How long, I wonder, before a campaign gets underway to discredit anything this 'convicted fraudster' might have to say? 8(0(*
I wonder if Halligen will mention the report Henri Exton compiled ... the one that pointed out the inconsistencies in the McCanns version of events
How long, I wonder, before a campaign gets underway to discredit anything this 'convicted fraudster' might have to say? 8(0(*
How long, I wonder, before a campaign gets underway to discredit anything this 'convicted fraudster' might have to say? 8(0(*
No campaign needed Jassi
"convicted fraudster" is quite enough.
I guess it is if you have that frame of mind - ie nothing said can possibly be believed.
it means that what he says should be treated with caution as he has a very strong history of lying
Indeed, but it doesn't mean that everything he might say is invalid.
Indeed, but it doesn't mean that everything he might say is invalid.
What did Halligen spend The Fund money on?
It is almost forgivable to rip off big corporations, but to rip off the parents of a missing child is despicable. He will want to be justifying what he did with the money.
Halligan is just after more money. I predict there will be nothing new in this programme. He will announce that he is governed by a confidentiality agreement and speak in general terms. I doubt he will say anything detrimental against the mccanns
Who said he ripped the McCanns off ?
If he fullfilled his contract ... and it sounds s as if his final report was pretty good ... then the amount he was paid was a matter for the Fund
If he had taken the money and produced nothing of value for it then, yes, it might be said that he 'ripped them off'
That's not what appears to have happened though
It appears that, with the help of Henri Exton's expertese, Halligen uncovered significant new leads ( leads which Scotland Yard are now following )
The real question is why were those significant leads not followed up until Scotland Yard got hold of Exton's report
Why, after having sacked Halligen and his team, did the McCanns not act on the significant leads that had been provided ?
I wonder if this programme will cast any light on that
No, it won't. Although Halligan does appear to me to have fulfilled some of his remit. Just not all.
Why were these supposed leads not followed? You don't know that they weren't. But without knowledge of who Smithman was, then it wasn't going to go very far. And still won't.
Amaral obviously wanted it to be Gerry, so never made any attempt to follow it through.
What do you mean "just not all" ?
We don't know whether he fulfilled his remit or not ... we don't even know what his 'remit' was
( perhaps this programme will clarify that )
What we do know, however, is that the report compiled by Henri Exton has been of value to Scotland Yard ... whilst the McCanns, themselves, had chosen not to be guided by it, for some reason
It's odd, though, that Henri Exton was approached by the McCanns' lawyers to ensure he kept quiet about his report ... and yet here is Halligen about to speak openly about it on TV
Wasn't he bound by the same 'confidentiality' clause then ?
You have answered your own question.
The McCanns didn't have the means to follow this sort of lead, especially a man with two entirely different faces.
Who should they have told? The PJ? Although they might have done for all I know. Paiva was chucking that sort of stuff into the "Not Relevant" File.
And I still can't see what use those Efits were without back up from The PJ, which The McCanns weren't getting.
Scotland Yard might do better.
What do you mean "just not all" ?
We don't know whether he fulfilled his remit or not ... we don't even know what his 'remit' was
( perhaps this programme will clarify that )
What we do know, however, is that the report compiled by Henri Exton has been of value to Scotland Yard ... whilst the McCanns, themselves, had chosen not to be guided by it, for some reason
It's odd, though, that Henri Exton was approached by the McCanns' lawyers to ensure he kept quiet about his report ... and yet here is Halligen about to speak openly about it on TV
Wasn't he bound by the same 'confidentiality' clause then ?
Eleanor, the point I am making is that Halligen ( or, rather, Henri Exton ) compiled a report that advised the McCanns to investigate the sighting made by the Smith family with vigour
He further advised them that Jane Tanner's sighting was not reliable and that it was being over-emphasized
... and what did the McCanns do with that advice ? ... they ignored it, that's what
They continued to emphasize the man Jane saw, and maintained that he was 'the abductor' for the next five years
It will be interesting if Halligen has something to say about why the McCanns rejected the intelligence Henri Exton provided
What did you expect The McCanns to do? The PJ weren't interested. Who else was there?
The man that Jane Tanner saw could still be involved, although I don't see what difference that would make.
Hallegan never paid Henri Exton because he was off having jollies elsewhere, and ripping off other people, so what on earth can he have to say?
Eleanor, the point I am making is that Halligen ( or, rather, Henri Exton ) compiled a report that advised the McCanns to investigate the sighting made by the Smith family with vigour
He further advised them that Jane Tanner's sighting was not reliable and that it was being over-emphasized
... and what did the McCanns do with that advice ? ... they ignored it, that's what
They continued to emphasize the man Jane saw, and maintained that he was 'the abductor' for the next five years
It will be interesting if Halligen has something to say about why the McCanns rejected the intelligence Henri Exton provided
Face efits of the prime suspect carrying a child matching Madeleine's description is not in their leaving no stone unturned book. I'm still waiting for an explanation?
and who has said that SY are now following the leads supplied by the convicted fraudster halligan...oh yes...the convicted fraudster halligan
Has Halligan spoken yet, or was it Henri ?
I thought Henri was the one quoted in the ST article.
Not sure I'll be able to see the programme, but will look forward to reading people's comments.
Pathfinder leaving no stone unturned 8(>((
all your facts from ST article that was removed...probably because very little of it was true
Well we will see what was true and what wasn't when Kevin Halligen talks about it next week, won't we ?If we can believe a serial liar !
If we can believe a serial liar !
Well, unless the McCanns make a public denial of anything he claims ( and set their lawyers on him ) then I think we can safely accept he is telling the truthWhat utter tosh.
Well, unless the McCanns make a public denial of anything he claims ( and set their lawyers on him ) then I think we can safely accept he is telling the truth
If Halligen speaks ... and the McCanns make no response or denial ... it will be reasonable to assume he has spoken the truthHave the McCanns not already stated they will not comment on any aspect of the investigation while it is on-going? So, although you may take their silence the day following the programme as an admission of guilt, I think most reasonable people will understand why they are not commenting.
If Halligen speaks ... and the McCanns make no response or denial ... it will be reasonable to assume he has spoken the truth
Have the McCanns not already stated they will not comment on any aspect of the investigation while it is on-going? So, although you may take their silence the day following the programme as an admission of guilt, I think most reasonable people will understand why they are not commenting.
I bet there will be comment from their PR machine, though, possibly attributed to an 'unnamed source' 8(0(*Sooooo, in that eventuality will that be taken as proof of the McCanns' innocence re: Halligen's claims or what?
Have the McCanns not already stated they will not comment on any aspect of the investigation while it is on-going? So, although you may take their silence the day following the programme as an admission of guilt, I think most reasonable people will understand why they are not commenting.
Sooooo, in that eventuality will that be taken as proof of the McCanns' innocence re: Halligen's claims or what?
Now that IS tosh !OK, you obviously know the McCanns better than I do, well done. And, we all know that if you don't deny an accusation made against you it always means your guilty, no matter what the circumstance. That's the law, isn't it?
If the McCanns make no rebuttal it will be because Halligen has spoken the truth
If what he says is not the truth, or if it is disputable, then you can bet the farm that the McCanns will react ( with customery 'fury' ) .... and legal action will be mentioned
That's what they DO
We all know that
Won't that rather depend on content of programme and any statement?
