Madeleine McCann: A Pundit Says, Judge Eurico Reis Orders And The Sun Omits
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
THE SUN: “Shut up: Maddie cop by judge”
Police national director Alipio Ribeiro “stunned his men” by “admitting” the decision to make “doctors” Kate and Gerry McCann suspects was “hasty”
Judge Eurico Reis said it is “not the cop’s role to publicly comment on cases under investigation. The judge raged: ‘It is his duty to SHUT UP.’”
And: “Portugal’s top prosecutor Antonio Cluny branded Ribeiro’s comment ‘extremely worrying’” – Why worrying? Because of what he said? Or because a policeman has given his personal views about an ongoing case? The Sun fails to make this clear
The McCanns spokesman tells us: “You cannot have the head of the police force openly questioning the validity of the way in which they were made suspects and then not have a review”
Can’t you? Can someone expert in Portuguese law tells us if you can or cannot…
FERGUS Shanahan: “COPS SO WRONG”
Alipis Ribero is on the radiop. Says Shanahan: “In effect, Mr Ribeiro is saying: ‘We never had any evidence agsint Kate and Gerry. We didn’t take Madeleine’s disappearance seriously… Some of our detectives thought Kate and Gerry looked dodgy. So we made them suspects and hoped something might turn up.”
The tabloids, meanwhile, look at “creepy” Robert Murat, also a suspect - you know, the one the Sun calls an “oddball“
DAILY STAR: “BLOW FOR MADDIE PARENTS”
“TORMENTED Kate and Gerry McCann are to remain official suspects over their daughter’s disappearance. They hoped to have their ‘arguido’ status lifted after Portugal’s top cop Alipio Ribeiro admitted it may have been a mistake to put them in the frame. But government legal advisers yesterday denied they were planning to clear their names”
So the personal views of a policeman are not a deciding factor in an ongoing investigation?
“The 39-year-olds may be considered suspects for as long as the investigation continues – possibly years”
Read all about it!
DAILY MIRROR: “STILL SUSPECTS – Maddy probe team in row over letting McCanns off hook”
Says Judge Eurico Reis: “This case has had more than enough media exposure”
Mr Ribeiro is on the radio…
Says “media pundit” Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa: “He killed the investigation when he said there was haste in making the McCanns arguidos in the case”
Says Antonio Cluny, who we heard from earlier in the Sun: “I don’t know if he’s right or not but this conduct of speaking about pending cases is extremely worrying”
Why did the Sun end its Mr Cluny quote short?
LIVERPOOL DAILY POST: “Madeleine McCann: Liverpool grandad hoping for a miracle”
Says Mr Healy: “Like most people I would like to think that if there is a spark of hope I have to hang on to it. They haven’t found anything yet. We have to believe a miracle can happen. I still believe she is alive and until someone tells me different I will believe”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Maddy’s grandad hopes for miracle”
Brian Healey says he is pleased that “Alipio Rebeiro, national director of the Policia Judiciaria, said detectives were too hasty in making the couple suspects over their daughter’s disappearance”
Says he: “I am glad he has said it, it will get things moving to reinstate the fact they’re innocent”
Posted: 5th, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (958) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
February 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
506 Tony Bennett
And, as someone else pointed out a few days ago, how strange that the media sources like Sky News were running this as a HEADLINE story on their 6.00 AM programs on 4th May. This is very unusual for such a story - especially as they would have looked like total prats if someone then came in at 6.30 am and said ‘I found this little girl in my garden asleep’.
The speed of this coupled with the fact that trademark/copyrights on the campaign slogan were LODGED with the Copyright office under two weeks after the ‘disappearance’ are all deeply suspicious, imo.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
490 Tony Bennett
This is very interesting. I still think it very strange that the Ambassador felt it important enough for him to personally visit PdL the day after Madeleine was reported missing. After all the Console was already on hand.
Also, there seems to have been a lot of haste in informing the Foreign Office of Madeleine’s disappearance. As I pointed out a few days ago, why inform the Foreign Office, media and call for a priest - all in under two hours since she was ‘found missing’. She could so easily have been found hiding under a bush at that early stage.
The only conclusion I can reach is that whoever instructed someone to/made all those phone calls knew that she would not be found and wanted to get the ‘abduction story’ rolling.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp?PageNbr=1&MemberId=4061465358&PhotoAlbumId=6283673445&PhotoId=6283687100
Hi to all the posters.
Recently came across this photo of Maddie and I can’t figure it out.
Has anyone seen this photo? It is included in a section of a find Maddie site which has “unseen photos of Maddie.”
February 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
482
Julie Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Kiwi, perhaps it could be that certain parties know that searching those deep, murky waters is not going to uncover Madeleine, and that these particular parties are not prepared to spend hard-earned money on something they know is not feasible? IMHO of course!
********
‘Spose so ….. but then if I understand things that I’ve read correctly, some, in fact quite a bit, of the Fund money has already been spent on very strange things…like the McCann’s Mortgage payments to name but one ? I was under the impression that the money was to pay for anything, or to anybody, that couldhelp find Madeleine and it also seems that so much information has been conveniently “ignored” and come to light at a later date. Why didn’t the Police - just as a matter of interest - do more than just go and look at the lake in the first instance ? I read somewhere that they just looked to see if they could see a floating body but if you were chucking something like that into the lake, you would surely weight it first if you didn’t want it found ?
February 5th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
488 Irene
Quote KennyKen: “One thing however is for sure (whatever the outcome) the McC’s will ALWAYS be guilty of leaving their defenceless children at the mercy of any elements of evil, and this guilt will always be just one step behind them for the rest of their miserable lives.”
I would like to think this, BUT the McCs seem to have a huge problem understanding how they were irresponsible parents; neglecting and abandoning their three extremely young children - in an UNLOCKED apartment; that’s IF we are to believe their version of events. Perhaps they need to be forced to attend parenting classes, so they can be taught about the error of their ways!
February 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
500
Remigius Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I didn’t say I personally believed that MM was abducted by a stranger, I certainly don’t.
I was just stating that no matter how implausible (and I DO think it is hugely implausible), it was not entirely impossible based on what little we actually know at this stage.
I would be very, very surprised if it did eventually turn out to be the case, but imo, the parents have a lot do with her disappearance, and their behaviour and actions certainly contribute truckloads to that perception imo.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
498 Tony Bennett
Justice for Madeleine, one day, indeed.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
493 MikeSA
The claim that “Madeleine was abducted by a stranger” is groundless.
Even David Canter, who claims he believes in “the evil stranger” scenario, admits that almost no “evil stranger” type fits the bill. An hysterical woman? She would have taken a baby, and since the twins were right there, sleeping “soundly” but were not abducted, we can discount that type.
Then there’s the pedophile, but pedos are very risk-adverse, would never have taken the kind of chances the McCanns claim they did, and would most likely have been intersted in an older child. madeleine is too young for this profile type.
then there are the pro child traffickers, but why would they risk capture for merely one child, when they could go to Brazil, Colombia, India, Eastern Europe, and easily obtain lots of abandoned children with no trouble whatsoever?
Such a “pro” would have had accomlices, but there is no evidence of anyone other than the parents being involved. In fact, most of the evidence continues to poin to them.
Dr. Canter did address the possibility that the McCanns murdered their daughter, but hurriedly discounted it because he claimed there was no other evidence of their “evolving evil.” This claim is just logically absurd, for under Dr. Canter’s view, there would never be any criminal act EVER committed in the history of humanity since no one would be capable of committing a “first” evil act.
Canter utterly fails to address the possibility the McCanns accidentally killed their daughter, although he aludes to it obliquely by saying that would make them “incompetent medics” and there’s supposedly no evidence for that.
But is that even true?
No evidence of stalking, no evidence of break-in, just a bunch of hysterical people wanting to “help.” God help the Portuguese with all those photo fits.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
496
Dr. Watson Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
There was mention that a trial by jury does happen or is at least a choice in certain instances in Portugal?
I don’t know whether that’s a choice afforded to the accused or what circumstances can lead to that if it is so.
It would be ironic of they could request a jury trial and then put forward a motion for a mistrial based on then being unable to have a fair trial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m sure that’s not the case, but it’s a weird thought nonetheless.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The inquest I’ve been involved in for the past two weeks or so ended today, after 9 days of evidence, with the verdict of the 10-man jury (they started off with 11, but one dropped out for business reasons (!)).
The Coroner directed the jury that in respect of the death of Lee Balkwell, who was reported by a Mr David Bromley to have been found dead, crushed between the revolvoing drum and chasiss in a cement mixer at 1.03am on 18 July 2002, they could bring in one of only three verdicts:
1) open verdict
2) accidental death
3) unlawful killing due to gross negligence or manslaughter.
