How long must Kate and Gerry McCann suffer? by Keir Simmons

by kangdang 08.11.10 10:16

How long must Kate and Gerry McCann suffer?
Posted by Keir Simmons. 8 November, 2010

More than three years ago Madeleine McCann vanished from an apartment in a Portugese seaside town. Madeleine was three years old and 11 months. She has now been missing for almost as long.
She disappeared on the evening of Thursday May 3rd. I arrived in Praia Da Luz the next day. I felt sure she would be found and that I would be back in the UK before the weekend was over. I now know how wrong I was.
So much is easy with hindsight. I can say today with confidence that the police hunt for Madeleine was utterly inadequate. One of the detectives admitted as much in a newspaper article this weekend. I didn’t once see officers searching apartments in the area.
I look back at the media’s coverage of the events that would unfold with deep disappointment. Good journalists under pressure from London took far too many risks with the truth. Collectively in my honest view, we lost our balance. Some journalists lost the plot.
At the centre of it all this were two parents who had no idea how to handle such pressure. The last time I saw Kate and Gerry McCann was at a news conference around a year ago. They looked as shell shocked as when I first saw them – perhaps more so. The suffering they are enduring is unimaginable.
And yet, there continues to be a group of individuals who use the internet to attack these two poor parents. I hear from them all the time via Twitter. They demand that I investigate this or that “if you don’t you’re not a reporter” one informed me recently. After a report I produced for NBC News over the weekend I was subjected to a torrent of abusive messages – one suspects they are co-ordinating their attacks for best effect.
There was even one sick individual who created a Twitter account pretending to be Madeleine and then ‘tweeted’ about where she was. Thank god, the account was quickly taken down.
These people say they are ‘truth seekers’. They are not. What they write is just nasty, obsessive and vicious. They are not journalists, not even campaigners, they represent the worst of the human psyche electronically unleashed.
People who read this blog will know that I see free speech as fundamental. And that I love Twitter and Facebook because they make free speech available to anyone with a computer. But we now see consistent examples of that free speech used irresponsibly.
So I find myself considering cutting these people off, ‘blocking’ them in the terminology of Twitter. Is that the right thing to do? I think it might be.
After this article they will send me abuse and vitriol over the web. I can deal with that of course. But why should two parents who have suffered so much continue to have this groundless campaign against them? Those involved claim they believe in ‘truth’ yet ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit their conspiracy theory. They claim to love children, yet ignore the effect their ‘campaign’ might have on Kate and Gerry McCann’s twins as they grow up and begin to comprehend such things.
I worry that by allowing them to communicate with me, by effectively engaging with them, I am encouraging them. Perhaps it’s time for me in my own small way to say ‘stop’, I’d like to know what you think. Please send me your views on Twitter (ironically) or Facebook.
Feel free to send me your feedback – find me on twitter @KeirSimmonsITV or Facebook
Posted in News | No Comments »

I do wish those persons of the pro-Madeleine would stop this behaviour, they give the vast majority of us a bad name. Behaviour such as Keir described serves absolutely no purpose, and I know he is being truthful here - I've seen the twitters. I have also seen a fair number of supposedly pro-Madeleine's gloating at posting moronic comments on the McCanns petition, what a sodding pointless exercise!

Mind you, what Keir fails to highlight is, that there are equal numbers of these arseholes in the pro-mccann camp.

by Cheshire Cat 08.11.10 14:50

To call people who seek the truth in the case of Madeleine McCann “conspiracy theorists” is to insult the intelligence of a rational thinking human being.

Mr Simmons must remember that the Portuguese Judiciary (PJ) acted on the advice of British Police and British crime experts who first suggested that Madeleine died in the apartment. The PJ found their efforts frustrated by lack of co-operation from the McCann’s and their friends as well as information being denied to them by the British authorities.

The investigation was aborted because the evidence being uncovered was undermining the ‘stranger abduction’ scenario and causing the rational observer to ask ‘unhelpful’ questions.

A conspiracy theory provides a ‘plausible truth’ that may fill a vacuum where facts are either denied to the public or perhaps are doubted by the public. In the case of Madeleine, the ‘abductor’ is the plausible truth that becomes believable to some because the British media have denied the general public of the majority of the facts.
McCann sceptics, such as myself, are not conspiracy theorists, we are people who have taken the time to weigh up the findings of the two top British Police dogs, the detailed reports produced by the PJ and the mountain of case-files now in the public domain against the flimsy and contradictory evidence provided by the McCann’s and their friends.

