Churchill's analysis

Just back from a couple of weeks away, during which I re-read Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples.

This bit jumped out at me. Vol. 1, p 357

It is contended by the defenders of King Richard that the Tudor version of these events has prevailed.  But the English people who lived at that time and learned of the events day by day formed their convictions two years before the Tudors gained power or were indeed a prominent factor.  Richard III held the authority of government. He told his own story with what facilities were available, and he was spontaneously and almost universally disbelieved.

And found myself re-writing it

It is contended by the defenders of The McCanns that the Amaral and PJ version of these events has prevailed.  But the English people who lived at that time and learned of the events day by day formed their convictions two years before the book and the files were released, and before they had become widely known or were indeed a prominent factor.  The McCanns were assisted by the authority of government. They told their own story with what facilities were available, and they were spontaneously and almost universally disbelieved.

Churchill was right, maybe. Does he cite any evidence? 

Attempt to cross the Ricardian Society at your own peril

Welcome back, PM - I hope you had an enjoyable break.  

As Churchill observed, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" and my version has it that, although the PJ and Leicestershire Police were not convinced of the veracity of the tale, the McCanns were universally believed to the tune of many millions of £'s which left the governments of Portugal and the UK little alternative but to adopt a joint damage limitation policy as any prosecution mounted at that time would not only have been unlikely to succeed, it may have also caused irreparable damage to relations between two countries who benefit from the longest standing alliance in the history of the modern world.

"a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"
-----------------------------------------------

And the 'reverse' is of that is:

1st WW trench 'chatter'

No 1 'trench'

"Send reinforcements, we're going to advance"

No 27 'trench'

"Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance"

[quote="ultimaThule"]Welcome back, PM - I hope you had an enjoyable break.  

As Churchill observed, "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" and my version has it that, although the PJ and Leicestershire Police were not convinced of the veracity of the tale, the McCanns were universally believed to the tune of many millions of £'s which left the governments of Portugal and the UK little alternative but to adopt a joint damage limitation policy as any prosecution mounted at that time would not only have been unlikely to succeed, it may have also caused irreparable damage to relations between two countries who benefit from the longest standing alliance in the history of the modern world.[/quote]


UT: any prosecution mounted AT THAT TIME unlikely to succeed

This is still the case, IMO

Imo it's far from being the case now, Portia, as the weight of circumstantial evidence alone is overwhelming and, to my mind, is more than sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

[quote="ultimaThule"]Imo it's far from being the case now, Portia, as the weight of circumstantial evidence alone is overwhelming and, to my mind, is more than sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.  [/quote]


Could be.

But the forum/jurisdiction for murder/manslaughter would be: Portugal, which does not have the jury system

And why would that country waste its limited resources on litigation which -by its public prosecutors- could very well be judged pointless?

If the PJ cannot get enough facts on the table to warrant one or more convictions, and this would be checked and supported by the Prosecution, then there will be no litigation. 

Its as simple as that.

Portia wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:Imo it's far from being the case now, Portia, as the weight of circumstantial evidence alone is overwhelming and, to my mind, is more than sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.  

Could be.

But the forum/jurisdiction for murder/manslaughter would be: Portugal, which does not have the jury system

And why would that country waste its limited resources on litigation which -by its public prosecutors- could very well be judged pointless?

If the PJ cannot get enough facts on the table to warrant one or more convictions, and this would be checked and supported by the Prosecution, then there will be no litigation. 

Its as simple as that.

That would depend on who would be on trial,section 9 of the offences against the person act allows for a murder or even a manslaughter committed abroad by a brit national to be tried in this country.

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

Murder or manslaughter abroad.

Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F1, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished . . . F1 in England or Ireland . . . F1: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

[quote="WMD"][quote="Portia"][quote="ultimaThule"]Imo it's far from being the case now, Portia, as the weight of circumstantial evidence alone is overwhelming and, to my mind, is more than sufficient to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.  [/quote]


Could be.

But the forum/jurisdiction for murder/manslaughter would be: Portugal, which does not have the jury system

And why would that country waste its limited resources on litigation which -by its public prosecutors- could very well be judged pointless?

If the PJ cannot get enough facts on the table to warrant one or more convictions, and this would be checked and supported by the Prosecution, then there will be no litigation. 

Its as simple as that.[/quote]
That would depend on who would be on trial,section 9 of the offences against the person act allows for a murder or even a manslaughter committed abroad by a brit national to be tried in this country.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[quote]Murder or manslaughter abroad.

Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F1, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished . . . F1 in England or Ireland . . . F1: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act. [/quote]
[/quote]


SO: Litigation in Portugal takes precedence over litigation in the UK: [b][u]nothing[/u][/b] shall [b]prevent (..) any person being tried in any place out of England (..)[/b]

This, precisely is my point. Portugal is the forum

A contrario: why, in there right minds, would anyone hire mr Pinochets (NO-)extradition lawyer? 

Only if extradition -to Portugal, not to Norway, Canada or the Isle of Man- was realiter an option.

Welcome back Peter.
Did you bring us sticks of rock and snazzy souvenir t shirts in shades of gaudy?? 

Hobs wrote:Welcome back Peter.
Did you bring us sticks of rock and snazzy souvenir t shirts in shades of gaudy?? 

Not much, except a couple of weeks away from the internet, news, fora, emails can sent the mind back on track.   Re-boot the brain, as it were.

So replying to the above, almost everyone spontaneously disbelieved the McCanns, right from the start.  (Even the Tapas 7, or they would not have had to lie on their behalf.  Several sets of police, various SIOs, some prosecutors, MW managers, a Priest, the Vatican, both grandmothers, everyone in fact who was not being paid to do a specific thing.  Solicitors do not therefore count as "believers'. That is not their role, though even Carter-Ruck must by now realise that they were paid to commit perjury).  So there was no one who when presented with whatever evidence there was, or might have been, actually believed any aspect, or any version of the abduction story.   The fact that there was and is no evidence might have something to do with this, as might the clear evidence of both parents lying in the first few days, changing stories, retro-fitting and so on.   And the inconvenient truth that every investigation into every tiny aspect of whatever version has been looked at - whether wind speed, weather conditions, comparison of photos with statements, has shown that no one single aspect of any of the versions can hold water

And then, who has ever suggested there might be a murder/manslaughter trial anywhere ?  I am aware of no evidence which would even lead police in either country toward that.
Concealment of body, disposal, failure to notify,  all in Portugal
Fraud on a massive scale, in England
are more likely directions for the investigations

And so, to follow the squirrel
Tannerman, Smithman, Sagresman .. .
It does not matter a damn if Tanner was wearing flip flops, or if Smith lives in Drogheda or Louth, and is the right one or the wrong one, or if Sagresman was identified
What matters is whether those three or even four people told the truth when they describe the identical person with the same trousers and hair
or whether they are all making it up - as seems likely
(And from there, though not strictly germane to the Madeleine part of the investigtion - who told them to say what they did.  Who paid them to say what they did ?


It seems to me there are several distinct issues.  They overlap and sometimes involve the same "evidence" and the same people, but I think they are distinct
So for example if Madeleine were to be found alive and well, the question the parents' lying and legal bullying still remains as an issue, as does the fraudulent "Fund"

1  What happened to Madeleine Beth McCann
2  What led so many people to lie about what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann
3  What led so many people and agencies to become involved in what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann
and so on.

WHY didn't Jez W 'triple lock' his partner, B O'D, in their apartment and help 'search' for his tennis buddy's 'missing' child?

Instead 'choosing', rather, to go 'BACK TO HIS BED'!

WHY did Wilkins BLATANTLY 'lie' about himself 'crossing the street' to chat with GM 'outside the gateway' to apartment 5A?

When we all know, on video and in print, from the McCanns, that it WAS GM that 'crossed the street' to chat with HIM!

WHY was J Wilkins NOT prosecuted for giving a false witness statement, under UK AND Portuguese LAW, by stating something in his written, signed, police statements, he knew to be untrue and false?

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY didn't Jez W 'triple lock' his partner, B O'D, in their apartment and help 'search' for his tennis buddy's 'missing' child?

Instead 'choosing', rather, to go 'BACK TO HIS BED'!

WHY did Wilkins BLATANTLY 'lie' about himself 'crossing the street' to chat with GM 'outside the gateway' to apartment 5A?

When we all know, on video and in print, from the McCanns, that it WAS GM that 'crossed the street' to chat with HIM!

WHY was J Wilkins NOT prosecuted for giving a false witness statement, under UK AND Portuguese LAW, by stating something in his written, signed, police statements, he knew to be untrue and false?

Remember in the mockumentary done by TM, Dave Edgar said to a blubbering Jane Tanner that it didn't matter which side of the road it was...un-feckin' believable. Perhaps not so un-fecking' believable as Edgar was in the pay of the McCanns and in the shadow of Clarence Mitchell.

What is much more 'un-feckin believable' is the TWO different Crime Watch versions of a possible scenario into Madeleine's disappearance put out by Scotland Yard. That is un-feckin' believable imo.