ANOTHER TV programme about Madeleine - Tuesday 18 November, 7pm, Channel 5 - 'Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession'

AlexBG wrote:

aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.

Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

In my opinion, it wasn't about Brenda, as such, it was about scaring the sceptics off! She was chosen as the 'soft target'.

Brian Griffin wrote:

AlexBG wrote:

aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.

Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

In my opinion, it wasn't about Brenda, as such, it was about scaring the sceptics off! She was chosen as the 'soft target'.

ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

Joss wrote:
ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

That cannot be ruled out as a theory. There isn't the slightest chance that she would have been charged with anything - at most she'd have been given a warning to keep quiet. A civil suit on the other hand was entirely possible. If you have a tame set of libel lawyers, then you can sue for libel at the drop of a letter-of-engagement. For the victim, it's far cheaper to settle than to fight - and Brenda did have some money. They wouldn't have taken her for a lot of cash because her true value would have been as the "high-profile troll that got sued by the McCanns".

Sadly if that was the plan, it backfired disastrously and an innocent women lies dead because of it.

I wonder if the threat of being sued for libel was raised by Brunt just before she killed herself? #askDisgracedBrunt

AlexBG wrote:

aquila wrote:I can't imagine that Brenda Leyland, prior to being doorstepped by Martin Brunt had any plans to kill herself. From what I've read of her tweets I certainly see no evidence of that.

I can imagine having her face plastered all over Sky News every fifteen minutes for a whole day and her face plastered on the front pages of the media would have pushed her to take her own life. That's common sense.

Brenda Leyland was hounded and her tweets were misrepresented in the media. The way in which her tweets were portrayed was as if they came from her - and they didn't.

This was a complete travesty. This was a big hit and a pre-planned hit. A 'secret dossier' - what a bloody farce - where the police had not approached Brenda Leyland and she's suddenly found herself hounded on Sky News as the 'evil'.

Come on, no-one with a bloody conscience can say that's right.

This was a heinous thing to do.

Judging from Brenda's tweets, she comes across as a very level-headed and emotionally stable individual - not the sort of person to react with hysteria when placed under pressure.
99% of the tweets are calmly-worded, matter-of-fact and not abusive in the slightest. She had virtually nothing to be ashamed of in that regard.

That's not necessarily to say she couldn't have been prosecuted for them (as I discussed in another thread), or taken to court in civil proceedings, but even if Brunt had managed to convince her that legal proceedings were imminent, I don't think it would've caused her to immediately kill herself.

Countless people are charged with criminal offences every week in the UK and do not commit suicide as a result (although it's worth noting that those who have earned money and kept savings/investments will face the additional threat of potential financial ruin through legal fees - legal aid is means-tested).

As far as I know, Brenda hadn't even been contacted either by police or by lawyers prior to her death. Would she really have taken such drastic action on Brunt's word alone?
We know she had a family, friends and pets - all things to live for.

Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Joss wrote:
ITA, and that possibly TM saw another payday in Brenda. Although i don't think she would ever of been charged with anything anyway.

That cannot be ruled out as a theory.  There isn't the slightest chance that she would have been charged with anything - at most she'd have been given a warning to keep quiet.  A civil suit on the other hand was entirely possible.  If you have a tame set of libel lawyers, then you can sue for libel at the drop of a letter-of-engagement. For the victim, it's far cheaper to settle than to fight - and Brenda did have some money.   They wouldn't have taken her for a lot of cash because her true value would have been as the "high-profile troll that got sued by the McCanns".  

Sadly if that was the plan, it backfired disastrously and an innocent women lies dead because of it.  

I wonder if the threat of being sued for libel was raised by Brunt just before she killed herself?  #askDisgracedBrunt  

I have wondered about that as well, but then thought if she was at all concerned about Brunts threats she could have told her son about it and he could of given her some legal advice about the situation, seeing as i have read he is studying to become a lawyer.
Brenda came across on the video as a person that was not easily intimidated, but i really have no idea as to why she would of committed suicide? I think it will be interesting to see what comes out at the inquest into her death.
I also am not familiar with U.K. libel laws, and from what you have mentioned it might have been a possibility.

Montclair wrote:You'll have to remind me which tweets, in your opinion, could have led to a possible prosecution of Brenda Leyland because I find it hard to believe that any of her tweets could be considered criminal.

I refer you to the relevant discussion thread:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10515p170-let-s-not-forget-brenda#288641

aquila wrote:

AlexBG wrote:Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.

I think it's equally dismissive to simply assume that Brenda was the sort of person to "end it all" at the drop of a hat. I myself would've been very upset had the press done that to me, but life experience would've told me how quickly the public forgets, and how soon the media's storms can "blow over". Brenda had more than 3 times the life experience I do. She also seems to have spent time abroad, so could easily have left the country to escape the hounding.

It is not for the coroner's inquest to pass judgement on the behaviour of the media, nor to attribute blame to anyone. The purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain "how the deceased came by her death"*.
This excludes matters such as the possible misconduct of media organisations which may have contributed to her state of mind. They may make reference to such matters when setting out the facts, but only if they are deemed to be "in the public interest".

*There is an exception, when public servants may be implicated. The inquest must consider "by what means and in what circumstances" the death occured, in those cases only.

All just my opinions - not legal advice.

Brenda's death was a blow to the McCanns' campaign against the 'haters' and 'trolls'. It took the wind right out of their sails. Even they could see how continuing the attack would have been in very bad taste, so I wouldn't imagine Brenda's death to be anything other than suicide insofar as it might have had anything to do with the McCanns. Just my opinion.

Have the police reported that there was no suicide note? If there was, then the contents would surely be admitted in evidence at the inquest.

Since an Inquest is an enquiry the Coroner collects the evidence. He receives reports and statements.
He can generate further enquiries. If you have not been approached directly by the Police or any other investigating agency and feel that you have relevant information do not hesitate to let the Coroners Office know
You may well be interviewed and a statement taken.
When is a Jury required?
There are some circumstances in which the summing of a Jury is compulsory:-
(a) Death in prison
(b) Deaths in industrial accidents
(c) Deaths occurring in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public
(d) Deaths occurring in Policy custody or resulting from an injury caused by a Police Officer in the purported execution of his duty.
A Jury is comprised of  between 7 or 11 members taken from the Crown Court Jury List. The Coroner may accept a majority verdict providing not more than two Jury members disagree.
http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/inquestguide2.pdf

In reference to (c), i wonder if a Jury would be summoned in Brenda's case, because as a consequence of her death after the outing of her publicly by Brunt & Sky news, a further continuance or recurrence of another episode of such an incident on the general public would be deemed as prejudicial to the health and safety of other members of the public that would also have stood to be outed by the dossier & Sky news?

AlexBG wrote:

aquila wrote:

AlexBG wrote:Of course it was dreadful to plaster Brenda's face all over the mainstream media and to demonise her without any evidence, but she appeared to take a very dim view of said media and had firmly implicated them in what she saw as a cover up. Why then, should their playing such a dirty trick come as a shock to her?

All just my opinions.

That's pretty dismissive if you don't mind me saying. I hope the Coroner's Inquiry takes Sky News' bullying a bit more seriously.

I think it's equally dismissive to simply assume that Brenda was the sort of person to "end it all" at the drop of a hat. I myself would've been very upset had the press done that to me, but life experience would've told me how quickly the public forgets, and how soon the media's storms can "blow over". Brenda had more than 3 times the life experience I do. She also seems to have spent time abroad, so could easily have left the country to escape the hounding.

It is not for the coroner's inquest to pass judgement on the behaviour of the media, nor to attribute blame to anyone. The purpose of the inquest is only to ascertain "how the deceased came by her death"*.
This excludes matters such as the possible misconduct of media organisations which may have contributed to her state of mind. They may make reference to such matters when setting out the facts, but only if they are deemed to be "in the public interest".

*There is an exception, when public servants may be implicated. The inquest must consider "by what means and in what circumstances" the death occured, in those cases only.

All just my opinions - not legal advice.

I hardly think 'drop of a hat' can be applied to what happened to Brenda Leyland. There was a sustained attack on her every fifteen minutes on Sky News for an entire day and it was covered elsewhere too. This wasn't trivial. This wasn't showing some nasty tweets presented in a 'secret dossier' and letting the police do their job. Au contraire, this was a pre-planned personal attack on one woman who was singled out even though she wasn't 'the worst'.

