Mark Souster and the complete mystery of the DM's and the now deleted twitter account

well if he's really committed to breaking one of the stories of the century this little setback won't stop him, so let's see where he goes next

Hellsbells wrote:well if he's really committed to breaking one of the stories of the century this little setback won't stop him, so let's see where he goes next

Well I would hope that any responsible journalist would not potentially wreck an ongoing police investigation just to get a scoop, I have the same opinion of the documentary this thread is about. What would be the point of a tell all piece in a newspaper if it means those responsible for the disappearance can never be brought to justice.

I could understand if there was no current investigation, but not when two police forces are actively seeking a resolution, which I believe, they might be close to doing

Hellsbells wrote:I wonder what he might have been thinking of writing given that a police operation is still active in both countries, combined with libel laws and the principle that everyone is innocent until declared guilty in court.
the fact that he had already been in contact with two of the more outspoken critics of the investigation so far do make me think he isn't very good at choosing his contacts if he is genuine.
that makes it more likely he was planning an expose of trolls, internet nutters etc, just like we saw in the Sun.

You think Mark Souster would ignore the death of Madeleine, the involvement of two prime ministers, the MSM and the entire British Establishment, to write an article about Tony Bennett and the CMoMM, forum?

And as the subject of that 'Sun' article, I am happy to say it has had no adverse effect on my life in way, shape or form, lol, apart from the criticism I received from the antis. In many ways, it did me favour, as it enabled me to be a little more discerning about those I confide in. However, like every other article ever written, about any subject, it is now chip paper. Actually, its not even that more.

Hellsbells wrote:well if he's really committed to breaking one of the stories of the century this little setback won't stop him, so let's see where he goes next

There must be hundreds if not thousands of journalists out there that don't believe the McGuff.

Of course nobody can write anything that puts the parents in a bad light at this moment in time.

But I bet a lot of them are 'ready' for when the green light comes.

Maybe this particular guy wanted to get some more info about the case to get ready too.

He sent a direct mail to Jill saying that he needed to keep a low profile.

Next thing it's plastered all over the place with the usual TB nonsense who was constantly tweeting the #sundaytimes hashtag.

MS was probably ordered by his superiors to take down his account.

I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Totally agree Costello. Would also add, it is a bleddy shame that the poor man has been trolled off twitter and is now being torn to shreds by a pack of hyenas who know absolutely nothing about him. They are basing all their hate on a few lines they have lifted from Instagram and the relationship they imagine he has with Rupert Murdoch and Brian Kennedy. Tony Bennett didn't even know who he was 2 days ago, yet he is describing Mark's 'lust for money' as if it were carved in stone 2000 years ago, along with the Ten Commandments.

The behaviour of these people truly sickens me to the stomach. They are more concerned with destroying the reputations of others, than they are with getting the truth of Madeleine's disappearance into the public domain. Why?

Resistor wrote:

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

I really do not know how people can judge his journalistic credentials to be honest, has anyone actually heard of him before? I remain optimistic.

Resistor wrote:

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

He is actually an award winning journalist who writes for the Sunday Times, so I am not really sure that is a fair assessment!

costello wrote:

Resistor wrote:

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

I really do not know how people can judge his journalistic credentials to be honest, has anyone actually heard of him before? I remain optimistic.

He is probably very well known among rugby fans Costello.

Resistor wrote:

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

I agree, we've all done our own research for the past 8 years, why couldn't he do the same?  Did he want others to do the work for him because he couldn't be bothered or did he have an ulterior motive to get people involved and to scupper GA's libel case or any other case that may come along?

I also agree with PeterMac and his comment "on the other side", if I'm allowed to say that.

I just have to wonder what he was going to write because there is no way he would get anything detrimental about the Mcs passed any editor in the UK MSM.

[quote="Cristobell

Totally agree Costello.  Would also add, it is a bleddy shame that the poor man has been trolled off twitter and is now being torn to shreds by a pack of hyenas who know absolutely nothing about him.  They are basing all their hate on a few lines they have lifted from Instagram and the relationship they imagine he has with Rupert Murdoch and Brian Kennedy.  Tony Bennett didn't even know who he was 2 days ago, yet he is describing Mark's 'lust for money' as if it were carved in stone 2000 years ago, along with the Ten Commandments.  

The behaviour of these people truly sickens me to the stomach.  They are more concerned with destroying the reputations of others, than they are with getting the truth of Madeleine's disappearance into the public domain.  Why? [/quote]

Mr Bennett bases his 'lust for money' on a joking comment Mark Souster made (on instagram?)when he left the STimes in Jan 2014 to join a city firm and said he hoped the roads were paved with gold or some such remark. What is wrong anyway with hoping that a career move will increase your income ( and make it easier to pay your mortgage/feed your kids etc)?
I always had the impression that Mr Bennett is an envious man. He doesn't seem to have had an illustrious or financially rewarding career despite his education and qualifications.

I see there is very little addressing of this episode over the road. But there is a distasteful (IMO) and pointless thread on anagrams of Maddie/Madeleine...

I wonder why the media keep going for the "nutters" angle?

