Jonathan Freedland wrote an interesting article in today's Guardian about the Madeleine McCann case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2167113,00.html
Visit the Sky News website and you'll see in the menu of topics the single word Madeleine, sandwiched between UK News and World News. The story is now so big that it commands its own category, on a par with Politics or Business. There is, of course, no need to supply a last name or any other details: Madeleine refers to what is surely becoming the biggest human interest story of the decade. It's not just the hour-by-hour updates on television news or the you-the-jury phone-ins on the radio. A more reliable indicator is the chatter heard in offices, at bus stops or in queues at the shops. Thanks to the astonishing twist of recent days, the British collective conversation is not focused on the war in Iraq or the efficiency of the NHS, even if it should be. Instead, its great preoccupation is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a story that gets ever more strange.
Even before last week, the case had gripped. The apparently random abduction and murder of children always does, whether it's Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Sarah Payne or the victims of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. We fear these crimes like no other; they touch fears with deep roots in the cultural soil. The child snatcher is a creature from myth, whether the oldest Gaelic folktales or Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. Modern storytelling is hardly immune: my own generation once cowered in terror from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's Child Catcher. So when the news first broke in May that a sleeping child had vanished from her bed in a Portuguese holiday resort, all the familiar fears were stirred.
But last week brought a dizzying twist, one that has left the watching public badly confused. The notion of a predatory stranger seizing Madeleine McCann was terrifying but uncomplicated: we knew how we were supposed to feel. The naming by Portuguese police of the little girl's parents as formal suspects has obliged us to contemplate not an ancient fear but a grave taboo: infanticide.
Of course, the grim reality is that cases of parents slaying their young are all too common. The boyfriend battering his lover's child to death has become a grisly staple of the news bulletin, usually consigned to halfway down the running order. The middle-class temptation in such cases is to comfort themselves with the thought that these families are dysfunctional, that they are nothing like them. The branding of the McCanns as suspects allows for no such lazy response. Their campaign enjoyed such widespread press backing in part because they are the very model of a middle-class, professional couple: both are doctors, still society's most trusted group. Indeed, since May, the sight of a distraught Kate McCann clutching Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat had become the very image of parental love. Even to conceive of them as the suspected killers of the daughter whose loss they have been grieving is to experience cognitive dissonance.
Which is why people don't know how to react. Suddenly we have to hold two entirely contradictory thoughts in our head at the same time. For the McCanns have now either suffered the cruellest fate imaginable - not only to have innocently lost their beloved daughter but also to have been publicly accused of a wicked crime - or they are guilty of the most elaborate and heinous confidence trick in history, deceitfully winning the trust and sympathy of the world's media, a British prime minister, the wife of the American president and even the Pope, to say nothing of international public opinion. One of those statements, both of them extraordinary, describes the truth. As a senior tabloid journalist put it to me yesterday: "They're either the victims of a horrible smear which they will never fully escape or they are cold, psychotic killers" responsible for the death of their own child.
His own newspaper now covers this story with both possibilities in mind. Note the headlines in the Sun and the Mirror, carefully surrounded by caveats and qualifiers, just in case the other scenario proves to be true.
This is not how stories like this usually play out. Ordinarily, the popular papers, in particular, have a hunch about the culprit (and very often their hunches are right). Not this time, however. The press pack following the McCann case is apparently split into two camps, for and against the couple, with some reporters refusing to speak to those on the other side. One tabloid editor is changing his mind on where guilt lies "on an hourly basis".
It's easy to see why. Yesterday it was reported that the Portuguese police had found not just the odd DNA trace in the boot of the McCanns' hire car - rented weeks after Madeleine's disappearance - but substantial amounts of the child's hair and even bodily fluids. Suddenly, an entire narrative assembles itself, built from leaked nuggets and speculative fragments, which runs as follows. The McCanns had sedated their children so that they could have an undisturbed dinner with friends (hence the failure of the two younger McCann children to awake even during the loud chaos of the night of May 3). They returned to find Madeleine dead. Fearing their twins would be taken from them if they confessed the truth, they hid Madeleine's body, then hid it again in the spare wheel compartment of their rented car until finally burying it somewhere else. (Where? The anti-McCann view even has an answer to this question. Portuguese police are reported to be planning to search the Our Lady of the Light church in Praia da Luz, where the McCanns prayed regularly and to which they were given the keys, so they might visit day or night. Detectives are said to be set on digging up an area around the church - including one cobbled street where roadworks were under way when Madeleine disappeared.)
It hangs together well enough until you start asking questions. How could two people under constant media scrutiny possibly have carried out and hidden their daughter's body without being seen? If they really had concealed a corpse in their car, wouldn't the smell have been obvious? How could two people unfamiliar with the local landscape have found an eventual hiding place that would still, months later, remain undiscovered? Is it plausible to imagine that, in the moments after suffering the trauma of a dead child, two people could have constructed such an elaborate cover-up plan, executed it coolly and remained steady ever since? Could anybody maintain this front, a global lie, for so long without cracking?
Arguments like that are going on everywhere, in pubs or the train to work, as well as in newsrooms around the world. The McCanns must hate it but they cannot be surprised by it. For wholly understandable reasons, they chose to make the loss of their daughter public property, to recruit the media to their cause. So now we are like folk gathered in the village square, offering our two-pennyworth on the mysterious events that have befallen one benighted family.
How will this story end? That's what makes it so grimly compelling: none of us knows. Until we do, basic justice demands that we presume the McCanns are wholly innocent. Common decency demands the same. For if they are eventually found guilty, there will be plenty of time for condemnation. But if they are innocent, to presume otherwise is to commit a second crime against people who have already suffered enough.
Do members have strong feelings about this case? A journalist claimed on the radio the other day that he published a sympathetic article about the McCanns in the Sun. He said it triggered more abusive emails than any other article that he had published. The reason being that they felt the media had been too sympathetic to the McCanns because they were both middle-class doctors and that if a single parent on a council estate had left their children alone they would have been roundly condemned by the media.
Full Version: Madeleine McCann
I must admit that I had never heard of Madeleine McCann. I don't watch American TV "news" programs anymore so I don't know to what extent this story has been covered on TV here. But I have seen nothing on it till now on the Internet, where I get most of my news. That said, the case sounds very similar to the Jon Benet Ramsey case here in the U.S. The well-to-do parents came under suspicion for the child's death, the case got saturation news coverage for months, but the parents were never charged (one has since died) and the case remains unsolved.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Sep 12 2007, 03:37 PM) 
Jonathan Freedland wrote an interesting article in today's Guardian about the Madeleine McCann case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2167113,00.html
Visit the Sky News website and you'll see in the menu of topics the single word Madeleine, sandwiched between UK News and World News. The story is now so big that it commands its own category, on a par with Politics or Business. There is, of course, no need to supply a last name or any other details: Madeleine refers to what is surely becoming the biggest human interest story of the decade. It's not just the hour-by-hour updates on television news or the you-the-jury phone-ins on the radio. A more reliable indicator is the chatter heard in offices, at bus stops or in queues at the shops. Thanks to the astonishing twist of recent days, the British collective conversation is not focused on the war in Iraq or the efficiency of the NHS, even if it should be. Instead, its great preoccupation is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a story that gets ever more strange.
Even before last week, the case had gripped. The apparently random abduction and murder of children always does, whether it's Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Sarah Payne or the victims of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. We fear these crimes like no other; they touch fears with deep roots in the cultural soil. The child snatcher is a creature from myth, whether the oldest Gaelic folktales or Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. Modern storytelling is hardly immune: my own generation once cowered in terror from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's Child Catcher. So when the news first broke in May that a sleeping child had vanished from her bed in a Portuguese holiday resort, all the familiar fears were stirred.
But last week brought a dizzying twist, one that has left the watching public badly confused. The notion of a predatory stranger seizing Madeleine McCann was terrifying but uncomplicated: we knew how we were supposed to feel. The naming by Portuguese police of the little girl's parents as formal suspects has obliged us to contemplate not an ancient fear but a grave taboo: infanticide.
Of course, the grim reality is that cases of parents slaying their young are all too common. The boyfriend battering his lover's child to death has become a grisly staple of the news bulletin, usually consigned to halfway down the running order. The middle-class temptation in such cases is to comfort themselves with the thought that these families are dysfunctional, that they are nothing like them. The branding of the McCanns as suspects allows for no such lazy response. Their campaign enjoyed such widespread press backing in part because they are the very model of a middle-class, professional couple: both are doctors, still society's most trusted group. Indeed, since May, the sight of a distraught Kate McCann clutching Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat had become the very image of parental love. Even to conceive of them as the suspected killers of the daughter whose loss they have been grieving is to experience cognitive dissonance.
Which is why people don't know how to react. Suddenly we have to hold two entirely contradictory thoughts in our head at the same time. For the McCanns have now either suffered the cruellest fate imaginable - not only to have innocently lost their beloved daughter but also to have been publicly accused of a wicked crime - or they are guilty of the most elaborate and heinous confidence trick in history, deceitfully winning the trust and sympathy of the world's media, a British prime minister, the wife of the American president and even the Pope, to say nothing of international public opinion. One of those statements, both of them extraordinary, describes the truth. As a senior tabloid journalist put it to me yesterday: "They're either the victims of a horrible smear which they will never fully escape or they are cold, psychotic killers" responsible for the death of their own child.
His own newspaper now covers this story with both possibilities in mind. Note the headlines in the Sun and the Mirror, carefully surrounded by caveats and qualifiers, just in case the other scenario proves to be true.
This is not how stories like this usually play out. Ordinarily, the popular papers, in particular, have a hunch about the culprit (and very often their hunches are right). Not this time, however. The press pack following the McCann case is apparently split into two camps, for and against the couple, with some reporters refusing to speak to those on the other side. One tabloid editor is changing his mind on where guilt lies "on an hourly basis".
It's easy to see why. Yesterday it was reported that the Portuguese police had found not just the odd DNA trace in the boot of the McCanns' hire car - rented weeks after Madeleine's disappearance - but substantial amounts of the child's hair and even bodily fluids. Suddenly, an entire narrative assembles itself, built from leaked nuggets and speculative fragments, which runs as follows. The McCanns had sedated their children so that they could have an undisturbed dinner with friends (hence the failure of the two younger McCann children to awake even during the loud chaos of the night of May 3). They returned to find Madeleine dead. Fearing their twins would be taken from them if they confessed the truth, they hid Madeleine's body, then hid it again in the spare wheel compartment of their rented car until finally burying it somewhere else. (Where? The anti-McCann view even has an answer to this question. Portuguese police are reported to be planning to search the Our Lady of the Light church in Praia da Luz, where the McCanns prayed regularly and to which they were given the keys, so they might visit day or night. Detectives are said to be set on digging up an area around the church - including one cobbled street where roadworks were under way when Madeleine disappeared.)
It hangs together well enough until you start asking questions. How could two people under constant media scrutiny possibly have carried out and hidden their daughter's body without being seen? If they really had concealed a corpse in their car, wouldn't the smell have been obvious? How could two people unfamiliar with the local landscape have found an eventual hiding place that would still, months later, remain undiscovered? Is it plausible to imagine that, in the moments after suffering the trauma of a dead child, two people could have constructed such an elaborate cover-up plan, executed it coolly and remained steady ever since? Could anybody maintain this front, a global lie, for so long without cracking?
Arguments like that are going on everywhere, in pubs or the train to work, as well as in newsrooms around the world. The McCanns must hate it but they cannot be surprised by it. For wholly understandable reasons, they chose to make the loss of their daughter public property, to recruit the media to their cause. So now we are like folk gathered in the village square, offering our two-pennyworth on the mysterious events that have befallen one benighted family.
How will this story end? That's what makes it so grimly compelling: none of us knows. Until we do, basic justice demands that we presume the McCanns are wholly innocent. Common decency demands the same. For if they are eventually found guilty, there will be plenty of time for condemnation. But if they are innocent, to presume otherwise is to commit a second crime against people who have already suffered enough.
Do members have strong feelings about this case? A journalist claimed on the radio the other day that he published a sympathetic article about the McCanns in the Sun. He said it triggered more abusive emails than any other article that he had published. The reason being that they felt the media had been too sympathetic to the McCanns because they were both middle-class doctors and that if a single parent on a council estate had left their children alone they would have been roundly condemned by the media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2167113,00.html
Visit the Sky News website and you'll see in the menu of topics the single word Madeleine, sandwiched between UK News and World News. The story is now so big that it commands its own category, on a par with Politics or Business. There is, of course, no need to supply a last name or any other details: Madeleine refers to what is surely becoming the biggest human interest story of the decade. It's not just the hour-by-hour updates on television news or the you-the-jury phone-ins on the radio. A more reliable indicator is the chatter heard in offices, at bus stops or in queues at the shops. Thanks to the astonishing twist of recent days, the British collective conversation is not focused on the war in Iraq or the efficiency of the NHS, even if it should be. Instead, its great preoccupation is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a story that gets ever more strange.
Even before last week, the case had gripped. The apparently random abduction and murder of children always does, whether it's Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Sarah Payne or the victims of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. We fear these crimes like no other; they touch fears with deep roots in the cultural soil. The child snatcher is a creature from myth, whether the oldest Gaelic folktales or Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel. Modern storytelling is hardly immune: my own generation once cowered in terror from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang's Child Catcher. So when the news first broke in May that a sleeping child had vanished from her bed in a Portuguese holiday resort, all the familiar fears were stirred.
But last week brought a dizzying twist, one that has left the watching public badly confused. The notion of a predatory stranger seizing Madeleine McCann was terrifying but uncomplicated: we knew how we were supposed to feel. The naming by Portuguese police of the little girl's parents as formal suspects has obliged us to contemplate not an ancient fear but a grave taboo: infanticide.
Of course, the grim reality is that cases of parents slaying their young are all too common. The boyfriend battering his lover's child to death has become a grisly staple of the news bulletin, usually consigned to halfway down the running order. The middle-class temptation in such cases is to comfort themselves with the thought that these families are dysfunctional, that they are nothing like them. The branding of the McCanns as suspects allows for no such lazy response. Their campaign enjoyed such widespread press backing in part because they are the very model of a middle-class, professional couple: both are doctors, still society's most trusted group. Indeed, since May, the sight of a distraught Kate McCann clutching Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat had become the very image of parental love. Even to conceive of them as the suspected killers of the daughter whose loss they have been grieving is to experience cognitive dissonance.
Which is why people don't know how to react. Suddenly we have to hold two entirely contradictory thoughts in our head at the same time. For the McCanns have now either suffered the cruellest fate imaginable - not only to have innocently lost their beloved daughter but also to have been publicly accused of a wicked crime - or they are guilty of the most elaborate and heinous confidence trick in history, deceitfully winning the trust and sympathy of the world's media, a British prime minister, the wife of the American president and even the Pope, to say nothing of international public opinion. One of those statements, both of them extraordinary, describes the truth. As a senior tabloid journalist put it to me yesterday: "They're either the victims of a horrible smear which they will never fully escape or they are cold, psychotic killers" responsible for the death of their own child.
His own newspaper now covers this story with both possibilities in mind. Note the headlines in the Sun and the Mirror, carefully surrounded by caveats and qualifiers, just in case the other scenario proves to be true.
This is not how stories like this usually play out. Ordinarily, the popular papers, in particular, have a hunch about the culprit (and very often their hunches are right). Not this time, however. The press pack following the McCann case is apparently split into two camps, for and against the couple, with some reporters refusing to speak to those on the other side. One tabloid editor is changing his mind on where guilt lies "on an hourly basis".
It's easy to see why. Yesterday it was reported that the Portuguese police had found not just the odd DNA trace in the boot of the McCanns' hire car - rented weeks after Madeleine's disappearance - but substantial amounts of the child's hair and even bodily fluids. Suddenly, an entire narrative assembles itself, built from leaked nuggets and speculative fragments, which runs as follows. The McCanns had sedated their children so that they could have an undisturbed dinner with friends (hence the failure of the two younger McCann children to awake even during the loud chaos of the night of May 3). They returned to find Madeleine dead. Fearing their twins would be taken from them if they confessed the truth, they hid Madeleine's body, then hid it again in the spare wheel compartment of their rented car until finally burying it somewhere else. (Where? The anti-McCann view even has an answer to this question. Portuguese police are reported to be planning to search the Our Lady of the Light church in Praia da Luz, where the McCanns prayed regularly and to which they were given the keys, so they might visit day or night. Detectives are said to be set on digging up an area around the church - including one cobbled street where roadworks were under way when Madeleine disappeared.)
It hangs together well enough until you start asking questions. How could two people under constant media scrutiny possibly have carried out and hidden their daughter's body without being seen? If they really had concealed a corpse in their car, wouldn't the smell have been obvious? How could two people unfamiliar with the local landscape have found an eventual hiding place that would still, months later, remain undiscovered? Is it plausible to imagine that, in the moments after suffering the trauma of a dead child, two people could have constructed such an elaborate cover-up plan, executed it coolly and remained steady ever since? Could anybody maintain this front, a global lie, for so long without cracking?
Arguments like that are going on everywhere, in pubs or the train to work, as well as in newsrooms around the world. The McCanns must hate it but they cannot be surprised by it. For wholly understandable reasons, they chose to make the loss of their daughter public property, to recruit the media to their cause. So now we are like folk gathered in the village square, offering our two-pennyworth on the mysterious events that have befallen one benighted family.
How will this story end? That's what makes it so grimly compelling: none of us knows. Until we do, basic justice demands that we presume the McCanns are wholly innocent. Common decency demands the same. For if they are eventually found guilty, there will be plenty of time for condemnation. But if they are innocent, to presume otherwise is to commit a second crime against people who have already suffered enough.
