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.