Madeleine McCann: Amaral Policing, Secrets Out And EastEnders
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: PORTUGUESE POLICE CHIEF IS SACKED AFTER AMAZING OUTBURST.”
Page 9: “Madeleine detective kicked off case after blasting British police” – Chief inspector Goncalo Amaral says: “The British police have only been working on what the McCann couple want them to and what suits them.”
Says Amaral: “The Ocean Club is in Praia da Luz, not in London…It won’t be an email, and an anonymous one at that, which will distract our line of investigation.”
Mr Amaral is making reference to the email sent to the official website of the Prince of Wales last week claming a vengeful nanny had abducted Madeleine.
Pages 30 and 31: “HAIR-RAISING TRUTH ABOUT THE PSYCHIC BARBER – During the day Gordon Smith cuts hair, at night he claims he communes with the spirits. So does he really think he can help the McCanns find Madeleine?”
THE WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER confirms that former EastEnders actress Michelle Collins is a “BELIEVER”.
DAILY MAIL page 7: “Off the case. Madeleine police chief demoted after amazing rant against McCanns and British detectives”
Say Amaral: “They [the English] have been investigating tip-offs and information created and worked upon by the McCanns”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE: CHIEF COP SACKED.”
Page 10: “INSPECTOR CLUELESS GETS THE BOOT”
Page 11: “If Maddie IS dead she will tell me where he body is” – Says Gordon Smith
DAILY MIRROR front page: “Maddy copper is axed”
Page 7: “OFF THE CASE – Boozy cop is demoted after furious outburst against the McCanns”
THE SUN page 7: “MADDIE COP FIRED FOR McCANNS RANT – storm as bungler says family duped Brit police”
Comments Clarence Mitchell: “I can confirm that Kate and Gerry are aware of this development but we cannot comment”
THE GUARDIAN page 7: “Detective leading hunt for Madeleine sacked after blast at UK police” – Mr Amaral is 47. He has been demoted. He is 48 in the Sun. Such are the facts
Carols Pinto de Abreu, the McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, says: “The McCanns cannot confess to something they did not do and cannot and should not lie to please the police”
THE INDEPENDENT page 8: “Detective leading Madeleine hunt dropped from case after outburst” – Amaral is being investigated over an alleged attack on the mother of a different missing girl. Read about that here
THE TIMES front page: “Detective in charge of McCann case sacked”
Page 9: “Madeleine detective sacked after outburst”
Alipio Ribeiro, Amaral’s boss, says: “The police should be discreet and keep quiet, but there is always someone who talks” – So much for those secrecy laws
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 15: “Madeleine inquiry chief sacked after attack on British police”
A “family friend” of the McCanns says: “What he [Mr Amaral] is saying is just plain wrong. Leicestershire Police are not doing anything on Kate and Gerry’s behalf. They are simply there for liaison. There is certainly no strategy to distract form the Portuguese investigation”
What investigation?
Posted: 3rd, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,208) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
October 4th, 2007 at 12:06 am
1076
I investigated the death of Stuart Lubbock, found dead at Michael Barrymore’s home in the early hours of 31 March 2001.
really? tell us about it why don’t you.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Yuk still dont undrstand wot it is. Am i the only one who dosnt know
October 4th, 2007 at 12:05 am
1072
that’s what should be on the front page of the papers.
an instant mc cann fan shutter-up.
best one i’ve seen all the case that andy.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:05 am
554 viewer
You have assembled an interesting set of information, however I do not think her eyes or anything related to them is contributory to her disappearance.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:04 am
997 krissie
Points noted, here’s two in reply.
POINT ONE
I investigated the death of Stuart Lubbock, found dead at Michael Barrymore’s home in the early hours of 31 March 2001.
By all accounts there were NINE in the house that night (including Lubbock and Barrymore).
Both the Coroner and Essex Police’s chief investigator in the case (D/Supt. Ian McNeill) said that Stuart suffered a violent attack of a sexual nature that night which left him ‘horrific’ internal injuries. The Coroner however was confronted by what she said in her summing-up was a ‘wall of silence’ from the witnesses. during a 6-day inquest.
Now, I suspect that there were up to 6 that night (5 male, one female) who may have been involved in Stuart’s death and actively helped to cover it up. There were two teenage girls there as well who I am sure were not actively involved in the cover-up, but they effectively refused to talk, giving garbled versions of the events of later that night. I think out of fear. It is also possible they were paid off for their silence.
EIGHT people, therefore, who know fine well what really happened to Stuart Lubbock. But a wall of silence from all of them, even those not involved in any way with the attack. It’s possible therefore for such a ‘wall of silence’ to develop.
