Also in the behaviour of Maxine Carr and Huntley - appeals on TV? Maxine lied for a man she was frightened of - I believe that to be true - what some women will do when in fear...
I simply pose the question. Try googling post traumatic stress disorder, bereavement (stages of) emotional numbness - it may help to understand Kate a little more, perhaps?
Viv x
Extract from: http://www.septicisle.info/2006/09/tragedy-of-maxine-carr.html
The bodies of the girls were not found for nearly two weeks, and Huntley was not arrested until the day that they were. During that time both he and Carr had appeared on television, making pleas for them to be returned safely. Newspapers offered tens of thousands of pounds for clues. Hundreds of people joined in the search, coming from across the country to help. The girls' bodies were found on August the 17th, partially burned and badly decomposed, in a ditch close to the RAF Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk. Their proximity to the base has led to predictable conspiracy theories that it was a serviceman who killed the girls, rather than Huntley.The discovery of the girls' bodies led to scenes almost reminiscent of that after the death of Princess Diana. Thousands of bouquets of flowers were left outside a church in Soham, coverage around the clock was available on BBC News 24 and Sky News, and dozens of rather ghoulish misery tourists descended on the town. The funerals of the girls were later televised. Meanwhile, the media almost as a whole set about gathering as much information on Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley as possible, the more salacious the better. They were vilified, and when Carr was eventually taken to court in Peterborough, protesters were waiting for her. Placards called for the restitution of the death penalty, grown women screamed abuse at the police van, and for a horrible moment it almost looked as if they might overwhelm the police. That Carr had nothing to do with the murders, was in Grimsby at the time and had only been charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender, the latter of which she was cleared of doing, made no difference to the lynch mob. The next time she appeared in court was via video link, appearing white as a sheet and close to collapse. Carr had provided Huntley with a false alibi, believing his claims that he had not murdered the two girls. There's a distinct possibility that she was trapped with Huntley in an abusive relationship, which may well have contributed considerably to her behaviour
18 comments:
I don't know enough about the Soham murders or the couple to comment. I did read in yesterday's Mail that she is getting married soon.
Good Afternoon Docmac,
Re: the Soham murders. The murder of two schoolgirls Jessica and Holly in Soham shocked the UK to the core. Their school caretaker Ian Huntley lured the girls into his house, and murdered them, most likely for sexual gratification; he had been reported to another police force for his sexual interest in girls, but you will not be surprised to hear that this information was not passed to the neighbouring county as it should have been, so he was able to obtain his job working amongst children, and slipped through the background checks aimed at excluding sex pests from work with children.
Just another fine mess among Britain's bureaucrats.
Strenuous efforts were made by the police and others to cover up the extent of their failures.
Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr were 'cool to camera' - they appeared to assist the ongoing search for the girls, despite their guilt.
It took 14 months for the forensic evidence to be finalised, so the McCanns et al are putting up yet another bogus argument when they claim the Police and FSS have no evidence because it would have been presented by now if they did have it.
Hope that explanation helps.
I very much doubt that the McCanns, and others, will ever escape close media scrutiny. Too many journalists have heard first accounts from victims, their families, friends. Also, many of today's Editors were trained by old-style journalists who had vivid memories of reporting on the Moors Murders.
See you sometime. Best wishes to you and yours.
Thanks anon, same to you and yours.
Thank you too for your succinct explanation. Another wonder couple then. How do authorities stuff these cases up so badly? Something very fishy is happening again with the McCann case. I can smell it all the way from Cape Town.
6.52pm
Dear Docmac,
Yes, it's true: the McCann case is bogged down in shenanigans of all sorts of the kind that is unprecedented for the case of a 'missing' child.
You ask: 'How do authorities stuff these cases up so badly?'
Perhaps, one possibility is this: the self-proclaimed 'authorities' are bureaucracies, funded by the public, and more self-serving than public serving...much like the McCann Machine of media manipulators, in my view.
However, the world is full of pesky critters: inquiring minds that keep asking awkward questions, and trust the evidence of their own eyes and lifelong experience rather than the convenient, cosy picture presented by ruthless self-interest. Self-interest such as: the McCanns, their supporters, the UK Government, P.R. vanity, and the narrow, cynical commercial interests of the modern-day 'new media'. Personally, I think it's about time the 'old media' imposed - yes imposed - some fairness and order on this charade in the best interests of its readers, viewers and a very old fashioned concept of journalism. It's not too late. It's just that the young cynics need some persuasion. Err... or something stronger than that :-)
Dear anon
You must have worked up quite an appetite answering my rhetorical question. Have a choc ;-)
Seriously, what you say is quite true of course. I find your points on the media interesting and it is something we see here too. This new breed seems to lack the courage to take on political authorities or other powerful figures as was the rule in the past. All too afraid of litigation. It's very sad to see the death of truly investigative journalism.
Hello Docmac,
I think you are right to say that there appears to be more timidity in today's journalism in many ways.
However, it may also be the case that investigative journalism simply dons a different cloak, and in the case of the McCanns, it may be a cloak of secrecy, for now. Only for now.
I've long thought that the most likely place for the McCanns, and others connected with them, is a libel court. McCanns and Mitchell the mouthpiece threaten to sue. Tsk. That's just a threat to silence civilians, in my view. In reality, they have enraged professional combatants in the media 'game', and they will get their day in court - a libel court. Useful places, libel courts. Much is admissable that would be kept out of a criminal court. Think of names like Jeremy Thorpe, Jonathan Aitken, Geoffrey Archer, and so many others in the UK. These people with friends in 'high places' and riches to pay for their public charade were all exposed in courts of libel, although they escaped criminal charges. Interesting, yes?
Docmac,
Correction to when I said they 'escaped criminal charges'. Criminal issues did arise in some cases, but it was the libel courts which exposed the true extent of the culprits' wrongdoing.
Am sure Viv will tell you more if you like. I get a bit tetchy over the detail of proven liars. Viv has more patience than me, to be sure.
L
Thank you very much for your interesting information. Perhaps I was jumping the gun on the journalists in this kind of scenario. I was referring mainly to the obsequious, uninformed lot that are assigned on many occasions to interview politicians and the like. Many of them seem to be the sort that should still be at debating school. However, as you are living over there and see much more than I do I hope that you are correct,.
Dear Docmac,
Night night. I don't quite understand why the public think investigative journalists have forsaken Madeleine. Surely, they must see that there are many examples of 'slowly slowly, catchy monkey'. Why rush? Better to do the right thing instead of the quick thing, surely?
See you next time, cheeky.
Hiya both
that was an interesting exchange. Just a query anon. You say this case is going to finish up in a libel court rather than a criminal court. That is rather worrying. That would mean the PJ or Brit Police do not have sufficient evidence to pursue the McCanns and no criminal prosecution goes ahead. So then the McCanns think great now we can start suing people for libel - is that what you really mean? I think that is a highly unlikely scenario.
Viv x
By the way I agree with both of you
- investigative journalism is dead because they fear the courts/libel actions. Papers know the news but are too afraid to tell it and what the BBC learn they bloody well delete!
Oh - we do have the fabulously intelligent Jerermy Paxman - he cab rip anyone to shreds and often does - in the nicest possible way - so no, not entirely dead!
Now do I want Clooney or Paxman - Paxman would frighten me a bit he is so flipping clever!
Viv x
18.15
Hi Docmac and Anonymous,
The main reason we don't have much investigative journalism in the UK any more is down to Rupert Murdoch, who instigated a price war in the national press, which means the money just isn't there to keep journalists on stories for the sorts of periods needed for good, indepth investigations.
Very, very sad. And it has had major repercussions in many areas of life and publishing.
X LGC
P.S. Docmac - that might well be my penguin's herring wafting around your olfactory senses. I keep telling him to keep it in a resealable bag, but you know what penguins are like...
Hi All,
Re: investigative journalism.
Well, I guess we've got this one figured out between us, and the sorry fact is that many people recognise this problem too.
