McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

@Finn,

It just springs to mind that old saying 'you don't bite the hand that feeds you'.

Finn wrote:
Time and time again they chant the same tired old mantra but really, why didn't they take action?

And there again, why didn't they search ?

PeterMac wrote:

Finn wrote:
Time and time again they chant the same tired old mantra but really, why didn't they take action?

And there again, why didn't they search ?

***
Because [IMO] they knew/know ...

[quote="PeterMac

Cranmer, Latimer, Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and all the rest throughout history have shown that
It can sometimes alter what people say, but never what they believe.
The only way to do that is by example, by education, and by evidence that a contrary view is preferable [/quote]

Add to that list, the wonderful Malala Yousafzai, the 14 year old girl fighting for her life tonight on behalf of women who are denied an education because of their gender.

maebee wrote:[quote="PeterMac

Cranmer, Latimer, Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, and all the rest throughout history have shown that
It can sometimes alter what people say, but never what they believe.
The only way to do that is by example, by education, and by evidence that a contrary view is preferable

Add to that list, the wonderful Malala Yousafzai, the 14 year old girl fighting for her life tonight on behalf of women who are denied an education because of their gender.[/quote]

And who, it is reported, is under threat in an English hospital.
Are there no depths to which these people will not stoop. (Rhetorical !)

Remember always that she is a Muslim, shot in the head by another Muslim.

Anyone now want to talk about the "Muslim Community " ? Anyone reading the news about Bahrain ?

It is worse than Tudor England.
But then again, they are still in their year 1433.
'Bloody Mary' reigned from 1553 -1558.
So we have a long wait for decency and sanity and some sort of enlightenment to break out.

PeterMac wrote:

Finn wrote:
Time and time again they chant the same tired old mantra but really, why didn't they take action?

And there again, why didn't they search ?

Because it was too dark said Kate.
Another flaw of the Resort, another reason to sue Warner Resort for failing to provide a safe and secured place, so why didn't they sue Warner Resort.

Da Troof wrote:

Good post Monty.

However, I suspect that it is now CR who are driving the litigation now. They will simply see all the £££££'s to be made. For them there will be no PR disaster if when they win (most likely outcome IMO, they would be unlikely to pursue a case unless they were confident of winning). Their reputation as successful libel lawyers will be enhanced. Even if TB does manage to win they still get paid (probably from the FM fund). So its win/win for CR, but lose/lose for McC's. Only TB is still in a win/lose position.

I beg to differ. The only thing that CR is confident of is: MONEY in their pocket, nothing else.

The writing is on already on the wall.
Unless the MET can come up with good valid reasons for their continual practice to use dogs, they will have to explain away why they waste taxpayers money training dogs.
I can't see how the mccanns, even with their mighty lawyers, can argue around Gerry's claim "dogs are incredibly unreliable." Nor can he ask the Judge and Jury to: "ask the dogs"!

Some things are beyond lawyers to argue no matter their spin ability.
Everything put before Court is about supporting evidence; not Gerry's say so or lawyer say so for that matter.
Remember experts and witnesses are going to be allowed to testify in Court.

It's oft-said dogs evidence have to be corroborated.
There have been quite a few recent cases (which TB can cite) where prosecutions were successful - even without a body, where dogs evidence was used as crucial primary evidence amongst other circumstantial evidence.
In mccanns' case there are circumstantial evidence too: like lying about the shutters (police proved they cant be opened from the outside) they didnt search etc etc....

More importantly there's the AG's Closing Report which inevitably will have to be taken in totality whether the mccanns like it or not, wherein it was stated that the Mccanns did not cooperate to get themselves eliminated.

The process interrupted by refusal of main players to go back for reconstruction will not go unnoticed by Court. Neither will the excuses of the T7 and that of the Mccanns, each side contradicting the other side, each using their side to play the other side, for their refusal to go.
These are people who sued the papers but wouldn't go back for reconstruction, regardless, not even for the sake of the missing child, whom they ask the public to continue to search, so who is hampering the search?

Oh BTW, what about Gerry's remarkable remark " He believes in free speech, and people are free to purport theories".....how is he going to wriggle out of that in Court?

We will see how this pans out, but I have confident Freedom of Speech will prevail.

I agree with Aiyoyo that the McCanns and Carter-Ruck may face an interesting time in court when the libel hearing takes place.

You mention that experts and witnesses will be called and indeed that is big trouble for the McCanns.

I would suggest that Tony calls the relevant partner of haysmacintyre (the auditors to the Fund) as a witness and asks him to explain why the first year's accounts gave the details of what was spent but thereafter only the minimum legal information was given.

The answer must be that he was instructed by the Fund's directors to do this. These auditors are very experienced with charity / not for profit accounts and have won awards so it is not credible that they would produce accounts with only the minimum information unless they were asked to do so.

Tony gets the name of the director/s who gave the instruction and asks the auditor if he queried it; you don't win awards for producing accounts like that!

Tony could also ask technical questions about the standard of the bookkeeping, the records kept etc and who was doing the books - always a mystery to me. I'm not qualified to suggest exactly what questions but Tony could get help with them.

He could also ask for an analysis of the money spent on legal fees. Remember that uncle Brian Kennedy said that's where most of the money would go; a comment I have never understood.

Tony then questions the director who gave the order - it could have been uncle Brian as chairman of the board rather than the McCanns - again we know the answer. It was a reaction to the media and sceptics saying that only 13% went on the search for Madeleine. It would be fun listening to the answer on this when both the book and website proclaim the commitment to transparency.

I don't suppose that the auditor would want to appear but I presume he could be compelled to do so and in court he would be on oath to tell the truth.......

mydadsanastronaut wrote:



Finally, we doubters have often been told that it would be well nigh impossible for a number of people to keep a horrific secret for the long term. Regrettably, the recent atrocious revelations that are now affecting the BBC indicate that if enough people feel threatened, or that their stories may be felt to lack credibility, then it is possible to keep all manner of secrets for a substantial time.

As seen with Jersey and many other cover-ups.

A short report on the McCanns v Bennett hearing last week has appeared on the 'Law and Media Round-Up' website, the item in blue below is the only report on the case until now, so far as I am aware.

Please note that as soon as practicable after 23 October, Mr Justice Tugendhat will publish the decisions he made on 11 October and his reasons for his decisions.

I will publish this here as soon as I get it:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Law and Media Round Up – 15 October 2012

15 10 2012


We lead with criminal, rather than civil, law developments relating to media and communications. There have been a spate of prosecutions relating to social media use: a teenager from Lancashire was imprisoned for sick and grossly offensive jokes on his Facebook page about the missing 5 year old April Jones and Madeline McCann; in the same week, Azhar Ahmed was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for posting an offensive update to his Facebook page about British soldiers in Afghanistan, following the death of six British soldiers.

Both were convicted under s127 of the Communications Act 2003. Eloise le Santo reported these and other developments here, for Inforrm, arguing that “S127 represents an unnecessary and chilling encroachment on free speech and the increasing prosecutions under this legislation should be cause for serious concern“.

The DPP has been holding a series of round table debates with industry figures discussing the law in this area. Separately, in a podcast available here, legal blogger Charon QC discusses the issues with John Cooper QC, who led the team in the well-known “Twitter joke” case, Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157.

The Defamation Bill has received its second reading in the House of Lords. The Committee stage, which includes line by line examination of the Bill, is yet to be scheduled.

The words complained of in libel claim brought by Elton John against The Times “are not capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them by the claimant or any other meaning defamatory of him“, according to Mr Justice Tugendhat in John v Times Newspapers [2012] EWHC 2751 (QB). John sued the Times over articles about tax avoidance schemes. The judge had to find whether the words complained of are capable of being understood at one of the three Chase levels: 1 (actual guilt), 2 (reasonable suspicion of guilt) and 3 (grounds to investigate whether there is guilt). He rejected that the words could bear a chase level 1 or 2 meaning. On the chase level 3 meaning, he found that “some readers might infer something to the discredit of the Claimant to be investigated“, but accepted the Defendant’s submission “that a hypothetical reader of The Times who inferred that would be outside any definition of the reasonable reader which a jury could apply without perversity“.

The online travel review website TripAdvisor, give up its jurisdictional challenge in a case brought in a Scottish small claims court by guesthouse owner Richard Gollin, the Herald has reported, as does the Hebrides News here.

Richard Horton, the police detective who was outed as the author of an anonymous blog about his police work has settled his claim of breach of confidentiality, misuse of private information and deceit against The Times and accepted £42,500 in compensation plus legal costs. David Allen Green reported on this latest development and comments on the case at the New Statesman here.

Statements in Open Court and Apologies

On 2 October it was reported by the BBC that the actor Nicolas Cage had won an apology and undisclosed damages from MailOnline following article published on 1 September called him a “tax evader”. TabloidWatch comments on developments here.

We are not aware of anything further to report in this section. Please alert us with any relevant listings: inforrmeditorial@gmail.com.

Journalism and regulation

There are no new PCC adjudications to report, but numerous resolved cases:

Honest Reporting v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Susan Weeks-Wade v York Press, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Adrian Evans v The Times, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Mr Iain Simcock v Souther Reporter, Clauses1, 2, 3, 12/10/2012; A woman v The Sun, Clause Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Mr Berwyn Jay v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Michael Ludlam v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Dr JG Flood v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Mr Iain Simcock v The Scottish Sun, Clauses 1, 2, 3, 12/10/2012; Mrs Sarah Catt v Daily Mail, Clauses 1, 3, 4, 9, 12/10/2012; Naomi Thomas v Metro, Clauses 1, 3, 12/10/2012; Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson v The Daily Telegraph, Clause 1,12/10/2012; Mr Gary Benardout v Daily Mirror, Clause 1, 12/10/2012; Mr Gordon Bell v The Independent; Clauses 1, 2, 12/10/2012; Lisa Duller v Metro Clauses 1, 12, 10/10/2012; Miss Naomi Bloomer v Herald Series (Oxfordshire), Clause 1, 09/10/2012; Bacs Payment Schemes Ltd v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 08/10/2012.

An anonymous piece in the Observer discusses a “culture of casual sexism and harassment” in the television industry, following the recent Jimmy Savile allegations.

Moderators on Reddit’s politics site r/politics banned links from Gawker Media, as Poynter reported. Memeburn has a good summary here, and here’s the Gawker piece at the heart of it.

Research & resources

• Podcast, ‘Data Protection and Social Networks’: Dr. Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute, with an analysis of the interface between Data Protection regulation and social networking. Part of the OxPILS series ‘Mending the Tangled Web? Informational Privacy 3.0′.
  
• The online legal resource sites, LawBore and LearnBore have re-launched with a new design. They act as a digital portal for City University Law School, but content is open to all.
  
• Declaration on Parliamentary Openness launched at the World e-Parliament Conference 2012 [via the Democratic Society blog]
  
• New paper: Lothar Determann: ‘Social Media Privacy, A Dozen Myths and Facts’, The Stanford Technology Law Review
  
• Academic blog post: Daniel Solov: ‘Do Young People Care About Privacy?’
  

In the Courts

On 10 October 2012 Tugendhat J handed down judgment in the case of John v Times Newspapers [2012] EWHC 2751 (QB). The claim was dismissed on the ground that the words complained of were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning (see above).

There was a hearing in the Voicemail Interception litigation before Vos J on 11 October 2012. The judge gave further directions and made orders in relation to costs.

On the same day there was a hearing in the case of McCann v Bennett – relating to the claimants’ committal application. The defendant’s application for an adjournment was refused and the court ordered that the claimants’ committal application would be heard as soon as practicable but with penalty only being determined after any libel trial.

There was a case management conference in the case of Hunt v Times Newspapers on 12 October 2012.

Events

18 October, 10.30am, The Communications Data Bill: ‘Snoopers’ charter’, or safeguarding our security? Index on Censorship and the Global Network Initiative. Free Word Centre, London.

22 & 29 Oct, 7.30pm, Rich Peppiatt: One Rogue Reporter, Soho Theatre, London.

24 October 2012, 6pm, Ten Years On – The Iraq Dossiers: Who Was Damaged Most by Hutton?, Media Society debate with Kevin Marsh, former editor ‘Today’; Peter Oborne, Lance Price, Professor Steven Barnett, Professor Jean Seaton (Chair: Steve Hewlett). University of Westminster, London.

25 October 2012, After Leveson: Annual Conference of the Institute of Communication Ethics (from 9.30am); Media Society debate (3.30pm); launch of The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism on Trial (Abramis),second edition. Frontline Club, London.

13 November 2012, 6.30pm, ‘Regulating for Communication’, Baroness Onora O’Neill, Goldsmiths University, London.

19 November 2011, all day, Media and War: challenging the consensus, Goldsmiths University, London.

19 November 2012, The Poetry of Free Expression: Celebrating 40 years of Index on Censorship, Index on Censorship / Poet in the City. King’s Place, London.

