Madeleine McCann: Tabloid Columnists On Harry Potter, Frtizl And Bile
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to the columnists’ views on Madeleine McCann and family:
JANE MOORE (Sun): “Silence is not an option for the McCanns”
“Just suppose little Madeleine is trapped in a cellar somewhere, hidden from view while her warped captor conducts a seemingly normal life upstairs.”
Like Elisabeth Frtizl? It’s Tabloid Bingo. Eye down…
LORRAINE KELLY (Sun): “They deserve sympathy, not condemnation”
Since my daughter Rosie was a baby, she has always come everywhere with us when we go on holiday, especially to child-friendly countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece. We wouldn’t have dreamed about leaving her behind to go for a meal because we go away to spend as much time as possible together as a family.
JON GAUNT (Sun): “I have little support for them”
Do you remember when you put your first baby to bed with a listening monitor and sat downstairs watching the box almost with subtitles on so you could hear every heartbeat?
If you heard an unexpected cough or belch you would sprint up the stairs faster than druggy Dwain Chambers on steroids to check on your little angel. That’s called parenting, isn’t it?
I wonder if the McCanns were as casual with their passports and valuables when they went out at night because as far as I am concerned there is nothing more precious than your child and they appear to have had scant regard for their safety.
ALLISON PEARSON (Mail): “The McCann campaign must NOT go on for ever”
Since May 3 last year, how many parents have mentally run the “Maddie safety test|” before daring to turn away from their children even for a moment? That may be her lasting legacy and our greatest burden.
Still, my small boy is not satisfied. “Maddie” is the big story of his childhood, bigger even than Harry Potter and infinitely more disturbing.
Harry Potter is Madeleine McCann? It’s all just stories. Any others?
There is a fascination in a momentary mistake that can never be undone, no matter how much a mother persecutes herself. In Greek tragedy, Antigone, the daughter of King Oedipus, cannot rest until she has recovered the body of her brother after his death in battle and given it a proper burial. One suffering leads to another. And there is some of that obsession, and that remorselessness, in the case of the McCanns.
But:
Do the two doctors really deserve two whole hours of prime-time when so many other people’s kids are lost and thousands are dying in Zimbabwe? Even those, like me, who have never doubted Gerry and Kate’s innocence must feel a flinch of unease.
Madeleine McCann: A year of easy copy
Posted: 30th, April 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (544) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on Global Warming: Every Time You Breathe A Bangladeshi Dies
- June on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Bat E Bird on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Anorak on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Chris on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
April 30th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
salomon
Secondly, What if Kate had said at that interview
———-
i don’t see why not if there were witnesses there, unless some quirk in the portuguese legal system could make it inadmissible i would have thought that would be enough.
but i doubt she did, because they wouldn’t have let her leave portugal if that was the case.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
388
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm #
Firestar - I don’t want to engage here in a very detailed legal discussion about what may have led the PJ to conclude that Kate perpetrated the acts that led to Madeleine’s disappearance (as Kate herself seems to confirm as a result of her description of what was said to her in the interview). Not least because a lot of the evidence that has generously been brought to my attention (eg bible etc.) is circumstancial evidence and frankly weak to substantiate any charges in court. Therefore, I think that there is a lot stronger evidence than that.
But let me just say two additional things:
> If Kate’s statement about what the police told her when she was interviewed and made arguida - and what she responded to police at the time… If this really happened… I think Kate has already breached blatantly portuguese law on secrecy of justice by disclosing this to the public. And I also think that Kate knows that. So either she gave this statement deliberately to push the PJ to make a move - or what she said happened in that room was a lie (in which case she’s a liar, but she cannot be acused of breaching secrecy of justice rules, because she did not disclose any part of her statement that was recorded by the PJ and is part of the inquiry file).
> Secondly, What if Kate had said at that interview - yes it was me. For example (speculating) I slapped Madeleine too hard and she fell, knocked her head and died. Would the prosecution be able to press charges against them with this confession and with the circumstancial evidence (the long list) that we think exists? I’m not sure.
#
——————-
Well thanks for getting straight to the point and in reply to your second point i would say erm…….yes!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Firestar 381 - nobody can be removed the arguido status until the inquiry phase is closed. Only once the inquiry phase is closed may their status be reviewed in view of the findings.
The inquiry phase may go as far as August 2008 but can end tomorrow if the prosecutor decides that there are no more investigative actions to be carried out by the PJ.
The secrecy of justice ONLY applies to documents / information that is part of the investigation and DURING the inquiry phase. Once the prosecutor concludes the inquiry phase - the file is made public.
So murat would then be able to talk about whatever he wants.
