MADDY WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “MADELEINE: More agony for parents as police chief insists she must be dead”
Page 9: “Why Madeleine is probably dead by top law officer” -
Kate and Gerry McCann “suffered fresh heartache” when Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said it would have been “natural” for any kidnapper to kill her. It is a “brutal assessment of the missing four-year-old’s chances of survival”
The Attorney General says: “There’s a greater possibility of the girl being dead than alive. If it is an abduction it would be normal for the abductor to have killed her. Would an abductor with all this publicity and with the whole world having Maddie’s photo still demand a ransom?”
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We still firmly believe that Madeleine is alive. Making these comments is entirely unhelpful. From our point of view, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the possibility that Madeleine is alive and being held somewhere is still valid. Our investigators are working on that basis. They, too, have stated that they are confident they will find her alive soon”
“’Murat lover was eyeing my niece’” – Tourist Graham Desuys says he saw Michaela Walczuch “staring” at “blonde-haired Zoe” and her younger brother Conner in Praia da Luz. It is one month before Madeleine vanished
Says the Briton: “She was just looking at my niece and nephew, it was very off-putting. When my partner and I walked past the woman in the street she seemed to get a bit scared and turned away as if to hide” – Were they staring at her to see if she was “staring” at them?
He goes on: “I have no doubt it as her [Walczuch] and it unnerving to think she could have been checking out my family”
If you see anyone looking/glancing/staring/peeping/smiling at your children, tell the police, and the Express…
DAILY MIRROR front page: “SHE’S DEAD. Shock Maddy claim by Portugal’s top law chief. Devastated McCanns insist search must go on”
A shock? To think Madeleine might be dead..?
Page 9: “IT WOULD BE NATURAL TO KILL MADDY”
Says Mr Monteiro: “All lines of inquiry are being pursued. There’s not one that excludes the others. At this moment in time, if you asked if we were going to discover anything I would have to say ‘I don’t know’”
Look out for other Mirror front-page headlines: “SHE’S ALIVE”, “SHE’S MISSING,” “SHE’S SOMEWHERE” etc.
DAILY STAR page 21: “’SHE’S DEAD’”
Mr Monteiro is talking with Portuguese magazine Visao
THE SUN page 23: “’MADDIE IS DEAD’ – Portugal’s top law chief delivers grim verdict”
Not a verdict – more of an opinion
This is “a blow to Kate and Gerry”
DAILY MAIL page 5: “Madeleine is dead’ – Abductor would have killed her because of publicity, says Portugal’s attorney-general”
Says Mr Monteiro on the Portuguese effort: “We have done everything. We have spent in resources, on the Madeleine case, what we have spent on others. In 40 years as a magistrate, I have never seen such a high-profile case as this one”
DAILY TELEGRAPH page 17: “Publicity made Madeleine McCann ‘a liability’”
“Portugal’s most senior law officer has said that the huge publicity surrounding the case of Madeleine McCann meant it was more likely she was dead than alive”
THE TIMES, THE GUARDIAN and THE INDEPENDENT: No Madeleine news
Posted: 23rd, November 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (653) | 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
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
there is 3 of us here an we are so sorryn to hear hat madelineis still missing and could be dead right now as we speak we hope that you find her soon
all our love
our initials
d a and n ;):0
November 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
[...] Madeleine McCann: Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro Says, Calrentce Anorak - Kate and Gerry McCann “suffered fresh heartache” when Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said it would have been “natural” for any kidnapper to kill her. It is a “brutal assessment of the missing four-year-old’s [...]
November 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hmmm. But your remarks do HUM. This is malicious gossip not helpful to little Madeleine. Well the Pj have been whispering in the priests ear, and if the whiperings are anything like the lunchtime conversation of the alcohol soaked Amarel, no wonder he thinks he”s been “deceived” Priests are not all perfect human beings, as we should all know by now. Over the years some of them have done some wicked things. I take it that the dogs alledgedly trailing a “scent of death” to the church must have been mistaken. They can trail a given scent but they cannot speak to say if the scent is DEAD! It’s the HUMANS who talk a load of rubbish. and inflict it on the dogs!!! I know a retired police dog handler very well. I also have a relative retired from scene of the crime. One of his former colleagues in somewhat coarse terms said “The PJ did everything arse first and acted like forensic amateurs”
Dot
November 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am
The Portuguese don’t even consider someone might abduct a toddler to keep her as a sex slave. They naturally assume abductions are carried out to demand ransom. Does it require a Scandinavian mindset and upbringing to even fathom the former case? Yes?
November 24th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I just heard something similar too……….! Gerry had shot blanks… Clary to wear the pink shirt and A BLACK TIE if he could find one….! PM et al on way……..!
Couldn’t make it up could you….
November 24th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Is this true? I just heard gerry shot and killed kate then shot and killed himself? I just heard this at the store, some lady just said she heard it on the radio, anyone know anymore about this?
November 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Cheryl
I think your post is the one of the best I have ever seen on Anorak.
A brilliant summing up of the case to date. Congratulations.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Anonymous
I think there is a possibility that the McCanns assumed the shutters had been forced open because they were open, likewise the window, but had been shut earlier. It may be a case of a simple mistake.
Of course, it may not.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Stevo
If around, please post the link again to the video of the priest. Brilliant. I agree with on2u. The priest is totally comfortable with his own thoughts, with what his community did, with what his Catholic colleague did (giving key to McCanns) and just contemptuous of the interviewer’s innuendo. He is too polite to tell the interviewer exactly what he thinks of her though! He is very careful in what he says as well. A great chap and seems to me to exemplify Christianity. (Not saying others don’t have same virtues, or better, but this man seems a good example of Christianity at its best. We see so many bad examples!!)
If Stevo isn’t on, I must try to find time to go back through posts and find the link. That interview is worth seeing.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Steve T
But is it Clarence who is putting out the rubbish about Walczuch?
I have read three reports (Sun, Mirror, Mail) though very quickly as I’m busy today.
It looks to me like another vile gutter press ruse to gather readers. As usual, they show utter contempt for the truth and total unconcern for anyone who gets hurt in their money-making, lying process.
The Sun actually boasts that these supposed church elders spoke to their reporter. The Mirror doesn’t quote a source at all (what a surprise) but implies that they have spoken to these people. The Mail is similar although later it has one line saying that the private detectives are investigating possible sightings of Walczuch etc. We already knew that.
I’m not aware of Clarence having said anything at all? Do you have a link to indicate otherwise? I’d like to read it if so. It’s not on the Sky or BBC sites.
I’m not discounting any possibilities in this story, from Tony Bennett’s scenario to any other, but, as usual, I like to be cautious in my judgements until we know facts. I have seen the papers publish so many lies in this, and other, cases, that I definitely reserve judgement on anything and everything!
Tony Bennett may be right but I think GM would have had no option but to say “No comment” when asked about Murat. Murat was an arguido at that time; GM wasn’t. GM was a witness and still under caution to say nothing which went to the heart of the investigation. He may have seen Murat around anyway and known him in that sense, without having known him earlier or having any actual connection with him. I don’t think we know yet. Murat has already gone through hell, if he is innocent.
Of course, all three remain arguidos so the police may well know more about all this than we do.
(If they are all guilty together, why did the three friends say they saw Murat around on the night? Surely they would have all been keen to protect one another if it was a group crime thing?)
There are oddities about this case. Why did Murat change his alibi for the night (if indeed he did), saying first that he was with the girlfriend and then that he was with his mother? Was that one of the things which made the police suspicious? I don’t know if it is true that this change of alibi actually took place or was just reported in the rags. Anyone know?
Other oddity: the five minute window of opportunity. They need to requestion everyone.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[...] Original post by Health Insurance Online Quote - Google News [...]
November 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Re: Video
Thought the anglican priest appeared perfectly comfortable with what he believed. It was the inuendo’s that bothered him. He scratched the back of his neck out of frustration with the reporter. Absolutely no touching of ear as in gerry McCann.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:35 am
chenier Says:
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Peter O Says:
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
‘The shutters being open/jemmied – whoever did it, and if you rule out the window as either an entry or exit point, this was obviously ‘scene staging’. What this doesn’t tell you however is who did the staging?’
———————————————-
As far as I am aware there was never any evidence that the shutters had been jemmied open.
Which means that looking for a person who jemmied the shutters open is, by definition, an entirely pointless exercise…
You can, of course, pursue questions based on why the McCanns said this at the outset to other family members.
++++++++++++++
Don’t suppose anyone is still following yesterday’s forum, but just in case..
We type at crossed purposes. I didn’t say/suggest that the shutters had been “jemmied”. However, the shutters were allegedly “open”. The question then is “who” opened them and “why”?
• Was it an abductor(s) – To pass something(s) in/out, shed some light inside the apartment, etc
• Was it one or both of the McCann’s themselves in an attempt to “stage” an abduction scene
• Was it someone else who wanted to “stage” the abduction scene – i.e. Someone one the McCann’s know but whom they don’t suspect, at least initially
Following from the above, is then feasible that:
• The McCann’s mistook the open shutters as the external point of entry and assumed, incorrectly, that they must have been jemmied – i.e. The alleged abductor(s) did it or someone the McCann’s know but whom they don’t suspect
• The McCann’s knew the shutters weren’t jemmied, because they both knew of the scene “staging” and therefore they are lying
• One of the McCann’s knew/or didn’t know that the shutters were/were not jemmied because they were/were not involved in the scene staging. Therefore, depending upon who made the statement about them having been jemmied they could either be mistaken or lying
• The McCann’s were led to believe the shutters were jemmied by someone they know, but don’t suspect, and who had themselves ‘staged’ the scene
November 24th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Mr. Bennett, it certainly is enlightning to have a lawyer on board who knows all the facts versus the fictions, one reads in the newspapers. You have been most helpful, thank you, in giving me food for thought in whether the McCanns were directly responsible for the disappearance of their daughter.
1. The McCanns screamed abuduction - how silly of me, I thought it would be a natural conclusion for a parent to jump to if they were not directly responsible for their child’s disappearance.
2. Destroyed evidence in the apartment - here I thought the police left their ashes around the apartment which tainted any evidence that might be found. I presumed the cleaning staff entered the ’secured’ apartment, now it was secured by the police, wasn’t it, immediately,(?) and changed the bedding, swept the floors. Now I find out the suspects must have changed the bedding, swept the floors, tainted the evidence with ashes, before vacating the apartment.
3. I thought Ms. Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child under a blanket but realized in days to come she may well have witnessed the abduction of the child. Guess I’ve overlooked where the police have announced she told a bare-faced lie.
4. The police have been forced to spend millions investigating false sightings; following up on false leads; searching dumps; digging up the churchyard; searching lakes and the seas; interviewing other persons; comparing stories, etc. Now isn’t that just ridiculous for police to spend their time and monies doing all that. Here I’ve always been under the erroneous impression that is what good police investigations entail - leaving no stone unturned.
5. The various scenarios have been changed - was she taken out by the window; out through the door; where she could have been carried to in close proximity. I thought the second task force brought in - the ones with the brains and open minds - started from scratch and ran through carefully every avenue and way she could have been carried out and where to.
6. Tests done on the blood in the apartment and supposed bodily fluid in the trunk of the car, here I thought they were inconclusive and could not be matched directly to the child. I’ve always been under the impression that DNA either is or is not a match. Maybe’s don’t count! Remember the theory of the footprint on the truck of the car was one of them putting the child’s body in? I read the police have acknowledged it was the footprint left from a policeman. Think they are covering up for the real culprit?
7. The McCanns refused to answer questions posed by the police. Silly of them, wasn’t it! Here they went and hired a lawyer - and being a lawyer you know how lawyers think - tell their client to keep their mouths shut and not talk without the lawyer present and maybe not even talk them until the lawyer gets a feel for the questions and where the investigation is going. You hire a lawyer you listen to them, that is why you hire one to protect your rights innocent or guilty. Why shouldn’t they have hired the best money can find? In a foreign country, foreign laws, and they and everyone else already realized how biased and incompetent the police could be after dealing with the first ones handling the case and they were removed, weren’t they, after embarrassing the Portugese Government! In fact, they are the ones who tainted the evidence; sloppy police work; deliberately leaked erroneously information to the papers; didn’t secure the apartment immediately; didn’t search the local dumpsters immediately in case the child’s body was there; made up their minds the McCanns were guilty and didn’t budge from that frame of mind; questioned the McCanns and others and didn’t record the questioning sessions leaving wide open for their own interpretation with language problems in translations.
8. The policeman put in charge of the investigation now comes across as very professional and very thorough. If he doesn’t solve the case - then we the public will never know the truth. However, we can be sure of one thing: either one person will know the truth or nine people will know the truth about what happened to that young child.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:51 am
“Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: 24 Horas - 23/11/2007 - VERY INTERESTING
STRANGE COINCIDENCE
The house where the McCanns stayed in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, belongs to a woman also called McCann and not to the Ocean Club.
Confronted with the possibility of being a relative of Maddie’s parents, Clarence Mitchell denied saying that is “a strange and remarkable coincidence”.
The apartment A, number 5, locate at Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, Montes da Luz Urbanization, Praia da luz, is registered with the number 3666. In 2001 the house was bought by a kind of society belonging to Daniel John Aldred, Michael William McCann and the daughter of the latest (daughter of his 1st marriage) Donna Michelle Aldred and the wife, Ruth Margaret McCann. Michael McCann born in Devonport, Plymouth was a widow when he married Margaret Ruth Pittaway, now with 53 years old also a widow in 1987.
In 2005 Michael and Ruth bought the part of the Aldred couple keeping each of them 50% of the apartment.
Later in July 2006 Michael McCann died in Liverpool and in November of the same year Ruth McCann inherited his part becoming the only proprietor.
“No break in
24 Horas learnt through judicial sources that Ruth was never heard by the Portuguese authorities. Clarence Mitchell said that this was the first time that the couple was in Portugal. The authorities did not detected any evidence of break in when they searched the house to collect vestiges. A judicial source connected to the investigation said that would be very difficult that someone would break in the house without leaving traces. The stories of the McCanns and their friends that dinned at the Tapas Bar differ : Some say that the door was closed and Maddie’s bedroom window was open. Others say that both the door and the window were closed, said an investigator. The flat is sealed by judicial order since May 4.”
November 24th, 2007 at 4:59 am
RE: Gerry’s “how to hide a corpse book”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg2UQbpDB5c
November 24th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Susan, that’s because no one knows. Do you mean, whether it was Kate or Gerry, or do you mean OTHER than Kate or Gerry? The nanny and Payne were the last ones to see her , other than the parents.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Maria Says to Ian
” don’t think anyone will ever be able to say that the McCanns did not do everything humanly possible to have their child found.”
——————
Maria, why did they run? why not take lie detector? what not answer all questions put to them? You speak nonsense.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Some facts are facts even if they are inconclusive. Like body fluids in the car…
I just saw an UK Express headline stating the news Canada brought in…
November 24th, 2007 at 2:20 am
time lol like the time you were going to bed can be altered facts are facts lies are lies and neither can be altered for they are what they are.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Soothsayer
timelines do matter because TIME is fact! Good-night but this time I really am off to bed.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:15 am
lol you obviously miss the point,the time line matters not one flying fuck as there was no abduction,you believe what you would like to be the truth the truth is km was the last person known to have seen and been with Madeleine.if you dont start with the facts you will never get to the truth
November 24th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Tony Bennet
Send me a email address I can contact you to j4netuk@yahoo.co.uk
November 24th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Susan
from what we all know of the timeline it would have been Gerry. What is your point that if Gerry was the last to see her then he killed her. Like it or not I do think this little girl was abducted and there is no conclusive evidence to prove Madeleine’d death.
Soothsayer,
YOU and I do not know the real truth. But my opinion is based on what I know of the timeline. I really do not believe that these two people killed their daughter, had time to hide the body and plan a very organised cover-up and all in a country not familiar to them in the short time span given. I also believe that if they were truly guilty they would not have hung around Portugal as long as they did or suggest that British detectives come in to help the PJ or even to suggest the FBI review the case.These are not the actions of guilty people. You may think it is because someone tugged their ear in an interview or because Kate doesn’t cry on demand but this is not enough evidence for me. Also all the information so far coming from the press is not to be trusted. Known of us really knows what evidence the PJ hold to make the McCanns suspects. But what I do know is that it will suit the PJ to shelve this case. No one will get charged because of lack of evidence but the McCanns and Murat then have to live 15 years as official suspects. The PJ can easily move on after they shelve this case and because the public are divided over it they won’t be held accountable for obvious mistakes made in the early part of the investigation. The McCanns on the other hand have paid the highest price already and on top of that will have to deal with their own feelings of guilt along with suspicion by some members of the public. It will be a very difficult life especially as their twins become more aware of Maddy’s story.
On that note good-night.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Maria Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 1:22 am
…By the way, Kate’s actions have NOT indicated in any way that people who suffer from depression are somehow stigmatised. It was other people who said SHE might have killed her child because she was depressed. Other people also accused her of sedating her children. Only the most unreasonable person could think it odd that they wanted to scotch this nonsense.
++++++
No, it’s not odd that they wanted to scotch it for their own reasons, but I think it reveals a tendency to react to accusations in a very mechanical way, as if to say “here you are, we’ve done the tests, they show we’ve done nothing wrong”.
The absence of anti-depressants doesn’t prove that someone isn’t suffering from depression.
The presence of anti-depressants doesn’t prove that someone is suffering from depression.
It is not really very surprising that the newspapers should come up with ill-informed speculation about Kate being on anti-depressants and alleging that this explains what may have happened.
What is surprising - to me, at least - is that Team McCann - working for two medical professionals - should refute these allegations in the way they did.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:02 am
addedsugar
hot off the press
November 24th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Fair
OK; I thought he made two different statements on two different occasions. Like the Cuddle Cat case - on the shelf or on the bed…
November 24th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Canada, is this new news?
Well, is THAT why they are insisting that Maddie is alive and want to urge the searching when the rest of the world is thinking that looks ludicrous or pathetic, or even like diversion tactics? They fear ending up in a Portuguese prison, without their twins?
Goodnight.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Pat
probably like everything else……….
November 24th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Goodnight all- interesting article Canada will see how that unfolds.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Steve
Thank you for that link. I’d never seen the interview with the anglican priest. What a great bloke! Nice to see him endorsing his Catholic colleague’s decision to let them have the key to the church so they could find peace and quiet whenever they needed it.
He certainly showed his poor opinion of some of the innuendo in a couple of the interviewer’s questions, didn’t he?! But without being rude or hostile. Fantastic!
Thanks again.
Good night all.