Madeleine McCann: Tabloid Snap, Metodo 3 PD and McCanns Innocent
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “I’M NOT GUILTY”
“A loner who looks like a drawing of a ‘creepy’ Madeleine McCann suspect has denied any links to her disappearance”
Joaquim Agostinho says: “It’s not me in the picture. I accept that the drawing looks like me”
The Mirror reports: “The former cockle picker, who lives in Altura, 90 miles from Praia da Luz, added: ‘I did not kill Madeleine and I’ve never been to Praia da Luz. I cannot even drive’”
But still his picture is in the paper in connection with a story about a missing child. Fingers are pointed
MADELEINE in Chile. What news of that? “Yesterday, police ruled out a “Madeleine” sighting in Chile after the girl was identified as American Haylee Dreyer, six”
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE – Amazing lookalike: ‘I did not kidnap and kill her’”
Mr Agostinho looks like an artist’s impression of man whom British tourist Gail Cooper says she saw acting hanging around Praia da Luz. He is the “oddball”
Page 11: “DRIFTER MATCHES NEW MADELEINE SUSPECT”
Matches. Like in a game of snap? Snap! Snap! Snap!
“Investigators want to quiz a Portuguese drifter suspected of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Detectives working for the youngster’s parents are to question Joaquim Agostinho, 42, in the resort of Altura”
Does he have to speak with the McCanns detectives?
“Mr Agostinho, who lives in Altura, said yesterday: ‘I did not kill Madeleine and I’ve never been to Praia da Luz. I cannot even drive.’ Altura is close to the Spanish border and detectives from Metodo 3 – the agency working for the McCanns – were last night travelling there from their headquarters in Barcelona”
Again, does he have to speak with private detectives?
THE SUN: “McCANN COPS QUIZ SUSPECT LOOKALIKE”
“Detectives are to quiz a drifter who looks uncannily like a mystery suspect in Maddie McCann’s disappearance. Joaquim Agostinho, 42, denies he is the creepy man depicted in a sketch issued by parents Kate and Gerry McCann
“But Metodo 3, the Spanish private investigators hired by the McCanns, are taking the possibility seriously”
Is Metodo 3 now a police force?
A source close to Metodo 3 says: “We are going to be talking to this man as a priority, to establish if he is the one Mrs Cooper saw”
What of the McCanns?
“COPS now accept Kate and Gerry, both 39, may be innocent in Maddie’s disappearance, it has emerged. They have so far clung to just one theory — that Maddie was accidentally killed and her parents disposed of her body. Now they are taking seriously the alternative that she was snatched from the holiday apartment last May — which Kate and Gerry have always insisted must have happened”
DAILY MAIL: “Is this drifter the man in Madeleine drawing?”
Mr Agostinho says no. He delivers newspapers for a living. He says he is innocent
Metodo 3 are looking to speak with him
DAILY STAR: “MADDIE: THREE MEN RULED OUT – McCanns’ new hopes shattered”
It’s not Joaquim Jose Marques – police have ruled him out; and the Star was so certain
It’s not the girl in Chile – she’s a girl on holiday with her family
It’s not Joaquim Agostinho – he says it’s not him
METRO: “Twins play ‘find Maddie’”
“Leading world sex crimes expert Ray Wyre” has met with Kate and Gerry McCann
He sees the McCanns’ twins children. Wyre tells the paper: “They said they were going to go and find the monster that took Maddie. Then they dashed off to play the game. It’s a sad story, but it is healthy that Madeleine remains a real presence in their lives”
“A spokesman for the McCanns denied the story”
Madeleine McCann: No news is still news
Posted: 28th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,332) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- June on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- eggman on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Trismegistus on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
- Bernie Morgan on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
January 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
562
Increasingly incredulous
Ah but you are wrong! I can and do separate the basic neglect from other accusations - as anyone here will tell you (I am hauled over the coals by pro-McCan posters for it all the time!).
There is a dislike amongst your ilk for anyone who makes clear the distinction. You definately do not want clarity!
The McCanns may not in law be able to be charged (yet) for child neglect, but this is where the law and morality are failing to overlap.
The McCanns are seeking to defend themselves by shouting very loud and long about ’stranger abduction’ and whisper quietly about how it was possible for anyone to have actually carried it out.
As I have said ‘ad nauseum’ - if the McCanns were to admit the full extent of the neglect part of this sorry situation then perhaps the abduction part might seem that much more believable. Perhaps I and others like me might find it in our hearts to feel a little sorry for the position they have landed themselves in. Though our patience is running out and the possibility of forgiveness slips out of the McCanns reach.
The key difference between people like you and people like me is that people like me clearly find ourselves in occupation of the moral high ground whilst you flounder in the moral wasteland, clutching at snippets of law you have never previously considered and have now sought out and found via search engines. You resent that strength - and point at it as if it were deliberately grasped by us to attack the McCanns! You can’t see that it is a normal parental place to be.
Just step back and look at what you are doing! You have actually taken a stance which is intended to argue how the McCanns can avoid answering simple basic questions which might actually assist the police in understanding how this child could have been abducted. You actually want to prevent the McCanns from being given the opportunity to clear themselves.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
January 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Has there been a new sketch man today yet?
January 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Nosey - I am very encouragable
January 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
582
Increasingly incredulous Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Because in the gross missalocation of resources involved in pursuing the parents, and the culpable incompetence of the intial response, they’ve significantly reduced the chances of Madeleine ever being found, or the guilty parties caught.
What evidence, do you know of, proves there was an abductor?
January 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Inc Inc
I really don’t understand what you expect from me.