How did Halligan identify the prime suspect? I don't think he ever came up with a name, did he? And everyone knew about this man anyway. He was seen carrying a child. So what's new? Two Efits of the same man that bear no passing resemblance to each other.
So which one was it? Can he tell us that?
It was George wot dunnit.
'It is an extraordinary tale of covert surveillance, sting operations and the bugging of a key witness through the twists and turns of the hunt for a man who was then a prime suspect, code-named "George".'
If the McCanns don't publicly deny the Halligen claims the sceptics believe this will prove that Halligen speaks the truth.
If the McCanns DO publicly deny the Halligen claims the sceptics will believe that they are lying. Isn't this how it works?
Perhaps there will be no claims to refute.Or perhaps there will be claims that don't sit well with the sceptics, in which case Halligen will once again be re-cast by the sceptics as the fraudster he is, instead of the hero-apparent.
Or perhaps there will be claims that don't sit well with the sceptics, in which case Halligen will once again be re-cast by the sceptics as the fraudster he is, instead of the hero-apparent.
Or perhaps there will be claims that don't sit well with the sceptics, in which case Halligen will once again be re-cast by the sceptics as the fraudster he is, instead of the hero-apparent.
Why pre-judge what he might say? Why not wait and see what he does say?
Or perhaps there will be claims that don't sit well with the sceptics, in which case Halligen will once again be re-cast by the sceptics as the fraudster he is, instead of the hero-apparent.
Why hasn't he been gagged in the way Henri Exton wasyou are making several suppositions..
... now there's the fellow I would like to have heard speak about this case
Why pre-judge what he might say? Why not wait and see what he does say?Why not ask that question of Icabodcrone who has already decided Halligen speaks the truth if there's not immediate denials from the McCan camp??
you are making several suppositions..
First...was Exton gagged or was it simply a confidentiality clause in his contract...thats quite normal in the circumstances..
Secondly...Halligan will almost certainly have the same clause in his contract
I suspect Halligan will take his money and reveal nothing we do not already know...apart from a little support for the McCanns perhaps
Well, unless the McCanns make a public denial of anything he claims ( and set their lawyers on him ) then I think we can safely accept he is telling the truth
According to the programme so far , Jane Tanner identified 'George' (Gail Coopers Creepy Man) as the person she saw 'abducting' Madeleine.
I think Halligan will be a massive disappointment for the sceptics
Yes good old reliable Jane is not a fan of the Beatles.
So has that program revealed anything new ?
NO.
Well, I never knew about the fake disenfranchised priest, who went wandering around PDL trying to get a confession out of someone.
Or about the spy family, complete with abduction bait!
The fact that a blonde haired child was used as 'bait' made my blood run cold. Whatever her parents or guardians thought they were doing, the child could not give informed consent to that.
I do not think that was ethical. I think it was bad practice.
But was it true Brietta - I couldn't work out whether it was, or whether it was being cited as another of Halligens lies?
One thing that struck me about Halligen is how bad he actually is at telling lies. How he ever convinced anyone that he was who he said he was beats me.
[/color]
The fact that a blonde haired child was used as 'bait' made my blood run cold. Whatever her parents or guardians thought they were doing, the child could not give informed consent to that.
I do not think that was ethical. I think it was bad practice.
Yes,I too have read that the report holds information detrimental to the Mccann's. It appears that the investigating team moved from Tannerman to Smithman,hence the e-fits. It also appears that the McCanns downplayed any possible role by Smithman by not making public those e-fits. Makes me wonder if the whole idea of the private investigators was to keep the public focus on Tannerman,thus keeping the heat off Smithman? A diversion tactic? One might say that no matter how crooked Halligen was,his team did their job well as in discovering that Smithman was the one and NOT Tannerman after all,long before SY discovered that he was just an innocent tourist!
What came out of the programme was that Exton regarded the mccanns as victims.
The programme was very sympathetic towards the mccanns and as I predicted anyone looking for revelations that would cast doubt on the mccanns would be disappointed.
I cant understand how even the dimmest people cant see that the mccanns are not criminally involved in maddie's disappearance.
I predict another massive disappointment for some posters on here with the results of the digging.I am absolutely confident that IF ANYTHING is found it will NOT incriminate the mccannns.
Yes,I too have read that the report holds information detrimental to the Mccann's. It appears that the investigating team moved from Tannerman to Smithman,hence the e-fits. It also appears that the McCanns downplayed any possible role by Smithman by not making public those e-fits. Makes me wonder if the whole idea of the private investigators was to keep the public focus on Tannerman,thus keeping the heat off Smithman? A diversion tactic? One might say that no matter how crooked Halligen was,his team did their job well as in discovering that Smithman was the one and NOT Tannerman after all,long before SY discovered that he was just an innocent tourist!
The article from which you are making your assumptions also stated that Martin Smith no longer believes that it was Gerry McCann whom he saw. SY and the Portuguese police don't believe it was Gerry either - and so why any need to 'keep the heat off Smithman ?
Not a single word was uttered in that programme by the Omega team which pointed a finger at the McCanns - in fact sympathy was expressed for them at the agony they were suffering knowing their child had been abducted. Common sense alone dictates they would hardly be making those kind of comments if their investigations had resulted in their becoming suspicious of the McCanns.
What came out of the programme was that Exton regarded the mccanns as victims.
The programme was very sympathetic towards the mccanns and as I predicted anyone looking for revelations that would cast doubt on the mccanns would be disappointed.
I cant understand how even the dimmest people cant see that the mccanns are not criminally involved in maddie's disappearance.
I predict another massive disappointment for some posters on here with the results of the digging.I am absolutely confident that IF ANYTHING is found it will NOT incriminate the mccannns.
Now why are you so confident in your prediction dave ? >@@(*&)
ALL the available evidence
8(>((4
...and that is ?
...... forensics to back it up ?
posters have been debating for seven years...it makes no difference...best to be like WS ...just state your opinion and be done with it.....mccannns innocent of all allegations based on the available evidence
of course it was sympathetic.
exton was being 'paid' to investigate an 'abduction', so what would you expect ?
Snipped - as off topic.
To get back on topic i.e. the documentary - are you inferring Exton were lying when they expressed sympathy for the McCanns? Please clarify.
Was it Exton who expressed sympathy or the younger man Harvey something or other ?
Was it Exton who expressed sympathy or the younger man Harvey something or other ?
Really ?
Care to post the quote Dave ?
If we are taking the programme at face value then we should also conclude that Jane Tanner is not a reliable witness.
It was near the start...doesn't matter what quote I give it wont be enough..it was a significant point in the programme as far as I was concerned
What a sad statement. Jane Tanner was portrayed as a witness desperate to help whose information in this instance was rendered unusable because of the leading questions asked.
At no time was her integrity called into question in the Channel 5 documentary.
If we are taking the programme at face value then we should also conclude that Jane Tanner is not a reliable witness.
Ookkaayyy ! Just watched the documentary again and nowhere does Exton express any feelings about the McCanns at all. Tim Craig-Harvey does at the beginning but not Exton. This begs the question why you and several other supporters are trying to suggest otherwise ?
One thing that did strike me on a second viewing is how absolutely appallingly unprofessional certain operatives for Oakley actually were. They seem to have taken the efit supplied by Gail Cooper of a man seen weeks before the McCanns arrived in Luz, whio had no tangible link to the disappearance that I have ever found, and ran with it. Why ? What made them put so much faith in the recollections of a witness who seems to have had no other reason for flagging up the George individual other than he was 'creepy' and he walked on the beach in the rain ?
To get back on topic i.e. the documentary - are you inferring Exton were lying when they expressed sympathy for the McCanns? Please clarify.
Odd, isn't it, that Major Tim Craig-Harvey ( who expressed sympathy for the McCanns' plight ) was allowed to speak publicly about the investigation, even going into considerable detail on operational matters
Henri Exton who was in charge of all operational matters, on the other hand, is still 'legally bound' to stay silent
Why would that be, I wonder
Odd, isn't it, that Major Tim Craig-Harvey ( who expressed sympathy for the McCanns' plight ) was allowed to speak publicly about the investigation, even going into considerable detail on operational matters
Henri Exton who was in charge of all operational matters, on the other hand, is still 'legally bound' to stay silent
Why would that be, I wonder
The only reference Henri Exton made to the investigation ( after a voice over pointed out that he was legally bound not to discuss it in public ) was :
Obviously I can't go into any details but I suppose the regret is that the work we presented didn't solve the mystery of her disappearance. But the work we did do provided significant - significant - opportunities to take it to the next level. Sadly the destruction of Halligen's behaviour somewhat undermined the very good work that was done"
It appears that Scotland Yard, who have been presented with Exton's report, including recommendations, have done just that
Taken it to the next level
Oakley was apparently responsible for the report, and there was presumably a confidentiality clause. Exton wrote the report, on behalf of Oakley, didn't he? What's odd about a confidentiality clause in a contract, or termination thereof?
My point was that Major Tim, who was sympathetic to the McCanns, was permitted to talk about the investigation in a very detailed way
The same 'confidentiality clause' would apply to him too, wouldn't it ?
Yet only Exton was 'legally bound' not to speak about his findings or voice his opinion
But was it true Brietta - I couldn't work out whether it was, or whether it was being cited as another of Halligens lies?
Early on in the rolling credits was a legal adviser. I expect that that person would know more than most of us about the legalities.
Henri Exton is ''legally bound' not to discuss the investigation publicly ... that was stated 'out loud' on the programme, so no need to analyse the 'credits'
Legal means have been used to prevent him from talking about his findings and opinions
That was why he was unable to say anything about them on the show that was aired last night
Henri Exton did not express sympathy for the McCanns
Not sure about that.
1) He may simply have stated that he did not wish to be interviewed on camera.
2) He may not allowed have allowed to be, in view of his former career.
3) He seems to have written up the report on behalf of Oakley, for which there is a confidentiality clause.
What would appear to be a standard clause doesn't appear to have stopped any of them from airing their views. If that had been illegal, then presumably the overseeing legal adviser for the documentary would have stepped in.
Carana ... it was stated, unequivically, that Exton was 'legally bound' not to discuss his investigation publicly
How that can cause you confusion is beyond me
And that 'clause' you keep refering to ( although no such clause has ever been mentioned ) certainly did not "stop any of them from airing their views"
Nice Major Tim, who was working for Henri Exton, was permitted to air his views extensively ( including his sympathy for the McCanns )
Henri Exton and the team completed a report on Operation Omega, explaining all the work done and recommendations for future action. Its authors are legally bound to not to discuss it publicly, but the report is in the hands of Scotland Yard detectives.
Exton, though, was gagged for some reason
It must be remembered that Oakley broke the Law in Portugal by undertaking a criminal investigation including surveillance on the ground in Praia da Luz and elsewhere. The Madeleine fund and the McCanns themselves were the client in this operation and were fully cognisant of what was going on. This in itself raises the question as to how much the Portuguese authorities and the PJ in particular knew about this operation because in the final analysis it was ILLEGAL.
I am bumping this post as a reminder that the McCanns investigative activities in Portugal were illegal under Portuguese Law. I am surprised that not more has been made of this fact and especially so in the libel trial.
What they did was a crime and leaves them open to criminal prosecution even now as South African Stephen Birch has found out to his cost.
Was this the real reason why they left Praia da Luz in such a hurry?
Not directly, unlike Major Tim. However, "Exton" (played by an actor seemingly) did however seem frustrated that Halligen didn't seem to care that the case was about a little girl that were trying to find.
One thing that impressed me on this programme was just how good at his job Henri Exton is
It was he who, after carrying out a private investigation into Halligen, was able to present the FBI with a report that eventually led to Halligen's arrest and imprisonment
It was Exton who 'uncovered' Halligen !
He doesn't strike me as the kind of fellow you would want to cross, or try to intimidate or bully
He also appears to be a determined sort of chap and I'm wondering if, perhaps, he continued to privately investigate Madeleine's disappearance on some small scale
He mentioned that he had provided significant ( his emphasis ) opportunities to take it to the next level, and it must have been difficult for him to just forget all about it having gotten to that stage of the investigation
Perhaps he is advising the Metropolitan police even now. They certainly seem to have put great stock in his original report, afterall
Yes, I expect that most of the rest of the team were really working hard and may have given useful input to the Met.
Personally, I found Major Tim, Exton et al., to be clearly pissed off with Halligen, and seemingly for good reason. Not just about the financial issues with Halligen, e.g., when Exton had to pick up the tab, but Halligen had managed to drag their reputations down with him. That's not fair, is it?
I am bumping this post as a reminder that the McCanns investigative activities in Portugal were illegal under Portuguese Law. I am surprised that not more has been made of this fact and especially so in the libel trial.
What they did was a crime and leaves them open to criminal prosecution even now as South African Stephen Birch has found out to his cost.
Was this the real reason why they left Praia da Luz in such a hurry?
Perhaps the Oakley investigation extended to scrutiny of Amaral himself & it would not be in his interests to pursue this aspect?
Perhaps the Oakley investigation extended to scrutiny of Amaral himself & it would not be in his interests to pursue this aspect?
I doubt that Exton's reputation has been in the slightest bit tarnished by Halligen
On the contrary, in the circles he moves in I would imagine Exton's stock has risen considerably ... he 'exposed' Halligen, afterall, and sent a clear message that nobody messes with him
That's a good point misty. Oakley superseded Spanish outfit Método 3 and it is known for a fact that they attempted to interfere with Amaral and the Capriano case WHILST EMPLOYED BY THE MCCANNS.
According to which tabloid?
I tend to agree with you on that. But in the meantime the Halligen affair may well have affected his credibility in the eyes of those who didn't know him. I'm not surprised he's pissed off. I wonder if ever got his £100k back from Halligen? And was that just expenses to be paid out to operatives or did that include his fees?
