Toscano’s ‘The Frenchman’ Denies Abducting Madeleine McCann
ANORAK’S man in Portugal, Paulo Reis, hears from The Frenchman, Bernard Alapetite:
“I just came back from holidays and I think those informations and accusations are ridicule. I don’t know who you are. I’ll just tell you that I was in Portugal, for the last time, in 1977″ –
This is a full translation from the reply that Bernard Alapetite, the man accused by Spanish “investigative journalist” Antonio Toscano of being the kidnapper of Madeleine McCann, sent to Gazeta Digital after we asked him a few questions about Toscano’s accusations (…)”
The movie “Like a Brother” was presented at more than a dozen film festivals, including London and Lisbon (9th Gay & Lesbian Film festival, 2005). But Mr. Bernard Alapetite published also several books with pictures of young boys, as referred in the site “La Garconnière” (…) In the portfolios shown at that blog there are images of boys that seem to be as young as 10/12, taken in California, USA, in a style that remembers the once “fashionable” Mapplethorpe and his nude pictures of 4/5 years old children (..)
There is another area where Mr. Bernard Alapetite had an “interesting” activity: the political field. He was one of the collaborators of “Gaie France Magazine”, an extreme-right homosexual publication (…)
Another extreme-right publication where Mr. Alapetite wrote was “Defense de L’Occidente”. In one of its editions of 1976, his name appears with other well known extreme-right politicians, like the Spanish José Antonio Primo de Rivera and the Holocaust negacionist René Faurisson.”
Robert Murat remains the only suspect…
Posted: 1st, July 2007 | In: Anorak Says Comments (63) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on Ringo Starr Appears In A Water Drop, Jesus Unimpressed
- yampster on Katie Price And Peter Andre Burnt At The Stake, In Pictures
- yampster on Madeleine McCann: Let’s Blame The Muslims
- upset on Katie Price And Peter Andre Burnt At The Stake, In Pictures
- IRONSIDE on X Factor: Jedward’s Threesome, Olly Murs Croaks And Ghostbusters
October 12th, 2007 at 7:32 am
furthermore, i think the police investigation has been blantanly wanton in its professionality, to the point that one would almost think is was done on purpose. Strangely enough, another little girl went missing less than 5 miles away from madeleine approx 4 yrs ago. Her name was Joana Cipriano and she was approx 8yrs old. Coincidence? Whats is intriuging about these abductions is thier time frame and proximity. I have scoured information on lots of other missing/never found children, covering USA, UK, SP, CAN, the whole of the EU, and I find it rather unique that 2 girls vanish into thin air literally 4/5 miles apart from each other in only 4yrs or so. No other cases corellate. (pls excuse sp, cant be bothered to correct it).
The investigation into Joanas dissapearance was headed by Al… the same cop recently suspended from the maddy case. One of his superiors at the time now works for Notic….., responsible for many of the press leaks. Furthermore, the investigation into Jo’s dissapearance displays the same traits as Maddys. No crime scene as such, no urgency in finding a missing child, minimal intelllignce gathering, half hearted anything. But, the police did focus on the mother. Did they know something? Mrs Cipriano was convicted of mmurdering her daughter and is currently serving 16yrs. No body has ever been found. (?) Mrs C says she is innocent and was beaten up by the police and forced to make a statement admitting she murdered her daughter. Could she have been stitched up? Just recently Amoral has been sacked from the top job of PJ investigator for gross mis conduct. Apart from that his approach to maddys investigation has lead to accusations of ineptitutde. However, one cannot wonder why he was on the maddy case in the first place as he had been implicated in perverting the course of justice on the joana cipriano case. Three other officers as well as himself are charged with beating a confession out of a suspect/witness/mother and concealing evidence.
Also, you may find it interesting to look up the abductions of Sara Morales and Yeremi Vargas from the Canary Islands. All coastal locations, all sailable around the iberian peninsula. is there a connection?
October 12th, 2007 at 6:49 am
I also detect something very fishy going on with the maddy investigation. Stuff just doesnt add up. I am sure the parents are not guilty of the death or abduction of their daughter. Lets rule out murder as it is just silly to come to portugal to intentionally kill your 3yr old child. Much easier ways to do that. Lets suppose it was accidental and 2 fully qualified doctors/surgeon managed to screw up the dosage badly enough to O/D their child. Imagine the senario..there’s their beloved daughter laying dead from administered drugs in a pool of vomit. Most O/D cases vomit violently and choke on the vomit before the drugs get them. The drugs render the victim unable to turn over or clear their passage way. So the theory is the parents drugged the kids so that they could have an evening out. This suggests the medicine would have been given to the kids between 7pm and 8pm before they left. This means the initial dose was fatal, as madeleine would have had to be dead by 8pm for the cadavor dogs to smell the scent of death 2 hrs after death. Thats supposing the O/D theory is right. Well, lets run with that, one of the parents discover her dead and doesnt freak out that their darling daughter is dead. Accidentally killing your child would not remove the utter horror, grief, panic and disbelief that would grip any parent by the heart. So in this time frame the parents are able to hatch a cover up plan involving cleaning up the scene, hiding their child, coluding/plotting the concealment of her death with their friends (2 at least), and then acting out the rest of the evening in public as if nothing had happened and yet they both know a child is dead and the plan is to raise the alarm at 10pm. If this scenarion is true, they why wouldnt they make sure that everybody knew they got up and checked the kids every 1/2hr ect. Surely that would make sense. Get the easybit of the story right. But why cover up her accidental death? What could maddys dead body reveal? Only one thing come to mind, sexual abuse. Otherwise wouldnt it be normal to do the natural thing and call emergency services behave in a fashion expected. So this leads us to Tanner and O’Brien. If they are involved in the cover up then the death involves them too, otherwise how would you be able to persuade 2 professionals to incriminate themselves in a spur of the moment alibi? I know i could never get any of my friends to lie for me when my child is laying dead and i want them to help cover it up???? Lastly, why did the McCanns then employ the mass media ? Surely easier to keep a low profile and let the PJ bumble on until the case just gets filed as unsolved.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:08 am
i
July 6th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Yes, I think you are right, there are some unexplainable things about this man, and that is strange.
But at the other hand, it could be very much possible that he is being threatend?
And why would this man do this? And say this? That is what I don’t understand.
I mean, he had a case handling child paedophile rings etc,too in 1994 and 1997, both were rejected because of the lack of evidence. The same as now, with the case of Madeleine. And that is why I find it strange. Maybe he really has something to tell, but is being told to shut up?
It is just, that I cannot place this role of this man?
I mean, today a dutch man has been arrested of claiming to know the whereabouts of Madeleine. He was in a email with the parents of Madeleine. He was out for the money, but also the attention. They have arrested this man.
In line of this story, you can conclude, that this Antonio, should be arrested too; though, in a way, he is doing the same. But that is not the case here!
Even stronger, he did have that much of evidence that he could make it in 1997 to the supreme court. But after a investigation of spanish authorities, they could not find any evidence, and the case was rejected….
That is why I suspect the authorities and governments too…
July 6th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Alias, one thing that bothers me is that Toscano says he goes undecover to infiltrate the activities of the paedophile, so how does he collect evidence, secret audio or video recordings?
Strange then that when he was offered one of these paedophile videos to buy from these gangs he declined.
Why? out of protest to the trade?
What better way to pretend that you are truely interested the subject than to buy a video that was offered to you! In addition you also have hard evidence on the video as to what activities go on, surely a true investigative journalist wants to grab as much hard evidence as he can.
If this guy Toscano really has such a high rate of sucess with other abduction cases then why do the Spanish police have so little information about Toscano and these other successful cases.
