UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Wonderfulspam on October 20, 2013, 12:52:21 PM
-
Leicestershire police & The Met appear to have different hymn books.
Leicestershire Police
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Whereas the Met apparently disagree
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
As clear as mud then,
On the assumption that the Met must have infact uncovered 'Clear Evidence which eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance', why has this evidence not been enough to reopen the Portuguese investigation?
-
Leicestershire police & The Met appear to have different hymn books.
Leicestershire Police
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Whereas the Met apparently disagree
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
As clear as mud then,
On the assumption that the Met must have infact uncovered 'Clear Evidence which eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance', why has this evidence not been enough to reopen the Portuguese investigation?
Maybe they haven't got round to telling the Portuguese yet, or maybe there isn't strong enough evidence to convince them.
-
Both of these could be true
-
Leicestershire police & The Met appear to have different hymn books.
Leicestershire Police
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Whereas the Met apparently disagree
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
As clear as mud then,
On the assumption that the Met must have infact uncovered 'Clear Evidence which eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance', why has this evidence not been enough to reopen the Portuguese investigation?
The first statement was made while the McCanns were still Arguidos. No way would a UK police force say anything in public that would even hint that the PJ had got it wrong. It would have caused a diplomatic incident and seriously damaged relations between both police forces.
I think you will find that Leicester police are not stuck in the past as many sceptics appear to be - and so would not be making a similar statement nowadays. Their 'diplomatic' position is completely different now to back then.
IMO.
-
As they are not the investigating force, one wouldn't really expect them to say anything.
-
The first statement was made while the McCanns were still Arguidos. No way would a UK police force say anything in public that would even hint that the PJ had got it wrong. It would have caused a diplomatic incident and seriously damaged relations between both police forces.
I think you will find that Leicester police are not stuck in the past as many sceptics appear to be - and so would not be making a similar statement nowadays. Their 'diplomatic' position is completely different now to back then.
IMO.
You might be right, but the exact same logic applies to what Redwood says to the media now - it's diplomacy.
-
The first statement was made while the McCanns were still Arguidos. No way would a UK police force say anything in public that would even hint that the PJ had got it wrong. It would have caused a diplomatic incident and seriously damaged relations between both police forces.
I think you will find that Leicester police are not stuck in the past as many sceptics appear to be - and so would not be making a similar statement nowadays. Their 'diplomatic' position is completely different now to back then.
IMO.
"The first statement was made while the McCanns were still Arguidos."
Proof of this please?
I seem to remember the Leicestershire Police statement was made after the McCanns requested to see the case file, prior to the release of Kates book & a long time after the arguido status was lifted? Maybe I'm entirely wrong, but I'm having trouble finding the exact date of the statement.
-
It's very unfortunate that Leicetershire Police decided to abandon the search for Madeleine as soon as her parents were made arguido and escaped to Britain.
That shows clearly that Leicestershire Constabulary was never in Portugal to help with the searches for the child but merely to protect or mediate the relation between the portuguese police and the McCann. In fact, it was not by chance that Gonçalo Amaral was caught in an "off the record" talk with his journalist friend. He knew the British police from Leicestershire were there not to assist the searches but to protect the parents.
-
Leicestershire police & The Met appear to have different hymn books.
Leicestershire Police
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Whereas the Met apparently disagree
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
As clear as mud then,
On the assumption that the Met must have infact uncovered 'Clear Evidence which eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance', why has this evidence not been enough to reopen the Portuguese investigation?
I'd be inclined to be swayed by the current force actually investigating the case rather than an archived quote from one who never did.
-
Nowhere in the world when a young child disappears from her home (in this case a rented flat) are the close family immediately discarded without a very thorough check.
The McCann avoided being checked from day one. Mrs McCann, according to the newspapers, even stated that she was ready to take a polygraph test, which was made available to her at no cost by an expert, and when such offered was made she discarded it.
They avoided any situation that could clarify their position as potential suspects, namelly by escaping to Spain in the day the police had warned them they would be going to the Villa to take the clothes and car for the EVDR dogs to search.