With regards to 'how soon media storms can blow over'. If you recall there was the aftermath with people such as Carole Malone. Why even Jim Gamble seemed delighted 'trolls' were being brought to book.

Had Brenda Leyland not died, how quickly do you think this media onslaught would have 'blown over'? Do you think the media would have left her alone?

As for 'she could've left the country' well that's really scratching around for an excuse imo and would have probably resulted in further media coverage/hounding.

I can only think that being so young yourself you can't understand what this dreadful attack by the media would do to someone in their 60's - either that or you are simply looking at a media defence strategy.

Setting aside the Coroner's Inquiry, do you think that Sky News, the Secret Dossier compilers and the rest of the media have the right to do this to a person who has not even been spoken to by the police? and importantly, do you think their behaviour in anyway could have contributed to her death?

I'd also add that not only did they show her face and name her, they as good as told people where she lived! Would you feel safe after that?

Brian Griffin wrote:I'd also add that not only did they show her face and name her, they as good as told people where she lived! Would you feel safe after that?

Well quite. IIRC it was the Leicester Mercury wot did that but don't quote me.

MORE ABOUT 'THE GLOBAL OBSESSION' HERE FROM 'TV RAGE

Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz for Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, Tuesday at 7pm on Channel 5




Former GMTV editor and journalist Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz in Portugal to retrace the final hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance in Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, airing on Tuesday 18th November at 7pm on Channel 5. With exclusive insight he examines how a family's worst nightmare became breaking news and turned into one of the biggest stories of all time.

In Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, he interviews key players who witnessed the McCann tragedy unfold first hand. Kate Garraway, presenting GMTV at the time, took the first call live on air from a distressed family friend of the McCanns in Portugal. It was just after 8am on Friday 4th May 2007 and Jill Renwick was frustrated by the lack organisation on the ground in the hunt for Madeleine. After the show Frizell as the programme editor sent her on the first plane out to be one of the first British journalists on the ground in Portugal.

Kate Garraway, newsreader and television presenter said: "If you [Martin Frizell], as the editor, hadn't been in the gallery, giving instructions, I'm not sure that the producer of the day would have put that call through to the studio, because it's such an unusual thing it almost needed the kind of authority of the editor to say, "Let's do it." Well, suddenly the mood of the whole show changed, I think, from that moment on air, that it wasn't a fun Friday moment. You were aware that something big was happening."

Mary Nightingale, newsreader and television presenter said: "Some stories appear and then disappear quite quickly but this one really had legs. I think for any parent...any mother of a child that age it kind of hit me in the chest...In a way that not many stories do"

Hundreds more journalists followed. Everybody wanted the story. Madeleine McCann's angelic face sold newspapers and TV viewers around the world were gripped. No one could get enough. Everyone desperately wanted to be the first to answer the question 'What happened to Madeleine McCann?'

But after months and no new leads into her disappearance, the media turned on the parents.

Martin Frizell said: "What followed was a sustained inaccurate and malicious series of headlines in newspapers suggesting somehow that the McCanns had been involved with the death of their own daughter....they were so cruel that even the Chief Constable of Leicestershire himself, appealed to the press twice to show restraint but not all of them did."

Judy Bachrach, Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair said: "They [the McCanns] were told by child abduction experts "If you cry on television...the kidnapper might get off on that." Horrible though that sounds, so she had to keep a stoic face on television. She couldn't weep, she couldn't look distraught and so she looked kind of like a robot, she looked mechanical, not only to her friends or in Praia da Luz, but all over the World; on TV and on the Internet and in newspapers. So that backfired because everybody, including the police in Portugal, including the news outlets were saying, "How come the mother isn't crying? Her child is missing"

Michael Cole, PR advisor to Mohamed Al Fayed said: "The monstering of the McCanns by the British Media is one of the most shameful episodes of the British free press. It should not have happened. Perhaps it was the heat of the Algarve sun or the fact that they were a long way from Fleet Street, though a collective madness seemed to afflict the whole of the British Press corp."

Seven years on the hunt for Madeleine still commands headlines and front pages around the world but as the documentary explains it is not without controversy.

Amanda Platell, Daily Mail columnist said: "Her disappearance divided the Nation on class lines because I lost count of the number of people who wrote to me and said, "You know, if she had been the daughter of, you know, a couple of unemployed people living in Liverpool, she would have been off the front pages in a matter of days."