It is team McCann that are telling people to disregard the evidence gathered by the PJ and to accept stranger abduction as the truth. The article by Keir Simmons uses the “conspiracy theorist” argument to attack MCann sceptics but he is economic with the facts in that he mentions that witnesses saw a man carrying off a child but he fails to mention that the McCann’s star witness is buddy Jane Tanner and that the independent witness that saw man with child identified that man as Gerry McCann!!

I am not a “conspiracy theorist”. I do not believe 9/11 was an “inside job” and I believe Diana died in a tragic accident. In the case of Madeleine it is the McCann’s who are asking people to buy into a story of intrigue and mystery, of child snatching gypsies and exotic locations.

We McCann sceptics are not afraid to ask questions, not afraid of the facts and we welcome the truth…however grim that may be.

by Angelique 08.11.10 15:31

Cheshire Cat

Well said - I concur with your comments.

The majority of the anti will want a full investigation not one shelved for lack of co-operation. We will accept the truth - because that's what we want.

Angelique

by Guest 08.11.10 15:38

Reply to Mr Simmons from Blacksmith.......................

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2010/11/dear-keir-simmons.html

Monday, 8 November 2010
Dear Keir Simmons…

“But why should two parents who have suffered so much continue to have this groundless campaign against them?”

So glad that you wanted some feedback and I hope that someone will forward this to you or twitter you the link. First, by way of a taster, can I quote what the mayor of London wrote this morning about the BBC journalists’ strike, which you will note brought the country to its knees?

“I consume vast quantities of news – but almost entirely without the assistance of the BBC. I get up early and read a fair quantity of newsprint, notably this paper and the FT. But if I then switch on my computer and go to Google news, I can see what everyone is reading across the planet.

You don't have to wait and fume for a quarter of an hour while some egotistical journalist tries to skewer some temporising politician. You don't have to worry about the bias of programme editors, because the sheer multiplicity of sources enables you to shake out the bias and work out what is really going on. You can find it all out in your own time, and it usually takes about five minutes.”

That’s the world you now work in, Mr Simmons.

I don’t defend any vile accusations made against the parents and I have no theory whatever about any involvement by them in the fate of their daughter. I don’t take part in internet forums or comment boxes precisely because of the incredible violence with which people disagree. But that is nothing to do with the McCanns – it is a function of internet debate.

But are you seriously suggesting that there are no important questions about the behaviour and veracity of the McCanns since May 3 2007?

You will recall, I’m sure, the shouted comment from a journalist on the Lisbon court steps early this year, referring to the irrefutable evidence earlier that Goncalo Amaral was not a “rogue cop” but a person representing the views of a whole police team. “Yes,” came the shout, aimed at Amaral, “all old stuff – what’s new?”

And that is the trouble: to you and your colleagues there is a great deal of “old stuff” that anti-McCannites harp on about, as if its age alone made it somehow worthless - a very journalistic view if I may say so. But the reason the “old stuff” persists is because it has never been satisfactorily answered by the parents – so articulate, not to say verbose about so many other subjects – nor properly analysed and refuted by journalists such as yourself.

Can I ask you about a few instances of “old stuff” and exactly what you make of it? Not wild accusations, not theories about what the parents did or didn’t do on May 3, but documented examples of their conduct since.

The Prosecutor and his Report

An easy starter for ten. Why do you think the parents have cherry-picked the prosecutors’ archiving report, highlighting the “clearance” of themselves but never, ever alluding to the comments about the lack of co-operation from their friends and the bald statement that the couple gave up the chance to demonstrate their innocence?

The McCanns were not telling the truth to the police about their “checking” routines. No doubt you were in court in Lisbon when the prosecutor himself stated this explicitly. Portuguese law prevented a full cross examination of Mr Magalhaes e Menezes at that hearing to compel him to tell the court more about the untruths. There will be, I can assure you, opportunities for him to do so in the coming months.

Do you really think this is a mere old stuff detail? If they weren’t telling the truth about the “checking” then what have they told the truth about? Do you believe they have always told you the truth?

The Rothley meeting and the collusion over evidence

In December 2007, immediately following the announcement that the Portuguese authorities were formally requesting interviews with the so-called Tapas 7, a meeting was held in Rothley at which the case and the evidence were discussed. Prior to that meeting it had been maintained for months that all 9 were willing and keen to assist, either by returning to Portugal or by being interviewed again. It was a genuinely secret meeting, in the strict sense of that overworked word, but information that it had occurred leaked out.

Their spokesman, initially caught off guard, said that "it was a show of solidarity under police claims that one or two had wanted to change their stories.” He later refused to enlarge on that most revealing statement and announced that he was not going to comment on the meeting in future.

Why, with a background in crime reporting, do you think 9 supposedly independent but associated witnesses met in secret and have refused to discuss the matter, or even mention it, ever since? What stops them?

The request for help in finding a child

After those UK “rogatory” interviews had indeed taken place the head of the Portuguese investigation formally asked the 7 if they were willing to return for a reconstruction of their movements on the night of May 3 2007 to assist the inquiry. They all saw fit to take legal advice; they stalled; they all refused.

Why do you think the 7 refused? Why do you think the parents didn’t ask them to return to help the search for their daughter?

The end of the search

When the Portuguese investigation was shelved it meant that no authority would any longer be searching for their child, a situation that the parents have been bitterly criticising this last week. They had twenty days to appeal against the archiving and keep the search going.

Why do you think they chose not to appeal?

All old stuff.

Don’t you ever think that you might have a responsibility as a journalist to ask the parents or Mr Mitchell a series of penetrating questions about these issues? Or will it bring them pain and suffering if you ask? “Old stuff” it may be but you will find that it features both in the forthcoming Portuguese libel hearings and in any re-opening that the Portuguese undertake. Oh, and the Leicester police are still waiting for the answers to those “old stuff” questions too.

Posted by john blacksmith at 14:39

by ufercoffy 08.11.10 15:48

[quote=blacksmith]I don’t take part in internet forums or comment boxes precisely because of the incredible violence with which people disagree. But that is nothing to do with the McCanns – it is a function of internet debate. [/quote]

Yes, I remember when blacksmith joined this forum and he was one of the most aggressive posters here, even teaming up with sym to attack Tony Bennett bigshock

He's so much better when he sticks to his own blog.

by kathyBelle 08.11.10 15:50

I am not a "conspiracy theorist" either. I believe the McCanns are 100% responsible, because of what I have heard the McCanns say. I know the McCanns broke the Portuguese law when they left their 3 children alone in their apartment, because I have heard Portuguese and British lawyers say they broke the law.

I heard Clarence Mitchell and various members of the McCanns family, say Kate McCann was expecting to be charged with an offence regarding Madeleine's disappearance. I don't read newspapers and I have never put my views forward in a nasty way, on any forum or message board that I have posted on or still posted on.

Along with other critics of the McCanns, I have been told to F**K OFF and drop dead, by supporters of the McCanns, and we have been subjected to the most vile comments imaginable, including bestiality comments about our pets, as well as comments about my loved ones.

Have I retaliated? Yes I have. Have I used the foul language, that was used to me? No I haven't, nor have I made bestiality posts, or used the loved ones, of the McCann supporters to get back at them. I no longer retaliate, because on the board I do post on, where these troublemakers are, there is an ignore feature and I have put these troublemakers in the ignore box. If anyone presses quote message and I see anything derogatory written about me or my loved ones, I just ignore them.

What I do find, is that while there are some critics of the McCanns who go too far, most of the problems I have seen, are caused by the McCann supporters.

Any newspaper group, who invite people to make comments about the McCanns, or any other subject, has a feature where derogatory comments can be deleted. In my opinion, If they're not deleted, it is because the newspaper group is happy to see them in print.

Kier Simmons comments don't wash with me. He is a McCann supporter and like many of their supporters, he will blame anyone but the McCanns, for Madeleine's disappearance. In my opinion, he doesn't want to read any comments where the McCanns are criticised.He would like to see all critics silenced and forums where the McCanns are criticised, closed down.

In my opinion, Kier Simmons is a typical McCann supporter, who is portraying the McCanns as the victims, when it is Madeleine who is the victim. Either that or Kier Simmons is a windup merchant.

by ufercoffy 08.11.10 15:58

kathyBelle wrote:I don't read newspapers and I have never put my views forward in a nasty way, on any forum or message board that I have posted on or still posted on.

Along with other critics of the McCanns, I have been told to F**K OFF and drop dead, by supporters of the McCanns, and we have been subjected to the most vile comments imaginable, including bestiality comments about our pets, as well as comments about my loved ones.

Have I retaliated? Yes I have. Have I used the foul language, that was used to me? No I haven't, nor have I made bestiality posts, or used the loved ones, of the McCann supporters to get back at them. I no longer retaliate, because on the board I do post on, where these troublemakers are, there is an ignore feature and I have put these troublemakers in the ignore box. If anyone presses quote message and I see anything derogatory written about me or my loved ones, I just ignore them.

Where do you post?

by kathyBelle 08.11.10 16:13

ufercoffy wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:I don't read newspapers and I have never put my views forward in a nasty way, on any forum or message board that I have posted on or still posted on.

Along with other critics of the McCanns, I have been told to F**K OFF and drop dead, by supporters of the McCanns, and we have been subjected to the most vile comments imaginable, including bestiality comments about our pets, as well as comments about my loved ones.

Have I retaliated? Yes I have. Have I used the foul language, that was used to me? No I haven't, nor have I made bestiality posts, or used the loved ones, of the McCann supporters to get back at them. I no longer retaliate, because on the board I do post on, where these troublemakers are, there is an ignore feature and I have put these troublemakers in the ignore box. If anyone presses quote message and I see anything derogatory written about me or my loved ones, I just ignore them.

Where do you post?

Hi Ufercoffy. I post on an AOL board called the You Gotta Laugh. The board, like quite a lot of the AOL boards has a bad reputataion. I could leave the board, but there are some nice posters on the Y.G.L. board and we talk about other topics as well as the McCanns. I do think some of those posters are windup merchants, because they accuse the McCann critics, of writing something in their posts that they haven't written.

For instance, I have never said the McCanns murdered Madeleine, only that they are 100% responsible for whatever happend to Madeleine and whatever suffering she endured on her way to "God knows where". I have explained that I say that, because if Madeleine was abducted, the McCanns weren't there when she was abducted. When I have made that statement, I am always accused of saying, the McCanns murdered Madeleine.

Also new screen names appear on the board and they go straight for the jugulars of the McCanns critics. Leading me to believe that the screen names are owned by the regular posters, who are in the ignore bin.

I also post on the Joana Morais forum.

by Irish Eyes 08.11.10 16:37

Sounds like a fun forum.

by Cheshire Cat 08.11.10 18:31

I am sure that if details of the Gaspar statements were featured in the British media the spotlight would swivel in Daves direction; step forward Mr Payne!

by Guest 08.11.10 20:09

Yet another very good reply to Keir Simmons article from Anna Andress

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

clapping1

by Guest 08.11.10 20:38

And another good read here..........................

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2010/11/operation-ore-re-open-or-review-keiryou.html

Wonder if he's (keir Simmons) reading any of these blogs?? nah

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.10 20:57

ufercoffy wrote:
blacksmith wrote:I don’t take part in internet forums or comment boxes precisely because of the incredible violence with which people disagree. But that is nothing to do with the McCanns – it is a function of internet debate.
Yes, I remember when blacksmith joined this forum and he was one of the most aggressive posters here, even teaming up with sym to attack Tony Bennett. He's so much better when he sticks to his own blog.

Yes, I'm afraid this is correct, Sharples [his name is well-known now] a.k.a. 'blacksmith' made a series of very aggressive comments against me. He and I co-operated for a while over the long Murat article which is on our website; however, he was reluctant to see Murat as anything but entirely innocent in this affair, despite obvious indications to the contrary, and he always maintains this studied air of 'I have no idea what really happened to Madeleine'. He clearly ran out of patience with me, bursting out all over the place in colourful, not to say 'violent' language, of the kind he purports to condemn.

by kathyBelle 08.11.10 21:45

Kier Simmons, bleats on about the McCanns being shellshocked. He needs to take a good look at some of the "You Tube" videos, that show photographs of the McCanns looking anything but shellshocked days after Madeleine disappeared.

Nothing has changed in my opinion.

by Shibboleth 08.11.10 23:17

He says that he didn't see any GNR officers conducting any searches. Where was he, then? There are ample photographs of GNR officers in green boilersuits, with Pt sniffer dogs, searching the apartments in the very earliest days. And if he had been at the Church on poor Madeleine's birthday, he'd have witnessed the "grief and devastation" of the McCanns, first hand. The man either has no brain cells at all, or he is an outright liar. Which is it?

by Autumn 10.11.10 1:44

When the truth comes out Kier Simmons's name, along with the rest of the McCann apologists, will be forever linked to supporting this evil pair. Nothing any of them can say to excuse their ignorance about this case as there is a wealth of information out there which they have chosen to ignore.

by Guest 10.11.10 8:54

That's right Autumn. His integrity will be in the gutter along with the rest of them.

by Guest 10.11.10 9:35

Shibboleth wrote:He says that he didn't see any GNR officers conducting any searches. Where was he, then? There are ample photographs of GNR officers in green boilersuits, with Pt sniffer dogs, searching the apartments in the very earliest days. And if he had been at the Church on poor Madeleine's birthday, he'd have witnessed the "grief and devastation" of the McCanns, first hand. The man either has no brain cells at all, or he is an outright liar. Which is it?

Isn't there a quote somewhere on film of Clarence Mitchell saying all the journalists spent most of their time congregating in bars just waiting for news? I am sure I have heard this.