McCanns demand Leicestershire Police open their Maddie files.

[jassi]

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

[Alfred R Jones]

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.... &%+((£

[Carana]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[jassi]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Carana]

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?

[jassi]

Its how the system works - suspects are questioned, not provided with evidence - at least in UK.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Carana]

Its how the system works - suspects are questioned, not provided with evidence - at least in UK.

They weren't made arguidos in the UK.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Carana]

Correct. evidence is given to the suspect's legal representatives after they are charged, not before, for obvious reasons.

In which country?