Madeleine McCann: Robert Murat Innocent, Private Detectives & Kate McCann’s Hot Lips
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MIRROR front page: “WE’LL FIND HER OURSELVES. Maddy parents bring in SAS private detectives”.
Kate and Gerry McCann have hired Control Risk Group, billed as a “crack security firm”, to find their daughter.
Page 5: “THE PROFESSIONALS” – There’s TV show in this. The Portuguese police could be the Keystone Cops, at least that’s what the tabloid press portrays them as.
“Millionaire ex-double glazing boss” is the mystery benefactor paying McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell’s wages. The former window cleaner owns Sale Sharks ruby union club. Look out for their new sponsor.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE. ‘McCanns ARE LYING’ - Portuguese police says friends are in cover-up.”
Robert Murat is to be told he will not face charges. Kate and Gerry McCann will be the only named suspects.
“SMILING” – The WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPERS leads with a picture of Kate McCann grinning.
Pages 4 and 5: “Kidnap? We just don’t; believe it.” It is reported in Portugal that an unnamed Irishman has come forward to say he was in the same place as the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner. She told police she had seen a man carrying child dashing from the Ocean Club resort in the direction of Robert Murat’s home. The new witness says he saw no-one.
“’GUILT’ OF PARENTS - More than 60 per cent think the couple know what has happened to Madeleine.”
“WHEN KATE WAS HOT LIPS HEALEY” – 15 YEARS AGO Kate was nicknamed hot lips for her resemblance to Loretta Swit in TV comedy M*A*S*H. The Express has seen her Dundee University year book and the comments - “Kate was great fun”; “renowned for alcoholic binges and some ‘dance till you drop’ nocturnal activities”; “she was certainly more interested in going to the pub than she was in her studies” etc.
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE: PARENTS ARE LYING. Cops say McCanns & friends tried to frame suspect Murat.”
Pages 4 and 5: “McCANNS ‘ARE LYING’.”
A phone poll: “DO YOU BELIEVE THE McCANNS ARE LYING?” Let’s see if we can top that 60 per cent in the Star’s sister paper the Daily Express. Vote now and vote often.
THE SUN pages 12 and 13: “TWIN’S LIFT FOR MUM AND DAD.”
Kate and Gerry McCann are with son Sean. They have been to Mass. Kate sobs when Ave Maria is sung. Daughter Amelie is in nursery school. She is plying with the Cuddle Cat. She bursts into laughter, “her giggles rang around the building”.
DAILY MAIL front page: “Madeleine:
• Ex-SAS team joins hunt
• New sighting in Morocco
• Kate breaks down in church
• Police accused over forensics”
Page 8: “McCanns hire an ex-SAS team to hunt for Maddie.”
“Second witness supports sighting in Morocco” – Remember when Marl Pollard said she saw Madeleine in Morocco? Now we lean that a man also saw Madeleine in Morocco.
THE INDEPENDENT PAGE 17: “Murat no longer suspect.”
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 10: “McCanns hired detective firm with ex-SAS men”. Under Portuguese law, the McCanns are not permitted to carry out their own investigation in Portugal. But they can investigate in other countries.
THE TIMES front page: “McCann investigators” – McCanns hire private security firm.
Pages 12 and 13: “How they managed to turn campaign around.” The McCanns are “winning the propaganda war”. They have gone on the “offensive”.
A family source says: “It is for the police to prove they are guilty.”
GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news today.
Posted: 24th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,048) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- June on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- Tony on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
- Cheryl on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- cheekyappleblossom on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
September 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
No-one need ever apologise for wanting every possibility explored to solve this case.
We should have to apologise to Maddy if we didn’t.
“No stone unturned” should be exactly that. No faintly reasonable explanation should be discounted without strong evidence against it.
It is the fundamental duty in the search for justice.
___________________
This “beautiful child” thing has started again. Do you not see what prejudice it implies against those “not beautiful” ? It isn’t even particularly true.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
According to the McCanns a Plea was made in the earlier days of her missing of anyone having photos of her to be sent to them.
Anyone know where the photos are?
I just want to see photos of some knee cut.
The closest I came to was this but as you can see it misses the crucial part.