28 November 2012, 6pm ‘CEL Annual Lecture 2012: Media Freedoms & Media Standards’, Baroness Onora O’Neill

Know of any media law events happening in the autumn? Please let Inforrm know: inforrmeditorial@gmail.com.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia: Robert Clark, Victorian Attorney-General, will lead a working group to create national guidelines on social media, following concern that comments on social media will damage the fair trial of a man accused of murdering the ABC journalist Jill Meagher. A detailed piece on PBS MediaShift discusses events here. A magistrate issued a suppression order on publication of prejudicial content about the man charged with the murder, which includes social media content. Jill Meagher had moved to Australia from Ireland three years ago.

In the case of Harbour Radio v Trad [2012] HCA 44 the High Court of Australia allowed the defendant’s appeal, holding that most of the broadcast complained of was protected by “reply to attack” qualified privilege. Certain matters concerning the defence of truth were remitted to the lower court.

India: Louise Khurshid, the wife of Salman Khurshid, is pursuing a defamation claim against the TV Today group for a programme on its ‘Headlines Today’ and ‘Aaj Tak’ channels which alleged financial irregularities relating to a trust run by the couple. The Times of India reports here.

Scotland: A man who was wrongly labelled a criminal “lifer” in council files has been granted legal aid in his defamation claim. It marks the first time that legal aid has been given in a defamation case, following a legislative direction in civil legal aid law in 2010, according to the Herald.

Sweden / Ethiopia: In December 2011, an Ethiopian court found two Swedish freelance journalists guilty of entering Ethiopia illegally and assisting a rebel group. They had been travelling to the politically unstable southern Ogaden region. On 14 September 2012 they returned home after being imprisoned for 438 days. Poynter has interviewed the journalists, Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson, here.

United States: In Seaton v. TripAdvisor, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118584 (E.D. Tenn. August 22, 2012), the district court found that 2011 Trip Advisor “Dirtiest Hotels” ranking constituted hyperbolic opinion and rhetorical exaggeration and was therefore not actionable under Tennessee defamation law, as this post on Proskauer’s new media and technology blog explains.

Next week in the courts

On Monday 15 October 2012, Tugendhat J will hand down judgment in the case of BUQ v HRE.

Two libel trials begin on Monday 15 October 2012. The first is the trial of Frankie Boyle v MGN – before Eady J and a jury, which is the second libel jury trial this year. The Mirror summarises the case as follows:

“Frankie Boyle is taking legal proceedings against us for the description of him as a ‘racist comedian’. He claims it is untrue and defamatory. We are defending this claim on the basis of truth and fair comment. We are also defending his claim that we libelled him by suggesting that ‘he was forced to quit Mock the Week’ in 2009.”

Secondly, there is the trial in the case of Spiller v Joseph – case which went to the Supreme Court in 2010 on the question of “comment” ([2010] UKSC 53). This is to be tried by Tugendhat J sitting without a jury. The claim is for special damages arising out of the loss of two contracts by the claimants. There is an issue as to whether the words complained of are defamatory. The defendants rely on defences of justification and honest comment and the claimant contends that the defendants were actuated by malice. The trial was originally due to commence on 8 June 2009. It was listed for jury trial but the defendants have now consented to trial by judge alone. It is estimated that the trial will take 3-4 days.

Next week in Parliament

Tuesday 16 October 2012, 10.30am, Culture, Media and Sport, Subject: Channel 4 Annual Report 2011. Witness(es): Lord Burns, Chairman, Channel 4 and David Abraham, Chief Executive, Channel 4. Location: Room 5, Palace of Westminster, House of Commons.

Tuesday 16 October 2012, 3pm, Draft Communications Data Bill. Subject: Draft Communications Data Bill. Witness(es): Sir Paul Kennedy, Interception of Communications Commissioner, Interception of Communications Commission and Joanna Cavan, Chief Inspector, Interception of Communications Commission; Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner, ICO. Location: 4A, House of Commons.

Wednesday 17 October, 3pm, Draft Communications Data Bill. Subject: Draft Communications Data Bill. Witness(es): Jamie Bartlett, DEMOS; Lord Carlile of Berriew, Former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Subject: Draft Communications Data Bill. Witness(es): Jamie Bartlett, DEMOS; Lord Carlile of Berriew, Former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Location: 4A, House of Commons.

Thursday 18 October, Draft Communications Data Bill Joint Committee. Subject: Private meeting. Witness(es): Committee visit to the Metropolitan Police Service.

Judgments

The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding:

• Miller v Associated Newspapers heard 21 to 25 May 2012 (Sharp J)
  

• KC v MGN; Cairns v Modi, heard 26 and 27 July 2012 (Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, Eady J).
  

