Channel 4 chicken out from asking McCanns an obvious question

by haroldd2 12.10.14 0:56

Publicly-owned Channel Four have published an article saying that a "McCann internet 'troll-hunting' site" was deleted after Brenda Leyland's death.

They say "supporters of the McCann family have assembled at least 27 dossiers" (that word!) "on both anonymous 'trolls' and on those who are perceived to be 'anti-McCann'."

It's this next sentence which gets me:

"There is no indication at all of the McCanns being involved in or endorsing this activity themselves."

Well how about asking them? Haven't Channel Four got anyone who can call up Clarence Mitchell and ask him? Have they had anything to do with it, or haven't they?

Ask them to

a) confirm
b) deny or
c) say they will neither confirm nor deny,

and then report what they say! Do the editors at Channel Four call themselves journalists?

by Lance De Boils 12.10.14 1:57

Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

by .Guest.. 12.10.14 2:02

Lance De Boils wrote:Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

Old brain leak himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6c1aRUUPgE

by Guest 12.10.14 2:29

Lance De Boils wrote:Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

Yes he did.

So it's reasonable to assume they were involved.

But yes, why doesn't someone ask.

What if someone with a camera went to their doorstep and asked them? What would happen?

by tiny 12.10.14 2:39

BlueBag wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

Yes he did.

So it's reasonable to assume they were involved.

But yes, why doesn't someone ask.

What if someone with a camera went to their doorstep and asked them? What would happen?

you would get done for harassment.and proberly sued by the mccanns

by Guest 12.10.14 2:41

tiny wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

Yes he did.

So it's reasonable to assume they were involved.

But yes, why doesn't someone ask.

What if someone with a camera went to their doorstep and asked them? What would happen?
you would get done for harassment.and proberly sued by the mccanns

But Martin Brunt has no more right to do it than us?

Or we have as much right as he does?

by tiny 12.10.14 2:42

BlueBag wrote:
tiny wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Hogan-Howe said 'the family' handed in the 'dossier', didn't he?

Yes he did.

So it's reasonable to assume they were involved.

But yes, why doesn't someone ask.

What if someone with a camera went to their doorstep and asked them? What would happen?
you would get done for harassment.and proberly sued by the mccanns

But Martin Brunt has no more right to do it than us?

Or we have as much right as he does?

I know he doesn't that's why I am waiting to see what happens to him

by puzzled 12.10.14 2:56

haroldd2 wrote:
They say "supporters of the McCann family have assembled at least 27 dossiers" (that word!) "on both anonymous 'trolls' and on those who are perceived to be 'anti-McCann'."

Why are they assembling dossiers on people perceived to be "anti-McCann"? Has this suddenly become a crime? If not, what do they hope to achieve with these dossiers?

by plebgate 12.10.14 3:24

puzzled wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:
They say "supporters of the McCann family have assembled at least 27 dossiers" (that word!) "on both anonymous 'trolls' and on those who are perceived to be 'anti-McCann'."

Why are they assembling dossiers on people perceived to be "anti-McCann"? Has this suddenly become a crime? If not, what do they hope to achieve with these dossiers?

Maybe they would be better off assembling dossiers on people who want to know why those children were left alone several nights running in a foreign land, in a foreign apartment whilst the parents went out with their friends wining and dining? Heck, didn't one child even have a diarrhoea soaked nappy with a foul smell coming from it. IMO we are right to question why these parents left those poor, ill children alone.

by comperedna 12.10.14 3:54

It is only CLAIMED that the children were left alone. It may well be that they were all together, being looked after by one of the friends, or a nanny, or someone else, when 'it' happened. Perhaps Madeleine was sick and aspirated on her vomit. Then you have to wonder, with this scenario, what happened next? Surely one of the doctor friends would try and revive her. The only excuse for others not saying what happened under this entirely hypothetical theory would be that everyone knew each child had been given something mild, but NOT recommended by orthodox medics, 'to help them sleep'.

Leaving the children alone and all that bizarre and inconvenient dodging back in the middle of their meal to see if the McCann children (NB no-one seemed to be interested in the other children when dodging back) were OK ,then becomes a strategy to attempt to prove the parents were not negligent, whilst still creating a window of opportunity for some stranger to enter the flat (no evidence of this whatsoever) to 'steal Madeleine away' for purposes unknown.

This is a well worn theory, accepted, at least for a time, and maybe still, by Amaral. It makes sense to me, but it is only a theory, as is everything about this case until there is solid evidence as to what happened. MBM's death then becomes somewhere between accidental death, or manslaughter/culpable homicide, and not 'murder' as recently 'leaked' by Head of the Met Bernard Hogan-Howe.