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
- yampster on Strictly Come Dancing’s Alesha Dixon Sparks I’m A Celebrity Race Row
- Lonnirose on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Jess on Strictly Come Dancing’s Alesha Dixon Sparks I’m A Celebrity Race Row
- Wyvern on Bolivian Police And Maddie McCann Introduce The Worst Photo-Fits Ever
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
January 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“Your’e basing your argument on three peoples sightings of probably a totally innocent man that the authorities have already ruled out one.”
and that’s rather more than is genuinely available against the parents.
Oh, and there is the small issue of the changing alibi……
What I’m curious about is, is what evidence would you expect there to be of an abduction - in the absence of Forensics, given the balls the PJ made of the “scene of crime” investigation?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
aardvako
you are correct
I wasnt a big fan
January 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
728
Lone Pigeon Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
—————————————–
Dont tell me what I can and cant do.
I will debat with you no problem. I’ve told you I have no evidence. I’ve asked you to give your evidence which obviouslky are based on facts. So lets hear it…………..
January 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
aardvako
Sorry old 80s band A-HA video where the sketch comes to life!!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I get you now, but was it not “Take on Me” that had that video?
Lol (don’t know smileys)
January 28th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
717
Increasingly incredulous said….
‘And if guilty, wouldn’t have stayed around for four months, meeting regularly with the Police, attracting publicity to the case, and so on…’
Ian says….
Thats an unsound statement, they may have wanted to stay close, to be right in there directing the ‘abduction investigation’ and to distract from anything other than what may have been a fruitless and ’safe’ search.
It might be said that as soon as they were made suspects they fled ‘like rats out of an aquaduct’ (quote pinched from Monty Pythons ‘Life of Brian’) and the tears flowed for the first time (from Gerry’s eyes).
January 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Brandon, sorry I don’t quite get your comment 730, but there’s a smiley after it so I presume it is light-hearted.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Incredulous. There’s every point. You can’t answer with facts or proof. Your’e basing your argument on three peoples sightings of probably a totally innocent man that the authorities have already ruled out one.
You base your arguments on nothing. You don’t have an argument.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
719
Carmen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
710 Garth
MODS AND ADMIN
Garth, we both know that posters can get very wound up after hours of argument, sometimes increasingly circular argument, and resort to foul language, we are not prudes, and let it go - but that is not the same thing as charging in at the beginning of the evening and setting the tone of your argument with the use of such language. Unnecessarily confrontational and not likely to get the best quality of debate out of anyone - which is surely what you are here for, isn’t it?
Of course it is. Reasonable debate. But lets be fair Carmen, I’ve tried many times but still get the worthless remarks thrown my way. Read back and maybe you understand my feelings. Sometimes it just gets a little digs, no matter how petty, will rile people up.
Im just saying one needs to look at the broader picture. But then I’ve been saying that for months
January 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
SUN ALWAYS SHINES ON TV
January 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Mods and Admin,
if you’d care to email me directly, I’d be happy to provide details that would demonstrate anything necessary to answer #709, given assurances of confidentiality, of course.
RE Ferdinand’s
“Only that the cadaver dogs are not even indicative evidence. They only point to possible evidence. In this case they pointed to the DNA sources, as I understood. Thus it’s only one piece of indicative evidence, and not two (one for the evidence and one for the pointer to this evidence).”
Actaully, there’s another issue here. It’s concerning the way the dogs were employed…..
Sunday Times, 16/12/07
“……The dogs then went on to search the apartments of the McCanns and their friends. A line-up of cars were also called in by the police, including the cars owned or used by Murat and the Renault the McCanns had been using, which they had hired on May 27.
Those who told me about the dogs’ searches say they involved little objective science. It has been suggested that the HRD dog was treated differently in the McCanns’ apartment than in the others. The dog kept sniffing and running off and it was called back on several occasions. Eventually it “alerted”, meaning it went stiff and stayed still.
Then the blood dog was called in and directed to the area where the other dog had alerted. Eventually this dog alerted in the same place – behind the sofa in the lounge, which is where the trace of blood was supposedly found.
The cars were lined up, not in a controlled environment, but in the underground public car park opposite Portimao police station. Again the dog was led quickly from one car to the next until he reached a Renault with “Find Madeleine” stickers all over it. The dog sniffed and moved on to the next car, but was called back. The dog was taken around the McCanns’ car for about a minute, as opposed to the few seconds devoted to the other cars…..”
So, the dogs had initially shown no interest in either the apartment or car, but were (in effect) “told” to find something.
That alone would be enough to raise serious suspicions about the conduct of this case.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Aardvarko
TOUCH ME, HOW CAN IT BE, BELIEVE ME
January 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
nite brandon
nite simon - now promise me that you won’t work too hard now will you
January 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
713
Garth Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
707
Lone Pigeon Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
———————————————-
Im still waiting from the ‘authorities’ evidence…………… if you like?
I’ve already answered. You however have not. because you can’t.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
709
Ian Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
700 Increasingly incredulous
Mods and Admin
Not sure if you’d agree to answer this, but this poster seems very similar to another. How closely are you able (do you choose to!) ensure that people dont change their ID’s without informing the other posters?
Are there any rules regarding claiming qualifications? This poster claims to have achieved a qualification which doesnt seem to be reflected in the quality and content of their posts.
He or she also wastes a heck of a lot of space and time (but I dont expect you to do anything about it, as we all could be charged with that!).
____________
IAN: Aren’t you currently just studying to be a lawyer?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Garth 716 - check the NOTW article yesterday - Cooper stated “It’s deeply shocking to see my drawing come to life.” - although admittedly she did backtrack a bit thereafter it’s still a pretty odd thing to say!
Surely her drawing didn’t come to life, but something alive became her drawing…
unless of course there was nothing to come to life!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
719 Carmen
‘…which is surely what you are here for, isn’t it?’
With all due respect, Carmen, this is Garth you are talking to - did you forget?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
714
Ian Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
——————–
Ah Ian, wondered when you’d come out of the closet
Abduction - you dislike
Tell me why its not possible and then I’ll tell you why it is. I think we’ve covered this ground before but anyway………..
January 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Night Nosey…
January 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
parenting like the mc canns
January 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
711 Ferdinand
It was my own interpretation of the meaning of ‘indicative’ and not a legal one, which I was using. In short I’d not argue with you.
I’m much more interested in the length of time and the clock times the McCanns had abandoned their kids than I am in evidence to which I have no access.
I’m not really any different in view regarding evidence than many of the blind faithers, but they fail to accept any evidence - even that of known factual inconsistancies.
I dont like the McCanns, but that emotional response I try to put to one side.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
eye witnesses like Tanner
January 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The “fun” is in seeing the clueless idiots in the pro camp trying to keep the spin going.
I doubt very much whether Madeleine had much “Fun” and certainly did not intend to imply that this sordid mess could possibly be construed as “fun”. I rather think you knew that, but I do apologise if I offended anyone.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“There’s no rush, if the McCanns and others thought Maddie was alive I’m sure they would have done anything to eliminate themselves from the enquiry as soon as possible.”
And if guilty, wouldn’t have stayed around for four months, meeting regularly with the Polcie, attarcting publicity to the case, and so on…
Pigeon - there’s little point exercising the various items of evidence pointing towards adbuction - the various “stranger” sightings, the eyewitnesses like Tanner, because you’ll simply refuse to recongise them as significant.
And since it’s abovious the Portuguese Police couldn’t run a forensic scene to save their lives any evidence there may have been that way is long since lost.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Garth,
If the PJ are not looking for more evidence, why do the McCanns keep providing more, with Mrs Cooper’s bizarre sighting which she sort of admitted in NOTW that she fabricated, and Gerry’s changing of the timeline to make abduction impossible.
—————————
Ah right? She fabricated it all now? Come on bringer of exclusive news………tell us more….
January 28th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
606
Ian Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
604 Cheryl
May I clarify a point fundamental to the McCann case?
Do you think that its acceptable to leave a 3 year old child and two 2 year old children alone in an apartment unsupervised?
I just like to ascertain peoples views on that point before engaging.
________________
REPLY: Get real, Ian, I’ve been very blunt on my feelings they are guilty of Neglect. Who doesn’t think that on here? Unless all non-prejudgers or pro-canns on here kiss the anti-mccanns rear ends and agree with every speculation they’ve made they come back with those people don’t think they are guilty of neglect.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
704 Garth
Oh no! It wasnt that awful post I had to challenge yesterday was it - where he claimed it was Kates emotional response as his illogical reason (his description) and his logical reasons were all focussed on the other theories!
Please tell me it wasnt that one or I’ll have to doubt you are the real Garth!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
707
Lone Pigeon Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
———————————————-
Im still waiting from the ‘authorities’ evidence…………… if you like?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
703 Ade’s constant reference to the amount of ‘fun’ he’s having when some poor little 4yr old kid is still on the missing list speaks volumes about the character of the man.
Wanting to put yourself in the same mindset as him speaks volumes about you.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
694 Ian Says:
“I fear it is not the water retention capabilities of the DNA evidence that the McCanns should fear!
It is the indicative nature of this evidence, not the intrinsic admissability of that evidence, much like the cadaver dogs.”
Only that the cadaver dogs are not even indicative evidence. They only point to possible evidence. In this case they pointed to the DNA sources, as I understood. Thus it’s only one piece of indicative evidence, and not two (one for the evidence and one for the pointer to this evidence).