Facebook: McCanns 'Press damaged the search'

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

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


Find Madeleine FACEBOOK
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Text version
Sunday, 5 January 2014, at 21:45

To those offended by my post... I posted this message originally on October 30th. This message is from Gerry and Kate. Gerry and Kate will not comment on press articles. Please keep in mind many things you read in the press are not based on facts. If I have offended anyone with the tone, I apologise. I hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine (and how frustrating that is to all of us working so hard to get her home). Thank you to all who continue to stand by us and who keep Madeleine in their hearts. ~FM Webmaster

I hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine

As arch manipulators and users of the press whenever it suits their purposes, the bare-faced effrontery of this statement is beyond staggering.  I would  but my flabber is well and truly gasted.

Time for a vino... or something stronger.

ultimaThule wrote:I hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine

As arch manipulators and users of the press whenever it suits their purposes, the bare-faced effrontery of this statement is beyond staggering.  I would  but my flabber is well and truly gasted.

Time for a vino... or something stronger.

It looks as though they have well and truly fallen out with the press and no longer care who knows. I can't help but wonder if a major story is about to break.

Does anybody know what this message was a response to? Were people asking questions about the ST article or commenting negetively on the McSpin re
burglars, tractorman etc?
Are Kate and Gerry in fact admitting that SY is not behind all these mixed bag of suspects that have been foisted upon us via MSM in the last few days and
that it is all MADE UP?

tasprin wrote:Thanks to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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


Find Madeleine FACEBOOK
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Text version
Sunday, 5 January 2014, at 21:45

To those offended by my post... I posted this message originally on October 30th. This message is from Gerry and Kate. Gerry and Kate will not comment on press articles. Please keep in mind many things you read in the press are not based on facts. If I have offended anyone with the tone, I apologise. I hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine (and how frustrating that is to all of us working so hard to get her home). Thank you to all who continue to stand by us and who keep Madeleine in their hearts. ~FM Webmaster

Well, that one comment should surely let GA off the hook from the McCanns' libel trial which they brought on the premise that "GA's book hindered the search for Madeleine".

It's just another variation of the blame game... it's always everyone's fault except Gerry's.   

The 'big boy did it and ran away' comes to mind... but in Gerry's case it's going to be    and  

ultimaThule wrote:It's just another variation of the blame game... it's always everyone's fault except Gerry's.   

The 'big boy did it and ran away' comes to mind... but in Gerry's case it's going to be    and  

But if the McCanns have publicly stated on their official Facebook page -

"We hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine"

that statement alone surely waters down the damage in the libel case which they say that GA's book has done for their "non existent" search for Madeleine.

After they'd fed the Press with all those non facts (lies) for so long, they're saying it is the 'press fault for damaging the search. HA HA....isn't it just rich ?

I am liking it that they admit that many things you read in the press are not based on facts - HA HA HA,,,as if we didn't know ? They're clowning people and they think people are clowns.

DCI Redwood on CW.
"This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So perhaps DCI Redwood and the team would like to give us all his 'innocent explanation' for allowing the McCanns to continue to display, and put at risk of assault, 'the innocent suspect' on their website, since October 2013?

I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Only if they can pay.

jeanmonroe wrote:DCI Redwood on CW.
"This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So perhaps DCI Redwood and the team would like to give us all his 'innocent explanation' for allowing the McCanns to continue to display, and put at risk of assault, 'the innocent suspect' on their website, since October 2013?

As well as an explanation why the Mccanns should not be ordered to take down the MET logo from their site.

Newintown wrote:But if the McCanns have publicly stated on their official Facebook page -

"We hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine"

that statement alone surely waters down the damage in the libel case which they say that GA's book has done for their "non existent" search for Madeleine.

The libel case is effectively a done deal, Newintown, in that no new evidence can be introduced at this point without application to the judge. 

As I can't recall anything in the transcripts of witness statements for either the plaintiffs or the defendants which makes reference to the alleged 'damage' the press - UK, Portuguese, world? - have done 'in' or to 'the search for Madeleine', it's unlikely to be referred to in the closing arguments which are scheduled to be heard tomorrow.

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Perhaps they are, even now, preparing to have a writ delivered to 'The Pink Tosser' Grand Hotel, Brighton,

(It'll get there!)

   

Oh, the IRONY!

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Maybe their webmaster hasn't been told about that, and he's too thick to realise it.

Wouldn't be surprised if CM has left the building.

I think certain people are feeling the pressure   

ultimaThule wrote:

Newintown wrote:But if the McCanns have publicly stated on their official Facebook page -

"We hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine"

that statement alone surely waters down the damage in the libel case which they say that GA's book has done for their "non existent" search for Madeleine.

The libel case is effectively a done deal, Newintown, in that no new evidence can be introduced at this point without application to the judge. 

As I can't recall anything in the transcripts of witness statements for either the plaintiffs or the defendants which makes reference to the alleged 'damage' the press - UK, Portuguese, world? - have done 'in' or to 'the search for Madeleine', it's unlikely to be referred to in the closing arguments which are scheduled to be heard tomorrow.

If the libel case goes against the McCann's, then it's open season for the Press, and there's nothing the McCann's can do about it, for these reasons:

A libel lawsuit could drag out for months -- or years. If you go to court, other media outlets who wouldn't think of reprinting or repeating the original false statement now will cover the story and repeat the charge. Can you sue them, too? No. Because they can report on court proceedings and filings without fear of a libel suit.
It's often smarter, from a PR standpoint, to let a story die than give it new life.

Defense attorneys can keep you on the witness stand. They'll also likely hire investigators to put you under the microscope. Got anything you don't want made public? Anything you'd like to keep private? They might not only find it, but ask you about it in open court, and you better believe all the reporters and cable shows covering the trial will report any scoops about interesting things on your tax returns, nannies who aren't citizens and anything else juicy.

3) Hollow victory

Let's say everything goes your way. The media outlet who defamed you has no real defense. You cruise through court and win.

Even then, it might be a hollow victory.

The money you receive may not amount to much. Attorney fees are steep. And now the precedent has been set. Once you start filing lawsuits like this, it's hard to stop protecting your turf when somebody else crosses that same line. You may wind up fronting a lot of money --a trial can easily cost five figures, if not six -- for libel cases that you don't win.

The full script is on this link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The above refers to the UK, but it still allows the British press to print what was said in court without reprisal.

Could it be that the McCann's are getting the first punch in, before the newspapers have a free-for-all if things go pear-shape for the Mc's tomorrow?

Having read the transcripts of the trial so far, I cannot see anything of substance in the McCann side of things, they provided nothing from anyone with a professional / medical relationship to back up the claims they made. But, yet, the pictures of them having a lovely, happy time at the football match smiling away, do not like people anxious about any outcome. Or lacking in appetite, sleep, feeling depressed or anything else for that matter.

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Hmm. How would this affect his chances in Brighton, if he'd be found out having been economical with the truth for a living?

Is the Webmaster KM? The site is not busy and their posts are usually only reminders of their censorship rules, threats to ban anyone who asks questions and the odd cloying message - why would they need a third party to do this for them, especially since they like to be in control of everything themselves?

ultimaThule wrote:

Newintown wrote:But if the McCanns have publicly stated on their official Facebook page -

"We hope you can understand the amount of damage the press have done in the search for Madeleine"

that statement alone surely waters down the damage in the libel case which they say that GA's book has done for their "non existent" search for Madeleine.

The libel case is effectively a done deal, Newintown, in that no new evidence can be introduced at this point without application to the judge. 

As I can't recall anything in the transcripts of witness statements for either the plaintiffs or the defendants which makes reference to the alleged 'damage' the press - UK, Portuguese, world? - have done 'in' or to 'the search for Madeleine', it's unlikely to be referred to in the closing arguments which are scheduled to be heard tomorrow.

The internet where files, Amaral's book and youtube were accessed from was mentioned as media harming the search.  
Don't forget Amaral's book was/is never available in English.  It was mentioned that translation is available on internet
If the Defendants should mention in their verbal closing argument that UK MSM harms the search, I won't be too surprised.

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Hmm. How would this affect his chances in Brighton, if he'd be found out having been economical with the truth for a living?

It will have no effect whatsoever, Portia, as he's got no chance of persuading the good people of Brighton Pavillion to elect him.

aiyoyo wrote:< snip >
The internet where files, Amarl's book and youtube were accessed from was mentioned as media harming the search.  
Don't forget Amaral's book was/is never available in English.  It was mentioned that translation is available on internet
If the Defendants should mention in their verbal closing argument that UK MSM harms the search, I won't be too surprised.

The McCanns' witnesses made references to certain aspects, mainly the internet, 'harming the search' but, as I recall, they weren't specifically questioned on this either by the judge or lawyers for the defence and, without sight of the writ or copy of the Plaint which the McCanns' filed against Dr Amaral and three others, we don't know whether any part of their claim alleges damage to the search as such.

tasprin wrote:Is the Webmaster KM? The site is not busy and their posts are usually only reminders of their censorship rules, threats to ban anyone who asks questions and the odd cloying message - why would they need a third party to do this for them, especially since they like to be in control of everything themselves?

I don't know, but I can't see why it would NOT be, as you say it's quite bossy and controlling from the messages which would fit her "angry" persona.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

tasprin wrote:Is the Webmaster KM? The site is not busy and their posts are usually only reminders of their censorship rules, threats to ban anyone who asks questions and the odd cloying message - why would they need a third party to do this for them, especially since they like to be in control of everything themselves?

I don't know, but I can't see why it would NOT be, as you say it's quite bossy and controlling from the messages which would fit her "angry" persona.

I doubt it's her.
With her angry persona meeting negative comments flying in she would be shooting off four-letter expletives left right centre.
Remember the expletives she used against PJ ?

whats the betting that if they lose to Mr Amaral they will go after the press again.

ultimaThule wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I thought Mitchell controlled what came out in the Press on their behalf

Hmm. How would this affect his chances in Brighton, if he'd be found out having been economical with the truth for a living?

It will have no effect whatsoever, Portia, as he's got no chance of persuading the good people of Brighton Pavillion to elect him.

He may attract the Pink vote, though

He wouldn't attract MY pink vote in a million years, the scumbag.

Sadly he has half a chance.
Lot of people are fed up with the green party in Brighton.