Knox and the McCanns

Well that title caught your eye, didn’t it?  Why people are using the names Knox and McCanns in the same sentence I don’t know, perhaps some people have this morbid fascination and agenda to put whatever blame they can on the families of those who have been victims of crime.

I am not going to profess to know if Amanda Knox was involved in what happened to Meredith Kercher or not as I never followed the case.  But this week her appeal was upheld and she was freed, she was acquitted and when someone is acquitted it means:

formally certifies the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned.

To me that reads as if when someone is acquitted of a crime, they are not responsible for that crime and therefore have the rights to be treated as innocent.  The law states that and therefore Amanda Knox in the eyes of the law is innocent and should be treated as an innocent person.

Today, I read a paragraph from a Guardian article titled, Too many people were willing to believe lurid slurs about Amanda Knox.

And yes there is something these cases have in common, the Knox Case and the McCann case, and that is they have both been victims of a foreign Justice System and both cases have been tried, judged, found guilty and sentenced by some online forums and blogs.

The last paragraph of the Guardian Article sums up the Knox case nicely:

The people most appallingly served by this long and terrible farrago – and it is by no means over yet – have been the grieving Kercher family. They have been served up this tripe by the Italian criminal justice system, and by the world’s media. They believed in the guilt of Sollecito and Knox, painful as that belief was. Now, as they say, they are “back to square one”. A lot of people share blame for the mental torture this family have been through. Amanda Knox is not one of them.

And do you know what with a change of names and a couple of words that paragraph could also read the following with regards to the McCann family:

The people most appallingly served by this long and terrible farrago – and it is by no means over yet – have been the grieving McCann family. They have been served up this tripe by the Portuguese criminal justice system, and by the world’s media.  Now, as they say, they are “back to square one” with the review. A lot of people share blame for the mental torture this family have been through. Goncalo Amaral is one of them.

The McCanns have never been acquitted by a Court of Law, for the simple reason they were never charged as per the archiving dispatch that stated they did NOT commit any crimes.

But has that freed the McCanns from suspicion or allowed them their human right of being classed as Innocent until Proven Guilty?  No and neither has that stopped a convicted ex-Detective, bloggers, forum members of forgetting that simple fact when they have repeated day after day that the McCanns are complicit in what happened to their daughter.

And neither has it stopped a group of people that want to waste Police time, money and valuable resources by handing in a scrappy dossier involving people who did NOT even know the McCanns, yet alone Madeleine prior to her disappearance. And when they handed in this dossier they also demanded that the Police to take it as serious evidence and review it.

And then, their leader Tony Bennett, does his “This is the hour to be brave” speech with

Responding to Ollie and to the last few points on this thread (many thanks for the nice comments by the way), I fully agree that there are a great many reasons for thinking that the Scotland Yard Review Team is, as it were, stuck with a brief that they may not revisit claims that Madeleine McCann died in her parents’ apartment and that there has been a cover-up.

David Cameron saying on the day Dr Kate McCann’s book was published that the review was ‘to support the family’ hardly encouraged the many of us who have never believed the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine was abducted.

However, as PeterMac, a retired Police Superintendent, has explained more than once, Police Officers these days must note all the evidence that comes in (whether they are engaged on a live investigation or on a ‘cold case’ review (rereading the files in other words). They must also explain, for the record, their reasons for either accepting or rejecting certain evidence. And those reasons must be sound. If Police Officers do not follow such procedures, they lay themselves open to misconduct or disciplinary charges – or even an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

There have in recent decades been many examples of widespread police corruption. It is becoming clearer all the time that – in breach of the law and their codes of conduct – officers at various levels in the Met Police have been paid by private investigators or newspaper editors for information. Confidence in the police has been plummering, while complaints to the IPCC have been rising. Maybe an honest, no-holds-barred review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, with Bernard Hogan-Howe calling up Andy Redwood for a regular brieifng on how things are going, would help to restore the Met’s increasingly tattered reputation.

For example, Andy Redwood’s team would be bound by now to have read:

* The 10 September 2007 report by Tavares de Almedia

* ‘The Truth About a Lie’ by Goncalo Amaral

* The report of Lee Rainbow

* The report by Martin Grime and the video made by Portuguese Police of his sniffer dogs in action.

There is no way on earth that Redwood and his team can avoid confronting the hugely significant evidential issues in those reports.

Now we have given him and his team a great deal of additional information about the conduct of the McCanns’ private investigations – evidence again that cannot be discounted and must be properly and conscientiously evaluated by Andy Redwood and his team.

Our position is that we must give Andy Redwood and his team an opportunity. We must trust them to act in accordance with their police oaths, namely to investigate and prosecute all alleged crimes robustly and without fear or favour.

There is one other issue that I want to mention: timing. It could be, for all we know, that the Scotland Yard Review Team share our sceptical views about the McCanns’ claims that Madeleine was abducted. As professional officers, particularly in this very sensitive, highly-charged case that has been over-saturated with media coverage, not in a million years would they give even a smidgeon of a hint that they were thinking that way.

But things can change. Two years on, Cameron might not be Prime Minister. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, might prove to be a robust, honest, successful Head of the Met who will ensure that his police officers do their job thoroughly and without fear or favour. Someone with knowledge of the case might speak out. Other new evidence might come to light. All manner of things might change.

And if they do, someone like Andy Redwood might just feel that the moment is right for him to complete his report and conclude it by recommending certain lines of enquiry which might not be the ones that Cameron and the McCanns were thinking of when this Review was set up.

In summary, to alter slightly John Lennon’s words, we must ‘Give Redwood a Chance’.

There is evidence which should interest Andy Redwood and his team within this very forum. Let us politely, concisely and helpfully continue to share that with him, giving his team of officers more raw material to work on.

And let us all keep digging.

Someone give me strength.  Does this guy seriously think the Police are going to read Goncalo Amaral’s book?  A book written by an  ex-detective who was later convicted of perjury and falsifying documents.

The report by Martin Grime, and the videos, oh yes the one where Martin Grime categorically said the only dogs indications that can be corroborated by evidence are that of the CSI dog Keela.  And the forensic and Archiving dispatch that stated that none of the indications given by the dogs was corroborated forensically.

From Archiving Dispatch

In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service – cf. Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material’s quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

Oh yes and the Rainbow Report which stated:

“The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.

“It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.”

The 10 September 2007 report by Tavares de Almedia, which the PJ Final Report overruled.

Do I need to say anymore?  Absolutely not, it is evident that these people are wasting Police time and resources and it is evident that they do not want to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.  All they want to do is make sure the blame stops at the McCanns front door.


8 comments on “Knox and the McCanns

  1. My heart goes out to the Kercher family and I can understand that they must feel very confused. Obviously, they need to discover the truth and seek justice for Meredith. 

    I haven’t followed this case as closely as the Madeleine one, although I did try to keep up with news. In doing so, and quite probably because I was already well aware of public opinion manipulation in the McCann case, I became suspicious that the same thing was happening in that case as well (and I don’t mean by the Kercher family). 

    I think Amanda’s dad made a very sensible suggestion:

    ‘I hope there will be a full review of the case if Amanda is freed. The trial was more about emotion than evidence. The evidence presented was a character assassination of Amanda.’

    – Curt Knox (Amanda’s father)

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041620/Amanda-Knox-appeal-Father-speaks-eve-verdict.html#ixzz1a09uAtbM

  2. Hi Carana, I did read an explanation as to why that mishap could have occurred.  And it probably happened due to the fact of how late it was.


    • Yes, preparing 2 opposing versions that are almost ready to go has been  frequent practice way before the Internet was even a twinkle in anyone’s eye. The basics would be the same, with intro paras & conclusion changing, plus headlines, captions, and any unexpected details being modified, etc.

      And I watched Nick on the CBS “48 hours” documentary earlier. He seems an OK guy from the little I observed.

      That said, a few of the details that were “reported” as having happened after the “verdict” seem a step too far. Having a description ready of standard procedure (e.g., being driven away back to x prison) and the basic facts of the case already written up is one thing, but where did the comments that were supposed to have been said by the prosecution following the “verdict” come from? LOL

  3. not very sure of yourself are you?.. you forgot ‘Raving’s friend 😉
    i think you missed or forgot ‘ravings’ to goin the ramblings . you mentioned the word in your H1 & Title .. no one in that house can be called innocent . Who came up with the idea for the ‘snuff’ ,the score ,you know you usually call a dealer to bring you the stuff; & if such a dealer delivers it to your home …
    maybe i should’av read your post first but you lost me two lines in .
    i would add you a couple a pictures ,from the live video of the verdict and a few other court appearnces .. What do you know about Kinesics .. no not the joke ..
    but hey ; a raver can not see past his /her mouth /nose let alone through people …
    i am not insulting you i am insulting the Injuctice ,buddy.
    How can people celebrate the home coming of a grusome murder ?… no need to party & tremble with joy is ‘er?.. or maybe there is , You hate to have to regret not Celebrating,buddy..
    She read how many book in four years?.. i heard a Thousand .. you know why?… Ofcoarse you dont … atleast not for the real reason but for emotional control or better detachment .. she should get an Oscar .. tell you that ,this i mean but she still .. wait not her alone , no no.. she could not have done it alone ,but Sollecito & her ..
    Do you know what happens when one commits murder & gets a mere idea that he/she got away with it .?.
    Do you know what you feel when you see the life departing a human shell,body?.. i’ve heared a few guys in jail talk about it … even by accident ,you know not intentional killing …
    The dealer jut happened to be a 22yr old colored guy , with an ipod …
    please man , read a book or something watch a movie but Do not tempt to claim anyone related to that House ,there or not at the time of the murder is guilty to some extent.
    Italians , predictable they went in it with their hearts not their heads and who knew this better ?.. Do you know Who sollecito’s sister is ?.. they basically had all the possible actions & reactions of suck a Polis ; hense my query that led me here ..;
    ‘http:/No Scotland yard in Meredith’s case ??.. G ‘


    • p.s google Sollecito .. not the name  the translation ..
      If Only they made Condoms so big that i could wrap one around a judges head ;
      yeh that right ,that’s what i just said !

      & i’m out o ‘here ..

  4. The  subject of books on the other thread made me recall something I read the other day. I’ve put it here as, in the Knox case, the comment doesn’t refer to real books.

    It’s an extract of a post by Steve Moore (the ex-FBI guy whose wife should be given a medal for getting him to actually check out the alleged evidence).

    “…But the trolls and others have tried to have people fired from their jobs at least four times–simply for voicing their opinion that the evidence clears Amanda Knox. Free speech does not apply to their causes. They tried to have a professor in England fired, a journalist in Seattle, a judge in Seattle, and others fired.  Why? For having the audacity to speak what they consider truth.  But if it’s not the trolls’ truth, then it must be stopped.  Books must be burned.http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2011/06/malicious-cowardice-of-anonymous.html

  5. Afternoon Carana, why does it have to get so personal?  I have friends who have different opinions on various topics, but they don’t resort to getting their mates fired from their jobs.  Or if they know of someone down the local they don’t straight away write to their employer because they don’t hold the same opinion.

    It really has got to the extent it is malicious, and people think they can do what they want when they are anonymous.

    Irrespective of whether they are posting under a pseudonym or not, once what they post is deemed as breaking the law then they can and should be prosecuted.

    It is childish, immature behaviour, and two wrongs never make a right, not matter how much you try and justify it does.  Believe me I have the scars from learning that lesson.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: