Unsolved Madeleine McCann

[debunker]

The McCanns have been very litigious - few of the UK dailies can have been spared their court actions. Bear in mind that UK law is heavily weighted in favour of plaintiff. So much so there is a trade in libel tourism

Hard to know where they find the time

Tony,

Can you talk about exactly what your first book was banned for/under? What was the ruling

Let's keep to facts. How many British Dailies have been sued by the McCanns?

 

[debunker]

Nice to see you folks down under taking an interest in this case, I'm a member of the Jillhavern forum, please feel free to join us or just browse, (http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/forum).
Of course none of us know what happened to Maddy, however, there is much information and inaccuracies surrounding the case which deserves serious scrutiny.
If any of you need any questions answered, I will do my best to reply as factually as I can, or post a direct link to the information you require. All the best, Thomas.

You should make it clear that anyone expressing doubt about your own forum's position on the case will be banned within ten posts.

 

[debunker]

Nothing of the sort I imagine.

No cover up, just a hard work to rule on facts - you cannot divorce the perverse uk libel laws from the process.

Australia inherited a considerable amount of libel perversity from UK common Law. Additionally, Australia still has Criminal Libel on the books- a form of libel now disallowed in almost every other Western jurisdiction.

What exactly was perverse in this particular case in your opinion?

 

[debunker]

Ok, I read the blog site BlackCat suggested and it was very interesting.

Basically contends there is much evidence that isn't being represented/reported/given creedence outside of Portugal. Indeed, it suggests that the cover-up is coming from the McCann side.

here's a direct link to a page with a huge amount of resources and information

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com.au/

That site is an extreme site giving information biased in one direction only- collected by people convinced of th McCann's guilt. Similar sites exist that argue exactly the opposite and produce their facts to confrmthe McCann's innocence:

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/?sid=32454f8acac2f118ea3854175af9e218

http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/50565437/Main Page

 

[debunker]

I doubt she suffered at all. Mum put a valium too many in her goodnight drink anjd she never woke yp.

Were you there or are you speculating?

 

[grizzlym]

That site is an extreme site giving information biased in one direction only- collected by people convinced of th McCann's guilt. Similar sites exist that argue exactly the opposite and produce their facts to confrmthe McCann's innocence:

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/?sid=32454f8acac2f118ea3854175af9e218

http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/50565437/Main Page

Good. I'm collecting a variety of links for a resource post at the header of this thread.

Yes, I'm sure there's sites that cover the whole spectrum - I'm working my way across that ocean right now.

 

[nicky]

Debunker, i take it you're on the McCanns side?

Question for debunker, tony and thomas.... Do you have alerts for when a forum discuss the McCann case?

Fairly interesting.

 

[Sanders]

Let's keep to facts. How many British Dailies have been sued by the McCanns?

Before we go into that can you explain the purpose of your question?

Is it because you contend that they have not?

Or is it because you claim to not know?

Given your declared interest neither option seems likely

 

[debunker]

I've read a bit about this over the years. It's very weird. The McCann's are continually feeding the media with guaranteed headline-grabbers - 'Gypsies!', 'Known Pedos In Portugal' ect, which the tabloids eat up. It is almost a holy writ in the UK that 'Thou Must Not Say Anything Negative About The Parents'.

Did you know that the mum refused to answer any questions from the Portugese Police during the investigation? This has been painted by the British Tabloid press as 'Avoiding Entrapment' rather than 'Refusing to Co-Operate'.

The Portugese Police Officer in Charge of the investigation has basically said 'The McCann's did it'. Maybe it was an accident (did they give the kid too much drugs so she would sleep while they were away at dinner?). He has since been charged with corruption over another unrelated case, so he cops it from the tabloids.

Basically, the case has been gone over so much, that the internet is full of rubbish sites analysing 'Body Language' from past interviews and putting interpretations on holiday snapshots (Was It Manipulated?), and making much of apparently random facts (did you know the Dad had his wallet stolen the day he returned to the UK? Hmmmmm.....) that we have to realise it's really a big unknown spawning as many conspiracy theories as something like 9/11 - except there is no film of the actual event.

Let's keep to facts. Kate McCann answered many questions. Only when made Arguido (similar to being cautioned under British Law) and asked a series of accusatory questions which showed that the police were targeting her for killing Madeleine did she refuse to answer questions on advice of her lawyer and because she considered the questions to be slanted and unreasonable. It should be noted that the very Arguido status applied by the police to allow such pointed questions guarantees the person the absolute right to remain silent. It should also be noted that the Portuguese Police made Gerry and Kate McCann Arguido on the last possible day before the Portuguese Law changed that in future would have required them to provide 'reasonable suspicion' of the person committing a crime, rather than just plain 'suspicion'= make of that what you will. Gerry McCann ignored his legal advice and answered the questions put to him. It should be noted that very strangely, Gerry McCann was arguidoed and questioned one day and allowed to return home and allowed to discuss it with Kate and others, before Kate was interviewed the following day- was this done to put pressure on Kate? It is certainly odd behaviour to allow suspects to communicate between interviews!

 

[Sanders]

Australia inherited a considerable amount of libel perversity from UK common Law. Additionally, Australia still has Criminal Libel on the books- a form of libel now disallowed in almost every other Western jurisdiction.

What exactly was perverse in this particular case in your opinion?

Oh, i get it now.

Not sure what australia has to do with anything.

But before we proceed can you confirm it is your understand that libel laws operate more or less the same way from country to country?

And if that is not your understanding, could you clarify what it is your are trying to say?

 

[debunker]

Before we go into that can you explain the purpose of your question?

Is it because you contend that they have not?

Or is it because you claim to not know?

Given your declared interest neither option seems likely

I have no declared interest being a fence sitter.

I know that they sued the Express Group (publishers of the Express, Star and their Sunday editions) and received damages as the Express group admitted libel.

I do not think that the McCanns sued any other British Newspaper- the OP suggested that the Mccanns had been especially litigious against the British Press.

 

[Sanders]

That site is an extreme site giving information biased in one direction only- collected by people convinced of th McCann's guilt. Similar sites exist that argue exactly the opposite and produce their facts to confrmthe McCann's innocence:

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/?sid=32454f8acac2f118ea3854175af9e218

http://mccannhateexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/50565437/Main Page

Hold on. Facts are facts.

Inferences & interpretations can vary but the facts are what they are.

In any case, before you go much further how about you actually say something representing your views, addressing or presenting a line of discussion.

 

[debunker]

Oh, i get it now.

Not sure what australia has to do with anything.

But before we proceed can you confirm it is your understand that libel laws operate more or less the same way from country to country?

And if that is not your understanding, could you clarify what it is your are trying to say?

The OP called British Libel Laws perverse. Australia's Libel Laws are really quite similar, and in the case of Criminal Libel, much more perverse.

I am interested in what people thought was perverse about his particular case. The Express Group published repeated Speculations that defamed the McCanns over many months- previously they had filled the front page with outlandish Diana stories. The Express admitted the defamation and paid money into the Madeleine Fund.

 

[debunker]

Hold on. Facts are facts.

Inferences & interpretations can vary but the facts are what they are.

In any case, before you go much further how about you actually say something representing your views, addressing or presenting a line of discussion.

Many supposed facts are suppositions, bad translations, press reports and so on. Each side interprets the evidence in their own interest.

My view is that the two sides are engaged in a rather unappealing battle about who was right rather than making any attempt to find any common ground.

 

[debunker]

Hold on. Facts are facts.

Inferences & interpretations can vary but the facts are what they are.

In any case, before you go much further how about you actually say something representing your views, addressing or presenting a line of discussion.

