Re: "Incompetent and unco-operative Portuguese held up Scotland Yard for a year by refusing to supply forensic evidence" - Sunday Mirror 21 Dec 2014

by Joss 03.01.15 13:11

Realist wrote:
Joss wrote:
My take on it is that there were more people in the group that knew what happened to Madeleine than just her parents. I never said any "employees" knew anything. If the McC's and certain people in the group knew the dirt on each other, and helped the McC's cover a crime, its not as if they are going to rat each other out because that would put them at risk of serious legal consequences.
As far as "violent presumption" i have never heard that term used as a legal term. Perhaps it is specific to U.K. legalities.

You did actually state that the McCann's employees were aware of the true facts by asserting that had their Tapas acquaintances not been aware of what actually transpired at the time, they would have been informed over the yrs. by their various spokespeople, advisors et al.

In a serious case such as murder where at least 7 others were involved, or had information as to the facts, it would be the first time in history that at least one of them in peril of their liberty didn't turn state's evidence to save themself. I include in that cases where hardened criminals are involved which includes the Krays, Richardsons, Micky Mcavoy et cie and American crime families, most notably the Gotti case. You may or may not have read the Valechi Papers. No greater love hath man than to lay down the life of his friend to save himself. Since the early 1970's days of Bertie Smalls, so called hardened criminals have been queuing up to to do deals with the Crown, even more so in the good ole US of A.

I think that the terminology, 'violent presumption' might be more of an americanism than English.

What are you talking about? Who were the McCann employees to you? To me the McCann & Tapas employees were the respective hospitals that the Dr.'s out of the group worked for.
By the McC's spokespeople i was talking about the tapas lot who vouched for them in their statements and upheld their "pact". Nothing to do with what you are asserting i said, lol.
I have never heard the term "violent presumption" used in America when following criminal cases, and have followed quite a few through to Trial. The term used is usually "Presumption of Innocence".

by Realist 03.01.15 13:46

Joss wrote:
What are you talking about? Who were the McCann employees to you? To me the McCann & Tapas employees were the respective hospitals that the Dr.'s out of the group worked for.
By the McC's spokespeople i was talking about the tapas lot who vouched for them in their statements and upheld their "pact". Nothing to do with what you are asserting i said, lol.
I have never heard the term "violent presumption" used in America when following criminal cases, and have followed quite a few through to Trial. The term used is usually "Presumption of Innocence".

The phrase 'Presumption of innocence' bears no relation whatsover to 'violent presumption. ''The 'tapas lot'' who you state vouched for them in the statements could in no way be referred to as their employees or spokespeople, au contraire, they were merely acquiantances who were vacating with them.

Clarence Mitchell was an employee or spokesperson of the McCanns as were all the lawyers who acted on their behalf. As far as I am aware, the definition of an employee is a person who acts or works on behalf of another for a stipend. Mitchell was on a fixed salary paid directly from the McCann's fund which in anybody's definition makes him a paid employee. Any Law Firm employed by a person makes that firm an employee by default whilst they are acting on their behalf. You're obviously confused with the definition of 'employee,' particularly in the vein that you appear to be of the opinion that their vacating acquaintances could in any way remotely be referred to as employees or spokespeople.

If you were in fact mistaking the 'tapas lot' as employees or spokespeople, who were you referring to when you mention 'spokespeople' who would have confided in them as to what really occurred to the McCann's daughter after the event? Now I'm confused.

by Joss 03.01.15 13:54

Realist wrote:
Joss wrote:
What are you talking about? Who were the McCann employees to you? To me the McCann & Tapas employees were the respective hospitals that the Dr.'s out of the group worked for.
By the McC's spokespeople i was talking about the tapas lot who vouched for them in their statements and upheld their "pact". Nothing to do with what you are asserting i said, lol.
I have never heard the term "violent presumption" used in America when following criminal cases, and have followed quite a few through to Trial. The term used is usually "Presumption of Innocence".

The phrase 'Presumption of innocence' bears no relation whatsover to 'violent presumption. ''The 'tapas lot'' who you state vouched for them in the statements could in no way be referred to as their employees or spokespeople, au contraire, they were merely acquiantances who were vacating with them.

Clarence Mitchell was an employee of the McCanns as were all the lawyers who acted on their behalf. As far as I am aware, the definition of an employee is a person who acts or works on behalf of another for a stipend. Mitchell was on a fixed salary paid directly from the McCann's fund which in anybody's definition makes him a paid employee. Any Law Firm employed by a person makes that firm an employee by default whilst they are acting on their behalf. You're obviously confused with the definition of 'employee,' particularly in the vein that you appear to be of the opinbion that their vacating acquaintances could in any way remotely be referred to as employees.

If what you are now stating and you were in fact mistaking the 'tapas lot' as employees, who were you referring to when you mention 'spokespeople' who would have confided in them as to what really occurred to the McCann's daughter after the event? Now I'm confused.

I am aware of Mitchell etc. being paid by the McC's. That is not what i was talking about. Could you please refer to my post where i even mention "employees"?, because to my recollection i never said any such thing.
I never said the Tapas lot were "employees" of the McC's lol. Why are you going on about it?
I already explained what i said about the Tapas people, by "spokespeople" speaking for the McCann's and trying to back up their bogus abduction, thats all.

I think this is my post you are referring to because its the only one recently on this thread where i mention "Spokespeople".
Quote:

What do you mean "its a violent presumption"? There is no violence in what the weavers of tall tales have spun, only Lies.
What about "Fear" of consequences instead? Probably they were all spooked by what had happened to Maddie, and there was talk about some of the tapas friends/acquaintances also becoming Arguidos. I bet they were scared as to how they would be implicated in the crime. Who says they are "straight people" that have never had dealings with criminal matters? Sometimes Doctors are called to give evidence in court, so i wouldn't necessarily dismiss them as not having any dealings in legal matters, but of course i have no clue about that when it comes to the individuals in this case. But i do believe they all know after the fact what happened, even if not directly by the McC's, but through their spokesperson/s, perhaps DP & FP? And as to who aided & abetted, that is anyone's guess.
I think JT speaks for herself in how she has been a player in this case.
And i think if the ongoing investigation into this case was at all serious in finding out what happened to Maddie, they need to haul the McC's & tapas people back in for some real questioning and a reconstruction of events, but don't think that will ever happen, so the investigation IMO is not at all a serious one, and that really sucks for any justice in the case, it is a farce IMO, as we have seen the grasping at straws in all the "suspects" that have been named in the media, who weren't really suspects at all, but had their good name dragged through the mud.

As you can see i was pretty clear in what i said. I even mentioned the spokespeople being D.P & F.P. two of the Tapas friends/acquantances.

by Realist 03.01.15 14:17

Joss wrote:
I am aware of Mitchell etc. being paid by the McC's. That is not what i was talking about. Could you please refer to my post where i even mention "employees"?, because to my recollection i never said any such thing.
I never said the Tapas lot were "employees" of the McC's lol. Why are you going on about it?
I already explained what i said about the Tapas people, by "spokespeople" speaking for the McCann's and trying to back up their bogus abduction, thats all.

By referring to people as 'spokespeople,' by default you are stating that they are working on their behalf, whether paid or not. An employee doesn't necessarily have to be paid to be an employee.

The Tapas group were never spokespeople for the McCanns and could never accurately be described as such, When did any of them ever stand up and make representations or statements on their behalf? The so called Tapas 7 were never more than vacating acquaintances and witnesses Whether their witness statements were favourable or in some cases unfavourable to the McCanns is irrelevant , it still doesn't alter their status and make them spokespeople. If I were to make a statement which was favouable to an accused or suspected person, that doesn't make me a spokesperson on their behalf.

by secrets and lies 03.01.15 14:30

Some very interesting posts, Realist.

I take your point about the slim chances of the McCanns tapas friends not turning state evidence if they had some info about what happened.

Certainly it might well be the first time in history that a group with such knowledge would maintain their silence rather than saving their own skin. However, the fact is, the Tapas crew are not currently under any pressure. As you state, there would appear to be no evidence, currently, to implicate Mr. and Mrs. For the time being their "friends/associates" are safe.

However, if some new vital evidence came to light tomorrow, that could see The McCanns charged and their friends can be shown to be accomplices- only then would we see the Tapas gang turn informer.

For now, it is safer for the all who were potentially involved to stick to the same script.

by Joss 03.01.15 14:33

Realist wrote:
Joss wrote:
I am aware of Mitchell etc. being paid by the McC's. That is not what i was talking about. Could you please refer to my post where i even mention "employees"?, because to my recollection i never said any such thing.
I never said the Tapas lot were "employees" of the McC's lol. Why are you going on about it?
I already explained what i said about the Tapas people, by "spokespeople" speaking for the McCann's and trying to back up their bogus abduction, thats all.
By referring to people as 'spokespeople,' by default you are stating that they are working on their behalf, whether paid or not. An employee doesn't necessarily have to be paid to be an employee.

The Tapas group were never spokespeople for the McCanns and could never accurately be described as such, When did any of them ever stand up and make representations or statements on their behalf? The so called Tapas 7 were never more than vacating acquaintances and witnesses Whether their witness statements were favourable or in some cases unfavourable to the McCanns is irrelevant , it still doesn't alter their status and make them spokespeople. If I were to make a statement which was favouable to an accused or suspected person, that doesn't make me a spokesperson on their behalf.

I just posted in what context i used the word spokesperson. FYI:

Related to SPOKESPERSON

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

McCann Mouthpieces. And to my knowledge a couple of the T7 were "mouthpieces" for backing up the McC's theory of abduction, Tanner being one of them.

McCann's ---- on the night Madeleine disappeared are nearly all doctors or other professionals and all have vigorously protested the couple's innocence.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And upon that note i refuse to get into further semantics with you.

by Realist 03.01.15 15:23

Joss wrote:
I just posted in what context i used the word spokesperson. FYI:

Related to SPOKESPERSON

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

McCann Mouthpieces. And to my knowledge a couple of the T7 were "mouthpieces" for backing up the McC's theory of abduction, Tanner being one of them.

McCann's ---- on the night Madeleine disappeared are nearly all doctors or other professionals and all have vigorously protested the couple's innocence.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And upon that note i refuse to get into further semantics with you.

.
Yes, this is becoming a tad tedious, but I'm afraid you won't be able to convince many educated people that backing up a person's version of events is tantamount to acting as their 'spokesperson.'

Just for the record, how could any person vigorously protest another's innocence when they weren't party to and didn't witness what transpired, unless of course that person was in their presence at the time of the incident which in this case is impossible, because only the McCanns or a kidnapper would have this knowledge.

by Realist 03.01.15 15:30

secrets and lies wrote:Some very interesting posts, Realist.

I take your point about the slim chances of the McCanns tapas friends not turning state evidence if they had some info about what happened.

Certainly it might well be the first time in history that a group with such knowledge would maintain their silence rather than saving their own skin. However, the fact is, the Tapas crew are not currently under any pressure. As you state, there would appear to be no evidence, currently, to implicate Mr. and Mrs. For the time being their "friends/associates" are safe.

However, if some new vital evidence came to light tomorrow, that could see The McCanns charged and their friends can be shown to be accomplices- only then would we see the Tapas gang turn informer.

For now, it is safer for the all who were potentially involved to stick to the same script.

I agree entirely, Secrets, if there ever came a time when there was enough evidence to implicate the McCanns and their friends in criminal proceedings, the latter would be swimming for shore before the boat even sprung a leak.

Although I don't think their knowledge of what transpired would extend much beyond them lying about checking on any of the children, because as previously stated, they had different agendas for lying to those of the McCanns, that's why their accounts don't tally up.

by Joss 03.01.15 15:54

Realist wrote:
Joss wrote:
I just posted in what context i used the word spokesperson. FYI:

Related to SPOKESPERSON

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

McCann Mouthpieces. And to my knowledge a couple of the T7 were "mouthpieces" for backing up the McC's theory of abduction, Tanner being one of them.

McCann's ---- on the night Madeleine disappeared are nearly all doctors or other professionals and all have vigorously protested the couple's innocence.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And upon that note i refuse to get into further semantics with you.

.
Yes, this is becoming a tad tedious, but I'm afraid you won't be able to convince many educated people that backing up a person's version of events is tantamount to acting as their 'spokesperson.'

Just for the record, how could any person vigorously protest another's innocence when they weren't party to and didn't witness what transpired, unless of course that person was in their presence at the time of the incident which in this case is impossible, because only the McCanns or a kidnapper would have this knowledge.

I am not here to convince anybody of anything, or to have anyone agree with what i say. I think we can all agree to disagree with a diversity of posters on a public forum at times. Only speculating and discussing the case of a missing child Madeleine McCann, and have opinions here like everyone else. We all use the language in different ways, so no big deal. People to date usually get what i'm saying, as i also understand what they are saying. If not one can always ask for clarification.
As to the latter part of your post, indeed how would anyone know what transpired unless they were witness to the crime. We don't know who really knows what, as none of us were there, but we can try and join some of the dots and speculate about what might have transpired with the facts of the case as presented to the public in the various media scources.

by Realist 03.01.15 16:07

I don't think we'd learn much by piecing together the facts of the case as presented by the various media sources, Josh. big grin

by Joss 03.01.15 16:26

Realist wrote:I don't think we'd learn much by piecing together the facts of the case as presented by the various media sources, Josh.

The only way any of us ever knew that Madeleine was missing was through media scources. The only details we have ever had on the case have been through television, computers, newspapers, social media and whatever other avenues there are to bring public awareness. Admittedly as you say, some media scources are reporting in totally biased ways, and it's sorting through reliable scources as opposed to unreliable scources, and using whatever discernment we have in that regard.

by woodforthetrees 04.01.15 10:17

Joss wrote:
Realist wrote:I don't think we'd learn much by piecing together the facts of the case as presented by the various media sources, Josh.
The only way any of us ever knew that Madeleine was missing was through media scources. The only details we have ever had on the case have been through television, computers, newspapers, social media and whatever other avenues there are to bring public awareness. Admittedly as you say, some media scources are reporting in totally biased ways, and it's sorting through reliable scources as opposed to unreliable scources, and using whatever discernment we have in that regard.

You can pretty much disregard all the waffle printed in the media and it tells us nothing of what has gone/is going on. It is all about ££££££. Police personnel make a bung by telling the media titbits of info, whether true or not, the media make a bung from selling the tripe.

Even the Portuguese police files released aren't the files in their entirety and it is highly unlikely that us, the general public, will ever get to know who is being investigated and what the full evidence files show.

Unfortunately, until the person of interest SY have in their sights is ruled out, the McCanns and the Tapas group are sitting safely, whatever charges against them.

I am starting to strongly think that Operation Grange will fade out after 'all leads followed up and no arrest made' and it'll all disappear....apart from a few books and sofa time by various people involved (Redwood for sure).

Related to SPOKESPERSON

Related to SPOKESPERSON

Related to SPOKESPERSON

Latest topics