Shannon Matthews: Paul Drake, Mick Donovan And Claiming The Reward
SHANNON WATCH: - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Shannon Matthews
THE SUN: “Warped uncle took Shannon”
The man who named Shannon Matthews’ kidnapper Mick Donovan to police told last night how the weirdo bounced her on his knee at a funeral. Ryan Baynes told The Sun that the “oddball loner, had a reputation for ‘acting oddly’ around children”.
Says Ryan, “a tiler” from Dewsbury:
“Donovan behaved very strangely at that funeral. He was bouncing her up and down on his knee. Everyone at the funeral noticed it and thought it was far, far too close. Mick’s always been odd around kids. He really cracked up when his own kids were taken off him… I’m just glad she has been found alive and very glad I helped. Donovan is a very sick man to have done this. He’s a monster.”
Ryan called the police.
He says: “I was expecting a call back from the police to say they either arrested him or discounted him. But each time I called I was told it was being ‘looked into’. I even thought about taking a ladder down to Batley Carr, finding where Donovan lived and looking through the window of his flat to see if Shannon was there.”
Donovan is the brother of Alice Meehan, the mother of Craig Meehan — who is the partner of Shannon’s mum Karen Matthews.
Says Alice: “I can’t believe he had Shannon, my own brother. It feels like he has brought shame on our family. I have great mixed feelings because he is family and he’s done this.”
DAILY STAR: “SHANNON: ALIVE & WELL”
When detectives knocked on the door and got no reply, they smashed it down and discovered the missing girl hidden in the base of a double bed.
They asked her: “Where is the person who took you?” Shannon replied: “He’s in here.”
Detectives then found him lying in the same bed base, on the other side of a partition.
THE SCOTSMAN: “Schoolgirl found alive against all odds”
It began with a suspicious neighbour and the sound of a child in the flat above. The small home of pale brick in Lidgate Gardens contained a secret.
Didn’t it begin when Ryan Baynes told the police of Donovan?
The property where she was found, which had a small Pokémon toy in the window, was just a mile from the nine-year-old’s home and was understood to be on a police watch-list. When two detectives visited yesterday morning, they grew suspicious and questioned a downstairs neighbour, who told them of hearing a child’s footsteps in the property, which was not usual.
So it was routine police work that found Shannon?
DAILY EXPRESS: “SHANNON FOUND ALIVE IN MAN’S FLAT: KEPT HIDDEN UNDER BED”
Neighbours described Drake, who was arrested on suspicion of abduction, as a loner who had an obsession with washing his car. Mother-of-four Mandy Dixon said: “He is a weedy little man who nobody bothered with. He is obsessed with washing his car – he’s always out cleaning it, but he hasn’t been doing that for a couple of weeks. I didn’t give it much thought, to be honest.”
How was he discovered?
Detectives had all but given up hope of finding Shannon Matthews alive when she was discovered in what they thought was a routine door-to-door inquiry. Mother-of-eight Julie France said she had noticed the nine-year-old when she was driving near her home in Dewsbury, about a mile away from Shannon’s house, around the time she disappeared.
Mrs France, 45, said: “I remember seeing her pink Bratz boots and I could see her school uniform. It was about 4.15pm when I first saw her and then I spotted her again on her own 45 minutes later near the ginnel [alley] by my house. I remember she looked sad and lonely. I even stopped the car because she was on her own and thought about asking her if she was OK, but I decided not to and drove away.”
A couple of days later she heard on the news that a schoolgirl had disappeared from her area. She recognised the girl she had spotted in the pink Bratz boots as Shannon Matthews. But she couldn’t remember if she had spotted her before or after her disappearance.
“I’d only seen her for a few seconds both times. I had a mental block and thought my mind was playing tricks on me. I didn’t want to waste police time but I was so sure I’d seen her.
“I couldn’t let it drop and went to the police station a week after she disappeared.”
No mention of Mr Baynes. It was Julie France who tipped off the police.
THE GUARDIAN: “After 24 days, the sound of footsteps then a policeman’s shout: ‘We’ve got her’”
There were no sightings of Shannon Matthews, no fingerprints to work on or images of suspects. In the end, it was the sound of small footsteps through a ceiling that led police to the missing nine-year-old girl, hidden in an upstairs flat overlooking the former textile mills of Batley Carr.
Routine police work found Shannon. What of Craig Meehan? What of the whipers?
He added: “Basically I’m in the clear now - all my alibis were true. That Tuesday [when Shannon disappeared] I was in until the police officers came round. Then me, my brother-in law, my cousin and my mate went out searching. I live in this family - why would I want to do it for? I love Karen and I love the kids - everybody knows that. I know she’s my stepdaughter. But I always treated her like my own flesh and blood.”
