Have the Press behaved honourably in the Madeleine case?

[Benice]

Good relationship ?

i.e. SY tell the PJ what to do  ?

What did they say to them? 

[stephen25000]

What did they say to them?

You do realize I was being sarcastic ?

[Benice]

You do realize I was being sarcastic ?

Why?

[stephen25000]

Why?

That is well known.

SY wish to direct the so called 'investigation'.

The Portuguese do resent the interference in the case, as would happen if the situations were reversed.

[Carana]

These ludicrous tabloid articles invariably carry a quote from  'someone close'  to the McCanns   (  and frequently directly from Clarence Mitchell  )    ...  when was the last time an article closed with  "Spokesman for the McCanns declined to comment"  ? 

So yes,  I suspect the McCanns,   and those in their employ,  do  'have a hand'  in the ludicrous tabloid articles 

Why would they do that  ?   ...  well,  maybe to maintain the illusion that Scotland Yard are keeping them fully informed of operational matters   ...  an illusion that reinforces the principal  illusion   ( that Scotland Yard consider them to be  entirely innocent and are working  with  them in some sort of unprecedented  'partnership' )

Maybe

I find that unlikely, Icabod. Wouldn't leaking to the press jeopardise their relationship with SY and thus the extent to which they are informed about progress?

[Benice]

That is well known.

SY wish to direct the so called 'investigation'.

The Portuguese do resent the interference in the case, as would happen if the situations were reversed.

Well known according to whom?   Some newspaper article?

What's that got to do with the McCanns anyway ?   They have made no comments on the case - except to say they are not going to comment on the case. 

[stephen25000]

Well known according to whom?   Some newspaper article?

What's that got to do with the McCanns anyway ?   They have made no comments on the case - except to say they are not going to comment on the case.

No comments on the case by the mccanns ???

Directly or indirectly ?

You don't come across as being naive.

[Benice]

No comments on the case by the mccanns ???

Directly or indirectly ?

You don't come across as being naive.

I'm not - but anyone who unquestioningly believes everything in the newspapers is true  - apart from the date - is as gullible as they come IMO.   

[stephen25000]

I'm not - but anyone who unquestioningly believes everything in the newspapers is true  - apart from the date - is as gullible as they come IMO.

Believing the newspapers 

The true gullibility in this case, is anyone who believes the mccanns have told the whole truth of the events of May the 3 rd.

[Estuarine]

so you think the papers settled out of court because they were not guilty...they were sued for libel and settled...another desperate attempt by you to deny the truth

[/b]

The truth being that the case against Dr Amaral et al is the first time a libel case brought by the McCanns has finished up in court. The McCanns record so far in court isn't too bright; lost 2, won 1 and another is still being played out.
Whether the papers were guilty of libel or not was never proved one way or the other so my opinion is the same as yours in this instance; irrelevant.

[Benice]

Believing the newspapers 

The true gullibility in this case, is anyone who believes the mccanns have told the whole truth of the events of May the 3 rd.

Oh dear Stephen -  the usual quick sidestep to the usual  'diversion' tactics.     So predictable.   

[stephen25000]

Oh dear Stephen -  the usual quick sidestep to the usual  'diversion' tactics.     So predictable.

No diversion.

Merely the truth.

Deal with it.

[Benice]

[/b]

The truth being that the case against Dr Amaral et al is the first time a libel case brought by the McCanns has finished up in court. The McCanns record so far in court isn't too bright lost 2 won 1  another is still being played out.

Whether the papers were guilty or not was never proved one or the other so my opinion is the same as yours in this instance; irrelevant.

Are you for real?   Do you really think a newspaper would settle out of court if they hadn't been  emphatically assured by their legal team that they didn't have a leg to stand on?   - and that it would probably cost them a whole lot more not to settle out of court?     

The last thing any newspaper wants - is to have to put an apology on their front page.

The idea that the press might not have been guilty of libel  is taking 'wishful thinking' to a whole new level IMO.

[Estuarine]

Are you for real?   Do you really think a newspaper would settle out of court if they hadn't been  emphatically assured by their legal team that they didn't have a leg to stand on?   - and that it would probably cost them a whole lot more not to settle out of court?     

The last thing any newspaper wants - is to have to put an apology on their front page.

The idea that the press might not have been guilty of libel  is taking 'wishful thinking' to a whole new level IMO.

The point I originally made which both you and Davel are ducking is that the Dr Amaral trial is the first time libel will have been TESTED IN COURT in front of  a judge. Now tell me that isn't true. Also the McCanns have been in court three times with respect to Dr Amaral's book and lost 2:1 now tell me that isn't true.

[AnneGuedes]

The Express Group papers made more money with those unprecedented apologies edition and the following ones with comments.