“MADELEINE ‘smuggled out of the country on a boat’.”
The Express is making the Madeleine McCann story its own. Should there be any information of the missing child, the Express will be able to flick through its scrapbook and point to the line that confirms that it was first with the truth.
Of course, to get to the kernel of truth readers must make their way through pages and pages of speculation. And today they learn that Madeleine McCann was taken from Portugal on a boat.
The paper says detectives have uncovered details of the route the youngster’s kidnappers took. The details are sketchy – was it a boat or a yacht?
A police source says: “It is a strong line of inquiry. We believe Madeleine is no longer in Portugal and this is the most likely way of taking her abroad.”
And who took her? Was it Robert Murat? The Express hears a witness say they saw a man rushing to the seafront on the night Madeleine went missing.
The Express has a picture of Murat, suspect number one, walking with his lawyer. But he has never left Portugal. Indeed, it was his presence around the crime scene that sparked his being named as the chief suspect.
And there is Gerry McCann saying goodbye to his wife Kate. He is off to America, a long boat ride away from Portugal.
“Kate and I felt it was important to make this trip to America,” says he. “It’s not that we think Madeleine is in the US. But it is predominantly a trip to speak to the top experts in the field of missing children.”
No, not the Express…
Posted: 23rd, July 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (87) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Cheryl on US Forced Fort Hood Murderer Nidal Hasan To Join The Army
- eggman on Virginia Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki Hails The ‘Hero’ Nidal Hasan’s Lap-Dances For Allah
- eggman on US Forced Fort Hood Murderer Nidal Hasan To Join The Army
- Graeme (aka eggman) on Zhu Zhu Pets Turn Your Dead Go Go Hamster Into A Thing Of Fun
- Cheryl on Virginia Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki Hails The ‘Hero’ Nidal Hasan’s Lap-Dances For Allah
November 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I really hope and pray they find Maddie before Christmas! What a wonderful present it will be for the parents to finally have her back! Her brother and sister to play with her again!
Please make a miracle for Christmas!!
September 7th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
If the blood forensics ar correct, and this is a hire car, who had it the night maddie disappeared?
If anyone knows how to pass this question on I would be grateful.
Just want to help.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Kris - for heaven’s sake, Police Psychics?! No psychic has EVER solved a crime. If you believe that, you believe anything. Anotherr thing: I don’t think Portugal would take kindly to being referred to as a Third World country!
August 6th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Anyone still talk in this forum anymore? I haven’t noticed much talk or posts lately. I wanted to gauge others opinions on the latest news about Madeleine. I am holding out a great amount of hope for the DNA that they are testing from the Cafe’ in Belgium. But just when I feel hopeful about this tragedy that happened, you get hit with reading other stories on the internet at the same time. Does anyone know what is up with the warrant to search the suspects home? And what is making them believe they may be looking for a possible body there? I feel somewhere I missed something. Was there something that they told the parents that made them believe this that wasn’t released to the press? Or did I just not see what information lead them to this conclusion by way of the media here in the U.S.? Can anyone who may have read anything fill me on this? I feel like any hopes are dashed when reading about this search after just reading that they may have seen her in Belgium. So why the clearing of the brush? And the sniffer dogs? Please someone in here fill me in, because I am so torn up and consumed about this case and this little girl.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:11 am
Response to Kris
I don’t know if the forum is dying out or not but I have read that it is possible, in theory now, that chances of finding Madeleine might be better without the public notice that was originally sought. The theory is ????, I think, based on the fact Madeliene will be kept well hidden with all the news. Could it depend on the area where Madeleine is being kept and how much public awareness exists already and how long would it take for the public to forget and someone with Madeleine to feel safe????? Could there be an advantage to people being afraid to move around with her, such as the police have an easier time once there is a suspect? Would it be more difficult to find Madeleine if she can easily be moved from place to place? I suppose the police work is hard and they can only hope to make an accurate guess. Maybe the fact there is already much public awareness and recognition involving Madeleine’s case that now it is time to try the other approach? Could it be other issues that surfaced due to Madeleine’s abduction, such as accusations about discrimmination involving possible neglect, need to be silenced. If so, there would be only a brief lack of want for public awareness and the campaign would then try to bring the abduction back to life full swing in such a way to leave the other issues behind? Too bad the public aren’t conditioned like sniff dogs and don’t have opinions but only told what to sniff for? Who knows? Now that there is a huge public donation of money the public is no longer needed and there are other ways to find Madeleine? Only time will tell the tale.