The Daily Telegraph is reporting: Madeleine McCann reconstruction 'called off by Portuguese Police'. The Daily Telegraph is quoting Sky News as its source of the story. However, blogs and forums were running with the story first and Sky News jumped on the bandwagon when it was already rolling.
It is true to say that the Portuguese police have called off the intended reconstruction. This is because, in the view of the PJ, all members of the Tapas Bar 9 needed to attend to complete the picture. I can see the logic of this.
It is not true to claim that several members of the Tapas Bar 9 were not able to attend. They were all able to attend. They just did not want to assist in the police inquiry. This may have escaped the Mainstream Media's attention, but it is highly significant. I would say that innocent people would have had no fear of attending a police reconstruction. However, given that both Gerry and Kate McCann's statements contain flaws, as do several of the other Tapas Bar 9, it is for this reason that none of the Tapas Bar 9 wish to go back to Portugal.
Instead the Tapas Bar 9 are claiming that they cannot see how a police reconstruction will assist in finding Madeleine. I was under the impression that it is the PJ and not the McCanns and the rest of them who are in charge of the police inquiry. It is for the PJ and not the Tapas Bar 9 to determine the relevance of a reconstruction to the police investigation. The McCanns may be in charge of the private investigation being conducted by Metodo3, but this is not the same thing. Under the latter private investigation, the McCanns are not suspects. However, let us not forget, they are suspects in the police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine. I don't think it is a good idea to have suspects dictating the nature of the police investigation. There is a tendency for the McCanns to leave themselves out of the inquiry as to what happened to Madeleine.
I don't think the McCanns are doing anything to help find Madeleine as they laugh all the way to the bank to spend the donations. It is time that the Serious Fraud Office froze the findmadeleine account until such time as the McCanns are cleared of all guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine.
4 comments:
YOU SAID ON THE3ARGUIDOS.NET:
"It is not a libel to call the McCanns both hypocrites and liars (posted by anonymous members in the anonymity of the 3A forum)"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tKGXrbaBWEAC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=USA+-+%22libel+per+se%22+&source=web&ots=5HLvxTIxZI&sig=J-cChn4ukDFWf09mps4F7H_f9uI&hl=en
.
.
http://tinyurl.com/4vblz3
.
"Examples of defamation that have generally been recognized as LIBEL PER SE in the USA include allegations of wrongdoing, of gross incompetence in one’s chosen career (plenty examples of that on the 3A forum) of such serious moral failings as being a chronic liar (plenty examples of that on 3A forum) and of having a loathsome and contagious disease. (Plenty of examples of the loathsome disease allegation on 3A)"
CONTINUE POSTING ALONG THESE LINES IN A FORUM THAT IS HOSTED IN THE USA AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE HOLE THAT YOU ARE DIGGING FOR YOURSELVES. THE ABOVE "LIBEL PER SE" IS EXTRACTED FROM THE LEGISLATION WHICH STANDS IN AMERICA.
AS REGARDS THE LEAFLETS WHICH YOU ARE DISTRIBUTING, LEAFLETS NEED NOT BE LIBELLOUS. THEY ONLY NEED TO BE INSULTING BY INNUENDO IN ORDER TO CONTRAVENE THE BYE-LAWS OF EVERY LOCAL AUTHORITY, FROM WHOM THE PERMISSION MUST BE GRANTED TO DISTRIBUTE SUCH ITEMS
Nessie (3a) said:
"This morning I made a trip to the supermarket and found a poster in my trolly, I took a look around and saw quiet a few people had also got one for free, my right hand to God it wasn't me so does it look like it is a bit late to stop them."
GOOD!!!! well done!!! – THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY VIRTUE OF CONTINUOUS PUBLICATION OF THESE LEAFLETS, WHICH HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF 3a CLEARLY EMBLAZONED ON THEM. NOW THERE ARE LEGAL RECRIMINATIONS TO THINK ABOUT.
REGARDING THE LEAFLETS, ALL OF THE ABOVE LEGISLATION WILL APPLY. 3A DON’T HAVE THE COMMON SENSE TO MAKE THE LEAFLET ANONYMOUS. MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL VENTURE. ENLIST A FEW MORE TO POST AT 3A. ACCUMULATE A FEW MORE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PAYPAL BUTTON.
AT THE3ARGUIDOS.NET
....ABOUT LIES AND LYING.....
YOU SAY:
"A lie is an untruth"
AN untruth is not necessarily a lie.
An example of a perceived lie is that of hearsay. Somebody’s mother reported that the door was locked. Which door? The front door or the back door? The front door was locked, to which another/several other parties had a duplicate key. Therefore, nobody could state categorically that there was NO BREAK IN. Conversely, nobody could state categorically that there was NO BREAK OUT. (a means of escape)
Anonymous:
I wish you would get yor house in order and focus these attacks on me as I am the writer of this blog as you well know. I am the Scarlet Pimple smell of folklore who writes all this stuff forfwiff and muckitt to the point innitt.
Post a Comment