Madeleine McCann: The Case Against Robert Murat And Kirsty Young Says
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
THE SUN front page: “Murat ‘in clear’ on Maddie”
Can it be that Robert Murat is no longer a suspect – and with “NINE” witnesses challenging the “oddball’s” alibi (see Sun yesterday)?
(This is “Murat” as the paper has him, rather than Robert. The McCanns remain Kate and Gerry)
As the Sun reminds readers: “The one-eyed oddball was the first suspect, or arguido, in the hunt for the missing four-year-old”
Tomorrow will be exactly eight months since Madeleine McCann disappeared, and Robert Murat is then legally entitled to ask the police what case they have against him”. The Sun says if there is insufficient evidence against him, then his official suspect status “could” be lifted”
Which means he might be in the clear, as the headline says. Or not
Page 9: “PUT UP OR SHUT UP SAYS MURAT” –
His lawyer Francisco Pagarete tells us: “After eight months that is the end of the inquiry. He must be either accused or advised of the suspicions against him. If they postpone the deadline they will have to tell us why. The public prosecutor either accuses him or doesn’t. And that is what I am hoping will happen. We have not had any communications from the police since August. Obviously they have already cleared Robert, it is just a question of the deadline”
Obviously…
More facts: “Gerry McCann, of Rothley Leics, will return full time to his £75,000-a-year job as a hospital consultant cardiologist from tomorrow”
DAILY STAR: “’CHARGE ME OR LET ME GO NOW’”
“Robert Murat is about to learn if he will be charged or cleared over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”
Or not – the police may ask for an extension
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: Revealed, the police files on suspect Murat”
Or not. Robert Murat has yet to see the police files on him
“He has not had any contact with the Policia Judiciaria or the Portuguese Judiciary since August. In the meantime he has been unable to work or even see his five-year-old daughter, who lives with his ex-wife in Britain”
Why not? “Hospital consultant” Gerry is returning to work. He has seen his other children
“A total of eight people now claim to have seen him near the McCanns’ apartment on the night that Madeleine vanished”
Or nine, if you read the facts in the Sun
DAILY MIRROR: “Maddy’s dad back full time”
“Gerry McCann is going back to work. What does he do for a living? Why, he is a “consultant cardiologist”…
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 11: “Crimewatch is not dumbing down, says Young”
It’s Kirsty Young, the new presenter of BBC TV’s Crimewatch. She is in conversation with Good Housekeeping magazine
Says she: “A boy being shot riding his bicycle occupies the news for weeks because it’s so unusual. Madeleine McCann going missing preoccupies us all because it almost never happens that a girl is taken from her bed”
But you never know. Stay tuned…
DAILY MAIL: “’I'm not some leggy, pouty bird’ says Kirsty - as she flashes her legs”
More words on Madeleine McCann. A look at Young’s legs. Keep ‘em peeled…
THE INDEPENDENT: “BBC ageism a myth, says new face of ‘Crimewatch’”
Kirsty Young is 39. And blonde
THE TIMES and THE GUARDIAN: No Madeleine news
The files on Madeleine McCann…released
Posted: 2nd, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (914) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- annette on X Factor Live: Jedward Do Jive Bunny, Olly Murs Is The Man And Danyl Johnson Is Careless
- June on In Pictures: Herman Van Rompuy’s Pet Dalek Introduces President Iain Duncan Smith
- Cheryl on In Pictures: Herman Van Rompuy’s Pet Dalek Introduces President Iain Duncan Smith
- Cheryl on Sven Goran Eriksson: Then And Now
- Anorak on I’m A Celebrity: Naked Katie Price Becomes Kate And Jordan ‘Dies’
January 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Pam
How would you know?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
733 Sledgehammer Says: January 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
The Portuguese authorities were informed by the FSS that the results of the DNA tests were inconclusive, the Portuguese asked for more tests on the inconclusive tests, do people really believe that there is DNA evidence or indeed is there any evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, I believe there us evidence. Like you however I don’t know what this evidence is, nor the role DNA will play in any trial(s). Let’s wait and see if the case comes to trial(s).
A dreadful crime(s) has/have been committed against an innocent three year old girl, Madeleine. The people closest to her know rather more about the events leading up to and following her disappearance, in my opinion.