Also on Inforrm last week

• The Savile affair and the media – the watchdog which didn’t bark
  
• “Everybody’s Hacked Off”, Chapter 1 – Brian Cathcart
  
• Ireland: When ‘we dance’ to the High Court for an injunction – Eoin O’Dell
  
• The Mail’s Way with Words – Brian Cathcart
  
• Beyond a joke? Social Media, free speech and “grossly offensive” communications – Eloise le Santo
  
• Privacy, Lessons from 1890 – Richard Ridyard
  
• Journalisted: week ending Sunday 7 October 2012, Savile, April and Militants
  
• Case Law, New Zealand, C v Holland, Court recognises “intrusion on seclusion” privacy tort – Hugh Tomlinson QC
  
• Fighting anonymity with anonymity: open justice and cyberbullying – Eoin O’Dell
  
• The Many Mythologies of Press Freedom, Part 1, Free Speech and the “Sun” – Julian Petley
  
• The Many Mythologies of Press Freedom, Part 2, Media Self-Censorship – Julian Petley
  

This week’s Round Up was compiled for Inforrm by Judith Townend, a freelance journalist and PhD researcher examining legal restraints on the media, who runs the Meeja Law blog. She is @jtownend on Twitter. Please send suggestions, tips and event listings for inclusion in future round ups to jt.townend@gmail.com.

Yesterday I was sent the DRAFT of Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment for correction. There were indeed some minor matters than needed amending, and I've done that and sent off my comments. Both sides have an opportunity to point out minor errors.

I am not allowed to release the judgment, as the judge has to approve the final version. It is scheduled to be released on Wednesday 24 October.

I can say that it does not prescribe the way forward in terms of the sequence of events in which various issues will be tried, rather, it makes clear recommendations and then invites the two parties to agree the most appropriate legal way forward.

An agreed order will then be drawn up if we can agree, otherwise the judge will rule on the way forward.

As I said originally, the judge has already determined that trial No. 1 is go ahead straightaway, and this will detemine:

1. have I breached any of the undertakings?

2. if so, what breaches have I committed?

Tony Bennett wrote:Yesterday I was sent the DRAFT of Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment for correction. There were indeed some minor matters than needed amending, and I've done that and sent off my comments. Both sides have an opportunity to point out minor errors.

I am not allowed to release the judgment, as the judge has to approve the final version. It is scheduled to be released on Wednesday 24 October.

I can say that it does not prescribe the way forward in terms of the sequence of events in which various issues will be tried, rather, it makes clear recommendations and then invites the two parties to agree the most appropriate legal way forward.

An agreed order will then be drawn up if we can agree, otherwise the judge will rule on the way forward.

As I said originally, the judge has already determined that trial No. 1 is go ahead straightaway, and this will detemine:

1. have I breached any of the undertakings?

2. if so, what breaches have I committed?

Tony, I thought there had to be a libel trial first? Isn't that what it said in your last post re this? Have I (and maybe others) misunderstood? I thought that the way it was worded this case came afterwards if it was established you committed libel?

candyfloss wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Yesterday I was sent the DRAFT of Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment for correction. There were indeed some minor matters than needed amending, and I've done that and sent off my comments. Both sides have an opportunity to point out minor errors.

I am not allowed to release the judgment, as the judge has to approve the final version. It is scheduled to be released on Wednesday 24 October.

I can say that it does not prescribe the way forward in terms of the sequence of events in which various issues will be tried, rather, it makes clear recommendations and then invites the two parties to agree the most appropriate legal way forward.

An agreed order will then be drawn up if we can agree, otherwise the judge will rule on the way forward.

As I said originally, the judge has already determined that trial No. 1 is go ahead straightaway, and this will detemine:

1. have I breached any of the undertakings?

2. if so, what breaches have I committed?

Tony, I thought there had to be a libel trial first? Isn't that what it said in your last post re this? Have I (and maybe others) misunderstood? I thought that the way it was worded this case came afterwards if it was established you committed libel?

I can't say what is in the judgment, but what I did report from the hearing was the judge's suggestion that this should be the sequence of events:

A. Trial on the issue of whether I breached the undertakings, but with no penalty being decided even if I am found to be in breach, followed by

B. Full libel trial, with a jury, followed by

C. The committal trial reconvening to decide what penalty, if any, I should face.

Ah, thank you Tony, I did misunderstand. So no decision until after the Libel trial. I get it now. Thanks.

Evening kiddlyampers.

