Madeleine McCann: Manuel Catarino Writes, The Guilt Of The McCanns And International Crimewatch
MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: Parents would be in jail if they were locals”
But, then, they would not have been on holiday up the road. But if…
Hernani Carvalho, author of Maddie 129 (a book), hosts Portugal’s “version of Crimewatch”. Says he: “If they were Portuguese they would be in jail by now. There are lots of people up in arms with the scandalously privileged treatment that was given to the McCanns. Any Portuguese couple in these circumstances would have been jailed a long time ago”
The McCann’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell says: “That’s his point of view – we disagree. Kate and Gerry have not been given any special treatment”
MADELEINE: “PLAN TO KEEP KATE IN CUSTODY” – Manuel Catarino has written a book. In The Guilt of the McCanns, he writes: “Kate, exhausted, keeps repeating the same. She played with the children in the living room, she put them to bed – and by 7.30pm they were already asleep. The police don’t believe her. They think Madeleine died accidentally in the living room and the parents, in a panic, fearful of the consequences, interested only in defending their reputation, hid her body and staged her abduction”
Says Clarence Mitchell, It’s “another shameful attempt to make money out of the situation”. Clarence Mitchell is paid to represent he McCanns, how much is not said. The Daily Express has produced its own book
THE SUN front page: “CLUELESS – New Maddie witness blows lid on inept cops”
The Sun has read Bridgette O’Donnell’s story in the Guardian. You can read ‘Vanished’ here
“Maddie suspect Robert Murat looked sweaty, excited and breathless when he was drafted in as a translator by bungling cops the day after her disappearance, it emerged yesterday”
So says Bridgette, who works in the meedja…
The Portuguese police failed “to recognise a picture of Madeleine McCann”
Writes Bridgette: “Then he pointed to the photocopied picture of Madeleine on the table. ‘Is this your daughter?’ he asked. ‘Er no,’ we said. ‘That’s the girl you are meant to be searching for.’ My heart sank for the McCanns”
Do you recognise Madeleine McCann? Does the Moroccan woman who saw her in Morocco, the Irishman who saw her in Bosnia, the woman who saw her in Belgium?
And would you have recognised her picture hours after she had gone missing, being abel to spot the difference between it and a picture of another similarly aged British girl??
DAILY STAR: “KATE’S INNOCENT”
“Crimewatch producer Bridget O’Donnell said Kate and Gerry had simply made a ‘disastrous decision’ to leave their daughter unattended”
She added the tragedy could have happened to “any of us”
Could it have? Child theft is a rare crime. It could be you - Increasing The Fear…
“Throughout all this I have believed that Gerry and Kate are innocent,” says Bridgette. “None of us imagined we were being watched. One group made a disastrous decision – Madeleine was vulnerable and was chosen. But in the face of such desperate audacity, it could have been any of us”
DAILY MAIL: “Maddie: Portuguese police ‘came within an inch of jailing Kate McCann’”
The paper has learnt of A Culpa dos McCann - the Guilt of the McCanns. Manuel Catarino is editorial chief of Portuguese daily newspaper Correio da Manha. He says Kate McCanns was “one step away from prison” on the eve of her interrogation on September 7 when she was officially named as an arguido.
He writes: “The coordinator of the investigation, Gonçalo Amaral, and the prosecutor Magalhães e Meneses, discussed the possibility of serving Kate up to the criminal instruction judge for him to apply for her to be remanded in custody. But both men were consumed by doubts on the telephone: they did not know whether it was a case of ‘negligent homicide’ which did not allow remanding in custody, or whether to accuse her of ‘homicide with eventual intent’, a more serious crime, enough to remand the suspect in custody while they await trial”
And in the end they decided upon letting her go…
Says Clarence Mitchell: “I would refer any fair-minded person to the fact that neither Kate or Gerry have been charged with any offence and there is one good reason for that - there is no evidence because they are not involved in any shape or form in their daughter’s abduction”
Madeleine McCann: The speculation, accusation and sensation
Posted: 15th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (562) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
- KathyM on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
December 18th, 2007 at 2:26 am
I am shocked with the allegations Manuel Catarino issues in The Guilt of the Mccanns. I always thought that Portugal was a Democratic country and people had freedom of speech. However this book goes beyond what anyone can consider freedom of speech. How can Manuel Catarino even publicly say such things as that police was about to put Mrs. Mccann in prison and if they were Portuguese they would have been in prison a long time ago?
When noone has yet been charged with any wrong doing, how is Manuel Catarino allowed to publicly says such things?
I must say that if this is the way Portugal deals with crime and legal issues, it is pretty scary and disgusting at the same time.
