Madeleine McCann Press coverage - Was it a Saviour or a Damnation?

[Montclair]

Hmmm ... another one to add to the list ...  £4%4£ ... Leveson was innit too.

Leveson was not "innit". He just didn't care enough to carry out a proper inquiry and look into the complaints made by the McCanns.

[stephen25000]

Hmmm ... another one to add to the list ...  £4%4£ ... Leveson was innit too.

Leverson showed his naivety by believing the fairy tale of the mccanns.

Do you like fairy tales too ?

[Montclair]

Are you still a believer in the early press stories  such as ...

Daily Express ~ 'McCANNS ARE LYING'
Sunday Express ~ McCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'
Daily Mirror ~ McCANN FRIENDS 'CHANGE THEIR STORY'
Daily Express ~ 'SYRINGE FOUND IN MADELEINE'S APARTMENT'
Evening Standard ~ 'CORPSE IN McCANN CAR'
Daily Express ~ Madeleine  DNA PUTS PARENTS IN THE FRAME

If like the rest of the world you have discounted the lies churned out by a 'source close to the investigation' and replicated in the British press for home consumption ... do you have an explanation for your extraordinary antipathy towards Madeleine McCann's parents.

They have worked how unwise it was to leave the children in the apartment ... so you must be basing your opinion on something which has really annoyed you for eight years ... the way Gerry pulls his ear, or the press coverage?

These headlines were not lies! They presented the information from the investigation, although the headlines, as in most of the press, were dramatic and were confirmed by the police files when they were released.

1.The police believed and most probably still believe that the McCanns were lying from the beginning.
2.I believe that the headline about the parents "hiding a big secret" was the opinion of a former policeman, speaking from experience.
3.I don't see how an article about the friends changing their story reflects badly on the parents.
4.As for the syringe, I have no idea what that was about.
5. Corpse in car and DNA story came from the investigation.

The problem was that the McCanns did not want any kind of information about the investigation that showed them in a bad light to come out and that is why they sued all and sundry. Of course, the British press caved in because of the libel laws at the time, it was much easier just to settle out of court.

Unfortunately, for the parents, they did not realise that the police files would be made public, in accordance with the law, and they believed that they would be the only ones with access.

[John]

Of course, Leveson cowed down to the McCanns. No serious questions were asked of them and the conclusions were already decided long before the inquiry ended. Sloppy work by all involved.

The Leveson Inquiry was a sham, just as the failed prosecution of journalists involved in payments to public officials was.

[stephen25000]

Are you still a believer in the early press stories  such as ...

Daily Express ~ 'McCANNS ARE LYING'
Sunday Express ~ McCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'
Daily Mirror ~ McCANN FRIENDS 'CHANGE THEIR STORY'
Daily Express ~ 'SYRINGE FOUND IN MADELEINE'S APARTMENT'
Evening Standard ~ 'CORPSE IN McCANN CAR'
Daily Express ~ Madeleine  DNA PUTS PARENTS IN THE FRAME

If like the rest of the world you have discounted the lies churned out by a 'source close to the investigation' and replicated in the British press for home consumption ... do you have an explanation for your extraordinary antipathy towards Madeleine McCann's parents.

They have worked how unwise it was to leave the children in the apartment ... so you must be basing your opinion on something which has really annoyed you for eight years ... the way Gerry pulls his ear, or the press coverage?

Read Montclair's response.

Then tell me in the last 6 years  in this country, when the mccanns version of events has been questioned in the press or in news conferences ?

[Benice]

Of course, Leveson cowed down to the McCanns. No serious questions were asked of them and the conclusions were already decided long before the inquiry ended. Sloppy work by all involved.

You seem to be inferring that the McCanns were on trial.   They were not.   Can you give examples of 'serious questions that were not asked of them'  regarding the appallingly cruel press coverage - the untruthfulness of which has been acknowleldged and apologised for - by the Press themselves.

[G-Unit]

Leverson showed his naivety by believing the fairy tale of the mccanns.

Do you like fairy tales too ?

The fairy tales began immediately. The McCanns were publicly praising the police, but feeding criticism of them to the media via friends and relatives;

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that the alarm had been raised immediately by the girl's parents and that the British Consul in Portimao, Bill Henderson, had gone to the resort to offer what support he could. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm

The child was missing at 10pm and the police were not called until 10.40pm. What stopped the parents from demanding that the police were called immediately? What stopped any of them from standing over the receptionist and making sure the police were contacted? The first 40 minutes were lost, which was ample time for any abductor to be out of the country.

"We went down to the beach with scores of other people to look for her," said Mr Moyes. "The police arrived at around midnight and by that stage we were already out looking. There were uniformed police, plain clothes and even off duty local officers who joined in.
 
"The search went on all night, people were using torches, and in the morning police sniffer dogs arrived."
 
By 4.30am exhausted holiday makers began drifting away, having found no sign of Madeleine. Back home in Dumbarton, Mrs Cameron spoke to her brother again at 10am yesterday.
 
"It was frustrating for him then because between 5am and 7am the police seemed to do nothing, they were standing about," she said.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/GUARDIAN_05_05_2007.htm

Rather unfair to criticise those who had searched all night while the parents and their friends spent all night phoning people instead, I think.

Meanwhile, Gerry’s sister Philomena slammed Portuguese police for not doing enough to find Madeleine’s faster. 
Speaking from her home in Glasgow she said Gerry was furious with the way the inquiry was being handled. “My brother is at his wits’ end. They’ve just played it down from the minute he first approached them. 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Express_06_05_2007.htm

Family pal Gill Renwick revealed how panicking Kate sent her a text saying: “I need help.”
She said: “Kate was at the police station in hysterics. When we spoke she said the police weren’t doing enough.”
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/SUN_06_05_07.htm

[Benice]

The Leveson Inquiry was a sham, just as the failed prosecution of journalists involved in payments to public officials was.

So who instructed this 'sham' to take place and on whose behalf?   Who would this 'sham' benefit?

[John]

So who instructed this 'sham' to take place and on whose behalf?   Who would this 'sham' benefit?

The UK Government instructed it to look into Press abuses and criminal activity whilst operating under the guise of a' free Press'.  This 'sham' benefits those criminal journalists who have until now escaped prosecution for their illegal and immoral activities.

[Alice Purjorick]

So who instructed this 'sham' to take place and on whose behalf?   Who would this 'sham' benefit?

It appeared to be serving a purpose whatever that may have been.
What did it achieve though? Has there been any fundamental change in the way the press operates? Has the "watch dog" been set up? Anyway there was no legal obligation on the press to set up or belong to a "watchdog". All we discovered  was what we knew all along; the press can be scurrilous and to an extent above the law. So to be repetitive what has changed since Leveson?

[Carana]

These headlines were not lies! They presented the information from the investigation, although the headlines, as in most of the press, were dramatic and were confirmed by the police files when they were released.

1.The police believed and most probably still believe that the McCanns were lying from the beginning.
2.I believe that the headline about the parents "hiding a big secret" was the opinion of a former policeman, speaking from experience.
3.I don't see how an article about the friends changing their story reflects badly on the parents.
4.As for the syringe, I have no idea what that was about.
5. Corpse in car and DNA story came from the investigation.

The problem was that the McCanns did not want any kind of information about the investigation that showed them in a bad light to come out and that is why they sued all and sundry. Of course, the British press caved in because of the libel laws at the time, it was much easier just to settle out of court.

Unfortunately, for the parents, they did not realise that the police files would be made public, in accordance with the law, and they believed that they would be the only ones with access.

1. Yes, no doubt the PJ did suspect them from the start. But is it normal professional police strategy to blab to tabloids in they way the did, do you think?

2. "Hiding a big secret" was the opinion of a former UK cop wondering why the T7 were not engaging with the media (aside from JT re Tannerman).  Quite apart from the judicial secrecy laws which he may not have been aware of, he was being a bit naive, IMO, particularly when any word uttered could be distorted in a negative way to provide a sensational headline.

3. "Changing their stories" can be taken to mean that they were about to "spill the beans" against the McCanns. If there is any element of truth in that, it might well have been that they would happily agree to rogatory interviews in which they could provide more detail and correct media smears.

4. The "syringe" story was pure invention. I haven't even found a potential tenuous link to a half-myth on that one.

5. "Corpse in car and 100% DNA" - yes, that did come from a PJ leak. And it turned out to be that the PJ didn't know what they were talking about.

There was also the "Gerry not the father" rubbish splashed all over the papers, and many more.

I have no idea whether the McCanns had been told that the files would be made accessible to the media. I suspect so as a few comments made by some of the T7 tend to make me think that they were aware that what they said could be made public. That said, the files were supposed to be made accessible to the media (i.e. for the perusal of responsible journalists adhering to a code of ethics) - they were not supposed to be splashed unredacted all over the Internet for every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

[Brietta]

These headlines were not lies! They presented the information from the investigation, although the headlines, as in most of the press, were dramatic and were confirmed by the police files when they were released.

1.The police believed and most probably still believe that the McCanns were lying from the beginning.
2.I believe that the headline about the parents "hiding a big secret" was the opinion of a former policeman, speaking from experience.
3.I don't see how an article about the friends changing their story reflects badly on the parents.
4.As for the syringe, I have no idea what that was about.
5. Corpse in car and DNA story came from the investigation.

The problem was that the McCanns did not want any kind of information about the investigation that showed them in a bad light to come out and that is why they sued all and sundry. Of course, the British press caved in because of the libel laws at the time, it was much easier just to settle out of court.

Unfortunately, for the parents, they did not realise that the police files would be made public, in accordance with the law, and they believed that they would be the only ones with access.

There is something disturbing about the mentality of 'Justice Seekers' who pick and mix which laws of the land are applicable to them and not the populace at large.

That you continue believe these outrageous tales, despite evidence to prove the contrary ~ "These headlines were not lies! They presented the information from the investigation, although the headlines, as in most of the press, were dramatic and were confirmed by the police files when they were released." is I find rather worrying although it does explain the inexplicable just a bit.


McCanns welcome papers' apology

Daily Express and Daily Star
The McCanns received a public apology read in open court

McCann spokesman
Madeleine McCann's parents have welcomed a libel settlement and apology from Express Newspapers for suggesting they were responsible for her death.
In a statement the McCanns said they were pleased that the newspaper group had admitted the "utter falsity" of the "grotesque" stories written about them.
The newspaper group has paid £550,000 to the Find Madeleine campaign.

**snip
The Daily Express and Daily Star have issued front-page apologies admitting the stories were inaccurate.

The papers said: "We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance. "

**snip
In court Stephen Bacon, representing the newspapers, said: "Express Newspapers regrets publishing these extremely serious, yet baseless, allegations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7304556.stm

[Brietta]

Read Montclair's response.

Then tell me in the last 6 years  in this country, when the mccanns version of events has been questioned in the press or in news conferences ?

Not for a millisecond did I expect the post directed to you to receive a response ... if you, as you appear to be, are in agreement with Montclair's rather confused and shaky understanding of the libel laws which bind the press as well as everyone else ... why on earth would I care to enter into discussion with either of you?

[stephen25000]

Not for a millisecond did I expect the post directed to you to receive a response ... if you, as you appear to be, are in agreement with Montclair's rather confused and shaky understanding of the libel laws which bind the press as well as everyone else ... why on earth would I care to enter into discussion with either of you?

Your 'reasoned' approach is to back the mccanns 100%.

Regardless of the fact that the persons responsible for Madeleine's disappearance have yet to be determined.

All you clearly show, is BLIND FAITH and nothing more, and every action you undertake on here, reflects that fact.

[Brietta]

1. Yes, no doubt the PJ did suspect them from the start. But is it normal professional police strategy to blab to tabloids in they way the did, do you think?

2. "Hiding a big secret" was the opinion of a former UK cop wondering why the T7 were not engaging with the media (aside from JT re Tannerman).  Quite apart from the judicial secrecy laws which he may not have been aware of, he was being a bit naive, IMO, particularly when any word uttered could be distorted in a negative way to provide a sensational headline.

3. "Changing their stories" can be taken to mean that they were about to "spill the beans" against the McCanns. If there is any element of truth in that, it might well have been that they would happily agree to rogatory interviews in which they could provide more detail and correct media smears.

4. The "syringe" story was pure invention. I haven't even found a potential tenuous link to a half-myth on that one.

5. "Corpse in car and 100% DNA" - yes, that did come from a PJ leak. And it turned out to be that the PJ didn't know what they were talking about.

There was also the "Gerry not the father" rubbish splashed all over the papers, and many more.

I have no idea whether the McCanns had been told that the files would be made accessible to the media. I suspect so as a few comments made by some of the T7 tend to make me think that they were aware that what they said could be made public. That said, the files were supposed to be made accessible to the media (i.e. for the perusal of responsible journalists adhering to a code of ethics) - they were not supposed to be splashed unredacted all over the Internet for every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

There was so much misinformation and downright propaganda doing the rounds in 2007 that it was impossible for people to to evaluate precisely what the real story was.

John Stalker is always quoted on his 'suspicion' about the silence of the McCann friends but for some reason or other the sceptics never read beyond the headline ... in the same article he continues ...


**snip
The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.

The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.

My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.

My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.

On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.

I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.

The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.

There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.

In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.

All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.

If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing.

I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.

But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/EXPRESS-28-10-07.htm