THE INDEPENDENT: “The girl who came back from the dead”
Last night, a 39-year-old man was being held on suspicion of abduction. Neighbours named him as Michael Donovan, whois thought to be a distant relative of Shannon’s step-father and lived inthe flat raided in the Batley Carr area.”
The Sun says Donovan is Craig Meehan’s uncle. Not so distant.
Mr Donovan, a tall, thin man with black cropped hair, described by local people as a “loner”, is said to be distantly related to Shannon’s stepfather, Craig Meehan.
The reward for Shannon’s safe return was a paltry £50,500, £50,000 of which was put up by The Sun newspaper.
Police are believed to have found Shannon after acting on a call from Julie France, who lives in the same street as Mr Donovan. THE TELEGRAPH: “Shannon Matthews suspect is a loner
Paul Drake, 39, also known as Mick Donovan, is the uncle of Shannon’s stepfather Craig Meehan and lives only a mile from Shannon’s home. His sister, Alice Drake, 50, is Mr Meehan’s mother. Dewsbury-born Mr Drake claims disability allowance and, according to neighbours, spent much of his time washing his car, a silver Peugeot 406, or sitting in the vehicle late into the night…
What else?
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Drake saw Shannon at the funeral of her grandfather, Brian, in November. His brother-in-law, Danny Meehan, said: “My brother died from a heart attack in November time and there was a funeral up at Dewsbury Crematorium. I thought at the time there were too many children around. Shannon was there and Paul.
“I knew him when he was a kid and Brian got together with Shannon’s gran, Alice, but I’ve hardly seen him since at all.”
Mr Drake married Susan Bird in 1996 and the couple had two daughters, now aged 12 and 10. However, the couple separated and their children were taken into care. Mr Drake’s sister Alice said: “I have great mixed feelings because he is family. He lost his own children three years ago after a bitter split from his wife. He had custody of the kids but now he no longer sees them. This killed him. He was told he should never make contact with his children. I’m sure there is no way he would have hurt Shannon.”
Craig Meehan’s sister, Caroline, said: “When they said the address on the television we just knew it was him. We knew he was on the list for the police to go and see but they hadn’t been round before today.”
As he was dragged away from his home in handcuffs by three police officers, he was heard shouting: “I’m a poorly man, I should be taken to hospital. I am not well.”
Such are the facts.
Sandra Foster, who lives in the same street, said Mr Drake was small with a sharp nose.
Posted: 15th, March 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (42) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- 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
March 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Craig I really enjoyed all your posts especially #31 paint by numbers empathy card - should be in twitterings.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Carmen,
Thank you for your comment and taking the time to address my curiosity. For further clarification, could you answer another question or two?
Would Anorak refrain from publishing comments in its threads on this case from other publications if those comments were considered libelous and speculative then?
For example, if an article speculated what the man in the cupboard with the three children had been up to while in there with them, would Anorak then reprint excerpts from said article with those speculations? Or scrupulously avoid doing so?
The US media and judicial systems are different from the British. Our jurors are advised they are not allowed to read the press or discuss the case they are serving on while they are jurors. They are expected to abide by those rules. We do not muffle the entire country while a trial is going on and hide information from the general population.
After months and sometimes years of reporting on a notorious case before any judicial action is taken, to me, it seems like shutting the barn after the horse has escaped, to say NOW you cannot talk or speculate about the case. People have been reading and making judgements right along. Some people have better memories than others and no matter what is written from the point of arrest, etc., or if articles are removed from the internet, they will remember what they have read. Our country (US) expects jurors to set aside this information and concentrate solely on what is presented in the court room and act impartially upon that information alone (tough job, though it is) when coming to a verdict.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Crossposted from the current Madeleine McCann thread
91
DuncanR Says:
March 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Everybody
I am repeating here a comment posted earlier by Carmen which some may not have seen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MODS AND ADMIN
OK, I understand where you are coming from, but you should understand this. Because a newspaper has reported that this was said, doesn’t necessarily make it true. The original commentator may not have been telling the truth. If it isn’t true, then a libel action can be taken against the original commentator, the newspaper which reported it, and YOU for repeating it.
The onus would be on you to prove that it was true, not just that it was said.
Our main concern here is that the child’s reputation should not be damaged. Nothing illegal may have taken place, in terms of actions against the child. She may not have been held against her will. She should not be labelled as being the victim of anything untoward until the truth is known.
Which leads us to a secondary position, IF anything has taken place that later proves to be illegal, we would not want the perpetrator to escape justice because they were able to show that speculation had taken place on this forum that made a fair trial impossible.