How many more mistakes do we have to read on the news that the Portuguese police committed during this investigation?
They failed to seal the apartment, they invented the most ludicruous stories about Maddie’s disapparance, they have placed Maddie’s parents as “arguidos” and now they even trust a Portuguese waiter as the key witness in the case, and they are hiding this person?
This is a very sad situation, Maddie’s abduction, however maybe a terrible case like this was necessary to happen for all of us Portuguese and foreigners to have our eyes opened of the reality of Portugal, Portuguese Police and Justice system. I must confess that as a Portuguese-Canadian I am seriously embarrassed and disgusted to read what the Portuguese Police have come out about Maddie’s case. I have lost completely my trust in any system in Portugal, in fact I think the way the Portuguese Media, Portuguese Police and now Manuel Catarino with his book, have done an excellent job to damage the Tourism Industry in Portugal. Who in their mind who would even think of going to spend vacations in Portugal in the nearest future?
Let’s all hope that Maddie be found fast and save and may be reunited with her family. Unfortunetly we all learned a very hard and sad side of Portugal. Afterall the sun is not as bright over Portugal and the sky is not as “azul ferrete” as Eca de Queiros writes, when a child goes missing and the police of the country commits so many disatrous mistakes.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:28 am
576
lilith
Mods and admin
“The habit that has been on here of calling the McC’s Mc killers would be seen as libellous.”
I doubt it. Personally, I thought it meant that Gerry was a good-looking “lady killer”.
lady-killer
A gallant who captivates the hearts of women. “A renowned dandy and lady-killer.”
Source: Websters Dictionary
December 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Mods and admin
At first I suspected a conspiracy involving Gordon Brown but now I am not concinced because he is now obviously letting justice taking it’s course and is just monitoring it as it rolls on( as he should)
Are you saying we cannot talk about any government involvement for example about the treatment of Murat or is it just about a supposed favourable treatment of the Mcyouknowwho’s
Can we still post links, what can we and what can we not do while still enjoying free speach.
—————————-
Mods and Admin
You can post links, one per post.
Libel is the problem, say for instance you said outright I stole your car, if I were a known car thief it wouldn’t harm my reputation and therefore libel wouldn’t have been.However as I am not a car thief Icould sue you for libel forsayingthat. Its a matter of what is true and hurts the reputation of whoever it is said about.
The habit that has been on here of calling the McC’s Mc killers would be seen as libellous.
It could be that because Mr Murat is half Portuguese he may not need UK assistance, but questions are being asked by MP’s about that, and until the situation is resolved , its better not to speak of it
AGW is composing something to go up over the next few days which will detail how you can safely say what you want to say, and also what we can edit out and what we cannot
December 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
499 Leeza
re 487 Dr Watson
Sorry to intrude, but please look up The Infanticide Act 1938, which amended the act of 1933.
Infanticide reduces the clssification of the crime from Murder to Manslaughter
_________________________________________________________________
I don’t really need to look up anything. The piece below, taken from the Law Reform Commission report of November 2006, discusses problems with current law and clearly states that a woman who kills her own infant can be found guilty of murder. The charge can be reduced to infanticide and the penalty to manslaughter, if certain mitigating factors are sucessfully argued by the defence but a lighter sentence is not guaranteed. Dr Watson repeatedly implied that the lives of children under 2 years are considered less valuable under English law, which is just not true.
INFANTICIDE
1.51 Where the offence of infanticide is concerned, the problem is not so much the
definition but, rather, the procedure for ensuring that evidence of a mother’s
mental disturbance at the time of the killing is heard at trial. A mother may be ‘in
denial’ about having killed her infant. She may, therefore, be unwilling to submit
to a psychiatric examination if the point of this examination seems to her to be to
find out why she did it. This is because she cannot accept that she did do it. In
such circumstances, she is unlikely to have another defence and is, therefore,
likely to be convicted of murder. This is not in the public interest.34 However, this
is not an easy problem to solve. We recommend the adoption of a post-trial
procedure designed to do justice in these cases.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
552
Hideki
That’s my theory also and I think they will find a child in the direct circle of the McKillers has coloboma whereas Madeleine might not have had coloboma.(I found pictures of Madeleine showing NO coloboma )
Also, about Gordon Brown, I feel he is one of the many used by the Mccanns.
He lost a child and I suppose his talks with the McCanns in the early days were from one parent to another.
Mods and Admin
Lilith( and others)
In the interests of liability of libel we are having to edit posts where there are obvious allegations/accusation, and have restored the names of the good Doctors to that of MCCann.