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5497694,00.jpg
Any other finds welcome.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
529 Seymour Laws, this post of yours is quite unnecessary, and I take utmost offence to it! Perhaps you need to refrain from punching letters into your keyboard for a short space of time, at least until you can clear your own mind.
QUOTE “After all Doctor McCann is a very attractive women.” UNQUOTE - just thought I’d correct your perfectionist nature here - she is only ONE woman, not many!
September 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
537
with one, two or four balls?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
So does having a red spiky plant infront of your house
do they have one?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
In swinger circles, the term ’social tennis’ is a euphemism for a foursome.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
533 Why to you assume that any humour is intended - it could be a speach impediment, or an automatic mannerism - or simply a way of adding emphasis to a point what what
September 24th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
491 The Real Stig
The British Police brought the book on forensics to Portugal…..and then what, forgot that they had left it in the McCanns apartment?
Or are you suggesting something more sinister?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
milisoreja Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
And if and when, and if Maddie is found alive? any predictions?
I will eat my keyboard (every single letter) … salt and pepper is on hand next to me! I shall also write a personal apology to the parents for doubting their innocence regarding the disappearance of their daughter, however, in the same apology I will ask them how they justify their actions (doubtful if I will receive a reply to this).
And I will go down on bended knee and thank the Lord that he spared this beautiful child.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Seymour Laws: What’s with all the ‘what what’ stuff? It’s unfunny.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Did you know Huntley’s two little girl victims were found by analysing pollen caught in his car heater filter ?
I hope similar evidence was not lost when the PJ handed the McCann’s car back.
I remember Huntley giving at least one deeply concerned television interview as the “caring sharing school janitor” desperate to help with the search. Actually he looked very convincing and sincere. I think I remember his relatives regarding it as “ludicrous” to suspect him. They were very sincere too.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Has anyone read any follow-on from their declaration that they are spending £80,000 on a renewed “Find Madeleine” appeal - in Spain and Portugal? Perhaps their advisers have advised them against this knee-jerk project, because that is how it will be seen now.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
524
me also: massive euphoria and I would be very happy for them and their happiness, but I wouldn’t be sorry for doubting, because their behaviour creates a lot of questions.
But I don’t want to imagine what the girl would have to face.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
If we must gossip, and experience to date suggests that we must, let us focus on the swinger rumours - where can one find the no doubt salacious details. As distressing as it may be, all of the evidence should be carefully considerfully.
After all Doctor McCann is a very attractive women. I can well understand the Hot Lips Healey stuff from her university days - is Mark Warner, or at least this place, a bye-word for wife swapping etc.
I have always regarded MW as a little down market and frankly naff, but I am willing to reappraise my views if that is where the evidence takes me what what
September 24th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
someone asked about the “missing two hours in Spain” story earlier.
It’s still on gazeta digital
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/09/mccann-couple-disappeared-for-two-hours.html
September 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Good evening all.
Haven’t a clue what’s been discussed here today as I’ve only just joined and scanned through the last couple of posts.
Regarding a conviction without a body, this is not an impossibility. With sufficient damning DNA evidence this could be a likely scenario. (This has happened in numerous cases all over the world before, so is nothing new).
However, without a body, and inconclusive DNA evidence I’m afraid that those who are responsible for this beautiful little girl becoming one of the most talked about missing children over the last couple of years, will get away with what they did.
I must say, that with what I read a couple of evenings ago (kindly linked by Vera) regarding the never-ending list of the McCann’s “connections”, I have my utter doubts that this case will ever be concluded, or that steps will be taken against those responsible, and poor little Madeleine McCann will go down in history as the most famous missing child unsolved case ever (apart from the Lindberg child of course).
September 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
515 - Mod. My view is simple. I do not know - like none of us do - including you (?!) - what happened to Madeleine. If the abduction theory proves to be correct, then the McCanns are not ‘100% innocent’. They are complicit, albeit indirectly, because they left 3 very young children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country at night.
I have always felt that by not coming out openly and directly and admit they were very very wrong to do this - and that if they had not done this then Madeleine would more than likely still be with them today. This lack of ownership of ANY involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance is and remains a fundamental mistake, in my opinion and makes me suspicious. Why not admit a mistake? Why did they also immediately assume that Madeleine had been abducted? There is no evidence of other theories but neither is there of this one. Can’t understand this - especially as they had people out searching the grounds immediately. Why waste time doing that if she had been abducted. Their insistence on this being the ONLY option is still suspicious. She could have wandered off to the sea and been drowned. Unlikely, but possible.
