Madeleine McCann: Alipio Ribeiro’s Thinks, Clarence Mitchell Knows And A Birthday
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY STAR ON SUNDAY: “MADDIE COPS SAYS SORRY – Police ‘too quick’ “to blame parents”
“A top policeman has sensationally admitted that making Gerry and Kate McCann suspects over their daughter Maddie’s disappearance was too ‘hasty’. Alipio Ribeiro, boss of the Portuguese department in charge of the investigation, dropped his bombshell in a radio interview”
Says Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesman: “Now that the national director of the Policia Judiciaria apparently acknowledges that they should never have been made arguidos, it follows there is no case for them to answer.”
SUNDAY EXPRESS: “POLICE ‘TOO HASTY’ OVER MCCANNS”
“As the couple bravely celebrated the third birthday of their twins, Sean and Amelie, one of Portugal’s most senior detectives admitted that making them suspects had been a “hasty” mistake”
Did Mr Alipio Ribeiro say “mistake” in his radio interview?
Says the paper: “The couple, both 39, said the official’s comments were tantamount to an admission that Portuguese detectives had bungled by centring their investigation on them.”
Says Mr Ribeiro to Portugal’s Radio Renascenca, owned by the Catholic Church:
“At this moment in time and speaking with the experience I have of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service and the constitution of arguidos, I think there perhaps should have been another assessment before the McCanns were made official suspects.
“I don’t have any doubt about that. The national director of the Policia Judiciaria doesn’t give out orders on the constitution of arguidos but there was a certain hastiness”
Says the paper: “Last night Ribeiro was under growing pressure to stand down as national director of their country’s Policia Judiciaria”. Pressure from, whom?
MAIL ON SUNDAY: “”Police chief: We were too quick to make Gerry and Kate ‘arguidos’”
Says the Mail: “Kate and Gerry McCann’s bid to clear their names over the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine has been given a massive boost after the head of Portugal’s police admitted it had been a mistake to rush into making them official suspects”
Mr McCann says: “We need a breakthrough and this looks like it could be one. It is fantastic news. We still have a long way to go but people in Portugal need to understand what has been happening and what we have been going through. We know it will take the police a long time to accept what has been happening is wrong but it is an important step towards that”
Says the McCanns’ lawyer in Portugal, Carlos Pinto de Abreu: “Many people who may have vital information have possibly not come forward as they wrongly suspected the McCanns”
What about that huge reward, and doing the right thing? People may be deterred from coming forward for fear of being named in the media and questioned by Metodo 3, the McCann’s private investigators. But let us not speculate
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “MADDIE U-TURN - EXCLUSIVE Cops admit mistake on twins’ birthday”
“Kate and Gerry McCann threw a birthday bash for their twins yesterday - as a top cop admitted it was WRONG to name them as suspects over missing Maddie”
Well, Policia Judiciaria “boss” Alipio Ribeiro, said the police acted too hasilty. “Ribeiro last night faced calls to resign over the astonishing U-turn” – although from whom, the paper does not bother to say
Say the McCanns: “The support we have had from around the world has been amazing. It’s helped maintain our strength and hope and this has helped the search for our precious Madeleine. We believe there is a very good chance she is still alive. She deserves the love and security of her family. She needs to be back home with her mummy and daddy, brother and sister”
THE GUARDIAN: “Police chief says ‘we were too hasty’ in naming McCanns as suspects”
“In an interview to be aired on Portuguese radio today, Alípio Ribeiro, the national director of the Polícia Judiciária, will concede that police may have acted too soon in making Kate and Gerry McCann formal suspects, known in Portugal as arguidos. His comments were interpreted last night by the McCanns as a tacit admission that the police were wrong to name them as being involved in the disappearance of their four-year-old daughter”
Madeleine McCann: speculation, suspicion and sensation
Posted: 3rd, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (889) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
718
Abraham Zapruder
Not only
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
CSN 705
Maybe not all of them are pulling for the McCanns, there are other interests like tourism.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
702 Logic
That”s uncanny, just as I posted to you I saw your post to me!!!!!!!!! Thanks for all the info
and advice. All I know is I gave a blood sample and it was sent to the lab, so I wouldn”t
know whether it was a fractionated test. I really have never been one for taking tablets
and enjoyed very good health until I gave up smoking about 18 months ago. Since then I”ve
had more things wrong (nothing serious) than ever. There has not been any history of
Heart disease in my family so I”m not too worried. It”s trying to get rid of this coughing that”s more important to me at the moment.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Mr. Ribeiro ,works for the Portuguese Govm. ,he is not a cop, he is a politico.
The dimention of this case , had dameged , this case.
I don’t believe ,the P.J. ,will ever be allowed to go to the U.K.
The only thing i trust ,is that some of the Portuguese cops ,will work on these case ,for years, until they can found what is needed to know the All truth.
Meanwille , the team will do whatever they want ,and most of the public will believe it
All of this IMHO
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
HI SLYFOX
Cant spell it out, not important not on here tonight, brownnoser, read carefully and you will catch on.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
704 Sledgehammer
Was it? I suspect others might disagree.
The ‘right to remain silence’ has been devalued. Can you not understand the subtle devaluation which has a removal effect but ‘fools’ lay people such as you into thinking you have an effective right to remain silent?
There is a right to chuck yourself off a cliff, suicide is no longer a criminal offence. But is it of any value in your defence?
You will not succeed in fooling other posters here or distracting from your ridiculous charade of Fridays ‘About 11:30 announcement’.
You may seek to distract, but the bottom line is that the McCanns are open to accusations of negligence, they had a duty of care, they failed in that duty, the victim has been harmed as a result.
Your spin will not work with the majority of the right minded posters here, as Clarences doesnt.
You will not win with your spin.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
704 Sledgehammer Says: February 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
700 that was a waste of time you still don’t understand the right to remain silent, have they removed it.
++++++++++++++
Strange, I’m sure Ian asked you a question?
Hey ho. I forgot, you don’t answer questions do you? Just like your kith and kin, allegedly, in my opinion.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Val 703
JT’s daughter wasn’t born on the same day as Madeleine, I gather, but a month or so before or after.
Madeleine was born in Amsterdam, and JT was said to have been there at the time.
To support Kate, it’s been said.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
707 CSN
710 Bountyhunter
Who! Go on tell!
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
CANT SAY NO
HI Agreed ! I get you , sorry cannot do smileys or winkies. sleep well and dont worry OK ?
PJ will get the culprets, fools.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
708
MrsT
Think not
But i didn’t watched SIC
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
705 can’t say no
I’ve just read on the 3A’s site that SIC TV Portugal is saying that Mr Ribeiro’s comments were made back in September … is that right ?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
681
Ian
And you can see ,that the same pros-mcscam ,don’t like sledgy/reporter or Garth
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
VAL
I forgot to say, I also like lecithin. It’s full of choline and I can’t think of any bad effects only good ones.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
681
Ian
Sledge/Reporter or Garth ,are not dangerous , there are other posters here, very polite that pick the truth and twisted in a way, that i ‘m amazed, most people in here, are not awere of that
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
700 that was a waste of time you still don’t understand the right to remain silent, have they removed it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
684 Logic
I note your reply to Marie Nicholas , but I have not received a reply from you and wonder
if you sent one, I think mmmine to you was 653.
I looked at the photo of Madeleine riding the tricycle and agree the difference. I seem to remember the photo of the children in the Airport bus and thought the little girl in the
group was Jane Tanner”s daughter , who I believe was born the same day as Madeleine.
Could it be her photo riding the tricycle…………..just a thought.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
653 Val
Sage and garlic are often excellent for a dry cough. But I’ll think about that one and post again to you.
