UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

[loopylou6]

here
thoughts?

He doesn't look much like the photofit.

Although I despair that if he was a convicted paedophile, and British, and in the area, that he wasn't interviewed long ago.

Agree Longtalljosie. Why has this only come to light two years later?

Tis ok BB, i have thick skin anyway, its a internet forum, i am a member, therefore i post what i like, let them come slag me off

LTJ, i was reading this morning that he has done some awful attacks on young girls, and each time he only got 4-6 years, he should of been shot after the first time

I believe he was interviewed more or less at the time, but a 15 year old girl gave him an alibi.

Really? i didnt know that. TBH i reckon the chances are he has something to do with it, but sadly if he did the likelyhood is that the poor little girl is no longer with us, although if the police can get him to talk, and the mccanns find out what happened on that night, then they may be able to seek a little comfort with finding closure.

Regardless of what this man has done in the past though, is it right that he be named in the media over a crime which he may not have had anything to do with? Because I'm not sure that it is.

If it transpires that this man had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance then obviously he would be named, but would the media be naming him if he didn't already have previous convictions?

Just because he is a convicted paedophile doesn't make him guilty - how many not-yet-convicted paedophiles are there living in that same area I wonder.

It says on the BBC website that he was staying about an hour away from Praia de Luz. Surely there must be quite a few people within an hour of Praia de Luz with convictions for child sex offences.
Also, being cynical, its seems a little bit convienient to name this man now when he is in hospital being treated for cancer. He is hardly going to be in a position to defend himself against these allegations.

He is a wanted man in any case by various police forces. And sorry, but any convicted paedophile (which he is) is a danger to all children so should be named and shamed.

wannaBe - I completely agree. I was shocked when I heard the report on the BBC news this morning. His name was given out because detectives paid for by the McCanns think he may be involved - the "evidence" against him seems very circumstantial. While I would welcome the case being solved, I thought it was unbelievably irresponsible to point the finger at this man who does not seem to be the focus of any police investigation of the case.

There is a difference between police organisations and the investigators hired by the McCanns. I think its reasonable for the police to say who they are trying to find, but I think its a bit more dubious when it is private individuals making these sorts of claims.

He was eliminated after he provided an alibi and has a history of interest in teenage girls but not young children.naming him is shocking imo until they have hard evidence

well the naming of sex offenders living in an area, and whether those sex offenders should be free in the first place is a matter for a different debate.

However it is not IMO appropriate to look at a crime and then say: "well x and y and z live in that area so let's publish their names in the media and assume they're guilty of said crime." Because the law of innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, even if you've been previously convicted of a similar crime.

Also, if you start publically associating known criminals with certain crimes there is a real risk that those who have as yet not been caught will continue to stay under the radar.

wannaBe I do often find myself agreeing with you and again in this case!

It's shocking that somebody who may well be innocent of the crime of which he is being accused is having his name and picture splashed all over the paper. Even if the evidence was anything more than circumstantial (which it doesn't look like) it would be still be utterly wrong and go completely against the notion of justice and fair trials.

There is a real problem in this country with the ability of people to get a fair trial in high profile cases because the media routinely flouts laws regarding what can and cannot be published. But of course, when they're reminded about this they jump up and down about "public interest" when obviously all they really care about is selling more copies.

Hewlett was first convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in Todmorden, West Yorks, in 1972.

He was jailed for a year, then got four years for attacking another girl at gunpoint in 1978.

He later served a six-year sentence for a 1988 sex attack on a girl of 14.

After leaving jail he fled to Ireland, where cops believe he was responsible for a string of attempted abductions.

poopscoop, what he has done in the past is irelevant to the current case.

While no-one would dispute that his previous crimes were abhorrent, that is not good enough reason to link him to this particular crime. We convict people based on evidence, not based on their previous crimes.

He seems a nasty bit of work for sure but I am surprised that he has his picture in the paper like that.He is ill in hospital and it is posed or it looks like it is.What guilty paedophile would want their picture in the press like that?it is very odd actually

someguy, really, you should be ashamed of yourself

Someguy - you are a twat.

I doubt very much whether this man has anything at all to do with Madeleine's disappearance, BUT to harp on about protecting what only can be described as a dangerous monster from getting his name and picture in a paper is a little bit

He did his crime, paid the price by being in jail, came out did his crime, paid the price by being in jail, did his crime yet again and paid the price by being in jail so let's just all rush to protect his name and face, WTF?