Madeleine McCann Suspect Robert Murat’s DNA Tests
ROBERT Murat is in hiding, says the Sun.
Of course, little has been seen of the No.1 and only suspect in the Madeleine McCann case since his name was linked with her abduction. Since the time a Mirror journalist found him creepy; since his old boss told us of Murat’s fetish for bouncy castles; since we learned of his love triangle.
Would any man or woman among us show themselves when accused of a heinous crime?
Nothing should be read into Murat’s laying low, but much will be. Just as much has been read into his unusually high profile when Madeleine McCann was the lead news story and he was acting as translator.
(There is not a single mention of Madeleine McCann in most of the papers - the Express does, however, report on the woman arrested for making bogus door-to-door collections for the fund set up to help find Madeleine, and the Sun’s story: “MADDIE COPS BOTCH SUSPECT’S DNA TEST.”)
The Sun has little time for the Portuguese police - mainly because the Portuguese police have little or no time for the Sun. And now the Sun brings us new of how the local plod has erred.
Only recently, Murat’s legal representative was telling us of his client’s hopes that DNA evidence found at the McCanns’ apartment would clear him.
Now Murat has provided the police with a second sample. Murat has been swabbed and his sample is being compared with DNA retrieved from the McCann’s holiday apartment. The results will be known in the fullness of time.
The Tabloid Crucible
And why was the second sample taken? The Sun says because Portuguese police “may have” have lost it. Or they may have not.
The Sun hears Olegario Sousa, the police spokesman, say “the first sample may not have been large enough, may have been contaminated or even LOST”.
The Sun says this is “bungle”. But there is no proof of a bungle. There is only a suggestion of a possible error. And, in any case, what criminal jury would convict Murat on the strength of one sample of his DNA?
To non Sun readers it would seem that the Portuguese police are checking their facts, endeavouring to get it right.
Meanwhile, Robert Murat’s denial is now part of the story. We don’t know if he is guilty. But we know his name. And can that be right?
Posted: 6th, June 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (44) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Marcus Lamar Walker on Michael Jackson’s Five Questions For Derek Acorah, Video
- June on The Rise And Fall Of The Berlin Wall In Photos
- Di on X Factor: Olly Murs Look-Alike Gallery
- eggman on After Chicago Oprah’s Aha Moment Comes Too Late For Alan Partridge
- eggman on Euro Lottery Winners Yet To Pay Back Loan
July 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Mick Robinson, I have never read such a retarded posting as yours. Can you evidence any of your claims. Not likely. The days of police fitting people up ended in 1984 with the P.A.C.E. Act and even prior to that, any form of fit up, be it “verballing” etc was rare. Most police officers have only a layman’s knowledge of computers; police forces do not have forensic computer experts on staff, investigations requiring computer examination use external firms on similar lines to the examination of mobile phones. Any member of the public can use the services of any forensic expert, such as a pathologist (second post mort mortems are often carried out on behalf of the defence), fingerprint expert or computer expert which would son show up any tampering with evidence. Any senior investigation officer knows that whilst he or she is under pressure to solve a case, any attempt to mislead the public or the media is going backfire sooner or later (with all the problems landing on that S.I.O’s head), and no editor, TV or press, is going to publish lies that would be easily disproved. Certainly there have been miscarriages of justice, some of them appalling ones, but they were prior to 1984 and a result of police misbehaving with evidence is that a police officer giving evidence in the court is no longer treated as 100% believable as it once was.
You suggest that I may be corrupt. Your comments make you sound one of two things. Paranoid or may be you yourself are a paedophile and this will be your defence should the police find kiddie porn on your computer, that the police themselves planted it.
I suggest you wake up and live in the real world.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Well powder monkey it has been known before that forensic experts can be corrupt as well ( not all of them) but some of them are. And acually the police can have put in the media what they want, and acually it has been known for people to try and have things put in the media about corrupt police and the media have neglected them because then the police would have it in for them, so basically your just a liar. Remember, whenever there is a public outcry for justice then police are underpressure, and to take that pressure off there shoulders they have to get the problem sorted out to make themselves look good to the public ( and if that means fitting somebody up then they will do it, not always but sometimes) and a computer expert can be bribed by police to fit someone up with child porn and sometimes the police wont even hire a computer expert. The police know the power of the media because the pen is mightier than the sord, and with you being a police officer you might even be corrupt yourself.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Unfortunately for all the people on various websites, from concerned parents to people having dreams and visions, none of you know what leads the Portuguese police are pursuing nor if the McCanns have told the unvarnished truth about their actions that night. I have worked for the UK police for 15 years, in various roles but mainly scenes of crime and I know that police around the world do not release all they know to the public during major investigations, be it to identify hoaxers, protect surces or to prevent the offender destroying evidence. As for Murat, he is innocent till proven guilty (I think only France uses the Napoleonic code, which is the reverse) and whilst I am not privy to the evidence against him, nothing I have heard or read even indicates any guilt or involvement. Even the Sun in its article does not say that the pron on his computer was child porn, but adult porn. it included bestiality which, whilst extremely distasteful and worrying, does not make him a paedophile. As for Mick Robinson’s comments - you embarrass yourself. The police cannot put anything they want in the media. Of course the media assist the police but it is still a free press and they are more likely to tarnish a person’s name and reputation than the police. Look at what has been done to Murat before he is even charged let alone convicted. As for the police planting evidence on a computer, you watch too much television. Forensic experts can be hired by anyone not just the police and defence barristers often do. Any decent computer expert would be able to show when data was added to a computer thus showing that the computer was in police possession at the time. Or does Mr. Robinson think the police sneak into people’s homes to do it? if you have evidence of this, I suggest you at least present it to the media who, you can be assured, would take great pleasure in pursuing it.
Thomas Deflo says Madelaine is clearly in the hands of a child sex ring and that these have a common trait of the complicity of corrupt intelligence agencies to help the guilty maintain their cover. Where is the evidence of either of these statements? It is certainly possible that Madelaine was abducted by such people, and there was a recent child sex abuse case in Belgium where police officers were involved, but not the police force as an instituiton. This does not make it a common trait.
I’ve not heard or read anything regarding the outcome of the second DNA test on Murat and I must have missed the report of unidentified DNA being found at the scene. I know from my work that DNA can be fast tracked for serious offences to produce a result within a few days. Maybe some one could post any information on this test? Neb made some very good points regarding Murat’s future should he turn out to be completely innocent. His life has been ruined mainly by the media desperate to sell papers and get viewing figures, and this shameful attitude is perpetuated by people calling him all sorts of names without a shred of evidence.
Personally, I have an open mind as to how or who is responsible for Madelaine’s disappearance. There are now reports about inconsitencies in the parents’ & family’s statements. At the very least I think they have been stunningly stupid in leaving 3 very young children alone for even half an hour at a time and, whilst like evreyone, I hope Madelaine is found safe and well, the chances after this amount of time are next to nothing.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Well nobody knows yet if Murat is innocent or guilty, but there is something you all should know: The public are brainwashed by the police into thinking the police are good people–but that is far from the truth. Whenever there’s a public outcry for justice and the police cant be seen to be doing nothing, they just nick another idiot or outsider or some loser with no power. When the police are under pressure, that pressure pushes the bad seeds of the police to the surface. The polices’ biggest weapon is the media and they can have whatever they want in the media publicized. If they really want to dirty your name they will do ( they can even stoop as low as planting child porn on your computer) and if that gets in the media then what chance have you got. The brainwashed people are not gonna think that it was planted by the police are they? I’m not saying they use this method all the time, I’m just saying it’s happened before and still happens today–especially if there’s a big outcry for justice and police want to make themselves look good. If Murat is guilty then he deserves to rott in hell! But with the amount of corrupt police there are today I would not be so quick to judge, but thats just my opinion.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:49 am
I AGREE ROSITA….HAD TO BE SOMEONE ON THE INSIDE…NO QUESTION.
July 11th, 2007 at 12:07 am
it is not nice at all to suspect Murat.We have no idea about what the police know .If it would have been him, he would have been arrested by now.I believe the crime comes from people who were and perhaps still are inside the resort.Only they could observe well the behaviour of the mccanns, their habits and how long they used to stay away from their apartment.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I met Robert Murat whilst on holiday, there is nothing remotely odd about him, quite the contrary. The poor man is going through hell now because of the accusations against him, as are his family.
He does not have a glass eye, he has a detatched retina, there is no dungeon under the villa, and the swimming pool was not drained. So that is three things the press got wrong. We went out to dinner one night and were followed by the police ourselves, just because his cousin was with us. The press were hanging about most of the time, and when they went on the town at night they behaved very badly, getting drink and dancing on the tables. The hotels were happy to get rid of them.
I thin Robert is innocent, and hope he will soon be proved to be so. He is unable under portugues law to make any statements to the press, so he can’t defend himself until this is all over.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Paedophile networks with high ranking people do exist. The networks exist in several countries and practice similar cruelties. Maddy is clearly in the hands of a well-organized child sex-ring. A common trait in them is the complicity of corrupt intelligence agencies to help the guilty maintain their cover.
Read more at
http://thomasdeflo.wordpress.com/in-english/
June 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Pete - so because you live across the road and ’saw it with your own eyes’ you therefore ‘know a great deal about this’.
Ha ha ha!!! I live across the road from Buckingham Palace and subsequently know a great deal about what goes on inside.
Read the Pc Pro article as Dogstar suggests and watch less CSI. I think your problem is you live in RURAL Scotland as you mentioned. I’m more likely to go with PC Pro’s conclusions as opposed to yours which are based on you peeking through your curtains.
As for how many Op Ore appeals there are - I don’t know. And most likely, neither do you.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I feel that Murat is not saying anything because anything, just about anything he says will be misconstrued, plus he is forbidden by the police to talk about this. People will always speculate but it is best if Murat says nothing.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Good post Pete. I’m not quite sure the press interest is entirely justified in Murat - what if he is innocent?
That said, there are an awful lot of details that don;t stack up here for Murat. While he sits and protests his innocence, he is doing very little to attempt to prove it. The phonecalls with Malinka, ‘relevant sexual history’ and unexplained car hire are the kind of things that have increased public interest.
If he is completely innocent, why was he not quicker to get his defence in order? He should have been able to explain his honecall on the spot. If someone asked me why I called a business associate and 11.30 at night, I would have been very quick to give an honest answer if my reputation depended on it.
One thing is pretty certain, Murat may not have had anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine, but it appears he was ‘up to something’ which he wants to keep hidden.
If you were in Murats boat and you wanted to protest your innocence, you would have an honest and open answer to every question. Even if you’d been dabbling in a bit of drugs, or petty theft, you would rather have that charge levelled at your door than this one.
Why doesnt he come forward with explanations for all the holes in the story?
June 7th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Dogstar, you’re completely wrong about operation ore. I know a great deal about this as my best mates dad’s was caught and convicted in this operation. I live in rural Scotland and it was a huge story here. I lived across the road from the actual investigation and saw it with my own eyes.
The police raided his folks house at 5am, before anyone had even heard of the operation on TV, and spent all day searching it, it was like a scene from TV with guys in white suits and masks etc. They totally gutted the family home and took away everything from DVD’s, video’s, CD’s, PC’s even all my mates, and his wee brothers, computer games and films etc - everything.
The police were very thorough and professional. My mates dad pleaded guilty as the evidence obtained was undeniable.
Your earlier assertion that operation ore was innocent guys getting their credit cards hacked, a miscarage of justice or some sort of mix up is just plain silly. It was a very professional operation, and those charged and found guilty were done so on the basis of evidence placed before a court of law and after assessment by the Procurator Fiscal.
I’ll watch with interest how the class action (rofl) against operation ore goes, and as for the investigation being in deep trouble you’re having a laugh.
Finally Dogstar, how many successful appeals against operation ore convictions have actually happened ? And why are you sticking up for nonces anyway ?
As for the Madeleine case I think the Police will convict the culprit and that their interest, and the press interest, in Murat is totally justified.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
i understand the need for everyone to find out what really happened, i dont understand why some people have to give opinions about the work of the police or the parents guilt.
i believe our police (i´m in algarve) are doing everythig they can to find the truth, as the police in england also do their best and not always with the best result (but they all try. anyone disagree?).
this is a situation wich nobody was expecting and the PJ take all the help your police may give (information and technology) that “spy system??” to check all the conections made by mobile phones etc would be very helpfull in the future if avalable from the 1st day (i think we dont have that)
the fact that a jornalist from a newspaper calls the police in england to talk about murat…imagine PJ where trying/waiting to see any contacts from him to anyone else to check possible relations or his movements etc…since is name came to public that is almost impossible to know now (could have been his proof of inocense or guilt) but we would only know he was under suspition if they could proove his guilty of something, imagine he was the one and he had the girl with him? not where he lives but somewhere else, what would happen next????
the parents did what many others do, they felt safe and now they have to live with the guilt.
we all have a guess of what happened, some say with conviction what happened, maybe they should get a job at the police force, we all need this people who can solve crimes that quickly.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
All lines of enquiries needs to be exhausted.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[...] apartment. The results will be known in the fullness of time. Please read the entire article HERE Published [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I am absolutely convinced that she will be found safe and sound soon. Just because the PJ have gone silent, means they are doing their job well. Any leaks will cause the perps to go underground. They have the best of help with technology now.They will track them down , and either arrest them, or the perps will drop off the little girl.
I am just sick over the anguish the parents must be going through. I have a little 4 year old boy , and can’t stand to be away from him for a few hours, let alone a month, especially not knowing where he might be.
Personally I feel it was a kidnapping , not for money, but for a baby. Common sense will prevail , and the guilty will come forward.
Best of luck to all involved. I hope she returns very soon indeed.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I’m not sure that what the police are doing to Murat could be called harassment though the media might be another matter. To be honest with the “hints” the police seem to see fit to drop about Murat if they have any substance I’m surprised they aren’t all over him like a rash. But do they have substance? It does seem odd that although the Portuguese police insisted on being absolutely tight-lipped in accordance with their legal system on all matters of the search, the description of the suspect for instance, in the case of Murat suddenly unnamed sources were available to chat off the record to tabloid journalists about what was being looked for on his computer, what might have been found, alleged phonecalls and various other unsubstantiated tit-bits and to continue to suggest that although they had found nothing to charge him with they might still do so. This “bizarre” discrepancy in their behaviour to coin a phrase suggests to me that they cocked up the early stage of the investigation perhaps because they didn’t take the McCanns seriously enough, perhaps for other reasons were unwilling to conduct searches of premises or vessels in the port or recently leaving it, and also because what they did do they did too late and incompetently. My guess is they then tried to fit up Murat and Malinka to cover their own backsides once they realised they had the British press on their case bigtime and the entire local tourist industry was against the wall. (No prizes for guessing why the car hire woman hated the McCanns and took such wicked action to try and scare them off. The same woman also tried to add fuel to the Murat fire. Basically the quicker you can find a foreign lone nutter to blame for this buck-draining, spotlight-attracting business the quicker it will go away).
June 7th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Pete wrote: ‘…As for the rubbish from Dogstar (above) about operation ore , it wasn’t just on the basis of credit card statements alone, the guilty all had child porn on their hard drives. They had their PC’s taken away and forensically examined. They were only charged if images were actually found on the hard drive - the credit card statements weren’t enough on their own, and weren’t used in isolation, but were one part of a body of evidence used in court…’
The class action against the UK police specifically addresses the issue of just how those PCs were ‘forensically examined’ - and, with the use of the entire original database from landslide upon which the whole investigation was based (and which has since been obtained by the defence teams) it can be demonstrated the forensic methods employed at the time to convict the accused were deeply flawed, if not wilfully negligent.
Pete, you are just another example of the way the public unflinchingly accepts that just because some policeman gets himself on TV and tells you This Is How It Is (and Jim Gamble specialises in emotive, headline-grabbing utterances) his words are accepted as fact.
Operation Ore is in deep trouble. See here:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html
…and here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2059880,00.html
and please stop making a fool of yourself in public.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Kevin, can’t agree that the Portuguese police are harassing Robert Murat. They steadfastly refused to name him when he was first questioned, in accordance with Portuguese law. It was the tabloids and 24 hour news channels that chose to ignore the law of the country in which they were working and thus ‘named and shamed’ Robert Murat
June 7th, 2007 at 12:59 am
I see your point Pete. However, the editors and publishers of tabloids and red tops are stupid enough to publish allegations without any real proof. How many times do papers have to apologise or pay damages to people, Joe Bloggs or celebs, after having printed a story that proves to be wholly unsubstantiated? Elton John, Keira Knightley are just a couple of recent examples - Piers Morgan was sacked as Editor of the Daily Mirror over the publishing of faked ‘photos. Don’t get me wrong, this issue is far more important than a ‘celeb’ who sues because somone suggests they may turn teenage girls into anorexics - but it does happen.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I agree with the main thrust of the article. But I can’t agree with the ritual defence of the Portuguese police. They are the ones who have spent 4 weeks harassing Murat and his nodding acquaintances, not the Sun. How much more indignant would the Sun now be if the ‘Maddie Cops’ dropped the case against him.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:21 am
I’m not saying Murat is involved in Madeleines case, like anyone else outside the investigation I couldn’t possibly know, although I have my own suspicions.
My position is that the press focus on Murat is understandable due to his bizzare behaviour since Madeleines abduction, and him being named a formal suspect by the Police.
I also feel that the child porn claims in the press about Murat are quite specific, and appear to have been leaked by somebody close to the investigation, which gives them more credability.
It would be simple enough for Murat, or a lawyer or family friend, to issue even a denial about the porn allegation. In the interim his legal team could also go for an injunction. He, like everyone else, does have quite a lot of rights in law to protect himself from the UK press - he can sue for libel, a printed apology and damages for example. The fact Murat won’t deny the lurid headlines is interesting in my opinion.
Whatever you think about the UK red tops the editors and publishers aren’t stupid enough to make such serious front page allegations without being able to back it up.
Here’s a typical article about Murat
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007240420,00.html
June 6th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
it was sergey malinka’s computer the police took to analyse for pornographic photo’s and images. why did malinka delete his hard drives from his computer and laptop if he hadnt any pornographic images. what is malinka hiding
June 6th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
And further to what I just wrote above. Even IF Murat turned out to have been looking at nasty porn and was a paedophile it still wouldn’t necessarily make him the paedophile who took Madeleine.
The wiped hard drive gives pause for thought but it’s about a million times more likely that he was worrying about the taxman for instance. People have loads of things to hide from the police other than a taste for little kids. I’m not especially defending him here, but no way do we know anything that incriminates him so far.
I know a lot of the chaps on this site are dubious about the number of paedophiles out there but to be honest, judging by the sheer number of women I have known who have been abused , I tend to think that there are an awful lot of them out there but not necessarily all of them active abusers. And not all of them psychotics with the potential to abduct and/or kill. I do therefore respect the point Anorak’s making about the pressure being put on someone who might be holding her and be made even more desperate, dissociated, and just plain fucked up and freaked out and might therefore feel they have no alternative but to murder. But the thing that concentrates my mind again and again is the growing incidences of children that ARE found, sometimes after many years. It’s hard to contemplate but the evidence seems to suggest that not all paedophiles are either psychotic or sadistic in motivation (whatever the effect) and cases like Sean Hornberg’s have really altered the landscape of child abduction. it’s a terrible scenario to consider, especially if you are Ben Needham’s mum, but it at least has the virtue of a little hope.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Pete says:
“Furthermore the press coverage about his child porn wasn’t vague or implied or innuendo, it was a very specific and very clear and it was in many papers here and in Portugal. The Mail, The Express, The Sun, Sky News et al all specifically claim he has child porn on his PC.”
They did not report this as coming from a police statement, only a police source which was unnamed and unofficial. This statement of yours Pete just demonstrates ‘trial by media’ to the nth degree. It’s in the papers so it must be true. However, you go on to make a fair point:
“It would be easy enough for Murat to refute all this via the press complaints commission, or through legal channels, but I don’t hear him denying it, and none of his friends or family are either ?”
Fairish anyway. If you think it is “easy enough” to make a complaint via the PCC you are wrong, it would take months even if he was allowed to start such a process whilst an official suspect in an ongoing investigation which furthermore, as we have read time and time again, means that he is absolutely constrained from making any sort of comment on the case. If the police arrest and charge him on the grounds of having child porn on the computer and produce enough EVIDENCE to support the charge, well yes then subject to the judgement of the court then he might be a paedophile. Other than that I can’t so far see anything that would enable all of us faraway observers of the events to decide one way or another. Certainly not the word of the tabloids that’s for sure.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Goog post ‘Otherwize’.
