18 Mar 2008

SHANNON WAS KIDNAPPED AND FALSELY IMPRISONED







Poor little Shannon was indeed kidnapped and falsely imprisoned and it sounds like her dreadful ordeal was just about to get a whole lot worse when the Police, mercifully, burst in and rescued her. As can be seen from the Telegraph article below this vile pervert has now been charged and thank goodness he is now safely caged.


See also his ex wife's chilling account of the character and conduct of this sick man in the News of the World.


Sadly, this does seem to be yet another case, where the extreme danger this man posed was simply not picked up on, SSD even allowing him to have care of his own children for a time. As well as Shannon and her family, my heart also goes out to his ex wife who has obviously suffered such extreme trauma due to her association with this man. The account she gives, although in the News of the World, is an entirely typical profile of this sort of person and very credible IMO. However, it will be seen in the Telegraph, given that he has now been charged the CPS are requesting care in press reporting from here on in, so that this man receives a fair trial. Something all criminals are of course entitled to, no matter how heinous their crime. Like the McCanns this case again emphasises there can be so many victims of wicked criminals, apart from the primary victim. Shannon's mother, in particular, is clearly suffering a great deal. I hope that she can soon have her daughter back and the authorities can help resolve all the issues, most especially for Shannon, whatever they are.






Viv x









Michael Donovan charged with kidnapping Shannon MatthewsBy Paul Stokes, Nick Britten and Megan Levy
Last Updated: 11:04pm GMT 17/03/2008
A 39-year-old man has been charged with kidnapping and falsely imprisoning schoolgirl Shannon Matthews.
Karen Matthews only got glimpse of Shannon
Shannon's complex family tree held up police
Michael Donovan, a former computer programmer who now lives on disability benefits, will appear in Dewsbury Magistrates Court on Tuesday morning charged with snatching the nine-year-old on February 19.

Mick Donovan is led away from Halifax magistrates’ court
Mr Donovan, formerly known as Paul Drake, is an uncle of Shannon's stepfather Craig Meehan.
Peter Mann, Head of CPS West and North Yorkshire Complex Case Unit, said: "Having carefully considered all of the material supplied by West Yorkshire Police, we have made the decision that there is sufficient evidence and have authorised that Michael Donovan be charged with kidnapping and false imprisonment.
"We will continue to keep this case under constant review as it develops."
It has also emerged that Shannon was kept unaware of the massive search for her as she was held captive in a dingy flat for 24 days.
advertisement
Although there was a television in the premises, the nine-year-old was prevented from watching news programmes.
A senior police source told The Daily Telegraph: "We believe she was kept totally incommunicado. There was a TV in there, but we suspect she wasn't allowed to watch any news."
The source also disclosed how police had feared Shannon could have been in imminent danger before officers broke down the door and found her hidden in the base of a divan bed on Friday.
The disclosures came as Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire police, hit back at those criticising his force over claims that officers ignored leads regarding Shannon's whereabouts. He described them as "fantasists".
Instead he singled out for praise the two officers who found her, said he was "immensely satisfied and immensely proud" of his investigative team and dismissed accusations of a lack of professionalism.
Shannon remained in police care as two female detectives gently tried to coax more information from her about her ordeal.
Sir Norman said the three-week long investigation involved searching 3,000 houses and interviewing 6,000 people, mostly within a mile radius of Dewsbury Moor, West Yorks.
He said officers had received 2,000 calls from the public "with just a hook in there about a weirdo, paedophile, living at X or living at Y".

Shannon Matthews’s mother Karen returns home yesterday
He said the "painstaking investigation" to find Shannon reached its conclusion when "the jigsaw pieces came together" last Thursday, throwing up the address of Michael Donovan, Shannon's stepfather's uncle.
Two officers, Det Cons Paul Kettlewell and Nick Townsend, both members of the force's homicide and major inquiry team, visited his house in Batley Carr, Dewsbury, a mile from Shannon's house, but there was no reply.
They began questioning neighbours who told them for the first time they had heard child's footsteps in the flat and, keeping it under surveillance, asked for back-up before smashing the door in.
Sir Norman rounded on critics who claim police were given Mr Donovan's name early in the investigation and ignored it.
He said: "People who might have said, that have been quoted as having given the police the whole jigsaw, the box lid, are fantasising."
He said Shannon was "safe and well and in the place where she is the safest at the moment". She is being questioned in a child-friendly interview suite and questions are being kept to a maximum of two hours a day.
Her mother, Karen, 32, who has only been able to glimpse her through a one-way mirror, said: "I can't wait to have my daughter back."
She said that when she saw Shannon she was in "scraggy clothes" and her hair had not been brushed.
She said: "It was very hard not to be able to talk to her. When I first saw Shannon again I was overwhelmed - I just couldn't stop crying."









----------------------



Shannon's complex family tree held up policeBy Duncan Gardham and Paul Stokes
Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 17/03/2008
The complex extended network of Shannon Matthews's family was one of the key reasons why officers took as long as they did to find her, police have disclosed.
Shannon police defend actions
In addition to her mother's many relatives, her stepfather also had a myriad of family members who all needed to be investigated.
advertisement
Shannon's mother, Karen, 32, has had seven children by five different fathers and each had to be checked out. She did not register the father of her first child, Tony, 11, who was born when she was 20.
Shannon's father is Leon Rose, who is also the father of her older brother Ian, 10, who lives with him. The couple split up before Shannon was two and he now lives with a new partner in Huddersfield.
Karen's next relationship was with Paul Hooker, the father of Daniel, seven, who lives with his father.
That relationship lasted less than two years and Karen then took up with William Marshall, the father of Kelly, six, who lives with him.
The identity of the father of Cameron, five, remains a mystery because he was not registered at birth.
Her current relationship is with Craig Meehan, 22, with whom she has another child, Courtney, two.
Mr Meehan's mother was one of nine brothers and sisters, creating numerous further potential routes for investigation.
Officers were trawling through Shannon's complex family tree when they received information that led them to the flat of Michael Donovan - Mr Meehan's uncle.
Mr Donovan's two daughters, aged 10 and 12, were in care and he lived alone, although he had no convictions for sexual offences. Mr Donovan's ex-wife Sue Bird has six children by three fathers.
A senior police source said: "We would have got to Donovan eventually but someone we spoke to told us something that pushed him up the list."
Forensics officers arrived at Mr Donovan's sister's house two days before they found Shannon in a divan bed at Mr Donovan's flat.
Alice Meehan, Mr Meehan's mother, had moved out of the house a week earlier, neighbours said.






