Daily Star-MADELEINE McCann’s parents hope to win a £1million libel payout this month from the ex-police chief who claimed they lied about their daughter’s disappearance.

[kweggie]

Anyone else know why they are suing him?

Initially, but later she said it was Murat. I believe that he took legal action against her because of it, but not sure if there has been an outcome or if so what it was.

Being a bit of a know-it-all susceptible to flattery is what got Christopher Jefferies in trouble when Joanna Yeates's neighbour decided to shift the blame for her murder away from him.

No, it wasn't. He was an obvious suspect anyway by virtue of being a keyholder of her flat, but they also found some bloodstained trainers hidden under kitchen units in his own flat.

Yes I thought I saw that in a tv report, too. isn't that where the photofit that was produced came from?

Don't agree dancehall. If the police ever had Christopher Jefferies down as a suspect, they quickly eliminated him.

What got him into trouble was his habit of talking to reporters as if he knew something they didn't because he was flattered by the attention.

They didn't have to libel him though.

you sound like you are 'in the know' lpo, did you use to be a reporter?

I did kweggie

That may have been what "got him into trouble" with the tabloids (for which they had to to pay dearly) but it was not why the police arrested him. He remained a suspect until tests on the bloodstains confirmed they were nothing to do with the case.

But when the real killer tried to shift the blame Christopher Jefferies was an easy target because he had talked openly to the press and TV and then was slaughtered in the media and by ghouls online for his manner and appearance.

Probably never meant he was in danger of being convicted or even charged but the damage was done. There are lots of people who've been acquitted of vile crimes and yet plenty of people remain convinced they did it because they read something and the bloke looks like a wrong 'un.

And some innocent people have ended up in jail through giving the wrong impression which has led some lazy officers to stop looking for the real culprit.

That's why even though my job is to get people to talk, I'd advise anyone I wasn't trying to interview to be very careful about giving interviews because police, reporters and readers jump to conclusions and that's what got Jefferies into trouble.

The police behaved entirely properly as far as I can see here. But many police do use reporters as a kind of unofficial posse to make progress in cases. It's widely-known and discussed on MN but not many people seem to think it might be wrong.

I was always keen to get a story but that tactic always made me very uneasy. If I wanted to be a detective I'd have gone to Hendon.

lpo quote 'as a kind of unofficial posse to make progress in cases.'
Do you mean they ask them what they know/have found out?

Completely agree about not giving interviews - ever!. Remember Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot - let people speak freely and eventually they will give themselves away. But even for the innocent, very easy to be misrepresented. I remeber taking the DC for flu jabs a few years ago. We had them every year, this year was no different to any other for us, but it happened to be the year of the panic over bird flu. When we got to the clinic, there was a BBC camera man outside asking if he could interview us. The DC were disppointed when I said no - 'but mum, we could have been on tv!' Explained that whatever we said, the interview would have been edited to make us look like complete fools and idiots thus teaching them that reporters are there to get a senational story, not to report the boring unvarnished truth

It's got fuck all to do with anything he may have said to the media. He was always going to be a prime suspect because, as the landlord, he had a key to the flat. The police didn't need a pack of tabloid reporters to help them figure that out.

kweggie There's co-operation between police and press and even closer links if you are a specialist crime reporter.

There are off the record briefings which can be very helpful and stop reporters wasting time or hurting people with unnecessary questions.

Then there briefings in which officers privately say whether a person is of interest to them or whether the victim is 'nice' and worthy of coverage or not worth it for some reason.

That's where it gets a bit murky because police and reporters are human and humans have prejudices.

It can be also be useful to the police investigation for reporters to apply pressure to certain people. It's called monstering and it's not pretty. Monstering happens whether the police approve or not. Sometimes they step in, sometimes they don't.

I think most police and press contact is good but you have to be aware that they are working for their benefit, not necessarily yours. That's why even though it's my job to get people to talk (not a news reporter any more), I'd be wary of talking to police or press myself on some subjects without legal advice.

MrsGuy there is always the possibility of looking like a prat in an interview. Reporters do it all the time. but mostly reporters are out to fill pages or airtime, not to stitch you up. Honest.

I'm doing something for a women's magazine atm and will do a full readback of quotes at the end. I don't like giving copy approval but this is different. Someone has told me something very complicated and I don't want to get it wrong.

sorry to be thick but not heard of 'monstering' before......

And look what has happened!

Tables turned, somewhat.

ZOMBIE THREAD THIS THREAD IS FOUR YEARS OLD

I can read.
Recent threads have been zapped.

SilverHawk has brought up new significant news that I wasn't aware of

"Now Portuguese detective vows to SUE Madeleine McCann's parents for 'years of prejudice and financial losses' after he wins libel appeal over his book"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3549374/Now-Portuguese-detective-vows-SUE-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-years-prejudice-financial-losses-wins-libel-appeal-book.html

OP I'm confused too
I read the book online
I thought it was put together from information in the public domain
I also don't recall him saying anything more than "in my opinion, their story on xyz bit of the story has inconsistencies". But maybe I read a heavily edited version?

There are reams of news items about this case and many theories on Blogs etc.
However, I feel this is the correct judgement.

Kate McCann published a book.....

Oh missed the zombie bit

In the UK I would have expected the detective's appeal to have failed. Given that he clearly wrote the book, it was clearly about the McCann's and it was clearly defamatory, there would only be three possible defences open to him:

• Privilege. That does not apply here. Privilege only applies in very specific circumstances. It never applies to books.

• Fair comment. That would apply if he was commenting on something that was a matter of opinion - the quality of an actor's performance, for example. It does not apply when commenting on a matter of fact by, in this case, accusing the McCann's of faking their daughter's abduction. Regardless of how he dresses it up ("in my opinion" or whatever) that accusation does not class as fair comment under UK law.

• Justification. To win on this ground he would have to demonstrate that, on the balance of probability, his allegations were true. He has not done so.

He did not win on any of those grounds. He won on the basis that he has the right to express his opinions. No such right exists in the UK.

The McCann's intend to take this to the Supreme Court in Portugal. But whatever the outcome the McCann haters need to understand that this does not in any way support their views.

I'm very pleased for Goncalo Amaral.