Re: Lawyers and Such

[Redblossom]

Nonsense.  Wrongly accused people most certainly need the best lawyer money can buy!

and *rightfully* accused people take on lawyers too, you dont know which way it cuts do you? Wasnt susan smith  oj simpson caylee anthony and all those where  its sure they were guilty

wrongfully accused innocent people tend to answer questions, take lie detector tests too, and not say they will take them only if its on their terms LOL who r u kidding

The McCanns and The Polygraph

In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.

Back in September 2007 the McCanns, as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known - albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.

"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request from the Portuguese authorities".

Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST', had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesperson, stepped forward to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.

And there the matter lay...

Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the McCanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy".

Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."

The accompanying headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, Clarence Mitchell was afforded the final word on the subject:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id393.html


 

Pmsl at clarrie

[AnneGuedes]

Nonsense.  Wrongly accused people most certainly need the best lawyer money can buy!

Perhaps wrongly suspected people (supposing you're thinking of the McCann couple, who were'nt accused btw) would put an end to doubts by collaborating with the same police that suspects them, instead of adopting an offended attitude, as if they were above suspicion, as if suspecting them were a lese-majesty crime.

[Redblossom]

Perhaps wrongly suspected people (supposing you're thinking of the McCann couple, who were'nt accused btw) would put an end to doubts by collaborating with the same police that suspects them, instead of adopting an offended attitude, as if they were above suspicion, as if suspecting them were a lese-majesty crime.

true
The mccanns had nothing to fear if they  answered questions, if thry had nothing to hide, gerry did, why did kate not? Hiding something imo, no other reason

NO INNOCENT mother refuses to answer questions , NONE

[Benice]

and *rightfully* accused people take on lawyers too, you dont know which way it cuts do you? Wasnt susan smith  oj simpson caylee anthony and all those where  its sure they were guilty

wrongfully accused innocent people tend to answer questions, take lie detector tests too, and not say they will take them only if its on their terms LOL who r u kidding

The McCanns and The Polygraph

In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.

Back in September 2007 the McCanns, as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known - albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.

"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request from the Portuguese authorities".

Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST', had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesperson, stepped forward to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.

And there the matter lay...

Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the McCanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy".

Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."

The accompanying headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, Clarence Mitchell was afforded the final word on the subject:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id393.html


 

Pmsl at clarrie

OK Red - knowing that Lie detectors are not 100% accurate, and some people can even beat them,  -  with hand on heart tell us what you would say if the McCanns took one and passed. 

(I'll take a guess that you won't give a straight answer to that question.)

[ferryman]

Amid this shortage of facts one truth stands out: it is a fact that after six years  there is no known  evidence of involvement of the parents in the disappearance of their daughter. That being so then the various claims of concealment of such (non-existent) evidence by government/ media/powerful friends/ take your pick or make one up/ are simply, we're afraid,  inventions. Anyone who believes that there really is such evidence is free to say so and then provide it to a libel court and make themselves famous. No takers are there? Not even Mr Anthony Aloysius Hancock Bennett, whose day in court ended in craven abasement but whose latest libel refers to a conspiracy by the parents and Robert Murat to cover up the child's disappearance before she even disappeared. The logical inference of such a claim is that the McCanns planned and committed murder. Among all the wild theories of hidden assistance only one stands out irrefutably: the greatest ally of Kate and Gerry McCann since 2008, the person who has done more than anyone to strengthen their credibility,  and sully the reputation of  their critics, is Bennett.   


Quite ....

[Mrs. B]

Yes, that is indeed unusual common sense from that quarter, & though I agree about Bennett I must point out that, IMO, Birch isn't helping their cause much either. Stark raving mad, that one.

[faithlilly]

Amid this shortage of facts one truth stands out: it is a fact that after six years  there is no known  evidence of involvement of the parents in the disappearance of their daughter. That being so then the various claims of concealment of such (non-existent) evidence by government/ media/powerful friends/ take your pick or make one up/ are simply, we're afraid,  inventions. Anyone who believes that there really is such evidence is free to say so and then provide it to a libel court and make themselves famous. No takers are there? Not even Mr Anthony Aloysius Hancock Bennett, whose day in court ended in craven abasement but whose latest libel refers to a conspiracy by the parents and Robert Murat to cover up the child's disappearance before she even disappeared. The logical inference of such a claim is that the McCanns planned and committed murder. Among all the wild theories of hidden assistance only one stands out irrefutably: the greatest ally of Kate and Gerry McCann since 2008, the person who has done more than anyone to strengthen their credibility,  and sully the reputation of  their critics, is Bennett.   


Quite ....

You see ferryman, I knew you'd get him in the end 

This however is my favourite part of the piece :

'The parents themselves will be affected in a rather different way. Their credibility has been poor since May 3 2007, as the evidence has repeatedly demonstrated, so the blow to their reputation will be less of a shock. But not less real: the Bureau staked its own reputation by noisily inviting the McCanns, via their usual bank of cut-outs – Mitchell, Facebook etc. –  to confirm or deny the truth  of the claim that they had approached Amaral's lawyers to settle and in the end, due to the pressure brought by our readers,  they did what we asked. Kate McCann's  position, despite the cut-outs,  was clear and undeniable: the story was not true but was merely "a rumour". McCann's belated recognition of the trap she had fallen into resulted in the panicky email exchange between her forum cut-out and a poster there which the latter made public. Too late, Kate.'

[Mrs. B]

LOL The non-event of the email not from Kate you mean?

ETA "the Bureau staked its own reputation by noisily inviting the McCanns, via their usual bank of cut-outs"

If that doesn't make you laugh, nothing will....another delusional soul :)

[stephen25000]

Amid this shortage of facts one truth stands out: it is a fact that after six years  there is no known  evidence of involvement of the parents in the disappearance of their daughter. That being so then the various claims of concealment of such (non-existent) evidence by government/ media/powerful friends/ take your pick or make one up/ are simply, we're afraid,  inventions. Anyone who believes that there really is such evidence is free to say so and then provide it to a libel court and make themselves famous. No takers are there? Not even Mr Anthony Aloysius Hancock Bennett, whose day in court ended in craven abasement but whose latest libel refers to a conspiracy by the parents and Robert Murat to cover up the child's disappearance before she even disappeared. The logical inference of such a claim is that the McCanns planned and committed murder. Among all the wild theories of hidden assistance only one stands out irrefutably: the greatest ally of Kate and Gerry McCann since 2008, the person who has done more than anyone to strengthen their credibility,  and sully the reputation of  their critics, is Bennett.   


Quite ....

Honestbroker, why didn't you print all the article ? >@@(*&)

[Mrs. B]

It's not an "article" - it's a BLOG entry by a somewhat delusional & bitter anti McCann who has a history of getting the wrong end of the stick where most things are concerned.

[DCI]

Honestbroker, why didn't you print all the article ? >@@(*&)

Do you ever post anything, useful steve, besides digs at Ferryman?

[stephen25000]

It's not an "article" - it's a BLOG entry by a somewhat delusional & bitter anti McCann who has a history of getting the wrong end of the stick where most things are concerned.

Oh dear, blog/article, it makes no difference.

Blacksmith, a 'bitter anti Mccann'.

Now that's a crock of sh##.

'Wrong end of the stick'. In your dreams...............................

[faithlilly]

It's not an "article" - it's a BLOG entry by a somewhat delusional & bitter anti McCann who has a history of getting the wrong end of the stick where most things are concerned.

Care to give us a few examples Mrs B ?

[stephen25000]

Do you ever post anything, useful steve, besides digs at Ferryman?

HONESTBROKER/FERRYMAN or which online identity he/she chooses can answer for themselves.

It seems I have touched yet another raw nerve.

Meanwhile, his/her posts are littered with a litany of attacks on others..........................

[faithlilly]

Oh dear, blog/article, it makes no difference.

Blacksmith, a 'bitter anti Mccann'.

Now that's a crock of sh##.

'Wrong end of the stick'. In your dreams...............................

Ferryman seems to have been hoisted by his own petard.

For anyone who wishes to read the whole article, here is the link  http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/