Author Topic: Kate McCann admits in her book that private criminal investigations in Portugal were illegal.  (Read 128364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
If the police came to one conclusion and one  conclusion only (according to you) then they must have deemed the parents to be hiding something.  Failure to cooperate fully with the police and refusing to answer some very basic questions was the most stupid thing Kate McCann ever did as far as the police investigation was concerned. Appears her lawyer had concerns too at that stage.
Perhaps you can explain to us how answering any number of questions a thousand times over would have convinced the PJ that Kate was wholly innocent of the crimes they suspected her of?  What could she have said to convince them, eh?  In your experience, here as Moderator of the UK Justice Forum, have you ever encountered another case in which the police concluded (wrongly) that they had their man or woman and then charged them for a crime they did not commit?  Just wondering like...

Offline Brietta

You are completely wrong and your failure to see that  undermines your credibility.

Lets put it another way.  Why did Kate McCann admit in her book that they employed a Spanish PI instead of a Portuguese one?  Have you worked it out yet?

Actually my reading of it is that the Drs McCann did not hire M3 ... brian Kennedy did ... and this has already been pointed out by another poster on this thread.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Interestingly Mathew Wyse who started this thread chose not to include the following line in his quoted paragraph from Kate's book "M3 also had links to the Spanish police, who, in turn, had good connections with the Portuguese police".  Another good reason for choosing them as PIs whilst at the same time not treading on the PJ's toes. 

Offline Mr Gray

It should not be too difficult. It is based on the premise that the law is there to be followed not cherry picked at. My experience is that the cherry pickers are the first to call their mummy when it goes horribly wrong.

Jean Pierre suggested that we should not slavishly follow the law if we believe it to be an ass. That rather suggests he wishes to cherry pick the laws that should be obeyed in his opinion. That way lies anarchy my friend.
But my point is once you have made the conscious decision to observe only laws that suit your convenience where will you draw the line at your law breaking?

if authorities want laws to be followed they should be enforced....the PJ actually worked with M3....does that suggest to you they broke the law

Offline Eleanor

The PJ didn’t seem too concerned about the involvement of M3 in Madeleine’s case … the fact that they met with them and received information from them concerning the case … suggests that within the set parameters there was no illegality involved.
 
So they were well aware of the involvement of Private Investigators ... they may not have been ecstatically happy about it ... but, as can be seen from the files, they actually carried out an investigation of part of the information given to them by M3.



Volume XIII Pages 3434 - 3436
Service Information 2007.11.14
To: Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: Joao Carlos, Inspector

Concerning the investigation of the disappearance of the British minor, Madeleine McCann, I present you Sir with the following:

On the 19th of October, we were contacted by the Commissary General, located in Madrid, by the Chief of the Kidnapping Unit, Alberto Carbas, who passed to us the information that the McCann family had contracted a Spanish company known as 'METODO 3', composed of Spanish private detectives. This business, or in other words, the costs of the activities of this business were being covered by a Scottish multi-millionaire whose name is BRIAN KENNEDY and whose objective was to locate the British minor.

With this information, we were asked if we were available and interested in meeting with a representative of this Spanish business, and also with the Commissary General and Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Police of our neighbouring country, whose operation is in Madrid.

The meeting had as its objective to receive on behalf of the private detectives, from that moment and for their own wishes, relevant information with the aim to ascertain the truth, and to state that they would not interfere in police work, and at most they would serve as a complement to some useful information. They firmly state that they are not working directly for the McCann family, but for Brian Kennedy and that their sole purpose is to locate the missing child, or to gather the inescapable truth of what happened.
They did not ask for any information regarding the investigation, nor was any offered to them, for obvious reasons as this is found incorporated in the Portuguese penal process.

On the 13th of the current year, in the presence of the signatory and inspectors Paulo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva, a meeting was held, in this department, with Brian Kennedy, the director of the detective company, Francisco Marco and an advisor of this same company, Antonio Jimenez, ex-chief of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalan. From the beginning, Brian Kennedy was questioned, and ascertained that the meeting only had this scope--of transmitting that his objective in all of this was purely charitable in that he is interested [in helping to stop] the bad treatment of minors and in missing children. He affirmed that he only was interested in discovering the truth and nothing more even if the McCann family, the friends, or any other person is found to be involved in the disappearance.

