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: Alfred R Jones on December 11, 2014, 11:27:43 PM
-
Did anyone watch the Christopher Jeffries docu-drama? Excellent IMO, and the McCanns and Murat treatment by the press was (unsurprisingly) mentioned, albeit briefly.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72109000/jpg/_72109535_jefferies_2010.jpg)
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html
-
Did anyone watch the Christopher Jeffries docu-drama? Excellent IMO, and the McCanns and Murat treatment by the press was (unsurprisingly) mentioned, albeit briefly.
Yes. Very well done.
-
Did anyone watch the Christopher Jeffries docu-drama? Excellent IMO, and the McCanns and Murat treatment by the press was (unsurprisingly) mentioned, albeit briefly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html
I made a point of watching both episodes and well worth it too. The conduct of the media was despicable as was expected. One point I will make is that those sued did not include Sky News whose own behaviour in doorstepping Mr Jeffries in the way they did was also questionable verging on harassment.
-
I made a point of watching both episodes and well worth it too. The conduct of the media was despicable as was expected. One point I will make is that those sued did not include Sky News whose own behaviour in doorstepping Mr Jeffries in the way they did was also questionable verging on harassment.
Requesting someone's view on live TV may be unpleasant, but it doesn't constitute harrassment (unless it's sustained). The unfounded allegations in the press were libellous and no doubt soul-destroying.
-
Requesting someone's view on live TV may be unpleasant, but it doesn't constitute harrassment (unless it's sustained). The unfounded allegations in the press were libellous and no doubt soul-destroying.
I don't suppose he was too pleased with the way the police treated him, either - arrested, DNA'd and house torn to pieces, all without any evidence to support such actions.
-
I don't suppose he was too pleased with the way the police treated him, either - arrested, DNA'd and house torn to pieces, all without any evidence to support such actions.
Searches need to be done, obviously, but I've often wondered about how awful that must feel. All your belongings upside down, and no doubt a feeling of violation of your private life. Similar to being burgled, I would think.
-
Apparently there was an interview with Jefferies and the actor who played his part. If anyone has a link, I'd be interested in watching it.
-
I made a point of watching both episodes and well worth it too. The conduct of the media was despicable as was expected. One point I will make is that those sued did not include Sky News whose own behaviour in doorstepping Mr Jeffries in the way they did was also questionable verging on harassment.
Excellent drama.
-
Excellent drama.
Indeed. However, it did make me think that those who knew and loved Jo would find it a distressing reminder. They didn't have to watch it, of course, but it would be hard to miss the publicity leading up to it.
I found that the tragedy at the heart of it was handled as sensitively as possible.
What wasn't even alluded to was the enormous amount of speculation on social media triggered by the press allegations, but which was in at least one forum used to channel attention towards a different case...
-
Requesting someone's view on live TV may be unpleasant, but it doesn't constitute harrassment (unless it's sustained). The unfounded allegations in the press were libellous and no doubt soul-destroying.
I distinctly remember the Sky reporter ambushing Christopher Jefferies as he came out of his house. He was more or less accusing him of having been involved in Joanne's disappearance which at the time left me feeling that they must know something otherwise why be so aggressive.
-
Indeed. However, it did make me think that those who knew and loved Jo would find it a distressing reminder. They didn't have to watch it, of course, but it would be hard to miss the publicity leading up to it.
I found that the tragedy at the heart of it was handled as sensitively as possible.
What wasn't even alluded to was the enormous amount of speculation on social media triggered by the press allegations, but which was in at least one forum used to channel attention towards a different case...
There is a saying that all road lead to Rome. Unfortunately some people are so obsessed with vitriolic feelings against Madeleine McCann's parents that whenever a horrific crime is committed they feel duty bound to add it to the lexicon.
I missed the second part of the drama but will catch up on it later. What a hellish time Mr Jeffries had of it; I can think of few things more devastating than being thought of as the perpetrator of such a horrendous crime. The best that can be said about his ordeal is that the real murderer was unmasked and all suspicion about him totally wiped out as a result.
The actor's portrayal of of the horror, confusion and absolute despair suffered by Mr Jeffries was powerful and I felt quite distressed by it.
You are perfectly correct about the effect the programme must have had on the people who loved Jo, Carana.
