Madeleine McCann: The Age Of Jose Anes, Gerry McCann’s Fury And Murat’s Nannies Know Best
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
THE SUN: “No one will ever stand trial”
Because no one has been charged with any crime?
Or: “NOBODY will EVER stand trial over missing Madeleine McCann because cops made so many vital blunders,” says the Sun. And so too says Jose Anes, 62: “Mistakes in the early hours demolished the entire case”
The ex-director of Lisbon’s police lab is “Portugal’s top forensic expert”, a billing the lab’s current director may dispute
Mr Anes says: “If the scene is not preserved in the first hours, all the hours of effort that follow are useless. I am utterly convinced — unless some new, concrete evidence suddenly emerges — the case will never reach trial”
But what of the evidence gathered so far, like the DNA samples found in the McCanns’ hire car?
“Maddie sniffer dog ‘was rigged’” - Gerry McCann is “FURIOUS” – as often he is. He “believes sniffer dogs used to find Maddie clues in the family’s hire car were MANIPULATED by cops”
Says a “source close to the couple”: “Gerry says a dog went up to the Scenic, sniffed around and went to head off. He watched the dog being brought back to the vehicle. Finally, it reacts around the boot area. Gerry was open-mouthed at that, he feels the dog was manoeuvred into a position where it could react”
And smell
“Murat pals ’saw him near flat’” – “SUSPECT Robert Murat was PALS with British holiday nannies who say they saw him the night Maddie vanished, it has emerged”
Good friends? “And at least two of the girls knew him well enough to be on first name terms”
That’s close, eh
“A source confirmed yesterday that he did befriend several girls, adding: ‘A lot are attractive and he made a beeline for them. When they were asked who was near the apartment that night, several mentioned Murat”
DAILY MAIL: “Madeleine: Forensics expert says inquiry is ‘complete waste’ because of police blunders at apartment”
Says Jose Manuel Anes: “Huge amounts of money were spent but if, in the first hours, the due precautions for the preservation of the crime scene were not taken, all this hard work goes down the drain. We can spend rivers of money which will all go down the drain if the crime scene is not properly isolated”
The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell says: “It is alarming to hear that Mr Anes has this view. All we want, and have done throughout, is to ensure the operational police side of this has been done in an effective and efficient manner as possible”
And why is Mr Anes – “the 62-year-old” - speaking out now? Because he’s making his comments known in a book called The McCanns’ Guilt – not that the case will ever, come to trial, you understand
“Madeleine: Gerry’s fury at ‘bungling’ dog handlers” – More Gerry McCann fury
DAILY STAR: “MADDIE COPS HIDE WITNESS”
Says the paper: “The key witness in the Madeleine McCann inquiry was in hiding last night after fleeing Portugal” – Jane Tanner? Kate McCann? Gerry McCann? No, the unnamed Portuguese tapas waiter…
“Pals say he is terrified his identity is about to be revealed and claim he is also scared of British and Portuguese government influence in the probe…Friends add that he is worried about the private eyes hired by Gerry and Kate McCann, both 39, to help find their daughter”
One former work colleague of the waiter says: “He does not want to be involved in any of this. Through no fault of his own he finds himself at the heart of this worldwide mystery”
DAILY EXPRESS: “MADELEINE: WITNESS GOES ON THE RUN ‘TO PROTECT HIS EVIDENCE’”
“THE key witness in the missing Madeleine McCann case was in hiding last night after fleeing Portugal”
“POLICE WERE ‘SIDETRACKED’ BY MCCANNS” - Former police crime scene chief Jose Manuel Anes is “ONE of Portugal’s top forensic experts”
The WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER investigates. Mr Anes is “71”
And “last night hinted that Kate and Gerry McCann were partly to blame for the flawed investigation into their daughter’s disappearance”. Although the Sun says it was those bungling Portuguese police (see above)?
“They should not have been thinking of the poor little parents but I understand the human dimension and the pressure which immediately involved the investigators. Sometimes the police are too human. The police must be absolutely objective. Somebody’s suggestions and complaints connected to a person’s disappearance should be set aside while the evidence is being gathered. In the moments immediately following the occurrence the goal is to gather everything and preserve everything”
Not bungling, rather too caring; too human
DAILY MIRROR: “McCann DNA clue ‘useless’”
Jose Manuel Anes is 62. He is the retired head of Portugal’s police science laboratory.
He tells the Mirror, and everyone else: “I fear the case will never reach trial” - and even if it did, no jury would be able to convict anyone.
BBC: Audience for BBC News 24 peaked in 2007 at 8.2 million in the week ending 1 July for the bomb attack on Glasgow Airport and at 7.9 million for the story of the kidnapping of Madeleine McCann in the week ending 13 May
Madeleine McCann: The ratings winner
Posted: 18th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (911) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
December 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
rockhopper bollox is bollox.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Good morning. Haven’t had tme to look in recently - won’t have much today, either.
26 Ann “Chris also says she got steps or a ladder and couldn’t understand why they would be in a well.”
Don’t know about other countries but most wells have steps down them in Spain because the pumps are at the bottom. We have two wells - a small one (9 metres) and a large one (180 metres). Both have steps.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I love the Tabloid journalism has “fled Portugal”, rather than, “has gone to Huelva”, or wherever.
I am very sorry that there are now only 6 days left for this blog site. I shall miss it.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
35
clouseau Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
FFS
ok say it slowly
THERE WAS NO ABDUCTION
********************************
Clarify …oh Wise One !! If no abduction, then what ??
December 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Morning all.
It looks like the foreign office will not authorise further police interviews of the mccanns and their friends before christmas (today’s news in Portugal). they’ll want them to have a family christmas (finding out what actually happened to Madeleine is secondary to the purpose of having the McCanns enjoying a family christmas). I didn’t take the Home Office has being such a caring, family-orientated organisation.
Anyway, can someone explain why Gerry had access to and was commenting on the videos of the sniffer dogs? If he saw the videos when he was interviewed by the PJ why is it that only now he comes out in a “fury”?
It does sound a little bit like the McCanns advocacy team is coming out every week with a new story designed to prepare their defense against possible charges. The dogs were influenced, the photos could have been faked, the twins could have been sedated, the abductor was in the room when he went to check, the DNA was passed through rotten meat and nappies…
It just sounds like the whole world including the PJ and Leicestershire police (together with the dogs) really, really, really want to frame Gerry. Even Metodo 3… maybe their just cons… but poor old Gerry knew nothing about it and may have been taken for a ride by the evil spaniards.
Could it be that all this people’s sole mission in life is to frame Gerry McCann???… Could it be that this is a conspiracy to destroy Gerry’s metheoric career?
Somehow, I think that there might be another more reasonable explanation to it…
December 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
FFS
ok say it slowly
THERE WAS NO ABDUCTION
December 18th, 2007 at 9:09 am
28
soothsayer Says:
another load of bollox about a waiter witness, anywhere else you would get arrested for tampering with a witness, but not in this case cause they aint got no friggin witness.
———————————————————————————————————-
Sorry, can’t make up my mind what you’re saying here.
“another load of bollox about a waiter witness”
Are you saying that what has been reported is bollox or what folows is bollox?
“anywhere else you would get arrested for tampering with a witness,”
Who’s tampering with the witness?
“but not in this case cause they aint got no friggin witness.”
There’s a double negative here, or are you really saying that there is no such witness (which kinda negates the previous two statements)?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
29
just_me Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 8:52 am
************************************
Absolutely ! and I was of the same opinion when I first went to see her. The reason I went to see her was because my daughter, Jo, was having a hard time after Best-Beloved Brother-In-Law was killed, she and he had been great friends, so she felt she wanted to go and see a Medium to see what would come through, for some comfort I suppose. She got someone who wanted to come through to her but it was all very emotional and she couldn’t understand what it was all about. From what she said, I had a darn good idea who it might be and gave it three weeks before I went to see Christine - and this was for the very first time ever - she only knew my name was Ann and she had no clue that I was related to Jo and from the first minute it was immediately obvious this was Brother-In-Law and the depth of the emotion that came through even shook Christine so, on the strength of that, I have usually been to see her about once every three months and she STILL comes up with stuff there is no possible way she could know anything about. Trouble is, people will also say, that because we have known each other for so long, she must know everythig there is to know but she doesn’t and it doesn’t work like that.
Two years ago, she told me that I would have problems with my stomach and would have to have a camera down my throat - pretty specific I would say !! and that there would be a “rather sore spot” but not to worry, it could be treated with a new drug and all would be well. Two months ago I had such bad pains and other digestive problems that the Doctor sent me to the Hospital where I had a Gastroscopy …camera down the throat……they found a large Ulcer…”sore spot” …and I am having to take a drug to cure it !! Follow that …as they say !!
December 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
27
Ferdinand Says:
10 Ann Says:
“Does anybody really think a waiter would be interviewed several times and then hidden away only because of his “they’ve taken her”-testimony, maybe in addition to a “they didn’t check as often as they pretended” testimony?”
I’d agree there has to be much more than this for him (or the police) to feel that hiding is warranted.
“So if the police are focussing on a waiter, I guess it is not for the reasons suggested in the papers.”
1)”they’ve taken her”
2) she said it from a balcony (upper floor apartment)
3) they were not checking at all
and what else?
He knows all about T10?
“Remember that we have meanwhile learned from several independent sources that “witnesses” have been grilled by the police (Mrs. Walzcuch, Mr. Oldfield, even the McCanns while they were not officially suspect). This gives me a hint about the nature of the allegedly repeated interviews with the alleged waiter.”
Care to share your thoughts, rather than allude to them?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:06 am
817 - Maria [last night, preevious thread) says (December 18th, 2007 at 12:42 am):
REPLIES INTERLEAVED
Maria: I’ve been considering it as a possibility for a long time. Please don’t assume I don’t look carefully at many of the theories which are put forward for their possible involvement. I do.
REPLY: And you reject each and every one of them. Incidentally, so far as I can see (forgive me if I am wrong) you have not answered Meejician’s question yesterday, or was it Murder’s, who asked you if you had ever spoken to Kate and Gerry McCann or to any member of their ‘Team’. I suspect you have
===========================================================
Maria: I gather you think Kate was acting when O’D saw her and found the sight of her suffering unbearable? If she is such a good actress that she was able to fool everyone at the time, why didn’t she simply continue the act? Why let herself be criticised later for not crying enough in public when she is such a good actress? Surely she’d have kept up the acting a bit better?
REPLY: Rememeber that when she raised the alarm at 10.00pm on 3rd May, her acting would be mixed with genuine emotional turmoil about Madeleine having died somehow. I recall a very clear statement by one of the Mark Warners staff that many parents had temporarily lost a child who had wandered off at the resort, but that no-one had reacted in the extremely hysterical way Kate McCann did. Yet next day the McCanns were out jogging.
Examples of Kate acting:
1. Scrunched-up face at the church the Sunday after Madeleine ‘disappeared’
2. Deliberately coming out on to her Praia da Luz balcony, apparently sobbing, knowing that the cameras were there able to record her sobbing (if she was, that is)
3. Spanish TV interview (more recently) where she wiped away an imaginary tear.
I feel sure other posters could add many other examples
===========================================================
Maria: Why did they beg for the police to be brought from the UK, even Interpol (so I’ve heard) to help, if they had stacked the body somewhere in a temporary hiding place? Bit risky wasn’t it?
REPLY: They asked the police to come over and help ‘find Madeleine’/find the abductor. They were confident that their abduction hoax would succeed
===========================================================
Maria: When it’s a big group thing like that, someone always cracks at some stage.
REPLY: No, look at the Barrymore/Lubbock case, which I’ve personally investigated. There were 9 at the so-called ‘party’ that night. Stuart Lubbock perished, leaving 8. None of them has ‘cracked’ - nearly 7 years later. The Coroner in September 2002 spoke correctly of a ‘wall of silence’ from those 8. Remind you of anything? Clue: ‘Pact of Silence’
==========================================================
Maria: We haven’t heard any PJ leaks about changes in story have we?
REPLY: Come off it, Maria. Are you going to deny there has been a change of story by the McCanns about the shutters, like Mr Garth-I-don’t-know-if-they’ve-changed-their-story-about-the-shutters’? Talk about ‘denial’!
==========================================================
Maria: I know that doesn’t mean they are not there but the leaks we’ve heard about have always tended to concentrate more on supposed inconsistencies between the Tapas friends’ stories don’t they? Tanner seemed very relaxed about these and perfectly happy to be requestioned.
REPLY: She looked shifty and nervous in that McCannorama interview to me
==========================================================
Maria: I can’t give a definite answer about the shutters thing because I haven’t found the early accounts yet…
REPLY: Come off it. I’ve posted some of them, so have others. You know perfectly well about these early reports and are pretending otherwise. Tell the truth, Maria
==========================================================
…but I think that it was said very early, 4th or 5th May, maybe, that they’d left the patio doors open regularly. I remember the MW staff comments that it was a common ‘mistake’ (security-wise) for guests to make. I’ll have to try and check the newspaper archives but I’m busy with guests at the moment. I’m a bit slow checking archives and lazy about keeping links properly filed.
REPLY: No, it was only after the Police and the PJ ruled out the theory that the shutters had been jemmied open from the outside that they changed their story. Maybe I should repeat that. They changed their story. They changed their story
==========================================================
Maria: Would you admit that it would be a very foolish and basic error for them to pretend a break-in scenario which could so easily be shown to be a set-up? These people are not stupid, are they?
REPLY: A friend of mine once said, and I agree: “Intelligent people can be very stupid”
==========================================================
Even I, simple and naive that I am (!!)…
REPLY: Not quite so ’simple and naive’ as you claim, Maria (wink)
==========================================================
Maria: Surely the McCanns would have realised the story wouldn’t stand. Why was it needed anyway? They could just have left it that the patio doors had probably been used for both the entry and exit of the “abductor”. Why make up a daft story? After all the trouble they’d gone to to set up an abduction scenario. Sorry, can’t buy that one on what I know so far.
REPLY: FACT: The shutters were open. FACT: The windows were open. FACT: They had both been opened from the INSIDE.
Now, who do you think did that, Maria?
The abductor?
Or the McCanns?
It’s a stark and very simple choice
December 18th, 2007 at 9:05 am
27
Ferdinand Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
10 Ann Says:
“The waiters at the complex would know what guests are staying there, and in which apartments, and would know their regular movements., especially if there was a regular large party as in the Tapas 9. They would also be more observant if they were planning to abduct,”
Does anybody really think a waiter would be interviewed several times and then hidden away only because of his “they’ve taken her”-testimony, maybe in addition to a “they didn’t check as often as they pretended” testimony? If this were a “critical” witness against the McCanns, then I don’t want to know what the “more circumstantial” evidence might be worth.
So if the police are focussing on a waiter, I guess it is not for the reasons suggested in the papers.
Remember that we have meanwhile learned from several independent sources that “witnesses” have been grilled by the police (Mrs. Walzcuch, Mr. Oldfield, even the McCanns while they were not officially suspect). This gives me a hint about the nature of the allegedly repeated interviews with the alleged waiter.
=======================================
I appreciate Team McCann’a desire to come up an alternative suspect, but this looks to be a desparate last-ditch effort.
Is there any evidence at all that a waiter has fled Portugal? You’ll forgive me if a I don’t regard a tabloid ‘pal’ as holy writ…
December 18th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Ann - I think Ian is one of thousands who do not believe in that kind of thing. \Its the same as this case, you have anti’s pro’s and on the fence’s, but all have as much input into a debate as each other. As far as psychic’s, I also find it very hard to believe, but, I am interested in it all. I for one would love to speak to a true psychic, but many are just scammers who want to make money out of it, and who have no real gift at all.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the whole thing, if we ever do get to see that, and see how accurate Christine was. I guess people who dont believe her now, may well change their minds should she be right.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
another load of bollox about a waiter witness, anywhere else you would get arrested for tampering with a witness, but not in this case cause they aint got no friggin witness.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
10 Ann Says:
“The waiters at the complex would know what guests are staying there, and in which apartments, and would know their regular movements., especially if there was a regular large party as in the Tapas 9. They would also be more observant if they were planning to abduct,”
Does anybody really think a waiter would be interviewed several times and then hidden away only because of his “they’ve taken her”-testimony, maybe in addition to a “they didn’t check as often as they pretended” testimony? If this were a “critical” witness against the McCanns, then I don’t want to know what the “more circumstantial” evidence might be worth.
So if the police are focussing on a waiter, I guess it is not for the reasons suggested in the papers.
