Celebrity Status: Above the Law?

Having a read through some of Gerry McCann's blog (thank you pamalam of gerrymccannsblog) and reflecting on his public performance over the past twelve years, his desire to attain celebrity status is overwhelming. Photo-shoots, interviews, chat-show appearances, magazine articles - their mugs are out there across the globe for all to see. I wouldn't mind betting they have as much, if not more, celebrity coverage than the best of them.

Could this be another aspect of the long term strategy talked of in the very early days? Did they think, or were they advised, to reachfor the stards in order to ensure their freedom - to put them above the law?

There have been many instances reported by the media, where celebrities have escaped justice through some technicality, or lack of evidence. Unlimited money of course helps, either by affording the oppprtunity to engage high profile lawyers, or indeed paying-off officials - either way, it has the desired effect. They do get away with murder - metaphorically speaking.

A quick example taken from Gerry McCann's blog..

Another early start to the day as I dropped the crew who did some filming for the website and other forthcoming events. Kate and I did a short interview reviewing the last 3 months and the search for Madeleine. We spent the rest of the day with the kids and Kate’s family. We were all glad it clouded over in the afternoon to give us some respite from the intense heat.

The most recent searches by the police have attracted a lot of renewed media interest with satellite trucks arriving back in Praia da Luz. It is likely that some of the British Broadcasters will also come back out.

There is no end of material to be included here - all donations gratefully received.

Max Clifford's conviction proves celebrities are not above the law

Keir Starmer

Such cases are difficult, but time and the fame of alleged sex offenders cannot be allowed to limit justice for the victims

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Max Clifford was found guilty on eight of 11 charges of indecent assault. Photograph: Paul Davey/Demotix/Corbis

The verdicts in the Max Clifford case mark an important moment for our criminal justice system. For years, victims of sexual offending felt they had no chance of success if they were up against a celebrity. Let us not forget that although the vast majority of Jimmy Savile's victims lacked the confidence to come forward during his lifetime, four did. But, in the end, each of them felt they could not, alone, take on someone of his then popularity.

The subsequent steps taken by police and prosecutors to change the approach in cases of sexual offending have been criticised by some in light of the recent acquittals of Dave Lee Travis and Nigel Evans. But the change was important. It emphasised that any assessment of the likelihood of succeeding in a criminal prosecution should be by reference to an objective assessment of the evidence and not a crude "bookie's test" whereby the odds of winning against a celebrity are taken into account.

Inevitably results will be mixed when cases involving sexual offending alleged to have taken place many years ago are brought. These cases are difficult at the best of times, often involving conduct which by its very nature is not witnessed by others. The passage of time only adds to the difficulty.

But few of us, on reflection, would be comfortable with a criminal justice system in which cases were not brought merely because the events took place long ago or because the accused was a celebrity. The Max Clifford case shows that when the police and prosecutors quietly hold their nerve they can succeed, whatever the public profile or popularity of the accused.

The test is whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The first is a matter of legal judgment, with the difficulty for the police and prosecutors that they cannot test a victim's account by live questioning. The second is a matter of discretion. Assuming there is enough evidence to prosecute, the celebrity of the accused should not be a bar or limitation on prosecution.

A clear and consistent approach is needed. That approach should rigorously assess the evidence before a criminal case is started. People understand and accept the real need to avoid bringing charges from which suspects cannot fairly defend themselves.

But in the past an overcautious approach was adopted. No doubt this reflected a concern in society at large, namely that there is a risk to suspects that someone will make false allegations they will find impossible to disprove. That concern should not be ignored, but it is important that it is kept in proper perspective. The risk, otherwise, is of sexual offences being subjected to a different and, in reality, more rigorous test than is applied to other crimes.

Tempting though it is to judge the entire criminal justice system as each verdict arrives, in the long run it is better to hold back and view these cases in the round.

One of the problems in dealing with cases of sexual offending in general and of child sexual abuse in particular has been the tendency of commentators to lurch from one side of the road to the other in short order. Accusations that the police and prosecutors are too timid to prosecute one day are followed by accusations of a witch hunt the next, and they help no one.

What the Clifford case shows is that victims do not always come forward straight away. There may be many reasons for that, but that does not in and of itself prevent a jury believing what they have to say.

A statute of limitations requiring sexual offences to be prosecuted within a set time frame, as many have been demanding, would have deprived Clifford's victims – and many others – of justice.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show. We had been asked if we’d consider being interviewed by Oprah not long after Madeleine was abducted but we’d had a lot on our plates then and there was no particular objective it would have served. This time we had our age-progressed image to publicize, and the global reach of Oprah’s massively popular show would give us a fantastic opportunity to stamp this on the worldwide public consciousness.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Oprah show, or the McCann show

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Oprah Winfrey

I've always thought the McCanns maintained their high profile media presence, with the help of a spin-doctor, to secure themselves from ever being forced before a criminal court of law.

Their predicament being so well publicised over the weeks, months and years their legal representation would be sure to claim unfair trial.  The mixed reportage over the years, good publicity v. bad publicity, the public, potential members of a jury, couldn't possibly be considered unbiased.

Thinking on, the two go hand in hand - saturated media reportage + celebrity status. 

Secure in the knowledge the case will never go to trial - at least not with Gerry and/or Kate McCann in the dock with his bewigged beakiness staring down hard on the jury.

"Celebrities" . . . modern lifes false idols. They ARE given somewhat of a free ride (while it lasts). Their purpose as society's New Gods is distraction for the masses. Examples of celebrities promoted without merit are obvious to all of us. Especially ones who keep failing yet are inexplicably handed opportunity after opportunity despite having no discernible talent. (Jack Whitehall anybody?)  But none of them are untouchable, as soon as they are deemed to be of no further use, or become a hindrance they will be thrown to the dogs.

How long before they appear on "I'm a celebrity"?

Gerry McCann's blog: 24th August 2007 Day 113

I started the day early with a pooled telephone interview for the press to talk about the media coverage of the campaign to find Madeleine in advance of my interview at the Edinburgh International TV festival.

Gerry McCann interview at the Edinburgh Television Festival - August 2007



Apart from the most obvious question  - what the heck has Gerry McCann's plight (the situation he finds himself in) got to do with the Edinburgh Television Festival, it should also be noted that this occured between the visit to Portugal by the pesky dogs and the McCanns being declared aguido at the beginning of September 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"no particular objective"???

We have an ongoing case right now here in Sweden, it's the case against A$AP Rocky.
He has been put to jail for a serious crime and waiting trial.
I'am a little bit shocked when I see other famous people in the US including the US President demands his release and believes our PM can do anything about it, but he can not.
No bail system and no one can do anything about it, except the Judge.
From my point of view it's the tradition and the culture and corruption in the establishments in different countries that determines how it works when it comes to crimes and VIP people.

When you look back at some of their off guard comments, when they let their mouths run before engaging higher thought process, it can seem glaringly obvious that SOMETHING is amiss. It could be any of a number of different things, including opportunism, narcissism, and psychopathy amongst others. But gut instinct tells most that something is WRONG with them.
It is interesting how some don't see it at the time. Point it out to them later and they do that "I cant believe I fell for it" thing.

There must be any number of reasons why, or how, high profile personalities escape justice. I do however believe for the most part money talks and the profile status is considered more important than justice.

I therefore have reason to think the McCanns grand publicity stunt, starting from the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007, was and indeed still is, their carefully structured 'get out of jail free card'.

Seriously, how could this case ever go to trial if the McCanns were to be in the dock? So much publicity over the years, so much media and public interest, how could there realistically be a fair trial?

Think about it, as I've said over and over again, they had the privilege of a government media monitoring direct at their disposal, who later became their very own official spokesman - and friend!

So why did the negative media coverage continue along side the positive media coverage. Wasn't it the highly paid spokesman's job to control what came out in the media.

That I believe he did, with great panache, hence the conflicting media stories, the positive v. negative publicity. Remember also, the media seldom, if ever, report fact. They report what they are told to report - that's why true freelance investigative journalists are so important.

Pity there aren't a few more out there willing to risk all in pursuit of the truth, preferably without the danger of being labeled conspiracy theorists.

If it were MY child, and she was REALLY missing, and I somehow had access to all these celebrities, I would want to organise an event as soon as it could be done! So, as you say, he knew she wasn't just "missing". It seems he was basking in all the attention and limelight!

As I said at the beginning of the thread, there is so much material out there to show Gerry McCann's lust for celebrity status, there's every danger of the subject becoming tedious.

My ghast has never been so flabbered as when checking-out the audacious antics of Messrs McCann Co Ltd.

Just short of one month after Kate McCann officially declared her daughter missing..

Day 29:  Friday 1st June 2007

With the help of the British Embassy we had a very busy day. First of all we had a short briefing from the ambassador and her staff. We then had a series of meetings with: multiple non-governmental agencies involved in child welfare, did a TV programme akin to Crimewatch focussing on Madeleine’s disappearance, a press conference which was well attended, a couple of short US news channel interviews with European coverage and finally met with the Spanish Minister for the Interior (Home Secretary equivalent). We left Madrid feeling as if the Spanish were treating Madeleine’s disappearance like one of their own.

Gerry McCann's blog

Where is the sick bucket?

I'd have bet money you'd find it Verdi.

  At your service  

Meanwhile back at the ranch..

Gerry McCann's blog:  26th May 2007 - Day 23

Yesterday was relatively quiet although we did meet the British ambassador and the senior British Police Officer who has been working here in Portugal on the case. This was a productive meeting. There was a flurry of activity amongst the media here stating the family was openly critical of the Portuguese policed which was not true. We did our best to dampen this down but a couple of papers carried stories with our ‘frustration’ with the investigation rather than what we said it was frustrating that 3 weeks down the line we still have not got Madeleine back. This would be the case which ever country we were in. Some of you may have noticed that Sean and Amelie did manage to squeeze in a hair cut!

Today was extremely busy and tiring. We met with our press officer Clarence Mitchell, to discuss strategy for the fortcoming interviews. Kate attended a luncheon in aid of International Missing Child day and John, my brother, attended a similar event in London. After this John and Brian Kennedy, Kate’s uncle, who are both directors of Madeleine’s fund appointed an interim fund manager. We are now actively looking for a campaign manager who will be needed once our government press officer disappears.

The interviews were our first for TV and we were happy how they went. We did 10 min interviews for Sky, BBC, ITV, Portuguese TV/radio and one for the press association. A shorter interview with GM TV will be shown on Monday morning along with stuff from our fabulous web team. The interviewers were very kind but did not shirk from asking us some extremely difficult questions. We answered them all and although painful will allow us to move on in our search for Madeleine.

Importantly, shortly after our interviews finished the Portuguese Police held a press conference and gave details of man they would like to interview who was seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. We have not had a transcript of what was said but this is an encouraging development and hopefully will result in further calls to the police with information from people who were in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s abduction. We remain very optimistic that the criminal investigation will lead to Madeleine’s safe return but we need everyone to be alert and vigilant to any suspicious activity.

Tomorrow will be a family day. We are doing a photo-shoot with the twins for the Sunday newspapers in the morning but will involve stuff that we want to do with them anyway. We also need to recharge our batteries after what has been a very busy week.

Ladies Day at Musselburgh Races - 11th June 2016

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]