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Knowing how difficult it is to sort through what is reported just keep in mind that there might have been someone around the complex with a much more dangerous profile than Murat, regardless what he had on his computer. There were also people with far better access to Madeleine than Murat, the McCann friends for example. It is hard to determine from the map I saw how Murat could have been aware of the McCanns in the first place. The map I saw indicates Murat could only possibly see the back of the McCann apartment from his house. There is not a theory that I have read about how Murat learned so much about the McCanns? I don’t know if Murat was involved but from what has been reported there is something supposedly fishy about his alibi because he told one person he was with a girlfriend and then said he was home with mom. Does that mean something is fishy or has anyone asked or determined if his girlfriend could have been in bed with him at his mom’s? I don’t know so that is why all of this is hard to sort without all the facts. So, supposedly Malinka reportedly called Murat’s phone number and Murat’s mother’s cell phone. How can we be sure from that report that Murat spoke to Malinka himself. Could his mother have said Murat was asleep or right in the middle of something with his girlfriend?
In a recent article about the McCanns Madeleine’s grandmother said Murat has a lot of questions to answer. From that I assume the McCanns at least think Murat is suspect. Even with that thought in mind how jumpy would the McCann nerves be about every possibility at this point? I don’t know. I ususally ask what the mother’s instinct is right at the very beginning before all the other thoughts and opinions have time to overrule the raw instinct???? If it is true that the mother ran and said “they took my baby” then who was she thinking took her baby? Check that out first. It is unclear to me if the mother actually said that. Does anyone know more? Start there and then rule out or what else might have happened? Regardless of who might be suspect, if the child was crying and screaming in the apartment on a previous night, which has been reported, could other people become aware of the children alone and more than one person around an opportunist? Maybe that isn’t as likely, I don’t know, but how can you ignore the possibility?
July 28th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Is it just me or is this forum dying out?
July 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Go to the forum No-One Above Suspicion and read Frances Wicks’s post of 5:37 pm today, where she tells everybody, gleefully, that she has been paid to be on here all along, and that now her work of defending the McCanns is done.
And she has the nerve to accuse Anorak of dishonesty.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Pete’s translation … it was child porn.
I’m far from naive … I simply prefer to deal in known and verifiable facts, and occasionally to extapolate a POSSIBLE theory from them. Bending or interpreting facts/ambiguous statements to fit ones own bias and then posting ones opinion as if it were unquestionable truth is both pointless and blinkered.
Molly
July 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”
I quoted The Sun (I actually read The Scotsman) because its the biggest selling UK tabloid, I could have used any number of newpapers but I chose the one with the largest readership.
Its posted as an example of Murat’s ‘relevant sexual history’ and kid porn being in the public domain -
A police source said:
“Examination of Mr Murat’s computer has confirmed an unhealthy appetite for deeply disturbing material.”
The Murat fan club translation:
It was just a Casanova video
Who’s being naive ?
July 26th, 2007 at 10:15 am
sm - murat fan club chairman, why you posting the same thing on all the forums, if he is subject to silence, then he has told you an awful lot of facts or are you involved too, cos you know more than the sun
July 26th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Well, I did say that Pete was displaying breathtaking naivety.
Now it seems he believes what he reads in The Sun. ( But selectively).
I rest my case.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
and your point?
Murat and his representatives aren’t allowed under Portugese law, to comment on anything to do with the case. However his lawyer did, with the agreement of the PJ, categorically deny there was anything other run of the mill porn on his PC.
And this was in THE SUN (the other organ of truth) nearly two months ago.
Go away and update your facts!
July 25th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Can I remind you that Mr Murat is not ALLOWED to make statements about the case?
Even if he had broken PJ imposed silence you would now be claiming that the speed with which he ran for a lawyer implied his guilt.
