Madeleine McCann: 100 Days Of Voyeurism And Entertainment
THE case against Robert Murat is making slow progress, or no progress. An unblinking Madeleine McCann continues to stare at readers from the front page of the tabloids, scaring parents and children via leaflets in banks and cinema adverts.
But now there is a new bad man. He is Francisco Pagarete. He is the lawyer acting for suspect number one Robert Murat.
“Lawyers sick outburst,” says the Mirror’s front page. “These bloody McCanns should just go away and leave this town,” says he. “They’re giving it a bad name.”
The Express also leads with the lawyer’s words, albeit abridged to “Why don’t these bloody McCanns go home”. The words hang beneath the word “MADELEINE”, the Express’s bold statement playing at the bold facts.
And there is more from Pagarete. “As a Portuguese person I think it is strange that somebody would leave their kids. Then, after the first thing happened, they left their twins and went to see the Pope. It was like the McCanns on tour.”
The McCanns did meet the Pope. Or, as Mick Hume points out in the Times, “as a BBC headline put it, in a Lloyd-George-knew-my-father moment, ‘Pope meets Madeleine’s parents’.”
That was the private moment played out before millions. The McCanns were doing their bit, getting spiritual succour. But why were we all invited to watch? Were the media outlets going out of their way to help one family or just giving the public what they wanted: grief.
But there was no news. There is no news. All is a public spectacle. And now the lawyer for the only suspect is the bad man who says bad things.
“You would never leave them alone like that in a foreign country and go to have a drink. It is not a normal thing,” says he.
Many may well be appalled. Others will agree with Pagarete. But these words and their reporting add nothing to the case, shed no light on the girl’s disappearance.
In any case, the McCanns aren’t leaving. “I won’t be driven out by bullies,” says Kate McCann on the Mail’s front page. This is the “Kate McCann interview”.
Says she: “Sticks and stones… we will never go through anything worse than being parted from Madeleine. We will not be leaving or be forced out. I am not prepared to be bullied into something that I don’t want to.”
So she won’t go. And tomorrow when it will be 100 days since Madeleine disappeared, the McCanns will be in Praia da Luz. And so too will be the TV cameras and the newspaper reporters.
They will want a story. And they will get balloons, doves and to review an investigation that has turned into voyeurism and entertainment…
Posted: 10th, August 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (239) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
August 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Thank you Collette … I cannot possibly take the credit for all of the research though - I belong to a forum (which includes several local in PDL) where we all research and pool the information that we find. Various of us then share it on other forums where we post, so that it reaches the maximum amount of people
On the subject of information … have you ever wondered who the 9th member of the McCann party was? Originally we were told that the party included 9 adults and 8 children, but only 8 of them (including the McCanns) have ever been named…. until yesterday’s SOL (yes I know it’s Sol, but still a potentially interesting article). Here is the full translation:
SOL on August 11:
Under the magnifying glass
SOL reveals what the McCanns and their friends say they did on the night that Maddie disappeared. Who would have died before dinner.
by: Felicia Cabrita and Margarida Davim
The tests that were made this week on the car that was used by the McCann couple, indicates that the police admits that Maddie’s body may have been moved from the place where it was initially hidden, over the last two months.
As Sol could conclude, the investigators look for clues of the cadaver in the Renault Scenic, which was rented by Maddie’s parents after the child’s disappearance. As the abduction possibility is set aside, authorities bet on the reconstitution of the route that was taken to hide the body. During this week, PJ and elements of the english police – accompanied by the cocker spaniels that SOL surprised on the beach and in a valley that is close to the resort, last week – performed several diligences inside and outside several houses. The authorities seem to have concluded that Maddie’s body is buried in the vicinity of the apartment that was occupied by the McCanns, or was thrown into the sea.
The english dogs marked the death inside the apartment. And portuguese dogs did not find any trace on the outside. This fact is devalued by Pinto da Costa, a forensic doctor, who says a perfume on the body is enough to lose the dogs. A source of GNR that was heard by SOL says “the dogs only detected a movement of the child from the bedroom to another location inside the apartment”.
At the same time, it is still unknown at what time the alleged crime would have taken place. A specialist that was contacted by SOL guarantees: “In order for the dogs to mark the body, it would have had to remain in the area where it died for at least two hours”. If so, and considering that Maddie’s parents say they left for dinner at 8.30 p.m., the girl would have died shortly before that – given the fact the alarm to her disappearance was given at 10 p.m.
