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: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2015, 10:50:57 AM
-
The McCanns were astounded at not being able to get full access to the Leicestershire Police files about the case.
While we were away, there was a hearing in the High Court relating to an application we had made on Madeleine’s behalf for access to all the information held by Leicestershire police relating to her case. As nobody else was now searching for her, we wanted our own investigators to have the chance to check this material for any relevant leads. Naively, I’d thought a court order would be seen by the police, who were always telling us their hands were tied, as a way of helping us without upsetting their Portuguese counterparts. If they were required by law to pass us this information, surely the PJ would need to accept that? I couldn’t have been more wrong. The UK authorities fought our application tooth and nail. I was shocked by the force of their opposition and the lengths to which they seemed prepared to go to deny us this access in these circumstances.
The British police had their reasons, of course, among them the investigative primacy they were obliged to concede to the Portuguese and the concern that being in possession of information otherwise known only to the police and the perpetrator might compromise Gerry and me, since at this point we were still arguidos. All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief-stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? Whether or not it was his intention, that line stuck in our heads as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
Given the extreme opposition we faced, we realized this was a battle we weren’t going to win. Reluctantly, we made a tactical decision to accept a smaller amount of information. Having to withdraw was quite galling, especially as the eighty-one items disclosed to us included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place. (Madeleine)
-
Quite staggering arrogance. The disclosure order used against LP was obtained on 22nd May 2007, long before the investigation in Portugal was archived. Either the parents didn't trust either police force to carry out an efficient investigation or they were very keen to have sight of as much evidence as they could for other reasons. The Chief Constable was quite correct. So long as someone hasn't been eliminated from an inquiry you don't allow them to see if there is evidence that may implicate them.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Even completely uninvolved people are not allowed to see police evidence in this country, as I know from experience. It doesn't surprise me that those who believe in the McCanns see nothing wrong in the language used by Kate McCann. As for suggesting they could have provided lessons in stronger language for her to use, well really!
I'm surprised the PJ weren't sued if they lied. There was a lawyer present I believe? A neutral witness?
-
I must say I've never heard of such a thing. Surely it is the police's prerogative to decide who sees what in any criminal investigation and especially so when the parents of a missing child are themselves suspect?
-
Yeah, how arrogant of them to want all the information available to them into the investigation of their child's disappearance, information they wanted to pass on to their PIs who were the only people actively looking for the child at the time! they should just have expected their PIs to start from scratch and ignore any information the Leics police might have accumulated, that would make far more sense, innit!
-
Yeah, how arrogant of them to want all the information available to them into the investigation of their child's disappearance, information they wanted to pass on to their PIs who were the only people actively looking for the child at the time! they should just have expected their PIs to start from scratch and ignore any information the Leics police might have accumulated, that would make far more sense, innit!
To put it another way Alfie, why did Leicestershire Police deem it fit and proper to withhold information from the McCanns?
-
To put it another way Alfie, why did Leicestershire Police deem it fit and proper to withhold information from the McCanns?
Who knows? Protocol? Red tape? Not upsetting the Portuguese? Because the McCanns were still technically arguidos at that stage? All beside the point in as far as determining the McCanns reasons for wanting the information, which was to help their investigators carry on with the investigation. Do you think this was arrogant and sinister on their part? Or the actions of parents desperate to do whatever they could to help the PIs find their kid?
-
Who knows? Protocol? Red tape? Not upsetting the Portuguese? Because the McCanns were still technically arguidos at that stage? All beside the point in as far as determining the McCanns reasons for wanting the information, which was to help their investigators carry on with the investigation. Do you think this was arrogant and sinister on their part? Or the actions of parents desperate to do whatever they could to help the PIs find their kid?
So why not publicise straight away the efits constructed by their PIs Oakley ?
-
Who knows? Protocol? Red tape? Not upsetting the Portuguese? Because the McCanns were still technically arguidos at that stage? All beside the point in as far as determining the McCanns reasons for wanting the information, which was to help their investigators carry on with the investigation. Do you think this was arrogant and sinister on their part? Or the actions of parents desperate to do whatever they could to help the PIs find their kid?
I'm not sure, it certainly was unprecedented where missing child cases were concerned. Has the information ever been provided even after their arguido status was lifted?
-
So why not publicise straight away the efits constructed by their PIs Oakley ?
I don't think that is any great secret Faith since it could be said that the e-fits resembled Gerry and publicising them would have rekindled the speculations all over again.
-
So why not publicise straight away the efits constructed by their PIs Oakley ?
What has that got to do with the McCanns' request to Leics Police for their files on the case?
-
Quite staggering arrogance. The disclosure order used against LP was obtained on 22nd May 2007, long before the investigation in Portugal was archived. Either the parents didn't trust either police force to carry out an efficient investigation or they were very keen to have sight of as much evidence as they could for other reasons. The Chief Constable was quite correct. So long as someone hasn't been eliminated from an inquiry you don't allow them to see if there is evidence that may implicate them.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Even completely uninvolved people are not allowed to see police evidence in this country, as I know from experience. It doesn't surprise me that those who believe in the McCanns see nothing wrong in the language used by Kate McCann. As for suggesting they could have provided lessons in stronger language for her to use, well really!
I'm surprised the PJ weren't sued if they lied. There was a lawyer present I believe? A neutral witness?
I can't see where it is said that "The disclosure order used against LP was obtained on 22nd May 2007".
From the court hearing...
The McCanns legal representative (Tim Scott Q.C.):
Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.
LP:
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:
We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
Judge Hogg:
On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.
-
In opening a new thread, John missed this exchange;
Quote from: Montclair on Today at 10:14:25 AM
I put quotation marks around the word murder because of the phrase "getting away with murder". Do you understand? In your eyes the PJ was inept because they did not follow the McCanns fairy tale and followed the evidence which lead them to the McCanns. You so conveniently forget that the British police were working together with the PJ. Furthermore, why did Leicestershire police refuse to hand over their files to the McCanns when the parents went to court for them? Perhaps it had to do with the fact that they had not been eliminated from the investigation as LP stated. The McCanns have been desperate to get their hands on the evidence against them.
My reply was:
The final PJ report was dated 30.06.08.
The legal summary leading to the archiving of the case was dated 21.07.08.
The court hearing in the UK, presided by Judge Hogg, took place two weeks prior to the legal summary on 7.07.08.
Technically a) they were still arguidos at that hearing and b) full disclosure of items held by LP may well have raised the thorny topic of establishing legal precedence.
Even if the McCanns had thought that they could still be charged at that late stage, as arguidos they were entitled to be informed of the evidence against them (although the legislation changed a week or so after they acquired arguido status to clarify / improve on the Article in question). They did not need LP for that.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6215.msg232047#msg232047
-
What has that got to do with the McCanns' request to Leics Police for their files on the case?
If the parents were desperate, as you claim, to help the PIs 'find their kid' why not publicise the efits they had compiled ?
-
I can't see where it is said that "The disclosure order used against LP was obtained on 22nd May 2007".
Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them.
As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
-
Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them.
As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
It's quite comical to see the desperate measures that you and other troof seekers are going to in order to incriminate the McCanns. Perhaps you have taken the same solemn oath to St Gonc that faith has taken...your efforts are simply bizarre
-
Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made.
On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.
Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them.
As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.
I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.
LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?
-
I'm not sure, it certainly was unprecedented where missing child cases were concerned. Has the information ever been provided even after their arguido status was lifted?
No. The order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies;
"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".
-
Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.
I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.
LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?
So early in the case, and when two police forces were already investigating the disappearance, why did the McCanns even need this information ?
-
No. The order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies;
"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".
Yes, I amended my earlier post as the court order apparently did include law enforcement, to which LP objected.
However, that appears to have been a broad submission, not exclusively concerning LP.
-
So early in the case, and when two police forces were already investigating the disappearance, why did the McCanns even need this information ?
Perhaps because they were advised by the International Family Law Group to submit a court order that was as broad as possible to cover eventualities?
-
The McCanns were astounded at not being able to get full access to the Leicestershire Police files about the case.
Reluctantly, we made a tactical decision to accept a smaller amount of information. Having to withdraw was quite galling, especially as the eighty-one items disclosed to us included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place. (Madeleine)
I wonder why these details were seen as trivial? Eighty one leads to follow up hardly seems trivial.
The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.
-
I imagine they were viewed as trivial as they provided little that they didn't already know.