The local press reprised a double murder in my area with a double page spread. Unfortunately no-one stopped to think before going to press, that although the murders had taken place many years before, there were still many friends and very close relations who should have been informed but weren't. The effect on them was devastating.
-
I distinctly remember the Sky reporter ambushing Christopher Jefferies as he came out of his house. He was more or less accusing him of having been involved in Joanne's disappearance which at the time left me feeling that they must know something otherwise why be so aggressive.
Was that "feeling" solely related to the door-stepping, or was it also influenced by tabloid reports appearing at that time? In the face of such a crime, it's not difficult to build up a personal conviction, but which is based on subliminal input.
We're all human, but the tabloids are still supposed to adhere to a code of ethics and don't have that excuse.
A point that was alluded to towards the end was that the boyfriend urged the media not to come to preconceived conclusions, and included the landlord in that.
In a press conference, and in answer to a question, the police had stated that the boyfriend wasn't a suspect, but they didn't say the same of the landlord (either because no specific question had been asked, or because they didn't know at that point).
Again, the speculation on social media was, if anything, worse than what the tabloids actually printed, and that is not a point raised in the docudrama.
-
Apparently there was an interview with Jefferies and the actor who played his part. If anyone has a link, I'd be interested in watching it.
I read somewhere that Jo's parents were in agreement with the making of the program, although they declined to take part, but not sure if Mr. Jefferies was involved at all.
Can only find interviews with Chris Jefferies concerning his wrongful arrest rather than his verdict on the drama-doc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k)
Is there room for yet another miscarriage of justice on here, as someone believes they got the wrong man in Vincent Tabak.
Read the comment by Philip Hollingbery...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html)
and... http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html (http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html)
-
Was that" solely related to the door-stepping, or was it also influenced by tabloid reports appearing at that time? In the face of such a crime, it's not difficult to build up a personal conviction, but which is based on subliminal input.
We're all human, but the tabloids are still supposed to adhere to a code of ethics and don't have that excuse.
A point that was alluded to towards the end was that the boyfriend urged the media not to come to preconceived conclusions, and included the landlord in that.
In a press conference, and in answer to a question, the police had stated that the boyfriend wasn't a suspect, but they didn't say the same of the landlord (either because no specific question had been asked, or because they didn't know at that point).
Again, the speculation on social media was, if anything, worse than what the tabloids actually printed, and that is not a point raised in the docudrama.
I was extremely perturbed at the aggressive behaviour of the Sky News reporter, an attitude which I have seen repeated more recently in another case. Isn't it ironic that Sky sponsored the ITV docudrama?
-
Was that "feeling" solely related to the door-stepping, or was it also influenced by tabloid reports appearing at that time? In the face of such a crime, it's not difficult to build up a personal conviction, but which is based on subliminal input.
We're all human, but the tabloids are still supposed to adhere to a code of ethics and don't have that excuse.
A point that was alluded to towards the end was that the boyfriend urged the media not to come to preconceived conclusions, and included the landlord in that.
In a press conference, and in answer to a question, the police had stated that the boyfriend wasn't a suspect, but they didn't say the same of the landlord (either because no specific question had been asked, or because they didn't know at that point).
Again, the speculation on social media was, if anything, worse than what the tabloids actually printed, and that is not a point raised in the docudrama.
From what I recall of the online speculation that I saw on places like Tony Bennett's forum the large majority of it was directed not at Chris Jeffries at all but ludicrously at Jo's boyfriend and father. Yes, many of the McCann doubters jumped to the completely erroneous conclusion that one or both of them dunnit.
-
I'm not sure about it being ludicrous, considering that very many murders are committed by a family member, so it is perfectly natural for them to have been early suspects.
This why alibis can be so useful.
I've no doubt that the actual perpetrator would have come under the same armchair scrutiny had he not removed himself from the scene pretty sharpish.
-
I'm not sure about it being ludicrous, considering that very many murders are committed by a family member, so it is perfectly natural for them to have been early suspects.
This why alibis can be so useful.
I've no doubt that the actual perpetrator would have come under the same armchair scrutiny had he not removed himself from the scene pretty sharpish.
It was totally ludicrous as it was completely baseless gossiping by people who didn't have the faintest idea of what they were talking about and their gruesome speculation was available for anyone in the world to read. No doubt it wouldn't bother you in the slightest if you or your loved ones were being gossiped about in such a manner by hundred of strangers on the internet but then not everyone is as thick skinned as you!
