And of course, no person has to prove someone else did something in order to be free of suspicion themselves. The way it works is you (one) must show your case against your identified suspect, not demand that they prove it was someone else.
Tell that to Edgar PI. And Kate McCann while you're at it! And Mr Clarence Mitchell as well!
I've never heard or seen any of them say : This person did it, or demand that they prove someone else did it.
Links please.
In her private diary, Kate wrote that she was SURE that Murat was involved in Maddie's disappearance and demanded he answered questions. Mr Clarence Mitchell subsequently quite openly likened Murat to Ian Huntley without even being asked about him. Go figure!
In her private diary, Kate wrote that she was SURE that Murat was involved in Maddie's disappearance and demanded he answered questions. Mr Clarence Mitchell subsequently quite openly likened Murat to Ian Huntley without even being asked about him. Go figure!
So what? It made me wonder at the time...... and aren't you pointing fingers as well without any evidence?
Thats a newspaper report. News of the World, no less
Ok? The NOTW actually didn't publish the bits in her diary about Murat (I wonder why). That was published in another newpaper- a Portuguese one- but I'm sure you'll find an excuse to reject that source.
In her private diary, Kate wrote that she was SURE that Murat was involved in Maddie's disappearance and demanded he answered questions. Mr Clarence Mitchell subsequently quite openly likened Murat to Ian Huntley without even being asked about him. Go figure!
Is this the bit you mean from the link you provided...
....One holidaymaker said: 'There was a feeling that his behaviour was similar to that displayed by Huntley.'......
well that 'scott free' rather belies your earlier statement that you don't suspect the McCanns. How can people who didn't do anything 'get away scot free'
And of course, no person has to prove someone else did something in order to be free of suspicion themselves. The way it works is you (one) must show your case against your identified suspect, not demand that they prove it was someone else.
How does it?
Scott Free means to escape punishment for a crime you have committed.
I was making the point that this case has shown how it is possible to murder and get away with it. Whether the McCanns are involved in their own daughters disappearance is irrelevent to my point. As long as no evidence exists to support any crime has been committed, it is that easy to murder a child or other person in your care.
Ok? The NOTW actually didn't publish the bits in her diary about Murat (I wonder why). That was published in another newpaper- a Portuguese one- but I'm sure you'll find an excuse to reject that source.
Does there need to be an excuse? A Portuguese newspaper? Surely not!
Scott Free means to escape punishment for a crime you have committed.
I was making the point that this case has shown how it is possible to murder and get away with it. Whether the McCanns are involved in their own daughters disappearance is irrelevent to my point. As long as no evidence exists to support any crime has been committed, it is that easy to murder a child or other person in your care.
Yes. And your post implies that's exactly what the McCanns did.
As I've stated previously, I don't suspect the McCanns, I believe Madeleine wandered off which opens up many different scenarios but it does seem that the case has inadvertantly revealed the perfect plan to get away with murder.
When challenged by the Police, shrug the shoulders and say, "when we went out the child was here, now the child has gone, we didn't do it, someone else has."
No credible witnesses or physical evidence need be supplied to support the abductor defence, just surround yourself with good lawyers, a good PR team and hey presto you too can get away scot free.
The 'woke and wondered' theory would be the most plausible ... if only it weren't for the open window and cadaver dog alerts.
Ok? The NOTW actually didn't publish the bits in her diary about Murat (I wonder why). That was published in another newpaper- a Portuguese one- but I'm sure you'll find an excuse to reject that source.
Its not about 'excuses' End em all, its about rigour.
You are making a claim that KM said certain things in her private diary. There's no evidence for that.
And since the NOTW acquired these 'diaries' through an unmaned portugese 'source' its not even clear whether they are entirely genuine, and even if they were, they were clearly not for publication since the NOTW had to apologise for printing.
Its not about 'excuses' End em all, its about rigour.
You are making a claim that KM said certain things in her private diary. There's no evidence for that.
And since the NOTW acquired these 'diaries' through an unmaned portugese 'source' its not even clear whether they are entirely genuine, and even if they were, they were clearly not for publication since the NOTW had to apologise for printing.
I thought diaries were personal and private property. Now I can't recall if the McCanns sued the relevant newspapers.
Its not about 'excuses' End em all, its about rigour.
You are making a claim that KM said certain things in her private diary. There's no evidence for that.
And since the NOTW acquired these 'diaries' through an unmaned portugese 'source' its not even clear whether they are entirely genuine, and even if they were, they were clearly not for publication since the NOTW had to apologise for printing.
But there is! The McCanns acknowledged that the diary enteries published in the NOTW were in FACT from Kate's diary. Frisky will attest to this. They had to make a donation to the Fund for the alleged unauthorized publishing of contents from her diary
Link to Mr Clarence Mitchell's interview with Expresso magazine.
"I don't want to and can't speak about Robert Murat but some of the journalists that worked with me in Soham, and that were recently in Portugal, saw similarities between the case and Robert Murat, more than this I will not say. "
I don't see any accusation there, do you?
"I don't want to and can't speak about Robert Murat but some of the journalists that worked with me in Soham, and that were recently in Portugal, saw similarities between the case and Robert Murat, more than this I will not say. "
I don't see any accusation there, do you?
Then why did he 'name drop' Robert Murat'? He could have said "No comment".
Comments
Not much to ask.
Tell that to Edgar PI. And Kate McCann while you're at it! And Mr Clarence Mitchell as well!
Why, who have they accused?
Murat for one was singled out by Kate (in her private diary) and Mr Clarence Mitchell. Then you've got PI Edgar and his assorted suspects.
The finger has been pointed at a number of 'suspects'.
I've never heard or seen any of them say : This person did it, or demand that they prove someone else did it.
Links please.
Go on..........
In her private diary, Kate wrote that she was SURE that Murat was involved in Maddie's disappearance and demanded he answered questions. Mr Clarence Mitchell subsequently quite openly likened Murat to Ian Huntley without even being asked about him. Go figure!
Thats a newspaper report. News of the World, no less.
How do you demand anything in a private diary?
Oh yes, we did this on the last thread. Link please.
So what? It made me wonder at the time...... and aren't you pointing fingers as well without any evidence?
Ok? The NOTW actually didn't publish the bits in her diary about Murat (I wonder why). That was published in another newpaper- a Portuguese one- but I'm sure you'll find an excuse to reject that source.
Well, it just happened that details from the private diary somehow mysteriously found their way into the papers!
Link to Mr Clarence Mitchell's interview with Expresso magazine.
Is this the bit you mean from the link you provided...
....One holidaymaker said: 'There was a feeling that his behaviour was similar to that displayed by Huntley.'......
How does it?
Scott Free means to escape punishment for a crime you have committed.
I was making the point that this case has shown how it is possible to murder and get away with it. Whether the McCanns are involved in their own daughters disappearance is irrelevent to my point. As long as no evidence exists to support any crime has been committed, it is that easy to murder a child or other person in your care.
Does there need to be an excuse? A Portuguese newspaper? Surely not!
Edited because EEA has added the link.
Yes. And your post implies that's exactly what the McCanns did.
Thanks
The 'woke and wondered' theory would be the most plausible ... if only it weren't for the open window and cadaver dog alerts.
Its not about 'excuses' End em all, its about rigour.
You are making a claim that KM said certain things in her private diary. There's no evidence for that.
And since the NOTW acquired these 'diaries' through an unmaned portugese 'source' its not even clear whether they are entirely genuine, and even if they were, they were clearly not for publication since the NOTW had to apologise for printing.
I thought diaries were personal and private property. Now I can't recall if the McCanns sued the relevant newspapers.
But there is! The McCanns acknowledged that the diary enteries published in the NOTW were in FACT from Kate's diary. Frisky will attest to this. They had to make a donation to the Fund for the alleged unauthorized publishing of contents from her diary
"I don't want to and can't speak about Robert Murat but some of the journalists that worked with me in Soham, and that were recently in Portugal, saw similarities between the case and Robert Murat, more than this I will not say. "
I don't see any accusation there, do you?
Care to explain how it implies this?
By the way Xaus, C or J? I haven't figured it out yet.
Then why did he 'name drop' Robert Murat'? He could have said "No comment".
They got some money from the NOTW for printing excerpts but didn't sue the Portuguese paper which printed the whole thing :eek: