Madeleine McCann: Portugal Police Search And Eilis O’Hanlon Empathises
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
SUNDAY PEOPLE: “Police hunt for Maddie ‘is still on’”
Portugal’s top cop has vowed to search “to the ends of the Earth” for Maddie McCann even though prosecutors have shelved the case. Almeida Rodrigues, head of the Judicial Police, said his detectives will chase up all leads until the 15-month mystery is solved.
No end in sight.
He said: “A case only stops being investigated if there is a successful criminal trial.”
IRISH INDEPENDENT: “Only McCanns know full pain of never-ending story - If you find the ambiguity hard to live with, imagine the trauma the McCanns have to endure, writes Eilis O’Hanlon”
Let’s empathise. Says O’Hanlon:
It’s difficult to know where the story can go from here.
But you’ve got a column to fill. Dig deep.
But it still feels as if an ending of sorts has been reached. The disappearance of Madeleine has become a part of history. That’s probably a shocking indictment of the shortness of our collective memory — but, reprehensible or not, it’s true.
It’s living history. Read about it today’s Irish Indy.
The internet obsessives will keep the flame burning a little longer, having determined long ago not to let a little thing like the facts stop them witch-hunting Kate and Gerry; but even they will give up eventually.
Read O’Hanlon’s column online.
And that’s why there’s still such an unwillingness among many to accept that the McCanns’ names really have been conclusively cleared. Take the Portuguese statement at face value, rather than deciphering it for clues that Madeleine’s parents really were guilty of her murder and are only being exonerated because they have powerful friends who put pressure on the authorities in Praia da Luz, and what it means is that there still isn’t closure and there’s precious little prospect of there ever being so. It means living with ambiguity.
Well, no. The McCanns are no longer suspects because there is no evidence to say otherwise. But hasn’t it all ended, O’Hanlon?
Posted: 27th, July 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (368) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Desperate Dan on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- Desperate Dan on The 14 Ten Most Offensive Google Search Results
- Clive on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- yampster on Jamie Cullum Sings The Persuit, In Pictures
- yampster on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
July 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Surely you mean challenged one is another windylicker Garth !
July 27th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
m.e., garth cannot provide one shred of evidence to support abduction,but I suspect you know that.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
m.e. Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Garth
So you have ‘faith’ that an abduction occurred and that Amaral is a fool and the McCanns told the truth. FAITH?…………
Very intelligent response……..
—————
Okay for your benefit………….. i have trust in their bleedin claims and believe it to be the firkin truth.
Is that better for you?
July 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Oh…I messed up with my smilies
July 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Gandolf
Never mind! I am having lots of fun,thats what counts
:lol:
July 27th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
yes, its a good site!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“Although the decision to proceed with the process has not yet been taken, Mitchell estimates that “probably there will be a process” in the Portuguese courts”
What fun!
http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/
Scroll to
“And then the Portuguese version of the thing, which they think won’t get to the UK”
…and more on this site
July 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
jo
Sadly i think you are the only one laughing at your posts.
………. well maybe not!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
m.e. Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
—————-
Hmm as i suspected…….
There are indications that an abduction took place. Whether you have faith in these claims is purely a matter of opinion. I’m of the opinion that Amaral is a complete and utter fool and that the McCanns told the truth.
Erm…….. why do you find that so bizarre? I could quite easily turn your question around dont you think?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I love this dined with friends nearby-business-sounds like they were sitting on the patio outside the bedroom window-not a triathlon away.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“He also makes a serious allegation against one of their “Tapas 7” dining pals”
Any news from the famous T7?
Are they going to sue him as well?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Garth, apologies if I have answered the wrong question, it is hard to keep track.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Not a very bright idea.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/europe/mccann-case-detectives-book-to-get-english-translation-13920498.html
July 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Garth,
She doesn’t have time to read a wee book, but is so convinced it is without merit?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Gandolf
You’re always mentioning Carter Ruck.
Are you on commission ?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
VQ
Really? Why is that then?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
coolandcalm Says:
VQ…. honestly? I would if I had time but I really am buried in work right now. I’ve got the Danny Collins book here but have only skimmed it superficially. Not enough hours in the day
–
Really not very convincing!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Garth, you should also have a look at Proud of the PJ blog spot.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
You will have to wait and see jo, Carter your getting Fuked don’t drop winnable cases, I think the McCanns will take their advice on the matter, any idea what that will likely be.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
gandolf-Yes i have-that wasn’t my question though.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Gandolf Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
———————
Most interesting, but I’m having some difficulties in understanding why you think this applies to a book published in Portugal…
July 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Maybe he’s been reading anorak and put IMO after everything he claims.
……. or maybe not. But isn’t the book called the truth about the lies? A very good start!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
But can they sue him for what he has published in Portugual?
I really don’t know the answer to this . .
Or if the translation is printed in the Canada, the US or Belize?
My belief, perhaps unfounded, is that given his law degree he might have checked out his potential liability rather carefully.
Obviously (or obvious to me), fear of libel has forced 3A to change their mode of operation. Or perhaps it was fear that their server would crash again on a big news day!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Our laws apply to our jurisdiction.
Someone publishing the book in England or Wales would be within them, but I don’t have the faintest idea about Scotland.
There would be some interesting points of law but I would have thought that the MCanns, and anyone else who thought the book defamed them, would have to sue in Portugal if they want to challenge a book published in Portuguese in Portugal…
July 27th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
m.e. Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Garth
So your point is that if Amaral cant prove his claim he is lying? Or just cant prove what could be a fact?
————————
It depends on how its worded in his book doesn’t it?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Gandolf
If I were them I would just drop it…
July 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
whoops have you heard of the internet…………..
July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Am I missing something? if the book is only published in Portugal does UK libel law have any effect?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
No news from the Leicester police?
Dont they have files?
Have the mccanns started to look for Madeleine now they are not arguidos anymore?
Are they planning to go back to portugal to look under all the unturned stones?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Jo read and pray for the ex-inspector.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Slander and libel - Burden of Proof on the Defendant
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to people being tried. They are presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal law), or the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities (in civil law). However, at first glance, this burden of proof, in UK defamation law, seems to be reversed.
Once the plaintiff meets the burden of proof that the publisher made the allegedly defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is then presumed — the innocence of the person allegedly defamed is presumed, rather than the innocence of the person allegedly defaming.
So the burden of proof falls onto the defendant in the case, which can be called a reversal of the burden of proof.
The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called “McLibel case”) held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position. [1]
In 1990, McDonald’s Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald’s corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald’s won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald’s announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial has been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights.