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: John on March 01, 2014, 02:37:33 PM
-
I know we have looked at the provision of a reward in the Madeleine McCann case but what if an amnesty were to be offered to those who are involved. I purposely have not used the word abducted for several reasons.
If she is deceased and this scenario is more likely than the other, wouldn't it be better that her family and especially parents and siblings know about it rather than go to their graves not knowing?
If there was an abductor or abductors, offer an immunity against prosecution for revealing where Madeleine is.
Please discuss.
115
-
Would this amnesty apply to the T9 as well?
-
I've got a feeling there would be no need for this..
It is hard to explain this feeling but for example to form a reason for prosecution SY and PJ would need to full fill providing evidence A, B and C.
What we have in published files is lots of As.. possibly a part of a B somewhere, if looked from an different angle but no Cs..
I believe they reached the point B at the moment.. and they are pushing towards the C..
-
Interesting question, John.
There was a case recently, although I can't remember offhand in which country, in which there had been a suspicious death/murder, with probable drug users who wouldn't have spontaneously come forward, but who may have had information to help solve the bigger case. From memory, amnesty was granted and people did indeed come forward.
-
I can just about bring myself to accept amnesties in a political context. e.g EOKA and Mau Mau.
In a criminal context I think amnesty defeats the principles of law. Letting someone off a minor crime to nail someone else for a major crime or gain useful intelligence is a bit iffy in my book. OK it probably happens but should be discouraged as it legitimises some law breaking. The problem then is that an individual or organisation is making decisions that rightfully in our society should be made by the Judiciary.
-
I can just about bring myself to accept amnesties in a political context. e.g EOKA and Mau Mau.
In a criminal context I think amnesty defeats the principles of law. Letting someone off a minor crime to nail someone else for a major crime or gain useful intelligence is a bit iffy in my book. OK it probably happens but should be discouraged as it legitimises some law breaking. The problem then is that an individual or organisation is making decisions that rightfully in our society should be made by the Judiciary.
Dunno. A hypothetical situation. Someone has been knifed to death in a nightclub. After weeks or months, no useful witnesses come forward. What do you do? Shelve it? Or offer amnesty to people who may have crucial information but who wouldn't have come forward out of fear of being prosecuted for either taking whatever suspected drug may have been taken, or even sold, that night?
-
I can just about bring myself to accept amnesties in a political context. e.g EOKA and Mau Mau.
In a criminal context I think amnesty defeats the principles of law. Letting someone off a minor crime to nail someone else for a major crime or gain useful intelligence is a bit iffy in my book. OK it probably happens but should be discouraged as it legitimises some law breaking. The problem then is that an individual or organisation is making decisions that rightfully in our society should be made by the Judiciary.
I agree with that. Amnesty is only justified to establish a situation where people have a chance to live together again.
We know that the police work with illegally obtained, sometimes precious, informations. But it must remain unofficial and opaque, to be effective.
-
Dunno. A hypothetical situation. Someone has been knifed to death in a nightclub. After weeks or months, no useful witnesses come forward. What do you do? Shelve it? Or offer amnesty to people who may have crucial information but who wouldn't have come forward out of fear of being prosecuted for either taking whatever suspected drug may have been taken, or even sold, that night?
Same answer! you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. If you believe law and justice are tradable commodities then who will be the arbiter of where lines are drawn?
-
I agree with that. Amnesty is only justified to establish a situation where people have a chance to live together again.
We know that the police work with illegally obtained, sometimes precious, informations. But it must remain unofficial and opaque, to be effective.
Why only when "people have a chance to live together again"? What about the poor police with a serious investigation into a murder or missing person in which no witnesses are willing to come forward? What about the poor families who need to know what happened?
-
Same answer! you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. If you believe law and justice are tradable commodities then who will be the arbiter of where lines are drawn?
ETA: Apologies, I intended to reply to Anne Guedes, whose comment was just above.
I agree with your philosophical question. However, to quote your previous remark, you seem to find it justified in certain circumstances:
"I agree with that. Amnesty is only justified to establish a situation where people have a chance to live together again.
We know that the police work with illegally obtained, sometimes precious, informations. But it must remain unofficial and opaque, to be effective. "
-
Same answer! you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. If you believe law and justice are tradable commodities then who will be the arbiter of where lines are drawn?
Absolutely. This doesn't mean everything has to be transparent.
-
Why only when "people have a chance to live together again"? What about the poor police with a serious investigation into a murder or missing person in which no witnesses are willing to come forward? What about the poor families who need to know what happened?
The "poor" police and the "poor" families need a law system solid like a rock and separation of powers like John Locke advocated.
-
Absolutely. This doesn't mean everything has to be transparent.
But then you also stated that one either believes in the rule of law or not...
-
I agree with your philosophical question. However, to quote your previous remark, you seem to find it justified in certain circumstances:
"I agree with that. Amnesty is only justified to establish a situation where people have a chance to live together again.
We know that the police work with illegally obtained, sometimes precious, informations. But it must remain unofficial and opaque, to be effective. "
I think you have "muxed ip" my reply and that of Anne. I believe amnesty per se is more or less acceptable in a political context but not in a criminal one. A police officer trading an offence of what in my younger days was called "going prepared" for some key info on a planned blag could not be construed as an amnesty. It is a one off trade. In the context of what we are discussing on this thread granting an amnesty would potentially lead to finding out what had happened to Madeleine McCann at the expense of being able to do anything about it if a crime had been committed.
-
I think you have "muxed ip" my reply and that of Anne. I believe amnesty per se is more or less acceptable in a political context but not in a criminal one. A police officer trading an offence of what in my younger days was called "going prepared" for some key info on a planned blag could not be construed as an amnesty. It is a one off trade. In the context of what we are discussing on this thread granting an amnesty would potentially lead to finding out what had happened to Madeleine McCann at the expense of being able to do anything about it if a crime had been committed.
Yes, I did, I quoted you instead of Anne. Apologies, I've amended my post.
Yes, I don't actually know what the negotiations are in such situations, but a one-off trade for amnesty concerning potential prosecutions for side issues might be feasible in certain jurisdictions in exceptional cases, as in someone consuming or peddling pills at a rave party, but who may have been a key witness of a murder, or even someone whose visa had run out, who had an undeclared job, or may have had a conviction at some point for petty theft or whatever else. Or even a family member or partner who may not trust the police not to leak to the press.
-
I can just about bring myself to accept amnesties in a political context. e.g EOKA and Mau Mau.
In a criminal context I think amnesty defeats the principles of law. Letting someone off a minor crime to nail someone else for a major crime or gain useful intelligence is a bit iffy in my book. OK it probably happens but should be discouraged as it legitimises some law breaking. The problem then is that an individual or organisation is making decisions that rightfully in our society should be made by the Judiciary.
It must happen all the time in police work. Where do we imagine police get their information from?
-
I believe amnesty per se is more or less acceptable in a political context but not in a criminal one.
I was thinking of South Africa in fact.
-
I've got a feeling there would be no need for this..
It is hard to explain this feeling but for example to form a reason for prosecution SY and PJ would need to full fill providing evidence A, B and C.
What we have in published files is lots of As.. possibly a part of a B somewhere, if looked from an different angle but no Cs..
I believe they reached the point B at the moment.. and they are pushing towards the C..
Not sure I understand this, VIXTE...
If someone came forward in the context of an amnesty, that would be in effect a confession, and a lot of the detective work would be taken out of it.
-
But then you also stated that one either believes in the rule of law or not...
Estuarine stated this, I agreed.
-
Not sure I understand this, VIXTE...
If someone came forward in the context of an amnesty, that would be in effect a confession, and a lot of the detective work would be taken out of it.
I mean, I've got a feeling 'the new investigation has already passed the level where the confession is badly needed' but that is just my own feeling..
-
It must happen all the time in police work. Where do we imagine police get their information from?
By being good at their jobs or is that too simplistic. The original question was about an amnesty. An amnesty is wholesale.
But if you like the idea of the law and justice being a tradable commodity fine. When it goes tits up for you, you will probably scream foul loud and long.
I'm out of here.
-
By being good at their jobs or is that too simplistic. The original question was about an amnesty. An amnesty is wholesale.
But if you like the idea of the law and justice being a tradable commodity fine. When it goes tits up for you, you will probably scream foul loud and long.
I'm out of here.
I am sure most police officers are good at their jobs and investigate matters profesionally. However some of their professionally-gathered intelligence comes from the criminal world itself - that's a no-brainer.
-
I am sure most police officers are good at their jobs and investigate matters profesionally. However some of their professionally-gathered intelligence comes from the criminal world itself - that's a no-brainer.
Somehow in drug, arms traffic and Mafia matters, but not in ordinary criminal cases.
-
I am sure most police officers are good at their jobs and investigate matters profesionally. However some of their professionally-gathered intelligence comes from the criminal world itself - that's a no-brainer.
Stating the bleedin' obvious and ducking the issue does you no credit.
How much info is gathered by offering amnesties. ie offering immunity to everyone involved [for that is what an amnesty is] in exchange for information on which you will be unable to act because you have granted an amnesty.
Now duck and dive if you wish. Why are you on a "Justice" site if you only believe in it selectively ?
-
If a would-be thief opened the window from outside then immediately fled, then an amnesty directed at that would-be thief might be good (obviouisly on strict conditions he never entered apartment and never harmed child).
Waste of time posting this really, seems no-one can see the logic >@@(*&)
-
Stating the bleedin' obvious and ducking the issue does you no credit.
How much info is gathered by offering amnesties. ie offering immunity to everyone involved [for that is what an amnesty is] in exchange for information on which you will be unable to act because you have granted an amnesty.
Now duck and dive if you wish. Why are you on a "Justice" site if you only believe in it selectively ?
Oh, there is nothing there to say I don't believe in it. Just being realistic about how information is gathered. Information could be gathered in all sorts of ways in order to see justice served in the end.
As to exactly how much information is gathered through official amnesties, I don't know.
-
If a would-be thief opened the window from outside then immediately fled, then an amnesty directed at that would-be thief might be good (obviouisly on strict conditions he never entered apartment and never harmed child).
Waste of time posting this really, seems no-one can see the logic >@@(*&)
I can see pretty well the reason, if not the logic, of your thief opening shutters and window from the outside and running away right after, leaving all open.
-
If a would-be thief opened the window from outside then immediately fled, then an amnesty directed at that would-be thief might be good (obviouisly on strict conditions he never entered apartment and never harmed child).
Waste of time posting this really, seems no-one can see the logic >@@(*&)
If the burglar managed to tell us something such as whether Madeleine was there at a certain time or not, that surely could be of great benefit.
-
If a would-be thief opened the window from outside then immediately fled, then an amnesty directed at that would-be thief might be good (obviouisly on strict conditions he never entered apartment and never harmed child).
Waste of time posting this really, seems no-one can see the logic >@@(*&)
Why did the burglar flee if he had gone to the trouble of opening noisy shutters and window?
-
Why did the burglar flee if he had gone to the trouble of opening noisy shutters and window?
He was just there in order to open the shutters and window.
-
He was just there in order to open the shutters and window.
@)(++(*
-
Oh, there is nothing there to say I don't believe in it. Just being realistic about how information is gathered. Information could be gathered in all sorts of ways in order to see justice served in the end.
As to exactly how much information is gathered through official amnesties, I don't know.
At what time this would be? Matt Oldfield at 9.30-9.40 did not notice an open window..
-
Somehow in drug, arms traffic and Mafia matters, but not in ordinary criminal cases.
How do you know? Is there a written rule on this?
Much information on criminals comes from criminals themselves. Very obvious, as Estuarine says.
-
How do you know? Is there a written rule on this?
Much information on criminals comes from criminals themselves. Very obvious, as Estuarine says.
Lots of crimes are committed by individuals who have no record. Even serial killers are solitary guys.
-
The man's destination was not to the clinic for treatment, nor to the chinese restaurant a few doors away for a meal, because both destinations are easily disproven by observing the man's course across the junction. Look at the map in the files which marks exactly where witness AS saw him.
IMO he was simply walking at normal speed, carrying his own daughter, most probably towards his home or holiday accommodation. And no degree in rocket propulsion is needed to deduce he was a non-english-speaker.
