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: cherrylight on October 10, 2013, 10:47:47 PM
Title: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: cherrylight on October 10, 2013, 10:47:47 PM
Another conspiracy theorist who thinks the McCanns are running both the BBC and the Met. Mind you, it is a Fox News article...
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: cherrylight on October 10, 2013, 11:06:46 PM
FOX??? Either they have pulled up the ladder or someone was out buying a sandwich.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benita on October 10, 2013, 11:46:11 PM
oh my wendy is full of herself isn't she very ott
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: C.Edwards on October 11, 2013, 07:35:23 AM
Whereas if she'd said, "leave the poor parents alone" you'd have found her to be bang on the money, right? Oh she doesn't agree with us, burn the witch!
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: stephen25000 on October 11, 2013, 07:40:38 AM
Whereas if she'd said, "leave the poor parents alone" you'd have found her to be bang on the money, right? Oh she doesn't agree with us, burn the witch!
Indeed, it reflects the rank hypocrisy of the Mccanns supporters.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 08:27:26 AM
Whereas if she'd said, "leave the poor parents alone" you'd have found her to be bang on the money, right? Oh she doesn't agree with us, burn the witch!
I would say that about sums it up. A predictable response.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: C.Edwards on October 11, 2013, 08:38:00 AM
Just watched it again. This is really quite powerful stuff. Just think - if you've only been fed the official sanitised "abduction is the only option" story all these years and suddenly - in spite of desperate attempts by the presenter to steer the crashing ship back on course - a credible former prosecutor suddenly says (to a very wide audience) what a lot of us have been trying to say for years.
She seems to be pretty reasonable at what she does:
Quote
Wendy is an adjunct professor at New England Law|Boston where she has taught a seminar on sexual violence for more than ten years. She developed and directs two projects in conjunction with the school’s Center for Law and Social Responsibility. The “Sexual Violence Legal News” project is an alert service that distributes appellate cases of interest, with editorial comment, related to interpersonal violence. The “Judicial Language Project” uses socio-linguistic research to critique the language used in law and society to describe violence against women and children.
She was a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School from 2002-2003 where her work focused on the status of women in their capacity as victims in the criminal justice system. Wendy previously taught “Reproductive Rights and Technologies” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in 2002 served as the Mary Joe Frug Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at New England Law|Boston where she has also taught courses in reproductive technologies and constitutional criminal procedure.
She is a trial and appellate attorney specializing in the representation of crime victims, women, children and victim service providers and is the founder and director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group, a volunteer legal advocacy organization that has provided free legal services to victims and other third-parties in the criminal justice system since 1992.
I have no doubt that "operation discredit" will now swing into action and there'll be a lot of people desperately trawling for some misdemeanour in her past that can be held up as a reason for not listening to a word she says.. "OMG... she once parked with one wheel in a disabled bay and got a parking ticket, this CONVICTED CRIMINAL is a DISGRACE to her profession and should not be anywhere NEAR a television interview. How DARE she?" (am I doing it right guys? I'll check in on STM and the syke-o-pit later to see. Big fan. 8(0(* )
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: blonk on October 11, 2013, 08:38:43 AM
Wendy Murphy:
"I am not buying this 'new suspect' thing..."
"A FAKE suspect..."
A direct hit on the British establishment and our Prime Minister, a bullseye on Britain's finest police force, the Met, and on Britain's state broadcasting company, the BBC
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: stephen25000 on October 11, 2013, 08:55:18 AM
Just watched the interview.
Quite interesting.
However, the refusal to answer the questions only occurred when the PJ considered them suspects, but the rest of what she said is right on the ball.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: C.Edwards on October 11, 2013, 09:06:45 AM
However, the refusal to answer the questions only occurred when the PJ considered them suspects, but the rest of what she said is right on the ball.
Pretty much up until that time the PJ had been (officially at least) "looking elsewhere" as directed though. There was no point in asking them such questions up until that moment. This (as I think Amaral has said in an interview) was the biggest failure of the investigation - that they allowed themselves to be distracted early on rather than focusing more on the parents and friends.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: pinkblossoms on October 11, 2013, 09:15:59 AM
who is she ? what is she ?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Angelo222 on October 11, 2013, 09:41:54 AM
Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy is scary!! She most certainly doesn't mince her words. Why did the mother of a missing child refuse to answer questions?? 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Maybe the McCanns will sue her now too??
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: icabodcrane on October 11, 2013, 09:48:02 AM
Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy is scary!! She most certainly doesn't mince her words. Why did the mother of a missing child refuse to answer questions??
Maybe the McCanns will sue her now too??
And the Fox anchorwoman came into it from such a predictably soft angle too ... Wendy was'nt having none of it
Imagine her having the McCanns on the stand !
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: stephen25000 on October 11, 2013, 09:51:39 AM
Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy is scary!! She most certainly doesn't mince her words. Why did the mother of a missing child refuse to answer questions?? 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Maybe the McCanns will sue her now too??
Yep, She reminded me in her style of Judge Judy.
I would love to see the Mccanns facing her. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Angelo222 on October 11, 2013, 10:07:56 AM
Don't get me wrong. I have every sympathy with the parents of a missing child but the McCanns aren't doing themselves any favours by their sanctimonious utterings which is lapped up by the British gutter press as if there was no tomorrow.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: carlymichelle on October 11, 2013, 10:43:06 AM
good on her for using the freedom of speech america has 8)--))
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Cariad on October 11, 2013, 11:05:04 AM
Has Kate asked to submit written testimony? I thought she's asked to take the stand?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 11, 2013, 11:10:25 AM
Yes, I also thought that Kate has asked to take the stand?