Blank hours
It is in these four hours – between the time the McCann couple picked up their children at the creche and the time Kate noticed her daughter was missing – that lies th solution to this mystery. This is also where the inconsistencies are found, between the versions that are reported by the couple and their friends.
The four friends couples, most of them doctors, always said they took turns among them to watch their children (either by listening through windows or by entering each other’s apartments) every half hour.
On that night, if the mismatching versions of the group are to be believed, there were up to three persons doing the same job. It is in this context that witness Jane Tanner appears, who is married to Russell O’Brien. He only appeared in the Tapas restaurant almost at the end of the dinner, saying his daughter, who is the same age as Maddie, was feeling ill. Jane, on the other hand, would have left the restaurant to check on her daughter and verify the other children at approximately 9.20 p.m. And she walked a narrow, scarcely lit road.
On her way, she passes Maddie’s father, who is talking to a friend, Jeremy Wilkins – a tv producer whom he met at the resort’s tennis court. When Jane passed them, the two men were close to a small iron gate that leads to the back entrance of the apartment: “It’s impossible. I didn’t see her”, Jeremy said.
That gate, which accesses a small patio, and according to Maddie’s father, was used by him and Matthew Oldfield to check on the children. In that moment, the girl’s father noticed that the door to the children’s room was more open and that there was more light than usual. Yet, he thought that Maddie, disturbed by her siblings’ crying, would have gone into her parents’ room, leaving the door open. But he did not check whether his daughter was there.
With these elements, which were corroborated by Matthew, Maddie’s father left the possibility that at that time the abductor was already inside the room, in the air.
Contributing to the kidnapping idea, there was also Jane Tanner’s version, who says she saw a man carrying a child, shortly after she crossed ways with Maddie’s father and Jeremy. But the tv producer – who was spending his holidays in a neighbouring apartment block – also dismisses that possibility: “I did not see any man carrying a child”.
Jane’s testimony was one of the pieces of information that would later be used to incriminate Murat, given the fact that the arguido’s house is on the street where the english woman says the man was walking to.
Jane walked approximately 5 metres from the individual who was carrying the child. Although there was little light, she describes him with detail. The man, looking caucasian, was wearing beige trousers, black shoes and was covered in a thick jacket. According to her words, “he didn’t even look like a tourist”.
In spite of the proximity to the person who would later originate the first drawing of the supposed kidnapper of Maddie, Jane, who socialized with the girl on a daily basis, did not recognize her. According to her statement, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, seemed to be asleep and was barefoot. This was the detail that she found the strangest.
That night, after Kate discovered the disappearance of her daughter (and after Jane supposedly confirmed with another friend that Maddie was wearing a pyjamas of the same colour), Jane Tanner made no comment. “I did not want to worry Kate even further”, she later guaranteed.
A witness that was contacted by SOL at that time seems to indicate that Jane, although she never crossed ways with the tv producer, may have described the right person, so if the suspect crossed ways with someone on his way, the versions would match.
The last diligences that PJ has performed do however put aside the doubts that were on Robert Murat, given the fact that the searches did not find anything that incriminates him.
—————-
The ‘movie’ of the night
After collecting all the elements, and crossing information from various sources, SOL’s investigation makes a reconstitution of the night that Maddie disappeared.
6 p.m. The McCanns pick their children up at the Ocean Club’s creche.
7.30 Madeleine and the twins go to bed.
8.30 Gerry and Kate arrive at the Tapas restaurant.
8.45 Russell, Matthew and Rachel Oldfield go to the restaurant.
8.55 David and Fiona Payne also arrive at the Tapas. According to David, all the elements of the group were already there. But Rachel assures that Matthew arrived two or three minutes after the Paynes.
9.00 Matthew went to check on the children.
9.05 Gerry left the Tapas to check on his children. When he is returning to the dinner, he meets Jeremy Wilkins – an english man he met during the holidays – and chats with him for ten minutes. Neither Gerry nor Jeremy notice Jane or the suspicious man that she says she saw, although they were all on the same narrow street at the same time.
9.10 Jane went to check on her children and notices a man walking hastily, carrying a child. She memorizes the suspect, but fails to recognize Maddie.
9.25 Gerry returns to Tapas. Russell told PJ that at this time Matt and he went to check the children.
9.30 Matthew goes into Madeleine’s apartment. Russell O’Brien leaves the restaurant at the same time. In the first statements, Matt does not refer anything strange in Madeleine’s room and Russell fails to explain that he stayed in his apartment because his younger daughter was feeling sick. Later, Matt said that he noticed more light in the McCanns’ apartment and Russell revealed his daughter was vomiting.
