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
- James Mcdiffett on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- 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
September 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
413, Angelo,
|It is not likely anyone will see her now, anyway, so more posters are a waste of time and money.
Someone pointed out the posters and writsbands from the site are for sale - what was the
fund money for if not for providing posters from the outset?
September 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Have you seen the reports that the police are tracing where the McCanns have been with their mobile phones? They do not even have to be in use at the time.
They clocked a lot of miles on their car - which they attribited to picking up family at the airport - of course it does not matter what the police find - a trip to the yaughting club or whatever - because the McCanns and their PR will say the police are lying!!!
This is hundreds of police lying versus 2 McCanns lying!
Which one to believe…um….er…..um…duh!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
(416) The whole not being able to hire a private investigator confuses me a bit. These people went ahead and got the press involved because they didn’t understand/trust the police there and thought it would be best. They have tons of money in the “Find Madeleine McCann” fund. Why not illegally hire one and make up so excuse? If the McCanns don’t want to be involved, why don’t these billionaires who are “so concerned” or even a family member, hire one? I suggest that because as the tides dances in and out of the McCanns favor, lying about money being used for an “illegal” private inspector could be used as good ammunition.
Surely, a good, experienced private investigator could get in there and get some information. Also, is the McCanns continue to suggest they believe their daughter is alive, and let’s face it, the person isn’t likely to keep the poor girl in Portugal, wouldn’t the tracking (the seemingly longer process for the private investigator) take place outside of Portugal? So would it still be illegal?
Oh, no. I’m advocating illegal activity online. A break is in order, soon.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
413 & 416 Angelo and Ian Willis
You’re both right of course. What I cant understand given everything that is right in front of our eyes, is do those who still think the McCanns are not involved not have ANY suspicion whatsoever about them?
September 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Jacqueline: your comments about Ylenia are spot on. I tried, mostly in vain, to follow news of her after she disappeared, there seemed to be so little available. I shudder to think of what her last moments were like. I just pray it was quick. And I feel so much sorrow for her family. But now I leave her with God, in heaven, where she has no pain or suffering - only joy. In Madeleine’s case, I almost wish we did hear her body was found, and that she did not suffer long. The prospect of learning she has been alive all this time, being abused, wondering where her Mummy is, well, it’s unbearable.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
343 Judge Dread
Yes you are clearly the perfect parent, and the rest of us are all of course hopeless in comparison. Which makes us empathise with the crime of fallibilty
Ever thought of a TV programme - might be called ‘How not to get your children murdered by school children, fall from their bunk bed etc’
Really hope your kids turn out to be perfect too
September 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Only joking. But seriously, doesnt everyone find it odd that the Mccans immediately hire the country’s top criminal law firm (kingsley napley) and are prepared to sell their house to pay the extortionate fees these greedy lawyers charge
but when it came to their “missing” daughter, they’d rather go for a jog on the beach or dress up to speak at film festivals.
i know some ppl will argue that “Portugese law does not permit someone to hire a private investigator” while a police enquiry is going on. Let me tell you something, if someone kidnapped MY DAUGHTHER, it would be f**k the law, i’m gonna use everything i got to find her, arrest me if you want.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
402:
Hi helsangel. You see – I do have a problem believing him, I just don’t know exactly why. And if you watch Kate McCann closely – her silent reaction is a bit odd, especially at around 12-13 seconds into the clip.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Why scarcely a few words of the international press on Ylenia, whose body was found half eaten by animals in a forest? Considering the case is linked to that of Madeleine, she might be half eaten by fishes by now.
I wonder if the amazing deduction skills of Portuguese police compete with that of the Swiss police.
http://www.droitfondamental.eu/06-Adieu_Ylenia-GB.htm
September 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Yet again the McCanns are spending a fortune on putting up posters to remind us their child is missing. WE KNOW!!!!!!EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS!!!!!!!
If they were innocent they would be searching - or paying people to search and follow sightings!
If they were innocent they would spend money on following up leads.
If they were innocent they would consider the possibility that their child was dead and be spending money on radar machines to look for bodies beneath the ground in Praia da Luz?
