Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

Ah yes. The UK newspapers who admitted their wrongdoing and paid compensation without being ordered to do so by the courts....unlike Amaral who fought back and paid them nothing.

As you are well aware.. It isn't over yet

[John]

I think your view of the press treatment of the McCanns is preposterous and not only ill researched but not researched at all.
Your opinion does not reflect the actuality of the situation.

Page last updated at 10:37 GMT, Wednesday, 19 March 2008

Papers paying damages to McCanns

A newspaper group is paying £550,000 to the parents of Madeleine McCann after it settled a libel case over reports of her disappearance.

Express Newspapers' titles, including the Daily Express, Daily Star and Sunday Express, are also printing front-page apologies.

They say they were wrong to suggest the couple, of Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible for Madeleine's death.

The McCanns say the money will go to the Find Madeleine campaign.
In a statement read out on behalf of the McCanns at the High Court on Wednesday, they said they were pleased that Express Newspapers had admitted the "utter falsity" of the numerous stories written about them over many months.

Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, added that the allegations had caused them "great distress".

'Wholehearted apology'

It is understood that the sum donated to the campaign doubles the amount left in the fund.

Madeleine disappeared, days before her fourth birthday, during a family holiday in the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on 3 May last year.

Her parents, Kate and Gerry, have been named as suspects in the case by Portuguese police but have always denied any involvement.

The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed.

It came after Wednesday's editions of the Daily Express and Daily Star both carried front-page apologies under the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry".

The Express said it accepted that a "number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up".

It also acknowledged there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support that theory.

The paper added that Mr and Mrs McCann are "completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".

A similarly worded statement appeared in the Daily Star.

The Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology to Kate and Gerry McCann for stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and for covering it up".

Further apologies are expected in the publications' sister Sunday titles at the weekend.

The libel action related to more than 100 stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

All four titles are published by the Express Newspapers group, which has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

A spokesman for the company said: "We have nothing to add to what will be said in court and in our titles."

The McCanns' lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

'Trust and credibility'

Richard Bilton, BBC News special correspondent, said one of the couple's representatives had said the response of the newspaper group was "much more responsible than they were perhaps initially with these articles".

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, U-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert, from Finers Stephens Innocent, said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future - if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm

Until it is established what really happened to Madeleine McCann I'm afraid all scenarios are still on the table even now nearly 15 years on.

[Mr Gray]

Until it is established what really happened to Madeleine McCann I'm afraid all scenarios are still on the table even now nearly 15 years on.

The justice system doesn't deal in absolutes so.. If an abductor is found guilty.. Does that mean Maddies fate has been established..

[Vertigo Swirl]

Until it is established what really happened to Madeleine McCann I'm afraid all scenarios are still on the table even now nearly 15 years on.

Clearly they are not.

[Ms Para glider]

I don't think it's anything to do with a conspiracy, that's not how I see it.

Hmmm. That's exactly what a conspiracy theorist would say........

[Ms Para glider]

Ah yes. The UK newspapers who admitted their wrongdoing and paid compensation without being ordered to do so by the courts....unlike Amaral who fought back and paid them nothing.

So the UK papers "admitted" their wrongdoing, their 'wrongdoing' being promoting what Amaral was claiming... yet you say "unlike Amaral"... who presumably didn't admit his wrongdoing...? What are you claiming exactly?

[Ms Para glider]

Until it is established what really happened to Madeleine McCann I'm afraid all scenarios are still on the table even now nearly 15 years on.

Indeed. Which is why I find it incredibly stange why you continually seek to write CB off as a credible suspect. On what basis.... he hasn't been convicted of murdering anyone before appears to be the primary reason.

Upon that logic, we can expect murderers to become extinct in the near future since anyone who hasn't been covicted for murder beforehand is not a credible suspect in any future murder.

[sadie]

Indeed. Which is why I find it incredibly stange why you continually seek to write CB off as a credible suspect. On what basis.... he hasn't been convicted of murdering anyone before appears to be the primary reason.

Upon that logic, we can expect murderers to become extinct in the near future since anyone who hasn't been covicted for murder beforehand is not a credible suspect in any future murder.

 

Excellent! Straighforward and simple logic.   Why didn't I think of that before?

Well done Ms Para.

[barrier]

Meanwhile  DCI Mark Cranwell  has  been  working  elsewhere
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10697951/Police-call-week-long-search-Muriel-Mckays-remains-1969-murder.html
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Cranwell said: 'We are very grateful to the landowners for allowing us to carry out this work and have been keeping Muriel's family fully informed.

[The General]

Indeed. Which is why I find it incredibly stange why you continually seek to write CB off as a credible suspect. On what basis.... he hasn't been convicted of murdering anyone before appears to be the primary reason.

Upon that logic, we can expect murderers to become extinct in the near future since anyone who hasn't been covicted for murder beforehand is not a credible suspect in any future murder.

Strawman. Not even subtle either.
The point being, while we're box ticking, is that criminality is, as a rule, often predictable, with an escalation displayed when unchecked, often labelled 'criminal spin' - 'I can' moves to 'I must'.
There's nothing to suggest CB has escalated to murder. For a man who has apparently abducted and killed a child and, as is being proposed here, he may have killed before, he gets caught quite often having perpetrated other acts, but is somehow also capable of hiding two corpses successfully and has essentially got away with it.
Your boxes are not being ticked.

[Mr Gray]

Strawman. Not even subtle either.
The point being, while we're box ticking, is that criminality is, as a rule, often predictable, with an escalation displayed when unchecked, often labelled 'criminal spin' - 'I can' moves to 'I must'.
There's nothing to suggest CB has escalated to murder. For a man who has apparently abducted and killed a child and, as is being proposed here, he may have killed before, he gets caught quite often having perpetrated other acts, but is somehow also capable of hiding two corpses successfully and has essentially got away with it.
Your boxes are not being ticked.

I thought you had more sense than that... Do you think he would use this as a defense at any future trial... Can't be me because I've never been caught for murder before. I'm surprised he didn't use it at the rape trial.. Can't be me I'm a paedo. The.frightening thing is people like you can vote and sit on juries...

[G-Unit]

As you are well aware.. It isn't over yet

Oh, I think the case against Amaral is definitely over. The McCanns took it to the Portuguese Supreme Court and ended up out of pocket themselves. Well, not personally, they used Madeleine's Fund.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I thought you had more sense than that... Do you think he would use this as a defense at any future trial... Can't be me because I've never been caught for murder before. I'm surprised he didn't use it at the rape trial.. Can't be me I'm a paedo. The.frightening thing is people like you can vote and sit on juries...

Yes, Ian Huntley should have pleaded not guilty on the basis that there had been nothing to suggest he would escalate to murder prior to encountering Holly and Jessica.

[Mr Gray]

Oh, I think the case against Amaral is definitely over. The McCanns took it to the Portuguese Supreme Court and ended up out of pocket themselves. Well, not personally, they used Madeleine's Fund.

You think... I know.. That's the difference. It depends on the result at the ECHR

[Mr Gray]

Yes, Ian Huntley should have pleaded not guilty on the basis that there had been nothing to suggest he would escalate to murder prior to encountering Holly and Jessica.

CB hasn't proved his innocence yet.. It seems in sceptic world if you are a suspect this is what you have to do then you are cleared