Is there anything in the public domain to indicate who did provide information under this order?
-
If the parents were desperate, as you claim, to help the PIs 'find their kid' why not publicise the efits they had compiled ?
This has already been discussed and is off topic to this thread. Why do you think the McCanns wanted to gain access to the Leics police files, if not because they wanted the information for their PIs to help in the search for their daughter?
-
This has already been discussed and is off topic to this thread. Why do you think the McCanns wanted to gain access to the Leics police files, if not because they wanted the information for their PIs to help in the search for their daughter?
For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?
-
For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?
No, because as has already been pointed out if they had been charged their legal team would have had access to details of whatever evidence was held against them, in order to help them mount a defence.
-
No, because as has already been pointed out if they had been charged their legal team would have had access to details of whatever evidence was held against them, in order to help them mount a defence.
Would that not only have applied to information held by the PJ ?
-
Thanks, but I think there is a bit of confusion. Yes, the McCanns' representatives initiated proceedings with the High Court back in May 2007 - with a view to being able to obtain information that would normally be restricted, including, for example, from airlines or hotel registrations.
I don't read that as proceedings against LP started back then, but just trying to get the backing of a judge in general to obtain more information. ETA: Yes, I see that LP was included in what may have been a broad list.
LP then had a problem: should they be subject to the court order or not? If so, what would be the legal implications for any other case that they had to deal with?
I can't think of any reason why the parents would need a disclosure order in May 2007. Two police forces were co-operating in the investigation and it seems very early days to decide to distrust them and start your own enquiries.
-
Would that not only have applied to information held by the PJ ?
It would have applied to any information that would have been used in court against them.
-
For arguidos, or suspects, it would be very useful to know if that particular police force held any evidence against them, don't you think ?
How does that work? They weren't arguidos when the broad court order was submitted in May 2007. And by the time of that court hearing, the final PJ report had been submitted and the legal summary was about to be produced.
In any case, why shouldn't people suspected of committing a crime be informed of any evidence against them?
-
I can't think of any reason why the parents would need a disclosure order in May 2007. Two police forces were co-operating in the investigation and it seems very early days to decide to distrust them and start your own enquiries.
You need to try and think a little more out of the limited box.
How many people with serious illnesses seek alternatives whilst still carrying on with conventional medicine...it's not about trust it's about exploring all possibilities. This is what intelligent people do
-
How does that work? They weren't arguidos when the broad court order was submitted in May 2007. And by the time of that court hearing, the final PJ report had been submitted and the legal summary was about to be produced.
In any case, why shouldn't people suspected of committing a crime be informed of any evidence against them?
As a suspect, one probably has no such rights, whereas once charged with a crime, this information would be available
-
So were the Leics police files crammed with evidence against the McCanns does anyone know? Presumably not as, having conducted the review of the information, the Met announced they were treating the case as one of stranger abduction.... &%+((£
-
I can't think of any reason why the parents would need a disclosure order in May 2007. Two police forces were co-operating in the investigation and it seems very early days to decide to distrust them and start your own enquiries.
The International Family Law Group was apparently acting on their behalf. If this group of lawyers had experience, or knowledge of, even getting kids back from parental abductions involving foreign jurisdictions, then a broad submission for extra powers makes sense to me.
-
As a suspect, one probably has no such rights, whereas once charged with a crime, this information would be available
And how would having access to the files as suspects help prevent them possibly being charged in the future, would you say?
-
And how would having access to the files as suspects help prevent them possibly being charged in the future, would you say?
I didn't suggest it would, but it would appear that suspects don't have the right to see evidence before they are charged.
-
I imagine they were viewed as trivial as they provided little that they didn't already know.
Is there anything in the public domain to indicate who did provide information under this order?
Not that I can find.
-
I didn't suggest it would, but it would appear that suspects don't have the right to see evidence before they are charged.
Where did you get that idea from?
-
Its how the system works - suspects are questioned, not provided with evidence - at least in UK.
-
So were the Leics police files crammed with evidence against the McCanns does anyone know? Presumably not as, having conducted the review of the information, the Met announced they were treating the case as one of stranger abduction.... &%+((£
That was their remit. They were looking for evidence of abduction, nothing else.
-
That was their remit. They were looking for evidence of abduction, nothing else.
because they had ruled out the parents...that's all that was left
-
Its how the system works - suspects are questioned, not provided with evidence - at least in UK.
Correct. evidence is given to the suspect's legal representatives after they are charged, not before, for obvious reasons.
-
because they had ruled out the parents...that's all that was left
Their remit didn't require them to rule out the parents. The remit had already done that before they started doing anything.
-
Its how the system works - suspects are questioned, not provided with evidence - at least in UK.
They weren't made arguidos in the UK.
-
Their remit didn't require them to rule out the parents. The remit had already done that before they started doing anything.
Indeed.
It would seem they were clearly directed not to look at the parents.
-
Correct. evidence is given to the suspect's legal representatives after they are charged, not before, for obvious reasons.
In which country?
-
They weren't made arguidos in the UK.
Yes, which would exclude them from any information held in UK by LP, as they weren't considered suspects in UK.
This thread refers to information held by LP, not the PJ.
-
That was their remit. They were looking for evidence of abduction, nothing else.
Are the police stupid, in your opinion?
-
Yes, which would exclude them from any information held in UK by LP, as they weren't considered suspects in UK.
This thread refers to information held by LP, not the PJ.
Correct... but as arguidos in PT, they should have been informed of any evidence against them.
If PT didn't present them with anything more than woofing dogs, then how would that substantiate Montclair's claim that they wanted to get hold of LP's files because they were "desperate" to find what may have have been held against them as opposed to trying to continue to find their missing daughter?
-
I'm assuming that they thought that LP might hold information that had not been passed on to PJ. Otherwise, why should they try to get hold of LP information.
-
I'm assuming that they thought that LP might hold information that had not been passed on to PJ. Otherwise, why should they try to get hold of LP information.
To try to find their missing child?
-
So the idea that the McCanns asked for a SY review to get their hands on the evidence against them is daft as the Uk police had already refused their request for access to all they evidence in the case
-
To try to find their missing child?
I have no idea of their true motives any more than anyone else.
-
I have no idea of their true motives any more than anyone else.
What seems like the most logical and plausible explanation to you? To help PIs in their investigation or so that they could see any evidence against them up front, despite the fact that they would have had a legal right to see the evidence against them, in the event they were charged?
-
What seems like the most logical and plausible explanation to you? To help PIs in their investigation or so that they could see any evidence against them up front, despite the fact that they would have had a legal right to see the evidence against them, in the event they were charged?
I have no idea of their true motives any more than anyone else.
-
I have no idea of their true motives any more than anyone else.
I asked you what seems most logical and plausible. You are reticent to reply. I'll draw my own conclusions then. 8((()*/
-
I asked you what seems most logical and plausible. You are reticent to reply. I'll draw my own conclusions then. 8((()*/
Suit yourself. I have no intention in entering into that discussion.
-
Suit yourself. I have no intention in entering into that discussion.
Of course you don't, I fully understand. %£&)**#
-
so again once the parents are ruled out...abduction is by far the most likely option
The Met. were instructed what their remit was. They didn't rule out the parents, they weren't instructed to investigate them.
-
The Met. were instructed what their remit was. They didn't rule out the parents, they weren't instructed to investigate them.
Who instructs the Met who it should and shouldn't investigate?
-
Are the police stupid, in your opinion?
Why do you ask?
-
Why do you ask?
Because you seem to be suggesting that the police would investigate this case only looking at it from one angle, and no other. So, either you think they are stupid, or that there is some shadowy conspiracy afoot preventing them doing their jobs properly. Which is it?
-
Who instructs the Met who it should and shouldn't investigate?
The head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson agreed to the review at Teresa May's request so long as the cost didn't come from the Met's budget as far as I can see. I have no idea why the remit was restricted, but it seems to have been, otherwise why mention the abduction;
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
-
The head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson agreed to the review at Teresa May's request so long as the cost didn't come from the Met's budget as far as I can see. I have no idea why the remit was restricted, but it seems to have been, otherwise why mention the abduction;
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
So you believe the McCanns are being protected in some way, and that there is no likelihood whatsoever that the Met's investigation will conclude that they dunnit then?
-
So you believe the McCanns are being protected in some way, and that there is no likelihood whatsoever that the Met's investigation will conclude that they dunnit then?
None whatsoever.
The interesting question is whether SY will attempt to exonerate them from any responsibility for her disappearance.
-
So you believe the McCanns are being protected in some way, and that there is no likelihood whatsoever that the Met's investigation will conclude that they dunnit then?
I don't think protection comes into it. If the Met are following their remit then they can't decide the parents done it because why would they abduct their own child? If their remit has changed they haven't shared it with us, despite the transparent and open nature of their work. They also have to deal with the lead force, which is and always has been the PJ.
-
I don't think protection comes into it. If the Met are following their remit then they can't decide the parents done it because why would they abduct their own child? If their remit has changed they haven't shared it with us, despite the transparent and open nature of their work. They also have to deal with the lead force, which is and always has been the PJ.
You've told us that the Met have been instructed to ONLY investigate an abduction but have been somewhat less forth-coming on who instructed them to do this and why. Are there any other reasons you can think of which don't involve protecting the McCanns that might lead this shadowy "high-up" to issue this order to the Met?
-
You've told us that the Met have been instructed to ONLY investigate an abduction but have been somewhat less forth-coming on who instructed them to do this and why. Are there any other reasons you can think of which don't involve protecting the McCanns that might lead this shadowy "high-up" to issue this order to the Met?
Lawyers 8(0(*
-
Lawyers 8(0(*
Please explain.
-
Please explain.
We have discussed it many times. The McCanns declared themselves cleared in 2008 and everyone involved since then has stuck to that line, including PM, Home Secretary, and British police.
-
We have discussed it many times. The McCanns declared themselves cleared in 2008 and everyone involved since then has stuck to that line, including PM, Home Secretary, and British police.
Yes but why would the McCanns have that sort of hold over the establishment? Are you actually suggesting that the PM, Home Sec and British police are afraid of the McCanns' lawyers? @)(++(*
-
Yes but why would the McCanns have that sort of hold over the establishment? Are you actually suggesting that the PM, Home Sec and British police are afraid of the McCanns' lawyers? @)(++(*
No, I'm sure the PM and Home Secretary believe the same as you do. They wouldn't dream of ever using any other words - but Redwood I'm very sure was careful with his.
-
No, I'm sure the PM and Home Secretary believe the same as you do. They wouldn't dream of ever using any other words - but Redwood I'm very sure was careful with his.
We were discussing the assumption by G-Unit that the Met had been instructed to treat the disappearance as an abduction, not Redwood being careful with his words. Now, once again, can you please give me a good reason (apart from protecting the McCanns) why the Met were instructed to do this and by whom?
-
We were discussing the assumption by G-Unit that the Met had been instructed to treat the disappearance as an abduction, not Redwood being careful with his words. Now, once again, can you please give me a good reason (apart from protecting the McCanns) why the Met were instructed to do this and by whom?
Just gave you one: the PM's faith in them.
-
Just gave you one: the PM's faith in them.
Er.....come again? The PM has faith in the McCanns, so has instructed the Met not investigate the parents, and the Met have gone along with this but it's not about protecting the McCanns....? &%+((£
Wacky! ?>)()<
-
Er.....come again? The PM has faith in the McCanns, so has instructed the Met not investigate the parents, and the Met have gone along with this but it's not about protecting the McCanns....? &%+((£
Wacky! ?>)()<
It was a review, not an investigation. No such 'instruction' would have been needed.
-
Er.....come again? The PM has faith in the McCanns, so has instructed the Met not investigate the parents, and the Met have gone along with this but it's not about protecting the McCanns....? &%+((£
Wacky! ?>)()<
The PM has faith in the mccanns.
We have seen exactly what the PM has faith in, just like the majority of politicians, it's called getting votes.
and like most , he will hang his head on any cause to do that.
Remember, 'hug a hoodie'.
and let's not forget Ms. Brooks, a close friend of Cameron, who also had a vested interest in the case.
-
It was a review, not an investigation. No such 'instruction' would have been needed.
But you're telling me an order came from the PM to the Met to review the case but only as an abduction. My question is - why? Your response was - lawyers. You're not making much sense tbh.
-
The PM has faith in the mccanns.
We have seen exactly what the PM has faith in, just like the majority of politicians, it's called getting votes.
and like most , he will hang his head on any cause to do that.
Remember, 'hug a hoodie'.
Is it your belief that Op Grange is all about the PM's future career prospects then?
-
You've told us that the Met have been instructed to ONLY investigate an abduction but have been somewhat less forth-coming on who instructed them to do this and why. Are there any other reasons you can think of which don't involve protecting the McCanns that might lead this shadowy "high-up" to issue this order to the Met?
Please don't misquote me. I didn't say that. Where did I say anyone had instructed them? I simply pointed out what the remit says.
-
Is it your belief that Op Grange is all about the PM's future career prospects then?
Hardly.
Just one link in the chain.
He' a populist, but you know that.
-
The Met. were instructed what their remit was. They didn't rule out the parents, they weren't instructed to investigate them.
Bump.... @)(++(*
-
Hardly.
Just one link in the chain.
He' a populist, but you know that.
If this is all about gaining popularity how does that square with the "sceptic" belief that "most people" think the McCanns are a bit dodgy?
-
If this is all about gaining popularity how does that square with the "sceptic" belief that "most people" think the McCanns are a bit dodgy?
Quite true.
I'm glad you admit that.
Then unfortunately Cameron lives a rather sheltered life.
Would you like to see him on a zero hours contract ?
After all his wonderful government have virtually doubled the National Debt within 5 years.
-
Quite true.
I'm glad you admit that.
Then unfortunately Cameron lives a rather sheltered life.
Would you like to see him on a zero hours contract ?
After all his wonderful government have virtually doubled the National Debt within 5 years.
Oooh a little bit of politics there, just like Ben Elton used to do. @)(++(*
-
So, where are we now? David Cameron who leads a sheltered life and knows little or nothing about the ordinary working person in the UK (all or most of whom are McCann-sceptic) decides that a good way to curry favour with the electorate is to press the Met for a review of the McCann case, and instructs them to only look at it as an abduction, nothing more. What he hadn't banked on was that this move would lose him the next election as the GBP mostly can't stand the McCanns and resent the amount of money spent on looking for Madeleine. Also, he didn't bank on that Plebgate farrago which rather set his govt against the Met so lord only knows what tricks the Met have up their sleeve now - they might even have gone "off-remit" and are busily preparing a case against those horrid McCanns even as I type!
-
So, where are we now? David Cameron who leads a sheltered life and knows little or nothing about the ordinary working person in the UK (all or most of whom are McCann-sceptic) decides that a good way to curry favour with the electorate is to press the Met for a review of the McCann case, and instructs them to only look at it as an abduction, nothing more. What he hadn't banked on was that this move would lose him the next election as the GBP mostly can't stand the McCanns and resent the amount of money spent on looking for Madeleine. Also, he didn't bank on that Plebgate farrago which rather set his govt against the Met so lord only knows what tricks the Met have up their sleeve now - they might even have gone "off-remit" and are busily preparing a case against those horrid McCanns even as I type!
McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.
Well off topic from where I am sitting with all this chat about The Met and all. No surprise there I guess 8(>((
Pure soap, tune in next week.
-
Bump.... @)(++(*
Sorry! I should have said Operation Grange, not the Metropolitan Police as a whole.
-
Oooh a little bit of politics there, just like Ben Elton used to do. @)(++(*
Oh yeah. 8)--))
-
Back on topic...Anyone who is under suspicion of or is being investigated, by a police force, are not privvy to FOI requests. It is quite clear from early on that Gerry wanted to 'control' everything.
LP gave a remarkable reason for withholding the information. I wonder if they asked today if they would be granted that information. I just wonder if they wanted to make sure they all sang from the same 'time line' and 'hymn sheet'
-
Back on topic...Anyone who is under suspicion of or is being investigated, by a police force, are not privvy to FOI requests. It is quite clear from early on that Gerry wanted to 'control' everything.
LP gave a remarkable reason for withholding the information. I wonder if they asked today if they would be granted that information. I just wonder if they wanted to make sure they all sang from the same 'time line' and 'hymn sheet'
The disclosure order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies, so it can't be used to ask for information from any police force. I think Leicestershire Police, The Attorney General and the Serious Organised Crimes Agency had a blue fit when the order was served, and were prepared to fight all the way in court before they would agree with it. Hence the backing down of Justice Hogg and the International Family law Group. The parents were given a token amount of 'trivial' information and sent packing.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency is the body telephoned by David Payne at 23.13 on 3rd May 2007. CEOP was a part of SOCA and was staffed by SOCA officers.
-
The disclosure order was changed to exclude law enforcement agencies, so it can't be used to ask for information from any police force. I think Leicestershire Police, The Attorney General and the Serious Organised Crimes Agency had a blue fit when the order was served, and were prepared to fight all the way in court before they would agree with it. Hence the backing down of Justice Hogg and the International Family law Group. The parents were given a token amount of 'trivial' information and sent packing.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency is the body telephoned by David Payne at 23.13 on 3rd May 2007. CEOP was a part of SOCA and was staffed by SOCA officers.
Has the reason for this ever been explained?
-
Has the reason for this ever been explained?
Whoops! It was actually 4th May, sorry! The call lasted 100 seconds but as per usual not much is forthcoming about it (well nothing really)
1485 "Do you recall me telling you about the London number, which you couldn't find in your phone''
Reply "Yes.'
00:24:00 1485 "That number actually transcribes back to the Crime Specialist Director in London.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "Did you contact them''
Reply "Err I did yes. My, err you know my sister err had been in contact with them and she was trying to do everything that she could knowing the, err, the difficulties that we were having out there so you know I did approach them just asking for advice but err I can't remember, I don't think I actually spoke to anyone there, but for some reason that wasn't carried forward.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "But I mean, you know, just into the context of the conversation you know we're in a strange country, we've got no representeers we don't know what's going on, all hell's broken loose and you know to see whether you can do anything to help Madeleine come back, you know and that was the lines that we were taking.'
1485 "Do you remember who you spoke to''
Reply "I don't know.'
1485 "The call was made on the following day at twenty three thirteen, so that's late at night.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "You don't recollect anything else about the conversation that you had with that, was it you that made the call''
Reply "Err I, yeah I know that I got phone numbers from my sister which I did you know ring them but I can't remember making one late at night.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Whoops! It was actually 4th May, sorry! The call lasted 100 seconds but as per usual not much is forthcoming about it (well nothing really)
1485 "Do you recall me telling you about the London number, which you couldn't find in your phone''
Reply "Yes.'
00:24:00 1485 "That number actually transcribes back to the Crime Specialist Director in London.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "Did you contact them''
Reply "Err I did yes. My, err you know my sister err had been in contact with them and she was trying to do everything that she could knowing the, err, the difficulties that we were having out there so you know I did approach them just asking for advice but err I can't remember, I don't think I actually spoke to anyone there, but for some reason that wasn't carried forward.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "But I mean, you know, just into the context of the conversation you know we're in a strange country, we've got no representeers we don't know what's going on, all hell's broken loose and you know to see whether you can do anything to help Madeleine come back, you know and that was the lines that we were taking.'
1485 "Do you remember who you spoke to''
Reply "I don't know.'
1485 "The call was made on the following day at twenty three thirteen, so that's late at night.'
Reply "Mm.'
1485 "You don't recollect anything else about the conversation that you had with that, was it you that made the call''
Reply "Err I, yeah I know that I got phone numbers from my sister which I did you know ring them but I can't remember making one late at night.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
A common theme from him - can't remembering very much &%+((£
1485 "Yeah, and at what point did you have the conversation with him' Did he stop the game or did you speak whilst he was playing''
00:31:48 Reply "I can't remember, I can't remember. I, you know, in my mind, you know, he stopped playing and you know but I can't remember if I'm perfectly honest.'
-
A common theme from him - can't remembering very much &%+((£
1485 "Yeah, and at what point did you have the conversation with him' Did he stop the game or did you speak whilst he was playing''
00:31:48 Reply "I can't remember, I can't remember. I, you know, in my mind, you know, he stopped playing and you know but I can't remember if I'm perfectly honest.'
The more I remember the more I think that Payne may be the key that unlocks this whole mystery.
-
A common theme from him - can't remembering very much &%+((£
1485 "Yeah, and at what point did you have the conversation with him' Did he stop the game or did you speak whilst he was playing''
00:31:48 Reply "I can't remember, I can't remember. I, you know, in my mind, you know, he stopped playing and you know but I can't remember if I'm perfectly honest.'
Who remembers Manuel in Fawly Towers? 'I know nothing, nothing....'
-
The more I remember the more I think that Payne may be the key that unlocks this whole mystery.
&%+((£ how so...?
-
Has the reason for this ever been explained?
What's odd in the circumstances?
-
What's odd in the circumstances?
The initial timing given - late evening of the 3rd, later corrected 4th. Sounded as if he had rung these people within a couple of hours.
-
&%+((£ how so...?
The withheld questionnaires, Gerry including events in the narrative that either Payne failed to tell the PJ initially or totally contradicted, the airbrushing of the visit to 5a from both Crimewatch and Summers book, Crimewatch failing to name him, his wife or mother-in-law while naming the rest of the party are but a few curiosities.
-
&%+((£ how so...?
They need to find the motive.
-
The withheld questionnaires, Gerry including events in the narrative that either Payne failed to tell the PJ initially or totally contradicted, the airbrushing of the visit to 5a from both Crimewatch and Summers book, Crimewatch failing to name him, his wife or mother-in-law while naming the rest of the party are but a few curiosities.
No, I meant what part do you think he played in the disappearance? I see from another post of yours elsewhere that you have all members of the Tapas group "colluding", so I take it you're now of the opinion that they're all in on it somehow, yah? &%+((£
-
No, I meant what part do you think he played in the disappearance? I see from another post of yours elsewhere that you have all members of the Tapas group "colluding", so I take it you're now of the opinion that they're all in on it somehow, yah? &%+((£
Whatever the motive they colluded on the timeline.
-
Whatever the motive they colluded on the timeline.
So you're accusing them all of deception then?
-
So you're accusing them all of deception then?
Which bit of 'lets sit down and use the covers from this book to write the timeline' did you misunderstand? Information or deception it's still collusion.
-
Which bit of 'lets sit down and use the covers from this book to write the timeline' did you misunderstand? Information or deception it's still collusion.
That's one in the inner. As we used to say "arrers missis"
-
Which bit of 'lets sit down and use the covers from this book to write the timeline' did you misunderstand? Information or deception it's still collusion.
Do you know what collusion actually means? I posted the definition earlier today, look it up.
-
Which bit of 'lets sit down and use the covers from this book to write the timeline' did you misunderstand? Information or deception it's still collusion.
Sitting down together and pooling information like this is what intelligent people do...it may mean someone recalls an important piece of information....
-
Sitting down together and pooling information like this is what intelligent people do...it may mean someone recalls an important piece of information....
These times were accepted as Approximate . There was no secret made of this exercise and no attempt at deceit that I can see.
Volume X p. 2578 and 2579 + pictures of the written timelines and sticker book covers
Timelines written by Russell O'Brien. In his rogatory interview he states:
But anyway Dave PAYNE said to, erm, there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed ‘baby face’ who did our fingerprinting about a week later, erm, and those two were there and Dave was, was saying, you know, ‘Shouldn’t we’, you know, ‘Why are we sitting here, shouldn’t you be on the radio, shouldn’t there be more people here, shouldn’t there be’, you know, ‘this should be on the radio, it should be on the television’ and, erm, I recall ‘baby face’ or his colleague saying ‘No media’, and, you know, and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying ‘That’s what we want’, fair enough. Erm, huh, and that’s really it.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post330.html#p330
-
These times were accepted as Approximate . There was no secret made of this exercise and no attempt at deceit that I can see.
Volume X p. 2578 and 2579 + pictures of the written timelines and sticker book covers
Timelines written by Russell O'Brien. In his rogatory interview he states:
But anyway Dave PAYNE said to, erm, there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed ‘baby face’ who did our fingerprinting about a week later, erm, and those two were there and Dave was, was saying, you know, ‘Shouldn’t we’, you know, ‘Why are we sitting here, shouldn’t you be on the radio, shouldn’t there be more people here, shouldn’t there be’, you know, ‘this should be on the radio, it should be on the television’ and, erm, I recall ‘baby face’ or his colleague saying ‘No media’, and, you know, and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying ‘That’s what we want’, fair enough. Erm, huh, and that’s really it.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post330.html#p330
I am merely pointing out that they agreed their timeline so each statement naturally matches roughly as to the time of the alarm being raised. Local people and Ocean Club employees times vary much more. so although nine people's statements say 10 -ish, it might as well be counted as one because they agreed the time together.
