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 3:43 pm
472 Third Way
I think the who pro and anti camp is a bit much…
a) There are people who feel strongly they are “involved/guilty”, watching a charade, and don’t like being taken for fools.
b) There’s another group who see the strong reactions from the first group and want to defend the people they perceive are being attacked (as the evidence has not been formally presented).
Some others hover between a) and b) but not many and less and less.
That probably describes 99% of the people in here.
As to your hypothesis my question is;
What were the people “close to the McCanns” doing with Maddie that killed her?
If it was in any way sinister (murder/abuse) the parents should (if they are people worthy of respect) have gone to the police irrespective of social consequences. As they did not, and given how they have reacted in front of the media, they at the very least accessories to murder…. i.e. involved/guilty.
If it was someone “close to the McCanns” that killed her but it wasn’t sinister (accident) then it could have been brought to police attention without the swingers thing (or whatever) being made public…therefore not logical.
Ergo…. your “Third Way” seems like a detour to the “guilty/involved” camp (IMHO).
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Third Way.
It totally makes sense to me. But so does Gilmore Girls and Stars Hollow.
I was always wondering, if there were these allegedly 40 questions to ask, and if the parents were as innocent as they insist they were with -what was that? parenting inside what boundaries? come on people, help me out - why were there questions they would not answer? As I said, welcome to our cosy club here.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
495 - Harry surely our children and their children are our future. We simply live to give them a better life, at least we should.
Then come along the dogooders who fight for things they have nothing in common with, and the rest of us pay the consequences.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I don’t know if Gerry McCann is involved in the disappearance of his daughter. But I must say that it shocks me that the NHS should even consider having him back at work while he is still an official suspect.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hello,
Is Madeleine precious and unique because of her right eye, on the contrary on can think she can never be found cause of that eye. An eye can be changed: Robert Murat as a glass eye. Murat had connections with Jehovah’s witnesses. Read on Wikipedia full article “Pedophilia and Jehovah’s witnesses”
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
People may say that my future is behind me - but those how do reckon without my 20: 20 hindsight and the self parody in the name what what
————————-
Mods and Admin
I did, and said so, Seymour , or less…..
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
http://www.anorak.co.uk/?p=177088&cp=25#comment-89945
Harry ,
good dogs don’t need a lead. They go for it, and get what they were looking for in the end
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Thats the trouble with these chaps who are slaves to hindsight,nothing in the future for them,always looking back and still able to make a royal arse of things,what what.Forward thinking is needed here,what what.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Oh, and this theory would also be consistent with the unconventional behaviour of the McCanns. They know what happened and they know that Madeleine is dead. Therefore any attempt to look for Madeleine or communicate with a possible abductor is not apparent (even if you were acting it’s impossible to successfully accomplish this).
But on the other hand, they can’t just admit that something very sinister happened that caused Madeleines death. Therefore they keep building up this whole mega theory that she was abducted and they are victims of shortcomings in the investigation.
They know what happened, and they know that the police also knows what happened.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I see myself more as a hound of truth: on the scent and off the lead.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
488 Judge Dread, I want to be led by dobadders.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Dispatches has appeared on YouTube in 5 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTnxZr-ju-c
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
483 - Harry we are a society of automotrons led by dogooders. Have been since the 80’s.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Momo - me too!!!
But Harry the nation of sniffer dogs lead by donkeys comment was pretty funny.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Yep…..That’s the reality of the Anorak Forums. They censor posts, Peter O. Have done for a long time, especially if it in any way suggests the McCanns’ innocence ie that they are guilty of gross negligence but innocent of killing their own child.
It’s a sickening indictment of how this site runs. If you don’t go with the majority, you get removed. Of course, Anorak the moron will try to excuse the fact this is happening with some piss-poor rationale but hey, they will continue to flex their internet muscles to silence those who aren’t sheep. But you can’t keep a good man dow-
————–
Mods and Admin
People are free to support the Mccann parents without hassle or hindrance, as are those who do not.
But your behaviour is and was unacceptable,whatever side of the fence you would be on.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with your views of the McCann parents, if you could put forward reasons as to their innocence and lack of wilful neglect of their children in a rational and balanced way , without resorting to insults, then you should not have been banned.
This post shall be allowed to remain, any further from you will end up with the others.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
483 Harry
I trust those dogs. Nothing else.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
OK you’re right - I shouldn’t have used “extremist” but rather opposing comments.
Back to the “Third Way” theory - don’t you think it’s consistent?
One thing that always intrigued me is when the guy who was the spokesperson for the PJ gave that interview to the BBC (when he admitted for the first time that Madeleine could be dead). He kept saying that the McCanns were the “victims” of this case because their daughter was not there anymore. Now, at this stage the PJ had not made them formal suspects, but they probably already had enough information to suggest that she died in the apartment and how she died.
If he thought that Madeleine was abducted, he would not need to say that the chance that she was dead gained consistency. Equally, if he thought that they actually killed her, it would not make sense to keep stating that they were “victims because Madeleine was not there”.
Thoughts welcome.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
OK then, not a nation of lions lead by donkeys, but a nation of sniffer dogs leads by donkeys
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
478 Harry Hind Sight
It could just be plain and simple common sense?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
447:Harry Hind Sight
” only here in Blighty that the people at the top are donkeys promoted above their ability through contacts, whilst the real talent resides in the ranks”……
no, I don’t beilieve that of Lord Eddie and Keela..masters of their craft and ‘woofs’ worth taking notice of!…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
472
Third Way Says:
“When they are confronted with some of the questions put to them - they retract and refuse to answer those questions. The PJ decides to make them formal suspects (arguidos) as a way to increase the pressure. (note that arguidos does not necessarily mean that you are suspect of perpetrating a crime).”
As I understood it, making them “arguidos” is a precondition to ask the kind of questions you have in mind.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Anonymus will be coming out any minute and tell me again not to feed the creationist.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Ian,
I will have to break the question down - do you think that the PJ’s experts conform to your norm, namely, i.e people who are “not expert at all, often narrow minded people with limited vision who can’t see whats right in front of them.”
If not, upon what do you base your conclusion that they differ from your undertaking of the typical “expert”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Third Way
Interesting scenario.
What I don’t agree with is “extremist comments”.. This whole thread is all about speculation and so is your post. What sets you apart? Welcome to our extremist comments world then, join in, get yourself some sausages, enjoy.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Madeleine McCann ?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
472 I dont think there are ‘anti Mccanns’ as such.
Its like Kate thinking people might dislike her because her breasts are small, which is very revealing of her way of thinking. It doesnt occur to her that they think she might have failed in her responsibilities as a parent, perhaps even be lying to millions of people, some of whom are undoubtedly nice decent good hearted (but naive).
I’m probably labelled as Anti-Mccann, because I see glaring inconsistancies and there are simple things, things they could explain perhaps in an instant if they were honest people, but they dont explain, which make me suspicious of them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
469 Harry Hindsight
I admit, I am mad as a coockoo. But I love this site, just because I know I’m not the only insane person out there. And believe me when I say : the mccanns aren’t the victims. Someone else is.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
447 Harry
Sorry, but your reading of my words is confused to say the least!
I didnt mention the PJ, all I was saying is that ‘experts’ are usually not expert at all, often narrow minded people with limited vision who can’t see whats right in front of them.
I knew a few in my time, Professors who used the work of others - academic people who successfully remembered things but really couldnt apply anything they remembered (basically parrots!).
Many of the people on here seem to have much more sense thatn people like ‘Lord’ Stevens.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I’m going to be a bit controversial by suggesting that the PJ are not that incompetent, and the McCanns may not be guilty (therefore managing in one go to disagree w pro and against McCanns). I think that I may now create a third-way (alternative to the extremist comments in this forum).
The PJ has gathered indications (but not solid evidence) that Madeleine was accidentally killed by someone close to the McCanns. In order to formalise an accusation against those responsible for the death, the PJ needs the McCanns to confess the unconvential nature of the relationship that they have kept with the real perpetrators of the crime (for example: swinging or other unconvential relationship). The PJ decides to put the pressure on the McCanns to force their confession that they were involved in unconventional relationships. When they are confronted with some of the questions put to them - they retract and refuse to answer those questions. The PJ decides to make them formal suspects (arguidos) as a way to increase the pressure. (note that arguidos does not necessarily mean that you are suspect of perpetrating a crime).
The McCanns come back home knowing who was responsible for the accident that killed Madeleine and for disposing of the body. But they know that admitting to what really happened would disclose the unconventional nature of their relationship with others in the group and jeopardise their social status.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
LOL