No-One Above Suspicion In Case Of Madeleine McCann
MADELEINE McCann is back on the front page of the Express.
“Dad protests: We are not to blame.”
Gerry McCann is in Washington. He is in the White House meeting staff in the employ of First Lady Barbra Bush.
It is the way of American politics that while the husband declares war and puts up taxes, the Waspish wife delivers homespun wisdom. But Mrs Bush cannot meet Gerry McCann. She has other arrangements.
Or might it be that she does not want to appear too caring, too close to the man accused of neglecting his daughter.
Ever since Madeleine McCann went missing the Anorak message boards and comment pages have been filled with thousands of readers saying they think the McCanns acted irresponsibly in going out for dinner and leaving their three young children alone in the holiday apartment.
“The McCanns part with all that money when they wouldn’t pay for a babysitter? Get real!,” says Marian. “The media’s criticism of these parents is justified and useful, if it stops other irresponsible parents from leaving their toddlers unattended,” says Fulmar. “It was grossly irresponsible and I can’t help but feel if they were not educated middle-class people, that there would be a lot more censure about it in the press and the news coverage,” says Liz.
Blame
And now, as the Sun says, Madeleine’s father is facing a “TV grilling”. Mrs Bush has not met him. But the ABC Good Morning America show has.
“We were 50 yards away and could see the apartment,” says Gerry McCann. “It’s like we were at the end of our garden…We didn’t think we needed a babysitter.”
And they did not break the law. As Gerry tells CNN in a later interview: “We have been assured by the authorities that what we did fell well within the boundaries of good parenting. Madeleine was targeted by a predator and we shouldn’t have to be worrying about people getting into our homes and gardens and playgrounds. That is real criminal act here.”
He is right. Of course. The criminal is the one who, as we suspect, took Madeleine. And then there are the feelings of guilt Mr McCann talks of on his blog. They do not need reminding what that they could have done more. Their child is drowning and they have forgotten how to swim. There is much pain.
And a media frenxy. But the Express is on their side. The Express is championing the McCanns. The paper has no news on Madeleine, which is the point of the McCanns’ media onslaught. But the Express backs Gerry McCann to the hilt. After all, he and his wife are the story.
And it will “fight the smears”. Over in Portugal, Sol magazine “bizarrely” accuses Madeleine’s parents and friends in their holiday group of a “pact of silence”.
The report says: “Madeleine parents and friend with whom they spent their holidays are suspects in the inquiry. There are contradictory versions about the night of the kidnapping and an assumed pact of silence in the group.”
It is claimed that statements differ over how often Madeleine and her siblings were checked. Gerry and Kate McCann are said to be “deeply hurt” by this story.
But surely it is a valid line of inquiry. Should anyone be above suspicion in this case? No. And if Robert Murat, suspect number one, the only named suspect, is found to be innocent, where would fingers then point?
In a case where facts are thin and speculation rife, right it is that all parties are questioned, their testimonies scrutinised.
Or else what is the point?
Posted: 25th, July 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (146) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity Watch: Katie Price Is More Hated Than Baby P’s Mum
- percy stilton on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- percy stilton on Newspaper Correction Of The Year: The New Jersey Rabbis
- Anorak on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
October 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Good points jack.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Jack. youve raised some good points. And i’d like to hear a pro-macan answer them
October 1st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Jack you nailed it with your logic.. You should have been a prosecutor.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:22 am
Well after looking at the evidence in the stories there are a few things that stand out ,1 the person /s responsible had to know she was alone .2,if it wasnt the parents the only other couple who did know were the ones having dinner with them .3 the woman who wasd having dinner with them was the last to check on her ,4she reported seeing someone carrying a child ,5was that her husband? 6 he was not there with the parent and was supposed to be looking after someone else ,7 the person/s responsible would have to know the parents were not coming at that time to check.conclusion ? the people who were having dinner weith the parents are very suspect as they had all the required things needed to do it motive ? who knows but i feel they are missing the main evidence of facts .opportunity, knowledge of the situation,seeing someone else was that her husband? and the fact that he was not there at the dinner points strongly to them .