The jury unanimously chose ‘unlawful killing due to gross negligence or manslaughter’, but the Coroner never allowed the jury to give the verdict that the boy’s father wanted - unlawful killing by homicide. She ruled that only the above three verdicts were permissible.
This was despite the submission of father Mr Les Balkwell’s barrister, Tony Ventham of Carmelite Chambers, to the Coroner (in the absence of the jury) that there was ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence’ that Lee Balkwell had been unlawfully killed i.e. murdered by one or more of those present at Baldwin’s Farm, Essex, that evening.
The jury’s verdict came over five-and-a-half years after Lee’s death, the jury’s decision being given 2016 days after he died - a terrible strain on the bereaved family.
The father already has a series of complaints against Essex Police lodged with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (which include allegations of corruption by high-ranking officers), and we hope they will now insist on either a ‘managed’ IPCC investigation or, failing that, a fresh investigation into all aspects of the case by an outside police force.
The relevance of all this to the ‘disappearance’ of Madeleine McCann?
1. One day, there will be an inquest into her death/disappearance
2. An inquest does not necessarily need a body
3. I expect that one of the possible verdicts at Madeleine McCann’s inquest will be ‘unlawful killing’ - either by gross negligence/manslaughter or ‘homicide’ (or whatever the equivalent verdicts are in Portuguese law if the inquest is held in Portugal, and
4. Circumstantial evidence, if it is compelling enough, is enough both to secure a conviction in a criminal trial on a murder charge *and* a finding of ‘unlawful killing’ in an inquest.
Justice for Madeleine
February 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Good Evening all, been working all day.
Any news??
February 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
As far as I understand, press coverage can only affect “fair trial” in countries where jury is used (selected from general public, so the objective is to find people whose opinions have not been affected by reading newspapers on the case). In Portugal it is judges, so it means that feelings of general public are irrelevant to the charges?
February 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
490 Tony Bennett
Great job, by the way! Bravo!
February 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
490 Tony Bennett
So….are they saying that, yes, the Foreign Office DID call the newspaper?
that’s what I’m reading, amidst the plethora of detail.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Just to add to the line of thought on publicity and the avoidance thereof, it has often been put forward by “pro’s”, that the mcc’s would not have courted publicity to the degree they have if they were not innocent of aything more than neglect.
Imo they lost control of the whole publicity monster quite early on, subsequently coupled with what I suspect might be a bit of a “moth to a flame” attraction for gm in that regard.
I suppose it might also be possible that the fund-raising possibilities led them by the nose a bit, maybe a case of greed over-riding commonsense?
As far as the siblings being in danger are concerned, it obviously would depend on exactly went on.
If it did turn out to be a case of a parent losing control, or of a cavalier attitude to sedation, then yes, the other children could definitely, imo, still be very much at risk.
One of the biggest red flags to me is how imo the mcc’s clearly place their own well-being way ahead of either MM or the other 2 children.
That was the same attitude that led to the “babysitting arrangements”.
It’s the same attitude that leads them to claim that they “did nothing wrong”, and that it “seemed so right” (which quite frankly, is one of the oddest statements on a topic like this that I have ever heard).
It’s my perception that this self-serving attitude is what negates any argument by those who claim that they have “suffered enough” to avoid further sanction on the neglect issue.
It’s a huge mistake to judge what other people might feel or do based on your own standards (not that I don’t do precisely that myself, mind you).
Clearly the majority of people on this forum would not abandon their children in the manner that the mcc’s apparently did, so equating one’s own standards of grief or emotion to their’s could be well off the mark imo.
Just as one’s pet dog or cat should not be attributed “human” traits, one cannot claim that a murderer or violent criminal would reason or behave in the same manner as most of the more restrained members of the population.
Likewise, as their claimed views on child-rearing differ so markedly from many people we have spoken to and interacted with, imo we can clearly not just assume that their feelings and views coincide with ours.
As far as what actually happened is concerned, it’s even possible imo that the child was taken by a stranger, and that they are lying about everything else purely to avoid neglect charges, and that they have become caught up in their own web of deceit.
Highly, hugely unlikely imo, but nonetheless not completely impossible.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Our grand children have just arrived to drive us barmy. Be back later.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
488 Irene re Kenny ken
Thanks for this, it is very interesting.
But it makes me think that another grave danger to the twins is Kate’s very obvious depression. As long as there are “minders” around to assure the twins’ safety, they will likely be okay. but a depressed parent, taking meds, unable to even hold a part-time job of two working days a week, well…..that does not bode well for the children’s safety, either.
