Madeleine McCann: ‘Screaming Contradictions’, Scotland Yard And Francisco Marco Interviewed
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY EXPRESS (front page): “MADELEINE – News call for Scotland Yard probe”
Are Scotland Yard for hire? Benazir Bhutto. And McCann? Have the discovered who killed Rhys Jones yet?
“Retired Chief Superintendent Dai Davies, former head of the Yard’s Royal Protection unit, says that if the Yard can send detectives to probe the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, then they should also fly to Portugal to try and solve the Madeleine mystery”
He says:
“The Portuguese investigation has quite simply not solved the crime and it is now looking increasingly likely that it will be shelved. I would suggest that this is the time to call on the Yard to take the lead and to get them to form a team of detectives to work on the case”
Retired copper suggests his old boys are the best – Read all about it!
GLASGOW SUNDAY MAIL: “Police Ready To Clear McCanns Over Maddie”
“Police in Portugal are set to clear Kate and Gerry McCann as suspects, it was claimed last night”
A fact claimed by “insiders” who say “officers did not have a shred of evidence against the 39-year-old couple”
The McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, says: “This report is extremely encouraging”
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “Kate and Gerry ‘in the clear’”
“Police do not have a shred of evidence against Gerry and Kate McCann and they are set to be cleared as suspects, it was claimed yesterday. The couple’s status as ‘arguidos’ in the case of missing daughter Maddie, four, will be lifted unless they make ‘screaming contradictions’ in a new police quiz, said Portugal paper Expresso”
How does Expresso know? The paper does not say
SUNDAY MIRROR: “McCann cops: No evidence”
“A review of the case by homicide experts from the Judicial Police has turned up no proof that Kate and Gerry McCann played a part in four-year-old Madeleine’s disappearance.
“Attorney General Fernando Pinto Montiero told respected Portuguese newspaper Expresso: ‘The couple’s legal status will be considered at the appropriate moment, depending on various elements still to be obtained’”
Says Expresso: “They will only remain arguidos (suspects) if there are screaming contradictions revealed in the answers to the letters sent to England”
DAILY STAR ON SUNDAY: “MCCANNS TO BE CLEARED”
“Last night the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the sooner they are questioned the better”
He says: “There won’t be any screaming contradictions and hopefully the emphasis can then be put on finding Madeleine, who we believe is still alive”
Says the paper: “Legal letters outlining the 40 questions are to be sent to the Home Office this week. Interviews are then likely to be carried out by detectives from Leicestershire police, the McCanns’ local force”
Says Gerry McCann’s brother John McCann: “Any sensible person realises Madeleine was abducted. We didn’t anticipate being in this position after nine months”
THE SUNDAY TIMES: “Madeleine McCann and Metodo 3: Private eyes, public lies”
“Paid £50,000 a month to find Madeleine McCann, the Spanish detective Francisco Marco said he hoped to have her home for Christmas. He issued this photofit of a suspect last month; it set off a media frenzy, but Portuguese police say it has ‘no credibility’. Christine Toomey turns the tables on a private eye who is anything but…
An interview with Francisco Marco. His company is being paid £50,000 a month by the McCann’s fighting fund
“We won’t answer any questions about Maddie. Maddie is off limits – is that understood?” Marco’s cousin Jose Luis, another of the agency’s employees, warns me sternly”
But they are not the police. What can they not talk about the big case? It was Mr Franciso who told he’d find Madeleine by Christmas – last Christmas
“I cannot ask him to clarify what he did say, or whether talking about an ongoing investigation is potentially detrimental. Instead, I am left to discuss the matter with a handful of other private detective agencies in Barcelona, the private-eye capital of Spain. What they tell me is disturbing”
Marco walks in. Does he bring his Maddy dolly? And:
“Marco slaps on the table a 144-page pre-prepared dossier of articles written in the Spanish press about himself and M-3. He goes on to list some of those in the city he says I have already been speaking to about his company. Had my movements been monitored? If so, why would a private detective agency be interested in this at a time when they were supposed to be tirelessly searching for the most famous missing child in the world?”
Fame.
“In most of the many pictures of himself included in the material he hands me”
Metodo 3 is the most famous private detective agency in Europe
“He seems eager to please. He summons a female assistant on several occasions to bring me material, including a book he has recently written, to illustrate what he is talking about. Even when I make it clear this is not necessary – aware that these distractions eat into the time we have to talk – he insists, partly showing off”
Then:
“When I ask about his background, Marco summons her [secretary] to photocopy the first pages of his doctoral thesis on private investigation: he has a master’s degree and a PhD in penal law”
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “McCanns to be cleared as no evidence found”
Attorney General Fernando Pinto Montiero told Expresso: “The couple’s legal status will be considered at the appropriate moment, depending on various elements still to be obtained.”
Madeleine McCann: Money. Speculation. Sensation. A child is missing…
Posted: 10th, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (926) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
February 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
301 Man on a Hill
310 Sally
Yes, I would agree that facial expressions and body language can tell a lot about a person’s truthfulness. I was referring to a person’s physical attractiveness perhaps. Many on this satire board are quick to make fun of a person’s appearance (obesity, plainness of appearance, etc.) if that person is representing ‘the other side’ of the argument, I think.
I think there are plenty of beautiful, attractive liars in the world. Many sociopaths would have no trouble lying and being completely convincing about it, body language and all. Just as I’m sure there are honest, nervous/anxious people who come across as being dishonest because of being ill at ease.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
317
coolandcalm Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
___________________________________________________________________
But I have only stated my honest observation and I do believe some statements are self absorbing no matter how remote.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
318
Tony Bennett Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“[...] Also, under English law, a husband/wife cannot be forced to testify against his/her spouse”
*****
Reminds me of one of my all time favorites: “Witness for the Prosecution”
February 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
The Madeleine Fund states that it uses the Code of Good Covenance in its business practices. Let’s look for a minute what this means.
First of all it is a voluntary code set up by a charity:
2006 National Governance Hub for England
NCVO (Accountable Body) Charity no. 225922
So, this is not some official government directive. Nor is it mandatory or binding. In fact, its objectives are not really for private limited companies at all:
The Code sets out best practice for governing a voluntary or community organisation. It is not mandatory but organisations that comply with the Code are invited to state this in their Annual Report and other relevant published material, and pledge their support for the Code by signing up to the Hub’s online charter.
Smaller organisations with limited resources and with few or no staff are invited to focus on the principles set out in the Code, and to state their compliance with the principles rather than the detail of the Code.
_______________________
Download a copy of the guideline here: http://www.governancehub.org.uk/code_of_governance.html
Because the Madeleine Fund IS NOT a charity or trust or anything like that, these guidelines have little or no relevance because a private company is not bound by the same legal regulations imposed on charities or their ilk.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
184 val and
195 jo says (February 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm):
“Val is saying: ‘Don”t know what would happen if Kate still refuses to answer the 40 questions’. Please, could you answer this?”
REPLY: I don’t know, I know nothing about Portuguese law except what I’ve learnt since developing an interest in the Madeleine McCann case.
I assume it’s broadly the same as under English/British law.
You don’t have to answer a single question, though a judge/jury may draw certain inferences from that.
You do not have to go into the witness box and give evidence in your own defence.
You can force the prosecution to try and prove their case without helping them one iota.
You may be at a disadvantage if you give answers in court which you did not do so when questioned - see the P.A.C.E. standard wording of the caution, “It may harm your defence, if, when questioned…” etc.
Also, under English law, a husband/wife cannot be forced to testify against his/her spouse
February 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Sally 315
But this isn’t an anti McCann forum…. those who think the McCanns didn’t have a hand in the disappearance of Madeleine are as entitled to voice their views as everyone else. Nothing has been proven anywhere….
Also it would be a very boring site if eveyone agreed with everyone else!
