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
- 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 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
About the phrase “she’s lovely”: It sounded awkward to me for several reasons. One being I wouldn’t think to call a child “lovely”. Is the word used to describe young children? I would think precious, adorable, wonderful but not lovely. However, I don’t speak British English. Secondly, it didn;t sound genuine but as Ian mentioned as if it had been “tagged on” to the end of a sentence in haste or without having the proper warm loving wherwithal to properly express one’s feelings for their own child. I had the same distinct feeling when Kate was asked what message she would like to send to Madeleine and Kate actually looks away from the camera laughs and says in a low mumbling voice, “I love you.” And then starts to raise her head a little and mumbling still adds, “She knows we love her…she knows (inaudible)”.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
536 - Miss Match
I posted a few days ago about a friend of mine who’s neighbour cracked his head one night, he went home to bed and in the morning was dead. He was 19.
I’ve said for weeks that Madeleine could have fallen down those stairs. If she walked out and it was dark (after 8:30pm it would be), she may have fallen down and knocked herself out cold. Whether she’d been previously sedated or not (I don’t think so, or why would she have woken?), it would have been embarassing for K&G to answer questions how she was left alone unsupervised.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
683 anonymous/paulette/judge Judy
Of course they are not facts, but they are every bit as credible as anything else discussed here. People manage to absorb large quantities of these ‘not facts’ and arrive at a sincere dislike/hatred of the McCanns as a result. How is my trying to reason, based on suspect facts, worse than doing that?
Tell me, why do you point out my ‘not facts’ but not other peoples? What exactly is the basis for your obvious hatred of me? Is it because I am between 80-90 yrs of age, completely disinterested and inexperienced in sex, that I am a misogynist and male chauvinist pig? If there were more allegations you leveled against me that I have forgotten, my apologies, you can add defective memory to the list
September 30th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I read yesterday they were to soberly observe today, the 150th of Madeline missing,..yet there is photo of them jogging merrily along.
Innocent or guilty they sure do no seem to be too stressed out over their missing child.
Waiting for Moderation to come and convince us that “people handle crises differently.” and being cold and composed means squat. Not that wish to see them in a tsunami of tears either……but they only see to emote angrily when accused of something….. “Bring it On.”
September 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
725. Agree!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Didn’t see the Sky TV broadcast, but this new turn by the PJ makes them look as ridiculous as the McCanns - with a new story/leak every day.
However, I wonder if this could be a clever ruse by the PJ. It might be that Madeleine did simply die accidentally on the steps - woke up and looked for her mummy and daddy - and the parents covered up in panic, as a form of damage limitation. Maybe some of their friends or Murat helped hide the body….then WHAM the media circus whipped up by the McCanns as a smokescreen began in earnest and the McCanns had no way out but to continue with the charade.
By dropping the sedation aspect and focussing on accidental death maybe the PJ may feel it would be easier for the McCanns to come clean.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Most mothers would have given the toy to the police and demanded that they ran every test going on the toy knowing that it was handled by whoever took Maddie out of the room.
Who would insist on keeping a toy that is the vital key to the investigation????
Does she really want her daughter back? -or does she want to carry on sniffing a toy - a toy that means so much to her that she washed the smell of her daughter off it - along with the only possible evidence of finding her.
The only person that would want to keep that toy from the police and wash it clean would be?………..the person who took Maddie…….erm that means…..
Kate!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
716 Ta very much!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Yes, I think so. If he is has a good track record. Sure. He has many supporters.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
715,
Are you looking for a date? Is that why you keep posting me?
September 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Does anyone think either McCann will be able to work in the medical field again even if they are never charged with child negligence or more serious crime?
September 30th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
699 How odd, was only used when she was upset or ill, I had read.
697 Simon. No I dont think it is a red herring, I think its a pink cat. Seriously I have found it odd from the beginning. It felt wrong, as if she was using it as a ‘badge of caring’, you know ‘look, this proves I loved her’. Which seems unnecessary to a loving Mother. But then I always wondered about the ‘She’s lovely’ tagged on to some sentences - just do not seem genuine.
Im not saying that they actually did anything to Maddie other than sedate and abandon them (bad enough!). However I do think they have always been in self protection mode. As a GP Kate will have been briefed on what constitutes failing duty of care with children. One of the things is that a charge is based on the parental awareness of risk. If they admit they were nervous about any risk and still left the children, then they could be found guilty. I think that they didnt leave the children at night with a babysitter because they were nervous about some of the people in the resort. In the day they felt they were ok, but not at night. So they sedated the children and left them alone, checking occasionally. Cuddle cat fell on the floor and instead of being replaced - to keep Maddie sedated, it was put on the shelf. This infers that the person who was checking was a friend and not the parents, who knew Maddie needed the cat to remain asleep. So you see, I think Cuddle Cat and its location is important. Happy to drop that idea if given a good explanation! I think others on here should realise that is through a similar process that the PJ are probably coming up with and then excluding from their thinking. I dont think we should assume that the PJ are all plod, we have plod and clever people and I am sure so do the PJ. I suspect the PJ arent as class ridden as we are (i.e. they can think what is unthinkable in the uK, that Doctors dont do crimes - despite the evidence to the contrary - a la Shipman etc!).
September 30th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
If the McCanns are lying, the media circus they have created as a cover-up will remain with them for the rest of their lives. The public will never forgive them.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Initially I thought they probably put her in a laundry basket, rolled her down the hallway, and into another room - hid out, then took her to that vacant Market that Captain John O’Conner speaks about, and into a car and to the boat -
why, well, any good reason, wanted a child, to sell whatever…..but then Maddie’s eye thing could not be hidden so they had to end it. The final move - put her in a dingy and dump her in the water near the cliffs.
Then the parents may be guilty of neglect of some things like “sleepytime pills” but not of overdose or worse. Makes sense to me………
This was my first choice but nothing ever came of it. So, I looked at choice number two - The McCanns…..
September 30th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
447 - Ade
Read my posts from the past two weeks and I’ve said all along it could be as simple as Madeleine wandering out and falling down the stairs, banging her head and falling into a coma. I’d like to be proved wrong and for Madeleine to be alive but it was an obvious theory when you see the layout of the apartment.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Simon 690
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pamela.watson43/
and click on:
Gerry McCann’s Blog Diaries
September 30th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
713. Sunny, your moniker, like Moderations’ defies logic.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
710 I can see how the abduction theory with two accomplices, one being a member of staff, would work.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
693,
I am not narcissistic enough to list my accomplishments on some poxy on-line forum. Anyway Anonyomous what are your accomplishments besides reading the oh so boring 10 page posts by none other than MR TONY BENNETT himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP5e15prSZY
ENJOY!!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
711. Oh my!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
708.
Several times Gerry misspelled Madeleine’s name! (When he bothers to mention her at all of course.)
September 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I like the idea of an employee being involved - explains so much - and then Maddie was killed a few days later and put in the ocean by someone in a dingy.
I still have problems with parents drinking and eating right after their child dies. There’s just no way parents would be able to keep their composure unless than drank a gallon of happy pills. But as a friend told me - stranger things have happened.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
699. The Real Stig Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
674 ian
“im trying to work out in my theory why a cuddle cat might need washing. It doesnt fit my theory for it to need washing, why would it need washing (if one parks the iodea of ’smell of death’ for a moment).”
Covered in sunscreen I believe.
***************
Stig, I believe you may mean “smokescreen”?
September 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
426 - Miss Match
The blog thing is another giveaway. Perhaps instead of sniffer dogs, the cops should bring in some heavyweight psychoanalysts. I’m sure you could read a lot about what’s going on from Gerry’s writing style and the content of those blogs.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
701 Stevo
You certainly have a point. Then again, if it was an accident, it still should have been very hard to stay that calm, don’t you think?
September 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
702 Disagree
Kate could have any number of personal items for exactly the purpose you say.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
700 Wendy
Maybe if Maddie fatally injured/died on the steps, she was taken into the apartment.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
692 ian
“Why would kate wash this cat unless it was to remove something? We have children of our own and never washed any of their soft toys - some got pretty grubby!”
I chucked them all in the washing machine if they needed washing - people are different!
September 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
694 sly fox - Tox screen would be performed if a satisfactory cause of death could not be established. Children of nearly four years old do not just die without an established cause of death. Four years old is too old for cot death it should be noted.
If a deceased child has no obvious cause of death, ie, trauma, massive infection, an explainable cardio pulmonary incident, no visible sign of ingestion of toxins in the stomach contents, then the tox screen would be performed. Children do ingest toxic materials by accident, sometimes resulting in death. It would be very difficult to prove if the ingestion of sedatives or other medication had been deliberate or accidental if they had been taken orally. Had they been given by injection form, then this would be very difficult to explain.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
You wouldn’t wash Cuddle Cat - not ever - never - and you wouldn’t carry it around either - one would keep it safe and bring it down during prayers and to hug and smell - it would never ever under any circumstances be washed.