UK paedophile probed over Madeleine

[loopylou6]

here
thoughts?

sorry - 'vigilantes' not 'vivglates'

I have just re read the article in the mirror.It seems a couple met this man in 2006 in a village about 70 miles from where the little girl went missing.When they realised he was a paedophile they decided to approach him directly and question him as they were suspicious of him.Highly irregular for 2 members of the public to take this on themselves and sell it on Why didn't they just inform the police and let them deal with it?The same couple also reported that they saw osama bin laden on one of their trips so they don't exactly sound like credible witnesses.This investigation needs to be re opened and conducted properly instead of this trial by media which is all wrong imho

Martin Brunt (Sky crime correspondent) claims that this suspect was already looked at and cleared by the PJ investigation...

Noddyholder - the Thompson couple to indeed appear to have "form" in fighting international crime- unbelievable...

All it would take to end this farce now,TODAY is for Kate to take the lie detector test she claimed she would take when they ran from Portugal

I think all this silliness is going to back fire on them and they will lose public support.better to answer the questions they were initially asked and take a lie detector which is common in these cases to ELIMINATE the parents and let the investigation look elsewhere.Too much spin not enough searching

MrsGuy was just about to google vivglates after thinking I love this word

When will they just bloody well 'find' her so we can get on with the process of scaring children silly - and then for it to be put to bed?

Big Brother comes in many cruel guises.

Huh, layman?

Can't imagine what on earth you mean?

Is there a typo in your post?

Eh?

No, sorry, the McCanns never acted like parents who's daughter had been abducted. A gut feeling.

'Found' in the future is what I say.

Am I the only one who is not understanding a word of what layman says?

What on earth does "get on with the process of scaring children silly" mean, and why do will we do it when Madeleine is found?!?!?!?!?

[hmmm]

no, me neither

do you mean STOP scaring children silly, layman?

I thought it was just me

think she is suggesting its a hoax non?

now i am going to need my hard hat. i cant believe that anyone thinks that this dodgy bloke deserves privacy, after what he has done (on a number of times) means he shouldnt even be allowed to breathe our oxygen

He deserves anonymity in direct relation to this case as there is no real evidence He does deserve to be punished for his previous crimes but this publicity is pointless he is not exactly at large.

i hate it when people try to be the most contraversial by adopting an outlandish POV. i was pregnant when madeleine was snatched and would think of her immediately each morning when i woke up and pray that she had been found.
there's no doubt that her parents are to blame for enabling her abduction. if this had occurred in uk and they were sat in a bar at the end of their street popping back to check on their kids they would have faced prosecution i'd have thought.
sometimes i do wonder if it would be better that madeleine was killed before v quickly before too much suffering as some of the alternative possibilities are terrible.

and as for convicted paedophiles, the more publicity and raised awareness of who they are and where the better

bit of an outlandish POV there voiceoftreason.

but we do not live in a society which condones vijilanti justice. And while the rights and wrongs of whether he should be entitled to privacy wrt people knowing about him and his previous crimes are debatable, the fact remains that on this occasion, he has not yet been found guilty, or even charged, in connection with Madeleine's disappearance. So on that score yes, he is entitled to not be named in the media until such time as he is charged with a crime.

The fact he has committed offences in the past doesn't make him any less entitled to anonimity than anyone else who might be investigated in connection with this case.

I agree wannaBe

Blah blah 'people who commit crimes don't deserve to have rights'

Blah blah 'let the newspapers do what they want to them'

"help the DM has just accused me of something I didn't do. it's NOT FAIR!!!"

When will people get it that we don't protect the rights of criminals for their sake, but because it's the right thing to do and because we could be next.

hurrah for the voices of reason!

I would advise anyone who hasn't done so to log omto You tube and watch the documentary by Goncalo Amaral. I am not sure his supposition of what could have happened is quite right but some of the points he makes are very interesting.

Noddy, I agree about the lie detector test...why hasn't it been taken? It would surely be a good thing if it took some of the negative speculation away from the McCanns.

I'm not sure if this is correct but is there not evidence to suggest that most crimes are perpetrated by close family? I don't think this in a personal manner regarding the McCanns, but surely if it is so high a probability it's not surprising that a lot of people suspect their involvement somehow.

Taking the lie detector thingy would help, that is as long as it is reliable and they are not involved. So I can't understand why they haven't taken it.