.....................
...................
Mr Jim Gamble Monday 3 May 2010
Chief Executive
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
33 Vauxhall Bridge Road
LONDON
SW1V 2WG
Dear Mr Gamble
re: (1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions
(2) CEOP’s close relationship with the McCanns - New video produced by Jon Corner and released by the McCanns, using images of Madeleine McCann with make-up and jewellery
We write to express our concern about the images of Madeleine used by the McCanns in relation to Madeleine on the recent video made by Jon Corner, which they released yesterday to much fanfare.
We do so for a number of reasons, including the very close nexus between yourself, CEOP and the McCanns (to which I shall refer below), and also of course because of your role as Chief Executive of CEOP, an organisation apparently dedicated to eliminating or minimising all forms of the exploitation of children.
The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation founded in 2008, partly to help learn the lessons from Madeleine’s disappearance, not least to campaign against the practice of leaving very young children on their own, thus exposing them to all manner of serious risks, not least that of being abducted. In a context where the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said as recently as 19 February in a Channel 4 interview that Madeleine’s disappearance remains ‘a complete mystery’, we also continue to work with others to try to establish what really happened to her and we campaign on a number of child welfare issues.
The video in question features three images of Madeleine. One very striking one shows her in an unusual pose, shot from well below her face, wearing make-up, including much blue eyeshadow, lipstick and jewellery, and looking unhappy.
The McCanns have claimed that ‘the photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing box’. However, it is very unlikely that Madeleine could have put the necklace on herself, nor applied eyeshadow in the manner shown in the photograph, nor applied the pink bow to her hair. The evidence from the photograph suggests that an adult made her up and of course an adult was on hand to take that particular image of her. Even if Madeleine had ‘raided the dressing box’, it is one thing to take a photo of something like that for your family photo album, but altogether another thing to release it for millions to see.
The McCanns explicitly approved the very public release of this video. As one newspaper reported: “Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”. The photo the McCanns specifically chose to feature was the one with Madeleine made up, apparently by an adult and not by herself.
There has been strong adverse reaction by many members of the public to this image being used in connection with a missing child. Not least was that of Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police detective and now leading criminologist and child protection expert, who has often in the past spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for the McCanns. His unambiguous reaction to this particular photograph yesterday, and promoted on his ‘Twitter’ blog, was that it was ‘so inappropriate’ and ‘so damaging’. With respect, we agree with him.
The McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by them as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘ monsters’. Yet the photo of Madeleine featured by her parents shows a child looking much older than her actual three years, due to the make-up and jewellery, as all the news media yesterday quickly picked up.
You may recall statements made by the McCanns claiming that they were advised by the police ‘not to show any emotion’ in front of the cameras. As one newspaper reported around the time the McCanns appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show: “The couple also admitted they had been advised not to show any emotion while in front of the media, because any potential abductor ‘may get a kick out of it’.”
It is therefore a matter of concern to us that the McCanns should project and promote an image of Madeleine which might well appeal to certain paedophiles, some of whom are unfortunately attracted to young children.
The general topic of the early sexualisation of young girls has recently been addressed by the Home Secretary, to whom you report and who appointed you. As a Guardian editorial earlier this year noted:
“It is a year since Jacqui Smith invited the TV psychologist Dr Linda Papadopolous to head a ‘fact-finding’ review. Her report describes a world where young girls who can barely walk are first cajoled into wearing high heels and T-shirts with Playboy motifs, before progressing into a grim future dominated by an internet-based youth culture that pressurises them into dress and behaviour which defines them overwhelmingly as sexual objects”.
The Home Office report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.
I enclose a copy of a letter sent yesterday to the chief public relations manager for the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell, expressing our concerns. In the light of the exceptional degree of publcity given by CEOP to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and your own high degree of personal involvement, we would request you to give appropriate advice to the McCanns as to whether it is right to use these particular images, and especially the ‘make-up photo’, to draw attention to a missing child. We consider it sets a most unfortunate precedent if the one girl whose image has most frequently been used by CEOP to promote concerns about missing and exploited children should now be portrayed by an image which clearly shows her lookijg like a much older child (as the press realised straightaway) and wearing make-up applied by an adult.
May we also draw your attention to one specific comment made on ‘Twitter’ yesterday: “If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!” This is your opportunity to say unequivocally on behalf of CEOP and on behalf of missing children everywhere that CEOP does not approve of the use of such inappropriate images.
Your degree of commitment, on behalf of CEOP, to the McCanns, has been immense, despite the doubts prompted by their being made ‘arguidos’ and being pulled in for questioning and the contents of the interim police report of senior police inspector Tavares de Aleida.
You have heavily featured Madeleine McCann on your website and in other publications about your work. You appeared together with the McCanns 12 months ago in a one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still alive and needed to be found. You also appeared on morning news shows side by side with the McCanns.
You also invited Dr Gerald McCann in January to be the keynote speaker at a conference of the abduction of children by paedophiles, a matter that concerned many of us, as there is not a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. On top of all that, Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently asked you to recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance and, according to press reports, you have already delivered your recommendation to him. In view of this intense activity on behalf of the McCanns, then, you are without doubt in a powerful position to advise them as to their choice of images being used to remind people about Madeleine. We trust you will provide suitable advice to them.
The role and activities of CEOP: Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests
We understand that CEOP has a role as a police force and has powers to investigate alleged crimes relating to missing, abducted and exploited children. We have also seen recent publicity in which, as we understand it, you have advised children, young people and their parents to report possible crimes against children such as ‘internet grooming’ directly to yourself and not to their local police force. We have also seen recent publicity in which you have publicly threatened ‘Facebook’ with various sanctions if they do not adopt your suggestion of a compulsory ‘panic button’ linked to your website.
We presume that as a public authority you must be covered by the Freedom of Information Act and therefore under the FOI Act we ask the questions below. If you are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, we trust you would answer our questions anyway, as they are clearly in the public interest:
1. What legal powers are available to CEOP and its staff?
2. Under what powers can CEOP insist or encourage children, young people and their parents to report alleged crimes to CEOP rather than to their local police force?
3. What action does CEOP take if they have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence against children has been or is being committed; do they investigate and if necessary charge the offender themselves, or do they refer cases to the local police service, or does it depend on the circumstances? If so, what are the criteria for deciding whether a case is investigated by the police or by yourselves?
4. What campaigning work, if any, has been carried out by CEOP to stem the rising tide of the sexualisation of young children, upon which so many commentators have remarked recently?
5. How many staff does CEOP employ?
6. What was the annual cost of CEOP for the last year for which figures are available?
7. Please refer us to any campaigning work CEOP has done on the risks to children posed by known sex offenders released into the community or to any statements made by CEOP on this issue.
8. Has CEOP expressed a view on current proposals, supported at the last annual conference of the Liberal Democrats, to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to view pornography and visit sex shops; if so, please direct us to where any such statements may be found.
Finally, to the extent that CEOP is effectively addressing the main issues concerning missing, abducted and exploited children, we fully support your organisation’s work and I would be pleased if you could kindly send us a paper copy of your latest annual report.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett,
Secretary
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Monday, 3 May 2010
That highly inappropriate photo of Madeleine: Madeleine Foundation letter to Clarence Mitchell
................................
....................................
Mr Clarence Mitchell Sunday 2 May 2010
Consultant, Crisis and Media Management
Freud Communications
55 Newman Street
London W1T 3EB
Dear Mr Mitchell
re: New video produced by Jon Corner using images of Madeleine McCann with eye shadow and jewellery - now on YouTube
We write to express our concern about the images of Madeleine used by you, the McCanns and Jon Corner in the video message which was widely trailed in today’s newspapers and has already attracted several hundred views on YouTube. We understand that you as the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser must have approved the production and distribution of this video. Indeed, you are quoted in one of today’s newspapers as follows:
“McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing. Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search’.
The fact that your clients the McCanns explicitly approved the distribution of this video is clear from the following report of SKY News:
“Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”.
The concern we have and that is being expressed by thousands of others is the use of clearly-posed photographs of a three-year-old wearing make-up, such as eye shadow, a necklace and lipstick.
You and your clients the McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by you and your clients as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘a monster’. Yet the images of Madeleine that you have allowed to be used in your campaign are of a child looking much older than her actual years - the very kinds of images that often appeal to paedophiles. Even former police detective, now leading criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who has often spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for your clients, has today commented adversely on the McCann Team’s use of these images of Madeleine on ‘Twitter’. He said, in five separate messages earlier today:
1) “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”
2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels - ill advised again”
3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo - so damaging - as I know what it will become”
4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey”
5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine - as soon as I get a response will let u know”.
There has also been questioning of the following statement in one of today’s newspapers:
“Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box - she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow”.
The statement that the photograph shows her ‘after a raid on the dressing-up box’ implies that Madeleine made herself up but is open to serious question for at least the following reasons:
a) it is doubtful if Madeleine could have put on the necklace herself without adult help
b) similarly, the eyeshadow looks neatly put on in certain places around the eye, whereas a three-year-old attempting to put on eyeshadow would have probably made a mess of it
c) Madeleine appears to have no eyelashes. Photographic experts who have analysed the picture suggest that colour has been digitally added on, hiding they eyelashes
d) Madeleine’s eyebrows look quite different from other photos, possibly covered with some form of make-up
e) There appear to be two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the photo.
Thus, whatever the truth about the circumstances under which this picture was taken, there are very good grounds for believing that an adult has applied the make-up and also of course been there to take the photograph. Taken together with two of the other images of Madeleine shown in the film, it is perhaps not surprising that, for example, on sites like ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’ and other forums, comments like the following have been made:
“The picture of Madeleine reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey’s beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators”.
“If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”
“The latest photo the McCanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars’ statements, something is very wrong here”.
The context here includes the ever-increasing sexualisation of young children, highlighted recently when a high street store, Primark, had to withdraw the marketing of padded bikini tops to 7-year-olds, following a storm of protest from parents. The dressing up of young children to look adult has been condemned by most child welfare organisations and with good reason. For example, a recent Home Office commissioned report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.
The circumstances in which that photograph of Madeleine was taken may have been wholly innocent, but as many people have been saying today, its use by your clients the McCanns in their attempts to locate a missing child possibly abducted by paedophiles is surely inappropriate. We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.
Your clients obviously still want the whole world to look for Madeleine and not forget about Madeleine. The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for. For example, fourteen different artists’ impressions have been published in British newspapers of people whom the McCanns claim are either the suspected abductor or ‘persons of interest’. Twelve of these are men and two are women.
As for where to look, the advice given by the McCanns’ private investigators suggests that despite using the services of many of them for nearly three years, there is not a single piece of useful information that you can give to the public which would enable us to know where to begin to look. Despite millions of pounds being spent on Metodo 3, Control Risks Group, Red Defence, Oakley International, senior ex-Metropolitan Police detectives, senior ex-MI5 security staff and now the team of ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar and ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley, we have not a jot of information on where to look.
Mr Edgar told newspapers last year that he was ‘convinced’ (his word) that Madeleine was being held ‘in a prison lair within 10 miles of Praia da Luz in the lawless hills around’. Subsequently you and Mr Edgar told a press conference that a conversation at 2.00am (which had been kept secret for two-and-a-half years) between a British banker who had been drinking round the bars of Barcelona and a woman looking like Victoria Beckham and with an Australian accent was ‘a strong lead’ and as a result a nationwide alert was put out in Australia.
Prior to that, in December 2007, Mr Francisco Marco, the boss of the first major detective agency used by your clients, Metodo 3, told the British media that he ‘knew Madeleine was alive’, that ‘his men are closing in on where she is being kept’ and that ‘Madeleine will be home by Christmas’.
It would surely be much more helpful to the public to give out the best description of the abductor that the McCanns’ various detective agencies have, between them, been able to compile, so we know who to look for, and to give the public as much information as you are able to about what really happened to her. You have often been quoted in the newspapers as saying: “Our investigations are confidential…we cannot disclose the information our investigators have” etc. But this gives the public no help at all in knowing where to look for Madeleine.
I trust you will pass these comments on to your clients. At the same time we are raising with Mr Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and other organisations concerned with the welfare of children, whether they approve of appeals for a missing child being made using images of that child in a pose for the cameras and with a considerable degree of adult make-up.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett,
Secretary
....................................
Mr Clarence Mitchell Sunday 2 May 2010
Consultant, Crisis and Media Management
Freud Communications
55 Newman Street
London W1T 3EB
Dear Mr Mitchell
re: New video produced by Jon Corner using images of Madeleine McCann with eye shadow and jewellery - now on YouTube
We write to express our concern about the images of Madeleine used by you, the McCanns and Jon Corner in the video message which was widely trailed in today’s newspapers and has already attracted several hundred views on YouTube. We understand that you as the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser must have approved the production and distribution of this video. Indeed, you are quoted in one of today’s newspapers as follows:
“McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing. Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search’.
The fact that your clients the McCanns explicitly approved the distribution of this video is clear from the following report of SKY News:
“Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”.
The concern we have and that is being expressed by thousands of others is the use of clearly-posed photographs of a three-year-old wearing make-up, such as eye shadow, a necklace and lipstick.
You and your clients the McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by you and your clients as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘a monster’. Yet the images of Madeleine that you have allowed to be used in your campaign are of a child looking much older than her actual years - the very kinds of images that often appeal to paedophiles. Even former police detective, now leading criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who has often spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for your clients, has today commented adversely on the McCann Team’s use of these images of Madeleine on ‘Twitter’. He said, in five separate messages earlier today:
1) “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”
2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels - ill advised again”
3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo - so damaging - as I know what it will become”
4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey”
5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine - as soon as I get a response will let u know”.
There has also been questioning of the following statement in one of today’s newspapers:
“Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box - she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow”.
The statement that the photograph shows her ‘after a raid on the dressing-up box’ implies that Madeleine made herself up but is open to serious question for at least the following reasons:
a) it is doubtful if Madeleine could have put on the necklace herself without adult help
b) similarly, the eyeshadow looks neatly put on in certain places around the eye, whereas a three-year-old attempting to put on eyeshadow would have probably made a mess of it
c) Madeleine appears to have no eyelashes. Photographic experts who have analysed the picture suggest that colour has been digitally added on, hiding they eyelashes
d) Madeleine’s eyebrows look quite different from other photos, possibly covered with some form of make-up
e) There appear to be two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the photo.
Thus, whatever the truth about the circumstances under which this picture was taken, there are very good grounds for believing that an adult has applied the make-up and also of course been there to take the photograph. Taken together with two of the other images of Madeleine shown in the film, it is perhaps not surprising that, for example, on sites like ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’ and other forums, comments like the following have been made:
“The picture of Madeleine reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey’s beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators”.
“If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”
“The latest photo the McCanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars’ statements, something is very wrong here”.
The context here includes the ever-increasing sexualisation of young children, highlighted recently when a high street store, Primark, had to withdraw the marketing of padded bikini tops to 7-year-olds, following a storm of protest from parents. The dressing up of young children to look adult has been condemned by most child welfare organisations and with good reason. For example, a recent Home Office commissioned report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.
The circumstances in which that photograph of Madeleine was taken may have been wholly innocent, but as many people have been saying today, its use by your clients the McCanns in their attempts to locate a missing child possibly abducted by paedophiles is surely inappropriate. We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.
Your clients obviously still want the whole world to look for Madeleine and not forget about Madeleine. The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for. For example, fourteen different artists’ impressions have been published in British newspapers of people whom the McCanns claim are either the suspected abductor or ‘persons of interest’. Twelve of these are men and two are women.
As for where to look, the advice given by the McCanns’ private investigators suggests that despite using the services of many of them for nearly three years, there is not a single piece of useful information that you can give to the public which would enable us to know where to begin to look. Despite millions of pounds being spent on Metodo 3, Control Risks Group, Red Defence, Oakley International, senior ex-Metropolitan Police detectives, senior ex-MI5 security staff and now the team of ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar and ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley, we have not a jot of information on where to look.
Mr Edgar told newspapers last year that he was ‘convinced’ (his word) that Madeleine was being held ‘in a prison lair within 10 miles of Praia da Luz in the lawless hills around’. Subsequently you and Mr Edgar told a press conference that a conversation at 2.00am (which had been kept secret for two-and-a-half years) between a British banker who had been drinking round the bars of Barcelona and a woman looking like Victoria Beckham and with an Australian accent was ‘a strong lead’ and as a result a nationwide alert was put out in Australia.
