UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on May 13, 2013, 02:49:23 PM
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
-
Before posing the "hate" question perhaps you could address the questions I put to you here? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1541.225
Then perhaps you could tell us why YOU hate the McCanns so much - in your own time...
My, my Martha you have got your knickers in a twist over a few 'insignificant' emails ! 8)-)))
-
Interesting question, Faithlilly.
It is scary to criticize the abduction thesis on this forum, you have to expect being treated like a h....r.
I'm aware critics hurt some posters in their feelings and in their hope and I feel sorry I'm not a believer. But others, like a certain nurse, obviously get a kick accusing you of hatred.
And this gives me the creeps.
Saying it's a thesis is already suspect, because it's the reality the parents keep on assuming and they "know better", as said Mrs McCann, "because she was there", which I understand as "I saw the shutters and the window and the curtains".
In fact, had she really seen that, I wouldn't doubt Madeleine had been taken.
And had one of the TPs seen these forced shutters/open window/flying curtains, I wouldn't doubt, because I really don't think they did any cover up, though they likely protected themselves of neglect accusation in their statements.
-
Personally, I'm not aware of any "intelligent and compassionate people" who have been inspired to hate the family.
-
Interesting question, Faithlilly.
It is scary to criticize the abduction thesis on this forum, you have to expect being treated like a h....r.
I'm aware critics hurt some posters in their feelings and in their hope and I feel sorry I'm not a believer. But others, like a certain nurse, obviously get a kick accusing you of hatred.
And this gives me the creeps.
Saying it's a thesis is already suspect, because it's the reality the parents keep on assuming and they "know better", as said Mrs McCann, "because she was there", which I understand as "I saw the shutters and the window and the curtains".
In fact, had she really seen that, I wouldn't doubt Madeleine had been taken.
And had one of the TPs seen these forced shutters/open window/flying curtains, I wouldn't doubt, because I really don't think they did any cover up, though they likely protected themselves of neglect accusation in their statements.
It is quite acceptable to query the abduction thesis.
What it is not acceptable to do is to defame the parennts for your own perverted amusement.
I quietly accept that there is a possibility that the McCanns are in some way culpable, but becasue I am mature, rational and empathetic enough, I am happy to let such matters rest with the Met and the Portuguese Justice system.
Because I am able to live a full and busy life outside forum land I do not need to make up tall stories and pretend that I am better than the police.
Because I am rational and fairly well educated and experienced in the ways of the world, I do not need to construct elaborate conspiracy theories about what happened.
I accept that the case is really none of my business and get on with things without finding any perverse need to shift any shortcomings that I have onto the McCanns as scapegoats.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
From where I am sitting you are the only one making the assumption. Not everyone doubting the abduction theory are [ censored word ]s, but because of the hate campaign against the McCann's (your fellow forum members who have moved beyond discussing the case on the internet to pamphleteering, stalking, threatening and libelling the McCann's in real life) they are all tarred with that same '[ censored word ]' feather.
The question that should be asked is: Are those who target the McCann's (stalk, harass and threaten them) intelligent and compassionate people?
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
From where I am sitting you are the only one making the assumption. Not everyone doubting the abduction theory are h.....s, but because of the hate campaign against the McCann's (your fellow forum members who have moved beyond discussing the case on the internet to pamphleteering, stalking, threatening and libelling the McCann's in real life) they are all tarred with that same 'h.....' feather.
The question that should be asked is: Are those who target the McCann's (stalk, harass and threaten them) intelligent and compassionate people?
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
Normal intelligent and compassionate people are not inspired to hate by total strangers - yes it can happen if someone affects them personally - but not strangers.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
the strange thing is that you and others felt the need to post on a thread for Madeleine's birthday!
There are plenty of other threads here.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
But your claimed 'reality' is in fact a concoction of assumptions made by someone with an ax to grind.
-
Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
Normal intelligent and compassionate people are not inspired to hate by total strangers - yes it can happen if someone affects them personally - but not strangers.
That is the point. To raise doubts about the abduction theory is tantamount to displaying a pathological hatred of the McCanns in some people's eyes. Does asking questions as a mature adult really have to involve a hatred of the person you doubt ?
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
-
Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
Normal intelligent and compassionate people are not inspired to hate by total strangers - yes it can happen if someone affects them personally - but not strangers.
That is the point. To raise doubts about the abduction theory is tantamount to displaying a pathological hatred of the McCanns in some people's eyes. Does asking questions as a mature adult really have to involve a hatred of the person you doubt ?
you tell me
-
There is one thread only on this site that is directed directly at Madeleine - a birthday thread.
Some people had to have posts removed.
-
Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
Normal intelligent and compassionate people are not inspired to hate by total strangers - yes it can happen if someone affects them personally - but not strangers.
That is the point. To raise doubts about the abduction theory is tantamount to displaying a pathological hatred of the McCanns in some people's eyes. Does asking questions as a mature adult really have to involve a hatred of the person you doubt ?
Well I don't think that Faithlilly. Anyone who is sceptical but is willing to discuss the case rationally and back up their claims with solid evidence is OK in my book. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
But I have to say I am sometimes appalled at the level of cruelty and venom aimed at the McCanns by some (not all) sceptics on other Fora.
However it would seem the McCAnns are not unique in this respect - as I understand the parents of Sarah Payne, Jessica and Holly, and Ben Needham - and probably others, have all been the victims of what is to me - inexplicable and irrational hatred.
-
I understand the parents of Sarah Payne, Jessica and Holly, and Ben Needham - and probably others, have all been the victims of what is to me - inexplicable and irrational hatred.
Are you thinking of News of the World, Benice ? I
-
Sorry to do a Dot Cotton on you guys for just a jif
But Debunker used a word in a post above, that made me think:
Scapegoat
Leviticus 16:10
'But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.'
I don't doubt many of the more prolific 'sceptics' are genuine and well-rounded people in real life.
And just like the 'supporters' they must be sick to the backteeth of NO progress having been made in this case. Despite the efforts of the PJ/GNR/Leicestershire constabulary and now NSY (leaving aside various gumshoes, 'profilers' 8(0(*, and people with magic machines)
The only progress in my view being - locating an alive or deceased Madeleine and to apprehend the perpetrator(s)
of whatever befell her.
It was so convenient in the early days - Malinka and Murat in the frame the early scapegoats - since exonerated
Followed by G&K themselves - since exonerated
Countless of alleged perps. Hewlett and al - mainly discounted.
So if you are a sceptic of the McCanns and their campaign - your frustration re. the lack of movement is probably as big as mine.
Making G&K scapegoats to make you feel better - whilst they have not been charged by any court - anywhere.
Will not achieve anything - it will just add to your continuing frustration
That's my view - soap box now removed
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
Your stance regarding the case and the parents is pretty much well understood on here and elsewhere.
WHY you had to post what you did on a birthday thread - solely intended to reflect thoughts for a missing girl on her 10th birthday?.
Escapes me - you must inhabit environs that are completely alien to me
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
Whatever!!! 8)--))
At least I don't post vile comments about a child, like you did.
-
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
missed you chance didn't you - you preferred to post something that was deleted.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
Whatever!!! 8)--))
At least I don't post vile comments about a child, like you did.
Vile comments ? I don't remember posting any of those, truthful perhaps.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I refer you to the comments - now thankfully removed, from the Madeleine birthday thread.
Reality may not always be palatable but is still reality.
And you say you care, about Madeleine. It didn't look like it on that thread, sad really, taking it out on a child.
Please do grow up DCI. I was taking nothing out on Madeleine. Wishing her a happy birthday may make you feel like a compassionate human being but it does nothing to change the reality of Madeleine's situation.
Your stance regarding the case and the parents is pretty much well understood on here and elsewhere.
WHY you had to post what you did on a birthday thread - solely intended to reflect thoughts for a missing girl on her 10th birthday?.
Escapes me - you must inhabit environs that are completely alien to me
Thank goodness. My conscience would not let me betray that poor child in the way you and your cohorts do.
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
Agree.
-
Offline Faithlilly
Thank goodness. My conscience would not let me betray that poor child in the way you and your cohorts do.
odd that your comments on the birthday thread for the (not that) poor child were deleted!
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
That is a beautifully expressed sentiment
-
Lighten up!
it's only a missing child
-
welcome to the hate thread
-
Only offensive little brats will be banned .... the debate should remain civil at all times with people freely allowed to express their opinions without being attacked for doing so!
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
That is a beautifully expressed sentiment
I completely agree with Mrs B. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must hope that Madeleine is still alive and being held captive. In those circumstances therefore we must do all we can to bring her home.
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
That is a beautifully expressed sentiment
I completely agree with Mrs B. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must hope that Madeleine is still alive and being held captive. In those circumstances therefore we must do all we can to bring her home.
What I am failing to understand is why some people WANT the child dead. I am reminded of something I saw, I think on twitter, a poster stating they "would be gutted if Madeleine was found alive"! That comment, which was repeated and then copied elsewhere, made me feel sick, I want her to be alive, to be reunited with her parents, is that so wrong?
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
That is a beautifully expressed sentiment
I completely agree with Mrs B. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must hope that Madeleine is still alive and being held captive. In those circumstances therefore we must do all we can to bring her home.
What I am failing to understand is why some people WANT the child dead. I am reminded of something I saw, I think on twitter, a poster stating they "would be gutted if Madeleine was found alive"! That comment, which was repeated and then copied elsewhere, made me feel sick, I want her to be alive, to be reunited with her parents, is that so wrong?
Of course it isn't wrong!
I will confess that I can conceive of some sort of living hell I don't want to think about too deeply and wouldn't wish on anyone.
But the sort of people you are talking about are interested solely in the dogs being right, and Amaral vindicated as the man who cracked the crime because they resent and hate Kate and Gerry McCann, and for no other reason.
-
Of course it isn't wrong!
I will confess that I can conceive of some sort of living hell I don't want to think about too deeply and wouldn't wish on anyone.
But the sort of people you are talking about are interested solely in the dogs being right, and Amaral vindicated as the man who cracked the crime because they resent and hate Kate and Gerry McCann, and for no other reason.
Why do some people hate the McCanns so much? Is it because Gerry speaks with a Glaswegian accent as against having a Cockney one or is it that he comes across quite cold and uncaring in interviews?
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
Very interesting, Mrs B, thanks for posting the link. 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
Of course it isn't wrong!
I will confess that I can conceive of some sort of living hell I don't want to think about too deeply and wouldn't wish on anyone.
But the sort of people you are talking about are interested solely in the dogs being right, and Amaral vindicated as the man who cracked the crime because they resent and hate Kate and Gerry McCann, and for no other reason.
Why do some people hate the McCanns so much? Is it because Gerry speaks with a Glaswegian accent as against having a Cockney one or is it that he comes across quite cold and uncaring in interviews?
I have noticed quite a lot of antipathy between the English and the Scots, so maybe it is his accent. He comes over to me as a rather reserved man, which may translate in interviews as cold and uncaring. Now that the media etc are pushing body language as a weapon to show that anyone who doesn't weep and wail on camera has to be hiding something non-emotion is the benchmark to apply in all cases. At the same time, one remembers the woman who did just that and then turned out to be part of a scam regarding her 'missing' daughter, she bawled non-stop and was held up by some as a shining example of how a distraught mother should behave. We are all different, we all react differently.
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
Very interesting, Mrs B, thanks for posting the link. 8@??)( 8((()*/
Thanks, I did find it interesting too 8((()*/
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
Comparing KMC to Medea is grotesque. Medea is a complex figure and figures more than passionate love's extremities.
Have you ever read Eddie smelt death on the Bible ? This one I didn't know !
How can Dr Nicola Goc write that David killed his child !
Curiously Eddie is only mentioned there, speculations on blood serve better the purpose to back a certain opinion on Lindy Chamberlain.
-
You are of course entitled to your opinion and I mean no offence, but I think you may have misunderstood this paper on several levels. Dr. Goc is not saying "David killed his child". She is referring to what has been reported in the Media - the sources are very clearly listed, please feel free to check.
Also, the paper is not about Eddie the Dog, it's about MSM & their treatment of Kate McCann in comparison to Lindy Chamberlain.
Thirdly, I hope you are aware that Lindy Chamberlain has been legally cleared of any involvement in her daughter's death. It's not a matter of "certain opinion" - it's a matter Court Record.
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
Thanks for that Mrs B. The chilling similarities between what happened to Lindy Chamberlain and Kate McCann are unmistakeable.
-
You are of course entitled to your opinion and I mean no offence, but I think you may have misunderstood this paper on several levels. Dr. Goc is not saying "David killed his child". She is referring to what has been reported in the Media - the sources are very clearly listed, please feel free to check.
Also, the paper is not about Eddie the Dog, it's about MSM & their treatment of Kate McCann in comparison to Lindy Chamberlain.
Thirdly, I hope you are aware that Lindy Chamberlain has been legally cleared of any involvement in her daughter's death. It's not a matter of "certain opinion" - it's a matter Court Record.
It has been reported the bible was found open at the story of how David killed his son.
I find this ambiguous, lots of people have no biblical culture, not only in catholic countries.
Why does she insist so much on the blood and say nothing on the cadaver scent (this is what mainly impressed people since no visible blood was found) ?
I'm afraid Dr Nicola Goc in this article contributes to the rumours she pretends to denounce.
Court Records aren't impressed by rumours, but you know that public opinion is. Dr Goc has a thesis concerning Lindy Chamberlain and uses abusively Mrs McCann's case to sell it.
All this imho of course.
-
Why does she insist so much on the blood and say nothing on the cadaver scent (this is what mainly impressed people since no visible blood was found)
Probably because the paper deals with the treatment of Mothers faced with tragedy & their treatment in main stream media, not a paper on forensic science vs virtues of sniffer dogs. But that's just my guess, of course 8(0(*
-
You are of course entitled to your opinion and I mean no offence, but I think you may have misunderstood this paper on several levels. Dr. Goc is not saying "David killed his child". She is referring to what has been reported in the Media - the sources are very clearly listed, please feel free to check.
Also, the paper is not about Eddie the Dog, it's about MSM & their treatment of Kate McCann in comparison to Lindy Chamberlain.
Thirdly, I hope you are aware that Lindy Chamberlain has been legally cleared of any involvement in her daughter's death. It's not a matter of "certain opinion" - it's a matter Court Record.
It has been reported the bible was found open at the story of how David killed his son.
I find this ambiguous, lots of people have no biblical culture, not only in catholic countries.
Why does she insist so much on the blood and say nothing on the cadaver scent (this is what mainly impressed people since no visible blood was found) ?
I'm afraid Dr Nicola Goc in this article contributes to the rumours she pretends to denounce.
Court Records aren't impressed by rumours, but you know that public opinion is. Dr Goc has a thesis concerning Lindy Chamberlain and uses abusively Mrs McCann's case to sell it.
All this imho of course.
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Similarly the bible Kate McCann had was used to justify suspicions against her because of what was written on a certain page. What the Pj did not know was that it was not her bible, and it was not given to her until some time after Madeleine had disappeared.
-
In the absence of a firm confirmation that a child is dead, I can't see that there is a worse form of betrayal of any missing child than denying them the right to be regarded as a living & find-able missing child.
That is a beautifully expressed sentiment
I completely agree with Mrs B. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we must hope that Madeleine is still alive and being held captive. In those circumstances therefore we must do all we can to bring her home.
What I am failing to understand is why some people WANT the child dead. I am reminded of something I saw, I think on twitter, a poster stating they "would be gutted if Madeleine was found alive"! That comment, which was repeated and then copied elsewhere, made me feel sick, I want her to be alive, to be reunited with her parents, is that so wrong?
Of course it's not wrong, it's just not very realistic. Do you really believe she is living with a caring parents, the kind of caring parents who pay someone to kidnap a child from her own family, in the middle of the night ? Does the reports of those poor women in Ohio tell you nothing of the likely fate of such an abducted child ? As Ferryman concedes :
"I will confess that I can conceive of some sort of living hell I don't want to think about too deeply and wouldn't wish on anyone."
No one wants to think of such a fate befalling any human being, let alone a child but experience tells us, if an abduction did happen, either early death or as ferryman describes it, a living hell, will be the abductees fate and burying our heads in the sand will not change that.
-
Has anyone bothered to ask women such as Jaycee, Natasha, Elizabeth etc if they'd rather be dead than alive, having survived their terrible ordeal?
My bet is that they're glad to have been found alive & allowed to resume their lives & return to their families in spite of what they have been through.
Nobody has the right to assume the voice of these missing children, they ALL deserve the same chance.
-
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Personally I never saw being reported 1) death scent on the bible and 2) David killing his child. What I saw is the bible had been found with a bookmark on the episode where God punishes David with the death of his child (the child of the woman he loved and whose husband he got rid of).
-
Has anyone bothered to ask women such as Jaycee, Natasha, Elizabeth etc if they'd rather be dead than alive, having survived their terrible ordeal?
My bet is that they're glad to have been found alive & allowed to resume their lives & return to their families in spite of what they have been through.
Nobody has the right to assume the voice of these missing children, they ALL deserve the same chance.
8@??)(
-
Has anyone bothered to ask women such as Jaycee, Natasha, Elizabeth etc if they'd rather be dead than alive, having survived their terrible ordeal?
My bet is that they're glad to have been found alive & allowed to resume their lives & return to their families in spite of what they have been through.
Nobody has the right to assume the voice of these missing children, they ALL deserve the same chance.
Had someone been able to ask those young girls when they were living that ordeal if the ordeal was better than being dead, I'm not sure about the answer. Two of them at least had children. Natasha's relation with her abductor is rather mysterious, she went in the open air with him and said nothing.
-
Has anyone bothered to ask women such as Jaycee, Natasha, Elizabeth etc if they'd rather be dead than alive, having survived their terrible ordeal?
My bet is that they're glad to have been found alive & allowed to resume their lives & return to their families in spite of what they have been through.
Nobody has the right to assume the voice of these missing children, they ALL deserve the same chance.
Had someone been able to ask those young girls when they were living that ordeal if the ordeal was better than being dead, I'm not sure about the answer. Two of them at least had children. Natasha's relation with her abductor is rather mysterious, she went in the open air with him and said nothing.
Are you unaware of Stockholm Syndrome?
-
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Personally I never saw being reported 1) death scent on the bible and 2) David killing his child. What I saw is the bible had been found with a bookmark on the episode where God punishes David with the death of his child (the child of the woman he loved and whose husband he got rid of).
I didn't say a death scent had been found on the bible. I said the Pj were unaware that it was NOT Kate's bible or that she did not acquire it until sometime after Madeleine's disappearance - and so their decision to use it to bolster suspicion against Kate was flawed.
-
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Personally I never saw being reported 1) death scent on the bible and 2) David killing his child. What I saw is the bible had been found with a bookmark on the episode where God punishes David with the death of his child (the child of the woman he loved and whose husband he got rid of).
I didn't say a death scent had been found on the bible. I said the Pj were unaware that it was NOT Kate's bible or that she did not acquire it until sometime after Madeleine's disappearance - and so their decision to use it to bolster suspicion against Kate was flawed.
Benice, I know you didn't say the scent was found on the bible. Some journalist might have invented this, I don't know, what I read was only about the police wondering about the bible being marked on David's sorrow. Remember this was the time Eddie had found the scent of death in the flat, which induced a crucial turn in the inquiry. The point was to discover whether the McCann knew Madeleine was dead or not. Rather legitimately.