I think perhaps Wendy is getting a little mixed up. I'm not sure she has researched this case all that thoroughly, and in any event, she seems to think the Met police and the BBC are 'in on it'.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 11, 2013, 11:27:02 AM
I think perhaps Wendy is getting a little mixed up. I'm not sure she has researched this case all that thoroughly, and in any event, she seems to think the Met police and the BBC are 'in on it'.
It was an interesting piece from Ms Murphy, however I'm not sure how she can say that the suspect is "fake"? The Yard doesnt seem to think so, and they have all the relevant information to hand.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: C.Edwards on October 11, 2013, 11:29:20 AM
It was an interesting piece from Ms Murphy, however I'm not sure how she can say that the suspect is "fake"? The Yard doesnt seem to think so, and they have all the relevant information to hand.
SY mistook Menezes for a terrorist. They aren't infallible, you know?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: sadie on October 11, 2013, 11:33:41 AM
I think perhaps Wendy is getting a little mixed up. I'm not sure she has researched this case all that thoroughly, and in any event, she seems to think the Met police and the BBC are 'in on it'.
What a shrieky woman ... and did it say she was an attorney?
God help America
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 11, 2013, 11:34:45 AM
SY mistook Menezes for a terrorist. They aren't infallible, you know?
Indeed they are not CEdwards but I'd rather take their word on a suspect rather than Ms Murphy, who has no access to the whole picture.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Victoria on October 11, 2013, 11:36:33 AM
The problem for anyone who wants to follow Wendy down the conspiracy theory route is that it quickly goes the way of all conspiracy theories - it gets to the point where so many people have to be involved its completely unsustainable.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benice on October 11, 2013, 11:40:45 AM
What a shrieky woman ... and did it say she was an attorney?
God help America
I couldn't see the vid. just got a frozen page.
If this lady is an Attorney is she advocating ignoring your lawyer's advice.? Did she know that Kate was following her Lawyers instructions when she did not answer the 48 questions.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 11, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
If this lady is an Attorney is she advocating ignoring your lawyer's advice.? Did she know that Kate was following her Lawyers instructions when she did not answer the 48 questions.
Yes, I was surprised about her stance about the questions too. Perhaps if Ms Murphy has researched things more thoroughly she would have known that many of these questions had already been answered in earlier interviews?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
Yes, I was surprised about her stance about the questions too. Perhaps if Ms Murphy has researched things more thoroughly she would have known that many of these questions had already been answered in earlier interviews?
That's why they ask them again Rachel.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: blonk on October 11, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
The problem for anyone who wants to follow Wendy down the conspiracy theory route is that it quickly goes the way of all conspiracy theories - it gets to the point where so many people have to be involved its completely unsustainable.
Jimmy Savile?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 12:02:04 PM
Yes, I was surprised about her stance about the questions too. Perhaps if Ms Murphy has researched things more thoroughly she would have known that many of these questions had already been answered in earlier interviews?
You know her husband was in the room when she gave her first interview 8(0(*
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 11, 2013, 12:02:53 PM
Fair point Lyall but going back to an earlier point on this thread, did it not cross Ms Murphy's mind that Kate McCann was acting on the advice of her lawyer.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Montclair on October 11, 2013, 12:05:58 PM
Indeed they are not CEdwards but I'd rather take their word on a suspect rather than Ms Murphy, who has no access to the whole picture.
I'm sure she more access to the whole picture than anyone at BBC who just swallow hook line and sinker the McCanns' abduction fairy tale and their slagging off of the Portuguese police. I bet that no one there has even had a peek at the police files.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: blonk on October 11, 2013, 12:08:17 PM
Did [Wendy Murphy] know that Kate was following her lawyer's instructions when she did not answer the 48 questions.
I think the essential point that Wendy was trying to make was: what desperate mother of a missing child wouldn't want to answer every police question, in order to try to establish the truth.
To quote Wendy from last night's broadcast:
"Ah, but this is important, she refused to answer – she hired lawyers straightaway. She refuses to answer 48 questions, things like: ‘What did you see when you walked into the room where your child was supposed to be sleeping?’...I think this is all related to [the civil case in Portugal] - and this whole ‘new suspect thing’ is again part of them trying to distract attention from the fact that, as parents of a missing, probably dead child, what are you doing?!
Not answering questions?!
Please!"
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 11, 2013, 12:08:56 PM
If this lady is an Attorney is she advocating ignoring your lawyer's advice.? Did she know that Kate was following her Lawyers instructions when she did not answer the 48 questions.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 12:09:20 PM
Fair point Lyall but going back to an earlier point on this thread, did it not cross Ms Murphy's mind that Kate McCann was acting on the advice of her lawyer.
Of course but she was a prosecutor and they use or attempt to use refusal to answer questions as evidence. It is used that way in the UK now too since the law was changed.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Cariad on October 11, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
Yes, I also thought that Kate has asked to take the stand?
The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, has confirmed that lawyer Isabel Duarte lodged an application last week for Mrs McCann to take the stand as well.
If the judge grants the application, the couple will return to Lisbon.
It is thought that if they do give evidence, it will be at the end of the trial next month.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: CPN on October 11, 2013, 12:26:35 PM
Can I ask - because I genuinely don't know - is it usual for cases in Portugal to get spread out in the way this libel trial has been spread out - going on on the odd day here and there for weeks?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 12:30:09 PM
A lot of pre-show hype, but don't be disappointed if it turns out to be a bit of an anticlimax.
8((()*/ That's my bet too, Jassi.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benice on October 11, 2013, 12:39:25 PM
The lady seems to be completely unaware of the circumstances why KM did not answer the questions.
She also seems to be unaware that Kate had already told the PJ what she saw when she went into Madeleine's bedroom - and that she had been interrogated for 11 hours the previous day - so why didn't they ask her that question again - at that time - if it was so important?