You believe everything you read in the Sun? Lolololol
July 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Neither Robert Murat, or his “spokesman” (who is that?), or his solicitor, are allowed to make any comment whatsoever about specific matters relating to the Madeleine McCann case whilst he has Arguido status. That has been made clear. He is therefore not allowed to respond to the press, they know that.
His day will come. That’s what keeps him going. That, and the very many expressions of good wishes and people’s prayers that he is receiving.
Many people from lots of different places are very disturbed about this witch hunt for Robert. I can assure you he is receiving a lot of support. That is what has kept him relatively sane through all of this, and is what keeps him going now. His life is very difficult.
I’m not as good with words as some of you. It’s a pity your talents for writing are put to such negative and destructive use. With no basis in fact. You don’t know any important facts at all.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Being sued for libel ? I’m sweating more than Robert Murat at a bouncy castle. Check this out, probably 5m people read it.
Maddie suspect had kid porn
The Sun (Front Page)
May 28, 2007
MADELEINE McCann suspect Robert Murat viewed child pornography on his computer, it was revealed yesterday.
Briton Murat, 33, visited a string of depraved websites.
A police source said: “Examination of Mr Murat’s computer has confirmed an unhealthy appetite for deeply disturbing material.”
……. a very clear statement from those fine chaps at The Sun. No denial from Murat or his spokesman, no lawyers going for libel and not even a phone call to press complaints ? Draw your own conclusions, the silence speaks volumes.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
To be honest I dont give a F**k about the mccanns they are functioning alcoholics as far as I can see, who messed up big time leaving those babies on there own, they should be brought before the courts and prosecuted for negligence.
Just want to see if the child turns up thats all, pretty simple.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Why thank you Jack - another one sucked in by the McCann circus.
Must go - got to see if she beat her running record and whether he has met the Beckhams lately. Good to see they care so much.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Until there is some resolution to this there will be speculation. As the very interesting MWarner posting last night states, there are two separate issues here 1) a child is missing seemingly into thin air, and 2) her parents neglected to care for her or make adequate provision for her care that night or any night of their holiday.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:45 am
nice input Eric - nothing better to do than read about these things then. Sounds like you have had a happy life
July 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am
“What happened to good old justice?”
But Moderation, Pete just told you. The super competent police in UK and in Portugal are seeing it done 99% of the time.
It’s Pete’s naivety that’s breathtaking.
I may be wrong, but I believe you can’t get Legal Aid to sue for libel. That is why the tabloids get away with dishing so much unsubstantiated dirt at ordinary mortals like Robert Murat. Elton John can afford to sue. I doubt if Murat has that kind of money.
July 25th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Once again any chance of a sensible debate has been crushed by all the mad allegations, misinformation, accusations and even downright lies.
I’m srunned at so many posters taking note of everything SOL (with its own agenda) says. Its a bit like taking as gospel the pap in the National Enquirer.
And of course with SOL much is also changed in the translation to fit the leanings of the translator.
What happened to good old justice?
July 25th, 2007 at 7:33 am
JUst read the views on this forum and you know what - I couldn’t give a fuck for the kid or the parents, and as for all you “I cry every night” tossers, I bet you are the types who put flowers down at the scene of the death of someone you never knew.
The circus surrounding this “tragedy” is just typical of society these days - celebrity obsessed parents being fawned over inadequates who have to live their lives through somebody else’s.
Take my advice - go to the top of a tall building and jump - you will make the world a better place.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Ohhhhhhh if true, the holiday routine gets more confusing… If there are named individuals who heard McCann children crying while alone that doesn’t sound good. Just the fact that the routine of the McCanns was discussed enough that they were “offered” monitering could have made people aware of an opportunity.
Early on I read the children were left alone because the McCanns felt they could watch the apartment, etc. Eventually I read that Madeleine was medicated because she is a sleep walker. Now supposedly the children were left alone while the parents left the resort Tuesday night?. Reported many sources the door was unlocked. Finally the McCanns say Madeleine could have been abducted if they had been there. My question is did the McCanns lock the door after they turned in for the night? If so, the McCanns were more concerned about safety after they were in for the night than when absent? No, I can’t understand the logic.
When I first considered the circumstances and it was said the McCanns didn’t like leaving the children with strangers I could try to understand, so they can see, they are checking, a false sense of security, etc. Now it is known the McCanns left the children in care of others during the day, which they also did with the twins after the abduction. I don’t understand the logic the children were okay with strangers at child care during the day but not at night. Locking the door alone might have prevented the abduction.
Maybe possible the door was left unlocked because so many people were making checks maybe it was too much trouble for the party to pass the key around each time?
Someone posted about phone calls between Murat and Malinka. Last night I read that it was Malinka who called Murat’s land line and then Murat’s mom’s cell phone. The information was unclear whether the land line was answered at all and unclear who Malinka spoke to on the mother’s phone. Until there is more detail it is possible to assume Murat didn’t speak to Malinka? I have not read reports stating Malinka denied calling Murat. I have only read that Malinka said they had a business relationship and so on. Also, I saw a map area posted. To the best of my ability with the map given it appeared Murat could have only seen the back of the McCann apartment, the parking area, from his residence. If the coming and going of the nightly routine took place in the front I don’t see how Murat could have learned about the McCanns, Madeleine, the nightly routine or anything else from where he lived. It is possible he could see the parking area during an abduction. Keep in mind the map didn’t picture hedges or other vision blockers so I can’t even know for sure if he could view the back of the apartment. Again, knowing nightly routine well enough to plan an abduction would require a close inspection. ??? The situation with the phone calls remains so detail unknown that it is hard to determine much about Murat’s possible involvement from the reported calls.
If there was a planned abduction how could it be that the abductor or abductors get so lucky that child is medicated, left alone, and the door is unlocked, if true? It would be more likely there was a close inspection of the routine so the abduction was planned as a result, unless people in the McCann apartment were involved. Maybe possible there was a stranger planned abduction and the McCanns were targeted due to the nightly routine. Anyway it goes so many odds other than someone the McCanns know is involved or someone saw an opportunity due to the nightly routine. If the info regarding the nightly routine is true that would suggest quite a false sense of security. Ohhhhhhhhh, what a nightmare!
During the nightly checks there are the red flags which were overlooked. Mr. McCann supposedly said he found the bedroom door open but decided everything was okay. Mr. Oldfield reportedly mentioned, at some point, thinking there was more light in the room, Ms. Payne saw a man walking fast with a child… if true all of the circumstances could have possibly stopped an abduction. I suspect that because various people were checking Mr. McCann could not know whether someone in his party left the door open, ???? not sure what Mr. Oldfield saw about light???, and Ms. Payne now believes she actually saw a man walking off with Madeleine.
Not only did the group have a false sense of security about nightly routine decision making but they managed to overrule instinct and possible red flags throughout the abduction. I assume they were sober when making the nightly routine decisions. There have been a number of reports the McCann party drank and could that have affected their responses to red flags such as the bedroom door open, more light in the room, etc ???????
One thought is why that particular night instead of the night before or the night after Any reason for that in the planning? Madeleine is still missing. Hopefully someone will take her back just as they carried her away.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:46 am
To many shoulda, woulda, coulda’s on that one….AM. Sorry but that scenario sounded to far fetched to follow. I no longer condemn them, but I do hate what the choices they made on that trip. I just want to hear this baby is found.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I have read today on another forum that the McCanns dined further away from the apartment on the Tuesday evening and also that somebody in another apartment had heard one of the children crying.
Have heard that Gerry and Kate McCann are outraged at criticisms being levelled at them.
Had they had a babysitter through Mark Warner that evening and that person had left the apartment for half an hour and Madeleine was missing on their return, I am sure the McCanns would now be suing the backsides off Mark Warner and the babysitter would have been arrested on suspicion of involvement.
I know they are suffering immeasurably now but their defensive attitude does them no favours.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Pete, once again your arrogance is breathtaking! And you keep showing your ignorance by making statements that are not fact.
” … the tabloids have lawyers that clear this sort of major front page allegation legally before its reaches the news stands.”
Oh yes, that’s why they are always having to defend themselves in court is it, and losing, or having to make out of court settlements, e.g. to Elton John - and many others. The fact is, they don’t care if they are sued. They’ve already made enough money to cover expenses and fines.
Again, you’ve got it wrong. As has been said on here many, many times, there was NO kid porn on his computer!!! Porn, yes, allegedly, of the “straight” type, i.e. men and women, and also apparently some bestiality. Allegedly. OK, so he may have strange, slightly disturbing sexual tastes IF the bestiality part is true, but that does NOT make him a paedophile.
If Robert Murat did decide to take a tabloid to court when the dust settles, it would make the headlines, but he would welcome the chance to clear his name if he is innocent, and to get his own back on, for instance, The Mirror. As I said, the tabloids don’t really care, they’ve already sold millions of papers on the back of this, and they can afford to pay out.
The question is, can you? The poster sm (his sister Samantha Murat? - no, probably not, she’s probably got better things to do) pointed out that you may be sued for libel. There are thousands of libel cases heard in the civil courts all the time. They don’t make the headlines, but they cost many people dearly. A case like that could cost you dearly. In fact, it could break you. If Robert Murat is innocent (probably) don’t you think he is going to have a deep bitter resentment against people like you (and Anorak for encouraging you?) If I was an innocent Robert Murat I would certainly want to sue you.
Being an “anonymous” poster on here won’t protect you.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I love Pete!
I think we share the exact same views on all of this. Like reading your comments! :>
July 25th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Colin Stagg was a major miscarriage of justice but I fail to see how his case has any relevance to this case ? 99.9% of the time the police get it right. They’re actually very good at their job. The experienced investigators in this case are very capable clever guys (both English and Portuguese) and probably know exactly what happened and who did it. Murat hasn’t fooled anyone, in fact he’s made a catelogue of blunders that led the authorities right to him.
As for the tabloids being sued by Murat- you’re having a laugh. Murat doesn’t want his ‘relevant sexual history’ discussed in court and the tabloids have lawyers that clear this sort of major front page allegation legally before its reaches the news stands.
Murat on the witness stand explaining away his kid porn - I’d pay to see that. Its an easy allegation to easily disprove or prove - the forensic computer analysis of his PC will prove either he did or he didn’t - its just that simple.
I’m happy to say Murat is a paedophile, the press, both in the UK and in Portugal share my opinion.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
MWarner - are you using that name because you are in some way connected with the Mark Warner people - they that run the holiday complex where the McCanns were?
Are you trying to indicate that you have some inside knowledge - mentioning Chaplins and Mrs Senn for example. I have not seen those allegations anywhere else.
Or are you, as I suspect, just trying to be sensational and trying to make it appear that you have some knowledge denied to the rest of us?
July 24th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
The McCanns dined out every night of their holiday while their poor children slept alone. They are lucky that this happened on the night they chose to dine in the tapas bar and not Tuesday for example when they dined in Chaplins, below their beloved church, near the beach, 8 times the distance away. They never once checked on their children as they claim, ask the staff!
Talk to elderly Mrs. Senn who lives above and she’ll tell you on that particular Tuesday night she had to sit listening to one of the children “screeming, crying” from 22:30 til 23:45. They went to dinner around 19:00h. Those poor, poor children.
Yes, they should be prosecuted. How DARE they preach to other parents and try to teach us safety measures to ensure our children are safe from predators? How DARE they take the positions of heroes? How DARE they commit this crime upon poor Madeleine? Yes, they did it. If a child was abandoned on a rock surrounded by ocean, fell in and was eaten by a shark, who would you prosecute? The shark? They delivered their baby to her predator. I fear for Sean and Amelie. They haven’t “learnt their lesson” as some idiots keep saying. They deny doing anything wrong and still galavant around the globe doing their holier than thou parade while their remaining children are left to (I’m positive) much more competent care. Why did they use the creche all day every day and decline the night time services? Why, when staff got worried did they also decline the monitoring services? What were they afraid of us monitoring? Stop protecting these monsters. Stop raising them to saintliness. They’re criminals. Why are people so PC? If they had been Portuguese they’d have been charged within hours and their twins removed from them. I just hope that whoever took Madeleine took her because they witnessed her parents’ total lack of care and thought she deserved better. There are lunatics out there who’d do such a thing. We have 2 seperate issues here, please stop getting them confused. We have a poor missing little baby who has been taken away from her family. We have a complete separate issue: two so called parents who committed crime (on a regular basis). YES they should be prosecuted. YES, YES, YES.