Comments on: Madeleine McCann: Keeping Secrecy Laws

By: Candy

Candy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:44:51 +0000

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.

By: anonymous2u

anonymous2u — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:22:15 +0000

#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????

By: Candy

Candy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:19:22 +0000

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.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:42:47 +0000

#8 You mention what my husbands questions.

By: jonathan

jonathan — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:49:49 +0000

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.

By: Candy

Candy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:34:27 +0000

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?

By: Candy

Candy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:25:20 +0000

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.

By: AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA

AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:15:04 +0000

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.

By: Toni

Toni — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:03:35 +0000

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

By: AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA

AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:50:24 +0000

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.

By: kathy

kathy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 07:17:38 +0000

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.

By: Toni

Toni — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:57:44 +0000

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 ????

By: kathy

kathy — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:33:34 +0000

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!!!!!

By: Toni

Toni — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:11:55 +0000

please dont tar all South africans with the same brush.

By: AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA

AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:53:32 +0000

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.

By: anonymous2u

anonymous2u — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:07:25 +0000

I am sure these secrecy laws are in place to protect. Who?

By: anonymous2u

anonymous2u — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:04:08 +0000

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.

By: phat-fat

phat-fat — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:21:06 +0000

yep yep totally agree with you manuel

By: Candy

Candy — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:54:25 +0000

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.

By: Magali

Magali — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:22:17 +0000

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!