Madeleine McCann: Torture, A Witness, Robert Murat’s Innocence And Richard Branson Investigates
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
SUNDAY MAIL front page: “MADDIE POLICE TORTURE TRIAL.”
As reported by Anorak on June 11 (see Madeleine McCann And Amaral Policing): “Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral has been accused of concealing evidence that the mother of eight-year-old Joana Cipriano, who disappeared in the Algarve three years ago, was tortured by police into confessing she had killed her daughter, whose body was never found.”
Is this the British Press discrediting the Portuguese police? Should they leave our Kate and Gerry alone? (Do the Portuguese police have a PR?)
“Lies, beatings, secret trials: the dark side of police handling Madeleine case” – If the Portuguese police do have a PR, they should get a new one.
“Madeleine: Hair in McCann Renault: ‘It could be anyone’s’” - British forensic experts have concluded the fragments said to be Madeleine’s could belong to any number of people who had come into contact with the silver Renault Scenic.
THE OBSERVER: “Maddy police: we blundered.” Remember Robert Murat?
Says a source said to be from within the Portuguese police force: “British police and crime experts also suggested that Murat fitted the profile to have been behind a kidnapping. But the Lisbon investigators were from the start unsettled about the lack of any motive. Months later, there is nothing to suggest he was involved.”
But, er, Robert Murat remains a suspect.
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: “Hope for McCanns as law on secrecy is eased.”
Plans are afoot to change the rules in Portugal. The “new law means that all suspects and third parties, including the media, will have access to police documents in any investigation - unless the public prosecutor decides that secrecy will benefit the inquiry or protect the rights of the accused.”
And the police can make their views known to the public, too.
And: the McCanns have announced an £80,000 advertising campaign to help find Madeleine.
SUNDAY EXPRESS: “MADELEINE MYSTERY - POLICE TO ACT OUT MADDIE TRAGEDY”.
No longer a criminal case. It is now a tragedy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says a tragedy is a “branch of drama that treats in a serious and dignified style the sorrowful or terrible events encountered or caused by a heroic individual.”
Yes, dignified. Who knew?
DAILY STAR ON SUNDAY front page: “MADDIE. The missing journey.”
Where did she go?
SUNDAY TIMES front page: “Branson gives cash to defend McCanns.”
Sir Richard Branson is giving £100,000 to create a “fighting fund” to help the parents of Madeleine McCann to clear their names.
A source close to Branson says: “Sir Richard wants to ensure the McCanns get access to the best legal advice. He has a good instinct on these things.”
The Virgin Sniffer will crack the case. Or will his PR and marketing departments get there first.
But is Branson right? Let’s take a look at the survey…
“According to a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times, only 20% of respondents believe that the McCanns are completely innocent. Nearly half (48%) believe that they could have been responsible for their daughter’s death, even if it was an accident; 32% were unsure. A total of 40% said that the McCanns’ high-profile campaign had made them suspicious, but 50% said that it had not.”
Tasteful stuff. But we need another poll to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Times Columnist India Knight is a McCann junkie. “I want to stop reading, listening, watching, Googling, amateur sleuthing; I nauseate myself with my own prurience. My appetite for commentary – which is all that’s left, in the absence of hard facts – has been sated many times over. But I can’t stop.”
She craves information. But there isn’t any. Unless you listen to sources”…
“Police leaks, gossip and a clash of cultures close in on McCanns” - Yesterday the police spokesman Olegario de Sousa quit “in dismay” at the daily leaks to the press.
Those Portuguese police leaks only add to the speculation and the pain. Thanks goodness for the clarity and sensitivity provided by the Times.
As the Times notes: “Maria do Sameiro Oliveira, a psychologist who does criminal profiling for the police, said she found it strange ‘how they function so much as a unit, always holding hands rigidly’ and pointed out that normally in cases of child disappearances, ‘the mother and father start to diverge, one wants to continue the search, the other not’. She added: “They show little evidence of suffering. They are very formal.”
You should not be influence by Ms Oliveria’s words. When responding to the Times’ survey, make your judgement. Make up your own survey.
THE INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY: “The McCanns: Unbelievable truth or unimaginable nightmare?”
The human interest angle and a time to look back over week of speculation.
NEWS OF THE WORLD: “MADDIE: THE SECRET WITNESS – TV boss holds vital clue to mystery.”
Jeremy Wilkins is the man whose “bombshell testimony could clear the McCanns”.
And: “Jeremy Wilkins’ evidence blows holes in the police theory that Gerry and Kate killed four-year-old Madeleine.”
