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
- June on Poole Replaces Christmas With A Recyled Jesus And Fake Tree
- miles on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
868 bc
Here is a link to an archive of Gerry’s Blog that a woman keeps on her website. Most recent blog entry is at the top of the page:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pamela.watson43/pamalam/GERRY‘S%20BLOG%20DIARY.htm
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
He was six and was watching cartoons. I was 50 feet away.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
950 roger
Had Colin McRae been the sole survivor, would you advocate society punishing him for risking those lives? By taking them for a flight in a helicopter - a form of transport well known to be more dangerous than walking - he was clearly putting them at risk
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
926 Portia
Only because it seems unduly triumphalist to almost gloat about ones own better parenting when they have suffered such unimaginable grief as a result of their error. It hardly seems the moment to kick ‘em when they’re already down.
One of the Collins definitions of “sanctimonious” as “…making a display of holiness” will do me for this purpose!! There are as many definitions as there are dictionaries but one meaning is certainly the idea of unpleasant ostentation in displaying a holy attitude. I mean that holier-than-thou attitide which seems to lead some people to want to point to their own superiority at a moment when someone else is suffering as a result of a fault of their own.
Put simply, I just think it’s cruel to add to their suffering by beating them up further.
I don’t take any of this back. If the Mccanns are not directly involved in the actual disappearance or death of their child, they need to be left in peace now. They will regret what they did for the rest of their lives so they don’t need salt rubbing in their wound. What they did would not be punishable in law and social services have not taken away the twins. I assume this is because there are no other signs of neglect and everyone is absolutely sure that, whatever any other parents ever do, the McCanns will NEVER leave a child again, even for a moment. The twins look very happy and secure, very much loved, well fed, etc. etc.
However, I hope that I, like you, would always at least strive to be a good parent. I don’t think we disagree on that! I may seem to be defending the McCanns on this one but I am definitely an over-protective parent, if anything, and I think I would simply take it in turns with someone else to go over to the tapas bar even if it was quite near the apartment.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
And if anyone is still interested you might want to read this;
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526033916AABwAEI
A Story: The Law regarding the McCanns and child neglect…?
Now I would like for all of the pro-McCann supporters to gather around and make yourselves comfortable, because I would like to tell you a little story. It is a story which you may be unfamilar with, it might even be a story which you really do not want to hear. Nevertheless, I am going to tell it to you, and, I would urge that any words or concepts which you find difficult to understand you ask the person sitting next to you to explain to you.
Once upon a time, there was a respectable, well-to-do couple who went on holiday to Portugal and left their three under 4 year olds in a hotel room whilst they went off to a restuarant to eat… WITH ME SO FAR??? Ok.. good… One of the children was abducted from the hotel room, and then many of the people around Britain went online to express how the parents had made a little mistake which was not in breach of the law and so should be rewarded for their behaviour with a trust fund, yellow ribbons and a protracted family holiday.
ADDITIONAL
Additional Details
4 months ago
Now, this where we come to the complex part. I say complex, because according to a number of the pro-McCann supporters no law has actually been broken. So for the uninitiated, 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…”
So… are we now clear??? or would you like me to provide you with further precedents for neglect??
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
954 The Eye
How old was he? I mean we are not talking him being 18 or something are we? Was he very young or a teenager?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
953. Terrible, tragic. He has no common sense about this. Went for a run, tired…..stupid. I can hardly believe it. The man knows no shame!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
When I lived in an apartment, I had to do laundry and left me son watching TV while I went down the hall. When I came back he was crying, “Mommy Mommy where are you.” He obviously was scared. I just made sure I told him where I was next time I went to do laundry.
Neglect?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
952 The Eye
He can’t help himself love, he is an attention seeking, self publicist!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
949. Odd. He should not post a diary. Hasn’t someone told him! “Gerry knock it off. It doesn’t make you look good. Stop with the Diary for God’s sake!”
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
950 Roger
Roger you rock! I couldn’t agree with you more!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
837 Maria
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Of course the McCann’s know now it was unwise to leave the children alone. But how does it follow that because other parents do it they should be left uncriticised or unpunished. Or that because they are grieving a loss that that is punishment enough?
There are good reasons for punishment. They are professionals who have knowledge in this area, so they know the risks. The probabilities of an abduction may not be high, but the consequences are dire. The fact that it may be common practice I would regard as especially good reason to prosecute, so that those still willing to take the risk, will realise that they themselves may be punished.
You should not overestimate that there will be a responsible response to this tragedy, many people will continue doing this because different people assess the risks faced differently, and they prioritise their own satisfaction and needs differently. Different people care more or less for their children.
This is why legislation in the area should be tightened up.
This is not hot air at a distance, I have faced this very problem myself, and have had to resolve it as best I could despite the kind of denials and excuses people make when they are caught doing it. And there are a multiplicity of dangers associated with this kind of neglect.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Has anybody read Gerry’s blog day 151? I still can’t believe it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
(913) DeeDeeDee
Never thought that she could have survived a fall and died later when Kate was at the bar. Interesting point. Feasible.
When I was three, I fell down a flight of carpeted stairs (after being warned several hundred times that it would eventually happen). When I landed I yelled out - Am I dead yet? I’ll never forget the laughter - it was the very last time I ran down stairs.
I hope that’s all that happened to little Maddie. Don’t their parents realize that most people genuinely care about her and want to know that “they” really didn’t take her?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
http://books.google.com/books?id=8goedbtjWnwC&pg=PA687&lpg=PA687&dq=portuguese+child+protection+law&source=web&ots=_UW8bwZ_v_&sig=w5uWkv9FYpDVB-UXHeIAWkc9I4g
If you zoom in you will read;
“Art. 1915 Portuguese CC uses a general clause which covers not only mens rea by parents that leads to serious harm to the child (Art. 1915 No 1 1st part Portuguese CC and Art. 192 Portuguese Child Protection Law) but also involuntary harmful behaviour, such as that resulting from inexperience, illness or absence (Art. 1915 No 1 2nd part Portuguese CC and Art. 192 Portuguese Child Protection Law).