They flew off Portugal as soon as they were nominated arguidos, instead of taking advantage of that situation to require further investigations.
They still argue they have been cleared by the Portuguese Attorney General, when they know that it isn't true.
They attempted to get files from the Leicestershire police, using the special status they put their missing daughter into - renouncing their parental rights to a Court of Law - without success.
The Leicestershire Police should be called to explain why they didn't find it important to keep the search for Madeleine, in Portugal after September 10th, 2007.
-
Nice bit of twist there, Luz.
-
Nice bit of twist there, Luz.
PROVE IT.
I can present documents to every line I wrote.
-
PROVE IT.
I can present documents to every line I wrote.
Please present them then
-
Leicestershire police & The Met appear to have different hymn books.
Leicestershire Police
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Whereas the Met apparently disagree
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
As clear as mud then,
On the assumption that the Met must have infact uncovered 'Clear Evidence which eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance', why has this evidence not been enough to reopen the Portuguese investigation?
Good point, but have the Met actually declared them to be innocent of any criminal act? Alternatively, they could be playing the long game. They might not be suspects at this moment in time but this can change and do so very quickly.
As for Kirsty Young saying on national TV that they have been officially cleared, she or whoever writes this garbage really needs to get their facts straight!
-
Good point, but have the Met actually declared them to be innocent of any criminal act? Alternatively, they could be playing the long game. They might not be suspects at this moment in time but this can change and do so very quickly.
As for Kirsty Young saying on national TV that they have been officially cleared, she or whoever writes this garbage really needs to get their facts straight!
And so the way I see it John is this,
"The McCanns & their group of friends are not suspects"
however
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance".
If the MET had clear evidence of their complete & undoubted innocence then this information would be shared & the McCanns would no doubt want this publicised as it would clear them in both Portugal & the court of public opinion, the alleged hate campaign would cease & we could forget the whole nasty saga ever happened.
-
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Where has this been taken from
-
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.".
Where has this been taken from
Leicestershire Police statement from when the McCanns requested to see the file they had on the case.
I'm not sure of the exact date, but it is in Kates Book.
-
Leicestershire Police statement from when the McCanns requested to see the file they had on the case.
I'm not sure of the exact date, but it is in Kates Book.
July 2008 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
-
July 2008 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Thanks Jassi
-
Proof of this please. 8(0(*
the proof is all over the forum..you only have to look
-
Still it was a nice little twist though, while it lasted.
-
"The first statement was made while the McCanns were still Arguidos."
Proof of this please?
I seem to remember the Leicestershire Police statement was made after the McCanns requested to see the case file, prior to the release of Kates book & a long time after the arguido status was lifted? Maybe I'm entirely wrong, but I'm having trouble finding the exact date of the statement.
Kate and Gerry were in Canada until 10th July 2008.
The above hearing took place whilst they were away.
Their arguido status was removed on 21st July.
Therefore they were still Arguidos when the Asst Chief Constable made his statement to the court.
Kate's book - pages 315-316 refer.
I believe there are other articles on line which refer to the date of this Hearing as 7th July.
-
Kate and Gerry were in Canada until 10th July 2008.
The above hearing took place whilst they were away.
Their arguido status was removed on 21st July.
Therefore they were still Arguidos when the Asst Chief Constable made his statement to the court.
Kate's book - pages 315-316 refer.
I believe there are other articles on line which refer to the date of this Hearing as 7th July.
Thanks, not much time between the lifting of the status & the police statement then.
-
Thanks, not much time between the lifting of the status & the police statement then.
I'm not sure what you mean W - but the McCanns were arguidos when the Asst. Police constable made his statement - and IMO his statement was made with that important fact in mind.
How would he know that their Arguido status was going to be lifted and when that would happen?
The statement was made over 5 years ago and before the AGs final report was released. Anyone who thinks it still holds any weight in the present evaluation of this case as described by SY is being seriously unrealistic IMO.
-
The point being this,
Since the Leicestershire Police statement was made & then the arguido status lifted & since the Met review began, If any evidence which proved the McCanns complete & undeniable innocence in relation to Madeleines disappearance had been uncovered then the Portugeuse Investigation would have reopened.
