Thursday, May 22, 2008

Eye of the media tiger

Guest post by the Jailhouse Lawyer:

I was asked to climb aboard an anti-McCann bandwagon. Like the McCanns saying they have reservations about returning to Portugal for a reconstruction, I pm'd Tigger on the 3As forum stating I had reservations.

I was concerned about libel, once you step out of the relative safety of the blogs and forums. Any allegation made needs to be supported or the McCann camp will jump on it and exploit it for their own ends. In the end, I agreed to offer support on the legal and media fronts.

This has already received a McCann response on local radio in the areas of distribution. If the mainstream media (MSM) is not going to ask the right questions, then they will have to play catch up.

n.b. The report of the local radio is single sourced and has not yet been confirmed by a secondary source. It could be the source was hearing voices :)

2 comments:

Lord James Bigglesworth said...

Thanks, John. The McCann issue is one I jsut don't know what to think. Everything tells me they are not straight but how can I know?

jailhouselawyer said...

James: For me it is easy. I block out all emotion, it clouds judgement. I compare and contrast statements made and make a mental note of any inconsistencies. For example, the McCanns claimed that the shutters had been jemmied open and that there had been a break-in. The Mark Warner complex manager stated there was no shutter damage. The police said that there was no evidence of any break-in. The PJ (CID) said there was no evidence of any shutter damage, they were opened from the inside, and there was no evidence of a break-in. Eventually, Clarence Mitchell the McCanns media spkesman stated that there was no evidence of a break-in. I have not yet heard or read any statement from the McCanns themselves explaining why they claimed the shutters had been forced open and damaged in a break-in. They have since changed their story (again this has its problems), but not given any explanation. Surely, they could not have been mistaken? Therefore, it was a lie to cover up for something. What is it they are seeking to cover up? They are not trying to cover up the fact that Madeleine is missing. That is self evident by her absence. Therefore, it's why she is missing which requires an explanation. The McCanns claim it was an abductor. But, they would say that if they had killed Madeleine, somehow, and disposed of her body to try and hide their involvement. The police know the McCanns have lied about the fake break-in. So, how does the abductor get into the apartment? The McCanns now say that they left the patio doors unlocked. Three children under 4 years of age, left in an apartment unsupervised whilst their parents went out to socialise with friends and have some drinks and a meal in a Tapas Bar? Was that wise? Most definitely not. Was that safe? Most definitely not. The parents beg to differ. They claim that they have done nothing wrong. Legally, both in Portugal and the UK, their conduct could amount to child neglect and/or child abandonment. The only so-called witness to seeing this abductor is Jane Tanner, one of the Tapas 9. However, when she claims to have seen him, both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins were in that area and did not see her or the so-called abductor. She changes her story 3 times given different times of the sighting, which direction she was walking in, and 3 different versions of what was happening in the Tapas Bar when she went out or when she came in. A reliable witness? I would say not. So, where did the so-called abductor originate? In Kate McCann's mind. She said an abductor must have taken Madeleine. Are there other possible explanations? Most definitely yes. Would it be in the McCanns interests to claim that an abductor had taken Madeleine? Quite possibly. If they were responsible for Madeleine's death, and sought to escape responsibility disposing of her body might achieve that end. Therefore, in walks the bogey man through the unlocked patio doors conveniently left like that by loving, caring, responsible, parents who wouldn't for 1 minute take any risks? I don't think so.

If the problems are looked at logically, most of them are solvable.