Madeleine McCann: Keeping Secrecy Laws
FROM Paulo Reis in Portugal:
Some advice to Penny Wark, correspondent of The Times in Portugal
I feel I have the experience, as a journalist (26 years), the age (50 years old) and the knowledge about Madeleine’s case to give some advice to the journalist that wrote a story on “The Times”, published today. This is the tittle and the link for the story:
From The Times
Madeleine: one fact, many lies, endless grief
It’s now 124 days since Madeleine McCann disappeared. Our correspondent charts a story that became global, lurid and often invented – and hears how the McCanns learnt to think positively after imagining the darkest scenarios and suffering uncontrollable griefAnd this is my advice (quotations from “The Times” story are in bold, my advice is in regular characters):
(…)
As everyone is acutely aware, the reason we know so little about Madeleine’s disappearance is because she was abducted in Portugal, where the segredo de justiça law prevents the police from putting information about a criminal investigation in the public domain. Had Madeleine disappeared in Britain or the US, this would not have happened.Right. But you know that these damned secrecy laws also exist in many other European countries, namely those countries on the other side of the British Channel, like Sweden, Netherlands, France, Spain, Greece. I would say the “segredo de justiça law”, as you wrote, exists in some 24 of the 25 countries of the European Union. Now, maybe you can help me with something that has puzzled me, since the begging of this case: in UK, there is no secrecy law, right? Journalists are informed any time British Police has a new suspect in a crime investigation, right?
Witnesses and victims of a crime can tell the journalists all details about what happened, right? So, how does British Police manages (sic) to keep crime investigations going on without, for example, the suspects running away, as soon as their names are printed at all newspapers?
One more question about this subject: why wasn’t this policy of openness applied in The Soham murders case? I watched it, every day, at Sky News (every 15 minutes…) and at BBC and never heard specific details about the ongoing investigation (…)
Ends.
Posted: 4th, September 2007 | In: Twitterings Comments (28) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- Nomadic View on Bolivian Police Release Video Of World’s Worst Photo-Fit Killers’ Capture
- June on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- Katie Norman on X Factor: Jedward Go GAY, Win I’m A Celebrity And Hate Susan Boyle
- THENTHEREWERE4 on Madeleine McCann: Kevin Halligen Becomes The ‘Maddie Faudster’
September 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
27 Anonymous2u
I agree with you that in Mr Murat’s case secrecy laws seems to be working against him. But it was not the police who published all these things about him, called him ‘peadophile’ etc. The police called him arguido, and that’s it; if the secrecy had been kept nothing else would have grown from this (OT: I am sure there is at least one mistake in this sentence … not my first language, apologies). It seems what is wrong is not the secrecy laws itself but combination of the secrecy AND the press.
But then, we should blame the press for gossiping, not the police.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
#22
My concern is that an investigation of this magnitude has been thwarted by a multitude of scenerios. Since we are discussing the secrecy laws it is importantant to discuss the foibles pertaining to that. I am of the mind that you take prisoners and ask questions later. This should be of no shock to the Partuguese officials. Who have operated under this assumption. Unfortunately, this leads to many discrepencies. Since the “innocent victim” is a foreigner to the laws of this country. Perhaps it would have been prudent to immediately invite British investigators to work on this case? If Madeleine McCann wishes to sue anyone for misconduct on her behalf. So be it. The laws should be enforced to protect the innocent. There are many casualties in a high profile case like this(ex:Robert Murat?).It is simple, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most importantly have we found Madeleine McCann? Has the secrecy laws been part of the problem????
September 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
jonathan
Madeleine picture has been released extremely quickly and noone stopped her parents in their international campaign/the fund.
On another forum I argued that more information about Madeleine should be released, not only what she looks like (e.g. her accent, voice, anything more specific as recognising someone from the picture is very difficult) and I was told that would be a mistake as ‘the more information is released the more we help the abductor’. So, I guess there is no right answer to what can be/should be shared with the public …
But, even if she is absent, the police is acting on behalf of MADELEINE, not the parents, as SHE is the victim of the crime (assumed) not them. Therefore, the objective is to find her, not to keep the parents informed.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
#8 You mention what my husbands questions.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
The “all evidence must be kept secret” approach leaves law enforcement with little flexibility at an operational level to decide which detail they wish to reveal and which details they don’t. Key details that are required to prove a case in a court of law are usually omitted. Senior detectives in the UK are very accustomed to making these types of decisions and frequently view the public as their main source of leads/info. Their connection to that public is via the media which they manage and feed information to.
