A question of anonimity.

[Albie]

Those of you who are of the UK will be well aware of the abduction of Madeleine McCann and how the Portuguese police have a main suspect. Upon hearing this and the subsequent release of his name to the media, my first reaction was that I hoped this is the perpretator for real. The reason for this thought was due to his name been known. If this turns out to be the wrong man, how can he actually be accepted by people without that little nagging doubt - why was he arrested? there's no smoke without fire! - and so on.

The reason for his arrest was down to an overzealous news reporter who claimed he was acting suspiciously whilst working as a interpreter between the British media and the Portuguese police - the man is half English/half Portuguese. How this reporter came to this conclusion, I have no idea, but every person that knows him has shown genuine shock that he is capable of such a thing (let alone been in anyway involved in the abduction) and not only that, he has an very good alibi. The reason for his release from custody, is that despite a forensic search of his home, car, computer and mobile phone records, they have nothing on him. Suffice to say, he is now claiming that he is been used as a scapegoat.

Whether he is the man or not, the question is - should his name have been released? Should he (or any other suspect in any such case) have had total anonymity until found guilty?


As a footnote, I really think the McCanns should not of left their children alone while they ate at a restaurant several yards away - but this is not going to help in their time of suffering.

 

[Raven]

As I understand it, the man's name was known before he was arrested, as the media had covered the search of the suspect's house (mother's house?) before he was taken into custody.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together to get four when the police claim to have a suspect and a person whose house they were investigating is suddenly nowhere to be found.  I'm not aware whether the police released his name, or whether the media simply found out, but it was inevitable that he was going to be named, given the intense media coverage given to this tragic incident.  As it is, I find the intrusion and self-righteousness of the reporter to be quite insulting; who exactly is she to follow someone and claim they are or aren't 'acting suspiciously'...I thought that journalism was supposed to be objective!  While I'm not saying that, had it been anyone else witnessing the man's 'suspicious activities', they shouldn't have reported him to the police, but trigger-happy reporters pointing the finger are not going to do anything to help the family.

I suppose the event just goes to show that you should never leave children of that age unattended, even if you are only 'down the road'.

 

[SneakySneaky]

I thought that journalism was supposed to be objective!

They can never be.

there's no smoke without fire! - and so on.

I hate the use of that phrase!  It doesn't make sense.  Sure,  there's no smoke without fire,  but it all comes down to who started that fire!

As for this incident.  I don't know much about it,  but I think that the name should not have been given out.  That man's life is scarred now.  People will probably show him a lot of distrust and it will be hell for him.  Even if he's the perpetrator,  they shouldn't have announced a name until proven guilty.

 

[Albie]

I think you are right Raven, the police did not officially name him - but even so, in these situations they should make it law that his name should be kept out of the media until he can be found guilty. As Sneaky said, his life is scarred from it and he may be totally innocent.

I hate the use of that phrase!  It doesn't make sense.  Sure,  there's no smoke without fire,  but it all comes down to who started that fire!

I'm not keen on that saying either, but that is exactly what people will suggest about this man.

 

[Forostar]

He was suspected because he told some journalists that he had a daughter who looked exactly like Madeleine. That could be one of the motives for a kidnap.

There's one mega disadvantage of the huge media attention:
The kid might be killed sooner, because now it's almost impossible to flee with it unseen.

 

[SneakySneaky]

I'm not keen on that saying either, but that is exactly what people will suggest about this man.

I wasn't really saying that for you  .  I know what you meant,  and I just took the chance on commenting on that phrase.

 

[LooseCannon]

It is my opinion, that in high-profile cases, the identity of the accused should be protected until guilt is ascertained.  My experience is that being named as a defendant is tantamount to a declaration of guilt by the majority of the population, and that is only exacerbated in instances of sexual assault, kidnap, attempted murder, and murder.  Especially the former.  At my school, in my first year, a person was accused of sexual assault fraudulently, and was assailed outside of meal hall by about thirty people who assumed that an accusation and arrest was a declaration of guilt.  He had to transfer schools because of the stigma, even after the accuser recounted, stating publicly she made it up to get revenge on the man for dumping her.

I just think that the court has a duty to the assumed guilty until they are guilty.

 

[Onhell]

I agree that anonimity should be a priority, but as some of you mentioned, the police are not the ones releasing the names, but rather an overzealous media, so I say fuck the media and blow up their headquaters! "I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!"

 

[Albie]

...so I say fuck the media and blow up their headquaters!

As ever, the voice of reason.

However, this is the flip-side of this whole media circus that the McCann family want to keep virile:

There's one mega disadvantage of the huge media attention:
The kid might be killed sooner, because now it's almost impossible to flee with it unseen.

 

[LooseCannon]

The court has the power to issue press bans and issue heavy sanctions and jailterms if such a ban is violated.  The media sensationalizes things; they do not report accurately.