For the father of seven year old Daniel Entwistle who went missing on his way to buy sweets in 2003 this could not be truer. "They got Daniel on camera going past the garage and that's the last sight of him" said father David Entwistle. After the initial media interest, stories about Daniel were quietly dropped, and eleven years on he has still not been found.

Martin Frizell asks: "So why is Madeleine McCann still on the front pages all these years on? Sure, the story sells newspapers, it boosts ratings but it's because of you. You want to know. Whether it's because of your cynicism of the McCanns and the way they've marketed their daughter, because it's the unsolved mystery, because perhaps it's every parent's worst nightmare or there but for the grace of God go I. Whatever the reason, you'd have to have a cold heart indeed not wish closure on this for the McCanns and that story, the eventual discovery of Madeleine will be the biggest yet."


http://www.tvrage.com/news/11136/martin-frizell-travels-to-praia-de-luz-for-madeleine-mccann-a-global-obsession-tuesday-at-7pm-on-channel-5

another zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz programme then?

Tony Bennett wrote:MORE ABOUT 'THE GLOBAL OBSESSION' HERE FROM 'TV RAGE

Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz for Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, Tuesday at 7pm on Channel 5




Former GMTV editor and journalist Martin Frizell travels to Praia de Luz in Portugal to retrace the final hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance in Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, airing on Tuesday 18th November at 7pm on Channel 5. With exclusive insight he examines how a family's worst nightmare became breaking news and turned into one of the biggest stories of all time.

In Madeleine McCann: A Global Obsession, he interviews key players who witnessed the McCann tragedy unfold first hand. Kate Garraway, presenting GMTV at the time, took the first call live on air from a distressed family friend of the McCanns in Portugal. It was just after 8am on Friday 4th May 2007 and Jill Renwick was frustrated by the lack organisation on the ground in the hunt for Madeleine. After the show Frizell as the programme editor sent her on the first plane out to be one of the first British journalists on the ground in Portugal.

Kate Garraway, newsreader and television presenter said: "If you [Martin Frizell], as the editor, hadn't been in the gallery, giving instructions, I'm not sure that the producer of the day would have put that call through to the studio, because it's such an unusual thing it almost needed the kind of authority of the editor to say, "Let's do it." Well, suddenly the mood of the whole show changed, I think, from that moment on air, that it wasn't a fun Friday moment. You were aware that something big was happening."

Mary Nightingale, newsreader and television presenter said: "Some stories appear and then disappear quite quickly but this one really had legs. I think for any parent...any mother of a child that age it kind of hit me in the chest...In a way that not many stories do"

Hundreds more journalists followed. Everybody wanted the story. Madeleine McCann's angelic face sold newspapers and TV viewers around the world were gripped. No one could get enough. Everyone desperately wanted to be the first to answer the question 'What happened to Madeleine McCann?'

But after months and no new leads into her disappearance, the media turned on the parents.

Martin Frizell said: "What followed was a sustained inaccurate and malicious series of headlines in newspapers suggesting somehow that the McCanns had been involved with the death of their own daughter....they were so cruel that even the Chief Constable of Leicestershire himself, appealed to the press twice to show restraint but not all of them did."

Judy Bachrach, Contributing Editor at Vanity Fair said: "They [the McCanns] were told by child abduction experts "If you cry on television...the kidnapper might get off on that." Horrible though that sounds, so she had to keep a stoic face on television. She couldn't weep, she couldn't look distraught and so she looked kind of like a robot, she looked mechanical, not only to her friends or in Praia da Luz, but all over the World; on TV and on the Internet and in newspapers. So that backfired because everybody, including the police in Portugal, including the news outlets were saying, "How come the mother isn't crying? Her child is missing"

Michael Cole, PR advisor to Mohamed Al Fayed said: "The monstering of the McCanns by the British Media is one of the most shameful episodes of the British free press. It should not have happened. Perhaps it was the heat of the Algarve sun or the fact that they were a long way from Fleet Street, though a collective madness seemed to afflict the whole of the British Press corp."

Seven years on the hunt for Madeleine still commands headlines and front pages around the world but as the documentary explains it is not without controversy.

Amanda Platell, Daily Mail columnist said: "Her disappearance divided the Nation on class lines because I lost count of the number of people who wrote to me and said, "You know, if she had been the daughter of, you know, a couple of unemployed people living in Liverpool, she would have been off the front pages in a matter of days."

For the father of seven year old Daniel Entwistle who went missing on his way to buy sweets in 2003 this could not be truer. "They got Daniel on camera going past the garage and that's the last sight of him" said father David Entwistle. After the initial media interest, stories about Daniel were quietly dropped, and eleven years on he has still not been found.

Martin Frizell asks: "So why is Madeleine McCann still on the front pages all these years on? Sure, the story sells newspapers, it boosts ratings but it's because of you. You want to know. Whether it's because of your cynicism of the McCanns and the way they've marketed their daughter, because it's the unsolved mystery, because perhaps it's every parent's worst nightmare or there but for the grace of God go I. Whatever the reason, you'd have to have a cold heart indeed not wish closure on this for the McCanns and that story, the eventual discovery of Madeleine will be the biggest yet."


http://www.tvrage.com/news/11136/martin-frizell-travels-to-praia-de-luz-for-madeleine-mccann-a-global-obsession-tuesday-at-7pm-on-channel-5

Just reading that single paragraph about 7-year-old Daniel Entwistle, sums up why the majority of the public are fed-up to the back teeth of hearing about the McCanns.


It just feels extremely likely that the poor boy was abducted by evil and is no longer alive.

Where's his family's 'fighting fund?'

Media Spokesman?

World famous libel lawyers?

Visit to the Vatican?

Space on Lorraine Kelly's chaise-lounge?

Bewk?


It's just sickening.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Martin Frizell asks: "So why is Madeleine McCann still on the front pages all these years on? Sure, the story sells newspapers, it boosts ratings but it's because of you. You want to know. Whether it's because of your cynicism of the McCanns and the way they've marketed their daughter, because it's the unsolved mystery, because perhaps it's every parent's worst nightmare or there but for the grace of God go I. "

I think the reason for the fascination and the longevity of the story is simple. It's the same reason as the death of Jon-Benet Ramsay. In both cases a cute middle-class girl sadly died. In both cases after the initial search for an intruder, it suddenly looked as though the parents were involved. In both cases the investigating police were convinced that the parents were involved. In both cases there was strong circumstantial evidence that the parents were involved.

In ALL the other stories of missing children there isn't even a whiff of parental involvement. This makes them sad but ultimately uninteresting. So the "every parent's worst nightmare" reason is nonsense and disingenuous. No, its 100% because there is still the very strong suspicion in MANY people's mind that Amaral was right to conclude that Maddie died in 5A, that the parents were involved in hiding the body and in creating a fake abduction.

Even those who believe the parents are aware of the sheer horror and depravity that is required to do such a thing. The background possibility that maybe, just maybe Kate and Gerry were involved is what creates the enduring fascination with the story. Without that ever-present suspense and possibility this story would have been forgotten as quickly as all the others.

May I venture the opinion that the global obsession with Maddie persists because:

(1) The campaign to publicise Madeleine was designed to be as global as possible and...

(2) The McCanns and the media won't friggin' let it drop!!!!

In my opinion.

And if one of the aims of this global coverage was to promote Kate and Gerry into the "well known celebrity" category, and perhaps seemingly beyond reproach, they ought to be reminded of two very well known celebrities who were in the news recently... Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

Brian Griffin wrote:May I venture the opinion that the global obsession with Maddie persists because:

(1) The campaign to publicise Madeleine was designed to be as global as possible and...

(2) The McCanns and the media won't friggin' let it drop!!!!

In my opinion.

The media 'Mafia' are the ones that know why only one side of the story is being pushed through their outlets.

I cant recall every detail ,but does anyone here recall a topic about The press receiving a call just about midnight of the time maddie went ? there was talk of that being first to know and maybe print in the paper for next day ??joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:I cant recall every detail ,but does anyone here recall a topic about The press receiving a call just about midnight of the time maddie went ? there was talk of that being first to know and maybe print in the paper for next day ??joyce1938

I hope these examinations will include a look into what was probably the very first press mention of this case, a press release by the Foreign Office that came out a minute or so after midnight, a bare two hours after Kate McCann announced that Madeleine was missing.