We have discussed Gordon Browns’ involvement , and do feel it must not be mentioned as though it were a favour to the McC,but a normal reaction to any Briton in trouble abroad, and therefore must not be brought up again
December 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Moda and Admins wrote:
“Premier Brown would not under, any circumstances, be so foolish as to pressure the police or politicians of another state. He is well-aware the British are not the most highly regarded of nationalities and would not leave himself open to any risk of being seen to be partial in this case. Unless there is proof, by way of direct witness account or publication in another newspaper, we would be reluctant to allow the discussion to continue on these lines”.
And about time too.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
569
“Justic will prevail, dna and sniffer dogs do not lie”
I note that you do not even know how to spell the word justice.
You are right though, justice will prevail. That’s why the parents have not been convicted and never will be.
———————–
Mods and Admin
People do make spelling mistakes from time to time, or even leave off letters from words, in this case the meaning has not changed, and your remarking on it is nit picking, especially in view of your use of the the ‘Moda’
December 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
570
“I can’t see how a child who cannot read, can “love” a character they cannot read, understand or even relate to…Perhaps Barney, but not Potter”
Just goes to show you know nothing about children and that you are not suitable to be a teacher at all. (If you even are one, that is).
December 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
and another thing before I go to my big “event” today…lol…
it seems awful fantastical, to say that a child as young as Maddie, who was not four when she went missing, “loved” Harry Potter. As a teacher of young children, I can’t see how a child who cannot read, can “love” a character they cannot read, understand or even relate to…Perhaps Barney, but not Potter. It all seems to be a fantasy of what the parents had hoped or wished had been the case…when it fact, from the diary of the mum, the child while seeming to be a smiling little kid…was a holy tyrant and ultra difficult to deal with…would love to see her pedicatrician’s records and see what kind of visits the child had, also did the child ever go to a counselor or child therapist…??? Many unanswered questions for the pj, wish I could help, with all my insights into kids, lol.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
An another thing…it would be very “convenient” to the theory of an abductor or more than one abductor, to now locate the “body” of the child…it would fit right into what someone or someones, might have hatched as a hoax all along. At some point the body would be located, correct, proving that whoever did it, not them, did it…and then hid the body…
Perhaps the folks are trying to be smarter than they appear to act…and perhaps they hired certain detectives agency, and then instructed them to make daily news releases to the world press…has anyone checked what their instructions were to this agency? Did it say, “Proclaim every step…” if so, it would fit into the hoax theme…there is a reason that a detective agency acts so irresponsibly, perhaps they were told to do so…to perpetuate, and lead the trail to the body…
at any rate, the police are slowly unwinding the rope. Justic will prevail, dna and sniffer dogs do not lie, for they have no agenda.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
550
Châtelaine Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
547
chenier Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
“‘But Brutus is an honourable man
So are they all; all honourable men’”
—
Excellent reference!
“Et tu Brute” (translated as “You too Brutus”, “You too my son”, or “even you Brutus”)
—————————————————
I like it; Shakespeare knew how to put the boot in with style…
December 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
547
chenier Says:
‘But Brutus is an honourable man
So are they all; all honourable men’
And, for the benefit of the mods and admin, that is taken from ‘Julius Caesar’ by William Shakespeare.
—————-
M&A , I know , and he’s not around to sue for copyright!
—————————————————–
I know you know, but with the driveby traffic I was also a little apprehensive about being required to produce the evidence supporting the identification of Brutus as the Tenth Tapas nibbler.
As for copyright, we should be ok if we stick to very dead people, then?
December 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
565
Can’t say No Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I have to go now too. It’s lunch time over here and hungry people depending on me feeding them …
When you’re back: the U.S Bishop relation is new to me. Who is he?
December 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
564
Châtelaine
I understand.
But ,tomorrow,there will ,be another bunch of lies,just to confuse people.
This all affair , his about “smoke screen”
Gota go
Till latter
ps: Did you know ,that they even have HIGH connections in the U.S
Why, that U.S “Bishop” from a strange religion ,is connected with them ?
December 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
562
Can’t say No Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“558
Châtelaine
Yes ,he wants this case solved ,but at his way. [...] If you think,i’m lying you are wrong ,and all , i’m posting here ,is known, by others, that are not British or Portuguese.”
—
Don’t misunderstand me. I have NOT for one second thought that you would be lying. I am intrigued by all aspects of this case and am just looking for reliable statements and facts, that would help me make up my mind [and others]. Do continue to feed your news, as precise as you can afford to do.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
The mccs are sure ,that they are WELL backed ,that tell us the most stupid lies ,without any problem
December 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
558
Châtelaine
Yes ,he wants this case solved ,but at his way.