Remember that we have meanwhile learned from several independent sources that “witnesses” have been grilled by the police (Mrs. Walzcuch, Mr. Oldfield, even the McCanns while they were not officially suspect). This gives me a hint about the nature of the allegedly repeated interviews with the alleged waiter.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:42 am
20
just_me Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Ann - Please do keep posting. Although I am skeptical, I am very interested in what your friend has to say
*******************************************
Thanks, that’s nice ! It is just that people seem to expect Chris to come up with explicit details , she can only give what she is “given” and I have a book full of transcripts of her previous readings for me, which have caused Best-Beloved to pop his eyes more than a few times over the years and he is Mr Scepticism-Personified. I even get people who say things like “…if she knows so much, why hasn’t she won the Lottery ? ” That sort of thing doesn’t happen, you are not supposed to gain from this gift, especially where kids are concerned, which is why she has made it clear from the outset that all those rewards that were offered are of no interest to her and all she wanted was to guide people in the right direction to find the child.
Standing in the queue in “Somerfields” yesterday, I overheard an elderly couple discussing the front page of yesterday’s “Express” and the woman said ” I see they are looking down a well now - bet that will be wet down there” no…they are allegedly looking down a mine-shaft, Christine got “still water” and thought of wells or reservoirs which is why she got all hyper when those Detectives started searching such places so you see what I mean ? The info is sort of there but the details are not quite so clear. To my way of thinking, a mine shaft with water at the bottom is near enough a “well” for me but won’t be for Mr Nit-Picker, Ian, but - having said that, Chris also says she got steps or a ladder and couldn’t understand why they would be in a well.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Good morning one and all, it’s positively tropical here in the South West! Loverly!
Just a thought, could Ann’s freind be mistaking the smell of burgers for Scooby snacks?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:27 am
keep trying !!!
I must warm up the car now ,BBS
December 18th, 2007 at 8:25 am
22 - I just came in from the garden (sneaky smoke ummm!), can hardly type with frozen hands lol. Im in Mid Kent.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Its freaking freezing in london
December 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
good morning JM
December 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Ann - Please do keep posting. Although I am skeptical, I am very interested in what your friend has to say
December 18th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Very good chilly morning to everyone
December 18th, 2007 at 8:14 am
16
Ian Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 8:05 am
10 Ann
Will you shut up about your crank mate (invisible friend?) ”Christine’?
********************************
Why ? no-one else on here shuts up their speculative drivel and waffling about doctored photos and the like !!! Christine is not a crank and I fail to see how you could “see” her on here anyway.
We will await the outcome of the investigations down the “mine-shaft” and so on. If it makes you feel better, I will back off completely and just “pop in” to see what everyone is dribbling on about and then….when the child is found ….if there is any similarity, or rather - any FURTHER similarity to what Christine has already said…just give me a shout and I will return, either to take the ridicule for having believed what she said or to take the accolades on her behalf, for the clarity of her vision. You might also try remembering that she has been talking about “dilapidated farmhouse” since Day One - the barn is near enough IMO, so that’s Point One , “clues to follow” ( the towel) is Point Two, so the next bit about “still water” could very well mean at the bottom of the mine-shaft so I will now leave you to your trolling and see you all later …!!
December 18th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Ian live and let live
we all have valued crazy opinions on here
thats why its a good read
I prefer Anns versions than the pro mc cann bleaters who act like 14 year old girls on their period!!!
any day!!
December 18th, 2007 at 8:05 am
10 Ann
Will you shut up about your crank mate (invisible friend?) ”Christine’?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:04 am
no anoraks
December 18th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Cant you just see Gerry saying ‘And I’d have got away with it if it werent for you darn pesky PJ’
December 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am
10 Ann
And he might join the SAS as his incredible sub 5 minute abduction feat would carry his CV to interview no problem! Get rreal Ann, he is the waiter who knows too much for the McCann camp, I’d be scared if M3 were rampaging around bribing and slandering people.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:02 am
sounds like a scoobydoo plot
we just need to unmask him
December 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
All a bit recycled this morning, Gerry should talk to Clarence about using ‘fury’ - its making Gerry look a little filled with pent up violence. They should use that photograph where Gerry is watching Sean, not sure why Amelie isnt in that one, but Madeleine ‘hops by’ unnoticed - a family scene showing his softer side - that needs to be more widely seen. Id cut out the guy with the crooked foot though.
I’ve noticed that Pro McCanns love it when we here that ‘the crime scene was not secured’ and ‘nobody will ever be charged’.
Watch the reactions carefully, we all know who they are by now.
The Sun (as usual) misses the point - the crime scene not being secured was because the McCanns knew what they were doing. It seems that the apartment was scrubbed meticulously (but missed a little bit under a tile under a sofa) well before everyone was allowed in to ‘look under the bed’ (my quotes).