-
Don't get yourself so worked up. Count to 10 and calm down.
Nobody really cares what you think.
-
Don't get yourself so worked up. Count to 10 and calm down.
Nobody really cares what you think.
Do they not? I truly believed you all hung on my every word.
-
Do they not? I truly believed you all hung on my every word.
Only when we want a laugh.
-
From what I recall of the online speculation that I saw on places like Tony Bennett's forum the large majority of it was directed not at Chris Jeffries at all but ludicrously at Jo's boyfriend and father. Yes, many of the McCann doubters jumped to the completely erroneous conclusion that one or both of them dunnit.
I am not sure I can make the connection between the murder of Joanna Yates and the McCanns.
Can someone help me out here ?
-
I am not sure I can make the connection between the murder of Joanna Yates and the McCanns.
Can someone help me out here ?
Firstly, you may not have noticed but this thread appears in the Madeleine McCann section of the forum.
Secondly the programme in question referenced the beasting by the press dealt to the McCanns
Thirdly there are clear parallels in the way the cops in both cases decided they had their culprit pretty much from day one, and the ensuing media hullaboo, speculation and character assassination that followed.
Fourthly both Chris Jeffries and Gerry McCann represent Hacked Off. Both Jeffries and the McCanns also gave evidence at the Leveson Enquiry about their treatment by the press.
So, if you can't see any connection I suggest you put your specs on and look again.
-
From Chris Jefferies - How to help
(http://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/8d343bf1-5a4d-4e91-8075-d4c2894fd3fb.jpg)
Dear Supporter
You may have seen the first part of Peter Morgan’s screenplay “The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies” on ITV last night (Wedenesday). Perhaps you plan to watch the second part this evening?
I hope you enjoy it. Peter and the director Roger Michell have done an excellent job in capturing the essence of what happened and although it is not easy for me to watch, Jason Watkins in the lead role has clearly excelled in his performance.
As the film shows, it was my experiences in seeking to clear my reputation which led to my testifying at The Leveson inquiry and backing Hacked Off’s campaign for fair and effective independent press self-regulation, to prevent what happened to me and to the McCann family and many others from happening again in the future.
If you are moved by watching the film and want to help please consider donating to Hacked Off’s campaign to show a short advert (about the continuing failure of press regulation) in cinemas.
I am told that – thanks to well-known individuals – we have raised £13,000 already towards the £20,000 target.
Having met with IPSO, and being very disappointed with their set up, and their rejection of Leveson despite everything that the inquiry revealed, I very much hope that we can get this advert playing in cinemas across the land. So please help if you can.
Thank you for your support.
Christopher Jefferies
Patron, Hacked Off
See the new advert here. (http://vimeo.com/113414348) The password is LevesonNow
-
From Chris Jefferies - How to help
(http://gallery.mailchimp.com/36889d82a90d38e0b25c84b47/images/8d343bf1-5a4d-4e91-8075-d4c2894fd3fb.jpg)
Dear Supporter
You may have seen the first part of Peter Morgan’s screenplay “The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies” on ITV last night (Wedenesday). Perhaps you plan to watch the second part this evening?
I hope you enjoy it. Peter and the director Roger Michell have done an excellent job in capturing the essence of what happened and although it is not easy for me to watch, Jason Watkins in the lead role has clearly excelled in his performance.
As the film shows, it was my experiences in seeking to clear my reputation which led to my testifying at The Leveson inquiry and backing Hacked Off’s campaign for fair and effective independent press self-regulation, to prevent what happened to me and to the McCann family and many others from happening again in the future.
If you are moved by watching the film and want to help please consider donating to Hacked Off’s campaign to show a short advert (about the continuing failure of press regulation) in cinemas.
I am told that – thanks to well-known individuals – we have raised £13,000 already towards the £20,000 target.
Having met with IPSO, and being very disappointed with their set up, and their rejection of Leveson despite everything that the inquiry revealed, I very much hope that we can get this advert playing in cinemas across the land. So please help if you can.
Thank you for your support.
Christopher Jefferies
Patron, Hacked Off
See the new advert here. (http://vimeo.com/113414348) The password is LevesonNow
People can be very altruistic when they have suffered personal trauma ... Chris Jeffries has chosen to use his experience to help publicise an advert produced by "Hacked Off".
Madeleine's parents have appropriately chosen to give their support to the charity "Missing People".
