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

[Brietta]

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.

You appear to confuse the press misinformation prevalent from 2007 with fact, if that keeps you content, who am I to burst your bubble.

[stephen25000]

You appear to confuse the press misinformation prevalent from 2007 with fact, if that keeps you content, who am I to burst your bubble.

I was referring to the years after the libel hearing.

No would you care to give examples of where the mccanns have been asked pertinent questions about their account of events, in newspapers and conferences , in the UK , in intervening years ?

[Eleanor]

I was referring to the years after the libel hearing.

No would you care to give examples of where the mccanns have been asked pertinent questions about their account of events, in newspapers and conferences , in the UK , in intervening years ?

You are missing the point.  The Media do not have a right to ask questions of The McCanns regarding the disappearance of their daughter, and nor did The Leveson Inquiry.  The McCanns were not and never have been On Trial.  And Trial by Media is totally unacceptable.

[faithlilly]

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
 

Is it worth pointing out that this article was published long before the files were released. It would be interesting to hear what Stalker thinks now.

Also four years, £10m and thousands of man hours later and SY appear to know no more than the PJ in those first few months.

[Carana]

I was referring to the years after the libel hearing.

No would you care to give examples of where the mccanns have been asked pertinent questions about their account of events, in newspapers and conferences , in the UK , in intervening years ?

What would you consider to be pertinent questions that haven't already been answered? And what would they be pertinent to?

[sadie]

Is it worth pointing out that this article was published long before the files were released. It would be interesting to hear what Stalker thinks now.

Also four years, £10m and thousands of man hours later and SY appear to know no more than the PJ in those first few months.

Dont kid yourself !

They know sooooo much that you dont know about ... as proved by their actions.

Soz, I cant tell you which actions.  Some on here know, but you will have to work it out, yourself.


Cos I aint telling you.

[stephen25000]

You are missing the point.  The Media do not have a right to ask questions of The McCanns regarding the disappearance of their daughter, and nor did The Leveson Inquiry.  The McCanns were not and never have been On Trial.  And Trial by Media is totally unacceptable.

I am not missing any point at all.

Why should anyone take the mccanns version of events to be the truth, when the nature of the crime is to be determined.

Or would you rather everyone fawn to the mccanns and believe every word they said ?

[stephen25000]

Dont kid yourself !

They know sooooo much that you dont know about ... as proved by their actions.

Soz, I cant tell you which actions.  Some on here know, but you will have to work it out, yourself.


Cos I aint telling you.

SY would not tell you anything pertinent sadie.

You are no more than a member of the public.

[Brietta]

Dont kid yourself !

They know sooooo much that you dont know about ... as proved by their actions.

Soz, I cant tell you which actions.  Some on here know, but you will have to work it out, yourself.


Cos I aint telling you.

The one thing they did ~ that the PJ singularly failed to do ~ was to eliminate Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends from the inquiry.
This has enabled them to follow other avenues which will hopefully lead to the resolution of Madeleine's case.

[Eleanor]

I am not missing any point at all.

Why should anyone take the mccanns version of events to be the truth, when the nature of the crime is to be determined.

Or would you rather everyone fawn to the mccanns and believe every word they said ?

Trial by Media is totally unacceptable.

[Brietta]

I am not missing any point at all.

Why should anyone take the mccanns version of events to be the truth, when the nature of the crime is to be determined.

Or would you rather everyone fawn to the mccanns and believe every word they said ?

Would you rather that people base their opinions on discredited and false information promoted by the press than on the few facts which are in the public domain?

That was a rhetorical question in case you failed to notice.

[stephen25000]

Trial by Media is totally unacceptable.

So if the media was to find out through investigative journalism that people have committed serious crimes, that would be wrong, and I am talking in general here.

As to trial by media, it has happened since the invention of the 'media' and you're naive if you believe , it will go away.

and pray tell me, why should anyone believe the mccanns story, when they are contradictions in their accounts of events ?

[stephen25000]

Would you rather that people base their opinions on discredited and false information promoted by the press than on the few facts which are in the public domain?

That was a rhetorical question in case you failed to notice.

Everything you say, has to be judged in conjunction with your unequivocal support of the mccanns.

P.S. I do know what a rhetorical question is.

and pray tell, how do you know the mccanns have told the truth of what happened ?

 

[Eleanor]

So if the media was to find out through investigative journalism that people have committed serious crimes, that would be wrong, and I am talking in general here.

As to trial by media, it has happened since the invention of the 'media' and you're naive if you believe , it will go away.

and pray tell me, why should anyone believe the mccanns story, when they are contradictions in their accounts of events ?

Hence The Leveson Inquiry.  Trial by Media has to stop.  Too many innocent people are tainted by this.  Who is innocent or guilty is the remit of The Courts.

[lordpookles]

I agree in a way with that Eleanor, but how do you propose to stop people talking about/discussing stuff? In a way the press is just an extension of the public discourse. The worse possible scenario is a world in which we muzzle the press.