So if your view is his actions are innocent and uninvolved you would agree for an amnesty for Smithman too wouldn't you? It would still require him telling the truth, like if he was to make up a story it would still have to hold true. It would need to be truth for amnesty not amnesty for lying. The trade off has to be for truth.
-
So if you view his actions as innocent and uninvolved you would agree for an amnesty for Smithman too wouldn't you? It would still require him telling the truth, like if he was to make up a story it would still have to hold true. It would be truth for amnesty not amnesty for lying. The trade off has to be truth.
If he is innocent of involvement, then he doesn't need an amnesty.
-
So if your view is his actions are innocent and uninvolved you would agree for an amnesty for Smithman too wouldn't you? It would still require him telling the truth, like if he was to make up a story it would still have to hold true. It would need to be truth for amnesty not amnesty for lying. The trade off has to be for truth.
Smithman is key to the Madeleine McCann investigation. Scotland Yard should have put much more effort and resources into indentifying him. At least then we would have a better idea of what really happened instead of chasing a ghost for 9 years.
-
Smithman is key to the Madeleine McCann investigation. Scotland Yard should have put much more effort and resources into indentifying him. At least then we would have a better idea of what really happened instead of chasing a ghost for 9 years.
But do you think an amnesty would bring him out?
-
But do you think an amnesty would bring him out?
Amnesty from what?
If he is guilty, he is guilty, so no amnesty.
If he is innocent, he is innocent, so no amnesty.
-
Amnesty from what?
If he is guilty, he is guilty, so no amnesty.
If he is innocent, he is innocent, so no amnesty.
an amnesty from prosecution.
If he is guilty, he is guilty, so won't come forward.
If he is innocent, he is innocent, but will be worried about being prosecuted.
At least we will get closure.
-
But do you think an amnesty would bring him out?
As it stands there appears little likelihood of this case being solved so anything which can bring closure for Madeleine's parents is to be welcomed. If there was a third party involvement in the disappearance and she is dead then her parents deserve to know. Anything which can resolve this situation should be pursued.
Scotland Yard are looking for someone to prosecute so that they can justify their existence. The reward being offered by them is confirmation of this. No reward is on offer for Madeleine's return, I find that quite appalling.
As for an amnesty, that is a matter for the Portuguese authorities.
-
As it stands there appears little likelihood of this case being solved so anything which can bring closure for Madeleine's parents is to be welcomed. If there was a third party involvement in the disappearance and she is dead then her parents deserve to know. Anything which can resolve this situation should be pursued.
Scotland Yard are looking for someone to prosecute so that they can justify their existence. The reward being offered by them is confirmation of this. No reward is on offer for Madeleine's return, I find that quite appalling.
As for an amnesty, that is a matter for the Portuguese authorities.
I've no idea whether the concept exists in PT. I've been through numerous versions of the ever-changing penal process code and have never come across a provision to that effect. On the other hand, perhaps it is deliberately glossed over. Police informants must be a major source of intelligence in any country, I would have thought.
-
I've no idea whether the concept exists in PT. I've been through numerous versions of the ever-changing penal process code and have never come across a provision to that effect. On the other hand, perhaps it is deliberately glossed over. Police informants must be a major source of intelligence in any country, I would have thought.
Absolutely, without informants many a case would never touch base. My own feeling in the Madeleine case is that the Portuguese police and the AG have lost interest and are merely treading water. They should be encouraged to offer anything which could bring closure to this mystery.
If someone did provide information they could do it anonymously without fear of being at the centre of the media storm which would inevitably follow.
-
an amnesty from prosecution.
If he is guilty, he is guilty, so won't come forward.
If he is innocent, he is innocent, but will be worried about being prosecuted.
At least we will get closure.
I don't see it as binary as that.
Guilty of what? Smithman could be an innocent male relative / family friend with unrelated reasons to keep out of the spotlight, whether of an illicit or simply awkward nature.
If, for example, Smithman had been carrying the daughter of his mistress and couldn't be assured of confidientiality in view of the cosy relationship between the police and the tabloids. What then?
Or his working papers may not have been in order, with a family to support. What then?
Or... he may quite innocently not have realised that he may be the person the police are seeking to question.
Or, perhaps he did come forward and his statement got lost somewhere in the mounds of paperwork and has since been eliminated.
I don't find it clear whether the remaining unresolved lead according to recent media reports concerns Smithman or Smellyman, nor whether there is a suspicion that they could be the same person, or possibly an associate.
-
As it stands there appears little likelihood of this case being solved so anything which can bring closure for Madeleine's parents is to be welcomed. If there was a third party involvement in the disappearance and she is dead then her parents deserve to know. Anything which can resolve this situation should be pursued.
Scotland Yard are looking for someone to prosecute so that they can justify their existence. The reward being offered by them is confirmation of this. No reward is on offer for Madeleine's return, I find that quite appalling.
As for an amnesty, that is a matter for the Portuguese authorities.
Absurd statement. Scotland Yard has no power to prosecute anyone in this case.
-
Absolutely, without informants many a case would never touch base. My own feeling in the Madeleine case is that the Portuguese police and the AG have lost interest and are merely treading water. They should be encouraged to offer anything which could bring closure to this mystery.
My impression is a bit different from yours.
I'm not sure that the PJ / AG have lost interest, as such. "Leaks" have dried up and the small team has more than one unresolved case to follow up on.
My impression is rather that they are in a transition period, moving from an "old-school" approach to one far more inline with modern methods, but perhaps still without adequate resources.
-
Absurd statement. Scotland Yard has no power to prosecute anyone in this case.
You couldn't be more wrong.
-
My impression is a bit different from yours.
I'm not sure that the PJ / AG have lost interest, as such. "Leaks" have dried up and the small team has more than one unresolved case to follow up on.
My impression is rather that they are in a transition period, moving from an "old-school" approach to one far more inline with modern methods, but perhaps still without adequate resources.
As you have pointed out they have more pressing work to get on with and with limited resources. I would say they aren't actively involved at all in the search for Madeleine these days and simply pay lip service to any requests from SY.
-
You couldn't be more wrong.
Explain why.
-
Explain why.
First of all, SY are evidence gatherers and don't prosecute anywhere. That said, should someone be identified as having had some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine MCCann they can recommend that person be prosecuted.
To return to my original point which you discarded as 'absurd', SY are looking for someone to prosecute.