Prior to that, in December 2007, Mr Francisco Marco, the boss of the first major detective agency used by your clients, Metodo 3, told the British media that he ‘knew Madeleine was alive’, that ‘his men are closing in on where she is being kept’ and that ‘Madeleine will be home by Christmas’.
It would surely be much more helpful to the public to give out the best description of the abductor that the McCanns’ various detective agencies have, between them, been able to compile, so we know who to look for, and to give the public as much information as you are able to about what really happened to her. You have often been quoted in the newspapers as saying: “Our investigations are confidential…we cannot disclose the information our investigators have” etc. But this gives the public no help at all in knowing where to look for Madeleine.
I trust you will pass these comments on to your clients. At the same time we are raising with Mr Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and other organisations concerned with the welfare of children, whether they approve of appeals for a missing child being made using images of that child in a pose for the cameras and with a considerable degree of adult make-up.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett,
Secretary
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Madeleine McCann: the Daily Express has the number 1 suspect on video!
..........................................
..........................................
.........................................
The man the Sunday Express describes as "the prime suspect," in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, has apparently been filmed working at a market, somewhere in Portugal.
Attention was first drawn to this suspect in January 2008. (Maddie: New sketch reveals face of kidnapper suspect)
Mrs Cooper had contacted the police on May 7th 2007, with her suspicions about the "creepy man," she had seen on three occasions in the days before Madeleine disappeared. She gave a statement at her home on May 21st, but it appears that this statement was not given to the police because the sketch was passed to Leicestershire police by Clarence Mitchell.
So, what made Gail Cooper suspect that this man was "the kidnapper everyone is searching for."? Well, she saw him walking along the beach in the rain. Obviously a suspicious character to be doing that!
Then, the man turned up at her rented villa saying that he was collecting money for a local orphanage, which Mrs Cooper did not believe. However, a man collecting for a local orphanage was also encountered by Paul Gordon, who with his wife Saleigh, had been staying the Apartment 5A just before the McCanns.
..........................................
.........................................
The man the Sunday Express describes as "the prime suspect," in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, has apparently been filmed working at a market, somewhere in Portugal.
Attention was first drawn to this suspect in January 2008. (Maddie: New sketch reveals face of kidnapper suspect)
Mrs Cooper had contacted the police on May 7th 2007, with her suspicions about the "creepy man," she had seen on three occasions in the days before Madeleine disappeared. She gave a statement at her home on May 21st, but it appears that this statement was not given to the police because the sketch was passed to Leicestershire police by Clarence Mitchell.
So, who interviewed Mrs Cooper in her own home? Clarence Mitchell? Metodo 3?"Last night the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the new image had been passed to officers from the Leicestershire Constabulary, Portuguese police and Interpol. They hope the hunt will also be joined by forces in Spain and Morocco.
Metodo 3 believe the kidnapper may have had accomplices in Praia da Luz who helped spirit Madeleine away to the Moroccan hills." (News of the World)
So, what made Gail Cooper suspect that this man was "the kidnapper everyone is searching for."? Well, she saw him walking along the beach in the rain. Obviously a suspicious character to be doing that!
Then, the man turned up at her rented villa saying that he was collecting money for a local orphanage, which Mrs Cooper did not believe. However, a man collecting for a local orphanage was also encountered by Paul Gordon, who with his wife Saleigh, had been staying the Apartment 5A just before the McCanns.
The, "strange," man was actually not.
It was also Paul Gordon who saw and spoke to a man described by several British media, quoting sources close to the McCanns, as strange and suspicious. However, in his statements to the police, Paul maintains that the individual never, "watched," the children or the apartment: "I would describe the man as well-educated, of good appearance (...) I remember him as looking tidy and shaved with light downy facial hair. "
"I went over to the man who asked me if I would be interested in making a donation to an orphanage (...) I spoke with him and noticed that he had an indentification badge and that he had what looked to me like a receipt book," Paul Gordon stated to the police, adding that he had even received a receipt which he had left behind in Portugal.
Since January Paul Gordon has been contacted several times by Brian Kennedy, Kate and Gerry McCann: "There are times when I feel like a chess pawn." (This blog August 4th 2008)
Mr Gordon was actually contacted by the McCanns and by Brian Kennedy about his encounter with this man. Seems that they didn't take a lot of notice of his statement as to the charity collector's veracity, though, because today's Express tells us that Mrs Cooper was contacted by, "a person working for the McCanns’ investigators," in the summer of 2008 and shown the footage, which the Sunday Express is today proclaiming as an exclusive that shows the suspect. Why, I ask myself and the Sunday Express, has this only just become front page news? This footage came to light in the summer of 2008!
Mrs Cooper, from Newark, Notts, said in the summer of 2008 she was asked to look at footage of the suspect shot over several days in Portugal.
“He was unloading his market stall from a white van,” said Mrs Cooper.
"His hair was lighter and he had shaved off the moustache but to my mind it was the same man. For me the giveaway was his protruding teeth, which were exactly the same as the man I had met in Luz.
The giveaway was his protruding teeth? So, different hair, no moustache, but he had protruding teeth and therefore it must have been the same man! Are we to assume that dental practice in Portugal is so good that absolutely no one, apart from this man, has protruding teeth? Well, Mrs Cooper did say that the man did not appear to be Portuguese, so that must explain his poor dentistry then and why she is so sure, based on his teeth!
"I was shown the footage by a person working for the McCanns’ investigators who took notes of everything I said and then left but I haven’t heard anything since. I asked where the film was shot but he would only say it was shot ‘inland’ in Portugal.”
Mrs Cooper has not heard anything from the person working for the McCanns' investigators since she was contacted in the summer of 2008 and shown the film. Yet, last week the Sunday Express took Gail Cooper back to Praia da Luz for some reason. Why?
Watching the video in today's Express, we are given details about a second sighting of the "creepy man," on the beach in Praia da Luz.
Voice-over:
"..the man seemed to be shadowing a group of children coming down to the beach from the Mark Warner complex. Again, he was acting oddly."
This seems to give the impression that the man was walking down the beach in a way that made it look like he was trailing after the children. Yet, in the original story published by the NOTW, Mrs Cooper said:
"There was a children's outing there from the Mark Warner Ocean Club at the same time. The man was again alone and standing near the group of youngsters. Mrs Cooper said: "He looked odd and out of place."
That statement seems to be describing a group of children already on the beach and the suspect standing, not shadowing this time, quite close to them. Mrs Cooper's story appears to have been somewhat embellished! He was standing close to the children. No, he was shadowing the group coming down onto the beach.
I am truly at a loss to understand why this story has resurfaced and why the Sunday Express has taken Gail Cooper back to Praia da Luz to re-tell her tale. If this exclusive footage of Mrs Cooper's "creepy man," unloading his wares at a market somewhere in Portugal was shown to her in the summer of 2008, why is it big news now? Why has the Sunday Express taken up basically the whole of its front page to scream out about this number 1 suspect being seen on video when this actually dates back nearly two years?
Gail Cooper was interviewed by someone acting for the McCanns in May 2007, having contacted the Find Madeleine helpline I would imagine. In the summer of 2008, she was shown a video of the suspect and has heard nothing since. Is this one of those leads that the McCanns are insisting have not been followed up properly by the Portuguese police or is it just the most dramatic one the Sunday Express could come up with at this time when we have had a veritable tsunami of articles and interviews leading up to the third anniversary of Maddie's disappearance and Kate and Gerry now want the investigation to be re-opened?
Perhaps the Express just had to come up with something a bit different when the newspapers have already covered in great detail how Kate McCann felt suicidal, what the McCanns are telling the twins, how they are still searching and will never give up etc etc! Well, Kate McCann may think that some people would be embarrassed if her daughter turned up, but this looks like an acute embarrassment to me and more worthy of the word "embarrassed," than the prospect of a missing child being found.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Gerry and Kate McCann interviewed for Spanish TV "Las Mañanas de Cuatro."
....................................
....................................
Thanks to Mercedes Sigue for the following information.
On Monday, May 3rd, Spanish TV Las Mañanas de Cuatro, will air an interview with the McCanns. There will be several guests in the studio commenting on the case. The following is the press release from Mercedes.
....................................
Thanks to Mercedes Sigue for the following information.
On Monday, May 3rd, Spanish TV Las Mañanas de Cuatro, will air an interview with the McCanns. There will be several guests in the studio commenting on the case. The following is the press release from Mercedes.
"There she was curled up against me. Then she took my engagement ring... She used to do this many times and put it... She put it as we read the story.... She is wonderful, what I can say. "
So Kate McCann recalls the last moments spent with her daughter. Next Monday marks the third anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine. Three years in which her parents have not stopped looking for her.
Las Mañanas de Cuatro celebrates its 750 programs on the air with an exclusive worldwide interest. Concha Garcia Campoy has gone to Rothley (England) to interview the McCanns and know how is their day to day without Maddie.
Kate and Gerry have responded, without censorship, to all our questions. They talk about the doubts that still surround the case and their relationship with Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police who was in charge of the research who has always considered them suspects.
"In my mind it is very clear that a man took Madeleine and we have to find him to know where my daughter is. That the police don’t search for that man but suspect me and Gerry ... That hurts me. "
Kate and Gerry McCann tell us each point of their version of what happened that night. They categorically denied they had medicated children ("It's a shame that this was published. It has no basis. It’s a lie") although they admit they could have made a mistake leaving them alone to go to dinner with a group of friends.
"The guilt will never leave us, we made a mistake and we repeated it several nights in a row ... We never thought our children were in danger."
They say that the have never hidden to Sean and Amelie, Maddie’s brother and sister; what happened.
"A psychologist told us to answer honestly all their questions ... We explained them about the kidnapping, saying that if we want something we should not take it if it belongs to others. And they understood it. As a robbery. "
Three years after the disappearance of Madeleine, the McCanns do not give up. They say they will continue to fight "the time it takes." Currently, they are intending that the British police reopen the investigation.
We celebrate 750 mornings together ... with new and interesting stories.
Spanish
“Allí estaba acurrucada contra mí. Entonces, me quitó el anillo de compromiso… Acostumbraba a hacerlo muchas veces y se lo ponía... Se lo puso mientras leíamos el cuento….Es maravillosa, qué puedo decir”.
Así recuerda Kate McCann los últimos momentos que pasó con su hija. El próximo lunes se cumplen tres años de la desaparición de la pequeña Madeleine. Tres años en los que sus padres no han dejado de buscarla.
Las Mañanas de Cuatro celebra sus 750 programas en antena con una exclusiva de interés mundial. Concha García Campoy se ha desplazado hasta Rothley (Inglaterra) para entrevistar a los McCann y conocer cómo es su día a día sin Maddie.
Kate y Gerry han respondido, sin censura, a todas nuestras preguntas. Nos hablan de las dudas que aún hoy rodean el caso y de su relación con Gonzalo Amaral, el policía portugués que estuvo a cargo de la investigación y que siempre les ha considerado sospechosos.
“En mi mente está muy claro que un hombre se llevó a Madeleine y tenemos que encontrarlo para saber dónde está mi hija. Que la policía no busque a ese hombre sino que sospeche de mí y de Gerry… Eso me duele”.
Kate y Gerry McCann relatan punto a punto su versión de lo que ocurrió aquella noche. Niegan tajantemente que hubieran medicado a los niños (“Es una vergüenza que eso se publicara. No tiene ninguna base. Es mentira”) aunque admiten que pudieron equivocarse al dejarlos solos para ir a cenar con un grupo de amigos.
“La culpa nunca nos abandonará, hemos cometido un error y lo repetimos varias noches seguidas…Nunca pensamos que nuestros hijos estuvieran en peligro”.
Aseguran que a Sean y Amelia, los hermanos de Maddie, nunca les han ocultado lo que pasó.
“Un psicólogo nos dijo que respondiéramos con honestidad a todas sus preguntas… Les explicamos lo del secuestro diciéndoles que si queremos algo no hay que cogerlo si es de otros. Y lo entendieron. Como si fuera un robo”.
Tres años después de la desaparición de Madeleine, los McCann no se rinden. Dicen que seguirán luchando “el tiempo que haga falta”. En estos momentos, intentan que la policía británica reabra la investigación.
Celebramos 750 mañanas juntos… con nuevos e interesantes reportajes.
Portuguese
OS MCCANN,NAS MANHÃS DA QUATRO.
"Tinha-se aninhado,encostado a mim. Então, tirou-me o anel de noivado ... Costumava fazer isso muitas vezes e punha-o ... Punha-o enquanto liamos uma história .... É maravilhosa, é o que posso dizer. "
É assim que Kate McCann recorda os últimos momentos que passou com a sua filha. Na próxima segunda-feira será o terceiro aniversário do desaparecimento de Madeleine. Três anos em que seus pais não deixaram de a procurar.
As Manhãs da Quatro comemora os seus 750 programas no ar com um exclusivo de interesse mundial. Concha García Campoy foi a Rothley (Inglaterra) para entrevistar os McCann e saber como é o seu seu dia-a-dia sem Maddie.
Kate e Gerry responderam, sem censura, a todas as nossas perguntas. Falam-nos das dúvidas que ainda hoje têm sobre o caso e da sua relação com Gonçalo Amaral, o Polícia Português, que foi o Coordenador da investigação e que sempre os considerou como suspeitos.
"Na minha mente está muito claro que foi um homem que levou Madeleine e temos que encontrá-lo para sabermos onde está a minha filha. Que a polícia não procure esse homem, mas suspeite de mim e de Gerry ... Isso magoa. "
Kate e Gerry McCann contam a sua versão ,pormenor a pormenor do que aconteceu naquela noite. Negam categoricamente que tivessem dado medicamentos aos filhos, ("Foi uma vergonha isso ter sido publicado. Não tem qualquer fundamento. É mentira "), embora admitam que cometeram o erro ao deixá-los sozinhos para irem jantar com um grupo de amigos.
"A culpa nunca nos abandonará, cometemos um erro e repetimo-lo várias noites seguidas… Nunca pensamos que os nossos filhos estivessem em perigo."
Garantem que a Sean e a Amelie, irmãos de Madeleine, nunca lhes esconderam o que se passou.
"Um psicólogo disse-nos para respondermos com honestidade a todas suas perguntas ... explicamos-lhes o rapto, dizendo que, se queremos alguma coisa que não nos pertence, que é de outros, nunca se deve tirar .E eles perceberam. Como se fosse um roubo."
Três anos depois do desaparecimento de Madeleine, os McCann não desistem. Eles dizem que vão continuar a lutar " leve o tempo que levar" .Actualmente, tentam que a polícia britânica reabra a investigação.
Celebramos 750 manhãs juntos…. com novas e interessantes reportagens.French
Les McCann, dans « Las Mañanas de la Cuatro »
"Elle était recroquevillée contre moi. Alors, elle m’a pris la bague de fiançailles ... Elle avait l’habitude de le faire souvent et la mettait ... Elle l'a mise tandis que nous lisions le conte .... Elle est merveilleuse, qu’est ce que je peux dire ».
Kate McCann se souvient ainsi, des derniers moments passés avec sa fille. Lundi prochain, marque le troisième anniversaire de la disparition de Madeleine. Trois années pendant lesquelles ses parents n'ont pas cessé de la chercher.
« Las Mañanas de la Cuatro » fêtent ses 750 programmes à l’antenne avec une exclusive d’intérêt mondial. Concha García Campoy s’est déplacée à Rothley (Angleterre) pour interviewer les McCann et connaitre comment est son quotidien sans Maddie.
Kate et Gerry ont répondu, sans censure, à toutes nos questions. Ils nous parlent des doutes qui entourent encore le cas et de sa relation avec Gonzalo Amaral, le policier portugais, qui était chargé de l’enquête et qui les a toujours considérés comme suspects.
"Dans ma tête il est clair qu’un homme a pris Madeleine, et que nous devons le trouver pour savoir ou est ma fille. Que la police ne cherche pas cet homme, mais quelle nous suspecte a moi, et a Gerry ... ça me fait mal ».
Kate et Gerry McCann racontent point par point sa version de ce qui s'est passé cette nuit-là. Ils nient catégoriquement avoir administre des médicamentes aux enfants («C'est une honte ce qui a été publié. Sans aucun fondement. C’est un mensonge»), bien qu'ils admettent qu'ils ont pu avoir tort en les laissant seuls pour aller dîner avec un groupe d'amis.
"La culpabilité ne nous abandonnera jamais, nous avons fait une erreur et nous l’avons répété plusieurs nuits de suite ... Nous n'avons jamais pensé que nos enfants étaient en danger."
Ils affirment qu’ils n’ont jamais caché à Sean et Amelie, le frère et sœur de Maddie, ce qui s'est passé.
"Un psychologue nous a dit de répondre honnêtement à toutes leurs questions ... on leur a expliqué au sujet de l'enlèvement, en leur disant que si nous voulons quelque chose nous ne devons pas la prendre si elle appartient a quelqu’un d’autre. Et ils ont compris. Comme si c’était un vol ».
Trois ans après la disparition de Madeleine, les McCann n’abandonnent pas. Ils disent qu'ils vont continuer à se battre "le temps qu'il faudra." Actuellement, ils essaient que la police britannique rouvre l'enquête.
Nous fêtons 750 matinées ensemble ... avec des reportages nouveaux et intéressants.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Roll out the McCanns! Somebody mentioned the word "abduction."!!!
......................
.................................
Above: Kate and Gerry McCann in Strasbourg, June 2008
Well, the UK finally gets around to introducing an alert system for missing children.
Sky News April 4th
An alert system has been active in some member states of the EU for some time now. In fact, Portugal was the second country after Hungary, to introduce an alert system in 2002, in accordance with an EU directive. (SOS Madeleine McCann blog )
In June 2008, the McCanns went to Strasbourg to gather support for a Europe-wide system, based on the American Amber Alert. They presented a written declaration to the Commission, but this was not their own work, rather it had been drawn up by Edward McMillan-Scott, then Vice-President of the European Parliament, but presented by the media-savvy, media magnets, the McCanns.
The McCanns had simply tried to hijack an initiative that had already been working its way through the European Parliament for some time, turn it into something else and claim it as their own.
Gerry retorted that they had neither neglected nor abandoned Madeleine and that going over that old ground was boring! (Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis)
Oh yes, Gerry! Been there, done that, lost a child, but hey, let's not go over that old boring stuff!
In December 2006, an extraordinary meeting of the member states approved an initiative of the European Commission to reserve certain numbers (Starting with 116 ) for a Europe-wide alert system for missing children. This was the system which had been in operation in France since 2006 and had proved to be effective in several cases. (August 2007: abducted 5 year-old French child recovered within hours.)
Back to SkyNews:
Well, hallelujah! By January 2009, 10 out of the 17 member states of the EU had adopted the European Alert system, the UK as we know, not having been amongst them, in spite of the fact of having the greatest number of missing children. (SOS Maddie blog)
But sky News tells us that the McCanns have been campaigning for such a system since their daughter disappeared! Well, no they haven't! They took up being poster children for McMillan-Scott's campaign in June 2008, when other member states had been operating an alternative system since 2006!
Since 2006, the French system, known as "Alerte Enlèvement," which is the system now introduced across most of the EU territory and finally in the UK, has recovered many missing children through rapid response to reported cases of abduction. The success of the system, according to Rachida Dati, former French Justice Minister, is due to there being very strict criteria for launching an alert. Four criteria must be met.
1) It must be a confirmed abduction and not just a disappearance, however worrying.
2) The victim's life or physical safety must be at risk.
3) The Public Prosecutor must be in possession of sufficient information which, if broadcast, would help to locate the child or the suspect.
4) The victim must be a minor.
So, why is the press wheeling out the McCanns today in relation to this alert system, when they had nothing to do with its inception or its introduction? This is the system that they unsuccessfully tried to replace with McMillan-Scott's version of the American Amber Alert.
And would an alert have helped to find Madeleine in May 2007, given the above criteria?
1) Not met. There was no evidence of an abduction.
2) Maybe. If Maddie was still alive after 10pm on May 3rd, it is highly likely that she would be in physical danger.
3) Not met. The information available would not have helped locate Maddie or the alleged abductor. Small child, last seen in her bed, not there now, man seen carrying a bundle that could have been a child. Description: an egg with hair!
4) Met. One out of four ain't bad? No, it ain't good!
So, there they are today, the "responsible parents," who left three very young children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, being presented as the instigators of a system they tried to replace with one that wasn't even their own, one they just tried to hitch their wagon to! I guess they will draw more public sympathy than a photo of Rachida Dati, the French Justice Minister who developed the above four criteria which their own child's case didn't meet! Hey ho!
.................................
Above: Kate and Gerry McCann in Strasbourg, June 2008Well, the UK finally gets around to introducing an alert system for missing children.
Sky News April 4th
"Police will unveil a new nationwide alert system for enlisting the public to help them rescue abducted children next month."
An alert system has been active in some member states of the EU for some time now. In fact, Portugal was the second country after Hungary, to introduce an alert system in 2002, in accordance with an EU directive. (SOS Madeleine McCann blog )
In June 2008, the McCanns went to Strasbourg to gather support for a Europe-wide system, based on the American Amber Alert. They presented a written declaration to the Commission, but this was not their own work, rather it had been drawn up by Edward McMillan-Scott, then Vice-President of the European Parliament, but presented by the media-savvy, media magnets, the McCanns.
The McCanns had simply tried to hijack an initiative that had already been working its way through the European Parliament for some time, turn it into something else and claim it as their own.
"McCann wanted to seize “a policy that is already being enforced”
"The McCann couple launched a public relations campaign, trying to 'seize' a policy that is already being enforced..." accused the member of the European Parliament, Carlos Coelho, member of the Christian-Democrat group in the European Parliament and Party colleague of President Barroso. And this MEP knows what he is talking about, as he was among the 54 deputies who had adopted, in a committee session, the European strategy concerning children’s rights, a document which was approved on January 2008.
The “written declaration” to which McMilan-Scott agreed to associate Kate and Gerry McCann thus does not contain anything new, when compared with the legislative project of the European institutions." (Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis)
The McCanns in Strasbourg in 2008 were rather like the man who knocked my door the other day, trying to interest me in double glazing, to whom I pointed out my rather new windows! But oh dear! How were those crusading, never mind that we left our children alone "responsible parents," received? Those ungrateful deputies and journalists just kept asking questions about the night Madeleine disappeared and some even asked about the children having been left alone, which irritated our saintly duo immensely!
Gerry retorted that they had neither neglected nor abandoned Madeleine and that going over that old ground was boring! (Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis)
Oh yes, Gerry! Been there, done that, lost a child, but hey, let's not go over that old boring stuff!
In December 2006, an extraordinary meeting of the member states approved an initiative of the European Commission to reserve certain numbers (Starting with 116 ) for a Europe-wide alert system for missing children. This was the system which had been in operation in France since 2006 and had proved to be effective in several cases. (August 2007: abducted 5 year-old French child recovered within hours.)
Back to SkyNews:
"The network, comparable to the amber alert system in the United States, will be compatible with other European countries for the first time."
Well, hallelujah! By January 2009, 10 out of the 17 member states of the EU had adopted the European Alert system, the UK as we know, not having been amongst them, in spite of the fact of having the greatest number of missing children. (SOS Maddie blog)
But sky News tells us that the McCanns have been campaigning for such a system since their daughter disappeared! Well, no they haven't! They took up being poster children for McMillan-Scott's campaign in June 2008, when other member states had been operating an alternative system since 2006!
Since 2006, the French system, known as "Alerte Enlèvement," which is the system now introduced across most of the EU territory and finally in the UK, has recovered many missing children through rapid response to reported cases of abduction. The success of the system, according to Rachida Dati, former French Justice Minister, is due to there being very strict criteria for launching an alert. Four criteria must be met.
"Quatre critères doivent toutefois être réunis pour que le plan soit déclenché : il doit s'agir d'un enlèvement avéré, et non d'une simple disparition, même inquiétante ; la vie ou l'intégrité physique de la victime doit être en danger ; le procureur de la République est en possession éléments d'informations dont la diffusion permettrait de localiser l'enfant ou le suspect ; et la victime doit être mineure." (Duarte Levy)
1) It must be a confirmed abduction and not just a disappearance, however worrying.
2) The victim's life or physical safety must be at risk.
3) The Public Prosecutor must be in possession of sufficient information which, if broadcast, would help to locate the child or the suspect.
4) The victim must be a minor.
So, why is the press wheeling out the McCanns today in relation to this alert system, when they had nothing to do with its inception or its introduction? This is the system that they unsuccessfully tried to replace with McMillan-Scott's version of the American Amber Alert.
And would an alert have helped to find Madeleine in May 2007, given the above criteria?
1) Not met. There was no evidence of an abduction.
2) Maybe. If Maddie was still alive after 10pm on May 3rd, it is highly likely that she would be in physical danger.
3) Not met. The information available would not have helped locate Maddie or the alleged abductor. Small child, last seen in her bed, not there now, man seen carrying a bundle that could have been a child. Description: an egg with hair!
4) Met. One out of four ain't bad? No, it ain't good!
So, there they are today, the "responsible parents," who left three very young children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, being presented as the instigators of a system they tried to replace with one that wasn't even their own, one they just tried to hitch their wagon to! I guess they will draw more public sympathy than a photo of Rachida Dati, the French Justice Minister who developed the above four criteria which their own child's case didn't meet! Hey ho!
Saturday, 20 March 2010
"The McCanns Are Lying," Daily Express, September 24th 2007
................................................
...............................................
By David Pilditch and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz
I am told that this article appeared briefly in the online edition of the Daily Express and was then whooshed! I can't find it by searching on the Express web site, but fortunately it was saved on several blogs and other web sites, including The McCann Files
A very interesting article, especially given that there are rumours, from fairly reliable sources I should add, that Robert Murat and Gonçalo Amaral are appearing as witnesses against Jane Tanner in a Portuguese court, the accusation being, "Calumny."
...............................................
By David Pilditch and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz
I am told that this article appeared briefly in the online edition of the Daily Express and was then whooshed! I can't find it by searching on the Express web site, but fortunately it was saved on several blogs and other web sites, including The McCann Files
A very interesting article, especially given that there are rumours, from fairly reliable sources I should add, that Robert Murat and Gonçalo Amaral are appearing as witnesses against Jane Tanner in a Portuguese court, the accusation being, "Calumny."
"Portuguese police believe Gerry and Kate McCann are using friends to hide their role in killing Madeleine. The Daily Express can reveal that their seven holiday friends may now be named as suspects as police believe they are hiding the truth about Madeleine’s death.The dramatic move comes as it was reported that former chief suspect Robert Murat is to be told he will not face charges over the four-year-old’s disappearance. Ruling him out of the four-month investigation will leave Kate and Gerry McCann as the sole suspects.
Last night police sources said the decision could have a devastating impact on the McCanns’ defence. In an astonishing twist, British expat Murat could be used as a key prosecution witness against the McCanns. Almost the entire police case against Murat was built on evidence from the couple’s holiday friends.
Investigators believe the McCanns "cooked up a story" that Madeleine had been kidnapped to throw them off the trail and enlisted members of their party to provide them with an alibi. They also believe the group tried to turn the focus of the investigation towards Murat.
Yesterday it was revealed that police are questioning new witnesses who cast doubts over the evidence of members of the holiday group. The McCanns and their friends told how they took turns to check on their children every 30 minutes as they ate at a tapas restaurant on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.
But one Portuguese newspaper reported that employees at the restaurant insisted that only Dr Russell O’Brien, 36, and hospital consultant Matthew Oldfield, 37, left the dinner table that evening. Another witness has come forward to refute the testimony of a third friend Jane Tanner, 36, who told police she saw a man carrying a child rushing from the Ocean Club complex at around 9.15pm on May 3.
Yesterday it was reported in Portugal that a new witness, an unnamed Irishman, told police he was in the same spot as Miss Tanner at the same time and saw no one. He is the second independent witness to dispute her story and police sources said they viewed Miss Tanner’s evidence as "unreliable" because of inconsistencies.Officers are concerned that she apparently changed her version of the sighting. She originally claimed she saw the suspect rushing towards the Baptista supermarket in Praia da Luz. She told police the child was wrapped in a blanket.A second independent witness reported seeing a similar man with a child in a blanket near the town’s church heading towards the beach. The route he took matches the alleged trail of death discovered by British sniffer dogs who detected the scent of a corpse.But Miss Tanner has now told detectives that the man was heading in a different direction – towards Murat’s home. Police regard her account as one of a series given by the McCanns and their friends to convince them that Madeleine had been kidnapped.
Officers believe former hospital anaesthetist Kate, 39, killed her daughter by accidentally giving her an overdose of sleeping pills. They are working on the theory that consultant cardiologist Gerry, also 39, helped to dispose of Madeleine’s body.Police are awaiting results of toxicology tests carried out on bodily fluids with an 88 per cent match to Madeleine’s DNA found in the boot of a hire car the couple rented 25 days after she went missing.
Dr O’Brien, along with Mr Oldfield’s wife Rachael, 36, and another friend Dr Fiona Payne, 34, said they saw Murat near the McCanns’ apartment on May 3 and their claim appeared to shatter Murat’s alibi.Detectives interrogated the McCanns at police headquarters in Portimao 17 days ago over the discrepancies. The couple were told separately later that day they were being named as suspects or arguidos.
Last night another member of the McCanns’ holiday party was reported to have stepped into the mystery. The move came after it was revealed that police in Portugal were focusing their investigation on a "lost seven hours" on the day Madeleine disappeared.Now Dr Payne’s husband – medical researcher David, 41 – has claimed he saw Madeleine being put to bed when he visited the McCann flat at 7pm. Before his new testimony, police sources admitted they could not confirm the whereabouts of Kate and Madeleine after 1.29pm that day.Kate’s movements were said to be unaccounted for until she sat down to have dinner with Gerry and their friends at around 8.40pm.
But the McCanns believe Mr Payne’s testimony will be crucial in proving their innocence. That would leave just an hour and a half in which they were supposed to have killed their daughter and disposed of her body.But last night a source in Portugal said police were viewing alibis provided by the McCanns’ friends with suspicion. They are convinced that some or all of them may have known what happened to Madeleine and may have helped to cover up her death.The source said police had not ruled out the possibility of naming them all as suspects – and they could face being charged as accessories.
The source said: "It has long been considered a number of people may have been involved in this unfortunate case."In Portugal yesterday it was revealed that detectives have seized a British police manual from the McCanns. Officers believe the book could be used as a key piece of evidence in building a case against them.A Portuguese police source said: "It is certainly not the sort of reading material you would expect a couple to take on a relaxing family holiday".
Monday, 15 March 2010
Kate McCann: the agony of the long distance mother.
...................................................
.....................................................
Kate McCann arriving at the police station in Portugal for questioning, September 2007
....................................... .......................................
Kate McCann and Aled Jones on Good Morning Sunday, March 2010
I realise that Kate McCann was in Portugal when the first photo was taken, and she had that healthy glow from being in the sun so much, witnessed by all that sun cream she had to wash off Cuddle Cat, but to me there is more than three years and a few thousand miles between those photos. Kate McCann looking like she's still on holiday and Kate McCann, the good mother, being interviewed on a Mothering Sunday religious programme about her Catholic faith, two and a half years later. Well, she did once say that if she looked more maternal, she might get more sympathy!
It's been a hard nearly three years, though, I imagine: all that traveling around Europe, all those interviews, all those photo-ops! Phew! She really has gone the distance!
Thanks to Nigel at The McCann Files we have a transcript of Kate McCann's latest public outing, though it was recorded before her run for Missing People last weekend.
I'm not going to comment on all of the clichéd drivel that came out of Kate's mouth, just a few of the comments that seemed particularly worth remarking on.
Is Kate MCann saying that Sean and Amelie are being encouraged to believe that if their sister were to miraculously turn up, she'd suddenly appear at the house and the neighbours would just give them a call and say, "By the way, Madeleine's here."? Just like that! All casual like! Nothing to do with police and doctors checking out a child who'd been missing for nearly three years!
Sorry, but I just don't believe that a five-year-old would say that! This smacks more of Kate McCann's angling for some kind of role with a missing children's charity. She's letting us know through this supposed quote from Sean, that she's working so hard and she could carry on working like this, should the Maddie case come to some kind of resolution. Ah yes, what will you be hoping to be doing Kate McCann?
