Madeleine McCann found?

[fabgod]

We talked about this situation before.
As far as I can see, the only way that you could eliminate reports appearing with snippets of unconfirmed information is if it was made illegal and that would be a very slippery slope as far as censorship goes.

I think that since the Leveson Inquiry, the press has to be more careful in what they print.
I would say that they are still insinuating things but are trying to be more discrete in the way they do this.
Donjeta is right though, if some Officer or somebody invovled in the case, states in a conversation that "it looks like smothering was the CoD", then are the press not within their rights to publish something like that, as present law permits?

 

[Donjeta]

I find it a little ironic if we jump the gun blaming the press for jumping the gun... So far there seems to be no evidence that the smothering is not true or that it didn't come from a reliable source. But Tia Sharpe is really OT for this forum so I think any further discussion about her should go to her thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181490&page=12

 

[brit1981]

If they have printed something without actual confirmation - and made a whacking great big headline stating it as fact- then they are jumping the gun regardless of whether they are right or wrong in the end. the point is that journalism in the UK is iresponsible, here they are just jumping the gun. But in other cases they have admitted to printing false stories. So we cannot say the dialy red top printd that kate told so and so this, and so and so told the daily rag so it must be true. The daily mail also printed a story quoting the knox family as being devastated that Amanda Knox lost her appeal and was remaining in prison!

 

[SapphireSteel]

If they have printed something without actual confirmation - and made a whacking great big headline stating it as fact- then they are jumping the gun regardless of whether they are right or wrong in the end. the point is that journalism in the UK is iresponsible, here they are just jumping the gun. But in other cases they have admitted to printing false stories. So we cannot say the dialy red top printd that kate told so and so this, and so and so told the daily rag so it must be true. The daily mail also printed a story quoting the knox family as being devastated that Amanda Knox lost her appeal and was remaining in prison!

Short of being the one who actually "abducted" Madeleine, all any of us have to go on is msm.

You cannot state that msm is false, yet use it as a source of information yourself!

If all msm is just about headline grabbing, we may as well close Websleuths down right now, as all we have to discuss is "false stories".

 

[Sabot]

JMO but supposing (as the article seems to imply) that the prosecutor told them outside court that they believe that Tia Sharp was smothered, that would be sufficient confirmation for reporting that this is what they believe.

If they completely made it up based on rumor that's terrible but if it came from a source who should know I don't see anything wrong with it. They did not report that the COD has been confirmed, they reported it as a preliminary theory.

The Media should not be reporting these things, certainly not as a preliminary theory. This is supposedly a Murder Inquiry. And The Prosecutor won't have told them anything. Doing something like that could be enough to lose the case. That is the whole point.

 

[Donjeta]

They wouldn't tell anybody anything that they want to keep under wraps to investigate further but press conferences and media comments by the prosecution are not unheard of. Some things become considerably less secret after they've been presented in the charging documents. Since the suspect has already appeared charged with murder they need to have some information about the cause of death to show that the victim was actually murdered and you likely would not lose the case revealing something that is publicly discussed in the charging documents and at court anyway.

I remember several murder inquiries in which the cause of death was revealed initially, sometimes even before knowing who the victim was. *shrug*

 

[brit1981]

Not in the UK donjeta,
Even the thread about the tia sharp case on websleuths could be enough to close the case down. In the UK once someone is charged there is normally a media black out. the cps certainly do not give press conference, and neither does the defence until after the trial. At most the police may announce the cause of death, but that is it. If the media report too much, start delving into the charged person's history and start printing negative stories about them then the case could be thrown out, and the media criminally charge with contempt of court. that goes for online media too, even forums like this and twitter. Even giving away too many details about the cause of death could be considerd prejudicial as the jury must go into the trial not having read anything that could give them preconceived ideas. In the Joanna Yates case the media thta printed stories pointing the finger at a person were convicted of contempt of court, and a person who during the trial twittered some information about the defendent that had been withheld from the jury got a visit from the police.

And the media are now backstepping on the case and admitted that the smothered claim has come simply because the PM did not notice any obvious injuries. The same news outlet also claimed she was found in a red rigid case, then changed their story again. So a quote in the UK mainstream media means nothing. I also doubt Amanda Knox's family told the UK media they were devasted Amanda had lost her appeal and was facing years in an Italian prison.

 

[gord]

In the past the police would give off the record nod and a wink leaks to the press hence things would get out

With Levinson still to report and also several police officers and journalists facing charges over passing information for cash / reward things are a bit different

I can imagine that crime hacks just dont no what to do anymore , I cant imagine anyone from the Prosecution office ( the CPS ) making public statements at the moment

I think Hazel is due in front of a judge at teh Old Bailey today ( by video ) - thiis the crown court - where all major murder trials usualy rtake place , If there is any reporting going on that is out of hand then the Judge will make some direction to the media reminding them if their responsibilities

 

[brit1981]

Also it was only last year that an abduction trial against Levi Bellfield was dropped because of the media coverage.

The irony is that on the internet they are plenty of nitwits harping on about how they want the truth, justice etc to excuse their bile yet forget that they are the ones breaking laws by harressing people in this way (because behaving like this about someone online is considered a form of harresment), and have ensured that anyone who has been mentioned in their claims will never ever face trial in an EU country. In the EU people have the right to a fair trial, and trials have been dropped if the previous coverage including rantings on the internet have been too prejudicial, and it does not matter where the rantings where posted when it comes to dropping the trial. But i do not think people care as plenty of people are happily swapping theories on the Tia Sharpe case - I hope the defence do not see any of them.

 

[Donjeta]

OK, I'm not too familiar with the UK justice system; it doesn't really work like that where I'm from. There is even a gritty magazine that prints crime scene photos if they can get their hands on some. I don't remember any cases offhand that were thrown out of court because media printed something. If the evidence is there it's there; if it's not, then there is no case. Usually if there are issues with the media it comes up in civil suits seeking damages from the press. There have been a few notorious cases here in which the press dug up a lot of info about the suspect before and during the trial and spoke of the conviction as if it was a done deal and had to pay damages when the suspect was found not guilty. But the acquittal wasn't because the press printed all that stuff, it was because the evidence wasn't convincing enough. There is no jury system and maybe it makes a difference.

So a quote in the UK mainstream media means nothing. .

That doesn't leave us much to discuss then.

 

[brit1981]

No it does not leave too much to go on. One of the reasons the press latched on to the mccann case was the fact that because it happened abroad there was no chance of contempt proceedings, they could print what they wanted, and the police handed over so much evidence.
The courts here come down hard on cases where the media have been publishing prejudicial material and bar juries from reading about the case during trial.
The BBC, Guardian and telegraph are normally good for getting their facts straight. In the leveson inquiry a lot of the problems with the mccann case were held to be leaks from the PJ. With the claim that Madeleine's DNA was found in the hire car it was claimed this came from a PJ source. The british police admitted to the inquiry they knew it was false, but did not correct the british press as they did not want to offend the PJ or something!

 

[Donjeta]

So where do we stand with the MSM links from the UK media that say the Scotland Yard think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger?

Is that information suspect too?

 

[brit1981]

So where do we stand with the MSM links from the UK media that say the Scotland Yard think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger?

Is that information suspect too?

The investigator overseeing the review stated it in televised interviews.
Also in the mccann case a lot of the police investigation was released so things can be compared.

 

[Donjeta]

OK, so if it's on TV then it's true?

But it makes it kinda hard to discuss anything if it isn't online and everybody hasn't watched the same show. After a while you forget what was said and you end up quoting and misquoting and the whole thing becomes a broken telephone.

"I heard it on the TV" is pretty weak as far as support for one's claims go.

 

[brit1981]

OK, so if it's on TV then it's true?

But it makes it kinda hard to discuss anything if it isn't online and everybody hasn't watched the same show. After a while you forget what was said and you end up quoting and misquoting and the whole thing becomes a broken telephone.

"I heard it on the TV" is pretty weak as far as support for one's claims go.

No not because it was on the television, but because Andy Redwood was on television and he said it. So either it is true or the lead investigator of operation grange is lying.
I also think if you get something from the BBC, telegraph or guardian one is generally safe. It is the chav rags that get a bit suspect. If you go online and look at the leveson inquiry you will see how bad our media was getting (hacking into the mobile of a missing schoolgirl among other things, printing false stories, harressing people) and it all seemed to be the chav rags.

 

[fabgod]

No not because it was on the television, but because Andy Redwood was on television and he said it. So either it is true or the lead investigator of operation grange is lying.
I also think if you get something from the BBC, telegraph or guardian one is generally safe. It is the chav rags that get a bit suspect. If you go online and look at the leveson inquiry you will see how bad our media was getting (hacking into the mobile of a missing schoolgirl among other things, printing false stories, harressing people) and it all seemed to be the chav rags.

I think Andy Redwood is obviously a very clever man, he hasnt gotten to where he is in the UK police force without being good at what he does (unless he is a Mason:floorlaugh
I find it strange that he made that statement, he obviously had to speak as he was on TV and promoting the age progression picture, but hepretty much went against all the normal Police training gained from years of expreience in missing children cases, by stating that there was a good chance she could be alive.

Without going looking into figures, I think its safe to say, that its accepted worldwide, that if a child isnt found alive in a very short timeframe, the odds are astronomical against that child ever being found 5 years or more later - alive.

Now, from recent events (Tia Sharpe), we know that all police forces make mistakes, but I really don't see the point in giving a family false hope when all past evidence shows that the likelihood of what he said is wrong.
That is unless he knows differently!

 

[brit1981]

I think Andy Redwood is obviously a very clever man, he hasnt gotten to where he is in the UK police force without being good at what he does (unless he is a Mason:floorlaugh
I find it strange that he made that statement, he obviously had to speak as he was on TV and promoting the age progression picture, but hepretty much went against all the normal Police training gained from years of expreience in missing children cases, by stating that there was a good chance she could be alive.

Without going looking into figures, I think its safe to say, that its accepted worldwide, that if a child isnt found alive in a very short timeframe, the odds are astronomical against that child ever being found 5 years or more later - alive.

Now, from recent events (Tia Sharpe), we know that all police forces make mistakes, but I really don't see the point in giving a family false hope when all past evidence shows that the likelihood of what he said is wrong.
That is unless he knows differently!

I would hope he briefed the family first. But he did say the belief she may still be alive was based on leads in the case.
I remember seeing katrice Lee's family on a morning TV programme with Kate healy and the sister of katrice said she firmly believed katrice was still alive almost thirty years later.

 

[fabgod]

Yes but that wasnt a chief investigating officer of a multi million pound review of one of the most high profile cases in the world.
I tell you what, I hope he knows what he is saying and does have basis rather than belief, because as a Police Officer, he is almost putting his reputation on the line if he is wrong.
Kerry Needham has faith that Ben is still alive, as a parent who has lost a child like all of these families, they must cling to that hope that someone has taken them and is bringing them up as their own, the other options would not be worth thinking about for them!

Time will tell with the review, though just what they expect to achieve when they are not the investigating force and have issues at Government level between the two countries, remains to be seen

 

[brit1981]

Redwood didn't say she was definetly alive, just that they believed there was a good posisbility she was alive, and said this was based on evidence they had. He did nto discount the fact she was dead though, but did say they believed she was abucted by a stranger in a criminal act.

 

[fabgod]

I have just watched the video again of Andy Redwood, he does say he believes she is alive,
his words when asked if he believes she is still alive is "yes I do"
he then goes on a bit of a ramble that seems to make very little point or sense.

To say that, is a little mystifying for me personally, unless he has evidence to go onto a nationally televised programme and have good reason?
Good reason to my mind would not be because there was an opportunity for an abduction to have taken place, an abduction that goes long term as this one has, nearly always ends in tragedy