It brings to mind the case of Andrea Yates, who was clinically depressed, and eventually developed psychosis and drowned all five of her children in the home’s bathtub, after first locking up the family dog and waiting for her husband to head off to work “because he would have stopped” her.
Is Kate so depressed? If so, did her depression contribute in any way to madeleine’s “disappearance?” It’s a question that should be asked and answered for the safety of her surviving children.
These are more than hypothetical issues. Children really die at the hands of such parents every day. Yates was not a medical doctor, but she was smart enough to be class valedictorian of her high school, so intelligence has little to do with what happens to these children.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I promised I would post up the replies on Anorak Forum that I got from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to my Freedom of Information Act request, as soon as I heard from them.
My questions centred, it may be recalled, around how the ‘Daily Telegraph’ was apparently able to post remarkably full details about the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann at 00.01am on Friday, 4 May. There were also questions about the role of Clarence Mitchell. It now seems that the online ‘Telegraph’ report dated 4 May and timed at 00.01 hours was indeed filed later that day.
Here, anyway, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office response provided to The Madeleine Foundation:
============================================================
MADELEINE MCCANN - ANSWERS FROM THE FOREIGN OFFICE
Answers supplied by the Foreign Office to the Madeleine Foundation, 1 February 2008 (Summary)
NOTE: This information was supplied under the Freedom of Information Act in response to questions centring around the ‘Daily Telegraph’ publishing an online report timed at 00.01 hours on Friday 4 May, referring to Foreign Office involvement in the abduction of a three-year-old child at 10.00pm the previous evening. I now think it is probable that the ‘00.01’ time is not the correct time that the ‘Daily Telegraph report was filed but that the 00.01 time was left in place when the report was filed some hours later - T Bennett, Secretary, The Madeleine Foundation]
Foreign Office reference: FOI 0010-08 (CONS 03/2008)
QUOTE - verbatim but with parts snipped:
The online [‘Daily Telegraph’] report appears to have been posted 3 minutes after we were notified that a child had gone missing. If this timing is correct, then it is impossible that a Foreign Office spokesman could have spoken to the paper. The timing may be an error. In this case, the duty officer would have spoken to the ‘Daily Telegraph’; however we cannot give any further information due to the uncertainty over the timing.
At 23:58 on 3 May 2007 our duty officer in Portimao received a call from a Mark Warner employee reporting that a child had gone missing from the Ocean Bay Club, Praia da Luz. Out duty officer in Lisbon informed the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Response Centre in London at 00:30 on 4 May 2007.
We offer consular assistance, depending on the individual circumstances of each case, to British nationals in distress overseas. In this case, consular officials provided the appropriate assistance when the disappearance was first reported. The details about the disappearance given in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ article, namely that the girl’s parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep that night, but returned to check on them only to find that the girl had gone missing’, were given to our Duty Officer in Portimao when the disappearance was reported.
Clarence Mitchell was seconded by the Central Office of Information, where he was the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 21 May 2007.
In accordance with the Civil Service Management code, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office refunded reasonable expenses incurred by Clarence Mitchell in carrying out his duties of providing assistance to the McCann family in exceptional circumstances. The total amount was £6,230.90.
The Central Office of Information made a statement on 17 September 2007 confirming that Clarence Mitchell had resigned as Director of the Media Monitoring Unit at the Central Office of Information. For any further information, you will need to apply to that Department.
No Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff were specifically appointed to assist the McCanns, although a number of our staff were involved in providing consular assistance to the family. We do not maintain financial records of the individual costs of consular cases.
UNQUOTE
February 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
486 MikeSA
But they are laying low right now. We haven’t been treated to one of Gerry’s manic “press conferences” in ages. I suppose he’s too busy negotiating the big movie deals, Oprah, etc.!
And Kate is practically in hiding! Clarence now does all their talking, apparently.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
from KennyKen
Even though no conclusion to this case has been reached, the status of suspects being placed on the McC’s was not too hasty.
In cases of this type the parents are nearly always the first to come under suspicion. Even more so when an act of negligence has been made.
The broadcasted statement of Alipio Ribeiro was an act of folly and has undermined much of the investigation to date.
His comments should have remained within the PPS . He is entitled, of course, to his opinions , but to go public the way he did has made him yet another victim of the McC’s spin machine.
Even though he did not make any reference to the McC’s innocence his remarks have caused Media and McC’s speculation that he has more or less referred to this.