It's true that proper investigative journalism is very expensive, so less seen nowadays. However, missing Maddie has touched a raw nerve among many publishers, and Editors, in my view. The only constraint now is the issue of a confused legal situation; who is liable for what and when. Best to place safe. Commercially: boost circulation. Journalism and law: use this hiatus to gather facts, and figures of the kind media lawyers can defend. A libel court is looming, and it's nothing to do with silly Clarence's threat to sue the public. It's more likely to be the 'bigger beasts' in the media jungle, deliberately provoking a libel writ from the McCanns and/or their friends, family, supporters. These people's vanity knows no bounds. They are sitting ducks, I think. They can quack all they like in PR talk, and evading legitimate questions from legal authorities now, but they will be hoisted by their own petard, in time, I think. I could be wrong, but precedent tells me I'm more likely to be right. We'll see, in due course, won't we? There's no rush. Criminal court. Libel court. It's waiting for the defendants or the litigators, imo.
Hi Viv,
Re: libel.
I don't intend to suggest that those responsible for Maddie's 'disappearance' will escape criminal charges of some sort, however, I do believe they will be in a libel court at some time, regardless of criminal law.
PR opened 'Pandora's Box', and all the terrible things therein, including the excoriating experience of libel court, with all its expense, and the kind of 'information' which might be inadmissable in a criminal trial, but it will be writ large in a libel court, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but precedent suggests I'm more likely to be right :-)
Hi Anon
I do not think the McCanns are as flush for cash as they were back in September when they could afford to lavish costs on 6 hours meetings with four very expensive lawyers. By precedent - are you referring to allegations of accepting cash stuffed in little brown envelopes or getting someone to perjure themselves denying relations with an expensive lady? So, with, wealthy backers they fight back with a libel writ and er lose. The allegations against the McCanns are an awful lot more serious than that and they stand to lose an awful lot more if they lost - I am afraid I just do not see where a libel case fits into the grander scheme of things - if this story is going to get told it will be in a criminal court IMO and certainly not at the behest of the McCanns.
What happened to their libel writ in Portugal?
Luv Viv x
11.39
Hi Viv,
Fingers crossed that wrongdoers will face a criminal court, but I still believe that a libel court beckons for some of them. After all, I'm sure we can all list a long line of defamed parties, wrongly accused or demeaned in this whole sorry mess.
I dunno for certain, of course, but this story has all the hallmarks of libel suit/s in the making, imho, and it's the McCann Machine mechanics who are likely to come off much worse as a result.They persisted with certain libellous claims long after being made aware of the facts. Owch! Punitive damages could be awarded under those circumstances, imo.Anyhow, we'll wait, and see, I suppose.
xo
Hiya Anon
I take your point about all the people the McCanns and their friends have falsely accused. Whether this would translate into good libel claims ...perhaps more so with the more recent ones they have done without any police backing .. whether those people could get the substantial financial backing they would need to run them is another matter. I think it is more likely Murat will make a mint out of selling his story via Max Clifford.
If the McCanns are convicted I wonder what assets they will have to pay damages? Seems to me they are not actually a wealthy couple and without Gerry's salary..Big mortage on that house..
Viv x
21.34 G.M.T.
Fair points you make, Viv. Libel is a 'rich man's law' to coin a phrase. Personally, I think that this whole mess of people making money and promoting their own self-interest over the body of a dead girl, missing Maddie, has so inflamed public feeling that anyone who does not face a criminal court will appear in libel court; possibly both.
Clarence Mitchell, in all his vanity, foolishly threatened the Press en mass last year; foolishly threatened to make it his 'life's work to hunt down' ordinary posters on newspaper forums, and sue them. Such posters are ordinary, questioning members of the public, simply responding to an invitation from the Press to comment on a major story of the day. Clarence's threat was intimidating to the public, and throwing down the gauntlet to the Press which will defend its readers when the time comes...when the time comes. That's journalism. That's free speech, defended by Publishers who pay for it, and journalists who die for it...in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and in earlier days, the Crimea. This is not over til it's over, and it's not over yet.
Anyone who lied about missing Maddie will get their day in court: a criminal; a libel court; the court of public opinion forever scolding their actions. Whatever it takes. However long it takes. This is not over, in my humble opinion.
I think you are most right to persevere in the interests of Justice for Maddie, and we are most fortunate that people like you embolden others to pursue justice, free speech, and make the 21st Century into something worth inheriting for our children.
Doh! There's another rant from me. Hey ho. I think you'll forgive me.
Post a Comment