February 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
304
pppy Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
++++++++++++++++++
I have a real problem with your comments - the pictures released are to raise awareness of madeleine - not family snaps.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Most people on this forum are pretty savvy and have picked up on the most minute detail and are sincerely dedicated to obtaining justice for Madeleine which I think is to be commedable. Sad to say I have noticed a few who have written to be pro mcc and can’t help feeling it might be due to their own absorption and benefit ie: I know this person, etc.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
THAT ERIC CANTONA QUOTE IN CONTEXT
I agree that Eric Cantona’s statement is as clear as crystal compared with the opaque statements we get from Gandolf. Here’s Wikipedia’s take on that quote:
======================
QUOTE
In the following season [1994-5] Cantona became infamous for an incident that occurred on 25 January 1995. In an away match against Crystal Palace, after being sent off by the referee for a vengeful kick on Palace defender Richard Shaw (after Shaw had pulled his shirt), he launched a ‘kung-fu’ style kick against a Crystal Palace fan, Matthew Simmons [who had run down the terraces towards him] to shout abuse in his face.
Simmons was later tried for threatening language and behaviour, and attacked the prosecution counsel after being found guilty, leaping over a bench and executing a flying kick of his own. He was sentenced to seven days in jail, but only served 24 hours of his sentence.
At a press conference called later, Cantona gave what is perhaps his most famous quotation. As the journalists gathered to hear him speak, Cantona entered the room, sat down and said, in a slow and deliberate manner:
“When the seagulls follow the trawler, it’s because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea”.
He then got up from his seat and left, leaving many of the assembled crowd bemused. He was sentenced to 120 hours of community service after an appeal court overturned a 2 week prison sentence for assault.
SNIPPED - UNQUOTE
February 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
309 stevo
know what you mean
February 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
NICE LITTLE EARNER!
YOU TOO CAN PROFIT FROM MADELEINE’S DISAPPEARANCE
Download our guide from here: http://www.findmadeleine.com/fund/raising/guidance.pdf
Follow the guidelines and deduct your 10% or 50% or whatever amount of expenses you feel is appropriate (we missed this from our guideline document so you can select your own figure).
Just remember…ATTACH THOSE RECEIPTS!
February 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
val - pennnington and baker are both (were both) MW nannies - the mcc’s nanny did not go to portugal with them as she has a family of her own. She does not live in, and is still working for them (or so rumour has it)
but from a source i trust 
February 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
301
man on a hill Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
294 Jolie Says:
“One shouldn’t assume honesty by appearance.”
Ain’t that the truth?!
———————————
Not according to the books i’ve been reading. They seem to indicate that you can work out quite a lot about a person from their physical form. It might not be easy and require knowledge but don’t rule out your eyes just yet.
___________________________________________________________________
Yes. most people are aware there have been well documented evidence on body language and even without being aware of this, most people do pick up on body language.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
304
pppy
It’s hard to “paste in” someone in the middle of a scene where they’d be integrated with the others!
February 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
303
Wanderer Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“299
That last quote (below), made some hidden conspiracy theorist in me smile…
“Mark Warner did not return Ms Baker to Portugal from Greece and she has since left the company. She is now a live-in nanny looking after three children. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns.”
*****
Really? And what did the hidden conspiracy theorist think?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Here’s your instructions from the Madeleine Fund if you are going to try to raise money for their company (Notice particularly point 7 - you can deduct expenses for collecting money for their company! How generous of them.)
We thank you for your interest in supporting Madeleine’s Fund. If you are thinking of raising money for Madeleine’s Fund:
1. Madeleine’s Fund is not a charity. It is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. Remember not to refer to Madeleine’s Fund as a charity. You must not use official charity collecting tins.
2. We are happy for you to run local events such as bake sales, sponsored events, jumble sales etc.
3. Please remember to comply with all relevant regulations, including local authority requirements. Some local authorities require sign off on final statements by an auditor. Please note we are unable to provide this audit for you.
4. You must ensure you have adequate insurance for any event you hold.
5. It is alright to say you are raising money for Madeleine’s Fund but we are not able to say you are raising money on behalf of the Fund.
6. Please do not contact celebrities to organise a high profile event without specific permission from the Directors of the Fund. (it’s ok for the McCanns to contact celebs but not you as a mere agent)
7. When you are counting cash raised, ideally two people should be involved in the count and sign to verify the amount raised.
8. Please remember that any cash raised should be securely locked away and banked at the earliest possible opportunity
9. In order to assist with our record keeping it would be useful if you would complete the Local Fundraising form and submit it to:
Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
PO Box 53133
London
E18 2YR
when you bank the money raised.
7. If you are deducting expenses for the event, please itemise these and attach receipts.
This last point implies that it is ok to collect money for the company AND to deduct your own expenses for doing so.
The more I read about this company it is a complete shambles. It doesn’t even say where to send the receipts. It just says “attach receipts”. Attach them to what? Send them to where?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
235 firestar says (February 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pm)
“You need a body for an inquest”.
REPLY: Untrue. In most countries, inquests are held where a person has gone missing in unusual circumsatnces, after a length of time which can be as short as 6 months in some jurisdictions. Remember the canoeist? An inquest was held and the Coroner’s verdict was ‘accidental death’, probably by drowning. I think the verdict on that case today might be ’scam’
February 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
dcb………. I try not to automatically believe anything from either side of the divide but sometimes its hard to over-ride our instincts isn’t it?
I must admit I’ve never gone for the ‘innocent because they’re good looking’ reasoning re:the mcCanns. I just can’t see guilt from the evidence that I know of but who knows?
MOAT. Yes, I agree, you can tell some stuff from appearances but I’ve come across some very plausible liars in my time who didn’t look the part!
February 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Just something really really silly, but every family photo of the mccanns shows maddie on the “outside” its like she is an afterthought, never on her mum or dads knees…just on the side.
if any family photos are taken of my boys with me, I always ensure I am hugging them both, I hate them looking like an afterthought….
Nothing major, just seems a bit unatural…
February 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
299
That last quote (below), made some hidden conspiracy theorist in me smile…
“Mark Warner did not return Ms Baker to Portugal from Greece and she has since left the company. She is now a live-in nanny looking after three children. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns.”
February 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
297
Châtelaine
Yes, I know. They have a penchant for removing things from the site. I find it amazing that they have a page dedicated to the freephone number and email address for Leicester Police but that has since been removed.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
294 Jolie Says:
“One shouldn’t assume honesty by appearance.”
Ain’t that the truth?!
———————————
Not according to the books i’ve been reading. They seem to indicate that you can work out quite a lot about a person from their physical form. It might not be easy and require knowledge but don’t rule out your eyes just yet.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
293
coolandcalm Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
One shouldn’t assume honesty by appearance.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Nor statements to the tabloids months after the event.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Val: interesting little bit of info
“The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.”
and
“Mark Warner did not return Ms Baker to Portugal from Greece and she has since left the company. She is now a live-in nanny looking after three children. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns.”
February 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
292
Ahh, thank you so much Jolie. It is curious why they went with Tanner’s no-face man before that other sketch.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Stevo,
I’ve been surfing the old part of the madeleine website a bit. It’s a nice mess with “funny” links. Think I’ll go back there, given more time. Meanwhile good to know you have copied them; just in case Anorak is being read again and they disappear …
February 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
236 Clouseau
Sorry, Miss Baker was a Nanny at the Ocean Club.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
280 Chatelaine
Read the article, you are right, and thanks for letting me know.Will correct my post.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“One shouldn’t assume honesty by appearance.”
Ain’t that the truth?!
February 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
slyfox…
if it was the mcCanns manipulation that was ridiculous than how come that Mrs Cooper was called all sorts according to her appearance? Same as with the sisters…. and the nannies and Tanner! and of course Philomena.
Their personal lives and appearance should matter not one iota, it should be their statements and whether they are true to the best of their knowledge or deliberately false.
One shouldn’t assume honesty by appearance.