Monday 15 February 2016

AND THE ANSWER TO EVERY QUESTION IS ?



Whilst I do believe there are restrictions over the reporting of the Madeleine case, for most mainstream journalists, the Maddie case is one among thousands landing on their newsdesks every day.  They simply don't have the time or inclination to concentrate on one specific case. A case that will never pay the rent because no-one will publish their findings whilst a live criminal investigation is underway.

Newspapers are loathe to publish stories or articles that will land them in a legal quagmire, the news industry is too fast moving to get bogged down on individual stories that are unlikely to pay off, or even get past their legal teams.  I had a book published by Random House and the 'legal reading' is very intense, even the 'giants' are very wary of UK Libel Law.  Busy newsdesks have hundreds of stories to run past the lawyers and the problematic ones are usually ditched.

The idea that mainstream journalists KNOW the intimate details behind each and every story they report on, is ludicrous. Their job is to report the news, not to judge the participants and select those who are worthy or not worthy of airtime.  This is where the cesspit went seriously awry. They judge the reporters of the news rather than the news they are reporting.  Eg. That story can't be true because the reporter is a known adulterer.  They can't trust anyone other than the editor of the Parish magazine.  In a nutshell, they have lost the plot. 

But returning to the lack of interest in this case by the Mainstream Media.  Given that the answer to EVERY question is money.  When there is money in it, there will be an abundance of McCann stories everywhere and the Murdoch empire has a head start because they worked closely with them in their campaign for a Review. Who can forget the 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' front page. 

At the moment the floodgates are holding up because there is a live criminal investigation underway.  Most people, even avaricious old media moguls, understand that it would be morally reprehensible to interfere in a criminal investigation. Let's not forget that this case is about a little girl who's life was cut short and who deserves justice. Those conducting their own investigations and bombarding Operation Grange with FOI requests and Petitions are doing Madeleine a disservice, they are actively interfering in the judicial process by tying the police up with nonsense, and harassing witnesses.  I fear their interference will prevent any trial or any justice for Madeleine, and I'm actually beginning to wonder if that has been their aim all along. 

Not only are they wasting the Officers time, they are accusing them of corruption at the very least, and God knows what else, in their private discussion rooms.  They are protecting themselves from libel action by using anonymity, but their present safety lies in the fact that they are probably such a low priority in this case that no-one can be arsed with them.  But let's hope they have all added their real names to Bennett's Petitions anyway.

As it stands there has been no conclusion to the Madeleine case.  Operation Grange, may have wound down, but it hasn't closed.  At the moment there is nothing to protest against.  If it merely drags on without any announcement or result, anyone of us are free to take the matter to our local MP so that questions can be raised in the Houses of Parliament.  We live in a democracy, the investigation has been publicly funded, it cannot just be filed away with no questions asked. 

Meanwhile what kind of justice do we want?  I don't think anyone can dispute that those directly involved are living under a very dark cloud.  Their lives are no longer their own, they are all dependent on the links of a chain holding strong.  They are living in fear, and I cannot think of a worse prison than that.  A pro once asked me if it would really be so bad if they 'got away with it', and to be honest, I did have to stop and think about it.  The crime suspected is grotesque but the punishment is lifelong.

But returning to reality, the 'crime' didn't stop there, it grew and multiplied and it has been very cruel and destructive, not only for those daft enough to allow themselves to become so entangled, but to innocent bystanders and the cop who had the misfortune of being handed the poisoned chalice.  They deliberately set out to bring misery and fear to others, and they have preyed on peoples' kindness and generosity to amass a large fortune.  But worse, and in the words of Kate 'they will never stop'. 





33 comments:

  1. "Most people...understand that it would be morally reprehensible to interfere in a criminal investigation."

    That didn't seem to deter UK govt. reps. in Portugal, whilst those "actively interfering in the judicial process by tying the police up with nonsense, and harassing witnesses" may also have taken their cue from others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TOO much water under the bridge.

    So all was silent until the SUN's headliner today. That Mrs McCanns wants a one million following\campaign to kick start awareness procedure (again) for missing children.

    Whilst every single missing person, irrespective of age & circumstances, should have the same level of input as the case of Madeleine, all is not always possible. There remains no outstanding missing children's cases in the UK of minors, that can't be explained or accounted for in recent times. Familial troubles & quarrels muddy the waters.

    Madeleine is one that remains unaccounted for, had a very simple remedy and learning curve. Prevention is better than cure, if stranger abduction is the cause of this sad case. Else it provides a very strange alibi for the parents, that they were not there when she was taken.

    That should be the McCanns epitaph to their daughter, not chasing the end of a rainbow of campaigning for procedures and protocols.

    Or is this a different type of rainbow they are looking under again?

    So the Q remains, why is the Sun running with this article & front page now? What's cooking!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Point taken and I notice Genette Tate's name came up again recently - and things looked optimistic for closure. Perhaps I should define:
      Minor - under 5
      Recent - last 10 years.

      Else, yes, there are unsolved cases, Ben Needham.
      Not a minor but suspected as a victim of the Wests
      Mary Bastholm.

      Yes there are many. Sadly too many. And sadest of all those that totally go missing under the radar who are unknown & not missed.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Not Textusa15 February 2016 at 21:46 says

      "Stranger abduction of children under five is exceptionally rare,"

      But it happens.

      Of course you could add - from an OC apartment in Portugal in May.

      Shit happens.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. @ Anonymous15 February 2016 at 18:12 says

    "Madeleine is one that remains unaccounted for..."

    Ben Needham.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's pretty obvious what happened to Ben Needham if you look more closely into the case.

      Delete
    2. I guess you're thinking as I do that some members of his family know what happened to him.

      Delete
    3. Yes. The owner of the villa that the male members of the Needham family were building/renovating at the time of the disappearance scarpered quickly and didn't stay in the area. I wonder if he/they had some police contacts or similar which allowed them to keep a lid on everything. I am pretty sure that, rather like the Portuguese police, the Greek police probably smelt a rat. Reading about the case, there are some big red flags in terms of length of time that it took for anyone to raise the alarm and many other indicators that at least some members of the family know what happened.

      Delete
    4. Not in my opinion 18:39. The Needham family were clearly devastated by Ben's loss - they continued searching the area for years after. Kerry's face, bless her, shows the agonies she has been through and I am really not comfortable with this discussion to be honest.

      Delete
  4. I have no problem whatsoever with the Mccanns joining a campaign/alert system that may assist in future missing child cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. If anyone wants a laugh read on:

    1) The Madeline Foundation pays a Spanish interpreter about £200+ to translate "The book by Tamarit and Peribanez is copyright, but I’m pleased to host just one chapter of it here under the ‘fair use’ provisions of copyright legislation."

    2) Havern has been in tears all day after watching 4 (yes four) hours of Richard the light shine out of my arse Halls latest video about the Mccanns and then asks for volunteers to "dub" it to Portuguese to send to Amaral.

    The thread on CMOMM has been heavily edited to delete and remove things.

    Why the hell doesn't the foundation pay for the dubbing and send it personally to Amaral?

    By the way - fair usage does not include posting an entire chapter online and getting the local friendly hack posting it in Portugal.

    Hope the foundation (we all know who that is) have a good copyright lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The thread on CMOMM has been heavily edited to delete and remove things".

      How do you know that, Anonymous at 19.59 on 15th February. There's only a handful of posters who can be relied on not to upset the apple cart.

      What needed to be removed?

      Delete
    2. To be fair watching 4 hours of Richard Hall videos would reduce me to tears, which is why I would not put myself through it.

      They have tried to advertise it on here, but I'm not going to help with the promotion. They are not seeking justice for Madeleine, they are attempting to take the place of the police and the justice system by running their own investigation and accusing all and sundry of lying and in some cases, much, much more. I find their actions and behaviour absolutely abhorrent and when criminal charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice start flying around, I hope Bennett's name is on the list.

      They are vigilantes attempting to take the law into their own hands, and their gullible supporters still cannot see that their motives are far from honourable. Bennett has been trying to make his fortune with this case for years. Through his Madeleine Foundation, his books and now his videos.

      In Sonia Poulton and myself, he sees rivals and he is made as hell. In his head, he is the one who has done all the 'research' and written indepth volumes 1 to a zillion. He has been a martyr (not quite - he caved when it came to actual prison) and he has suffered for his cause. He believed this case would bring him the personal recognition he believes he deserves.

      Those who are pursuing their own personal theories are not seeking justice for Madeleine, they are seeking acknowledgment of their prowess as super sleuths. But they are not. They reached instant conclusions on this case based on their own personal values and prejudices. Having made their minds up, they have spent the last 9 years seeking evidence to back up their barmy claims, discarding anything that disagrees with their own line of thought.

      Some might say that what they are doing is harmless, but it isn't. They are investigating real people and accusing them of real crimes on public forums. Apart from the damage they are doing to these strangers' reputations, they could also be putting them at risk of attack. This case is very emotive, it involves the death of a child.

      Nobody wants to see a cover up, but attacking witnesses and innocent bystanders won't make any difference to the outcome. It is not for them to name suspects and then pursue them, all they doing is harassing and stalking witnesses, their actions have nothing to do with justice.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. 18:19
      Do you seriously believe in the authenticity of that letter?

      Delete
    6. It's actually an e-mail. If it's genuine, there's no way that someone who didn't know the McCanns could say that one of their children was in the background of his photos.

      With acknowledgement to a poster on the MMM forum, this is what he or she thinks the e-mail could really have said.

      I wonder if Philip Edmund now regrets this letter:

      "Dear Mr Bennett,

      "I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann.

      "I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is.

      "However, I would also not want further conspiracy theories to fester by simply ignoring your letter.

      "Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time.

      "Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct.

      "In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller.

      "I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.

      "Yours sincerely,

      "Philip Edmonds"


      Remove the middle paragraphs and the letter makes more sense:

      "Dear Mr Bennett,

      "I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann.

      "I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is.

      "I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.

      "Yours sincerely,

      "Philip Edmonds"

      Perhaps the letter was ...let's say enhanced before it was published online.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. I meant that, in every photo issued of Madeleine, she looks like a different child so, if she was in the background of a stranger's photos, he wouldn't have a clue that's who she was.

      I agree that it would be stupid to change someone's message but there are a few people who wonder if it's genuine.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Not textusa, do you believe Madeleine McCann disappeared due to an opportunist abduction (she was left unattended)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Why don't you stop using Cristobell's blog and answer posts on your own blog? That way you won't have to answer difficult questions here.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why have you censored my comment about Not Textusa, Ros?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are anonymous 14:08, so I don't know who you are or what comment you mean.

    However, I should add that I don't have the patience for bickering or sweary rants. If you have problems with NT, please take it to his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am the anonymous who has been questioning Not Textusa on his scepticism.
    I'm not bickering and have not used any swearing.
    The comment you have censored was a copy paste of his reply to me in his blog which I think would help your readers see the true colours of Not Textusa. I went as far as to censor his swearing.
    If you allow here quotes from CMOMM then you must allow by the same standard of free speech quotation from from Not Textusa's blog.
    I tried for him to reply on your blog.
    To give you an example, here in your blog he states "I commented that it has been observed that topsoil often contains fragments of medieval bone, brought to the surface by ploughing, so it is not unreasonable that a dog would react to such. It was merely an interesting anecdote, but of course I must be careful not to cast pearls before swine" while stating in his blog that it is because of odour spreading in a confined space causing the effect of curtain's in a smoker's room.
    That means the medieval bones he states in your blog are not an anecdote as he said it was but the statement of his belief of what the dog marked in the outdoor garden and that should be seen by your readers.
    Unless you want the version from only one side here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's so quiet here whilst there are Mccann sceptic online wars going on all over the place.

    ReplyDelete