9.35 Matthew Oldfield returned to Tapas.
9.45 Jane Tanner says at this time – not at 9.30 – Matthew and Russell left the restaurant.
9.55 Russell returns to the restaurant.
10.00 Jane goes to the apartment and notices her daughter has disappeared. She goes back to Tapas and raises the alarm. Everybody leaves the restaurant, except Dianne Webster.
10.05 Dianne Webster goes into Maddie’s room. The twins are sleeping.
22.15 Dianne returns to Tapas, to pick up her purse and her camera.
—————
The McCanns’ friends that the police is watching
Raechel and Matthew Oldfield
Rachel Mampily is 36 and she is married to Matthew Oldfield. The couple has a daughter, who was only 18 months old when Madeleine McCann disappeared. But now even so the Oldfields asked for the Ocean Club’s babysitting service. Matthew met Gerry McCann when both doctors worked together at a hospital in Leicester. Matt has a pending accusation for medical negligence in that hospital, after a late diagnosis resulted in the death of a patient. This was not the first time the Oldfields spent their holidays with this group. The last trip had been to Greece – where they also stayed in a resort of the Ocean Club’s group – but that time Gerry and Kate did not accompany them.
Dianne Webster
63 year old Dianne Webster is the oldest element of the group. This credit controller is the mother of Fiona Payne and the grandmother of two of the children from the group that was spending their holidays in the Ocean Club.
To the portuguese police, Dianne told she could not say precisely which elements abandoned the Tapas restaurant during dinner, on the night that Madeleine disappeared. Fiona’s mother is also the only witness that said each couple was responsible for their own children, and did not enter their friends’ apartments.
After Kate entered the restaurant – visibly upset and yelling “they’ve taken our Madeleine” – Dianne was the only one who stayed seated at the Tapas’ table. Which she only left five minutes later.
David and Fiona Payne
It was David Payne who organised the group’s holidays at Praia da Luz. The reservation was made over the internet, after a good experience with the Ocean Club’s group, in Greece. This was the second time that David came to Portugal. The first time was eleven years ago, before he got married.
David and Fiona have been together for seven years and are both doctors, like the McCanns’ friends. The couple has two children and they were the only ones in the group who used the babyphone system to keep watch over the children during dinners – which always took place without the small ones.
Fiona was back in the Algarve on July 11, along with Rachel and Russell, in order to give their third deposition to PJ.
Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner
Russell O’Brien is a doctor and lives in Exeter – the same english city where the sister of Robert Murat lives.
After studying at the same university as David Payne, O’Brien met Jane, with whom he has two children. The friendship between Russell and David is so strong that he chose him as his wedding godfather when he made his relationship with Fiona official, in Italy.
Coincidentally, Jane and Kate became pregnant at the same time, as the O’Brien couple’s oldest daughter is exactly the same age as Maddie.
Jane Tanner is one of the key witnesses in the ‘Madeleine case’, given the fact she says she saw a suspicious man, walking with a child in his arms, on the night of the disappearance. Jane describes the individual with extreme precision, although she was not capable to recognize the child he was carrying. The man that Jane saw has dark, thick hair and is 1.70 m tall.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Ok Moderation … a friendly handshake through cyberspace!
I’m sure we will agree/disagree quite often in the future, no need to be gentle with me though! Lets just agree to be civil with our comments towards each other!
I admire you for what you are doing for your son (foster or otherwise, he is still your son), and I believe that all children like him make a success out of life, no matter how long it takes them to achieve it. There will always be something that they are special at doing, no matter how small. So yes, no matter how you may have percieved my remark at first, it was not at all intended to be offensive.
I hope you have a lovely holiday, and look forward to seeing you back soon.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Okay, before I log off (it is so hard to do!!) lets call it quits Julie! Though I still think we should be able to agree/disagree? I shall be more gentle…
I’ve been called so many names on here I think I’m nearly immune but I never take it personally; I also enjoy a good spat now and again….
Son with learning disability is actually our foster son but he’s been with us for 13 years so is family. When it comes to abuse he is also of Asian origin and has very poor eyesight (v.thick glasses) So he gets the triple whammy of insults.
During the world cup he was beaten up and his England shirt ripped off him because he wasn’t English etc etc etc…… There really are some nasty people out there. But, short of locking him indoors, there’s not a lot we can do except be supportive.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Well, I suppose it was inevitable that when I commented on politically correct euphemisms, I would offend someone who has a reason to be sensitive. The trouble with phrases such as Special Needs and Learning Disabilities is that they now cover a vast spectrum of problems which, in order to avoid stigmatization (an effort I thoroughly do approve of) and perhaps to save money (which I don’t approve of), are dealt with in state schools, which may not always be the best solution. As a teacher, I’ve experienced the problems this can bring, not least to the student, in some more difficult cases. However - sorry, Moderation.
What happened to this site, Pat? We just got a little off-topic, but not very much (see Molly’s link to the Dutch investigation team above).
Mods and Admin
Saddened,
at the moment its very difficult to keep on topic, as there really isn’t , for now at least, A topic, apart from Madeleine is missing. Perhaps use the interim for ‘bonding’; a very useful pastime
June
August 12th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Moderation : my apologies to you for my use of the offending word.
I would also appreciate it if you would stop having a dig at the work I do in my spare time. Each time I make a comment, you find one little angle to have a go at, and always refer to the work I do. It is not necessary, as what I do I do for the love of children in my country. I could also have been an armchair critic, but I chose otherwise.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Mods and Admin
Julie and Moderation
In a free speech and opinions site such as this one, where personal issues may only arise from conflict, and not from prior knowledge of members which is the norm in most forums it can be difficult to know exactly a persons circumstances and that dreadful phrase of ‘knowing where they come from’.
I am sure you do work with missing children, Julie, equally no one is going to say their child is handicapped unless the question arises.
Moderation has had digs at me too, Julie, but just over lesser issues.
But I do think when a child is involved then maternal feelings will take over, and its not an occasion where Moderation can ‘rise above’
But equally I am sure if we were discussing something equally personal, such as a mugging or other illegal act it could be more of a free for all, and I should not have to intervene.
Julie, I am sure you are very good at your job and do feel wounded that your ability has been questioned by Moderation.
But what we don’t know are the number of jibes she has had to endure regarding her childs condition off site, and that is very personal indeed, and would make her very sensitive.
No, I do not have a handicapped child.
June
August 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
thanks June, I replied before I saw your response.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:03 am
June, I used the word in a sentence to put forward a point. In the same sentence I used the words handicapped and autistic. Am I know expecting the wrath of all those who know someone with these disabilities to come down on me as well? The way in which I used those words was by no way degrading anyone with these conditions!
Moderation also says to me that “I allege” that I work with missing children. Why would I possibly make up something like this?
This is not the first time that Moderation has had a little dig at me, and to be quite honest I have just as much right to answer back as what Moderation does!
August 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am
No personal grievances… sorry. Happy, healthy and wealthy.
I need no more from life personally though I would probably wish that others would be fair and compassionate, but I can see that would be a step to far on these forums!!
Off on my hols later so won’t be around for a while. (laptop and work on hol has been banned by the family) I’ll have to rely on CNN. I hope Madeleine is found in the meantime and I sincerely hope she is safe and well although all my instincts tell me otherwise.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Mods and Admin
Julie ,
Moderation has explained why she has asked people not to use words that could be seen as insensitive to some and not to others, and her child’s condition would cause her maternal defences to come into play.
I think in this instance her feelings should be respected
June
August 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
What happened to the site?
August 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
No need to get so touchy about a word that neither of us put into a dictionary! There are many words that are around that will offend one or more people due to circumstances, but the fact remains that the words were put into dictionaries in the first place to describe something!!! (As far as I know the word “retarded” remains in ALL english dictionaries).
Does not mean because I used the word in a sentence that I am an unfeeling idiot that has no sensitivity towards anyone! Slow down Moderation and stop attacking everyone because of your personal grievances in life.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I guess neither of you has a child with a learning disability then…. if (like me) you did, or if you worked with children/adults who do, you would know how offensive the word is!
August 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Don’t be silly, Moderation. Lots of things are taboo which we really ought to talk about. Like telling religious people they are fantasists, for example, to mention one which gets to me, so we have to put up with the often-dreadful results of our reluctance to condemn mad and dangerous religious ideas.
Retarded means someone who is behind the average mentally, and such people are with us and need to be recognised and helped. But it doesn’t achieve anything to re-label them Special Needs or Challenged, so far as I can see, any more than it is a kindness to award children 7 GCSE Grade Es when just everyone knows only A-C grades count.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Oh good day Moderation, I see you’re back again with your little spade … ready to take a dig at anyone!
August 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I can’t believe that someone who alleges they work with children, missing or otherwise, whould EVER use the word ‘retarded’. This is totally so taboo.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Saddened, must say I had a little giggle at the last line of your last posting. Really enjoy your posts!