-
First of all, SY are evidence gatherers and don't prosecute anywhere. That said, should someone be identified as having had some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine MCCann they can recommend that person be prosecuted.
To return to my original point which you discarded as 'absurd', SY are looking for someone to prosecute.
SY have no power to prosecute, as I said. They are evidence gatherers as you said. They can build a case against someone but it would be the Portuguese who would decide whether or to proceed with a prosecution. There is nothing wrong with building a compelling case for bringing a prosecution against someone who may have been involved in the child's disappearance, so why the cynicism?
-
SY have no power to prosecute, as I said. They are evidence gatherers as you said. They can build a case against someone but it would be the Portuguese who would decide whether or to proceed with a prosecution. There is nothing wrong with building a compelling case for bringing a prosecution against someone who may have been involved in the child's disappearance, so why the cynicism?
The CPS can initiate a prosecution in certain circumstances so the decision making is not entirely with the Portuguese. That said, my main point stands, SY have offered a reward for information which would see someone convicted of Madeleine's abduction. There is no reward for her return. Do you not find that a tad strange?
-
The CPS can initiate a prosecution in certain circumstances so the decision making is not entirely with the Portuguese. That said, my main point stands, SY have offered a reward for information which would see someone convicted of Madeleine's abduction. There is no reward for her return. Do you not find that a tad strange?
Not really. Why do you find it strange? They are in the business of pursuing criminals to justice, not reuniting children with their families, though that is sometimes the happy by-product of an investigation. I doubt the Met endorses the payment of kidnap ransoms either, which is in effect what a reward for her safe return would be.
-
Not really. Why do you find it strange? They are in the business of pursuing criminals to justice, not reuniting children with their families, though that is sometimes the happy by-product of an investigation. I doubt the Met endorses the payment of kidnap ransoms either, which is in effect what a reward for her safe return would be.
Police are tasked to solve crimes, first pursue criminals later
-
Not really. Why do you find it strange? They are in the business of pursuing criminals to justice, not reuniting children with their families, though that is sometimes the happy by-product of an investigation. I doubt the Met endorses the payment of kidnap ransoms either, which is in effect what a reward for her safe return would be.
Good post Alfie. 8((()*/
-
Not really. Why do you find it strange? They are in the business of pursuing criminals to justice, not reuniting children with their families, though that is sometimes the happy by-product of an investigation. I doubt the Met endorses the payment of kidnap ransoms either, which is in effect what a reward for her safe return would be.
I wonder what the parents of a missing child would have as their priority, their child returned or some crimbo prosecuted? Who gives a toss for a few quid if a child disappearance case can be solved.
If SY cannot solve this case its about time they said so and handed it over to people who can.
-
I wonder what the parents of a missing child would have as their priority, their child returned or some crimbo prosecuted? Who gives a toss for a few quid if a child disappearance case can be solved.
If SY cannot solve this case its about time they said so and handed it over to people who can.
3 police forces
7 pi agencies
None can solve
Or some dont want to
-
I wonder what the parents of a missing child would have as their priority, their child returned or some crimbo prosecuted? Who gives a toss for a few quid if a child disappearance case can be solved.
If SY cannot solve this case its about time they said so and handed it over to people who can.
Who do you suggest, John?
-
Who do you suggest, John?
Point being that SY should stand aside now if they have drawn a blank. There are plenty of professionals out there who could take this case further. I fear however that saving face has become more important than solving the case.
-
Who are these professionals and why didnt the mccanns ask the met for advice on chosing PIS?..exactly did they chose them??. Any one know!??
-
Point being that SY should stand aside now if they have drawn a blank. There are plenty of professionals out there who could take this case further. I fear however that saving face has become more important than solving the case.
Just last week in the William Tyrrell case a $1m (Australian) reward was offered for information & the safe return of the missing boy. There is also immunity from prosecution but with conditions attached.
It will be interesting to see how the case plays out as it is the biggest reward on offer in Australian history. The police down under appear to have done a good job in trying to locate William & also seem pretty convinced he was abducted. 600 POI's tells you how difficult a case it is.
Personally, I think SY know what happened to MM on the 3rd & who took her but it is up to the Portuguese to collate all the evidence they need to secure convictions.
-
Just last week in the William Tyrrell case a $1m (Australian) reward was offered for information & the safe return of the missing boy. There is also immunity from prosecution but with conditions attached.
It will be interesting to see how the case plays out as it is the biggest reward on offer in Australian history. The police down under appear to have done a good job in trying to locate William & also seem pretty convinced he was abducted. 600 POI's tells you how difficult a case it is.
Personally, I think SY know what happened to MM on the 3rd & who took her but it is up to the Portuguese to collate all the evidence they need to secure convictions.
I think it possible the Australian police learned lessons from the Chamberlain case.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain
I also agree that Scotland Yard know a lot more about what happened to Madeleine than they can say.
-
I think it possible the Australian police learned lessons from the Chamberlain case.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain
I also agree that Scotland Yard know a lot more about what happened to Madeleine than they can say.
Meaning????
-
Meaning????
Exactly what I have said.
-
I think it possible the Australian police learned lessons from the Chamberlain case.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain
I also agree that Scotland Yard know a lot more about what happened to Madeleine than they can say.
Yes, I agree.
The Daniel Morcombe case is also a relevant precedent for the NSW police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Daniel_Morcombe
-
Exactly what I have said.
What did you say which post number?
-
What did you say which post number?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=post;quote=356100;topic=3516.60;last_msg=356109
It is possible but can we be sure of it?
-
Point being that SY should stand aside now if they have drawn a blank. There are plenty of professionals out there who could take this case further. I fear however that saving face has become more important than solving the case.
would you like to suggest who these professionals are and who will be employing them, on what basis?
-
An amnesty offered to whom, for what and by whom?
I have read of amnesties offered in some situations in the UK, but I'm not sure about PT. I'm thinking of, e.g., if someone witnessed or later discovered what happened to her, but hasn't come forward due to fear of prosecution for comparatively minor illegal activity.
I don't recall any instances of amnesty for anyone responsible for serious crimes, such as abduction, sexual abuse or murder.
Could an amnesty be offered if someone knew that she was being kept in captivity and hasn't reported due to fear of prosecution for being an accessory after the fact?
It's not clear which prosecuting authority would need to make any such decision.
While charges would normally be brought against those responsible in the country in which the crime was committed, there appear to be exceptions.
Resolving jurisdictional conflicts
Where the offence occurred on a single territory
Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:
sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect od offences in subsection. 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.
For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold .
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/
However...
There is this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72
and this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100
-
Just last week in the William Tyrrell case a $1m (Australian) reward was offered for information & the safe return of the missing boy. There is also immunity from prosecution but with conditions attached.
It will be interesting to see how the case plays out as it is the biggest reward on offer in Australian history. The police down under appear to have done a good job in trying to locate William & also seem pretty convinced he was abducted. 600 POI's tells you how difficult a case it is.
Personally, I think SY know what happened to MM on the 3rd & who took her but it is up to the Portuguese to collate all the evidence they need to secure convictions.
At least New South Wales Police have got their priorities right. Maybe the Met can learn from them?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/12/william-tyrrell-1m-reward-for-information-about-missing-boy
-
At least New South Wales Police have got their priorities right. Maybe the Met can learn from them?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/12/william-tyrrell-1m-reward-for-information-about-missing-boy
I don't think Scotland Yard need to learn anything from New South Wales, John. I do think the disgraceful way in which Madeleine's case has been handled by the Portuguese bears some scrutiny though.
NSW have investigated William's family and eliminated them from the inquiry.
NSW have gone through the process of working through various theories about what may have happened to the wee boy and have concluded he was taken by a stranger.
I don't know what evidence they have to sustain that, but I am sure they know what they are doing.
NSW police seem to be very upset that they have not found out what happened to William ... but that hasn't led them to trying to pin anything on his mother or anyone else without definitive proof.
I particularly appreciated Detective Chief Inspector Gary Jubelin dismissing "as “vindictive” any lingering suggestions that William’s relatives were involved in his abduction."
I rather get the impression he won't be writing a book suggesting anyone's guilt in any way whatsoever in the case of a missing little boy ... he appears to be far too professional a man for the thought even to occur to him.
-
I don't think Scotland Yard need to learn anything from New South Wales, John. I do think the disgraceful way in which Madeleine's case has been handled by the Portuguese bears some scrutiny though.
NSW have investigated William's family and eliminated them from the inquiry.
NSW have gone through the process of working through various theories about what may have happened to the wee boy and have concluded he was taken by a stranger.
I don't know what evidence they have to sustain that, but I am sure they know what they are doing.
NSW police seem to be very upset that they have not found out what happened to William ... but that hasn't led them to trying to pin anything on his mother or anyone else without definitive proof.
I particularly appreciated Detective Chief Inspector Gary Jubelin dismissing "as “vindictive” any lingering suggestions that William’s relatives were involved in his abduction."
I rather get the impression he won't be writing a book suggesting anyone's guilt in any way whatsoever in the case of a missing little boy ... he appears to be far too professional a man for the thought even to occur to him.
I disagree, I think SY have made big mistakes in the Madeleine case. Their overwhelming obsessive need for a prosecution at all cost has hindered any hope of finding Madeleine. Their priority should have been the missing girl and her alone. Private investigators would have made more headway but then they have to be the right ones and not the idiots Kennedy and the McCanns hired.
-
I disagree, I think SY have made big mistakes in the Madeleine case. Their overwhelming obsessive need for a prosecution at all cost has hindered any hope of finding Madeleine. Their priority should have been the missing girl and her alone. Private investigators would have made more headway but then they have to be the right ones and not the idiots Kennedy and the McCanns hired.
Hmmmm.
Did you really mean to type SY, John?
No comment...
-
On the topic of rewards for missing people, there's a chapter on that in a publication compiled by the families of missing loved ones and law enforcement agencies. I expect I could find the link again if no one else can remember.
There are advantages and disadvantages. The issue is not as clear-cut as one might think.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Page 985 Further background information on Robert Murat.
*snipped*
1. that the recent offer of €1.000.000 may have the opposite effect of creating more abductions in Portugal in the future, namely carried out by Russians and Romanians; that the Russians are particularly cold when it comes to questions of money;
......
The Inspector Chief
Reis Santos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So rumours of a £1m reward were circulating in Portugal in the early days.
What an odd comment to have been made by RM, given that there are no reported abductions from Portugal carried out by Russians or Romanians.
-
He was trying to help
But if you think he was the abductor, well,.....youre on the wrong track
-
When your child is missing: A family survival guide.
http://www.o[Name removed]dp.gov/pubs/childismissing/contents.html
-
When your child is missing: A family survival guide.
http://www.o[Name removed]dp.gov/pubs/childismissing/contents.html
Thank you for that.
-
Thank you for that.
You're welcome, Misty. I wasn't sure I'd be able to find it again.
-
I disagree, I think SY have made big mistakes in the Madeleine case. Their overwhelming obsessive need for a prosecution at all cost has hindered any hope of finding Madeleine. Their priority should have been the missing girl and her alone. Private investigators would have made more headway but then they have to be the right ones and not the idiots Kennedy and the McCanns hired.
As you can't possibly have any clue as to what is actually going on within Operation Grange I don't think you're in any position to criticise.
-
As you can't possibly have any clue as to what is actually going on within Operation Grange I don't think you're in any position to criticise.
And as you were not there on the nght you are n no positiin whatsiever to criticize anyone at all
8((()*/
-
You're welcome, Misty. I wasn't sure I'd be able to find it again.
I read it some time ago, Carana, and lost it when my old computer died and never came across it again.
Well worth another read, please add my appreciation to Misty's for the link.
I can't remember if there is any advice on how to deal with the phenomena of internet and social media comment, if not I think there should be an update including some.
-
As you can't possibly have any clue as to what is actually going on within Operation Grange I don't think you're in any position to criticise.
I am in a position to relate OG to activities within Luz.
And it is a case of my fangs go in deep.
-
Hmmmm.
Did you really mean to type SY, John?
No comment...
Yes, they have spent £millions chasing ghosts!
-
As you can't possibly have any clue as to what is actually going on within Operation Grange I don't think you're in any position to criticise.
We know what is going on... a big fat ZERO
-
We know what is going on... a big fat ZERO
No you don't know what is going on, unless you're claiming insider info, in which case pardon me if I roll my eyes and snort with derision.
-
Yes, they have spent £millions chasing ghosts!
I'd agree that she hasn't been found and that no one has been charged so far.
However, leads can sometimes turn out to be ghosts. And vice versa.
Until the plod work has been done, there's no way of advancing and narrowing down.
It may happen that a new piece of potentially relevant information turns up one day and can be more easily checked.
-
No you don't know what is going on, unless you're claiming insider info, in which case pardon me if I roll my eyes and snort with derision.
I cannot fault you for being optimistic Alfie but the realitity is that they have never made any real progress in finding Madeleine McCann. Their efforts in Praia da Luz have been pitiful given the amount of money they have wasted.
-
I cannot fault you for being optimistic Alfie but the realitity is that they have never made any real progress in finding Madeleine McCann. Their efforts in Praia da Luz have been pitiful given the amount of money they have wasted.
Wasted?
What about the funds spent on all the other unresolved cases? Or is it only money spent on this particular case that annoys people?
-
I'd agree that she hasn't been found and that no one has been charged so far.
However, leads can sometimes turn out to be ghosts. And vice versa.
Until the plod work has been done, there's no way of advancing and narrowing down.
It may happen that a new piece of potentially relevant information turns up one day and can be more easily checked.
History has shown us that the police are the first to pat themselves on the back when they are successful but on this occasion their efforts can be described as an abject failure. I really cannot point to anything they have uncovered which has brought any sort of closure to this case.
-
Wasted?
What about the funds spent on all the other unresolved cases? Or is it only money spent on this particular case that annoys people?
If these cases remain unsolved, of course the money is wasted.
-
If these cases remain unsolved, of course the money is wasted.
So what's the answer? Don't spend money on cases that you don't think will be solved?
-
Wasted?
What about the funds spent on all the other unresolved cases? Or is it only money spent on this particular case that annoys people?
We are talking about the McCann case here but if you need a very good example of other waste I suggest the Jill Dando case.
Offering a reward for information which would see someone convicted is not the road to go down. As I stated before, SY need a prosecution in order to regain credibility. But what of Madeleine in all this?
-
I cannot fault you for being optimistic Alfie but the realitity is that they have never made any real progress in finding Madeleine McCann. Their efforts in Praia da Luz have been pitiful given the amount of money they have wasted.
I am neither optimistic nor pesimistic, I am simply pointing out the fact that you simply haven't got a clue WHAT they have uncovered, or what efforts have been made to get answers in this case. Best to hold off your damning criticism until you have all the facts, don't you think?
-
So what's the answer? Don't spend money on cases that you don't think will be solved?
I imagine the answer is to know when to draw the line. All cases that don't reach a speedy conclusion must reach the point where it is decided not to waste any more resorces.
-
We are talking about the McCann case here but if you need a very good example of other waste I suggest the Jill Dando case.
Offering a reward for information which would see someone convicted is not the road to go down. As I stasted before SY need a prosecution in order to regain credibility. But what of Madeleine in all this?
I really don't understand your logic at all. Lets face facts. Madeleine may very well be dead. So -how could offering a reward for her safe return be better than offering a reward for information which would see someone convicted? Nor doI understand the concept of money wasted on a case that remains unsolved, by your standards ALL cases currently unsolved (of which there are thousands at a cost of millions if not billions) are a complete waste of money. So, what's the alternative? Not bother investigating ANY crime, in case you can't solve it and end up wasting money?
-
I imagine the answer is to know when to draw the line. All cases that don't reach a speedy conclusion must reach the point where it is decided not to waste any more resorces.
Define "speedy conclusion" please. A week? A month? A year? Say they gave up looking for the Yorkshire Ripper after the first couple of murders, then what?
-
I am neither optimistic nor pesimistic, I am simply pointing out the fact that you simply haven't got a clue WHAT they have uncovered, or what efforts have been made to get answers in this case. Best to hold off your damning criticism until you have all the facts, don't you think?
Had they uncovered anything of any value we would have heard about it by now but keep on being hopeful. 8((()*/
ps. The fact that the investigation is being wound down is evidence in itself that nothing has been found. No need for inside information on that basis.
-
Define "speedy conclusion" please. A week? A month? A year? Say they gave up looking for the Yorkshire Ripper after the first couple of murders, then what?
I would think a month or so without any fruitful leads.
There is a difference between giving up and not actively pursuing. In the case of the Ripper, there were doubt periods when there was no activity and detectives were deployed elsewhere.
This seems to be the stage reached in the McCann case, where the bulk of the manpower is redeployed.
-
I really don't understand your logic at all. Lets face facts. Madeleine may very well be dead. So -how could offering a reward for her safe return be better than offering a reward for information which would see someone convicted? Nor doI understand the concept of money wasted on a case that remains unsolved, by your standards ALL cases currently unsolved (of which there are thousands at a cost of millions if not billions) are a complete waste of money. So, what's the alternative? Not bother investigating ANY crime, in case you can't solve it and end up wasting money?
I never mentioned safe return. Nobody with valid information will come forward as long as SY go about looking for scalps. They were the wrong people to pursue this enquiry but hey that's life.
A reward with an amnesty of some sort should have been offered long ago but I fear it is too late now.
-
Had they uncovered anything of any value we would have heard about out by now but keep on being hopeful. 8((()*/
Please stop goading me. I am neither hopeful nor unhopeful - I am keeping an open mind, and suggest it would be wise for you to do likewise. In any case they may have uncovered f-all as of today, but tomorrow something highly significant may drop in their laps. If you're searching for buried treasure in a field every day you dig and find nothing could be construed as a complete waste of time and effort, however as you cover territory you can rule out places you have dug before and move on to the next place so it's not effort completely wasted. The next time you dig you may hit gold. You just don't know until the whole field has been dug up whether your effort was worth it or not.
-
I would think a month or so without any fruitful leads.
There is a difference between giving up and not actively pursuing. In the case of the Ripper, there were doubt periods when there was no activity and detectives were deployed elsewhere.
This seems to be the stage reached in the McCann case, where the bulk of the manpower is redeployed.
Wow. You'd give up looking for a missing child after a month. Shocking. Mind you the your thinking does seem to coincide with that of the PJ so...
-
Please stop goading me. I am neither hopeful nor unhopeful - I am keeping an open mind, and suggest it would be wise for you to do likewise. In any case they may have uncovered f-all as of today, but tomorrow something highly significant may drop in their laps. If you're searching for buried treasure in a field every day you dig and find nothing could be construed as a complete waste of time and effort, however as you cover territory you can rule out places you have dug before and move on to the next place so it's not effort completely wasted. The next time you dig you may hit gold. You just don't know until the whole field has been dug up whether your effort was worth it or not.
Nobody is goading you. I gave you my opinion as a former professional, whether you accept it is entirely up to you.
-
I never mentioned safe return. Nobody with valid information will come forward as long as SY go about looking for scalps. They were the wrong people to pursue this enquiry but hey that's life.
A reward with an amnesty of some sort should have been offered long ago but I fear it is too late now.
So, remind us of the reward you think should be offered? An amnesty for who? The person who took her?
-
So, remind us of the reward you think should be offered? An amnesty for who? The person who took her?
Did anyone take her?
-
Nobody is goading you. I gave you my opinion as a former professional, whether you accept it is entirely up to you.
So, as a former professional are you saying that all police operations such as Operation Grange normally divulge everything they have uncovered to the public as they go along?
-
Wow. You'd give up looking for a missing child after a month. Shocking. Mind you the your thinking does seem to coincide with that of the PJ so...
That's not what I said, as well you know . I said a month without any fruitful leads. Such a case would remain open in case of further developments.
-
Did anyone take her?
Who are you offering an amnesty to, and what is the wording of the reward you would offer?
-
That's not what I said, as well you know . I said a month without any fruitful leads. Such a case would remain open in case of further developments.
But no one actively investigating? A child goes missing in suspicious circumstances but without any clues to followyou'd expect the police to simply give up after a month. That's what you're saying isn't it?
-
Children and adults go missing every day. I'm sure there aren't teams of detectives investigating each one for ever and a day.
-
As it stands there appears little likelihood of this case being solved so anything which can bring closure for Madeleine's parents is to be welcomed. If there was a third party involvement in the disappearance and she is dead then her parents deserve to know. Anything which can resolve this situation should be pursued.
Scotland Yard are looking for someone to prosecute so that they can justify their existence. The reward being offered by them is confirmation of this. No reward is on offer for Madeleine's return, I find that quite appalling.
As for an amnesty, that is a matter for the Portuguese authorities.
Bumping for John - highlighted above. You DID say you would offer a reward for Madeleine's return, so once again I ask - if Madeleine is dead, what good is a reward for her return?
-
Children and adults go missing every day. I'm sure there aren't teams of detectives investigating each one for ever and a day.
Do you consider the money spent on the investigations into the disappearances of Claudia Lawrence and Ben Needham to be a complete waste of money?
-
A person disappears in suspicious circumstances but the perpetrator is thoughtless enough to leave behind no clues making it difficult to a) find the missing person and b) arrest and charge the perpetrator. Should the police therefore after a month of fruitless investigating call it a day even if it means that the perpetrator is free to commit another crime? Should that be the morally correct, expedient course of action?
-
But no one actively investigating? A child goes missing in suspicious circumstances but without any clues to followyou'd expect the police to simply give up after a month. That's what you're saying isn't it?
The alternative is to continue activity in the absence of clues to follow.
What activity should occur in the absence of clues to follow?
Should DCI Wall say to the team "I know you have no clues to follow, but just do something?"
There definitely is a point at which activity should cease and when resources should be deployed on other efforts.
-
So, as a former professional are you saying that all police operations such as Operation Grange normally divulge everything they have uncovered to the public as they go along?
Certainly not. Police divulge things when it is in their interest to do so. Redwood took it upon himself to reveal certain things through the BBC Crimewatch programme in the hope that someone would come forward with further information. The fact that nothing at all has been divulged since leads me to believe they have exhausted all their leads and are at a stalemate. All forensic testing has ceased which means no progress on that front, another dead end.
-
Bumping for John - highlighted above. You DID say you would offer a reward for Madeleine's return, so once again I ask - if Madeleine is dead, what good is a reward for her return?
Only a parent would know the answer to that one.
-
History has shown us that the police are the first to pat themselves on the back when they are successful but on this occasion their efforts can be described as an abject failure. I really cannot point to anything they have uncovered which has brought any sort of closure to this case.
Just because there is no longer a constant poisonous drip feed of half-baked leaks doesn't mean that nothing has been achieved.
-
Only a parent would know the answer to that one.
Would you care to expand on your answer? You put up a reward for a child to be returned, but the reality is - that child is dead. How is anyone going to claim the reward? And how does this reward benefit the child, the reason ou earlier gave for putting up such a reward in the first place?
-
Certainly not. Police divulge things when it is in their interest to do so. Redwood took it upon himself to reveal certain things through the BBC Crimewatch programme in the hope that someone would come forward with further information. The fact that nothing at all has been divulged since leads me to believe they have exhausted all their leads and are at a stalemate. All forensic testing has ceased which means no progress on that front, another dead end.
Why? There were years of investigation done in near silence before they revealed anything at all, same could apply now. The fact is, you don't know so please don't pretend you do.
-
Certainly not. Police divulge things when it is in their interest to do so. Redwood took it upon himself to reveal certain things through the BBC Crimewatch programme in the hope that someone would come forward with further information. The fact that nothing at all has been divulged since leads me to believe they have exhausted all their leads and are at a stalemate. All forensic testing has ceased which means no progress on that front, another dead end.
The Crimewatch programme was broadcast on October 13th 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509614
The Portuguese investigation into Madeleine McCann's case was reopened on October 24th 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
Although not a joint operation, there was co-operation between both forces. However it was made plain by the Portuguese that any information leaking from the inquiry would not be tolerated.
After initial leaks to a blogger who published the names of people to be interviewed as arguidos and persons of interest it has been a very tight run ship with no unauthorised information coming into the public domain from either the Portuguese or British investigations.
DCI Redwood spoke freely, perhaps when he could.
Quote
However the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowler today revealed that his counterparts in Portugal have warned that if media briefings are given on the investigation, the local officers working on behalf of Scotland Yard will stop working 'until that problem dissipates'.
In an open-letter dated today, Assistant Commissioner Rowley said he had explained the Metropolitan Police's practice of making public as much information as possible, but respects the Portuguese position.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic22360.html
-
"1968 - The murder of Roy Tutill
Roy TutillIn 1968, 14-year-old Roy Tutill disappeared on his way home from school, sparking off one of the longest-running murder investigations in the history of Surrey Police. A number of witnesses reported seeing a schoolboy talking to a man in a car and three days later, foresters found Roy’s body in the field. Many thousands of interviews and statements were taken, but no likely suspects were found.
The case was regularly re-opened, but no progress was made until 1995, almost 30 years later. Samples were taken from Roy’s clothing and a partial profile of the killer was established using the national DNA database. Towards the end of 1999, a newspaper article on the Tutill murder served to bring forward a number of people naming possible suspects, including reports from one person that they had been sexually assaulted many years before, by a Brian Lunn Field. Enquiries quickly revealed that Field was indeed a dangerous offender, who had already been convicted for an indecent assault in Scotland. Field had been stopped for a drink-driving offence and when he was arrested a mouth swab was taken, his DNA linked him to the murder of Roy Tutill and he was arrested in 2001 and finally confessed everything.
Field pleaded guilty in court in 2001 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This was one of the oldest cases ever to have returned a guilty verdict".
If only the police had called it a day after a month, just think of all that time, money and effort they could have saved over the years!
-
"1968 - The murder of Roy Tutill
Roy TutillIn 1968, 14-year-old Roy Tutill disappeared on his way home from school, sparking off one of the longest-running murder investigations in the history of Surrey Police. A number of witnesses reported seeing a schoolboy talking to a man in a car and three days later, foresters found Roy’s body in the field. Many thousands of interviews and statements were taken, but no likely suspects were found.
The case was regularly re-opened, but no progress was made until 1995, almost 30 years later. Samples were taken from Roy’s clothing and a partial profile of the killer was established using the national DNA database. Towards the end of 1999, a newspaper article on the Tutill murder served to bring forward a number of people naming possible suspects, including reports from one person that they had been sexually assaulted many years before, by a Brian Lunn Field. Enquiries quickly revealed that Field was indeed a dangerous offender, who had already been convicted for an indecent assault in Scotland. Field had been stopped for a drink-driving offence and when he was arrested a mouth swab was taken, his DNA linked him to the murder of Roy Tutill and he was arrested in 2001 and finally confessed everything.
Field pleaded guilty in court in 2001 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This was one of the oldest cases ever to have returned a guilty verdict".
If only the police had called it a day after a month, just think of all that time, money and effort they could have saved over the years!
Exactly, it wasn't being actively pursued for the whole of that time, it was periodically revisited.
None of these cases are closed, just not actively pursued unless there is evidence to do so.
-
Exactly, it wasn't being actively pursued for the whole of that time, it was periodically revisited.
None of these cases are closed, just not actively pursued unless there is evidence to do so.
In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance hasn't been open for the entire duration of her disappearance. There was a review, evidence was found that had been overlooked the first time round, it is being investigated, what's your problem?
-
The Crimewatch programme was broadcast on October 13th 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509614
The Portuguese investigation into Madeleine McCann's case was reopened on October 24th 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
Although not a joint operation, there was co-operation between both forces. However it was made plain by the Portuguese that any information leaking from the inquiry would not be tolerated.
After initial leaks to a blogger who published the names of people to be interviewed as arguidos and persons of interest it has been a very tight run ship with no unauthorised information coming into the public domain from either the Portuguese or British investigations.
DCI Redwood spoke freely, perhaps when he could.
Quote
However the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowler today revealed that his counterparts in Portugal have warned that if media briefings are given on the investigation, the local officers working on behalf of Scotland Yard will stop working 'until that problem dissipates'.
In an open-letter dated today, Assistant Commissioner Rowley said he had explained the Metropolitan Police's practice of making public as much information as possible, but respects the Portuguese position.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic22360.html
I was about to hunt for that, Brietta. ;)
-
In case you hadn't noticed, the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance hasn't been open for the entire duration of her disappearance. There was a review, evidence was found that had been overlooked the first time round, it is being investigated, what's your problem?
None at all, just that eventually it must come to an end, even if there isn't a result
If there isn't a result, then the money has ultimately been wasted.
-
None at all, just that eventually it must come to an end, even if there isn't a result
If there isn't a result, then the money has ultimately been wasted.
Going back to the case of Roy Tutill, 10 years after his death would you say that all the money that had been spent on investigating his murder up until then had been wasted?
-
Let's say the case into Madeleine's disappearance is shelved next year, and re-opened in 5 years time as new evidence has been discovered - where does that leave us vis-a-vis the money that has been spent to date? Still a complete waste? Will the cost of any further investigation only cause more moaning about further financial burden to the taxpayer?
-
I think I've made my position quite clear. You disagree. Fine.
-
I think I've made my position quite clear. You disagree. Fine.
I think I've just asked a couple of questions that you simply can't answer. Fine.
-
Certainly not. Police divulge things when it is in their interest to do so. Redwood took it upon himself to reveal certain things through the BBC Crimewatch programme in the hope that someone would come forward with further information. The fact that nothing at all has been divulged since leads me to believe they have exhausted all their leads and are at a stalemate. All forensic testing has ceased which means no progress on that front, another dead end.
IMO, SY took the leads that the PJ had discounted and pursued them to the same conclusion.
-
IMO, SY took the leads that the PJ had discounted and pursued them to the same conclusion.
Imo SY took leads that the PJ had discounted and were prevented from investigating them
-
Imo SY took leads that the PJ had discounted and were prevented from investigating them
It would have been interesting seeing them try in an English case.
-
It would have been interesting seeing them try in an English case.
Sometimes things don't pan out in English cases either.
At the least if a case goes wrong a review can be expected to find out what.
In my opinion that it was only in 2011 after years of her parents pleading for one, that the Portuguese (although we didn't know it at the time) and British police carried out such a case review is very disappointing.
Closer to the events and the closure of Madeleine's case would have been more appropriate.
-
Imo SY took leads that the PJ had discounted and were prevented from investigating them
I realise it is only your opinion but by whom and to what end ?