IMO Its plain to me when reading those questions that looking for Madeleine' abductor had long gone from their minds, and their sole aim was to incriminate KM - to get a result. Her Lawer apparently had the same opinion - hence his wise advice.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benice on October 11, 2013, 12:43:07 PM
Can I ask - because I genuinely don't know - is it usual for cases in Portugal to get spread out in the way this libel trial has been spread out - going on on the odd day here and there for weeks?
Me too CPN - I would like to know the thinking behind such arrangements.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: DCI on October 11, 2013, 12:56:21 PM
I think the essential point that Wendy was trying to make was: what desperate mother of a missing child wouldn't want to answer every police question, in order to try to establish the truth.
To quote Wendy from last night's broadcast:
"Ah, but this is important, she refused to answer – she hired lawyers straightaway. She refuses to answer 48 questions, things like: ‘What did you see when you walked into the room where your child was supposed to be sleeping?’...I think this is all related to [the civil case in Portugal] - and this whole ‘new suspect thing’ is again part of them trying to distract attention from the fact that, as parents of a missing, probably dead child, what are you doing?!
Not answering questions?!
Please!"
Looks like she's another know it all, and knows bu**ar all about the case.
Hired lawyers straight away?. Isn't that what accused people usually d?.
No lawyer was hired, till September 2007.
One of Portugal’s best-known lawyers with reputation for taking on controversial cases. Pinto de Abreu has been in place since the start of September. He lodged McCanns’ libel action against Portuguese newspaper which said they were police suspects. De Abreu, a Lisbon lawyer, has offered his services to the McCanns for free.
10 September 2007
Nina Goswami Kingsley Napley has been hired by the parents of Madeleine McCann to advise them on their legal rights.
7th SEPTEMBER QUESTIONS TO KATE McCANN
As has been said a million time, she had already answered these questions.
Another one after her 15 minutes, IMO.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: CPN on October 11, 2013, 12:59:12 PM
Me too CPN - I would like to know the thinking behind such arrangements.
It just puzzles me, Benice, why it is taking 2 months at a couple of days a week (if you are lucky) It seems so wasteful of time and expense. And for Kate and Gerry, much as it is them who have started this libel case, it must be infuriating to be going back time and again, arranging for the care of the twins, the expense etc. when a week's hearing and be done with it would be much more economical in every way
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 01:03:02 PM
Perhaps it allows more time for the evidence to be evaluated in a calm and dispassionate manner.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benice on October 11, 2013, 01:04:21 PM
It just puzzles me, Benice, why it is taking 2 months at a couple of days a week (if you are lucky) It seems so wasteful of time and expense. And for Kate and Gerry, much as it is them who have started this libel case, it must be infuriating to be going back time and again, arranging for the care of the twins, the expense etc. when a week's hearing and be done with it would be much more economical in every way
I agree CPN - there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: CPN on October 11, 2013, 01:05:36 PM
Perhaps it allows more time for the evidence to be evaluated in a calm and dispassionate manner.
But that argument would apply to any case - and they have had months and months to organise this (and I think they knew much of what would be said anyway!)
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 01:10:08 PM
Why not write to the Portuguese embassy in London ? If you ask them nicely, they may explain the niceties of their legal system.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Montclair on October 11, 2013, 01:11:48 PM
Can I ask - because I genuinely don't know - is it usual for cases in Portugal to get spread out in the way this libel trial has been spread out - going on on the odd day here and there for weeks?
No, it is not unusual.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: CPN on October 11, 2013, 01:12:03 PM
Looks like she's another know it all, and knows bu**ar all about the case.
Hired lawyers straight away?. Isn't that what accused people usually d?.
No lawyer was hired, till September 2007.
One of Portugal’s best-known lawyers with reputation for taking on controversial cases. Pinto de Abreu has been in place since the start of September. He lodged McCanns’ libel action against Portuguese newspaper which said they were police suspects. De Abreu, a Lisbon lawyer, has offered his services to the McCanns for free.
10 September 2007
Nina Goswami Kingsley Napley has been hired by the parents of Madeleine McCann to advise them on their legal rights.
7th SEPTEMBER QUESTIONS TO KATE McCANN
As has been said a million time, she had already answered these questions.
Another one after her 15 minutes, IMO.
Looks like Ms Murphy hasn't done her homework on this case!
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: CPN on October 11, 2013, 01:13:56 PM
"I'm hopeful when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we will be able to bring some sort of resolution.
Whether we will be able to solve it is a different issue, but I hope that we will be able to have the ability to move the investigation on."
>@@(*&)
Yes, quite, thanks for that Lyall......such sophistry and egg shell crunching....worst than politicians, you never know what is actually being said or not said....but I guess police need to keep thngs close to their chest
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 01:42:27 PM
Yes, quite, thanks for that Lyall......such sophistry and egg shell crunching....worst than politicians, you never know what is actually being said or not said....but I guess police need to keep thngs close to their chest
@)(++(*
He is a politician Red. I think by "move the investigation on" he means end it.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 01:43:22 PM
Yes, quite, thanks for that Lyall......such sophistry and egg shell crunching....worst than politicians, you never know what is actually being said or not said....but I guess police need to keep thngs close to their chest
@)(++(*
Or he's skipped ahead, read the last page of the script and knows how it's meant to end.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: DCI on October 11, 2013, 01:43:31 PM
I just thought, as there seem to be Portuguese nationals and / or residents on here, that they might know if this is usual.
You only have to look at the Casa Pia scandel case, CPN. To see how the system works.
The trial is one of the longest running in Portuguese history, started in September 2002. The first scandal was a whitewash.
Portuguese Judiciary Police (Polícia Judiciária) first accused the caretaker of a Casa Pia state-run children's home in 1981 of raping dozens of children over a period of 30 years, even though some reports of abuse pre-date the 1974 Carnation Revolution. Police accused the perpetrators of supplying children to men from Portugal and other countries, including to some prominent public figures in Portugal.[1] However, these early allegations did not result in any legal action.