Many other similar instances could be cited. At a drugs party in Warley, near Brentwood a few years ago, a man was shot dead in front of around 20 others, almost certainly deliberately, although the firer of the gun maintains it was a complete accident. None of the 20 will talk. No-one has been charged with the man’s death
POINT TWO
It is certainly possible that some of the Tapas 9 were not in any way involved or had no knowledge of what really happened to Madeleine that day, but have decided not to speak. They may well have decided that their job is to tell the truth as witnesses to the PJ and to say nothing more to the press or public unless or until forced to in open court.
We must though have suspicions about:
1. Russell O’Brien - what was he doing before 9.55pm that evening? He had a car that evening. He decided to stay in Portugal close to the McCanns for a long time after his holiday ended. He used the McCanns’ hired car whilst they were off seeing the Pope. And press reports point to the British cadaver dogs as having found the ’smell of death’ on an article of clothing at his house
2. Matthew Oldfield - his claim of seeing the children at 9.30pm on 3 May, but not noticing if Madeleine was there or not, and saying that he thought the apartment ‘might have looked a little lighter’, is barely credible
3. David Payne - pops up 144 days after Madeleine ‘disappeared’ and says he saw Madeleine being put to bed, just when the McCanns are struggling to explain to the media when Madeleine was last seen alive by anyone else
4. Jane Tanner - claims to see man from the back with an egg-shaped head and some hair on it carrying something - then changes her story nearly 3 weeks later to ‘I think he was taking a girl in pink pyjamas in a blanket - a story which enables Gerry to broadcast details of the alleged ’suspect’ to the world’s press but without any PJ backing
5. & 6. Gerry and Kate McCann - enough said about them already.
That only leaves three out of the 9, and they are all related to the other 6
October 4th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I heard the McCanns were swinging with the pigs.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 am
1071 - that is extraordinary. Any idea when that site was set up?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:02 am
1068 firestar Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
1055
not even the having dinner without them five miles away thing?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has that ever been proven? Even if it has, do we know that someone wasn’t checking keeping an eye on/ear out for the children back at the resort? Maybe from the Taps bar?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:01 am
1055. Maria, and others.
Perhaps you should read this.
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526033916AABwAEI
“I would like to say that I spent a considerable amount of time last night the legal databases WestLaw and LexisNexis to demonstrate to you how other individuals have fallen foul of the Law in rather analogous circumstances. So, here we go:
In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to S1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.
4 months ago
Lord Justice Law in summing up stated that: “… there was no evidence of any physical harm resulting from this neglect [but] “that both parents had difficulty in accepting the idea that their child was in any danger”…. SOUND FAMILIAR??
NEXT CASE BELOW:
4 months ago
In M v Normand (1995) SLT 1284, HCt Judiciary [ a Scottish case which may have persuasive authority ],the Appellant had parked his car leaving his son aged 18 months old strapped in a child’s car seat in the rear of the car whilst he and his wife went to do some Xmas shopping. A traffic warden was on duty when he saw the Appellants’ car with the chid in the car seat. The child was sitting quietly, appeared to be awake, not distressed and adequately clothed. The police were called and remained next to the car until the parents returned some 55 minutes later. The Appellant was found guilty of a contravention of s12 Childrens & Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937in that he did “wilfully neglect and abandon him in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to health”.
4 months ago
It was submitted that “where a child of this age was left on its own for a substantial period, VERY LITTLE MORE WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED… and that “the child might have become distressed simply by reason of it being left alone in that period of time, and this was a circumstance which could cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health…”.”
October 4th, 2007 at 12:01 am
1070
weirdly enough, you can find them on
http://www.cuddlecat.com
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
1067 Malou
what’s a swinger - neva heard it b4
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
1067 - the swinger allegations have intrigued me. They are stated as fact but I’ve never seen any links. What’s your source/basis for your comment?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
1055. Maria, and others.
Perhaps you should read this.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526033916AABwAEI
“I would like to say that I spent a considerable amount of time last night the legal databases WestLaw and LexisNexis to demonstrate to you how other individuals have fallen foul of the Law in rather analogous circumstances. So, here we go:
In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to S1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.
4 months ago
Lord Justice Law in summing up stated that: “… there was no evidence of any physical harm resulting from this neglect [but] “that both parents had difficulty in accepting the idea that their child was in any danger”…. SOUND FAMILIAR??
NEXT CASE BELOW:
4 months ago
In M v Normand (1995) SLT 1284, HCt Judiciary [ a Scottish case which may have persuasive authority ],the Appellant had parked his car leaving his son aged 18 months old strapped in a child’s car seat in the rear of the car whilst he and his wife went to do some Xmas shopping. A traffic warden was on duty when he saw the Appellants’ car with the chid in the car seat. The child was sitting quietly, appeared to be awake, not distressed and adequately clothed. The police were called and remained next to the car until the parents returned some 55 minutes later. The Appellant was found guilty of a contravention of s12 Childrens & Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937in that he did “wilfully neglect and abandon him in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to health”.
