THE DAM HAS BURST...WITH ONLINE COVERAGE.

It has been suggested if the McCanns were ever charged, due to the coverage this case has received , they would never have a fair trial.

Trial and error: online comments court attention

Att Gen hints at review of responsibilty for online prejudicial comments

The UK Attorney General has said that operators of websites should be responsible for comments made by visitors to their sites that prejudice trials. Dominic Grieve said that he wants "further discussions" on site owners' liability.

Speaking to the Criminal Bar Association, Grieve, a Conservative MP, said that protecting the fairness of trials was growing increasingly difficult as news outlets proliferated.

The rise of [the internet] has been profound in so many aspects of our lives, including the relationship between the courts and the media," said Grieve. "The news is constantly available and updated either on 24-hour television networks, the websites of mainstream news organisations, or unofficial blogs, emails and social networking sites. The amount of material is vast and it can be passed on at lightning speed."

"In my view this does not reduce the importance of the contempt of court laws. It doesn't remove the need for fair and accurate contemporaneous reports," he said.

Grieve said that the increasing number of places at which people read news content would create problems for courts attempting to ensure that trials were fair and that juries were not exposed to material that would prejudice the hearing. One major problem was that websites' comment sections could host prejudicial content he said.

"If it is increasingly easy for individuals to act as unofficial journalists and publishers the greater the need for general understanding about why restrictions are sometimes necessary," said Grieve. "This extends particularly to those who run websites upon which members of the public place their opinions."
"I understand that there is no clear authority in relation to their legal obligation but there must, I feel, be an argument that they too have to ensure that a trial is not prejudiced by what is posted," said Grieve. "I would be happy to have further discussions with such organisations is in an area that needs to be explored with a view to increasing their understanding of those potential risks."

Traditionally, parties to the publication of material that is part of an active trial, or sub judice, have been able to argue that they innocently passed material on. Printers or distributors of material could argue that they were unaware that material broke rules on prejudicing trials.

Technology lawyer Struan Robertson of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that operators of websites with open comment sections could make similar claims.

"Site operators could use the 'innocent distribution' defence, claiming that they did not know that material was sub judice," said Robertson. "This defence is not available once they have been told about the material, though."

"Online publishers that remove that material quickly would also be able to claim a defence under the E-Commerce Regulations that absolve publishers of responsibility for unlawful material as long as they remove it quickly when told about it," said Robertson.

Grieve's comments suggest he may contemplate increasing a site publisher's responsibilities for material posted by other users.

He said, though, that he believed that the current rules and laws on contempt of court are largely successful.

"Does the system presently work? In blunt terms and with doubtless imperfections, in my view, it does," he said. "Although my office receives a substantial number of queries from legal representatives, the courts, the judiciary, members of the public and also members of the press there have been a comparatively small number of prosecutions under either the 1981 [Contempt of Court] Act or for breaches of other specific restrictions."

Last year the High Court ruled that it was "futile" to extend reporting restrictions on a paternity case involving a baby and children who were alleged to be its parents because of extensive online coverage of the case.

"The dam … has indeed burst and in practical terms there is no longer anything which the law can protect; the granting of the injunction at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture," said the judge in the case.

In another case last year involving reporting restrictions, an expert said that they only applied to people who had seen the restrictions. While newspapers would typically be informed of those, all bloggers or commenters would not and might have a right to disseminate the information.

"The order does, in principle, apply to 'bloggers' because it applies to all persons who know that the order has been made," said Pinsent Masons lawyer James McBurney at the time. "Bloggers, along with any other person or corporation are therefore prohibited from publishing any of the restricted material, but only if they know that it is in place to start with, which is where the difficulty arises: how are they supposed to know about it?"

SOURCE: The Register

MYTH OF THE DARK SWARTHY GYPSY

Some things never change. I cannot help feeling at some point the McCanns PI's have gone through every type of abduction on the Internet and placed the fault of Madeleines fate firmly at their door.

Raymond Hewlett and his death bed confession, Madeleine was sold to the swarthy gypsies, reminded me of the kidnapping of Charley Ross , June 26 1873. This also involved swarthy men and toothless gypsies. For Charley there was a happy ending, money was exchanged and Charley returned safe and well to his family. Madeleine, sadly will never be coming home and unless someone close to her does the right thing, we shall never know her fate.

The Charley Ross Kidnapping

“Knowing only that Charley had been taken but not why, the police acted on customary assumptions and tried to find Charley and his abductors by making inquiries at such places as ferry stops, taverns, livery stables. As word of mouth spread, the news about Charley began to generate an assortment of rumors. In one of the first of these, a child had been spotted in a gypsy wagon ‘crying bitterly’ who it was ‘suspected did not belong to them.’ In all, the police in Philadelphia and elsewhere reportedly searched 200 gypsy caravans within a year and one-half after Charley disappeared.” [p. 27, Fass, Paula, Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America, 1997, Oxford University Press]

“Among the thousands of letters the Patzes [Etan Patz, 7-years-old: kidnapped May 25, 1979, New York, N.Y.] received, one urged them to “look for gypsies (gitanos), a reminder that, more than one hundred years after the first widely publicized abduction [referring to Ross 1874. The author is incorrect. The first widely publicized abduction was the Pool case, 1819], some myths still persisted.” [p. 215, Fass, Paula, Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America, 1997, Oxford University Press]

***

. [Wikipedia]

HUSHED VOICES OF MOTHERS....

The story never quite rang true, we knew it but many too afraid to think the worst let alone say it out loud, wanting to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt. Mothers whispered amongst each other their thoughts, thoughts they did not want to believe.

American writer Valerie Lopes wrote her thoughts back in September 2007.

I originally wrote this post in September 2007 when Madeleine McCann was everywhere and nowhere. I can still feel the anger that coursed through me over her unnecessary and tragic disappearance. She's just about my son's age which is probably one of the main reasons this story captured my attention as it did. The blatant stupidity of her parents still appalls me - somebody please explain to me why these people aren't in jail? I have yet to understand why the police have done nothing to punish these fools. I remember at the time having a conversation with my friend Cindy about this over coffee. In hushed tones - because it wasn't done at the time to condem the McCanns for neglect - we whispered to each other that never would we have left our children alone. What kind of parents could do that? The McCanns apparently.

There are two possibilities regarding the fate of Madeleine McCann. She's either dead or alive. The theist in me wants to believe that she is alive and that a miracle will occur. She will, unharmed – mentally physically emotionally – be returned to the bosom of her family. Where would Madeleine have had to of spent the past few months of her life for that to be the case? With some desperate childless woman that longed so greatly for a child that in a moment of wild insanity snatched a child? A senile fado singing Portuguese avo that doesn't own a television or radio that has plied Madeleine with gambas and natas. Or even, a la Elizabeth Smart, she's been hidden in plain site and it will only take one sharp eyed bystander to notice the coloboma in her eye and call the authorities whom will react swiftly bringing a happy enough ending to this tale. Perhaps.

In the words of Fiona in the Lerner and Loewe musical Brigadoon, “Anything is possible”. Unfortunately life isn't a musical and although the temptation to break into song as I meander down the street doing a modified two-step comes upon me more frequently than I would be comfortable admitting, nothing will change the fact we have little choice but to live in a world where horrible things happen to the innocent all of the time.

The theist in me also knows that evil exists. That's the payoff. Hot/Cold. Light/Dark. Good/Evil. Evil comes in as many names as good so call it what you will. If Madeleine McCann is still alive I shudder to think of the kind of hell she's living in. Old enough to comprehend she is not with her parents and her siblings. Frightened. Abused. Neglected. Tortured. The byproducts of evil.

So, we know what her two possible fates are. If she is alive we hope for the best, but common sense and history tell us that it is the worst that is the most reasonable assumption. If she is dead how did she go from being a thriving living child on vacation in Portugal to a mournful statistic?

Again, we are offered two possibilities. Foul play or tragic accident. The theory that screams the loudest, is the sexiest and carries the biggest thrill is that she was kidnapped. Not just plain old kidnapped, but by a gang of “kidnap to order” specialists out the fill a sinister bill of goods. Boogiemen.

The second possibility. A tragic accident. The theory that is whispered between women with small Madeleine aged children generally accompanied with a disclaimer along the lines of I hate to judge them, but... or Those poor people, but... or What kind of parents leave their children unattended... The facts that stun all of us mothers with tiny ones. They left their children unattended in an unlocked room in a place that was unfamiliar to them when there was a babysitting service available. Pamela Fenn, who lives in the flat above the McCann's, had told police that on the Tuesday night before the disappearance that she had heard Madeleine crying for about 75 minutes before her parents returned from dinner. The night Madeleine disappeared was not the first time she and her two two year old siblings had been left unattended by their parents. Madeleine was, according to family and friends, a bright child that was curious and fearless.

Occam's razor teaches us that all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. The simple solution that is whispered at play dates and over free coffee at IKEA in hushed tones as if speaking the obvious about the McCann's will somehow diminish the tragedy of the disappearance of their child is that through their carelessness and neglect their child died tragically. Let's just say, for example, Madeleine woke from her little-girl sleep to an empty room for the second (possibly more) night in a row. She was frightened. The same fright that caused her to cry for over an hour the previous night. She was alone in a strange place without her mother, father or any kind of an adult to offer her comfort and reassurances that she was not alone and there was nothing to be afraid of. For, in truth, she was alone and obviously there was something to be afraid of. When she knew comfort would not come to her she sought it out. She got up from her bed, walked out through the unlocked door in search of her parents, wandered about confused and lost in the unfamiliar place, her vision possibly impaired by the genetic abnormality that has been so well documented, the sound of the surf crashing into the sand... Suffice it to say a little girl wandering alone coming into contact with the Atlantic Ocean in the dark of night does not make for a happy ending.

Just one theory. I'd call it mine, but I've heard similar theories from the hushed voices of more women and men than would equal a coincidence.

When we hear of a story like Madeleine's we want to believe the best and the worst not the boring facts. That she will be saved and that it was some lamia-demon snatching children from the comfort and safety of their bed that was the culpriet. Not that a tragic set of circumstances created out of neglect, selfishness and inestimable foolishness equaled the death of a child. It's too clean. Too annoyingly sterile. It lacks drama and only contains sadness. Going out with a whimper and a sigh instead of a shout and a bang.

What can be taken from this? I hope something. Perhaps, without anyone ever knowing, countless children have been spared injury, maiming and yes, death, because one story of inadequate parenting made such a loud bang. Hopefully one set of parents that might have just “locked them in” while they went out to munch on tapas and toss back rose thought twice and paid the twenty euros for the babysitting service.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A COLOBOMA

I have always been slightly puzzled, shocked even, to hear the McCanns comment both on the same day when questioned about Madeleines defect in her right eye. The day, remembered so clearly, when along by their side sat CEOP Jim Gamble with the new one minute video. Gamble, did not mention Madeleines eye and the McCanns during one of the days interviews quickly brushed off,  when asked , almost as if they were bored with the question  Dr.McCann replied 'she would probably be wearing contact lenses by now'. Well no, not quite, contacts are not considered for a child with coloboma until they reach the age of seven years if not older, he is a doctor and  would know this.

So, I am left asking, how prominent was the defect. Madeleines right eye was the catalyst for the campaign, so important that when implored by the Portuguese police to not mention this distinct character in Madeleine Dr McCann went ahead, later confessing he was aware the abductor could damage her eye but it was a good marketing ploy.

Both parents, including Madeleines grandmother and aunt, have all spoken about Madeleines eye and not one of them have ever used the medical term coloboma.

A child born with this condition needs medical check ups until the age of seven years. AND yet not once have the McCanns used this reason in Madeleines defence to speak with the person who they claim has snatched her. Would a parent not be saying ' If you have my daughter she needs to have her eye checked, her condition needs to be monitored. Please, please make sure you take her to a doctor'

I am surprised PR guru Clarence Mitchell did not think of this, a mother pleading for the well being of her daughters health may have made me question myself and how I relate to the McCanns but not once has there been any mention of Madeleine, her well being or her suffering. The mantra there is no evidence she has come to any harm and the bizarre comments made on two seperate ocassions from Clarence Mitchell 'The McCanns are not involved in Madeleines death' leave more questions than answers as to what does Mr.Mitchell know.

The refusal of Madeleines medical records, another puzzle, from the pictures and videos I have seen she looked a happy ,healthy little girl, so why deny them ?

If the coloboma was as prominent as the photographs show then Madeleine would have needed the kind of care written in the report shown below.

There is no treatment for coloboma at present. A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.

If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.

Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.

Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.  (I believe this is what Dr.McCann had in mind)

Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7256513.stm

Sighting of Madeleine with a coloboma

THE DAILY STAR REPORTS

Yesterday ,The Guardian it seems, the only British newspaper to report on the news  from Portugal .

The Daily Star later reported but have been rather clever by not naming the reporter . According to the Star,  the McCanns PR guru Clarence Mitchell , who seems to have become a man of very few words commented 'legal action is still on going'

ARTICLE
A court has overturned a ban on a book by the detective who led the Madeleine McCann investigation.

The Truth Of The Lie by Goncalo Amaral will be allowed back on the shelves in Portugal following a ruling by Lisbon’s Court of Appeal.

In the book, the former police chief claims Madeleine died in an accident and accuses her parents Gerry and Kate of faking her abduction. The couple, both doctors, insist she was snatched and still plan to sue Amaral.

In September last year the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, won an injunction banning the book from being sold in Portugal.

They said that Amaral’s claims meant people were no longer looking for their daughter. But yesterday the judge said the book did not breach the McCanns’ rights to privacy because they had done TV interviews in a bid to find their daughter.

Now a 50-minute DVD documentary to accompany the book will also be allowed to be sold.

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: “The legal action against Mr Amaral is very much continuing.

“Kate and Gerry’s lawyers are examining this latest court action and are considering an appeal.”

BBC WHY SO SILENT?

The latest from the BBC this report which has been changed in the last five days.

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/366263/diff/0/1

I have never known the BBC to remain so silent, surely today should be filled with headline news and wall to wall coverage and interviews with the McCanns, telling of their disgust about the disgraced cop. Clarence Mitchell also with nothing to say. No Jim Gamble after the McCanns came to his rescue when he offered his resignation ? Maybe today was spent on making a new strategy and tomorrow will be resumed with' McCann coverage' . But what will they say ? to mention the contents of the book reminds the public the McCanns are thought to have hidden their dead daughters body and then people may start to suggest the fund is fraudulent. The book may now be of interest to those who had no interest at all.  The night the McCanns have tried so hard for people to believe in, their version, may start to unravel.

The BBC are in between a rock and a hard place, to remain silent and not report the news appears strange after they accused Goncalo Amaral of insulting the McCanns. The BBC, too arrogant to apologise, their guilt by removing the bleeped out video, proof enough they were wrong.

All in all it was a wise move on behalf of the beeb today . Always read the instructions and never return to a firework once it has been lit.

GOOD NEWS: MCCANN MASS HYPNOSIS HAS CEASED

An interesting development in Portugal . There is no place in modern society for the banning of books. The McCanns wished to take us back to the dark ages and forbid us to think for ourselves. One cannot ban a book that has not been deemed to be seen as libellous.

I would imagine this explains Kates latest trip to Portugal , a chat with her lawyer about the inevitable. It was wise for Dr.McCann to remain at home looking after the twins, Dr.McCann cannot control his temper and would have raged like a bull at this latest turn of events.

There will be calm today in the Amaral home and in the Rothley Mansion much unrest.

For Madeleine, today there is a chink of light, a chink of light in the name of Justice.

On hearing the news it would appear the McCanns spokesman had nothing to say .  The BBC also seem to have either been gagged, or lost their tongues.


http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1690386

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/19/madeleine-mccann-book-ban-overturned#box

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/311740/diff/0/1

BBC change McCann v Goncalo artice five times.