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
- 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 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
We simply do not have the facts on which to make an informed decision about murder in this case, and we can debate until the cows come home on their culpability in this affair when it is a legal issue and will be determined by the prosecutors/judges etc. in Portugal.
But certainly this blog, for the most part, believe in Guilty and Death based upon faulty news reports. To me, that is nuts and mean.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
1102 - Andrew - I did use it in context. There was no compassion shown to the 91 year old when handing down the sentence.
I don’t abuse you so I would appreciate it if you kept your foul language to yourself, it merely denotes the fact that you are an ignorant pig.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
why cant we start from the body,in the dumpster then regular vists to th e dump
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
1064 serophina hello. Offences against the persons act 1861. there are plenty to choose from.
4. All persons who shall conspire, confederate, and agree to murder any person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, and whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for any term not more than ten and not less than three years,–or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour
5. Whosever shall be convicted of manslaughter shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life ….
Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, … may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished … in … The United Kingdom Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of … Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of the United Kingdom in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act
10. Where any person being [criminally] stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England or Ireland, shall die of such stroke, poisoning, or hurt in England or Ireland, or, being [criminally] stricken, poisoned, or otherwise hurt in any place in England or Ireland, shall die of such stroke, poisoning, or hurt upon the sea, or at any place out of England or Ireland, every offence committed in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished … in England or Ireland ….
22. Whosoever shall unlawfully apply or administer to or cause to be taken by, or attempt to apply or administer to or attempt to cause to be administered to or taken by, any person, any chloroform, laudanum, or other stupefying or overpowering drug, matter, or thing, with intent in any of such cases thereby to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent in any of such cases thereby to assist any other person in committing, any indictable offence, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude for life ….
23. Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding ten years
25. If, upon the trial of any person for any [offence under section 23 of this Act], the jury shall not be satisfied that such person is guilty thereof, but shall be satisfied that he is guilty of any misdemeanor in the last preceding section mentioned, then and in every such case the jury may acquit the accused of such [offence under section 23 of this Act], and find him guilty of such misdemeanor, and thereupon he shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if convicted upon an indictment for such misdemeanor.
27. Whosoever shall unlawfully abandon or expose any child, being under the age of two years, whereby the life of such child shall be endangered, or the health of such child shall have been or shall be likely to be permanently injured, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude ….
53. Where any woman of any age shall have any interest, whether legal or equitable, present or future, absolute, conditional, or contingent, in any real or personal estate, or shall be a presumptive heiress or coheiress, or presumptive next of kin, or one of the presumptive next of kin, to any one having such interest, whosoever shall, from motives of lucre, take away or detain such woman against her will, with intent to marry or carnally know her, or to cause her to be married or carnally known by any other person, and whosoever shall fraudulently …, take away, or detain such woman, being under the age of [eighteen] years, out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, with intent to marry or carnally know her, or to cause her to be married or carnally known by any other person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years …
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1861OffencesAgainstThePersonAct.shtml
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
1115 Stig
I didn’t mean that link. I meant the link you posted about 24 Horas.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
1105 Well certainly perhaps if they are watching something other than Sesame Street - but I hardly consider a mild child’s program as neglectful - but to each his own!
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
1118 - what makes you so sure they are not guilty of murder? is that such a hard question? your previous answer didnt make any sense at all.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
1117 Kris
The depth of feeling is because as caring parents we hate to see neglect. That’s all.
I just wrote to Peter O that I feel they should at least receive a token punishment so it serves as a deterrent to any others who would do the same thing.
After all, that’s what crime and punishment is there for - to act as a deterrent.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
——————-
“Room listening service
Each evening our nannies tour the rooms to check on your children so that you can relax over dinner. This free listening service is available between 8pm and 12 midnight at all our resorts (except Pedras D’el Rei, Portugal where we offer a drop-in evening creche service) to all children under the age of 13 years.”
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Well if this is how their listening service works, I’m not surprised that this attitude was adopted by not only the McCanns but many holidayers at the MWVC. But at least the McCanns preferred to check on the tots themselves as opposed to someone else doing it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
There are no atheists in fox holes - just like I suppose there are no atheists after a kidnapping - if you get my point.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
799/Marc Bolan
You won’t fool the Children of the Revolution.
