Madeleine McCann: Police Errors, Kate And Gerry McCann Speak, And Amaral’s Book
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
Portuguese prosecutors have shelved the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. Kate McCann, Gerry McCann and Robert Murat are not longer official suspects.
Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney-General, told police to halt the investigation into of Madeleine’s disappearance.
A statement released by his office confirmed that it had decided to “close the file on the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation”.
But it’s not the end of the matter. And Madeleine McCann returns to the nations’ front pages:
DAILY MIRROR (front page): “OUR DESPAIR – OUR FURY – OUR FUTURE”
No not an editorial by the Mirror’s staff wodnering where this story will end, rather words ascribed to Kate and Gerry McCann.
Says “angry” Kate McCann: “It is hard to describe how despairing it was to be named as arguido. It has been devastating to witness the detrimental effect this has had on the search”
Pages 4 and 5: “McCanns vow to keep up search for Madeleine and leave…NO STONE UNTURNED.”
Under the table, out of sight of cameras, her hand trembled as she gripped her husband’s, fighting to keep her emotions in check.
What of Robert Murat, the one the Mirror’s Lori Campbell introduced to the police?
Mr Murat spoke of his joy at being cleared but said he too now wanted the focus to be on finding her. The dad of one, 34, said: “It’s a good feeling but doesn’t take away from the fact there is still a child missing, which is very sad. I was dragged into this because of Madeleine’s disappearance so I would like to know what happened.”
FIONA PHILLIPS: “Let’s hope that they find peace one day”
Any human being with a heart will have felt the same as me - that Kate and Gerry McCann should never have been suspects at all.
If you don’t agree with Phillips then you are heartless, something less than human. Hey, you might not even be a parent:
They are an ordinary family who have lost their daughter and, as a parent, my heart goes out to them…
But as a parent, I know exactly what it’s like to go on a family holiday and be lulled into a sense of security.
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns’ fury - and despair - at Portuguese police as they are finally cleared”
Glasgow-born Mr McCann and his wife, both 40, had not ruled taking legal action against the Portuguese authorities for the way they have been treated.
The dodgy DNA evidence that lead to the McCanns being made suspects
Detectives apparently believed that scientists found Madeleine’s DNA and blood in the apartment and in the McCanns’ hire car, which they did not rent until 25 days after her disappearance.
Armed with that ‘evidence’ and the knowledge that dogs supposedly found the ’scent of death’ on Mrs McCann’s clothes, they decided to name the couple as suspects.
But the final report from the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham several weeks later said that the DNA evidence in the case was inconclusive, and did not support the police’s theory.
The forensic evidence which led to Kate and Gerry McCann being named as suspects was misunderstood by Portuguese police, it was claimed yesterday.
Detectives wrongly believed the work of British experts supported their theory that Madeleine had died in her parents’ rented holiday apartment, when in fact the DNA analysis was inconclusive, it was suggested.
The claims come from leaks from inside the Portuguese investigation, based on an initial British forensic report into the case.
THE SUN (front page): “MADDIE”
Pages 6 and 7: “COPS CLEAR ‘ARGUIDO’ HELL PARENTS”
The couple have fought long and hard to gain access to the documents, which could be available as early as the end of this week for a period of 20 days only.
After the 20-day term, the world’s media will then have the right to apply to view them.
FERGUS SHANAHAN: “TIME TO GIVE KATE A BREAK”
“Having consistently spoken up for Kate and Gerry McCann, I can welcome the official clearing of their names over Maddie without being called a hypocrite”
That’s the important thing. What of Robert Murat, also cleared? Nothing. Not a word.
DAILY EXPRESS (front page): “MADELEINE – Now Kate will see police files at last”
Great news. Now the Express can start featuring our Maddy on its front page again.
THE TIMES: “Kate and Gerry McCann cleared over Madeleine disappearance”
Remember those bungling Portuguese cops?
According to reports yesterday, one key error that led to the McCanns being declared suspects was made by Britain’s own Forensic Science Service.
The report, apparently from the Portuguese authorities and which was leaked to the London Evening Standard newspaper, states that the Policia Judiciaria, Portugal’s criminal investigation department, was told that DNA evidence found in the couple’s hire car, on the window sill of their holiday apartment and in the car park of the apartment complex, belonged to Madeleine.
The document claims that it was given categorically as her DNA and as a result the McCanns were questioned and later made suspects. But, one month later, the forensic service wrote another report saying that it could not be sure that those findings were correct.
THE INDEPENDENT: “Pandora: ‘You can imagine how I felt’ - Max Clifford”
Henry Deedes reads the Anorak.
McCanns finally cleared of blame over daughter’s disappearance
Goncalo Amaral, the detective in charge of the initial inquiry who was removed from the case, will publish a book this week making clear his belief that Madeleine died in her parents’ apartment on the night of her disappearance.
THE GUARDIAN: “Case closed: no leads, no suspects but, say McCanns, the hunt for Madeleine goes on”
“We welcome the news today, although it’s no cause for celebration,” Kate McCann said at a press conference last night.
DAILY TELEGRAPH (front page): “Case closed, but parents’ hunt goes on”
THE HERALD: “McCanns’ anguish: police should be in the dock”
Shame on the Portuguese police force. It emerges from the investigation of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance with its credibility in tatters. Where to begin? It has failed to find Madeleine or even to establish whether she is alive or dead, yet it has shelved her case.
It’s “COLETTE DOUGLAS HOME”. Yeah, those bungling Portuguese plods need to be punished. They’re not like our British coppers. Not like the Forensic Science Service…
Madeleine McCann: The news goes on…
Posted: 22nd, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (590) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
- June on Chilcot Inquiry Into Iraq War: Day 2 In Pictures
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
chenier
Perhaps you would care to read it and let us have your opinion on whether it is genuine or not?
————————————-
My opinion on that score is as worthless as yours. I cannot possibly know for sure.
If it’s true, why do you think the PJ not insist?
Possibly they already knew that the there was no evidence to suggest the Mcs were guilty of any crime. Possibly they thought a reconstruction so uncertain in its likely usefulness as to be not worth insisting. It would certainly have been more useful at the time the Mcs asked for it. I would think it would need to be considered an important element in reaching a conclusion and the PJ themselves are reported as saying it wasn’t.
Of course, when the Mcs asked for a reconstruction, the police had possibly not even begun to think of investigating their possible involvement. This was another difference between the Portuguese and UK approaches. British police would always eliminate the family before widening their investigation. They would also have put out repeated and insistent publicity with descriptions, an early reconstruction and an appeal to any possible abductor, as they did in the Soham case. The Portuguese police did none of these things; the Mcs organised everything themselves.
Just a very different approach between the two countries.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
off to bed now
god stuff the mcconns
have lots of fun for me watching their demise…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
evenin’ all
can’t be arsed to read the mcconn team’s pathetic rantings about the “good news”
the real good news has two parts
one is amaral’s book - which the wretched odiates will not dare to sue over
and the second is the revelation of the contents of the files - which will expose them as guilty bastards to the world
i love this end game
see them squirm and suffer
brilliant fun fun fun
happy days in rothley towers?
i think not
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Sam if you cant read a document that tells you what Rachael Oldfields maiden name is, the rest is beyond your limited capabilities.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
As I understand it Maria, Mrs Fenn was being hassled badly by the press. Apparently after hearing about her statement to the Police they wouldn’t leave her alone, so to get rid of them she said what she did.
I’m sorry Maria, but whether it be the Daily Mail or The Sun, I take what is written in the press with a pinch of salt.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Ferdinand Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
‘Mrs. Tanner has given her testimony, that she saw GM and JW, and a person who was carrying a child. It seems to surprise the police that GM and JW didn’t notice her. But it’s certainly not physically impossible not to take notice of someone if you have a conversation with someone else.
the pj noted ‘ despite the small dimensions of the space’, presumably they mean that the sighting occured in the passage, and if it didn’t then that would be clarified though a reconstruction.
‘Given the fact that the person carrying a child has not been identified anyway, after 15 months, why should it matter whether doubt about Mrs. Tanner’s testimony are gradually strenghtened, or weakened?’
because this isn’t about jane tasners testimony so much as about madeleines disappearance and it would be negligent not to check all possibilities and cross check all references as part of a thorough investigation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Ferdinand it is on the Expresso website ( thanks chenier - I read it somewhere else
)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Mrs T
A couple of “ifs” there, naturally.
Have you looked at the video of Mrs Fenn saying she had never even spoken to a journalist and that what was being reported about things she supposedly said was “all rubbish”. Stig posted the link to the video a few posts ago. It’s interesting.
Kate might have asked to be arguida.
On the other hand, how true are the reports of what’s in the files??!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Maria Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
chenier
In my hide-bound and conventional way I had thought that if the Portuguese legal code directs that a reconstruction should be held then the PJ would be under a legal obligation to endeavour to hold such a reconstruction.
———————————————————-
Does it actualy direct that?
——————————————-
Well, according to the document on the Expresso website, yes.
As I keep pointing out, we do not yet know whether the document is genuine, though by now the BBC etc. are saying it is; they may be wrong.
Perhaps you would care to read it and let us have your opinion on whether it is genuine or not?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
MrsT Says:
” If what I have just read is in fact the final report of the PJ, Kate McCann, after being confronted with the evidence of the dogs, allegedly asked to be made an arguida. ”
Sure? Where did you read that?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
wtf
By ‘real life”, I just meant people I know or have met in person, as opposed to on sites like Anorak. I certainly don’t wish to insult anyone you happen to know who believes differently. But from what the Portuguese authorities have now said, it appears your colleagues were wrong, doesn’t it?
I say nothing about the dogs. Their “evidence” was used to make the Mcs arguidos examined and later rejected as inconclusive, like the forensic results.
You ask me how I explain the dogs? I ask you how you explain the Portuguese authorities’ statement that there is nothing to suggest the Mcs or RM committed any crime. Any crime.
I presume you don’t think the PJ are stupid or incompetent and have ignored significant evidence?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Gandolf Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
‘You can think what you like, the fact is very simple, the Prosecutor would not sanction further questioning, hardly the actions of a prosecutor, who is looking to charge someone.’
i can make inferences based on facts and it is so that arguidos have the right to refuse to answer questions and then to my mind that would be a good reason not to question the mccanns again. having said that, i’m not sure i’ve read that the prosecutor would not sanction further questioning of the mccanns and on brandons post it just says;
‘The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.’
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Ferdinand Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
chenier Says:
” But the members of the Tapas 9 didn’t say they thought it was a silly law; they said they didn’t see the point. That is very different to acknowledging that the law does indeed exist but deliberately refusing to comply with it. ”
I thought the law does not apply to the witnesses, as far as they are not obliged to travel to Portugal? So they have to be convinced. The arguments given in the report wouldn’t convince me either.
——————————————————————
Indeed so; but context is all.
And the context is that under Article 150º of the Penal Process Code a reconstruction of the events is called for.
One might have thought that the disappearance of a small child would be sufficient motivation for the individuals in question to undertake the not very onerous burden of travelling back to Portugal and taking part.
The context of my original observation about Mrs Fenn’s evidence was that Oprah would not agree not to ask the McCanns about it.
Replying that, say, the police couldn’t prove that it was Madeleine since it might have been the twins or another child would be useless since Oprah would inevitably ask whether they had left their children for the length of time suggested by Mrs Fenn’s evidence.
That is what happens in open question interviews where you cannot say that you aren’t answering because your lawyer told you not to; people ask nasty questions and Oprah is very good indeed at asking nasty questions.
Another nasty, though wholly predictable, question would be why the McCanns hadn’t been able to persuade their friends to travel back to Portugal…
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
If what I have just read is in fact the final report of the PJ, not only did Mrs Fenn allegedly state to the Police that she heard a child crying in Apartment 5A for 1hr 15 mins on the night of 1st May, she also cast doubts on the 30 minute checks.
If what I have just read is in fact the final report of the PJ, Kate McCann, after being confronted with the evidence of the dogs, allegedly asked to be made an arguida.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Ferdi
bring on Tanner….where where G & wilkins standing
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
sam Says:
” Ferdinand:
‘It also becomes clear that the reasons given for the request for a reconstruction are not convincing.’ ? ”
For example: . The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
Mrs. Tanner has given her testimony, that she saw GM and JW, and a person who was carrying a child. It seems to surprise the police that GM and JW didn’t notice her. But it’s certainly not physically impossible not to take notice of someone if you have a conversation with someone else. A reconstruction can hardly prove the impossibility. So there is no conclusive clarification to be expected either way.
Given the fact that the person carrying a child has not been identified anyway, after 15 months, why should it matter whether doubt about Mrs. Tanner’s testimony are gradually strenghtened, or weakened?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
You can think what you like, the fact is very simple, the Prosecutor would not sanction further questioning, hardly the actions of a prosecutor, who is looking to charge someone.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
chenier
In my hide-bound and conventional way I had thought that if the Portuguese legal code directs that a reconstruction should be held then the PJ would be under a legal obligation to endeavour to hold such a reconstruction.
———————————————————-
Does it actualy direct that?
I assumed at the time that they were in a somewhat uncomfortable position because they’d refused a reconstruction in the early days when the Mcs requested one. The PJ said (or, rather, were reported as saying!) that a reconstruction wasn’t that important anyway; it wasn’t an essential part of the investigation.
It was very odd to ask for a reconstruction a year after the event, having refused it at a time when people might have been expected to have a better recollection of what had happened.
In any case, chenier, I know how great a respect you have for the PJ as you have often expressed it. I assume you are happy to accept their conclusion that there is nothing to suggest the Mcs or RM had committed any crime? I know you had your doubts about this as you expressed them, though carefully, several times a day for months. Presumably you are now relieved to feel reassured on this point? Congratulations.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
arguidos………..no hiding now
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Gandolf Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
‘How about …………the Prosecutor refused to allow the PJ to question the McCanns further, as there was no grounds to do so,’
i think more it might’ve proved fruitless as arguidos have the right not to answer.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
maria
I dont know which “world” you inhabit, but only today i was talking to a very intelligent lady, she has been a midwife for 30 years, and she said that she thinks they have harmed their daughter, as do most of my colleagues, who i may add, never post on anorak, but do indeed occupy the “real world”. How do you explain the dogs maria? they are incapable of lying and are valuable assets to the police in their work
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
How about …………the Prosecutor refused to allow the PJ to question the McCanns further, as there was no grounds to do so,
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The Real Stig
Thanks for the video link.
Pamela Fenn says quite clearly that she’s never even spoken to a journalist and that it’s all rubbish!
(As if we didn’t know that anyway!)
This case has produced so many lies and distortions on which dreadful theories have been built with which to smear the McCanns.
Thankfully the PJ saw through everything in the end. They seem to have made an error with the forensics with an initial misinterpretation, but have now made it clear that there is no evidence to indicate the Mcs were guilty of any crime.
You can’t ever trust instinct and I’m not suggesting one should even try. But most people instinctively felt the Mcs were innocent. I never met one person in “real life” who thought they were guilty, though many (not all) thought they were wrong to leave the children even a short distance away while they ate in the tapas bar.
Their grief was too palpable and heartrending to most people, even if not to Anorakers, as were their determination to try to find Madeleine, still maintained today, and their generous willingness to lend support to the long-standing campaign for a Europe-wide child alert system; that support has been successful and such a system is now at least firmly on the European political agenda.
Our main feeling now should be gratitude that the Portuguese authorities have finally made public what they have probably known for some time (no evidence) and that some good will have come out of this tragedy (people more careful with their children and a better European child-alert system).
And surely nobody is suggesting that people should be arrested and charged with crimes with which the competent police authority has no evidence to connect them??
In a democracy??!!
Please tell me nobody is suggesting that!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Ferdinand Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
so what do you mean when you say;
‘It also becomes clear that the reasons given for the request for a reconstruction are not convincing.’ ?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
‘Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat’
A good name for a character in Harry Potter…
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
chenier Says:
” But the members of the Tapas 9 didn’t say they thought it was a silly law; they said they didn’t see the point. That is very different to acknowledging that the law does indeed exist but deliberately refusing to comply with it. ”
I thought the law does not apply to the witnesses, as far as they are not obliged to travel to Portugal? So they have to be convinced. The arguments given in the report wouldn’t convince me either.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Ferdinand
“I wouldn’t take it literally.”
You lost the argument right there.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
sam Says:
” pamela fenn is not mentioned as one of the reasons. ? ”
No.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Ferdinand Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
‘Then this must be at least three:
Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat’
yes well. that’s quite a mouthful of name, impressive really.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Really?
In my hide-bound and conventional way I had thought that if the Portuguese legal code directs that a reconstruction should be held then the PJ would be under a legal obligation to endeavour to hold such a reconstruction.
If Article 150º of the Penal Process Code does direct it then of course those people who think it is a silly law are at liberty to say so.
But the members of the Tapas 9 didn’t say they thought it was a silly law; they said they didn’t see the point. That is very different to acknowledging that the law does indeed exist but deliberately refusing to comply with it.
One might almost say that it was PR spin…