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
January 28th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
918 Chloe Spain
Sorry didnt realise, with all due respect its a bit of a daft discussion then!
If they wanted her to be abducted, one theory I have seen stated here is it was a cover up to rid themselves of a child who was not really theirs (IVF from Donor egg for example), then clearly leaving her unattended would be part of the scam.
Personally I think they left her unattended and went out for the night, not checking anywhere near as often as they ought. She may have been abducted, may have had an accident. I tend to think it was an accident. But I do not totally reject the idea of an abduction (but they must be lying about checks if that were the case).
January 28th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
917 jo Says: January 28th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
914 Peter O Says: January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
****************
I was asking if the mccanns could be charged for being accomplice of a possible abductor(if we were to follow this hypothesis) s they ahve facilitaded the access to such a situation.
I know nothing about the law and it would be wonderful if you or any one could answer me from a legal point of view.(I personally do NOT believe Madeleine was abducted).
++++++++++
Sorry, I’m not a lawyer/legal person. Just an opinionated bugger!
I was questioning the inference, I assume Ferdinand’s (apologies if not), that a woman’s attire and location, speaking in the most general of senses, could ever have any possibility of resulting in complicity charges if they were unfortunate to be raped.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
912 Ian Says:
“Dont be so ridiculous.”
I am not ridiculous. Blaming the victims for allowing for a crime is quite common. Sometimes you might agree that the victim was really a bit careless. But legally it’s still the perpetrator who commits the crime.
“Its not the risk of abduction they exposed their children too, clearly there was no such risk - or the risk was incredibly small.”
At least here we agree.
“risk of them waking scared”
Being told that by a citicen of a country whose sons and daughters once ruled half of the world….
January 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
919 Ian
That would, therefore, seem fairly clear. But presumably they would not be accomplices in an abduction simply because they gave the opportunity to abduct.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
896 Hi Jo !
If you look at Mrs Cooper’s sketch, you’ll understand that the monster was very special, very smart, very cunning. Who could have imagined that such a devil was lurking at night in the resort?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
In England and Wales the applicable law is the Childrens Act of 1933.
If the McCanns had committed this crime in England or Wales (the abandoning of three children in an apartment, locked or unlocked) they could have been charged with neglect and failure to deliver their duty of care to the children.
Even failure to recognise risks has been used to successfully prosecute parents. The McCanns would know of the legislation (would have known on 1st/2nd or 3rd May) as Kate McCann is a GP and the subject was reinforced to all GP’s early in late 2006, early 2007.
I am not aware of the applicable Portuguese law.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
912 Ian
I take issue with you here. Ferdinand is explaining why they wouldn’t be accomplices in the abduction. This has nothing to do with child neglect, which is a completely different question. Effectively, the risk of an abduction was very low, but the risk of some other kind of incident or accident was, presumably, quite high (unless, of course, the children were sedated). I still haven’t fully understood British law on the subject but, from a logical point of view, neglect does not necessarily depend on the outcome but on the risk. They were neglecting their children regardless of Madeleine’s “disappearance” simply because they were leaving 3 young children alone. But this does not make them accomplices in an abduction (speaking hypothetically, since I do not believe any abduction took place).
January 28th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
914
Peter O Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
****************
I was asking if the mccanns could be charged for being accomplice of a possible abductor(if we were to follow this hypothesis) s they ahve facilitaded the access to such a situation.
I know nothing about the law and it would be wonderful if you or any one could answer me from a legal point of view.(I personally do NOT believe Madeleine was abducted).
January 28th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
903 Ferdinand Says: January 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
You people can really make me sick
January 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
In the last few days Portugal has become a much less desirable place to visit IMO.
So many creepy people, misfits etc
rapes of young tourists
weirdos closely following tourists in a supermarket then to their appartments
scarey looking men knocking on the door asking money for bogus orphanages
nice looking men examining an appartment and being able to see the whole of the Mark warner complex.
local weirdos having drinks with people from Mark Warner
Many children getting lost at Mark Warner complex (according to one of the nannies it happens all the time with parents getting hysterical - though not as hysterical as Kate)
local itinerants watching children on the beach
0h and a child abduction in a 2 minute window of opportunity as well
I don’t think I want to go there thanks very much. So… exactly how much damage have the lovely couple done to the tourist industry in PDL????????? Not to mention the cost to the Police etc…..
January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
903 Ferdinand Says: January 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
896 jo Says:
Edit….
Certainly. Just as any woman who becomes a victim of rape - say while passing a lonesome location and wearing a cute skirt - can be charged for being accomplice for rape - for allowing (by appearing on a lonesome location) and even inviting (by wearing a cute skirt) for the crime.