I assume that you are a Anti- as in anti Kate and Gerry McCann. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Give me a fact about the case then! Is it a fact that DNA showed Madeleine or her remains were in the car. Is it a fact that the Dogs indicated the presence of cadaver odour?

 

[Sanders]

I have no declared interest being a fence sitter.

I am entirely certain you are anything but

I know that they sued the Express Group (publishers of the Express, Star and their Sunday editions) and received damages as the Express group admitted libel.

I do not think that the McCanns sued any other British Newspaper- the OP suggested that the Mccanns had been especially litigious against the British Press.

For someone who claims such knowledge, i am surprised by this position.

Off the top of my head the standard & telegraph both published apologies/retractions and paid damages after the threat of legal action. Private eye has always alluded to more.

Only the express group made it to court.

I am highly suspicious of anyone claiming that they were not aware of the McCann's propensity for legal action

That's never been in dispute - what is questioned 2 sides arguing about motivation there was (censoring vs stopping harming the search)

 

[Sanders]

I assume that you are a Anti- as in anti Kate and Gerry McCann. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Give me a fact about the case then! Is it a fact that DNA showed Madeleine or her remains were in the car. Is it a fact that the Dogs indicated the presence of cadaver odour?

Ha ha. That didn't take long.

Basic analytical rigour makes a distinction between known facts, supposition, inference & gaps.

Are you suggesting there are no known facts?

And why won't you actually contribute to the discussion?

I'll certainly be ignoring you shortly if you continue with this game

 

[Sanders]

The OP called British Libel Laws perverse. Australia's Libel Laws are really quite similar, and in the case of Criminal Libel, much more perverse.

I am interested in what people thought was perverse about his particular case. The Express Group published repeated Speculations that defamed the McCanns over many months- previously they had filled the front page with outlandish Diana stories. The Express admitted the defamation and paid money into the Madeleine Fund.

Please answer what I asked, not what you can answer?

 

[debunker]

I am entirely certain you are anything but






For someone who claims such knowledge, i am surprised by this position.

Off the top of my head the standard & telegraph both published apologies/retractions and paid damages after the threat of legal action. Private eye has always alluded to more.

Only the express group made it to court.

I am highly suspicious of anyone claiming that they were not aware of the McCann's propensity for legal action

That's never been in dispute - what is questioned 2 sides arguing about motivation there was (censoring vs stopping harming the search)

This is why we need facts. Please supply some form of support for your contention that the Evening Standard and The Daily Telegraph have been sued by the McCanns and have paid damages. Please reference where Private Eye alluded to more- issue number please.

I have done some preliminary googling and can find no evidence of damages paid by the Standard or Telegraph- not that it is my role to disprove it. You have suggested it so it is up to you to support your guesswork and memory with real information.

Otherwise we have more factoids, not facts.

 

[debunker]

Ha ha. That didn't take long.

Basic analytical rigour makes a distinction between known facts, supposition, inference & gaps.

Are you suggesting there are no known facts?

And why won't you actually contribute to the discussion?

I'll certainly be ignoring you shortly if you continue with this game

It is not a game. A Fact is something that is supported by information other than initial belief or supposition.

I think I asked you two questions of fact- DNA and Dogs- any reply?

 

[debunker]

Good. I'm collecting a variety of links for a resource post at the header of this thread.

Yes, I'm sure there's sites that cover the whole spectrum - I'm working my way across that ocean right now.

There are no neutral sites- any such attempt founders because of a failure to agree what levels of disagreement are acceptable.

 

[Sanders]

Let's keep to facts. Kate McCann answered many questions. Only when made Arguido (similar to being cautioned under British Law) and asked a series of accusatory questions which showed that the police were targeting her for killing Madeleine did she refuse to answer questions on advice of her lawyer and because she considered the questions to be slanted and unreasonable. It should be noted that the very Arguido status applied by the police to allow such pointed questions guarantees the person the absolute right to remain silent. It should also be noted that the Portuguese Police made Gerry and Kate McCann Arguido on the last possible day before the Portuguese Law changed that in future would have required them to provide 'reasonable suspicion' of the person committing a crime, rather than just plain 'suspicion'= make of that what you will. Gerry McCann ignored his legal advice and answered the questions put to him. It should be noted that very strangely, Gerry McCann was arguidoed and questioned one day and allowed to return home and allowed to discuss it with Kate and others, before Kate was interviewed the following day- was this done to put pressure on Kate? It is certainly odd behaviour to allow suspects to communicate between interviews!

So the fact is she refused to answer the questions as outlined in the BBC news article. That is a fact

The rambling justifications that follow don't change that. By all means suggest that this is not important or relevant to you, but it is not accurate to dispute this as a simple fact.

Its quite clear you have not come here to inform, discuss or contribute so i'm not likely to reply to you again.

What I will say is that it is very clear from this post you have a defined position - so why disguise that and try to pretend a neutral stance? It might have been useful to hear a well reasoned and argued standpoint from the other side

If you can't be honest about that, it casts a shadow over everything else.

Good day.

 

[nicky]

So the fact is she refused to answer the questions as outlined in the BBC news article. That is a fact

The rambling justifications that follow don't change that. By all means suggest that this is not important or relevant to you, but it is not accurate to dispute this as a simple fact.

Its quite clear you have not come here to inform, discuss or contribute so i'm not likely to reply to you again.

What I will say is that it is very clear from this post you have a defined position - so why disguise that and try to pretend a neutral stance? It might have been useful to hear a well reasoned and argued standpoint from the other side

If you can't be honest about that, it casts a shadow over everything else.

Good day.

Just because he's asking you for facts to support your hard line opinion that they're guilty doesn't mean he's not sitting on the fence. There isn't anyone in this thread arguing the hard line that they're innocent so it could be he doesn't have the opportunity to question that side.

 

[debunker]

Debunker, i take it you're on the McCanns side?

Question for debunker, tony and thomas.... Do you have alerts for when a forum discuss the McCann case?

Fairly interesting.

No. I respect their absolute right to be considered innocent in law. The Portuguese Legal system has stated that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with any prosecution for any crime (even child neglect surprisingly). They appear to have committed no crme in English Law.

I do not discount the possibility that the McCanns could have been involved, but consider it quite unlikely.

I get banned from both Pro and Anti sites for asking unaskable questions.

I came here as I monitor McCann Sites for any changes and jillhaverns has a slightly insulting thread about this site running currently.

Tony Bennett started the discussion (he seems to think that you are an American Rugby League Site!):

"So these luminaries of US football with connections such as journalists who are proficient in science as well as culture (albeit 'gonzo' whatever that means apart from the muppet) have worked it out?
David Icke I've no doubt means well, but I wouldn't call him lucid as he has the unfortunate tendency to connect totally unrelated events and people.

On the basis of the above the mcCanns have been declared innocent. Room temperature IQ is all that's needed to get to play American football imo."

So he thinks that you are ill-informed, ill-connected and with a room temperature IQ.

This abusive tone is the norm I am afraid.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6...mccann-began-this-week-on-the-big-footy-forum

 

[debunker]

So the fact is she refused to answer the questions as outlined in the BBC news article. That is a fact

The rambling justifications that follow don't change that. By all means suggest that this is not important or relevant to you, but it is not accurate to dispute this as a simple fact.

Its quite clear you have not come here to inform, discuss or contribute so i'm not likely to reply to you again.

What I will say is that it is very clear from this post you have a defined position - so why disguise that and try to pretend a neutral stance? It might have been useful to hear a well reasoned and argued standpoint from the other side

If you can't be honest about that, it casts a shadow over everything else.

Good day.

It is a FACT that she refused to answer questions posed after she was made Arguido.

It is a FACT that she had that right in law.

No conclusions can be draw from her refusal to answer questions.

That is why we have the presumption of innocence- the State must prove its case, the defendant is not required to prove their innocence.