Madeleine McCann: Gail Cooper Says And Amy Fitzpatrick
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Potential Maddie witness snub”
“The British woman who may have seen Maddie McCann’s kidnapper has NOT been quizzed by Portuguese cops”
Gail Cooper says she saw a man. An artist’s impression of the man has been released
Gail, of Newark, Notts, says: “They never contacted me. He must be found, even if it is to rule him out”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Mum vows to continue search for missing teen Amy”
“Mari Luz Cortes vanished on January 13, as she went to buy sweets from a local kiosk in the Spanish town of Huelva, near the border with Portugal. A massive search for the five-year-old is ongoing.
“The disappearance has been linked to that of Madeleine McCann from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz, although police said they did not think the two cases were connected.
Ms Fitzpatrick yesterday said that her only daughter is “still just a kid”.
“She is only 15 and she has disappeared without trace.”
Amy Fitpatrick was 15 when she vanished after leaving her friend’s house near Feungirola, in Spain, at 10pm on New Year’s Day. She set out on the 20-minute walk to her own house, but has not been seen since.
Posted: 23rd, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,434) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
891
chenier Says:
****
Gerry trying desperately to back-peddle the facts so that they fit properly.
The whole timeline that night needs to be reworked so that they can manage a defense.
Maybe Jane shouldn’t have been so quick to perform on that video she made!
What they are doing these days is trying to figure out how to explain the physical items in evidence.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
hiya simon
am trying to catch up - only at 14.45 so far 
- should be cooking tea 
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
875
RedRooster Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
870
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
848
RedRooster Says:
===============
i think you misunderstood i wasnt trying to be funny, you were and i wasnt laughing with you but at you ya knob
———————————–
If you dont shut that gob Im gonna stick my knob right init! Now shut the fuck up you pain in the bleedin neck!
===========
errrmmm NO now stop being a plonker garfy FFS
————————————-
If you dont stop going on about my plonker Im gonna wrap it around your bleedin neck and throttle ya!
The sight 
Hang on I’ll have a look on google!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
855
Ian Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
851
chenier
20/1/2008
‘The man Jane saw walking away from the apartments where we were staying was carrying a child, around 9.10pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. Jane described pyjamas matching those Madeleine was wearing without knowing what she had on that fateful night.’
First part negates the story, as Gerry says he was jsut leaving the apartment at 9:10.
Second part doesnt tie in to relaity.
———————————————
And this is, of course, the woman who told the Sun that she ‘then went to her apartment to see her daughter who had been sickly for a few days and had been vomiting that night. Jane returned to the tapas bar at around 9.25pm.’
I really do understand why Tanner doesn’t want to go any where near a courtroom to admit that…
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
886
BabyJane,
Thanks!!! I’ll be back later.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
One of the last MF posts:
In an article in the New Law Journal Paul Garlick QC felt that it was possible that discussions had already been held with the DPP on the matter
Under section 9 of the 1861 OAPA the McCanns could be charged with homicide,either murder or manslaughter.
Such a charge would be a bar to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act in fact one of the few ways of stopping surrender under EAW.(section22)
Tony Connell,a Special Casework Lawyer,with the London CPS has been reported as working with Leicestershire Police.One could ask why assign a prosecutor if there is not to be a prosecution in this country?
Unfortunately if charged here the McCanns would never face trial.
An application wouldbe made under Abuse of Process rule stating that the adverse puiblicity that the McCanns had received would make a fair trial impossible.
The granting of such applications are rare but as no case has ever received the amount of publicity that the McCann case has one cannot see how it could be refused.A famous case where this rule was invoked was R v Taylor & Taylor the appeal against conviction of two sisters charged with murder.
This would explain the apparent PR blunders being made by Clarence and the change in opinion of the Mail’s published comments.
The McCanns legal team could well be engaged in a policy of stirring up adverse publicity in order to ensure that an application is successful.
For example did the McCanns really need to receive 2 months mortgage payments from the Fund or was it done as provocation?
The McCann receive letters containing £10 to £100’s in cash to their home in Rothely so did they really need to publicly take from the Fund?
It is doubtful is Clarence would make the mistakes he makes unless it was intended.
The Mail continues to print blatantly pro-McCann stories but as starting printing anti-McCann readers comments.