“Detail that appeals process”, what appeal process? You can ask for your status of suspect to be reviewed and go back to portugal - I’ve explained you that already…what are you talking about appeals? Appeals = there’s been a ruling… I really don’t understand what you are talking about (but i fear that you don’t know what you’re talking about either).
“or tell me about these portuguese ECtHR victories…..” For someone w an LLB you seem to think that the law is made of victories and defeats? It’s a most bizarre thing to say. What victories? The portuguese criminal code has been revised as recently as two years ago… I really don’t understand why you are quoting human rights law a subject that clearly has no bearing whatsoever for this case…
Sorry, but I’ll try to answer to you again when you talk about any relevant topic. Until then I think you’re just trying to be disruptive.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Increasingly Delusional
January 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Says in post 574: “I come with evidence that Portugal has a long history of being found to have violated Human Rights in a relevant area.” But you said yourself in post 562 (about the McCanns) that “Guilt of one does not imply, or make a case for guilt for the other crime.””
And it implies a systematic fault in Portuguese Law and Judicial Process, which they’ve failed to correct over time.
“Very articulate style you have. And how did you come to this conclusion may I ask”
Because in the gross missalocation of resources involved in pursuing the parents, and the culpable incompetence of the intial response, they’ve significantly reduced the chances of Madeleine ever being found, or the guilty parties caught.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
442 Dr Watson
Agree with everything except that I do not think K fears G -rather, I think its the other way round. If the theory is correct that the body was moved some 28 days after, this can only mean that the cover-up plan change due possibly to the unforeseen prospect of money-making. A woman who is fearful of her partner would not have been able to support him in this ‘marketing ploy’.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’d say you were incorrigable (but i can’t spell it)
January 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
on to Nikki now
January 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
574…Increasingly incredulous
Mr Rebello has stated that “all options are being investigated”. In October.
Those Options continue.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Inc Inc
Says in post 574: “I come with evidence that Portugal has a long history of being found to have violated Human Rights in a relevant area.” But you said yourself in post 562 (about the McCanns) that “Guilt of one does not imply, or make a case for guilt for the other crime.”
“The PJ have failed in their duty to attempt to catch the guilty persons in this case, and hence their moral duty to Madeleine”. Very articulate style you have. And how did you come to this conclusion may I ask
January 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
565 Denzylle
Good news for free speech and satire.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Yes let’s assume that the investigation stalled… how do you feel about that?”
Deeply angry - because it domonstrates the PJ’s incompetence, which will mean that Madeleine’s abductor won’t be caught.
“Do you feel that we’ll be any closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine?”
No, because the PJ cocked up any real chance of that by first making such a mess of things in the first 72 hours or so, an then by wasting time and resources trying to convict innocent people instead.
Go on… write down the name Madeleine in your posters for once…
I’ll do it as soon as you detail that appeals process, or tell me about these portuguese ECtHR victories…..
January 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“I could come here with wild speculation that there are violations of human rights, that there’s no appeal, that the interviews will take place or not… but simply we don’t know.”
I don’t come here with “wild speculation” of human rights violations - I come with evidence that Portugal has a long history of being found to have violated Human Rights in a relevant area.
“but never once I saw you mention the name Madeleine in your posts.”
If you wish - the PJ have grossly gfailed in their duty to attempt to catch the guilty persons in this case, and hence their moral duty to Madeleine, instead becomeing fixated on the parents, against whom they have no credible evidence
I can’t say I’d seen you mention it often, other than in photoshop fantasies…
“
January 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
you finished servicing leona ?
January 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
568…Increasingly incredulous
Alas, for you….your hopes are remote.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hi Nosey xx
January 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Increasingly Incredulous 568
Yes let’s assume that the investigation stalled… how do you feel about that?
Do you feel that we’ll be any closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine?
Go on… write down the name Madeleine in your posters for once…
January 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
565…Denzylle
Nice one !!!!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“Of course we don’t know precisely what the PJ are doing today, just as you don’t know they are doing nothing.”
So how, in that case, are posters able to post with confidence that the case is progressing?
After all, the external lack of progress, over such an extended period, is rather more suggestive of it having stalled.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
afternoon simon - long time no see
January 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
563…Marie Nicholas
No problem, Marie Nicholas.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Apologies if this has been posted or commented on. (I’m working so cannae check thru’ anything other than recent posts, but the news report is only half an hour old).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7213460.stm
I like the last para. I do agree that Brown might use the McC issue for political gain (probably is already judging from recent NON-events and possibly the GM connections) but it’s likely to be more covert than shown in the sketch.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
547 Matt,
Sorry, I sent my post without checking I had written your name.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
547
I know. Sometimes I react too fast. Which shows, by the way, that hurry isn’t the best counsellor.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Do you enjoy the idea that these parents may escape justice despite having abandoned their charges”
I’m rather with the Portuguese Prosecutor on that, and Olegario da Souza, the former spokesman….there’s no legal case to answer.
It may have been unwise, but not culpably so.
But, Ian, in that you demonstrate a good deal of the confusion in the tangled psychology of the anti-McCann brigade; you can’t separate a bad parenting decision from guilt for a major crime.
Even if the McCanns had committed an offence of child neglect, that’s the offence with which they should have been charged - rather than attempting to cobble together a case for a more serious crime for which there’s no tangible or credible evidence. Guilt of one does not imply, or make a case for guilt for the other crime.
That’s why it’s so easy to cause such a stir on here. Most of you aren’t used to having what passes for thought processes challenged. And when they are, you obviously find it a very uncomfortable event.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Increasingly Incredulous!” says… it all
January 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
556…noseycow
Indeed….but not in ii’s imaginary lofty legal world.