Wilkins is said to be the man who spoke to Gerry McCann for up to 15 minutes outside the holiday apartments — “moments after checking on his children for the last time.”
A pal says: “He is entirely convinced of Kate and Gerry’s innocence. He believes they are a decent family caught up in an unimaginable nightmare.”
With Wilkin’s certainly and Richard Branson’s sense of smell, the McCanns may be placed once more above suspicion.
All the Madeleine McCann Faction Here…
Posted: 16th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (655) | 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
September 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
At the end of the day Branson is a businessman - for the media business it is neither here nor there whether the McCanns are innocent or guilty, it is merely a story, part of the business fodder - their bread & butter. People are jumping on the bandwaggon so they can be part of the story of this “missing child”. Is there not a book and a film in the offing? - Branson probably already has ideas on who will play him. Either way, innocent or guilty, his role will be the “Good Samaritan”.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
156, 157, 159, 162.
I have tried to post this comment just now on the Yimesonline website in response to the lengthy ‘Times’ article which was given in post 156:
“The reason for the fascination with this story is quite simple. Such facts as we have do not seem to add up to a simple case of abduction. However unthinkable, we need to consider as a possibilty that in this case, the parents have thrown up a giant smokescreen to cover up what actually happened. It has happened many times before”
September 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I’ve not seen any comments on the resignation of the former PR person. One report said she had ‘reached the end of her contract’. A very short contract then! So what’s the low down on that? Or did they simply get rid because they wanted a ‘big hitter’?
September 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Think I’ll put a bet on Dr O’Brien and Jane Tanner being the next to face accusations. I think they are definitely involved either in the cover-up for the McCanns (possibly because it was Dr O’Brien’s sedative/idea), or perhaps they were even responsible for Maddie’s abduction with an outside party (Mr Murat?), without the McCann’s knowledge. They certainly had the opportunity to remove Maddie (alive or as a corpse), as they were both absent from the Tapas at strategic times and could have hidden the body to start with in their appartment or passed it on to another person. I believe Tanner made up the story about the man with the child as a smokescreen. Judging by her photo, she looks highly suspicious and ice-cold, even making Kate look quite a ‘warm’ person by comparison.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
re (Jim) Post 159: “I am under the impression that newspaper internet sites are only willing to publicize positive views towards the McCanns at this point” - and also post 162:
REPLY: I tried to post this (below) today on the ‘Daily Mail’/'Mail on Sunday’ website comments page. It wasn’t posted. All 34 posts so far (may be more by now) eulogised the McCanns and poured bile on the Portuguese police and media and British tabloids for smearing the McCanns. There were many good wishes among the comments and of course pleas (hopeless by now I fear) for Madeleine to be returned.
What I sent to the Mail on Sunday - and they decided not to publish:
Quote
“The problem is that there are so many contradictions between what the various witnesses have said and unexplained aspects of the events of the afternoon, evening and night Madeleine disappeared. In addition, the McCanns have released selective information to the media about that last day of Madeleine’s whilst at the same time rebuffing diffiicult questions by saying they cannot comment on the investigation due to Portuguese law”
Unquote
September 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
With Branson pitching in on the McCann’s side, the odds just higher and higher! Which way will it fall. Guilty and the biggest hoax this century (I know it’s only seven years old but still…), or innocent and the worst police force in the world. Which will it be. The tension racks up - and thursday we get the first real clues…
September 16th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
159 - Anonymous. I think this is all about money. Everyone and everything has a price. I don’t know for sure if newspaper sales have increased. I can say from my own personal experience, I certainly have been browsing many more different on line papers than normal since this story hit the headlines, in an attempt to get different opinions, more news, or a snippit of an ‘exclusive’.
This is turning out to be another jackpot day for the media which probably hasn’t been seen since the day Princess Diana died. Every cloud has a silver lining. The silver lining in this case is the revenue for the media who must be rubbing their hands in glee.
When the pope died in Italy, the coffee shops in Rome put up the price of espresso knowing that they could make a fast buck from all the people who came to pay their respects to him. It’s the same mentality really but a different situation.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Jim 159. Good points.
I tried a few times to send in a comment which was questioning the media’s lack of integrity in covering this crime and the McCanns’ abnormal behavior but my comments were never posted by 3 or 4 different news sites. My husband tried as well with his own personal view on this story (like mine, not entirely favorable of the McCanns but not completely against them either - simply questioning and using common sense and critical thinking skills) and his remarks never got published either.
Something is fishy.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
157 Maicen - I never thought about the cynical angle but you have made an excellent point. However, reading comments and opinions on this forum is making me more and more cynical every day. Perhaps, I should change cynical to realistic!
I cannot think of one single action that convinces me of the McCanns’ innocence. Everything that they have done following Madeleine’s disappearance is calculated with regards to their image. I sincerely hope that they have made errors along the way which will stand up in a court of law to prove their guilt.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
158. Macien - Yes your earlier post was great. I felt there was a lot of truth to what you were saying. My quesion is: Why? Why the McCanns? I’ve been thinking of Gerry as a Rumplestilskin (sp?). Like he purposefully sacrificed Madeleine for some reason unknown to all of us - but Kate knows? And maybe 2 of the Tapas 9?
Miss Match, Foxngoose, Tony Bennett, Judith C and everyone else,
Does anyone happen to know if magazine/newspaper sales have really increased? Or are news programs claiming larger audiences & this increases the amountthey can sell commercial time slots?
I confess I really don’t know what is going on? I thought this was about finding Madeleine but it may be about something else entirely (or so it would seem?).
September 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
The way the media has made another U-Turn, now in total support of the McCanns is repulsive..Seeing their wedding pictures in the context of this intense and heavily funded PR campaign is indeed dissapointing.
I am really happy crazy anorak exists, where some out of the box thinkers can express their views.
I am under the impression that newspaper internet sites are only willing to publicize positive views towards the McCanns at this point.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
154 Miss Match
I think media Tsunami is a tad more callous and cynical… all about selling copies…so if they play the” pure innocence ” for now, then IF there is an about face , they can rant for months ,and sell millions more indignant copies about being duped by their own good trusting nature nature. I believe far more of them have grave doubts than they let on when tapping out the PR hype for next day’s issues.
I have said pretty much same as you ( as usual ) .up there around 133.. or so…
September 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
And added to that Judith c, they still haven’t been arrested and charged for leaving those children of theirs night after night alone in an unlocked apartment while they went wining and dining with their pals resulting in who knows what having happened to Madeleine. Friends in high places, or what!
They are masters of manipulation in order to deflect their part in all this, and telling everybody to look for an abductor, but don’t look at us.
I am hoping the Portuguese police go ahead and charge them with child endangerment if nothing else, contrary to what Gerry McCann has been putting around that they consulted a lawyer and he told them they did nothing wrong by leaving the kids by themselves.
I ask you, what normal rational person would even have to consult a lawyer as to whether or not it was wrong to do that? These McCanns are selfish arrogant irresponsible people, and the pity is so many are buying that they were concerned parents who would never do anything to harm their kids. Well, they did didn’t they, they left them alone in an unlocked apartment and that’s why one of them is now missing. Concerned caring parents, er, I don’t think so McCanns.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2324229.ece
this is quite interesting
September 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2459924.ece
Is this woman paid by the fund?
Has she been writing it since last sunday
I wonder how much she got
September 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I am wondering why the UK media coverage of this case is so slanted. Could it be that they (the media) cannot face the thought that maybe, just maybe, they were fooled by the McCanns in the beginning by going with the abduction theory and it would be too humiliating to admit that they have been well and truly hoaxed. Another possibility is, and one I, myself, have been thinking deeply about is that if the McCanns are found to be innocent and their child was truly taken by a stranger, I would feeel so terrible for not believing in them and having put them through so much unecessary suffering and been so judgemental when, in fact, they are innocent.
Another theory for the slanted press coverage is that no-one likes to admit that they could be so wrong about a person/s personality. To think that the McCanns, who outwardly seem such a normal, loving and happy family could be involved in such a henious crime is unthinkable and would surely shake our belief in thinking that we are capable of judging who we can trust and who we can’t. Again, nobody likes to think that they could have been so wrong.
Richard Branson stepping in to help with the legal fees: could this because he genuinely believes that they are innocent, or for his own selfish reaons, possibly wanting to portray himself as the saviour, the one who be remembered for going against the grain and having the courage to speak out against a tidal wave of public opinion, is helping to improve his own image and is just hoping that in the long run, the case against the McCanns will never be proven.
Sadly, the press coverage is not about Madeleine and helping find her any more. It is about people, and not just the McCanns, thinking about their own public image and trying to save it or improve it.
This whole desperately sad situation reminds me of the story ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’. Nobody wants to be the first to shout out that there is something very wrong for fear of the backlash that may follow. Again, everyone saving their own skin without a thought for Madeleine.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
These 5 things speak volumes:
(1) They ran from Portugal back to the UK as fast as they could when the spotlight fell on them. This is after declaring “We’re not going to bullied out of Portugal” and “We’ll not leave until we find our lovely Madeleine”.
(2) They have tried and ostensibly failed to use the Fund money for their own purposes. (They will use it of course).
(3) They have hired the most expensive lawyer to defend themselves and they haven’t even been charged yet by the police. The lawyer is well versed in defending a murderer.
(4) As ‘celebrities’ they have hired a PR person to manipulate public opinion. This is the most cynical and self-serving act of all.
(5) They are now pointing the finger at Murat whereas when he was first made an arguido they stood smugly by even expressing some reservations about rushing to judgment on him. Now anyone other than themselves can be thrown to the lions.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
141, Paulette,
See you are not on the terrace.
It was my intention to be there sipping earl grey tea and watching the newness of spring explode in colour and scent. Even went as far as disconnecting and shutting down.
Hell and I think I have free will.
Went to read Droit Fondamental as mentioned several times above and am now really sucked into this story.
If Kate and Gerry (first name terms of course, why it feels like I know them intimately) believed Madeleine had been abducted why on earth did they not look at information available at the time .
Why did they not use their fund to bring in an abduction buster.
The one person who really claimed to know what was going on was made to look like a crackpot.
You know like g and k are made to look like apple pie.
If my child goes missing, and I have seen enough to know that little kids are not particularly averse to unwanted attention from adults.
Being in the medical profession I would have seen more of the damage that this kind of unwanted attention can do.
So they believe she is abducted, but not by pedophiles.
Please let me know when it is all over and whether a new paradigm can appear.
Oh please god let my will and your co-inside and may it happen that I land up on the terrace drinking tea.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
And this was Molly commenting in post 62 back on 23 May on Anorak:
QUOTE
Molly Says:
May 24th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Yes Confused, I do find the behaviour of the McCanns incomprehensible, both before and after their daughter disappeared…
On returning to the apartment to find Madelaine gone, Kate McCann ran back to the restaurant screaming ‘They’ve taken Maddie’ - what a very odd thing to say. In the circumstances my (and I believe most people’s) first response would be that the child had wandered off - why would you instantly assume a kidnapping?
The whole abduction angle is something that has been driven by the parents - They told the police that the door and window to the apartment were locked and then had to backtrack and admit that they had left them open when the police and Mark Warner staff found no evidence of any break in…. When she was first found missing, resort staff who dared to mention that she had probably gone looking for her parents and got lost were shouted down by the McCanns, who insisted that she had been kidnapped… And it was the McCanns who fed the abduction scenario to the press - easy to do as the Portuguese Police are not allowed to comment or give any details of the investigation whilst it is still in progress. Given the then massive press pressure the police have had no choice but to fall in with this angle - however on all Portuguese Police notices she is simply shown as ‘missing’ or ‘disappeared’.
The chances of this child having been deliberately stolen from the apartment are ludicrously small - paedophiles do NOT generally work this way!! They groom children close to them and very, very occasionally will take a child who opportunistically crosses their path. Now that may have happened in this case, but the question IS - how did Madelaine cross a paedophiles path? Probably because she was wandering around lost and trying to find the parents who had left her and her siblings alone!!
It is noticeable that despite parading around for the press every minute of the day, the McCanns have yet to actually acknowledge that they should not have left their children - they really don’t seem to think that they have done anything wrong. Focusing on the nebulous ‘abductor’ who ’snatched the sleeping tot from her bed’ is an excellent way of avoiding that issue.
As for the Fund - well for heavens sake wake up and smell the bacon people … even in the Aims and Objectives of the Ltd Company it is clearly stated that the money is to be used to pay the Family’s expenses during the search (check with the Company House registration if you don’t want to take my word for it). With well over £200,000 in the bank at my last check, I would be hiring private detectives in their droves, not renting a luxury villa to house all my relatives (remember that Mark Warner have offered them FREE accommodation for as long as they need it).
Switch off the pathos for a moment and take a long hard and objective look at this whole pantomine - apart from discovering that wearing yellow ribbons, lighting candles and saying ‘Maddie come home’ a lot are all completely futile exercises, you might also be surprised at how dodgy it all looks.
UNQUOTE
September 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
(131) “It is not true to suggest that everybody knew each other in that resort. How on earth could they? Visitors are coming and going all the time!”
I wouldn’t have thought there would be all that many people around at the beginning of May.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Post 59, back on 23 May 2007 on one of the first ‘Madeleine’ threads on Anorak:
QUOTE:
confused Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Molly, thank you for your comment, finally someone that thinks the way I do. First of all, the leaving the children alone at that age speaks volumes, I don’t care what the reasons. Secondly, does anyone besides me (and hopefully Molly) find it just a tad odd that in the midst of this unimaginable tragedy the parents are a) find the time to invite the press into the most intimate moments of their day such as spending time in their home reading to their twins; or b) strolling down a bech holding hands, clutching a teddy bear; or c) visiting shrines and posting a very detailed, somewhat upbeat “daily routine” on the find Madeline website? One entry written by the father even boasted about the time in which his wife had ran to the top of some cliff, 19 minutes I believe it was. ARE YOU FRICK’N KIDDING ME?? If that was one of my children, I would be sedated someone, finding it hard to breath, not running to the top of cliffs and timing myself, and doing interviews so that the press could see how well I was coping. Please, there is nothing more horrifying that the prospect of this happening to your child and the very thought of it makeS me physically sick to my stomach and yet these two somehow manage to parade around providing the press with the ultimate photo op ever ten minutes or so.
I find the whole thing more than a little fishy and God forgive me if the parents are not involved but in my opinion they are not acting like two people who just lost their little girl, and thanks to their own bad judgement I might add. It just doesn’t make sense. And if they are as rich and prominent as the papers are reporting where are the private investigator, I would have a team of them working round the clock. AS I said, I am not in this situation and do not pressume to know what it would feel like and I pray to God I will never know but I think the parents are getting along pretty well considering the horror that has supposedly been cast upon them.
UNQUOTE
September 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
146 - correction…
Sorry Pixie meant to saythat in one report the owner was male & in the other female! Ciao!
September 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
So easy!! I’m off for a while guys, back when the children have finished playing!
September 16th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Just had a look at “The People” online. As all our info comes from the newspapers which are probably acting under orders, we have to regard this with circumspection too. However, the piece says that the CPS are probably going to launch their own inquiry if the PJ one collapses and that the PJ are probably going to charge MMcC with murder not manslaughter. Two conflicting avenues here but no more confusing than what has already evolved. But if the latest is that the PJ are hardening their line it doesn’t look like they will collapse. As distinct from those who hope the McCanns are innocent because if not it will destroy their faith in human nature, I hope the Portuguese police don’t cave in to what is undoubtedly pressure from high up in the good old UK as that will destroy my faith in human nature.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
143. Pixie,
Yes I read some of the same fuzzy-facts. One article said a man owned the incinerator the other article said a man. One report also said the Dutch owner had been in jail etc…..Just as you say. It’s hard to tell anymore. Everything is s blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Heading out now. Unless I happen to actually meet someone on the street or while we are out & about (several ex-pats in our city) I won’t be back until Tuesday. Take care
PS ~ You know you’ll miss me Moderation.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
128. Moderation Says:
September 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hmmmmm don’t like it much when your views (based of course on speculation) are questioned do you Paulette? silly silly!!
********************************************************
Look MoronNation,
Unless you are Madeleine you are speculating too.
Say it with me now:
I am not special.
I do not have any special connections.
Nor do I have any special powers.
I’m just a regular person who hasn’t had sex in a really long time.
I’m just speculating like everyone else on the Anorak forum.
Good boy! (or girl but I get the disctinct feeling your DNA contains the weaker Y ‘dude’ chromosome)
September 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I remember seeing wedding photos of the yorkshire ripper taken at the reception-catholic wedding! The bride wore white and smiled for the camera after marrying future mass murderer.
We like our baddies to look like Myra Hindlay or the Wests.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
135: paulette:
It seems someone from the Sunday Mirror actually talked to that man – so that’s more than we’re used to in this case…
Quote:
He told the Sunday Mirror the couple seemed emotionless and did not ask for the ashes, instead insisting they were scattered on local scrub-land.
Gazetadigital.blogspot uses “she” when speaking about the owner:
Quote:
Creon Stralight’ owner was famous, a few years ago, when she spend six years in jail, followind several bomb attacks, organized by a radical group, in 1988.
But it’s most likely just a typo/mistake there.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Susanna @ 137,
Nice post & it resonates with me a lot (although I know absolutely nothing about Blair’s sexual predilections - perverse or straight up!)
Don’t let it get you down. Gardening & being the sun are both an excellent idea. Add some wine or tea & that’s even more so.
Meet you on the terrace in a bit.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
was I rude? gee you have led such sheltered lives!
India Knight is not a journailst, she is a feature writer… big difference.