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
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
September 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Evidence of dogs getting excited cannot be used in either UK or USA courts becuase it is unsubstantiated speculation. Police must find evidence and produce that evidence in both court systems.
Whithout evidence, I don’t see how even a Portugese court can determine what scent the dogs found.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
……..or I should say………ALL THE SPECULATION THAT IT CREATES!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
265
Locked, and I am sitting here, trembling, with a big hammer in my hand. Someone is knocking - is it a VAN???????
September 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Stevo, not to be confrontational, as I’m not supporting any one theory, I just find it interesting to read about the other, plausible ones.
I believe I understood this right, if I didn’t please correct me. You said that you thought Madeleine wasn’t in her room that night? Can I ask where you think she was?
And you also mentioned that there would have to be a getaway vehicle, but I assume that was in response to my open question, and not pertaining to your own theory?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Stevo wrote
‘What makes the Madeleine case so compelling is that there are way too many simple, unanswered questions and the parents shy away from answering them. They hide behind the Portuguese secrecy laws when it suits them but then Kate McCann goes and tells her family that the police wanted her to confess for a plea deal. That makes no sense. Why say one thing and do another? I don’t believe there ever was a plea deal’
What simple unaswered questions?
When have did they shy awasy?
They hide behind Portuguese secrecty laws when it suits. - Oh come on! Stop talking drivel. Its a law……..end of.
And the plea deal………makes perfect sense to me.
If I believed the PJ were doing everthing possible to help find my daughter then I would button up and not say a word as the secrecy law requires. But if they started to turn things around and have suspicions about me (especially to try and make me confess) I’m pretty sure I would tell someone. Wouldn’t you?
WHAT MAKES THIS CASE SO COMPELLING MY FRIEND IS THE SECRECY LAWS AND ALL THE SPECULATION THAT GOES ON.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I guess this is the week where the Judge has to make a decision what to do next as the 10 days will be up. Anyone know what that day actually is?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
263 - there would be those that said it meant they were guilty if they said yes. There would be those that said it meant they were guilty if they said no.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
258 - I would tend to trust the dogs opinion at the moment more that the Portuguese police.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
259
He he. But I’m confused now; thought it was always the same van ..:-P
Oh, I know: the van is the killer!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Do what they do over here in the USA - hook both parents up to a lie-detector and ask them the questions about involvement. They both spout crap about doing anything to clear their name - well…c’mon then - get hooked up to a lie-detector and answer those simple questions.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Sorry, (248), 252, (263); forgot to quote the numbers!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
255 - if it has Spanish plates, lock your doors.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
255 - Candy - are your doors locked?!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
The McCanns and their friends have lied ;
about times they checked on their children
about people they saw that night
about a break in
….these people and their friends lie…
when a childs life is at stake would you lie?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
A ‘yes’ is probably what everybody would expect. Maybe it’s more about the concept, not the outcome of it.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
257 - Judge Dread
I think you incorrectly wrote 241 on your last post. I mentioned Bulger.
But you know what? Simple reigns or not, Mrs Bulger was out shopping with her toddler in a shopping centre. She didn’t NEGLECT her son by not having reigns.
The McCann’s openly neglected their kids on many nights. That’s a huge difference.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
251 - it’s an entirely plausible scenario. If the perpetrator knows they check every 30 minutes, then he waits until just moments after the last check (he knows he’s got 29 minutes to act). He also knows, from watching, that no keys are ever used on the doors.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
253
Picture of O’Brien has been printed as well… he looks like Harrison Ford, IMHO.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
(255) Yes, Candy! Be afraid! Strangers with Candy in a white van?! Are you mad?!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
243 - I think the Cadaver dogs are just another tool in the hunt and evidence gathering. I don’t know their precision so can’t comment. I do know those types of trained dogs are extremely good at what they do but I can’t comment on their use in this case because I don’t know how they work.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
241 - Jamie Bulger was enticed away from his mother while she was being served in a shop in the shopping centre. He was then seen by a woman on a bus being pulled alone by Venables and Thompson. They then made him drink paint before killing him with a brick. A simple set of reigns would have prevented his death.
Suzy Lamplugh had an appointment to show a Mr Kipper a house. Suzy was officially declared dead in 1996. The case was reopened in May 2000 when a new suspect emerged. Steve Wright, 48, and Suzy were shipmates on the QE2 liner in the 1980s before she went missing in 1986. Wright was arrested at his home in Ipswich in December 2006, on suspicion of murdering the five prostitutes whose bodies were found around the town. I have no idea what has happened since his arrest.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
(248) Maria, how would that be simple? We don’t really know she is dead yet. Obviously, the longer she is missing, along with the press attention, makes her being living unlikely; but there have been cases in the past where the abductors kept the children for years at a time.
Even if Madeleine was found dead, that isn’t a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. I’m sure, even though they may not show it, they do feel guilty about leaving the child alone (which in turn, yes, could have caused her death in the end-even though the abductor is the main culprit).
Of course, the McCanns may be guilty as well. But if they are guilty of killing their child (an unfathomable thing for most), don’t you think they could easily look some grand specialist or detective in the eye and lie?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
White van! Natasha Kampush was abducted to a white van, there is always a mysterious ‘van’ (always white) near the crime scene; but it’s a bit like with FedEx cars in films. Most of vans are white and they are everywhere (there are 2 on my street right now - should I be scared?)
September 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
243 - Rosemary
I don’t read anything at all in an inability to find a corpse. Some bodies are found quickly and others take forever or they are never found. None of that makes any difference to guilt or innocence. Bodies have been dumped in concentrated acid, burned beyond recognition, dumped at sea, etc. I doubt they’ll find Madeleine and I am disturbed by the parent’s insistence on that - complete with their “ok then clever clogs…produce a body” challenge earlier this week. I’m sure if they disposed of her it’s somewhere they’ll never find her.
These are not dumb individuals. They are resourceful, intelligent people. In short, they are capable of anything. Gerry McCann dissects human beings for a living remember.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I have waited a long time to see photos of the friends - now for the first time pictures of Jane Tanner are being printed.
Yet to see; Matthew Oldfield
David Payne
Dianne Webster
But once they are recalled for interviews no doubt we will!
Jane Tanners statement that she saw a man and a child is under scruitiny and so is her partner Russell O Brien saying he checked on Madeleine.
I wonder if the police focus on this couple and they become suspects - will the public rally behind them too???
September 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
248 - that would be a strange question - what kind of answer would you be looking for?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I think anyone watching would notice they all ate in the same place every night. The McCanns had the most vulnerable apartment, with the children’s room at the rear, next to the car park and dark road, not seen from the restaurant. Someone probably watched them in the bar, then tipped off an accomplice with some sort of signal that the coast was clear. Why is that not possible?
I see it as just one possibility.
Add to that the fact the neighbour above complained the night before about crying to Mark Warner management and it’s anyone’s guess how many people may have heard that children were left alone.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I read a few times that the McCanns didn’t have childcare on any evening.
And a white van, identical to the one owned by the Swiss peado was parked up nearby for several days prior to the 3rd of May.
If an abduction occered, I think the complex had been staked out for several days and the perpetrator saw the opportunity.
Probably took Maddie and if she woke, simply said ‘do you want me to take you to your mummy?’ Maddie would probably have said yes and was quiet on the short walk to a van.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
243 - nah, my first take is that Ylenia’s body had been there all along and the dogs missed it the first time.
Why would an accomplice return to the scene to dispose of the body?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
A simple question I suggest be asked the mcCanns is whether they would confess if they were guilty of causing the death of Madeleine.