-
These times were accepted as Approximate . There was no secret made of this exercise and no attempt at deceit that I can see.
Volume X p. 2578 and 2579 + pictures of the written timelines and sticker book covers
Timelines written by Russell O'Brien. In his rogatory interview he states:
But anyway Dave PAYNE said to, erm, there were two members of the PJ had arrived, there was a guy I remember being almost shaved bald head, quite dark complexion, and a second one who we kind of nicknamed ‘baby face’ who did our fingerprinting about a week later, erm, and those two were there and Dave was, was saying, you know, ‘Shouldn’t we’, you know, ‘Why are we sitting here, shouldn’t you be on the radio, shouldn’t there be more people here, shouldn’t there be’, you know, ‘this should be on the radio, it should be on the television’ and, erm, I recall ‘baby face’ or his colleague saying ‘No media’, and, you know, and that was full-stop and then turning round to me writing the timeline and saying ‘That’s what we want’, fair enough. Erm, huh, and that’s really it.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post330.html#p330
Considering how close Luz is to the Spanish border 'No media' may not have been the appropriate response.
-
Considering how close Luz is to the Spanish border 'No media' may not have been the appropriate response.
About 1 1/2 hours ish by motor. So in UK terms like Birmingham is close to Manchester
-
About 1 1/2 hours ish by motor. So in UK terms like Birmingham is close to Manchester
Indeed Alice.
-
About 1 1/2 hours ish by motor. So in UK terms like Birmingham is close to Manchester
Do you think the abductor would be running from one end of Luz to the other openly carrying a child or do you think he may have legged it to a vehicle and been about half an hour away from that border by the time the police arrived on the scene?
The French mob in Serbia did just that ... grabbed the child ... then firing on all cylinders headed straight for the border and if they had evaded pursuit, we would have another missing child case on our hands with people setting up websites to accuse her parents of all sorts.
-
Do you think the abductor would be running from one end of Luz to the other openly carrying a child or do you think he may have legged it to a vehicle and been about half an hour away from that border by the time the police arrived on the scene?
The French mob in Serbia did just that ... grabbed the child ... then firing on all cylinders headed straight for the border and if they had evaded pursuit, we would have another missing child case on our hands with people setting up websites to accuse her parents of all sorts.
Well, DCI Redwood seemed to be concentrating on the local area for some reason.
-
Do you think the abductor would be running from one end of Luz to the other openly carrying a child or do you think he may have legged it to a vehicle and been about half an hour away from that border by the time the police arrived on the scene?
The French mob in Serbia did just that ... grabbed the child ... then firing on all cylinders headed straight for the border and if they had evaded pursuit, we would have another missing child case on our hands with people setting up websites to accuse her parents of all sorts.
And that my dear friends is why the faithful, almost exclusively, have been pushing the Serbian Kidnap thread.
-
And that my dear friends is why the faithful, almost exclusively, have been pushing the Serbian Kidnap thread.
I rather thought it was because it initially illustrated a more unusual type of abduction and motive. However, it appears to have been an inept attempt by an inexperienced group working within a more organised child-trafficking gang.
-
I rather thought it was because it initially illustrated a more unusual type of abduction and motive. However, it appears to have been an inept attempt by an inexperienced group working within a more organised child-trafficking gang.
Complete with cover story and passport.
There is little news filtering through ~ but the child who is the alleged custody battle 'alibi' isn't mentioned nor are her whereabouts mentioned and given what we now know of these 'mules' that is cause for concern.
-
We have slipped off topic. Can we please try and slip back on topic again. Thank you
Re: McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.
-
The most difficult thing for us has been that we know the British police considered aspects of the investigation to be substandard and we honestly don’t think they believed we were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Comments made to us privately by several officers (including the most senior ones) confirmed this. (Madeleine)
-
I rather thought it was because it initially illustrated a more unusual type of abduction and motive. However, it appears to have been an inept attempt by an inexperienced group working within a more organised child-trafficking gang.
8((()*/ Exactly
My thoughts too, with the inexperienced group being directed by some senior person within the organised child trafficking group, probably from afar.
Also each stage of the abduction and actual removal of Madeleine compartmentalized so that no lower section knows who the other sections people are .... and what happened next.
Very clever,
One of their mottos is "Hidden in Plain Sight" IIRC
-
8((()*/ Exactly
My thoughts too, with the inexperienced group being directed by some senior person within the organised child trafficking group, probably from afar.
Also each stage of the abduction and actual removal of Madeleine compartmentalized so that no lower section knows who the other sections people are .... and what happened next.
Very clever,
One of their mottos is "Hidden in Plain Sight" IIRC
Sadie, where has it been proved it was abduction ?
P.S. Beliefs do not count.
-
Sadie, where has it been proved it was abduction ?
P.S. Beliefs do not count.
My thoughts Stephen [with dozens of pointers, most of which I unfortunately cannot share].
You write your thoughts on a daily basis.
One rule for you and your ilk ... and another for me?
Is that what you want?
Now I must go
-
Sadie, where has it been proved it was abduction ?
P.S. Beliefs do not count.
In a parallel universe far, far away. ?{)(**
-
My thoughts Stephen [with dozens of pointers, most of which I unfortunately cannot share].
You write your thoughts on a daily basis.
One rule for you and your ilk ... and another for me?
Is that what you want?
Now I must go
No sadie, pointers as you call them, are clearly your interpretations.
They are not facts.
I prefer facts.
-
In a parallel universe far, far away. ?{)(**
Perchance,
A long time ago ...................... 8)--))
-
No sadie, pointers as you call them, are clearly your interpretations.
They are not facts.
I prefer facts.
The majority of my pointers are facts ... and a few are carefully weighed up interpretations
They are for *after* the abduction. What happened afterwards.
But I cannot share them, they are sub judice. Sorry.
I am also sorry if your mind is too closed to accept that a persons findings [facts] and reasonings, whilst differing from yours, could be absolutely valid.
You are thinking in a box Stephen.
Try opening your mind.
-
The majority of my pointers are facts ... and a few are carefully weighed up interpretations
They are for *after* the abduction. What happened afterwards.
But I cannot share them, they are sub judice. Sorry.
I am also sorry if your mind is too closed to accept that a persons findings [facts] and reasonings, whilst differing from yours, could be absolutely valid.
You are thinking in a box Stephen.
Try opening your mind.
The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court. Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.
Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.
So who has been arrested?
-
The majority of my pointers are facts ... and a few are carefully weighed up interpretations
They are for *after* the abduction. What happened afterwards.
But I cannot share them, they are sub judice. Sorry.
I am also sorry if your mind is too closed to accept that a persons findings [facts] and reasonings, whilst differing from yours, could be absolutely valid.
You are thinking in a box Stephen.
Try opening your mind.
I need to see real evidence of abduction.
Prove me wrong.
As to boxes Sadie, yours will perennially be planted in the soil of abduction.
-
I need to see real evidence of abduction.
Prove me wrong.
As to boxes Sadie, yours will perennially be planted in the soil of abduction.
Because I have unearthed so many pointers to where she went afterwards
-
Because I have unearthed so many pointers to where she went afterwards
I am afraid pointers have no use.
You need unadulterated evidence.
-
I am afraid pointers have no use.
You need unadulterated evidence.
Well there is evidence that SY have used my facts and my pointers ... and that is as far as I can go.
So they must have thought that they were OK
But disbelieve and knock all you like Stephen.
Sorry, but in the great scheme of things you dont matter really, SY do. £4%4%
-
Well there is evidence that SY have used my facts and my pointers ... and that is as far as I can go.
So they must have thought that they were OK
But disbelieve and knock all you like Stephen.
Sorry, but in the great scheme of things you dont matter really, SY do. £4%4%
and SY have found nothing of any value whatsoever.
NEXT ?{)(**
-
The most difficult thing for us has been that we know the British police considered aspects of the investigation to be substandard and we honestly don’t think they believed we were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. Comments made to us privately by several officers (including the most senior ones) confirmed this. (Madeleine)
It looks like some British policemen were behaving inappropriately to me. Perhaps that's what led the McCanns to believe that Leicester Police would be happy to hand over to them all the evidence they held? It also explains their fury when the request was denied and when it was pointed out in court that they were still arguidos.
-
It looks like some British policemen were behaving inappropriately to me. Perhaps that's what led the McCanns to believe that Leicester Police would be happy to hand over to them all the evidence they held? It also explains their fury when the request was denied and when it was pointed out in court that they were still arguidos.
They were NOT arguidos when they requested them. That came weeks later.
PLease try not to obfuscate G-Unit
-
It looks like some British policemen were behaving inappropriately to me. Perhaps that's what led the McCanns to believe that Leicester Police would be happy to hand over to them all the evidence they held? It also explains their fury when the request was denied and when it was pointed out in court that they were still arguidos.
Did she call them F....T..rs though? she does have a temper as is evident.
-
They were NOT arguidos when they requested them. That came weeks later.
PLease try not to obfuscate G-Unit
Sorry, Sadie, I was just quoting Kate McCann; @)(++(*
The British police had their reasons, of course, among them the investigative primacy they were obliged to concede to the Portuguese and the concern that being in possession of information otherwise known only to the police and the perpetrator might compromise Gerry and me, since at this point we were still arguidos. All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief-stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? (Madeleine)
-
Sorry, Sadie, I was just quoting Kate McCann; @)(++(*
The British police had their reasons, of course, among them the investigative primacy they were obliged to concede to the Portuguese and the concern that being in possession of information otherwise known only to the police and the perpetrator might compromise Gerry and me, since at this point we were still arguidos. All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief-stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? (Madeleine)
G are you sure you quoted that correctly,? because some people are NEVER wrong.maybe Kate was confused when she typed that bit in- maybe you were drunk when you typed that in?....Giggles
-
The majority of my pointers are facts ... and a few are carefully weighed up interpretations
They are for *after* the abduction. What happened afterwards.
But I cannot share them, they are sub judice. Sorry.
I am also sorry if your mind is too closed to accept that a persons findings [facts] and reasonings, whilst differing from yours, could be absolutely valid.
You are thinking in a box Stephen.
Try opening your mind.
Who's being tried then? I missed that!
In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court.
-
G are you sure you quoted that correctly,? because some people are NEVER wrong.maybe Kate was confused when she typed that bit in- maybe you were drunk when you typed that in?....Giggles
Guess what? As well as not swearing I don't drink any more either lol. I have to admit though, to quote my mother-in-law 'If I never have another drink I've had my share' when she realised she needed to cut down for health reasons.
I've just realised that Sadie meant when they applied for the information it was before they became arguidos. Which is true if they served the disclosure order on Leicester police in May 2007, but also strange to want to see the evidence at that stage.
-
We are straying way Off Topic here. Please get back on Topic. Thank you.
Re: McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.
-
Guess what? As well as not swearing I don't drink any more either lol. I have to admit though, to quote my mother-in-law 'If I never have another drink I've had my share' when she realised she needed to cut down for health reasons.
I've just realised that Sadie meant when they applied for the information it was before they became arguidos. Which is true if they served the disclosure order on Leicester police in May 2007, but also strange to want to see the evidence at that stage.
Before this thread, I was always under the impression that their request for disclosure was made in 2008. What evidence would the police have in May 2007 that they so urgently wanted?
-
Before this thread, I was always under the impression that their request for disclosure was made in 2008. What evidence would the police have in May 2007 that they so urgently wanted?
Maybe any sightings of a man seen carrying a child.
-
Before this thread, I was always under the impression that their request for disclosure was made in 2008. What evidence would the police have in May 2007 that they so urgently wanted?
There's a difference between broad orders submitted and exercising them.
Getting details of plane passengers, holiday-makers, etc, didn't require disclosure from police.
-
Before this thread, I was always under the impression that their request for disclosure was made in 2008. What evidence would the police have in May 2007 that they so urgently wanted?
I don't think we know when the actual disclosure order was served on Leicester police, but the order was made on 22nd May 2007. It was then served on various bodies, one of whom was Leicestershire police who immediately objected. These orders are usually granted in cases of parental child abduction, when they can be used to discover if flights were booked and where they went, for example.
-
I really cannot understand why anyone was even thinking along those lines less than 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Later, maybe, but 3 weeks?
-
I really cannot understand why anyone was even thinking along those lines less than 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Later, maybe, but 3 weeks?
It was done by the International Family Law Group, whose specialism is family law, particularly international families. Two members of the company flew out to Portugal on 11th of May. One was a paralegal and the other was a barrister. The paralegal was based in Leicester, according to Kate McCann, and he had told 'a colleague of Gerry's that his company could help'. It was the barrister who inspected the distance from the Tapas restaurant to the apartment and advised the parents that their behaviour in leaving the children was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.’ On 13th May IFLG announced that they were acting for the McCanns and that details of how to donate would be available in the next couple of days.
They advised setting up a fighting fund and making Madeleine a ward of court; such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.’ said Kate.
The 'fighting fund' was to be a charitable concern and the date of 16th May had been settled on to launch it, but The Charity Commission had asked for the first draft submitted on Monday 14th May to be changed in order to be more acceptable. Instead the McCanns decided to buy an 'off the shelf' limited company rather than change the launch date.
A fighting fund has been launched to help cover escalating costs in the search for missing Madeleine McCann.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6662723.stm
i can only assume that money was needed (in addition to paying the mortgage) to pay IFLG and Control Risks Group, who were working on the MCann's behalf from May 2007 carrying out an investigation into the disappearance. The PJ were aware that Control Risks were there and spent some efforts trying to find out why;
The DCCB got wind of the possible arrival of certain Englishmen from an information gathering organisation (CRG)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
-
It was done by the International Family Law Group, whose specialism is family law, particularly international families. Two members of the company flew out to Portugal on 11th of May. One was a paralegal and the other was a barrister. The paralegal was based in Leicester, according to Kate McCann, and he had told 'a colleague of Gerry's that his company could help'. It was the barrister who inspected the distance from the Tapas restaurant to the apartment and advised the parents that their behaviour in leaving the children was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.’ On 13th May IFLG announced that they were acting for the McCanns and that details of how to donate would be available in the next couple of days.
They advised setting up a fighting fund and making Madeleine a ward of court; such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.’ said Kate.
The 'fighting fund' was to be a charitable concern and the date of 16th May had been settled on to launch it, but The Charity Commission had asked for the first draft submitted on Monday 14th May to be changed in order to be more acceptable. Instead the McCanns decided to buy an 'off the shelf' limited company rather than change the launch date.
A fighting fund has been launched to help cover escalating costs in the search for missing Madeleine McCann.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6662723.stm
i can only assume that money was needed (in addition to paying the mortgage) to pay IFLG and Control Risks Group, who were working on the MCann's behalf from May 2007 carrying out an investigation into the disappearance. The PJ were aware that Control Risks were there and spent some efforts trying to find out why;
The DCCB got wind of the possible arrival of certain Englishmen from an information gathering organisation (CRG)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DCCB_LETTER.htm
I find it interesting that they wanted access to information which may be 'relevent ' to their case? which case would this be? It does come across as no one trusted anyone in this whole scenario- really strange.
It does seem that the McCANNS were worried about what would happen to them with regards to their behaviour which led to Maddies disappearance, and how this would affect them on their return home and the twins. They did the ground work in order for them not to be 'investigated/ by UK police. I am surprised UK police did not investigate the family on their return, or the social work were not involved.
I have said before it is my belif that Gerry n Kate wanted complete control of all that surrounded 'Missing Maddie'
-
I find it interesting that they wanted access to information which may be 'relevent ' to their case? which case would this be? It does come across as no one trusted anyone in this whole scenario- really strange.
It does seem that the McCANNS were worried about what would happen to them with regards to their behaviour which led to Maddies disappearance, and how this would affect them on their return home and the twins. They did the ground work in order for them not to be 'investigated/ by UK police. I am surprised UK police did not investigate the family on their return, or the social work were not involved.
I have said before it is my belif that Gerry n Kate wanted complete control of all that surrounded 'Missing Maddie'
Why would they do that? The listening service was commonplace in holiday resorts and has been for decades. The McCanns mirrored what hundreds of thousands of other parents did on holiday. i.e. Left their children fast asleep in their rooms whilst they went out to dinner or elsewhere - knowing they would be regularly checked.
Holidaymakers still do it today - except some use baby alarms instead of the 'listening' method.
Why 'sceptics' refuse to acknowledge this FACT and keep pretending the McCanns are unique in using this method of child checking is incomprehensible to me.
-
Why would they do that? The listening service was commonplace in holiday resorts and has been for decades. The McCanns mirrored what hundreds of thousands of other parents did on holiday. i.e. Left their children fast asleep in their rooms whilst they went out to dinner or elsewhere - knowing they would be regularly checked.
Holidaymakers still do it today - except some use baby alarms instead of the 'listening' method.
Why 'sceptics' refuse to acknowledge this FACT and keep pretending the McCanns are unique in using this method of child checking is incomprehensible to me.
Mark Warner didn't offer this service at the Ocean Club because the layout was unsuitable. In most places where the service is available I assume the children are locked in by the parents and are called back to attend to any crying child. I don't know anything about these new resorts, but that's how it used to work at Butlins. Of the four couples present, three locked their children in. Only one couple didn't, for reasons that are unclear. So their method was not the same as that used by many others.
-
Mark Warner didn't offer this service at the Ocean Club because the layout was unsuitable. In most places where the service is available I assume the children are locked in by the parents and are called back to attend to any crying child. I don't know anything about these new resorts, but that's how it used to work at Butlins. Of the four couples present, three locked their children in. Only one couple didn't, for reasons that are unclear. So their method was not the same as that used by many others.
Anyone who believes that out of the hundreds of thousands (in fact possibly millions) of parents who have done the same as the McCanns - that not a single one of them have ever gone out leaving a window or a door unlocked - either by accident or design, is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
The attitude of some sceptics to this - is similar to their attitude to the creche. All other parents who sign their children up at a creche or kiddies club are perfectly normal and do it because their kids have a great time there. They are beyond criticism. But not the McCanns. When they did the same they are accused of 'dumping' their children - inferring that the creche and kiddies clubs are places to which no loving parent would dream of sending their children.
Inexplicable logic IMO.
-
Anyone who believes that out of the hundreds of thousands (in fact possibly millions) of parents who have done the same as the McCanns - that not a single one of them have ever gone out leaving a window or a door unlocked - either by accident or design, is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
The attitude of some sceptics to this - is similar to their attitude to the creche. All other parents who sign their children up at a creche or kiddies club are perfectly normal and do it because their kids have a great time there. They are beyond criticism. But not the McCanns. When they did the same they are accused of 'dumping' their children - inferring that the creche and kiddies clubs are places to which no loving parent would dream of sending their children.
Inexplicable logic IMO.
I would assume most parents after leaving their children in the crèche during the day spend the evening with them. I believe even the McCann's friends left their children in the crèche for only the morning session and did things as a family in the afternoon. We are told Fiona Payne asked the McCanns and their children to come to the beach with the rest of the group on the 3rd , an invitation turned down as Madeleine and the twins were stuck in the crèche yet again while their parents had yet more 'me' time.
-
Anyone who believes that out of the hundreds of thousands (in fact possibly millions) of parents who have done the same as the McCanns - that not a single one of them have ever gone out leaving a window or a door unlocked - either by accident or design, is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.
The attitude of some sceptics to this - is similar to their attitude to the creche. All other parents who sign their children up at a creche or kiddies club are perfectly normal and do it because their kids have a great time there. They are beyond criticism. But not the McCanns. When they did the same they are accused of 'dumping' their children - inferring that the creche and kiddies clubs are places to which no loving parent would dream of sending their children.
Inexplicable logic IMO.
No, it is your logic which is inexplicable. Most people using a listening service do so in a resort which provides that facility. Fact! You assume that other parents leave children in unlocked apartments, but have you any proof of that statement? Please provide. Accident and design are two different things. Fact! In this particular case three out of four didn't leave their children in an unlocked apartment. Fact!
-
I find it interesting that they wanted access to information which may be 'relevent ' to their case? which case would this be? It does come across as no one trusted anyone in this whole scenario- really strange.
It does seem that the McCANNS were worried about what would happen to them with regards to their behaviour which led to Maddies disappearance, and how this would affect them on their return home and the twins. They did the ground work in order for them not to be 'investigated/ by UK police. I am surprised UK police did not investigate the family on their return, or the social work were not involved.
I have said before it is my belif that Gerry n Kate wanted complete control of all that surrounded 'Missing Maddie'
Wanting control is quite normal for professional intelligent people who realise that "professionals" don't always know best...the fact that you and others don't understand this is because you are not intelligent professionals.
-
No, it is your logic which is inexplicable. Most people using a listening service do so in a resort which provides that facility. Fact! You assume that other parents leave children in unlocked apartments, but have you any proof of that statement? Please provide. Accident and design are two different things. Fact! In this particular case three out of four didn't leave their children in an unlocked apartment. Fact!
From reports at the time other families operated a listening service...I certainly did at a similar resort 20 yrs ago...I wouldn't do it now...the McCanns were naïve ...not neglectful
-
Wanting control is quite normal for professional intelligent people who realise that "professionals" don't always know best...the fact that you and others don't understand this is because you are not intelligent professionals.
Could you tell me why you assume we are not intelligent professionals? It would seem that despite your in-depth knowledge of how intelligent professionals view other professionals you are not one of them either, given your faith in the professionals running Operation Grange.
-
From reports at the time other families operated a listening service...I certainly did at a similar resort 20 yrs ago...I wouldn't do it now...the McCanns were naïve ...not neglectful
From the witness statement available , the Wilkins, Carpenters etc, no other families were prating a similar listening service. Perhaps you can provide a link to the reports ?
-
Wanting control is quite normal for professional intelligent people who realise that "professionals" don't always know best...the fact that you and others don't understand this is because you are not intelligent professionals.
Unfortunately that statement is merely your unsubstantiated opinion.
-
From reports at the time other families operated a listening service...I certainly did at a similar resort 20 yrs ago...I wouldn't do it now...the McCanns were naïve ...not neglectful
In the resort at the time? Which families please?
So, were this 38 year old couple intelligent controlling professionals or dewy-eyed naive dreamers? Surely they couldn't be both?
Naive;
too willing to believe that someone is telling the truth, that people's intentions in general are good, or that life is simple and fair. People are often naive because they are young and/or have not had much experience of life:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/naive
-
Wanting control is quite normal for professional intelligent people who realise that "professionals" don't always know best...the fact that you and others don't understand this is because you are not intelligent professionals.
Doctors are accustomed to having all the relevant information, in front of them, when investigating a patients condition.
I think I would want to know exactly what was going on in the investigation, if it was my child.
It takes a lot of determination and work to persuade those in authority to release at least some of the files.
-
Doctors are accustomed to having all the relevant information, in front of them, when investigating a patients condition.
I think I would want to know exactly what was going on in the investigation, if it was my child.
It takes a lot of determination and work to persuade those in authority to release at least some of the files.
The information given to the McCanns was information they themselves had passed to the authorities in the first place.
-
Doctors are accustomed to having all the relevant information, in front of them, when investigating a patients condition.
I think I would want to know exactly what was going on in the investigation, if it was my child.
It takes a lot of determination and work to persuade those in authority to release at least some of the files.
The Uk police are very protective of information. They share only what they wish to share for a number of reasons. It was IFLG who carried out the 'work' needed to 'persuade' (?) Leicester police to release their evidence to the McCanns. They were paid for doing this, I assume by the Fund. The 'persuasion' amounted to serving a disclosure order on the police. and it didn't work.
-
The information given to the McCanns was information they themselves had passed to the authorities in the first place.
That'll be the stuff Kate described as trivial, I suppose. If it was trivial, then why did the McCanns offer it up in the first place, one might ask.
-
The Uk police are very protective of information. They share only what they wish to share for a number of reasons. It was IFLG who carried out the 'work' needed to 'persuade' (?) Leicester police to release their evidence to the McCanns. They were paid for doing this, I assume by the Fund. The 'persuasion' amounted to serving a disclosure order on the police. and it didn't work.
So are you saying, that the McCanns had nothing to do with the request for opening the files?
-
That'll be the stuff Kate described as trivial, I suppose. If it was trivial, then why did the McCanns offer it up in the first place, one might ask.
Good question jassi.
-
So are you saying, that the McCanns had nothing to do with the request for opening the files?
On 11th May IFLG advised that disclosure orders could be issued by the courts;
They advised setting up a fighting fund and making Madeleine a ward of court; such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.’ said Kate.
The McCanns accepted their advice and engaged them to carry it out. As to whose idea it was to serve the disclosure order on Leicestershire police we haven't been told.
-
On 11th May IFLG advised that disclosure orders could be issued by the courts;
They advised setting up a fighting fund and making Madeleine a ward of court; such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.’ said Kate.
The McCanns accepted their advice and engaged them to carry it out. As to whose idea it was to serve the disclosure order on Leicestershire police we haven't been told.
According to the following, it looks like the McCanns did decide on this action.
So the title of the thread is valid.
The McCanns are 'reluctantly' taking Leicestershire Constabulary to the High Court tomorrow to make it hand over any evidence it collected during liaisons with its Portuguese counterparts in the hunt for Madeleine.
It is believed that the force refused to open its files to the McCanns, who believe British police may have received calls from members of the public which could be helpful to private detectives working for the family.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id125.html
also
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
Edited to add link
-
Wanting control is quite normal for professional intelligent people who realise that "professionals" don't always know best...the fact that you and others don't understand this is because you are not intelligent professionals.
That comment is pathetic, but hardly surprising.
Also it verges on double dutch and complete illogic.
Do you give out this kind of advice in your profession ?
if you do, I pity the recipients.
-
In the resort at the time? Which families please?
So, were this 38 year old couple intelligent controlling professionals or dewy-eyed naive dreamers? Surely they couldn't be both?
Naive;
too willing to believe that someone is telling the truth, that people's intentions in general are good, or that life is simple and fair. People are often naive because they are young and/or have not had much experience of life:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/naive
The thing is the McCann's are human, and humans don't always make the right decisions. They are both intelligent professionals and both do their jobs extremely well [did in Kate's case] that doesn't mean they are perfect.
You have Police Officers who know speeding in cars is against the law, yet you have Police Officers who speed, drink whilst driving etc. etc.
The McCann's thought their children would be safe, they had been settled into bed they were asleep when they left them, they were checking on them regularly, there was no 'intent' intended.
-
The thing is the McCann's are human, and humans don't always make the right decisions. They are both intelligent professionals and both do their jobs extremely well [did in Kate's case] that doesn't mean they are perfect.
You have Police Officers who know speeding in cars is against the law, yet you have Police Officers who speed, drink whilst driving etc. etc.
The McCann's thought their children would be safe, they had been settled into bed they were asleep when they left them, they were checking on them regularly, there was no 'intent' intended.
Both do their jobs ?
kate mccann doesn't work.
-
Both do their jobs ?
kate mccann doesn't work.
Read my post Stephen I said 'did' in Kate's case.
-
Read my post Stephen I said 'did' in Kate's case.
OK on that, just re-read.
How do you know how 'good' the mccanns did their jobs ?
-
OK on that, just re-read.
How do you know how 'good' the mccanns did their jobs ?
Well surely Gerry wouldn't still be in his if he did it badly?
-
OK on that, just re-read.
How do you know how 'good' the mccanns did their jobs ?
Gerry has just been handed a massive research project...that's evidence he did and does his job well. Looks like the research is on young people too.
-
Gerry has just been handed a massive research project...that's evidence he did and does his job well. Looks like the research is on young people too.
What has that to do with this thread?
-
Off Topic Posts will be deleted.
-
To return to the topic. It's clear that the 'intelligent professionals' in Leicestershire police force, the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General's office had no qualms in refusing the attempts of two 'intelligent professionals' from the Medical Profession to see all the evidence against them. Another example of their naivety perhaps.
-
To return to the topic. It's clear that the 'intelligent professionals' in Leicestershire police force, the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General's office had no qualms in refusing the attempts of two 'intelligent professionals' from the Medical Profession to see all the evidence against them. Another example of their naivety perhaps.
Do you have any proof that the mccanns were only interested in evidence against them rather than evidence that would help them find maddie...you don't...just more of your usual BS
-
Off Topic Posts will be deleted.
Sorry Eleanor, we appear to be double billed. I will delete mine.
-
Do you have any proof that the mccanns were only interested in evidence against them rather than evidence that would help them find maddie...you don't...just more of your usual BS
They were given the evidence which related to sightings of Madeleine (she wasn't called Maddie) and dismissed it as 'trivial'.
-
Sorry Eleanor, we appear to be double billed. I will delete mine.
No, don't do that, Anna. They have very short memories.
-
They were given the evidence which related to sightings of Madeleine (she wasn't called Maddie) and dismissed it as 'trivial'.
so no proof just your opinion .....not surprising...just trying to promote more myths as facts...it won't work
-
so no proof just your opinion .....not surprising...just trying to promote more myths as facts...it won't work
Well, Leicester police pointed out ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
It is a fact that the police don't give out information to people if that information may be used against them later.
An intelligent person like you should be able to work it out from there.
-
Well, Leicester police pointed out ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
It is a fact that the police don't give out information to people if that information may be used against them later.
An intelligent person like you should be able to work it out from there.
Unlike you I have already worked it out. Had the court allowed complete disclosure to the McCanns it would have set an uncomfortable precedent which may have affected other cases...
Obviously if the McCanns were ever charged they would be ENTITLED to see ANY evidence against them...imo they were not interested in evidence against themeselves but info that could help them in their search...
so despite all your bluster you have confirmed that you are simply posting your own opinion and dressing it up as fact
-
Unlike you I have already worked it out. Had the court allowed complete disclosure to the McCanns it would have set an uncomfortable precedent which may have affected other cases...
Obviously if the McCanns were ever charged they would be ENTITLED to see ANY evidence against them...imo they were not interested in evidence against themeselves but info that could help them in their search...
so despite all your bluster you have confirmed that you are simply posting your own opinion and dressing it up as fact
Looks like you are also.
-
Either Leicestershire Police gave the wrong impression to the family and to the Portuguese Police or their behaviour was misunderstood. We know that Goncalo Amaral had his doubts about Stuart Prior and kept information away from him. Kate McCann makes it clear that the only reason Leicestershire Police seem to have given them previously for withholding information was 'their hands were tied'. She is very upset with the Assistant Chief Constable 'who had been out to Portugal and seen us at our most grief-stricken' but still told the Court there was 'no clear evidence to eliminate them'
As far as the McCanns were concerned then, the disclosure order 'would be seen by the police, who were always telling us their hands were tied, as a way of helping us without upsetting their Portuguese counterparts'.
The McCanns clearly had the impression that Leicester Police were 'on their side'.
Having had dealings with a Family Liaison Officer myself it's very easy to misconstrue their stance unless you understand their role, which is;
Gather material from the family in a manner which contributes to the investigation;
Inform, and facilitate care and support for, the family, who are themselves victims, in a sensitive and compassionate manner in accordance with the needs of the investigation;
Gain the confidence and trust of the family, thereby enhancing their contribution to the investigation
http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/dying-bereavement/bereavement-due-traumatic-death/police-family-liaison-officers-
The Liaison officer is part of the investigation and will pass on information gained during contact with the family if they think it's relevant. In the Shannon Matthews case it was the Liaison Officer who worked out that something was wrong with the mothers behaviour. All the Leicestershire Liaison officers reported no strange behaviour by the family in their statements but Ricardo Paiva did. Why there was this difference in opinion we don't know.
-
You are all wandering Off Topic again, you little devils you.
-
Please post in the appropriate threads as Off Topic posts on this thread will be removed. Thank you
-
You are all wandering Off Topic again, you little devils you.
Snap! again.
-
Snap! again.
Great Minds, Anna.
-
Unlike you I have already worked it out. Had the court allowed complete disclosure to the McCanns it would have set an uncomfortable precedent which may have affected other cases...
Obviously if the McCanns were ever charged they would be ENTITLED to see ANY evidence against them...imo they were not interested in evidence against themeselves but info that could help them in their search...
so despite all your bluster you have confirmed that you are simply posting your own opinion and dressing it up as fact
Perhaps a reason other than the search for wanting to see Leicestershire police's files?
Friends say Kate and Gerry and their legal team are growing frustrated at the lack of communication from Portuguese police. Their lawyers are said to be "working in a vacuum" trying to prepare a defence. One friend said: "The defence is having to draw up a case without knowing the allegations. "They are very frustrated and concerned that they have as much information as possible at the right time."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-we-are-being-bugged-507337
-
Very pro active of them isn't it?