We hacven't heard a lot of the McCann's since certain newspapers paid up damages to the family but perhaps now is time for reflection.
He describes the case as
the greatest scandal in our news media in at least a decade - an outrage far worse than the Andrew Gilligan "sexed-up dossier" affair of 2003 - and those responsible are now slinking away almost unpunished. They are escaping, moreover, by the most shameful of means. The editors and proprietors of the papers responsible for the great balloon of speculative nonsense that was the McCann story had the power to kill off discussion of what went wrong in the press, and they used it. When their balloon burst, they simply began pretending it had never existed.
and points out that
In nearly 100 articles, 11 newspapers made allegations against the three which they admitted were entirely without foundation - allegations which could hardly have been graver, since they included lying to the police, paedophile activities and involvement in the abduction of Madeleine McCann
1 comment:
This is all very well and we all know that what is lacking in this case is the evidence of what happened to the little girl.
The evidence for an abduction is slight - a sighting by one of the party who could see colours in sodium light (quite a feat!). If it was an abduction, who carries the can for leaving the flat unlocked?
The sniffer dogs provide evidence of a death in the flat suggesting that the girl died there but not enough to do anything about it. However, with their well paid layers around why have the McCanns not yet sued the detective who wrote 'The truth of a lie'?
Libel cases do not establish innocence whereas a case against the book would be about the evidence and could clear the McCanns explicitly and for good yet they do not seem to be doing anything. I wonder why?
Post a Comment