-
Anne, you may not have HEARD about the "smell of death on the bible" - nevertheless it WAS reported in the Media at the time, the original article has now been removed from online viewing but it's still mentioned in loads of blogs & you will STILL find a reference to it in this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562575/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-flying-back-to-UK.html
John Barrett, a former Scotland Yard dog handler, also indicated that the trained dogs used in an attempt to detect a "death smell" on Mrs McCann's Bible and clothes were brought in too long after Madeleine vanished.
-
Anne, you may not have HEARD about the "smell of death on the bible" - nevertheless it WAS reported in the Media at the time, the original article has now been removed from online viewing but it's still mentioned in loads of blogs & you will STILL find a reference to it in this article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562575/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-flying-back-to-UK.html
John Barrett, a former Scotland Yard dog handler, also indicated that the trained dogs used in an attempt to detect a "death smell" on Mrs McCann's Bible and clothes were brought in too long after Madeleine vanished.
Mrs B., I didn't deny media suggested or said death was smelt on the bible, I said I didn't read that one. But I've not read much in fact, except for the PJ files.
-
Martha, don't you find it desperate, disingenuous and totally illogical let alone malicious to attribute similar sentiments to any *sceptic* that have come from one offensive tweeter? Out of hundreds or thousands of posters bloggers and other commentators in this case? I see is alot and I don't understand the motive for it, as it is a very baseless kind of argument for anyone to make. Similar comments are made like, just because you happen to post on a certain forum, for example, it surely means you agree with everything said there and therefore are guilty by association. Sorry for butting in though. Very strange state of affairs IMO.
-
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Personally I never saw being reported 1) death scent on the bible and 2) David killing his child. What I saw is the bible had been found with a bookmark on the episode where God punishes David with the death of his child (the child of the woman he loved and whose husband he got rid of).
I met Kate and Gerry on Friday after having made contact with them via written messages during the week. They knew I was participating in the searches that week. I felt dispirited because there appeared to be no coordination or leadership to the searches. Many people went searching without adequate local equipment, like for example people were cutting their feet on the rough terrain or on the shrubs in those locales. Many people wore sandal and walked over tough land. I never saw any police involvement in the operations carried out by civilians.
On Friday the 11th of May 2007 we heard rumours that the Portuguese were going to stop the searches. After having passed this information to Kate we met up in the Tapas bar in the resort between 9:30 and 9:45 in the morning. We met for only a half hour to 40 minutes as Kate had to attend a police interview.
During this meeting, I offered Kate a bible. This happened in the sequence of emotions that Kate was obviously feeling and after our having sat down to speak. We did not know each other well as she is predominantly my wifes friend. I am the leader of a South Wigston team run out of the Corporation for Exercise and Salvation, Leicestershire. I have a particular interest in the bible and the form in which it was written. I frequented the course ?Alpha Course? (an introduction to Christianity) a recommended to Kate some of the passages in the bible that she could rand to help comfort. There was a dedication from me to my wife on the first page, as it had previously been a gift from me to her. I have a tendency to mark pages and passages in the bible and even though this was my spouses bible, there were many marked/tagged passages relevant to the both of us. This happened before Madeleines disappearance.
I encouraged Kate to read Psalms X and XX of the Old Testament as I felt these were relevant to her. They are both believers. The Psalms reveal a confidence in God, in his justice and in the question which can be asked ?Why do bad things happen?. Psalms XX is a small oration asking Him to guide and illuminate our path in times of anguish.
The passage which is marked in my wifes bible I believe is Samuel 2:12. This passage is very significant for me and my wife but likely has so significance for Kate. I interpret this passage as saying that even though we cannot be with the two children that we have no lost, we will find them one day.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm
There would seem to be a few translation errors / typos in that statement. Amongst others, "no" appears as "so".
-
Sad and irrational response
-
The passage which is marked in my wifes bible I believe is Samuel 2:12. This passage is very significant for me and my wife but likely has so significance for Kate. I interpret this passage as saying that even though we cannot be with the two children that we have no lost, we will find them one day. [/i]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm
There would seem to be a few translation errors / typos in that statement. Amongst others, "no" appears as "so".
Yes the "so" is "no" in the portuguese version where "no lost" is "now lost". I'll ask Pamalam to correct.
I don't interpret this episode like Mr Patterson. David prays and starves in hope God will not let his child die. In vain. David surprises everyone because he doesn't accomplish the funeral rituals. He's pragmatic : his child will not return to him ; he makes another child to Bathsheba : Salomon.
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word
Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters
Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO
-
The more I think of it, the more strikes me that David's child is the one who appeared just to disappear.
-
no I am not, I initially joined for a few weeks and deleted my membership, wasnt for me, I tried to correct some rubbish but more rubbish tended to come out, still sad and irrational of you though, to base your whole guilt tripping argument about comments made against parents of a missing child is misguided, not all parents of mising children are automatically innocent, and as we know, the case is COLD, you might think the Mccanns are cleared, many don't, and if people think the parents might be involved thats their prerogative to comment, whether its bitchy or not, the mccanns have no right to social deference of any kind from anyone, the right to be believes by all people and you cant control social media, no one can, and you cant hold anyone reaponsible either whether you like it or not,not for you to police them and then lump the worst comments of a few as representative of ALL sceptics you have little argument here
-
The more I think of it, the more strikes me that David's child is the one who appeared just to disappear.
I think that whoever reads a passage in the bible is allowed to put their own emotional interpretation of that it means to THEM & what comfort it gives THEM. It's a private matter & meaningless to anyone else.
-
The more I think of it, the more strikes me that David's child is the one who appeared just to disappear.
I think that whoever reads a passage in the bible is allowed to put their own emotional interpretation of that it means to THEM & what comfort it gives THEM. It's a private matter & meaningless to anyone else.
Lol about "emotions", Mrs B. Ite missa est !
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word
Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters
Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO
Twitter may be irrelevant as far as your concerned but if you are the kids of one of the McCanns' friends and you google daddy's name, the first link that pops up is to someone on twitter impersonating him and accusing him of child sex abuse. The person behind that twitter account also helps to run the Controversy Facebook page and recruiting new members.
If parents are going to let their young kids go online they have a reaponaibility for them, especially if they havebeen involved in a high profile case, and in this case in such an unfortunate way, in this case, Mr Payne should do something about it, I find it hardto believe he doesnt know about it, he has the option to get twitter to ban that ID as it impersonates his name and picture, get brit police involved and also the ability to sue,I agree that user name and tweets are decrepit as its all based on a friends interpretation of gestures and half heard conversations denoting in her mind paedophilia involving 2 year olds
-
no I am not, I initially joined for a few weeks and deleted my membership, wasnt for me, I tried to correct some rubbish but more rubbish tended to come out, still sad and irrational of you though, to base your whole guilt tripping argument about comments made against parents of a missing child is misguided, not all parents of mising children are automatically innocent, and as we know, the case is COLD, you might think the Mccanns are cleared, many don't, and if people think the parents might be involved thats their prerogative to comment, whether its bitchy or nof, you cant control social media, no one can, and you cant hold anyone reaponsible eithedm whether you like it or not,not for you to police them and then lump the worst comments of a few as representative of ALL sceptics you have little argument here
I'm not attempting to control social media but if I see people coming together online to act hatefully about innocent people then I am well within my rights to comment on what I see and for the most part I see a bunch of h.....s. It's like the BNP isn't it? Not everyone who votes for them is a racist necessarily but you'd still be right to describe the BNP and its leading members as a racist party led by racists.
thats better and of course youre within youre rights, what is not your right is blackballing everyone who is somewhere as being the same as the worst and castigating them because they havent caused a riot against certain comments, so no, you cant control social media or the internet and you cant pontificate on what people must or should do thats the popes job
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word
Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters
Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO
Twitter may be irrelevant as far as your concerned but if you are the kids of one of the McCanns' friends and you google daddy's name, the first link that pops up is to someone on twitter impersonating him and accusing him of child sex abuse. The person behind that twitter account also helps to run the Controversy Facebook page and recruiting new members.
If parents are going to let their young kids go online they have a reaponaibility for them, especially if they havebeen involved in a high profile case, and in this case in such an unfortunate way, in this case, Mr Payne should do something about it, I find it hardto believe he doesnt know about it, he has the option to get twitter to ban that ID as it impersonates his name and picture, get brit police involved and also the ability to sue,I agree that user name and tweets are decrepit as its all based on a friends interpretation of gestures and half heard conversations denoting in her mind paedophilia involving 2 year olds
This is really a terrible issue. The trouble is that this testimony was made by 2 doctors, not uncultured people, acquaintances of the McCanns (he obviously following her) and that it cast a doubt not only on DP but on GMC. Once said and published, I think the better would be to face it. I'm horrified thinking that kids sooner or later will discover this on the web.
-
.... and that it cast a doubt not only on DP but on GMC.
I beg to differ.
Mr Gaspar's statement reads (almost) like a favourable character reference.
Mrs Gaspar appears to have misconstrued some gesture that patently had nothing to do with any child (let alone Madeleine).
And it all happened in another country (very far away) ...
-
Anne it was only Mrs K Gaspar who imagined certain things, her husband just saw DP making sexual gestures like she did
Mrs K blended those gestures with the fact she thought he and Gm were talking about Madeleine in that way which I personally found hard to believe if she was sitting in between them or even if she wasnt
This is just MO but I think once Madeleine went missing and she found out he was part of the group, she made mental leaps from her fears and imaginings frombefore when she was on holiday with him and what had happened and felt she had to report her feelings, nothing wrong with that, the Pj shouldnt have put it in the released files though
-
.... and that it cast a doubt not only on DP but on GMC.
I beg to differ.
Mr Gaspar's statement reads (almost) like a favourable character reference.
Mrs Gaspar appears to have misconstrued some gesture that patently had nothing to do with any child (let alone Madeleine).
And it all happened in another country (very far away) ...
That is, by far, the most ridiculous comment I've ever seen you post, and I've seen you post a few.
A character reference ? In what way ?
It happened far away. That is relevant why ?
-
.... and that it cast a doubt not only on DP but on GMC.
I beg to differ.
Mr Gaspar's statement reads (almost) like a favourable character reference.
Mrs Gaspar appears to have misconstrued some gesture that patently had nothing to do with any child (let alone Madeleine).
And it all happened in another country (very far away) ...
Yes, Arul Gaspar generally had nothing but positive things to say about DrP in his statement.
And Harold Shipman was adored by many of his patients. Your point ?
-
Who is being compared to Harold Shipman exactly? Arul Gaspar or David Payne?
-
.... and that it cast a doubt not only on DP but on GMC.
I beg to differ.
Mr Gaspar's statement reads (almost) like a favourable character reference.
Mrs Gaspar appears to have misconstrued some gesture that patently had nothing to do with any child (let alone Madeleine).
And it all happened in another country (very far away) ...
That is, by far, the most ridiculous comment I've ever seen you post, and I've seen you post a few.
A character reference ? In what way ?
It happened far away. That is relevant why ?
its ferryman talk, a character reference is sticking your finger in and out of your mouth LOL
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word
Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters
Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO
Twitter may be irrelevant as far as your concerned but if you are the kids of one of the McCanns' friends and you google daddy's name, the first link that pops up is to someone on twitter impersonating him and accusing him of child sex abuse. The person behind that twitter account also helps to run the Controversy Facebook page and recruiting new members.
If parents are going to let their young kids go online they have a reaponaibility for them, especially if they havebeen involved in a high profile case, and in this case in such an unfortunate way, in this case, Mr Payne should do something about it, I find it hardto believe he doesnt know about it, he has the option to get twitter to ban that ID as it impersonates his name and picture, get brit police involved and also the ability to sue,I agree that user name and tweets are decrepit as its all based on a friends interpretation of gestures and half heard conversations denoting in her mind paedophilia involving 2 year olds
Parents cannot shield their children from the all of the worst excesses of the internet forever. Why should this poor man have to go through the unpleasant rigmarole of tracking down and stopping this vile troll? Why don't the vile troll's friends (some of whom post on this very forum) search their own consciences and try to persuade him to delete that particular account?
Yes very fair point but it wont work if the person is hell bent,sad but true
fact is if you are on any forum apart from here i might add its fixed in mentality so complaints WILL get drowned out
And you are still out of order though saying that anyone who posts in a same place as him believes the same as him, that is nothing but casting aspersions, on conrroversy forum when i was on there for a couple weeks i challenged him on something srupid he said and he accused me of enabling rape and child abuse , well I knew he was a nutter but that was the last straw
-
Who is being compared to Harold Shipman exactly? Arul Gaspar or David Payne?
No one is being compared to anyone. I am pointing out that even the most evil of people can hide their true character from strangers.
-
I don't think I said that actually redBlossom. I think if you post alongside him and also highfive his offensive posts and tweets, retweet him and / or make him admin of your FB page then clearly you do support his sick stance. I have no idea if any of this applies to you specifically as I don't know you outside of this forum.
i dont do twitter or partake of his view martha and tweets, is he admin of that controversy page then? Find that hard to believe
-
Yes, odd that. While in others the evil is so transparent you can almost see it oozing out of their black souls..... >@@(*&)
-
Anne it was only Mrs K Gaspar who imagined certain things, her husband just saw DP making sexual gestures like she did
Mrs K blended those gestures with the fact she thought he and Gm were talking about Madeleine in that way which I personally found hard to believe if she was sitting in between them or even if she wasnt
This is just MO but I think once Madeleine went missing and she found out he was part of the group, she made mental leaps from her fears and imaginings frombefore when she was on holiday with him and what had happened and felt she had to report her feelings, nothing wrong with that, the Pj shouldnt have put it in the released files though
I agree this shouldn't have been put in the released files.
Whatever happened, I find it weird Mrs G not to have a serious talk with the protagonists to clarify her suspicions. Keeping them away from the bathroom when her kids are in is selfish imo.
-
Yes, odd that. While in others the evil is so transparent you can almost see it oozing out of their black souls..... >@@(*&)
get over yourself and your drama queen religious tactics here, eeewwww, shudder
-
LOL Moi? Religious - you're having a laugh.... @)(++(*
-
Who is being compared to Harold Shipman exactly? Arul Gaspar or David Payne?
No one is being compared to anyone. I am pointing out that even the most evil of people can hide their true character from strangers.
Were David Payne and Gerry McCann strangers to Arul Gaspar?
David Payne certainly was before the holiday.
-
You mean you've been harping on about that statement for ages but FAILED to notice that they spent a holiday together in Mallorca in 2005?
I did not know these two families until we went on holidays together. From memory, I think that it was David [Payne] who organised these holidays and we all stayed together in a big house in Majorca.
-
Anne it was only Mrs K Gaspar who imagined certain things, her husband just saw DP making sexual gestures like she did
Mrs K blended those gestures with the fact she thought he and Gm were talking about Madeleine in that way which I personally found hard to believe if she was sitting in between them or even if she wasnt
This is just MO but I think once Madeleine went missing and she found out he was part of the group, she made mental leaps from her fears and imaginings frombefore when she was on holiday with him and what had happened and felt she had to report her feelings, nothing wrong with that, the Pj shouldnt have put it in the released files though
I agree this shouldn't have been put in the released files.
Whatever happened, I find it weird Mrs G not to have a serious talk with the protagonists to clarify her suspicions. Keeping them away from the bathroom when her kids are in is selfish imo.
I'm amazed that Mrs G did not say a word about it to her own husband! Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do in such circumstances? And wouldn't the words you had heard be burned into your memory - and yet she could not recall the conversation which accompanied the 'gestures' - she only 'thinks' it was about Madeleine.
Personally I think she was mistaken in her interpretation. No paedaphile is going to casually chat in a way which would reveal his paedaphilia in the company of ANYONE at the dinner table. They are intensely secretive.
Mr. G simply thought that what DP did was in ''poor taste' and unlike his wife he did not think it was about Madeleine. IOW he wasn't outraged or shocked - and doesn't even remember the second occasion at all.
We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate. If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.
Their statements should not have been released. And I do believe that was a deliberate action. However we do know that nothing was found by the police to substantiate Mrs. G's interpretations - and despite worldwide publicity not a single 'victim' has ever come forward. As we know from other cases in the UK - that is what happens once it's made public. So nothing - not a scrap of evidence against him except a half remembered conversation - and what she 'IMAGINED' he might be capable of from Mrs G - which Mr G. did not agree with.
Finally I think if DP had made a paedaphilic remark about Madeleine to her own father, then Gerry would have probably 'decked' him there and then - and that would have been the end of a wonderful friendship.
-
We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate. If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.
Their statements should not have been released. And I do believe that was a deliberate action.
That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?
-
We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate. If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.
Their statements should not have been released. And I do believe that was a deliberate action.
That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?
I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.
As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc. As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place? Personally I can't think of any benign reasons. Can you?
-
I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.
As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc. As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place? Personally I can't think of any benign reasons. Can you?
Well, Benice, I wouldn't jump from bad taste to paedophilia. A little vengeance because the testimony was only sent 6 months later and because also there was no requirement not to release it, the testimony judging more the G than DP and GMC ?
I think, I hope this spontaneous statement was properly investigated but there's no file attesting it. As Mr McCann learnt about what colleagues had judged useful to tell the police about him (not sufficient a deletion though to alert the GMC), he (imo) should have replied (off the record), for the benefit of clarity.
The presence of UK paedophiles in the Algarve without the police (not the people) being aware of it was really unfair. I was really shocked that this was divulged only when a British child disappeared. What about the other little girls and boys ?
Some phone nb have been kept by mistake.
Generally speaking as no crime could be determined, no suspect could be charged, this case is just history. Unless..
-
We know very little about Mrs G - and so can only speculate. If English is not her first language - then maybe she misconstrued 'English humour' - or maybe she is a massive prude and was shocked at something that others would simply regard as 'crude'.
Their statements should not have been released. And I do believe that was a deliberate action.
That was likely humour, not sure about English, but a joke Mrs G didn't like for some personal reasons, perhaps. The fact to go to the police to state gives an idea of the relationships between acquaintances.
Can you please, Benice, explain why you believe the release was "a deliberate action" and who decided so ?
I thought the Pj were told not to release files about people where paedaphilia was the issue.
As far as I know, the Pj also made no effort to blank out people's private information before releasing their files i.e. private phone numbers, addresses and other private information were left for all and sundry to access - causing a lot of hassle to those who were forced to take action to avoid fraud etc. As they were policemen and must have known they were putting people in that unacceptable position by making such info available to the public - then why choose to take such an irresponsible course of action in the first place? Personally I can't think of any benign reasons. Can you?
Bernice, the Portuguese authorities trampled rough-shod over all (UK) procedures and protocols in the way that they released information about this investigation. And while you might say that, as the lead force in the investigation, they had the prerogative to, that would be far from right.
The UK made it a strict condition of their part of the investigation that (specifically) their role in the investigation would be released into the public domain in accordance with UK procedures and protocols.
The Portuguese just trampled rough-shod over the lot.
There was stuff they could have released, strictly on the Portuguese side, they could have released without objection from the British: the Interim report (heaven help us!); the PJ final report; PJ police interviews; other leads followed up by Portuguese police (and so on).
But just about everything undertaken by the British was supposed to remain under wraps until after the crime had been solved, Madeleine's fate was definitely known, trials had been held, time had elapsed for appeals to be heard and so on.
All that was just ignored ...
-
Indeed. None of the witness statements should have been released.
-
Indeed. None of the witness statements should have been released.
That would be an interesting topic for discussion, if it hasn't already been raised on this forum.
Should the Madeleine McCann case file have been released to the public/allowed to be published on the internet?
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
-
Perhaps this may be of interest.
http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/Evil/Evil%209/goc%20paper.pdf
“Bad Mummy”—Kate McCann, Medea and the Media by Dr Nicola Goc University of Tasmania
Very interesting. Thanks, Mrs B.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
-
I see no ambiguity - she clearly states 'it has been reported'. She IS talking about press reports.
Personally I never saw being reported 1) death scent on the bible and 2) David killing his child. What I saw is the bible had been found with a bookmark on the episode where God punishes David with the death of his child (the child of the woman he loved and whose husband he got rid of).
I didn't say a death scent had been found on the bible. I said the Pj were unaware that it was NOT Kate's bible or that she did not acquire it until sometime after Madeleine's disappearance - and so their decision to use it to bolster suspicion against Kate was flawed.
Benice, I know you didn't say the scent was found on the bible. Some journalist might have invented this, I don't know, what I read was only about the police wondering about the bible being marked on David's sorrow. Remember this was the time Eddie had found the scent of death in the flat, which induced a crucial turn in the inquiry. The point was to discover whether the McCann knew Madeleine was dead or not. Rather legitimately.
Why didn't the PJ simply ask her? The LP could have easily double-checked it with the friend who lent it, if the PJ had asked them to.
Instead, it flew out of a PJ window into the waiting arms of some hack.
-
The more I think of it, the more strikes me that David's child is the one who appeared just to disappear.
I think that whoever reads a passage in the bible is allowed to put their own emotional interpretation of that it means to THEM & what comfort it gives THEM. It's a private matter & meaningless to anyone else.
Quite.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
I assume that they didn't just decide to release this case file alone. Why would they do that?
-
Sad and irrational response
But I'm afraid woefully predictable Redblossom 8(8-))
Yes, sadly as especially the blanket black balling of sceptics is ginormous compared with the almost non existant blackballing of *believers* for wont of a better word
Personally I have challenged some rubbish on a certain forum or two, yea, forums from both camps, and got jumped on, derided, bullied and banned, you cant win for trying sometimes, just glad this forum exists where neither camps have any control, blessing really especially for on off fence sitters
Twitter is a whole different kettle of fish, irrelevant here IMO
Twitter may be irrelevant as far as your concerned but if you are the kids of one of the McCanns' friends and you google daddy's name, the first link that pops up is to someone on twitter impersonating him and accusing him of child sex abuse. The person behind that twitter account also helps to run the Controversy Facebook page and recruiting new members.
If parents are going to let their young kids go online they have a reaponaibility for them, especially if they havebeen involved in a high profile case, and in this case in such an unfortunate way, in this case, Mr Payne should do something about it, I find it hardto believe he doesnt know about it, he has the option to get twitter to ban that ID as it impersonates his name and picture, get brit police involved and also the ability to sue,I agree that user name and tweets are decrepit as its all based on a friends interpretation of gestures and half heard conversations denoting in her mind paedophilia involving 2 year olds
A further issue, in my view, is that it isn't just a matter of the kids themselves googling - wannabe bullies could also do so and may well try to make their lives a misery.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
I assume that they didn't just decide to release this case file alone. Why would they do that?
Are you suggesting/assuming that the Portuguese police consulted the UK police before deciding to release the files?
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
-
No.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold by police, to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
It's not only the Portuguese who are at fault though. Do you remember someone in the UK who wasn't related to the McCann's and who paid to obtain a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate and posted it to the internet? The release of the police files also resulted in some keyboard detectives obtaining private information and post it to the internet.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold by police, to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
It's not only the Portuguese who are at fault though. Do you remember someone in the UK who wasn't related to the McCann's and who paid to obtain a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate and posted it to the internet? The release of the police files also resulted in some keyboard detectives obtaining private information and post it to the internet.
Birth Certificates are in the Public DOmain as a matter of policy. Police investigations should not be.
The release of the files has kept the ghouls going for years!
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold by police, to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
It's not only the Portuguese who are at fault though. Do you remember someone in the UK who wasn't related to the McCann's and who paid to obtain a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate and posted it to the internet? The release of the police files also resulted in some keyboard detectives obtaining private information and post it to the internet.
Birth Certificates are in the Public DOmain as a matter of policy. Police investigations should not be.
The release of the files has kept the ghouls going for years!
Yes, I know that birth certificates are in the public domain, but personally I feel it was uncalled for obtaining it for the sole purpose of ghouling.
-
Under Portuguese law, case files are put into the public domain after a period of time. Usually they are simply made avaialble for inspection at the local police HQ, but in this case it was decided to put them onto a DVD due to the intense interest. Otherwise, it would have been chaos with every newspaper wanting a copy. But that is not the norm.
The procedure of making investigation files available to the public is an undertandable reaction to the fascist regime, and of the judicial system, and is a demonstration of openness in criminal investigations.
The UK does not follow the same procedure.
-
Under Portuguese law, case files are put into the public domain after a period of time. Usually they are simply made avaialble for inspection at the local police HQ, but in this case it was decided to put them onto a DVD due to the intense interest. Otherwise, it would have been chaos with every newspaper wanting a copy. But that is not the norm.
The procedure of making investigation files available to the public is an undertandable reaction to the fascist regime, and of the judicial system, and is a demonstration of openness in criminal investigations.
The UK does not follow the same procedure.
Thank you for the insight.
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold by police, to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
It's not only the Portuguese who are at fault though. Do you remember someone in the UK who wasn't related to the McCann's and who paid to obtain a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate and posted it to the internet? The release of the police files also resulted in some keyboard detectives obtaining private information and post it to the internet.
Birth Certificates are in the Public DOmain as a matter of policy. Police investigations should not be.
The release of the files has kept the ghouls going for years!
So does that give a Portuguese blogger, the right to get a UK childs birth certificate?
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
I'm afraid that's a primary reaction. When confronted with something that is bothering, less structured personalities tend to bend towards the most basic emotions: hate is one of them alongside with rage and envy. When questioned on their beliefs these personalities use "projection" and attribute to others their most demolishing emotions. (check Melanie Klein; Bion; Winnicott,...)
-
No.
Knowing now what I know about Portuguese evidence gathering, I would be very economical with information that I would not want in the public view. Not at all in the interests of justice.
I am interested to hear more about your view on 'not in the interest of justice'. Could you please elaborate?
Any rule that makes it more difficult to get true information in a criminal investigation is 'not in the interests of justice.'
Consider: You witness a crime as you leave your lover's house; you are married. If you give a statement to the Portuguese police, you know that your spouse will read that statement in the fullness of time.
I suspect that most people's memory would become somewhat hazy in such a circumstance!
I understand what you have said, but is it a 'rule' to publish material to the public domain in Portugal? I can't recall having seen any other missing child case where the files have been released to the public domain and allowed on the internet.
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold by police, to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
It's not only the Portuguese who are at fault though. Do you remember someone in the UK who wasn't related to the McCann's and who paid to obtain a copy of Madeleine's birth certificate and posted it to the internet? The release of the police files also resulted in some keyboard detectives obtaining private information and post it to the internet.
Birth Certificates are in the Public DOmain as a matter of policy. Police investigations should not be.
The release of the files has kept the ghouls going for years!
So does that give a Portuguese blogger, the right to get a UK childs birth certificate?
Yes. Although you can be asked for cause if you want an old birth certificate of a young child because of their misuse (John Stonehouse etc) in setting up a fake identity using the BC of a child who died young.
-
Why is it assumed that if you express any doubt in the abduction theory, that doubt is driven by hate for the McCanns ? Why do members think that the McCanns inspire such hatred in otherwise intelligent and compassionate people ?
Because the situation was completely preventable even though gerry Mccann thinks it's the same as having dinner in their garden, then the Mccann blamed the police, phoned the media, then opened a website and fund just days after Madeleine was gone and then used the money to pay their mortgage. They're on the news all the time and daytime shows (despite having other children), they jump on any bandwagon going, got Scotland Yard involved despite it being a recession and other families ie the Lee family, Lee Boxall's family and the Needhams never got this support.
If they wanted the single life they shouldn't have had kids and they are profesional people, they should have known better. Then they make Kate Mccann an ambassador for missing people.
I don't believe a word of what they say, they run their campaign like a business and I believe there is more to this than meets the eye and I am sick of people trying to justify their behaviour and making defamatory remarks about them because they don't support the Mccanns, they must know that attracting the media is a double edge sword and they're going to get judged when the expect everyone all over the world to find a child they have lost-needlessly or so they say.
-
The moral reply is highly fallacious, especially when referring to a highly immoral business - the madeleine's gold mine.
Time to go to work.
-
Well done Joanne. You have just answered the hate question in a single post. 8@??)( @)(++(*
-
The moral reply is highly fallacious, especially when referring to a highly immoral business - the madeleine's gold mine.
Time to go to work.
No different to Amarals, highly immoral business -Madeleine's gold mine though, is it?
-
Oh, I forgot the book too.
-
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
I have removed the name of the alleged seller DCI unless you have evidence to support what you posted. Didn't Kates diaries end up being printed in a UK national newspaper which later had to pay substantial damages. I think it was one of the Murdoch rags?
-
Its in the Leveson files, Angelo. Will find it later 8((()*/
-
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
I have removed the name of the alleged seller DCI unless you have evidence to support what you posted. Didn't Kates diaries end up being printed in a UK national newspaper which later had to pay substantial damages. I think it was one of the Murdoch rags?