Do members have strong feelings about this case? A journalist claimed on the radio the other day that he published a sympathetic article about the McCanns in the Sun. He said it triggered more abusive emails than any other article that he had published. The reason being that they felt the media had been too sympathetic to the McCanns because they were both middle-class doctors and that if a single parent on a council estate had left their children alone they would have been roundly condemned by the media.
From day one (literally) I have harboured a suspicion that this was the work of a well connected and protected paedophile ring. One only needs to look at the Belgian paedo background of Marc Dutroux -- where connections apparently led the police (screaming and kicking) to the King.
Dutroux is on the record as saying that he was part of a wider ring that the authorities did not want to investigate:
"I maintained regular contact with people in this ring. However, the law does not want to investigate this lead." He said.
I also suspect that this paedo ring extends to the headquarters of NATO.
Absolutely no proof, but if one follows the threads of the international paedo tentacles, then there is evidence of protection of major figures said to be involved -- political, military, intelligence and business elites.
In Portugal, it remains baffling why the police haven't arrested or interviewed anyone other than British citizens?
David
QUOTE (David Guyatt @ Sep 12 2007, 04:31 PM)
From day one (literally) I have harboured a suspicion that this was the work of a well connected and protected paedophile ring. One only needs to look at the Belgian paedo background of Marc Dutroux -- where connections apparently led the police (screaming and kicking) to the King.
Didn't a convicted paedophile from Switzerland commit suicide soon after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
As Ron mentioned, this is very similar to the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I think what we have here is pretty simple; wealthy parents (the mother being very attractive doesn't hurt), who were obviously extremely negligent at the least, and most likely responsible for their daughter's death in some way. If this were a poor, uneducated couple, or a working-class couple, you can bet that they wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, or any sympathy at all by the police, the press and the public at large. In all likelihood, they'd have their other children taken away instantly by Social Services, who would immediately suspect them. They certainly wouldn't be given softball appearances on television and goodness knows there is no chance they'd be able to meet the Pope.
In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.
While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.
In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.
While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.
QUOTE (Don Jeffries @ Sep 13 2007, 06:52 AM)
As Ron mentioned, this is very similar to the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I think what we have here is pretty simple; wealthy parents (the mother being very attractive doesn't hurt), who were obviously extremely negligent at the least, and most likely responsible for their daughter's death in some way. If this were a poor, uneducated couple, or a working-class couple, you can bet that they wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, or any sympathy at all by the police, the press and the public at large. In all likelihood, they'd have their other children taken away instantly by Social Services, who would immediately suspect them. They certainly wouldn't be given softball appearances on television and goodness knows there is no chance they'd be able to meet the Pope.
In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.
While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.
In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.
While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.
You should be hung drawn and quartered for posting bullshit like this you utter clot. Or is the above intended as an ironic post, cursed as you are with that notorious monicker?
Michael Chapman,
What kind of asinine, inflammatory and inappropriate response is that? Why don't you be a bit more specific about why I am an "utter clot?" As an American, I'm not familiar with that term, but it doesn't sound complimentary. Are you naive enough to believe that rich and poor alike receive the same standard of justice? Finally, why is my name "notorious?"
I hope a mod looks at your post- it's totally out of line.
What kind of asinine, inflammatory and inappropriate response is that? Why don't you be a bit more specific about why I am an "utter clot?" As an American, I'm not familiar with that term, but it doesn't sound complimentary. Are you naive enough to believe that rich and poor alike receive the same standard of justice? Finally, why is my name "notorious?"
I hope a mod looks at your post- it's totally out of line.
QUOTE (Michael Chapman @ Sep 13 2007, 02:44 AM)
You (DJ) should be hung drawn and quartered for posting bullshit like this you utter clot. Or is the above intended as an ironic post, cursed as you are with that notorious monicker?
Not only is this post ugly and crude, it makes no sense whatsoever. It does however seem to be a glove fit with the person that authored it.
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 13 2007, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Michael Chapman @ Sep 13 2007, 02:44 AM)
You (DJ) should be hung drawn and quartered for posting bullshit like this you utter clot. Or is the above intended as an ironic post, cursed as you are with that notorious monicker?
Not only is this post ugly and crude, it makes no sense whatsoever. It does however seem to be a glove fit with the person that authored it.
Michael Chapman has already being on moderation in the past for offensive comments like this. He promised he would behave and was released from moderation. Following this outburst he will be put on permanent moderation.
One thing we can be sure of: the McCann's are at least partially responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. It's very easy to clamber on one's high horse over their child-care regime, but the cold hard facts of the matter boil down to them abandoning three children while they went out for a meal for a couple of hours. The fact that they could see the balcony from a hundred yards away is irrelevant, it was a hugely irresponsible thing to do. I can understand why they didn't get much of a bashing in the press over this at the time: it was more important to try and get Maddy back, and they must have been guilt-ridden and distraught enough anyway. The "middle-class GP syndrome" simply made it easier for the press not to say these things.
So what did happen to Maddy? My gut instinct is with David on this one: dragged out of her bed by a paedophile. Save yourself from nightmares by not imaging what she may have gone through (or indeed, still is going through). This is tempered by the disturbing thought that one or both of her parents could be responsible for accidental death, and subsequent cover-up. It's a dreadful thing to even harbour suspicions against someone who in all likelihood is innocent, and still coming to terms with the disappearance of their girl. Are the Portugese Police on the right lines, or is it a witch-hunt? The only part of me that hopes they're right is the part that would be relieved that Maddy didn't ultimately suffer the dreadful abuse and possible death that I suspect she has.
So what did happen to Maddy? My gut instinct is with David on this one: dragged out of her bed by a paedophile. Save yourself from nightmares by not imaging what she may have gone through (or indeed, still is going through). This is tempered by the disturbing thought that one or both of her parents could be responsible for accidental death, and subsequent cover-up. It's a dreadful thing to even harbour suspicions against someone who in all likelihood is innocent, and still coming to terms with the disappearance of their girl. Are the Portugese Police on the right lines, or is it a witch-hunt? The only part of me that hopes they're right is the part that would be relieved that Maddy didn't ultimately suffer the dreadful abuse and possible death that I suspect she has.
Whilst the disappearence of Madeleine is an undoubted tragedy, in the long view she is simply one of literally thousands of young children who go missing every year. Most of these unfortunates make neary a ripple in our nationalistic, and class obsessed media, their ultimate fate unreported, and in many cases unrecorded. These "disappeared" constitute a palpable stain on our collective Humanity.
Branson pledges 100,000 pounds for McCanns' legal fees
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
Virgin boss Richard Branson has pledged 100,000 pounds for a legal fund to defend the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann, the Sunday Times reported.
Gerry and Kate McCann have been named as formal suspects by Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine in May.
"Sir Richard wants to ensure the McCanns get access to the best legal advice," the weekly newspaper quoted a source close to Branson as saying.
"He has a good instinct on these things. It will help to ensure that they get a fair hearing and that all of the facts become available."
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 16 2007, 04:15 PM)
Branson pledges 100,000 pounds for McCanns' legal fees
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
Virgin boss Richard Branson has pledged 100,000 pounds for a legal fund to defend the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann, the Sunday Times reported.
Gerry and Kate McCann have been named as formal suspects by Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine in May.
"Sir Richard wants to ensure the McCanns get access to the best legal advice," the weekly newspaper quoted a source close to Branson as saying.
"He has a good instinct on these things. It will help to ensure that they get a fair hearing and that all of the facts become available."
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
I'm all for people getting the best possible legal representation. Playing Devil's Advocate, would the Virginal purse have been quite as generous to Wayne and Waynetta Slob if they'd left poor little Ashtray all alone for the evening?
QUOTE (Dave Greer @ Sep 16 2007, 06:18 PM)
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 16 2007, 04:15 PM)
Branson pledges 100,000 pounds for McCanns' legal fees
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
Virgin boss Richard Branson has pledged 100,000 pounds for a legal fund to defend the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann, the Sunday Times reported.
Gerry and Kate McCann have been named as formal suspects by Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine in May.
"Sir Richard wants to ensure the McCanns get access to the best legal advice," the weekly newspaper quoted a source close to Branson as saying.
"He has a good instinct on these things. It will help to ensure that they get a fair hearing and that all of the facts become available."
Full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/16/2034220.htm
I'm all for people getting the best possible legal representation. Playing Devil's Advocate, would the Virginal purse have been quite as generous to Wayne and Waynetta Slob if they'd left poor little Ashtray all alone for the evening?
Dave,
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ Sep 16 2007, 09:23 PM)
Dave,
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
The essence of this position, and those of other "fine" minds on this forum, would seem to be that the media would have been quicker to condemn the parents had they been stupid and working class - better still ugly as well.
QUOTE
Didn't a convicted paedophile from Switzerland commit suicide soon after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
That proves it surely
Another victory for rational analysis I think not.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Sep 16 2007, 10:52 PM)
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ Sep 16 2007, 09:23 PM)
Dave,
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
The essence of this position, and those of other "fine" minds on this forum, would seem to be that the media would have been quicker to condemn the parents had they been stupid and working class - better still ugly as well.
QUOTE
Didn't a convicted paedophile from Switzerland commit suicide soon after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
That proves it surely
Another victory for rational analysis I think not.
Andy,
I am certainly not a fine mind. Yes, my conviction is that had the abduction of a child occurred in the custody of say a couple of young track-suited chavs from South Shields whilst holidaying in Ibiza - or in fact nipping across the road to their local - then I truly and sincerely believe meaningful questions and, in fact, accusations of negligence and beyond would have been made in the media.
Do you feel the McCanns should be condemned for their part?
Any media criticism of the parenting skills of the McCanns has been sorely missing - plenty for those bungling, inept, just not British, Portuguese Police though - to read the British media you'd think, at times, they were the root cause and at fault for the whole abduction/murder/accidental death of Madeline.
This tragedy was very easily avoided, and I'm sure the McCann's are suffering greatly. Unfortunately, though, because of similarly slipshod Portuguese media reports the McCanns will never be truly innocent now in many people's eyes. If the prosecutor cites lack of evidence for not bringing charges then the presumption of innocence will be stained. Many people will hear 'we know it was you, but just can't prove it'.
The media is a very powerful tool. This time though I think their human interest 'summer story' has spiralled into a bit of a monster for a media, struggling to come to terms with the consequences of the possible guilt of the McCann's.
I sincerely hope they have not fooled everyone. I hope also that they are innocent of the accusations in the Portuguese media.
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ Sep 16 2007, 09:23 PM)
Dave,
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
That is uncanny. I swear that's the precise argument I've used since the beginning re: Wayne & Waynetta
Gary
I harbour suspicions that that may well have been the case. I vaguely recall similar cases where "chav" single mums had gone away for a week and left the 16 year old in charge of the 12 year old, to be greeted by a storm of outrage in the tabloids and a week at her Majesty's pleasure upon their return. Different details, but it smacked me of singling someone out mainly for their status (or rather lack of it).
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Sep 16 2007, 10:52 PM)
The essence of this position, and those of other "fine" minds on this forum, would seem to be that the media would have been quicker to condemn the parents had they been stupid and working class - better still ugly as well.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if that had been the case.
QUOTE (Andy Walker @ Sep 16 2007, 10:52 PM)
QUOTE
Didn't a convicted paedophile from Switzerland commit suicide soon after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
That proves it surely
Another victory for rational analysis I think not.
I agree - a complete non-sequitur.
Gary/Dave,
You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.
Anyhow, good discussion.
You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.
Anyhow, good discussion.
QUOTE (Don Jeffries @ Sep 18 2007, 09:11 AM)
Gary/Dave,
You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.
Anyhow, good discussion.
You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.
Anyhow, good discussion.
The media cannot usually be trusted to fulfill their role in society. They have to many pressure points that can be pressed to modify their plans.
A case in point was the documentary TV film commissioned by Yorkshire Television that was shot and cut and then, at the last minute - spiked and never aired (Channel Four, from memory was the broadcaster). Pressure from the States I was told. I have a copy of it somewhere here. John DeCamp's book of the same title is quite informative about the blackmail uses can be put to (or targeted on) by the CIA.
David
David,
I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.
I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.
QUOTE (Don Jeffries @ Sep 18 2007, 01:29 PM)
David,
I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.
I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.
Don,
The one I have is definitely "Franklin Cover-Up" commissioned by Yorkshire TV and due for broadcast on a terrestial channel (Channel 4 I thought but it might've been due out on ITV). The copy I have was a cutting room final minus the advertising inserts.
I took a peek at the blurb for "Conspiracy of Silence" you mentioned, and we're definitely talking about two different documentaries. I've not seen the latter but will try to do so.
David
A recent survey shows that 70% believe the McCanns are guilty of being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. It is commonly believed that Kate McCann killed her daughter by accidentally giving her an overdose of sleeping pills and that her husband helped her dispose of her body.
This theory is based on leaks from the Portuguese police inquiry. For example, apparently the police have several witnesses that show that of the McCann's party, only Dr Russell O'Brien and Dr Matthew Oldfield left the dinner table that evening. In other words, their group of friends are telling lies in order to cover-up went on that evening.
Two other witnesses have refuted the testimony of Jane Tanner, another member of the McCann group, who claimed she saw a man carrying a child rushing from the Ocean Club complex at around 9.15 pm on 3rd May.
However, opinions held on the McCann case has little to do with evidence. It is more to do with class prejudice. The serious press have been very supportive of Kate and Gerry McCann. Their middle-class readership, especially those under 40, are very sympathetic to their plight. Most of them have no doubt left their children while they party into the night on holiday. Their view of parenthood is working long hours in order that they can buy the things their children need. Time is the one thing that they are reluctant to give.
The masses on the other hand are far less sympathetic. That is not to say that they do not leave their children to enjoy themselves. However, this case gives them the opportunity to have a go at the "toffs".
It is not unusual for major crime stories to divide the country on class lines. For example, see the case of Caroline Luard.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11057
This theory is based on leaks from the Portuguese police inquiry. For example, apparently the police have several witnesses that show that of the McCann's party, only Dr Russell O'Brien and Dr Matthew Oldfield left the dinner table that evening. In other words, their group of friends are telling lies in order to cover-up went on that evening.
Two other witnesses have refuted the testimony of Jane Tanner, another member of the McCann group, who claimed she saw a man carrying a child rushing from the Ocean Club complex at around 9.15 pm on 3rd May.
However, opinions held on the McCann case has little to do with evidence. It is more to do with class prejudice. The serious press have been very supportive of Kate and Gerry McCann. Their middle-class readership, especially those under 40, are very sympathetic to their plight. Most of them have no doubt left their children while they party into the night on holiday. Their view of parenthood is working long hours in order that they can buy the things their children need. Time is the one thing that they are reluctant to give.
The masses on the other hand are far less sympathetic. That is not to say that they do not leave their children to enjoy themselves. However, this case gives them the opportunity to have a go at the "toffs".
It is not unusual for major crime stories to divide the country on class lines. For example, see the case of Caroline Luard.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11057
In view of the local police record on abductions of British children in that part of Portugal -- black eyes of one Brit mother who "fell down the stairs" not-with-standing (do you really get black eyes falling down stairs, or you you get bruises on arms, elbows, hands, knees etc?), can anything that is leaked/spun out of the Portugese investigation be relied upon?
David
David
I am getting the feeling that Portugal's criminal investigative capabilities are pretty similar to those of Aruba.
One might argue that the principal difference is that Aruba is (allegedly) owned by the mafia, whereas Portugal is owned by a wealthy elite who have a range of unpleasant tastes, as detailed below (my emphases).
Shades of Belgium's Marc Dutroux. Wholesale abuse inside "Boy's orphanages" by government officials and others with rather more clout and protection, reappear with sickening regularity in these cases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,848412,00.html
Portugal's elite linked to paedophile ring
Abuse was reportedly going on at Lisbon orphanage for 20 years
Giles Tremlett in Lisbon
Wednesday November 27, 2002
The Guardian
A scandal over a paedophile ring run from a state orphanage gripped Portugal yesterday as it threatened to engulf diplomats, media personalities and senior politicians.
Photographs of unnamed senior government officials with young boys from Lisbon's Casa Pia orphanage were among the evidence reportedly available to police after they arrested a former orphanage employee called Carlos Silvino.
A number of former residents, and the mother of one boy who is still there, have denounced sexual attacks on children at what is known as Lisbon's most famous orphanage.
Mr Silvino, it was claimed, abused children himself and procured boys for a powerful group of clients.
He has publicly denied the allegations and was expected to repeat that denial at a closed-door bail hearing in Lisbon yesterday.
What has most shocked the Portuguese have been the revelations that systematic sexual abuse of children at the home had allegedly been going on for more than 20 years and had been known to police and other authorities for most of that time.
A former president, General Ramalho Eanes, was allegedly among those who knew about abuse at the home but failed to stop it.
The identity of the mysterious group of powerful paedophiles remained a secret yesterday, with only one person prepared to admit she knew at least some of the names.
Former secretary of state for families, Teresa Costa Macedo, said she had sent a dossier containing photographs and testimonies from children to the police 20 years ago but they had done nothing about it, while she was subjected to a campaign of threats.
"He [Silvino] was just one element in a huge paedophile network that involved important people in our country," Mrs Costa Macedo explained in a newspaper interview. "It wasn't just him. He was a procurer of children for well-known people who range from diplomats and politicians to people linked to the media."
The material sent to the police, which yesterday appeared to have been lost, was damning proof of the activities of the paedophile ring, Mrs Costa Macedo said.
"There are photographs, an account of the methods used to spirit children out of the orphanage and testimonies of a number of children," she explained.
Mrs Costa Macedo said that many of the photographs were found at the house of a Portuguese diplomat in the town of Estoril, 20 miles from Lisbon. Four children who had gone missing from the orphanage were discovered at the house, where they had spent several days allegedly under lock and key.
President Eanes was introduced to five boys who told him of the abuse occurring at the orphanage in 1980 but failed to act on it, according to Mrs Costa Macedo.
There was no suggestion that General Eanes, a popular and respected figure who did not comment on the allegations yesterday, was involved in the paedophile ring.
Portuguese police insisted yesterday they had no record of the documents sent to them by Mrs Costa Macedo.
She said she had been the target of a campaign of intimidation to make her stop investigating the case.
"I received anonymous threats, by phone and post. They said they would kill me, flay me and a lot of other things," she said.
That campaign had started again yesterday, she said, with threatening phone calls made to her home.
Portugal has increasingly been under the scrutiny of anti-paedophile groups who have denounced its lax laws and uninterested courts for creating a paedophiles' paradise in Europe.
Belgian and Dutch paedophile groups are reported to have operated in Portugal, with foreigners travelling to the island of Madeira to seek out young children.
Investigators from the Swiss-based Innocence in Danger group, which claims children regularly disappear from the poorer streets of Portuguese towns and cities, say they too have been harassed and threatened.
Mr Silvino claimed his accusers were making up their allegations. "It is all lies," he said.
The orphanage's director and deputy director were sacked on Monday as the government pledged to clear up the case as soon as possible.
Shades of Belgium's Marc Dutroux. Wholesale abuse inside "Boy's orphanages" by government officials and others with rather more clout and protection, reappear with sickening regularity in these cases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,848412,00.html
Portugal's elite linked to paedophile ring
Abuse was reportedly going on at Lisbon orphanage for 20 years
Giles Tremlett in Lisbon
Wednesday November 27, 2002
The Guardian
A scandal over a paedophile ring run from a state orphanage gripped Portugal yesterday as it threatened to engulf diplomats, media personalities and senior politicians.
Photographs of unnamed senior government officials with young boys from Lisbon's Casa Pia orphanage were among the evidence reportedly available to police after they arrested a former orphanage employee called Carlos Silvino.
A number of former residents, and the mother of one boy who is still there, have denounced sexual attacks on children at what is known as Lisbon's most famous orphanage.
Mr Silvino, it was claimed, abused children himself and procured boys for a powerful group of clients.
He has publicly denied the allegations and was expected to repeat that denial at a closed-door bail hearing in Lisbon yesterday.
What has most shocked the Portuguese have been the revelations that systematic sexual abuse of children at the home had allegedly been going on for more than 20 years and had been known to police and other authorities for most of that time.
A former president, General Ramalho Eanes, was allegedly among those who knew about abuse at the home but failed to stop it.
The identity of the mysterious group of powerful paedophiles remained a secret yesterday, with only one person prepared to admit she knew at least some of the names.
Former secretary of state for families, Teresa Costa Macedo, said she had sent a dossier containing photographs and testimonies from children to the police 20 years ago but they had done nothing about it, while she was subjected to a campaign of threats.
"He [Silvino] was just one element in a huge paedophile network that involved important people in our country," Mrs Costa Macedo explained in a newspaper interview. "It wasn't just him. He was a procurer of children for well-known people who range from diplomats and politicians to people linked to the media."
The material sent to the police, which yesterday appeared to have been lost, was damning proof of the activities of the paedophile ring, Mrs Costa Macedo said.
"There are photographs, an account of the methods used to spirit children out of the orphanage and testimonies of a number of children," she explained.
Mrs Costa Macedo said that many of the photographs were found at the house of a Portuguese diplomat in the town of Estoril, 20 miles from Lisbon. Four children who had gone missing from the orphanage were discovered at the house, where they had spent several days allegedly under lock and key.
President Eanes was introduced to five boys who told him of the abuse occurring at the orphanage in 1980 but failed to act on it, according to Mrs Costa Macedo.
There was no suggestion that General Eanes, a popular and respected figure who did not comment on the allegations yesterday, was involved in the paedophile ring.
Portuguese police insisted yesterday they had no record of the documents sent to them by Mrs Costa Macedo.
She said she had been the target of a campaign of intimidation to make her stop investigating the case.
"I received anonymous threats, by phone and post. They said they would kill me, flay me and a lot of other things," she said.
That campaign had started again yesterday, she said, with threatening phone calls made to her home.
Portugal has increasingly been under the scrutiny of anti-paedophile groups who have denounced its lax laws and uninterested courts for creating a paedophiles' paradise in Europe.
Belgian and Dutch paedophile groups are reported to have operated in Portugal, with foreigners travelling to the island of Madeira to seek out young children.
Investigators from the Swiss-based Innocence in Danger group, which claims children regularly disappear from the poorer streets of Portuguese towns and cities, say they too have been harassed and threatened.
Mr Silvino claimed his accusers were making up their allegations. "It is all lies," he said.
The orphanage's director and deputy director were sacked on Monday as the government pledged to clear up the case as soon as possible.
In view of yesterday's news on the McCann story, you have to ask yourself what is going on here. It seems evident to me that there is something more sinister lurking in the background to this matter than merely a policeman's turf war. I begin to wonder if the appointment of the spooky CRG to assist the McCann's was an arms length British government idea...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/wmaddy302.xml
Yesterday's Telegraph:
Madeleine McCann chief detective sacked
By Aislinn Simpson in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 2:22am BST 03/10/2007
The Portuguese detective leading the Madeleine McCann investigation has been sacked from the inquiry after launching an astonishing public attack on his British counterparts.
# Police chief accuses parents of hindering inquiry
# In full: The Madeleine McCann case
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, 47, was dismissed from the position by the national director of the Judicial Police.
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral
Sacked: Goncalo Amaral
He had accused British detectives of only chasing leads Gerry and Kate McCann want followed up.
The move came after Portugal's Justice Minister Alberto Costa stepped into the row by insisting there is "fruitful cooperation" between the two countries' police forces over the inquiry.
Mr Costa said Portuguese police intend "to increase the collaboration" with their British counterparts and that the important thing is "to concentrate on the job and not on the comments" made by Mr Amaral.
Mr Amaral, who was jointly in charge of the inquiry, was also dismissed from his post as the head of the Judicial Police in the Algarve town of Portimao.
The 47-year-old detective not only laid into police but also attacked the McCanns, accusing them of "creating and working on" lines of inquiry which they then pass onto Leicestershire Police to investigate.
Mr Amaral, who headed the Policia Judiciaria in the nearby town of Portimao and is himself under investigation for allegedly concealing evidence about an alleged assault on the mother of another missing child, was speaking to the daily newspaper Diario de Noticias.
advertisement
The paper said the detective, who has come under fire in the British press for his "boozy" three-hour lunches and allegedly failing to investigate some of the tip-offs his 30-strong team of officers have received, was in an "explosive and indignant" mood during the brief interview.
Sources said his departure follows five months of gripes about the British police involved in the case.
A family friend said it was "just plain wrong" that Kate and Gerry, both 39-year-old doctors from Rothley in Leicestershire, were seeking to exert any influence on the investigation, adding that British police were only involved to act as a liaison between the family and Portuguese detectives.
And one of the McCanns' two Portuguese lawyers, Carlos Pinto Abreu, told Lisbon radio station TSF that Mr Amaral's comments were "in very poor taste" and "unhelpful to the investigation".
"The British police have only been working on that which the McCann couple want them to and which is most convenient for them," he said.
"The have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are formal suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine."
Officially, Portuguese detectives say they appreciate British help and expertise - particularly forensic - but unofficially claim they feel patronised and bullied.
Leicestershire Police were reluctant to wade into the developing row, only saying they would "continue to support the Portuguese investigation".
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell was equally cautious, saying: "Kate and Gerry consistently said that they wish to cooperate with the Portuguese authorities in the hunt for Madeleine and that remains the case."
Mr Amaral has reportedly investigated only two child murders in his 26-year police career and he is facing a criminal hearing for allegedly concealing evidence, after a woman jailed for the murder of her daughter claimed police officers tortured her into making a confession.
Leonor Cipriano, 36, claims she was forced to kneel on glass ashtrays with a bag over her head as police repeatedly hit her during almost 48 hours of questioning.
She is serving 16 years for the murder of her eight-year-old daughter Joana, even though the body has never been found and she has since retracted her statement.
Mr Amaral, a father-of-three, strenuously denies covering up the alleged abuse said to have been carried out by three of his colleagues.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/wmaddy302.xml
Yesterday's Telegraph:
Madeleine McCann chief detective sacked
By Aislinn Simpson in Praia da Luz
Last Updated: 2:22am BST 03/10/2007
The Portuguese detective leading the Madeleine McCann investigation has been sacked from the inquiry after launching an astonishing public attack on his British counterparts.
# Police chief accuses parents of hindering inquiry
# In full: The Madeleine McCann case
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, 47, was dismissed from the position by the national director of the Judicial Police.
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral
Sacked: Goncalo Amaral
He had accused British detectives of only chasing leads Gerry and Kate McCann want followed up.
The move came after Portugal's Justice Minister Alberto Costa stepped into the row by insisting there is "fruitful cooperation" between the two countries' police forces over the inquiry.
Mr Costa said Portuguese police intend "to increase the collaboration" with their British counterparts and that the important thing is "to concentrate on the job and not on the comments" made by Mr Amaral.
Mr Amaral, who was jointly in charge of the inquiry, was also dismissed from his post as the head of the Judicial Police in the Algarve town of Portimao.
The 47-year-old detective not only laid into police but also attacked the McCanns, accusing them of "creating and working on" lines of inquiry which they then pass onto Leicestershire Police to investigate.
Mr Amaral, who headed the Policia Judiciaria in the nearby town of Portimao and is himself under investigation for allegedly concealing evidence about an alleged assault on the mother of another missing child, was speaking to the daily newspaper Diario de Noticias.
advertisement
The paper said the detective, who has come under fire in the British press for his "boozy" three-hour lunches and allegedly failing to investigate some of the tip-offs his 30-strong team of officers have received, was in an "explosive and indignant" mood during the brief interview.
Sources said his departure follows five months of gripes about the British police involved in the case.
A family friend said it was "just plain wrong" that Kate and Gerry, both 39-year-old doctors from Rothley in Leicestershire, were seeking to exert any influence on the investigation, adding that British police were only involved to act as a liaison between the family and Portuguese detectives.
And one of the McCanns' two Portuguese lawyers, Carlos Pinto Abreu, told Lisbon radio station TSF that Mr Amaral's comments were "in very poor taste" and "unhelpful to the investigation".
"The British police have only been working on that which the McCann couple want them to and which is most convenient for them," he said.
"The have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are formal suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine."
Officially, Portuguese detectives say they appreciate British help and expertise - particularly forensic - but unofficially claim they feel patronised and bullied.
Leicestershire Police were reluctant to wade into the developing row, only saying they would "continue to support the Portuguese investigation".
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell was equally cautious, saying: "Kate and Gerry consistently said that they wish to cooperate with the Portuguese authorities in the hunt for Madeleine and that remains the case."
Mr Amaral has reportedly investigated only two child murders in his 26-year police career and he is facing a criminal hearing for allegedly concealing evidence, after a woman jailed for the murder of her daughter claimed police officers tortured her into making a confession.
Leonor Cipriano, 36, claims she was forced to kneel on glass ashtrays with a bag over her head as police repeatedly hit her during almost 48 hours of questioning.
She is serving 16 years for the murder of her eight-year-old daughter Joana, even though the body has never been found and she has since retracted her statement.
Mr Amaral, a father-of-three, strenuously denies covering up the alleged abuse said to have been carried out by three of his colleagues.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.