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Fact o’ the matter in this case is ….. a small child disappeared because she was not “protected’ by her parents.
Parents bring children into this world, to love and protect them beyond all boundaries possible. These things clearly did not happen here. They say there is nothing more powerful than a parent’s love for their children …. but there are exceptions, numerous exceptions.
When a case like this happens, where there is no clear-cut proof that a child was abducted (the timelines given do not give a clear indication of this). All of the unanswered questions in this case lie with those who where with Madeleine last. And yet, those who were with her last do not want to give the answers that are required …. this leaves a gaping hole in what actually happened to Madeleine.
When a child is genuinly abducted, there are normally quite clear answers as to the circumstances surrounding the abduction :
* What were the childs movements on the day of “abduction”
* What time was the child last seen (by a person totally independent to any possible involvement in what happened to the child)
* What was the child wearing at the time of the abduction
* Who was the last person to see the child
* What was the child doing when she was last seen by a credible witness
* Who first noticed the child was missing
* What actions were taken directly after it was noted that the child was missing
etc.. etc.. etc..
In all of these questions regarding a genuine child abduction, there are normally very clear answers and facts, YET in Madeleine’s case, the questions are becoming more and more, while the answers have never been clear. The answers are changing more and more, and this leads one to believe that there is FAR more to this situation than meets the eye!
There is more than one person who knows what happened to this little girl, and eventually someone’s conscience will get the better of them, and realise that the precious memory of a small child is worth far more than a “pact”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
941. Most of the world does not think there are bad guys behind every bush waiting to do evil to babes!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
912 Portia
Not quite sure if this is what you are suggesting, but if it is, then I agree that the McCanns should have been considered suspects (in a formal investigation). This should have been considered first - before anyone else, as I assume would be all right and proper in a police investigation.
That they left their children alone does not mean that they killed them - one does not lead to the other. If you say that they made it more easy for some accident/sinister outcome to occur, then I would agree that it is more likely, but does not follow that it is an a fait accompli. It certainly does not follow that they are guilty of killing her.
There is no evidence of accidental death, at least in the public domain. And, if there was enough evidence at PG police hands, surely they would have charged them by now. Either way, at this time, they are innocent of the charge of killing their daughter. The charge of negligence, being all we know about, is all that is up for logical discussion
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
933 Innocent etc…..
Ok… in the interests of public awareness you can have my services for free:-
Public family law concerns the issue where social services become involved with a family through a number of ways eg:-
- a referral from the public alerting them that a child may be at risk of harm or have suffered harm
- a referral from midwives when a child is born that mum is not treating it properly or handing baby roughly
- a district judge may make a referral for a welfare report to be undertaken in private law proceedings to establish if a child is at risk of harm.
Social services have limited funding and therefore can only intervene in extreme cases eg, serious physical, mental, emotional or sexual abuse based on what is called the “threshold criteria.”
When Social services investigate they look at a number of factors which may indicate that a child is at risk of harm. In the socially acceptable case of the McCanns an objective assessment of them would probably deem them to be the “ideal” family with no trigger factors raising alarms.
Shall I go on?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
936 - “Jacqueline de Croÿ Says: Gerry McCann is reported to have told friends: “The police are listening to every word we say.”
Thus the penchant for jogging - a chance to converse in relative privacy.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I can’t believe how some of you ‘parents’ can go to the lengths you are to make light of leaving those 3 tots (still babies in fact) alone at night in an alien environment with open doors, steep steps etc whilst they wined and dined a distance away. I personally think that is disgusting and to think…they are doctors!! Anyone trying to trivialise this FACT should be ashamed of themselves..
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
899 Andy
I just read the entire article you posted and am horrified. I’m glad the mother-to-be found someone who is willing to help her with the court case and hope she is able to get justice.
If Social Services really cared about the child’s welfare, they would hire someone to live with and monitor the mother in the early postnatal days to ensure bonding and caregiving is proceeding normally and not separate mother and child.
I hope the article sparked a public outcry on her behalf.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
937 Thought of all that. You are right!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
928 Yes, they increased the risk. That they did do.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
927 - We must bear in mind that fear of losing two rather high salaries would also motivate one to create a smokescreen and a diversion; trying to cover up a serious crime need not be the only reason for their odd behaviour.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Gerry McCann is reported to have told friends: “The police are listening to every word we say.”
This is just a question of getting used to the fact there are cases where the private life just vanishes.
When we decided to publish the case of the French paedophile judge of youth, it was announced on Internet 11 hours before the article was actually published. We just had ONE telephone call between colleagues to discuss about it, so that presumes tapping. I must admit it is a little surprising at first.
If the Portuguese law has just changed about the secrecy of the inquiry, it has nothing to do with Amaral & Cie, but because banning the people to talk though they are not liable to professional secret is against European laws.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I don’t agree with leaving young children alone. But one simply can’t stand guard all the time. What they did was unfortunate and tragic for Maddie. But I don’t think they are “Jack the Rippers” …..
About the shower, oh, I don’t know about the time in showers………depends on how “dirty” you are!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
709 batman
You realise the photographer killed me, don’t you? The flash was so powerful it blinded me and well, you can guess the rest
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
What does public family law involve - please elaborate further Jo. BTW you are right I am not married
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
889 Portia
Fully agree.