We will be watching carefully everything that is said - if in doubt, don’t say it.
Any wags or wits who think their voice being heard is more important than that child’s reputation or a fair trial of anyone involved in possible wrong doing will find themselves in moderation faster than they can type.
Think before you press ’send’ everybody. OK?
————————-
I read the above carefully and then noted the recent new thread from today that Anorak has written, entitled “Shannon Matthews: Paul Drake, Mick Donovan and Claiming the Reward.”
http://www.anorak.co.uk/tabloids/182026.html
It seems Anorak has no problem repeating speculation from the tabloids on the Shannon Matthews case to attract people to the site to read it, but wants to stifle expression and comment on it. I am truly puzzled.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
So, keep your kids away from tall shortarsed contortionists with sharp noses.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
What was going on??? I haven’t a clue. It sounds very weird.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
He must certainly be a “weedy little man” if he was hidden in a divan drawer. You’d have trouble squeezing our cat in my daughter’s divan drawer!
March 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
ahhh… this is more like it.
“My dad’s bigger than your dad!”
I thought it was too good to last; all that common sense and other pointless stuff.
Now you lot are the sort of children whos SHOULD be abused and deserve to be negelcted.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
you PAY for it?
sheesh, i thought it was me who was meant to be saying that sorta stuff about you, not yourself….
March 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
craig, no the hired help attends to that, more class.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Yeah, and apart from the fact that you used a certain word in one of your posts, I have a pretty good idea! You know the saying, ….. you can fool some of the people !!!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
craig, you’re a wanker, cheers!!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
julie
can;t yu follow a thread? 2 of my posts were to carmen, 1 to logic and the other ones weren’t complaining about your postings, they were mocking them.
cheers!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
i hope shannon is safe forever n evern ever and ever…….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**********************************************************
love to her and her family
March 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
craig, you’ve now complained bitterly about my ONE post in FIVE posts - great contribution!! Glad I could give you a topic to discuss, otherwise you would have been pretty lost!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
im very glad that shannon is safe at home with her family. and hope she is safe forever. i for one is very very glad shannon has been returned back… !!!!!.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
carmen,
with all due respect, it is not really the news we are invited to comment on, it is the media response to the news.
and the media’s treatment of the news is very similar to the poster’s treatment of the news, so picking fault with julie’s posting, seems very much in the spirit of poking a pin in pomposity, wherever it might be…
March 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
carmen
my views about another poster werer as relevent as the feelings of said poster.
what i said was a response to her posting. if she chooses to issue vacuous statements about how she is feeling, surely a satirical news site can cope with the satirising of said vacuous posting.
no?
March 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
i got up today and felt a mix of emotions about (insert news story here).
on the one hand i was (insert emotion here) about (insert victims name here) and on the other hand i felt (mix contrary feeling here) about (insert criminal here).
and i feel so sad about the heavily publicised death of a small child. (erm.. duh…)
so sad that i didn’t have the emotional resources to even think of the scores of children dying brutally every day.
i will light a candle in here memory. it will help.
i once had that hilary clinton in the back of my cab once.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
craig, you’re not worth wasting my time on. Couldn’t give a damn what you think of my posts!
March 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
>27
>Logic Says:
>That’s what this site is about. What else do people do on here?? Do you want all >discussion sites to be shut down?
i thnk you might find that other people discuss the topics. regular reporting of feelings is not what a satirical site thrives on. a report on feelings is not discussion and it is not comment or even opinion.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:55 am
25 Craig
You are so rude, Craig. If Julie want to pen her feelings, she can do so. That’s what this site is about. What else do people do on here?? Do you want all discussion sites to be shut down?
March 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I read in earlier reports that Shannon had visited an uncle who has vehemently denied any involvement in her disappearance. Is this Michael Donovan related to that other uncle?
Peter Mac I’d love to hear some more on unmarried children and illegitimate parents.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
24
Julie Says:……
erm…… who asked for a morning report on your feelings about stuff?
this reminds me of the pointless, callous and incessant asking ‘how do you feel about…’ questions that news reporters feel they have to begin every question of victims in whatever news story they are reporting on.
how does informing as of your feelings contribute to any of the issues?
why are you knocking on about marie luz? do you feel sad about all the children murdered regularly that aren’t linked to maddy? do you even know of the children murdered that aren’t reported outside their own country? there are quite a few…..
March 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Morning All!
I woke up with very mixed feelings this morning!
Absolutely elated that Shannon is now out of harm’s way and safe in the hands of those who know how to deal with her and any type of situation that she’s been in. My thoughts and prayers are with you Shannon, every step of the way.