---------------------------------



Shannon man's vile sex secrets
Ex-wife reveals how he tried to strangle and smother her
ANGRY SUE: When I heard Shannon had vanished I knew it could have been Mick
By Neville Thurlbeck
The ex-wife of Shannon Matthews' kidnap suspect has revealed he secretly fantasised about sex with children.
In an exclusive interview Sue Bird told how Mick Donovan's sick lust was sensationally exposed when horrified teachers found graphic sex notes he'd put in his own DAUGHTER'S lunch box.
He was then BARRED from seeing 12-year-old Jane and sister Mary, aged 10, but SNATCHED them from council care and hid away with them in Blackpool for three days.
READ: I TOLD COPS A WEEK AGO
Sue said: "On top of that he used to force me to dress up as a schoolgirl for sex. That's why none of this is a surprise to me.
"He's actually kidnapped before, just 18 months ago. This man is a real
MASKING THE FEAR: Smiling Sue and baby Mary
nasty piece of work."
In an exclusive interview, Sue relived her seven years of hell atthe hands of the man who was hauled from his Dewsbury flat on Friday after police smashed their way in. They found nine-year-old Shannon hidden in the drawer under a divan bed. As West Yorkshire police gently questioned the youngster about her 24-day nightmare, Sue broke down and revealed she always had doubts about loner Donovan as he:
SPANKED her in bed while fantasising about being a kinky father or headmaster.
TRIED to STRANGLE her during one bizarre romp.
THREATENED to cut her throat unless she walked ten miles to get him drugs.
ENJOYED beating her black and blue—especially in bed.
Sue, 37, said: "Mick was a walking, ticking time bomb.
"He's so horrible, something like this was bound to happen. If he could kidnap his own children, he could kidnap anyone.
"When I heard little Shannon had been taken I was sick to the pit of my stomach. And I knew in my heart that it could have been Mick."
Sue insists 39-year-old Donovan— uncle to Shannon's stepdad Craig Meehan—had an unhealthy interest in children right from the start of their relationship in 1990.
"When he made me dress like a schoolgirl he'd want me in knee-high white socks, flat shoes and a tight top," she said.
"I had to tie my hair up in plaits. And always no make-up, to complete the schoolgirl look.
FAMILY LINK: Donovan and nephew Craig, Shannon's stepdad
Knife
"If I was wearing make-up, he'd make me go and wash it off.
"His nickname for me was ‘Toots' and schoolgirl sex was always his fantasy. He'd often want it twice a day.
"He'd spank my bottom during sex, too. He loved being in control. He said he loved feeling like a ‘father or headmaster' in bed.
"I went along with it because he was very dominating and violent.
"Sometimes, his violence would spill over into our lovemaking. He was having sex with me once when for no reason, he started strangling me. I could feel his hands tightening around my neck, so I pushed him as hard as I could and he fell off the bed.
"I really thought I'd had it. But he just put on his dressing gown and walked out of the bedroom.
"After that I started sleeping with a knife under the mattress. I honestly thought he'd kill me one day.
"He was really horrible, an obsessive compulsive man who had to be in control all the time—especially in a sexually violent way."
Sue, who suffered years of brutal beatings at the hands of the 5ft 6in, nine-stone Donovan, then recalled the terrifying moment when her worst fears nearly came true.
"A sixth sense woke me up," she said. "We'd gone to bed after a row and I suddenly awoke to find him straddling me and about to smother me with a pillow.
"I fought him off and he backed away, claiming he'd done it in his sleep. I never slept with him again after that. I stayed downstairs with a chair against the door.
"He was addicted to opiates, and when he was high he wanted sex all the time. But when he was off them, he used to have black moods and that's when he'd attack me. Anything would set him off. He used to punch me, kick me and slap me.
"He's broken my cheekbone and bust my nose several times. I always had cut lips and bruised ribs."
Although scrawny, Donovan has immense strength, says Susan.
"Once when the police came round to sort out a fight, he went ballistic," she said. "There were five hefty policemen and it took them all to pin him down.
Berserk
"He had a ferocious temper and it gave him superhuman strength."
Sue then recounted the chilling moment when, starved of drugs, Donovan threatened her with an eight-inch carving knife.
She said: "He knew my grandad had some powerful painkillers he was taking for his cancer so he wanted me to walk the ten miles from Dewsbury to Bradford and back to get them.
"I refused and he went berserk. He grabbed me from behind, slammed me against the wall and thrust the tip of the knife into my throat. I thought I was going to die. He looked me in the eyes and yelled, ‘Just do it girl!'
"So I did and my grandad handed the drugs over because he knew I'd get a beating if he didn't."
Susan first met met Donovan during a hospital visit to her mother in 1990. He was a fantasist who had changed his name from Paul Drake in honour of his TV idol, former Neighbours star and singer Jason Donovan.
The pair moved to Bradford where they married after Susan gave birth to their first daughter Jane in May, 1995.
(We have changed the names of both Donovan's children to protect their identities.)
Then just seven weeks after the birth of second daughter Mary in June, 1997, Susan was forced to flee Donovan for good.
Police had been called to the family home SEVEN times to deal with his violence but Sue always dropped charges.
But if she feared for herself, she was terrified for elder daughter Jane, with whom he had a worrying obsession. Susan felt unable to trust him alone with her. She said: "Something happened to Mick after Jane was born. He got very obsessive with her in an unnatural way.
"He was always interested in changing the girls' nappies. He delighted in it and took ages over it. It used to make my skin crawl.
"I couldn't relax around him or fully trust him with our children.
"There was something not quite right about him.
"As soon as we had the girls he became overpoweringly controlling and demanding.
Worried
"He'd take Jane out from 9am in the morning and not bring her back till 9pm at night. I was sick with worry.
"But he intimidated me so much I was afraid to go out in public with him. And I was shocked when we finally split and he said, ‘You're not taking Jane—but you can keep that thing!'—referring to our Mary."
For the next two years Sue lobbied social services to have Jane removed from Donovan. "I was really worried about her but they didn't seem to take me seriously," she said. Worse was to come. Susan became so depressed by her plight that in late 1998 she was admitted to hospital after a nervous breakdown.
"That's when social services let Mick have Mary, too," she said.
"Now both my daughters were under his control. I was bouncing off the walls with worry that he'd do something."
Finally social services acted in 2000, took both girls from Donovan and, with mum Sue still too depressed to care for them they were placed in a foster home. But their father still had access—until the scandal of the lunch box sex notes.
Sue, who now lives in Cornwall, last saw Jane in 1996 and Mary in 1998. They are being looked after by social services.
Sue told us: "My mental health deteriorated because of Mick. Much to my regret, I was in no fit state to look after the girls as I was in and out of hospital."
Sue's four other children by two other partners all live with their fathers.
She told us: "I can imagine how Shannon's parents are feeling right now because I've been through exactly the same fears.
"I just feel so sorry for Shannon. I wish something had been done about him earlier then maybe this wouldn't have happened.
"I'm so glad she's been found but I feel sick thinking about what he could have done to her.
"I don't believe that poor girl was there of her own free will.
"That man is sick. What would a 39-year-old man want with a nine-year-old girl?
"I just want to tell her family how sorry I am. I feel guilty that I didn't do enough to take this man off the streets earlier.
"I knew that something like this could happen but nobody would listen to me.
"I never want to see that creature Donovan again and I wish I'd never set eyes on him.
"He's the most destructive person I've ever met. The law and social services should have seen this coming long ago."



130 comments:

susan said...

I find it alarming that she has not been held by her mother yet.
It is one thing to gather information and keep her safe but as this moment in time the most natural action in the world is being denied.

viv said...

Hi Susan

Shannon had to be fully de-briefed by the Police as to precisely what happened to her and who was responsible for that. Very serious offences have been committed against her, by imprisoning her for 24 days. Until the police had de-briefed her they could not know the precise circumstances of what has been happening to her and who is involved. Shannon could only be de-briefed for just two hours a day. The police could not allow her mother to influence anything at all that she had to say and for that reason contact had to be denied. If her mother is not in any way responsible for the problems with Shannon and there are no other child protection concerns I am sure she will be returned as quickly as possible. The duty of the Police and SSD is to protect Shannon from any further harm whatsoever, she has suffered enough. Therefore they have made the right decision in this case, harsh as it may seem. We just do not know the full circumstances, as yet. Remember also Police have sought expert advice from Psychologists who are also working with Shannon.

ratonthebeam said...

Poor wee soul. To add to the family's misery, some people are saying it was all a hoax to make money a la McCann. I hope these people are proud of themselves.

Viv can you please get rid of that bloody picture of Gerry with the poster. It makes me want to throw up.

Zodiac said...

What a life of hell that man put his wife through. Destroyed her life, his two daughters lives and now had an effect on Shannon Matthew's life. I do hope that Shannon has not suffered physically. Susan I agree it is alarming that she has not been held by her mother, although as I have no emotional conection to Shannon, I can see why this has been done and I do believe that any child in the same circumstances would be treated with the same care. Karen Matthews I applaud your strength. I hope your daughter can be re-united with those she loves very soon. Karen Matthew's statements to the press are far more eloquent than than a certain PR person, is that because they sound real. IMO.

Zodiac said...

Those criticising the Police of ignoring leads described as fantasists. Hmmm...where have I heard that word before.

stormbreaker said...

Great post Viv,

It is good to see how sensitively and accurately you deal with relevant issues.
Good morning everyone.

Lindsey said...

Hi everyone,

I feel for his ex-wife, but one part of that interview made my blood run cold. Where she describes how he was obsessed with one of the daughters and used to take ages changing her nappy. Why didn't she take those babies and run?

I think the News of the World was also having a dig at her about how her other four children live with their dads.

Do you think Shannon will be allowed back to live with her mother? Apparently her grandparents do not want her living with the stepdad

lizzy said...

zodiac
I think that is the difference in this case, the people in it have been themselves, not a carefully staged interview or appearance as in the Mccanns case, the friends and family in the street with cans, not everybody's idea of what is normal, but at least they were acting true to themselves, and have been proven now to be innocent of any involvement. I hope that Shannon is soon reunited with her mum and friends.Lizzy

Zodiac said...

Yes Lizzy I agree. They are acting normally. Does not appear staged, IMO. Karen Matthew's friend Petra Jamieson spoke to the TV press the night Shannon was found, she was eloquent and gave a genuine, heartfelt, dignifed statement. No expensive PR spokesperson needed. You could see and feel the joy and relieve on Petra's face. They are not covering up their lifestyle, it is very much this our life and we are happy that Shannon is alive. That is the way it should be.

2345 said...

Telegraph articles begs questions -

Why did the ex wife of a man she graphically describes as a depraved monster withhold this nformation from the Police for 24 consecutive days ?

Why did the rest of Shannon's complex relatives also withhold the 'monster's name(s) and address ?

I'm with the Police in this case - they gave the family the profile - most likely a man known to Shannon yet the entire family kept his existence secret.

Extracts of Head of Yorkshire Police FULL comments published in DE are taken out of context in Telegraph; relatives detailed interview comments in Telegraph were withheld from the Police throughout 24 day search.

"The crack detectives who eventually found her are "heroes" said Police chief in today's DE article. Their diligence, without one day off since 17 February, neighbour's 'tip off' of child's footsteps led police to Donovan's door". No thanks to Shannon's family deception and collusion.

The Police, not the family, told DE journalist that the Uncle had admitted it was a scam - £1 m being their hope. Damning PR for the McCanns - not to CM's liking.

Relatives who failed to give police critical information are, it seems, happy to co-operative with a 'journalist' for publicity.

This somewhat poor family did not get their hoped for £1 m, but they are prime targets where bribery is concerned.

The Police themselves said on BBC news that Shannon was found clean happy and smiling.

If it wasn't a scam, Shannon's family will, no doubt, be asked by detectives why they withheld critical informaton, wasted Police time and multi millions pounds of taxpayers money.

IF Donovan's ex wife's comments are true, their failure to inform the police involve extremely serious issues. Results of medical tests are awaited, along with DNA evidence. Police suspect Shannon's mother's presence in Donovan's flat - BBC showed forensic team at work there.

As always, I'm ignoring Clarrie's PR involvement and influence in this case.



The question is how much Donovon's ex wife was paid for the interview and, given it's horrifying content, why she withheld it from the Police.

The family didn't get the hoped for £1 m. McCann style, by they ose on McCann payroll have been given graphic details withheld from the police throughout the search.
their co-operation with

their ownonly question in my mind is how much the relatives who caused a multi million pound search as a result of withholding information requested have been paid

Head of Yorkshire Police stated finding the learning of

2345 said...

Apologies - post ends with Clarrie - been interrupted and omitted to delete the rest !

ratonthebeam said...

2345 cutting Clarrie off in his prime - I wish!!!!!

