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
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
847 Jolie Says:
I don’t think I’m really qualified to answer your question, though I take your point. It may well just be that the McCann’s are very well connected and have used those connections well. I think the problem comes when we start to read too much into why they have those connections. If we start from the position of assuming them to be guilty in some way in Madeleine’s disappearance (ignoring the debate about leaving the children on their own) then I agree it may look somewhat sinister/manipulative. If they’re innocent, well, they’re just doing what any parent would do.
I had felt that the media attention was waning in late July/early August until the DNA, dogs, etc came to the fore and subsequently the McCann’s being named suspects drove the thing back onto the front pages.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
850 Peter O
They would certainly not be prosecuted for what they did and neither would social services remove their other children for what they did. I have worked with social services for years. I can assure you that people do far, far worse and are still not prosecuted. Have you ever tried to get a child referred to social services or get the police to take an interest? I assure you, it’s NOT easy.
Of course a thing is not right just because many people do it, but this particular act would not have incurred a criminal charge. That’s all I’m saying.
It’s nonsense to suggest they be charged for neglect. The charge would not hold water. Believe me, I have personal experience of FAR worse cases which have not resulted in a child being removed from the parents or of a criminal charge!! Again, that’s all I’m saying.
By the way, what evidence is there that it was for “hours at a time”. Such evidence as we have indicates that they checked regularly every 30 minutes or more frequently.
What precisely is the relevance of it being a “foreign country?” Are “foreigners” more likely to snatch kids from their beds? I don’t think so!
I am NOT saying they were right. I am saying that the kidnapper is the guilty one.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Yes, what a beautiful day!! We’re not scaaared.
I love how the bear looks so lonely and forlorn there at the end, giving you the impression he was chasing them just because he wanted to play. (That’s what I tell my little darlings, anyway).
I know. I’m just going to write a little letter on behalf of “All the Wack Job Posters on the Anorak Forum” (We can sign our individual names if we wish) and ask them to clear up a few little matters for us.
“Dear Sirs. We are doing our darndest to solve the case of Madeleine McCann for you. Toward that end, could you please clarify several matters for us:
Did you, or did you not, find any blood in the apartment or outside the apartment?
IF so, was it confirmed to be Madeleine’s blood?
If it was not Madeleine’s blood, whose was it?
Did you, or did you not, find DnA evidence in the car? what type of evidence? Was it confirmed to be Madeleines?”
The thing is, IF the evidence was as clear as you all think — Maddie’s blood was found in the apartment, DNA evidence in the boot of the car– well then the police WOULD have a case. They would NOT need a body. Look at the Leonor Cipriano case– all they had was blood in the freezer, right? They didn’t need a body then. If the DNA/BLood evidence was as clear as some of you seem to believe, I think the prosecutor would not have sent the case back to the cops for more work. I think he would have agreed to allow charges brought against the McCanns. This makes me believe that the forensic evidence against the McCanns is not as strong as you Guilty-McCann crowd think it is. In that case, the only real evidence we have is that “they act weird — it just ain’t right!” which is no evidence at all.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
#846
The fact that Madeleine was deprived of normal parental care on the day she was reported is significant. It shows a startling lack of parental care and concern. More so since two year old twins were also neglected. All three children were further endangered by being left in an unlocked apartment. Personally, we never did anything like this to any of our four children and I don’t know a single couple who has. I will admit that we are extremely conscientious parents but at the same time, most of our acquaintances are as conscientious as we are.
As for hanging on to the belief that Madeleine is alive, of course that is how I would be, but I would not turn that sliver of hope into an all out, shove it down everyone’s throat, media campaign. On a rational level, it serves no purpose.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Are any of Gerry’s early blogs still on the internet?
I never read any before they came back to the UK. I think it is interesting to know what was said at the time.
There are about three blogs on the missing Madeleind site so he is still writing them, so why are all the others missing?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
856. They are keeping Madeleine’s picture alive in the media yes.
I was talking about a need to share a missing person’s identikit that goes beyond a photograph and may be essential in order to help track him/her or keep this person alive. Maybe my opinion was badly formulated - million_quid seems to understand it though.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
leaving your kids aged 2,2 and 3 alone = irresponsible
leaving same kids alone out of sight and earshot = very irresponsible
leaving same kids alone out of sight and earshot AND WITH THE DOOR UNLOCKED = virtually impossible for a caring parent (which they claim to be) to consider so it only happened because it was made to happen. It is the only option which allows for an ‘abduction’.
