Madeleine McCann: DNA Jigsaw, Torture And The Twilight Zone
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE DNA PUTS PARENTS IN FRAME. British experts insist their tests are valid”
Page 7: “DNA tests ‘fill in more pictures of jigsaw’” – A source close to the investigation provides the headline quote. But what has been found is unsaid, and how it involves Kate and Gerry McCann
“New police chief is accused of torture” – Chief inspector Tavares Almeida is to face charges of “beating up a robbery suspect in custody”. The Express says this is a “torture scandal”. The alleged victim – who was accused of being part of a gang that sexually abused children and coerced them into violent muggings - was acquitted
Mr Almeida was dubbed “Kate’s Tormenter”, possibly by the Express today
DAILY MAIL page 8: “New DNA tests ‘put the McCanns back under suspicion’”
The McCanns, both “doctors” are said to be “extremely distressed by the claims”
DAILY MIRROR page 7: “COPS GAVE UP SEARCH THREE MONTHS AGO”
“Investigation in tatters as second detective accused of violence”
THE SUN front page: “McCANNS’ AGONY – MADDIE: NEW DNA LINK TO KATE”
British forensic scientists “are said to believe tests on fresh clues support earlier findings that led to the McCanns being declared suspects”
Page 4: “McCANNS ‘LIVING IN A TWILIGHT WORLD’”
Clarence Michelle says: “We had reports that DNA had proved ‘inconclusive’ and even it had put the McCanns in the clear.”
Reports from whom is not reported
“Now there are reports that the DNA is making them look suspect. There are wholly innocent explanations for any material police may or may not have found. This just goes to show what a twilight zone we are operating in”
The Twilight Zone – wasn’t that the name of the TV show with the sting in the tail?
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE: NW DNA DAMNS PARENTS. Brit police find shock evidence”
But they have not been arrested. The McCanns are just suspects. How is this damning?
Pages 8 and 9: “MADDIE: SHOCK NEW DNA CLUE TO PARENTS – Boffins say cops on the right trail”
“Torture rap cop” – Tavares Almeida is 48
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 9: “Portuguese police ‘right to focus on McCanns’”
A British source says “Everything that has emerged indicates that the investigation is focusing where it should”
A British detective says the case is being “done back to front” – the parents should have been looked at first. The mantra is: “Clear the ground from under your feet”
THE INDEPENDENT, THE GUARDIAN and THE TIMES: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 9th, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,027) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
October 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Thea
“…this sensual psychedelic-gourmand combo gives one super pereceptive hearing, sight and of course you can travel 200 metres in mere milliseconds. that’t why tanner’s paedo descrip was blurred. she was moving at the speed of lesbian light and that’s waaaaaay faster than hetero light speed.”
Hilarious.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
462 - Carmen
That’s more like it - illegal drugs. Didn’t the McCanns live in Amsterdam for a year?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
And surely you cant be serious in believing that one of the other children killed Madeleine. There would be no logical assumption of an unloving parent at all here and therefore no cover up would be necessary as excuses for the event would suffice.
i agree. why would they feel the need to go to such lengths to cover up an accidental death if say one of the kids accidentally knocked madeleine off her cot and she was instantly killed or they found her unconscious, tried to save her but it was too late?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Haigh tried to be helpful. Blue-eyed and handsome, his polished manner, obvious cleanliness, and stylish dress made a good impression on reporters. He answered all questions with apparent concern over the missing woman. Some people noticed that he wore gloves and it was not long before it became known that Haigh was a compulsive hand-washer who always wore gloves, summer or winter. He detested dirt.
Even as Haigh gave interviews to reporters at the hotel, stressing his hope that Mrs. Durand-Deacon would be found safe and sound, the West Sussex constables were checking out his place of business, Hurstlea Products in Crawley.
Haigh had claimed to be the director, which was soon proven to be a fabrication. In fact, from this company he had rented a two-story brick storefront, surrounded by a six-foot fence, for what he called “experimental work.” He had told the managing director of Hurstlea Products, from whom he recently had borrowed money, that he was doing “a conversion job.” Conversion work was a normal industrial practice, primarily used to break down materials in strong acid. People willing to do it could make good money.
The police, led by Horsham detective Pat Heslin, forced their way into the building to examine the contents of the room. They found tools, trays, wires, a sheet of red cellophane paper and a wad of cotton near a bench. Three carboys–narrow-necked, ten-gallon glass bottles used for acid–stood in a row, packed in straw. One was empty, another half empty. Nearby lay a new stirrup-pump with a part removed, and from a hook on the door hung a rubber apron stained by chemicals. There was also a pair of rubber boots and rubber gloves. Inside an army bag was a gas mask.
The police team also found a man’s hatbox and an attaché case that bore the initials, J. G. H. Leaving a guard at the storehouse, Heslin reported these items to Inspector Shelley Symes, who authorized their seizure for a search.
They found papers relating to someone named Archibald Henderson, Rose Henderson, and three people named McSwan. There was a marriage certificate, several passports, identity cards, and driver’s licenses. Deep inside the hatbox lay a .38 Enfield revolver and eight rounds of ammunition. The revolver had been fired recently.
It was not long before they discovered a cleaner’s receipt for a Persian lamb coat. They traced the coat back to one that had belonged to Mrs. Durand-Deacon. Back at the hotel, they found a workbasket in her room with scraps of material that matched patches on the Persian lamb coat. This was sent to the police laboratory.
Then a press report brought Mr. Bull of Horsham forward to report that jewelry had been brought into his jewelry shop to be pawned the day after the woman had been reported missing. Symes collected the jewelry and had it identified by a relative as that belonging to Mrs. Durand-Deacon. The person who had sold it had signed his name, “J. McLean” at “32 St. George’s Drove, S.W.” The jeweler’s assistant recognized Haigh as “McLean.” In previous visits, when he had also pawned jewelry, he had called himself John George Haigh.
Not surprisingly, he was arrested. When Detective-Inspector Webb approached Haigh and asked him to come along to the police station, he reportedly said, “Certainly. I will do anything to help you, as you know.”
It was not long before they not only had found out where Mrs. Durand-Deacon had gone, but other missing persons as well.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Batman
“Sfinx. I have been saying that since last week. Andevalo Dam needs to be checked out”
I have been saying she’s in a dam, near a wall near Huelva since 29th September (post 80) but I don’t think it’s Andevalo Dam. I am trying to get the name of the dam, I think it begins with an ‘S’.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
The end has just begun.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
stevo, their beds were lined up equally side by side? or was the twins’ bed higher than madeleine’s cot?
question for those who believe this new story: how to explain the payne’s having the monitor? did they make that up? i’m fairly certain i heard this corroborated by the resort mgr. or did they use it where their kids were sleeping in the mccann villa? this part of the story is where it falls apart for me.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Judith C
I never said an accident wasnt possible. You can by all means disagree with my conclusion but my logic is not in dispute. Murder is logically more likely than accident. Doesnt mean I’m right though.
Though you state that an unloving parent does not preclude an accident (accepted) you fail to address whether such a parent would also likely instigate a cover up. Cover up goes far beyond a mere attitude of being unloving. It goes into far more sinister mindset.
So are you saying that with an unloving parent that could contemplate such a cover up that an accident is more likely than a deliberate event? It may turn out so but logic suggests the alternative as more likely.
And surely you cant be serious in believing that one of the other children killed Madeleine. There would be no logical assumption of an unloving parent at all here and therefore no cover up would be necessary as excuses for the event would suffice.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The emergency briefing has been going on for ages.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
460 - Roger
Doctors have all kinds of things that the normal public won’t have access to - specialist drugs and equipment to name two things.
There is a story in Portugal that the police found a tranquiliser syringe in the bedroom. Firstly, I can’t believe that the McCanns would leave such a thing in the room and be so incredibly careless like that. But if they did - or if the other kids were all together in the same room, then what if Madeleine got into a medical bag and started playing with things in it? There’s nothing unusual about kids doing that but what if there was some medication or implement that she played with and it killed her? That would certainly be a problem at a professional level. If she’s dead, then why make things worse by telling the truth and losing your highly paid job? You’re a doctor after all - dealing with bodies is your trade…
October 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Stevo.
m.e. is working on the premise that because an ‘accident’ precludes evil it therefore indicates a ‘loving parent’. A parent can appear to be a ‘loving’ parent, they can even believe that’s what they are, but sometimes subconsciously they resent the child and wish it harm - this is usually suppressed but sometimes does result in harm to the child. This is not the same as claiming that they are murderers in parents’ clothing.
So an’accident’ to a child does not necessarily indicate a ‘loving parent’ as m.e. claims, thereby letting the McCanns off the ‘accident’ hook because as ‘loving’ parents they wouldn’t want to desecrate the name and memory of their beloved daughter (or whatever terminology he uses). So I don’t think I am on the same wavelength with m.e. on this point, or sadly with you, if you are with him on this one.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Sfinx. I have been saying that since last week. Andevalo Dam needs to be checked out.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
John George Haigh (July 24, 1909 — August 10, 1949), the “Acid Bath Murderer”, was a serial killer in England during the 1940s. He was convicted of the murders of six people, although he claimed to have killed a total of nine, dissolving their bodies in sulphuric acid before forging papers in order to sell their possessions and collect substantial sums of money. He acted under the mistaken belief that police needed a body before they could bring a charge of murder. As a consequence, he was convicted through forensic evidence and executed on August 10, 1949.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
some time ago when it was revealed that dna had been found of a person in a place that they should not have been, i naturally assumed that it was o’brians semen in maddies bed, but then the rental car came into it which threw that theory into disarray.
do these new revelations mean i can begin to return to my original scenario?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Bulldump, you have stumbled on something here:
Lemmy > Motorhead > Hawkwind > Silver Machine > Silver Renault Scenic
October 9th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
A source close to the family said last night: “Everyone at the fund was happy with the way Justine handled herself and the PR. She did a brilliant job.
“But there was a debate over her overtime and expenses bill which came as a surprise to Gerry. He hit the roof.
“He couldn’t believe Justine’s expenses and overtime were as high as £20,000 for the time she’d been in Portugal.
“She claimed overtime for nights when she had been out drinking and eating with journalists and other people over there.
“Justine was well paid by the fund on a day rate but claimed overtime too along with expenses.
“The family expected her day fee to cover EVERYTHING.
“Then the extra bills came in on top of this and there was a great deal of surprise within the fund.”
The source went on: “The fund’s managers were completely taken aback when she lodged the claim and immediately phoned Gerry.
“He then spoke to her about it. As part of the agreement to part company he said he would not publicise details of the rift. Kate and Gerry put out a statement thanking her for all her work on the campaign.
“But Gerry was livid because her expenses drained the fighting fund of a chunk of money intended to help find Madeleine.”
McGuinness - who stood as a Lib Dem candidate at the 2005 General Election - was headhunted in June to help the McCanns’ crusade to find four-year-old Maddie.
She was picked because of her political background.
???
October 9th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I am afraid I disagree. Accidental death can occur to a child who has a parent who is not ‘loving’. An unloving parent can, even subconsciously, engineer an event or series of events where the child is put at risk and eventually dies. The parent doesn’t have to ‘do the deed’ in one go, so to speak. An unloving parent can cause an accident to happen, or at least, not take steps to prevent an accident happening. So your conclusion, IMO, is based on a false premise.
There is also the possibility, in the McCanns’ case - now that new information has emerged that several other children were left alone in their apartment that night - that one of those children ‘accidentally’ killed Madeleine. In which case, all the parents involved would be desperate for a cover up, for obvious reasons.
well said judith c.
i’m still not convinced the other children were in the mccann apartment that evening. but i did mention earlier i don’t recall the mccanns describing their going round to their friends’ villas. they seemed to only mention checking on theirs. whereas the other adults talked about checking on all the children in the different apartments. maybe i missed something.
i still find the drugging theory more plausible. if oldere children were involved then i would feel more inclined. how exactly would a small child roll up and over madeleine to smother her? or was she accidentally pushed from the bed and knocked unconscious?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Now this is a thought, since we are playing the what if game…..What if it is dad that can’t handle a crying child……..? It isn’t mum at all.
Shaken baby (Child) syndrome or a slap and a child falls and hits her head and that ends it.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
If there were 7 kids in the apartment and Madeleine died there, what could the motive for covering it up be? If true they have covered up the “all-in-one-room” fact which could itself be quite harmless.
If Madeleine died accidentally I can think of no reason to cover it up other than that it did not look like an accident.
If they were all in one room I certainly cannot see why the others would cover it up.
This latest twist to this story is so remarkable and extraoridnary, I hope that (if these latest allegations turn out to be correct) the explanation does not have to come from outside our natural scope of thinking, perhaps even to suggest that there was something sinister going on involving all.
We have to think about motive.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
conspiracy to pervert, will do for a starters.
we can move to pervert the course of justice later
October 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
m.e. You say that ‘there are other ways than murder’ to get rid of an unwanted child.’ If the McCanns didn’t love their their daughter (difficult, didn’t bond with her, autistic, whatever), what would they do? Can’t give her back. Adoption would make them look like failures and ‘look bad’ to their family. They seem cold and the type of people to have a pet put down if it got in the way. They are doctors and used to dealing with death in a detached way. Just a thought.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I am not exactly pro McCann - in case you haven’t noticed. I don’t know the “facts” in this case. All we have is leaks…none of us know the facts.
We are making some pretty good guesses though. Although I do believe in giving a person the benefit of the doubt, I just wish we had something that would lead us in that direction.
Unfortunately, we don’t.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
451 - thea
The story as I’ve read it many times is that Madeleine’s bed was put between the two twins’ cots. From the layout of the room that sounds a bit odd because it would mean one cot pressed up to a wall and would seem to make that cot difficult to reach properly/lift the side down etc.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
you are wrong, i have just spoken to lemmy from motorhead and he has confirmed that jane tanner is his mum
October 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
UK TV news has its own smokescreen today.
The mini budget.
First reports said the inheritance tax threshold has been increased to£600,000. But it turns out this is only for couples, not an individual allowance. So no change there then, as the individual allowance is already £300,000, due to rise to £360,000 next year under existing plans
and
absolutely no McCann news today on tv
October 9th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
327 - Judith C
Unfortunately, seeing photos of poor Madeleine just make my blood boil because it makes me think of the parents. It’s like they raised the bar too high and now I can’t be bothered with the real issue any more. Of course, I am bothered and I hope Madeleine is found. It just ‘feels’ wrong because the amount of publicity has turned the whole thing into a farce. If the parents are innocent then let’s get a trial sooner rather than later.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
steevo, forgive my ignorance but was madeleine in the same bed with the twins?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
bye jerrylyn, ohh! and don’t forget to take your pro mccann shit with you
October 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
More like an accident from lack of paternal oversight …….is their intent to harm the child? Probably not, just a lack of good common sense…and is probably “actionable”…..
October 9th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
What I’d like Clarence Mitchell to tell us is this:
If the McCanns have innocent reasons for the evidence. Why not tell us what those innocent reasons are now? Let’s hear it now and let the McCanns pre-empt any evidence when it eventually is revealed.
I hate the arrogance from the McCann camp. It was the same a few weeks ago when they said “show us the body…put up or shut up.”
Not only are this pair the prime suspects but they goad the police who only a few months ago they were singing the praises of in Gerry’s blog.