explored, fortunately SY don't agree with you.

Scotland Yard are keeping the Daily Mail updated on  operation grange  ?

No, but maybe the sighting witness is...?

So this person contacted the papers to say she has been re-interviewed by Scotland yard ...  is that how you think this story came to be reported ?

You don't think, perhaps,  if that was the case, the Daily Mail would have checked with the police before re-running the story ?  ( especially in light of Leveson )

[Redblossom]

Martha, it is not a new article, to do with SY,  it is an exact copy of a Mail one written in August 08. It wasn't even in the paper yesterday. The comments section also shows it's an old closed article. Some admin work by the Mail perhaps to have made the date change.

It's not an exact copy. According to the Mail the woman who reported the sighting has spoken to the Mail again recently, it's quite likely that she would say much the same as she said the first time she spoke to the papers.  That said,I know the Mail is not always an oracle of truthfulness, however even if they have chosen to re-hash an old story in order to make an eye-catching  and paper-selling headline then I don't see how that's the McCanns' fault exactly.

Where does the Mail say she recontacted them and that SY are involved? The headlines mention the Mccann detectives not the Met. I am reading the article linked in the first post, and that article is word for word identical to an August 08 one. Is there another one somewhere? I have googled and cant find it.

[icabodcrane]

I think you've answered your own question there - it was dismissed by the Portuguese and SY are reviewing everything they didn't bother following up on properly.  That's why these old reports are being re-visited.  You obviously think it's not worth the time and money to make sure that every avenue is explored, fortunately SY don't agree with you.

Scotland Yard are keeping the Daily Mail updated on  operation grange  ?

No, but maybe the sighting witness is...?

So this person contacted the papers to say she has been re-interviewed by Scotland yard ...  is that how you think this story came to be reported ?

You don't think, perhaps,  if that was the case, the Daily Mail would have checked with the police before re-running the story ?  ( especially in light of Leveson )

What?  Are you saying that the Mail published this story without checking with the police then? You've lost me with your argument.

I'm just trying to establish why this ( old )  story has appeared now

If,  as you suggest, it is because the witness has contacted the papers to say she has been re- interviewed by  Scotland Yard  ...  and if  the Mail checked with the police before running the story ...  then we would have to assume that Scotland Yard verified details of operation grange to the Daily Mail,  and gave them a green light to print the story

[icabodcrane]

I think you've answered your own question there - it was dismissed by the Portuguese and SY are reviewing everything they didn't bother following up on properly.  That's why these old reports are being re-visited.  You obviously think it's not worth the time and money to make sure that every avenue is explored, fortunately SY don't agree with you.

Scotland Yard are keeping the Daily Mail updated on  operation grange  ?

No, but maybe the sighting witness is...?

So this person contacted the papers to say she has been re-interviewed by Scotland yard ...  is that how you think this story came to be reported ?

You don't think, perhaps,  if that was the case, the Daily Mail would have checked with the police before re-running the story ?  ( especially in light of Leveson )

What?  Are you saying that the Mail published this story without checking with the police then? You've lost me with your argument.

I'm just trying to establish why this ( old )  story has appeared now

If,  as you suggest, it is because the witness has contacted the papers to say she has been re- interviewed by  Scotland Yard  ...  and if  the Mail checked with the police before running the story ...  then we would have to assume that Scotland Yard verified details of operation grange to the Daily Mail,  and gave them a green light to print the story

What explanation do you prefer?

I don't prefer any

I always did feel uneasy when on-going investigations were reported in the press.  Revealing that enquiries are taking place relating to  one specific sighting or  another makes no sense at all to me  ...  just gives a 'head up' to anyone who may be involved

Mccann private investigators did this frequently,  but I find it even  more alarming that Scotland Yard  (  if you are correct in your assumption )  are following suit

[Redblossom]

Martha, it is not a new article, to do with SY,  it is an exact copy of a Mail one written in August 08. It wasn't even in the paper yesterday. The comments section also shows it's an old closed article. Some admin work by the Mail perhaps to have made the date change.

This from the 25th April 2013 Mail article:

Miss Compere, 31, spoke out again yesterday after it emerged British police were tipped-off Madeleine may have been snatched for a paedophile ring in Belgium

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042818/I-saw-girl-looked-like-Maddie-tram-Brussels-New-sighting-McCanns-detectives-focus-Belgium.html#ixzz2RZtRboe0
 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No, that sentence appeared in the original as well, not the second article stephen linked to by the Mail, which has a different headline. The original is in the press articles archive on the Maddie Case Files site.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post46072.html#p46072


The story was reported by many newspapers that August, it was back then that the story was included as part of other reporting about British police regarding being tipped off about Madeleine being stolen to order by a paedophile ring, about dozens of Madeleine sightings in Belgium, and at the time it was reported this witness had spoken to the papers last night or yesterday. The speaking again refers to speaking again in August after her original reporting of her sighting to police back in May 07 and after the explosion of Madeleine sightings in Belgium that summer.

Your further post  to me with the two quotes are not from the same article, one is from one and the other from the other.

PS The Maddie detectives referred to are not SY but their original PIs. If this was really a new story wouldn't it be reported by anyone else?

[Redblossom]

Ah right - I hadn't seen that other Mail article.  Well - then I agree it's most bizarre.  Did the recent article actually make it to the print edition of the paper or is this an online glitch in which the date has been changed?

I don't know about  a print edition, but it certainly was not on the online edition yesterday or today. Possibly a glitch, who knows? Maybe if a file is accessed and saved again it updates to this time? I really don't know.

Seems the Sun has updated its 8th August 08 article called I Spotted Maddie on Belgian Tram to todays date, but I haven't checked it with the original to see if any changes have been made. This would have been a front page story for the Sun and it wasn't in today's.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/madeleine/1531641/I-spotted-Maddie-on-Belgian-tram.html

Neither articles appear if you do a goggle search on the papers' name and Madeleine Mccann, any time recent, so I think it's fair to say they are old articles with a date change for some reason.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

was it a naff sighting the first time round or just the second time?

[debunker]

For the [ censored word ]s. any sighting is a naff sighting as it goes against their contention that abduction was impossible.

Personally I would say that Madeleine is probably dead and that all sightings are likely to be false even if she is alive. But I say this because that is the probability, not because I need to say it in order to support an erroneous theory.