Yes, I was surprised about her stance about the questions too. Perhaps if Ms Murphy has researched things more thoroughly she would have known that many of these questions had already been answered in earlier interviews?
No, Rachel, and here's the rub. Mrs McCann made only one statement, then there was the timeline she signed. Both are contradictory.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 11, 2013, 02:15:07 PM
Looks like she's another know it all, and knows bu**ar all about the case.
Hired lawyers straight away?. Isn't that what accused people usually d?.
No lawyer was hired, till September 2007.
One of Portugal’s best-known lawyers with reputation for taking on controversial cases. Pinto de Abreu has been in place since the start of September. He lodged McCanns’ libel action against Portuguese newspaper which said they were police suspects. De Abreu, a Lisbon lawyer, has offered his services to the McCanns for free.
10 September 2007
Nina Goswami Kingsley Napley has been hired by the parents of Madeleine McCann to advise them on their legal rights.
7th SEPTEMBER QUESTIONS TO KATE McCANN
As has been said a million time, she had already answered these questions.
Another one after her 15 minutes, IMO.
No, DCI, on the 23th of August the McCanns gave all powers to Carlos P. de Abreu in order to request to the MP a statute of assistants in the process, according to article 68 n°1 of the CPP.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 02:34:33 PM
No, DCI, on the 23th of August the McCanns gave all powers to Carlos P. de Abreu in order to request to the MP a statute of assistants in the process, according to article 68 n°1 of the CPP.
That just shows how much blogs can be trusted, doesn't it.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/LEGAL.htm#cp
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 11, 2013, 02:46:29 PM
That just shows how much blogs can be trusted, doesn't it.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/LEGAL.htm#cp
There are mistakes here and there. You have to reckon that the application to the assistant statute, first accepted by the MP, was never a debated issue on forums.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 11, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
8)-))) Look at how they claimed lots of different witnesses had seen Barry George when only one of the witnesses had actually positively ID'd him. That was the work of Alison Saunders.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 11, 2013, 02:59:15 PM
8)-))) Look at how they claimed lots of different witnesses had seen Barry George when only one of the witnesses had actually positively ID'd him. That was the work of Alison Saunders.
Omg the woman heading up the CPS today and who has been involved in rogatory letters and visits to Portugal recently?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 03:00:30 PM
It just puzzles me, Benice, why it is taking 2 months at a couple of days a week (if you are lucky) It seems so wasteful of time and expense. And for Kate and Gerry, much as it is them who have started this libel case, it must be infuriating to be going back time and again, arranging for the care of the twins, the expense etc. when a week's hearing and be done with it would be much more economical in every way
Why is now the last session fixed on the 27th of November when this trial was scheduled to end on the 23th of September (if I recall it well) ? I've a feeling that the lawyers used the new version of the CPC to add witnesses (I think I heard the number was limited in the old version).
First the Judge had an emergency and three witnesses were postponed, then a lawyer had a personal problem sufficiently backed up for the Judge to adjourn a whole session. Then the Bar association's president didn't come and the lawyer likely didn't think she had to remind he had to come. Then a lawyer gave up a witness then changed her mind and forgot to apply again. Then Mr McCann wanted to be heard (his lawyer knew he had to be notified before) and one week after Mrs McCann decided she wanted too. The Judge agenda is very full, the lawyers also have full agendas. So every time a new day has to be determined, it must suit all people and it's not easy because there are 5 lawyers.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Lyall on October 11, 2013, 03:12:48 PM
If this lady is an Attorney is she advocating ignoring your lawyer's advice.? Did she know that Kate was following her Lawyers instructions when she did not answer the 48 questions.
Judging by the efforts of her plastic surgeon, the video is probably responsible for freezing quite a few computer screens, Benice, not just yours.
As to what she says, completely discredits herself with scant knowledge of the basics. And the host isn't much better. Typical US fayre - opinion masquerading (excuse pun) as information.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Indeed, it reflects the rank hypocrisy of the Mccanns supporters.
did you listen to what she said
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2013, 05:42:00 PM
I listened to the interview and I think she is just trying to promote herself ..unless of course she knows nothing about the case
What sort of parents hire top attorneys...why, those who fear they are being set up by a police force who have lied to the and who they fear have planted evidence against them
Never answered questions..well that just makes her a liar. Kate answered about 16 hours of questions
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 06:02:24 PM
I listened to the interview and I think she is just trying to promote herself ..unless of course she knows nothing about the case
What sort of parents hire top attorneys...why, those who fear they are being set up by a police force who have lied to the and who they fear have planted evidence against them
Never answered questions..well that just makes her a liar. Kate answered about 16 hours of questions
I think that's how the British police work now - refusal to answer is taken as indication of guilt.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 11, 2013, 06:04:16 PM
Judging by the efforts of her plastic surgeon, the video is probably responsible for freezing quite a few computer screens, Benice, not just yours.
As to what she says, completely discredits herself with scant knowledge of the basics. And the host isn't much better. Typical US fayre - opinion masquerading (excuse pun) as information.
What a bi tchy reaponse, seeing as somany americans have plastic surgery does that diminish their professional capabilities ?As I said before no need to get worked up about someones opinion
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Mr Gray on October 11, 2013, 06:05:49 PM
kate didn't refuse to answer questions for 18 hours or so
Is that relevant?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: drummer on October 11, 2013, 06:25:34 PM
Think she's another Pat Brown myself, maybe that's who she's getting her information from.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Victoria on October 11, 2013, 06:27:50 PM
If you google this Murphy character, it quickly becomes clear that she has a reputation for being reactionary, extreme right-wing, and has a habit of making up statistics. But I mean, she's a regular with Fox news so what does anyone expect?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 06:31:07 PM
If you google this Murphy character, it quickly becomes clear that she has a reputation for being reactionary, extreme right-wing, and has a habit of making up statistics. But I mean, she's a regular with Fox news so what does anyone expect?