Why do you think ,that since the very first moment the mccs ,contacted their “holly” conections ?
Why do you think ,that,just from the begining ,we knew that this criminal case has turned into a diplomatic case ?
Why in the hell ,with such strong evidences , we have been confronted with ” be carefull, you don’t want a diplomatic incident ” ?
Can you explain me why in the U.K. ,there is not even 1 Politic ,that dares to touch , in the truth of this case ?
If you think,i’m lying you are wrong ,and all , i’m posting here ,is known, by others, that are not British or Portuguese.
————————-
Mods and Admin
was just looking before lunch, and saw your defence, Can’t say No.
I recall back earlier in the summer the Portuguese were very reluctant to act on their own without the UK Police being involved as they ( and I hope we) didn’t want this case to turn into a diplomatic incident between our two countries.
Most of the posters on this site do agree there has been far too much political and other high powered sway seemingly involved (see Spudguns post)
I don’t think Chatelaine thinks you are lying at all, but is just asking if you can provide some authoratitive proof to the ‘discussion’ between our esteemed leaders.
I’m going to pass this up to Admin for further advice, please do not feel threatened or your integrity doubted by us.
Ok have heard back from Admin on this matter:
admins’ ruling is:
The Prime Minister of Great Britain would have been considered to have been neglectful if he did not inquire about progress in the case. It would also have been right and proper for him to express the opinion that there was concern of the length of time irt was taking to bring the case to a level where charges were either brought or the Drs McCann released from the suspect status.
Premier Brown would not under, any circumstances, be so foolish as to pressure the police or politicians of another state. He is well-aware the British are not the most highly regarded of nationalities and would not leave himself open to any risk of being seen to be partial in this case. Unless there is proof, by way of direct witness account or publication in another newspaper, we would be reluctant to allow the discussion to continue on these lines
December 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Seems there’s another, even more quiet, thread: “Madeleine McCann: Quiet Metodo 3, Christmas With The McCanns And Michaela Walczuch Says”
December 16th, 2007 at 11:57 am
New page now up.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
553
Can’t say No Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“551
Châtelaine
Pressure ,interfering with the course of law , both Socrates and Barroso were not hapy while talking with with Mr.Brown.
No ,Mr. Gordon Brown ,is doing everything he can ,to protect the mccs.
I thiught ,he had stoped, but when he came here he show he really want that the mccs get out of this”
——
I can very well understand that you cannot reveal your sources [or have been present at the meeting], however, a bit more precise information would be helpful. IMO it IS possible that high ranking politicians are involved, as it wouldn’t be the first time in a scandal. However, it’s difficult to take your accusation at face value. Isn’t it very well possible e.g. that Mr. Brown is trying to get this case solved as quickly as possible, as it is obviously by now very bad for the reputation of his country [IMO and allegedly].
December 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
556…Châtelaine
Yes indeed…
Let your lies betray you.
A very apt saying. Certainly applies to Dr G P.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am
555
Matt. Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
—
From David James Smith’s article, giving us all the “facts” straight from the mouth of the “people, who KNOW what happened”…
Quote
The twins slept on like logs, just as they always did at home, though even their parents were fleetingly worried – had they been sedated by an abductor? – that they should be quite so comatose.
Unquote
Give them enough rope …
December 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
524 Maria
Maria said
‘To reach the truth, one must be open to ideas. One cannot simply reject as suspect anything which conflicts with one own prejudgement. That’s why I have seriously and honestly considered every possibility which conflicts with my own gut instinct that they are innocent of those crimes. I still find not one shred of real evidence against them. I believe that nobody outside the situation can make any really informed suggestions to the contrary.’
Yet she supports the idea of abduction, for which the evidence is what - Jane Tanner, who’s own behaviour and connection with the McCanns is highyl suspicious, who was able to identify a pink colour in sodium streetlights - who saw a child in a blanket and then, no blanket - who changed direction (going to Tapas, coming from Tapas) yet didnt not notice if shutters on a large and visible window were open or closed?
Maria, you are the most dangerous risk to truth and justice of all people who post here, as you claim to be even handed yet insidously seek to undermine the increasing heap of evidence which points AWAY from any external cause.
Please present your evidence FOR abduction.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Tony Bennett…
((((Please note..may be worth adding to your “list”.)))
The ? of sedation of the twins..suggested by witnesses
who were quoted as saying “Neither of the twins woke
up during all the noise and activity following the
“disappearance of Madeleine”.
And also the backfitting quotes by Dr G P whilst being
filmed when driving the car..re that it was possible that
the twins had been sedated by the alleged abductor.
All this is even more damming for Dr G P than he seems
to realise.