What better way to show a judge the level of unfair bias against the McCanns then that?
If a judge in England does stay the case then that too will be a bar against surrender under EAW ,(section 13?) the double jeopardy rule.
This all only applies to homicide anything else must be heard in Portugal.
The reason that the 1861 Act is not usually applied is that the person has to have already returned to Britain.
Although in England we are talking about an act that is over 140 years old Scotland’s version dates to 1995 so it is obviously something that Parliament still intends to be used.
In the case of the McCanns the fact that not only the McCanns but the majority of witnesses would probably be British could be relevant.
It is important that the scientists from the FSS whom one assumes will be giving vital evidence would be giving that evidence in English.
Another factor is that although under English law a person has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers in Portugal a trial will be conducted by three judges.
The McCanns policy has been to highlight what they say is an official bias against them by Portuguese authorities and to attempt to show their incompetence.
Last year Tim Dutton QC the new chairman of the Bar Council said the following;
“Despite the awful circumstances, I was heartened to hear public demands for good old British Justice, during the recent press coverage of the disturbing Madeleine McCann case. What was being sought was the methodical approach of our police, our prosecutors, our barristers. There was reprehensible reporting of innuendo outside of official process. The English jurisdiction would have provided a well-adjudicated process, under which evidence is carefully tested and the issues presented to an impartial jury. Ultimately what the public was showing was trust in our system”
This is nothing short of a demand that the McCanns be tried here by “good old British justice” .He is even claiming that the public are demanding it as well.
So we have the barristers of England demanding it,the public of England demanding it as well as the numerous influential backers of the Mccannns demanding it how can the Attorney General refuse?
Remember it will all be presented as if the Mccanns will actually face an English jury and are willing to do so.It will only be when “regrettably” the defence are forced to make an application that everyone will realise there wont be a trial.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
868
RedRooster,
clothes hanger???????
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Totje, I found it!!
It was the Daily Mail who “created” eggman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=453724&in_page_id=1770
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
873
Totje Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
MF posters escaped to the 3 arguidos forum. There’s a thread where they tell how they were called ad MF. The thread was at 2:29 at 7 pages, now at 5:29 at 25 pages
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen to the 3 aguidos…….
****
I wonder what hot-lips knows that gives her so much leverage with the powers that be???
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
oops the cap lock was on :blush:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
877
BabyJane Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
==========
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
HELLO AGAIN NOSEY
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
873
Totje Says:
Thanks. I’ve been looking [and googling] without result for a while myself. Maybe because my native tongue isn’t English I’m using the wrong “key words” for the search.
————
Give me five, Totje, I have the same problem when I google as you have!
But we won’t give up!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
876
Ian Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
871 Sledgehammer
Will you stop with the pointless pasting?
==============
Sledge will you stop the pointless posting
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Well, must go. Still waiting for Garth to respond. Still hoping sledgehammer doesnt!
Night all!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
874
Ian Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
===========
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Red Rooster & Garth, compared to Chief Inspector Clarence’ unctious talking your fortright and plane-spoken dialogue is quite refreshing and normal.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
871 Sledgehammer
Will you stop with the pointless pasting?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
870
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
848
RedRooster Says:
===============
i think you misunderstood i wasnt trying to be funny, you were and i wasnt laughing with you but at you ya knob
———————————–
If you dont shut that gob Im gonna stick my knob right init! Now shut the fuck up you pain in the bleedin neck!
===========
errrmmm NO
now stop being a plonker garfy FFS
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
861
RedRooster
Careful Red, I think he/she is out to get people red carded. I cant believe he or she can be here for any other reason!
It took him/her all day to finally come up with a direct response to my asking him/her of his/her opinion of Gerry’s odd posting of 9:10 for Tanners sighting - and then it was irrational claims of ‘its not evidence’!
He or she is an untrained ’search engine’ lawyer! Actually he or she didnt grasp why the change to the caution in had an impact!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
862
BabyJane,
Thanks. I’ve been looking [and googling] without result for a while myself. Maybe because my native tongue isn’t English I’m using the wrong “key words” for the search.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
MF posters escaped to the 3 arguidos forum. There’s a thread where they tell how they were called ad MF. The thread was at 2:29 at 7 pages, now at 5:29 at 25 pages
Makes me wonder what’s going to happen to the 3 aguidos…….
.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I wonder……Kate and Gerry McCann may have to wait another eight months to see secret police files outlining evidence against them. A judge has reportedly ruled the couple will not be able to see incriminating case papers until September at the earliest.
Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha reports that a highly-placed judicial source has told the paper: “The Madeleine McCann process will never become public before September 15 this year, a year after Portugal’s new Penal Code came into force.
“The decision was taken by Pedro Frias on September 18 2007 who considered that the maintenance of judicial secrecy for a year was required by the rules that emerged from the judicial reform. The judge felt the deadlines only began to count from the start of the new code.”
Fellow arguido, Robert Murat, would also be affected by the decision. There can be no appeal, according to the paper. A source said: “The judge’s position is not unique but it is a controversial one.”
Concern is mounting in Portugal over the time British authorities are taking to respond to official requests to interview the McCanns’ friends and seize the couple’s personal items, including 39-year-old Kate’s diary.
French website, SOS Madeleine McCann, claims that an internal source from the British Home Office confirmed yesterday that the letters of request from the Portuguese authorities, calling for the interrogation of several British citizens, including friends of the couple McCann, indeed arrived, but the Secretary of State for the Interior, Jacqui Smith, had decided not to grant them an immediate response.
However, the Home Office issues a statement later, in response to e-mails received from members of the Mirror Forum, which states: “Please be advised, we have been asked by the Home Office to give their response to this thread, which follows:
“It is not our usual policy to comment on individual cases, however the Home Office has not received a formal request for Mutual Legal Assistance concerning the McCann investigation. It is not appropriate to comment further.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
848
RedRooster Says:
===============
i think you misunderstood i wasnt trying to be funny, you were and i wasnt laughing with you but at you ya knob
———————————–
If you dont shut that gob Im gonna stick my knob right init! Now shut the fuck up you pain in the bleedin neck!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
wow - you’re all still here
thought i’d better check as i just heard about the mirror forum - watch out for an influx - will try and read whats been said later!
but am SSSSOOOOO happy that you’re all still here !!!
later
xx
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
858
Garth Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
842
BabyJane Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
807
Hi Garth
But you have to admit that Jane Tanner’s first “description” (faceless eggman) was not very helpful. A friend of mine has been collecting identikit pictures for two decades (for fun fun fun, as Ade would say) and he almost fell off his chair laughing when I showed him Tanner’s eggman.
================
BJ
The description is rediculous like you say. And I know JT comes across as a bit wet behind the ears, but I find it hard to believe that she would just give that description when we know she has already mentioned the blanket! So, what Im getting at, was Tanners initial description actually what was publicised? I think not.
And of course we later learn that it wasnt a blanket but a child. Then a child wearing pyjamas. Common sense tells you that somethings not quite right. But I dont believe it was Tanners description that was the problem, in my opinion it was misrepresented to make it look daft. And thats what I find curious!
=============
your incredible garfy
you keep telling us the way it really is garfy dont you. You’re starting to look like a bloody fool. HaHaHA you expect anyone to beleive that 
Whos fuckin description was it then garfy??? How come nobody said anything at the time you pratt FFS get real 
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
brandon flowers;what i mean by field testing is to use this method in a smaller case so there is some track record,otherwise there maybe legal grounds to discredit method if it has never been used in court
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Karen.. 854 859
thanks! on both counts!
My son is supposed to be re-doing my website but it would easier to nail down Geroge Clooney!
Am now into threatening mode so we’ll see if he’ll take note. (Probably not) Blog etc is out of date due to a bit of ill-health and accompanying debilitation but have made new year resolutions so all systems go. Ha ha.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
858
Garth
It is irrelevant now.
Gerry has stated on his blog that Tanner says she saw the abductor at 9:10. If you recall, thats when he last saw Madeleine.
I knew the 9:15 nailing of the ‘window of opportunity’ would be removed at some point. I just didnt expect it to be done like this!
Tanner seems to be being edged out as a witness - probably lawyers advice. OK for public consumption, but no good for a court case (unreliable evidence). Gerry has even undermined the transparency regarding the pyjamas. I cant believe this was accidental.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
862 corrected:
Should be “Now that you mention it, Totje”, not “No that you mention it”