Madeleine McCann: The Nanny Suspect, Amaral Policing And Jail
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
SUNDAY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE MYSTERY. BRING IT ON.”
The Sunday Express is not the Express, which has form some weeks led with the front-page banner “MADELEINE”. The Sundays Express goes its own way.
“McCanns remain defiant as they face 40 questions from UK police this week”
“Kate and Gerry’s fury as new sighting in Morocco by businessman is ignored”
SUNDAY MIRROR front page: “MADDIE HUNT: THE TRUTH.”
The truth… At last…
“DISGRACE.”
A picture of Madeleine McCann (on the right). A picture of Portuguese copper Goncarlo Amaral (left).
“Police have ignored 250 sightings of her” – and have investigated how many?
“Cop leading police probe works four hours a day” – Amaral’s not overworked and fresh.
“He has three-hour boozy lunches with pals” – Amaral holds lengthy meetings to discuss and masticate over the case with team.
“Puffing on a cigarette and knocking back beers, the man leading the world’s biggest missing child inquiry enjoys yet another long, boozy lunch.”
Good to know that the Mirror is not wasting its time and watching him.
STAR ON SUNDAY: “THREATS TO McCANNS.”
“Friends say the couple are ‘extremely concerned’ by the nature of the threats and are considering hiring extra security.
Last night a spokeswoman for the McCanns, both 39, confirmed that they had been sent what she described as ‘negative letters and fear mail’.”
INDEPENDENT: “Maddie ‘kidnapped by maid’, says email.”
“The McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said they were ‘encouraged’ by the development.”
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Kate McCann will risk jail to find Madeleine
Kate McCann has been told by her legal team that she faces jail sentence if she flouts Portuguese law to discuss details of the four-year-old’s disappearance in a high-profile television interview.
She tells a “close friend”: “I will do what I must. What does any of it matter if it helps find Madeleine?”
“It is what Kate thinks will help,” a close friend tells the paper. “What choice does she have? Unless Kate and Gerry ignore the law and speak out, their chances of finding Madeleine will dwindle further. Better to risk prison if it helps find her.
“Will the Portuguese police really prosecute a mother whose sole aim is to find her daughter or at least, God forbid, discover the whereabouts of her body? Kate, most of all, believes risking a jail sentence is nothing compared to finding Madeleine.”
Who needs an interview with Kate with friends like that?
THE OBSERVER: “This limbo that lasts a lifetime,” writes Carol Sarler.
“The McCanns are said to be devastated by dashed hopes; if so, they must get used to it, for there will be more sightings, more dashing and, to add to their misery, more harassment of more innocent families. I know this because, having investigated the disappearance of Ben Needham on Kos in 1991, the unfolding of the McCann case has felt like one long, wretched, groundhog summer.
“Ben, recapped in a nutshell: his grandparents, Eddie and Chris Needham, moved from Sheffield to Kos with their teenage son Stephen, daughter Kerry and her boyfriend and their son, Ben…
“…The singular difference between the Needhams and the McCanns is, crudely, class. Eddie has homemade tattoos on his knuckles, Chris was a grandmother at 38, Kerry and her boyfriend - a man known, as they say, to the police - lived in a council block. Perhaps this explains why, throughout their ordeal, nobody from the British consulate in Athens once got off their butt or went to Kos to help or support; surgeon Gerry McCann, by contrast, mobilised the world.”
“Arabic adverts aid Madeleine hunt”… “Despite the disappointment of last week’s misleading sighting of a blonde girl in the Moroccan town of Zaio, the McCanns believe that their daughter might be somewhere in the country.”
TIMES: No Madeleine news today.
Posted: 30th, September 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,108) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- Nomadic View on Bolivian Police Release Video Of World’s Worst Photo-Fit Killers’ Capture
- June on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- Katie Norman on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- THENTHEREWERE4 on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
September 30th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Daft question probably but where have the post numbers gone? I see people are quoting them in their replies but I don’t see them in the original posts.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Sheese what is this gang up on the Judge day.
First Vera, I have not rubbished the dogs in any way. They do a great job.
Secondly Andy, the fact that the dogs detect a scent is not evidence of anything and therefore not admissible in a court of law. Anything the handler says in respect of a dog getting excited is pure speculation. Who in their right mind would submit evidence for the prosecution that gives reasonable doubt, which is exactly what would happen with an excited dog and no factual evidence. Given the fact that they do get it wrong sometimes, its a sure fire way to turn a jury against the prosecution.
The initial issue was that a dog cannot be cross examined, which given the fact it can’t talk is pretty obvious. It cannot say what it smelled.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
269. Julie.
The indication by the dog of a cadaver scent does not have to lead to further evidence being produced (although it would no doubt be wished for), it will be presented as evidence along side other supporting evidence at a trial and will be allowed to be questioned and refuted by the defence along with the other evidence. The finding of the scent itself is evidence.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
nice post ian.
but it seems to go further than that.
in today’s times, it says milliband has contacted them for the first time since they were declared suspects.
we possibly have an election looming, and they’ll have shit all over their faces if there’s a last minute confession or a body turns up with proof of the mc’s guilt on.
sound’s ridiculous, but this could even have a hand in gordon’s dithering over an election when he’s 10% in front.
we just don’t know.
but looking at how the papers and tv news are behaving, there’s definitely something peculiar going on.
i don’t ever, in all british history remember politicians being so supportive and proactive on behalf of suspects in any major serious investigation, whether people think they’re guilty or not.
that is my main interest in this case if i’m honest.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Like so many here, I am highly skeptical of these reports of witnesses coming forward only now to mention they saw something suspicious months ago.
If I were an employee for a resort and I saw a suspicious individual lurking in a stairwell and observing everyone and appearing to be up to no good, I would immediately tell my supervisor and ask that someone investigate or keep an eye on him. I wouldn’t just let the chips fall as they may. Even as as a guest on the premises, I would let management know of my concern about the individual’s intentions–for safety’s sake and protection of the community.
As for the man from Gilbraltar who thinks he saw a man holding Madeleine in Tangiers back in early August and thinking RIGHT THEN that it might be her and stating he wished he had the courage to go up and ask the man some questions–what the? Where was the man’s brain (or spine)? How about calling out the name Madeleine and seeing what the girl’s (and man’s) reaction to it was. Or he could have immediately contacted the local authorities to follow up on it, giving a full description of the man and the girl, and then contacted the PJs with the information, as well, if he was too afraid to have direct contact with the individual.
Or the person who sees someone in the area of Madeleine’s disappearance kicking at something in the bottom of a boat on the evening of May 3 –and comes forward only now to report it?
All these reports coming at a time when the parents stand accused and the McCann PR Team is in full spin makes me believe they are not true but created to mislead the public (and possibly the authorities).
September 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Re the Eddie and the boot. The dog alerts that there is the scent of a corpse in boot. PJ test boot and find bodily fluids from corpse. That would be the evidence.
As in the case in the US which the McCanns are using to refute the doggy evidence. Dog alerts that it found the scent of a corpse under the house. Police excate and find nothing. So ‘evidence’ is thrown out.
In this case the woman disappeared in 1976 and dogs were not brought in until 2001. 25 years to move the body.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1541908/posts
September 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Judge Dread
seems to be particularly keen to ‘rubbish’ the ‘cadaver dogs’ evidence….why is that when their reputation goes before them!
- and anyone who knows about dogs also knows they don’t lie (a human trait)..if they could smell death and convey that to their handlers then I and many others would prefer to believe that there WAS an unaccountable ’smell of death’ that needs to be explained…..no more of the ‘ludicrous’ explanations we’ve been given so far.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
267. Judge Dread.
The dog is a cadaver dog specifically trained to detect the scent of cadavers. In this case it found that scent on several items and in several places used by the McCanns (and possibly one of their friends). This leads the handler to believe that a cadaver came into contact with those places. Despite there being no cadaver to prove this the evidence of the dogs find of a scent is still admissible as evidence in a court of law, it is then up to the defence to come up with explanations for the dogs evidence. The same as for any other evidence presented by the prosecution.
If the dogs evidence were inadmissible do you think the McCanns would have bothered to refute it with claims of rotting meat and used nappies?
September 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
246 Batman
They, as in ‘the Mccans and friends’ didnt do anything with the body. I dont think there actually was a body as such.
I think she was abducted after the ‘abductors’ had noted the pattern of leaving children in the resort by the Tapas 9.
Kate had felt uncomfortable about ‘them’ -unidentified people around the place - might have been Murat and others. But because she still left the children under those circumstances, she would be open - at least in UK law as I understand it - to accusations of having considered there to be a risk and still taken it, hence failing in her duty of care. Also use of sedatives might well not be viewed upon as apporpiate by the general medical council and all of the Doctors might have put their careers at significant risk.
As to the other evidence, smells of death and DNA evidence, we just dont have access to facts - but DNA evidence alone is not sufficient for charges I don’t beleive.
The one thing that does ’spoil’ my theory is, wouldnt the Mccanns at this stage be better off admitting the neglect and the fears they had (Kate had)? But I guess they had, ‘made their bed’ and will just have to hope they dont end up being charged with something far worse - although, of course, what can be worse than exposing their children to the predatory monsters that are out there and this thought might be enough to stop them ‘coming clean’.
After all, I think it unlikely that Maddie will be found alive - probably after all ther fuss she had to be ‘quietly disposed of’ - maybe from that boat I hear mentioned two days later?
So I think, as a theory, it stands up well at the moment.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
does anyone know the real name of the cadaver dog?
September 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
As far as I am concerned the cadaver dog INDICATES that there is something that needs to be investigated further. He makes the job of the police easier as they will then know exactly where to look for EVIDENCE!
September 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
267
if he’s on your back, sounds like it’s a job for bennetbot.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
257 - I know what the dog does and how it indicates a scent. However without factual evidence of what that scent is, it is evidence of nothing.
Mods and Admin will you please confirm this and get the idot off my back.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
bennetbot@lubbocktrust.shop
September 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
has bennet ever actually answered anyone?
i’m beginning to think he’s a bot posting to all the forums and newsgroups at once.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
#236 Anti-Catholicism
I don’t think it’s anti-catholicism. There is a brand of Catholic who thinks his sins are only against God, that he can never sin against his neighbor because he thinks he is above his neighbor.
Catholicism teaches that all sin must be expiated in this life or the next (purgatory or hell).
Prison allows a Catholic to expiate his crime against his neighbor. The state still considers child neglect/abuse/murder to be crimes against one of its citizens.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
257
it’s a dog like mine.
it sits in the corner all the time without moving, and everyone thinks it’s dead.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
247. Carmen.
Amazing isn’t it? My partner works in a bar in Salou and the tales she has told me about the way in which a lot of British tourists treat their children when out drinking simply astound me. They seem to think their children are an inconvenience and either let them run riot or give them money and tell them to run along to the arcade or the shops (both of which are quite a distance from the bar and across several busy roads.).
When called on their behaviour by the staff or other customers however they have been known to become quite aggressive and mouthy, as you have experienced.
Bringing it back to the subject though, this is one of my major problems with the McCanns, that despite all the UK media coverage they have not once come out and said to other parents ‘No matter how safe you feel, don’t leave your children alone.’.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
and if anyone has any marketing type replies from him, could you post them on here please.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
although i bet he has ‘themaddytrust.com’ registered by the end of the week.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
34
tony bennet says:
Meanwhile, those of us who consider that the McCanns are hiding a terrible crime, and that the abduction claim was a hoax from the start, are continung our efforts to set up a counter-campaign to counter all the continual spin from Team McCann;
fair enough
then the totally irrelevant
if anyone would like to get in touch with us, pease use the e-mail link on the home page at:
thelubbocktrust.co.uk
Replies will come direct to my personal e-mail adddress. And many thanks to all those who’ve been in contact to date, you should have all had replies by now
are these two paragraphs related?
we should be told.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
240 Ian
That’s a very good theory, so good in fact that If I were the McCann’s it’s the one I would use, specially when I know there’s a very real probability that the forensics will find something to support sedation.
It’s also very believable. The only thing that could scupper it for them is if they can’t defend the results of the other forensics.
Sorry, I’m taking an impartial “they’re guilty” stance at the mo whether accidental or premeditated. I can’t take all sides at once, it’s too confusing!
More fun to go with “if they did, how did they do it” angle.
215 Rosemary
Hopefully the car was switched, not sure if that’s legal though.
219. K-9
I hope they do bring the case over here because I don’t think they would have the right to silence but maybe they would have to be tried under Portuguese law in the uK?
226. Trismegistus
Let’s do our own forensic tests as well (-: really confuse things!
Really have to go and do something useful now.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Can some one explain to the eejit judge,what a cadaver dog is used for,what it does when it smells the scent of death,I think he must be about 10 and using his daddy’s PC.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
you seem to drag the lubbock case into every forum.
now correct me if i’m wrong, but i think alleged homosexual party attacks are slightly off topic.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Calumnies. Those greasy deagos couldnt organise a pish-up in a brewery! Princess Diana forwarded the e-mail cos shes a VERY close friend of Gerry and Kate. That nanny has GULIT written all over her. Yes, Spain is where the action is.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
252
tony bennett
are you, or are you not, touting for business by posting in here?
September 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
ithat’s post, not toast.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
=============================
‘MODERATION’ AND TEAM MCCANN
=============================
201 Moderation - you claimed to KNOW that Social Services have taken no action concerning the twins’ welfare apart from “ensuring the twins’ care in the event of the McCanns going back to Portugal without them, and/or their being jailed”.
================
I will take your word for it, Moderation (until proved otherwise), but what you’ve posted now gives rise to a question and a point:
1. THE QUESTION:- Why do the McCanns not say on their blog, or via their £75,000-a-year spokesperson or whatever, that Leicestershire Social Services are taking no action regarding the twins’ welfare (apart from the above)? Fear of contradiction?
2. THE POINT:- You have proved by this point that you are a fully signed-up member of Team McCann, and are posting here for that purpose. Your initimate knowledge of the detailed movements of Father Jose Pacheco, for example, after he disappeared in ‘turmoil’, was a pretty clear indication of that - along with innumerable other indications. Others on the Forum have openly suggested that you’re a member or associate of Team McCann, but up to now you’ve denied it, or avoided the suggestion. Your comments in post 201 prove that you are. Are you - or were you until recently - in Portugal? Then you are, simply, the Team McCann’s agent (or one of them) in Portugal
September 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
whers my post gone
September 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
217 peck
In my earlier post (121) I was quoting some of todays headlines and my point was that that the speculation was wilder than ever. The “psychic” headline was on the front page of todays Sunday People - I did’nt read all of it but a pyschic was named who is also a “bereavment counsellor”. I was’nt stating this as a fact- just commenting on the antics of the press.
The Mccanns have been portrayed as deeply religious people and that may be true but the RC church does not condone IVF treatment and they had that.