UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on August 15, 2013, 08:10:32 PM
-
Why do posters feel that Madeleine was particularly targeted ? Bridget O'Donnell describes not being able to point Madeleine out during the min tennis because all the little girls were blonde and pink so why take the chance of particularly targeting a very, we are told, talkative nearly four year old who would be able to identify herself when the abductor had all manner of blonde, pretty girls to chose from, not least Madeleine's very similar younger sister ?
-
Why do posters feel that Madeleine was particularly targeted ? Bridget O'Donnell describes not being able to point Madeleine out during the min tennis because all the little girls were blonde and pink so why take the chance of particularly targeting a very, we are told, talkative nearly four year old who would be able to identify herself when the abductor had all manner of blonde, pretty girls to chose from, not least Madeleine's very similar younger sister ?
That flat was unexpectedly vulnerable with good watching points. The front door being so dark and out of sight, was a gift to any abductor, or burglar for that matter.
Additionally Madeleine had a vibrant personality and sense of fun, that might have attracted.
Truly, i dont think any of us can know, "why Madeleine", apart from these two observations.
-
That flat was unexpectedly vulnerable with good watching points. The front door being so dark and out of sight, was a gift to any abductor, or burglar for that matter.
Additionally Madeleine had a vibrant personality and sense of fun, that might have attracted.
Truly, i dont think any of us can know, "why Madeleine", apart from these two observations.
Surely a confident, talkative little girl would be the last thing an abductor would want if she was supposed to be assimilated into a new family ?
-
Surely a confident, talkative little girl would be the last thing an abductor would want if she was supposed to be assimilated into a new family ?
Some argue that brainwashing would resolve the problem. Why target easy (Amélie) if you can target tricky ?
-
Why do posters feel that Madeleine was particularly targeted ? Bridget O'Donnell describes not being able to point Madeleine out during the min tennis because all the little girls were blonde and pink so why take the chance of particularly targeting a very, we are told, talkative nearly four year old who would be able to identify herself when the abductor had all manner of blonde, pretty girls to chose from, not least Madeleine's very similar younger sister ?
A good question Faithlilly, why indeed?
Assuming for a moment that she was abducted my own thoughts on this are that she was chosen because she was beyond the baby stage but still at an age where she could be integrated into a family without much trouble. After a short period of time she wouldn't even remember her real parents.
-
still at an age where she could be integrated into a family without much trouble. After a short period of time she wouldn't even remember her real parents.
No, John, Amélie perhaps, but not Madeleine.
-
Separating twins would not have been a good idea emotionally. And abducting a baby in nappies would have added to the problems. And besides Amelie's hair was nearly white blonde.
-
Separating twins would not have been a good idea emotionally. And abducting a baby in nappies would have added to the problems. And besides Amelie's hair was nearly white blonde.
Are you really trying to suggest any alleged abductor would be the least bit concerned with the child's emotional state. Amelie, at her age, would have been barely aware that she had been taken and would certainly be unable to refer vocally to her former life, Madeleine would.
-
Obviously Madeleine was what was wanted. A little blonde fair haired girl of about four.
-
Obviously Madeleine was what was wanted. A little blonde fair haired girl of about four.
But there seems to have been quite a few small girls of that type at the OC that week, if Bridget O'Donnell is to be believed, so why Madeleine ?
And why a four year old who would be very hard to assimilate into an existing family ?
-
But there seems to have been quite a few small girls of that type at the OC that week, if Bridget O'Donnell is to be believed, so why Madeleine ?
And why a four year old who would be very hard to assimilate into an existing family ?
Madeleine was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sometimes parents want to replace a child. Or they don't want to go through the baby stage.
Some people here in Britain adopt an older child rather than a baby.
-
Are you really trying to suggest any alleged abductor would be the least bit concerned with the child's emotional state. Amelie, at her age, would have been barely aware that she had been taken and would certainly be unable to refer vocally to her former life, Madeleine would.
Any family who wanted a child would have been concerned with added emotional problems. Twins have a bond that is beyond that which exists between siblings.
And of course, a baby would have been much more likely to scream it's head off in transit. Not to mention the changing of nappies.
Why are you so rude when someone puts forward a suggestion?
-
Madeleine was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sometimes parents want to replace a child. Or they don't want to go through the baby stage.
Some people here in Britain adopt an older child rather than a baby.
We are talking about an abduction, not an adoption where it wouldn't be matter if the child talked about her natural parents. Madeleine also had a recognisable eye defect, wouldn't that also have made her a rather strange choice for abduction ?
Madeleine was in the wrong place at the wrong time. How so ?
-
We are talking about an abduction, not an adoption where it wouldn't be matter if the child talked about her natural parents. Madeleine also had a recognisable eye defect, wouldn't that also have made her a rather strange choice for abduction ?
Madeleine was in the wrong place at the wrong time. How so ?
Could be Madeleine was abducted to be sold for adoption Faithfully. Madeleine could have been told lies about her parents, that they were dead for instance?
Could be they didn't get close enough to see the eye defect. Madeleine had her eyes closed when sleeping and it was quite dark.
The McCann's have said it was only a slight mark in the eye.
-
Could be Madeleine was abducted to be sold for adoption Faithfully. Madeleine could have been told lies about her parents, that they were dead for instance?
Could be they didn't get close enough to see the eye defect. Madeleine had her eyes closed when sleeping and it was quite dark.
The McCann's have said it was only a slight mark in the eye.
You are missing the point Lace. Isn't the choice of Madeleine, with her talkative nature, her age and her distinctive eye, rather a strange one for adoption, when her sister would have had none of those drawbacks and was there for the taking ?
Taking Amelie would not have necessitated drugging the children as she would not have been able to raise the alarm in the same way as Madeleine and her identity would have been easier to conceal as she was carried away.
-
Any family who wanted a child would have been concerned with added emotional problems. Twins have a bond that is beyond that which exists between siblings.
And of course, a baby would have been much more likely to scream it's head off in transit. Not to mention the changing of nappies.
Why are you so rude when someone puts forward a suggestion?
Taking a four year old from her family would have much greater emotional repercussions than an under two, whether a twin or not, ask any psychologist.
-
You are missing the point Lace. Isn't the choice of Madeleine, with her talkative nature, her age and her distinctive eye, rather a strange one for adoption, when her sister would have had none of those drawbacks and was there for the taking ?
Taking Amelie would not have necessitated drugging the children as she would not have been able to raise the alarm in the same way as Madeleine and her identity would have been easier to conceal as she was carried away.
Somebody wanted Madeleine. Why, we do not know. Certainly her front door was VERY vulnerable and a watcher could oversee who was coming and going.
Blonde does seem to be important. All 4 girls who have been abducted were fair haired. Rene Hasse was also blonde, but the older children, all boys, were more latin in looks.
Personally, I think that Madeleines smiley face and intellect shines thru as does her sense of fun. Maybe someone wanted these attributes. We dont know and can only guess tbh.
-
Taking a four year old from her family would have much greater emotional repercussions than an under two, whether a twin or not, ask any psychologist.
Obvious. Heterozygous twins, moreover if boy and girl, are just like siblings.
And nappies after 24 months isn't common use.
-
You are missing the point Lace. Isn't the choice of Madeleine, with her talkative nature, her age and her distinctive eye, rather a strange one for adoption, when her sister would have had none of those drawbacks and was there for the taking ?
Taking Amelie would not have necessitated drugging the children as she would not have been able to raise the alarm in the same way as Madeleine and her identity would have been easier to conceal as she was carried away.
This person imo was obeying orders.
Someone wanted a child resembling Madeleine.
-
This person imo was obeying orders.
Someone wanted a child resembling Madeleine.
Exactly what I think, Lace 8((()*/
-
Exactly what I think, Lace 8((()*/
Assuming again that an abduction occurred and for which I remind everyone that there is some evidence but no definitive proof, Madeleine would have been picked out while playing or walking with her parents. It rarely happens that a child is abducted blind or without having prior knowledge of their existence.
It is also well known that in most child abduction cases it is family members or close friends who are involved. Children are rarely abducted by strangers.
-
Obvious. Heterozygous twins, moreover if boy and girl, are just like siblings.
And nappies after 24 months isn't common use.
I don't find it odd using nappies at night for 2 year olds. Were they in nappies in the day? I doubt it.
As for taking Madeleine and not Amelie. Amelie was in a deep travel cot, much more difficult to lift out quickly, without disturbing the other children.
-
Children are rarely abducted by strangers.
Except for tales, legends and faits-divers of the time when children were used as labour.
-
No, John, Amélie perhaps, but not Madeleine.
Why not Anne? Children under 10 can be adopted quite easily. An almost 4-year-old would be ideal and after a few months would accept her lot as if it were perfectly normal.