What's Shannon's case got to do with him anyway. Best of luck to Shannon's mum. She might have seven kids and be on benefits but she has displayed infinitely more dignity, humanity and class throughout than Doctor Gerry McCann.

atardi said...

Hello everyone,

Just read two articles, one in Metro and one in Daily Mail about the novel
"The star of Madeleine".

Has the novel been released in England?

irina said...

Hello everyone,
As I see it based up on information so far, I believe Shannon went there on her own will. She wanted to run away from home and she found a support from a man visiting her next door relative. She would not know of course of the dangers and character of the man. He, I think, did not do anything horrible to Shannon, but did not let her go as well, so it was interrupted just in time.
As to accusations, I would be very careful. It seems there are a lot of them: of the mother and stepfather, of that Mike man (very bitter circle of family).
As to mother I give her full support and credit (though she needs counseling and help). She as, many women, as Tolstoy once said: wanted to marry and have children. It is not that easy in the current society and with the current men.

The Mick, I think should be given treatment, not the jail (I trust he did not do it, but could.)

irina said...

In relation to "It has to stop" article, I would say (sorry if I hurt someone), UK as many other states has to follow the AAA path and as they are requires to admit before the recovery: I am alcoholic, People of UK should admit: We are not the democracy (in the proper cense of it) and then things will start to change. Otherwise you will still be killing woman and children in oil countries, you will still be fed up rubbish in the media, you will still be manipulated by McCanns. And "Madeleine’s" will still be murdered.

As to McCanns process, I think PJ are getting to the truth, where Madeleine's body is right now.

Yes for the sake of self-preservation the GOv will give Mcs to the justice now. But the system will remain the same and will continue its manipulation. (Examples just in the recent news).
SAD!!!

irina said...

PS. Re: Shannon. What I think happen is - she had hard time (in her view may be) at home and wanted to run away. She found support from this person and went to him with her problems. Then, she wanted to go back with all the searching started... But he tried to keep her, afraid of consequences. I would say he did not figure it out what to do with her (I bet he let some one know and asked an advice). She was persuaded to stay - either by the promises to get it sorted, or because she had feared consequences as well.
I bet he was not dreaming to heart her, he was afraid. I bet she will make up story (would not be making up bad things of him though, as I think she is a kind kid). Hope police will weed through it.

2345 said...

irini,

The Police have said that the family withheld this relative's name and existence despite the fact he fitted the profile they gave Shannon's family.

irina said...

2345,
Everything is complicated in those cases, that is their cause...
poor chidren are the ones that pay the price.
Sorry, cant stay long, my daughter is not well.
Hope to read you soon.

viv said...

Hi Irina

I do hope your daughter is better soon. x

viv said...

Hiya Rat

Just for you I will remove that pic of Gerry with the poster. Have to admit I looked at it myself, the expression on his boozy red face, and felt utter revulsion. Sometimes pictures do say it even louder than words, don't they!

I think the issue of was it a hoax or was it a genuine abduction should bring home to us just one more time, that we should not just avidly devour and believe in what a newspaper is saying.

The Daily Express of all papers taught us this, with cynical turns about of anti and pro McCann articles each day. They are just presenting the stories and the public must use their better judgment as to whether or not they believe them.

I checked and there certainly were some pretty low grade newspapers salaciously suggesting Shannon was a McCann style hoax to cash in. This was very cruel IMO. Not believing this for one moment, I checked The Times and of course they were reporting the exact opposite. Then in The Telegraph we had the definitive report this man had been charged. So, lessons to be learned - generally you can accept what you read in the Times and The Telegraph, but you should always keep an open mind, use your intelligence and compare several press reports to try and ascertain what may actually be the truth. Not just leap on one red top, as the Pro McCanns did with The People and then start churning it out as fact...(!)

viv said...

Hiya ROB

What a lovely comment about Shannon's mum and I wholeheartedly agree. We have had no hostile, defensive behaviour, just a devastated mum, co-operating with the Police. That, I believe, is because she is fundamentally innocent.

She may not be a perfect mum, but she would not deliberately set out to harm her daughter and then cover it up.

ROB SAID

What's Shannon's case got to do with him anyway. Best of luck to Shannon's mum. She might have seven kids and be on benefits but she has displayed infinitely more dignity, humanity and class throughout than Doctor Gerry McCann.

So far as Donovan is concerned, I do not think everyone appreciates quite how serious his behaviour was. The Crown Prosecution Service have clearly implied that further charges may follow, but just on the basis of what he has done, he could be facing a life sentence. I think we should carefully consider the words the police have used, she was, at the point of rescuing her about to face very grave danger. I do not think it takes a lot of working out what they mean by that or what this man's intentions may have been. He kept this child a prisoner with no intention of releasing her, when he knew full well there was a massive police hunt for her. Also it would seem he left her alone - how did he ensure she would not escape when doing so?

hope4truth said...

Hello Everyone

I guess the police had to be sure that the Mum was not involved in any of this but can anyone ever remeber any child that had been found in the past being kept away for so long?

I dont know how I could bear it so Karen is a stronger woman than I am. I just hope that Shannon was not hurt and the police have all the evidence they need to lock him out of harms way...

atardi said...

Hey Hope,

How was your day?

About Shannon: I can't say anything. I read the above article but still find it hard to comment on it.

You are right. She was found after being kept for so long. Hope also that she hasn't been hurt.

hope4truth said...

Hey Atardi

I think it is amazing you can coment on anything I wish I could speak another language :o(

I am just checking my e mails hope you had a good day???

viv said...

Hiya both

I guess the biggest concern with Shannon is the emotional harm she will have suffered and perhaps losing her innocence. We just do not know what this man has been filling her head with. People who are kept prisoner against their will do suffer a lot of damage. Children can easily be coerced by an adult and so cannot give consent to such treatment. The length of the false imprisonment is always relevant when it comes to sentencing. Here is was very lengthy, not just a matter of minutes or hours as in some kidnappings to rape or hurt but a massive 24 days and but for the police she would clearly still be a prisoner. Also it was not an adult but a child, for all these reasons he is in very serious trouble for the harm he harm he will have inevitably caused to this child and her family.

I really do admire her mum. She has just calmly understood that the police need to work with this child to find out exactly what happened and there has been no aggressive demands or police blaming. This, I believe, demonstrates a genuine concern for the best interests of her daughter, not herself. Something the McCanns could learn a great deal from IMO - but there again, they are not innocent.

atardi said...

Hope4truth,

Going to bed. Tomorrow we will have to start at 6.45. I had a good day.
Have you been reading about the release of the novel about Madeleine?

I find it very diificult to comment on the Shannon's case. Time will tell. Let's hope her life will be changed from now on.

viv said...

Hiya Atardi

I think we do need to be careful about what we say in Shannon's case, given this man has actually been charged. Also I have a feeling there is so much more to be revealed, but we do not know precisely what and should not speculate.

Take care.
viv x

hope4truth said...

Sleep well Atardi

See you tomorrow xxx

hope4truth said...

Viv

Hi hope you are well???

I know Shannon must come first but I cant imagine not being able to hold my child (I am so selfish I would never want to let her go again) but the police know what they are doing and I hope whatever problems she may have had before will be sorted out...

x

docmac said...

Hi Viv and Hope, goedenavond Atardi

Geez, Viv, you have VERY strong views on this case after just a few brief news reports. Life sentence? It took me a LOT longer than a few hours to become convinced of Gerry and Kate's guilt.

I am much more cautious about all this. After all, the police according to the article did not say she was definitely in imminent danger. They used terms such as "believe", "feared" and "suspect".

I note that the ex wife has had no contact whatsoever with either child since somewhere around their 1st birthdays, so the possibility of revenge may smell particularly sweet right now. Her statements seem to me to be a tad over the top. If all that she has said were true, I doubt that Donovan would have been a free man until now. She would rather withdraw charges 7 times and sleep with a knife? Sorry, I don't buy that, even taking into account that women are known to stick by abusive husbands. Why the hell did she not report her suspicions earlier? As for the details of their sex life, those sort of fetishes are common, normal and legal. The changing of the nappy story also sounds as if it was embellished to imply some abnormal behaviour on his part. I don't believe a lot of what she says and the fact that the journalist feels the need for us to know this kind of detail smacks of salacious reporting.

I think the young girl is frightened of what is going to happen if she makes any admission of culpability. Kids of her age are often very adept at lying with a straight face. The fact that Karen's parents don't wish her to return to their own daughter and the boyfriend speaks volumes.

My thoughts only, it's still early days in this case. Something is not right here. I strongly suspect that much more is yet to be revealed. No throwing of bricks or placement of bombs on my head please ;-)

atardi said...

Viv,

I really must say that I have no opinion about Shannon's case. But don't hope it was a planned abduction. Just for the money. I followed the Shannon case but wasn't so emotianly attached like the Madeleine case. My kids received a message about Madeleine. And they did react on that message. So my kids got me involved too.

Thank God Shannon can continue her life. I'm sure that she will get any helpfrom now on and also her family..

isis said...

version|About the versions Low graphics|Accessibility help One-Minute World News

News services
Your news when you want it


News Front Page

Africa
Americas
Asia-Pacific
Europe
Middle East
South Asia
UK
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
UK Politics
Education
Magazine
Business
Health
Science/Nature
Technology
Entertainment
Also in the news
-----------------
Video and Audio
-----------------
Have Your Say
In Pictures
Country Profiles
Special Reports RELATED BBC SITES
SPORT
WEATHER
ON THIS DAY
EDITORS' BLOG
Last Updated: Tuesday, 18 March 2008, 22:02 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Damages due over McCann stories
By Richard Bilton
BBC News special correspondent



The McCanns will receive a public apology, read in open court
Four newspapers are to set to pay damages to the parents of Madeleine McCann, after settling a libel case, the BBC has learned.
The Daily and Sunday Express, along with the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday are to pay a "substantial" sum and print front-page apologies.