A very bad move on his behalf, especially from someone so high ranking in the investigation services.
It is bad moves like this that make people think there is political involvement.
One thing however is for sure (whatever the outcome) the McC’s will ALWAYS be guilty of leaving their defenceless children at the mercy of any elements of evil, and this guilt will always be just one step behind them for the rest of their miserable lives.
And so it should be.
They will never know whether the smiles they get from people will be geniune, or masking the utter contempt they deserve. (KennyKen ex Investigator).
February 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
it was just a throwaway comment in reply to noseycow ( x )
however this could really end up as a scooby doo ending when retardo 3 finally catch no face man and creepy greasy man.
finally cornered and unable to escape they both remove their poor quality rubber masks to reveal k and g and no face mans voice changes from a spooky high pitch into scotish ….
‘ we would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids ‘
cut to close up of sniffer dogs face sniggering
yep its the obvious ending to the proposed movie.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
467
Remigius Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
465 MikeSA
Do you think the McCanns are capable of staying out of the limelight?
——————————————————————————————————
I don’t really know to be honest. Quite possibly not.
However, that wasn’t really my point. I think at some stage that they are going to come to the conclusion that shutting up will provoke less negative reaction, and might well attemot to do so.
Whether they will be able to restrain themselves, even after having come to a conscious decision to try and stay low, is a different question imo.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
480 Ian
“Absolute” bollocks.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
478 Irene
Irene, I think you are dead-on about forbidding foreign travel with their parents until adulthood.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
481 Remigius
sorry, where is that coffee when I need it?!
I think the killer and the alleged rapist were cousins, rather than uncle and nephew. Sorry.
Okay, I will take a break, get some cafe….
February 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Kiwi, perhaps it could be that certain parties know that searching those deep, murky waters is not going to uncover Madeleine, and that these particular parties are not prepared to spend hard-earned money on something they know is not feasible? IMHO of course!
February 5th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
475 Remigius (correcting my post)
I want to correct one thing–Martha Moxley was reportedly not raped, although she was found dead with her clothing was pulled down and her genitals exposed. Given the state of forensics at the time, it likely isn’t possible to know exactly what happened.
At one point, the man convicted of killing her admitted to, as a boy at the time, masturbating while watching her. His story changed over time, as did the stories of other witnesses. Interest reportedly re-arose in the case when the murderer’s nephew was charged with rape, and he implicated that he knew something about the previous incident that might implicate his relative.
so yes, there are indeed all kinds of circumstances where evidence and information leading to evidence can come out, even decades after the murder/disappearance. Sometimes, the killer might even go to jail.
But the psychological damage done to everyone is very real. Had the killer admitted his guilt early on and received psychological help, he might received the mercy of the court, and could have lived quite a different, infinitely better life than he did.
But since he was related to the Kennedy family, no one really had HIS best interests at heart. The interests of continuing the political dynasty seem to have superceded his welfare. And of course, his parents seem to have had little or no compassion for Martha and her family.
Just my opinion.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
479
Kiwi
No, its bollocks.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Just popped in for a look and had a thought ( which hurt ! ) why is it that a private party is funding the divers search ? why isn’t this being paid out of the Maddie Fund ? Why did the Police ignore this chap, Correia, when he told them where he thought they should look following his tip-off ? Is this just another example of the incompetence of those who are supposed to be on top of this case ?
February 5th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Good evening everybody.
The McC’s have continuously said they firmly believe that Madeleine is alive.
They even continue buying presents for her.
So “WHY” are they “BOOSTED” by the search by divers, at a reservoir looking for a “BODY” ?
It just does’nt add up does it?
If this search is supposedly “CREDIBLE” then surely their theory of Madeleine being alive is “NOT” credible.
Again, it just does’nt add up.
Why do I get the feeling that the McC’s “KNOW” nothing will be found. And of course, without a body, Who goes walkies?
And, without a body reasons to continue the charade of world wide searches (they hope) appear genuine.
As for the media telling us that the McC’s need support and sympathy my message is “Put a sweaty sock in it and leave it in there”.
Its all K and G and their torment. What about Madeleine. What was her torment?
Surely the twins could be made “Wards of Court” so that any travelling the McC’s plan with them has to get the permission of the court. They certainly would not be allowed to take them abroad until they are 18 years old.
Maybe that is a bit too much to wish for because I am of course talking about the obscenely over protected gruesome twosome.