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…
Posted: 28th, May 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (107) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 am
7777
July 30th, 2007 at 5:10 am
In response to someone posting named me
Oh it is hard to sort all the information printed. There is some info I think appears probably true but some info I reject that could end up true, all a process that is difficult and risky for everyone until the facts are known. No doubt you are the most trusting news reader I have noticed so far.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:23 am
[...] suspect in the Madeleine McCann disappearance, Robert Murat, did according to The Suns front page headlines, have kiddie porn on his computer. More HERE. [...]
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
“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.”
Why wouldn’t the Portuguese police do that then? Over here Plod has just jackbooted its way into a pensioner’s house at 2am to find Madeleine. Of course, that wasn’t on a whim, a psychic told them to do it.
Murat complained to the Portuguese police about being followed after suntanned bimbo hack Lori Campbell had grassed him up because he ‘looked creepy’. Murat had challenged the police and Portuguese men do not like being challenged. Think Jose Mourinho, if you will. Now they have a real suspect, and after being laughed at by our press when their first suspect turned out to be a boiled egg, they’re not going to give up on him easily.
As for the child porn, this whole debate assumes he did actually have some on his PC. But the information was published in the Sun, quoting a police ’source’. The same police who are sworn to secrecy.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am
I assume you’re not talking about me, Jo. I can assure you, Ross and I are not the same person.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
How ridiculous - making up names to post congratulations to yourself so it looks like people actually agree with you. Too bad it didn’t work Ross -aka aka aka.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Ross -
you need to come up with a formula if you want to re-educate Jo, Debz and the other
members of KIllZaTPEdo.
Try this, three or four giant words with at least one juicy, “KIDDIE” is a good one,
there are twenty or so tried and tested ones in existence according to the WIKI
“tabloid editor” entry.
Two possibly three but certainly not four paragraphs, keep it emotive and always
assume the reader is eleven or under (pre-pubescent if you like). And never give
them too much detail, NEVER!! Like Jo said “this is not the Times Education
Supplement”.
If they can’t digest the basics in 10-15 seconds with Jeremy Kyle blaring in the
background you will lose em, they may even turn nasty and frustrated if you expose
them to knowledge they cannot possibly grasp. Intellectual inadequacy exposure
syndrome (IIES) is on the rise and it’s dangerous to them and to your message, avoid
it. If you want them tuned in simply - make em feel bright by serving up shite,
works like a charm.
Good luck, it’s tough but like I always say, thicker skulls just mean we all must
crack on!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Damn straight it ain’t the TES, that’s pretty obvious from the deluge of brainless outpourings on here.
I think Ross and Anti have made some interesting and pertinent points. Of course they’re right to illustrate the distinctions between paedophiles, ephebophiles and child molesters when we’re discussing a case of this nature, although to be honest, Ross, I think your ‘breath’ may be wasted here. Personally, I come back for the poetry. Check out these gems (from here:http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/tabloids/173352.html#comment-3477)!
Mick Says:
May 30th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
A little girl, no more than three
Before a few, now millions see.
Two eyes unique to all she knew
Now so many for a mass to view.
Dont just look down but left and right
Any there she maybe in your sight.
Because of you she could come home fine
Lets hope she does sweet Madeleine.
Ian Says:
May 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
There was a glass eyed man name murat
Who appeared a bit of a twat
It wasnt me I was home alone
so why was he on the mobile phone
to a russian man who lives all alone.
and kiddy porn on his pc so now cant you see
what these twats apeear to be
Just sick pedos living near to the sea.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
Ross,
Don’t bother. Your style of teaching really doesn’t work and anyway, this isn’t the Times Educational Supplement.
And the answer to your question is - yes of course you are assisting the publicity - ask any spin doctor.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Me trying to educate some of the ‘OH MMUY GAWD. THEM DURRRTY PEEDOFILE’S TOUK OUR MADDY’ brigade is hardly assisting in the publicity of the case, is it?!
May 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Ross/Anti-idiot
What’s your point? that paedophile means something different than child sex offender in a particular context? Do parents care? Would you have either one babysitting your children?