-
Assuming again that an abduction occurred and for which I remind everyone that there is some evidence but no definitive proof, Madeleine would have been picked out while playing or walking with her parents. It rarely happens that a child is abducted blind or without having prior knowledge of their existence.
It is also well known that in most child abduction cases it is family members or close friends who are involved. Chdren are rarely abducted by strangers.
Can you name any John, that have been abducted by family members or close friends?
How was Ben abducted, and numerous others?.
-
Can you name any John, that have been abducted by family members or close friends?
How was Ben abducted, and numerous others?.
We could start with two recent cases, April Jones and Shannon Matthews.
We don't know what happened to Ben.
-
Obviously Madeleine was what was wanted. A little blonde fair haired girl of about four.
EXACTLY! 8((()*/
-
Why not Anne? Children under 10 can be adopted quite easily. An almost 4-year-old would be ideal and after a few months would accept her lot as if it were perfectly normal.
No, John, a cherished child as Madeleine was wouldn't accept strangers, she would likely let herself die of sorrow.
-
No, John, a cherished child as Madeleine was wouldn't accept strangers, she would likely let herself die of sorrow.
Don't be so naive Anne, young children easily adapt to any situation regardless of how cherished they are. Madeleine wasn't even four so had little grasp of reality.
To be honest I'm somewhat surprised at your comment.
-
What utter tosh. Lots of children are deprived of love ones. They cope.
-
Don't be so naive Anne, young children easily adapt to any situation regardless of how cherished they are. Madeleine wasn't even four so had little grasp of reality.
To be honest I'm somewhat surprised at your comment.
Of course they adapt easily. Foster children for instance, from birth up to the age of 17 have no choice.
All of mine took days to adapt!
Why Anne thinks Madeleine, is different to most children, at 4 years old or 9 days off her 4th birthday, to be precise is rubbish.
-
To be honest I'm somewhat surprised at your comment.
Ask a child neuropsychiatrist like Boris Cyrulnik, specialized in the resilience issue, who passed through separation from his parents, but he was 6 and his parents did it to protect him from the nazis.
The only tiny chance for Madeleine would be nice loving people but nice loving people don't steal children nor buy stolen children.
-
So all fostered and adopted children are likely to die of sorrow? Don't be silly.
-
So all fostered and adopted children are likely to die of sorrow? Don't be silly.
None of my 45 fostered and one adopted did Eleanor. Can you believe the stupity of that comment, by Anne?
-
None of my 45 fostered and one adopted did Eleanor. Can you believe the stupity of that comment, by Anne?
[/quote
I can't begin to imagine why she said it, DCI. It is so patently untrue.
-
In terms of 'taking' a child for another family, the removal of Madeleine would make no sense.
Older, more aware and she would have memories which would linger. Her younger sister would have been a logical choice, as she would not carry that baggage.
-
Madeleine is more likely to be a lone child in a family.
-
Madeleine is more likely to be a lone child in a family.
I'm struggling to see your point Eleanor.
-
I'm struggling to see your point Eleanor.
That does not surprise me.
-
Madeleine is more likely to be a lone child in a family.
Why ?
-
Why ?
Why not? It would be a couple without children who would be more likely to steal a child.
-
That does not surprise me.
So care to clarify ?
-
So care to clarify ?
I think I know what Eleanor means, but I am not saying 8(>((
-
So care to clarify ?
I already have. But it should have been obvious anyway.
-
I think I know what Eleanor means, but I am not saying 8(>((
I you merely 'think' you know sadie then it seems it wasn't very clear to you either.
-
Why not? It would be a couple without children who would be more likely to steal a child.
So why not 'steal' Madeleine's younger sister. Far more easy to carry and she would have fewer memories of her family ?
-
So why not 'steal' Madeleine's younger sister. Far more easy to carry and she would have fewer memories of her family ?
Do stop asking the same old silly questions.
-
Do stop asking the same old silly questions.
Until the question is adequately answered I think the question remains important.
-
Until the question is adequately answered I think the question remains important.
Madeleine was selected, Faith. She was wanted. Almost certainly
-
Madeleine was selected, Faith. She was wanted. Almost certainly
Almost certainly ? Why ?
-
Folks, I have given a lot of thought to this question of "Why Madeleine".
IMO, the abductor got spooked and just grabbed Madeleine.
-
Do stop asking the same old silly questions.
Silly, NO.
Logical ,YES.
-
Almost certainly ? Why ?
Because she was the chosen one.
