• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
A new development. I'm not sure about the rules relating to posting from news sites so I've just linked to a google search here
 
A new development. I'm not sure about the rules relating to posting from news sites so I've just linked to a google search here

If it's in the mainstream press, it's fine to post it here:

A German man convicted of murder and child sex abuse is reportedly the focus of current police enquiries in the Madeleine McCann investigation.
Portuguese police have expanded the probe into the 2007 disappearance of the British girl from a resort in Praia da Luz after receiving new details about the case from Scotland Yard.
Detectives are believed to have identified Martin Ney – a 48-year-old imprisoned in Germany in 2012 for murdering three children and sexually abusing dozens of other children – as a suspect.
Source:​
The article goes on to say that the British police believe he was in Portugal at the time of the disappearance.

More on this suspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Ney
 
So far as I can see, all the victims were male and older that the McCann girl. Ney certainly has a long and horrible record of abductions, assaults and murders but this one does not seem to be a good fit. :confused:

Agreed.

But a German serial killer of children in Portugal at the time--they'd be mad not to go over it with a fine-tooth comb.
 
If there is a subculture, rather than a series of lone wolves, he could have been stealing to order?
 
I guess it's not like there's any other missing girls the police could be out looking for.

2NTyRXj.jpg
 

Blackpool 2007.
A schoolgirl was murdered by a fast food shop owner who joked that she had been "chopped up" and put into kebabs, a court was told yesterday.​
The prosecution alleged at Preston Crown Court that Charlene Downes, 14, was killed by Iyad Albattikhi, 29, owner of a food shop in Blackpool, who had sex with her.​
Charlene was one of a number of young girls who visited an alleyway in the town to have sex with older men who worked in the fast food shops, Tim Holroyde QC, prosecuting, told the jury.​
Charlene, from Blackpool, was "well and happy", the court heard, but had a "chaotic" home life. Expelled from school, she spent her time hanging around shops on the Blackpool Promenade. She was last seen on the evening of Saturday Nov 1 2003. After kissing her mother goodbye she left alone - and vanished, Mr Holroyde said.​
A missing persons inquiry began but police later launched a murder investigation after receiving information that Charlene had been "killed and chopped up", the court heard.​
No trace of Charlene's body has ever been found.​
Mr Holroyde told the jury that a witness had heard Albattikhi and others talking about her.​
"These people were talking about sex with white girls, and there was mention of having sex with Charlene," he said.​
"Albattikhi laughed and said she was very small - the plainest possible indication that he was lying to the police when he said he did not know her. He and others present then laughingly said that Charlene had gone into the kebabs."​
Albattikhi, a Jordanian immigrant, is charged with murder. His business partner and landlord, Mohammed Reveshi, 50, is accused of helping dispose of the body.​
Both deny the charges and have told police they did not know Charlene.​
Albattikhi and Reveshi were joint owners of the food shop, the court heard, which Albattikhi ran.​
Charlene became a "familiar figure" hanging around the shops where she would sometimes get free food.​
Mr Holroyde said: "In addition she was one of a number of adolescent white girls who sometimes went at night to the alleyway behind the restaurants. She and others went there to meet much older men from the restaurants, and it seems perfectly clear that there was at times some sexual activity."​
Albattikhi took advantage of one of those vulnerable girls - Charlene Downes, the jury was told.​
Mr Holroyde added: "It is the prosecution case that the background to the murder of Charlene Downes and the disposal of her body is some sexual activity between her and one or both of the defendants.​
"Sexual activity between these adult men and a 14-year-old girl would be a crime which could be expected to have serious consequences for them."​
After Charlene's disappearance, both the accused were questioned and told police they did not know her, the court heard.​
In 2004, Albattikhi had a dispute with his brother, Tariq, who told a witness, David Cassidy, that he knew what had happened to Charlene - "she had been killed and chopped up and there had been a lot of blood", the court heard.​
Mr Cassidy was allegedly later offered a £20,000 interest-free loan from Reveshi.​
Police searched the flats of both accused men but found nothing. Detectives then bugged the premises and Reveshi's car, and Mr Holroyde told the jury some of the recordings were "revealing".​
The trial continues.​
And in other news, I have just finished a takeaway as I couldn’t be bothered to cook. Let’s just say I could have done without being reminded of this story at this exact moment...​
 
Hmmm... I've been away from this thread for quite a while so I've been busily reading up on what's been said, and pleased to see some theories being discussed freely. That's good. My personal feelings on this case have not - and undoubtedly will not - change no matter how many 'surprise' new suspects get dreamed up just as the funding is about to stop.

I haven't seen the Netflix documentary - don't have Netflix but anyway, in the Zebra household we tend to avoid any documentaries about this case because they invariably always work from the point of view of an abduction, which I have no time for.

And by the way, in what other case, has the parents been able to 'guide' an investigation in this way? Police should be able to look into all aspects of a case and come to a conclusion as to what happened, not be told by potentially the most obvious suspects (aren't the last people to see someone, usually investigated?) which way to go and then take it from there.

So I'd be interested to know, from anyone who's been able to see the Netflix thing, is it the usual abduction fare or something more worthwhile?
It sounds like you are saying/implying that the parents are responsible for the disappearance.....is that correct? ?
 
It sounds like you are saying/implying that the parents are responsible for the disappearance.....is that correct? ?

What I was actually saying in my post was that it seems absurd to me (and I'm not the only one) that a child goes missing and the police just take the word of the parents that "she's been abducted" without a shred of evidence for that and just run with it like that's the only possible explanation, and only investigate it from that angle.

That's what the Met police investigation is all about; they're only looking at it from the abduction angle.

And it is ludicrous. Quite often (I'm not knowledgeable enough on crimes to say normally) the last people to see a missing person would be thoroughly investigated. The situation would be looked at from an open angle; any and all possibilities would be considered. In this case, none of that has happened.

That's what I'm saying.

:)



I'd never heard of that case.
Thanks, Gordon.

Me neither; and I guess that's the problem, isn't it? One case gets heaps of publicity and money thrown at it, while others barely seem to get any airtime (and presumably a lot less cash thrown at the investigation).

It's not right.
 
What I was actually saying in my post was that it seems absurd to me (and I'm not the only one) that a child goes missing and the police just take the word of the parents that "she's been abducted" without a shred of evidence for that and just run with it like that's the only possible explanation, and only investigate it from that angle.

That's what the Met police investigation is all about; they're only looking at it from the abduction angle.

And it is ludicrous. Quite often (I'm not knowledgeable enough on crimes to say normally) the last people to see a missing person would be thoroughly investigated. The situation would be looked at from an open angle; any and all possibilities would be considered. In this case, none of that has happened.

That's what I'm saying.

:)
Thanks for the clarification....I agree with you in that from what I have read it is indeed a strange case in the way it's been investigated.
Normally the parents/family would be the focus in most cases of murder or disappearance (until ruled out) but it seems like this has been ignored (to some degree)...for some reason.
I also find the fact that the family has been so intimately involved in the case aspects (for 12 years...) a little odd...I know it is their daughter but if they are involved (a big if perhaps) this could be considered a gross interference and obstruction.
 
1. That's what the Met police investigation is all about; they're only looking at it from the abduction angle.

2. One case gets heaps of publicity and money thrown at it, while others barely seem to get any airtime (and presumably a lot less cash thrown at the investigation).

It's not right.

1. I'm confident that that is not the case. If you have an authoritative source which demonstrates otherwise, I'd love to see it.

2. Perhaps you missed one of the last lines in Gordon Rutter's post about the Charlene Downes case: "The trial continues."

maximus otter
 
...2. Perhaps you missed one of the last lines in Gordon Rutter's post about the Charlene Downes case: "The trial continues."...

Unfortunately not - that report is, I think, from the original 2007 trial in which the jury failed to reach a verdict. A retrial was ordered, but never took place. There appears to have been some alleged fuck-up in the investigation which caused the failure, although it seems that allegation has itself been under review. According to Wiki (sourcing the BBC and Blackpool Gazette), arrests were being made as recent as 2017 - so the investigation is clearly ongoing.

This case may inspire less public interest than that of the McCanns, but it's clearly not being ignored. If the relatives of Charlene Downes spent less time stabbing each other and beating up relatives of alleged perpetrators, then maybe they could focus on relentlessly pushing media interest in the case - but then, of course, they'd be probably be accused of trying to manipulate the investigation, or being posh, or connected, or something.

There’s no doubt that some criminal cases pique the interest more than others, and that some people have a better idea of how to force the issue - but the fact that the McCanns have managed to industrialise their own story is, in and of itself, really no evidence of anything but their ability to do so.

You could probably write some form of equation which predicts the amount of suspicion placed upon the parents of a child victim as a ratio of the amount of time it takes to solve the crime involved. I reckon it would be illustrated by a very steep vector rising within a very short time. I don’t doubt for one second that, had the bodies of their children never been found, and Huntley and Whiting not been caught, the parents of Holly Wells, Jessica Chapman and Sara Payne would be suffering their own relentless ordeal by speculation.

(Although I can find no online source now, I distinctly recall at least one tabloid newspaper criticising Sara Payne's parents for being in the pub when she was abducted - despite the fact that she was actually visiting her grandparents at the time; like, who on earth lets their kids do that? I have no doubt that if Whiting hadn’t been caught relatively quickly the amount of vilification and suspicion heaped upon the Paynes would have increased exponentially – the same goes for the Chapmans.)
 
Last edited:
It just seems to me that the parents are 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'.

Take too much interest in a case, try to keep it in the public eye and they are castigated for wasting police time and resources; take less interest and they are clearly guilty because they are trying to sweep things under the carpet.

Let's just hope that none of us ever find ourselves in the position of having to calculate the perfect balance of involved, but hands-off.
 
Dunno if anyone saw the Channel 5 documentary about Charlene Downes last night? It was utterly horrible, and cast serious doubt on the accepted story of her disappearance. Just watched it now, and it’s made my blood run cold.
 
Please tell us more.

Ok, well.... I knew nothing about this case before I read about it on here. I read some of the newspaper coverage and then downloaded her mother’s book. From that it was obvious why it never got the headlines that Maddie McCann did. They’re a very working class, down at heel family, and reading between the lines she was an “out of control” teen. That said, her mother painted a picture of a close and caring family who were doing their best. And I felt that yes, there but for the grace of whatever go a great many of us. Sad, but a kid who was headed off the rails.

The documentary started off quite sympathetic to the parents, but rapidly turned up some really unpleasant facts. Her mother always maintained that she phoned the police as soon as they realised Charlene was missing, but they played the tapes of the calls she made and it was 48 hours before it was reported. Charlene’s older sister was, at fourteen, living with a man in his 50’s, with the collusion of the parents. Dad was in the habit of bringing “friends” back from the pub after hours to carry on drinking. One was said to have had “feelings” for Charlene, who was only 13/14 at the time. Another would encourage Charlene to sit on his lap, another was reported to have offered her father £20 to have a chance to grope one of the daughters .... this accusation was put to the father, who denied it had happened, then backtracked and said yes it had happened but that he couldn’t remember which daughter it was. “It may have been Charlene”. Every question he was asked his responses were so staged and shifty, he was just completely unconvincing. It seems that several of the men he brought home had an unhealthy interest in young girls.

I’m not saying that the parents did it, or that the two accused were exonerated by the documentary, but there’s a lot more to the case than meets the eye and many of Charlene’s friends who were interviewed described a very unpleasant attitude to underage sex in the area. I’ve quite a strong stomach for crime documentaries but this was very ugly.
 
Yup, when I first worked in kids' homes over 20 years ago the Blackpool area was known to be rife with child sexual abuse and an especially active child-porn industry. We'd have young teenagers in care from there whose parents were desperate to keep them out of it.
 
I havn't heard of this case but it sounds heartbreaking. I have worked with families who would be classed as very dis functional{for want of a better term}but despite their situation {which would differ from the majority of our own situations},still had a very loving relationship within the family. I've also seen victims of abuse have very complex relationships with their abusers{fathers, brothers, grandads, mothers etc}where they hate and love the perpetrator, which can lead to difficult emotional complexities. In reference to the Charlene Downes case, the situation with which she grew up in, should perhaps invoke sympathy for her behaviours.
 
I'm sure this will be welcomed by all followers of this thread...

Madeleine McCann: More funds pledged for police investigation
2 hours ago​
The government has said it will continue to fund the police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until March next year.
The three-year-old disappeared from a holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007.
More than £11m has been spent on the Met Police inquiry, known as Operation Grange, since it began in 2011.
The Home Office said a "similar" level of funding would be granted this this year as in 2018/19, when the inquiry was given £300,000.
Source:​
 
It is incredible isn't it. This government cuts and cuts everywhere. But an inquiry into a child no-one's seen for eight (sorry, edit -12) years - yeah let's throw another £300k at it. Is that the 'sunken costs fallacy' in action? We've already spent £11m so it'll look even worse if we just shrug and give up. (The conspiracy theorist in me might think it's to investigate the parents a bit more thoroughly. But even that must have been done by now. Surely.) Nothing to see here, carry on please.
 
Last edited:
Michelle Dewberry has her say
"If this was a family from Hull who had gone to a caravan park down the road and left their kids in the caravan, while they'd gone to the local boozer. This wouldn't be getting millions of pounds worth of attention and funding, and all the rest of it,"

I'm not saying Michelle Dewberry is an expert in these matters - I've never heard of her before now - but I think she has a point.

Reaction to her comments
Readers pointed out that there are other missing person cases out there that have not received the same amount of funding to continue searches.
 
It's not even class per se though I think. It's not that The Establishment thinks rich victims of crime are more deserving than poor ones, particularly. It's about connections and who you know. Rich people know other rich people. And then you get into more conspiracy-type ideas that if you know someone influential, then they can get you out of a whole load of dog-droppings that a poor unconnected person is doubtless going straight to the courts for.
Ms Dewberry is just pointing out the Elephant In The Room that lots of other people have pointed at before. Yet here we are again reading that another few hundred thousand pounds is being lobbed at the case. In a sane world, someone with a bit of clout would pipe up themselves. But they don't seem to.
 
Back
Top