So what actual searching was there?

[Alice Purjorick]

Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established.
I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being.  Highlighting would have prevented all of that.

You are too easily offended then.
Don't dish it out if you don't like getting it back.
The solution lies with you QED.

[Brietta]

Do you really believe all this copying and pasting from other sources that suits your agenda, will persuade me or others to believe you.

You have also omitted to mention the propaganda and articles favouring the mccanns in the UK press. Why is that ?

As to evidence, THERE IS NONE sufficient to brings charges in this case.

I am making an argument.  I am backing up that argument with quotes from the time using appropriate cites for substantiation.

Were I not giving cites ... I have no doubt you would be the very first in the queue demanding I do so.

Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.

As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed.  It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf.
The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public.  It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.

[stephen25000]

I am making an argument.  I am backing up that argument with quotes from the time using appropriate cites for substantiation.

Were I not giving cites ... I have no doubt you would be the very first in the queue demanding I do so.

Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.

As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed.  It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf.
The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public.  It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.

As I said earlier, your propaganda won't wash with me.

As regards the press, cor tbe manority of tbe last eight years, they have fallen into line as regards the abduction scenario, despite tbe lack of evidence.

Also the xenophobia exhibited by the tabloid press towards the Portuguese and members of their police is a disgrace.

[Angelo222]

I am making an argument.  I am backing up that argument with quotes from the time using appropriate cites for substantiation.

Were I not giving cites ... I have no doubt you would be the very first in the queue demanding I do so.

Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.

As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed.  It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf.
The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public.  It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.

The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't.  In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.

I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.

[ferryman]

I am making an argument.  I am backing up that argument with quotes from the time using appropriate cites for substantiation.

Were I not giving cites ... I have no doubt you would be the very first in the queue demanding I do so.

Those of us with a smattering of knowledge about the press conduct regarding Madeleine's case - and I include you in that - are aware that lazy journalism and sensationalism printed to sell copy led to picking up the lies from the Portuguese press and headlining them.

As a result damages were awarded and an unprecedented apology printed.  It is a fallacy to suppose the British newspapers unequivocally printed propaganda on their behalf.
The press were left with huge red faces when the files and the FSS report was made public. It is my opinion that a lot of publications got off very lightly because they could have taken action against far more than the Express Group.

Is right. 

To repeat a libel is to be guilty of libel, but it the prerogative of those libelled to choose whom to sue (or whom not to sue).

[ferryman]

The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't.  In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.

I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.

Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.

Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.

But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.

Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.

Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.

[Brietta]

As I said earlier, your propaganda won't wash with me.

As regards the press, cor tbe manority of tbe last eight years, they have fallen into line as regards the abduction scenario, despite tbe lack of evidence.

Also the xenophobia exhibited by the tabloid press towards the Portuguese and members of their police is a disgrace.

I have backed up my statements with cites.  I notice the assertions made by you are sadly lacking in corroboration so perhaps you should add "In My Opinion" to your post.

Many discussions have taken place about the role of the press both as far as the search for a live child was concerned and the role it played in the demonisation of her parents.


**Snip
But a source close to the Portuguese investigation said that the prevailing mood among detectives was that:
"The parents have a lot of explaining to do."

The source claimed that two DNA samples found in the McCanns' hire car - one apparently a full match to Madeleine and one partial - were of a type that suggested they had come directly from her body, rather than from clothes she had worn.

The development came as:
Social workers and police met to discuss the welfare of the McCanns' two-year-old twins, who could be placed on an "at-risk" register.

Police in Praia da Luz were preparing to search the villa where the McCanns had been staying until Sunday.

Kate McCann faced fresh slurs in the Portuguese media, with claims that she was aggressive towards her children and sometimes "out of control".

The McCanns were given police advice on how to deal with hate mail after a backlash against them gathered pace in Britain.


**Snip
The couple have been subjected to constant smears in the Portuguese press, but there is also evidence that public sympathy in the UK may be on the wane.

Police confirmed an officer had discussed "security issues" with the McCanns amid fears that they would receive hate mail, and a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in debate on the subject of "do you support the McCanns" was abandoned after a large number of messages condemning them were followed by demands from listeners that an ongoing police investigation should not be the subject of a radio phone-in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html



There can be no doubt that the totally erroneous information published in the Portuguese press resulted in public opinion in Britain being affected by it.

By the same token there is a cogent argument to be made that the same erroneous information which was the genesis of the anti lobby ... had an affect on the search for Madeleine and in my opinion allowed the apprehension of those involved in her abduction to be put on the back burner.

Cui bono?

[stephen25000]

Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.

Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.

But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.

Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.

Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.

CRIME UNKNOWN ferryman.

[Brietta]

The Press went too far in their grovelling apology, there might be no evidence that the McCanns hid their deceased child and concocted an abduction story but there is also no evidence that they didn't.  In my book that is called a stalemate and not a vindication.

I would add that their actions and those of their friends were not commensurate with one of absolute innocence.

You are making the mistake Mr Amaral made when he denied them their right to be considered innocent.

[Angelo222]

Sometimes, genuine benefit of doubt decisions are recorded.

Sion Jenkins was initially convicted of the murder of his step-daughter Billie-Joe on the strength of expert testimony that specks of Billie-Joe's blood found on his clothes could only have got there if he had been with her whilst she was alive.

But then the defence found a an expert witness to say that the blood might have been transferred after her death.

Jenkins was given benefit of the doubt and released from prison (I think) without compensation for a wrongful conviction.

Nothing like that applies in the McCann case.

He's still guilty of being a bully who beat his ex wife Lois and their children.  Nice guy!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-376915/Lois-Jenkins-The-truth-I-allowed-tell.html#ixzz21Hw3doMK

[Angelo222]

You are making the mistake Mr Amaral made when he denied them their right to be considered innocent.

Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views. 

Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent.  That is in fact not the case.  A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense.  A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.

Another good example would be the failed prosecutions of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando. Following his retrial he was found not guilty but denied compensation because he had failed to prove his absolute innocence.

You might say the law is a bit of an ass and I would agree!

www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm

[slartibartfast]

But one person's opinion that a part of a post 'stands on its own' may not be the opinion of the original poster.  I wasn't happy when you extracted just one para of one of my posts recently and deleted the rest.

Why do it - when it's so easy to quote the whole post - thus ensuring there is no chance of upsetting anyone - even if it is unintentional.

There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.

[ferryman]

Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views. 

Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent.  That is in fact not the case.  A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense.  A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.

Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).

[Angelo222]

Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).

You could say that about both camps.  Problem is that most people and very possibly the parents themselves don't yet know the entire truth of what occurred.

What is known for a fact is that the Portuguese Attorney General stated in his archiving report that the parents missed an opportunity to prove their innocence because of the refusal by their friends to take part in a reconstitution of events.

[Brietta]

There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.

It avoids any mistakes being made and it leaves no room for inadvertent or deliberate misunderstanding.  In my opinion it is also a matter of courtesy.

Words or phrases taken out of context can cause mayhem ... I think we would agree on that.