As for Madeleine being autistic, hmmm I’m not too sure about that. An autistic child does not smile and interact with others as Madeleine did. Also, if memory serves me correctly, an autistic child will not look someone directly in the eye (numerous photographs of Madeleine were taken where she is looking directly at the camera).
But whether Madeleine was autistic, retarded, handicapped or just a normal three year old, leaving her and the twins in that apartment was just beyond ridiculous!
Another thought I’m having here regarding the differences in stories regarding when and at how many intervals the children were checked upon. If the party was drinking alcohol at the bar (which I presume they were), alcohol diminishes your sense of juding time elapsed, perhaps they haven’t a clue at what times the children were “checked” …. in my mind listening outside a window (as I seem to recall one of the friends did) is definitely not checking upon the well-being of a child.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Madeleine - autistic?? (Molly’s Dutch Investigation Team article). Well, I don’t know much about it but seems like she smiled and chattered rather a lot for an autistic child. Maybe she was Asperger’s? Don’t know I’d attach much credence to a sponsored (by whom?) team of ‘Investigators’ coming up with all the answers after a couple of days of interviews myself. But if she was anywhere on the autistic spectrum, that makes leaving her alone even worse - they are notoriously unpredictable in behaviour. Hard to believe, though, if she were on the autistic spectrum that it wouldn’t have come out in the media before, as it’s not something that people don’t notice. Friends, neighbours, Mark Warner Creche staff etc?
Might explain the Team McCann caginess, though, which we all sense is manifesting itself in odd behaviour. Though one has to remember the Portuguese law forbids them to comment on any aspect of the case itself.
I’m beginning to sound like some others on these sites, who speculate wildly and then resort to prayer. Must stop.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:18 am
Ringo…no…just read it off one of the Madeleine Mccann boards.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:55 am
star Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Ringo…..No it’s a sad fact that children go missing and are abused and neglected and killed in The States also.
I was just remembering a post from someone out of this country that stated it was normal to leave a baby in a pram outside a store to run in and grab a few items.
Many many moons ago star, like the 60’s to give baby fresh air but not now. How old is your research?
August 12th, 2007 at 3:28 am
star Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Ringo…..No it’s a sad fact that children go missing and are abused and neglected and killed in The States also.
I was just remembering a post from someone out of this country that stated it was normal to leave a baby in a pram outside a store to run in and grab a few items. We have had a few children die here recently because one of the parents had them in the car and was suppose to drop them at daycare….instead drove straight to work and left them in the back seat of the car all day in extremely high heat, only to be found when mom called to see where the child was. It was too late for this lil boy!!
Sorry am I reading this right? This happenened in the USA not the UK???
Should anorak.co.uk not be .com?
Mods and Admin
Anorak has always been .co.uk Its an English site (domain)/US server
August 11th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
It appears that all of these 93 comments are reacting to certain info put out by the press. Even the Portuguese officials are reacting to the latest news and embelishing it to fit there needs…they need a culprit.
Everyone is an armchair sleuth..but based on what evidence???
Even the expert Mark-Williams Thomas gives scenerios, but stops at any real conclusions. It will be interesting to observe what next weeks news has to offer.
I hope Madeleine is out there. The only evidence I have is that all the miscalculated scenerios to date, do not add up.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Molly - you are a great researcher. You are really on top of this story.
The Dutch investigation comes out with a very different reading to Brian (just as a point of interest.)
Do you have any more translation reports from Portugal?
August 11th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
that strongwood thing says Madeleine was autistic? Does anyone know if this is true?
Will ahve to sit dn and read the rest of that article…I mean anything would be helpful at this time
August 11th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Saddened … once again I find myself agreeing with you - I too read into the Times article that the Detective believes that Madeleine wandered off. This has always been my theory of choice, for much the same reasons as the article explores.
In terms of paedophilia, I honestly don’t believe that child abuse is any more widespread now than it was 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years ago - just more talked about. Unfortunately most people do not want to acknowledge that their family/friends could be a danger to their children and so ’stranger danger’ is overhyped and the whole subject surrounded by hysteria. Matter of fact education could reduce the hysteria whilst increasing awareness and thus reduce the problem.
I have to say that my own children underwent the SS safety awareness program when they were 3,5 and 7 respectively, and they have never been timid or affected adversely by it in any way - in fact I feel that it empowered them. The subject was treated in a way that was as matter of fact as the Green Cross Code, and the message absorbed without trauma.