The "Buried by the Mainstream" documentarist, surprisingly, is not aware of this fact, which would be quite significant to his investigations, since it indicates British government involvement in the case became apparent almost literally immediately after Kate's announcement in Praya da Luz, a fact that strongly suggests that the government was very likely involved even before she made her announcement.

The story in question appeared on the telegraph.co.uk website at one minute after midnight on the night Madeleine's disappearance was announced by Kate McCann.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1026614/pg1

Yes I had thought it was told by a family member ,ofcourse it soon got forgotten ,maybe it was ignored for purposeof gov. I just thought a lot more people would have remembered that bit of news,maybe it was discussed on another site I used to read and occasionally post on . Also a lot of people may not have heard about it ,if newish to the site.joyce1938

I did not know this. Does anyone know what the FO protocol is in relation to press releases in such situations? Sounds very odd to me especially as Madeleine had only been missing for 2 hours. I think a normal reaction after only 2 hours would be that she had wandered off somewhere or that she would be quickly found. 
I would expect the FO to confirm information received with official channels such as the Portuguese FO or the PJ. As we all know Dr A didn`t believe the abduction theory which is where the Portuguese FO would have got their info.

aquila wrote:With thanks to Parapono who attended the compensation trial. Here is Brunty on his knee (the day after an exclusive where he met the McCanns on arrival in Lisbon).


 

What is the position vis a vis Martin Brunt and the McCanns? Does he sincerely believe that there was in fact a kidnapping of their daughter in which they weren't complicit, or is he simply following orders to retain his overpaid, parasitical vocation in life. IE. Does he have any plausible explanation as to how a kidnapping could have occured in the timeline provided by the McCanns? Does he have any ideas on whom may have have conducted a kidnapping and the reasons why such an act was perpetrated in the vein that there was no attempt to demand some kind of ransom?

Two other threads regarding the Telegraph story, but there are probably more:
 
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3109-three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-portugal?highlight=telegraph+12+01
 
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3049p50-is-scotland-yard-fit-to-carry-out-madeleine-mccann-review
 
The original Telegraph posting timed at 12.01 on 4th May 2007 has this:
 
Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal
 
By staff and agencies
 
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007
 
A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.
Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.
"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4203859/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html
 
which has about the right level of detail for a ‘first hit’ and with the timing looks to me almost like an embargoed story, which would therefore take it back to earlier than KM’s initial ‘abduction’ shout at whatever time that really was.
 
The story then miraculously developed into this, still showing the same date and time, but which has far too much information to have been published at 12.01., almost as if they were trying to cover-up the original report (surely not!) and illustrate that the time and date can’t possibly have been right.
 
Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal




Madeline McCann was due to start school in September 
 
By staff and agencies
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007
 
The parents of a British toddler who has gone missing while on holiday in Portugal say they fear she has been abducted.
Three-year-old Madeline McCann disappeared last night from her parent’s rented apartment in the Western Algarve, while they dined nearby.
 
Sniffer dogs have been brought in by Portuguese detectives to comb the Mark Warner resort where the girl was staying and the nearby seaside village of Praia da Luz.
A family friend said the child’s parents, Gerald and Kate McCann, were certain she had been kidnapped.
Jill Renwick, told GMTV: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine. They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
She described the missing girl as a “very pretty, very blonde three-year-old” and said the couple, from Leicester, also had twins.
Ms Renwick said of the holiday: “This is the first time they have done this. They are very, very anxious parents and very careful and they chose Mark Warner because it is a family-friendly resort.”
The manager of the resort, John Hill said around 60 staff and guests at the complex had searched until 4.30am while local police notified border police, Spanish police and airports.
“It was a very emotional and very frantic night and everyone did a fantastic job of getting involved and trying to search the area,” he said. “As you can imagine, Madeleine’s parents are distraught and not doing very well at all.”
He said there was no physical evidence that the girl had been abducted from the apartment while they ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away.
“It’s still questionable as to whether it’s an abduction,” he said. “We are hoping that Madeleine is found as soon as possible and safe and well. Everybody here is just wishing that she is found as soon as possible.”
A Mark Warner spokesman said counsellors are being flown out to the resort, which the firm has run for two years, to support the McCanns.
Members of their family would also be flown out if required.
He said: “Our priority is to find the girl and to make sure that the parents are OK and there are masses of people working on that.
“Our staff are looking after them at the moment in whatever way they can but we can only imagine how awful it is for them.
“We are all hoping that she is asleep under a bush somewhere and we will find her soon.”
He said the apartment the family were staying in was surrounded by other apartments, all of which have “quite sophisticated” locks on the doors.
Guests are being asked if they saw anyone acting suspiciously in the area, he said, adding that Mark Warner has never had cases of missing or abducted children before.
“We are hoping it’s not that, though,” he said. “It’s the last thing we want but we have to investigate all avenues.”
He said Mark Warner offers families a baby-sitting service where they can drop off their children for the night.
“Those facilities were available but for whatever reason they were not being used,” he said.
Madeleine lives with her parents, Gerald, a doctor, and Kate McCann, and younger sibling twins in Rothley, Leicestershire.
Neighbour Penny Noble said: “We are absolutely devastated. They are a really nice family and good neighbours.
“They are delightful. We see them take their bikes up and down and going for walks.
“Madeleine is a very happy-go-lucky little girl”.
It is understood Madeleine is due to start at school in September.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550571/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html
 
Does this actually suggest 'Missing' & Consular assistance given at least a day or so beforehand, together with a planned and embargoed press release for midnight on 3rd/4th just after the local police were called on the evening of the 3rd, or is that a conspiracy theory too far?

As with everything McCann, everywhere you look............it just stinks!

What is the position vis a vis Martin Brunt and the McCanns? Does he sincerely believe that there was in fact a kidnapping of their daughter in which they weren't complicit, or is he simply following orders to retain his overpaid, parasitical vocation in life. IE. Does he have any plausible explanation as to how a kidnapping could have occured in the timeline provided by the McCanns? Does he have any ideas on whom may have have conducted a kidnapping and the reasons why such an act was perpetrated in the vein that there was no attempt to demand some kind of ransom?

He's just following orders. Like all the MSM - and the police, seemingly.

Originally he was reporting truthfully, as were the rest of the MSM. But how can they all ignore the dogs' findings without giving reasons? I think Richard Hall's final words in his documentary hit the nail on the head - the State may fall.

As has been commented before, the presence of the internet has changed matters completely - social media sites such as Twitter certainly have drawbacks, but they do have the ability to draw attention to where it's required. The sooner this is realised by those used to having their words always accepted as the truth, the better.

I can only imagine this must be the case - the same with almost all other media people, even 'noisy' ones like Ian Hislop and Paxo, i.e. accept the story or commit professional suicide. I don't really blame them, in all honesty. Unless they are all going to act together and shout, and they won't because the lovely McCanns like to sue, they face losing their jobs, the wages that go with them and possibly a lot more too! Of course, then there are the really vomit-inducing ones who go out of their way to show support such as R + J.

I'd love to hear all the sarcastic things Hislop really wants to say about them (I assume) on HIGNFY! They'd be a comedy staple on there.

In my opinion.

This story of the FO releasing that info at one minute past midnight, just two hours after Ms Healy (about to become McCann) uttered those famous words ....

'They've taken her!'

.... speaks volumes that this entire 'charade' was pre-planned.


For instance, they are quoting the police. Didn't the very first police to arrive at the scene get there just before 11pm?

How would they be giving the Foreign Office quotes on what had happened when they didn't have a flippin' clue themselves?

They entered a scene of chaos, with people coming and going like it was Piccadilli Circus!
They must have thought they were a Muslim family seeing as the parents were wailing and praying on their knees like Arabs.


And it does beg the question - Who contacted the Foreign Office during this time?

It couldn't have been Kate seeing as she was doing her Mike Tyson impression by punching the crap out of walls and railings out of frustration (ha - yeah, pull the other one).

Nor Gerry. According to Tapas members he was roaring like a bull? most of the time, or phoning family members telling them, 'There's been a disaster.'

How did they know the phone number to the Foreign Office? It took them all their time to call the local police.

Surely the Foreign Office would have advised them to allow the police to conclude a search of the immediate area before jumping to the assumption of 'abduction.'

I wonder if Andy and the 38 boys are 'allowed' to check out this huge red flag?