Carana ... it was stated, unequivically, that Exton was 'legally bound' not to discuss his investigation publicly
How that can cause you confusion is beyond me
And that 'clause' you keep refering to ( although no such clause has ever been mentioned ) certainly did not "stop any of them from airing their views"
Nice Major Tim, who was working for Henri Exton, was permitted to air his views extensively ( including his sympathy for the McCanns )
Exton, though, was gagged for some reason
If as believed the dossier compiled by Oakley has been handed to the Met and forms the basis for part of their current and very active investigation into Madeleine's case ~ might it not be that the information is so sensitive as to prevent jeopardising a future prosecution or risk alerting positive suspects to what is known about them if made public.
Publication of what it contains could compromise potential witnesses. There are all sorts of reasons for discretion.
I don’t think there is anything sinister at all about Henri Exton’s silence.
It was also claimed in the documentary that Jane Tanner supposedly positively identified Gail Cooper's Cooperman as the man she saw carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/ShJZa9inajI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/gbzXlkRDAEM/s400/IMG+010.jpg-cooperman)
It was not a question of it being 'claimed' that Jane Tanner positively identified the market trader ( who was thought to be Cooperman ) ... and there was nothing 'supposed' about it
Jane Tanner was secretly taped as she made that positive identification, and the recording is part of the file now in the hands of Scotland Yard
Here's a question, though, why did Exton's men secretly tape Jane Tanner ?
I take that to mean she was not aware they were doing it .... what was that about then ?
Hmm.. could it be in case she changed her mind as she did with Robert Murat?
It was not a question of it being 'claimed' that Jane Tanner positively identified the market trader ( who was thought to be Cooperman ) ... and there was nothing 'supposed' about it
Jane Tanner was secretly taped as she made that positive identification, and the recording is part of the file now in the hands of Scotland Yard
Here's a question, though, why did Exton's men secretly tape Jane Tanner ?
I take that to mean she was not aware they were doing it .... what was that about then ?
They didn't want any ambiguity ?
Hmm.. could it be in case she changed her mind as she did with Robert Murat?
Are you telling me that if one of your own kids had been missing, and when the PJ were going nowhere aside from having decided that you were involved, and you had the means to hire PIs to try to find your missing child that you wouldn't have done the same?
Yes according to the documentary, very good at seeing people that aren't there.She did see someone and she saw him when she said she saw him. The Met have confirmed this. Get over it.
When did she "change her mind" over Murat?
Like I said earlier....unreliable. Which is a shame because it just leaves you wondering what's true and what isn't. She certainly does not seem as rock solid a witness as some members of this forum have repeatedly claimed.
Well I wouldn't hesitate to 'break the law' if one of my kids was God knows where, in the hands of God knows what !
I wouldn't give it a moments thought ... wouldn't give a toss
I don't blame the McCanns for doing it either
Well I wouldn't hesitate to 'break the law' if one of my kids was God knows where, in the hands of God knows what !
I wouldn't give it a moments thought ... wouldn't give a toss
I don't blame the McCanns for doing it either
definitely Exton....
Would breaking the law be your first choice though, before cooperating with the law?It wasn't their first choice. Do you really think that given the choice between spending huge amounts of cash on an "illegal" investigation and cooperating with a law enforcement that actually did its job properly that they wouldn't' have chosen the latter?
It wasn't their first choice. Do you really think that given the choice between spending huge amounts of cash on an "illegal" investigation and cooperating with a law enforcement that actually did its job properly that they wouldn't' have chosen the latter?
It wasn't their first choice. Do you really think that given the choice between spending huge amounts of cash on an "illegal" investigation and cooperating with a law enforcement that actually did its job properly that they wouldn't' have chosen the latter?
They didn't have to break the Law had they fully cooperated with the official investigation instead of attempting to influence it.
As far as satellite imagery is concerned wasn't it a dark cloudy night on 3rd May 2007? I don't think they have invented a camera yet that can take photos in the dark at a height of 30 miles through clouds.
I guess it not being their own hard earned long green folding stuff but public subscriptions may have coloured their judgement a little. Who knows.Oh? I thought as soon as it hit the Fund account it made them millionaires? Isn't that standard doubter logic?
Even stranger then that they chose the least desirable option?Only after the most desirable option turned out to be no option at all.
They chose not to participate in a reconstruction and not to answer questions.They did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction. And at least 50% of the McCanns DID answer all the questions. In fact they co-operated fully up to the point when then were told plead guilty and you'd only get 2 years in chokey. I mean, I'm sure you'd feel very positive towards any police force that put that to you and would co-operate fully, doing everything they asked, right?
It wasn't their cash they were spending either.
Whether you like it or not, they didn't cooperate fully with the investigating force and they didn't highlight this significant lead that Exton came up with. They did pay vast quantities of cash on dodgy PI's and they did splash tannerman over every available surface.
I'm not saying any of that equates to involvement in their daughters disappearance. Just a bit odd, really.
They did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction. And at least 50% of the McCanns DID answer all the questions. In fact they co-operated fully up to the point when then were told plead guilty and you'd only get 2 years in chokey. I mean, I'm sure you'd feel very positive towards any police force that put that to you and would co-operate fully, doing everything they asked, right?
She didn't see the guy she identified which in the opinion of certain people involved in the investigation make her unreliable.....now you get over it. BTW do you have a cite to confirm the met stating what time crecheman passed or are you just assuming?I don't NEED a cite from the Met confirming what time crecheman passed by because they made it clear that they had 'almost certainly' ruled out JT's sighting being the abductor - something they would not be able to do if the timings were out. Unless you think SY would rule out JT's sighting based on crecheman giving them a time significantly different from that time which JT said she saw a man outside Apt 5A?
None of that actually makes her reliable. It's just making excuses for the unreliability of her claim.
They did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction. And at least 50% of the McCanns DID answer all the questions. In fact they co-operated fully up to the point when then were told plead guilty and you'd only get 2 years in chokey. I mean, I'm sure you'd feel very positive towards any police force that put that to you and would co-operate fully, doing everything they asked, right?
Did any doubter fancy concocting a plausible theory that answers the above?
Ah that old myth again.The law that says it's illegal to torture suspects? Or which one specifically did you have in mind?
Don't you know Portuguese Law. ?
Perhaps they just wanted to be reassured that the (non-existent) satellite images didn't show anything of use to the investigation.Erm...how did they know they in advance that they were non-existent and how would they know what they would or would not show?
The law that says it's illegal to torture suspects? Or which one specifically did you have in mind?
Erm...how did they know they in advance that they were non-existent and how would they know what they would or would not show?
Erm...how did they know they in advance that they were non-existent and how would they know what they would or would not show?
They did not refuse to take part in a reconstruction. And at least 50% of the McCanns DID answer all the questions. In fact they co-operated fully up to the point when then were told plead guilty and you'd only get 2 years in chokey. I mean, I'm sure you'd feel very positive towards any police force that put that to you and would co-operate fully, doing everything they asked, right?
When did the McCanns not cooperate fully in accordance with the law?
Making deals sunshine. 8((()*/
As to torture, who was tortured in this case ???
You will have to do better than that.
Sergey Malinka wasn't too happy about certain aspects of his interview, I believe.
Sergey Malinka wasn't too happy about certain aspects of his interview, I believe.
So you don't have one? Thought so....nothing more than assumption
Only after the most desirable option turned out to be no option at all.
I wouldn't know.
The legal position is that "The Fund" exists as a limited company and as a legal person. The company has a board of directors who must run it in accordance with the company's articles of association and The Companies Act 2006. The board of directors are natural persons. Should the board of directors all pop their clogs say in a minibus smash tonight the company will still be in existence tomorrow morning. What happens to the dosh then would depend on who Companies House appointed to run the company.
Pretty much.
I don't NEED a cite from the Met confirming what time crecheman passed by because they made it clear that they had 'almost certainly' ruled out JT's sighting being the abductor - something they would not be able to do if the timings were out. Unless you think SY would rule out JT's sighting based on crecheman giving them a time significantly different from that time which JT said she saw a man outside Apt 5A?
That's because to be brutally frank, SY can't even confirm the time he passed by.
They didn't. They were working on the assumption that images did exist and that they might show something.OK. Let's try again. Why would the McCanns wish to uncover evidence of themselves committing a heinous crime (allegedly) and pay large sums of money to do so? Do you think they actually wanted more people to know about their alleged crimes and they did this by paying people to go and find evidence of their alleged wrong-doing? Would that be the actions of most criminals?
It was obviously only later that they learned that they were non-existent.
So you don't have one? Thought so....nothing more than assumptionCan you give me a logical reason why Scotland Yard would be almost certain that the man JT saw had been identified as a father returning from the creche if the time he gave did not match the time JT said she saw him?
Can you give me a logical reason why Scotland Yard would be almost certain that the man JT saw had been identified as a father returning from the creche if the time he gave did not match the time JT said she saw him?
Why would the McCanns be so keen to spend huge amounts of cash on satellite imagery of that night if all it showed was their alleged illegal activity?
The Oakley operatives would have signed a confidentuality clause so anything they presented to the McCanns could not be disclosed to anyone else and if they were involved in their daughter's disappearance don't you think that information that they had been caught in the act by a satellite would be useful ?
The Oakley operatives would have signed a confidentuality clause so anything they presented to the McCanns could not be disclosed to anyone else and if they were involved in their daughter's disappearance don't you think the fact that they had been caught in the act by a satellite would be useful information ?Don't be ridiculous. If the Oakley operatives had evidence in the form of satellite imagery (or anything else for that matter) that proved the McCanns had a hand in their child's disappearance they would just take it to the police and that would be that. T he confidentiality clause wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on once the McCanns were banged up.
SY found themselves in a scenario whereby for 7 years Tannerman had been the sole focus. SY then got access to Oakley's report which included evidence of Tanner's unreliability. SY subsequently found a way to ditch Tanner and Tannerman by dragging Crecheman up from way back in time.So SY are lying to us, is that what you're saying?
So SY are lying to us, is that what you're saying?
They have very cleverly left themselves "almost certain" and you have accepted it......mission accomplished without the why's and wherefore's being questioned.Well why the f..k didn't they say - "having reviewed all the evidence we've come to the conclusion that JT was mistaken. There was almost certainly no man carrying a child at the time she said, she must have got mixed up owing to the stress or wanting to be helpful" - that way, they wouldn't need to lie to the public, they would completely discredit her but not in such a way as to libel her, and that would have been that. Please explain why you think they chose to make a story up instead.
Lying is not relevant to them. Removing an unreliable witness that has led them down a dead end for 7 years is relevant.
Well why the f..k didn't they say - "having reviewed all the evidence we've come to the conclusion that JT was mistaken. There was almost certainly no man carrying a child at the time she said, she must have got mixed up owing to the stress or wanting to be helpful" - that way, they wouldn't need to lie to the public, they would completely discredit her but not in such a way as to libel her, and that would have been that. Please explain why you think they chose to make a story up instead.
Who said they made up a story? I said they were "almost certain" which allows scope for error. They may have wanted to save face due to having possibly been looking for the wrong person for 7 years? With the UK press scrutinizing their every move would you expect them to follow your suggestion and suffer a bloodbath via the press? Get real!Erm...SY have not been looking for the wrong person for 7 years so that's where your little theory falls apart. They came in as a fresh pair of eyes a couple of years ago and could very easily, after the "forensic examination" of the timeline, have "almost certainly" dismissed JT's sighting on the basis that she made a mistake. Instead they decided to let it be known publicly that her sighting has been verified by them as "almost certainly" having happened where and when she said. It even provided the Met with a "revelation moment". You may cling on to the word "almost" for comfort and hope but I'm afraid you're hoping in vain.
At least now we know for sure how long the e-fits have been hidden from public gaze.
By the UK and Portuguese police, who had it in their possession for several years before the crimewatch programme
At least now we know for sure how long the e-fits have been hidden from public gaze.
By the UK and Portuguese police, who had it in their possession for several years before the crimewatch programme
Well for starters by...
1. Breaking the law by commissioning a private criminal investigation on Portuguese soil.
2. Refusing a reconstitution in terms of that required by the official investigation.
3. By engaging in a media campaign to discredit the official investigation.
Really? You have proof of that?
Really? You have proof of that?
The Times apology:
Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund
The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013
Comment (1) Print
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
1. Doesn't that contradict your statement re Grime using human remains to train his dog in the US where it is legal - thus breaking no laws - and then employing those dogs to work in countries where such training is illegal? The McCanns did not break any UK laws when they employed PI's who then worked in countries where it was illegal to employ PI's. Isn't that the same principle?
2. They were Arguidos and not allowed to refuse. In fact IIRC they confirmed dates on which they could attend. It was the PJ's stipulation that unless everyone attended the recon would not take place. So once Jez Wilkiins - an independent witness, said 'no' it was dead in the water anyway. Personally I think that the PJ knew the chances of the group agreeing to return were practically nil from the beginning. In fact I wouild speculate that they were banking on that being the case.
3. The McCanns are not responsible for or control what the Press decide to print. Their campaign from the beginning was to keep their daughter's profile as high as possible in the public eye - in accordance with the recommendations from experts on missing people who clearly state that doing that would give Madeleine the best chance of being found. And that is what they've done.
1. They broke Portuguese law.
2. They was no excuse for not going back. Trying to pretend there was is irrelevant. All their employers would have allowed this to happen.
3., The mccanns, clarence mitchell, etc., having been feeding the press one way or the other from the start. Don't kid yourself in this regard.
4. Not ONE trace of Madeleine has been found after 7 years, and it is not hard to work out why.
1. Martin Grime broke UK law when he trained his dogs in the US using human remains.
2. The group had plenty of reasons for not going back. A total and very understandable lack of the trust in the motives of the PJ for starters.
3 Anyone who thinks that hardnosed UK newspaper editors and their legal teams are under the control of the McCanns/Clarence Mitchell is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
4. So what exactly is it that ...'is not hard to work out why'?... Please clarify.
Unless the document cover has been tampered with >@@(*&)
Wait for it, wait for it @)(++(*
Why would the McCanns be so keen to spend huge amounts of cash on satellite imagery of that night if all it showed was their alleged illegal activity?
Quite.
Alright, I'll try to answer as honestly as I can.
It's really , really hard for me to 'get over' them leaving the kids alone, so my first thought is that I'd never have been in that position. I immediately jump to 'how could they do that'? I find it almost impossible to put that to one side and start from the point that you and others seem to, which is not why Madeleine went missing in the first place, but that she is missing.
What would I have done if my child was missing in a foreign country and I thought I was about to be fitted up?
Beg probably. Beg and plead. I think I would've cooperated fully in the hope that doing so would eliminate me from their inquires.
... and of course, once the guilty plea is in the bag the foul fiends then need to show remorse by spilling the beans on where the body is to get their two year sentence.
Difficult one that ~ if you didn't kill your daughter ~ if you didn't cover up her accidental death ~ if you have absolutely no idea where her body is.
Even more difficult if you firmly believe your daughter is alive ~ and with the crime conveniently 'solved' ~ absolutely no one would be looking for her.
Even at that stage of the investigation no official search was being pursued for Madeleine, that had been replaced by efforts to implicate her parents in her disappearance.
Well for starters by...
1. Breaking the law by commissioning a private criminal investigation on Portuguese soil.
2. Refusing a reconstitution in terms of that required by the official investigation.
3. By engaging in a media campaign to discredit the official investigation.
That's because to be brutally frank, SY can't even confirm the time he passed by.
Pre-warned would be pre-armed and a ready excuse could be prepared ?Utter nonsense. Anything the satellite may have shown up that didn't correlate with the McCanns' version of events and showed suspicious behaviour by them could not be excused in any way, shape or form. This is a very lame bit of spinning on your part. No criminal that I have ever heard of has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds employing a large team of people to try to uncover photographic evidence of their own wrong-doing - it's utterly absurd.
Utter nonsense. Anything the satellite may have shown up that didn't correlate with the McCanns' version of events and showed suspicious behaviour by them could not be excused in any way, shape or form. This is a very lame bit of spinning on your part. No criminal that I have ever heard of has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds employing a large team of people to try to uncover photographic evidence of their own wrong-doing - it's utterly absurd.
No! nor I
That doesn't sound as if Jane was absolutely certain that Cooperman (or Garyman) was who she'd seen.
Jane Tanner, who told police she saw a man carrying a child away from the McCanns' apartment, said she was "80 per cent sure" he was the one depicted in the artist's impression.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509639/Madeleine-Four-witnesses-say-saw-suspect-pictured-new-poster-campaign.html
This article is dated January 2008
Exton and his team were not employed until March 2008
'Cooperman' was a photofit ( a fellow with a moustache ) and Jane Tanner said she was 80% certain he was the man she had seen carrying a child
'Garyman' was an actual photograph of a market trader Exton's team thought fitted the description ( without a moustache ) and Jane Tanner said, "That's the man I saw carrying a child"
The article you linked to, and the TV programme we are discussing refer to two seperate occasions when Jane Tanner 'identified' images she was presented with as being 'the abductor'
Henri Exton concluded that Jane had not seen 'Gary man ' ( the fellow was cleared of involvement )
Scotland Yard concluded that Jane had not seen 'Cooperman' ( they believe she saw an innocent father who has been identified )
Jane Tanner has been 'identifying' the wrong men habitually throughout, it appears to me
This article is dated January 2008
Exton and his team were not employed until March 2008
'Cooperman' was a photofit ( a fellow with a moustache ) and Jane Tanner said she was 80% certain he was the man she had seen carrying a child
'Garyman' was an actual photograph of a market trader Exton's team thought fitted the description ( without a moustache ) and Jane Tanner said, "That's the man I saw carrying a child"
The article you linked to, and the TV programme we are discussing refer to two seperate occasions when Jane Tanner 'identified' images she was presented with as being 'the abductor'
Henri Exton concluded that Jane had not seen 'Gary man ' ( the fellow was cleared of involvement )
Scotland Yard concluded that Jane had not seen 'Cooperman' ( they believe she saw an innocent father who has been identified )
Jane Tanner has been 'identifying' the wrong men habitually throughout, it appears to me
The McCanns were not criminals so would not have the specialist knowledge required in order to behave in the manner of an experienced criminal.Poor. Very poor.
Perhaps.
I just love the way you discard everything that doesn't suit @)(++(* @)(++(*It may suit you to think the McCanns would pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to get a team of men to uncover evidence that proved they dunnit, however I think most rational people would consider such an idea stark, staring bonkers. No offence like.
It is fortunate you were/are not a teacher of any kind.Don't pretend you know who or what I am. Your above comment is another poor attempt at deflecting from a very salient point, one which you have failed to explain adequately. If you truly were neutral on the subject of the McCanns (which you clearly aren't) you would acknowledge that hiring people at vast expense to supply photographic evidence of their supposed wrong-doing is completely nonsensical.
It may suit you to think the McCanns would pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to get a team of men to uncover evidence that proved they dunnit, however I think most rational people would consider such an idea stark, staring bonkers. No offence like.
You've heard the old idiom, havn't you ? 'forewarned is forearmed'I have heard that idiom yes. Can you explain how involving a large team of professionals, many of whom were ex-law officers, in uncovering evidence of your own crimes would forearm you exactly?
I have heard that idiom yes. Can you explain how involving a large team of professionals, many of whom were ex-law officers, in uncovering evidence of your own crimes would forearm you exactly?
You get them to sign a 'confidentiality clause' first ... you know, the kind that leaves them 'legally bound' to keep schtum
Then you get your story ready ( perhaps changing elements of your previous version of events ) to explain away any image that might be compromising
Like that
You get them to sign a 'confidentiality clause' first ... you know, the kind that leaves them 'legally bound' to keep schtum
Then you get your story ready ( perhaps changing elements of your previous version of events ) to explain away any image that might be compromising
Like that
You think a legal binding to 'keep schtum' counts for diddly squat when details of a serious crime have been uncovered and which anyone (not least ex law enforcement agents) legally bound or not would be duty bound to report to the authorities? You think the wrong-doers would pursue a legal case against those who had uncovered those crimes and put said wrong-doers in prison? I don't think so. You think changing your story once proof of your involvement in a serious crime comes to light is going to wash with said authorities? I don't think so. I think you need to think again.
Jeffrey Archer. 8((()*/What? Would you care to explain why you are referencing these two individuals and their link to the McCann case, or anything I have written here today?
Jonathan Aitken. 8((()*/
Try those two for starters.
Archer, the criminal, is still a 'lord' of course. 8)--))
What? Would you care to explain why you are referencing these two individuals and their link to the McCann case, or anything I have written here today?
Both these men committed perjury in an attempt to keep out of prison.
Now you know what happened to them, don't you sunshine ?
Totally irrelevant to my point, sunshine.
Both these men committed perjury in an attempt to keep out of prison.
Now you know what happened to them, don't you sunshine ?
you missed this one out silkywhiskers
Goncalo amaral.
committed perjury.
18 month
suspended prison sentence.
I think it is also fair to point out that under Portuguese Law the McCanns can be designated criminal since they instructed and financed a private criminal investigation on Portuguese soil contrary to Law.
South African Stephen Birch is now being prosecuted for the same offence so who next?
The Fund hired the detective firm. Which articles in the penal code state that a private investigation is illegal? What did they actually do out there that was more than what the dozens of ordinary citizens were doing who were trying to help find her? When were they actually out there? The PJ final report was signed off on 20th of June 2008.
Birch has been accused of trespassing.
Didn't you watch the program ???
Yes, but I'm curious as to what the law actually says.
Well in the program it stated implicitly private investigations were illegal, yet they carried it out, therefore committing a crime in Portuguese Law.
So if the mccanns went to Portugal and physically searched...asked questions...according to Stephen they would be arrested
So any member of the public who helped the search by checking rubbish bins or scrubland or anything else could also be prosecuted?
Hmmm.
I believe, what is illegal by Portuguese law, is to conduct a private investigation on Portuguese soil in parallel with an official PJ police investigation (obviously into the same matter) ...
I believe, what is illegal by Portuguese law, is to conduct a private investigation on Portuguese soil in parallel with an official PJ police investigation (obviously into the same matter) ...
So if the mccanns went to Portugal and physically searched...asked questions...according to Stephen they would be arrested
so had the case been shelved when Oakley got involved
It's this blanket statement that private investigations are illegal on PT soil that I don't understand.
I don't think it's quite a blanket statement.
Indeed it can't be, because I seem to recall that, way back, I researched it a little and discovered that there are private investigating agencies based in Portugal, which obviously there wouldn't be if private investigations in Portugal were illegal.
I think it's just that you can't conduct a private investigation in parallel with an official investigation into the same matter.
The Fund hired the detective firm. Which articles in the penal code state that a private investigation is illegal? What did they actually do out there that was more than what the dozens of ordinary citizens were doing who were trying to help find her? When were they actually out there? The PJ final report was signed off on 20th of June 2008.
Birch has been accused of trespassing.
Who are the Madeleine Fund directors? Each one of them is individually and severally libel for instructing, authorising, funding and condoning what amounts to criminal activity in Portugal.
What criminal activity?
Undertaking a private criminal inquiry contrary to Portuguese Law. It must be remembered that the actions of these incompetents jeopardised the official investigation. In several instances witnesses complained of harassment.
Look it up Carana, it's all there on Google.
An interesting article was published by the Telegraph on this very issue. Curiously, a McCann spokesperson attempted to mitigate the damage by excusing the actions as merely advisory.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564121/Madeleine-McCann-police-fury-over-private-hunt.html
It depends on what the poster is alleging. The McCanns have not been convicted of any criminal activity on one hand but on the other have as directors of a British Company authorised activities which the Portuguese judiciary consider to be obstruction in a criminal investigation.
That said, it would not be appropriate to refer to the McCanns as "criminals". This direction is subject to review.
Can we say 'complicit in a criminal act'? Not that I really care about the private investigation, just cause it'll annoy Mr Jones.
No, the correct terminology allbeit very long winded is that they authorised activities on Portuguese soil which could rightly be considered an obstruction of justice punishable under the Portuguese Penal Code.
Can we say 'complicit in a criminal act'? Not that I really care about the private investigation, just cause it'll annoy Mr Jones.Gosh, how annoying.
The essential ingredient is the obstruction of the official criminal investigation. There is ample evidence of Metodo 3, Red Defence and Oakley crossing this threshold.
To clarify, it is private criminal investigations that are frowned upon in Portugal in such terms, civil private investigations are not included.
Which was it? According to whom and according to which statutes in the PT penal code?
it is typical how quick posters are to jump to conclusions...this is a quote from the article...
A separate police source warned that the involvement of investigators may not only be illegal but could have a detrimental effect on the inquiry.
So we have a police source saying it MIGHT be illegal....perhaps as carana has said...does anyone have the actual penal code before jumping to conclusions..look how many were wrong, including Luz, re the libel case
If the private investigators hid their purpose and did not declare their intentions, they committed an illegal act.
End of.
You are wrong.
That is when it starts to become very interesting.
A private investigation in itself isn't going to constitute an illegal act, it's just that some steps that might be taken in carrying out such an investigation could individually involve illegal activity (eg spying on people, breaking in, carrying out searches on privately owned land etc).
and they are responsible for it...end of
You are ignorantly unaware of the intricate workings of contract law !
You seem to accept as fact the rantings of 'bar stool barristers' !
No, the correct terminology allbeit very long winded is that they authorised activities on Portuguese soil which could rightly be considered an obstruction of justice punishable under the Portuguese Penal Code.
Pretty well everywhere starting with the McCanns contracting Oakley.
so you are unable to explain why the fund or the mccanns should be responsible for the actions of Oakley...miserable fail
So if one of the PI's had killed someone in Portugal...the fund would be responsible...try using your brain
Alright I'll bite.
If I hire a hitman, is the hitman solely responsible for murder or do I also get prosecuted?
Under English common law for contracts two parties cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract where fulfillment of that contract relies on the committing of an illegal act.
If such contract is fulfilled both parties leave themselves exposed to the possibility of prosecution for the committing of the illegal act. If one party defaults on the contract the innocent party has no redress against the defaulter in court as the court will rule that the contract was illegal and thus void.
There is another eventuality vis a vis illegal acts in contracts where one party to a contract commits an illegal act in the fulfillment of the contract. It is possible that the innocent party can be protected by the terms of the contract as long as the court rules that the contract was legal at formation.
In the case of No Stone Unturned Ltd and Oakley International if the contract was to search for Madeleine McCann then implicit in that contract is to search in Portugal as that is where she disappeared. If that act was illegal it would be deemed that both parties were aware of it. Countermeasure to this would be for No Stone Unturned Ltd to write a clause into the contract specifically precluding Oakley from searching in Portugal under the terms of the contract.
The interesting thing for me in this is not so much what was done but what wasn't done.
Under English common law for contracts two parties cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract where fulfillment of that contract relies on the committing of an illegal act.
If such contract is fulfilled both parties leave themselves exposed to the possibility of prosecution for the committing of the illegal act. If one party defaults on the contract the innocent party has no redress against the defaulter in court as the court will rule that the contract was illegal and thus void.
There is another eventuality vis a vis illegal acts in contracts where one party to a contract commits an illegal act in the fulfillment of the contract. It is possible that the innocent party can be protected by the terms of the contract as long as the court rules that the contract was legal at formation.
In the case of No Stone Unturned Ltd and Oakley International if the contract was to search for Madeleine McCann then implicit in that contract is to search in Portugal as that is where she disappeared. If that act was illegal it would be deemed that both parties were aware of it. Countermeasure to this would be for No Stone Unturned Ltd to write a clause into the contract specifically precluding Oakley from searching in Portugal under the terms of the contract.
The interesting thing for me in this is not so much what was done but what wasn't done.
Hardly the same thing, quite the opposite.
In your case, the purpose is to commit an illegal act.
In the McCann case, the purpose is to help find their child.
I thought the overriding reason the McCanns employed Halligen, was because he promised satellite imagery. That doesn't involve a visit to Portugal. Wasn't it his failure to come up with this imagery which set the alarm bells ringing?
With regard to the legal issues being discussed here. If the Leicester police arranged and financed a visit to the US for M.Grime in the full knowledge that he was going to be participating in actions which are illegal in this country -where does that leave them? I'm no legal eagle, but maybe someone might know? Just curious.
It's illegal to conduct a private investigation in tandem with a police investigation in Portugal, so in both scenarios the persons being hired were committing an illegal act.
Again... where is it officially stated that a private investigation per se to help find a missing child is illegal?
Under English common law for contracts two parties cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract where fulfillment of that contract relies on the committing of an illegal act.
If such contract is fulfilled both parties leave themselves exposed to the possibility of prosecution for the committing of the illegal act. If one party defaults on the contract the innocent party has no redress against the defaulter in court as the court will rule that the contract was illegal and thus void.
There is another eventuality vis a vis illegal acts in contracts where one party to a contract commits an illegal act in the fulfillment of the contract. It is possible that the innocent party can be protected by the terms of the contract as long as the court rules that the contract was legal at formation.
In the case of No Stone Unturned Ltd and Oakley International if the contract was to search for Madeleine McCann then implicit in that contract is to search in Portugal as that is where she disappeared. If that act was illegal it would be deemed that both parties were aware of it. Countermeasure to this would be for No Stone Unturned Ltd to write a clause into the contract specifically precluding Oakley from searching in Portugal under the terms of the contract.
The interesting thing for me in this is not so much what was done but what wasn't done.
Again... where is it officially stated that a private investigation per se to help find a missing child is illegal?
It is against the law here in Portugal to carry out a private investigation of a crime when the official police investigation is still ongoing. Simple.
It is against the law here in Portugal to carry out a private investigation of a crime when the official police investigation is still ongoing. Simple.
we cant simply take your word for it after some of the rubbish luz has posted..
we were also told a lot of rubbish re the burden of proof re the libel trial
Well perhaps you could clarify the issue. Where is it stated in the penal code?
there seems to be a lot of unsubstantiated facts posted as though they are true
Carana you have access to the same resources as many on this forum. Can I suggest that instead of constantly asking for clarification you go and investigate the matter yourself ?
Red bit: Montclair has confirmed the position vis a vis parallel investigations in Portugal.
Purple bit: I said IF the contract was...... you ignored the IF
As Mr M or John posted a while back if No Stone Unturned Limited entered into an contract where an illegal act was performed by No Stone Unturned Limited or on their behalf then the directors of the company could be prosecuted. The McCanns as I recall are directors of that company.
You asked how the company or the McCanns could be held responsible for Oakley's actions. I told you the situation under English contract law and the mechanism by which they could be prosecuted. The contract is unlikely to have been under Portuguese law as the parties were both English.
If you don't like it or believe it I can give you the names of a few law firms who specialise in contract law who will be glad to confirm what I have said is correct; for an exorbitant fee of course.
Like you, you mean, on this very thread, stating over and over that it was Henri Exton who had expressed sympathy for the McCanns ?
You never did acknowledge that you were wrong, did you ?
As you are prepared to accept the word of an anonymous poster on the web I don't think your opinions are worth much....re if the mccanns could be held responsible for the actions of Oakley it would depend what was in the contract....as the contract will have been drawn up by one of these expensive firms...then I am sure the mccans are protected in law...
Are you not an anonymous poster on the web? How valid are your opinions?
as far as I am concerned it was exton
as far as I am concerned it was exton
It wasn't Exton It was Tim thingy. Looked like the bloke from little Britain. You know, the tall one with the teeth.
You're wrong.
may well be wrong I need to watch the start again...not a particularly important point
Ah insults; now we are on the right track 8(>((
OK show me exactly where I am wrong in the English contract law bit. Which after all was what you asked about in the first place.
I doubt an "expensive firm" was involved in the hire of Oakley International. The first thing most people would have done is have a "Dun & Bradstreet" or similar done on them before letting a contract for £500k odd. It would appear unlikely something like that was done.
You still seem to fail to grasp that No Stone Unturned Ltd is a legal person independent of the McCanns.
Yes it is. Exton is reported to have had doubts about the McCanns and their abduction tale. Any sympathy shown towards them would bring that doubt into question.Could you please supply a link to these doubts about the "abduction tale"?
Could you please supply a link to these doubts about the "abduction tale"?
By implication you asked about contract law.
You are ducking and diving now davey boy.
So tell me where I was wrong about English contract law?.
I presume you understand the question?
"The report questioned 'anomalies' in the McCanns' statements"Perhaps you could c & p the bit where Exton specifically expresses doubts about "the abduction tale" for me? I had a brief look at this Times article (which I believe was subsequently corrected and apologies issued to the McCanns) but couldn't find the expressed doubts about "the abduction tale" as mentioned by Faithlilly.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2794.0
I can't imagine why.
Perhaps you could c & p the bit where Exton specifically expresses doubts about "the abduction tale" for me? I had a brief look at this Times article (which I believe was subsequently corrected and apologies issued to the McCanns) but couldn't find the expressed doubts about "the abduction tale" as mentioned by Faithlilly.
Your original statement that kicked this off was to the effect that neither the fund nor the McCanns could be held accountable for Oakley's actions. I demonstrated that under English contract law they can be. Now stop embarrassing yourself.
Perhaps you could c & p the bit where Exton specifically expresses doubts about "the abduction tale" for me?why attempt to answer my request then, if you were unable to supply the link? I shall wait for Faithlilly as I'm sure she'll be able to....
Why would I do that, I never claimed he did, and how could I do it when he didn't.
However I will say, the McCanns 'tale' is 'abduction' isn't it, as claimed in their 'witness statements'.
Oakley's Omega operation, of which Exton was one of the big boys, questioned anomilies in the McCanns 'witness statements'.
Faithlilly described this as being 'doubts about their abduction tale', I don't think she was wrong.
why attempt to answer my request then, if you were unable to supply the link? I shall wait for Faithlilly as I'm sure she'll be able to....
No, she won't be able to, because there isn't a link to 'the bit where Exton specifically expresses doubts about "the abduction tale", is there? You know that, I know that. That's the end of that then isn't it.
I thought I'd reply to your post because I am very,very fond of you & I fancied a bit of a chat.
So it looks like exton is not on record anywhere questioning the abduction theory...glad we 've got that straight...
I thought I'd reply to your post because I am very,very fond of you & I fancied a bit of a chat.
To clarify, commissioning a private investigation into criminal activities in Portugal whilst an official investigation is live constitutes an act of obstruction punishable under the Portuguese penal code.
Antonio Martins, president of the National Association of Portuguese Judges, told the newspaper 24 Horas: "It is still up to the state to carry out criminal investigation. That kind of activity has no legal standing.
"Anything that results from private investigation has no substance."
Mr Martins said the private detectives and even the McCanns themselves could be accused of "obstruction of justice".
Carlos Anjos, the head of Portugal's criminal police federation, added: "This can only be another diversion tactic from the McCanns. It is nothing but folklore.
"Portugal does not have legislation in this area. Private detectives who intervene in criminal cases cannot exist.
"The law only tolerates private detectives who gather information and only about matters of the private lives of certain people like extramarital relationships."
A separate police source warned that the involvement of investigators may not only be illegal but could have a detrimental effect on the inquiry.
The high ranking official told newspaper Correio da Manha: "If private investigators come here they will be running a serious risk of being arrested."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564121/Madeleine-McCann-police-fury-over-private-hunt.html
Where in this article does it state that what halligans company did was illegal...it doesnt
Where in this article does it state that what halligans company did was illegal...it doesnt