Would feel right at home, here then.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: drummer on October 11, 2013, 06:33:00 PM
If you google this Murphy character, it quickly becomes clear that she has a reputation for being reactionary, extreme right-wing, and has a habit of making up statistics. But I mean, she's a regular with Fox news so what does anyone expect?
Exactly Victoria, I'm disgusted with her opinion that a false rape allegation is a myth.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 11, 2013, 06:34:07 PM
Whereas if she'd said, "leave the poor parents alone" you'd have found her to be bang on the money, right? Oh she doesn't agree with us, burn the witch!
The balance is that the libel trial ought to have been done and dusted months ago (possibly years). It's where it is now because of persistent prevarication by team-Amaral.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: jassi on October 11, 2013, 07:07:32 PM
The balance is that the libel trial ought to have been done and dusted months ago (possibly years). It's where it is now because of persistent prevarication by team-Amaral.
I do love irony
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: carlymichelle on October 11, 2013, 07:09:53 PM
in america in the admendment freedom of speech is encourged 8(0(*
Loads of people have given their opinion both here and other countries...its their right...unless you are a nazi and want to shut people up and takeaway their freedoms
Edited for spellos
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: carlymichelle on October 11, 2013, 07:32:39 PM
Loads of people have given their opinion both here and other countries...its their right...unlesa yiu ate a nazi and want to shut people up and takeaway their freedoms
yep here in australia we have freedom of speech
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: drummer on October 11, 2013, 07:41:33 PM
Think she's another Pat Brown myself, maybe that's who she's getting her information from.
Oh my, you could be right, Drummer ?>)()<
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown BTW, Wendy is one of my fellow commentators that I have great respect for. I never rolled my eyes when she was on ....which I have made the mistake of doing when on Jane's show because I forgot the camera was on all of us
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 11, 2013, 10:14:25 PM
What a bi tchy reaponse, seeing as somany americans have plastic surgery does that diminish their professional capabilities ?As I said before no need to get worked up about someones opinion
Maybe was a bit of a harsh comment, and I agree, it is her professionalism, or lack of it, that should be under scrutiny. It does sound as if she is parroting Pat Brown, who for all her pronouncements about the need to stick to facts, brought a huge number of false assumptions and personal prejudices in her analysis.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: blonk on October 11, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
Omg the woman heading up the CPS today and who has been involved in rogatory letters and visits to Portugal recently?
Not only that, but she was the CPS lawyer who:
1. Denied the Hillsborough families justice by advising that their petition for a second inquest should be refused - thus delaying justice for the Hillsborough victims for another 20-odd years - leading to currnet calls by the Hillsborough families group for Alison Saunders to deselected as the next DPP (GoogleL Hillsborough Families Alison Saunders)
AND
2. Recommended that the prosecution of 3 men for the murder of Daniel Morgan be abandoned in 2010, despite the SIXTH police review in this case (Daniel had an axe buried in his head back in 1987) having positively identified three men as the likely conspirators or killers, one of them closely linked to Andy Coulson, former NOTW Editor and later David Cameron's Directror of Communications (2009-2011), where he appointed CLARENCE MITCHELL (McCanns' chief PR and reputation manager for the past 6 years) as his Deputy.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: icabodcrane on October 11, 2013, 10:38:23 PM
1. Denied the Hillsborough families justice by advising that their petition for a second inquest should be refused - thus delaying justice for the Hillsborough victims for another 20-odd years - leading to currnet calls by the Hillsborough families group for Alison Saunders to deselected as the next DPP (GoogleL Hillsborough Families Alison Saunders)
AND
2. Recommended that the prosecution of 3 men for the murder of Daniel Morgan be abandoned in 2010, despite the SIXTH police review in this case (Daniel had an axe buried in his head back in 1987) having positively identified three men as the likely conspirators or killers, one of them closely linked to Andy Coulson, former NOTW Editor and later David Cameron's Directror of Communications (2009-2011), where he appointed CLARENCE MITCHELL (McCanns' chief PR and reputation manager for the past 6 years) as his Deputy.
I had no idea she was involved in the Hillsborough shame
... what a CV this woman has !
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 11, 2013, 10:55:14 PM
Maybe was a bit of a harsh comment, and I agree, it is her professionalism, or lack of it, that should be under scrutiny. It does sound as if she is parroting Pat Brown, who for all her pronouncements about the need to stick to facts, brought a huge number of false assumptions and personal prejudices in her analysis.
It could be useful to list them. Could you help ?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 11, 2013, 10:59:28 PM
Maybe was a bit of a harsh comment, and I agree, it is her professionalism, or lack of it, that should be under scrutiny. It does sound as if she is parroting Pat Brown, who for all her pronouncements about the need to stick to facts, brought a huge number of false assumptions and personal prejudices in her analysis.
funny I thought the same as soon as wendy started bleating like goat ..pat brown came into mind straight away.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Luz on October 11, 2013, 11:45:23 PM
I would say that a normal human being with 2 neurons and a natural curiosity to learn about this case, by reading available information, like for instance the one organized in the mccanfiles site, would reach the same conclusion as Wendy Murphy, but few would have the courage and intelligence to state it so succinctly and accurately as she did.
Fortunately there are still some people left that are not afraid to state their mind, against the installed mind controlled current.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Benice on October 12, 2013, 02:29:37 AM
I would say that a normal human being with 2 neurons and a natural curiosity to learn about this case, by reading available information, like for instance the one organized in the mccanfiles site, would reach the same conclusion as Wendy Murphy, but few would have the courage and intelligence to state it so succinctly and accurately as she did.