And she followed on from Carolina Santos.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWgzqYdBFGQ40kazayFVCt4JASRyr8b7gzB1QqAYzaxXvgGzDZRw)
Another pretty little fair haired girl who was abducted only about 18 miles away in Silves. That abduction was frustrated by the parents noticing that she had vanished off the pavement outside their cafe/bar and calling her back as she was being walked off, hand in hand, with the abductor.
Like Madeleine she was 3 years old ... and this frustrated attempt was less than 5 months before Madeleine was abducted... just 18 miles away
-
Because she was the chosen one.
And she followed on from Carolina Santos.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWgzqYdBFGQ40kazayFVCt4JASRyr8b7gzB1QqAYzaxXvgGzDZRw)
Another pretty little fair haired girl who was abducted only about 18 miles away in Silves. That abduction was frustrated by the parents noticing that she had vanished off the pavement outside their cafe/bar and calling her back as she was being walked off, hand in hand, with the abductor.
Like Madeleine she was 3 years old ... and this frustrated attempt was less than 5 months before Madeleine was abducted... just 18 miles away
The chosen one ????????????????
You are sounding like Nigel Nessling.
-
The chosen one ????????????????
You are sounding like Nigel Nessling.
Well I am not Nigel, I assure you. Met him at Bennetts trial. Really nice guy. Heart in the right place and has put his soul into working on the case too.
Madeleine was selected/chosen because someone was looking for a pretty little fair haired 3 year old. This was only after the failed attempt at taking Carolina Santos, another pretty little fair haired 3 year old.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWgzqYdBFGQ40kazayFVCt4JASRyr8b7gzB1QqAYzaxXvgGzDZRw)
That attempted abduction was less than 5 months before and only about 18 miles from PdL
-
Well I am not Nigel, I assure you. Met him at Bennetts trial. Really nice guy. Heart in the right place and has put his soul into working on the case too.
Madeleine was selected/chosen because someone was looking for a pretty little fair haired 3 year old. This was only after the failed attempt at taking Carolina Santos, another pretty little fair haired 3 year old.
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWgzqYdBFGQ40kazayFVCt4JASRyr8b7gzB1QqAYzaxXvgGzDZRw)
That attempted abduction was less than 5 months before and only about 18 miles from PdL
That doesn't prove Madeleine was abducted ?
How many other children were in that area at the time, and were young 'blonde haired' girls ?
-
Stephen how often do you hear on the news here in Britain, when there is an attempted abduction of a child, the words -
This hasn't been the first attempt to abduct a child in this area, a car similar to the one seen at the recent attempt of abduction was seen last week when a man tried to seduce a child into the car.
Now similar words to that are heard frequently on the news here in Britain.
So I would think the attempted abduction of that little girl that Sadie has enlightened us about is very relevant.
Someone tried to abduct this little fair haired girl more or less the same age as Madeleine, only five months before Madeleine was taken.
Why doesn't this make an abduction more plausible for you?
-
That doesn't prove Madeleine was abducted ?
How many other children were in that area at the time, and were young 'blonde haired' girls ?
Of course it doesn't but it is a pointer that should not be ignored
If you remember Stephen, early on in this forum, I went over the eight stranger abductions of pre pubescent (under 15 y.o.) children in PT. All eight of them either fell in the Porto area or in the PDL/Lagos area. There was a bunch of 4 of them in an area of 32 miles across in the Porto area and a bunch of 4 of them (including Carolina) in the Lagos area in an area no more than about 25 miles across.
NO other stranger abductions of pre pubescent children in the whole of mainland PT. Pt is not as big as England but it is well over half the size, so two little clumps of abductions, alone in that vast area.
One clump, 32 miles across, in Porto in the period 1991 to 1999 + an odd abduction in the Algarve region in 1996.
Then there was a break of 5 years before it all started up again. This time 300 miles away from Porto, in the Algarve centred, more or less, on Lagos /PdL.
1) Joana Cipriano in Sept. 2004 and only 7 miles from PdL
2) Carolina Santos on 25th Dec. 2006, and only about 18 miles from PdL .... but this abduction was frustrated and Carolina was saved.
This man had been needing/ wanting a child every 2 years on average and Carolinas abduction didn't finalise in his favour.
Madeleine was taken under 5 months later after the Carolina attempt ... and 2 years and 7 months after Joana disappeared.
