Madeleine McCann: When Waiters Attack, Kate McCann Childcare Inc. And Feudal Powers
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – ‘McCANNS OR A FRIEND MUST BE TO BLAME’. Tapas bar waiter’s astonishing attack”
Jose Batista served the McCanns and party on that night Madeleine disappeared. “I did not think she had been taken by an abductor,” says he. “I told them [the police] it had to be one of the family or a friend. It had to be someone close”
Mr Batista is a “crucial eyewitness”
Page 4: “Nanny would have cost just £10” – Batista is standing with his “partner” Maria Fernandes, who also works at the Ocean Club complex. She does not speak. She smiles for the camera. Why is she there? They are holding hands. He says the Tapas 9 did check on their children regularly: “I know that because I often took food to the table and found one of them not there. I would take it back to the table to heat it up. But it was always the men who went to check never the women.” Apart from the time Kate McCann went to check. So not always the men. Jose thought that strange. Why?
Says he: “They left heir children alone. If I had been in that position I certainly wouldn’t have done that.” Maria smiles
“Kate may be a child carer after ruling out GP work” – But would she make living at it?
THE SUN front page: “MADDIE EXCLUSIVE: WHAT WAITERS SAW. Kate left kids alone 3 hours a night”
It’s Jose Baptista, not to be confused with the Express’s Jose Batista, even if this waiter does look very similar and is seen holding hands with his “wife”, also called Maria
Pages 4 and 5: “The men normally checked on kids..Kate only went that one night”
Kate and Gerry are “doctors”. Says Jose: “They left their children alone for up to three hours every night.” Apart from when they all went out as family, with the “cranky” children
Maria speaks: “I definitely remember Madeleine. She was like a little angel, very quiet and good as gold. Just a lovely little blonde girl.” Blonde, you say?
“CAREER PLANS STILL ON HOLD”
DAILY STAR page 7: “holiday waiter describes horror night girl vanished – MADDIE: ‘ONLY PARENTS OR PALS COULD HAVE DONE IT’” – Jose Batista says…
“Kate wants job in child care”
DAILY MAIL front page: “I want to work in child care says Maddie’s mother”
Page 7: “Kate McCann ‘wants a job in child welfare’” – So it is “claimed”. So she ahs “told friends”
“FRIENDS ‘SHARED EIGHT BOTTLES OF WINE A NIGHT’” – Says Jose Baptista. Yes, eight bottles between nine Britons. On holiday. In the sun. Indeed, is that all?
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 9: “Madeleine’s mother ‘to as GP for a child welfare job’”
“One possibility is that she will set up a charity to raise awareness of the extent of child abductions across Europe, and help parents and children who suffer such an ordeal”
Fernando Jose Pinto Montiero, Portugal’s attorney general, says the country’s Ministerio Publico, likened to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, is a “feudal power”
THE INDEPENDENT, THE GUARDIAN, THE TIMES and DAILY MIRROR: No Madeleine news today
Posted: 23rd, October 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,637) | 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 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
1044 Momo
Refer back to your 970 post. You said you were interested in CHARGE because Madeleine doesn’t speak in the videos. I elaborated on that by saying we know little about Madeleine and I told you Gerry’s reasons for not giving out much info.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Another thing, is that you don’t even temper your over the top judgments with a speck of doubt, as it could have happened like this…….
And in the process you are slandering (verbal) and libelous (written) reputation of the parents of a child you profess to “love” or “care about” or “want justice for” and what about justice? Do you even know what it means to be treated justly or fairly….I doubt it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
907 Garth Says:
Edit……
Anybody else thought the same?
++++++++++++++++++
No.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
1050 kris…
What the hell are you talking about?
“ZERO sympathy for their judgment error”.
I have not witnessed anyone gets as much sympathy as these pair and what on earth are you on about “judgement error” - it wasn’t a bloody judgement error, its plain and simple NEGLECT and for their own selfish reasons. Do you really believe they deserve
sympathy? The only ones who deserve any sympathy are Madeleine and the twins.
People like you make me sick. I suspect you’re some sort of bloody irritating do gooder who is always going on about criminals rights you sad creature. You really haven’t got a clue.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
1057 Real Stig
I can see it’s a similar photo to the one I did (dunno why you tinted Gerry’s glasses by the way).
Providing you have the right context, it is a cinch to add a person or object to another photo. The key is context. Madeleine is obviously sat by the pool. It doesn’t mean she was sat by the pool that day. But, to paste her in from another photo is a doddle because she’s already in a setting with the right light and features.
I agree it is harder to take an abstract object and paste it in somewhere where it doesn’t belong. But that’s the point here - Madeleine is in the right context so that’s not an issue.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Assume that Madeleine had been doped, then suffered an otherwise innocent accident either as a result of the doping (e.g. falling down the stairs) and the McCs with (or without) help disposed of her body.
Under English law, what crime(s) would the McCs be guilty of and what sort of penalties (max and min) are we looking at? What would be the situation if tried and punished under Portuguese law?
BTW, thanks for the running commentary, guys, it’s very interesting.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
1045 Why do you talk such utter crap about the McCanns?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
1058 Garth
I have ‘personal issues’ but I will be going to the clinic tomorrow. Thought I better let you know before you get the card through the post xxxxx
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
1050 Kris
If it was a judgement error I’d be on their side. That’s the point. It wasn’t a bad judgement. It was a conscious decision to leave 3 under 4s in a dangerous situation. It’s why we bother with a babysitter at all. I mean, if our kids are sleeping and we want to go out socialising then why don’t we just go out? Why do we bother having someone sit in our house in case our kids wake? It’s a basic parenting function to do this.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
1034 Kris
3 babies left alone for 3 hours on 3 days in a row. You can grab 2.700 apples from 99 trees during that time
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
1029 Come on Julie lets be honest ! We are debating/ discussing things here. Supporting Madeleine or indeed other missing children would entail getting involved in groups or forums set up for that purpose and putting up posters and writing letters etc. I have done it and not only for Madeleine. I guess some of the posters here have also. But this is different. For a start you have to accept that it really is much the same audience here each day. Don’t get me wrong. I am not knocking informed debate, but its not supporting Madeleine. People here seem to be trying to come to terms themselves with the horror of a missing child. For me ,abduction is every parents worst nightmare and it is happening too often .It is what I think has happened to Madeleine. I do however welcome your right to disagree with me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
…and whats with the ‘ Garthy boy’ all of a sudden?
Is it because you can’t talk to anyone who doesn’t agree with you? You’ve got personal issues me thinks matey. Go and sort em out.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
1047 Stevo
You contended that it is easier to add someone to a photo than remove them. I think the opposite. That photo is where I removed Madeline - Something not hard to do. But I don’t think I could have added her convincingly from another photo.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
868 sadgit Says:
Edit…
I had a horrid thought:- Were they taking it in turns to carry out abuse?
Somebody, please, come up with an explaination why this is impossible.
++++++++++++++++++
Why the need to explain? Your free to think/imagine what you like. Me, I prefer to think they were just checking the children – albeit this may have been a cover for some other earlier mishap/accident – not that I have a single shred of evidence to support that theory.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
1049
The Real Stig Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
1029 Julie (the 1st)
“Go “religion-bash” people who need it, not people who are here to support a child who was “let down” by her own parents!”
I wasn’t aware Anorak exists for just people who ’support’ Madeleine. have they changed their raison d’être recently, and I just didn’t notice?
******************************************************************************
Stiggie, don’t be dim! ThePinkPanther is bashing Stevo ( who is obviously on the other side of the fence from you) ……. that is what I was referring to! Thought you were brighter than that?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
667 German in Italy
Too true. I know
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
1045- Brain
1027
Garth what are going on about murat for he is quite obviously innocent as it is being indicated that his suspect status is likely to be lifted soon. Again it was the tapas group who pointed the finger at him originally and as far as charlotte pennington is concerned i wouldn’t trust her any more than i trust the mcmonsters.
pinky…. for gods sake why do you talk such utter crap???
Why is Murat obviously innocent? If Murat was going to be cleared, why didn’t it happen today or yesterday. He is still an arguido.Fact. Possibly being cleared isan’t fact. Right?
And why wouldn’t you trust CP. Because you dislike her?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
1042 Stevo , sounds like a gas! I reckon a few of us dudes would have a ball celibrating the conviction of the McMonsters. Deservedly so, we should put in a claim £by the hour haha that would pay for us all. Hey McCann’s we don’t want your BLOOD MONEY stick it, we’ve got our own. Suckers
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
1041
Garth….yet again you have not backed up your anything you are saying…I shall ask you again What Independent Witnesses??????
And one more thing Garthy boy, i think it may not be long before one or more of the “party” are made arguidos.. What then garth??
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
1024. Stevo. Well , maybe it is splitting hairs, but to me it’s a big difference. There are crimes of commission, and crimes of ommission… People who are actively committing a crime and people who commit a crime by failing to think clearly. I just get tired of people saying the McCanns are guilty no matter what , even if Madeleine was abducted, because I think we often have some level of pity/sympathy for parents who make bad decisions and then have bad things happen. But for some reason, the McCanns seem to merit ZERO sympathy for their judgment error.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
1034 Kris …. you cannot compare going and grabbing a few apples from a tree (in the safety of your own home environment, and where your children are comfortable as they are not away from their ususal surroundings) to leaving children alone in a foreign place!
ACCIDENTS happen in homes, I’ve had a few in my own … thankfully it never led to the death of one of my children. However, I never went 100 metres (or whatever) down the road and left them alone, while I went out for dinner and a few glasses of wine!
You’re talking about TOTALLY different scenarios here!
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
1029 Julie (the 1st)
“Go “religion-bash” people who need it, not people who are here to support a child who was “let down” by her own parents!”
I wasn’t aware Anorak exists for just people who ’support’ Madeleine. have they changed their raison d’être recently, and I just didn’t notice?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
960
The Real Stig
What’s with that photo? What did you ask me if I’d seen it for?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Compassion does figure in sentencing, but how can you be compassionate with someone who denies all culpability? Sorry, but in my experience the sentence would be stiffer, deservedly so. McCann’s, take note
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
1027
Garth what are going on about murat for he is quite obviously innocent as it is being indicated that his suspect status is likely to be lifted soon. Again it was the tapas group who pointed the finger at him originally and as far as charlotte pennington is concerned i wouldn’t trust her any more than i trust the mcmonsters.
pinky…. for gods sake why do you talk such utter crap???
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
1035 Stevo
What are you talking about?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Steve, ask someone else then if you do not believe me? Ask someone who will be honest with you……..
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
973 Cheers Andrew!
Like I keep saying…when this case is solved I propose some kind of “do”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
1028
Brain
Unless one of the ‘party’ is an ‘arguido’ which they’re not, then the evidence they give should be considered. And the egg shape is just a load of crap mate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I had nothing to do with my real parents at all. It was very difficult as my mother was a revered member of the royal family and my father was a feared underworld Mr Big. I was brought up by 4 little piggies who although they didn’t abuse me they did literally shit on me on a regular basis.
Never did me any harm!