Issuing descriptions of what Madeleine was wearing, photofits of possible abductors, being specific about times actually help the public understand whether something they saw is relevant. In the Soham case, detailed information about the girls clothing, last known movements etc was made public very quickly.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Amanda, South Africa
Hello
You wrote: “It is just why keep it a secret to the parents as well.”
Well, we do not know if this is really the case, and another thing is they may be unofficially considered suspects (and I am not able to imagine how anyone cannot be a suspect if you were the last person to see the missing one alive).
Also, the police can probably tell them things considering Madeleine and Madeleine alone. If they have leads which involve other missing kids, peadophile networks, drug market - whatever - obviously they cannot reveal that to the parents. In this case they have a suspect - arguido. His rights are being protected too and can you imagine showing ANYONE his files before the case is solved? So what can they say? Can they really show their evidence to the McCanns and maybe ask them their opinion? And since when - in any country - you are allowed to show evidences against other people to witnesses?
September 5th, 2007 at 11:25 am
12 Anonymous
You are right - we can change the laws. But in our country, not in Portugal, where people seem to be satisfied with their law system as it is.
Police investigation is always secret, no matter in which country it is taking place. We can all read - even in British tabloids - “the victim who cannot be named for legal reasons” … complete transparency is not possible; can you imagine MI5 informing people: and today our agent is going to flat 5 Regent Street where we suspect a bomb plot may be taking place … The police can release only these information which will not jeopardise the investigation, and sometimes it is not clear which one could that be.
How the secrecy laws ‘protect the perpetrator’ more than a victim, in this particular case? (BTW, how on earth the fact the child was ‘innocent’ has anything to do with that? Innocent or not, you still have rights!)
We have no idea how is the investigation going, and we do not need to know details. Why should we? The parents should maybe (although in this case this is controversial) but why you or me?
The last thing is, the secrecy laws are protecting also Madeleine’s interests. Let’s say she’s found today. If everything has been made public, she has rights to sue newspapers for - for example - publishing that she had been crying at night which she finds offensive now etc. etc. Theoretically she has legal rights here and although she is a child they must be protected.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I also believed and I still do that the abductor is going to demand that 1 million pounds and that MADDY WILL BE RETURNED. But maybe they did leave the children alone as well when they were at home just to pop in to the neighbours house for a quick drink or so. Someone is trying to teach them a lesson not to leave them alone again. Well I can say for sure since this case I do not leave my 2 daughters out of my eye for once and I never locked my doors as I have safety gates in front of them, but now I do lock them every night. My husbands gets cross but what the heck.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am
yes Amanda, this was my original theory too, and I also half believe the freemason story, It was as if gerry has been taught a lesson for some reason he was then held ransom in some way, eg, by going and making child traffiking awareness around the globe, hence the fundraising and the globetrotting, meeting the pope and the whole campaign thing, it was what he had to do. once the tidy sum of £1m had been reached then it all seemed to die down as if the target had been met. Madeleine will now be given back. I know some ppl will think this is far fetched but I did read this somewhere else too.
the look on gerry’s face is just so guilty and devoid of emotion
September 5th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I think this was someone that wanted to teach them a lesson. Maybe they have done this at home as well. Maybe somebody in their family that said to them once that if they do this again she / he will take one of the children just to teach them a lesson and now it has become a problem for the McCann`s. Maybe they do know something but they are waiting for that person to come forward themselves. Why only now that they have decided to go home soon, now Gerry comes out with a plea. He has not done it before. This was the first time. Something is cooking. They feel they are pushed into a corner.That is why they want to leave now all of a sudden. If it was my child I would definetly start looking now already for another place to stay. Like they said some of the people in PORTUGAL are supporting them. So why don`t they try to get a place to stay through them. They only have 6 days to go before their lease ends the 11th of September. I hope she will be back before that time. I for one would not leave at all if it was my child. Even if I had to sleep on the beach.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Toni, I totally agree, if it was me, I would definately want to know and would be “throwing all my toys out the cot” if they did not give me any info. Maybe the truth is “closer to home that we all think” - and that is the reason they cannot tell them anything. I dont think the Mccanns are guilty of anything, but maybe someone close to them is.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
kathy, yes that makes sense, but I do think that as a parent i would like to be kept in the loop, this child however has now been missing for too long and if alive she needs to be found and returned. the police do not have to divulge everything but they could give out some small titbits, eg, we have a definate lead. we can confirm that we are follwoing up on …….. there WILL be an arrest made shortly. just enough to keep the interest there but not too much that it jepardises the enquiry. thoughts ????
September 5th, 2007 at 7:33 am
I agree Tony, we are not all racist. Statistics are also very generalised and yes crime such as murders, rapes etc are bad here in SA, BUT in certain areas. This applies to anywhere isn the world. I have travelled extensively for 4 years and in each country was told that as a tourist I must not go into certain areas as it would be looking for trouble. Much the same here. But anyway sour grapes is not the issue here. It is Madelein Mccann.. I certainly agree with certain secrecy laws. If I had kidnapped someone and knew that they were coming to get me, I would sure as hell dissapear very quickly. However if I knew nothing, I would be caught unaware!!!!!
September 5th, 2007 at 7:11 am
please dont tar all South africans with the same brush.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I am sorry MANUEL. I did not mean it that way. It is just why keep it a secret to the parents as well. Somebody on the police knows something and does not want to let it out because it could damage his / her reputation I do believe that. Again truly sorry I know about the crime in S.A. I myself was hijacked in my driveway 1 year ago. And I`m still scared today.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:07 am
I am sure these secrecy laws are in place to protect. Who?
September 5th, 2007 at 2:04 am
If we “the public” do not have any rights. Then we can change laws that do not serve the public. The secrecy laws certainly protect the perpetrater and to a lesser degree the innocent victim. They certainly did not help in a quick
search and recovery for this innocent child. Perhaps it was interference from others who tended to gain from this sad event. Certainly the investigators had secrecy laws to assist them in their ordeal.
In most civilized societies the laws are such to protect its law abiding inhabitants.
It abhors me to see such a lack of any serious conclusion on the part of any of the officials in charge of finding Madeleine McCann. Secrecy or otherwise citizens deserve better. What loophole in this investigation has made this search for Madeleine McCann a sad commentary on a results oriented police inquiry.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:21 am
yep yep totally agree with you manuel
September 4th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Manuel Pereira
I agree with everything you said about the secrecy law.
We - the public - want an outcome and complain about that law, but to be honest; what right do we have to know? It is not our family, right? It is not our business really, right? Why on earth should we be informed about any step the police is taking?
And oh, yes, McCanns and their campaign made us feel we were participating in something so we have the right to know. But then again, this demand should be directed to McCanns - it was them who invited us in this dialogue, not the police.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Excellent article Paulo REIS,I’d like to see more of those.
I said the same ages ago on the Sky UK News board,except,I hadn’t thought of The Soham Murders case in this way,it is true that our press needs a good face-lift.While
you can,Paulo,please ask WHY the MCCANNS are so convinced of abduction.This+the pink cat +Jane tanner puzzle me to the brinks.
Why not being the FIRST journalist to really ask them this in details?they have no proof of this,although have seemed to convinced the world of it and brainwash the press with it.Why?
Carry on in your intelligent ways,good job with the pics and all so far!
September 4th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
i think it has it good points and its bad but i think they should have released the the identi kit of the abductor and been allowed to do a reconstruction of the evident that way more people could have come forward with information
September 4th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hi Manuel,
Regarding Amanda’s comment. I really don’t think that she meant she hates Portuguese people … although I know it certainly reads that way! (I think she may have been referring to the police in Portugal). Anyway, put it this way, if she WAS referring to Portuguese people in general, then I, as a South African, will certainly bury my head in the sand with shame! I have numerous Portuguese friends in this country, and they are of the most loyal and honest friends I could wish to have, and I certainly don’t have any negative feelings towards them because Madeleine went missing in their country! That’s just plain silly!
