McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.

[pathfinder73]

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)

[G-Unit]

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?

[John]

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

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!

[John]

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?

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[John]

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?

[John]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[Carana]

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.

[Carana]

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

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[G-Unit]

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

[Mr Gray]

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