If Toscano really was a sucessful investigator then I doubt very much that the Portuguese police would need to do too much digging to find out about Toscano’s previous cases. The fact that the Portuguese Police still view Toscano claims with a fair amount of caution suggest to me that Mr.Toscano isn’t everything he says he is.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Maybe one theory the hoax guy didn’t want to tell the police but chose to tell the McCanns because there are judges and people of that kind involved?
That could be very much the case…….
July 5th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
There we come again..
Have you asked yourself the question, what the motivation is of Antonio Toscano? Is it really honest to think that he is telling fairytales? This Paulo Reis,journalist, and the protector of portugese police and authorities has one job; explaining that this Toscano is a hoaxer and Alapetit is not quilty.
This is in the line of the PJ which also claim very, very very fast after the statement of Toscano, that his accusations towards Alapetit are of little credibility…???
Question is; how can you establish an opinion about this so fast? Alapetit could have somebody let the obduction done for him. Maybe Murat was his connection.. Seems now that they are investigating a third party on Murat……
If you realise, that this Toscano has allready some experience with spanish and portugese court; he went to court because of some more child abuse cases (look at paulo reis website) but it was all being rejected, and finally he did not make it. What should we think of this? Is this Toscano really a hoaxer.
Do we really have to think that this man is only doing this for money or publicity. As you can see from his past, this is not likely. He has been fifgthing child abuse and paedophile rings for a long time no. But was driven up to a lot of governamental walls maybe? I don’t know.
I still feel that something is around this man, what others want to cover up?
July 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
No doubt the associates of the McCann’s would know more about the nightly routine than other people. Someone pointed out Madeleine didn’t cry or yell meaning maybe she was carried away by someone she knew. Even if a stranger abducted Madeleine that wouldn’t mean associates weren’t involved in the plan. If a stranger capable of that kind of crime, unknown to the associates, noticed the nightly routine that is possible too. Considering the time of night you would think someone would see something other than the one lady friend of the McCanns. Even if there are other sightings of a stanger carrying a child how could you rule out the associates being involved? No doubt the difficulty for the Portugal police to sort through so many possibilities when so many people had access to the apartment without breaking in, even strangers.
So why is everyone surprised the different stories, time frames, etc. given by the McCann associates. In the medical profession misrepresentation runs wild. Some doctors are actually better at covering their mistakes than doing their job. It is not unusual to have some doctors misrepresenting the need for surgeries or other money making scams. We hear little because there are generally few consequences. The medical profession can get away with a lot. I am suggesting some of the associates are probably use to misrepresenting even if that doesn’t mean they had anything to do with the abduction. Because they get away with misrepresenting at work they might easily think they can do the same to cover something such as how often the children were checked, etc. In this case the public will hear about the inconsistencies because the police are involved and not just a medical board. So maybe the McCann associates are just use to lying a lot.
Although I assume the McCanns felt some false sense of security that they didn’t lock the apartment and went to dinner during their stay I have to question how they came to have such a false sense of security? I haven’t been there but I assume the McCanns lock the doors at their home in the UK so they are aware of dangers. It is hard to understand how they suddenly adapt to a new environment to feel so safe so quickly but I do think for whatever reason they had a false sense of security. Was it suggested by any of the associates to leave the children alone with the doors unlocked? Maybe in the beginning they were going to the apartment more frequently to check on the children but then each night felt a little more comfortable waiting longer. Maybe they had a little to drink and got too relaxed. No doubt the decision was a mistake and Madeleine is the victim.
Imagine how much the police had to sort? and then the police are basically called incompetent because they are having to spend time sorting through the inconsistencies of the associates to figure out where to go from there.