Fortunately there are still some people left that are not afraid to state their mind, against the installed mind controlled current.
It takes more than reading a few lurid headlines to research a case enough to make valid comments on it. It's plain from her comments that she has no more real understanding of this case than my neighbour's cat.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 03:03:43 AM
Wendy Murphy makes a number of mistakes, and statements that are hard to swallow:
'There is no new suspect, and there will never be a new suspect, until the parents answer questions' - Wendy has the ability to know exactly what information is known to Scotland Yard before it is released; she also has the ability to predict the future.
'The child's mother refused to answer a question about what she saw when she entered the room from which Madeleine went missing' - but Kate McCann writes about the matter extensively in her book, and has also spoken publicly about it. It was for legal reasons that this and other questions were not answered at the time.
'The little girl is dead, I believe' - very few people, perhaps only one person, currently know the answer to that question. And Wendy Murphy is not one of them.
'The Portuguese police did a very good job' - say what you want about that.
And finally, she speaks throughout the piece of the fact that the McCanns refused to answer questions put to them by the PJ. It is common knowledge that this was for legal reasons.
The newscaster, for her part, attempts to create balance by stating that the PJ did not make inquiries of anyone at the resort - we know that dozens of statements were taken.
The piece as a whole is clearly very badly researched and therefore misleading.
As for Pat Brown, that's another kettle of fish entirely!
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: icabodcrane on October 12, 2013, 03:28:56 AM
Not at all. She tried to, but failed - because she had the wrong information.
Seriously ?
... you watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor was trying to take a 'balanced' view ?
Do you also believe Bill O'Reilly's spot is 'fair and balanced' ( as promoted ) ?
That anchor-woman came in 'on message' ( as they invariably do on Fox ) ... Wendy responded like a breath of fresh air ... honest, from the shoulder, no-nonsense, American freedom of expression ... even on FOX !
It was so unexpected and refreshing
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 04:00:29 AM
... you watched that news clip and concluded that the Fox anchor was trying to take a 'balanced' view ?
Do you also believe Bill O'Reilly's spot is 'fair and balanced' ( as promoted ) ?
That anchor-woman came in 'on message' ( as they invariably do on Fox ) ... Wendy responded like a breath of fresh air ... honest, from the shoulder, no-nonsense, American freedom of expression ... even on FOX !
It was so unexpected and refreshing
That's not what I mean, icabod.
The anchor was presenting a completely one-sided account (containing inaccuracies), as was Wendy Murphy.
This is the format on American 'news' programmes.
The guest is often chosen for their contentiousness with regard to a particular topic, not necessarily their expertise. It's a piece of theatre. The studio, represented by the news caster or anchor, takes an oppositional view, again, for the sake of entertainment, not because that standpoint might represent their editorial policy or desire to present an objective or fair picture.
This is what I refer to by the word balance - a dramatic device, rather than an attempt at fairness or seeking truth.
In Europe of course, the model used in this kind of broadcasting is very different. The studio attempts (or at least, claims) to present a fair and neutral view, and invites guests on for the purpose of giving over better-sourced information and insights. Ranges of opinion are expressed through the use of a variety of guests with opposing views. The news anchor or castor remains the 'neutral' arbiter in the debate.
In America it is very common to see the news caster putting in his or her comments at the end of a segment - something we don't see in Britain, where it would be considered unprofessional.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 12, 2013, 10:54:04 AM
Maybe was a bit of a harsh comment, and I agree, it is her professionalism, or lack of it, that should be under scrutiny. It does sound as if she is parroting Pat Brown, who for all her pronouncements about the need to stick to facts, brought a huge number of false assumptions and personal prejudices in her analysis.
Name me one professional who is perfect...everyone is a talking head.....with their own beliefs and assumptions.....some have meticuoous research others dont.......they all get air time....much ado about nothing.. As for you criticising her for saying she believes the little girl is dead as if she stated it as a fact...no she didnt
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 12, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
1. Denied the Hillsborough families justice by advising that their petition for a second inquest should be refused - thus delaying justice for the Hillsborough victims for another 20-odd years - leading to currnet calls by the Hillsborough families group for Alison Saunders to deselected as the next DPP (GoogleL Hillsborough Families Alison Saunders)
AND
2. Recommended that the prosecution of 3 men for the murder of Daniel Morgan be abandoned in 2010, despite the SIXTH police review in this case (Daniel had an axe buried in his head back in 1987) having positively identified three men as the likely conspirators or killers, one of them closely linked to Andy Coulson, former NOTW Editor and later David Cameron's Directror of Communications (2009-2011), where he appointed CLARENCE MITCHELL (McCanns' chief PR and reputation manager for the past 6 years) as his Deputy.
Thanksfor that, bloody awful........
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: BigFatBlonde on October 12, 2013, 11:46:07 AM
To me it's not so much about the details of what was said. It is the fact that Fox news allowed this opinion to be aired. They may be a fairly lousy news channel but they have massive influence and they would have known what was going to be said.
N
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 12, 2013, 02:13:47 PM
Wendy Murphy makes a number of mistakes, and statements that are hard to swallow:
'There is no new suspect, and there will never be a new suspect, until the parents answer questions' - Wendy has the ability to know exactly what information is known to Scotland Yard before it is released; she also has the ability to predict the future.
Which mistakes actually, apart from the assumption that Mrs McCann wants to make a written statement (She might have asked to, nobody knows) ? The "new suspect" issue is difficult to swallow for those who believe beyond rationality that Madeleine was taken by some kind of weirdo who, thanks to her natural grace, let her develop in a loving environment. Mrs Murphy is right in saying that a serious and independent investigation should begin with the closest persons being constrained to dissipate the many discrepancies the AG underlined.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: AnneGuedes on October 12, 2013, 02:20:30 PM
'The child's mother refused to answer a question about what she saw when she entered the room from which Madeleine went missing' - but Kate McCann writes about the matter extensively in her book, and has also spoken publicly about it. It was for legal reasons that this and other questions were not answered at the time.