If they were innocent they would answer all 40 questions that the police asked them.
If they were innocent they would have told the truth - even if that meant saying -Oh my lord…I was so blind drunk that I cannot remember anything…
If they were guilty they would be paying a PR person to show photos of themselves on their wedding day…show photos of themselves with children…smiling..happy…as good parents.
If they were guilty they would be reminding us that there is no dead child.
they would be saying LOOK OVER THERE NOT OVER HERE!!!!
Which one did they do??????
September 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
The stated reason for launching the Madeleine Fund:
————————
Earlier on Wednesday the fighting fund to help cover escalating costs in the search for Madeleine was launched at the Walkers Stadium in Leicester by her uncle John McCann.
Speaking at the launch, Mr McCann said: “This fund will be a vehicle to help our family get our darling, wee niece back.”
September 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I haven’t posted in quite a while, but please indulge me while I make a couple of comments:
Why are there so many apparent discrepancies with the witness recollection (Tapas 9) of events? Well, that’s human nature. I’ve worked at a US bank for 15 years, and have done lots of security training and role plays of bank robberies (specifically, how to describe a robbery right after it has happened). No matter that 15 people in the training all saw the same reenactent of various robberies - after the fact, all 15 gave different versions of the event. And they all described the suspect differently. The Tapas 9 all admitted to having a drink or two, add this to the mix and it’s no wonder their memories are foggy. Plus, they were under a gret deal of stress when they were orginally questioned. And unless they syncronized their watches before dinner, and they each deliberately checked their watch before and after checking the kids, then their recollection as to the timing of the checks can easily contradict.
I haven’t seen it addressed in this forum, but have in others, but several have questioned how “bodily fluids” wound up under the carpet in the boot (trunk) of the Renault. I have seen this variously described as fluid, blood, or just DNA evidence. Well, have you ever thrown wet towels and swim suits in the back of the car after a day at the beach or the pool? Isn’t it just even remotely possible that Maddy’s DNA was transferred to the boot of the car after her disappearance, and then moisture from wet towels, or clothes, wet the carpet, and pooled in the spare tire well? Wouldn’t that moisture carry some of Maddy’s DNA with it?
I also think that if Maddy’s hair has indeed been analyzed from the Renault, then someone would have leaked long before now whether it came from her body, and if the presence of sedatives were detected.
I enjoy these forums immensely, gives me much food for thought, but you may all place me squarely in the McCann camp. I don’t think they did it.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
In this link some people are saying to me that the photo of the woman with the bruises etc looks like it has been modified with photoshop press.
Tell me what you think?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=482007&in_page_id=1811
September 16th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
400 Angelo - ‘What is not plausible is that the Portugal police and British police would fake evidence and risk a child turning up alive - losing all their jobs in the process!!!!’ Very true!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
(355)
” When my son was a toddler, he had a favourite teddy bear. We had to buy a duplicate so we could wash his favourite one and exchange it without him knowing. He grew up with two teddies - “old teddy” and “new teddy”, because one was cleaner looking than the other”
Steveo - Well of course your son knew it was not the same Bear! Old Teddy and New Teddy = Dirty Teddy & Clean Teddy. Two Teddys!
When you wash the bear, it’s never the same to a child. It can’t be washed. Washing is like buying a whole new bear. That’s the same thing w/ little security blankets. Washing a prized possession to a little youngster, is a kin to washing away the love and protection it has provided for them.
I would have had temper tamtrums if my Mother tried to take away or ever washed the stuffed animals that slept with me each night. She would never have dared to do that. She understood the importance of keeping it real. These animals and toys that kids become attached to are symbols of security and love for them.
Remember in Peanuts cartoon, there’s Linus and his blanket? When Lucy tried to take it away from him and wash it?Then she went and opened up her $0.5 cent therapy booth to treat his psychosomatic illnesses that came about when Snoopy took Linus’s blanket.