** snip**
The drama also ably negotiated the underlying legal issues, not least in one quiet line, uttered by Jefferies’ solicitor when the former English teacher is deciding whether to sue the newspapers which treated him so egregiously. “A CFA – a conditional fee arrangement – the lifeline to the common man,” says the solicitor, in answer to Jefferies’ question about how he will afford to instruct libel lawyers.
It is salutary to remember that without a CFA, Jefferies would almost certainly not have been able to take on the press and recover his honour.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=721
-
** snip**
The drama also ably negotiated the underlying legal issues, not least in one quiet line, uttered by Jefferies’ solicitor when the former English teacher is deciding whether to sue the newspapers which treated him so egregiously. “A CFA – a conditional fee arrangement – the lifeline to the common man,” says the solicitor, in answer to Jefferies’ question about how he will afford to instruct libel lawyers.
It is salutary to remember that without a CFA, Jefferies would almost certainly not have been able to take on the press and recover his honour.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=721
All the more reason we need laws to protect the 'common man' from the baying press mob.
-
I read somewhere that Jo's parents were in agreement with the making of the program, although they declined to take part, but not sure if Mr. Jefferies was involved at all.
Can only find interviews with Chris Jefferies concerning his wrongful arrest rather than his verdict on the drama-doc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZnfi5oM5o)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS_zf_kZ6k)
Is there room for yet another miscarriage of justice on here, as someone believes they got the wrong man in Vincent Tabak.
Read the comment by Philip Hollingbery...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/the-lost-honour-of-christopher-jefferies-part-2-tv-review-an-impressive-drama-but-joanna-yeates-story-still-wasnt-properly-told-9919435.html)
and... http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html (http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/jury.html)
It just goes to show now matter how cut and dried a case their will always be a [ censored word ] somewhere who believes they know better than everyone else. Sad.
-
It just goes to show now matter how cut and dried a case their will always be a [ censored word ] somewhere who believes they know better than everyone else. Sad.
You can't apply that to the disappearance of Madeleine because it is very much not cut and dried. In fact I would go further and point out that the actions of the McCanns is rightly seen by many as far from blameless.
-
You can't apply that to the disappearance of Madeleine because it is very much not cut and dried.
I wasn't referring it to the McCann case specifically, but now you come to mention it there are parallels. Anyone who still believes the parents dunnit quite clearly falls into the bracket of [ censored word ] -it's the same sort of nonsense as those who believe that Vincent Tabak is innocent and that the boyfriend kid it.
-
I wasn't referring it to the McCann case specifically, but now you come to mention it there are parallels. Anyone who still believes the parents dunnit quite clearly falls into the bracket of [ censored word ] -it's the same sort of nonsense as those who believe that Vincent Tabak is innocent and that the boyfriend kid it.
There is no comparison between the cases. Tabak admitted killing Joanna Yeates, albeit by accident according to him. The McCanns deny involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and of fabricating an abduction but nevertheless created a situation in which abduction was made possible. The only reason they too were not prosecuted was because of the absence of intent according to the Portuguese AG.
-
There is no comparison between the cases. Tabak admitted killing her, albeit by accident according to him.
There was also an indisputable crime - murder or manslaughter
-
There is no comparison between the cases. Tabak admitted killing Joanna Yeates, albeit by accident according to him. The McCanns deny involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and of fabricating an abduction but nevertheless created a situation in which abduction was made possible. The only reason they too were not prosecuted was because of the absence of intent according to the Portuguese AG.
you're missing the point - according to some nutcases Tabak didn't kill Jo at all and believe her boyfriend did it, hence to those nutters it is not cut and dried at all
-
Firstly, you may not have noticed but this thread appears in the Madeleine McCann section of the forum.
Secondly the programme in question referenced the beasting by the press dealt to the McCanns
Thirdly there are clear parallels in the way the cops in both cases decided they had their culprit pretty much from day one, and the ensuing media hullaboo, speculation and character assassination that followed.
Fourthly both Chris Jeffries and Gerry McCann represent Hacked Off. Both Jeffries and the McCanns also gave evidence at the Leveson Enquiry about their treatment by the press.
So, if you can't see any connection I suggest you put your specs on and look again.
Gosh you don't say!
Are you sure there are parallels in the way the cops operated? or are you just saying it for effect? One case is resolved the other isn't, in that much they differ.