During the course of this meeting, the director of METODO 3 gave us a small book (attached), with information relative to the disappearance of the minor. This information, as we were told, was received via telephone and that they had already opened a line in Spain, specifically to receive and deal with information.

In this book, written in Spanish, we can analyse three pieces of information:

1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
2. In the second point, we should remember that the computers of Sergey Malinka were searched and that nothing of suspicion was found there or related to paedophilia.
3. In that which concerns the third point, we are currently carrying out diligences with the intent to confirm or disprove the related information.

With nothing more to report.
Joao Carlos, Inspector                                                                                     

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm

Is this being ignored?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
if authorities want laws to be followed they should be enforced....the PJ actually worked with M3....does that suggest to you they broke the law
The PJ of course repeatedly broke the Judicial Secrecy law but we don't see sceptics hollering in outrage about that!

Offline Mr Gray

You are completely wrong and your failure to see that  undermines your credibility.

Lets put it another way.  Why did Kate McCann admit in her book that they employed a Spanish PI instead of a Portuguese one?  Have you worked it out yet?

Have you worked out why Kate did not employ a Portuguese PI....I certainly have and it is not because a Portuguese PI investigating would be breaking the law

ferryman

  • Guest
The PJ didn’t seem too concerned about the involvement of M3 in Madeleine’s case … the fact that they met with them and received information from them concerning the case … suggests that within the set parameters there was no illegality involved.
 
So they were well aware of the involvement of Private Investigators ... they may not have been ecstatically happy about it ... but, as can be seen from the files, they actually carried out an investigation of part of the information given to them by M3.



Volume XIII Pages 3434 - 3436
Service Information 2007.11.14
To: Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
From: Joao Carlos, Inspector

Concerning the investigation of the disappearance of the British minor, Madeleine McCann, I present you Sir with the following:

On the 19th of October, we were contacted by the Commissary General, located in Madrid, by the Chief of the Kidnapping Unit, Alberto Carbas, who passed to us the information that the McCann family had contracted a Spanish company known as 'METODO 3', composed of Spanish private detectives. This business, or in other words, the costs of the activities of this business were being covered by a Scottish multi-millionaire whose name is BRIAN KENNEDY and whose objective was to locate the British minor.

With this information, we were asked if we were available and interested in meeting with a representative of this Spanish business, and also with the Commissary General and Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Police of our neighbouring country, whose operation is in Madrid.

The meeting had as its objective to receive on behalf of the private detectives, from that moment and for their own wishes, relevant information with the aim to ascertain the truth, and to state that they would not interfere in police work, and at most they would serve as a complement to some useful information. They firmly state that they are not working directly for the McCann family, but for Brian Kennedy and that their sole purpose is to locate the missing child, or to gather the inescapable truth of what happened.
They did not ask for any information regarding the investigation, nor was any offered to them, for obvious reasons as this is found incorporated in the Portuguese penal process.

On the 13th of the current year, in the presence of the signatory and inspectors Paulo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva, a meeting was held, in this department, with Brian Kennedy, the director of the detective company, Francisco Marco and an advisor of this same company, Antonio Jimenez, ex-chief of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalan. From the beginning, Brian Kennedy was questioned, and ascertained that the meeting only had this scope--of transmitting that his objective in all of this was purely charitable in that he is interested [in helping to stop] the bad treatment of minors and in missing children. He affirmed that he only was interested in discovering the truth and nothing more even if the McCann family, the friends, or any other person is found to be involved in the disappearance.

During the course of this meeting, the director of METODO 3 gave us a small book (attached), with information relative to the disappearance of the minor. This information, as we were told, was received via telephone and that they had already opened a line in Spain, specifically to receive and deal with information.

In this book, written in Spanish, we can analyse three pieces of information:

1. In the first case, we observed that there was report of facts which occurred in August/September of 2006, and which appears to us somewhat extemporaneous, as it cannot now be related to the material under investigation.
2. In the second point, we should remember that the computers of Sergey Malinka were searched and that nothing of suspicion was found there or related to paedophilia.
3. In that which concerns the third point, we are currently carrying out diligences with the intent to confirm or disprove the related information.

With nothing more to report.
Joao Carlos, Inspector 
                                                     

Is this being ignored?

It has been acknowledged, mainly by those of us interested in the truth.

But ignored by those interested in something else ...

All ways up, the definitive end to the "debate" ...

Offline Alice Purjorick

Is this being ignored?
Oh no! O Lady High Moderator it is not being ignored.
There was a contract between Metodo3  of the first part and who knows whom of second part. That much we think we know my dear.
The Party of Second Part may have been Brian Kennedy, it may have been Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd or it may have been Drs McCann.
The last option is a trifle silly so can I would venture be discounted, however without the contract document in our grubby little fists we remain at sixes and sevens as to how the contract was formed.
Perhaps we should be debating "Party of The First Part" and "Party of The Second Part"?
It would satisfy Alfred's libel obsession, apart from that it wouldn't be much fun because no "names" would receive a bashing.
Rather similar to betting on nameless horses I feel.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

ferryman

  • Guest
Oh no! O Lady High Moderator it is not being ignored.
There was a contract between Metodo3  of the first part and who knows whom of second part. That much we think we know my dear.
The Party of Second Part may have been Brian Kennedy, it may have been Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd or it may have been Drs McCann.
The last option is a trifle silly so can I would venture be discounted, however without the contract document in our grubby little fists we remain at sixes and sevens as to how the contract was formed.
Perhaps we should be debating "Party of The First Part" and "Party of The Second Part"?
It would satisfy Alfred's libel obsession, apart from that it wouldn't be much fun because no "names" would receive a bashing.
Rather similar to betting on nameless horses I feel.

Is obfuscation allowed by the rules of this forum?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Oh no! O Lady High Moderator it is not being ignored.
There was a contract between Metodo3  of the first part and who knows whom of second part. That much we think we know my dear.
The Party of Second Part may have been Brian Kennedy, it may have been Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd or it may have been Drs McCann.
The last option is a trifle silly so can I would venture be discounted, however without the contract document in our grubby little fists we remain at sixes and sevens as to how the contract was formed.
Perhaps we should be debating "Party of The First Part" and "Party of The Second Part"?
It would satisfy Alfred's libel obsession, apart from that it wouldn't be much fun because no "names" would receive a bashing.
Rather similar to betting on nameless horses I feel.
Is that an admission that bashing "names" is fun?  I do believe it is!

Offline John

It is also worth reproducing extracts which appeared in Chapter 9 prior to the paragraph which started this particular thread.

Quote from: Kate McCann's book Madeleine

Ch 19 - ACTION ON THREE FRONTS

By October, with the battle to clear our names under way, we were able to concentrate properly on our top priority: finding Madeleine. Since the very beginning, various friends had proposed hiring private investigators. So far, beyond following up the odd piece of information outside Portugal, we had not gone down this road. Apart from the legal complications and the potential for interference with the official investigation, we had been reassured that, after a shaky start, the police were doing everything that could be done.

The McCanns were well aware of the legal complications and the potential for interference with the official investigation but were quite content to let the Portuguese get on with it.  That was of course until the focus of the investigation changed and they found themselves under scrutiny.

Quote from: Kate McCann's book Madeleine
Until the summer, we had believed that our best hope of Madeleine being found lay with the police. We needed to believe that. However, as the months rolled by, our faith in them had rapidly declined, hitting rock-bottom in August. Once we were declared arguidos, it became frighteningly clear to us that they were no longer looking for Madeleine. What they were looking for now, it seemed, was a conviction. Feeling more desperate for Madeleine now than at any time since that first night, we had no option but to launch our own investigation.

