Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect #30

Status
Not open for further replies.
Always interesting to see, how hard it might be for others to fathom, that it's not their job to bring the perps behind bars!

Brave new world! ;)
And when you see that some people have actually made money from trolling this case on social media, under the false belief they’re doing exactly as you say, it’s fairly sickening.
 
And when you see that some people have actually made money from trolling this case on social media, under the false belief they’re doing exactly as you say, it’s fairly sickening.
From Amaral through to Clarke including SF/MWT and all those in-between including editors whose job it is to sell papers have used Madeleines disappearance for money , she was the gift that kept giving , the story is all but done now, if CB is not charged who else do they look at ? it will remain an abiding mystery imo .
 
“I’ve spent the last few days reading files – 5,500 pages without any evidence for even one stolen bicycle. Nothing. I knew it would end like this.”

Amazing! 5500 pages of evidence for the 5 cases !

What does a stolen bike have to do with rapes and sex ual attacks on children?

And as for the indecent exposures - well he was caught in the act... lies after lies. What a horrible human being

Jmo
 
Strange how this article should drop tonight, given the date.
CB has told one of his correspondents that he’s very careful about who he replies to, but we know he’s had at least four so far. One just so happens to be dead with an inquest into said death taking place tomorrow.
I wouldn’t like to think his supposed mucker - one of CB’s other pen-pals - would release snippets of further letters so close to that date.
 
The more and more i read about CB's penpal-connections, i tend to think about, how much more innocent a proven rapist and child molester could be! :D :D:D

And it grinds my gears more and more just to know, if FF wants to get rid of CB, or otherwise!

Looks like, as if the knot starts to tighten...;)
 
From Amaral through to Clarke including SF/MWT and all those in-between including editors whose job it is to sell papers have used Madeleines disappearance for money , she was the gift that kept giving , the story is all but done now, if CB is not charged who else do they look at ? it will remain an abiding mystery imo .
Well to prove my point .
 
I wonder if CB is getting a cut of the payments from the publication of extracts of his letters?
JMO

Wouldn't that surely be in breach of journalistic codes of practice - and most particularly in the case of people currently serving sentences?

Just had a google - see Clause 16:
i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.

ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.


 
Wouldn't that surely be in breach of journalistic codes of practice - and most particularly in the case of people currently serving sentences?

Just had a google - see Clause 16:
i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.

ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.


Journalists could be paying the recipient of the letters in good faith. Recipient could then do whatever they want with the money. Such as put it towards solicitors fees.
 
Journalists could be paying the recipient of the letters in good faith. Recipient could then do whatever they want with the money. Such as put it towards solicitors fees.

Then they'd be in breach of the editors' codes of practice as per i) above.
...must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.

Unless of course an editor would see it as serving public interest as per ii) above?
 
Last edited:
Then they'd be in breach of the editors' codes of practice as per i) above.
must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.
It becomes a skewed line when said convicted/confessed criminal has never actually met the recipient of the letter, nor were the pair aware of each other before 2020. Can this be classed as an “associate”?

And then:
ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.

 
It becomes a skewed line when said convicted/confessed criminal has never actually met the recipient of the letter, nor were the pair aware of each other before 2020. Can this be classed as an “associate”?

And then:

My thinking would be that yes - 'associate' or 'friend' - in this instance, since at least some of the recipients of the letters believe CB to be innocent of the MM charge against him and/or have problems with the way the case has been conducted. For eg. here -

The letter was sent to Isabelle McFadden, a blogger who insists he is innocent, and Ben Thomspon, who is critical of the case on social media.


But JMO.
 
My thinking would be that yes - 'associate' or 'friend' - in this instance, since at least some of the recipients of the letters believe CB to be innocent of the MM charge against him and/or have problems with the way the case has been conducted. For eg. here -




Bur JMO.
We’ll agree to disagree then.
 
It becomes a skewed line when said convicted/confessed criminal has never actually met the recipient of the letter, nor were the pair aware of each other before 2020. Can this be classed as an “associate”?

And then:
He hasn't been convicted or confessed yet relating to crimes against Madeleine, that's the problem imo.
 
He hasn't been convicted or confessed yet relating to crimes against Madeleine, that's the problem imo.
I would argue that his 'record', of flat-denying, even dna proof of his guilt of the crime against the American woman (whose name slips my mind) tells all of the likelihood of him confessing to, well, anything at all ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
3,820
Total visitors
3,895

Forum statistics

Threads
593,417
Messages
17,986,880
Members
229,131
Latest member
Migrant
Back
Top