Madeleine McCann: Child Alert, Daily Mail Knows And Fay Weldon
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “McCanns win child alert fight MADELEINE”
Kate and Gerry McCann yesterday won their fight for an EU-wide missing child alert system, in tribute to their daughter Madeleine. A declaration supporting the couple’s plea attracted backing from at least 398 MEPs - more than half the 785 European Parliament members.
Or as the Mail said earlier in the week: DAILY MAIL: “Brussels throws out McCann’s appeal for European missing child alert system”
THE INDEPENDENT: “Cultural Life: Fay Weldon, Author”
Film
I went to see Ben Affleck’s Gone Baby Gone for Radio 3’s Saturday Review. “Emotionally disturbing” it claimed to be, with its echoes of the Madeleine McCann case, and so it was, and a welcome change from the dull, written-to-formula films that pour from major studios. If profit rather than enthusiasm is the bottom line, all you get is variations on what made a profit last year.
On it goes…
Posted: 11th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (891) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on Poole Replaces Christmas With A Recyled Jesus And Fake Tree
- miles on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- Anorak on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on Jamie Cullum Sings The Pursuit, In Pictures
- June on Wikileaks Publishes 500,000 9/11 FBI And NYPD Pager Messages, Conspiracy Theorists Read On
July 12th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Where is all the learned legals when you need them to answer a simple question……did the LP withhold evidence of Madeleine’s demise and fail to inform the Judge and the court, or is the learned lady judge correct and there is in fact no evidence to that effect of Madeleine’s demise………any takers ?
Appears we have no takers, conclusion, learned lady correct in her comments.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I don’t need to believe anything Karen , but you need to believe the McCanns are guilty of who knows what, that is your wasted university time kicking in.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Chenier
Rhetoric, perhaps. Whatever the McCanns are trying to convince the police of now to further their case was not my point. At the outset, as the honourable Mr McKelvie says, information is passed to the press in the UK. This was not done by the Portuguese police, at least not, if rumour and speculation has it, until they were pissed enough with the McCanns…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Hi Karen.
How’s post-exam freedom?! Are you working/resting/holidaying?
(Sorry if I missed anything about this. I had a gap of a few weeks from Anorak.)
July 12th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Gandolf
Are you answering the voices in your head????
I was talking about your need to believe the British judge’s decision somehow means the PJs have no case - when it’s doesn’t mean they do and doesn’t mean they don’t.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:37 am
You see that is where you are mistaken Karen, the McCanns don’t have to prove anything the prosecution does, that includes you.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Gandolf
It doesn’t matter how desperate you are to prove there’s no evidence - they’re still suspects.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
576 chenier
“Fortunately we live in a society where the determination of guilt depends on evidence properly gathered and presented to our courts….”
———————————————————————————————————
Precisely, chenier. PRECISELY. Glad you accept that. I’ve been trying to make that very point for some considerable time. It’s good to know you don’t go along with the lynch mob mentality.
I did not say there was anything at all to be gleaned from the fact that none of them has spoken, other than the fact that they had been told not to. There is no denying that. Portuguese law forbids them from speaking about what happened under threat of imprisonment. I did not say that the fact that they have, more or less, complied with this, means that they are innocent. Tanner made it clear that she knew she was risking serious repercussions by speaking out on the Panorama programme.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
565
SpongeBob Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
558
chenier
Released by the police to the press, very much agreed. But not agreed by the Portuguese police .
What would have been known of Madeleine had it not been for the McCann’s campaign. Certainly nothing like the publicity given to other missing British children. Wasn’t the campaign’s existence (proposed to be) because they didn’t want her to become just another stat? For many, there are many reasons to hate them, but if they had not campaigned, she would have been just that
———————————-
And at this point I will note that you are engaging in rhetoric; never wise. After all, the McCanns have been unable to convince the British police that their actions were likely to lead to their daughter being found; quite the contrary.
The reality is that if Madeleine had been abducted then she would have been killed as soon as the abductor was alerted by the massive media campaign the McCanns created.
You may feel that this was a good idea but I don’t.
Nor do police forces around the world…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Bloody hell Chenier
You are facing a war on all fronts tonight!
That whisky is doing you proud. Red wine is my choice of poison, but alas there is sometimes too much joy
Taking a bow, thanks for the discussion, I think I must retire
July 12th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Gandolph,
“it appears the lights are on but there is no one in”.
Dont be so hard on yourself!
July 12th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I understood that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer, at her parents’ request. Is that not correct?
If it is correct, I assume they were advised that this would be the appropriate action to take.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:21 am
571
sam Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
550
chenier Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:44 am
‘The problem that Justice Hogg has is that she either knew why the Mccanns, having spent almost 11 months without Madeleine being made a Ward of Court suddenly needed it’
so i thought i’d go and look what happened around the 2nd of april this year, i’m looking at the mcannfiles but i’m really too tired to read it properly or comment, it’s interesting though.
good night
And goodnight to you, Sam!
July 12th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Karen, it appears the lights are on but there is no one in.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:19 am
‘You could tell they were terrified to say anything for ages’
You might be able to, but fortunately not everybody shares your somewhat eclectic approach to evidence.
If the guilt of a suspect were to be determined by what people think they look like on television then the criminal courts could call it a day.
Fortunately we live in a society where the determination of guilt depends on evidence properly gathered and presented to our courts….
July 12th, 2008 at 1:19 am
The phone records will be very interesting. What was said and if the evidence will be allowed in court.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Gandolf
If the PJs haven’t proved it in a court of law - short of having the body or pools of blood - then the British courts aren’t going to pay any attention to it.
It doesn’t mean the PJs wont manage to convict someone of murder or manslaughter (whatever they they call it in Portugal) some day - but prosecutions without a body are very difficult - no matter who’s responsible.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:15 am
And you Chenny like everyone else hasn’t a clue what the learned lady has or has not seen. Do you think the LP know Madeleine is departed and have forgot to inform the court, of which Madeleine is a ward.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Good night Sam.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
550
chenier Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:44 am
‘The problem that Justice Hogg has is that she either knew why the Mccanns, having spent almost 11 months without Madeleine being made a Ward of Court suddenly needed it’
so i thought i’d go and look what happened around the 2nd of april this year, i’m looking at the mcannfiles but i’m really too tired to read it properly or comment, it’s interesting though.
good night
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
561
sam Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 1:00 am
537
Gandolf Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
she states quite clearly there is no evidence to the contrary. i don’t know if the lp is allowed to withhold evidence that suggests madeleine is dead , or what the judge would count as evidence.
—————————-
‘At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.’
That is an explanation of why the English Court asserts that it has jurisdiction.
The Judge hasn’t seen the contents of the investigation files and the Judge is not entitled to see the investigation files.
Which means she hasn’t a clue as to whether there is evidence in the files pointing to Madeleine’s life, or death…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
chenier
Nevertheless, the police here do usually immediately put out repeated descriptions of missing children (eg. Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman), they arrange for the parents to make appeals to the abductor and they often do immediate reconstructions to jog people’s memory. They did all of these things within days of Holly and Jessica going missing. I remember they used two little girls from a local drama group to do the recon. The Mcs arranged some of these things for themselves, or, more likely, their friends or family did. They also asked for a reconstruction but were refused because of the secrecy laws.
However, naturally, no police force is going to risk compromising an ongoing criminal investigation by giving out all the info they have at any one time. And the UK police would be lunatics to damage their working relationship and cooperation with another country’s police force, as would undoubtedly happen if they gave out info still confidential to the Portuguese police. But, although a literal reading of the police’s QC would, as you say, allow more than one interpretation (thanks for the direct quote last night), I still think his meaning was clear enough. The UK police probably do appreciate the Mcs’ wish for as much information as possible on the leads which have been properly followed up and rejected, but cannot possibly give them everything at the moment.
To be fair, De Sousa himself kept reminding the press that he couldn’t say much precisely because Portugal operates under the secrecy laws.
For example, in the UK, unless a court ordered otherwise or a case was sub judice, the Mcs themselves would be free to talk pretty freely about what had happened, as would their Tapas friends, although they might well be advised about what was or wasn’t wise to say. They were all warned of the consequences of opening their mouths by the Portuguese police. You could tell they were terrified to say anything for ages although, as time went on, and there were more and more police leaks, they did become a bit more relaxed about it. But even now there are things that none of them have talked about, even in the face of widespread and wild accusations of one kind and another, because of the threat of imprisonment if they do. None of them has yet given a simple, factual account of the events of the evening. They daren’t until the secrecy is lifted.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
SpongeBob
She’s not just a stat - she’s an Urban Myth (I’m not sure that’s really any better).
July 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Chenier
Not in secret. Very much publicised by their own man, and before the event. It was there for everyone to see
July 12th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Gandolph,
That is the McCanns legal teams strategry.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
558
chenier
Released by the police to the press, very much agreed. But not agreed by the Portuguese police .
What would have been known of Madeleine had it not been for the McCann’s campaign. Certainly nothing like the publicity given to other missing British children. Wasn’t the campaign’s existence (proposed to be) because they didn’t want her to become just another stat? For many, there are many reasons to hate them, but if they had not campaigned, she would have been just that
July 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
552
SpongeBob Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Chenier
The question still is: is it not reasonable, given the English systen of law re. precedents, to challenge the law?
———–
But they didn’t challenge the law.
They tried to circumvent it.
The law provides a clear pathway for people who wish to obtain information from public bodies; the Freedom of Information legislation is an important part of our civil liberties.
But instead of following that pathway, which provides for an appeal against the Chief Constable’s decision to be made to the Information Commissioner, and then to the Information Tribunal, they sought to demand information in secret using a Judge’s Order which the Judge had no power to make.
Parliament enacted the legislation in question, and only Parliament can overrule it…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Sam if Madeleine is dead she cannot be a ward of court the court of which she is a ward must be informed of her alleged demise, if not that is withholding evidence relative to a ward of court.
The P ortuguese legal establishment appears to be in some turmoil.
http://tinyurl.com/6o6loy
July 12th, 2008 at 1:03 am
good night annie
July 12th, 2008 at 1:00 am
537
Gandolf Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:14 am
she states quite clearly there is no evidence to the contrary. i don’t know if the lp is allowed to withhold evidence that suggests madeleine is dead , or what the judge would count as evidence.