Theories have taken over - very obviously - because people want to know what happened to Madeleine. The McCanns behaviour has fuelled suspicion in their involvement. Leaving aside their very unnatural body language and choice of language - their refusal to answer all the PJs questions seems very strange to me. I would be back in Portugal right now saying ‘what do you want to know? What answers do you need from me so we can find Madeleine?’. Instead, I believe that they are currently working on their ‘defence case’. (BBC today). Again this seems strange. They have not been charged with anything and they do not know what evidence (if indeed, any) that the PJ may use against them. I have to ask - if they have nothing to hide - why are they not answering the PJs questions directly instead of prempting a case against them?
They could also have helped themselves from attack by focussing less on themselves. Things like ‘Gerry’s Blog’ became very self-centred and some days there was almost no mention of Madeleine. Made me wonder think that the McCanns were almost enjoying the attention. I still think that in a macabre way they are.
I am suspicious that they did not welcome sightings but instead were reported as saying they were ‘hurtful and unhelpful’ (Sky News many times). I asked myself - why? On one hand they were heavily publicizing Madeleine’s picture and yet when someone said ‘I think I saw her’ - they reacted by saying it was unhelpful? Sure some sightings were going to be false one - but they only needed one accurate sighting to get their daughter back.
The whole fund issue has also been a big problem. Why did they not widen the remit from the start to include other children. Again this seemed strange - and still does. Oh, I accept that at the start they might have been too distressed etc. but now they have a vast sum of money available and there are many many distraught parents of missing kids who I think would welcome some financial support.
I admit that all of these things individually may be easy to dismiss, but for me there are just too many unanswered questions and too many ‘tailor-made’ revised memories for me to accept.
If it is found that an abductor did take Madeleine, then I will admit I was quite wrong about suspecting the McCanns of anything other than basic neglect by leaving her, Amelie and Sean alone.
I hope this will help you to see, in a non-confrontational form, where some of us ‘doubters’ really coming from.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
514.
The Official commenting is speculating he says that “One cannot accuse a person of homicide without there being very strong evidence. In the Madeleine case, there is no confession and according to what has been made public, the evidence gathered up to now means all theories are still open - from abduction to homicide or a simple accident.”
He is in the same position as anyone else, he doesn’t know what evidence there is. I think the media are just desperate to find people who will pass comment, any comment on this case.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
522
massive euphoria! I would love to say to the parents ‘I was wrong and I’m sorry -please forgive me for doubting you’
September 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Have just read a posting on i On Global Trends of an interview with a member of the PJ.
He was apparently confident that they had plenty of information. He also said they were heading to the goal.
Final point was they did not need a body to have a murder conviction and sighted a case not so long ago.
Wish I knew how to copy it across - worth reading.
The last 2 postings I posted just vanished.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
And if and when, and if Maddie is found alive? any predictions?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I am afraid that the most likely outcome is no charges - no trial - the 4000 pages locked away, and Maddy never found.
We will never, ever, know the truth, and will have to watch the two people we still suspect of one thing and know guilty of the other, pontificating all over our television screens in exaggerated sainthood for years to come.
And an increased frequency and duration of child neglect by all those parents who will take the McCanns as their example and justification. Thirty minutes totally unsupervised will become the new gold-standard for 2 and 3 year-olds.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
515 ‘headles chickens and all that’?? That’s just what the McCanns thought (in my opinion)
September 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I came across this site at the weekend and I feel that Kate & Gerry have come in for some unfair comments. It is at this time that they should have our support. By all means question their actions but some of the comments written here are just ungracious. They are not all bad and it is good to see some poeple sticking up for them. But what does trouble me is all this talk about abduction. We are being told all about how the abducter may have been hiding in the room.
The problem for me is that I can’t see where there is evidence of Madeleine being abducted. I know some have said she is missing so that is the evidence. But if someone is abducted there is only 1 possibility, they have been taken. But that is not the same as missing, if someone or something is missing then surely there are many possibilities.
I know there is the eye witness evidence of Jane Tanner, I don’t think she is lying, don’t get me wrong, but that got me thinking so I did some checking out.
It is quoted on BBC’s on line site, which is a trusted source, that Andrew Roberts, a lecturer in law at Leeds University specialising in evidence, said courts have recognised for a long time that eyewitness identification evidence is “inherently unreliable”.
Two cases helped change the view in British courts, he said.
In 1969, Laszlo Virag was convicted of stealing from parking meters and using a firearm while trying to escape police officers. Despite his alibi and other contradictions, he was identified by eight witnesses as the man who committed the crime. While he was in prison it was found another person had committed the crime and he was pardoned.
In 1972, Luke Dougherty was convicted of shoplifting after two witnesses picked his face out of a police album. He was eventually cleared and both cases led to the Devlin Committee’s investigation of identification evidence, which found that many witnesses overstated their ability to single out the right person.
Then I found this website,
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=562217
With 70 convictions based on eyewitness evidenced over turned using DNA evidence. If Jane Tanner is the only evidence for abduction then why are Kate & Gerry letting their advisors rely upon eye witness and not DNA. Surely instead of rubbishing DNA they should support it. I just don’t know what to believe anymore.
I just hope Kate & Gerry pull through and we find out what really happened to poor Madeleine.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
michael - posts 269 (NOT 270) and 486
I have viewed this photo [Madeleine by poolside at 1.29pm / 2.29pm] many times, but your link only shows the very top of the knees; not sure if there is one of that photo that shows any more?
Madeleine’s knee has been mentioned many times on the Forum. I believe Kate McCann brought up the subject of the knee injury on the plane steps to try and explain any presence of Madeleine’s blood found by the PJ in the apartment.
The consensus here I think is that this was probably only a graze, if that, as she seems from the video of the fall to have actually fallen on her hands, but some are saying that her knee-cap could have gone straight into the edge of the step and therefore made her bleed for a short while.
I find the excuse about blood in the apartment being connected to the knee ‘injury’ several days earlier as one of hundreds of suspicious aspects to the Mcanns’ stories.
And I am sorry to say that it points in the direction of one of the parents ‘losing it’ and killing poor Madeleine with some kind of blow. If she is dead, I hope it was a quick end and that she did not suffer too much.
[P.S. Thanks for kind comment, I try to post facts plus valid opinions on the case, that's all]
September 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
472.
From that article.
“Mr Mitchell also told journalists the couple were feeling positive after spending the weekend working hard on their defence case.”
Comment. Apart from the fact that they did nothing to Find Madeleine this weekend what do they need a defence case for? They are SUSPECTS, nothing more at this time.
The McCanns appear to have strong beliefs. i.e. They believe Madeleine was abducted. They believe she is alive. They believe they can disprove any evidence the PJ may have. They believe they are innocent of, child neglect and playing any part in the disappearance and (possible) death of Madeleine. So what on earth makes them believe that they will be charged with anything?
And this bit.
“”They are working to clear their names. They are confident that will be the case in due course but we are not yet sure…quite how long it will take, but it could take some time,” he added.”
Comment. Trying to clear their names to whom? Who are the McCanns so desperate to prove their innocence to? The Police? It does not matter if the Police believe them to be guilty, the case will be tried in a court. The public? Again what does it matter what the public think the case will be tried in a court?
What does it matter to the McCanns if I believe them guilty and someone else doesn’t?
September 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Lilith
So many people seem to be making this same mistake. Although it is only now that they have told us, the McCanns claim that they have employed these investigators since fairly early May.
Presumably from when the fund could afford to pay. This seems fairly reasonable, and in line with what contributors might have expected.
In fact quite a few people here have criticised them in the past for not doing this.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
510
Do you not think its possible that they just didn’t know what to do and got carried away doing anything and everything that the family came up with? Headless chickens and all that? That’s how I think I see it….
511. How unnecessary is that comment?
September 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23413549-details/‘Find%20Madeleine’s%20body%20or%20the%20McCanns%20will%20escape’,%20%20prosecutor%20tells%20Portuguese%20police/article.do
GGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
September 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I wonder why they hire an ex SAS team months after Madeleine was killed…oops I mean abducted by gnomes who can just be in an apartment without being noticed,lift a struggling child through a small window without being noticed and then make a runner without anyone noticing too.