Antonia wrote:[quote="Cristobell

Totally agree Costello.  Would also add, it is a bleddy shame that the poor man has been trolled off twitter and is now being torn to shreds by a pack of hyenas who know absolutely nothing about him.  They are basing all their hate on a few lines they have lifted from Instagram and the relationship they imagine he has with Rupert Murdoch and Brian Kennedy.  Tony Bennett didn't even know who he was 2 days ago, yet he is describing Mark's 'lust for money' as if it were carved in stone 2000 years ago, along with the Ten Commandments.  

The behaviour of these people truly sickens me to the stomach.  They are more concerned with destroying the reputations of others, than they are with getting the truth of Madeleine's disappearance into the public domain.  Why?

Mr Bennett bases his 'lust for money' on a joking comment Mark Souster made (on instagram?)when he left the STimes in Jan 2014 to join a city firm and said he hoped the roads were paved with gold or some such remark. What is wrong anyway with hoping that a career move will increase your income ( and make it easier to pay your mortgage/feed your kids etc)?
I always had the impression that Mr Bennett is an envious man. He doesn't seem to have had an illustrious or financially rewarding career despite his education and qualifications.[/quote]


Yes, I picked up on the envy there too Antonia. And I agree, Mark is a young man with a family and ambition - there is nothing wrong with that, or at least there shouldn't be!

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I see there is very little addressing of this episode over the road. But there is a distasteful (IMO) and pointless thread on anagrams of Maddie/Madeleine...

I wonder why the media keep going for the "nutters" angle?

That made me cringe when I read it. Poor Madeleine, not respected in life nor death either by people who knew her or didn't know her.

Hmm, yes TTWO, I agree, and it's not the first time that insensitive, trivial remarks have been made over there...I responded once and it got me banned!

I'm not so sure about Mark being so young, Cristobell...(I'm sure he'll like it though!) A quick Google (could be wrong) and I make him ~56?

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I see there is very little addressing of this episode over the road. But there is a distasteful (IMO) and pointless thread on anagrams of Maddie/Madeleine...

I wonder why the media keep going for the "nutters" angle?

If Mark Souster was going for the 'nutters' angle, he certain chose the right place

And I agree, I too find that anagram thread in extremely poor taste.

investigative journalists don't tend to meddle in active police investigations. The published stories, besides potentially being libellous, could affect the outcome of a trial if the defence claims the reports might have influenced public opinion and therefore the jury. Journos of this type tend to look into cases of injustice or possible crimes which the police haven't even started to look into
If he was genuinely interested in speaking to JH owing to his own suspicions or info from acquaintances, it suggests he didn't know that 18 detectives at Scotland Yard are already working on it.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I'm not so sure about Mark being so young, Cristobell...(I'm sure he'll like it though!) A quick Google (could be wrong) and I make him ~56?

Everyone looks young to me these days TTWO! Ah, well, he looks good for his age!

Hellsbells wrote:investigative journalists don't tend to meddle in active police investigations. The published stories, besides potentially being libellous, could affect the outcome of a trial if the defence claims the reports might have influenced public opinion and therefore the jury. Journos of this type tend to look into cases of injustice or possible crimes which the police haven't even started to look into
If he was genuinely interested in speaking to JH owing to his own suspicions or info from acquaintances, it suggests he didn't know that 18 detectives at Scotland Yard are already working on it.

Well he must have had his head buried in the sand or up his own ar*e for the past few years, if he didn't know anything about SY and the Madeleine investigation (seeing he's a journalist and must have many friends who are journalists and talk about all sorts of things in the pub after work).

Hellsbells wrote:investigative journalists don't tend to meddle in active police investigations. The published stories, besides potentially being libellous, could affect the outcome of a trial if the defence claims the reports might have influenced public opinion and therefore the jury. Journos of this type tend to look into cases of injustice or possible crimes which the police haven't even started to look into

I totally agree, that is why I have issues with any type of report be it written or filmed that could jeopardise any future trial!

susible wrote:

Hellsbells wrote:investigative journalists don't tend to meddle in active police investigations. The published stories, besides potentially being libellous, could affect the outcome of a trial if the defence claims the reports might have influenced public opinion and therefore the jury. Journos of this type tend to look into cases of injustice or possible crimes which the police haven't even started to look into

I totally agree, that is why I have issues with any type of report be it written or filmed that could jeopardise any future trial!

As the case of missing Madeleine has been the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of headlines and front pages, not to mention documentaries, books and discussion worldwide, isn't it a bit late to start worrying about that now?

Cristobell wrote:

Resistor wrote:

costello wrote:I just want to say I am useless at judging people, to be honest I don't believe in it. I trust too much and then learn my lessons later. For what it is worth I still think this guy is genuine and has a legitimate interest in this case. As I have said before, only time will tell. The only down side in my opinion is the fact he did not foresee his interest would be discussed on said forum.

Then he's not much of an investigative journalist, because any Google search of "Madeleine McCann" will take you to 1001 different Forums, of highly variable merit and quality.

 


He is actually an award winning journalist who writes for the Sunday Times, so I am not really sure that is a fair assessment!

Cheers Cristobell, so am I now assuming because he is a Rugby critic he has to be in some way connected to a said Brian Kennedy. Give me strength, as ever I remain more optimistic.