Ross is laughable if only because he has jumped up and down more than anyone about the unjustified (he says) publicity this family is getting and yet has been instrumental in keeping these threads alive - you seem to spend hours on here in one forum or another. Oh the irony of it….
May 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I can’t believe some of the opinions of people on here. People are not just ‘picked up’ as suspects, even by the ‘poor desperate portugeuese police’, there is always a link, there has to be a starting point.
Robert Murat ‘fits’ every piece of information being reported by the media. He acted suspiciously from day one, he was talking to a computer expert within 30 minutes of madeleine’s disappearence, he ‘mentioned to a reporter that he ‘thought Madeleine had been taken to Northern Spain’ - why Northern Spain? Why not somewhere else in Europe? Did he know already? Statistics show that child abductions are mostly by people known to the family or by those who live nearby. He lived nearby. It now emerges that another witness ’saw a man carrying a child at the suspiciously at on the night and at the time of Madeleines abduction, and thought to be Madeleine. The description of this man again ‘fits’ Robert Murat. I believe the truth will out. There are too many connections to him. He may not have been alone but he sure knows something, it is staring us in the face. Stories might very well become embroidered but they need a starting point, together with threads, to keep them in place. I think we will eventually see the truth. I also believe Madeleine will be coming home.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Hello …
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HelpMadeleine/
Worth a sig?
Jeff
May 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Auntie Idiot! Excellent post once again, however…beware the backlash that is surely on it’s way from the ‘LETS KULL ALL PEEEDOFILES’ brigade!
Gemma - how can you be sure you dont already spend time with a paedophile? The bar man, a guy at work, your milk man etc
Approximately 30% of adult males admit to have had sexual feelings toward a child at some point in their life. Thse are just those brave enough to admit it during research!
Taking the 30% figure to be correct, that means almost 1 in 3 males you have encountered have had thes urges. that is not to say they are paedophiles, but it is an interesting point none the less. Most adults only have these thoughts during adolescence, and in the process of growing up these thoughts disappear, as many sexual feelings do at this stage of life.
My point is this - paedophilia is the state of having thoughts towards children, and whilst I am not condoning anyone acting upon these thoughts, there is nothing you can do to make thoughts of one kind or another illegal.
Surely it is better for society to provie support for people with thes tendancies rather than simply driving them underground, where they become more and more frustrated.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Anti_idiot Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Gemma - what I meant was that the paedophile would use material that aroused him, not Razzle. It’s often something ‘innocent’ like the Argos catalogue to be honest. That may have been lost in translation a bit there..
Plus I didn’t pay any attention to that, I know what you meant - but thanks anyway!
Right I am going promise. Good luck with it all.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Yes, Like I said, I am not disagreeing with factual information about paedophiles, ephebophiles or child molesters……………To be honest, I haven’t the inclination nor the energy to continue my quest for answers. But bravo to you both for attempting to teach those less informed than you about the differences. Fact is, I wouldn’t particularly like to hang out with any of them. All these forums seem a bit ghoulish to me and has made me feel a bit ill at ease. So I am off, I can see how easy it is for you to have all become so addicted. Hopefully we can all take a break to think about what’s going all in realtime. My eyes are going funny, never mind your fingers.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Gemma - what I meant was that the paedophile would use material that aroused him, not Razzle. It’s often something ‘innocent’ like the Argos catalogue to be honest. That may have been lost in translation a bit there..
Anyway - you asked “Just don’t really understand what point you are attempting to make. It doesn’t make any difference if someone’s sexual taste ‘isn’t usually children’ when they use a child to satisfy their sexual urges, or if they don’t particularly usually fantasize about what they see when they view child pornography. There is no argument there, and it has no relevance to this case.”
It’s wholly relevant. In every discussion thread about this case people bandy about the word ‘paedophile’ (or some badly spelled variant), “Sick paedos have Maddie” or “a paedo ring has her”, or “kill all paedos”, “make paedophilia illegal” etc.
Because of the tabloid hysteria and lack of facts, people automatically assume that a paedophile=child molester. It’s simply not the case. How can you make a thought illegal? How can you kill everyone who’s ever thought sexually about a child? As distasteful as it may seem to you, it is not justification to kill someone.
I’ll lay it out again:
Paedophile - someone with sexual attraction to prepubescents
Ephebophile - someone with sexual atraction to post-pubescents
Child molester - someone who sexually assaults a child
Now of course there will be overlap, of course *some* paedophiles will attack children, but that doesn’t mean that all child molesters are paedophiles! A true paedophile, by their very nature would rarely be able to have a relationship with an adult female, especially to the point of procreation, yet most children are molested by their fathers or stepfathers.
Child molesters are predominantly white, male, heterosexuals in positions of power, such as a father, uncle, family friend, teacher etc. They molest not because they are attracted to children, but because of a pathological inability to direct anger and frustration anywhere else. It’s the power that they get the kick from, it’s just that a child is easier to manipulate and less likely to cause problems than an adult female or male, so they take it out on the child. This is not indicative of paedophilia or any other paraphilia, just an abuse of power.
The media attitude, and the attitude shown by some of the more rabid posters here, is part of a growing misconception that there’s a nonce on every corner, waiting to spirit off Jimmy and Suzie, when there isn’t. Jimmy and Suzie are far more at risk from their parents or guardians. The media is once again propagating the very dangerous myth that only paedophiles abuse children, and that paedophiles are odd-looking, shifty perverts lurking in every park in the land.
Guess what this results in? That’s right, people discovering they have attraction to children, but being afraid to ask for help and therapy, in case they’re put on some register, or outed to their neighbours and lynched, despite committing no crime. They feel alienated, have nowhere to turn to. Every time they open a paper it’s paedo-this and paedo-that, meanwhile all the blokes actually molesting their own kids are going unnoticed because the camera eye is turned outward. The lone paedophile may then go online, find other people to talk to, be introduced to child porn, be more desperate than ever for help. Eventually a sense of normality sets in, they become complacent and are arrested and jailed for viewing child porn. Horrible, yes, and quite right that there should be reparations for that, but they also need serious therapy and rehabilitation. Our offender, on admitting he is attracted to children is placed on a sex offender’s register for life, meanwhile the music teacher at the local comp. is still abusing the 11 year olds who he gives music lessons to, as he has done for the last 20 years.
The difference between those who are paedophiles who look at child porn, and the actual people out there huting children is vast. Just because there is an inevitable crossover it doesn’t mean that only people who view porn will attack children, and that everyone else is safe. It doesn’t mean that only paedophiles attack children, again it’s quite the opposite, but “Respectable father and city worker impregnates 13 year old daughter” isn’t as good a headline as “Police in kiddy porn sting on Village nonce”.
One last thought to leave you with - Operation Ore.
Bloody hell my fingers hurt after typing all that.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
‘Gemma -
No one is trying to justify sex offences against children!
You are stifling debate by attempting to insinuate that anyone who has any knowledge of this area must be involved in these acts or is defedning such acts.’
Eh??? No I’m not?! I completely agree and understand with the facts you are stating - I just wanted to know what your point was, I’m not stifling anything, I’m merely asking questions.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
well- I’m glad we all agree that viewing child pornography is wrong.
Yes Gemma, in the context of poor Madeleine, it is pretty irrelevant what someone’s label might be, though I think it is a valid point in general that most child abuse happens in the home. Everyone who abuses children, no matter what their individual labels might be, should all be locked away together, well away from decent society and children, with no possibility of return.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Gemma -
No one is trying to justify sex offences against children!
You are stifling debate by attempting to insinuate that anyone who has any knowledge of this area must be involved in these acts or is defedning such acts.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
ross mate, you’re giving yourself away. Go and watch Sabrina the Teenage witch and calm yourself down…
May 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
What I am confused about is what difference it makes, with or without the label of a being a ‘paedophile’ when acting out child sexual abuse or viewing child porn. What is your argument? Just don’t really understand what point you are attempting to make. It doesn’t make any difference if someone’s sexual taste ‘isn’t usually children’ when they use a child to satisfy their sexual urges, or if they don’t particularly usually fantisize about what they see when they view child pornography. There is no argument there, and it has no relevance to this case.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The problems lies with the assumption that paedophiles view child pornography. Often they do not, and simply fantasize in their mind.
Paedophiles often are disguistd by their own feelings, leading them to become involved in regular, hetrosexual relationships or isolating themselves from society, preventing anyone from getting close enough to them to know that they ‘like kids’ for fear of being branded a child sex offender.
Viewing child pornography IS wrong, it enables people to continue to abuse children in order to produce such horrendous material. I do not think that Anti_Idiot was saying that it was acceptabl, and I’m sure she wil be able to make that clear when she next posts.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
yes I can’t disagree with that Ross, it wasn’t something you said that really concerns me- it is this quote from Anti Idiot:
———————————–
…The fact is that in normal circumstances, porn is a healthy outlet. Normal guy is horny? He knocks one out to Razzle, he doesn’t rape the first woman he encounters. Someone with paedophilic/ephebophilic tendencies gets horny? He usually does the same. It’s only damaged individuals who turn their attentions toward other people, be they children or adults. Child molesters usually aren’t paedophiles. Paedophiles are usually solely attracted to prepubescents…
————————————
If anti idiot is saying that someone with paedophilic/ephebophilic will “knock one out” to Razzle, fair enough- a healthy outlet. But he goes on to say “Paedophiles are usually solely attracted to prepubescents” therefore I assume he means they will “knock one out” to child pornography. That makes them culpable in the abuse of children, whether or not they have physically abused a child- they are part of the insidious network, part of the supply and demand. That is not morally excusable.
I am concerned with what I see as a creeping social acceptance of the viewing of child pornography as being excusable, because the viewer isn’t acting on their perversion. That is so wrong because a child is abused for the images to exist. Looking at images of child pornography is not like watching a violent movie (all special effects), it is watching a crime, the degradation of a child, an abuse in process. All those who look at such images should be locked up along with the abusers.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
My point is that paedophiles are not necessarily child sex offenders, approximately 2-10% of child sex offenders are paedophiles.
I have said many times that the information relating to this is widely available, it is just that the media misrepresent the truth yet again in order to add to out ‘fear’ culture.
Failing that Gemma maybe you could read the Guradian articles that you are referring to or watch some c4 documentaries, if you are still confused,
May 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
So Ross, you’re making statements that anyone with a degree of an intelligence could also make if they’d read enough Guardian articles or watched C4 documentaries. But what point exactly are you trying to make? I’m confused.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Kath - you have misread, or perhaps misunderstood.
I am not claiming that looking at child pornography is a victimless crime - it is not. Every child that is photographed in such a manner is abused by the process.
What I am saying is that paedophiles - who are attracted to children and MAY look at child pornography - are a lot, lot less likely to commit child sex offences than the media would lead the public to believe.
The biggest threat to children are the family arround them, people who are in the main male, hetrosexual and can abuse their position of trust. Their aim in commiting their offences is not the child (in the vast majority of cases) but the child is used as a surrogate for the object of their true desires.
John - there is plenty being said about the parnts in other threads!
May 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Not much is being said about the parents leaving a child on their own .We all know whats out there lurking.Is leaving a child on there own becoming normal in this selfish age
May 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Zzzzzzz Maddie… ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz still boring.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:10 am
If I have misread them I apologise, but I get the impression that Ross and Anti Idiot are saying that looking at child pornography is not a crime, even equating it to adult porn as a form of release for the viewer (that is if the viewer’s preference is child porn), and it doesn’t lead to child abuse.
That is so irrelevant- if there is an image of child porn a child has been abused. By searching out, downloading and viewing the image, the viewer becomes part of the chain in the crime. The porn may not lead to them abusing per se, but them viewing it leads from abuse of a child- so how can it be morally excused.
If I pay someone to kill another person so that I can have their kidney then I am morally responsible. If someone shares in these images they are morally responsible for the abuse.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Jo - I referenced Lautmann whilst Anti_Idiot has spoken about Langevin.
These are - OBVIOUSLY - two different people!
Have a lovely day!