What? You can predict what Maddie would be like after nearly three years, if she had been abducted? She is now, after all that time in a "hellish lair," in a "lawless village," being held by a swarthy abductor, "funny and loving."? And if by some strange chance she did turn up, you'd just want to run around introducing her to everyone? After being abducted by a stranger and being held for nearly three years, she may be rather sensitised to meeting new people! But there you go! I guess it might be a bit like showing everyone your new Gucci handbag!
What relationship? Even if they had spent a lot of time with their sister, which you, Kate, said did not happen, they were two years and three months old when their sister disappeared. They're five years old now and if they have any memory of their sister, it must be so vague by now as to appear unreal. Yet, here you are talking about "relationship," in the present tense. I think this is a construct of your mind, Kate McCann, embellished by your stories about Maddie, firing the flames of a relationship that never existed. Your children have a fantasy relationship with a sister they never knew and cannot ever know, because we all know that there will be no need for the next door neighbour to make that call.
You don't seem to know very much about classical music, Kate McCann:
There's no happy classical music? What were you listening to?
So, Kate McCann, you and your husband believe that your daughter was taken by a paedophile and is being kept, according to your private investigator, in a "hellish lair."? In what way and in what terms might a mother in your situation pray for someone who might be abusing her daughter every day of her life?
I thought you said the police weren't looking for your daughter?
At the beginning of the interview, Kate McCann said this:
So, at nearly seven years old, Maddie is "one of my babies."?
But later in the interview:
So, at nearly four years old, having lunch with Maddie was like "a girls' day out," but she's now one of your babies?
A nearly four-year-old child is not one of the girls. And if, in spite of all the evidence, or lack of it, to the contrary, she had been abducted by a swarthy paedophile, her baby days would be a long long way behind her, and she wouldn't be as funny as she once was. Neither would she be rushing excitedly to join in with the games of two siblings she hardly knew before and she would not recognise now.
Do you think she'd even recognise you, Kate McCann? You have changed over these nearly three years and that length of time would be nearly half of Maddie's lifetime.
And you think that's realistic? That if a child were abducted by strangers and held for nearly three years, she could just slip happily back into the loving arms of her family? Dream on Mrs McCann! It wouldn't happen and I expect you know that dreaming and pretending with your two remaining children is OK, because it simply ain't gonna happen, is it?
.....................................................
Kate McCann arriving at the police station in Portugal for questioning, September 2007
....................................... .......................................
Kate McCann and Aled Jones on Good Morning Sunday, March 2010
I realise that Kate McCann was in Portugal when the first photo was taken, and she had that healthy glow from being in the sun so much, witnessed by all that sun cream she had to wash off Cuddle Cat, but to me there is more than three years and a few thousand miles between those photos. Kate McCann looking like she's still on holiday and Kate McCann, the good mother, being interviewed on a Mothering Sunday religious programme about her Catholic faith, two and a half years later. Well, she did once say that if she looked more maternal, she might get more sympathy!
It's been a hard nearly three years, though, I imagine: all that traveling around Europe, all those interviews, all those photo-ops! Phew! She really has gone the distance!
Thanks to Nigel at The McCann Files we have a transcript of Kate McCann's latest public outing, though it was recorded before her run for Missing People last weekend.
I'm not going to comment on all of the clichéd drivel that came out of Kate's mouth, just a few of the comments that seemed particularly worth remarking on.
AJ: And what about your other children? How aware are they of what's happening?
KM: .................... But they talk about finding her, about, you know, finding Madeleine, and running away with her and coming back home and even things like when we go on holiday, they say, "Oh, what will happen if the police find Madeleine and we're not there?", you know, and we say, "Oh, don't worry," you know, "our next door neighbours will let us know."
Is Kate MCann saying that Sean and Amelie are being encouraged to believe that if their sister were to miraculously turn up, she'd suddenly appear at the house and the neighbours would just give them a call and say, "By the way, Madeleine's here."? Just like that! All casual like! Nothing to do with police and doctors checking out a child who'd been missing for nearly three years!
"..........And they're very aware but they're very positive. I mean, they'll always talk about when Madeleine comes home. Sean said to me the other week... well, Amelie said to me, "Why do you work, mummy?" and I said, "Well," you know, "I've gotta find Madeleine." and Sean said, "Yes, mummy, but when that's over; when Madeleine's home, what will you do?", you know, and you think, 'Oh, bring it on', you know."
Sorry, but I just don't believe that a five-year-old would say that! This smacks more of Kate McCann's angling for some kind of role with a missing children's charity. She's letting us know through this supposed quote from Sean, that she's working so hard and she could carry on working like this, should the Maddie case come to some kind of resolution. Ah yes, what will you be hoping to be doing Kate McCann?
AJ: So what's Madeleine like?
KM: Oh, in some ways you just want everyone to meet her because, errm... she's just an amazing little character full of personality, loads of energy, quite knowing, errm... really funny and loving and,..
What? You can predict what Maddie would be like after nearly three years, if she had been abducted? She is now, after all that time in a "hellish lair," in a "lawless village," being held by a swarthy abductor, "funny and loving."? And if by some strange chance she did turn up, you'd just want to run around introducing her to everyone? After being abducted by a stranger and being held for nearly three years, she may be rather sensitised to meeting new people! But there you go! I guess it might be a bit like showing everyone your new Gucci handbag!
"............you know her relationship with Sean and Amelie is incredible really. And thats something that still gets to me at times when I see them playing and then they start talking about Madeleine.."
What relationship? Even if they had spent a lot of time with their sister, which you, Kate, said did not happen, they were two years and three months old when their sister disappeared. They're five years old now and if they have any memory of their sister, it must be so vague by now as to appear unreal. Yet, here you are talking about "relationship," in the present tense. I think this is a construct of your mind, Kate McCann, embellished by your stories about Maddie, firing the flames of a relationship that never existed. Your children have a fantasy relationship with a sister they never knew and cannot ever know, because we all know that there will be no need for the next door neighbour to make that call.
You don't seem to know very much about classical music, Kate McCann:
KM: ........since Madeleine was taken from us I actually struggled quite a lot to listen to music and I'd... I'd actually put classical music on rather than anything remotely, I guess, happy, you know,...
There's no happy classical music? What were you listening to?
AJ: Do you find that your prayers have changed over the years?
KM: ............But I pray for the people who have taken Madeleine, the people who know whats happened to Madeleine and the people around... related to the person who's taken Madeleine.
So, Kate McCann, you and your husband believe that your daughter was taken by a paedophile and is being kept, according to your private investigator, in a "hellish lair."? In what way and in what terms might a mother in your situation pray for someone who might be abusing her daughter every day of her life?
"........I pray for the police and the investigators; people who are looking for her;..."
I thought you said the police weren't looking for your daughter?
At the beginning of the interview, Kate McCann said this:
KM: ..........You know, I think motherhood is a real gift and obviously I've got three children and it's another reminder that one of my babies isn't with me...
So, at nearly seven years old, Maddie is "one of my babies."?
But later in the interview:
KM: ..........You know, I'd... got to the stage where me and Madeleine would go for lunch together, you know, and it felt like a real girl's day out, and...
So, at nearly four years old, having lunch with Maddie was like "a girls' day out," but she's now one of your babies?
A nearly four-year-old child is not one of the girls. And if, in spite of all the evidence, or lack of it, to the contrary, she had been abducted by a swarthy paedophile, her baby days would be a long long way behind her, and she wouldn't be as funny as she once was. Neither would she be rushing excitedly to join in with the games of two siblings she hardly knew before and she would not recognise now.
Do you think she'd even recognise you, Kate McCann? You have changed over these nearly three years and that length of time would be nearly half of Maddie's lifetime.
"When she's upset, I want to be there. And I just want to bring her back into the warmth and love of our family, really."
And you think that's realistic? That if a child were abducted by strangers and held for nearly three years, she could just slip happily back into the loving arms of her family? Dream on Mrs McCann! It wouldn't happen and I expect you know that dreaming and pretending with your two remaining children is OK, because it simply ain't gonna happen, is it?
Friday, 12 March 2010
Gerry and Kate McCann: are they talking gobbledy-gook or just having trouble keeping the pretence going?
..........................
..........................
Many what? Many ways in which she is in danger? Ways in which she could come to harm or has already come to harm? But let's recall who put Madeleine in danger: those who left her alone did that.
Yes, Gerry. What are those "many..."?