Heartbroken over little Mari-Luz, yet another innocent little child that became another statistic, for us to sit in horror and say - Why? How? Who could be so evil? Will we ever one day be rid of the demons that live amongst us that can harm a small child in this way? I doubt it! RIP little one.
Very sad over the situation that led to Scarlett Keeling’s death, she was a teenager at that stage in her life that she thought she was already an adult, and thought she was wise to the evils of the world, sadly this was not the case! RIP Scarlett!
Frustrated to the point of madness that the mystery of Madeleine cannot be unravelled. I can only pray that this will also end soon, and justice will prevail! I can’t say “please come home Madeleine” because I don’t think this is possible, but wherever you are little girl, there are many, many people who will never forget you!
March 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
The Dewsbury, Yorkshire, situation, is, at the moment, no-one is charged and Shannon is the subject of a police protection order (under the Children Act 1989). Technically she should not even be named as Shannon since an Emergency Protection Order exists.
This is a device which takes the child into the care of social service teams and even foster parents. The mother and the various sections of her difficult and complex male relationships are unlikely to figure in the nine-year-old’s immediate future well-being.
The police action is similar to the Ward of Court device which is only used where a judge thinks such an order necessary and justified. In this case a magistrate or team of magistrates makes the Order
If anyone is charged, then all reporting will will put on hold and these few hours are the only time the nationals and sites like Anorak can have a go. Because of the protection order we cannot discuss specifics…but since we do not have any there is little to discuss. The police may be heavily censured at a later date because much of what has already leaked out may be considered prejudicial to any trial…again as I far as I know no-one is charged with anything yet and the root causes of this are believed to be a great deal deeper.
I have a police source (not very high up) in the West Yorkshire chain who says there are already deep concerns about coverage and there is another factor…this is the force where one’s Chief Constable is…..
Sir Norman Bettison, described by Anorak in a lift from the Mail as a “greedy, vain moron”. Bettison wants Sir Ian Blair’s job as head of the Met. This is his chance to shine…and who do you think he’ll have ham-strung first. The Daily Mail, Anorak or every single journalist who asks the wrong question or prints the wrong article?
If and once charges are laid it becomes another ball game and we then have to do what we always have done, report what others are saying but making sure we aren’t in the firing line as a result.
Mind you, it is all very newsworthy even this is.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Morning Mic
Carmen (see post 10 earlier in this thread) has put up an excellent succinct summary of the current position
March 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Greetings pop-pickers!
This could be a defining moment in Anorak ‘opinions’ development.
Could it be that people may actually talk sense, and not risk compromising a UK police investigation and possible trial? Or am I getting a little ahead of myself?
My nasty cynical little mind makes me think that there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye, and some of the comments on here yesterday could have been seriously prejudicial, should the matter come to court.
I suppose it’s almost inevitable that within the first few hours of such an event, that 1/2 truths, supposition and downright fabrication will get bandied about, and subsequently seized upon and repeated as ‘gospel’ by those who subscribe to that particular point of view.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Don’t even try to unravel it all. It is unknown and frightening territory for people who think of couples as married, and children as legitimate, and have all the mind sets which go with that view of the world.
The police spend most of their time and energy on estates like this, dealing with people and problems like this.
They all have a vote, which is equal to yours.
Leave them alone, and change the subject.
Madeleine is still missing.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
17
Eringena
I think she is being interviewed by the police right now.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
‘Speaking after being served the summons, Ms MacKeown said the police were “scaremongering.” ‘
Exactly so, Fiona. ‘Scaremongering’ is good. Kate would agree with that. She has been hassled by PJ scaremongering for ages now.
‘She claimed it was harassment and accused the police of “still covering themselves by saying the case is solved.” ’
‘Harassment’ is better, Fiona, very promising. Kate would agree with that, too. But don’t forget, a good Kate groupie will always claim the police are trying to “stitch her up.” Remember that, for your next media interview. As for our own case being solved, we know it is, because Kate did nothing wrong, so there is no case to solve.
‘The lawyer said the summons referred to a section of Goa’s Children’s Act that states all children should be ensured a safe environment where they should not be abused in any way.’
Just legal twaddle, Fiona, no need to take any notice. Goan police only need to refer to Leicestershire Constabulary to see how they bin such ludicrous accusations.
(Advice provided at no charge and as a public service by C. Mitchell.)
MODS AND ADMIN
Anorakians will of course follow the advice given by agw…….
March 15th, 2008 at 7:54 am
They seem to get some red hot information about the movements of the PJ!
IMO