Last Updated: Saturday, 8 September 2007, 06:32 GMT 07:32 UK
McCann parents named as suspects

Portuguese police have named both parents of Madeleine McCann as formal suspects in her disappearance.

Gerry McCann was officially given "arguido" status about 12 hours after his wife Kate. They had been questioned separately for more than 24 hours.

No bail conditions or charges have been imposed and both deny any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May.

Earlier, a family spokesman said Portuguese police believed Kate McCann had killed her daughter accidentally.

Asked whether the couple, both 39, were still protesting their innocence, family spokesman David Hughes said: "They certainly are."

'Very low'

Mr McCann refused to speak to reporters as he left police headquarters in Portimao after eight hours of questioning.

It is understood Kate McCann was told she would only face two years in prison if she confessed.

She underwent a second day of questioning on Friday.

Under Portuguese law, police are not allowed to publicly give details of ongoing investigations.

Jon Corner, a close family friend, said Kate McCann had told him officers had tried to "cut her a deal" where she would only serve two years in jail.

He added that she was feeling "very down, very low" and "deflated".

Another family representative said officers believed that traces of four-year-old Madeleine's blood were in the McCanns' car, hired 25 days after she vanished.

Mr McCann arrived at the police headquarters at 1535 BST. He was not questioned with Mrs McCann, who left shortly afterwards.

'Ordinary family'

The "suspect" status allows the authorities to put certain questions to Mr and Mrs McCann, and also gives them the right to remain silent.


ARGUIDO/ARGUIDA STATUS
Officially a suspect
Bestowed by police or requested by individual
Right to remain silent
Right to a lawyer
Must report to police every five days

The first formal suspect was Robert Murat, a British man living locally.

Mr and Mrs McCann have not been arrested or charged.

McCann family spokesman David Hughes said: "She is suspected of accidentally killing her daughter."

In his latest diary entry on a website publicising the search for Madeleine, Mr McCann wrote: "The suggestion that Kate is involved in Madeleine's disappearance is ludicrous.

"Anyone who knows anything about 3 May knows that Kate is completely innocent. We will fight this all the way and we will not stop looking for Madeleine."

Meanwhile, friends of the family said that Mrs McCann has been told by her lawyer that she could be charged in connection with the disappearance of her daughter.

It is understood that after questioning Mrs McCann on Thursday, police said they had 22 questions they wanted to ask her during Friday's interview.


more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6983604.stm

Well isn't it suspiscious that they find the little girls blood in the car the family rented 25 days PRIOR to announcing her missing?

I read that Portugal even offered the mother a deal that if she admitted the girl was murdered "accidentally" that she would only get 2 yrs. I'm not sure how you accidentally murder your child.

Yesterday on my local news I also heard that UK was conducting the testing DNA found and such... since this happened in Portugal, why isnt Portugal doing it? All weird....

I just don't understand how the parents went to dinner, leaving the children alone. Now this doesn't make them murderers, mind you...

The report states they found the girls blood 25 days AFTER she went missing. Anyway, the parents should most certainly be questioned as all possible avenues should be investigated. The worst thing is that they left her in the hotel while they went to a restaurant. What responsible parent does something like that? Maybe they aren't murderers, but there actions are questionable. I just hope they find whoever killed the little girl and that they get what they deserve.

The DNA was tested in the UK because it was a team of British detectives and forensic officers who found it.

I have to say I cannot understand at the very least why the Portuguese haven't taken a firmer line on the children being left alone.

a 'firmer line'? like what? prison for being bad parents?
I don't think what they did was wise, but there are parents doing far worse than this every day of the week... and I think that whatever the McCanns are or aren't, if they're telling the truth about the abduction then they've been incredibly unlucky; this certainly isn't a normal situation


as for the blood, the way I read it they found it recently, and the 25 days refers to when they hired the car - they didn't even lease it til 25 days after Madeleine's disappearance, in which case the blood is a red herring

anyone know of the Azaria Chamberlain case? this is starting to sound awfully like it... mother criticised for leaving the baby, 'blood' (which turned out not to be) found in the car... of course that case ended in false imprisonment for a number of years; let's hope that whatever happens here is at least right and just...

I'm not surprised, to be honest. Something has never rang true in this case, the parents always seemed, well, can't think of the correct word, but just "not right".

Course, can't arrest someone for "not right" but you can be suspicious of them. Seems the police are too, probably let them do all the publicity in the hopes that they'd slip up.

In answer to another question mentioned here, it is relatively common to kill someone accidentally, that's why there is a "manslaughter" charge...

That is the thing that I can never understand. Why the heck do you leave your small children alone while you go out dining with friends? I don't care that they were close by.....it just isn't right.

Agreed... there's just seemed something very 'not right' about them (and the way they've gone about the publicity etc) all along. As for leaving the children alone in the apartment... I'm surprised the parents have had so much sympathy in (what I've seen of) the British tabloids - can you imagine how the Daily Mail etc would be reporting it if it were some slightly more, uh, working-class couple who'd left their kids alone every evening while they went off to some bar? They'd have been going totally Nancy Grace on their arses from day 1, surely!!

Oh I totally agree with you here, feather. If the parents were working class (or unemployed) and were holidaying in Spain somewhere I can imagine what the headlines would have been like. But because Madeline's parents are doctors and therefore higher educated they are offered support from the press.

Oh yes, I'd like a slice of double standards with my cuppa, thanks.

This post is a mixture of blind ignorance and wrong facts along with some correct facts and correct law.

Some class hatred/prejudice by 'working class' people as well

Aren't we supposed to encourage people to get educated and get professional jobs rather than having a pop at them because they 'made it' in society - a dose of envy around I reckon. Says a lot about us Brits and whether class envy and hatred has really gone away.

Well the Guardian readers will think one thing and the Sun readers will think something else.

I read neither which doesn't mean I don't read.

I wouldn't like to think some contributors to this thread were on any jury trying me - far to quick to presume guilt and confused about what constitutes murder etc.

Murder is the killing of a human being, by a human being, with 'Malice aforethought' either expressed or implied

If being dour and unemotional was proof of guilt then our prime minister Mr Brown should be behind bars now..

Why not just let the law take it's course instead of pre-judging ...We presume they are innocent at this monent don't we ? as good Brits or Americans we are duty bound to think that way - its the law.

They may well be as as innocenct as OJ was shown to be - and if they aren't then they would still get off if some portuguese policeman had called them an 'english pig'

My take on this is that we were slagging off the Daily Mail, which is one of the worst newspapers in the UK, imo.



Again, we were having a pop at the newspaper. I personally, don't judge people by their standard of education, but if something isn't "right" about the way someone acts I WILL say my piece regardless of whether they are the Queen, or Joe Bloggs next door.




Again, personally, I was commenting on the behaviour of the "suspects". Last time I looked we were able to do this. It's a message board, people comment about all manner of things, some of which we won't all agree with. *shrugs*

Its dot Cotton!

Wow... you managed to extrapolate rather a lot from a few short posts, saywhat - and you seem to have made rather a lot of incorrect assumptions there. First of all, I realise that my post might come across as sounding like people shouldn't be sympathetic towards the McCanns - not what I meant at all, of course they deserve sympathy, they've lost their daughter. I was simply saying that a different family would have certainly got very different treatment from the media (and not saying that's right, either) - they'd have been absolutely hauled over the coals from day one. Think how many times the tabloids have devoted a week or more to the 'shame' of some feckless chavvy single mother type for leaving her kids alone while she nips down the pub, or similar... I've seen it time and time again. Had it been a slightly different group of nine people going away and going out NIGHT AFTER NIGHT leaving very young children alone... well, the Sun, Mail et al would have been baying for their blood and demanding that Social Services get involved. Again - I am NOT saying the McCanns should have been subject to that kind of treatment, not at all - just commenting on the double standards that those papers exercise. I thought that was so obvious it should go without saying...



Who? Which 'working class' people?



Again, not sure who you're talking about here. Who has presumed guilt? (Thanks for explaining what murder is, though, who knew?) Personally, I would find it VERY hard to believe that the parents have been guilty of anything other than being rather lax and neglectful, and suffering hideously disproportionate consequences for it.



Um, I'll be sure to let the law take its course, thanks. I thought what we were doing here was having a discussion, which I was under the impression was among the purposes of this forum. Again, no 'pre-judging' here, at least from me - and even if I was going to pre-judge anything, I would NOT be giving the verdict you seem to assume.

Here is an interesting article about the case.

Thanks, Mags. That is an interesting read...

I think the dog that pointed out the smell of dead body should be demoted from deputy dawg to erroneous dawg

It should also be charged with wasting police time and causing thousands of media mawks to go to Portugal thus cancelling out all carbon savings made by david cameron and his family. That is possible under Portuguese law as I understand it from a report in the SUN summarised on cnn

My question is this - do lie detectors work on dawgs ? perhaps that beach just wanted a reward treat

Any witness who testifies for an incentive is guilty of perverting the course of justice and this case should be transferred to North Korea

where a hot dawg is just that whether it is in hot pursuit or not

Agreed - I always sensed that there was at least something that the parents weren't mentioning, whatever that may be.

Hopefully that is way off the mark and the girl is found in good health.

There was something 'not quite right ' about the police dog too..

It sort of looked sideways and showed no emotion when somebody shouted 'cats !'

Everything 'looked right' when Tony Blair listed all the WMD's in Iraq so perhaps 'looking right' is not the decider when trying to figure out if something is true or not.

Donald Rumsfeld said there was nothing wrong with 'water boarding' suspects when the case was serious enough..

This is where you cover the subject's face with cling fiilm and hold them under water until they choke.

has anyone tried this on a dog and does it work ?

I am working as a temp at the RSPCA so would you send me an email there please...British public wouldn't stand for that treatment of a dog so it may not be workeable.

thanks

alan

When this is all over they will be guilty or innocent

If they are guilty - those of you who said they were innocent will look stupid
If they are innocent - those of you who said they were guilty will look stupid

Only people who say that with only 10% of the facts being public knowleage, it is stupid to speculate , will be right either way.

The only person to lose their job will be the police dog that said quite clearly in a high pitch that only a british bobby can hear, that a decomposing body had been there

Ironically, I think there is only one person making themselves look stupid right now.

Again with the misinterpretations about what people are saying. What's with the 'those of you who said...'? Has anyone here said they are guilty, or that the are innocent?! (Of what, incidentally? Oh yeah, 'murder', as you pointed out before). I don't believe they have. So why would anyone look 'stupid', whatever the outcome?

It would be easy for me to say 'I know but I forgive you' but I don't engage in one liner conversation of the grunt-grunt type so I won't.
I just think it's not fair to paint these people as villains because of their facial expressions and nor is it right to say they are innocent and they should not be suspects.

It just isn't fair to do either.

The 'public' really alarm me much of the time - check this out- this is why I don't like lynch mobs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

anyway I have said what I had to say so I will leave you to keep discussing it and adding to everyone's understanding of the situation ...


alan

Alan, if you posted complete thoughts in complete sentences, it might make for a better debate.

You and your straw men, Alan... first people were accusing the McCanns of murder, apparently, so you had to explain what murder is. Then we were all evidently claiming their innocence or guilt, as you so helpfully pointed out. And now we're a lynch mob, it seems.

Where has any of this happened? Oh... it hasn't, that's right. And nobody claimed to be furthering anyone's understanding of the case (how would we?), merely having a conversation about it. How dare we, eh?

It is just an impression that I get regarding the mother, that's all. Maybe it is guilt over Madeline (if indeed she was murdered by accident), maybe it is grief over the loss of her daughter. Maybe it is both. *shrugs* I don't know, but something does still not ring quite true about it all.

I'm hardly condemning the woman to death or picking apart her personality or nature.




No one is going to look stupid...why? Because this is a discussion board, not a court of law. People are here discussing their views on this matter and whatever we say or think here will have no effect on the outcome of the Madeline case.

We are ALL entitled to our opinions here and it is perfectly acceptable to speculate.

I didn't paint anyone out as a villian, it might have been one of the voices in your head that said that.

What don't you understand devil ? How can I make it clearer ? I don't post one sentence and sit back like some.

The last two posts that were not mine have been 'one liners'. Who else is debating ?

The thread was getting distinctly 'big brotherish' and needed some law and facts and concepts of fairness injecting and that's what I did.

I go into my reasons... you know, fairness etc ?

It's a bit rich to be accused of doing 'incomplete sentences' in one sentence by one of the single sentence contributors !

If you want to go back to 'she only shed one tear today and that's not normal' then fine carry one in that vein but it isnt much of a debate (in my opinion). I promise not to contribute to it coz I don't watch soap operas ..alan

The only "fairness" is investigating in to the cause of the little girls death. If that means questioning the parents, then so be it.

'xactly. I agree that there is something that doesn't seem to quite ring true, and hasn't done all along - and that is not the same as saying 'OMG SHE MURDERED HER KID!', for god's sake... like you say, 'maybe it is guilt over Madeleine' - even guilt of the 'we should have checked on her more often, but we didn't' variety, rather than anything more sinister. The 'horrible accident of some sort, followed by desperate cover-up done out of panic and fear (of losing other two children/career/everything)' theory does sound at least plausible (no, that's not an accusation or saying 'she did it!')... every bit as plausible as 'snatched from her bed!' does.



Perfectly acceptable, yes, and also human nature. Hard not to have at least some thoughts in your head on the matter after 4+ months of media coverage so constant, that it's been impossible to miss even at a distance of several thousand miles...

Who died?

I'm not familar with that case - how was the false imprisonment finally proven?

ok let's speculate

She could have been snatched by a fat guy aged 40 with green teeth and wearing a greasy vest. This guy has never had a girlfriend and his mother (who he always lived with) is a desicated shell in a rocking chair up in the loft.
His mother never let him have playmates so he just wanted a little girl to play tiddly-winks with...
She misses her mother but is otherwise fine

He will get caught out when she asks for a doll and he goes to the village on his donkey to buy one...

At this stage, this is as likely as any other speculation

Good Point - Well Made!

Scenario 2

Knowing they were devout catholics and had attended mass there, the local priest stopped by to invite them to an event at the church. This man had been a priest in New York but his paedophile activities had been so blatant, and with the class action pending, the church in the U.S. sent him back to his native portugal where, it was felt, he would be under closer scrutiny from his fellow countrymen.

Seeing Maddy, he simply fell to the temptations which had always dogged his career and he took her.

The smell of rotting meat that the dog detected was actually a leberwurst that a german guest had left under his bed before the McCanns moved in. The cleaner had removed it the day before. The blood on the wall was caused by the priest's long nails scratching her arm as he took her. The blood in the car boot is a false match caused by contamination of the sample and the extreme heat in the boot and belonged to a Glasweigan called Jim who rented the car before them and had nicked his finger on a beer bottle cap

Maddy is currently kept in the vaults below the church and the priest does not know what to do...

Now who's mocking it all? Sick.

Dont start name calling - its not vj style - if I am factual you dont like it, and if i indulge in wild speculations to show you a wider world, you dont like that either.

Seems that only snide shots at the McCanns are acceptable in this thread and any other posts will result in name calling

ok well its up to you to make the rules apparently, but I tell you what - if I were a moderator I would pull the gratuitus accusations against the McCanns long before I pulled alan's (my) posts...

I think some posters here should stop and think 'what if' they are not guilty - can you imagine what they would feel reading some of the accusations on here ? I bet they would find my wild speculations more acceptable - especially as they were invented in order to try and open some closed minds around here..

My obviously wild scenarios made to prove a point will be far less sick than the 'she looks guilty' stuff if they do turn out to be innocent - we will see who is 'sick' then !

For the millionth time, no has said they are guilty. Stop twisting the words.

WHAT accusations? Nobody is accusing them of anything... oh, anything other than having left their very young children alone while they went out to dinner. True, that 'accusation' is there, but they're not denying that they did that. But regardless, I somehow doubt that the musings of total strangers on an internet talkboard will be figuring very highly in their concerns.

What 'facts' have you actually added to the discussion?

If I could be bothered I would go and cut some quotes from the start of this thread but I can't - they are there to be seen.

I tell you this though - I was a 'REAL' detective for 6 years from 1969 and a prerequisite for that job is a very open mind because real life is much weirder than any fiction you or I could write.

Whenever I see closed minds and feeble accusations and assumptions based on personal demeanour and pure wrong facts (the blood was in the car they hired before the event) - it makes me despair of the mentallity of the general public. I know vj IS the general public with all it's variations so it is to be expected.

The people attacking the home of a 'paediatrician' sums it up...

Go check out the first few posts if you don't believe me.

Travelling 4,000 miles to America will not broaden some people's minds by a millimetre...

It will broaden their bottoms though

this is not aimed at you by the way - I dont think you made the posts that rattled my cage...alan

Well I defined 'murder' for a start . People were struggling with the legal definition of what constituted murder so I provided it - did you miss that ? Why ? I put it in red for you ....

Yes, everyone knows about that very famous incident - quite why you're bringing it up to chastise people for having such very poor taste as to allow themselves to wonder about, and question, what we're being told about this case... nope, I don't know. Oh yeah, that's right, everyone on this thread was in danger of trying to get a lynch mob of some sort together, that was it - until you came along to set things straight.

You mention people on this thread having 'closed minds'. Why would that be?

Now elsewhere you said you were a police officer for 6 years. So what 2 years probation and then a TDC and then a substantive detective.

As to an open mind in those days CID was one of the most corrupt things it was ever my misfortune to come across.

Really - where? All I found were these....

I think Dev was referring to your "story" about Maddy being stuck in a church crypt as "sick", not you personally.

I AM a moderator here and see no need to "pull" any comments. Since when is "speculation" against the TOS? It isn't and there are no wild accusations going on here that I can see.




I have no problem with you getting your point across, Alan. I will request that you try to do so without these types of remarks. Thanks.

Because the drum I am banging is that there is far too little information (evidence) for US to go on and it's not fair or productive to start examining every little movement in the mother's face and saying something about her 'is not quite right'
That is my one and only point.

If you find that unacceptable then that will demonstrate a closed mind (to me at least)

If I was accused of killing my kid I would be twitching like Frank Spencer on cocaine withdrawal and I would be grinning and crying and dribbling and laughing and screaming - a total mess up - thats what people do.

It aint fair to come to conclusions over her expression - it just isnt fair

So you did, although I think to be more precise English law defines murder as '.....unlawful killing......'. I highlighted the word that you missed out in red.