September 26th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Heres a turning point What if madaliene had got up herself and went looking for her parents not knowing where they went and how would you describe the blood?…Maybe she cut herself or had a nose bleed and another thing but heres why why would the criminal if there is one take madaleine and not the other two heres why maybe he or she couldnt handle three but why all im asking is why would you want a four little girl to tourcher you know their smarter than you think and if you dont turn her in your life will not be a very happy place you nasty little cheat
September 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Madeleine McCann: Parents ‘making things worse’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/nmaddy421.xml
August 26th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I feel the same as most on here, i have from the very start. Something is very fishy! I don’t trust either of them, i really do hope we will learn the truth. My husband and i would never ever leave our two kids alone in a situation like that and they are 13 and 9 yrs old. justice needs to be done here. They did let that little girl down big time, but i think they have got alot more to do with her disapearence than meets the eye.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
According to the resort employees, the couple was offered baby monitors (AKA walkie-talkies), and refused. They also offered them to put the 3 children in the baby care room for free, and they denied that offer. And now, Madeleine’s mother is saying it never crossed her mind that it might not be safe to leave the kids alone.
Something’s fishy with those declarations…
August 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Im in my office upstairs working, My 5yr old daughter is playing in her bedroom, I have propped the door open so I can hear her every move.If she goes quiet I call out.
There is a pub near my house,maybe later i might pop in, i could be there in 1 minute,lovely sunny evening sit outside, have a few drinkies.
Would I?
Hell NO!
Why?
Because my child might wake up.
Because I may be able to see the front of my house, but someone could be breaking into the back!
Because my child is the most precious person to me in the world.
I can however sit outside my back door on my patio in my enclosed private garden and have a nice drinkie there.
Would I?
Yes, because if she woke up she could come out of her unlocked room, down the well lit stairs and find me in no time at all.
Equally as well i would be able to hear her if she awoke crying!
Caring parents don’t leave their very small children alone, in a strange place, in a foreign country to go for drinks with friends even if they are supposed to be sleeping! Thats just crazy!
So many stories and accusations.
Will we ever know the real truth, I doubt it.
I do hope they find her, but i doubt it, poor little girl.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I’ve just seen a mad theory on the Mirror forums; somebody’s saying: how do we know it was Madeleine McCann at the resort for those few days before the child disappeared, and not Sofia Murat? Pause to absorb this utterly bizarre scenario. How could it have worked?
Madeleine goes off on long trip with her nanny. Sofia Murat is handed over to the McCanns; there’s already a connection between Murat and the McCanns through the McCann friend Russell O’Brien.
Sofia Murat spends a few days in England with the McCanns getting to know them, and is then taken on holiday to Portugal with them. They pretend she is Madeleine. Murat takes his daughter back that night - it’s all planned. He then goes home to Villa Liliana where he does indeed spend the evening with his mum - and also with his daughter. Murat’s ex-wife is also in on this, as is his mother. When the ruckus breaks out, Sofia is hidden and then quietly returned to the UK and to her mother. There’s no suspicion on Murat at this time so when he left Praia de Luz may have been the time he took Sofia back. He then returns to Portugal and a few days later the police take him in for questioning because of the doubting journalist.
Quite a few problems with this scenario!
1 The creche staff would have noticed that the child they were looking after wasn’t the same on as in all the pictures.
2 Why would the McCann friends go all out to incriminate Murat? If Murat is found out, so will they be!
Today’s papers point out the ‘third party connection’ which is indeed Murat and Russell O’Brien; they were both in Exeter at the same time not long before Madeleine’s disappearance. Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner moved there into rented accomodation four weeks before Murat turned up there to visit his sister who lives there. Did Murat and O’Brien meet up during that time? This remains to be seen.
If a scenario remotely resembling this one turns out to be true, there will of course be one huge blessing - Madeleine will turn up safe, well and unharmed except from having spent three months away from her parents.
What would the motive be? Money, of course. Perhaps, being doctors, they just knew their case would attract massive attention. How many times have a pair of British doctors had a child snatched on a holiday abroad? It doesn’t exactly happen every day.
However, Murat would have kept well away and wouldn’t have gossiped to anyone about his daughter resembling Madeleine. And the creche staff would have smelt a rat as soon as they saw the first picture of Madeleine.
So it’s a silly story, but it does attempt to tie up a few loose strands - just not convincingly enough.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
How come it seems to be women doing all the bitching on here?
I think a good old topless mud fight is in order.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“the arsehole” well you really have lived up to your name. My word why are you so angry?????? Calm down my dear!! Did I hit a nerve by any chance………..
July 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
It is my understanding that the Nanny is Canadian. She was supposed to go on holiday with them but could not do so because of a family illness… if both of these are true then she is presumably somewhere in Canada.