The only way to uncover the truth about their knowledge is via a trail(s). Of course, these very same people have been attempting to rubbish the investigation, people associated with the investigation, the evidence, etc, etc. In my opinion, it is whatever secret(s) about their lives that the McCann’s and possibly their friends, do not wish to “come out” that is their real motivation in preventing this case ever coming to trial(s). Madeleine’s fate has long since been a secondary consideration, in my opinion.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
910
Karen
The only reason the Mccanns have been mad suspects is because of botched up DNA testing and straight out inexperience on the polices part, Im sure if there was anything concrete they’d be more than suspects by now! As for Murat, not even he knows whys hes a suspect.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Hideki
You appear to be Hell bent on an all-out confrontation with an alleged “rogue Moderator”.
Is this the equivalent of a rampaging She Elephant?
Firstly, there are No rogue Moderators.
The prurient, grubby and dubious, theme you persist in reviving re this particular photograph is both contrived and unacceptable. The discussion and argument you present as being in the name of free speech are both a nonsense and I suspect you are well-aware of that.
My decision is that the issue is not suitable and not acceptable subject matter for here. You may find another much racier site would welcome your theorem. We do not.
I have been been made aware of it and have watched the cut and thrusts here with an increasing disquiet re motivations.
This is not an automaton decision and I state I agree with the Moderator.
Do not return to the subject. It will not be accepted and any further individual attacks because of a Moderator’s decision will end in a great sadness.
I doubt that sadness will be the Moderator’s.
and, just in case you have a doubt, I remain the Administrator.-agw
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Mods and Admin
To Hideki
Hideki, your reference to ‘wayward’ moderator has been duly noted, perhaps clarify which of the 5 Mods and Admin you feel is wayward.
The subject of paedophilia has been banned and you directly informed of it some weeks ago.
If you do NOT believe the abduction theory , why do you persist in posting on the subject of paedophilia?
We were quite precise when we said we do NOT want to attract paedophiles to this site, yet you seem to ignore the wishes of the site owners time over time.
Your post has been pulled yet again, by another of the wayward moderators, the ones pulled yesterday were deleted by wayward Admin, today we are urging them to comment before deletion.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Pam
We don’t have answers from the police yet - but we do have 3 suspects from them. Would anyone trust a Murat sponsored investigation?
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
905
Hideki Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
—-
Hideki,
(FYI, the “conversation” with Pilimary was about her stating that there were lots of photos of the child taken by professional photographer(s), in her opinion. I disagreed with her.)
Now, the following comments are not about any photos, but about your statements addressed to me:
Can you please show me one post where I have made “abusive comments”, as you claim?
Also, if you remember well, I am not pro-anybody. I’m just seeking the truth and gathering information to form an opinion when I see fit.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
907
DuncanR Says:
Hideki
“I have put your latest post into Moderation… I have to leave for work now. The other Mods may decide to allow your post after reviewing it.”
Fine, but why do you NOT put Cheryl’s and Daisy’s posts on the subject in moderation? If they continue to make comments, then you are presenting a one-sided view. JMO.
351
Daisy Says:
“Sorry, Pilimary, but which photos exactly are you referring to? There is obviously one professional photo which is the family shot with all of them sitting in front of a white (I think?) background. There is one more photo which apparently was taken by Mr. Grover, but I don’t see any other. Can you be more specific please, as I don’t agree with you.”
You don’t agree, and the Moderator has stated that he/she agrees with you and will remove any further posting on the subject.
Why are you pursuing this questioning, Daisy, when the Moderator has stated clearly that speculation about photos being sexually suggestive will not be tolerated, and will be removed?
There are lots of photos with make-up applied to Madeleine — if you don’t see it, then fine, you have your opinion.
But it is interesting that pro-McConn people like you come on this forum making abusive comments that people who DO see inappropriate poses and excessive make-up are “desperate”, etc. And how surprising that the Moderator actually took sides with an abusive pro-McConn poster and banned discussion of the issue.
Now that discussion has been banned, YOU continue to ask about it.
WTF is that about?
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
Have looked at photos of Maddie and I will agree, some are a bit strange indeed!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Hideki
I have put your latest post into Moderation
I have to leave for work now. The other Mods may decide to allow your post after reviewing it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 am
307
Mods and Admin:”Daisy, we are in agreement with you on this topic, and further posts concerning it will be unapproved.If you see any more, please ignore them.”
Can I get a confirmation that this subject has been banned from discussion? Or is this just a wayward moderator, forsaking neutrality, and siding with the pro-McConns on this issue?
418
Cheryl Says:
“Saw those comments re the ‘ice cream’ pictures and all I did was wonder about their taste in ‘movies’ in their ‘telling’ remarks!”
Yet another pro-McConn making comments about posters who have posted about inappropriate pictures — even though Mods and Admin have announced that the topic is VERBOTEN.
If I am not allowed to state that the ice cream around the mouth may have been presented to look like a soft porn “cum shot” (in the original photo), why are those who abhor such a suggestion still allowed to post on the subject?
What is very odd to me is that IF photos of Madeleine were made with paedophiles in mind, and IF there were a lot of paedophiles who knew the girl, THEN we could assume that the McCanns may be correct with their insistent assumption that a paedophile was responsible for the abduction.
So I’m surprised all the pro-McConn people are NOT saying that the photos look “too sexy” and that the photos may have been in paedophile’s photo collections. This speculation SUPPORTS the Official McCann Abduction Fantasy.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
351
Daisy Says:
“Sorry, Pilimary, but which photos exactly are you referring to? There is obviously one professional photo which is the family shot with all of them sitting in front of a white (I think?) background. There is one more photo which apparently was taken by Mr. Grover, but I don’t see any other. Can you be more specific please, as I don’t agree with you.”
You don’t agree, and the Moderator has stated that he/she agrees with you and will remove any further posting on the subject.
Why are you pursuing this questioning, Daisy, when the Moderator has stated clearly that speculation about photos being sexually suggestive will not be tolerated, and will be removed?
There are lots of photos with make-up applied to Madeleine — if you don’t see it, then fine, you have your opinion.
But it is interesting that pro-McConn people like you come on this forum making abusive comments that people who DO see inappropriate poses and excessive make-up are “desperate”, etc. And how surprising that the Moderator actually took sides with an abusive pro-McConn poster and banned discussion of the issue.
Now that discussion has been banned, YOU continue to ask about it.
WTF is that about?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 am
I haven’t been on here for sometime so I don’t know if anything more was heard about the investigations into the mine shaft, do any Portuguese posters know anything about it ?
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 am
*************************************************
Grande Finale Says: 895 / January 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
……”"…….May 1st/2nd is most likely IMO.”
***********************************************
Tinsel Says: 897 /January 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
…..”"…..I am beginning to agree that things went wrong before May 3–..”"..
****************************************************************************************
Welcome to the 2nd of May. ..the only way..
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 am
891
Karen Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 am
Denise
And if the McCanns had locked the door/ got a babysitter/ put the kids in the creche/ stayed in the apartment, Madeleine wouldn’t have got away. They’re the ones to blame here!!!
890
Denise Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 am
If the portugese police were onto it that night Madeleine would not have got away, they are the ones to blame here!!
_________
REPLY: Karen, that is true. Whatever happened whether by a stranger or whoever by leaving those children alone that opened the door, so to speak, to whatever then took place…. However, Denise what you say is true also. That whole first investigation team was not prepared nor appeared even capable to handle such a situation from the very beginning. In fact, I remember reading the statement given by the new investigator, who replaced the first investigator, or maybe a higher up, that this was the first case like this they had handled over there. That is why they had to start from the very beginning with much time gone by and very valuable time that had been wasted by the first team with their ineptness. A true and dedicated investigator does not waste valuable time taking long lunch hours, imbibing with his cronies and making loud remarks for people and press to overhear and thus repeat for public consumption, which was his intention that is so obvious and was so obvious. This whole tragedy came about by parents stupidity in neglecting their children, at the least, thus through their stupidity opening the door for possibly an unknown party taking the child left alone, and then an investigating team totally inept in performing their job properly. As an aside, I have often wondered if any discipline measures have been or will be taken against the first investigator of this case. But then, we’ll never know that answer.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:57 am
Karen
Im sure the Mccanns didnt pay M3 to release the statement that Madeleine would hopefully be home by Xmas! They are paying them to follow up what the police didnt do. After all we certainly have no answers from the police!
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 am
Maria
How is being a schoolgirl quaint? Not, that I am, I’m 19 and at Uni. But 35 is old for a sudden lurch into into kidnap, rape and murder (or even child trafficking). You’d think he’d start with porn, a child in his family or social circle, a girl in her early teens… that’s the usual path.
Where as - not that I favour it being the McCanns - a domestic disaster, a career and reputation saving cover-up and a media addiction - are more plausible.
Or - and I sort of favour this theory - it was someone who worked on the complex or a burglar.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 am
Pam
They’re definitely paying M3 to release statements that throw the suspicion on anyone but the McCanns, even to the extent of releasing info about Madeleine sightings and random Pria paedos that have already been dismissed by the PJs.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 am
Karen 894
Yes I know the Irish couple are talking to M3, but they also talked to portu police. Do you think, maybe the Mccanns are paying this couple to say this??
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
95
Grande Finale Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
#
892
Tinsel Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 am
“The Pain of being Payne”
It was Mathew oldfield who did the check at 9.30 pm
Mr Payne was 6.30
But why are you looking at smoke and mirrors May 1st/2nd is most likely IMO
***
Thanks for the clarification on the 2 guys.
I’m just saying that the McCanns want these two men to say that they saw Madeleine on May 3 late in the evening to corroborate the abduction story as they are telling it.
I am beginning to agree that things went wrong before May 3–thus the many tennis lessons and herky-jerky dance of the kid-checking Tapas.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 am
Grande Finale
I hope so, it’s dragging so much , I can’t help but get despondent.
I don’t really care who did it, as long as I find out who they are. I hate mysteries and it’s so sad when murder victims don’t get found.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 am
#
892
Tinsel Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 am
“The Pain of being Payne”
It was Mathew oldfield who did the check at 9.30 pm
Mr Payne was 6.30
But why are you looking at smoke and mirrors May 1st/2nd is most likely IMO
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 am
Pam
The Irish couple are talking to M3, who are being paid by the McCanns.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Denise
Maybe the PJ were alerted a whole day or half a day toooo late… ..and by that time Madeleine was long , long gone……… allegedly
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 am
The Pain of being Payne
I think it’s Payne whose testimony is most in question right now with the public. It seems he is the one who was at the scene and time of the crime, checked on/did not actually check on the kids, AND he is the one who was supposed to have seen M last with K in the late afternoon/early evening. Is that correct? He also seems to have changed his story as it has worked through the grapevines: looked in the room, then only listened at the door. Could not quite see Madeleine.
Am I remember these details correctly?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 am
Denise
And if the McCanns had locked the door/ got a babysitter/ put the kids in the creche/ stayed in the apartment, Madeleine wouldn’t have got away. They’re the ones to blame here!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 am
If the portugese police were onto it that night Madeleine would not have got away, they are the ones to blame here!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 am
888
Denise Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 am
Well it seems alot of people DID and I say DID, go to the Portugese police either that night, the next day, or whenever but they are so useless that they did not do anything and wasn’t it STATED that alot of peoples statements to the Portugese police were lying on the floor!! What does that tell you!!
***
I doubt notes were on the floor. Sounds like an exageration.
But they were on paper form and had to be logged into a computer system so that all the detectives could review them by working on a network. Because the case gained momentum so quickly it overwhelmed the original staff. They simply needed more man-power to process all the information.
They have to complete reconstruct everyone’s movements in PDL that evening. That’s going to take time. But of course it can and will be done.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 am
Well it seems alot of people DID and I say DID, go to the Portugese police either that night, the next day, or whenever but they are so useless that they did not do anything and wasn’t it STATED that alot of peoples statements to the Portugese police were lying on the floor!! What does that tell you!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 am
807
i-dont-believe-them Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
771 Cheryl
772 Brandon
That is exactly my point. not that she is composed like jackie kennedy, but that she ISNT furious at any of the dozens of people who could have have prevented this supposed tragedy from happening - from the man who should have told her to call a baby sitter (Gerry) to the men who were checking, to the people at Mark Warners.
No, she aint acting normal. as someone on the receiving end of a woman’s anger over something that she caused, i can tell you she aint acting normally. Guilty, is how she is acting
______________
REPLY: I can’t equate to what you are describing to be honest. We still don’t know what may have been truly said in fury behind closed doors. It is better if one must have a half-way argument in public and not look a total idiot furious and save the full fury for behind closed doors!
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 am
883
Karen Says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 am
“I don’t think there will be any end to this.”
IMO the PJ are spot on and if their “worst possible” theory is correct then they can put together a watertight case in any timescale they like.
People are coming to taste justice now sometimes thirty and more years after the crime they commited due to modern techniques. this case will never be closed, so the perpetrator/s is effectively already mentally imprisoned.