Gerry McCann is dissociating here, as usual. Instead of talking in the first person, i.e., "I," or, "we," Gerry opts for the impersonal, "you." Then he talks about "many different scenarios," but really does not touch on any dangers that he might be thinking of, and actually only describes one kind of scenario where a child who has been "taken," is out and about in the world, being seen and appearing to live a normal life. He is not answering the question about "dangers," because he is talking about a child adapting to a new environment and the message seems to be that the child is not in danger. Does he think this could apply to Madeleine, the world's most widely profiled child, with her recognisable eye defect? That she is adapting to a new environment and being seen (by whom?) to be living a normal life?
Perhaps Gerry is just trying to make sure there are many more "sightings," by encouraging the public to believe that Madeleine is to be seen out and about in the real world, just a seemingly normal child, living a seemingly normal life. So, keep looking.
The question was, "what dangers do you think about."? Madeleine might be in danger of adapting to a new environment? With paedos? In a "hellish lair."? No, you've lost me Gerry!
Once again, Gerry McCann doesn't seem to have answered the question. What part of "totally investigated," does he not understand or choose to ignore before he launches into the prepared script? If the leads were "totally investigated," they have not just been discounted.
I'm not sure what Gerry means by, "the file to be opened." Does he mean the case to be re-opened? Sandra refers to there not being any sightings that were reliable enough for the case to be re-opened, not "the file." So, what is Gerry McCann talking about? Does he just not want to be quoted as saying he wants the case to be re-opened?
Video cuts to the McCanns' private investigator, Dave Edgar.
What, every time, Mr Edgar? They dump the body? You worked in Northern Ireland, you must know about the "disappeared," whose bodies have never been found. When "these people," whoever they may be, don't want to be associated with a body, that's quite often why they bleedin' well bury it, or otherwise dispose of it! A body that is dumped straight away is probably a case where the perps have panicked and those are the ones where the police have the chance of finding forensic evidence. The killer will leave something of himself or herself behind, hence the thousands of children who disappear every year without trace cannot be assumed to be alive, sadly, just because a body has not been found. I am quite sure that you know this. Killers don't always give up the evidence of their crime so readily.
Neither of Madeleine's parents can remember the specific details of sightings they "looked at twice," and obviously just for a short time thought it might have been their daughter? If even for a few minutes or just seconds they got their hopes up, but they can't remember?
And Gerry states, "I don't think there's been anything that I'd really...." Really what? Give any credence to? So, what about all the information Gerry says has been passed to the PJ by the private investigators, that he thinks should be investigated and hasn't been? Does this mean that Gerry hasn't seen that information? If not, then how does he know it's worth investigating? If he has seen it, then he is actually saying in that unfinished sentence that it's not of any value. That's not gobbledy-gook! That just appears to be some short-term memory problem and Gerry and Kate both jumping in trying to cover it with vague references to sightings they don't remember! The leads have been "totally investigated," and by Gerry's own admission, there has been nothing he'd really...!!
I think I've answered my own question! The facade may be slipping. You've got to have a really good memory to keep lying for very long periods of time...including (nearly three!) years!
..........................
"Gerry McCann: The biggest fear for us is that it puts Madeleine in danger...eh...I think there are many...."
Many what? Many ways in which she is in danger? Ways in which she could come to harm or has already come to harm? But let's recall who put Madeleine in danger: those who left her alone did that.
"Kate McCann: ...makes the chances of finding her much more difficult.
Sandra F: When you think about dangers, what kind of things do you think about?"
Yes, Gerry. What are those "many..."?
"Gerry McCann: It's very difficult, isn't it, in terms of eh...until you know who's taken her, you've no idea and there's been many different scenarios eh.....by which children are taken and have been held for very long periods of time, including years, and to the outward world they seem to be living a normal life. I think that with a young child in particular the chances of taking them to a new environment and them adapting is greater."
Gerry McCann is dissociating here, as usual. Instead of talking in the first person, i.e., "I," or, "we," Gerry opts for the impersonal, "you." Then he talks about "many different scenarios," but really does not touch on any dangers that he might be thinking of, and actually only describes one kind of scenario where a child who has been "taken," is out and about in the world, being seen and appearing to live a normal life. He is not answering the question about "dangers," because he is talking about a child adapting to a new environment and the message seems to be that the child is not in danger. Does he think this could apply to Madeleine, the world's most widely profiled child, with her recognisable eye defect? That she is adapting to a new environment and being seen (by whom?) to be living a normal life?
Perhaps Gerry is just trying to make sure there are many more "sightings," by encouraging the public to believe that Madeleine is to be seen out and about in the real world, just a seemingly normal child, living a seemingly normal life. So, keep looking.
The question was, "what dangers do you think about."? Madeleine might be in danger of adapting to a new environment? With paedos? In a "hellish lair."? No, you've lost me Gerry!
"Sandra F: You confess that you think some of these leads should have been better investigated, but last week the Portuguese General Attorney said that all the leads that were recently reported to the PJ after July 2008, were totally investigated and none, none were sufficiently reliable to re-open the case. Why do you think the General Public Attorney would say that if this wasn't true?"
"Gerry McCann: The first thing we have to do is look at the information, but from what we have seen so far, the same thing has been written about each individual piece of information and there is no evidence in the information that's been disclosed, but it's not acceptable to parents of a missing child for everything to be discounted. You know it doesn't matter what the information is , it's just discounted and that's not acceptable and if it's better for us as a family for the file to be opened, then that's what we'll press for."
Once again, Gerry McCann doesn't seem to have answered the question. What part of "totally investigated," does he not understand or choose to ignore before he launches into the prepared script? If the leads were "totally investigated," they have not just been discounted.
I'm not sure what Gerry means by, "the file to be opened." Does he mean the case to be re-opened? Sandra refers to there not being any sightings that were reliable enough for the case to be re-opened, not "the file." So, what is Gerry McCann talking about? Does he just not want to be quoted as saying he wants the case to be re-opened?
Video cuts to the McCanns' private investigator, Dave Edgar.
"Sandra F: Do you still think it's possible to find Madeleine alive?"
"Edgar: Of course it is. Of course it is. No body's been found. In my experience, in these cases if the child's been killed, they dump the body virtually straight away because I've seen these people don't want to be associated with the body."
What, every time, Mr Edgar? They dump the body? You worked in Northern Ireland, you must know about the "disappeared," whose bodies have never been found. When "these people," whoever they may be, don't want to be associated with a body, that's quite often why they bleedin' well bury it, or otherwise dispose of it! A body that is dumped straight away is probably a case where the perps have panicked and those are the ones where the police have the chance of finding forensic evidence. The killer will leave something of himself or herself behind, hence the thousands of children who disappear every year without trace cannot be assumed to be alive, sadly, just because a body has not been found. I am quite sure that you know this. Killers don't always give up the evidence of their crime so readily.
"Sandra F: (I can't pick up Sandra is saying at the beginning) .....From all that have been talked about.........????.....does any that touched you most? That you kept thinking about it?"
"Gerry McCann: The things that are most obvious are the sightings on the night of a child being carried, two separate things in Praia da Luz. But since then, I don't think there's been anything that I've really...there's been one or two that we've looked at twice."
"Sandra F: Can you tell me which they were?"
"Gerry McCann: Can't remember the specific eh....."
"Kate McCann: There was one, wasn't there? I think it was Amsterdam or Brussels..."
Neither of Madeleine's parents can remember the specific details of sightings they "looked at twice," and obviously just for a short time thought it might have been their daughter? If even for a few minutes or just seconds they got their hopes up, but they can't remember?
And Gerry states, "I don't think there's been anything that I'd really...." Really what? Give any credence to? So, what about all the information Gerry says has been passed to the PJ by the private investigators, that he thinks should be investigated and hasn't been? Does this mean that Gerry hasn't seen that information? If not, then how does he know it's worth investigating? If he has seen it, then he is actually saying in that unfinished sentence that it's not of any value. That's not gobbledy-gook! That just appears to be some short-term memory problem and Gerry and Kate both jumping in trying to cover it with vague references to sightings they don't remember! The leads have been "totally investigated," and by Gerry's own admission, there has been nothing he'd really...!!
I think I've answered my own question! The facade may be slipping. You've got to have a really good memory to keep lying for very long periods of time...including (nearly three!) years!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)