“The Doctor is in” was created by Lucy to try to wean him off of her little brother’s unhealthy attachment to his special blankie. Lucy was a cold hearted, sassy little girl, who knew nothing about sentimental values unless it involved her own narcissicm. Anyone that can’t understand that a child’s toy is sacred territory - especially a Mother of a missing child - is an unfeeling, cold hearted narcissist is probably trying to cover up evidence.
The End.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Gosh. There were supposed to be ‘frequent’ checks (that word’s been used, can’t be bothered to pull it up) but it’s out there. There were three checks, working backwards:
The third one (last one) was the discovery she wasn’t there.
The second one was Oldfield who listened at the door (so she wasn’t seen then either.)
The first one was Gerry who also didn’t see her because he said he noticed the door was ajar and presumed she’d wandered into the parents’ room (but he didn’t check that.)
So on none of the three occasions, was she seen…
Geeze. This is awful.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Would it too far fetched in this whole story for me to advance another theory…
that the Tapas 9 have all got their stories mixed up because they’re all covering up for what they were really doing - some sort of gang-bang or wife-swapping thing every night
now that bit would really get the needed investment for the forthcoming Movie!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
From Correio de Manha, a Portuguese paper - quite a carefully-written account:
———————————————————-
The witnesses that shake the friends’ group version
The contradictions that were found in the versions of the group of friends of the McCann couple have mainly been evidenced by depositions from Pamela Fenn, a neighbor of Gerry [and] Kate in the Ocean Club apartment, and from Dianne Webster, 63, the mother of Fiona Payne, who was present at the dinner of May 3 with her husband.
Pamela Fenn was heard by PJ on Monday for 4 hours, and her deposition shows some important details. The most relevant one is in the difference of 40 minutes between the moment when she offered to call the police for Kate McCann, who then said she had already done so, and the registered time of the call to GNR, informing of Madeleine’s disappearance. This witness, who was counseled by PJ not to make any statements to the media, also said she heard the child crying for her father, on the eve of her disappearance.
Dianne Webster is also a witness of some importance. The version that was presented by Maddie’s parents and by other members of the group, that there was a kind of rotation in the checks on all of their children, who had stayed each in their apartment, was not confirmed by Dianne Webster. In the version that she told the investigators, Dianne Webster, the grandmother of two of the children that were at the Ocean Club, did not confirm that organization of the couples to check their children in the apartments, and said each was responsible for ‘watching’ their own children. There are also mismatching versions about who got up during dinner to go to the bedrooms.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
(399) Ian Willis- Ahh, I thought you were speculating about the discrepancies in time where the Tapas 9 are concerned. Yes, I assume he would have sobered up and corrected that. Sorry.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
386 helsangel
Personally I cant buy the accident theory that they sedated their kids for a night out or whatever they were up to. An accident presupposes otherwise reasonable people and precludes any evil. So to then hash an amazing cover up that totally disrespects the life and remains of your daughter just to save your careers doesnt make sense at all to me though it could have happened I guess. So to me I’m afraid if they were involved it was either murder or possibly (but unlikely) she’s still alive and they all fabricated an abduction for money and celebrity. I also dont feel the abduction by a stranger is likely at all now.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
391, hi Pixie, I watched your clip. Thank you. I’m guessing that you feel his word is good enough - I may be wrong. However he hesitates and then fiddles with his ear before semi denying the sedative allegation… don’t know what that means but if someone asked me I might have knocked ‘em out!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Considering that the McCanns are so concerned with public opinion, you would think that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to prove their lack on knowledge about the mystery of what has happened to Madeleine.
This is something they could do without it ever becoming public knowledge unless the results are in their favour. Then, they could show the world that they were indeed innocent. I am aware that this would not be admissable in a UK court of law, but it would do so much to help sway public opinion which is rapidly turning against them. Are lie detectors admissable in a Portuguese court of law? I have no idea but, unless they have something to hide, it would not harm them to take one.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
386. helsangel - you are a new lot are you?
Sorry - just we have been through all this for weeks.
We all came to that conclusion - yes.
It is the most likely scenario - given that Jane Tanner and Russell O Brien had a child that vomited that night - a girl the same age as Maddie!
Dr.O Brien is a pharmecologist - or something that deals with drugs anyway.
Kate was an anaesthetologist - (excuse bad spellings - I cannot be bothered to look it up!)
The McCanns have admitted to taking Antihistamines on holiday - a drug that has a sedative effect but come on - these doctors could get their hands on any drug.
And it is not just 2 doctors jobs we are talking about here - 7 doctors were there that night!
It is plausible that they moved a dead body in a suitcase to another room.
It is plausible that they had help from friends who were also sedating their children the whole week.
It is plausible that this was not an accidental death since the child did not need a drug - she was a healthy and normal excited child on holiday!
What is not plausible is that the Portugal police and British police would fake evidence and risk a child turning up alive - losing all their jobs in the process!!!!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Wanderer I understand what you mean but dont you think its intentionally misleading for one friend to let everyone believe they “checked” on M, and only months later for it to emerge that he only listened at the door?
I dont think that misleading is due to drunkenness. He would have sobered up the following day and should have correct the false impression that he had actually “checked” on M when in fact he had neither seen her or heard her .
September 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Ian, yes, that was the scenario I was thinking as a possibility, though not in so many words.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
282 Stevo
295 Stevo
You want evidence the PJ haven’t exactly set the standard for how to conduct an investigation like this?
http://tinyurl.com/3xpbjc
http://tinyurl.com/24uqwx
But I am sure with your entrenched attitude you will find some way to dismiss it all.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
This is a major puzzle and a tragedy but it feels as if we are all invited. Is it because we are?
I’ll be happy to find the parents innocent of any crimes (but child neglect?) some day but am yet smelling a rat. Is their any chance that they under any circumstances would afford to change their testimony and storyline anyway? Do we believe that Madeleine is alive at this very moment? Do the mcCanns genuinely believe that Madeleine is alive and safe at this very moment, maybe shopping toys at El Corte Inglés and eating ice cream. So that they can focus on the twins and settling down without her. That to me requires a huge denial of evidence…OK people can refuse to face the facts when they lose a loved one…and even cling on to a stuffed toy as a substitute of that person. Are these two disturbed and heartbroken parents whose little twins are now being neglected and at risk therefore? Anyway there’s apparently no DNA or evidence suggesting Madeleine was abducted or is alive. Rather the contrary.
What about the Cuddle Cat? Would KM make sure no one can trace the DNA on it by having been clutching it all time? Had Madeleine been denied the Cuddle Cat that evening, if the cat was found high on a shelf/cupboard? This is going to need some time and thorough thinking, just what we are contributing with. At least a wide spectrum of opinions view every corner and angle.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Colette, but after the mccans tried to fool everyone by saying they were “just 50 yards away” like being “at the end of your garden” having dinner - when in fact they were much further (120m) away, through winding lanes, gates and stairs - I wouldn’t put it past them to have borrowed their friend’s child to stage the afternoon tea event.
M could still have been killed earlier in the day and they could have had longer than though to put their false abduction plan into action.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
388 Absolutely Miss Match, these people could have drunk 14 bottles of turps and still had a similar story, but from day one they have no idea who was doing what
387 Ian, if your baby went missing, you’d remember every single detail - with you all the way. No idea who Kennedy was when I was 3 but remember the day, probably because of the adults close to me being shocked
September 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
(387) Ian Willis- I hope the truth does comes out, for Madeleine’s sake.
Regarding the whole “flash bulb” moments thing, the Tapas 9 really should remember. But an article I posted a snippet out of said that the group were drinking heavily at lunch, about 2-3 (max) before dinner, where they drank 4 bottles of wine or more.
Depending on their alcohol tolerance and amount of food consumed, it is possible they were just slightly inebriated. I know I would be if I drank like that, but that is due to my own tolerance, the McCanns and their friends may have a much higher one for all I know (which is fair enough and doesn’t make them guilty or not guilty, I’m just observing).
(383) Pixie- Thanks for the information! I’m going to go ahead and post the link as the site isn’t letting you at the moment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2449020.ece
Does anyone know why the police let the cat out of the bag? You know…let cuddle cat out of forensic/evidence? Did they even check the cat?