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 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
504 Tuscany
and remember that Kate trained as an anestheseologist.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
The Real Stig
I’ve read lots of reports of the upstairs neighbour reporting Maddie crying. I havent read a single report (unless its in the Gerry-loving Mail) of the neighbour denying this.
Why in any event would an 82 year old woman false report a crying child? what has she to lose or gain from that?
If she did retract the report, it was probably under pressure from the mccan brigade, but pls provide a source to your denial report.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
While we’d all like them to use the funds for Madeleine to search for her, perhaps, because it is considered illegal and the way the fund was set up (I have no idea how it was set up). There is a basic clause about it not being used for criminal activities? Where is Richard Branson’s money now! Blast!
September 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
501 - Yes. Far better in the mail’s view to discard all evidence, and then you can have whatever theory you like. Abduction sounds good. And off they go… Truly awful level of reporting - their editor should be ashamed.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
492 ian willis
The crying report is untrue.
“Pamela Fenn, 81, who lives in the flat above, is reported to have heard Madeleine crying for her ‘daddy’ and sounds of ‘violence’. Mrs Fenn has since denied she told police any such thing.”
September 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
495 Simon - I agree with you about the sedative, I don’t think the kids were given one. But in terms of helping them fall asleep - here in the States is an over-the-counter allergy med called Benadryl. It comes in adult and child doses. One of the side effects is drowsiness. A nurse told me that there is a prescrition drug for sleeplessness that contains the same ingredient as Benadryl, but in a higher dose. And because it is sold as a prescription, it is expensive. She said it iis not uncommon for some people with insomnia to use Benadryl instead, perhaps taking more than directed on the box. I wonder then, if I took Benadryl, and “overdosed”, and a blood test were done, would they say I had overdosed on an allergy medicine, or sleeping pills?
I do know parents who give their children Benadryl to help them sleep. Maybe the McCanns did something similar? Not too smart, but not exactly criminal either.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
481 Tony Bennett
Quote
I think btw it was a vision that Gerry had at the church in Praia de Luz the second Sunday after Madeleine was killed/abducted - a vison of much light at the end of a tunnel - that ‘inspired’ him to open up a world-wide campaign for her return. There’s a bit about it in a Roman Catholic newspaper
UnQuote
Is this the same divine inspiration to open an online shop
September 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
492. m.e.
I beleive the McCanns were not involved in the abduction of Maddie.
There are three things that make me wonder if I was wrong.
1) They made it easy for her to be abducted. They conciously left the doors unlocked a relatively exposed apartment. Why
2) The twins did not wake in all the commotion. Why?
3) They did not use the fund of money for what it was collected for/ Why not?
Had point 1) not happened, Maddie would still be around. Had 2) and 3) been different, I would just suspect them of being bad parents, not possibly complicit in something more sinister.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
It is so funny to see the sheeple being herded by the media who are herded by the goverment who are herded by the banks who are herded by the multibillionaires that own them….
Believe the McCanns….do not believe the McCanns….and on…and on…and on…
For centuries we have been herded by the people at the top who play games with us sheeple as if we are pawns in a game of chess.
One country fights another and the people at the top profit no matter who wins or loses - they back both sides - and start the arguments - be it over oil or religion - they are laughing at us.
The McCann case illuminates very brightly how we are manipulated by people with money and power through the media.
What would happen if we all woke up one morning and decided not to play anymore. No more sending our children to their deaths in their armies…no more sending our children to be brainwashed in their schools….no more paying for their Royalty to look down upon us….no more reading their papers and watching their television programmes…….if only!
I am off to bed in a minute - but if Spudgun or Bulldump arrive - listen - they now their stuff! - goodnight all x
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3avVyf1OMjQ
September 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
488 maicen
its called ’spin’. I wonder which one of the McCANN PR team directed the mail to this. How come all the supposed evidence is gradually being disputed. Why do police use sniffer dogs and dna evidence to build cases then now all of a sudden because of the McCann case such evidence has now become TOTALLY untrustworthy. Strange.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
ok just read the mail - same ol same ol how good the McCanns are, and how they are after the US evidence for destroying the sniffer dogs case. At least Eddie cadaver dog, didn’t scratch his nose uncomfortably during questioning
September 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Branson would sh** his own grandmother if he thought someone would film it with a Virgin-logo plane flying in the background.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
483 tony bennet
“Who said ‘accidentally’?”
Oh I know dear, why don’t we all fly down to Portugal for a family holiday - we were thinking of getting rid of Madeleine anyway. That way she can at least have some fun at the beach before we kill her. Thats a great idea, I’ll ring the travel agent..
Heres a pic of someone plotting to kill their daughter - it’s so obvious from the body language - look how cold he is, he must be thinking evil thoughts:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22426211-2,00.html
You have a few roos loose in the top paddock mate - better see someone about it.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Is there any way of putting together a petition to let Branson know what a complete tw@t he is by giving them £100K.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
(487) That didn’t really answer your question, sorry. I doubt we’d know, I’d hope we wouldn’t know, if the police were going to charge people trying to help with the case that they feel they’ve solved/hit a dead end with. But I understand why they’d want to be in control of things as well, it’s just a complicated situation.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
479 - Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of insanity!
I do not beleive an overdose is credible. That is important. Sorry if I misled you.
I do think the kids could have been sedated from time to time, including possibly that night. We hear anecdotally that the kids were a handful. Perhaps they occasionally had a little something to calm them down and get them of to sleep.
Then an abduction occured.
We also read regularly about the concerns that whilst all of the noise and activity was happening looking for Maddie after 10pm that night, the twins continued to sleep soundly. It follows that the twins could have been sedated too. That is one of two or three key things in this affair that make me wonder about the innocence of the McCanns.
If they had sedated all of their children and accidentally sedated Maddie to death, it would have happened much earlier than 10, giving them some time to remove the body and concoct a plan. Under those circumstances, why would they have left their the twins sedated, risking their death too? They would surely have brought them round somehow, possibly with the help of the pharmacologist O’Brian. Or possibly they had revived the twins but they were still groggy.
For me, the accident theory doesn’t work, partly because of the sleeping twins.
Which leaves premeditated abduction either with or without the McCanns involvement.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
(487) I already suggested that may not be a terrible thing to consider doing…where your missing child is concerned. Although, to avoid it being used against them later, the McCanns would be wise to funnel the money for the investigator through another member of their family who isn’t involved or a friend. It just seems like the police believe they have this all sorted out, yet we keep hearing they don’t have a case against anyone (so we’re led to believe). That is why I, personally, would like to see some more investigating being done, so there can be justice for this little girl, no matter where she is or what has happened to her.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Maicen, ignore the Mail, they’;ve always had their nose firmly up the Mccans *&*!
September 16th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
simon
just a point on your theory. Dont you think leaving the door unlocked means the parents had knowledge of what was going on?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
the report from the upstairs neigbour confirms M was crying for over an hour the previous night.
we also know that the Mccans went to the bar to drink/eat each day.
so on this night, while they were preparing to go out, they saw Maddie as “a little brat” crying and preventing them from enjoying their nightly fun, so they dosed her heavily to put her to sleep in a fit of anger and also in a hurry in case they were late for their friends or they may have beaten her and unintentionally killed her while doing so.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
(480) Alright, maybe I was “suggesting/hinting” what I found to be right or wrong, but I stated clearly that I can’t criticize them for being law abiding where the investigator is concerned.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
480:
And why wouldn’t they give them sleeping pills?
As mentioned before – they put their kids to the crèche EVERY DAY of their holiday – what does that tell you? It doesn’t suggest that they wanted to spend too much time with them.
So they want to go out for dinner but the kids are still not quite tired enough.
If they were last seen at 6.30 that means they might be back home at 6.45. Let’s say it takes 30 minutes to put them all to bed (I would imagine it takes even longer – perhaps 15 minutes per child). But they say the kids were asleep at 7.30. That doesn’t make much sense, does it?
I’m not saying they didn’t love their kids or anything – but perhaps they just wanted to go out very much and that was the easiest way.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Have you seen tomorrows Mail just gone up online.. it suggests case is collapsing fast…..
September 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
485 if they did break the law and get an investigator, would we know?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
480 What ? An expert can’t make a mistake? how about she dose Maddie, and Gerry does it again 10 mins later after a miscommunication? Or are you saying she o d ‘d Maddie on purpose
September 16th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
(479) I thought what Simon was saying is that the McCanns could have, possibly, gave their children sedatives (but not enough for an overdose to occur). Along with all of this going on, that she was simply abducted (possibly more easily with the sedatives in her system).
(480) The Real Sting- I haven’t once been immensely critical of the McCanns and in no way was I preaching about what was right or wrong in the situation. I think people are critical about the McCanns leaving the children alone, mistake, we get it, they get it. The same people later go on to describe how passionate they would feel when losing a child (although, one can never really know unless you’ve been there).
That is it, at this point it isn’t about breaking the law, it is about your world shattering and getting your child back. In such cases, some people think it would be acceptable to break the law and actively start searching for this missing child, even if the parents “broke the law via negligence” in their eyes.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
480 - TRS: Go check out the clip reference in 391. It doesn’t really back up a ‘no sedatives’ defence… Look out for 13 seconds in - his nose actually does grow….
September 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
475, well he is going to back them if they are charged - they could be guilty or innocent in a court of law, what does he care - he’s the good guy beleiving the grieving (apparantly) parents. The publicity does him no harm, he still gets it even if they aren’t charged
September 16th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
481: “The suggestion she would accidentally overdose one of her own kids is bunkum…”
REPLY: Who said ‘accidentally’?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I’ve just watched that clip again several times. Forget all the other information, and just watch it again carefully:-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uMUdynuECbE
transcript:
“In that evening did you give to your kids something like to help them sleep?”
Gerry: “You know where not going to comment on anything but”
you know there is absolutely no way we used any sedative drugs or anything like that and you know…we’ll.. we’ve co-operated fully with the police, we’ll answer any queries…errm….any tests that they want to do at any.. ”
All the signs of LIES are there. First the contradiction - ‘we’re not going to comment’, then the high-pitched increase in voice when he mentions sedative, together with a brief laugh, and note her worrying eye movements that last until he finishes answering the question and note his lowered eye gaze when he refers to sedative drugs.
Just on that clip alone, I’d be prepared to bet they done it.