Finally, can I just point out that it’s not only the arguidos that are subject to observing secrecy rules. It’s also the witnesses or anyone else. There’s no reason why we should be saying that they are arguidos therefore they can’t talk. That’s a myth created by Clarence. What is subject to secrecy is the file of the investigation while the investigation is ongoing. That is something that witnesses, arguidos, lawyers, magistrates of police officers have to respect (not only arguidos). Only that clarence wants us to believe that the only reson they are arguidos is because the PJ don’t want them to talk. THATs RUBBISH. They’d be bound by exactly the same secrecy rules if they were witnesses.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
june
mailled you back with my crappy webmail, which doesn’t tell me if it got sent or not.
if you don’t get it, let me know.
cheers.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Agenda Wilde 377
Good point - Kate’s not the only arguida. Quite right. And it’s unlikely that whatever is the CENTRAL crime in this investigation (whatever led to MAdeleine’s disappearance) will be the ONLY crime in this investigation. In other words, if charges are pressed, they’ll most likely accumulate charges for a number of different crimes, and it will most likely not be exclusively to 1 or even 2 people. Note also that until now nobody else has been made an arguido (despite new interviews etc.).
Firestar - I don’t want to engage here in a very detailed legal discussion about what may have led the PJ to conclude that Kate perpetrated the acts that led to Madeleine’s disappearance (as Kate herself seems to confirm as a result of her description of what was said to her in the interview). Not least because a lot of the evidence that has generously been brought to my attention (eg bible etc.) is circumstancial evidence and frankly weak to substantiate any charges in court. Therefore, I think that there is a lot stronger evidence than that.
But let me just say two additional things:
> If Kate’s statement about what the police told her when she was interviewed and made arguida - and what she responded to police at the time… If this really happened… I think Kate has already breached blatantly portuguese law on secrecy of justice by disclosing this to the public. And I also think that Kate knows that. So either she gave this statement deliberately to push the PJ to make a move - or what she said happened in that room was a lie (in which case she’s a liar, but she cannot be acused of breaching secrecy of justice rules, because she did not disclose any part of her statement that was recorded by the PJ and is part of the inquiry file).
> Secondly, What if Kate had said at that interview - yes it was me. For example (speculating) I slapped Madeleine too hard and she fell, knocked her head and died. Would the prosecution be able to press charges against them with this confession and with the circumstancial evidence (the long list) that we think exists? I’m not sure.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
349 gillyflower:
“Personally I still feel ( I’ve said this before ) that some form of accident / anger flash took place during bathtime - Madeleine pushed / smacked whatever, slipped, fell hit her head etc etc. . . . But don’t we think it was on the 2nd the actual “disaster” happened?”
—-
I still think so because of the time it would have taken to clean. But maybe matters were being staged that evening — all the children were clean and ready for bed.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
383
gillyflower Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Over to new thread everybody.
Quick now.
Form an orderly line
One
Two
Three
Go
and on the way shout
“We’ve been taken”
—————
Tis like the bleedin anti hill mob………………. hang on for me……dastardlys a coming…. come on Mutley…. snigger snigger
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Salamon ES
BTW your points about the leniency of the Portuguese judicial system and the max charge for abandonment leading to harm being 10 years and the max charge for accidental homicide being 5 years makes it all the more strange that the McC’s opted to play their stories out in public. Being aware of the treatment given to celebrities in the media they must have known they would be facing jury and judge and tried in the public eye through the media spyglass, especially since they were named suspects. imo Portuguese justice might be a better option.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
365
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
354 Chenier - the answer is YES - there is.
And it applies to many different circumstances, including professionals like doctors, drivers and also common citizens indeed parents (the negligence charge is aggravated if the victim is the son/daughter and it’s further aggravated if from that negligence results the death of the child). I’m not sure how this could be used effectively in this situation because i’m not sure I fully understand what evidence the investigators have - and these could open different options to pursue charges.
Frankly I think this is also a very complex legal exercise that is currently being undertaken by the magistrate that supervises the investigation. I’m convinced that the inquiry phase is virtually concluded and that these considerations are what really is now on the table.
—————————————————————–
Sorry, S; I didn’t express myself very well.
The thing about the new legislation here is that the charge of causing or allowing the death of a child can be brought even when no one is standing trial for murder or manslaughter:
‘However it is also a serious stand-alone offence which puts a new legal responsibility on adult household members who could be charged with the offence even for example where there is no charge of murder/manslaughter or where evidence suggests that the defendant could not themselves have committed the criminal act which killed the victim.’
A further, extremely significant point is that:
‘It is expressly mentioned within the offence that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove whether the defendant caused the death or allowed the death to occur. This is to enable a prosecution to be brought against both defendants even where they remain silent about what happened or blame each other. Charges can be brought under the offence when evidence suggests that the defendant could not have directly caused the death, but there is sufficient evidence that he or she allowed the death to occur.’
The reason I asked about neglect was because the new legislation is specifically formulated to include deaths which arise from neglect:
‘Investigating officers should remember that a victim can be put at risk by neglect. If a child dies of neglect and other household members knew of the significant risk of serious injury from neglect, they could be guilty of the new offence.’
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Over to new thread everybody.
Quick now.
Form an orderly line
One
Two
Three
Go
and on the way shout
“We’ve been taken”
April 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
salomon
if murat loses his arguido status, can he talk about anything he likes?
if so, i don’t see how they can drop it.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
firestar
Kate got changed during dinner?
Please explain?
Not seen that before…………
April 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
New Thread
April 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Michael 361
I think this all talk about no buggy is just another surreal moment. The McCanns are becoming masters of surrealism - Luis Bunuel and Jean cocteau were not half as talented as this people.
Are we really to believe that they have abandoned their children because they didnt have a buggy? Are we really to believe that they didn’t have phones or mobile phones that night (unlike the rest of the holidays)? Are we really to believe that they abandoned their children… because there was no listening service in the resort?
This is getting into a dimension so far removed from reality that I’m actually now starting to question of Madeleine McCann ever existed and if Gerry and Kate McCann are real people or someone created by some obscure academic project to bring to light evidence of media manipulation a la brave new world…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Salamon ES
Another reason why PJ may have focussed on Kate is the passage marked in her Bible. We can only speculate since the information is not in the public domain. If their public experiences are anything to go by it may be something she said! But I take the point indicated by Chenier that K is not the only arguida, well she is the only arguida but there are other arguidos and K is not guilty of being the only suspect, your honour
April 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
341
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
————-
i can think of a few.
gerry is a cardiologist, kate a locum gp. she would most likely of the two to be trained in injecting people with stuff, along with sedatives, as cardiologists are more like scanner operators\analysts than treaters of patients i think.
if any blood was too high up for M to have done it herself, gerry’s whereabouts being known and kate’s not would point to her doing the cleaning.
although cleaning is a girlie thing, i doubt she’d have done it if gerry had caused the mess. it’s more of a lady macbeth thing i think.
kates bible was also open at a page suggesting she was worried about having harmed a child, the diary doesn’t matter i beieve, as it wasn’t written then.
the smell of death was on kate, and kate got changed during dinner, which also suggests she was covered in something.
and wasn’t it her that wanted the priest? this one im not sure of.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
373
gillyflower Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Perhaps they’ve gone to get a dictionary…………………
April 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Who is her edest.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Perhaps they’ve gone to get a dictionary…………………
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
21 Steps
1 - Police has knowledge of ‘occurence’. Decides if it likely to be a crime
2 – After Max 10 days, if it is likely to be crime, has to report to the Prosecutor Services (Ministério Público)
3 – The INQUIRY PHASE begins. The Ministério Público (MP) starts the investigation. A prosecutor heads the investigation, with the help of the police. Under certains circumstances, this phase can be under secrecy of justice (new code. Previously it was, by default under secrecy of justice).
4 – Some powers can be delegated by the Ministério Público to the police (PJ)
5 – All is overseen by an INSTRUCTION JUDGE which has to approve certain measures like preventive arrest, etc.
6 – Art. 58 determines when and how the arguido status is given at this phase. Why’s that? Because Art. 57 defines the arguido as the person against whom charges are layed or against whom instruction is required (ie, the general legal rule is that the arguido is only arguido when charged with the exceptions of art. 58 – which are many, actually). The arguido remains an arguido until the end of the whole process.
7 – When the inquiry phase ends, the Ministério Público will have to decide whether or not to lay charges. Art. 279 regulates in which cases the inquiry can be re-opened if the MP decides not to lay charges.
8 – If the MP decides to lay charges (if enough INDICATIONS have been collected), then:
9 – The INSTRUCTION PHASE begins. This phase is OPTIONAL. The arguido has to request it. If not, it goes directly to trial.
10 – The instruction phase is LED by the instruction judge (vs. ‘overseen’ as in the inquiry phase).
11 – The instruction phase is made of all instructory acts that the judge decides are necessary and including, ALWAYS, an INSTRUCTORY DEBATE which is an oral and adversarial instructory act, performed with all parties present, presided by the judge.
12 – Both the MP and the arguido can assist to ALL instructory acts. They can also request any explanations or ask to the judge to ask any questions they find necessary to discover the truth, including calling witnesses or requiring further diligences. The judge can delegate some of this diligences in the PJ. Remember that even those performed by the PJ can be assisted by the arguido
13 – The judge can deny requests that are obviously not necessary to discover the truth and/or have as purpose the delay of the process.
14 – All acts and diligences performed in the inquiry phase NEED NOT be repeated as long as they followed the correct legal form or when such repetition is crucial to the purposes of the instruction phase
15 – No CHARACTER WITNESSES are allowed at this phase. Actually, art. 128 restricts their use.
16 – At the instructory debate is basically a rather informal ‘get together’ where everybody discusses what has been done so far so the judge will have a clearer perception if the is enough for an indictment or not.
17 – In this case (no preventive prisioners), the judge will have FOUR MONTHS for the INSTRUCTION PHASE (counting from the date of the request to open that phase)
18 – The judge then makes the INSTRUCTORY DECISION which is to make the indictment or not. If so, it goes to trial. If not, it doesn’t.
19 – The instructory decision is unappealable, unless it’s null.
20 – It can be null if the Decision amounts to facts that are substantially distinct from the facts that originated the charge. In that case, the judges should have sent the whole thing back and the MP should do it all over. If during the instruction phase, there are only minor differences between charge and facts leading to the indictment, then the whole this is ‘adjusted’ at this phase. THIS IS IMPORTANT AND EXPLAINS WHY IS CAREFUL TO MAKE A ‘BULL’S EYE’ CHARGE!
21 – The TRIAL PHASE begins. A new judge (a panel of 3 actually), with the possibility of a jury – under certain circumstances and rather rarely used.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
359
lone pigeon Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
355
Salomon ES Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
My Heroes K&G
Are you still there? Please make contact
Please… don’t let the defense of the McCanns in the hands of Garth and Gandolf. They’re not very articulate and lack common sense. They’re just not credible. Not like you. My Heroes K&G please come back and talk to us…please…
——————————–
Yeah come back…..pretty please
————————————————–
Tell me, was it something I said?
Or was it something I didn’t say?
Oh, God, it wasn’t our wedding anniversary, was it?
Or your birthday?
I’m sooooooooo sorry…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Brandon - oh MW had no buggies, so their fault clearly..
April 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Wot happened to the “big event”
Not a year anniversary but before that
I quote Gerry’s words.
So its a year on Saturday.
How did he know, so many many months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds ago
THAT SHE WOULDN’T BE FOUND????????????????????????????????
April 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
341
Salomon ES Says:
to 243 Agenda Wilde
‘You ask why would the PJ not announce that they had enough evidence that Madeleine died in the room. If this evidence - whatever that may be- is included in the inquiry file it is under secrecy of justice. There’s no way that they will announce it until the closure of the inquiry file.’
I can see why this might be given the complexity of the case and alleged involvement of parents in a missing child investigation, but did this happen in the Rachel Charles case, for example? Normally it appears to be possible to state when a body has been found because the criminal investigation does not depend on this secrecy?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Brandon,
http://skynews4.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/04/mccanns-want-to.html
Look for numbered post, this morning or yesterday evening.
New thread open - all moving there?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
http://bp2.blogger.com/_3HAnFzHSqqE/Rww9rbajhaI/AAAAAAAAADo/xW8ZlVbWAwc/s1600-h/gerry-mccann-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann-august-8-2007-0tHVtH.jpg
April 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
354 Chenier - the answer is YES - there is.
And it applies to many different circumstances, including professionals like doctors, drivers and also common citizens indeed parents (the negligence charge is aggravated if the victim is the son/daughter and it’s further aggravated if from that negligence results the death of the child). I’m not sure how this could be used effectively in this situation because i’m not sure I fully understand what evidence the investigators have - and these could open different options to pursue charges.
Frankly I think this is also a very complex legal exercise that is currently being undertaken by the magistrate that supervises the investigation. I’m convinced that the inquiry phase is virtually concluded and that these considerations are what really is now on the table.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Garth,
Have to agree - they didn’t latch on to the fact that the windows/ shutters hadn’t been forced until - I think - the following morning.
I am sure you will correct me , in your gentle fashion, if i’m wrong.
Incidentally - I only had 1 child. But we took a buggy absolutely everywhere. Kids get heavy when you have to carry them.
Weren’t there pictures of them with the twins in a buggy whilst they were out there?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I bet MW had run out of buggies too!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
357
Garth Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
———————————————-
Aha.
So you are back to the opportunistic predator again?
I recall you waxing lyrical about this a while back.
Are you going for the MWT theory?