Trial by media?

ShabbyTiger wrote:Some good points,,, but after hearing Redwood state on TV that it was a stranger abduction, and Amaral's recent comments in his TV interview I think that this case is finished, IMO. They have got away with it.

marxman wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Some good points,,, but after hearing Redwood state on TV that it was a stranger abduction, and Amaral's recent comments in his TV interview I think that this case is finished, IMO. They have got away with it.

Hi Shabbytiger, but could he really have stated it was so and so?
The 'stranger' abduction maybe a ruse. To state a culprit on TV
without due process would most surely destroy any possible legal
conviction. I'm now gravitating towards something big happening
soon and within the confines of a courtroom, free from media
intrusion and any possible counter claim for a trial by a bias media.

marxman wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Some good points,,, but after hearing Redwood state on TV that it was a stranger abduction, and Amaral's recent comments in his TV interview I think that this case is finished, IMO. They have got away with it.

Hi Shabbytiger, but could he really have stated it was so and so?
The 'stranger' abduction maybe a ruse. To state a culprit on TV
without due process would most surely destroy any possible legal
conviction. I'm now gravitating towards something big happening
soon and within the confines of a courtroom, free from media
intrusion and any possible counter claim for a trial by a bias media.

marxman wrote:What if, and its a big if, the NSY and the PJ have
united together with one common goal, which is to
bring closure to this case without any potential
legal hurdles or obstructions in the future?
The BBC may have been advised to construct a
semi-fair perspective without stating material facts
or forensic evidence which may scupper a future
court case.
If Panarama had clearly illustrated guilt, or reported
actual forensic evidence to support a guilty verdict
towards any suspect, I believe that this may be
viewed as 'Trial by Media' with a certainty that NO
fair trial could be held in the future, and NO fair and
independent jury could be found either.
With this as a possibility, it may explain a lot of the
crucial facts missing from programme and the reasoning
behind Redwood's plea for an opening to the case.
This, I believe maybe away of the mark, but it does,
I think, view circumstances behind the scene in a
different light.
I would welcome your views. Thanks.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

marxman wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Some good points,,, but after hearing Redwood state on TV that it was a stranger abduction, and Amaral's recent comments in his TV interview I think that this case is finished, IMO. They have got away with it.

Hi Shabbytiger, but could he really have stated it was so and so?
The 'stranger' abduction maybe a ruse. To state a culprit on TV
without due process would most surely destroy any possible legal
conviction. I'm now gravitating towards something big happening
soon and within the confines of a courtroom, free from media
intrusion and any possible counter claim for a trial by a bias media.

Again, I said as much yesterday: "Going Large" is the buzz.

mossman wrote:

I would agree with you and indeed your comments are along the lines of some I have made recently on many of the other threads, but much more eloquently stated.

Somebody here made a very good pont after the Panorama programme and the PJ admitting they had made mistakes. If they do not admit they made mistakes, it may not be so easy to re-open the investigation.

By taking as fact what we have read in the press about Portugal's current stance in this, we are almost endorsing what the press is saying about them being useless. I think we need to give them more credit than that and see that they could well be playing hard ball with SY in order to achieve the results they want, on their terms, because they know the truth.

We cannot expect overnight change and we most certainly cannot expect SY or the PJ or indeed anybody else to come out at this point in time and suggest the McCanns are guilty. It is not an open investigation and apart from that they will surely have to accord with the good old "innocent until proven guilty" stance.

What is printed in the press needs to be discounted totally. We should not read it or have regard to it in any way shape or form. Twitter would be a more reliable source of information, imo.

The media will be pro McCann until the very last word has been spoken by a judge at a trial in this matter. Then the tide will turn, but that is some time away.

I am very optomistic, there are many positives, of course not as many as we would wish for but there has been great change in the past week. The Panorama programme was never going to be a documentary on the evidence of the case that points to the McCanns guilt. It could not be in the interest of fairness. In comparison with what we have had to endure in the past, it was refreshing.

It will be a slow process, but I have feeling at long last word is spreading, sites such as this, twitter and others are being read and noted. They are alive with comments and more people are speaking out. I could say if that stops the McCanns win. But actually if that stops then Madeleine looses. It is not about the McCanns it is about Madeleine.

Never underestimate the power of what is written in places such as this.

If we give up on Madeleine, and that is what this is about, then she is lost forever. Her body may never be found, but the answers can be found, that is without doubt possible. It is the least she deserves.


TEIN do not feel alone in your optimism, you are definately not on your own.

maive wrote:I agree with you, it's what I think also..

I have just read that message on the other forum, it makes a lot of sense IMO. (Sorry if it's not allowed to do that)

*****

The Portuguese shelved the case.

The McCanns scarpered and didn't request the investigation stayed open.

The McCanns asked David Cameron for a review and have publicly stated they want the case reopened.

The SY say they have new evidence and want the case reopened.

The Portuguese say there is nothing that warrants the case being reopened.

Surely the ball is in the McCanns court now to request the case is reopened?

Could that be what the SY are doing? Trying to force the McCanns to request the reopening?

If they don't then why not? The SY say they have new evidence and the Portuguese want new evidence to reopen. So now it's up to the McC's to do the decent thing.

And if they don't, then why not?

ShabbyTiger wrote:

marxman wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Some good points,,, but after hearing Redwood state on TV that it was a stranger abduction, and Amaral's recent comments in his TV interview I think that this case is finished, IMO. They have got away with it.

Hi Shabbytiger, but could he really have stated it was so and so?
The 'stranger' abduction maybe a ruse. To state a culprit on TV
without due process would most surely destroy any possible legal
conviction. I'm now gravitating towards something big happening
soon and within the confines of a courtroom, free from media
intrusion and any possible counter claim for a trial by a bias media.

HI marxman. IMO Redwood should remained completely neutral IMO. "The inquiry is progressing with co-operation from the PJ" would have been sufficient. I could, just, have believed that SY were playing a blinder and lulling the Tapas crew into a false sense of security.... until I read Amaral's comments about the English only wanting to look at abduction. Sorry to be negative but IMO they have got away with it and are untouchable. I'm almost at the end of the line with this now.

kathybelle wrote:

maive wrote:I agree with you, it's what I think also..

I have just read that message on the other forum, it makes a lot of sense IMO. (Sorry if it's not allowed to do that)

*****

The Portuguese shelved the case.

The McCanns scarpered and didn't request the investigation stayed open.

The McCanns asked David Cameron for a review and have publicly stated they want the case reopened.

The SY say they have new evidence and want the case reopened.

The Portuguese say there is nothing that warrants the case being reopened.

Surely the ball is in the McCanns court now to request the case is reopened?

Could that be what the SY are doing? Trying to force the McCanns to request the reopening?

If they don't then why not? The SY say they have new evidence and the Portuguese want new evidence to reopen. So now it's up to the McC's to do the decent thing.

And if they don't, then why not?

mossman wrote:

marxman wrote:What if, and its a big if, the NSY and the PJ have
united together with one common goal, which is to
bring closure to this case without any potential
legal hurdles or obstructions in the future?
The BBC may have been advised to construct a
semi-fair perspective without stating material facts
or forensic evidence which may scupper a future
court case.
If Panarama had clearly illustrated guilt, or reported
actual forensic evidence to support a guilty verdict
towards any suspect, I believe that this may be
viewed as 'Trial by Media' with a certainty that NO
fair trial could be held in the future, and NO fair and
independent jury could be found either.
With this as a possibility, it may explain a lot of the
crucial facts missing from programme and the reasoning
behind Redwood's plea for an opening to the case.
This, I believe maybe away of the mark, but it does,
I think, view circumstances behind the scene in a
different light.
I would welcome your views. Thanks.

I would agree with you and indeed your comments are along the lines of some I have made recently on many of the other threads, but much more eloquently stated.

Somebody here made a very good pont after the Panorama programme and the PJ admitting they had made mistakes. If they do not admit they made mistakes, it may not be so easy to re-open the investigation.

By taking as fact what we have read in the press about Portugal's current stance in this, we are almost endorsing what the press is saying about them being useless. I think we need to give them more credit than that and see that they could well be playing hard ball with SY in order to achieve the results they want, on their terms, because they know the truth.

We cannot expect overnight change and we most certainly cannot expect SY or the PJ or indeed anybody else to come out at this point in time and suggest the McCanns are guilty. It is not an open investigation and apart from that they will surely have to accord with the good old "innocent until proven guilty" stance.

What is printed in the press needs to be discounted totally. We should not read it or have regard to it in any way shape or form. Twitter would be a more reliable source of information, imo.

The media will be pro McCann until the very last word has been spoken by a judge at a trial in this matter. Then the tide will turn, but that is some time away.

I am very optomistic, there are many positives, of course not as many as we would wish for but there has been great change in the past week. The Panorama programme was never going to be a documentary on the evidence of the case that points to the McCanns guilt. It could not be in the interest of fairness. In comparison with what we have had to endure in the past, it was refreshing.

It will be a slow process, but I have feeling at long last word is spreading, sites such as this, twitter and others are being read and noted. They are alive with comments and more people are speaking out. I could say if that stops the McCanns win. But actually if that stops then Madeleine looses. It is not about the McCanns it is about Madeleine.

Never underestimate the power of what is written in places such as this.

If we give up on Madeleine, and that is what this is about, then she is lost forever. Her body may never be found, but the answers can be found, that is without doubt possible. It is the least she deserves.


TEIN do not feel alone in your optimism, you are definately not on your own.

The End Is Nigh wrote:@ marxman:

That business about the Dogs and DNA most certainly could have been deliberate - I do see that stating what we consider fact ie Cadaver odour in all the "right" places would be massively prejudicial, in principle.

marxman wrote:
I can understand your frustration but can I be
so bold as to ask you to stay the course?
Just think of the diplomatic fall=out between
the UK and of it's oldest ally if this case is
not resolved?
Most of the sensible people of Portugal are
proud of their national advances and in their
police. Do you think they will settle for a
NSY whitewash or their proud PJ being seen
as second rate behind a UK police review?
Never!

ShabbyTiger wrote:

marxman wrote:
I can understand your frustration but can I be
so bold as to ask you to stay the course?
Just think of the diplomatic fall=out between
the UK and of it's oldest ally if this case is
not resolved?
Most of the sensible people of Portugal are
proud of their national advances and in their
police. Do you think they will settle for a
NSY whitewash or their proud PJ being seen
as second rate behind a UK police review?
Never!

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I didn't expect Redwood to come out and say the McCs were guilty.... I expected him, in that great police tradition, to be deadpan and neutral and to "give nothing away". So for him to turn round and say that he and his senior colleagues were "satsfied that this was a stranger abduction" was a real killer for me.

marxman wrote:

So Shabbytiger you agree that Redwood couldn't
point the finger at a suspect on TV?
Therefore, 'stranger' replaces 'person or persons
unknown' because he had to stay as neutral as
he could without giving anything away.