You talks of keys and key evidence, but the priest, the phone taps are merely key INTELLIGENCE that will never come near a court room.
The key EVIDENCE will all come from the FSS, this WILL be heard in court and there is PLENTY of it.
All in God’s time, Soothsayer my friend, the endgame is in sight.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
1113 How do you know what is truth - when the news reports are lying - or were you there?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
1110. Stevo. We agree. It was foolish of them. I agree it was a bad idea, that they did not fully consider the consequences of their actions, even that they put their own pleasure above their kids safety. But not criminal and not enough to make me think they are deserving of the hatred and contempt hurled at them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
1095 AgendaWide
Very interesting post. I remember reading way back that the McCanns had to ask where the church was in PdL on 3rd May. They had not visited it during the holiday, so the daily prayers etc. were all post-3rd May.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
1091 Stevo
How about this one?
http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=poolmgzh2.jpg
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
1099 Peter O
I know you’ve said this numerous times but I feel they should have charges and a trial even if only to give them a suspended sentence as a deterrent to other parents who think it’s like being in the back garden when on holiday abroad. We need to see justice for Madeleine’s sake - irrespective of why she’s not here anymore.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
1092 - how the hell do you know thats true? were you there?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
1107. Judge. Sometimes, when you consider the situation, when you consider all the facts and make a decision, you make an ERROR IN JUDGMENT. You think, “By golly, this is a safe place, and we’re only 50 yards away, and there are nannies in the hallway and we’ll be checking every 15 to 30 minutes… it’s fine.” That is considering the facts. It’s still an error in judgment. But it’s not criminal.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
1101 Real Stig
If you’re going to quote me then do it properly please. I didn’t say what you pasted in as my entry at 1080.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
1105 Kris
I agree letting kids watch TV all day is neglect - and some parents do allow this. But I never heard that it was life-threatening or injurious neglect.
Leaving kids in an apartment with hard tiled floors in the dark in a strange country is a different scenario altogether.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Very interesting reading Stig. Link doesn’t work though.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
1101. Wow , Stig, I had no idea that was real. I thought it was a joke. So did MWOCR confirm the McCanns had hired this service that night???
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
1073 - Kris - There is no such thing as a false sense of security in this case. As a parent you consider all the facts and make an informed decision. How can leaving children in an unlocked apartment be a false sense of security when there was no security.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
1102 - Andrew
Absolutely!
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
1096 Pink- My kids don’t watch TV. They are 3 and 4 years old. And I honestly consider letting kids that young watch TV a form of neglect, in and of itself. Mild neglect, mind you, but neglect.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
1082
Who would you recommend then Brian matey? Willibum perhaps? No chance. He’s a woofter!
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
1095 AgendaWide
Do you have a link to that posting in the other forum?
Very interesting read.
Isn’t it amazing how many people suddenly turn religious when faced with prison or death row?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
1083 if you wish to address me, state my whole comment and use it in context. otherwise fuck off
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
1080 Stevo
When the McCanns said they were just instigating their own baby listening service - they were’nt kidding!
Here is the Mark Warner spiel concerning such a service at one of their other resorts - they have of course removed any reference to this from their site - surprise, surprise:
——————-
“Room listening service
Each evening our nannies tour the rooms to check on your children so that you can relax over dinner. This free listening service is available between 8pm and 12 midnight at all our resorts (except Pedras D’el Rei, Portugal where we offer a drop-in evening creche service) to all children under the age of 13 years.”
——————–
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
1086 Wanderer. I don’t know. Today was the first I read that and I don’t know how reliable this waiter is. Remember the waiter from the restaurant who insisted he saw Gerry dancing with Madeleine on the beach that evening at 6:30 when in fact everyone else says Gerry was playing tennis at that time? So I don’t really know. It just seems to me like , for whatever reason, this was standard practice at Mark Warner Ocean Club, and although — like Stevo’s friends — I don’t find it normal or OK, I also don’t find it SO far outside what is normal and OK that it leaves me with zero sympathy for them. IF the McCanns did not actively kill their daughter, IF it was an abduction, I have absolute sympathy for their loss and would not “blame” them. (But this is an entirely different issue — I don’t necessarily believe it was an abduction).