Madeleine McCann, Robert Murat And PC Porn
MADELEINE McCann is missing. Still missing. And news. It is that Robert Murat used his computer for something more than looking up property prices and football results on the web.
As the Sun’s front-page headline screams: “MADDIE SUSPECT HAD KID PORN.”
Ever since Madeline went missing, child pornography and paedophilia have been the tabloids’ main line of speculation.
No meaningful debate on “every parent’s worst nightmare” has been had in the past two weeks. There have been no calls for a paedophile amnesty, a period of grace in which anyone with child porn on their PC or in their locker can contact the authorities and explain how they came by it without fear of being branded and charged. The police could then trace the material to source and catch the evil profiteers.
What we have is finger-pointing and the news that Robert Murat “visited a string of depraved sites”. And this is Murat who lives “yards” from the holiday flat where Madeleine was snatched. Or Maddie, as the Sun insists on calling her.
For those of you not yet familiar with Murat’s face, the Sun produces a shot of suspect No. 1, the only suspect. Beneath it runs the legend “web filth”.
The Mirror says: “The police haven’t told the family what is on Murat’s computer, they want to shield them..” Readers learn that Gerry McCann has been “made aware of the development” and that Kate McCann “is being completely protected from the nature of the web links”.
Until now. Until she reads the Mirror.
But what’s this? A police source tells us: “There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine. But officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history.’”
Why Murat should choose to look at such things - if indeed he did choose to and did not stumble upon them – suggests much. But if this is the sum of the evidence then are the police to search the logs of every computer in a, say, 50 mile radius of the McCanns’ holiday apartment? Will anyone found in possession of “web filth” become a suspect?
And if questions are asked, perhaps co-workers can step forward and say how they always thought such and such was a wrong ‘un.
Murat’s ex-boss Paul Titcombe calls his former employee “a huge porn fan addicted to women”. And once again we invite the police to question men who look at porn and who are obsessed by sex. It threatens to be a big job, huge even - it may even involve the police looking at some of their own - but it is vital that it is done if this mystery is to be solved.
“Paul also suspected Murat had an unhealthy interest in children,” notes the Sun. Interesting. But, sadly, the Sun does not enlarge on this. The usually loquacious Titcombe is not quoted. Examples are not cited.
And Murat remains the chief suspect – the only suspect…
Posted: 28th, May 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (107) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on Climate Gate: Politicians Investigate CRU’s Emails And The BBC Sat On The Story
- lone pigeon on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- Anorak on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Paul Wainwright on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
May 29th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Anti-idiot,
True to form of people unable to cope with a point of view different to their own, you adopt abusive, negative language which, far from undermining me, says a lot about you and your limitations.
“Ive pointed out to you the studies, go read them…” says you. As though you are some kind of authority when you are obviously not.
You need to read wider than the one “study” you quote (interestingly the same on as Ross wanted me to read) if you want to be held up as resident expert here.
Now, go ahead and call me more names - see if I care.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Jo - I can assure you I’m not Ross, although I can understand your concern that there might be more than one person in the world who isn’t battening down the hatches in preparation for Paedogeddon.
I’ve pointed out studies to you, go and read them yourself instead of cropping my words to illustrate your own twisted viewpoint, and blathering about kiddy-porn and stranger danger.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Anti_idiot Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“Jo - you’re wrong on so many levels it hurts. Saying that a market in child porn makes parents abuse their kids is like blaming video games for murder.”
Show me where I said that.
“Most people who abuse their own children do not use/have access to child porn.”
Ah, when challenged, make a sweeping statement - How do you know this? So there’s no money to be made in it then? Supply and demand and all that.
As for the rest of your post, looks like Ross got himself another screen name.
Oh and by the way, if the best you can do in a difference of views is to start throwing around “moron” and Sun reader…. I’m even less impressed that you have any ability to hold a view and argue it by persuasion rather than insult.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
They are framing Murat to get the reward money…and with the money they will build a creche and dining out facilities for tourists.
Hang on, apparently they already have these! D’oh!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? So why is he being framed?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
So you’re seriously pinning a ‘guilty’ verdict on him because this mystery man owns beige trousers, and Murat does too? Black is probably the most common colour for shoes.
I KNOW! Everyone in Europe who has medium-build, light-skin, and owns black shoes and light trousers should report to their local police station immediately, as they are obviously part of some ring!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Just to re iterate what Me and myself have alreay said..Murat is guilty..too many lies an too much deception adds up to someone desperatley trying at any costs to hie something..It cannot be coincidence that Murat was wearing beige trousers and a black pair of shoes in early photographs seen throughout the media..The only way it cannot be him is IF..all the evidence has been falsified to frame him?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Aye Ross, Jezza has a lot to answer for. It seems like if anyone is not a Team (McCann) Player, then they simply must be some sort of shifty, playground-lurking nonce, waiting to spirit away a few kids.
In a way I envy them, being able to so blatantly refute facts, and deny logic in such a consistent fashion must make for an almost sublime existence. It’s as if we all go out and buy 6cm of overpriced yellow ribbon, then all the bad things won’t exist, and the talismanic properties with protect all the other children.
You know what outraged me? Someone posted on another story “This has convinced me that God doesn’t exist” I almost cried. Apart from everything else happening in the world, in Darfur 400,000 people have died, and there are 2.5 million refugees. No-one’s wearing ribbons for them, or renouncing their faith over that.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Anti -
I tried making the same point as you earlier (in tabloid language so that everyone could understand!) but it just turned into a riot with people accusing me of being a paedophile myself and ‘protecting’ people.
Totally agree with what you’re saying, just wish more people understood the issues involved before they come out with their Jeremy Kyle soundbites!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Jo - you’re wrong on so many levels it hurts. Saying that a market in child porn makes parents abuse their kids is like blaming video games for murder. Yeah, I hear Jack the Ripper got his ho killing ideas from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
Most people who abuse their own children do not use/have access to child porn. They don’t need to. I won’t be more graphic than that. Most research commissioned (althought specifically by the likes of Langevin et al) supports the view that of any group of child sex offenders, adult sex offenders, and ‘normal’ citizens, the child sex offenders are those LEAST likely to seek out or use pornographic materials. In studies comparing child molesters to average citizens, again, the ‘normal’ people were far more likely to watch pornographic films, buy porn magazines etc.
The fact is that in normal circumstances, porn is a healthy outlet. Normal guy is horny? He knocks one out to Razzle, he doesn’t rape the first woman he encounters. Someone with paedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies gets horny? He usually does the same. It’s only damaged individuals who turn their attentions toward other people, be they children or adults. Child molesters usually aren’t paedophiles. Paedophiles are usually solely attracted to prepubescents. Child molesters are damaged individuals with easy access to children, usually in their own family, who can still maintain adult sexual relationships.
In the same way that not all child molesters are paedophiles, we must also remember that not all paedophiles are child molesters.
If you only listen to what the tabloids have to say, and don’t investigate matters further before spouting off ill-informed Sun-level tripe, then you’re making yourself look like a moron.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Anti_idiot Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“The truth is that children are in far less danger from the anonymous, porn-watching paedo than from their own father, or mother, or any family member. ”
Wrong. Its the anonymous porn watching paedos that create the market for child porn - often it is a parent (usually male) that uses their own kids but also other kids too.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
totally agree with you auntie idiot!
May 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Marcus Skin asked “Child porn in the UK is defined as pornographic pictures/movies etc of anyone under 18, is this correct?”
16-18 year olds have frequently appeared topless on Page 3 of The Sun. This of course is the paper that has, on one hand, run a ‘countdown’ on various female teen stars as they were approaching their legal age of 16, and on the other hand whips their slack-jawed readers into paedo-frenzy with torrid tales of glass-eyed nonces.
Compare this to the US where people have been charged and forced to register as sex offenders for distributing pictures of themselves topless or nude at age 17.
Also Marcus, I was going to attempt to bring up ephebophilia, but he likes of Bogan Dude think that anyone with the slightest knowledge of paedophilia or ephebophilia must be a ’sick paedo’, or ‘paedo protector’ or a sympathiser. I’m nothing of the sort, merely an educated woman with some professional knowledge of the real situation out there.
The truth is that children are in far less danger from the anonymous, porn-watching paedo than from their own father, or mother, or any family member. The media hysteria over ‘paedophile rings’ only serves two sets of people, and they are the media themselves, and the child molesters and rapists who continue to rape and abuse children and young adults in their own family and circle of friends, knowing that the camera’s eye is always pointed outwards, not in.
Truth is, as awlays, the media isn’t as interested in 4 year old Shannon *definitely* being raped by her Uncle Alan, as it is by a blonde moppet who may or may not have been kidnapped, by persons unknown, who may at some point have seen some porn.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
OK Ross…. I¡ll leave you guys to it then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
“ME”….at last someone who sees my point of view!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!! Those 2 needs to be pulled back in and NOT released!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure they don’t have little Madeleine now…. but they sure know where she is!!
May 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Susanne…
This is a forum to talk about the news, there are plenty of websites where you can post messages of support for Team McCan’t elsewhere on the net.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Marcus Skin Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Child porn in the UK is defined as pornographic pictures/movies etc of anyone under 18, is this correct?
I could be wrong but I think child porn is under 13.
13-18 is under-age & illegal porn, but not ‘child’ porn.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
How sad it is to read all this nonsense……I thought the main object was to try and find Madeleine. But some of you seen to just want to enter into some kind of disgusting slanging match???? For what purpose??? A poor little innocent girl is out there….desperately needing to be found and re-united with her family!!! Her family are going through absolute hell as well…. and you guys just want to sling mud?????
May 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
HMMM…..the suspect seen holding a child at the time of maddies disapearence fits Robert Murat to a tee ! bet if the cops searched his home they would of found the beige trousers the witness saw the man wearing… I KNOW FOR A FACT !! that he owns a pair of beige trousers as he is seen wearing a pair when he was snapped by a photograhers in the early days of the investigation !
And now they say he has child porn on his computer ? He lied about his wereabouts on the night inquestion…he ask a dozen people for an alibi….he made a midnight phone call to the russian guy even though he said they dont really know each other that well (midnight phone call to someone you dont know that well ??) Why phone him that late at night anyways ?? did he have computer problems that he wanted to sort out at that moment in time ?….the russian guy formated all of his computers just hours before the police took him away for questioning
Both men have lied not just once but mnay times…so if you ask me Robert Murat is guilty !!!
May 28th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Oh dear, you’ve just proved my earlier point bogan dude, with both your response to Ross and your answer to my question. If you cannot post a reasoned opinion, don’t bother. How many G&T’s have you had now?
May 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
anyway i am off… you people are on another planet.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
in the arse jane.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Where?
May 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
ross dude…
so you have a “Have a piece of paper to prove it and everything!” that’s not quite the same as being fucked in the arse, but it’s a start.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Jo -
You are welcome to think what you want!
I’m not professing to be an expert on these issues, but I do think I have a fairly good idea of what I’m talking about. Have a piece of paper to prove it and everything!
Anyway, as I said, this research can be found in most libraries and certainly online so no need for a piece of paper to know what you’re talking about.
Thanks for your intelligent and mannerly response Jo!
May 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
marcus skin dude, salut: but, how on earth does someone judge someone’s age from a picture ? are they 16, 17, 18 or 33… however; i agree, with what you are saying… these toddler pedo fucks are the worst of the worst and perhaps deserve their own label.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Child porn in the UK is defined as pornographic pictures/movies etc of anyone under 18, is this correct?
Considering the definition of a Pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children it just doesn’t seem to sit easily with the bizarre tabloid logic of child porn (18 and younger) = Assume Pedophile = monster child killer.
Common sense..
Maybe a clear distinction between what is imo actual child porn i.e what a pedophile is attracted to and porn that contains images of older post-pubescents or teenage content. The teenage stuff is no doubt illegal and perverse but certainly imo not in the same league as the very sick and twisted stuff with babies/toddlers etc. To lump it all in together is wrong!
This type of confusion only leads to people being labelled incorrectly, given stupidly harsh sentences… something we have see time and again ala Ore.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Ross.
Your postings don’t come across as someone who has a professional role in these matters, I have to say. More like someone who has trawled the web and picked up info out of context. Its a highly complex area. There is really no distinction to be made in child protection terms however.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
jane dudette, you missed a comma there though in your last post
May 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
i feel i’ve been a bit harsh on you all… sorry.