What I would say is, if you had muscle pains with the statin, it’s a good thing you stopped it and, if I were you, I wouldn’t try one again. One of the most serious side effects of the statins is rhabdomyalgia (myalgia meaning muscle pain)in which muscle breaks down and the liver is affected. I know that doctors tell you that 5.3 (or thereabouts, some even say less than 4 now) is the maximum your cholesterol should be, but many alternative practitioners (and SOME doctors) do not agree with this. The official level for cholesterol is lowered from time to time so that more people are caught in the “statin trap” which is good for the sale of statins. There are many who would say that a cholesterol of 7 (your original level) is completely acceptable. However, there is a condition known as familial hyperlipidaemia (meaning high fats in the blood) in which people can have a total cholesterol and/or triglyceride (another type of fat) which is very much above normal. Those people do seem to be prone to heart disease but this condition is a specific genetic variant. Also the knowledge regarding this is not unequivocal either (as in most science). However, there MIGHT be more of a case for statins for such people.
Some herbs are quite good at lowering your blood cholesterol level but it may not be clinically important anyway. Very low levels of cholesterol are associated with a higher risk of suicide which seems quite rational actually, since our brains contain so much fat, and the lowering of some fats might lead to defective working of the brain. Actually no-one really knows why there is an association with suicide but there definitely is.
The other thing is, did your doctor carry out a fractionated cholesterol test or just a total count? A total count tells you nothing because it is the ratio of HDL (good cholesterol) to LDL (bad cholesterol) that is relevant. You can have a raised total cholesterol but if your HDL has a healthy ratio to LDL then the total count is not really important.
This is just my personal opinion but all I’d say is, don’t believe the current info about cholesterol. It will all change within the next few years.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Does anyone know if MW resort bookings have had any adverse effect on bookings this year?
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
683
Apologies to everyone about repeating this again, but sledgehammer fails to understand the impact of the vital and much resisted change brought about by the change in the law in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
In this act, the caution was deliberately altered to allow inference from silence, which was not the case previously.
I have to re-post this, though already fully explained previously, for the avoidance of doubt.
Despite sledghammers view that the change to the caution did not impact the right to silence, it clearly had a significant devaluation effect.
The important point is that the original caution said (paraphrase) that you had the right to remain silent, but anything you DID say would be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.
The new caution was changed to allow inference from silence to be made by the jury that a person had ‘invented’ something to make a defence. The phrase ‘if you fail to mention when questioned something you may later rely on in court’ (paraphrase) absolutely clearly devalued the right to silence. Yes, you can remain silent, but there may be consequences as a result.
Sledgehammer fails to recognise the subtle impact.
83
PeterMac Says:
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
44 Noseycow
I dont want to go into all that again, but you really do have the right to remain silent. The modern difference is that that silence can be commented upon, which was not previously the case.
Ian says…
Petermac understood the difference, now sledghammer is claiming that because he didnt understand what I had been telling him (he extracted and attempted to use part of the caution ‘You dont have to say anything’ - omitting the ‘if you fail to mention when questioned…..’ part).
Petermacs post proved sledgehammer wrong, Peter has said exactly the same as I did.
Very interesting and, you could argue, clever twisting of the truth.
Spin doctor are we sledgehammer? If you were brighter, you could make a living from it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
697 Marie Nicholas.
Sugar = Addictive body toxin.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
691
MrsT Says:
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
690 Chenier
Yes I’ll try to ‘dive’ in more often and hope I don’t drown in the process
————————————————————
No chance; this site has the best lifeguards on the web…
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Logic
I also think avocado is good for you, but I am told it isn’t good for blood analysis studying the level of cholesterol.
One day, on the train, I overheard the conversation of American nutritionists and doctors. They were saying that there were very few heart/coronary problems before the 2 world wars, and according to them, butter and eggs weren’t the enemies (they quoted France as an example). It was mainly because of one poison, they said. And that poison is sugar. The intake of sugar has been multiplied by 100 or more in 2 generations, and the cardiac and coronay problems followed. You find sugar everywhere, even in soups. They also mentioned salt, I think it was because in ready prepared food, they put a lot of salt, and the more salt they add, the more sugar they add too.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
659
Châtelaine Says:
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
O.K.
While it’s getting more quiet, let me tell you about my dear old Maman. I finally told her [apart from Slegdehammer, not much news today…] about the Bell Pottinger & pharmaceutical company theories the other day [credit to Stevo & Saturn].
Welll … better give you the short version of a half hour passionate monologue:
“It’s about money. Find the money lead. Who/what is going to be hurt most when the truth comes out? There are people risking to lose money if this comes out.”
You want to ask her questions? I may try and keep her up for another half hour
————————————————–
I don’t know about Bell Pottinger or the pharmaceutical companies being involved; that looks to me as if it’s ’round up the usual suspects’, rather than any considered weight of evidence.
I haven’t seen anything done by Mark Warner’s HR department that looks any different to standard procedure in medium sized companies; I would be surprised if they hadn’t done those things, not the other way round.
I do agree wholeheartedly that there is a very strong financial motive, and Jonathan Sumption’s impassioned pleas to the Law Lords on the nature of conspiracy to defraud, and the claim that it is bad law thus preventing Ian Norris’ extradition to the United States, may be of particular interest to Team McCann on both counts…
http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=130890&d=415&h=417&f=416
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Peter O, apologies are not required, but I appreciate the sentiment.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Overheard at the school gates Friday morning.
That Madeleine thing is dragging on…
Yeah I know. Mind you, I don’t trust that Mitchell guy. Something very strange going on there.
Nods of agreement..
So far as I know, the ladies concerned don’t frequent Anorak.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
688 Saul Says: February 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
682 Peter O Says: February 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
601 Saul Says: February 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Clarence Mitchell forms his opinions on what he sees and hears, not unlike all the other posters on here.
The major differences being, he has a wider audience, plus he is very highly paid for it.
Edit….
+++++++++++++++
Peter O - As others have remarked, he isn’t actually that highly paid, but I do understand your point in this respect.
He is not expressing an opinion, he is informing what he hops is a largely gullible/apathetic public via a compliant media what it is he wants them to believe. Forums like Anorak are an irritation to people like Clarence.
++++++++++++++++
Saul He is not informing me anything, I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinion on infomation I receive, however I would be delighted to be as poorly paid as he is.
++++++++++++++++
Apologies, I don’t believe I suggested that you personally were not capable of forming your own opinion? Unfortunately, the vast majority of the population do not frequent forums like Anorak.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
654 Chenier
Just realised you are saying the same - more eloquently of course! That CM is not making the desired news impact any more - apart from the sketch that is, what tabloid could have resisted that one!
619 Pilimary
I’d say don’t worry. There have been so many contradictory reports and ’sensations’ in this case that people probably take any reports with a pinch of salt, a nano second of thought and that’s it.
I try not to talk to family and friends about this case because they have moved on. It’s only the obsessives who take notice of the everyday twists and turns. The more sane go by the latest news and but don’t soak it up. They only comment on it if I bring it up. Otherwise it’s off their radar.
My brother was an obsessive convinced of their guilt. Now he says they must be innocent otherwise why haven’t they been charged but it’s of no consequence to him now.
My other brother said slightly disapprovingly, ‘aren’t they going to make a movie about it?
Sister says - yes, big family - what’s the news? Feigning interest.
Friends know I’m a bit of an obsessive so politely ask about it as a bit of conversation.
Basically, they’ve been innocent, victims, DNA conclusive, inconclusive, guilty, evidence, no evidence, and so on.
So chill. It will all come out in the wash.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
690 Chenier
Yes I’ll try to ‘dive’ in more often and hope I don’t drown in the process
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
661
MrsT Says:
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Sorry Chenier …. I’m glad to see you back.
Even though I don’t post very often, I do enjoy reading your posts and you have definately been missed
============
Thank you, I’m very glad to be back. And I’ve seen your posts before, so now that you have dipped your toes in the water a few times, you could come for a paddle…