Still seems a little odd that the media haven’t tracked her down to give a glowing reference as to the McCanns parenting skills - given that the Sun et al will normally interview the neighbour’s dog given half a chance, but that seems par for the course in this case :-s
Molly
July 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I was wondering about the nanny too, she cannot be included in the investigations need for silence, does any one know. Perhaps she is caring for the twins, or maybe she could be governed by professional ethics?
July 28th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
How about this for a wacky theory? The McCanns’ full-time nanny is still AWOL after 3 months. McCann family takes off for Portugal. A few days later, their eldest child disappears. Is there a connection between the two events? Although the nanny (if she is actually alive) has a right to privacy, seems to me the British tabloids would seek her out for an interview as to exactly how “doting” the McCanns were at home in Rothley. Or, if was and still is the case in Portugal, they spend as little time with their children as possible and put their need to socialise, jog, shop and drop into church above their childrens’ needs?
July 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Jane you really are a prize arsehole. You think its ok then to use the “FUND” money to sue people who think the McIdiots were wrong. I think you have also lost the plot. The money is supposed to be used to help find MADDIE- remember the little wee girl that dissapeared.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Well said Jane. Who can imagine it?
Most of Anna’s ‘questions’ have already been answered but the main one that goes on and on is about no-one talking to the press.
THEY ARE NOTALLOWED TO. In Portugese law that would be contempt of court and THEY can be arrested. Everyone has to keep quiet and sit on their hands, and that includes Robert Murat.
July 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Papers are always full of inaccuracies - if they got sued for every one of them they’d all go out of business. Slapdash reporting is par for course; that’s just how it is, and only the very rich can afford to sue.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:26 am
As A mother who didn’t put my son into any care until he went to nursery at 3, I guess I find it odd that a mother who’s just lost her 4-year-old would put her two 2-year-olds into full-time care and then not just use that time to search and search, rather than just wander around the village. But yes maybe I was being unkind and she’s the last person who needs anyone to be unkind. These days working parents put their children into fulltime care from the first year onwards and I guess that’s how things are, but Kate McCann’s not working at the moment so I guess I just don’t understand why she doesn’t choose to spend more time with them.
Re whether the apartment was locked or not, it obviously wasn’t as they’d be moving heaven and earth to counter the vicious rumours that it was unlocked. Anyway, didn’t they say in the beginning that they left it unlocked because of fear of fire? Fire breaks out, smoke seeps into room, at least kids have the chance to get outside rather than perish in the room before anyone gets there. However, this doesn’t improve the impression one gets of their childcare skills because if you think there’s the slightest risk of fire breaking out then you don’t leave children this small on their own in the first place!
My doubts about the McCanns amount to a few key things.
Why did they turn down the babysitting service? The babysitters were taken from the group of creche carers so the children would have known them!
Why did Kate McCann say ‘they’ve taken her’? The door was unlocked; she couldn’t possibly know Madeleine hadn’t wandered.
Why did they wait for nearly an hour before phoning the police? After all, the first thing Kate McCann said was ‘they’ve taken her’, and even if they thought she’d wandered, someone could have snatched her so wouldn’t phoning the police be one of the very first things you’d do?
Why did Gerry McCann say ‘no comment’ when asked if he knew Murat?
The almost instant setting up of a private company is odd; most people who have lost a child in this way lack the ability to think straight rather than put their minds into setting up a company.
The ‘pact of silence’ between the friends, if true, is also very odd. It would seem to be true because none of them have spoken to the press. Why would they not speak to the press unless any of them had something to hide? They must have taken a joint decision not to speak to the press and something about this doesn’t smell right, especially in the light of Gerry McCann’s intensive courting of press and publicity.
Re Murat
Why did he first say he spent the evening with his girlfriend and then change his alibi to his mother’s (as reported today)? There were certainly reports a few weeks ago that he was running around desperate for an alibi.
Why did he appear urgent when he hired a car when the family already had several?
Why did he say he hadn’t seen Malinka for about a year but neglect to mention that he had spoken to him twice on the phone that evening?
As for the reported sightings of him that night, there’s too much conflicting evidence to work out what’s going on here. The McCann friends united in saying they saw him, but hotel staff and others who knew his face far better saying he definitely wasn’t there.
In other words, there are weirdnesses on both sides so one can’t help suspecting some kind of collusion. But then again why would the friends be doing everything in their power to implicate him?
July 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I thought this may be of interest to Anorak forum members. Sorry if it has already been posted.
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-pictures-from-praia-da-luz-crime.html
July 28th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I don’t know about the person who keeps claiming on this site that the door was locked but is there something to document that fact? Why then haven’t the McCanns asked the media, who appear to be friendly, to correct inaccurate information? I have read a lot of the info and there has been nothing so far in any of the articles or statements that stated the door was locked. Every article or statement I have read indicated the door was unlocked which makes me think if that many news sources got the info wrong there would have been a public correction by now? Also, Mr. McCann is likely aware that from a legal point of view leaving the doors unlocked ventures into negligent territory. As much access to press that he has I suspect he would state the doors were locked if they were. That’s just my guess. Personally, I don’t think at this point it matters to worry about the reputation of the parents. The goal for the parents now is to find Madeleine. I am just curious how the person posting that the door was locked obtained that information or if the goal is to intentionally mislead the public? I ask because a plan to intentionally mislead could create a problem for the McCanns. People will assume they have something to do with an intentional misrepresentation which will add to the problem concerning credibility.
Okay so Moderation asks which is it to be about Mrs. McCann. All I can say is I am unfamiliar with the culture of British mothers so I am not a good source to ask. Day care for children has been pushed hard in the country I live too since about the 1970’s. The theory was that children are better off learning from peers. Frankly, with children growing up in day care and social workers popping up on every corner I have only recognized more problems with the culture since mothers are not taking full care of children as in the past. I am not in a position to comment on Mrs. McCann because I do not know her. What I gather from the news is she is a heartbroken mother who hopes her child is found safe and returned. That I can easily relate to. Having three children three and under at the actual time of the abduction I would guess that Mrs. McCann could have been overwhelmed and needed additional help. From what I have read Mrs. McCann was not one to typically leave her children alone. Exactly what took place or created a feeling of safety on holiday which people have difficulty understanding is unclear. Again guessing but maybe having three young children it would have been difficult to carry all of them home from another location once they were asleep, uncomfortable leaving a strange babysitter in the apartment like she said, or just more convenient and she felt safe thinking her children sleep all night. Only Mrs. McCann can explain her reasoning. I don’t think people are being rude to compare what they would do with what she does. It is more likely people just can’t relate. Some people put children on buses while others won’t, some parents send children to boarding schools and others don’t, some parents think (or been conditioned) that day care is the best thing for children while others think children that age need a parent or family member full time. So there is more than one way to skin a cat and what works for one might not be the best for another. Do you think Mrs. McCann would leave the twins alone now? No, because she now realizes the reality of danger on a level that she obviously didn’t understand before the abduction. I live in a high crime country which requires a lot of worry about how to avoid becoming a victim. At the same time I can remember growing up in the same area and never having the same kind of worry. I think the McCanns felt safe for some reason that I can’t relate without having been there. Without knowing them it would be unfair for me to judge. I suspect they won’t ever feel safe again.
I have a question about the boat theory that we have been hearing about recently. If a man walked out of the apartment with Madeleine wrapped in a blanket then walked down the street to the beachfront did the sniff dogs pick up the scent?
Also, it is the news media that could be sued by Murat if he is in fact innocent. The news media doesn’t appear to bash the McCanns in the same way. Once the McCanns become public figures defending themselves becomes more difficult legally. With a worldwide Madeleine campaign the McCanns are likely public figures or soon will be. I have sympathy for them thinking they have to also learn the reality of becoming public figures at a time that is so obviously difficult.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Beam ne up Scotty….. no no no get the facts right.
The times they went to eat at the nearby Tapas Bar all the children in the group were left and there was a rota of the parents to check on all of them
One partuclar night, the McCanns went into town (a distance away) so their friends were babysitting for them that evening. That is when one of the children was heard crying.
Please don’t expect me to explain or enlarge any further, I wasn’t there and NEITHER WERE YOU
And a Tapas Bar in Spain / Portugal is a restaurant where you eat TAPAS.
Okay now? No need to be so angry. Its a waste of energy.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Poor old Kate McCann can’t win can she?
One minute she’s criticised for not scouring the streets for her daughter then when she does she’s criticised for not staying with the twins 24/7??
Make up your minds guys! which is it to be?
July 28th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Just read a heart-rending article about Kate McCann and how down and lost she’s feeling right now.. Your heart goes out to her, until you get to this bit:
“They are saying that all that matters is the twins until they get Madeleine back.
“They spend more time with them than ever. Kate is there at bath-time, lunch-time, dinner-time and bed-time. At the beginning, she wasn’t able to do that.”
I’m sorry but I just don’t understand why she would want to be wandering around Praia de Luz on her own when her two little two-year-olds are bundled into the creche five or six days a week? Why not just spend more time with the children? They’ll be at school soon enough, they’re little for such a short time, why not spend more time with them now, especially in light of what’s happened? They’ve lost their big sister so why can’t they see more of their mother? The Portuguese must think English parents are very strange, even under these circumstances.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Oh so sometimes friends babysat because sometimes it was OK to leave the kids alone and sometimes it wasn’t. glad you cleared that up moderation. but does raise the idea that sometimes the twins cried, even with someone there, scared or missed their parents maybe but at least there was someone to reassure, comfort and cuddle them. But when the children were alone they didnt cry? yeh, sure. But who would know because there was only the 3 toddlers there wasn’t there?. So if Maddie was sedated for her sleepwalking she couldn’t comfort the twins could she and why should she? ,shes just a baby herself. So knowing their kids might wake up and cry for them ,these devoted parents go out every night and have a good time. And if i sound like im not touched by the McCann’s ’suffering’ im not. There’s only 3 people that get any sympathy from me and that’s Maddie who I dont think will ever be found and the twins. as as they grow up they will realise that they could have also vanished because their parents put a night out above their children’s safety and comfort. Im pro-Maddy and anti-McCann which i think a lot of people are
July 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
someone was talking about a different night when the McCanns went into town and someone in another apartment heard one of the children crying. Apparently their friends were babysitting that night….
I was just explaining the explanation!
Don’t shoot the messenger!!!
July 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Ive been offline for a few days so am a bit behind. whats ‘ moderation’ on about that one of their friends were babysitting and one of the twins was crying at being left?.surly its been proved the kids were alone that’s why Maddie went missing!!!! I’ve not heard about the chapa’s bar. but here’s something I’ve just read. One of their friends (from the group of 3) states they saw a man -one identifies him as Murat -looking in the apartment window. I find it odd they didnt Do something. wouldn’t you think one of them would say’ I’ll stay here you better go tell the McCanns about it” And if it were true why didnt the parents see it. weren’t they suppose to have the door under constant surveillance?.or at least when you get to the bar you’d tell them wouldn’t you?. If you didnt well you are as much to blame as her parents. Now if her parents were told about this ‘peeping man’ why didnt they race out to check on their kids, but it seems they carried on with their partying. Another thought were they inside or sitting outside? if they were inside would they see anything?. Its things like this that are destroying the Mccann’s credibility. evasion, half truths, miss direction,
July 27th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I’ve always said right from the start that Gerry’s incredible arrogance (my interpretation - sorry Jane
) was exactly what I would expect to see from a Consultant.
I’m not a nurse myself, but I was brought up around medical people and have had a fair bit to do with Consultants from a patient’s point of view as well unfortunately… and they really do consider themselves to be some kind of superior lifeform! It has been my misfortune to encounter several who consider it well within their rights to speak to other staff and patients in a manner which, anywhere else but the NHS, would lead to dismissal for Gross Misconduct!
It doesn’t make it right though
And it certainly doesn’t endear him to people.
Molly
July 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Fair enough, Jane, and I hope you’re right.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hmm, this does make me suspicious, on reflection. The paper that banned the critical comments because of a barrage of complaints from readers - could these readers have been just a few people emailing under different names, hired by the McCanns?
I did think the barrage of complaints sounded odd. It would have been totally understandable in the beginning when nobody had really begin to question the McCanns, but now? When the internet is rife with speculation? People are either beginning to forget about the whole thing because there’s been no news about Madeleine, or they’re becoming increasingly critical. A sudden barrage of support for the McCanns’ integrity does look a bit odd in the current climate.
July 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Jane, you said “I am genuine on here. I hate slander and I hate injustice. It was unjust Madeleine was left alone and without protection but its equally unjust for someone to think they can enter your holiday home and help themselves to your child. She wasn’t theirs to take. And no matter what the McCanns are guilty of, she is THEIR DAUGHTER. She’s been missing for too long and they are suffering. FFS give them a break with the slurs. It helps nobody, especially not Madeleine.”
My sentiments exactly! Well said Jane.