She didn't answer according to her lawyer's advice (he did the same with Mr McCann who disobeyed, he wasn't the first on the crime scene and described it by hearsay). The lawyer was defending a potentially guilty client, he had to be careful and the most secure was not to answer. But, doing so, he (and she) proved that the search for Madeleine was secondary (if not, he at least would have advised his client to answer "no" to the final question).
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Mr Gray on October 12, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
She didn't answer according to her lawyer's advice (he did the same with Mr McCann who disobeyed, he wasn't the first on the crime scene and described it by hearsay). The lawyer was defending a potentially guilty client, he had to be careful and the most secure was not to answer. But, doing so, he (and she) proved that the search for Madeleine was secondary (if not, he at least would have advised his client to answer "no" to the final question).
Absolute rubbish...her lawyer advised her to answer no more questions and she took his advice
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 12, 2013, 02:31:14 PM
the lawyer also advised gerry mccann not to answer any questions, but he had no qualms in doing so
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 03:33:25 PM
Name me one professional who is perfect...everyone is a talking head.....with their own beliefs and assumptions.....some have meticuoous research others dont.......they all get air time....much ado about nothing.. As for you criticising her for saying she believes the little girl is dead as if she stated it as a fact...no she didnt
The point is that she was chosen by the TV channel for her telegenic qualities and entertainment value, before her professional abilities. That's the way it works. She may well have a great number of professional accomplishments - her CV is impressive - but that's not why Fox news were interested in her. If you think her professional status is being diminished, that's the work of Fox news, not me!
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 03:42:03 PM
To me it's not so much about the details of what was said. It is the fact that Fox news allowed this opinion to be aired. They may be a fairly lousy news channel but they have massive influence and they would have known what was going to be said.
N
Yip, Fox are interested in their advertising revenue, BFB, end of story.
This is their first McCann story for a while - I don't remember seeing anything of the trial on Fox, so if they did mention it, it was only in passing. For their next main update on the McCann case, they could have reported the case from all sorts of angles. Their decision was to structure their report around someone who pulls Scotland Yard and the BBC to pieces. Just creating drama, nothing more.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: BigFatBlonde on October 12, 2013, 03:51:25 PM
Yip, Fox are interested in their advertising revenue, BFB, end of story.
This is their first McCann story for a while - I don't remember seeing anything of the trial on Fox, so if they did mention it, it was only in passing. For their next main update on the McCann case, they could have reported the case from all sorts of angles. Their decision was to structure their report around someone who pulls Scotland Yard and the BBC to pieces. Just creating drama, nothing more.
Yes, but it is a Murdoch station and, historically, his outlets have always been highly supportive of the couple.
I would guess that for most americans this could be the first time they have really been exposed to the idea that the McCanns are anything other than victims in this affair.
Just an observation - I'm not trying to imply anything just thought it was interesting that it happened on Fox.
N
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 04:00:24 PM
She didn't answer according to her lawyer's advice (he did the same with Mr McCann who disobeyed, he wasn't the first on the crime scene and described it by hearsay). The lawyer was defending a potentially guilty client, he had to be careful and the most secure was not to answer. But, doing so, he (and she) proved that the search for Madeleine was secondary (if not, he at least would have advised his client to answer "no" to the final question).
Interesting what you say, Anne, but that's very much a judgement call. Kate would have been very scared at that point - whether she was guilty of anything or not - and being overwhelmed by events and unfamiliar with the Portuguese legal system, her instinct would probably have been to listen to her lawyer. The fact that Gerry did not, is a mark of his more forthright personality.
As for Wendy Murphy, she does state near the start of the interview that Madeleine is dead, 'and doesn't have a voice.' The truth is that we just don't know whether she is dead, and the way of giving her a voice, i.e. seeing that justice is done, involves not making assumptions based on statistics, but keeping an open mind and pursuing the different options accordingly.
It may be hard to believe that there is a new suspect, but Wendy sounds as though she has information on this that the rest of us don't. Again, a misleading account.
Something else to bear in mind here is that although theoretically Fox News is watched worldwide, it is produced and edited primarily for an American audience. Here in America, people have heard the name Madeleine McCann, but I don't think you will find many people who are aware of the case in any kind of detail. An American audience, listening to Wendy Murphy, is going to have little ability to discern fact from opinion, something the programme-makers will well know. Whatever our personal viewpoints on the case as slightly more well informed critics, this has to be bourn in mind when assessing the credibility of the piece.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 04:12:31 PM
Yes, but it is a Murdoch station and, historically, his outlets have always been highly supportive of the couple.
I would guess that for most americans this could be the first time they have really been exposed to the idea that the McCanns are anything other than victims in this affair.
Just an observation - I'm not trying to imply anything just thought it was interesting that it happened on Fox.
N
It's an interesting point. I am going to look at some other outlets over here and see if the story has ever been presented in the way that Fox is now doing.
The bottom line is, however, that Fox's loyalties don't lie with the McCanns, and never have done. They only chose to present the story in a pro-McCann light because they judged, for whatever reasons, that it suited them as a commercial operation to do so. That portrayal did not necessarily reflect their own personal views behind the scenes.
That makes them no different from any other media organisation which will cut and paste at whim according to its own agendas. The subject of an article can he a hero one day and villain the next - the McCanns are not the first.
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Redblossom on October 12, 2013, 04:13:58 PM
The point is that she was chosen by the TV channel for her telegenic qualities and entertainment value, before her professional abilities. That's the way it works. She may well have a great number of professional accomplishments - her CV is impressive - but that's not why Fox news were interested in her. If you think her professional status is being diminished, that's the work of Fox news, not me!
Telegenic? Hardly pamela anderson! @)(++(*
Much ado about nothing.....there have been many commentators on USA shows who both question the Mccanns behaviour and their story....it is nothing new....I remember one participant on an ABC show after listening to an interview given by the Mccanns saying they answer like politicians not as grieved parents......I would say in the USA opinion is probably around 50 50 in this case......which is quite good, as we know how ferocious Americans are regarding child welfare...end of the day I have to agree in general its their viewing figures/impact that matter ultimately rather than solid journalistic content
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 04:21:51 PM
Much ado about nothing.....there have been many commentators on USA shows who both question the Mccanns behaviour and their story....it is nothing new....I remember one participant on an ABC show after listening to an interview given by the Mccanns saying they answer like politicians not as grieved parents......I would say in the USA opinion is probably around 50 50 in this case......which is quite good, as we know how ferocious Americans are regarding child welfare...end of the day I have to agree in general its their viewing figures/impact that matter ultimately rather than solid journalistic content
Now who's insulting her looks, Red?!
Anyway, it seems overall that this is a piece of so-called entertainment, rather than a piece of news.
Thanks for the info about ABC and so on. I am going to investigate a few stories over here and see if I can find something that borders on news rather than sensationalism. Unlikely I will find it, but will try..
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 12, 2013, 04:31:42 PM
Hi Sherlock and thanks for your input. Hope you don't mind me asking, are you American or a "Brit abroad"?
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Sherlock Holmes on October 12, 2013, 04:43:23 PM
OK many thanks. OT: going down to the library next week so some Sherlock Holmes novels are on my list!
Back on topic, sorry! 8()-000(
Sherlock Holmes and the great Sir Arthur are always 'on topic' in my view!
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: Rachel Granada on October 12, 2013, 05:16:08 PM
Sorry messed up the quotes a bit...
LOL! I will get a couple of novels next week and report back with my views.
SORRY FOLKS!! Back on topic now, promise! 8((()*/
Title: Re: Wendy Murphy on FOX
Post by: drummer on October 18, 2013, 07:51:30 PM
WENDY MURPHY: Dead little girls + drugs = suspicion of child porn The Patriot Ledger Posted Mar 28, 2009 @ 05:00 AM
QUINCY — When children die – and parents are potential suspects – we often talk about abuse and neglect.
But when sedatives are found in a child’s body or at a crime scene, we need to talk about something else, too.
Child pornography.
The FBI has long taught about the use of sedative drugs in the making of child porn. Benzodiazepines such as Valium and Klonopin – and cheap alternatives such as chloroform – are commonly used to keep kids calm. Many of these drugs also cause short-term amnesia such that the victim has little or no memory of the event when the drugs wear off.
It’s scary to think that ANYONE would do such a thing to a child, but get this: According to the U.S. Attorney General, child porn is a multi-billion dollar industry and the people most likely to be making it are the victims’ parents.
This sick “industry” not only destroys innocent souls – it is a life-threatening “business” because the build-up of sedatives in kids’ bodies can cause deadly seizures.
If we’re going to protect children from this scourge, we have to talk more openly about it, especially during high profile cases when millions of people are watching.
Take the following stories, for example, though it should be emphasized that we have not heard from law enforcement whether there is any correlation between the deaths of these little girls and child porn.
JonBenet Ramsey was a beautiful dyed-blonde 6-year-old when she was found dead in the basement of her home. The day her body was found, her parents hired criminal attorneys and refused to submit to separate police interviews. Three search warrants were issued for child porn, and while police said none was found in the home, we really don’t know the details of what if anything was found elsewhere – or why they were looking for child porn – because the files in the case are being withheld from public view. We DO know that undigested pineapple was found in the child’s stomach and we know that a bowl of pineapple found on the kitchen table was taken as evidence, presumably tested for the presence of drugs. But we don’t know the results because, again, the file is being hidden. We also know that the child had “chronic” vaginal injuries including an “eroded” hymen, which many experts say is evidence of prior ongoing sexual abuse. When the parents eventually agreed to be interviewed by police, they were asked at length about sedatives in the home, such as Xanax and Klonopin.
Caylee Anthony was a sweet little 2-year-old when she “went missing” from her home in Florida. Her body was later found and her mother stands charged with her murder, in part because she failed to report Caylee missing for more than a month, and then lied about the circumstances of her disappearance. Human decomposition was found in the trunk of her mother’s car – along with Caylee’s hair and traces of chloroform. Law enforcement officials said that photographs of Caylee had recently been deleted from her mother’s computer.
Maddie McCann was an adorable 4-year-old who “went missing” from her hotel room in Portugal while on vacation with her British parents. The child’s hair and human decomposition were reportedly found in the trunk of her parents’ rental car. Early news reports indicated Maddie had been sedated by her parents to keep her asleep in the hotel room while they socialized nearby. The parents hired criminal attorneys and, after Maddie’s mom was named a suspect, she refused to answer police questions.
I don’t know if these cases are related to child porn. But I’m certain of three things. 1. Sedating victims is common. 2. The most valuable child porn depicts young, cute kids. 3. All three cases involve sedatives and young, cute kids.
According to the federal government, demand for child porn has skyrocketed because of the Internet, and will continue to rise unless we do a better job recognizing and talking about the problem when we see it.
It won’t be easy – in part because this stuff happens in secret, but also because we resist thinking about things that don’t feel good – and let’s face it – it doesn’t feel very good to believe parents sell their children for sex and porn.
But what’s more important? Children – or the comfort of our denial?
Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston and radio talk show host. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu