The McCanns' Own Words

[brit1981]

Obviously the Levenson Inquiry hasnt made any difference as yet, you only have to have a quick look at the Tia Sharp case in the UK press to see that!

Do not get me started. Have you seen the internet - it is full of vile speculation as well. I will have no sympathy if they all get contempt of court convictions.

 

[fabgod]

Do not get me started. Have you seen the internet - it is full of vile speculation as well. I will have no sympathy if they all get contempt of court convictions.

The problem is though, we as a nation (can only speak of UK) obviously want it, the media wouldnt be on it if that wasn't the case.

We buy into that vicious circle of wanting more and more, but once it goes so far, its impossible to stop.
It is hard though, obviously, the police need the public to be aware and pass on any information that may be pertinent to the case, but then they, (the police) are faced with a million and one media sources all trying to glean that one piece of information that nobody else has.

How do you stop it? we are into draconian law territory and freedom of speech etc etc

 

[brit1981]

Well freedom of speech is conditional, that is why the media faced charges of contempt of court, and people can be prosecuted for things they sya on the internet. Freedom of speech is a right, but not one which overrides all other rights such as the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, the right not to be defamed etc.

I think the media are being better with Tia sharpe than they were with milly dowler of Joanna Yeatese though.

 

[fabgod]

Well freedom of speech is conditional, that is why the media faced charges of contempt of court, and people can be prosecuted for things they sya on the internet. Freedom of speech is a right, but not one which overrides all other rights such as the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, the right not to be defamed etc.

I think the media are being better with Tia sharpe than they were with milly dowler of Joanna Yeatese though.

Better maybe, but the inference is still there.
It isn't transparent reporting, in that they are stating facts, they are still "putting it out there" albeit more subtly.

I have my own suspicions on the Tia Sharp case, but it is definitely clouded or fed by the media, it has to be, because very few of us have any personal knowledge of that family or any family involved in cases like these.

From what we have heard and read in the recent past though, some elements of the police force have used the media for various reasons that are not always of the correct intentions and also, I think the police have at times, played "the game" with the press in order to further a case

 

[brit1981]

Better maybe, but the inference is still there.
It isn't transparent reporting, in that they are stating facts, they are still "putting it out there" albeit more subtly.

I have my own suspicions on the Tia Sharp case, but it is definitely clouded or fed by the media, it has to be, because very few of us have any personal knowledge of that family or any family involved in cases like these.

From what we have heard and read in the recent past though, some elements of the police force have used the media for various reasons that are not always of the correct intentions and also, I think the police have at times, played "the game" with the press in order to further a case

I remember when it utrned out at leveson that the british police knew the dna in the mccanns car had not been identified as madeleines, but when asked by the press told them to ask the PJ even though they knew the PJ were misleading the press about the DNA. What was the harm in saying "we have seen the fss report, and it does not state madeleine's dna was found".

With the tia sharpe case I think some sky journalist was implying the step grandfather was being question on suspicion of, but it turned out he was the last person to see her so was giving his statement. But the ususal suspects are out in force, abusing the girls facebook search page. Why behave liek that?

 

[gord]

It is always a fine line when dealing with the press . In the golden first 24 hours then the press can help in getting the message out there and raising awareness of the missing child .

In the past there has been no doubt that the press have overstepped the mark hugely- The chap who was vilified in the Joanna Yeats case is a point in place - the press crucified the guy and more or less called him out as the guilty party - once the dust settled and the guilty part was found - the press moved on and didnt even offer an sorry. Maybe that is the price we pay for a free press ? who knows better minds than me are working that out now.

I will say though that you cannot now say online what you want as in the bad old days. - say 5 or 6 years ago it was assumed that anything online was fair game and you could basicly have carte blanche

That is now changed and people are being bought to book for what they do or say online - at least in this country - I am not talking about this case per se - but on the whole with Twitter and facebook- people are going to prison for abusive tweets and posts - iwe have to be carefull we dont go too far the other way I suppose

 

[fabgod]

It is always a fine line when dealing with the press . In the golden first 24 hours then the press can help in getting the message out there and raising awareness of the missing child .

In the past there has been no doubt that the press have overstepped the mark hugely- The chap who was vilified in the Joanna Yeats case is a point in place - the press crucified the guy and more or less called him out as the guilty party - once the dust settled and the guilty part was found - the press moved on and didnt even offer an sorry. Maybe that is the price we pay for a free press ? who knows better minds than me are working that out now.

I will say though that you cannot now say online what you want as in the bad old days. - say 5 or 6 years ago it was assumed that anything online was fair game and you could basicly have carte blanche

That is now changed and people are being bought to book for what they do or say online - at least in this country - I am not talking about this case per se - but on the whole with Twitter and facebook- people are going to prison for abusive tweets and posts - iwe have to be carefull we dont go too far the other way I suppose

You are right, it is a very fine line and I dont think we are at the stage of being able to define what that line is.
With technology moving on so fast, it is almost impossible for the law to keep up to date with whatever the current trend of media communication is.
This could be a reason why for as you say, several years, we have seen the internet almost as an unregulated body of mostly good information but significantly bad opinion, statement and so on.

Like everything though, the law is always playing catch up and once they close one door another will have already been open for a time.

Off topic slightly, but its the same with piracy as in music and film, it has become almost the norm for people to download, its not right but it has almost become acceptable, the law has to change in line with the technology, maybe in being actively involved in the process at an early stage.

What I am trying (badly) to say is, if proceedures were put in place before the technology was released to the masses, such as protection to the actual media (music film games etc) and amendments to the applicable laws were made before the new technology was released, then it would be easier to clamp down and stamp it out in the early stages.

Back on topic, internet messaging has become almost a replacement for talking to people, its a marvellous thing, but it also has a residue, as someone mentioned here, whatever you print or text, stays there, its not some passing conversation with a friend in a street or house that has gone as soon as it is said.
Its hard to not use this format as though it was merely a conversation, but the ramifications can be devastating.

anyway, sorry for the ramble, back to our arguing!

 

[brit1981]

You are right, it is a very fine line and I dont think we are at the stage of being able to define what that line is.
With technology moving on so fast, it is almost impossible for the law to keep up to date with whatever the current trend of media communication is.
This could be a reason why for as you say, several years, we have seen the internet almost as an unregulated body of mostly good information but significantly bad opinion, statement and so on.

Like everything though, the law is always playing catch up and once they close one door another will have already been open for a time.

Off topic slightly, but its the same with piracy as in music and film, it has become almost the norm for people to download, its not right but it has almost become acceptable, the law has to change in line with the technology, maybe in being actively involved in the process at an early stage.

What I am trying (badly) to say is, if proceedures were put in place before the technology was released to the masses, such as protection to the actual media (music film games etc) and amendments to the applicable laws were made before the new technology was released, then it would be easier to clamp down and stamp it out in the early stages.

Back on topic, internet messaging has become almost a replacement for talking to people, its a marvellous thing, but it also has a residue, as someone mentioned here, whatever you print or text, stays there, its not some passing conversation with a friend in a street or house that has gone as soon as it is said.
Its hard to not use this format as though it was merely a conversation, but the ramifications can be devastating.

anyway, sorry for the ramble, back to our arguing!

I think in many ways people say thing sonline thta they woudl nto dare sya in public. With the mccann case there have been some of the "haters", as it were, making really vile, crude, comments about her (unrepeatable), and I am fairly certain they would not dare say that in public (to be honest i cna imagien fi you said something like the things they have said you woudl get beaten up by someone).

 

[badhorsie]

To be fair there have been haters and vile things said by both sides. Much the same has happened in the JBR case where views are similarly polarised

 

[brit1981]

But vile things about a child (and when I say vile I mean beyond the pale and unrepeatable).

 

[fabgod]

But vile things about a child (and when I say vile I mean beyond the pale and unrepeatable).

The internet gives a platform to these type of people, it probably makes them feel important, but not everyone is the same, its unfair to tarnish everybody with the same brush, hopefully there is a place for reasoned argument and debate.
the vast majority of us are here because of Madeleine, not a witch hunt, sometimes opinions are going to be divided and feelings will run high, but the common link or bond should be that Madeleine (in this case) is missing, we don't know why or how, but, if we can find even a tiny lead, we would be able to walk away "job done"!

 

[badhorsie]

I have viewed discussion forums about this case from the beginning. I have read attempts at "diagnosis" of madeleine, certainly illjudged. Opinions of a couple of photos where people thought they* were borderline sexualising a small child (rubbish IMO) but apart from encyclopaedia Dramatica I have seen nothing personally insulting to Madeleine herself.
I have also seen on pro forums a so called Portuguese man expressing a wish to bathe Madeleine and wrap her in fluffy towels, this was repeated ad nauseum.
As for vile things about the parents, unfortunately I have read many disgusting things, hurtful, cruel and not nice at all

* "they" meaning the parents

 

[badhorsie]

OT Why have adlinks started appearing in posts here, it is pissing me off bigtime

 

[brit1981]

I have not seen the adlinks.
But I have seen many vile things about maddie (wishing her dead etc - mostly on twitter). I really do not get the reasoning behind it, it is as if there is so much hatred for a mccanns a redmist takes over and people forget that Madeleine is an innocent little girl

 

[fabgod]

OT Why have adlinks started appearing in posts here, it is pissing me off bigtime

Not had the adlinks yet, but got my email account hacked since I have been on the site as a poster(never happened before in about 11 years of the same account, coincidental but disturbing)

 

[badhorsie]

I have not seen the adlinks.
But I have seen many vile things about maddie (wishing her dead etc - mostly on twitter). I really do not get the reasoning behind it, it is as if there is so much hatred for a mccanns a redmist takes over and people forget that Madeleine is an innocent little girl

I use Twitter for marketing so have never seen these tweets. Despicable, why are these people not prosecuted, have they been reported?

 

[Salem]

They have never been able to actually confirm he did say that. Imagine the confusion on that call, his sister said he was in huge distress, do you really think the sister was able to gather exactly if he had talked about the windows being jemmied, or someone just getting in from outside. There are also reports that stated the mccanns had told relatives thta cuddle cat was on a non-existant shelf. many of the initial media reports turned out to contain pure fabrications. But like Gord says, imagien the confusion. You come back find a window open, you are certain you left it closed, you do not know your front door is unsecure and you beleive you did not see anyone use the patio doors, you are in the panic and confusion that follows going to think the window was forced until you later inspect it and find it could be opened from the outside. Plus you are not going to give a conscise accountto a relative on the 'phone.

Actually - If I remember correctly - Kate herself said the windows had been jimmied in a video interview, very early in the case, with the respectable London news source - their name escapes me at the moment - Sky News or something like that?

Salem

 

[brit1981]

Not had the adlinks yet, but got my email account hacked since I have been on the site as a poster(never happened before in about 11 years of the same account, coincidental but disturbing)

I had the same thing with someone trying to hack my email account shortly after I started posting here. I checked with admin and they had not had any breaches so i assumed it was a coincidence.

Salem,
I have never seen this, and at the time there were differign accounts. I have only ever heard accounts quoting relatives saying they thought the window had been jimmied or soemthing.
But even if it were true, why is it suspicious. If I had left a window shut, and found it open my first thought would be that it had been physically forced rather than could it have been opened from the outside. And it is immaterial as the front door was unsecure according to previous occupants, so if an intruder did open the window they could have done from the inside

 

[rashomon]

If I had left a window shut, and found it open my first thought would be that it had been physically forced rather than could it have been opened from the outside. And it is immaterial as the front door was unsecure according to previous occupants, so if an intruder did open the window they could have done from the inside

The 'window story' (as well as an "entry through the locked front door' version) are without substance anyway, given the fact that anyone could easily have entered and exited the apartment via the unlocked patio door.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
However, police tests showed the heavy metal shutter had not been forced up from the outside, so must have been pulled open from inside the room.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]And wasn't it only after tests showed that the shutters must have been pulled open from inside the room, that the McCanns 'revealed' that they had left the patio door unlocked?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is suddenly revealed that the patio doors to the rear of the apartment were left unlocked. This immediately resolves the problem of how the 'abductor' entered the apartment but it makes the decision to leave their three babies alone, inside an exposed and unlocked apartment, seem almost unbelievable, not to mention grossly negligent.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[brit1981]

bbbbbbb

The 'window story' (as well as an "entry through the locked front door' version) are without substance anyway, given the fact that anyone could easily have entered and exited the apartment via the unlocked patio door.

And according to the previosu occupants the front door was not secure - they said they had locked the front door and left the key in to stop the cleaner just barging in, but she still just opened up the door. they said they never found out what the problem with the door was. i cannot see them making this up. I favout the intruder using the front door. It was in the dark and secluded, if anyone from another flat saw him leave why would they suspect anything. The gates on the path by the patio door were latched too which makes me think the intruder did at leats not leave this way.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]And wasn't it only after tests showed that the shutters must have been pulled open from inside the room, that the McCanns 'revealed' that they had left the patio door unlocked?

Not to my knowledge. I do not think there were any tests done to prove it had to have been opened from the inside, just that there was no obvious damage and fingerprints showed that at some point it had been opened from the inside. I heard about the patio doors being unlocked quiete quickly, and given that the PJ thought madeleine might have wondered off by herself I presume they knew that night the door was unlocked. Plus the patio door could only be locked from the inside, so if it was locked gerry and Kate and matt woudl have had to gone through the front door, but they all said they did not. If they told the police they entered via the patio door the police would obviously realise it was left unlocked.