Madeleine McCann: Portugal Police Search And Eilis O’Hanlon Empathises
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “Police hunt for Maddie ‘is still on’”
Portugal’s top cop has vowed to search “to the ends of the Earth” for Maddie McCann even though prosecutors have shelved the case. Almeida Rodrigues, head of the Judicial Police, said his detectives will chase up all leads until the 15-month mystery is solved.
No end in sight.
He said: “A case only stops being investigated if there is a successful criminal trial.”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Only McCanns know full pain of never-ending story - If you find the ambiguity hard to live with, imagine the trauma the McCanns have to endure, writes Eilis O’Hanlon”
Let’s empathise. Says O’Hanlon:
It’s difficult to know where the story can go from here.
But you’ve got a column to fill. Dig deep.
But it still feels as if an ending of sorts has been reached. The disappearance of Madeleine has become a part of history. That’s probably a shocking indictment of the shortness of our collective memory — but, reprehensible or not, it’s true.
It’s living history. Read about it today’s Irish Indy.
The internet obsessives will keep the flame burning a little longer, having determined long ago not to let a little thing like the facts stop them witch-hunting Kate and Gerry; but even they will give up eventually.
Read O’Hanlon’s column online.
And that’s why there’s still such an unwillingness among many to accept that the McCanns’ names really have been conclusively cleared. Take the Portuguese statement at face value, rather than deciphering it for clues that Madeleine’s parents really were guilty of her murder and are only being exonerated because they have powerful friends who put pressure on the authorities in Praia da Luz, and what it means is that there still isn’t closure and there’s precious little prospect of there ever being so. It means living with ambiguity.
Well, no. The McCanns are no longer suspects because there is no evidence to say otherwise. But hasn’t it all ended, O’Hanlon?
Posted: 27th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (368) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
July 27th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Whoops
That would be nice, but unfortunately I think finding due to looking isn’t likely to work, only a serendipitous event would lead to such an outcome now.
The first few fours after she disappeared was the crucial window, but the PJ have reportedly said they suspected the parents from the outset, which makes me wonder how seriously they took measures to find her in those first few critical hours.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Think i’m going to watch the banana splits. Is that programme still running?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
There’s a rumour buzzing around that Amaral is in trouble with his ex-bosses (hope he made enough for a substitute pension) and the book is being withdrawn? anyone know anything about it? allegedly on Portuese TV. 3 arses seem to be in a bit of a tizz right now over it.
VQ… the PJ report hasn’t been released yet, just Amarals work of embroidery. I mean even Jo, who
is his biggest fan, says its fiction.
The initial report about the shelving did say ‘No evidence’ BTW. it didn’t say ‘not enough evidence’.
…………………………………………
On a completely different and totally irrelevant note….. my fantasy car is a Bentley Continental Convertible and today, on the M20 we saw 8 of them, all convertibles, all with personal regs driving in convoy heading down in the direction of Dover or the Channel tunnel. (There was a Ferrari and a Porche in the middle)
A gaggle of footballers off on a beano? I’d really love to know…. it was quite exciting to count them down!
I also saw my other fantasy car the old MGA but that there was only one of them! Just needed to see a TR2 and I’d have been ecstatic!
July 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
veritablequandary Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Garth, have you come up with any evidence of abduction?
—————
Im sure you’re a very nice person but to be honest i really cant be bothered…….. if you understand where im coming from?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Gandolf 8.26 pm
Garth 8.28 pm
Eloquently put!
July 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
veritablequandary Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted.
DNA markers . .
This some evidence, to my way of thinking.
————–
Its like pissing in the wind…………
July 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Garth, have you come up with any evidence of abduction?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Cadaver and blood dogs alerted.
DNA markers . .
This some evidence, to my way of thinking.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
eritablequandary Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The Real Stig Says:
“A charge of fraud would have to be proven. You would have to ‘prove’ there was no abduction, something that would almost certainly require finding Madeline first.”
But if the charge was brought in the UK, the DNA markers would be sufficient (without the body) and mobile phone and credit card records might also be admissible.
—————
I can see why you’re struggling.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
VQ
Why would the DNA markers be sufficient in the UK? I thought the FSS made it clear that they could not be conclusive anyway?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
eritablequandary Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Cool and calm, have you read the PJ report yet?
————
I haven’t. Got a link?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The prosecutor was refering to neglect, when he said not enough evidence to Amaral.