I won’t even go into the comments about our country’s past and the crime situation here because you are 100 % correct on that !
Quote : “And now the secrecy law:
To all the ignorant people of this world!” - I take a slight bit of offence to that considering that I brought up the matter of the secrecy law!
“The Maddie McCann case was one of 3 or 4 cases in Portugal about this particular crime! In Britain and other countries like SA or even USA, cases like this are on almost a daily basis.”
I do part-time work for an NGO in my country that searches for missing children. Each and every one of us that does this work is a volunteer and whilst our identities are kept “secret” for fear of the risk of retaliation from a prospective child kidnapper/murderer/rapist, should we have a secrecy law in our country, we would not be able to do the work that we do, and achieve the successes that we do, as vital information would be withheld. Therefore my feelings and comments on why I feel that the secrecy law would not work in my country, particularly in the case of missing children. And thus, I feel that in Madeleine’s case as well, important information which is not being revealed could just be the key to the solving of the case.
Kindest regards,
Julie
September 4th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
And now the secrecy law:
To all the ignorant people of this world!
The secrecy law exists basically to protect the rights of the citizens, either they are victims or defendants or witnesses.
In the democratic and civilized world the secrecy law lives side by side with speculation; and why? Because while the Media is worried in advertising news that are most of the times not in conformity with reality, the investigation can carry its scope with more efficiency. Of course that there’s always a problem with the leaks of information and about that, the British Media in the McCann case only created confusion and misleading by throwing up information that didn’t help at all the investigation.
The Maddie McCann case was one of 3 or 4 cases in Portugal about this particular crime! In Britain and other countries like SA or even USA, cases like this are on almost a daily basis.
The german/roman or Continental law it is proved to defend in a more accurate way all the actors during a criminal investigation; contrarily to the so-called “Common Law” systems, where I strongly believe that those same rights are not dully protected.
Regards again!
Manuel
September 4th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
My dear Amanda from South Africa
As a Portuguese national I became personally interested in your very “accurate” and “direct” approach to the immense qualities of the Portuguese people.
If I wouldn’t know that for decades a very peculiar country like South Africa had a very well known regime all over the democratic world such the apartheid, who killed thousands of innocent people and treated human beings as not equal to each other; if a country like South Africa would not make the distinction during that regime between citizens of 1st and 2nd class; if South Africa wouldn’t be a country who has currently one of the highest violent crime rates of the world; If I wouldn’t know that a part of that violent crime is committed against foreigners who have their life in your country like the portuguese emmigrants who are working there contributing for your miserable economy; If South Africa wouldn’t be a country who has the highest rate of violent rape in the world………. then, perhaps I would believe that a “FOOL” is the one who have no notion at all about his/her own “FOOLISH” mind!
Remember my dear Amanda from South Africa: We, Portuguese people like very much to eat meat but we always pay attention to the quality of …. the Cow!
Regards
Manuel
September 4th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
As far as I’m concerned the secrecy laws of those European countries who have them in force, have their pros and cons.
However, when it comes to a “missing” child, then I feel that as much information as possible needs to be released in order for people to understand the circumstances of the “disappearance”, and therefore possibly remember something that they in the first place, thought had no bearing on the case whatsoever. People’s memories can be triggered by the tiniest thing, and I think that there is someone who saw something, however insignificant it may seem to them, that is very important to this case. But because of the cloud of secrecy and the hush-hush surrounding this little girl’s “disappearance”, they will probably never be reminded that what they saw could possibly solve this case.
All this secrecy is certainly not helping the one little victim in this case.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Hey Toni, betcha Teddy Boy didn’t think of placing his bets on this one : Three South Africans first up on the newest link!
You’re slowing down Teddy Boy!
September 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Completely and utter ” kak ”
Secrets about her whereabouts, they know, they are just protecting themselves ( the police) so the world won`t say are stupid idiots. In South Africa there is lots of Portugese people and from the time MADELEINE went missing I started to hate them. FOOLS.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
25 to 1 odds on hey Teddy boy !!!!