Reasons…Any average parent would know the normal
sleeping patterns of their children. And would recognise
when there was something odd or peculiar about any change
from that pattern. And would become concerned, there and
then, about such an eventuality. And that concern, if not
eased, would lead them to seek help/advice from a Doctor,
in order to ensure the well being of the children.
So…ordinary Mr and Mrs McCann…did not, at the time,
consider that the deep sleep being evident from their
twins was abnormal. That worry/concern/suspicion was
noted and quoted by others present at the time. No
outside Doctor was called to examine either of the twins.
However Dr G P felt moved to talk about “his concerns”
), suggesting
many months later, on recording+ camera (
that the twins had been sedated by the alleged abductor.
But when ordinary Mr and Mrs McCann who never suspected
anything untoward on the night of May 3rd regarding their
twin’s very heavy sleep..and who, even if they did suspect,
would not even have had had to call a Doctor…as both
are Doctors…as the Press are so fond of quoting to us ad
nauseum.
So…How is it that a qualified pair of Doctors failed to
notice what others noticed that night ????
Dr G P has shot himself in the foot by performing on that
camera recording and trying to imply that sedation took
place and was caused by “their” phantom abductor.
If any sedating caused by an alleged intruder took place
than any Doctor worth his or her salt would have been
immediately alerted by the state of the twins. Even more
so if that Doctor(s) was/were also the parent(s) of the
children.
And also, Dr G P is also a Doctor who has specialised
and given lectures, written papers, on Sports Doping.
A Doctor who would be alert to the signs of any doping
in fact.
Why didn’t he notice anything amiss with “his” children
on the night ?
They certainly were showing signs of being in a very deep
sleep that night.
Why no suspicions from either Dr McCann that night?
Why no examinations of the twins by either Dr McCann that
night ?
Why raise the sedation matter, months later, and suggest
that an alleged abductor did it ?
The only conclusions I can form from all this are…
That Dr G P McCann is telling lies on camera in the car.
That the twins may have been sedated indeed….but not
by an intruder…but by the parents themselves..which
would explain their lack of concern about the very deep
sleep the twins were in.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:33 am
551
Châtelaine
Pressure ,interfering with the course of law , both Socrates and Barroso were not hapy while talking with with Mr.Brown.
No ,Mr. Gordon Brown ,is doing everything he can ,to protect the mccs.
I thiught ,he had stoped, but when he came here he show he really want that the mccs get out of this
December 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sunday Times whitewash article could almost have been penned by the MC team. However, like Panorama and BOD, it slips interesting new snippets: MI5, MI6 and the six figure fellowship awarded to GMC a week before holiday.
Staggering that a major broadsheet ‘investigation’ can be controlled in this manner.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
513
Tony Bennett Says:
“Was Wilkins giving Gerry the telephone numbers of Sky TV and other media?”
Could it be that the reason there are almost no pictures of Madeleine at the resort because she died shortly after arriving there? Perhaps she never was in the creche. And one reason for providing deceptive photos (old ones and photoshopped ones) might be that they wanted all of those pictures to show a child resembling the child that was in the creche — for example Ella O’Brien.
That way the nannies would not notice that the photos of Madeleine were not of the child they remembered. It was said that Madeleine, not yet 4 years old, was the OLDEST child of all the children. How old was Ella then? About 3 years old? And how verbal? I’d guess that O’Brien/Tanner could have told her “your play name is going to be Madeleine here”.
And what was in the bags that were placed on pegs? Non-perishable items? IOW those bags were not always taken home if a child was there daily?
December 16th, 2007 at 11:21 am
548
Can’t say No Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
[...] even a couple days ago,when he came here ,to the “Lisbon Treaty”, again, he pressured ,Mr. Socreates and Mr. Durão Barroso !
—
Can’t Say No: did he PRESSURE them? or did he TALK to them, bringing up the subject as it IS a worldwide known case, implicating both Portugal and the U.K.?
If you have more information about this meeting, I would be most interested to know that.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
547
chenier Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
“‘But Brutus is an honourable man
So are they all; all honourable men’”
—
Excellent reference!
“Et tu Brute” (translated as “You too Brutus”, “You too my son”, or “even you Brutus”)
December 16th, 2007 at 11:14 am
How can we believe that he will not put is hand in this “Criminal” issue in the U.K. ????
December 16th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Can someone explain me WHY Mr. Gordon Brown ,continues to pressure the Portuguese Politics ,about this case. I mean ,even a couple days ago,when he came here ,to the “Lisbon Treaty”, again, he pressured ,Mr. Socreates and Mr. Durão Barroso !
This is far to much