Some might say that they did indeed have another option and that was to cooperate fully with the Portuguese investigation. Acting in the way they did on being designated arguidos only merely sought to raise the police's suspicions even more. Fleeing the scene could not have done more damage to their credibility in the eyes of many onlookers.

Quote from: Kate McCann's book Madeleine
Our first investigators, the Spanish company Método 3, began working for us in October. With private investigations technically illegal in Portugal, we felt the closest we could get would be a firm from somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula, which would have the advantage of familiarity with local systems, culture and geography and the best network of contacts in the region.

The phrase 'closest we could get' is somewhat ambiguous given the involvement between Método 3, lawyer João Grade and the Arade dam fiasco which all occurred in Portugal.  If the McCanns had set out to circumvent Portuguese Law by engaging a Spanish firm of private investigators then they summarily failed.  What initially might have been deemed 'technically illegal' later became 'illegal' since Método 3 took their investigation to Portuguese soil and right under and up the noses of the Portuguese police.

The argument which will no doubt be rolled out now is that the McCanns were a) not to know that M3 were operating on Portuguese soil and b) were not to know what M3 were up to.  Both arguments fall at the first fence because it is up to the person or persons who employ private investigators to ensure that they are tasked in accordance with the law prevailing in each country and that they operate in accordance with those laws. M3 would not have taken their investigation to Portugal without the express authority of their clients who were after all paying handsomely for their services.  In fact, a bit further into Ch 19 Kate writes the following about M3.

Quote from: Kate McCann's book Madeleine
We have no doubt that M3 made significant strides, but unfortunately, in mid-December, one of their senior investigators gave an overly optimistic interview to the media. He implied that the team were close to finding Madeleine and declared that he hoped she would be home by Christmas. Gerry and I did not pay much heed to these bullish assertions. While we believed they’d been made in an attempt to cast the search in a positive light, we knew that such public declarations would not be helpful. Credibility is so important. That glitch apart, M3 worked very hard for us and, just for the record, their fees were very low: most of the money they were paid was for verified expenses. Although we went on to employ new teams, we maintain good relations with M3 today.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 06:31:24 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Is obfuscation allowed by the rules of this forum?

So my dear you know for sure the names of the parties to the contract?
Please tell us.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Carana

It should not be too difficult. It is based on the premise that the law is there to be followed not cherry picked at. My experience is that the cherry pickers are the first to call their mummy when it goes horribly wrong.

Jean Pierre suggested that we should not slavishly follow the law if we believe it to be an ass. That rather suggests he wishes to cherry pick the laws that should be obeyed in his opinion. That way lies anarchy my friend.
But my point is once you have made the conscious decision to observe only laws that suit your convenience where will you draw the line at your law breaking?

"Jean Pierre suggested that we should not slavishly follow the law if we believe it to be an ass. That rather suggests he wishes to cherry pick the laws that should be obeyed in his opinion. That way lies anarchy my friend. "

Where did Jean-Pierre suggest that?

But my point is once you have made the conscious decision to observe only laws that suit your convenience where will you draw the line at your law breaking?

Who are you referring to?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
It is also worth reproducing extracts which appeared in Chapter 9 prior to the paragraph which started this particular thread.

The McCanns were well aware of the legal complications and the potential for interference with the official investigation but were quite content to let the Portuguese get on with it.  That was of course until the focus of the investigation changed and they found themselves under scrutiny.

Some might say that they did indeed have another option and that was to cooperate fully with the Portuguese investigation. Acting in the way they did on being designated arguidos only merely sought to raise the police's suspicions even more. Fleeing the scene could not have done more damage to their credibility in the eyes of many onlookers.

The phrase 'closest we could get' is somewhat ambiguous given the involvement between Método 3, lawyer João Grade and the Arade dam fiasco which all occurred in Portugal.  If the McCanns had set out to circumvent Portuguese Law by engaging a Spanish then they summarily failed.  What initially might have been deemed 'technically illegal' later became 'illegal' since Método 3 took their investigation to Portuguese soil and right under and up the noses of the Portuguese police.
If it was illegal, can you please tell us why the PJ cooperated with them instead of arresting them?