I’ve seen a few of your posts, all points very well made.
It amazes me that people come on here and congratulate Anorak on being the voice of reason. I actually find Anoraks views as particularly cynical, inflammatory and to be honest, stirring up hate for the McCanns. There has been very little support from Anorak for the plight of Madeleine and the suffering of her parents.
If Murat is innocent, his name will be cleared. If he is guilty, it won’t. I am sure with the inevitable help of Max Clifford he will be able to turn it to his advantage.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Pete says;
‘The fact is Murat IS a paedophile, and him watching children being abused on the internet means he deserves all he gets in my book.’
Oh really, you know this for a fact do you? You also say;
‘It would be easy enough for Murat to refute all this via the press complaints commission, or through legal channels…’ and, ‘He could take them all to the cleaners’
It would also be easy enough for him to take you to ‘the cleaners’ too. Calling someone a paedophile, on a public access website without any evidence at all - if it was ‘very specific and very clear’, he’d be languishing in a Portuguese jail by now, regardless of any possible involvement in this case - is a rather stupid thing to do.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I agree about the ‘trial by media hysteria’ that has befallen people in the past, such as Colin Stagg, or the poor chap who was initially all over the papers for the Ipswich prostitute killings.
However, in this case I feel its different as it isn’t just ‘vague innuendo’. Murat has been caught with child porn and has a “relevant sexual history” i.e. he has a sexual interest in kids.
Furthermore the press coverage about his child porn wasn’t vague or implied or innuendo, it was a very specific and very clear and it was in many papers here and in Portugal. The Mail, The Express, The Sun, Sky News et al all specifically claim he has child porn on his PC.
It would be easy enough for Murat to refute all this via the press complaints commission, or through legal channels, but I don’t hear him denying it, and none of his friends or family are either ? Murat would be in line for millions if any of this were unsubstantiated would he not ? He could take them all to the cleaners.
The fact is Murat IS a paedophile, and him watching children being abused on the internet means he deserves all he gets in my book.
As for the rubbish from Dogstar (above) about operation ore , it wasn’t just on the basis of credit card statements alone, the guilty all had child porn on their hard drives. They had their PC’s taken away and forensically examined. They were only charged if images were actually found on the hard drive - the credit card statements weren’t enough on their own, and weren’t used in isolation, but were one part of a body of evidence used in court.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
With regard to the “wandered off” theory this is an extract from an email I had from Paulo Reis the Gazeta Digital reporter after I emailed him with a question about swimming pools locally after it had been raised on this site:
Paulo writes:
A far as I know, Police, Dog units and volunteers looked carefully all the surrounding area.
While I was there, I looked also careflly for some details:
- the window of the apartment from where Maeleine disapeared (see detailed pictures, from several points and an aerial view of Ocean Resort herer…) I was inside a smilar apartmente an it had the shutter and also a glass window. The shutter was closed, Madeleine’s mother saidm when she left. I couldn’t know if the lockable glass window was open or not. If it was closed, no chance to open the window from the outside. But the shutter, only, is easly open, from the outside…
- I walked around Ocens Club, in a 500 metes path, going to all possible directions, rods, small roads, walking paths with no cars, starting at Ocean Resort. Buldings in that surrounding are:
*
very old and small construction, inhabited by local people, no swimming pool, of course;
*
luxury mansions, whit high walls and closed iron gates, perhaps swimming pools inside, but I couldn’t saw over the walls (no chance a 4 years old child managed to come in – even because I saw no iron gates with enough space between the bars to allow a child do pass through and most nmansions that are empty have caretakers looking for them;
*
a few modern buildings, with three, four floors;
I walked those severeal paths and roads, starting from the two possible ways out, if the child waked up an went out of the apartmente. I stoped when I was tired – and I’m in good shape, I exercice 3 times a week in the gymn, run a few miles every Sunday. I saw no chance a small child could walk more than me, in half-our and go far from where I arrived.
Also, another detail: I did it, at least twice, during the same period Madeleine vanished : around 8:30 pm and around 9:30 pm. I met quite a lot of people: local inhabitants, coming from or going to work, tourists walking after diner, I saw people at balconys, taking fresh air, smoking a cigarette, and son on.
Very dificult a 4 years old child walking at that hour, without anyone seeing her! And this Portugal, Algarve, where people has a special preocupation with children that are alone – more, at night, in the street…
regards and hope to have answered your questions..
Paulo Reis
June 6th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Something is puzzling me about this DNA sample of Murat’s. I read an interview with him the other day (sorry, can’t remember where) where he said that the police never took a DNA sample from him when he was first taken in for questioning and in general saying what a shambles the whole thing had been. Within a day the police were hurriedly asking for a “new” one because the “first’ one had been lost. Not a peep now about how there was, apparently no “first” one in any case. I think the police have made grave errors here and the McCanns have realised/been advised that the only way of getting them to bother with the case is to keep the media on it with the associated threat to the tourist bucks. I think I would do the same and let people think what they want. The Portuguese force has the control of the case which ties the hands of a variety of other agencies who might have more nous in the matter, without all this fuss, media, Gordon Brown, Pope et al to put the pressure on them they would clearly to my mind have done even less. It looks as if everyone, the McCanns, Murat, the British Ambassador even the wretched media is treading on eggshells not to piss of the cops but in some way to keep necessary pressure on the and to get some information out of them about what is being done. The McCanns are entitled to want that information even if we are not. I should think the people of Portugal and the tourists who will (or won’t) visit the Algarve are pretty entitled too. Borders weren’t sealed, helicopters did not go up to intercept boats leaving that coast in time. Enough was not done and it could have been and should have been for Madeleine and any other lost child therefore it’s reasonable to assume that if the McCanns shut up and went home the cops would not continue to do their best.
As for suggesting that anything they are doing lays them open to ludicrous suggestions of involvement. “The more the family continue to put theimselves in the spotlight, the more akward and uncomfortable the questions will become.” How? Why? I don’t follow at all, the logic is crap. The perception of “the spotlight”, when it focuses on one for any reason other than enormous talent, as such a wonderful privilege that even people who have lost their tiny daughter are to be resented and chided for having it is the province of people with attention-seeking neuroses to rival Charley Uchea. It’s not a privilege it’s a curse and the McCanns are clearly enduring it because they think it is the only way to prevent Madeleine’s possible plight from being forgotten which would crash her already slim chances of rescue right through the floor. Regardless of the criticism of the mistake they made that night they plainly care more about their daughter than they do about the neurotic opinions (alleged boredom) of armchair ranters. Evidence is the only thing that proves someone guilty and so far there is precious little of any sort.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Sarah M from the USA writes:
I am confidant that the possibility of any communication with the abductor(s)of Madeleine McCann has been imperative in this investigation.
Although, I doubt that any criminal would make any contact while the media is playing a vital role in this abduction. Even the most casual observer would realize that publicity is no kin to a criminal.
This only serves to further send them into hiding.
Placing Madeleine in jeopardy with such unstable despots.
It is obvious that publicity is the weapon of choice by The McCann Team. That might very well be the best desperate decision made by a family in crisis.
Concurrently, publicity has certain merits, keeping Madeleine McCann’s abduction as a sad commentary on societies ills. That being said, this crime would be better served by strong “Team” of experts in criminology, private investigation, and or undercover detectives. Which hopefully are in fact leading this investigation.
Clearly, there is danger in ignoring the motives of the abductor(s). A heightened sense of who they are and what they want can only be realized by experts in that field. To hamper that by not being sensitive to these criminals will place Madeleine in a very dangerous situation.
Hopefully, the investigation will make a 90′ turn and concentrate on how to disarm the abductors.
Therein lies the need for experts in their field.
Conclusively, tactics might be directed at how to entice the abductors by use of a negotiator likened to organizations that represent trust. Of
mind: Salvation Army, Goodwill, or any religious or non sectarian organizations. All of whom will no betray the abductors anonymity upon the safe return of Madeleine.
With ransom as the agreed upon conclusion.