There is an one aspect of the case a little unusual. The alleged con hoax guy who is wanted in France for an association maybe involving killing a judge? Then the “Frenchman” guy who supposedly has a right wing connection and I read a judge testified the Frenchman’s whereabouts so he couldn’t have abducted Madeleine in Portugal, etc. Now there the circumstances get a little fuzzy. I mean one allegedly mixed up with people wanting to murder a judge, some kind of political something, and then the Frenchman who is suppose to be mixed up somehow politically right wing. Now the hoax guy who is suppose to have tried to extort money is suppose to have a lot of money from what I can tell. Why would he want to take a chance to extort money? I mean that can happen but????? then the Frenchman who supposedly showed the investigative reporter pictures, actual evidence that he is into some illegal activity. Now the Frenchman so far is coming out clean in spite of the fact the investigative reporter has documented witnessing the Frenchman’s illegal activity. The hoax guy who wanted to tell the McCanns themselves where Madeleine is may be going to jail for an alleged association with a group wanting to kill a judge although there is not nearly the documented evidence of his guilt that I have seen as there is involving the Frenchman. Maybe one theory the hoax guy didn’t want to tell the police but chose to tell the McCanns because there are judges and people of that kind involved? Something appears fishy about the circumstances. There is witness evidence on the Frenchman but he is still coming out clean, not so clear evidence on the hoaxer for an association with people wanting to murder a judge but he appears in hot water. That is just all I can notice from this point in time. Then I wonder the odds of a group that highly involved in something political could be connected with someone who just happened to notice the nightly routine at the McCanns apartment. I suppose stranger things have happened and the door is left unlocked. Did the hoax guy have an international warrant for an arrest from France before he called trying to tell the McCanns something? That I don’t know.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
James - ever arrived late at a party and felt you’ve missed the best bits!?
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Mick and Ross?
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Janet is frances Wicks folks!
Janet/frances - do you really think it’s worth replying to the idiots that have taken over these forums now? They’re not worthy of your time dear.
Come back Mick and Ross - all is forgiven.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
unfortunately for scam mccann….shit sticks
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Will try again. Put http:// in front of the links
As you state, the paedo pitch was likely just to catch to eye of the press (though it makes one wonder about the purported early use of , “They have taken her”).
The eyes which were wool-filled would have to include the other couples, as there is no way, IMO, that the other doctors would knowingly involve themselves in anything untoward.
The following is from missingkids.makeforum.org/madeleine-discussion-and-debate-t4-3810.html
Caz wrote:
Looks like Jill Renwick has spoken out at least once. There was an article in the Herald back on 7 May criticising Portuguese police. Lots of the comments posted in response to that article were to condemn the Ms for leaving their children. About half way down the posted comments is this one from Jill…
[original article is at http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1380381.0.0.php
Posted by: Jill Renwick on 1:05pm Mon 7 May 07
As a family friend my husband advised me against reading these comments. However i do believe everyone is entitled to their opinion,but kate and gerry are great parents and this is one of these once only events that is certainly against the grain. The childcare offered as well as the creche is a half hour check by appartment staff, they decided to do this themselves, they were no furthur away than they would have been if they had been in their garden at home and were in full view of the appartment. They are both extremely hard working and spend their lives caring for people, cureing them of heart disease and saving other peoples lives, they do not deserve critisism and we should save our energies to help find maddie. they have been targeted and it could happen to anyone of us however closely we keep an I on our children.
After reading the Sol article (Gerry and family want to control communications), you can understand better why Mrs. Renwick’s husband did not want her to read (and likely to respond to) the comments.
Again, her comment (which I have bolded) does not agree with the descriptions of the villa’s childcare services provided by Sol and many others. I don’t doubt the comments of the many, but do wonder why Mrs. Renwick has chosen to muddy the waters.
Surely she can’t have assumed that the Algarve is as exotic of a destination as Outer Mongolia, and that no one would be aware of the childcare services actually provided? Did she not think that someone would actually use their own eyes and say, “Eureka, I can’t see the flipping apartment from the tapas bar?”
And the arrogant paranoia of her! Forgive them, they cure the lame of heart!! Expend your energy on finding Maddie(did Gerry give her a special dispensation to use that hated nickname?) and write a check!! They have been targetted!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Marian, I think it all is coming out very slowly and reluctantly, the main problem is sticking the word allegedly all over the place.
