~Please continue here~
The last thread can be found here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61836
Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 22
- Thread starter colomom
- Start date
- Status
~Please continue here~
The last thread can be found here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61836
Tony Bennett
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 11
I'll start off with a short piece by 'Daily Telegraph' Deputy Editor Simon Heffer on Saturday (3 May):
===============
McCann haters - the lowest of the low
by Simon Heffer:
QUOTE
--------------------
Here's a few points about that article, unfortunately representative of so many that have appeared in the British press over the past few days:
1. Notice the reference to 'supposed negligence'. A typical media minimisation of the seriousness of the McCanns' negligence in going out drinking and leaving three young children on their own. Mr Heffer might like to consider what the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children say about such a practice on their website. They say: "Never leave young children on their own"
2. McCann-sceptics i.e. those who question the McCanns' version of events, are transformed, suddenly, by Mr Heffer, into 'McCann-haters'. I doubt if any of the hundreds on this Forum who genuinely question the abduction could be described as 'McCann-haters'
3. Mr Heffer relies on *one* nasty e-mail received by the McCanns, carefully selected by the McCanns and their media advisers to cause maximum revulsion
4. Those who think one of the McCanns might have killed Madeleine - a possibility which can by no means be ruled out - are referred to as 'nutters' - a term used by other media to attack McCann-sceptics
5. Mr Heffer is clearly unaware of the number of times those who have harmed or killed their own children or somehow been responsible for their deaths have cried 'abduction', including a number in the past 12 months alone, like Baby Grace and the 'baby in the attic'
6. He accepts the abduction claim without question
7. Despite his robust defence of free speech on many other occasions when he objects to attempts to silence certain views, he does not seem to accept that, in a free society, where a person claims 'abduction' but there are many contra-indications showing that something far worse may have happened, people are fully entitled to ask questions.
With such universal condemnation of McCann-sceptics in the British press, it appears like a gross heresy to question the couple.
No wonder many of those who have serious doubts about the McCanns' abduction claim prefer to keep silent or, at least, remain anonymous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============
McCann haters - the lowest of the low
by Simon Heffer:
QUOTE
Just when one thinks ones capacity for shock is exhausted, one reads some of the charming, expletive-rich comments sent to Kate and Gerry McCann in the last year since their daughter Madeleine evaporated in Portugal. I know some nutters are convinced they killed her, which I am equally convinced is balderdash: but what shocks me is that even those who accept that someone else abducted her cannot resist delving into the still-open wound the McCanns have, and attacking them for their supposed negligence on that evening last May.
I try to envisage the sense of smug satisfaction these people have when the letter is posted or the send button pressed on the email: but, despite a long study of human degeneracy, I simply cant.
UNQUOTEI try to envisage the sense of smug satisfaction these people have when the letter is posted or the send button pressed on the email: but, despite a long study of human degeneracy, I simply cant.
--------------------
Here's a few points about that article, unfortunately representative of so many that have appeared in the British press over the past few days:
1. Notice the reference to 'supposed negligence'. A typical media minimisation of the seriousness of the McCanns' negligence in going out drinking and leaving three young children on their own. Mr Heffer might like to consider what the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children say about such a practice on their website. They say: "Never leave young children on their own"
2. McCann-sceptics i.e. those who question the McCanns' version of events, are transformed, suddenly, by Mr Heffer, into 'McCann-haters'. I doubt if any of the hundreds on this Forum who genuinely question the abduction could be described as 'McCann-haters'
3. Mr Heffer relies on *one* nasty e-mail received by the McCanns, carefully selected by the McCanns and their media advisers to cause maximum revulsion
4. Those who think one of the McCanns might have killed Madeleine - a possibility which can by no means be ruled out - are referred to as 'nutters' - a term used by other media to attack McCann-sceptics
5. Mr Heffer is clearly unaware of the number of times those who have harmed or killed their own children or somehow been responsible for their deaths have cried 'abduction', including a number in the past 12 months alone, like Baby Grace and the 'baby in the attic'
6. He accepts the abduction claim without question
7. Despite his robust defence of free speech on many other occasions when he objects to attempts to silence certain views, he does not seem to accept that, in a free society, where a person claims 'abduction' but there are many contra-indications showing that something far worse may have happened, people are fully entitled to ask questions.
With such universal condemnation of McCann-sceptics in the British press, it appears like a gross heresy to question the couple.
No wonder many of those who have serious doubts about the McCanns' abduction claim prefer to keep silent or, at least, remain anonymous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for posting that Tony!! I have felt that many people have been frightened by the "threats" of the McCanns and their minions. Hints have been dropped that someone might be sued because of expressing their opinions on forums such as this one. I think it is worse in the UK. Here in the states we seem to be less intimidated by the threats.
I always try to be diplomatic in my posts. My feelings about this case and those involved can be much stronger than what I post
I would bet I am not alone....
I always try to be diplomatic in my posts. My feelings about this case and those involved can be much stronger than what I post
I would bet I am not alone....
Texana
Overreaching
And we should not forget that Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph is very likely personally acquainted with Clarence Mitchell.
The writers of articles just like these, are just Clarence's colleagues and friends, stepping up to back his cause.
The writers of articles just like these, are just Clarence's colleagues and friends, stepping up to back his cause.
Evaporated? What a very interesting choice of word for what happened to Maddy. Very interesting indeed. I doubt that I would ever refer to a missing child as "evaporated". That just really struck me as odd.
Texana
Overreaching
Darn creepy choice of words for a guy who makes his living with words.
teacherbees
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks for posting that Tony!! I have felt that many people have been frightened by the "threats" of the McCanns and their minions. Hints have been dropped that someone might be sued because of expressing their opinions on forums such as this one. I think it is worse in the UK. Here in the states we seem to be less intimidated by the threats.
I always try to be diplomatic in my posts. My feelings about this case and those involved can be much stronger than what I post
I would bet I am not alone....
Colomom, you are not alone.
Texana
Overreaching
Definitely not alone.
Although I would never classify myself as a McCann hater, and I don't think anyone here really classifies as one, either.
Although I would never classify myself as a McCann hater, and I don't think anyone here really classifies as one, either.
Tony Bennett
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 11
An inquest into Madeleine's death?
I would like to raise on this Forum the subject of whether or not the British authorities should convene an inquest into Madeleine's disappearance/possible death. Or perhaps the Portuguese authorities should?
At the moment, there is one very sound practical reason why that cannot happen, namely, there is an ongoing police investigation, and, except in most unusual circumstances, a Coroner will not convene an inquest while the police are actively pursuing certain lines of enquiry. That is clearly the case with Madeleine.
But suppose, for example, that the PJ decide they cannot pin any charges at all on either the McCanns or any of their 'Tapas 9' friends. Suppose they have no body. Suppose they cannot prove how Madeleine died. Suppose they cannot even prove that the parents have hidden or disposed of the body, nor even that they have interfered with or perverted the course of justice in their conduct since Madeleine's 'disappearance'.
Then how does Madeleine get justice?
Surely, through an inquest.
Is there a case for holding an inquest if there is no body?
Certainly.
Remember the missing British canoeist? The Coroner didn't even wait a year, held an inquest and concluded that he was missing, presumed drowned. The verdict was either an 'accidental death' verdict or an 'open verdict', or maybe 'misadventure', I think. Reasonable under all the circumstances - with a grieiving, distraught wife shedding tears for her missing - presumed dead - husband, no doubt.
But then he turned up, five years later, having apparently bought a nice little house with his wife in Panama! The wife was no longer grieving and distraught!
But it proves my point that an inquest can be held in the absence of a body.
Would it be held in Portugal or in the United Kingdom?
That is a question that I cannot answer.
Can anyone else shed light on this question?
I have researched this a little on the Net - and noted that a lot of countries hold inquests, or their equivalent, after a person has been missing at least one year or, in some countries, after just 6 months.
If there is to be a trial, then an inquest must await the outcome of a trial, of course.
JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE.
Via an inquest, if necessary - and if all else fails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to raise on this Forum the subject of whether or not the British authorities should convene an inquest into Madeleine's disappearance/possible death. Or perhaps the Portuguese authorities should?
At the moment, there is one very sound practical reason why that cannot happen, namely, there is an ongoing police investigation, and, except in most unusual circumstances, a Coroner will not convene an inquest while the police are actively pursuing certain lines of enquiry. That is clearly the case with Madeleine.
But suppose, for example, that the PJ decide they cannot pin any charges at all on either the McCanns or any of their 'Tapas 9' friends. Suppose they have no body. Suppose they cannot prove how Madeleine died. Suppose they cannot even prove that the parents have hidden or disposed of the body, nor even that they have interfered with or perverted the course of justice in their conduct since Madeleine's 'disappearance'.
Then how does Madeleine get justice?
Surely, through an inquest.
Is there a case for holding an inquest if there is no body?
Certainly.
Remember the missing British canoeist? The Coroner didn't even wait a year, held an inquest and concluded that he was missing, presumed drowned. The verdict was either an 'accidental death' verdict or an 'open verdict', or maybe 'misadventure', I think. Reasonable under all the circumstances - with a grieiving, distraught wife shedding tears for her missing - presumed dead - husband, no doubt.
