McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.

[G-Unit]

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)

[Miss Taken Identity]

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

[G-Unit]

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-Unit]

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.

[Anna]

We are straying way Off Topic here. Please get back on Topic. Thank you.

Re: McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.

[Montclair]

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?

[pathfinder73]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[jassi]

I really cannot understand why anyone was even thinking along those lines less than 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Later, maybe, but 3 weeks?

[G-Unit]

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

[Miss Taken Identity]

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'

[Benice]

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.
 

[G-Unit]

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.

[Benice]

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.