Madeleine McCann, Robert Murat And PC Porn
MADELEINE McCann is missing. Still missing. And news. It is that Robert Murat used his computer for something more than looking up property prices and football results on the web.
As the Sun’s front-page headline screams: “MADDIE SUSPECT HAD KID PORN.”
Ever since Madeline went missing, child pornography and paedophilia have been the tabloids’ main line of speculation.
No meaningful debate on “every parent’s worst nightmare” has been had in the past two weeks. There have been no calls for a paedophile amnesty, a period of grace in which anyone with child porn on their PC or in their locker can contact the authorities and explain how they came by it without fear of being branded and charged. The police could then trace the material to source and catch the evil profiteers.
What we have is finger-pointing and the news that Robert Murat “visited a string of depraved sites”. And this is Murat who lives “yards” from the holiday flat where Madeleine was snatched. Or Maddie, as the Sun insists on calling her.
For those of you not yet familiar with Murat’s face, the Sun produces a shot of suspect No. 1, the only suspect. Beneath it runs the legend “web filth”.
The Mirror says: “The police haven’t told the family what is on Murat’s computer, they want to shield them..” Readers learn that Gerry McCann has been “made aware of the development” and that Kate McCann “is being completely protected from the nature of the web links”.
Until now. Until she reads the Mirror.
But what’s this? A police source tells us: “There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine. But officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history.’”
Why Murat should choose to look at such things - if indeed he did choose to and did not stumble upon them – suggests much. But if this is the sum of the evidence then are the police to search the logs of every computer in a, say, 50 mile radius of the McCanns’ holiday apartment? Will anyone found in possession of “web filth” become a suspect?
And if questions are asked, perhaps co-workers can step forward and say how they always thought such and such was a wrong ‘un.
Murat’s ex-boss Paul Titcombe calls his former employee “a huge porn fan addicted to women”. And once again we invite the police to question men who look at porn and who are obsessed by sex. It threatens to be a big job, huge even - it may even involve the police looking at some of their own - but it is vital that it is done if this mystery is to be solved.
“Paul also suspected Murat had an unhealthy interest in children,” notes the Sun. Interesting. But, sadly, the Sun does not enlarge on this. The usually loquacious Titcombe is not quoted. Examples are not cited.
And Murat remains the chief suspect – the only suspect…
May 28th, 2007 at 10:00 am
IF Murat is ever charged, there is no way that he will get a fair trialnow because of the media circus that has covered this case.
I am really disguisted with the way that the UK media are showing a total disregard for Portugese law by publishing details such as this when they have been told that they would be damaging the police investigation.
This really is no news at all. I would imagine that a very high percentage of single males have used the interent to browse pornographic material at some point, and by ‘Kid Porn’ what do they mean. Technically anyone under the age of 18 can be classified as a child in some countries, so that headline can be misleading. In any case, I do not think that The Sun or whatever newspaper should be printing details such as this. I find it irnoic that the papers are hoping to shield Mrs McCan’t form this news…yet then print it all over the front page!
May 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
the case has been handled by the Portugese police like maybe they dont care i think its time to say up yours portugal if your happy to drag your feet over this case we will move it forward ourselfs i think this missing child needs the media and if we want her back things need to be done. I know its not porugals fault that this child was taken but there have not really done much to show other parents any confidence in bringing there kids to there country i know i will never bring my kids to a counrty that acts slow in an obduction senario. Mr Muret needs to get on a lie detctor quock if you ask me and one point everyone should understand just because your in to porn does not mean your a danger to anyone i like adult porn alot when i am out of a relationship and i would never do any kind of sex crime,
May 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I don’t give a crap what anyone’s “excuse” is for having child porn on their computer. Give me a $(U%)%U*)%* break!
May 28th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I agree that capturing of child pornographic mages and looking at the same are very henious, dispicable acts.
There is research to suggest, however, that the vast majority of child sex offenders are not actually paedophiles in the true sense of the word, so looking at child pornography - as horrible and wrong as it is - does not necessarily mean that the person looking at it is likely to commit such an act against a child.
However, this is The Sun thatwe are talking about. Does anyone actually believe what they print? If Robrt Murat is cleared of any involvement in this caseI think he will clean up against the UK media, and I would not blame him for doing so. Of course, whoever is responsible for this act - be it Murat or anyone else - should be treated with accordingly under Portugese law.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Child porn - if the crime is to be eradicated, the people - criminals - who make the distribute the images are the ones to catch. The sick look and store images. The criminals make them and sell them.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
So Paul, you like ‘adult porn alot’ do you, and you would never ‘do any kind of sex crime’? The same can be said for Robert Murat - if he has links to websites on his computer, and as his loyal ex-employer has pointed out, he is allegedly a huge porn fan, addited to WOMEN - he is no more likely to ‘do’ a sex crime than you are is he? So far there is no link with Robert Murat and any paedophile websites - a different matter altogether. The Portuguese police are not dragging their feet, they are acting in accordance with their country’s constitution which is still shaking off the constrictions of a Fascist dictatorship which ended a little over 30 years ago - a point which has clearly escaped the British gutter media who have totally disregarded the laws of a country which they have been living and working in for the best part of a month.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
A few things should be put in place all over the world in countries where people vacation. These laws should be put in place to protect visitors and their children from deviants who look at child pornography, possess child pornography, attempt to solicit sex with minors or are found engaging in sex with minors. The following information should be made easily accessible by tourist who ask. they should be allowed to view this information at a police station within 24 hours of their arrival at their vacation destination.
1- Anyone found with kiddie porn, soliciting sex from minors or sexually abusing minors should be arrested immediately. Whatever laws apply for such acts should be enforced. If there are no laws in some countries at the very least photos, prints and notifications to surrounding countries should be made.
2- Their passport should be marked for all custom agencies in all countries to see and identify that person as a child molester.
3- Their picture and prints along with a description of what they did should be put into a worldwide database under “pedophiles”. that database should be accessible to all customs in all airports and all police around the world.
4- Every country that person enters and exits should be able to track that persons whereabouts at any given time.
5- It should be a requirement for all sex offenders to register with the local authorities of whatever country, city, and town they will be staying.
6-once that person enters a country customs should alert all police in that country electronically of that persons arrival. A new photo should be taken. That persons picture with a set of prints should be sent to all police stations in that country and all border patrol.
7- These people should not be allowed to stay anywhere near tourists or children.
If EVERYONE around the world really wanted to get serious about protecting the children they would do it already. This is a no brainer. I think that this stuff is big business and probably in high demand. Sickos know where to go to get what they want. It really makes me wonder why measures like the ones I’ve listed above haven’t already been put in place……
JVL
May 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Two points to consider in relation to your ‘no brainer’ system….
1- There is a huge difference between a paedophile and a child sex offender.
2- Most cases of child sex abuse occurs within the family unit.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Well, it was inevitable, wasn’t it? The tabloids certainly think so. Still, if the travesty of justice a.k.a ‘Operation Ore’ is anything to go by, things are never quite that simple. I’m sure you remember the lurid headlines at time - ‘250,000 child-porn suspects’ was the cry. Funny then, with the majority of them being Americans, ‘an all, that the the US authorities arrested only 150 suspects and charged even fewer, compared to the completely staggering 2,500+ UK citizens so far fingered by the over-zealous UK police in Ore. Other countries with names also the infamous list have arrested and charged still fewer than the Americans as a result of the whole sorry affair.
Hmmm. And now Bob Murat is a ‘child porn addict’. Or something, but the tabloids are never quite sure what. They have damned him. They have made sure to shut the door on any last chance of a normal life IF he is eventually dropped from the inquiry. Just say the magic words ‘child porn’ and point a finger in public and another life falls by the wayside.
But the questions are never going to go away. Was protocol followed? Were the siezed items tampered with, the evidence interefered with? Are the press reporting this correctly or skewing the story with their own agenda? What exactly were these ‘vile’ websites Murat is said to have had ‘links’ to on his PC?
Who knows? The tabloids don’t. But that hasn’t stopped them drawing their own paper-selling conclusions. How we British seem to love our kiddie-fiddling news stories over our bowl of Rice Krispies…
Proof is all that’s needed here - incontravertible, demonstrable proof. Until then, I have no idea if Murat is the man responsible for the little girl’s disappearance or absolutely nothing to do with it at all and nothing so far ‘reported’ in the gutter press has changed my mind on any of it. But for Murat, if he is ultimately innocent, it’s way past too late…
May 28th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Studies have shown that child porn is often the ‘trigger’ that leads to child abuse/murder. I’d say that anyone looking at chld porn will ruin
their character, standards and reputation, and will be more likely to commit a sex crime. People who knew them in the past thought they were so ‘nice’ but the child porn etc is like cancer to previous good character. Better to avoid it like the plague. What a man looks at and watches is a fairly good indication of his character–chld porn–woe–watch out mate–to the general public everything looks fine on the outside of the man, but inside his mind darkness and a predator who preys on kids.
Yes, Murat needs to visit Mr Lie Test very fast in order to clear his name. The police wouldn’t have swooped on his house and smashed walls down on a whim. They were looking for Madeline. Murat’s character is that of a fox–sly, cunning, calculating–he’s ahead of the police at the min, but sooner or later the truth will come crashing down on his head.
Criminal profilers would tell you that Murat would be their prime suspect as well. The case all points to a local man like Murat, who knows the area, noticing that the McCann’s were careless with their child-minding, and decides to strike when the opportunity presents itself. His phone call to his Russian computer expert late at night after Madeline disappeared–’got a victim’ ?? Why did he need a car so urgently a day later? To dispose of evidence?
If he’s innocent, then why not take a lie test? What’s he got to hide? Murder?
The main priority in this case is to find Madeline and if people get trod on in the process, then it has to be done. If the media hadn’t kept the pressure on the police, then perhaps they may have tried to sweep it all under the carpet like many other similar cases in Portugal. Perhaps all of this will change the way countries deal with child abduction leading to faster response times. In the U.S studies show that in many child abduction cases the child will be murdered within 3 hours of going missing, so they have to mobilise the police asap. In a wicked heart dominated by child porn there won’t be any mercy.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Phil - you are incorrect to say that child pornography is the ‘trigger’ in leading to child murders.
Only between 2% and 10% of child sex offences are commited by those who would be classified as paedophiles (and would therefore view child pornography) whilst the remainder is often perpetrated by ‘non’ paedophiles, those who seemingly have a ‘natural’ sex life, in that they are sexually attracted to straight females. (as the huge majority of these offences are commited by hetrosexual males).
The reason that children are offended against is that they provide an easire target than adults, and as such the chance of getting caught are much lower. The child is often used as a surrogate for the true object of their desires, be that a adult female or whatever.
It is a horrible discussion to have, but there is a very important difference.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Murrat???? Having “child porn” on his PC certainly don’t do him any favours!!!!!!! As surely NO normal person has such things, right!!! Coupled with the fact he made several late night calls to the Russian computer guy, on May 3rd….. and both refuse to comment on this????? Not forgetting the Russian cleaned his hardrive totally before the police took it away??? Then the episode with Murrat needing a rental car a few days after little Madeleine’s abduction???? Last but not least…. he refuses to take a lie detecter test???? IF he has nothing to hide and indeed want to clear his name, as he claims…. would that not be the simplest way?? There is something very very disturbing about Murrat!!!!!!
May 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
the lie detector test was offered by the Mirror…would YOU trust the Daily Mirror?!
the story re: child porn is being run by The Sun and I have not een it anywhere else, are you going to believe The Sun?!
Murat and Malinko are not allowed to comment on the case details under Portugese law.
Murat does not need to clear his name - he is innocent until proven guilty.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
as i said before, the dude “looks” like a child molester and deserves to be skinned alive and hung up from a tree by his wrinkled gonads for just being a creepy dude, let alone the fact he had child porn on his computer.
if anyone wants my services, for this dude i’d do it for free. i’d pay the air fare and it will be swift, his gonads will be highly strung, i’d get a confession out of him.
a mate of mine had a paedophile living next door to him here in switzerland, a british chap, i swear to god, the first time i saw murat it made me think of that chap, he had the same look, the same posture, the same weird aura.
bogan ferral dude.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
ross… you worry me dude !
are you a pervert ?
May 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Agree with you Phil.
And Ross, just what is your point about there being a huge difference between a child sex offender and a paedophile? Is it really the case that so many men look at child porn websites, we are unable to draw any link between Murat and missing Madeleine? If thats the case, its a sad state of affairs we live in today.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’ll put things in simple terms (I know some of you read the News of The World)
Paedophile - someone who has sexual urges towards a child.
Child sex offender - someone who commits sexual acts towards a child. Between 90-98% of child sex offenders are NOT paedophiles, they have sexual urges towards adult females, but as they are unable to fulfill their urges commit sexual acts towards a child., as children present as ‘easier’ targets.
I am not condoning either group, but it is innaccurate to think that child sex offences are only commited by paedophiles..this is a red top myth. The vast majority of cases also occur within the family setting.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
there’s absolutely no difference!
a chile sex offender IS a paedophile.
anyone claiming otherwise in my opinion is highly suspect.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Ross…..actually the “child porn” issue has also been in Spanish papers!!! IF in Murrats situation and IF I had nothing to hide…. SURE I would welcome a lie detecter test from The Mirror!!! The 2 guys have had plenty to say…. despite the secrecy law, and indeed NONE of it added up!!!!!! You seem very protective towards these individuals???????
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
bollox.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
the bollox was for ross.
i think ross is also a paedo.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
sorry ross but in my book ( and i dont read news of the world ) someone with sexual urges towards a child is a potential paedophile. I grew up in the middle east where the men like sheep, goats and children, i was a blond haired white skinned child so i was targettedmore than once. i have four children, and if anyone comes close to them who is either one of your paedophiles or one of your child sex abusers, i would quite happily remove them from this planet.
there is the text book definition, and there is reality.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
unfortunately i don’t/can’t read the spanish press, but I’ll take your word for it.
http://www.shfri.net/trans/lautmann/lautmann.htm
Evidence of the link - or lack thereof - between paedophilia and child sex offenders.
I am not ‘protecting’ anyone, it is just that in my profession I happen to have to know quite a bit about these subjects.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Ross - we’re wasting our time trying to use logic and common sense with these Sun-reading muppets.
They condemn anyone who doesn’t say “OMG SIK PEADOFYLZ DUN KILD MADLIN. CUM BAK MADDEEYY!!!1111 x X x X WE LUVZ U!”
If their kids are the future of Britain, then with any luck Darwin is watching out for them.
Oi, Fraggles, where are YOUR kids while you sit posting invective filled drivel about paedophiles?
BTW Bogan, Phil, etc. - please be aware that in most countries a naked 17 year old is considered ‘child porn’. Think of that next time you’re cracking one out over Page 3. Sickos.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
anti idiot.
you are an arrogant fuckwit.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Gold star on using an instead of a!
May 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
fortunately where i live i cant buy gutter english press. so i am saved from page 3 shit., zurich does have its equivalents though.
look… why split hairs.
ross… anti idiot dude, do you have kids ?
would you leave them alone with a paedophile… ross.. would you leave your kid with anti idiot, and you anti idiot, if your not ross… wouls you leave a kid with ross ? i expect not.
anti idiot, the name you have chosen shows me immediately that you have a predisposition to labelling people as an idiot.
ross… you have an issue with kiddy fiddlers.
perhaps both your names show your inner selves.
bogan.
yes i am a bogan at heart.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
So they have a description of a man seen holding potentially Madeleine McCann .. Is anyone aware that there is a picture that has been used widely by the media since nearly ay one that clearly shows Murat in beige trousers and also sporting black shoes supported by a middle sized build
May 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
No, I wouldn’t leave any kids under my care with a paedophile….likewise I wouldn’t leave them unattended in an unlocked appartment whilst I was out on the piss!
May 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“Ross Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
The reason that children are offended against is that they provide an easire target than adults, and as such the chance of getting caught are much lower. The child is often used as a surrogate for the true object of their desires, be that a adult female or whatever.”
I don’t know what profession you are claiming to be in that bestows upon you some authorative knowledge of the subject. There’s no expertise demonstrated here.