Strange the McCanns didn't sue the Portuguese newspaper that first published the diary.Perhaps they weren't as willing to role over as the UK press seem to be ?
-
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
I have removed the name of the alleged seller DCI unless you have evidence to support what you posted. Didn't Kates diaries end up being printed in a UK national newspaper which later had to pay substantial damages. I think it was one of the Murdoch rags?
It seems if you pay good Euro's for info in Portugal, you can buy anything. Just like Kate's diary was sold to the highest bidder. That was sold to a newspaper for 18,000 Euro's, if I remember correctly. 8()(((@#
I have removed the name of the alleged seller DCI unless you have evidence to support what you posted. Didn't Kates diaries end up being printed in a UK national newspaper which later had to pay substantial damages. I think it was one of the Murdoch rags?
Statement of Daniel Sanderson
In response to the numbered questions set out in the letter from the Leveson Inquiry dated
2nd December 2011.
1. Please explain exactly how NoW obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann’s diary: you are not
required to name any sources, but you are required to identify the precise provenance of
the diary, explain the circumstances in which NoW received it, and confirm (if it be the
case) that it was of the original which had been seized by the Portuguese authorities.
A story appeared in The Sun newspaper on July 28, 2008, which said that extracts of Kate
McCann’s diary had emerged in Portugal, covering the first weeks after her daughter
Madeleine disappeared.
In the article there were two extracts that Mrs McCann had made in her diary.
I was asked by my news editor lan Edmondson to track down the person who was in
possession of the diary and was leaking extracts of it in Portugal.
After Mr Edmondson agreed, I called several newspapers in Portugal to ascertain who had
the diary.
I was put in touch with a journalist in Portugal who confirmed that they were in possession
of a copy of the diary and were willing to sell it to the NoW for, if my memory serves me
correctly, 18,000 Euros.
I believe the newspaper agreed to pay something like 9,000 Euros immediately and the rest
on publication of the story. The purchase was authorised by Mr Edmondson.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson and was told to ask a freelance journalist called Gerard
Couzens, who is based in Spain, to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the
diary.
From there my involvement ended until the diary reached the offices of the NoW.
My understanding is that Mr Edmondson took control of the diary’s delivery to our offices.
I believe that Mr Couzens met the journalist on Friday September 5, 2008 in Portugal and
paid her Euro 9,000 for a copy of the diary.
It’s my understanding that Mr Couzens delivered the diary to the NoW’s offices on Saturday
September 6, 2008.
I was first made aware that the newspaper had the document when I returned to the office
after the weekend on Tuesday September 9, 2008.
Mr Edmondson showed me the diary that morning.
It did not appear to be the original diary, but a copy that had been translated from English
into Portuguese.
2. Was the copy NoW obtained in English or Portuguese?
The NoW copy was in Portuguese.
3. What steps, if any, did you take to establish its authenticity and that it was a document
which you were entitled to possess?
Over the course of the working week commencing on Tuesday September 9th 2008, I
organised for the diary to be translated back into English using a London-based translation
service (I cannot recall the name).
It was a laborious task and the final section was completed on Friday September 12, 2008 -
two days before the story was published.
I spent the week writing the story as and when sections had been successfully translated.
In terms of its authenticity, we approached the diary from the viewpoint that it was a fake.
We had to cross check every entry against our online cuttings system to check that each
entry was correct and the diary was genuine.
For example, if there was an entry where it said the McCanns had met The Pope that day,
I had to check in cuttings that newspapers had reported that the McCanns had indeed met
The Pope on the corresponding date.
My understanding of the situation was that the news editor, Mr Edmondson, would also
confirm with the McCann’s press spokesman Clarence Mitchell that the diary was genuine.
4. What was paid for the diary and to whom?
I believe 18,000 Euros were paid to the Portuguese journalist (the P J). It was paid in two
parts; 9,000 Euros up front and 9,000 Euros on publication. I can’t be certain of this figure,
but it is certainly a fairly accurate estimate. I am aware of the approximate figure because
that is the price that had been agreed with the PJ in my initial phone conversations with the
PJ. The PJ set the price, which I had communicated to Mr Edmondson. Mr Edmondson then
authorised both payments to the source. The PJ then contacted me after publication to
organise the second payment, which was authorised by Mr Edmondson.
5. By what reasoning process did you and others at News International (whom the Inquiry
requires you to identify) deem it appropriate to publish extracts from the diary given its
the obvious privacy implications, including the fact that you knew or must have know that
the diary was confidential (if it is your position that you did not know this, please explain
its basis)?
In order to answer this question, I need to explain how a national newspaper works. As a
reporter, I reported to my line manager Mr Edmondson, the news editor or assistant editor
(news) as was his official title. Mr Edmondson reported to the editor, Colin Myler, and other
senior executives.
Once I had obtained the diary, obviously there were a number of discussions between
myself and Mr Edmondson as to how the piece should be written sensitively.
Then after I had written it, the decision to publish ultimately rested with Mr Myler.
I feel that it is appropriate to note that in my role as a reporter, I did not have any say as to
whether the story was published.
But I think in terms of considering it being appropriate to publish Mrs McCann’s diary and
the obvious considerations over privacy, the view taken by senior executives was that there
were all sorts of false allegations being made about the McCanns and they really were being
pilloried in the press, that this account gave a true picture of the McCanns and dispelled
some of the lies being written about them.
The NoW had always been wholly supportive of the McCanns’ search for their daughter. Two
weeks after she went missing in 2007, the newspaper teamed up with wealthy businessmen
to pledge £1.5 million to anyone who could help with information leading to Madeleine’s
safe return.
However, with hindsight, the decision to publish Mrs McCann’s diary was clearly the wrong
one. Having read how the article made Mrs McCann feel, I intend to apologise to her for
writing the story once I have given evidence.
Although I feel it is important to point out that I had no say in whether or not the diary was
published.
6. Why did you not contact the Dr Kate McCann in advance of publication in order to check
the facts and in particular to obtain her consent to publication?
It was clear to me that we could not publish the story without the McCanns permission.
My understanding of the situation was that Mr Edmondson had sought permission to
publish the diary from Mr Mitchell.
I acquired this understanding because Mr Edmondson told me that he was going to speak to
Mr Mitchell about the story at the end of the week.
It is only natural Mr Edmondson sought that permission because he had an on going
relationship with Mr Mitchell. As I understand it, they spoke almost daily on the phone to
talk about stories connected to the case.
[I have only spoken to Mr Mitchell once about three weeks ago to inform him of my
intention to apologise to the McCanns for my involvement in the story that upset Mrs
McCann.]
I didn’t actually ever have the conversation with Mr Edmondson specifically that he had
received permission to publish from the McCanns.
I assumed that because that is what he said he intended to do and the story was published,
that he had received permission from Mr Mitchell.
However, following publication, News International released a statement saying they
published the extracts in the belief held in good faith that that they had permission to do so.
They said it was now clear that their belief was misplaced and that Kate neither approved of
nor knew that the extracts were to be published.
I believe that the newspaper agreed to make a donation to be used in the search for
Madeleine and published a correction on September 21, 2008.
It is clear from that statement that Mr Myler believed that the newspaper had permission to
publish by the McCanns when it had not.
I was not responsible for contacting Mr Mitchell to obtain permission to publish Mrs
McCann’s diary.
7. What consideration if any was given by you to any public interest considerations; and if
so, what were they?
As I said in response to question five, I think the view at the NoW was that there were a lot
of lies being published about the McCanns and this was a supportive piece that put the
record straight.
It was part of the Portuguese police case into the disappearance of Madeleine and it was an
account of how Mrs McCann was feeling after her daughter vanished.
8. What legal advice, if any, did you take on any of foregoing issues?
As I understand it, Mr Edmondson, Mr Myler and other senior executives would have taken
advice from Tom Crone, News International’s former legal affairs manager. In his absence,
they would have sought advice from Justin Walford, The Sun’s legal manager.
I wasn’t party to any of the legal conversations concerning publication.
9. Please outline any discussions you had, if any, at sub-editorial and editorial level on the
foregoing issues.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson about how the piece should be written in terms of sensitivity
and the evidence I had gathered over its authenticity.
It is normal for a reporter to discuss with his news editor how he (the news editor) wants a
story written.
It was my job to seek to determine that the diary was genuine and ensure that it was written
as sensitively as possible.
Daniel Sanderson
.... 12.2011
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
And where did the journo get it from? Duh!
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
Interesting that supporters believe every word a journalist utters, unless it's against the McCanns.
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
And where did journo get it from? Duh!
Did the police receive 18k for leaking it? Thats what you inferred.
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
And where did journo get it from? Duh!
Did the police receive 18k for leaking it? Thats what you inferred.
Can't you ask them? The files hadn't been released, so how did the journo get his hands on it?
A Spanish journalist. Only the pj had it.
2. Was the copy NoW obtained in English or Portuguese?
The NoW copy was in Portuguese.
-
A Portuguese copper certainly leaked it but what he got in return will never be known. It could have been Euros or a favour or both. Bottom line is that it was a despicable disgusting thing to do. A proper piece of shit just like the journalist who sold it on!!
-
Why wasn't it investigated ? Before that it's just gossip that finally turns the PJ into a scapegoat. Could be counterproductive.
-
Why wasn't it investigated ? Before that it's just gossip that finally turns the PJ into a scapegoat. Could be counterproductive.
Better question Anne, who from the PJ, gave/sold it to the journo? Now that should be investgated.
Its a bit like those files supposedly left open on a PJ desk, that another journo got private information from, and rang all the numbers from phone records.
-
So it was sold by a journalist to the NOTW? Why did you say it was sold by the police then? leaking and selling are two different things. Leaks from police hapen in all countries.
And where did journo get it from? Duh!
Did the police receive 18k for leaking it? Thats what you inferred.
Can't you ask them? The files hadn't been released, so how did the journo get his hands on it?
A Spanish journalist. Only the pj had it.
2. Was the copy NoW obtained in English or Portuguese?
The NoW copy was in Portuguese.
Does it really matter anyway seeing as Km has published her diary/book now? And for more than 18 euros
And she got 125 thousand pounds from the NOTW for them alledgedly printing it without Mitchells permission when one editor said he was sure he had okd it
>@@(*&)
Follow the money
-
Why wasn't it investigated ? Before that it's just gossip that finally turns the PJ into a scapegoat. Could be counterproductive.
Better question Anne, who from the PJ, gave/sold it to the journo? Now that should be investgated.
Its a bit like those files supposedly left open on a PJ desk, that another journo got private information from, and rang all the numbers from phone records.
I agree that should be investigated, DCI.
I find it fine the request (impressive lawyers !) to not include in the DVD the files on sexual predators that were exonerated after all (I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
4488 Dispatches 25-26 June 2008 re: photocopies of KMH diary and their destruction
17 Process Vol XVII Page 4488
17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4488
Conclusion 26-06-2008
(Presents invoice)
The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation, but relate to the personal and inviolable personal experiences of any person.
Accordingly I order the diary's respective destruction.
Portimao
2008-06-27
Pedro Frias
Criminal Instruction Judge
There shouldn't have been any copies of that diary left in the possession of the PJ as Judge Frias ordered them destroyed. Still, a Portuguese translation of them made it to the Portuguese press & was then sold on to News International.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
4488 Dispatches 25-26 June 2008 re: photocopies of KMH diary and their destruction
17 Process Vol XVII Page 4488
17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4488
Conclusion 26-06-2008
(Presents invoice)
The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation, but relate to the personal and inviolable personal experiences of any person.
Accordingly I order the diary's respective destruction.
Portimao
2008-06-27
Pedro Frias
Criminal Instruction Judge
There shouldn't have been any copies of that diary left in the possession of the PJ as Judge Frias ordered them destroyed. Still, a Portuguese translation of them made it to the Portuguese press & was then sold on to News International.
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
4488 Dispatches 25-26 June 2008 re: photocopies of KMH diary and their destruction
17 Process Vol XVII Page 4488
17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4488
Conclusion 26-06-2008
(Presents invoice)
The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation, but relate to the personal and inviolable personal experiences of any person.
Accordingly I order the diary's respective destruction.
Portimao
2008-06-27
Pedro Frias
Criminal Instruction Judge
There shouldn't have been any copies of that diary left in the possession of the PJ as Judge Frias ordered them destroyed. Still, a Portuguese translation of them made it to the Portuguese press & was then sold on to News International.
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Mr. Amaral should never have had a copy of that diary at any point in time in his private possession. The diary was in the hands of the PJ & was their responsibility.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BIBLE.htm
4488 Dispatches 25-26 June 2008 re: photocopies of KMH diary and their destruction
17 Process Vol XVII Page 4488
17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4488
Conclusion 26-06-2008
(Presents invoice)
The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation, but relate to the personal and inviolable personal experiences of any person.
Accordingly I order the diary's respective destruction.
Portimao
2008-06-27
Pedro Frias
Criminal Instruction Judge
There shouldn't have been any copies of that diary left in the possession of the PJ as Judge Frias ordered them destroyed. Still, a Portuguese translation of them made it to the Portuguese press & was then sold on to News International.
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Mr. Amaral should never have had a copy of that diary at any point in time in his private possession. The diary was in the hands of the PJ & was their responsibility.
Which also raises the issue of other police file material he had in his possession.
-
He shouldn't have had ANY material from the police files once he was removed from the investigation & certainly not after he was no longer employed by the PJ.
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
Mo Stache "The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation"... Have you found any reference to it in Mr Amaral's book ? If not, it's speculation he kept it, against the judge's (sane) decision.
-
2 October 2007 Mr Amaral resigns from the police.
24 July 2008 – He publishes an account of the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, titled: A Verdade da Mentira (‘Maddie: The Truth About A Lie’).
4 August 2008 - McCann PF Files: This information belongs to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal. It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law.
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
Mo Stache "The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation"... Have you found any reference to it in Mr Amaral's book ? If not, it's speculation he kept it, against the judge's (sane) decision.
If the diary did not contain any material of interest why did the police leak it to the journalists?
-
Why wasn't it investigated ? Before that it's just gossip that finally turns the PJ into a scapegoat. Could be counterproductive.
Better question Anne, who from the PJ, gave/sold it to the journo? Now that should be investgated.
Its a bit like those files supposedly left open on a PJ desk, that another journo got private information from, and rang all the numbers from phone records.
I agree that should be investigated, DCI.
I find it fine the request (impressive lawyers !) to not include in the DVD the files on sexual predators that were exonerated after all (I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
Interesting comment, Anne. Are you not entirely convinced that she was murdered by her family?
The PJ could have gone through Europol to check on any known or suspected foreign sex offenders in the area. Did the PJ check their own criminal records?
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
Not that "uninteresting" it seems. Transcript from Amaral's video "documentary"
37.42 – Kate McCann’s diary, which was accessed by the investigation, is clear about the importance of such political support. Gordon Brown phones the couple several times, as the diary shows on the 23rd of May.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
Such perfect recall is to be admired. He remembers exact DATE when a specific entry was made in the diary. That's quite remarkable if you don't have a copy of it as reference.
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
Not that "uninteresting" it seems. Transcript from Amaral's video "documentary"
37.42 – Kate McCann’s diary, which was accessed by the investigation, is clear about the importance of such political support. Gordon Brown phones the couple several times, as the diary shows on the 23rd of May.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
Such perfect recall is to be admired. He remembers exact DATE when a specific entry was made in the diary. That's quite remarkable if you don't have a copy of it as reference.
Yes. Also mentioned here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id408.html
Mr Amaral - "There is an important aspect and that is the diary of Mrs Kate McCann."
-
(I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
Interesting comment, Anne. Are you not entirely convinced that she was murdered by her family?
The PJ could have gone through Europol to check on any known or suspected foreign sex offenders in the area. Did the PJ check their own criminal records?
Carana, the only thing I know about this case is that it was related by some to the Madeleine one, the common point being that the police, in both cases, suspected the parents to be involved in the disappearance.
I found it revealing, in an EU point of view vs a nationalist one, that the UK sends to Portugal a list of potentially dangerous British citizens only when a child of the same nationality is missing.
But you could answer me that it doesn't make any difference since no child was abducted (by a stranger) since Madeleine disappeared.
-
Why did Amaral say, there was a blackout curtain, on the window, when there wasn't?
-
(I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
Interesting comment, Anne. Are you not entirely convinced that she was murdered by her family?
The PJ could have gone through Europol to check on any known or suspected foreign sex offenders in the area. Did the PJ check their own criminal records?
Carana, the only thing I know about this case is that it was related by some to the Madeleine one, the common point being that the police, in both cases, suspected the parents to be involved in the disappearance.
I found it revealing, in an EU point of view vs a nationalist one, that the UK sends to Portugal a list of potentially dangerous British citizens only when a child of the same nationality is missing.
But you could answer me that it doesn't make any difference since no child was abducted (by a stranger) since Madeleine disappeared.
Perhaps we're at cross-purposes.
Not all paedophiles are from the UK, Anne. ;)
The LP offered their help because it was indeed a UK citizen who had disappeared, as no doubt the authorities in many other countries would have done if one of their own citizens had been missing in a foreign country.
However, Joana was a Portuguese citizen, as we know. The PJ could have appealed to Europol for assistance, but I haven't found anything to suggest that they had, possibly because they didn't have a description of a potential abductor with which to request concrete assistance, or possibly because they were convinced from an early stage that the family was involved.
It might have been different if someone had witnessed, and had been able to give an accurate description, of a suspicious person with an English / French / Spanish /German accent, or a car screetching off with identifiable licence plates, for example.
-
(I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
Interesting comment, Anne. Are you not entirely convinced that she was murdered by her family?
The PJ could have gone through Europol to check on any known or suspected foreign sex offenders in the area. Did the PJ check their own criminal records?
Carana, the only thing I know about this case is that it was related by some to the Madeleine one, the common point being that the police, in both cases, suspected the parents to be involved in the disappearance.
I found it revealing, in an EU point of view vs a nationalist one, that the UK sends to Portugal a list of potentially dangerous British citizens only when a child of the same nationality is missing.
But you could answer me that it doesn't make any difference since no child was abducted (by a stranger) since Madeleine disappeared.
Rereading, perhaps I can understand a point, if you mean that countries should automatically share info about potentially dangerous citizens who could be in another country.
As far as I know, there is no Europe-wide sharing mechanism for the moment. I already posted what I'd found on that a few weeks ago. Some countries are only just in the process of thinking of a sex offender register at national level.
And any such system would have to be kept securely away from fans fluttering confidential documents out of windows.
-
Not all paedophiles are from the UK, Anne. ;)
The LP offered their help because it was indeed a UK citizen who had disappeared, as no doubt the authorities in many other countries would have done if one of their own citizens had been missing in a foreign country.
However, Joana was a Portuguese citizen, as we know. The PJ could have appealed to Europol for assistance, but I haven't found anything to suggest that they had, possibly because they didn't have a description of a potential abductor with which to request concrete assistance, or possibly because they were convinced from an early stage that the family was involved.
It might have been different if someone had witnessed, and had been able to give an accurate description, of a suspicious person with an English / French / Spanish /German accent, or a car screetching off with identifiable licence plates, for example.
Sure, Carana, paedophiles aren't all the UK, even if the Algarve is mainly colonised by UK citizens.