I will accept the AG’s statement, no evidence of any crime against any of the former arguidos
Much as you like to press the claim that there is no evidence of an abduction, the reverse is in fact the case…….There is no evidence that there was not an abduction
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The Real Stig Says:
“A charge of fraud would have to be proven. You would have to ‘prove’ there was no abduction, something that would almost certainly require finding Madeline first.”
But if the charge was brought in the UK, the DNA markers would be sufficient (without the body) and mobile phone and credit card records might also be admissible.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
VQ
Of course I will read it……somehow….without buying it!
I’ve already read the chunks on the Proud of the PJ site and the sections in the CdM. Furious that I can’t read Portuguese to read the whole thing right now!
Have you read the whole thing?
Why do you think Rebelo took such a different view from Amaral?
BTW, if it was a faked abduction, what do you think actually happened to M?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Elena Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
M and A said,
“I have never accused either of MM parents of killing her, but I do fear she came to real grief in their absence, NOT necessarily the favourite option of abduction, more likely choking or vomiting or a fall. ALL options were avoidable had they used a babysitter.”
————-
Nice one. And what do you suppose happened to Madeleine after that?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Maria,
Yes I believe it was a faked abduction.
Amaral and others did consider it the likely scenario, but were puzzled that the parents seemed certain of abduction. The parents simulated the abduction.
Read his book, even if you don’t believe him, it may give you pause.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
whoops Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
The Real Stig-well shall we do that then?
——————
If only.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Stig, what is the evidence of abduction?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
VQ
I agree with what you say about the implications if she wandered off. In fact, I thought the police might suggest that as the most likely possibility. They didn’t.
I also agree that the police certainly thought at one point that there was some evidence. The files seem to make that clear. That seems to be why they made them arguidos (And RM???!!!) But the evidence just didn’t stand up.
That’s it with regard to the presumption of innocence, as I understand it.
Do you still go for the faked-abduction theory?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
The Real Stig-well shall we do that then?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Cool and calm, have you read the PJ report yet?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
veritablequandary
“As, as there is NO evidence of abduction, could they not be guilty of fraud?”
There is not NO evidence of abduction, there is just evidence which can not by itself lead any further.
A charge of fraud would have to be proven. You would have to ‘prove’ there was no abduction, something that would almost certainly require finding Madeline first.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Ok, Gandolf I see we agree that there is not ENOUGH evidence, unlike Maria who insists that there is NO evidence of parental involvement. Do you likewise agree that there is NO evidence of abduction?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Maria Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I agree with you.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
To take the causal argument to its natural conclusion, Eve is responsible for all the sin in the world.
We can think what we like here, I think they were negligent to leave the children, the Portuguese appear not to agree, the prosecutor told Amaral from the start not enough evidence, intent needs to be proven.
The prosecutors opinion is the one that counts, not mine or anyone elses, I defer to his greater knowledge and expertise in all matters regards this case.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
As, as there is NO evidence of abduction, could they not be guilty of fraud?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Maria,
I believe you are incorrect that the police believe there is NO evidence that the parents had involvement in their child’s disappearance.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Coolandcalm,
I already have been! Someone presumed I was Gandolf.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
VQ
I’ll agree with that.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
JJ
I do sincerely apologise for the reference to Ian, if that is what you felt to be insulting.
BUT, I did rather feel the insults were coming my way. This morning I was accused of having forgotten the real victom in this. I have not. Now I am accused, yet again, of defending child neglect! For heaven’s sake!
I have said countless times that leaving small children on their own is wrong, irresponsible etc. (Although, as has been pointed out, thousands do it by using the baby-listening, patrolling services at holiday sites. Arte we to charge them all with neglect?) How many times do I have to say I think it is wrong before you believe me? IT IS WRONG!
The fact that I believe (as do the the police) that there is no evidence that the Mcs had any further involvement in their child’s disappearance, is an entirely different matter. There is no evidence that they killed her, deliberately or accidentally. I believe there is no evidence that they covered up her death, concealed her body, faked an abduction, set up a worldwide financial scam and wasted HUGE amounts of police resouces. I believe they are still trying to find out what happened to her.
That does NOT mean I defend the fact that they left their children alone.
I really can’t make it any clearer. It is true that I rather resent the implication that I defend child neglect. There are professional reasons why I especially resent that accusation.
But it doesn’t matter! All in the ether! Sorry about the Ian ref.