The "perfect" couple?

by justathought 29.01.14 19:44

Gerry and Kate MCCann, whom have nearly always been portrayed in the media since 3rd May as "rocks", pillars of society, very hard done by etc, etc. With convenient facts forgotten, such as they may be complicit and/or where negligent. High profile "lovey dovey" hand-holding and use of a toy as a prop. The efforts, resources and tactics used by TMCCann, showing that "image" is so important in today's society and can in turn (as hoped for by Team MCCann) change peoples views and opinions as to them. Including UK Police Investigation teams.
The tactics used by TM seem to have been adopted by the defence counsel representing a well known actor accused of very serious offences. The court currently being told by witnesses as to what a "perfect gentleman" the defendant is. I presume the defence are relying on the fact that a "perfect gentleman" never commits a despicable act(s). So by extending the logic, a "perfect couple" could rely on a similar defence, if charges were ever laid against them!

by Garrincha 29.01.14 19:48

Don't rise - this smells like bait

by justathought 29.01.14 20:05

justathought wrote:
Garrincha wrote:Don't rise - this smells like bait
Garrincha
My comments are a serious observation, as to how PR can manipulate or try to manipulate things to gain an advantage. To my mind it is very sad that in modern day society a defence counsel are allowed to try and influence a case by portraying a defendant as being a "perfect gentleman". The Judge should have stopped the evidence being given, to my mind
The tactic was also used by convicted Stuart Hall's defence team. When they called as character witness, a local NSPCC boss, of all people! Fortunately the judge and jury saw through the pretence.
As to your comments as to "this smells like bait". I will let fellow posters be the judge of whether this is the case, not you.

by mysterion 29.01.14 20:07

They used to be called character witnesses and have always been around. Nothing new there.

by Guest 29.01.14 20:13

Justathought, I don't think we should be discussing any individuals who are currently on trial.

by justathought 29.01.14 20:24

mysterion wrote:They used to be called character witnesses and have always been around. Nothing new there.

mysterion
Point taken and appreciate "character witnesses" have been around for along time. But maybe times are changing, and there importance is diminishing, if not what they say starting to become insignificant in a case. Especially as with the recent "high profile" sex abuse cases, involving celebrities or past celebrities. Days of letting off a "celebrity" as he is nice Uncle "Stuart" or JS, from the telly are hopefully over.
Back to the on-going case. May be SY/PJ need to be opening (reopening) lines of enquiry, to include suspects whom are "perfect" or portrayed as being "perfect". Rather than focusing in on "stereotypical" suspects, as they seem to be doing.

by justathought 29.01.14 20:30

Ladyinred wrote:Justathought, I don't think we should be discussing any individuals who are currently on trial.

Ladyinred
Thank you for the observation and point taken. I in no way wish to bring this board into disrepute. In my first post I endeavoured to write in a very general way as to the issue I was raising i.e. the relevance of courts being presented with character references. Something that seems pointless. And "smacks" of defence counsels trying deflection stereotypical tactics, be it by use of race, age, sex whatever.
You have my word I will not refer to the said case or an on-going one again. Unless it involves the MCCanns!

by plebgate 29.01.14 20:38

Is there any harm in giving an opinion on what has happened in court today? Not sure if allowed but personally I can't see anything wrong in saying something about character witnesses being allowed and whether they are relevant or not.

Perhaps admin. will know?

by justathought 29.01.14 21:02

plebgate wrote:Is there any harm in giving an opinion on what has happened in court today? Not sure if allowed but personally I can't see anything wrong in saying something about character witnesses being allowed and whether they are relevant or not.

Perhaps admin. will know?

plebgate
Thank you for your message.
Not an issue to my mind, as appreciate focus of this Forum is on the case of Madeleine. As I said won't make reference to a "live" case directly or indirectly in the future.
But never know that in the future, such a scenario may arise. Whereby the defence rely on what a "perfect couple" the defence are and as a result would never have committed such a dreadful deed. Some defence teams might even be savvy enough, to create/reinforce such an image, even though they have not been formally charged ? In advance. Just in case!