Re: Daily Express 22nd June 2013

susible Sat 22 Jun - 12:52

In my opinion, Gordon Brown jumped onto the bandwagon to be seen as a caring person, only to be informed that the Mc's were not all that they seemed. However, due to his rather obvious desire to be seen as always making the right decision, even when proved he was wrong, no official statements and no action was taken to rectify the error of judgment. Notably Brown distanced himself rather quickly, refusing to meet with the McCanns personally (the mid level consular meeting that the Mc's declined according to their spokespoodle)

Also, the media frenzy started by the McCanns and their friends and families snowballed out of control within a very short time and Carter Ruck soon put an end to anything negative being printed in the UK press and as such the xenophobic nonsense about the Portuguese handling of the investigation must have been very daunting to the PJ, who not wishing to further damage their own reputations, obviously decided to throw in the towel..and who could blame them. Unless they had a 100% watertight case against the McCanns it could have backfired spectacularly and any hope of achieving justice would be lost forever.

No, I think the AG made the correct decision at the time to shelve the case and now hopefully SY will take up the mantle and proceed where they left off, without a tirade of racist abuse from the UK press if the saintly McCanns (who carefully manufactured that image themselves) are brought in for further questioning.

kathybelle Sat 22 Jun - 12:56

susible wrote:I really doubt that Kathybelle, prosecuting the PJ for corruption...that sounds like Stephen Birch's theory...which is a pile of crock IMO.

No, I really don't see any of it as a cover up, there would have been no need for a review then and certainly not the advanced action we are seeing now, the McCanns would just have disappeared and we would not have heard any more about them if they were being protected..and if so then it's the worst cover up and protection in history...we wouldn't be writing on this forum if the level of protection was such that you suggest.

It's all quite simple in my opinion, there was not enough evidence to prosecute in Portugal, there was nothing to be gained by keeping the McCanns there and the case was shelved until new evidence was presented and that is what I think SY are doing right now..gathering new evidence, against whom I obviously don't know, but as there really have not been any other credible suspects, it must surely be the Mcs and their friends.

Hi Susible

If the PJ had no reason to keep the McCanns in PDL when they were made arguidos, why did they make Robert Murat stay in the country and why did he have to adhere to the terms of his arguido status? The PJ had absolutely nothing on Robert Murat and let's face it, more time was spent searching the property of Mrs Murat than on the McCanns apartment. Her garden was dug over more than once as well, all because a media reporter and some of the McCanns friends, made false accusations against him.

If the PJ were so certain they could not bring a case against the McCanns, then they should have released Robert Murat from his status. In fact, I don't even know why they made the McCanns arguidos.

Regarding the CPS trying to bring a case against former members of the PJ, it might sound far fetched, but I'm only stating that I wouldn't be surprised if this happened. I certainly hope this doesn't happen.

susible Sat 22 Jun - 13:06

Robert Murat was a Portuguese citizen though, so slightly different and of course he was accused whilst the abduction story was being investigated as the primary reason for Madeleine's disappearance, rather than the later stages of the investigation which focused on the parents. But I imagine the PJ decided to cover all bases and retain Murat's status as arguido and of course there is still some suspicion as to whether Murat was involved, not as the abductor, but possibly as an accessory to the McCanns, personally I don't think he was, but who would know.

This case certainly has had many twists and turns, but I think much of the strangeness and confusion comes from the McCanns themselves, Gerry said himself that it was a good thing that there was so much information out there that nobody knew what was true, so it suited their agenda.

Notably though not one peep has issued from the McCanns on this latest development, which is strange because normally they're in there, all guns blazing if they think it will further their cause..Not this time though

comperedna Sat 22 Jun - 15:26

I tend to agree with all that you have said in these last few posts, susible. I think whatever the solution the Met comes up with will surely be known to us within the next few months.

joyce1938 Sat 22 Jun - 15:37

I cant recall if we ever had a response about there only being 4 passports on chest of drawers in bedroom ,should,nt there have been 5 ?joyce1938

**Badboy** Sat 22 Jun - 15:40

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Panda, who were the couple staying above Mrs Fenn?

Michaela Murat was previously married to Luis Antonio, not Robert Murat's friend Sergei (or Sergey) Malinka.
MOYLES

jejune Sat 22 Jun - 18:36

Is this the first time the McCanns haven't provided a comment on anything (however insignificant) placed in the press?

comperedna Sat 22 Jun - 18:50

I've just read the Express article online (via the very useful Drudge Report). I think it is as fair as you could expect from a UK newspaper on the case these days... and very guarded. No comments are being allowed. A neutral pic of the parents is shown in the article, and the rather charming tennis ball pic of Madeleine leads the article. Well worth a read.

**Panda** Sat 22 Jun - 19:19

comperedna wrote:I've just read the Express article online (via the very useful Drudge Report). I think it is as fair as you could expect from a UK newspaper on the case these days... and very guarded. No comments are being allowed. A neutral pic of the parents is shown in the article, and the rather charming tennis ball pic of Madeleine leads the article. Well worth a read.

How do you get it online, I had to go to the Daily Express and could only copy the front page.

duncanmac Sat 22 Jun - 20:11

According to my local newspaper ( Liverpool Echo ), the Macs have made a comment, but surprisingly there is no sign of the article on the on-line version

Wintabells Sat 22 Jun - 20:49

Agreeing with Susible.

kathybelle Sun 23 Jun - 6:21

susible wrote:Robert Murat was a Portuguese citizen though, so slightly different and of course he was accused whilst the abduction story was being investigated as the primary reason for Madeleine's disappearance, rather than the later stages of the investigation which focused on the parents. But I imagine the PJ decided to cover all bases and retain Murat's status as arguido and of course there is still some suspicion as to whether Murat was involved, not as the abductor, but possibly as an accessory to the McCanns, personally I don't think he was, but who would know.

This case certainly has had many twists and turns, but I think much of the strangeness and confusion comes from the McCanns themselves, Gerry said himself that it was a good thing that there was so much information out there that nobody knew what was true, so it suited their agenda.

Notably though not one peep has issued from the McCanns on this latest development, which is strange because normally they're in there, all guns blazing if they think it will further their cause..Not this time though

First of all, Robert Murat is a British citizen, he may have dual nationality because of his Portuguese father, but he was born in the UK. He's lived in the UK and he has a former wife as well as a daughter who live in the UK.

As for Robert Murat being the primary reason for Madeleine's disappearance whilst the abduction story was being investigated, that is also wrong. The police suspected the McCanns were involved with Madeleine's disappearance, within a very short time, due to the lies they were telling. Once it was established that the 'jemmied' shutter was a lie and after first telling the police that their apartment was locked, the McCanns admitted leaving it unlocked, the police were looking at the theory that Madeleine walked out of the apartment.

Robert Murat only came to notice after a journalist spoke to the police about his 'strange' behaviour, even though he was helping the police and not for the first time, as an interpreter. Yes he was taken in for questioning and all of his personal property was seized, but when he was taken in for questioning, the McCanns were not only suspected of knowing more about Madeleine's disappearance, than they were letting on, by the PJ, a British police force suspected the same and they advised the PJ to make them suspects, before Robert Murat requested he was made an arguido.

Goncalo Amaral once stated that the PJ made mistakes during the investigation, he said one of the mistakes was not charging the McCanns with neglect. Before anyone asks, no I don't have any proof he said this, just as I don't have any proof that Goncalo Amaral, stated that the British Government intervened with this case.

I'll say this again, the PJ had no reason at all to keep Robert Murat as an arguido, there was nothing in Robert Murat's personal property to make the PJ suspect he had played a part in Madeleine's disappearance, so all of his property was returned to him. There was nothing in Mrs Murat's home, which was searched more than once. nor her garden which was also dug over more than once, with the police drawing a blank.

All the time this was going on, the McCanns, who were the PJ's main suspects, were flitting here there and everywhere, in and out of the country. Why? I can only presume it was because they were untouchable, due to the protection they were given at a very early stage, by the British Government.

When Robert Murat, was cleared of any involvement with Madeleine's disappearance, he expected to be released from his arguido status, primarily because he had requested the status. When he was told he would have to remain an arguido, he said he wished he had never asked for the status. The only reason he asked for the status in the first place, was so he could have a lawyer at his side when he was questioned. He had the right to remain silent, once he was made an arguido, but unlike Kate McCann, he answered every question put to him and why wouldn't he, if he had done nothing wrong!

Regarding the review and the news that Scotland Yard are now taking over the investigation. In my opinion mistakes have been made, regarding information that has been fed to the media. Dave Edgar, one of the McCanns former private detectives, was a senior officer in the Northern Ireland Police force. He was severely reprimanded, for not following investigative procedures, during the time he was investigating a woman with a boat, who in his eyes could have played a part in the disappearance of Madeleine. Edgar gave the name of that woman to the media and he also gave the name of an Australian woman to the media, so much so that the media tracked that woman down.

In my opinion, the review team were doing the same as Edgar, when they told the media, the names of two (now deceased) paedophiles, who they suspected of playing a part in Madeleine's disappearance. The review team, also told the media, they were also investigating 20 cleaners. The review team should not have been disclosing information about any stage of their review.

The media have now been told that the CPS are in Portugal. Why do the media need to be told this? Surely this information should stay behind the walls of Scotland Yard, until the investigation, which hasn't even started, has been concluded.

If I am wrong, then Edgar, should not have been reprimanded for feeding information to the media, which should have remained confidential.

Until it is proved otherwise, I will always that the CPS are not in Portugal to look at making a case against the McCanns they are looking at making a case against former members of the PJ, including Goncalo Amaral.

**kitti** Sun 23 Jun - 8:45

Suing the pj and amaral means that it will go to court and the case will be blown wide open.

They will have to say how they came to the conclusion that Madeleine is dead and why they think the mccanns are implicated and why they were made arquidos.

Bring it on.

**Panda** Sun 23 Jun - 9:20

@ kathybelle, it was 3 of the Tapas Group, can't remember their names who fingered Murat, they said he was loitering around by the gate to apartment 5a and looked suspicious.
You are excellent at finding stuff, have a look in the Final Report and find the 4 theories the PJ concluded. I know 0ne is that Madeleine died in 5a, can't remember the other 3. Ta x

@ kitti .....only if SY find the real culprits, do you think they will? Daily Express 22nd June 2013 - Page 2 294124

Daily Express 22nd June 2013 - Page 2 294124

kathybelle Sun 23 Jun - 9:37

kitti wrote:Suing the pj and amaral means that it will go to court and the case will be blown wide open.

They will have to say how they came to the conclusion that Madeleine is dead and why they think the mccanns are implicated and why they were made arquidos.

Bring it on.

Agreed, in my opinion, bringing a case against former members of the PJ, who investigated this case, could be the way forward, because every detail will have to be revealed in court. Especially Goncalo Amaral's public statements, that the British Government intervened with the case and the McCanns request that the case was closed, while they were still arguidos. The British Government, will have to explain why they intervened in this case.

It would be interesting to see what answer was given, regarding the McCanns being made arguidos. The PJ gained nothing from making the McCanns arguidos, simply because the McCanns didn't have to adhere to the terms of the status.

Should a case be brought against the former members of the PJ, there will be a lot of very worried people in the McCanns camp, especially the McCanns.

If the McCanns played no part in Madeleine's disappearance other than neglect, due to being left unsupervised in their apartment, apart from regretting the fact that they did wrong by leaving Madeleine and the twins (if this is what happened) unsupervised in their apartment, I wouldn't be surprised if they wished they could turn the clock back to the beginning of this case and cooperated fully with the investigation.

In the short term, the McCanns gained a lot of sympathy as well as money, but it appears that the sympathy for them is draining away fast. Their friends in 'high places' were very vocal at the beginning of this case, now they seem to have faded away.

**cass** Sun 23 Jun - 9:50

i agree kathy it would all be over now for them - the circus got bigger - whatever happens now - the tapas group will always be known as such - the mcanns will be known as the couple that took their children on holiday - dumped them in the kids club morning noon - but not night because they had to pay a fee - i mean you cant be having your booze money and tennis lesson money touched for child care - mrs fenn saying that madeleine cried for a hr and a half - one little girl of the tapas group ill and still left - not good is it - whatever the sy review come up with - these few snippets here - might as well be tattooed on all thir foreheads forever

kathybelle Sun 23 Jun - 10:06

cass wrote:i agree kathy it would all be over now for them - the circus got bigger - whatever happens now - the tapas group will always be known as such - the mcanns will be known as the couple that took their children on holiday - dumped them in the kids club morning noon - but not night because they had to pay a fee - i mean you cant be having your booze money and tennis lesson money touched for child care - mrs fenn saying that madeleine cried for a hr and a half - one little girl of the tapas group ill and still left - not good is it - whatever the sy review come up with - these few snippets here - might as well be tattooed on all thir foreheads forever

Good morning Cass

Well said, from what I've seen and heard of the McCanns and their Tapas mates, who left their children in the way the McCanns left Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, none of them are fit to call themselves parents.

If the McCanns were speaking the truth, when they said Madeleine that on the morning of the evening Madeleine disappeared, she told them she and Sean cried for them and they never came, how on earth could they go out again and leave them. They had been given a massive wakeup call and yet they saw fit to leave their children again.

To be honest, I don't believe this ever happened, because for 12 months the McCanns when interviewed about their children's sleeping habits, had always said they never woke up, once they were asleep. I find it rather strange that Madeleine should vanish, hours after she supposedly told her parents what happened the previous evening.

However if this is what really happened, the McCanns must have hearts of stone, to go out again and leave their children. It makes me wonder why Kate McCann bothered to have IVF treatment, because from where I'm sitting she and her husband didn't give a stuff about the dangerous situation they left their children in, while they were wining and dining with their mates.

Couples who have tried and failed to have children, must be really sickened to read of the McCanns exploits in Portugal, which resulted in the disappearance of Madeleine, who was little more than a toddler. I honestly don't know how anyone can support the McCanns.

susible Sun 23 Jun - 10:11

Kathybelle, whilst you are correct about some aspects of Murat, I don't think the investigation was onto the McCanns at first, yes there were lies and contradictions, but apart from the official statements, the rest of the the information "jemmied shutters" etc came from friends and family of the McCanns, not the McCanns themselves, so the PJ were initially following the abduction route and thanks to Lori Campbell, Jane Tanner and 3 of the other tapas group (O'Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield) the finger was pointed at Murat.

Furthermore, many of the leaks about the investigation had a number of sources, yet again, mainly from the McCanns. Many of the updates from SY have actually said very little and it's my opinion that they have also had details added from other sources than the Met, and we all know what total and utter BS the press will print. Even in this latest saga they don't seem to know exactly what the role of the CPS is, claiming that they were in Portugal to investigate leads...the CPS don't investigate!

As for this sudden "They might be going to bring a case against the PJ" Sorry, I just can't go with that at all...that's really straying into Birch territory there and I just cannot see how or why the UK CPS could bring charges against a foreign police force, A) because what right would they have to do that and B) How the heck would that help solve what happened to Madeleine? And it would not necessarily blow the case wide open, because the focus would be on securing a conviction against the PJ, not the McCanns, who may not even have to testify as everything they have said officially is in the investigation files...

Sorry, no I have to completely disagree with you on that one, I think that's the least likely thing to happen

**Panda** Sun 23 Jun - 10:13

cass wrote:i agree kathy it would all be over now for them - the circus got bigger - whatever happens now - the tapas group will always be known as such - the mcanns will be known as the couple that took their children on holiday - dumped them in the kids club morning noon - but not night because they had to pay a fee - i mean you cant be having your booze money and tennis lesson money touched for child care - mrs fenn saying that madeleine cried for a hr and a half - one little girl of the tapas group ill and still left - not good is it - whatever the sy review come up with - these few snippets here - might as well be tattooed on all thir foreheads forever

Morning cass, I think Amaral will win, but it is very likely the case will be held up until after this investigation is over. Amaral will cite as his defence the fact that part of the PJ Report suggests Madeleine died in 5A.......at what point could this be deemed right? In Briatin we have a 7yr period and if the missing person had an Estate, the Government says after 7 years he/she could be presumed dead.

**cass** Sun 23 Jun - 10:19

morning panda - yes i dont think ga and the mcanns case will go a head - it has been said that the mcanns asked for a delay - then ga - if this about sy taking over from portugal - maybe portugal and sy have said to the mcanns and ga this case its delayed - and both of you ga and the mcanns cannot do anything about this - how can the mcanns still take ga to court while the case has a chance of opening still - nah i think sy and portugal may have had a say in this

**Panda** Sun 23 Jun - 10:33

cass wrote:morning panda - yes i dont think ga and the mcanns case will go a head - it has been said that the mcanns asked for a delay - then ga - if this about sy taking over from portugal - maybe portugal and sy have said to the mcanns and ga this case its delayed - and both of you ga and the mcanns cannot do anything about this - how can the mcanns still take ga to court while the case has a chance of opening still - nah i think sy and portugal may have had a say in this Yes, how could it proceed while an investigation is ongoing? I suspect the McCanns must be worried now, especially when the Tapas 9 would not attend a recon which any parent would not refuse if it shed light on her child's disappearance.

Sponsored content