Kate and Gerry McCann's lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

The couple say all the damages will be donated to the Find Madeleine fund.

The Daily Express is to carry a full front-page apology in Wednesday's paper, while the Star's apology will take over half its front-page.

The papers are expected to apologise for suggesting Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in their daughter's disappearance.

The action relates to more than a hundred stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

I think this is an amazing stand-down, u-turn, by the Express newspapers

Media commentator Roy Greenslade

Under the terms of the settlement - at Kate and Gerry McCann's insistence - Express Newspapers' barrister will also read out an apology before a judge at the High Court on Wednesday.

The Express group has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

The McCanns have promised that the damages will be paid into the "fighting fund" set up to pay for efforts to find their missing daughter.

'Trust and credibility'

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, u-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."


Madeleine McCann went missing in Portugal in May 2007

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert from Finers Stephens Innocent said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future, if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

Madeleine, of Rothley, Leicestershire, went missing, aged three, in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on 3 May last year.

atardi said...

Goedenavond Docmac also,

About Shannon's case I don't know what to believe.

leigh3 said...

TOMORROW THE DAILY EXPRESS AND ITS SISTER NEWSPAPERS WILL APOLOGISE TO THE MCCANNS AND PAY DAMAGES WHICH THE MCCANNS SAY WILL GO TO THE MISSING MADDIE FUND.

I APOLOGISE FOR NOTHING. MADDIE IS DEAD. THE MCCANN MACHINE OF MEDIA MANIPULATORS KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE AMATEUR GAME OF MANIPULATION AND THE UK LAW OF LIBEL WHICH IS A 'RICH MAN'S LAW'. A LAW OFTEN USED BY RICH LIARS. MCCANNS MAY BE TELLING THE TRUTH. ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

THEIR BLOOD MONEY WILL SEEP FROM THEIR CLAWS, AND AMOUNT TO NOTHING, IMO.

JUSTICE FOR MADDIE, AND EVERY MISSING OR ABUSED CHILD.

viv said...

Hiya Hope

Mum does live with this man's nephew and they are a huge family on both sides. It may be a case of mum not intentionally putting her in harm's way. Mum is stoically having to face the fact that Shannon will be telling all and mum cannot stop that. In all the circumstances she really does have to be admired. This is an act of love IMO.

I am sure that if it is possible to re-unite mum and daughter safely, without causing any further harm to Shannon, that will happen very soon, but mum may have conditions to meet.

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LittleGreyCell said...

Hello Everyone,

Not been around for a while due to sudden illness - jolly fun evening in A & E the other night; lucky they hadn't yet closed it as threatened. What a wonderful country. :)

And here's something else to be grateful for:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm

Damages due over McCann stories
By Richard Bilton
BBC News special correspondent

Four newspapers are to set to pay damages to the parents of Madeleine McCann, after settling a libel case, the BBC has learned.

The Daily and Sunday Express, along with the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday are to pay a "substantial" sum and print front-page apologies.

Kate and Gerry McCann's lawyers said that some of the newspapers' articles were "grossly defamatory".

The couple say all the damages will be donated to the Find Madeleine fund.

The Daily Express is to carry a full front-page apology in Wednesday's paper, while the Star's apology will take over half its front-page.

The papers are expected to apologise for suggesting Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in their daughter's disappearance.

The action relates to more than a hundred stories across the four titles, including 42 printed in the Daily Express.

Under the terms of the settlement - at Kate and Gerry McCann's insistence - Express Newspapers' barrister will also read out an apology before a judge at the High Court on Wednesday.

The Express group has agreed to all the McCanns' requests. It is also paying all their costs.

The McCanns have promised that the damages will be paid into the "fighting fund" set up to pay for efforts to find their missing daughter.

'Trust and credibility'

Media commentator Roy Greenslade said that for two national newspapers to carry front-page apologies at the same time was "unprecedented".

"I think this is an amazing stand-down, u-turn, by the Express newspapers," he said.

"I think when people realise that more than 100 stories have been complained about as being grossly defamatory, it will annihilate the Express' readers sense of trust and credibility in their newspaper."

Media lawyer Paul Gilbert from Finers Stephens Innocent said the courts encourage early settlement of defamation cases.

"Clearly the Express' lawyers felt this was a case they should settle without a high-profile trial - which it would be - and as a result have saved considerable costs," he said.

"It certainly is a warning sign to newspapers in the future, if they're going to speculate, they've got to be very careful about what they speculate about."

Madeleine, of Rothley, Leicestershire, went missing, aged three, in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on 3 May last year.

Story from BBC NEWS:

(I was being ironic about something to be grateful for. Think I'll just go back to the hospital now for a lie down).

LittleGreyCell said...

Supertroll,

Shame the PJ still think they did it then, doesn't it?

I wouldn't open the champagne just yet, ST, for as Jonathan Aitken discovered, it's never too late to repay libel damages...

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
viv said...

Hiya Doc

Sentencing guidelines on this particular offence and the aggravating features, e.g. child detained by a non- relative over a lengthy period of time, give a range of 8 years to life. It is not my strong views that is the law and how seriously it views this particular offence of deprivation of liberty. Abduction of children, whatever the motives, and these are usually very sinister, will always attract a very hefty sentence.

Title Offences against the person
Offence Kidnapping - False Imprisonment
Legislation Common law
Commencement Date
Mode of Trial Indictable only
Statutory Limitations
& Maximum Penalty At large
Sentencing Range Serious specified violent offence
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
See main text

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)
Guideline case R v Spence and Thomas (1983) 5 Cr.App.R.(S.) 413. There is a wide possible variation in seriousness between one instance of kidnapping and another. At the top of the scale comes the carefully planned abductions where the victim is used as a hostage or where ransom money is demanded. Such offences will seldom be met with less than 8 years' imprisonment or thereabouts. Where violence or firearms are used, there are other exacerbating features such as detention of the victim over a long period of time, then the proper sentence will be very much longer than that. At the other end of the scale are those offences which can perhaps scarcely be classed as kidnapping at all. They very often rise as a sequel to family tiffs or lovers' disputes, and seldom require anything more than 18 months' imprisonment, and sometimes a great deal less.

Relevant Sentencing Case Law
Recent Decisions reported in CSP at B 3-4.3 covering kidnapping, false imprisonment and abduction divided into: unplanned kidnapping or hostage taking; kidnapping with view to ransom demand; kidnapping with view to forcing women into prostitution; kidnapping arising out of emotional relationship; kidnapping for revenge or to inflict punishment; kidnapping for political purpose; abduction of child by parent; abduction of child by stranger.

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
viv said...

Hiya all,

Aitken and Archer won libel damages but then had to pay them all back..

It may well be the Express went too far in their reports printing detail that actually suggests they are guilty, but this does not make them innocent. The Police case continues. As Gerry has previously commented, they are engaged in an aggressive and high risk strategy. Indeed!

docmac said...

Thanks for the relevant legislation, Viv. Surely it applies to detainment against the child's will? If one of my kids had run away and gone to stay with a relative or other trusted adult I would expect social services to have a damn good look at my circumstances as well. I just feel this case is not as cut and dried as is it being made out to be.

HELLO LGC! Hope you have fully recovered from whatever ailed you. Did you get a big homecoming welcome from Opus? Has he lost weight while you were away, or does he have a penguin flap so that he can sort himself out at the local supermarket?

LittleGreyCell said...

Hello Viv,

I was watching the news about Heather Mills and the Published Judgement of Doom (think JK Rowling missed that one), and it was noted that it was now open season for the press to say what they like about her because it's all been said by a judge. Don't think she's very happy this evening.

I really can't understand this settlement by Express newspapers, though. Well, I know Desmond didn't want to go to trial because of the cost if he lost, but surely nothing lowers someone's reputation more than being an official suspect in the disappearance of their daughter? In an on-going investigation??

hope4truth said...

Hello LGC thought we had lost you in Cyber Space did not think to look in A&E hope you are ok x

isis said...

Anyone taking bets as to whether this front page apology will be available for comments in the on line edition......... opus .. no need to hide im not going to issue any threats to you tonight now that iv just found you again. Suppose the fund will be nicely topped up now so we will have more sightings !

hope4truth said...

Hi Viv

I understand why they are doing it and think she is amazing that she is not a complete mess but at the end of the day Shannon comes first as every child should..

xxx

LittleGreyCell said...

Hello Docmac :)

Well, on the road to recovery, thanks. Nothing that a few hundred herrings can't sort out. (They thought it was penguinitis at first, but gradually my beak returned to its normal colouring, so that's a relief).

Actually, Opus has his own key - along with a gold account at Iceland (a lovely frozen food shop) and a very smart penguinmobile (top waddle 3 miles an hour downhill with a tail wind). He's very glad to have me home as he's not very good at ironing his red bow ties. (Thing is, neither am I, don't tell him).

How are you?

eurekamano said...

Hi, This is merely an out-of-court settlement by the Express Group that prudently saves them a lot of money because it saves them having to pay expensive court costs if they fought the action. It is not a Judicial Ruling by a court. It will also sell them a lot more newspapers by the way to help pay for it and cushion the company. It's only about money. Will the monay go to find Madeleine?

LittleGreyCell said...

Hello Hope!

Well, I WAS recovering, but having just read the news...

How are you?

X

viv said...