The Historical pattern is there in the Algarve, as it had been in the Porto region
-
The reason for the five year break in the middle? According to a forum that i read, the PJ picked up a man in , or near, Porto in 1999/2000. The son of an elite, he was interrogated and IIRC was charged (not absolutely sure of that ... possibly made an Arguido). However, according to this forum, he was released with just a warning. I wonder who was important enough to (aparantly from this posters words) pull strings to get him off?
Everything was whooshed about this forum post as soon as i mentioned it, on a Madeleine forum. Someone reading must have wioped it out.
Catkins, in her research, also found stuff about this man who was let of with just a warning.
So historically stephen, here we have a series of abductions that had moved from Porto to the Algarve ... and this man was overdue with his wanting a child.
-
1) These facts are not proof af an abduction, but are a damned strong pointer.
2) With Jane Tanners witnessing the abduction
3) Caroline Carpenters audio evidence
4) The Smiths sighting ...
5) and 6) SY and the AG saying that they do not think The Mccanns guilty of any criminal acts
7) The fact that Amaral and many many of his officers are Arguidos or have been found as criminals
8) The Mccanns and associates have an absolutely clean sheet
9) There is visual and witness evidence of their love for their children
10) ...and everything else ...
.....I am staggered that you, Stephen, a man who professes to support Madeleine, cannot see the significance of all these things
... and at least have a question mark in your mind.
-
1) These facts are not proof af an abduction, but are a damned strong pointer.
2) With Jane Tanners witnessing the abduction
3) Caroline Carpenters audio evidence
4) The Smiths sighting ...
5) and 6) SY and the AG saying that they do not think The Mccanns guilty of any criminal acts
7) The fact that Amaral and many many of his officers are Arguidos or have been found as criminals
8) The Mccanns and associates have an absolutely clean sheet
9) There is visual and witness evidence of their love for their children
10) ...and everything else ...
.....I am staggered that you, Stephen, a man who professes to support Madeleine, cannot see the significance of all these things
... and at least have a question mark in your mind.
You see what you want to see.
P.S. Tanner's 'sighting' isn't proof of an abduction.
-
Open your eyes Stephen
And you missed the other bits
Quote from: stephen25000 on Today at 08:08:16 PM
That doesn't prove Madeleine was abducted ?
How many other children were in that area at the time, and were young 'blonde haired' girls ?
sadie Of course it doesn't but it is a pointer that should not be ignored
If you remember Stephen, early on in this forum, I went over the eight stranger abductions of pre pubescent (under 15 y.o.) children in PT. All eight of them either fell in the Porto area or in the PDL/Lagos area. There was a bunch of 4 of them in an area of 32 miles across in the Porto area and a bunch of 4 of them (including Carolina) in the Lagos area in an area no more than about 25 miles across.
NO other stranger abductions of pre pubescent children in the whole of mainland PT. Pt is not as big as England but it is well over half the size, so two little clumps of abductions, alone in that vast area.
One clump, 32 miles across, in Porto in the period 1991 to 1999 + an odd abduction in the Algarve region in 1996.
Then there was a break of 5 years before it all started up again. This time 300 miles away from Porto, in the Algarve centred, more or less, on Lagos /PdL.
1) Joana Cipriano in Sept. 2004 and only 7 miles from PdL
2) Carolina Santos on 25th Dec. 2006, and only about 18 miles from PdL .... but this abduction was frustrated and Carolina was saved.
This man had been needing/ wanting a child every 2 years on average and Carolinas abduction didn't finalise in his favour.
Madeleine was taken under 5 months later after the Carolina attempt ... and 2 years and 7 months after Joana disappeared.
The Historical pattern is there in the Algarve, as it had been in the Porto region
-
and you missed this bit too.
The reason for the five year break in the middle? According to a forum that i read, the PJ picked up a man in , or near, Porto in 1999/2000. The son of an elite, he was interrogated and IIRC was charged (not absolutely sure of that ... possibly made an Arguido). However, according to this forum, he was released with just a warning. I wonder who was important enough to (aparantly from this posters words) pull strings to get him off?
Everything was whooshed about this forum post as soon as i mentioned it, on a Madeleine forum. Someone reading must have wioped it out.
Catkins, in her research, also found stuff about this man who was let of with just a warning.
So historically stephen, here we have a series of abductions that had moved from Porto to the Algarve ... and this man was overdue with his wanting a child.
-
and you missed this bit too.
None of that proves Madeleine was abducted.
-
None of that proves Madeleine was abducted.
No, but there are extremely strong pointers and you are being plain stubborn in not accepting that.
-
Why don't you shut down this Madeleine forum then?
It's not up to me. But if it was, I would. You're not getting anywhere, and you're making a very unhappy, demolished woman feel even more broken.
-
Well, it would appear that this is the only forum left to you lot, so I'd make the most of it, if I was you. I, for one, am sickened by the way that you pick over the bones, and try to score points. How you can get pleasure from the loss of a lovely child is beyond me. Stupid comments, and in-fighting, bitching and squabbling.....what a disgrace. Not one of you lot has done anything practical to find that little girl. Massive shame.
I'm sure the Adrian Prout supporters would have posted something similar when concerns were raised that he may be guilty after all.
-
I agree.
Talk to your collegues then shona.
Well, what can I say.
We haven't got one wrong yet. We're just really good at what we do!!
-
Prove it.
Okley dokley.
The Bamber case. How long have you got? Because we solved that one.
What else do you want to know?
-
Perhaps it's me who's naive, then. But I don't see Kerry Needham or Denise Bulger running marathons, or chatting to Lorraine Kelly, or gurning into a camera every couple of weeks.
-
Perhaps it's me who's naive, then. But I don't see Kerry Needham or Denise Bulger running marathons, or chatting to Lorraine Kelly, or gurning into a camera every couple of weeks.
I don't see the McCann's chatting to Lorraine Kelly or gurning into the camera every couple of weeks either Shona.
I see the McCann's give a statement whenever anything is said by SY or whenever an anniversary of the abduction of Madeleine is in the newspaper, if they didn't then that would be something else that would be wrong wouldn't it?
You obviously dislike the McCann's and you are singling them out from other parents of missing children to voice your dislike of them which I find is very nasty of you.
-
Perhaps it's me who's naive, then. But I don't see Kerry Needham or Denise Bulger running marathons, or chatting to Lorraine Kelly, or gurning into a camera every couple of weeks.
Denise Bulger, sadly, is the parent of a murdered child.
I had not actually heard of many cases of missing, presumed abducted, children until the Madeleine case.
Some of these other children disappeared decades ago. There weren't many ways of keeping a child's profile high in the absence of significant developments to report as news on TV, radio or in newspapers.
The high level of media attention concerning Madeleine's disappearance, together with the explosion of social media, has given other families more opportunities to remind the public of their own missing loved ones.
At the same time, they must also be acutely aware of the downside of so much interest and are no doubt wary of finding themselves in the same position.
-
This thread is titled "Why Madeleine?". In line with forum policy I am removing all posts which stray from this subject.
-
Perhaps it's me who's naive, then. But I don't see Kerry Needham or Denise Bulger running marathons, or chatting to Lorraine Kelly, or gurning into a camera every couple of weeks.
Perhaps not Shona. But Kerry Needham and Denise Bulger have their own funds set up. They have both used This Morning recently
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/kerry-needham-ben-needham-disappearance/
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/james-bulgers-mum-denise-fergus/
And Lorraine Kelly
www.thesun.co.uk/.../lorrainekelly/.../Why-have-the-Bulger-family-been-ig...
2 Aug 2013 - By LORRAINE KELLY...The bereaved parents of James, Ralph Bulger and Denise Fergus, made passionate pleas to the authorities to keep ...
Ben was outside playing by himself, he was 21 months old.
Jamie was taken from under Denise's nose, he was 2 yrs old.
They have both written books, so has Jamie's birth father.
So why are these parents different to Kate and Gerry?
Before I get slated by for comparing Kerry and Denise, I wasn't the one who bought the subject into the thread.
-
Perhaps not Shona. But Kerry Needham and Denise Bulger have their own funds set up. They have both used This Morning recently
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/kerry-needham-ben-needham-disappearance/
http://www.itv.com/thismorning/life/james-bulgers-mum-denise-fergus/
And Lorraine Kelly
www.thesun.co.uk/.../lorrainekelly/.../Why-have-the-Bulger-family-been-ig...
2 Aug 2013 - By LORRAINE KELLY...The bereaved parents of James, Ralph Bulger and Denise Fergus, made passionate pleas to the authorities to keep ...
Ben was outside playing by himself, he was 21 months old.
Jamie was taken from under Denise's nose, he was 2 yrs old.
They have both written books, so has Jamie's birth father.
So why are these parents different to Kate and Gerry?
Before I get slated by for comparing Kerry and Denise, I wasn't the one who bought the subject into the thread.
Ah DCI, the poor man's 'gilet' @)(++(*