With regard to the following:

"When there have been instances where the Claimants have feared that the publication of defamatory allegations about them may threaten to hamper the search for their daughter (because if the public are led to believe that Madeleine is dead, they are unlikely to report any potential sightings or other leads to the authorites), they have taken action...the Claimants have brought only a handful of libel complaints against the national press, in additon to a small number of requests to media outlets and Internet Service Providers to remove defamatory postings from internet discussions forums or 'readers' comments' websites...the Claimants have tried to take action only where absolutely necessary".

They have a problem, well in fact 48 problems.

How can they claim that publication of any defamatory comments are hindering the search for Madeleine when kate mccann herself refused to answer 48 questions and when asked the 49th:


Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?


A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.

Surely then kate herself has hampered the investigation herself by her refusal to answer the 48 questions.

If she won't help the investigation by answering the questions and she is the mother, how can anyone else say or do anything to hamper the self same investigation?

This also applies to the reconstruction.

As arguidos they were compelled to take part in any reconstruction, their chums however, the tapas 7, were under no such obligation and promptly refused as well as making unreasonable demands so as to make any reconstruction impossible.

The mccanns got out of the reconstruction by dint of the fact that the reconstruction was impossible without all members of the group taking part.

The other interesting point, and i point this out as a student of statement analysis, is, that kate herself has told us Madeleine is dead.

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone.

The keyword here is ALL.

Words are thought of in the brain a microsecond before being spoken.

In statement analysis we look only at the words spoken, we do not interpret what we think they meant, or they misspoke.

The subject is dead, the statement is alive.

Her comment only makes logical sense if she knows or believes Madeleine is dead.

Why you may ask?

If kate pressed the button and they were ALL gone, then it means Madeleine is dead, they would ALL be togeather.

If kate knew or believed Madeleine was alive, they she would not have used the word ALL.

If she were to press a button as she said then she would have just made Madeleine an orphan.

If Madeleine were alive as is claimed, then kate pressing a button to finish it all has just killed her mon, dad and her siblings leaving Madeleine with no immediate family.

Since this is against maternal instinct and mothers are the last to accept their child is dead often referring to them in the present tense years down the line, the only logical conclusion is that Madeleine is dead, kate knows this and thus if she were to suicide by pressing a button killling herself gerry and the twins so they would all be togeather, she has just told us this.

It is also a concern as to her mental health that she would consider not only suicide (isn't that a mortal sin in the catholic church) but also the murder not only of gerry but also the twins.

No normal mother would ever contemplate killing her remaining children to avoid being confronted with the truth about a missing child unless she were trying to avoid the consequences of her actions.

We have seen all to often murder suicides where a parent has killed their children to prevent the other parent getting custody of them or them being taken away by soicial services for their own protection.

Why would kate even contemplate killing her children if she had nothing to do with the disappearance of her daughter apart from neglect by leaving them alone every night?

It says a lot about her mental health and gives cause for concern as to their safety if kate feels she is at risk of arrest for involvement.

Interesting post Hobs. Very interesting indeed!

I'm reminded now that criminal profiler Pat Brown wrote very early on an Open Letter to Kate, advising her to "shut up". After Kate wrote her book a couple of years later, Pat analysed it as one big confession in disguise. She subsequently wrote a little e-book, which the McCanns had removed from Amazon ... Oh, please.

ETA Linguistic analysis and behaviour analysis and clever dog noses [and common sense] are one day going to play a serious role in this sad saga.

ShuBob wrote:Interesting post Hobs. Very interesting indeed!

Seconded.

This along with candyfloss's post on Friday, showing that Martin Grimes states that Eddie is trained to make a vocal sign, i.e. bark, if he detects cadaver odour, which apart from at other places he did at the side and boot of the hire car.
This should help to arm Tony in his forthcoming trial.

A very thought provoking post Hobs.

Welcome to the forum.

Hobs reminds me of the very experienced Hobnob at Peter Hyats linguistic analysis forum. Am I right ?
:-)

Whether you are or not, may I welcome you too. The word "all" is indeed a hard hitting indication [again], that they know, but won't tell what happened.

Hi Châtelaine



I am the one and the same



I saw the post regarding The ongoing case between Tony and the mccanns and thought i would lend a hand.

From day one when the news broke about Madeleine going missing, i knew they were being deceptive.

for the welcome

Hobs wrote:Hi Châtelaine



I am the one and the same



I saw the post regarding The ongoing case between Tony and the mccanns and thought i would lend a hand.

From day one when the news broke about Madeleine going missing, i knew they were being deceptive.

for the welcome

***
I'm looking forward to your linguistic contributions here, HobNobs :-)
For now: bonne nuit to you et al