Hiya Doc

So far as the law is concerned a nine year old child would not have the capacity to give informed consent to being detained in this way. The Police indicate the child was snatched by him, in any event. It seems to me this man preyed on this child, carefully selecting his victim, perhaps rationalising to himself she was not happy at home anyway. If he had just given her shelter but then immediately handed over to the authorities when he realised there was a massive hunt for her this would have greatly reduced the seriousness of the offence. But that is not what he did - he continued to hold her for a lengthy period of time. The law requires people to behave as a reasonable person i.e. immediately hand the child over to the authorities. There is an element of deterrence in sentencing when punishing adults for behaving as he did. The law clearly cannot condone adults just taking children and holding them in this way. Children must be protected from such conduct. Even when the police arrived he hid himself and the child in the bottom of a bed! He clearly had no intention of handing her back voluntarily. I am afraid I believe his intentions to this child were very sinister and he is a very dangerous man and a serious risk to children. Again, the risk of harm that an offender poses is a relevant factor when sentencing. In fact the law provides that such an offender can received an indeterminate life sentence for public protection - meaning he will not be released until he no longer poses a significant risk of serious harm to children. Even then, he would be under supervision by police and probation, subject to reporting and living accommodation requirements etc.

leigh3 said...

To the person deleted from this forum:

Here's how it works: you get the money in the short term, you give back much more than that in the long term.

It's a done deal. It works every time. Save your pennies.

Beyond pennies: there is the priceless pursuit of truth - something you cannot afford, and others can afford :-)

See you in court, eventually, pal.

docmac said...

LGC

I'm fine thank you. Good to hear you are on the mend. The only bowties I've ever been close to are those I gobble down while opening fortune cookies lol!

LittleGreyCell said...

THE MCCANNS: AN APOLOGY

In the past we may inadvertently reported that Madeleine McCann disappeared on holiday whilst in the sole charge of her parents.

We could well have stated that she has not been found yet, some ten months later.

The words "been made arguidos by the PJ" may possibly have found their way onto our pages.

Along with the phrase "another bottle please, barman".

In no way is this meant to imply that Kate and Gerry McCann's daughter, Madeleine, disappeared whilst on holiday in the sole charge of her parents, that she is still missing, or that her parents have been made arguidos by the PJ. Nor are we suggesting that the McCanns didn't actually know the bartender's name.

For this, we unreservedly apologise, and our cheque made out to Cash will be through their door tomorrow morning in a plain brown envelope.

NEW SECTION PAGE 5: Your Pictures of Flying Pigs

isis said...

LGC, i will not threaten to eat opus if this pseudo apology is not printed in the on line edition of the DE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leigh3 said...

Eurekemano.

Quite right. It's just about money, for now.

Persist, we must, for something more than that; something priceless.

The truth, perhaps...

docmac said...

Okay Viv

You are the legal eagle :-)
I'll wait and see how it pans put.

isis said...

Will john stalker have to make a separate apology for his contribution ??

LittleGreyCell said...

Isis,

I felt so bad the other night, I thought I HAD eaten Opus!

X

LittleGreyCell said...

Docmac,

Bet you've never had a fortune cookie predicting tonight's news...

hope4truth said...

LGC

Maybe you could sue for stress???

This should open the floodgates for every person ever wronged by the press...

I have read worse articles about people who have claimed benefits they were not entitled to their lives ripped apart in the press so why these two get special treatment is beyond me.

Leaving three children alone to go out? if they had ben a benefit cheat they would have had a thousand times worse publicity than this...

Then again I am sick of people being torn apart by the press for no other reason than to sell newspapers so maybe this will be the only good thing to come out of this tragedy as long as everyone gets the same treatment...

Hope you are feeling better xxx

LittleGreyCell said...

Isis,

An apology from John Stalker was due years ago for those terrible garage door advertisements!

hope4truth said...

LGC

With a bit of luck the DX will employ you as their new apologist...

I imagine you will make a fortune when the floodgates open...

xxx

viv said...

LGC

Brilliantly worded apology for the Express to print - have you sent it to their on-line editor Geff who I have had a few email chats with. He is a good-natured chap and I think would greatly appreciate you continuing to save him legal costs in this way. I mean why pay some hot shot lawyers to write it for him when you have done such a great job:-)

isis said...

LCG, bless you were you unwell? I was worried about you !! (actually more worried about your beaked friend) Garage doors !! Im over on the 3As at the moment , think big l is going to bust a head gasket so im going to soothe him !!

LittleGreyCell said...

Hope,

Well, I never thought I'd see the day...I just don't understand the thinking with Express newspapers. But it's a crazy world...

...as I said, I was very lucky that my local A & E is still open at all. That aside, I was given a prescription at 1.30am and told I had to come back to the hospital pharmacy to have it dispensed, as otherwise it would cost £250 to be able to take it to a high street pharmacy!

The hospital pharmacy was only open for two hours over the weekend, and complicated arrangements had to be made to get back to the hospital to get the meds so I wouldn't lose two days before I could start the course.

All this in a (wealthy) country, governed by means of a democracy, where newspapers report the FACT that people have been made prime suspects by a legitimate police force in an on-going investigation - and then have to settle up out of court in case they lose an action for defamation.

DOCMAC: Is there anything I can take to stop the steam from coming out of my ears??

hope4truth said...

LGC

It is crazy in this day and age that you cant get medication when you need it but at least you live near to the only open A&E departmet in England LOL

I do not understand why they are so worried about the press with their daughter still missing. Strange thing though when I saw it on the news did not see CM but then again I see so much of him I may have looked through him???

I am off to bed see you all tomorrow xxx

LittleGreyCell said...

Viv,

Many thanks for your kind words! You can send the cash straight to my house, usual arrangement...(I'll get Clarrie to count it in the morning).

ISIS: Yes, was very poorly last weekend, and rushed to hospital by a concerned penguin late on Friday night. Admittedly, television hadn't been good, but as Friday nights go, I can think of better ways of spending it...

LittleGreyCell said...

Well, Opus and I must away too. (He's been watching tapes of Dancing on Ice all evening, he's looking very bleary-eyed now).

It's good to be back (though not so good to read the latest story!).

Isis - hope you've managed to calm Big L down! I'll take a look tomorrow.

Good night everyone. Sleep tight.

X

viv said...

Good Night LGC

I am glad you are feeling better and did not actually eat OPUS for the sake of your health and all the goodness that would have provided.

McCanns have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. What they have done is prove that in the meantime, they are more than happy to keep extracting the cash. I wonder, does that make them look innocent? Notice they slipped up and mentioned the money will go into their fighting fund...

viv said...

By the way LGC

I am just sealing down a very large brown envelope and the courier is on his way to pop it through your letter box:-)

Anonymous said...

ratonthebeam said...
2345 cutting Clarrie off in his prime - I wish!!!!!

What's Shannon's case got to do with him anyway. Best of luck to Shannon's mum. She might have seven kids and be on benefits but she has displayed infinitely more dignity, humanity and class throughout than Doctor Gerry McCann.


Does this dignity include the two cases containing 24 cans of special brew that Karen Matthews and Craig Meehan were each seen carrying from a car 'during' the time little Shannon was missing?

You prat are one of the stupidest people (bar 2345) that I have ever seen posting on the internet.

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

By the way really great news tonight.

Great boost for the fund.

viv said...

Yes indeed, we know Kate and Gerry like to extract lots of cash, no matter where it comes from, to top up their er "fighting fund". They are going to need it...

Anonymous said...

Supertroll great to bump into you, what a worthy front page story.

Now all that is left is for the Portuguese police to get their finger out and find Madeleine, if they want some tips, I am sure the West Yorkshire police will be only to happy to oblige.

Anonymous said...

Viv

be honest you must be bricking it! They are going to start on the blogs next.

You could end up in court splashed all over the nationals front pages! Still you may get to meet your buddy Alsabella.

nite nite x

viv said...

Troll,

Have you been stalking Karen and Craig as well then, filming them with cans of special brew?

See you learned to spell prat..have not learned to express yourself in a polite, non-aggressive way though have you?

leigh3 said...

Anonymous.

BTW, it's not great news or a 'great boost for the fund' ... unless it is a boost for the McCann defence fund, and great news for fraudsters claiming money from the public - the public who fund police forces to inquire after 'missing' children rather than rely on Chief Inspector Clarence Mitchell, former UK Government media monitor, and former Daily Express journalist.

Since when did police inquiry have to be funded by private limited companies of the McCann kind, and their mouthpiece, a journalist of no distinction, a 'hired hand' ?

Count your pennies; you'll pay back pounds.

viv said...

Troll,

Maybe it is you who should be "bricking it", given the comments on your site?

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
leigh3 said...

Auntie Superior Troll...

Your clients hitch a ride on the backs of broken parents like Holly and Jessica in Soham, and Sarah Payne.

You lot remind me of Heather Mills who talks of being a humble working Mum whilst lying to get millions from Paul McCartney, and the public, all for her charideeeeee work.

Charity? Work? Children? Not something evident in the actions of Mills or the McCanns, except when it gets them public attention and money. Ask the Judge who pronounced on Mills today. Wait for the Judge who will pronounce on the McCanns, in time...

supertroll said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
isis said...

UK NEWSKATE AND GERRY MCCANN: SORRY



Wednesday March 19,2008
The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.


We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.



We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.



We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted.



As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.



Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.



We assure you that we hope Madeleine will one day be found alive and well and will be restored to her loving family.





* Please note that, for legal reasons, we have disabled reader comments on this article

viv said...

Hiya Leigh

There is a phenomena here isn't there - parents who like Mills and the McCanns care far more about money and spouting their mouth off on TV/being the centre of attention and quite happy to tell a pack of lies to achieve those ends..seem to forget their children in the process ..merely using them in a self serving way.

I read the Mills judgment with interest, including her attempts to shut the judge up claiming it would put her child at risk. As if a judge would do that. No, what she did not like, is the judge pointing out what a money grabbing little liar she is and preferring the evidene of Paul to her own extorted fantasy world.

