Will all this make a difference

I was wondering if all this media stuff will make any difference to the upcoming court cases Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral. And even the review itself. I'm not really sure yet. Maybe we'll have a better idea in a month or two. But there is no doubt now that the press have put pressure on in this case and have dictated to the Goverment. I wonder if there will be some sort of real explosive type of showdown or will it all eventually die down.

What sort of differences?

If the Cases go ahead, they will be heard under the relevant rules of Evidence and Judgement made according to the (relevant) facts.

Anything that is inadmissible will be stamped on by the Judges.

What I meant was, would the powers that be have to go more carefully in dealing with this case when it was shown that Cameron bowed so quickly to pressure to have the review. I'd love to know what the exact remit for the review is. Maybe it is just to trace all suspicious strangers round PDL in the last few years and follow up every lead to find them. Nothing about going back to basics, having a reconstruction or looking at any statements by the Tapas gang or timelines or any other such unimportant details.

I`m sure things will change as a consequence of Leveson and the Brooks trial. IMO I think there is far more to come out about police corruption - so maybe this will expose the real remit for the review. There is not one person I`ve spoken to who doesn`t agree that for a police force to disregard the parents`as suspects just would not happen. The tide is turning and one thing we can be grateful for is that RB talks too much and she is vengeful - she will drop herself in it and a whole load of others. Maybe attitudes are changing enough to affect Tony`s hearing, particularly if CR can feel the tide turning against them. IMO I can see this going until well into next year.

IMO the deafening silence in UK media (BBC included) on Cameron's overnight change of heart on McCann "review" following "threats" or "persuading" shows that things are as they ever were & Madeleine is still a long way from justice.

In fact I asked Jerry Lawton (of Daily Star) on twitter why not sharing Cameron's U turn & response I got was

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton
@GILLYSPOT i'm sure the Prime Minister will be asked to address this himself when he appears at the Leveson Inquiry

Since when has Daily Star Crime Reporter bothered whether the story was true (see recent Turkish story) but in this case Jerry seems sadly reticent to print even though damns a rival Murdoch paper. I wonder why?

This reluctance of any newspaper to speak out against the way this case is being handled is getting more than a little tiresome. The PM was more or less blackmailed, threatened, persuaded, call it what you will it all means the same. In regards to ordering this review. And yet not one single newspaper has the guts to come out and say how absolutely wrong this is. What on earth are they so afraid of.

Libels

Let's not forget, if it was for Murdoch, Cameron would not be prime minister.



He didn't actually put him there but I remember the heading in the sun....'we're backing cameron'....I thought ....so...well now I understand 'spin'.


Cameron has been 'bought'....not in the sense off 'payed' not like that.



It's the 'I got you there so now you do things for ME'....he has sold himself and I won't vote for him EVER again.

gillyspot wrote:IMO the deafening silence in UK media (BBC included) on Cameron's overnight change of heart on McCann "review" following "threats" or "persuading" shows that things are as they ever were & Madeleine is still a long way from justice.

In fact I asked Jerry Lawton (of Daily Star) on twitter why not sharing Cameron's U turn & response I got was

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton
@GILLYSPOT i'm sure the Prime Minister will be asked to address this himself when he appears at the Leveson Inquiry

Since when has Daily Star Crime Reporter bothered whether the story was true (see recent Turkish story) but in this case Jerry seems sadly reticent to print even though damns a rival Murdoch paper. I wonder why?

I understand what you're saying and I'm no expert, but I wonder whether the Leveson inquiry is sub judice. Has Cameron been summoned to appear? If he has and is to be questioned under oath, perhaps the same rules as apply as for trials/court proceedings and the press would be in contempt of court if they were to write more than simply report what happens?

I read that his appearance was postponed. So he could see the questions and prepare himself. Hmm. Well I suppose that is better than not recalling anything. Or is it.

I'm just hoping Jay asks Cameron what he recalls about any conversations or contact from Rebekah Brooks or any Murdoch staff regarding his 24 hour U turn on the McCann "review". Also whether he directed the "review" to have any pre conceived "remit" as IMO it clearly does.

gillyspot wrote:I'm just hoping Jay asks Cameron what he recalls about any conversations or contact from Rebekah Brooks or any Murdoch staff regarding his 24 hour U turn on the McCann "review". Also whether he directed the "review" to have any pre conceived "remit" as IMO it clearly does.

I wonder if it's still a matter of "national security" which is the card they all play when they don't want to answer.

Also how handy that R Brooks was arrested just before her evidence at the Sports & Media Select Committee so she could claim sub judice. - Met Police wanting something to hide perchance?

T4two wrote:

gillyspot wrote:I'm just hoping Jay asks Cameron what he recalls about any conversations or contact from Rebekah Brooks or any Murdoch staff regarding his 24 hour U turn on the McCann "review". Also whether he directed the "review" to have any pre conceived "remit" as IMO it clearly does.

I wonder if it's still a matter of "national security" which is the card they all play when they don't want to answer.

Maybe Enigma Diagnostics Limited who have a joint venture between the UK Government through the top secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down is of "national security"?

Good questions Gillyspot, though I doubt they will be asked. They will play 'its under police investigation' card so cannot ask at the LI

gillyspot wrote:Also how handy that R Brooks was arrested just before her evidence at the Sports & Media Select Committee so she could claim sub judice. - Met Police wanting something to hide perchance?

Hi gillyspot, don't know what you mean about the Sports Select Committee , is that to do with bskyb?

I think the U.K. Press for once are waiting to hear what Cameron has to say. They were quick to report the "Horse" story, but now the Brooks have been charged they are just waiting for June 13th when Rebekah appears at Crown Court.

June 13th isn't a Trial, just a directions hearing.

Brooks will require much time to get all the Evidence disclosed by the Prosecution and is, of course, entitled to prepare a Defence in an unhurried and non-prejudicial manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an actual Trial for many, many months.

The End Is Nigh wrote:June 13th isn't a Trial, just a directions hearing.

Brooks will require much time to get all the Evidence disclosed by the Prosecution and is, of course, entitled to prepare a Defence in an unhurried and non-prejudicial manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an actual Trial for many, many months.

Oh, I give up!!! Between The McCanns v Amaral, nearly two years.....now Rebekah Wade will probably take as long, what is wrong with the Justice Systems of Portugal and the U.K. that it takes that long? Surely the Police had accumulated all the evidence they needed in the Brooks case before
charging them? As for the McCann case, it is a civil Case which is not complicated so again you have to wonder at the delay, with no date set apparently.

The Wheels of Justice really do grind slowly.

don't give up Panda - that's what the McCanns are hoping.

keepingmum wrote:don't give up Panda - that's what the McCanns are hoping.

Hi keepingmum, don't often see you posting, hope all is well with you and yours. Seriously now, can you imagine this Forum surviving another Year,
already we are running out of comments, resorting to analyzing threads time and again , posting on these ridiculous Press reports of sightings of
Madeleine, good job Iv'e got the World News to comment on.

Slowly the truth will come out. I can't believe things have taken this long, but I believe justice will be done.

SteveT wrote:Slowly the truth will come out. I can't believe things have taken this long, but I believe justice will be done.

Hi Steve T, wake me up when something exciting happens., I'm half watching an old episode of Colombo, if he was on the case it would have been
solved by now. How long before Redwood pulls another sighting out of a Hat.

The End Is Nigh wrote:June 13th isn't a Trial, just a directions hearing.

Brooks will require much time to get all the Evidence disclosed by the Prosecution and is, of course, entitled to prepare a Defence in an unhurried and non-prejudicial manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an actual Trial for many, many months.

One of the main news channels said the trial wouldn`t be until the end of this year or beginning of next year.

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:June 13th isn't a Trial, just a directions hearing.

Brooks will require much time to get all the Evidence disclosed by the Prosecution and is, of course, entitled to prepare a Defence in an unhurried and non-prejudicial manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an actual Trial for many, many months.

Oh, I give up!!! Between The McCanns v Amaral, nearly two years.....now Rebekah Wade will probably take as long, what is wrong with the Justice Systems of Portugal and the U.K. that it takes that long? Surely the Police had accumulated all the evidence they needed in the Brooks case before
charging them? As for the McCann case, it is a civil Case which is not complicated so again you have to wonder at the delay, with no date set apparently.

The Wheels of Justice really do grind slowly.

Yes, the Police have all the Evidence for use by the Prosecution - but anybody accused of a Crime is entitled to have full Disclosure of that Evidence and to be able to prepare a Defence. You can't just put someone in front of a Jury without them having had an opportunity to weigh the Evidence for themselves, and to prepare to counter it (if pleading Not Guilty) or at the very least present Mitigation if pleading Guilty.

We're not into Kangaroo Courts here (yet!).

I'd go so far as to say it is right that the wheels grind relatively slowly as accused persons are Innocent in the eyes of the Law until Proven Guilty. Don't forget the Police have a head start, time-wise, so once they've got to the point where Charges are laid, only then does the clock start for the Accused.

Who here would appreciate being Charged and brought to Trial without having sufficient time - given the severity and complexity of the matter - to be able to rebut the Evidence?

Panda,

My wife is watching Columbo, hence the excuse to look in here!

I have nearly given up on this case many times, but think after 5 years we should go the course. The Murdoch influence and the fund will be their downfall.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:June 13th isn't a Trial, just a directions hearing.

Brooks will require much time to get all the Evidence disclosed by the Prosecution and is, of course, entitled to prepare a Defence in an unhurried and non-prejudicial manner.

I wouldn't hold my breath for an actual Trial for many, many months.

Oh, I give up!!! Between The McCanns v Amaral, nearly two years.....now Rebekah Wade will probably take as long, what is wrong with the Justice Systems of Portugal and the U.K. that it takes that long? Surely the Police had accumulated all the evidence they needed in the Brooks case before
charging them? As for the McCann case, it is a civil Case which is not complicated so again you have to wonder at the delay, with no date set apparently.

The Wheels of Justice really do grind slowly.

Yes, the Police have all the Evidence for use by the Prosecution - but anybody accused of a Crime is entitled to have full Disclosure of that Evidence and to be able to prepare a Defence. You can't just put someone in front of a Jury without them having had an opportunity to weigh the Evidence for themselves, and to prepare to counter it (if pleading Not Guilty) or at the very least present Mitigation if pleading Guilty.

We're not into Kangaroo Courts here (yet!).

McCann couple would love Kangaroo Courts - They managed to get the PT case shelved & expected UK (Murdoch,Brooks,Cameron & SY) pressure to re-open on their terms. Thankfully for Madeleine they seem to have refused - but for how long?