++++++++++++
Am I reading what you posted incorrectly?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
896 Jo
Here in Portugal ,1 mother ,used to left her kids alone ,to go to work.
They didn’t taker her children ,because she was poor and managed to get a babysiter
January 28th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
902 Ferdinand
Dont be so ridiculous.
Its not the risk of abduction they exposed their children too, clearly there was no such risk - or the risk was incredibly small. Its all the other risks which any decent parent would realise existed for three little ones alone in an apartment.
Risks of accident, risk of them waking scared and alone and wandering out through doors left open to fall down concrete steps as they headed toward the sound of their parents chatting and laughing happily in the Tapas Bar.
The issue is that they say it was abduction BECAUSE the risk is so small that they would be likely to escape charges of neglect - its why they were SO SURE - as it was essential to them that everyone looked beyond the parents and beyond the apartment and beyond the mundane and local risks.
To compare this with your ‘girl asking for it’ is an appalling twisting of the charges most of the caring parents who post here raise against the failed parents McCann.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Chloe
Ferdinand
*************
I dont know.I wish a lawyer was around tonight and would give us some clue.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sorry ,i’m feeling sick
Till later
January 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
906
Peter O
She was here yesterday
January 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
900
can’t say no Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
**************++
It is 3 children,Madeleine and the Twins.I also understand that “Brownie” is NOT above the law nor are the mccFools,even if he asked for a “favor”.
The PJ are very well aware of this but thankfully, they are working their way through the mess, slowly but surely….
January 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
896 Jo
No, I don’t think it’s like that. If you leave your wallet unattended and someone takes it, you are not an accomplice in the theft. Now, you may well feel that it’s your own fault for not being more careful, but it’s the person who takes it who has committed the offence.
Or the example of rape that Ferdinand gives is equally valid.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Good evening all? Anyone seen or heard of chenier in recent days? They were suggesting that they were due to leave hospital on Sunday?
*********************
not since Sunday a.m, but going home can be tiring and we don’t know whether she lives alone, perhaps give her a day or so to recoup?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I’m not a defensless kid like MM or the twins
So please ignore me
January 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
903
OK ??
Garth
Let me alone
You people have already caused suffering to many inocent people
January 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
896 jo Says:
“It strikes me that in fact,following the hypothesis of the abduction: that the mccanns would be actually accomplice of an abductor,leaving their house opened and their children unnatended.
Of course I know nothing of any law but it seems logical.
Could the PJ charge them for this ?”
Certainly. Just as any woman who becomes a victim of rape - say while passing a lonesome location and wearing a cute skirt - can be charged for being accomplice for rape - for allowing (by appearing on a lonesome location) and even inviting (by wearing a cute skirt) for the crime.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
900
can’t say no Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
———————
……..and the beat goes on………..
January 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
AMSTERDAM - Seven handlers of sniffer dogs who are suspected of during almost nine years to have carried out the tests wrongly, are criminally prosecuted.
In dutch the whole story, although it’s got nothing to do with the McC’s :
http://www.nu.nl/news/1192747/10/rss/Speurhondengeleiders_vervolgd_na_missers.html
******
Regarding snifferdogs in McC’s case:
* If handled “biased” but found “blood/dna” I think that doesn’t harm a case against suspects, as long as the DNA shows it’s from a deceased person and without any doubt who that deceased person is/was. LCN DNA isn’t admissable in a Portuguese courtroom, no matter if it’s 100% reliable or not.
* If handled “biased” the dogs could have missed clues in the other cars and/or apartments/villa’s/houses imo.
I wonder if we’re ever able to watch the video['s] with the dogs.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
896
jo
They put in danger the life of 1 child ,MM (for those who believe in yhe Superman abduction).in any Country ,that is punished by law
Mr. Gordon Brown ,asked some favours to Portugal ,i hope you understand
January 28th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Goodbye.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
893
Garth Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
887
RedRooster Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
—————————-
You certainly dont take on board anything do you? You have no respect for anyone. Imo you need a good kick up the arse!
================
oh i see what you mean CARMEN ???????
January 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
894
Carmen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
——————————————-
now lets not pretend you are a reasonable person Carmen. I dont know what your problem is with me but it quite clearly shows that you do not like me. That is fine as the feeling is mutual, but before accusing me of anything kindly read and reread as you will find you are mistaken. I shall now get my coat as i dont wish to discuss anything with your so unreasonable self any longer good bye
January 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1216
January 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Hi
It strikes me that in fact,following the hypothesis of the abduction: that the mccanns would be actually accomplice of an abductor,leaving their house opened and their children unnatended.
Of course I know nothing of any law but it seems logical.
Could the PJ charge them for this ?