The British press also love the paedo angle, but surely allegedy parental neglect is much more news worthy, if only people could see the woods for the trees, and not so much wool pulled over eyes…..
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I think Clan McCann are lying by omission, obfuscating, and know the game will be up pretty soon. With that kind of reward money, the low-life scum who steal children would have turned the abductors in.
These people work in nets, groups whatever community and they know of each other’s behaviours.
Why don’t the media (apart from Sol, thanks Hal) start highlighting the parents’ behaviour, and the rest of the party in the Tapas Bar. Mrs McC said she could see the apartment from the Tapas Bar.
According to Sol that was not possible. How many more lies and freeloading visits abroad before the truth does come out?
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Regardless of if this was responsible parenting or not, SOMEBODY in the holiday village did know there were small children “available” to pedophiles etc, left alone repeatedly. Who was this source? Not believing in any inside murder theory, I´m just wondering if too many leads still are rejected. Something bad did happen and many people were involved.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
Perhaps have children and fit busy lives around them, surely?
We all understand that people have huge financial commitments and need to work , and therefore find responsible childcare with in their means.
But for holidays?
Understandibly in the evenings a reliable, trained and qualified nanny in loco parentis.
I don’t go with the murder theory either, but neglect/absence permits many events to happen that harm the child/ren, but watching the parents attempt to wriggle off their own hook is a cause for great concern
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 am
Not sure why you keep highlighting about them leaving the children in the kids club all day and playng tennis, joggin etc.
No it’s not what I consider a family holiday, however my daughter went to a private nursery a couple of mornings a week and there was plenty of children there all week 8 am -6 pm .
Not my idea of what a parent is, but plenty of people have children and do this, it’s not the 1950’s any more, the world has changed and unfortunately that means that many people have children and fit them around busy lives.
IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM MURDERERS!
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 am
Thanks. Sol is a reputable news source, and Felicia Cabrita and Margarida Davim are reputable, well-respected journalists.
The named individuals from the UK tie into the UK medical community.
The link for the Sol article (In Portuguese) is:
sol.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=42529
published in Sol, on June 30, 2007
an article by Felicia Cabrita and Margarida Davim
Madeleine Case
Pact of Silence
Madeleine’s parents and the friends with whom they spent their holidays in PDL are suspects in the inquiry. There are contradictory versions about the night of the kidnapping, and an assumed pact of silence in the group
The beginning of June is flowing in a strange way in the Algarve. A chilly wind and overhead clouds help to fill the auditorium of Lagos, where a solidarity concert is being held for the missing english girl. It’s been a month since Madeleine McCann vanished without a trace.
A few kilometres from Lagos, in the Ocean Club resort at Praia da Luz, the faint illumination further densifies the climate. At the reception, which leads to the Tapas restaurant, there is nobody. Getting inside is easy.
A portuguese waiter, but with a british ‘behaviour’, strikes the first blow on the journalist’s plan: “We only serve dinner to the club’s clients”. “What about a drink?”. He says yes.
It’s 9.30 p.m. If we were to believe the several members of the McCann’s holiday group, and after several mismatching versions, at this time Madeleine was being carried out of her apartment by a dark-haired man, who would be around 35 years old.
From the same table where the group of nine had dinner on that evening, one tries, in vain, to observe the apartment’s front – a ground floor apartment that faces the restaurant. A linoleum screen on the side of Tapas and the corridor of bushes that follows the limits of the apartment’s back yards prevents any vigilance to that level.
The image of Madeleine – big blue, questioning eyes and an innocent smile, fixed on the photographic films – is always present. It doesn’t leave the conversations of whom passes by. One remembers the words that the mother, Kate Healy, is supposed to have said to a friend (and that the husband, Gerry McCann, did not know): “I had a bad premonition about my children, when I found out the Ocean Club had no baby listening service”.
The choice of Algarve as a holiday destination would come to change their lives. Everything was arranged with three other couples, with whom they used to travel. Some of them had recently been to Greece, with their children, and the Mark Warner agency, the same that prepared their trip to the Algarve, had done their itinerary for the islands. According to their reports, the hotel where they stayed had a baby listening service – a service that is assured by four or five members of staff who would control the children while the adults dined, by listening through doors and windows to confirm that everything inside was quiet.
At the Tapas bar, from bartenders to staff from the Kid Club, criticism is whispered: “We have a creche where they left their children for most part of the day, where they could be until 11.30 p.m. without spending another Euro. They could also have used our baby-sitters, who stay with the children in their rooms until 1 p.m. In this case, they would have to pay an extra fee, but these people looked like they could afford it”, an employee comments, concluding that “this was a very strange group, that never stayed with their children”.
The children’s routine
The story of Madeleine looks like a tangled ball of wool. In the last days of April, Kate and Gerry, both 39 and doctors, arrive with their friends in Praia da Luz. The weather is not very good, but the group makes the best of it. The children seem to exist outside of the adults’ world. In the morning, Kate would take Madeleine, almost 4, and the 2-year old twins, to the Kid Club. The other couples in the group did the same. While the little ones entertained themselves with collages and paintings, the group divides itself between tennis and jogging until lunchtime. In the creche, the girl’s picture is taken: “She was shy and had some difficulty in adapting to the group. She always stayed close to the english children she already knew”.
It is at lunchtime that the families socialize a bit. After a short nap, the children go back to the Kid Club, while the parents use the activities that the club offers. They only get to meet again in the late afternoon, when the children’s dinner is served. Before 8 p.m., Madeleine and her siblings, who seem to function like a clock, are already asleep. Half an hour later, the group of friends meets at Tapas. The staff remember that they only leave at midnight: “They were very lively and drank a bit too much. I didn’t even realize they had children, because I never saw them around”. i]
Mathew Oldfield, one of the elements of the group, is back in England. He reacts with surprise upon the contact of Sol, but he does not avoid the conversation: “We drank. We were on holidays. So what?”.
And thus the days followed one upon another, at the Ocean Club. The holiday week is almost over and the group’s spirit does not change. Nobody had noticed until then, how the children were kept at a distance.
The most reliable way to undrestand what happened on May 3, when Madeleine disappeared, is to analyze the various versions that emerged.
It would have been 10 p.m. when Kate decided to check the children at the apartment. This is the only moment in the story that gathers consensus. Madeleine had vanished from her bedroom and the twins were sleeping like nothing had happened. The mother was back at the restaurant in one leap. She was disoriented.
PJ called two hours later ]
In seconds, the resort is in turmoil. The group’s four men and the club’s employees check every corner. They seem to be oblivious of the essential: to call the authorities. GNR is the first to arrive at the scene, but the news only reach Policia Judiciaria (PJ) more than two hours later. The first explanations arise. Where were the parents when the child disappeared? Gerry explains that, inspired in the scheme that some of the friends had used on their holidays in Greece, the nine members of the group took turns in checking on the children with some regularity. ]
This is the beginning of a story that will change in many chapters. Gerry starts by saying that he first left the table to check on the children around 9.05 p.m. When he entered the apartment the children were fine, he just noticed that the door to their bedroom was partially open. He looked at the window, which was closed, just as the shutters, and relaxed.
Ten minutes later, his friend Jane Tanner, who went around the apartments, crossed ways with a dark-haired man who was walking in the opposite direction, carrying a child. She didn’t make any connections either.
A few minutes later, Mathew Oldfield enters the room, sees the McCann children fast asleep, and notices nothing out of the ordinary. It is at 10 p.m. that Maddie’s mother discovers her daughter has disappeared. The window was wide open and the shutters were up.
To GNR, who is in the area with sniffer dogs to search for the child, this is a highly unlikely scenario. One of the military assures: “This is an extremely silent area, where there are practically no passing cars. That shutter was very difficult to lift from the outside, and would have made a lot of noise. It would have been a lot easier to use the door, but there were no signs of a break-in”. ]
This was just one of the reasons why the group became suspicious in the eyes of the investigators. Russell O’Brien, Jane Tanner’s husband, is already back in England, but he knows he could be summoned back to Portugal for a deposition anytime. Over the phone with Sol, he tries to keep his british phlegm: “It is normal that we are suspects, and the DNA test is a consequence thereof. We were the closest people involved”.
The conversation always comes back to the same issue: the night of the disappearance. The account of that last dinner has disparate versions among the group’s members. Some swear that someone left the table every half hour to check on the kids; other reduce that time to half of it. Some say control is made window by window; others say the adults entered each other’s apartments.
One of the employees that was on duty that evening does not remember a lot of movement: “I only remember a tall, grey-haired man getting up once from the table”. It was Russell, who, two days earlier, also had attended dinner.
An aerobic instructor from the resort entertains the dinner guests at Tapas with a ‘Quiz’. At 9.30 p.m. the game ends, and Gerry invites her to their table, where she stays for half an hour. During that time, as she later confided to friends, nobody left the table, but one of the chairs was vacant. Najova Chekaya refuses to talk to Sol. And Russell, when the questions start to surround him, loses his sympathy: “I have nothing further to tell you. I am not going to dishonor the compromise I assumed with Kate and Gerry. They want to control all infornation that is disclosed”.
Gerry changes his version several times, but he maintains that the door to his children’s room was open. Mat revokes his first statement: when he entered Madeleine’s room, the door was open and there was more light, as if the shutters had been raised. Here starts to develop the theory that there was already someone inside the apartment. Which reinforces Jane Tanner’s version (that she saw a man carrying a child).
Only Jane saw the man carrying a child
But there is a witness whose deposition contradicts this theory. Jeremy Wilkins – a tv producer who had met Maddie’s father during their holidays and used to play tennis with him – was walking his eight months old son at that time. He met Gerry, who went out through the apartment’s back door after having checked on the children, and the two man exchanged a brief conversation. At that time, if one is to believe the first accounts, Jane would have left Tapas in the direction of the apartment’s main entrance, and would have crossed paths with both of them. “It was a very narrow road and I think it would have been almost impossible to walk by without me taking notice”, Jeremy says, pointing out the fact that he saw no man carrying a child, as Jane states.
But Jane continues to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms.
Although the area is scarcely lit, and the situation did not make her suspicious at the time, she describes the beige trousers, the dark thick jacket and the black classic-style shoes in a detailed way. Once again, Jeremy disagrees: “If that happened, I would have likely seen it”.
On the next day, the media circus was fully installed. The first reports are on Sky News first thing in the morning, even before portuguese press takes hold of the story. Journalists and locals dispute the information. Robert Murat, the son of an english mother and a portuguese father, with little luck in business, does not waste the opportunity. He moves from failed businessman into the role of a translator for the press and the police. Some british journalists, after sucking him to the bones, start suspecting his availability.
The Murat contradiction
Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club’s staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.
Gerry and Kate’s friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. “We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else’s business”, says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: “What do you think you are doing? Do you think you’re better than the portuguese police? I’m going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves”.
——-
PJ says ‘everybody is a suspect’
The director of the Policia Judiciaria in Faro, Guilhermino da Encarnacao, confirmed with Sol that “we do not discard the possibility to have the family and friends as suspects”. This is always done “without neglecting other clues. Everybody who was at the resort at the time are suspects”
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 am
“And with this family she was seen by many pelople on Malta, maybe boarding their yacht, too” - Maria.
Maria that story about the “Arab yacht to my knowledege has never been susbstanciated by any source so could have been entirely made up.
All the Malta sightings are highly improbable as I stated in my earlier post, any abductor that has the most high profile missing girl in the world isn’t going to take her to a small British tourist destination hot spot like Malta!
People who say they spotted her in Malta are as about as likely to be correct as they would be if they had said they spotted Osama Bin Laden
shopping in London’s Oxford Street.
Madeleine’s abductor may be evil but I don’t think they are that dumb!
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
Janet, thank you…I could not have made the point you made any better! Those of you who believe this ‘accidental death’ theory are obviously not parents. If this scenario were true, do you honestly think the McCann’s would have been able to sit down and think through the situation??? No, they would have freaked out and have gone screaming for help! As for the ‘fame’ and ‘power’ theories…get real!
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
It´s tragic but it seems that the mcCann´s do keep themselves busy with meeting people and campaigning, which may be comforting and helps them to deny or forget a possibly horrible reality. What is worse than to feel the pain of your own child? To go on with artificial duties and efforts give the parents a sense of being useful and doing something to find their child and it may protect them from seeing the whole cruel picture.
Now, what if the Portuguese-Italian couple did have Madeleine but after failing to raise money from the parents, they passed her on to a wealthy foreign family who wanted her for any number of reasons. And with this family she was seen by many pelople on Malta, maybe boarding their yacht, too. I mean, certainlv there was a family with a blonde little girl? Did the policw check their identities yet? This may be the nicest of the options. I just hope everything is going to turn OK and Madeleine will come home safe.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
This has never happened, in 60 days, except the day that ‘article’ was published. My speculations would be that there was obviously some time of hate mail involved; do your research and you will find out the truth.
I only say facts. Now, I am out, and I have nothing further to say.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
” They were on holiday for God’s sake. They were having a wonderful time. Madeleine went to bed a happy carefree little girl- Jean Bartley
Jean no disrespect but how long have you known the Mccann’s?
Less than 2 months, and all you do know is via the media.
Whilst I’m not saying you are wrong in your statement, I still think it’s a mistake to talk of the Mccann’s as if you know them, because you really don’t. In fact you don’t know the Mccanns anymore than you know any other family that you might see in your local town centre.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Alias can you please explain what you meant by:
““I mean nobody is defending the Arab boat story either?”
I’m not sure if you read my earlier post concerning this.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
AM, once again I’ll state that I don’t believe it was an accidental death,
but I even more disbelieve the Mccann hoax theory.
But just to clear up your belief about the “doctors” factor, as I said whether they were doctors or not doesn’t necessarily mean that they wouldn’t want to cover up such an incident. Supposing an accident had occurred when they were out eating and drinking, if they were more interested in preserving their careers and reputation they may have wanted to cover up an accident, as they know that they would take the blame for leaving the children on their own unattended, being doctors in this case may have made their position even more akward.
Again I DON’T believe this scenario to be the true one but am just addressing the point that seems to “not make sense” to you AM.
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Eloquent as she ever is Pixie Girl!
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
how eloquent anonymous
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
AM Asks:
*Why, out of all days, did the “Messages of Support” on the McCann’s website, all of a sudden come stop on June 30th, after the ‘article’ was so pulicized? Was it because the McCanns’ did not want to make the content public any longer, or was it because persons did not want to write any longer?
It is not a dynamic message board 9i.e., the messages don’t instantly, automatically get published). All comments are vetted before going online. For them to be vetted it means someone has to sit there reading them.
Youposted your comment on Saturday night, one day after the event. It is perfectly feasible that the person vetting the messages took the day off on Saturday.
Also, you will now note that the messages are up to date and still coming in thick and fast. Only morons give any credance to a silly forum tale.
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
bollox
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
What a malicious lot you are!! Why on earth should the McCann’s have covered up the death of Madeleine. They were on holiday for God’s sake. They were having a wonderful time. Madeleine went to bed a happy carefree little girl, and now she is God knows where. I am sure the McCann’s would love to be back home in Leicestershire with their three children, as anonymous as the next person. Let’s keep looking for her and praying that she is still alive, and hope that she will very soon be back with her family WHO LOVE HER!!