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
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
- Clive on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- yampster on Jamie Cullum Sings The Persuit, In Pictures
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
A body can also be dissolved in acid, but that requires a tank. A child alive can cross the boarder and be buried in a place no one is searching.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Manon,
I think you mean “Menezes”? The inquiry is over and done with (no police were sacked or suspended) or can you please provide evidence of “ongoing” as you stated. There will be trial is that what you meant?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
More impotantly, will anyone bother now?
I thought the empire had collapsed years ago, but now the portuguese have new English masters!
How long do you think the ’suspects’ status will last now!!!
Watch them follow dear old Clarence (and his real boss Gordon) as he leads them all (the English, and now the Portuguese, press and police) on a wild goose chase away from the truth and from any hope of justice for that poor neglected child.
What a precedent to set!
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
(504) Portia -
“Every single story I have seen of parents relating “similar” stories occurred in completely different circumstances and involved older children.”
Like real evidence of an abduction?
I posted this last night
These are US stats
(Note: Parents includes stepparents.)
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 –
* 31% were killed by fathers
* 29% were killed by mothers
* 23% were killed by male acquaintances
* 7% were killed by other relatives
* 3% were killed by strangers
Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
509 Moderation Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Aw Gee, don’t any of you read Kathy Reichs novels?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gee.. You mean there IS life outside of this place?
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Aw Gee, don’t any of you read Kathy Reichs novels? Give her a bone from whoever, whenever and she she can tell you everything!!!
And of course she’s for real.
A Forensic Anthropologist who writes about it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
504 Portia Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
LUDICROUS NONSENSE is the key to the case.
The McCann’s are the only parents on earth who leave three 2/3 year olds alone and unprotected and in an unlocked apartment, every single evening of their holiday.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sadly Portia this appears NOT to be true. I don’t agree with or in any way condone their actions on that night…
I’ve lost track of the number of times my wife and I have eaten separately whilst on holiday, or brought food back to the apartment so we could eat jointly, or indeed brought some friends along to share the baby sitting duties. My young boy is perfectly capable of getting himself into all kinds of trouble on his own (cos it’s what young kids do) that I wouldn’t dream of leaving him unsupervised for any length of time (hell I get frantic when going for a pee!), and that’s without introducing the possibilities introduced by unlocked doors and strangers!
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Well the McCann’s challenged ‘Find a Body!!!’
I think we will not find a ‘body’ because she was mistaken for a German Shepherd and creamated. So no autopsy. No idea what you can determine from ashes but couldn’t be much.
If you throw it in the ocean - there is that chance that it will drift back to shore or get caught in fishing lines.
If you bury it theres a big change of someone else’s dog finding it on a walk.
What else can you do with a body?
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Re. 500.
So I was wrong about it being just the defendant who can request a jury.
I’ll see if I can find the link about the judge overriding the jury.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
501 susannah. Good question. Here’s another. Why would an abductor kill her? Because she became too recognisable? The abductor would not have known that for some days, so maybe the date of death could be established. So if it was clear she had only been dead for, say 4 months, then it is unlikely that the McCanns were involved. We need ‘Miss Match’ on this one.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
LUDICROUS NONSENSE is the key to the case.
The McCann’s are the only parents on earth who leave three 2/3 year olds alone and unprotected and in an unlocked apartment, every single evening of their holiday. This apartment was completely out of earshot and not in clear view of the tapas bar.
Their purported action is so farfetched that it is not credible. It is ludicrous nonsense.
Every single story I have seen of parents relating “similar” stories occurred in completely different circumstances and involved older children.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
502 susannah
right you old bag
xxx
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Will go to hell.
Just joking.
If polite is the new rude.
Then rude is the new nice.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Again I need to ask the question. If a body is found, won’t murder just be blamed on the abductor.
How will it finalise the case?
———————
Mods and Admin
More intense PM and forensics may be able to ascertain who did what, or even who didn’t do what
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
475. Stevo.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Portugal-JUDICIAL-SYSTEM.html
“Justice is administered by ordinary and special courts, including a constitutional court; the Supreme Court of Justice in Lisbon, consisting of a president and some 60 judges; five courts of appeal, at Lisbon, Oporto, Coimbra, Évora and Guimarães; courts of first instance in every district; and special courts. The jury system was reintroduced in 1976, but it is used only when requested by either the prosecutor or the defendant.”
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
487 Murder Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I’m with you up until you say they want to avoid an autopsy - Where is the evidence that this is a known fact?
Not disputing that you may be correct. I’m one of those that believe something(s) need to be hidden, though I don’t have a clue what!
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Muder - very well
They wanted to avoid an autopsy because some evidence that would have been found on the body would destroy their lives, careers, whatever they are protecting. (Sure wasn’t Madeleine they were protecting, was it?)
That said Miss Match pointed out if the child was drugged but had died in an apparent fall - then a tox screen would not have been requested. So I would infer that there was other evidence on the body that would have warrented a deeper investigation.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hope everyone has been polite whilst I have been away.
Remember polite is the new rude!
487 Murder
Top quality post - sure to encourage some to revert to [1]
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
463. Sorry for the mistakes I keep making in English… I sometimes see it at a glance when it’s too late.
The cadaver dogs do distinguish the scent of a human corpse from other smells and they have been successfully used to detect bodies in the Tsunami catastrophy, for example. They may be a valuable contribution - if not essential - in the continuing search for Madeleine so hopefully the highly trained cadaver dog(s) are brought back to Praia da Luz.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
496. Anon - I work in news, but not in weather.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
491. Manon,
Shouldn’t you be getting ready for your weather gig on the evening news?
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
469 brandonflours Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
my mum dipped my dummy in whisky and guiness to help us sleep
I never
+++++++++++++
My mum was forever telling me to “put a drop of brandy in his milk” when I complained/commented of floor walking with my youngest in the middle of the night for several nights - or was it weeks?
Seemingly, according to my Mum anyway, “It’s the best thing ever!” No amount of my wife and I explaining that alcohol is a pure toxin to a young baby would change my Mum’s mind and she did indeed trot out the old excuse that “…it never did you, me, my mum, uncle tom cobbly et all any harm…”
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
488. Murder: If anyone disputes anything in this essentially ‘neutral’ framework, then please explain why (rather than resorting to points [1] or [2] above).
That would be a fine day wouldn’t it? Another great post - thanks!
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
492. DeeDeeDee Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Manon - that article is from 6/11
Yes DeeDee, that’s when news of Amaral’s & the others’ charges were first reported in the press.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Mods and Admin
Manon I have just posted telling you why not, because the spam detector won’t let more than one link through the system. All you are doing is spamming yourself off the site.
************************************************************
Yes thanks, if you notice you posted your answer at the exact same time as I posted the question, so I got your answer directly after I posted the question.
————————-
Mods and Admin
yes did , also got distracted by a phone call , sorry about that.
But we are trying to improve the ’spam’ detector, and eventually after 2 or 3 attempts posters will spam themselves off
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Manon - that article is from 6/11
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
471. I know Andy it’s frustrating. Thank you for reposting that link and setting everyone straight.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
GENERAL POINT: Working forrwards and working backwards.
Many posters here start with some idea (Innocence, Guilt, Abduction, Manslaughter) then work ‘forwards’ from that to explain (their versions of, usually highly selective) ‘evidence’.
Some say ‘there’s no evidence’ so:
[1] Everyone shut up, I’m off you sad buch of losers.
[2] We must assume the McCanns are innocent, how can you all be so vile?
But there IS plenty of undisputed evidence, beginning with on-the-record statements (and silences) and the recorded behaviour of those involved in the events of 3 May and since. The many ‘leaks’ on either ’side’ are also in themselves ‘evidence’ (they are themselves facts which could be different), but not very ‘direct’ evidence.
It seems to me that the PJ are, naturally (like any intelligent observer), primarily ‘working back’ from the evidence to see what hypotheses might explain it, and what hypotheses can be ruled out. They, unlike posters here, can also test hypotheses, and elements of hypotheses, in order to rule them in or out.
They began by placing a lot of emphasis on ‘the abduction hypothesis’, but as they examined the developing evidence over the first week of the enquiry, they started to direct their attention elsewhere, while still keeping all lines of enquiry open.
By now they (like any intelligent observer) believe there has been some attempt on the part of the McCanns to manipulate evidence, rather than simply cooperate openly with the ongoing inquiry into their daughter’s disappearance.
It seems to me that the fundamental question is:
WHAT DOES THAT TELL US?
Maybe it tells us only that the McCanns are rather strange people, led by their appalling situation into very strange behaviour.
Far more likely, it suggests they are attempting to misrepresent the events of 3 May and since, and their part in those events, for some reason other than emotional confusion.
And the most likely reason is their wished - and still wish - to avoid an autopsy of their dead daughter.
Still working ‘backwards’, the question then becomes:
WHY DID THEY WANT TO PREVENT AN AUTOPSY?
Not because of anything that could be presented as a tragic accident.
THEN WHAT?
Please take it from there - or if you prefer to stop at an earlier stage and explore ‘emotional confusion’ scenarios, fine.
But surely the point of a forum like this (well, one primary point, at least) is informed discussion.
And for that you need a common agreed framework.
If anyone disputes anything in this essentially ‘neutral’ framework, then please explain why (rather than resorting to points [1] or [2] above).
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Link 3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/nmaddy103.xml (referred to)
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Link 2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461111&in_page_id=1770