For those who would like a psychic called into the case … the following link is for a Dutch Investigative Firm, who were hired by a large number of concerned Dutch citizens, to investigate the case independantly… a psychic was on the team
http://www.strongwood.net/news/07-08-2007-1525.asp
August 11th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I’m new to this debate and messageboards in general but let me say I pride myself in being able to make accurate judgements of people in general.
Let me also say I have made mistakes in judging people initially, and got to know them and changed my decision, although my strike rate is somewhere in the 90+ percentage area.
I have watched this case since the start and have felt that the McCann’s have acted strangely throughout, although I realise different people can react to anxiety or grief differently. The whole McCann approach has struck me as odd from the off, in terms of tone, words, body language and actions.
At one point they described their daughter not being found as disappointing, DISAPPOINTING! - If I went to Blackpool and the Pepsi Max was closed that would be disappointing, the loss of my child would be CATASTROPHIC not simply disappointing, strange adjective I would think.
I just dont like it, staying in portugal for this length of time, weird, I can understand it in the medium-term, but not 100 days, I could also mention many other strange facts about this case, but will abstain.
They feel the need to stay in Portugal, but are also happy to go and see the Pope and jet off to many other countries, we need to stay here but are quite happy to jet off at our convenience.
Would many peoples main concern after one week be registering a web address and setting up an income stream (the fund) - I don’t think so, I would still be thinking what are the LOCAL practical things I could do.
It appears to me that these sort of ideas are long-term strategies which have been put in place during the short-term, how could any rational person consider this, unless of course there was some foresight/pre-meditation (read into that what you will.
I just think there is no smoke without fire, and there is plenty of smoke when you look at the facts of this case, I hope Madeleine is still alive and ok, thats all that really matters, and If I’m wrong I apologise to both parents, but their behaviour to me is strange, very strange!
August 11th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
MADRID, Spain — Madeleine McCann’s mother was close to tears yesterday as she dismissed suggestions that her daughter was killed in her bedroom on the night that she disappeared from the family’s apartment while they vacation in Portugal.
Kate McCann and her husband, Gerry, are expected to be interviewed again by detectives after reports that blood was found in their daughter’s bedroom and evidence that it had contained a body.
The focus of the police investigation has shifted to the couple and the British friends who were with them in the Praia da Luz resort.
**a bit of FOX NEWS…..seems they are still looking at the parents. And most of the news articles say they are leaning to Madeleine being dead…It is her parents that are sayin she is alive. Well for once i have to hope along with them that Madeleine is alive.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
See what you mean Saddened.
It does seem the likeliest after all - thanks for clearing that up.
Seems they are now sadly looking for a dead Madeleine according to latest reports, don’t know what the evidence for that is though. The PJ are saying the parents are not suspects now.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Molly - very interesting link to the Times today. Unlike some other posters here, it seems to me that the detective / expert is quite clear what he thinks happened. He thinks she woke, wandered off to find her parents, and was taken by an opportunist paedophile, and is unlikely to be alive now. That seems fairly plausible to me. I don’t know how it plays with vague suggestions that there was a dead body in the apartment, or microscopic specks of blood that could have come from anyone / anywhere, and been scrubbed off by a perfectly normal resort cleaner.
What I do think is that, if she did wander off unsupervised, it will have a very bad outcome for her parents, though in my experience 3-4 year olds don’t think to put on their shoes before wandering. But then, mine were boys - and inveterate wakers / wanderers whom I never left for more than 5 seconds due to their apparent desire to commit cheerful suicide - and maybe girls are different.
But, whatever the outcome, the scenario of Madeleine waking, wandering, and then being opportunistically snatched does make the most sense.
I don’t think her parents had anything to do with it … though I do wonder why they immediately leapt to the conclusion that she had been abducted. I wouldn’t have done. I’d have first assumed she had wandered off, and blamed myself entirely. Still, people are different.
I applaud your desire to work in these sort of situations, but it’s all so complex, isn’t it? Educate children about stranger danger … and diminish their lives and freedom? Get parents hysterical about a very small but appalling threat, and the result is the same. Most paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, and are the product of abuse themselves. Most paedophiles are close to their victims in terms of friends and family, and not strangers. I think it’s probably a problem of society. We live in large cities, where people are not cherished in communities, and the strange and vulnerable become unacceptable threats to us which we cannot deal with. My eldest son has been living in London for only three weeks now, and virtually every night he has witnessed scenes of violence, racism and disaffection that he finds almost impossible to comprehend. He’s just 22.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
The noose is gradually tightening around someone, thats for sure……