Judges are not fooled by greedy liars...Kate and Gerry McCann just made the situation a whole lot worse for themselves IMO..just like Mills, their sole motivation, extracting a load of cash and preserving a good name they never had to preserve.

viv said...

Hiya Isis

I really do not understand how the Daily Express can state they are completely innocent and there is no evidence against them. This flys in the face of their status as arguidos and the ongoing investigation against them. How could the Daily Express know the police file of evidence to make such assertions? It really is most extraordinary!

isis said...

viv, unprecedented. Just shows its who you know. The DE were very quick to settle. Slán.

viv said...

Hiya Isis

It seems to me it is a technical issue of the DE implying they are guilty whilst the McCanns continue to be investigated. Newspapers are not supposed to do that.

The McCanns clearly have the power and the money behind them to exploit such a technicality but I do think it will backfire on them. The DE obviously decided they were at risk of losing and incurring massive costs in the process and so have taken the action they have.

leigh3 said...

Dear Viv,

I always thought the sad case of Madeleine Beth McCann would be heard in a court of libel, whether criminal proceedings happened or not.

The Daily Express is at the bottom end of UK mass media; always has been. It's forum was the least censored, shockingly so, in my opinion.

The UK Press will not be surprised by the DE capitulation. They need better journalists.

Libel law is draconian when it is used by wealthy people; it's a 'rich man's law'; a political convenience, as Harold Wilson knew very well.

On a bright note: it's a pyrrhic victory for fools and liars.

Clarence Mitchell, former employee of The Daily Express, and the UK Government, then assigned to the McCanns, paid for by a millionaire supporter of the UK Government, will rue this day, in my opinion.So will his clients.

Libel law is irrelevant to the ongoing investigation pursued by the PJ, assisted by the British Police, FSS, Interpol, and child protection agencies.

14 months - that's how long it took to get conclusive forensic evidence against Ian Huntley, the killer of Jessica and Holly in Soham.

Years longer - that's how long it took to get conclusive forensic evidence - and other evidence - against liars like politicians Thorpe, Aitken and Archer, and those who are now being rounded up in connection with the decades old abuse of children at the 'care home' in Jersey.

Justice. It takes time. It takes patience, and perseverance.

Justice for Maddie, and every missing or abused child.

viv said...

Hiya Leigh

Yes you were right to predict that the McCanns would turn to the law of libel in their desperate battle for public opinion, proclaiming their innocence.

You are also right it is a law employed by the disreputable rich to defend themselves against public knowledge of their dishonest conduct. This was employed by Aitken, Hamilton and Archer and they all, ultimately, paid the price for it. With two of them receiving substantial custodial terms.

As you say the civil law of libel has nothing at all to do with criminal law and the ongoing investigation against the McCanns.

Justice can be slow and drawn out and I have always said that 10 months, to date, is not very long in terms of such an investigation. 14 months to prosecute Huntley and mobile phone evidence was damning. I am convinced it will be in this case also.

Eventually the McCanns will pay the price, we just need to wait.

JUSTICE FOR MADDIE AND ALL ABUSED LITTLE CHILDREN, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES!

alsabella said...

Viv

I don't know about those examples Aitken, Hamilton and Archer that you mentioned. Can you shed some light for me?

viv said...

Hiya Alsabella

All three of them behaved dishonestly, immorally and then when allegations of their conduct surfaced sued the makers of those allegations for libel, but they committer perjury. Here is Aitken's story: Archer was even worse, he got 4 years in prison, having received I think about £.5M in damages for his lies. Hamilton had been accepting cash in brown envelopes to ask parliamentary questions. When Mr Al Fayed pointed this out he sued Mr Al Fayed for libel, lost and was bankrupted. All three were former senior members of the conservative party - greedy, dishonest, immoral liars, quite prepared to lie and try to use the libel laws to make out they were decent honest people!!

Aitken admitted that he lied when he told a High Court libel case in 1995 that his wife, Lolicia, paid the bill of about £1,000 for a weekend stay at the Ritz Hotel in Paris. In fact, it was paid by an old friend and business contact, Said Ayas, an adviser to Prince Mohammed, son of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.

Yesterday Aitken stood to attention but betrayed little sign of emotion as the judge told him: "For nearly four years you wove a web of deceit in which you entangled yourself and from which there was no way out unless you were prepared to come clean and tell the truth. Unfortunately you were not.

"You hoped that by committing perjury and perverting the course of justice the truth of who paid the bill for that weekend at the Ritz would never see the light of day."

The judge condemned Aitken on two "particularly serious aspects" of the offences. He said: "First, this was no passing error of judgment. It was calculated perjury pursued over a period of time. Second, you swept others, including members of your family, into it and most particularly one of your daughters who was only 16 at the time."

This was, the judge said, a "gross and inexcusable breach of trust". The court had heard earlier of Aitken's deep sense of remorse, especially about his actions in drafting a statement for Victoria to sign in support of his account.

The former Tory MP was said to have involved his daughter in a desperate attempt to salvage his libel action against the Guardian newspaper and Granada Television, maker of a World in Action programme about his affairs. Although during the 1995 trial the paper and television station had withdrawn some of the more serious allegations against Aitken, suggesting sleaze and corruption, evidence had emerged to challenge his story about the Ritz.

In a statement admitting to his lies, Aitken had said he would bear the burden for the rest of his life of having "misled and manipulated" some of those close to him to lie on his behalf. The judge accepted that the offences were committed in the context of Aitken's belief that a number of serious allegations against him were false.

He also accepted that his "paramount" objective in bringing the libel action had been to protect his reputation and not to earn money. He said: "But the fact remains that you knew perfectly well when you brought them that who paid for that weekend was a central plank in your case and that you could only succeed on that issue by committing perjury."

No one, whatever his position or status, was entitled "dishonestly to manipulate the evidence to his advantage". Perjury and perverting the course of justice were serious offences because they struck at justice itself.

Mr Justice Scott Baker gave Aitken credit for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity. He had already suffered other penalties arising from his actions: bankruptcy, impaired health and the loss of his career, reputation and marriage. He had also been a successful government minister who contributed very significantly to the interests of the country and a highly regarded constituency MP.

Sir John Nutting, QC, defending, said Aitken had brought about his own destruction and suffered "absolute" public humiliation. It was to Aitken's profound relief that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute Victoria, and later to offer no evidence against Mr Ayas, who had also been charged in connection with the affair.

Sir John said: "He has always wanted to shoulder the blame alone. It is the greatest consolation to him that he, the sole author of his misfortune and that of others, is to be punished alone."

Aitken left the Old Bailey cells for Belmarsh Prison in a custody van which he shared with six men facing murder charges, five accused of armed robbery and two on rape allegations.

The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said in a statement last night: "This case was about more than Jonathan Aitken. It was about the dishonest misuse of our libel laws to close down legitimate scrutiny of the people we elect to govern us. If Mr Aitken had won, he would have dishonestly taken up to £2 million from the Guardian by way of costs and aggravated damages.

"The case should serve as a warning to future litigants who may be set on stifling scrutiny. Libel is not a game: it is too often used by the rich, the powerful and the crooked to suppress proper reporting and fair comment. No one using the law against others can complain if the law is, in turn, used against them."

Lolicia Aitken announced the couple's separation immediately after the libel case and is suing for divorce. She now lives abroad because she fears that she might be arrested on returning to Britain for her part in her husband's attempt to deceive the High Court.

Maria Aitken, Mr Aitken's sister, is to become the children's guardian. A trust fund has been set up for the twins and their brother William, 16, who is at Eton. Petrina Khashoggi is also a beneficiary.

viv said...

Alsabella

By the way darling, how are you? Lovely to hear from you

viv x

alsabella said...

Thanks Viv

What I find strange is how cases such as these are settled even before there has been a decision as to whether they will be charged or not...

alsabella said...

Hi Viv

I'm fine...and You?

viv said...

Hiya Alsabella

I do not profess to be any sort of expert on the law of libel, but it is a civil wrong, for which someone personally takes action, unlike criminal law which is a serious wrong where the state takes action and you can be imprisoned.

The press are pretty fiercely controlled in the UK. They are not allowed to print an article stating that someone accused of a criminal offence is actually guilty of committing that offence. Because everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and this would militate against that. Only a criminal court of law can declare someone guilty of a criminal offence after the case has been heard. If a newspaper declares this beforehand, they could be accused of libelling them, because in the eyes of the law they are innocent until they have actually been proven guilty. Thus the McCanns are standing on their technical legal right to continue to be treated as if innocent, given they are not convicted of any offence. Once they are charged, action against newspapers in the UK becomes even more draconian if they dare to suggest the accused is actually guilty - then they can be prosecuted under criminal law for showing contempt to the court by pre-judging the issue and denying the accused the right to a fair trial without bias having been created by the press against them. The thinking is the jury must just hear the evidence in court with an open mind, not having read stuff in newspapers already saying they are guilty.

viv said...

Alsabella

I am fine thanks but a little shocked at the extent the McCanns dare to go!

leigh3 said...

Goodnight Viv.

You are so patient, and generous, far beyond my limits :-)

Am sure dear Alsabella will use your knowledge to good effect. Excellent.

Libel law is not criminal law; it reveals truth, IF it is brought to court (the McCanns don't do that); it conceals truth IF it it doesn't get to court.

The Daily Express got burnt; it usually does; a miracle it has survived this long, imo.

But Clarence was a fool the day he threatened to sue the UK Press en masse.

Clarence, the ex DE employee minion has humbled his former paymaster. Fab for his ego. Not so fab for his clients who will now face the implacable inquiry of those who did not employ Clarry.

Pennies vs pounds. The McCanns deserve an honest defence in our judicial system; they won't get that, imo. That is a fate of their own choice, I think.

viv said...

Nite Leigh and Alsabella

At the end of the day, the DE did seriously push their luck and they must have known that!

Viv x

leigh3 said...

Yup, they knew it, Viv.
xo to you and yours.
Maybe you and Alsabella might send Geoff an email of support?

viv said...

Hiya Leigh

I may just do that because the DE did take the risk so that the publically could see beyond the McCann spin and hear the truth. For that they do deserve support.

To the McCanns I would just quote the eloquent words of the Editor of The Guardian:


The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said in a statement last night: "This case was about more than Jonathan Aitken. It was about the dishonest misuse of our libel laws to close down legitimate scrutiny of the people we elect to govern us. If Mr Aitken had won, he would have dishonestly taken up to £2 million from the Guardian by way of costs and aggravated damages.

"The case should serve as a warning to future litigants who may be set on stifling scrutiny. Libel is not a game: it is too often used by the rich, the powerful and the crooked to suppress proper reporting and fair comment. No one using the law against others can complain if the law is, in turn, used against them."

ratonthebeam said...

Clarence, the ex DE employee minion has humbled his former paymaster.

IMHO THAT's what this is really all about. Clarence is on a vendetta against the DE. There are other papers who printed much worse about the Macs and he didn't go after them. He waited his chance for revenge, and he got it.

Enjoy it while you can though Clarence. It won't last. Your "clients" are still moneygrabbing, lying child neglectors and you are still a reptile.

docmac said...

Rat

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Napoleon Bonaparte

eurekamano said...

Hi, it's posted on the 3As that the Mcs got "only £400,000 when they wanted £4M. Much less than Heather Mills, lol. They alegedly didn't want to go to Civil Court for more. Hmm wonder why?

ratonthebeam said...

I got a row off my wee boy for posting that comment about Clarence. He said I upset his pet turtles by comparing them to Clarence. Sorry turtles!

Holly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
irina said...

Hello everyone,
Thanks Viv, my daughter is better (after a showered of "Get better" teddies and a night in the hospital. Nothing serious.

As to Express, I do believe still that Mcs are trying to accumulate some money (legal) for the twins in a view of a trial and fraud allegations (that will empty the fund). In this case they did have a legal ground to get money from Express, which I think is in it with them and will get compensation from double-glaze.
It is a fraud that is made legal - for twins, or the house future.

As to Shannon, I agree with Doc. I think she run away on her own will and her and the man got caught in the after mass. The task of police will be to get through the lots of complicated relationships and lies.
Her mother will have to sort out her priorities and get the sense of real life. She would need the help of social services.

And society needs to wake up: there is no way that a single mother could give a normal life to 6(5, 4, 3, and 2) kids!!! Love, well yes, if she is a saint. But opportunities, proper care, NO!!!

irina said...

P.S.
Another thing is to prepare the court argument of the unfair press coverage and unfair trial. Dx are still in conspiracy with the Mcs, they had as bios coverage as any and nobody will agree to pay off to arguidos.
I think as soon as it comes to it McCanns will make a run to Argentina or so, and get the extradition lawyers to cover them on two grounds: in Portugal _ unfair trial without jury, in UK unfair trial because the press.

viv said...

Troll

calling yourself Holly does not stop you getting deleted.

Doc

Liked the quote from Bony!

ROB

Good point - I did notice real emnity in Clarence's voice when speaking of the DE in radio interviews. There is something wrong with people who are eaten up with bitterness and the need to strike back. Is it the McCanns using him, or him using the McCanns!!

Eureka

So the McCanns had to knock a 0 off their demands. Too bad for them. That is still an awful lot of money though to hand to a couple of money grabbing, lying, child-neglectors (thanks ROB!) who did not even want to go to court to defend their innocence and reputation. We know why!

Just a small fraction of that money would make a huge difference to Shannon's family and all those little children. Shame the DE could not give it them instead..but as we know the McCanns have the power to keep on selling their dead daughter. There will be a judgment day, just like there was for "Lord Archer"..

viv said...

Hiya Irina

Maybe the McCanns have their travel bags packed now they topped their little fund back up to about £1M..so they can do a runner before the European Arrest Warrant arrives! Nothing at all would surprise me now from the gruesome twosome. I wonder if they will leave the twins in bed...

dylan said...

Hiya,

ROB - are turtles reptiles? I can't remember. I guess they are & not amphibians as they lay their eggs on land and not in water. I once saw a programme that used turtles to debate whether the dinosaurs were warm or cold blooded and i think it said that although reptilian, turtles are warm-blooded and that due to their size, the dinosaurs could not have sustained life if they were cold - blooded! Hmmmm, sorry to side track.

LGC - loved your "apology" from the DE earlier. They should seriously think about employing you! I dread to think what sickly pap the apology will take the shape of.

I really don't understand just HOW the McCanns can sue?? On what grounds? They are suspects in their own daughter's disappearance and at the very least, they were neglectful. As far as I know (and i did spend far too much money buying the trashy DE) the de only reported what they were "fed" by the PJ and various other sources. How can the DE be held as libelous? Surely they would have to pursue their sources wouldn't they?? 'tis nothing but more sick pandering to the McCann's brown envelope coffers and it has to stop - now! If and when they ever use the money to actually try to find Madeleine, I might condone their actions, instead of employing M3 that are next to useless. But they won't, will they? and we all know why!

Anon - so what if Shannon's mum and step dad bought alcohol whilst she was missing? One man's meat is another's poison. It doesn't mean that they bought it to celebrate anything. Some people resort to alcohol in times of great stress & who can blame the parents who have a missing child? At least they weren't out on the piss when shannon went missing, irrespective of their class. Buying special brew, if it helps them to cope, does NOT detract from their dignity. I couldn't say how I'd cope if my child went missing but I certainly would be out looking for him/her. The McCanns went jogging, golfing and tennis playing - some might say that that makes them heartless. I refuse to judge what helps people in their grief but to all and sundry - jogging appears more "carefree" and less to do with grief. Personal ambition was their agenda as can be seen by Gerry's blog - Kate achieved a personal best today....

Get off your soap box and have some civil human decency before you judge a poor, wretched, working class mum who clearly loves her daughter.

Rant over - phew!

Hello viv, LGC - glad you are better and Irina - hope your daughter is recovered. Hate this time of year, still cold & still no leaves on the trees. I miss them!

Dyl x

viv said...

Hiya Dyl

I was not sure if turtles are reptiles so I checked - they are of the genus Chelonia, who survived, but the dinosaurs did not! Amazing little critters, or big sometimes up to 3-4 feet!

I think on a strict legal analysis the McCanns could sue, but morally, that is another matter..

There have been articles written about Shannon's mum and step-dad saying they are just part of a conspiracy, a hoax. I wonder if Carter Ruck will help them to sue? Somehow, I doubt it. Such a huge difference with the McCanns, using their education to stifle the press and make a mint in the process. It is not really justice is it? Libel for the rich, the dishonest and the downright greedy. If Shannon's parents got that sort of money from a paper, I reckon the public would actually be thrilled.

I see other articles that point to the evidence collected indicating the McCanns guilt are also removed from the Daily Mail, e.g. a story entitled

"Large amount of Madeleine's hair found in tyrewell of boot of parents hire car"

When you come to click on that link - that familiar old response "article missing".

Does the gagging of the British press by the McCanns make them look innocent? We have been reading these reports for the last ten months and have formed a view about that. Their action taken now just looks like they continue to make money any dishonest way they can and seem to think the public will forget. How futile, the PJ and British Police will not.

Anonymous said...

Quote by docmac

docmac said...
Rat

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon lost .........

isis said...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/386 ... 00-damages

Wizard said...

Good Evening Viv,

Can you shed any legal light on the DX settlement with the McCanns. I have just been watching a Sky News report with Clarence standing outside the high court with the McCanns Barrister (dressed in silks) and their solicitor. He is saying this case was before Justice Eddy. The case was settled out of court so why were they in court. It is interesting that CM says the Express donated money to the Find Madeleine fund and not was ordered to pay by Justice Eddy. Would they attend a high court for mediation in an out of court settlement?

Like most things in this case I find it confusing. Any ideas.

Niki said...

Good evening everyone! Have been away for some days, and don't have the time to read back. appologice if someone else has posted this article, but thought Wizard might find it helpful:

Press still needs proper safeguards

Edgar Forbes guardian.co.uk, Wednesday March 19 2008

The front-page apologies have been heralded as "unprecedented", the McCanns have welcomed Express Newspapers' contrition over the "utter falsity" its titles published about them and the Find Madeleine fund has been topped up by £550,000. This may be seen as justice for the "grossly defamed" McCanns, but it is not victory for media law or press self-regulation.

What this case again demonstrates is that when it comes to the excesses of the press, the UK legal system allows those with a chequebook to exact punishment, but offers little protection to those who rely on self-regulation by the Press Complaints Commission.

Express Newspapers has been rightly brought to book for wildly speculative stories fuelled by irresponsible journalism. But while competitors might pontificate about their failings, they have also been party to print and broadcast output that saw headlines supplant hard facts in the quest for attention-grabbing content.

Today's statement in the high court was as inevitable as it was necessary. Express Newspapers had no option. Had it gone to trial there is little doubt a jury would have awarded an even higher sum. The public are as fickle as the press when it comes to complaining about the sensational headlines they are happy to read.

Beyond today's settlement, the key question remains: what protection do self-regulation and the law provide to protect individuals against speculative reporting?

Alongside its front page McCann apology, today's Daily Star carried the splash headline "Fantasy world of warped Mucca" and speculation about Shannon Matthews' mother. It is unlikely we will see Mrs Matthews instructing Carter-Ruck to take on the press.

The PCC - notable by its absence from today's settlement - has no legal powers over the press. It can ask editors to behave, but cannot compel compliance or punish papers. Thus we have a regulatory system that allows those who can afford to engage the legal system to obtain compensation for "utter falsities", but offers those not as resourceful as the McCanns minimal protection or compensation.

Recent judgments have made much of "responsible journalism" and "neutral reportage", but until we have a self-regulatory system that ensures these practices are followed across the industry, they will remain legal constructs rather than provide for enforceable regulatory principles.

· Edgar Forbes is a media law and reputational risk consultant
-------
Niki

Niki said...

Latest News And Announcements Gerry's Blog News View Support Messages Send a Support Message


Kate and Gerry Statement Express Newspapers
Date Released: 19/03/2008 11:00:00

We are pleased that Express Newspapers have today admitted the utter falsity of the numerous grotesque and grossly defamatory allegations that their titles published about us on a sustained basis over many months.

The exceptional publication of these apologies, together with today’s statement of full apology in open Court before Mr Justice Eady, was the only just and proper response by Express Newspapers following our complaint. We also wish to place on record our thanks to Adam Tudor, from Carter Ruck. Today’s result simply could not have been achieved without him

Express Newspapers, rightly acknowledge that we are innocent of all allegations that we may have been involved in Madeleine’s abduction and WE would like to reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead or has been seriously harmed.

We embarked on this course of action reluctantly, indeed with a heavy heart, as we did not wish the pursuit of it to become a distraction from our sole aim – finding Madeleine. Indeed, as long ago as last autumn our lawyers approached Express Newspapers and urged them to show greater restraint in their reporting – requests which went utterly unheeded.

The distress all this has caused members of our wider family, at a time of great emotional turmoil for them, was also a major factor in our action. Their pain over the loss of Madeleine has been compounded by having to witness the irresponsible and libellous reporting that we have successfully challenged today.

As a part of our settlement, Express Newspapers have also agreed to donate £550,000 to the Fund that was established to help find Madeleine. We feel it is entirely appropriate that the search for Madeleine will now benefit directly out of the wrongs committed against us as her parents.

We hope that the Portuguese authorities lift our arguido status in the very near future so that everyone can focus on finding our beautiful little girl, Madeleine.”

------
Niki

big_l said...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38611

quick get your say on the de now

dylan said...

Hi viv. Thank you for your turtle intelligence! They are amazing aren't they? They can live as long as 100yrs, or so I hear. I always think that they have such incredibly gentle faces too.

I will take your legal word on the suing of the DE as you know what you are talking about! IMO, all of this blaming, suing, anger and petulence goes that little bit further to making them look guilty. I have always thought that they spend far too much time trying to better their public image and far too little time actually doing anything towards finding their daughter. Time will tell and soon, after the PJ have finished with them, they won't have a leg to stand on as far clearing their good names is concerned.

GTG now, having a veg out in front of my telly tonight in good ole working class style - with my can of carling!!! Gordon Ramsey is on at 10 and he never fails to cheer me up!

Nite for now,

Dyl xx

viv said...

Hi Wizard

It is usual when seeking to settle a libel claim to negotiate settlement terms. It is not unusual for the aggrieved party to state that as part of those terms they want a statement read out in court as happened here by the Daily Express barrister. The McCanns barrister would have also worded the " apology" that was printed by the Daily Express/Star. That was the price the Daily Express had to pay to settle the action but does demonstrate what a farce it is. Had they fought the case they would have probably paid the amount given to the McCanns in costs, so it was probably what they call a "commercial decision" i.e. there was a risk they would lose and it would finish up costing them the damages and the costs so it was not worth defending it.

As I have stated above, technically, the DE did libel the McCanns because they printed details of evidence against them suggesting they are guilty. Due the presumption of innocence, only a criminal court can declare them guilty, not a newspaper. Newspapers always run the gauntlet when they choose to publish details of evidence in a case. You will see the Daily Mail have similarly removed articles referring to evidence found - no doubt under threat of what would happen if they did not. I am afraid at the end of the day, it just shows how money grabbing the McCanns are. They remain arguidos and clearly have no shame in standing on their strict legal rights to be considered innocent until actually proved guilty.

I would not dare show my face in public if I were them!

viv said...

Hi Wizard

Just forgot to mention - one article written by the Daily Express actually said

"McCanns are Guilty"

That was a very irresponsible piece of journalism!

dylan said...

Hi,

Was going until I saw Big L's post - thanks Big L!

This post says it all for me:

PRINT ONLY WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR? MCEXPRESS!
19.03.08, 8:11pm

if you don't want the papers to print stories about you Mr and Mrs McCann, then I suggest not leaving three children under the age of 4 home alone would be a good start.

Your daughter is the victim of your actions. You are the victims of no-ones.

This paper has printed the rolled out pre prepared statements by your spokesperson - told the rest of the British public how it's just a British thing to do, and have generally looked after you pretty well. Now you have demanded money out of them because you don't like to read some of the other stories they've printed.

Shame on you Express for giving in to these arrogant child neglectors.

• Posted by: WTF • Report Comment

Sorry to WTF for pinching it but I couldn't have put it better.
As I recall, the DE did print both sides of the coin and several articles were "pro McCann" in nature. Perhaps the McCanns now feel that they are above the press and are akin to the Beckhams in their social stature?
Well they certainly aren't and now they have claimed damages, any good that may have been said about them in the future will surely be witheld now with no paper certain what they can or can't print about them.

Viv - your last line - did you post on the DE? I saw something very similar in a post there!

Dillie x

viv said...

Hiya Dillie

In an article written on 27/8/07 in the Daily Mail, Gerry McCann is quoted:

Meanwhile, Kate and Gerry McCann have been taking comfort from a Briton who has been though a similar crisis. Mr McCann wrote on his Internet blog: "We had a British visitor came to offer us a different-type of support.


"He has been through an ordeal similar to ours involving one of his family. It was good to talk about our emotions, the pressures and different coping strategies that we use in an ongoing trauma, with someone who has experienced a tragic event like ours."

An ordeal similar to our...ongoing trauma..tragic event like ours..

Where does he mention the ongoing trauma for Madeleine? Where does he bother to mention her at all! From my work with offenders, I know that the serious ones, will always adopt the role of the victim, they have no empathy whatsoever for the actual victim of their offending - his own daughter. He just revels in his own apparent tragedy..

viv said...

BTW Dillie - it was not me on the DE - I have not posted on there for a long time.

viv said...

Hiya Dillie

I do agree with your previous post.

How, in any way shape or form have the Portuguese Police by making them arguidos actually stopped them looking for their daughter? They even allowed them to come home. Why would removing their arguido status enable them to start looking for her again? If they are prevented from looking for her in the meantime, why have they been paying the utterly useless Metodo 3 £58,000 per month, plus undisclosed sums to the British investigators Hogan International. The only thing these two outfits have done is making Gerry and Kate McCann look very guilty is pursuing some bizarre witch hunt for creepy looking men and fake Madeleine sightings. Just like extracting a settlement out of the Daily Express it makes them look increasingly more guilty - a disastrous strategy, by desperate, guilty parents who themselves feel hunted but by very professional investigators, Eddie, Keela, the PJ and Detective Superintendent Prior and his team of Leicester Police!

dylan said...

Viv - exactly! There never seems to be any mention of poor Maddie or thought for what she is going through - it's just them,them,them - yawn.

This either means that they know she is gone and it is grief for her they are suffering, or if she was abducted, that they really don't care. It's always been about them. They don't even talk about the twins much and their loss of a sister. It was their selfishness that put Maddie and the twins in danger in the first place and they have tried to propagate their "innocence" ever since as if it were such a normal thing to do that all of us Brits do it. Selfish again. As doctors who would normally command respect from the average citizen, they should be holding thier hands up and convincing every person that what they did was so wrong but they won't as they don't want forgiveness or justice for Maddeleine, they just selfishly want our pity for them alone and nobody else.

I can't believe they have had the gall to do this. They may be innocent until proven guilty but they are still arguidos and I think they are "protesting too much" if you catch my drift!

I went back to the DE but couldn't find the comment I thought was yours, viv. Must have been deja vu - yikes!

Will come back after Gordon & tonic!
x

leigh3 said...

Hi Viv and All (x Big_L),

Anyone notice how most Press and broadcast media today now use the term 'disappeared', not 'abduction' (the McCann word)?

UK media is a ruthless business, and enjoys seeing rivals suffer, but only briefly.

The bigger issue: journalists and libel lawyers will ensure that liars get their money in the short term, but pay much more for it in the long term.

Libel: it's a nasty game for nasty people. The Press never forget or forgive manipulators, cynically using libel to silence honest inquiry.

Time and perseverance gets results, however long it takes.

Am reminded of names like Thorpe, Aitken, Archer etc...

Slowly, slowly catchy monkeys.

Ta ra, Darlings. See you soon. Have faith in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann, however long it takes, and wherever it leads.

xo

Wizard said...

Thanks for your reply Viv. So to have a statement read out in court is to make it known to a wider audience. Plus of course it allows a photo/reporting opportunity.

dylan said...

Gordon worked his usual magic as always. Last in series :(

Just to let you guys know: Thursday, 9pm, Channel 4 - programme about Shannon Matthews' family and the personal hell they went through. It's supposed to be a true reflectance on their experience. Should contrast quite starkly with the McCanns I think.

Leigh, I agree. Justice will prevail and the press will have their day on this, no doubts about that. If there is ever, anyone you would not want to fall foul of (apart from Gordon Ramsey that is) it is the media. The press remembers. The press can be patient and hold a grudge for a very long time & as my dad used to say: it's not over by a long ball of chalk!

xx