Madeleine McCann, Robert Murat And PC Porn
MADELEINE McCann is missing. Still missing. And news. It is that Robert Murat used his computer for something more than looking up property prices and football results on the web.
As the Sun’s front-page headline screams: “MADDIE SUSPECT HAD KID PORN.”
Ever since Madeline went missing, child pornography and paedophilia have been the tabloids’ main line of speculation.
No meaningful debate on “every parent’s worst nightmare” has been had in the past two weeks. There have been no calls for a paedophile amnesty, a period of grace in which anyone with child porn on their PC or in their locker can contact the authorities and explain how they came by it without fear of being branded and charged. The police could then trace the material to source and catch the evil profiteers.
What we have is finger-pointing and the news that Robert Murat “visited a string of depraved sites”. And this is Murat who lives “yards” from the holiday flat where Madeleine was snatched. Or Maddie, as the Sun insists on calling her.
For those of you not yet familiar with Murat’s face, the Sun produces a shot of suspect No. 1, the only suspect. Beneath it runs the legend “web filth”.
The Mirror says: “The police haven’t told the family what is on Murat’s computer, they want to shield them..” Readers learn that Gerry McCann has been “made aware of the development” and that Kate McCann “is being completely protected from the nature of the web links”.
Until now. Until she reads the Mirror.
But what’s this? A police source tells us: “There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine. But officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history.’”
Why Murat should choose to look at such things – if indeed he did choose to and did not stumble upon them – suggests much. But if this is the sum of the evidence then are the police to search the logs of every computer in a, say, 50 mile radius of the McCanns’ holiday apartment? Will anyone found in possession of “web filth” become a suspect?
And if questions are asked, perhaps co-workers can step forward and say how they always thought such and such was a wrong ‘un.
Murat’s ex-boss Paul Titcombe calls his former employee “a huge porn fan addicted to women”. And once again we invite the police to question men who look at porn and who are obsessed by sex. It threatens to be a big job, huge even – it may even involve the police looking at some of their own – but it is vital that it is done if this mystery is to be solved.
“Paul also suspected Murat had an unhealthy interest in children,” notes the Sun. Interesting. But, sadly, the Sun does not enlarge on this. The usually loquacious Titcombe is not quoted. Examples are not cited.
And Murat remains the chief suspect – the only suspect…
Posted: 28th, May 2007 | In: Tabloids Comments (107) | TrackBack | Permalink
