The point about wavelengths being...

I find it interesting that there are a number of people who are apparently also displeased with the reporters covering the McCann case; specifically Antonella Lazzeri.  Although I'm not in contact with others blogging about the case (other than the occasional "way to go!" or whatever...), I think many of us are on the same "wavelength" simply because the "wavelength" is the logical path to follow...

What I am saying is that although I don't communicate with other bloggers on a personal level, I think that the wavelength riders are (at least in part) reacting as I have to the most recent attempts by Lazzeri to link Charles O'Neill to the abduction of Madeleine McCann.   (...continued...)

As I've been reading her older articles over the last few days, I've seen it is true she has enthusiastically reported about MANY other alleged abductors.  I have to say, though,  that the O'Neill story is so preposterous that it took me to the edge of tolerance and made me decide to either prove my point about Lazzeri or "let it go" and never comment about her again.  

Unlike the majority of "professional" British journalists, I, as an absolute nobody  (but one who thinks that truth matters) believe that it is important to be very careful about making a claim unless you've got some research behind you that can back that claim up.  So I've been researching her articles about the McCanns.

Life is not a court of law, but if I am going to accuse the "Press" or a specific reporter of being lazy, unethical parrots - then I better make sure I'm not being lazy or simply stating something I think MIGHT be true.  So, following this post, I'm going to add a long list of articles Lazzeri has written (or co-authored) about the McCann case.  I think it will speak for itself.  

The challenge I'm issuing is for someone to PLEASE attempt to prove me wrong about her bias and inaccurate reports.  I will publish your comments and correct any mistakes or unfair statements I've made.


Back to the wavelengths...
I ran across another Blogger who posted what I find to be a very interesting email exchange between Lazzeri and an "ex-cop" who challenged her about the O'Neill article.  It was posted by "Tony Bennett"and can be found on the "McCann's Abuse of Power" Blog: HERE.  According to the blog, Lazzeri replied to the challenge as follows:
"The McCanns had NOTHING to do with their daughter's abduction. For God's sake leave them alone and no I don't get paid extra for writing about them."
Reading this, I knew it was time to take another quick dash through the news database and find any references made in her articles to the inconsistencies in the McCann's statements, the results of the cadaver dog (Eddie) or the blood dog (Keela), the Smith sighting, etc.  All the issues that keep many of us motivated to ask questions until they are adequately explained.

So I did (return to the database).

The only article I found regarding "Eddie" was a report about Eddie's work at the Haut de la Garenne home in St Martin.  "Dungeon was just how victims said .. our death-smelling dog went berserk; Cops enter kids' home torture chamber",  attributed to Brian Flynn and Antonella Lazzeri. No mention of the McCann case was made in the article - which I'm having difficulty locating on the Sun website.  (I will continue to try...)

She reported again about the Jersey case on 4 March 2008:  "More bones dug up at kids home tomb" (Note: really bad formatting on the page - perhaps it was meant to be deleted?)  No mention of the McCann case in that article either...

Going to a less specific "search", I tried to find references in Lazzeri's articles to "cadaver dog" - no results.

Going to an even less specific search, I tried to find references in her articles to "dog".  Apparently she has written 74 articles in which the word "dog" appears!  Two were about Jersey and ONE about the McCanns!

Ah ha, I thought...I'm WRONG, she really DID cover the cadaver dog search in the McCann case! (Ever the one to want to give people a break, I'm good like that!).  Right well, in her article "I saw Maddie too", she does mention a "dog" -  as follows:
"Hannie's sighting was in the centre of the canal city near Weteringsplantsoen at around the same time in May last year.

She said: "I saw a woman aged 30 to 35 continuously walking up and down the waterside. You could see by the way she handled the kid that she was not used to children. The woman had brown curly hair. She spoke English with the girl.

"Maddie wore a pink woollen coat that reached her calfs. I know because she reminded me of my own daughter when she was that young. Maddie was delighted by my dog diving into the water."
OK back to Square One...

I can find no references in any of her articles about Martin Grime, Eddie, Keela and the alerts made to the McCann's clothing, apartment and hired car.  (She does mention "grime" in regard to a fireman's dirty face in an unrelated article, but I can find no record of her acknowledging the world renown Martin Grime or his presence in PdL.)

Moving on...

Regarding the Smith sighting.  She covers it in this article published May 7, 2009: "Ugly and frightening; 3 witnesses saw weirdo stalking hol flat before kidnapping Maddie: Find mystery man of Praia da Luz"

Please note the way this article is slanted. NO mention is made of Martin Smith's statement regarding his belief that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. The Smith statement was in the public domain long before this article was written.  "This information alleges that upon catching sight of Gerald McCann on the television news, when he (GM) arrived at the UK and still at the airport, he (GM) appeared to him to be the individual whom he saw on 3rd May in Praia da Luz, carrying a child."

If a reporter covering the case has not read Martin Smith's statement, then in my opinion, that reporter should be fired - there is no excuse for not going to the ORIGINAL source. 

Read the "scarface" article - and watch what was done.  It clearly attempts to convince the reader that the "scary weirdo" was the man seen by Smith.

There is much more I could add to this, but if you are anything like me, you don't read long posts like this one anyway and you probably gave up long ago.

This really is about wavelengths and the comfort I feel knowing that many of us are seeing what reporters have been doing over the last three years and feeling that it is high time they were called to account for it.

Another hard-hitting Blogger has posted about this particular reporter.  He doesn't suffer fools and it is clear what "himself" thinks about Lazzeri.

If I thought Lazzeri was simply someone who honestly believed in the McCann's innocence, that would be one thing - people can believe whatever they want...but she is, as a REPORTER, required to set aside her own opinions and provide her readers with FACTS.

She is required to do that or to become an editorial writer and make it entirely clear that she is not neutral and is instead interested in "protecting", "justifying", "ignoring" etc.

Although I would not agree with her opinions, if the articles on the list I'm about to post were written as "Opinion" pieces, you would not hear a complaining word from me. However, as a "reporter" she has absolutely NO excuse for not seeking facts, for ignoring original sources, for using highly emotive adjectives to sway public opinion FOR the McCanns and AGAINST Dr. Amaral and others who question the McCanns.

I've had enough and I'm absolutely certain many other people have also had enough.

Its Greek to me...

Return to top of page Copyright © 2010 | Flash News Converted into Blogger Template by HackTutors