Madeleine McCann: Kate McCann Wants, Archie-Lee Hirst Dies And Robert Murat Denies
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
STAR ON SUNDAY: “MADDIE’S PARENTS TO RETURN”
“Kate and Gerry McCann want to return to Portugal to re-ignite interest in the case of their missing daughter Madeleine. They will meet with advisers early in the New Year to work out “the best way forward”
They have vowed to let nothing stand in their way, to do whatever it takes to find Madeleine
“But first they want their status as official suspects lifted”
But that could take months…
Says a source: “They can’t let things drift. Although a lot of what has been written and said about them in Portugal has been rubbish, it is important the case is still news. Kate and Gerry’s view is that they can’t allow people to forget about Madeleine”
They will return to set the record straight, to show they are fearless. Leaving no stone unturned is their motto
Says their spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “Kate and Gerry’s lawyers are working very hard on that and will continue to do so. There has been some hostility towards them in Portugal and all the time there is this cloud hanging over them. With the arguido status, a return could start up another media frenzy”
But isn’t that what they want?
SUNDAY EXPRESS: “BIRTHDAY GRIEF OF DOG ATTACK MOTHER”
Archie-Lee Hirst, 13-months-old, is killed by the gamily pet. A letter writer notes: “SO THE POLICE OFFER THEIR CONDOLENCES … WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IS THAT ALL? ‘Clearly …’ as the Det. Super says, nothing else? No warnings? When are the officials in these child tragedies - Madeleine McCann, the 7-year-old on the quad bike, and this baby, going to show some b—ls and speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY on why these tragedies are occurring”
Why are they occuring? And how are they linked, other than in the mind of a Daily Express readers?
NEWS OF THE WORLD: “Murat’s mum in sis pleae”
Jennifer Murat says of the sister who claim to have seen her son: “I challenge them to tell Portuguese police what they told the McCanns’ private investigators”
But they have already…
DAILY HERALD: 2007 Year In Review
“It was a year dominated by just one name - Madeleine McCann. Across acres of newsprint, through hours of television airtime and on photocopied posters at all the United Kingdom’s exit and entry points, the picture of the missing three-year-old was everywhere, and no-one was untouched by her disappearance.
“Her parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, were sanctified and demonised in turn as the media spun a story across eight months based on virtually no solid information at all. Every angle, from paedophilia and infanticide through to slavery, were rehearsed in this horror version of Little Red Riding Hood. Yet we were gripped, because every parent could empathise with the McCanns and we clung onto every scrap of gossip and rumour in the hope that there would be a resolution”
“KATE AND GERRY McCANN” – “Of all the questions asked of Kate and Gerry McCann, official and unofficial, wise or wantonly cruel, since the disappearance of their four-year-old daughter, one is never likely to be answered”
Did you do it? No…
“It is not one of the obvious questions. It features in none of the many inquiries, spurious or otherwise, made by journalism and the law. It has nothing to do with the how, what, when or why. It is more baffling even than these mysteries. Better for an atheist to ask, perhaps, than anyone: how have this plainly devout couple managed to retain their faith?”
It’s Sunday. Question asked. An ecumenical matter. And the answer is: Because what else is there?
SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY: “Madeleine suspect denies claims by sisters”
Yesterday Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen told us they had seen Robert Murat on the night of Madeleine’s vanishing
Yesterday, speaking through a family friend, Tuck Price, Murat made it known: “He says there is a possibility he could have done the translation for those people because he was working for the Policia Judiciaria on that day. “But eight months down the line, he has no idea who they are. He welcomes them going to the police”
THE OBSERVER: “Murat denies sighting”
“Madeleine McCann suspect Robert Murat denied further claims that he was seen near the young girl’s apartment on the night she vanished, a friend said. Two British sisters have told police they saw him outside the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz shortly after the alarm was raised, according to reports”
Robert Murat, Clarence Mitchell, Kate and Gerry McCann - Madldine McCann Is Missing
December 30th, 2007 at 8:49 am
first. how silly
December 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
“Two British sisters have told police they saw him outside the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz shortly after the alarm was raised, according to reports”.
Here we have “shortly after”, and I have even seen “minutes after”. But the testimony was that he was seen at 10:30 PM, 30 minutes after Kate did her shouting from the balcony.
Aside from Robert Murat’s denial (creating contradictory stories, of which the McCanns have plenty for themselves) there is nothing too odd about his being around at 10:30 PM, considering the chaotic ruckus of people shouting, etc, which he could probably hear from his house.
So it might be more peculiar if he was NOT around. And why has no one insisted that Gerry answer directly the question of whether or not he knew Murat? Moreover, he should be asked why he refused to comment when asked that simple question.
IMO, his refusal to comment was an admission that he was acquainted with Murat, but was refusing to acknowledge this, and to disclose the nature of the acquaintance.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:00 am
709 Hideki Says: December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am (Madeleine McCann: No More Paedophiles, Six More Months And Clarence Mitchell Says)
708 Peter O Says:
Edit…
What a pathetic creep and a liar you are. I made no such suggestion that the name Peter O is associated with paedophilia. Anyone who reads the post (699) can see I am being satirical about the nicknames given to the McCanns.
That’s what they are here for. They deleted a sentence which could be interpreted in an offensive way, especially with jerks like you on the forum, in a post that was obviously satirical. I’ve no problem with that.
Edit
+++++++++++++
Hideki - You are a liar who makes dangerous and unsubstantiated claims about your fellow posters. (See 699 Hideki Says: December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am - Madeleine McCann: No More Paedophiles, Six More Months And Clarence Mitchell Says)
Hideki - You have claimed in a public forum that a fellow posters name is associated with paedophilia.
Hideki - Your remarks were deleted by Mods and Admin not because they were “satirical” but because to quote, they were “last sentance deleted as extremely offensive”.
Hideki - Making the sort of claims you have made could be ruinous to a persons reputation, livelihood, their wellbeing and would impact their family and friends.
Hideki - The fact that you make these claims on an internet forum where there is a degree of anonymity makes them no less acceptable.
Hideki - Having had the unacceptable nature of your remarks pointed out to you, you now continue to lie about their content and intent.
Hideki – You have on repeated occasions now attempted to label and vilify fellow posters. You are a dangerous individual whose claims cannot be allowed to go by without comment. Your latest implications re paedophilia are a sickening example of the depths you appear to be prepared to plumb.
Mods and Admin
I invite you to amend or delete any of my remarks that you deem unacceptable.
I am not prepared to allow Hideki to perpetuate the lie that they have not made dangerous and unsubstantiated claims against a fellow poster. The unsubstantiated claims that this person has made against me are unacceptable. Further, the fact that this person shows no regret about making such claims and attempts to pass the claims off as “satirical” sets a dangerous precedent as to what this person, and others, may in future be allowed to claim about fellow posters.
—————————-
Mods and Admin
PeterO I have sent a copy of this post to Admin and with my comments attached,I won’t repeat them all here, but suffice to say that I had to edit out part of Hideki’s post as offensive will carry the weight in the decisions made. Satire is one thing , but that comment was not made in the spirit of satire.
I haven’t editted any part of your post as all the points you raise are legitimate and are already on site in various posts.
Hideki, any future posts you make containing personal remarks or insults towards any other poster will for the time being be removed and kept in Moderation. I suggest meanwhile you learn the difference between satirical remarks and offensive ones, humour is meant to appeal to everyone, not just the poster
December 30th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Good morning.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
2 Hideki
Yes we have reports of Murat being sighted outside Ocean Club complex “shortly after” “minutes after” and also at 10.30!! What do we believe, it seems everything that we read. Also havent we read that Kate went running into Tapas bar screaming that Madeleine had gone, or did she scream from the balcony????? How do you know Gerry was asked if he knew Murat, and that he refused to comment? It seems you believe everything you read.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Good morning all.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:19 am
2 Hideki
Edit… IMO, his refusal to comment was an admission that he was acquainted with Murat, but was refusing to acknowledge this, and to disclose the nature of the acquaintance.
***********
I have often wondered if K & G elected to have arguido status because it was convenient for them to be able to claims they could make no public comment on anything remotely inconvenient when being questioned. They certainly seem quite determined that Robert Murat should be fitted up as all their witnesses to his presence on the scene of the disappearance keep materialising months after the event.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am
5 Pam
As I am sure many posters will tell you, we have all seen on video G refusing to comment when asked if he knew Robert Murat.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:28 am
8 May
Must have missed that video, sorry! Which video was that?
December 30th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Love the irony. For all the insults, accusations and innuendo hurled at Robert Murat by Team McCunning, I must say he’s looking a tad more chipper than recent media pics of prison pallid, haggard looking K & G.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Pam 5
This is how we KNOW Gerry REFUSED to comment about knowing Murat =FACT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRpKThIO5HA
December 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Pam
Could you please offer us a plausible explanation why Gerry would refuse to comment about knowing Murat. Is it possibly something embarrassing or illegal??
December 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
11 Swannie
Thanks for that
December 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
268 Tony Bennett
271 ditto
Many thanks for that. I do take your point, but still think that that is by far the weakest of the pointers, and that the overall thrust of your list should not be diluted.
As for my views on the whole thing, and in reply to the other poster who asked my view on the arguido status of Mr Robert Murat, I confess I simply do not know. I have my suspicions of course.
All I do know is that the whole thing stinks and I sincerely hope that the PJ have the evidence to sort it out. Nothing seems to fit properly.
Interesting that Clarrie says the McCs want to return to Portugal and to have their arguido status lifted. I wonder if he is aware that that would mean that they could not refuse to answer questions, and also that they could be prosecuted for lying, if they did. Contrary to what many people seem to believe the arguido status gives protection to a person, similar to being under caution in the English system.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:00 am
12
Could it be be, because hes a suspect, its illegel to comment?
December 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Pam 15
No it cannot - because this video was taken way before they were made arguidos. Try again.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:08 am
14
PeterMac Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am
268 Tony Bennett
271 ditto
Many thanks for that. I do take your point, but still think that that is by far the weakest of the pointers, and that the overall thrust of your list should not be diluted.
3. ANXIETY ABOUT ‘PHONE CALLS BEING MONITORED
The McCanns expressing anxiety about their ’phone calls and e-mails being intercepted. What innocent parent would worry about that?
+++++++
At which moment in time and how did they express their anxiety about their phone being tapped?
And wouldn’t it be normal and even appreciated by any parent whose child has been “abducted”, as the abductor might call any moment to ask for the ransom????
December 30th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I think the saddest part of the Archie-Lee Hirst tragedy is that elderly grand parents ‘living near to a school’ obviously felt the need for a seven foot fence round their garden and a powerful Rottweiler inside the garden. By all accounts these were not drug dealers, or ne’r do wells who have previously been associated with powerful illegal fighting dogs, just an ordinary couple who felt the need for legitimate security. What a sad reflection on suburban life in the UK.
Until you read of the bravery of the paramedic who vaulted that seven foot fence in a vain attempt to rescue the baby, not knowing where the dog was - makes you realise that there are still more than decent people in the country. The man deserves a medal.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Pam 15
In fact, if you notice the date, this ‘No comment’ remark was made on the 22nd of May, which was way before many people even considered the McCanns were involved at all.
So, what could be the reason behind it? You must admit that even ‘the cool one’ looks extremely awkward, embarrassed and desperate for a big hole to appear in the ground, when asked this question.
Can any supporter offer an answer for this?
December 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
swannie serves a ace and leaves the court
December 30th, 2007 at 10:20 am
8
May Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am
5 Pam
As I am sure many posters will tell you, we have all seen on video G refusing to comment when asked if he knew Robert Murat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Living in the states and happy to say not that caught up in the mcscam circus but I must admit I did see the video of g mcscam and when asked the question if he knew Murat, he looked taken aback and said “I’m not goibg to answer that question at this time” and I thought “What, it’s a simple question——–yes or no” Talk about damning evidence.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
614 Yesterday’s thread. Anonymous says (December 30th, 2007 at 4:17 am):
“Tony Bennett: I could suggest further revision to your ‘21 Reasons’, but only from the perspective of style, not that of content. With regard to content, an ever evolving thing, I leave that to you and the other experts - yes, experts - on this forum. I did not feel it right to make substantive changes, without permission”.
REPLY: Many thanks. A couple of points.
1. I’m very happy to accept suggestions to improve the style of ‘21 Reasons’, if you click on my name in blue at the top of this post, then click on the top-left-hand-corner of the home page you arrive at, you will be able to send an e-mail direct to my inbox
2. There’s no copyright on ‘21 Reasons’, after all, it is mostly a compilation of other people’s reasons that I’ve found on the Net. So anyone can take it and amend it as they wish and make it their own
December 30th, 2007 at 10:31 am
18
Carmen Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 10:14 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny how things are turned around. You mention the abductors might be calling to demand the ransom and isn’t that what these greedy parents are doing, begging for money.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
564 Yesterday’s thread - Jolie Says (December 30th, 2007 at 12:43 am):
“Another poster earlier in the day recommended that you added a list of references to each and every point, sources that people could check and read for themselves that verify your claims in the 21 points. I think that would be extremely helpful and a good exercise in helping to weed out potentially inaccurate information…When something stated as factual turns out to be nothing more than a well-perpetuated, unsubstantiated rumor, it does harm to your cause which depends on bringing the truth out into public view”.
REPLY: These and your other comments noted, taken on board with thanks
December 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“…because every parent could empathise with the McCanns and we clung onto every scrap of gossip and rumour in the hope that there would be a resolution” - Daily Herald.
More MSM claptrap. No conscientious, thoughtful, caring parent could empathise with the McCanns and their uncouth, callous child abuse by neglect.
Only the MSM clung onto every scrap of gossip and rumour. The blogosphere deals in facts, informed opinion, deductive and inductive reasoning and impartial, agenda-free dissection and analysis of people and events: the primacy of informed public opinion.
This is the Internet. MSM must adapt or die.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Sam 23
I think you will find that it was Châtelaine who made that point, not I!
*************
Mods and Admin
As a matter of interest, how many of you are reading these threads on a RSS feed?
December 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
26
Carmen Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“Sam 23
I think you will find that it was Châtelaine who made that point, not I!”
——-
Thank you for correcting, Carmen. Not that I would want the “credit”, but because inaccurate references sometimes make it difficult to read a thread backwards, as we regularly have to do
December 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
These posts are hilarious. You’re going around in circles. Good luck.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
20 clouseau (2nd game!)
IF RM was near the apartment that night , it was obviously to do with this connection with G, so could it be to do with alleged ’swinging’, drugs or the removal of a body? If it was the latter, you would think the last place he’d choose to be would be there at that time.
Or has RM nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance and he really wasn’t there that night, as he claims? Are people who say he was, getting him mixed up with David Payne, as they look very similar? If this is the case, I would imagine that G is very worried about these ’sightings’, as they only reinforce the fact that there was some sort of connection between G and RM, prior to May 3rd. The question is what?
December 30th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I know it’s rather cheap and mean of me, but I’m allergic to their guttural pronounciation of the name “Madeleine” [Maddelin].