.
-
you're missing the point - according to some nutcases Tabak didn't kill Jo at all and believe her boyfriend did it, hence to those butters it is not cut and dried at all
He killed her. It was murder. She had many injuries, manslaughter my ass. He confessed but look at the DNA confusion again.
DNA tests were carried out by LGC Forensics, a private company which undertakes forensic analysis for criminal investigations. Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist member of the team that analysed DNA samples from Yeates' body, said that although DNA swabs matched Tabak, they were not of sufficient quality to be evaluated. The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion." (wiki)
-
He killed her. It was murder. She had many injuries, manslaughter my ass. He confessed but look at the DNA confusion again.
DNA tests were carried out by LGC Forensics, a private company which undertakes forensic analysis for criminal investigations. Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist member of the team that analysed DNA samples from Yeates' body, said that although DNA swabs matched Tabak, they were not of sufficient quality to be evaluated. The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion." (wiki)
Yes you should point that out to the author of the blog above. - I'm sure they will have a jolly good set of reasons why you are quite wrong.
-
There was also an indisputable crime - murder or manslaughter
Any of her nearest and dearest would have been vacillating between the hope that she may have been held somewhere (or that she'd been caught up in some other inexplicable situation) and that she would turn up alive, and the fear that she'd been killed.
Very sadly, the fears turned out to be true.
Finding out that your vibrant loved one's body has been found must be one of the most chilling experiences that anyone has to face.
Remaining in limbo, simply not knowing what has happend to your loved one, whether to face the grief or to maintain hope, must be an added layer of pain and anguish.
-
There is no comparison between the cases. Tabak admitted killing Joanna Yeates, albeit by accident according to him. The McCanns deny involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and of fabricating an abduction but nevertheless created a situation in which abduction was made possible. The only reason they too were not prosecuted was because of the absence of intent according to the Portuguese AG.
Did you not notice the "what-ifs"? If the BF hadn't asked for jump leads for a dead battery, which the landlord didn't have, but who found someone who did, BF wouldn't have gone off on his weekend.
There was no reason for anyone to suspect that a nutcase would come into her home and kill her.
The level of vitriol against the BF and others was atrocious, and could have led to vigilante action.
-
I've just noticed Angelo's declaration that the "only" reason the McCanns weren't prosecuted was because of an absence of intent. What about an absence of evidence?
-
From what I recall of the online speculation that I saw on places like Tony Bennett's forum the large majority of it was directed not at Chris Jeffries at all but ludicrously at Jo's boyfriend and father. Yes, many of the McCann doubters jumped to the completely erroneous conclusion that one or both of them dunnit.
When I briefly observed certain forums, what I noticed was that in the beginning, there were people who were simply seeking news and engaging to a certain extent in a Jo thread or sub-forum. However, those encouraging caution got banned, and the more outspoken about whoever was supposed to be the obvious guilty part of the day were invited to join and express their views on the Madeleine case.
My impression, based on what I observed, was that Jo's fate wasn't important to the old-timers on a particular well-known forum, it was a blatant recruitment drive for a certain McCann faction.
-
I've just noticed Angelo's declaration that the "only" reason the McCanns weren't prosecuted was because of an absence of intent. What about an absence of evidence?
Well spotted, Aflie. I wonder what he meant?
-
Well spotted, Aflie. I wonder what he meant?
Could be this:-
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
“1 – Whoever places another person’s life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;”
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim’s life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim’s behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post8683.html#p8683
-
When I briefly observed certain forums, what I noticed was that in the beginning, there were people who were simply seeking news and engaging to a certain extent in a Jo thread or sub-forum. However, those encouraging caution got banned, and the more outspoken about whoever was supposed to be the obvious guilty part of the day were invited to join and express their views on the Madeleine case.
My impression, based on what I observed, was that Jo's fate wasn't important to the old-timers on a particular well-known forum, it was a blatant recruitment drive for a certain McCann faction.
Yes there was that as well. Certainly Bennett was very sure that there was something suspicious about the boyfriend and the father and everyone on that forum was encouraged to speculate, the wilder the speculation the better. There seems to be a view amongst certain people that it is their duty to crack these high-profile cases before the police do it first, despite the fact that they are usually all working from a position of almost complete ignorance (in every sense of the word).
-
Could be this:-
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
“1 – Whoever places another person’s life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;”
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim’s life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim’s behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post8683.html#p8683
It probably is.
Is it not amazing how those who have studied the case short back and sideways for seven years (ish) feign a certain amount of ignorance of facts when it suits them?
-
It probably is.
Is it not amazing how those who have studied the case short back and sideways for seven years (ish) feign a certain amount of ignorance of facts when it suits them?
We are all guilty of Memory failure from time to time. Myself included.
There is so much to remember in all these files, which makes it impossible to recall every one of them.
I however do not believe that insulting remarks are of any advantage to a civilised, debate.
-
Could be this:-
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
“1 – Whoever places another person’s life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;”
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim’s life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim’s behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post8683.html#p8683
Thanks, Anna. That's true of the potential neglect charge. It's not clear if that is what Angelo was reffering to. I expect he'll clarify the next time he pops in.
-
What is the moral of the story of Christopher Jeffries?
by Brian Cathcart
If you watched the television drama, ask yourself this: how different would things have been if newspapers had reported the truth?
Imagine if the national newspapers that vilified Christopher Jefferies had investigated his story properly, or at least had honestly reported the views of the people who knew him at the time.
These newspapers had the power, the resources and the expertise. They could have done it. They often boast that this is the sort of thing they do – the mural in the front hall of the Sun’s head office speaks of ‘sticking up for the little guy’.
If they had done it, if they had shown independence of mind and bravery, they might have been heroes. But they didn’t.
Instead they simply told lies. In fact those two short words ‘told lies’ hardly do justice to the depravity of it. They published story after story that was the reverse of the truth. They repeated outrageous suggestions that they had not even attempted to verify. They indulged in fantasy for the sake of slick and impactful front pages.
This wasn’t just a mistake. It didn’t just happen one morning, but over three or four days. Eight newsrooms were involved: that is dozens of experienced news executives, dozens of seasoned reporters. Every one of those news organisations also employs lawyers, and expects its journalists to know the law.
This is the list of papers ultimately forced to admit publishing falsehoods about an entirely innocent man: the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Star, the Daily Record, the Sunday Mirror and the Scotsman. In addition the Daily Mirror and the Sun were prosecuted and convicted for contempt of court.
Some in the industry want to shift the responsibility to the police. The police, they plead, led the papers into this. It is true that the police were also at fault, but since when did journalists sheepishly follow the lead of the police?
At the moment we are hearing almost every day about conflict between press and police. We are repeatedly told that journalists are independent and that they do an important job of challenging the narratives of officials such as police officers.
Not one of those papers challenged the police narrative on Christopher Jefferies. They all accepted the police line – and then added their own embroidery of inventions to create a kind of Silence of the Lambs fiction on their front pages. Truth was nowhere.
And almost unbelievably, all of this was a repeat of previous collective outrages perpetrated most notably against Kate and Gerry McCann. Almost all of those papers had done it before, and had apologised, and had paid damages. But they just did it again.
It is the culture summed up in the infamous words of a News of the World news executive since jailed for phone hacking: ‘That is what we do – we go out and destroy other people’s lives.’
So, what is the moral of this?
It is that British journalism desperately needs to rebuild its relationship with the British public. Outrageous wrongdoing has been too prevalent at too high a level at too many newspapers for this to be dismissed as a freak event. There is a serious problem and there has to be change.
And we know exactly the nature of the change is needed: the Leveson Inquiry heard every relevant opinion, weighed the evidence and made careful, cautious recommendations designed to uphold standards without inhibiting freedom of expression.
How did these news organisations react – the very same organisations that libelled Christopher Jefferies? With two fingers to the inquiry, to parliament, to their victims and to the public.
Since nothing has changed, you could be the next Christopher Jefferies – or a member of your family, or a colleague, or a neighbour. The culprits don’t care about reporting truth or being fair or standing up for justice.
Please help Hacked Off to put pressure on them to see sense. Find out how you can help here
share this:
12829More
-
We are all guilty of Memory failure from time to time. Myself included.
There is so much to remember in all these files, which makes it impossible to recall every one of them.
I however do not believe that insulting remarks are of any advantage to a civilised, debate.
I am content to follow the rules of civilised debate, see my avatar. However if others are not I am also quite content to give it back in spades.
-
It seems to me that certainly factions of society just enjoy discussing depravity, and don't much care who they hurt in the process.