Again I vaguely heard about the Joana Case because of Madeleine McCann and Gonçalo Amaral. I probably would have know if an abductor had been described.
Also Jane T said the carrier didn't look like a tourist.
-
Does that mean that Mr Amaral would also have been obliged to destroy his copy of the diary entries?
Why would he have a private copy of an uninteresting document ?
To use it in the research of or in the writing of his book on the case. Apparently the PJ, Mr Amaral and the journalist didn't find it "uninteresting" and they actually saw it as some sort of evidence of wrong doing on Kate McCann's part.
Mo Stache "The photocopies of the 'diary' do not contain any material of interest to the ongoing investigation"... Have you found any reference to it in Mr Amaral's book ? If not, it's speculation he kept it, against the judge's (sane) decision.
Amaral says,
If Kate's journal is to be believed, the twins suffered from problems of that nature during the days following their sister's disappearance.
So, he kept it against the judge's decision.
-
Rereading, perhaps I can understand a point, if you mean that countries should automatically share info about potentially dangerous citizens who could be in another country.
As far as I know, there is no Europe-wide sharing mechanism for the moment. I already posted what I'd found on that a few weeks ago. Some countries are only just in the process of thinking of a sex offender register at national level.
And any such system would have to be kept securely away from fans fluttering confidential documents out of windows.
Yes that was the point I tried to mean. I remember the document you sent. And, yes, the guarantee of this intelligence's confidentiality might be the main factor explaining there's no sharing at European level, each State having to protect its citizens, whatever they did.
-
Rereading, perhaps I can understand a point, if you mean that countries should automatically share info about potentially dangerous citizens who could be in another country.
As far as I know, there is no Europe-wide sharing mechanism for the moment. I already posted what I'd found on that a few weeks ago. Some countries are only just in the process of thinking of a sex offender register at national level.
And any such system would have to be kept securely away from fans fluttering confidential documents out of windows.
Yes that was the point I tried to mean. I remember the document you sent. And, yes, the guarantee of this intelligence's confidentiality might be the main factor explaining there's no sharing at European level, each State having to protect its citizens, whatever they did.
It seems very complicated.
Each country has its own legislation regarding privacy, age of consent, reflections as to whether personal details of former criminals should be made available or not... I can well imagine that it's a nightmare to make progress.
Then there is the issue of suspects under surveillance.
Every country has its leaks and is at different stages of establishing a police press service.
No doubt countries do cooperate on a case by case basis - or have a history of mutual confidence.
The UK and Spain seem to be working well together on a bilateral basis at catching sex offenders or other dangerous criminals. So it does seem possible, but it will take time to establish, or re-establish, mutual confidence between other countries.
-
(I only lament those files weren't sent to the PJ when Joana disappeared), but it seems to me this diary issue, inter alia, deserve to be cleared up, even if money seems to have resolved the issue.
Interesting comment, Anne. Are you not entirely convinced that she was murdered by her family?
The PJ could have gone through Europol to check on any known or suspected foreign sex offenders in the area. Did the PJ check their own criminal records?
Carana, the only thing I know about this case is that it was related by some to the Madeleine one, the common point being that the police *, in both cases, suspected the parents to be involved in the disappearance.
I found it revealing, in an EU point of view vs a nationalist one, that the UK sends to Portugal a list of potentially dangerous British citizens only when a child of the same nationality is missing.
But you could answer me that it doesn't make any difference since no child was abducted (by a stranger) since Madeleine disappeared.
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
-
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
Yes, I'm aware of this. But didn't Mr Amaral express his suspicions much later in Madeleine case ?
-
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
Yes, I'm aware of this. But didn't Mr Amaral express his suspicions much later in Madeleine case ?
No Anne, he suspected them on the 4th May.
Friday May 4th
This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events:
How could he come to that conclusion, on that morning, when the second forensic photo's and other tests hadn't even been done, by then.
-
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
Yes, I'm aware of this. But didn't Mr Amaral express his suspicions much later in Madeleine case ?
No Anne, he suspected them on the 4th May.
Friday May 4th
This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events:
Well, I should have been more specific and said "openly expressed", because he said so retrospectively.. I'm suspecting an excuse.. So many suspicions, gosh !
-
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
Yes, I'm aware of this. But didn't Mr Amaral express his suspicions much later in Madeleine case ?
No Anne, he suspected them on the 4th May.
Friday May 4th
This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events:
Well, I should have been more specific and said "openly expressed", because he said so retrospectively.. I'm suspecting an excuse.. So many suspicions, gosh !
Retrospectively, or not, he wrote it in his book. So, to me, that was his thoughts on the 4th May.
If it was said retrospectively, that would mean, his whole book was retrospective
-
Retrospectively, or not, he wrote it in his book. So, to me, that was his thoughts on the 4th May.
If it was said retrospectively, that would mean, his whole book was retrospective
I don't agree with that, DCI. It happens so many times people say "I knew it !" when in fact they didn't !
-
Retrospectively, or not, he wrote it in his book. So, to me, that was his thoughts on the 4th May.
If it was said retrospectively, that would mean, his whole book was retrospective
I don't agree with that, DCI. It happens so many times people say "I knew it !" when in fact they didn't !
I didn't expect you to, Anne.
But Amaral say's "he knew it" when in fact "he didn't".
-
Amaral was quite put out, because Justine McGuinness, stayed in, on Kate's interview. I wonder why?
-
Anne, do you not accept that the Portuguese police leaked Kate's diary to journalists?
-
Anne, do you not accept that the Portuguese police leaked Kate's diary to journalists?
Angelo, what does "the Portuguese police" mean ? It's a bit like saying "French cooking is awful or marvellous". It says nothing in fact. I don't like the fricassée but I love the pot au feu.
So unless you can prove a certain person linked to the police, perhaps a cleaning person who found the thrown away diary in a bin, leaked it to get money out of it, I think it's reasonable not to comment.
-
* There's a more specific point: both cases involved Amaral who suspected the families in both cases...
Yes, I'm aware of this. But didn't Mr Amaral express his suspicions much later in Madeleine case ?
No Anne, he suspected them on the 4th May.
Friday May 4th
This morning I am worried; something isn't right in the account of the events:
How could he come to that conclusion, on that morning, when the second forensic photo's and other tests hadn't even been done, by then.
Still May 4th
When drawing up the report of the first observations, which must be forwarded to the district Judiciary Court of Lagos, we are undecided about the legal denomination of the events. Finally, we opt for "abduction??," adding two question marks after the word to express our uncertainty. The decision was not taken lightly. That decision preserves the interests of the various opposing parties, those of the parents, those of the child, not to say those of the investigation itself.
...........................................................
If Kate's journal is to be believed, the twins suffered from problems of that nature during the days following their sister's disappearance.
-
What do you mean, DCI ?
Do you find the ? after abduction indicates suspicion or a reasonable doubt as always in the beginning of an inquiry ?
What were the twins suffering of ?
-
What do you mean, DCI ?
Do you find the ? after abduction indicates suspicion or a reasonable doubt as always in the beginning of an inquiry ?
What were the twins suffering of ?
Finally? He had hardly woken up, let alone done any investigating.
"Finally, we opt for "abduction??," adding two question marks after the word to express our uncertainty".
You would have to ask Amaral, What were the twins suffering, Anne. His words not mine!
-
What do you mean, DCI ?
Do you find the ? after abduction indicates suspicion or a reasonable doubt as always in the beginning of an inquiry ?
What were the twins suffering of ?
Finally? He had hardly woken up, let alone done any investigating.
"Finally, we opt for "abduction??," adding two question marks after the word to express our uncertainty".
You would have to ask Amaral, What were the twins suffering, Anne. His words not mine!
Have I a problem with English ?
-
Anne, do you not accept that the Portuguese police leaked Kate's diary to journalists?
Angelo, what does "the Portuguese police" mean ? It's a bit like saying "French cooking is awful or marvellous". It says nothing in fact. I don't like the fricassée but I love the pot au feu.
So unless you can prove a certain person linked to the police, perhaps a cleaning person who found the thrown away diary in a bin, leaked it to get money out of it, I think it's reasonable not to comment.
I thought you of anyone would know who the Portuguese Police are Anne. It matters little if it was the GNR or the PJ who leaked Kate's diaries or if it was the cleaning lady or the lavatory attendant because at the end of the day the police in whatever guise they may be were responsible for the safe keeping of private property and they f..ked it up.
Back to my original question Anne...why are you denying they leaked Kate's diaries??
-
It matters little if it was the GNR or the PJ who leaked Kate's diaries or if it was the cleaning lady or the lavatory attendant because at the end of the day the police in whatever guise they may be were responsible for the safe keeping of private property and they f..ked it up.
What are you talking about ?
-
Anne, do you not accept that the Portuguese police leaked Kate's diary to journalists?
Angelo, what does "the Portuguese police" mean ? It's a bit like saying "French cooking is awful or marvellous". It says nothing in fact. I don't like the fricassée but I love the pot au feu.
So unless you can prove a certain person linked to the police, perhaps a cleaning person who found the thrown away diary in a bin, leaked it to get money out of it, I think it's reasonable not to comment.
I thought you of anyone would know who the Portuguese Police are Anne. It matters little if it was the GNR or the PJ who leaked Kate's diaries or if it was the cleaning lady or the lavatory attendant because at the end of the day the police in whatever guise they may be were responsible for the safe keeping of private property and they f..ked it up.
Back to my original question Anne...why are you denying they leaked Kate's diaries??
Agree. The Judge ordered ALL copies of Kate's diary to be destroyed (n.b. not thrown in the waste paper basket, DESTROYED). He issued that order to the PJ. Still, a copy of the diary made it to the press. Hence, all copies were not destroyed by the PJ. It was their responsibility, they did not do what the judge ordered. They were at fault.