But then he turned up, five years later, having apparently bought a nice little house with his wife in Panama! The wife was no longer grieving and distraught!
But it proves my point that an inquest can be held in the absence of a body.
Would it be held in Portugal or in the United Kingdom?
That is a question that I cannot answer.
Can anyone else shed light on this question?
I have researched this a little on the Net - and noted that a lot of countries hold inquests, or their equivalent, after a person has been missing at least one year or, in some countries, after just 6 months.
If there is to be a trial, then an inquest must await the outcome of a trial, of course.
JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE.
Via an inquest, if necessary - and if all else fails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texana
Overreaching
The question would be jurisdiction, wouldn't it?
I would think so Texana. The Portugese could hold one and ask the English to participate, but I don't think the English would hold one. I could be wrong, as I know nothing about inquests. But there was no crime committed on English soil, so I don't see what they would hold an inquest on.
Who did the inquest on Princess Diana?
Salem
Who did the inquest on Princess Diana?
Salem
Pinkhammer
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 794
- Reaction score
- 13
Either that, or paid pimps for the McCanns.
Tony Bennett
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 11
Salem wrote: "But there was no crime committed on English soil, so I don't see what they would hold an inquest on...Who did the inquest on Princess Diana?"
REPLY: Princess Diana met her death on an underpass in Paris, France. The inquest, 10 years later, was held in London, England, U.K. The British Coroners' Courts most certainly have jurisdiction to hold inquests on sudden and unexplained deaths or 'disappearances' abroad.
I think it must be the same in the U.S. and Canada?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLY: Princess Diana met her death on an underpass in Paris, France. The inquest, 10 years later, was held in London, England, U.K. The British Coroners' Courts most certainly have jurisdiction to hold inquests on sudden and unexplained deaths or 'disappearances' abroad.
I think it must be the same in the U.S. and Canada?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThoughtFox
Expecting the Unexpected
This may have been posted on the last thread (I didn't check).
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314982,00.html?f=rss
Murat Happy For Madeleine Reconstruction
To me, that sounds like a person with nothing to hide.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1314982,00.html?f=rss
Murat Happy For Madeleine Reconstruction
To me, that sounds like a person with nothing to hide.
Texana
Overreaching
The U.S. doesn't have the equivalent of a coroner's court, the closest thing would be a grand jury, but the prosecutor has to make a case to the grand jury, and then the grand jury makes the recommendation to issue indictment and go to trial.
So in the US, the Grand Jury happens BEFORE any charges are made. I'm wondering if England held the Princess D inquest because she was a member of the Royal Family and England would always have jurisdiction over the royal family? I don't know. This is international law type stuff. Based on what I know about US law (which isn't much) though, I just don't see how England could claim jurisdiction. There may be a way, with Portugal's cooperation......
It's an interesting thought. I'm still hoping that Portugal will press charges and take them to trial. Again, I know it would be very different from what happens here, so I guess I can't say I'm all that convinced that Portugal would get a conviction. I do think here, in the US, a conviction could be likely if most of the "facts" we have culled from the various news reports are true. More than one murderer has been convicted on circumstantial evidence here.
Salem
It's an interesting thought. I'm still hoping that Portugal will press charges and take them to trial. Again, I know it would be very different from what happens here, so I guess I can't say I'm all that convinced that Portugal would get a conviction. I do think here, in the US, a conviction could be likely if most of the "facts" we have culled from the various news reports are true. More than one murderer has been convicted on circumstantial evidence here.
Salem
Texana
Overreaching
I particularly like the "rare smiles of Kate and Gerry" photo montage. Each of the photos is different (clothing, hair style, etc.) so they are not different photos of the same event. Very striking images, actually.
Texana
Overreaching
Yes, the grand jury basically gives permission to the prosecutor to go ahead by voting to indict or not. Testimony before the grand jury is sealed, I believe permanently. The grand jury doesn't have the power to investigate on its own, only to hear testimony and issue recommendations to the District Attorney's office.
There was a case in Harris County/Houston recently which was won entirely on circumstantial evidence...but it took 6 years for the prosecutors and LE to round up enough bit and pieces and chip away at the murderer's alibi.
http://www.katytimes.com/articles/2005/02/22/news/01news.txt
Those cases can be won but it's difficult, when you add the enormous media sympathy and influence of the McCann supporters, I doubt absent a serious breakthrough and push from Portuguese authorities, it would ever happen here.
- Status