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
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
270 brandonflours
How did you come up with this ‘charge syndrome’? I think it’s very interesting.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
They probably had an agreement to take turns checking every few minutes by one of the group. Doesn’t that make more sense?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
926 Portia. I agree with you entirely Portia
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
921 -”Maddie could have been taken while they were in the shower, yes both of them together making whoopie. Then what? Kids cannot be tied to parents panty hose.”
Yes, but the parents were increasing the risk by leaving the apartment altogether and wining and dining at the Tapas Bar on the other side of a swimming pool. They were unlikely to spend several hours in the shower.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
908 - innocent til…
Well like I said to Sunny earlier today…the McCanns should be suspended from duty pending an ethics violation hearing.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Maria-
Sanctimonious means “hypocritically pious or devout.”
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=sanctimonious
So how does that apply to the vast majority of parents who do provide proper care for their children when on holiday?
I think it is very wrong to not give functional parents their proper due. And I do not think it is a virtue to provide basic care to children. It is a responsibility that the majority of parents willingly embrace.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
922 Maria - Good shut up talking nonsense then honey!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
919. I chose to be a family lawyer so although I have some knowledge of personal injury and criminal law, I specialise in public and private family law. I can help you with a divorce but I suspect you are not in a relationship.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
814 - Tony Bennett
This may have been the “perfect” crime by the McCanns but they keep shooting themselves in the foot by responding with goofy responses.
Like we all know…”anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence against you”
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
911 Jo
I don’t need to consult one!!!!!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Maddie could have been taken while they were in the shower, yes both of them together making whoopie. Then what? Kids cannot be tied to parents panty hose.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
908 - That’s enough for me. They should be struck off.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Jo - I am sure you ‘lawyers’ make a mint from negligence cases so whats your problem
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
(915) You got a point there girl!!! lol
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
890 Peter O
Sorry! I was responding to a point you made and then added a couple from someone else’s post. Sorry. Should have made it clear!
It’s obviously true that Madeleine would not have disappeared had her parents been with her but I don’t think that’s a particularly fruitful road to go down now. That’s all. The diappearance still can’t be ignored; it must be fully investigated.
By the way, if the McCanns killed Madeleine, the fact that they left the children for 30-minute periods while eating dinner had absolutely NOTHING to do with her disappearance!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
It is Portugal laws here, not any other, that judge the situation.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
And, Dee, although I’d agree this is a far more entertaining way to waste our days than crosswords or sudoku, at least with those puzzles you have the ANSWERS on the next page or the next day. It feels to me, here, like we may never know the answers, and that is one frustrating jigsaw to put together.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
878 - I mean you are naive if you assume you won’t get into trouble (even when it’s not your fault) and that, if you do, the police in whatever country you are in, are going to behave the same as they would in Britain. The McCanns were very naive when they started slagging off the only police officers who could legitimalely help them. I never said you went abroad to break the law, but would you know if you did accidentally break the law abroad? Can you be sure the police there would be as understanding as you would hope they would be? Remember, even in the UK, igorance of the law is no defence. What if someone ran into the back of your rental car in a foreign country? It wasn’t your fault, but can you be sure the police would see it that way? Are you sure they would behave civilly to you if you protested your innocence?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
(896) Portia I am with you.
After the fall I think they picked her up, brought her into the apartment where the blood splatter happened. Kate went back to Tapas Bar thinking Madeleine will be ok. Things were not ok and GM and O’Brian (?) went into damage control mode.
When Kate returns she realizes ‘They have taken her’
I’m trying to study the time line but damn it’s confusing. They were up and down like hot potatoes all night! Another thing I do not understand is why they didn’t leave and check together. Wouldn’t friends do that? One leaving the 5 minutes later another leaving is strange.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
#894 Indeed
I understand your point. However, in a police investigation of a missing person report, say an elderly man, if it was known that he was in his daughter’s care and on the day he was reported missing that she failed to provide normal care for him - say food or water or medicine or warmth - her lack of proper care, especially over a period of several days, would be indicative of her intention to not render care.
Such a woman would rightly be under suspicion for her father’s disappearance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I am a lawyer Maria and excuse my but you are talking out of your ars*. Before you give legal definitions, do consult a lawyer. I can provide legal definitions and information, but I’d have to charge you for my time.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
905 Barf!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
893 krissie
TThey have changed the secrecy laws:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/nmaddy116.xml
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Principles of medical ethics
A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.
A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.
A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.
A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.
A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
880 Maicen Right, so who does this law serve? Criminals? I mean, if the Portugese police have real evidence, I think they should SPILL IT already. It seems to me they do not have all the evidence we “think” they have because of the leaks. If they DID have all that evidence (Maddie’s blood in the apartment, Maddie’s DNA soup in the boot), it seems unlikely to me that the prosecutor would have handed the case back to them at 10 days… Instead, if they really did have all that DNA/Forensic evidence which has been leaked to the press, I believe the prosecutor would say there’s enough evidence, charge them. Look at the other case we’ve been talking about– Cipriano — as I understand it, the primary bit of evidence that convicted this woman was her daughter’s blood in the freezer. No body. So why did the prosecutor say there is no evidence?
That is why ALL these leaks are so suspect. If they were TRUE, we’d have some charges. In addition, we can also look back over the past 4 months and see story after story in the Portugese press that has proven to be nothing but Baloney. Remember in mid-August they said cops were seriously investigating a British guy unrelated to the Tapas 9? Remember they said an arrest was IMMINENT, expected within 48 hours? I can’t even count the number of times a news story has come out one day, only to be proven entirely false within days or even hours. So , to me, all this “evidence” is really suspect.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
881 Portia
I don’t want to labour this point because, essentially, I agree with you that it was not wise to leave the children, but certainly not a crime in the legal sense nor “negligence” as normally defined by police and social services. The most that would ever happen would be a warning not to do the same thing again.
BUT, a member of staff said that many of the tenants did not double-lock their patio doors. I do NOT think Madeleine would have been able to open the doors from inside. (NOT that this makes it right, of course. Any of the children could have woken up and needed comforting. I assume they “never” did, or hardly ever, and that’s why the parents felt it was OK but, of course, there is always a first time. There seems to have been a general family feel about the whole place. It was 80 paces away from the tapas bar but nearer as the crow flies, on the other side of the pool.)
I should imagine very large numbers of the holiday-makers were English or English-speaking though! It’s a very popular site with the British.
Again, not an excuse. It was an error of judgement. I just think we should be careful about being too sanctimonious about this. Everyone makes errors of judgement but most of us don’t pay the price they have paid.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
875 The Eye says “I don’t believe what they did by eating and leaving the children was criminal”.
Have missed much of the debate here tonight. Is this the latest theory - that they ATE the children? Where I come from, canabilism is still frowned on, and would also be considered a criminal act I believe. But then it all depends on the jury I suppose. Or judges. Or both.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Stop picking on the McCanns!
They are innocent victims - as innocent as poor Maddie so leave them alone!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Optimistically
a) It is possible the PJ have excellent evidence- just spinning it out to gather additional evidence to make the case as clear cut as possible (and clean up their own house).
b) (I hope) the Brit tabloids (and “quality sheets” - hah!) are not being leaned on by the establishment and are dancing to the tune of their only true God - sales. Expect a sudden volte-face when damning facts are revealed, and the hatchet job they’ve been waiting to unleash on the arguidos can commence. Only half the sales if they said what they really thought in the first place - obvious innit?
One positive from this sordid tale - a strong sense that even in the age of sophistocated media manipulation (Julia Hogsbaum - your company is morally moribund but more satisfyingly incompetent shite), the Great British public can still smell a very big rat. Almost restores your faith in some human nature.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
856 “They are doing something. They are keeping Maddie in the media, on TV, and posters everywhere.”
As far as I can see, they are jogging, blogging, avoiding direct quetions, being photographed at Mass, more jogging, spending a lot of (someone’s) money on PR, and lampooning detectives in the country in which they were stupid enough to leave their children unattended nearly every night. They were practically embarrassed into forking out £80,000 (out the million) to re-focus their campaign onto finding their daughter.
If they are innocent, then they are fools to go down the road of PR. People are sceptical (or cynical, or both) in the wake of “Wag the Dog”, Dr Kelly, WMD, etc., and the minute the Max Clifford types arrive on the scene, their clients are immediately assumed to be guilty of something.