4 months ago
It was submitted that “where a child of this age was left on its own for a substantial period, VERY LITTLE MORE WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED… and that “the child might have become distressed simply by reason of it being left alone in that period of time, and this was a circumstance which could cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health…”.”
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
1055
not even the having dinner without them five miles away thing?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Power comes from two things in this world: money and sex.
Money is less powerful than sex. As example we have the millionair Al Fayad who dispite his money, uptil now could not do anything against the Windsors, the French police and the British Justice.They are all survivig and I thank God for that.
Sex is unlimmited power. It is known that the Mccanns are swingers, possibly not only among the people of group 9.Swingers have the habbit to take pictures of themselves and of each other during their orgies. They know other groups as well.
Could it be that the power of the Mccanns come from knowing too much about important people who are also swingers, who have been also filmed, and those pictures are in the couple’s hands? Or in the hands of swinger friends?The enormous amout of money that they are getting and got before, the support of polititians, millionairs, is this a result of blackmail?They even did not need to say it clearly, the other swinger understood he HAD to help?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
1062 Firestar
I’d love to but sleep beckons. Julie will no doubt be interested (lol)
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
1060
couldn’t you just sort of dig out the teeth after?
i’d be surprised if there isn’t a pig farm round about.
it’s not like england, they haven’t burned all theirs i don’t think.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Anyone heard anything else reported about the medical negligence claim against O’Brien (or was it Oldfield)? Surprised none of the papers have made more of this.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
1055 Maria
Goodnight. You’re joke made me smile. Back to the monastery for me.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
in fact, i’m going to make a cuppa before i do now so if you want to find out whether it’s about the mc canns or not you’ll have to wait up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
1058 Julie - that is too bad because I would be genuinely interested to hear your reasons for that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Firestar- Apparently 13 pigs starved for only one day could devour a body in its entirety with the exception of the teeth in less than 2 hours. I don’t know, there is apparently a pig farm nearby. It would necessitate the removal of teeth first of course.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
1057
it has a lot to do with my point, i just haven’t made it yet.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
1047 Krissie … unfortunately I cannot elaborate here on what my assumptions are. This would lead to a very long, detailed posting from my side which would just be overlooked by other posters.
It is my observation based on several experiences I have had to deal with (both personal and voluntary). As I mentioned earlier, when I brought it up some time ago I was shot down in flames for even daring to think it.
We are all entitled to our opinion here, myself as well as you and everyone else, that is my opinion regarding one aspect of Madeleine (I have numerous others), so I trust that you will respect my decision not to elaborate on this specific point.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
1046 Firestar
It has no relevance in the McCann’s situation whatsoever.
Most laws are ambiguous. Even the judges cannot always interpret them and it has been made more so by the intervention of European legislation which can override domestic legislation.
The law is an ass whether in the UK or Portugal. That is why so many loopholes are exploited and injustices take place. Call me a cyncic, I am. If you believe in something, the weight of public support may carry more credence in effecting a change in the law particularly when the law is lacking.
Fight the fight. Goodnite.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
1050
i know, it’s terrible.
weren’t they alloys as well?
just shows those locking wheel nuts ain’t what they used to be.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
1001 Lawyer
I am not confusing anything.
You (or I) may believe that the McCanns were negligent but they were not guilty of negligence such as would ordinarily lead to prosecution or to having their children removed from the family home. That’s just a fact.
Naturally the case (and any associated charges) would be completely different if the body were to be found.
Some people have suggested they be charged/prosecuted for negligence anyway because they ate at the tapas bar with only half-hour checks on their little children 50 yards away and out of ear shot. I merely point out that such a case would be very unlikely to be successful! If you are genuinely a lawyer, you’ll know I’m right.
Others seem to take the view that it almost “serves them right” to have their daughter snatched. I find that view abhorrent for reasons I’ve given.
I’m afraid I don’t care at all about being tiresome (just skip my posts if you prefer!) but I AM tired so will slink back to the convent now!
Night.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
1031 Krissie
Apologies, you are correct and I’m wrong. I’d read it incorrectly. I’m with you that all 9 of them being complicit seems to be quite a stretch of credulity. I could cope with one or two of them being involved. Oldfield could possibly be ruled out as being complicit if all he did/was asked to do was listen at the door in case any of the children were awake/crying. i.e. He was deliberately directed to listen but not enter, or that’s what he himself decided to do.
Personally, I’m open minded about what actually happened. Too much gossip, rumour, innuendo and no one has actually been charged with anything. You can dream up a million (ok, maybe I’m exaggerating) theories about scenarios that fit the apparently ‘known’ facts.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
This is the link referred to in my previous post. It is about what DNA from hair can reveal: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172756.htm
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
1044 Andy. LOL.
I hear Gerry also got a hair cut on May 4.