It has not & so in that instance how is it possible that the Met have concluded that McCanns are neither suspects nor persons of interest?
-
The point being this,
Since the Leicestershire Police statement was made & then the arguido status lifted & since the Met review began, If any evidence which proved the McCanns complete & undeniable innocence in relation to Madeleines disappearance had been uncovered then the Portugeuse Investigation would have reopened.
It has not & so in that instance how is it possible that the Met have concluded that McCanns are neither suspects nor persons of interest?
The only evidence able to demonstrate that the McCanns have nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine is an evidence of abduction, either from bed or from the public space. There's no other possibility and this is what SY is running after.
-
The Legal Situation as Exists.
Leicestershire Police and the Metropolitan Police have never conducted a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann because, to put it simply, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal. Consequently they are not in any position to make any lawful determination as to the status of any individuals of interest in the case.
Given the locus of the disappearance it fell to the Portuguese Police to carry out a full investigation. This investigation was assisted by various police and specialist units from the UK. In the end it was concluded that the nature of Madeleine's disappear and he could not be determined. It could not be determined what happened Madeleine, if a crime had taken place, its nature or whom if anyone was involved. In the end and as a result of various factors including the refusal by certain members of the tapas group to cooperate with the inquiry, the Portuguese Attorney General had no option but to archive the case. This Archiving Report sets out the reasons why the investigation had to be shelved and the conditions on which it could be reopened.
Latest.
Scotland Yard are now undertaking their own investigation following a review of the Portuguese police files. This investigation can only progress and indeed succeed with the total and absolute cooperation of the Portuguese police and the Office of the Attorney General. To date there is little evidence of such cooperation.
-
The Legal Situation as Exists.
Leicestershire Police and the Metropolitan Police have never conducted a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann because, to put it simply, they have no jurisdiction in Portugal. Consequently they are not in any position to make any lawful determination as to the status of any individuals of interest in the case.
Given the locus of the disappearance it fell to the Portuguese Police to carry out a full investigation. This investigation was assisted by various police and specialist units from the UK. In the end it was concluded that the nature of Madeleine's disappear and he could not be determined. It could not be determined what happened Madeleine, if a crime had taken place, its nature or whom if anyone was involved. In the end and as a result of various factors including the refusal by certain members of the tapas group to cooperate with the inquiry, the Portuguese Attorney General had no option but to archive the case. This Archiving Report sets out the reasons why the investigation had to be shelved and the conditions on which it could be reopened.
Latest.
Scotland Yard are now undertaking their own investigation following a review of the Portuguese police files. This investigation can only progress and indeed succeed with the total and absolute cooperation of the Portuguese police and the Office of the Attorney General. To date there is little evidence of such cooperation.
Where is the bit about Kirsty Young also having the authority to "formally clear" the McCanns via BBC tv.
-
The point being this,
Since the Leicestershire Police statement was made & then the arguido status lifted & since the Met review began, If any evidence which proved the McCanns complete & undeniable innocence in relation to Madeleines disappearance had been uncovered then the Portugeuse Investigation would have reopened.
It has not & so in that instance how is it possible that the Met have concluded that McCanns are neither suspects nor persons of interest?
Could you substantiate that from the criminal process code?
-
Could you substantiate that from the criminal process code?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
-
Where is the bit about Kirsty Young also having the authority to "formally clear" the McCanns via BBC tv.
the mccanns don't need clearing from anything ...they are not suspects.. why don't you understand that ...its not rocket science ...
-
the mccanns don't need clearing from anything ...they are not suspects.. why don't you understand that ...its not rocket science ...
They havent been cleared by anyone ever except by the british media and Clarence Mitchell....and internet posters not rocket science if you think about it...a bit......more..... Nite dear,sleep on it
-
They havent been cleared by anyone ever except by the british media and Clarence Mitchell....and internet posters not rocket science if you think about it...a bit......more..... Nite dear,sleep on it
cleared from what ..? never mind nite dear ..cleared from what exactly ?
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
And the conditions and time limits?