How bloody obvious is all of this?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
850 Peter O
‘I’m sorry, leaving your children, especially young children, unattended is a crime. It doesn’t matter how many people do it and DON’T get caught in some way, it’s still a crime. Their crime is neither lessened or made worse dependent upon what then follows in terms of subsequent crimes’
Well push for this conviction then, although I’m not sure if it was a crime in terms of their being in the same resort, but still. But it doesn’t follow they killed their daughter (forgive me if you haven’t said this explicity, joining the discussion in the last hour or so)
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
me? did i say anything?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
840 anonymous
Thanks, don’t mind if I do.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Ludicrous is no longer important.
As this blog has rightly alluded to in recent weeks, this case is becoming farcical. We are in an age of claim,counter claim and ’spin’, which actually makes the truth very difficult to establish. The astonishing noises coming from the McCann camp beggar belief. behind all of the charades and flannel lies a very deep and dark scenario which has yet to be fully exposed. It is, after all, one night, on a balmy early summer day in Portugal, where a group of friends went to dine, on a probably well earned holidy. Then things start to cloud.
I cannot, and will not, ever accept that the parents of Madeleine, Amelie and Sean, left such tiny, defenceless beings alone, even for a minute, in a strange and lonely place. They had no-one to turn to in need. A minute is a long time in a lonely, frightened child’s life. Where were you mummy?
Already, many people have fallen by the wayside in this episode. I have faith in the law. I have faith in human nature. I have faith in the decency of those who know the truth to have a conscience that allows the truth to out. Otherwise, take it to the grave with you.
The Telegraph today says we should get back to focusing on Madeleine.
I have not stopped.
Missing:
One lonely dark night, I fell asleep, a peaceful sleep,
Where light was gone, where strangers didn’t lurk,
Who is with me? where am i going?
I know love, I know warmth, where is it?
What are theses noises, I haven’t heard before,
Where is the touch of those who love me?
Why am I alone, what have I done, please come, to see me,
And cosset me, for i am but a child with fears and dread,
At what is happening inside my mind, alone,
Where have you gone, did you not love me?
or am i just me, alone in this place to fend for myself,
But I have someone, who will give me love,
Please take me now to your place of peace.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
No Portia.
Anyone who thinks it doesn’t happen is hopelessly unrealistic.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I worked in a hotel that did high tea for kids at 5pm. The parents put them to bed then went out for dinner later when they were asleep. Everyone did it, it was common practise
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Krissie Says:
667- Dee
Well, but why? Why sit around trying to prove someone is guilty of murder with false evidence? Because it’s more fun than, say, a crossword puzzle?
Who said it was false? Only said it was leaked - could be more or less incriminatly when it really comes out.
And yes - much more fun that a crossword or sudoku.
And I did have to take a few hours and get some work done - hope I didn’t miss too much.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Bedtime spout.
Acid lake in Spain - does that mean Maddie is now liquid?
British forensic book: did they have it, did they find it, was it given to them, does it even exist. If it was forgotten then found..whichever way, it’s a big pointer to somewhere.
Being American now…you know, a bit of drama, excitement…fun.
nite,
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
842. They are doing something. They are keeping Maddie in the media, on TV, and posters everywhere.
What else should they do, buy a shovel and start digging at the edge of the resort and not stop until they hit New York?
Lost dogs can disappear around a corner and be gone, vanish, which way to look, right, left, ahead, hiding in a bush - it is very difficult. I think of the Vivi search for the Lost Show Dog Whippet, lost from the airport, lost in Queens, the owners were too criticized for not looking enough even though they even rented a heliocopter and looked from the sky. Fliers up everywhere, mass media splashes on TV., Radio, and Newspaper, People magazine covered it, MSNBC covered it, Time Warner Covered it and still very few sightings came in. She was like a ghost dog.
I followed the entire saga and soon the searchers turned on the owners - they were not doing enough. Even someone who saw the Whippet one minute, lost her in a park, gone between the bushes.
What exactly do you want the McCanns to do? Media exposure is the most effective method right now. You might benefit by learning more about searches.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
evening, everyone
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
838. All it takes is THE EYE to find the girl. Sorry, bad joke.
The problem is not the mcCann’s indeed using all our millions of eyes (and pounds) to looking for Maddie. It’s the slight increasing suspicion that the mcCanns may be using the millions of eyes across the globe in a cover up project. Almost as you put it, I am beginning to believe that even one hundred million eyes would not be enough to find Maddie.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Anyone who tries to suggest that untold numbers of people leave three 2 and 3 year olds alone and unprotected in unlock apartments in foreign countries for several hours at a time for several consecutive nights…
is mindlessly prattling.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
843 portia
Surely it wouldn’t even take 10 minutes to carry out my little scenario? With 30min between checks there was plenty of time if someone were observing and made a move right after a check.
Anyway, I am not being too serious here, just thought someone having a key might explain the window.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
846 indeed
A brilliant post.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
837 Maria
The McCanns are either directly guilty of killing Madeleine and covering up her death (and there is absolutely no eveidence yet in the public domain for that) OR they are not guilty of anything more than countless holiday-makers have done. That does NOT make their decision right or wise but it does NOT make them guilty of a crime.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sorry, leaving your children, especially young children, unattended is a crime. It doesn’t matter how many people do it and DON’T get caught in some way, it’s still a crime. Their crime is neither lessened or made worse dependent upon what then follows in terms of subsequent crimes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
824 Portia
I think you may well be right that the belief that Madeleine is still alive is “irrational”. But, assuming they are innocent, surely one can understand why a mother is going to want to hang on to that belief? It must be a desperate longing to at least find out what happened. You can see that KM looks just a shell of her former self. If they don’t insist on believing, they probably would give up. They don’t want to do that. They want people to keep on looking, just in case. I don’t begrudge them that because I would feel exactly the same.
I agree too that the eye mark is a difficulty because, unlike something like hair, it cannot be disguised.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
837 “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” Didn’t the adultress in that parable show regret? The McCanns have shown little in that regard - most of the PR has gone into painting them as squeaky clean, an ideal family.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
777 Peter
I’m not necessarily connecting the two–that one has to be explained before the theory holds up–sorry I wasn’t clear about that. As a separate issue, I was curious about your take on the high prominence of this particular case and what seems to be extraordinary lengths have been taken to support this couple and this case.
From a quick read, it is estimated that each year in the UK, 70,000 children go missing (for all reasons, including running away). In 2002/2003, 846 were reported as abducted (I then read in this article that half of the number are ‘attempted’ abuctions, therefore, only 423 would be successful abductions for those years: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violence/violence12.htm )
Why the extraordinary amount of attention and huge sums of money being showered on this one particular case?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
824 Portia
Struggling to see your point but will try…
1. ‘Proof of negligence and child endangerment on the day their daughter was reported missing which places them in a guilty position in relation to this case. ‘
- It shows that they left their children certainly. The level of ‘guilt’ depends on the charge. Negligence - yes, I’m sure there is a case for that. Homocide, accidental or otherwise - not proven
2. ‘Irrational belief based on no evidence that their daughter is alive. Why do they think Maddie is alive? With all that water readily available to consume the body, what makes them think their daughter was taken by a nice old lady who just wants a little girl to dress up? ‘
- If they are innocent of the various charges made by this board, then, to date, as far as I am aware, there has been no evidence of her being dead. I would think it abhorrent to accept that your child is dead, if you have no evidence of it.
3. ‘Any chances that a real victim of an abduction would have would be completely eliminated by the heavily advertised deformities - in the Maddie’s case, her deformed eye.’
- There are arguments for and against the approach re. publicity. They went in one direction. According to the various missing persons orgs, it had been a successful one in previous cases. They may have made a mistake - and I would ask you if you have led a blameless life or made the right decisions all your life. That decision might well have signed her death warrant, but if you can imagine for a minute, assuming they are innocent of course, your making that decision, being under what I can only imagine as emotional torture - would you be sure of making the right one?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
818 garth
it is apparently true, I tell ya - look at post 327 and others, just search for the word promoted in the thread.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
824 Portia
You’re right of course. Its amazing how celebrity sends people blind to the obvious and potential crime is excused. The apologists will tell us that guilt cannot be proved and there is no evidence of such. This may be true but then we have a million and one contradictions that are clear indicators that something is seriously amiss with the McCanns here. And yet again the apologists (just like the McCanns) will say that a third of them are just nonsense, another third they find a remotely plausible excuse that fits and the final third are brushed over and not confronted fo obvious reasons.
How anyone can rationally come to the conclusion that nothing about the McCanns smells fishy is beyond me. But then they are celebrity now aren’t they?
If O.J. can escape conviction with blood all over his jeep…
And Phil Spector can get a hung jury when he had the gun in his hand shouting that he had killed her……
Then what hope for justice here…?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
‘What if…’
The whole problem with the abduction scenario is that it forces the abduction to have taken place during a busy period when not only the McCann’s were going back and forth, but so were their friends and other guests.
If the abduction had taken place in the middle of the night, which would have been much more likely if someone really had a key to the McCann’s apartment, then the report would at least be feasible. The way the report stands, it is just not feasible that it happened in the way it was reported.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
838 - Doesn’t mean you site back and do nothing yourself, does it?