Author Topic: Goncalo Amaral.  (Read 410119 times)

0 Members and 32 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1530 on: July 10, 2020, 06:11:17 PM »
Please keep the discussion civil.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1531 on: July 10, 2020, 06:21:26 PM »

IMO they didn't write it off ...because of the interference by the UK they couldn't take it any further it seems.

I think you have a very good point, the Portuguese sent several requests to the UK for information and background reports concerning the parents but were denied them. What does that tell you because it certainly leaves me with the distinct impression that this case has been thwarted by the UK authorities from the get-go.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 06:23:38 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 Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1532 on: July 10, 2020, 06:24:14 PM »
I think you have a very good point, the Portuguese sent several requests to the UK for information and background reports concerning the parents but were denied them. What does that tell you because it certainly leaves me with the distinct impression that this case has been thwarted by the UK authorities from get go.

They were denied things because in the UK it needs a court order to release these things and a court order requires evidence. I think the UK authorities tried to help but the PJ didnt want it...remember the dogs came from the UK...how can that not be trying to help

Offline kizzy

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1533 on: July 10, 2020, 06:26:16 PM »
I think you have a very good point, the Portuguese sent several requests to the UK for information and background reports concerning the parents but were denied them. What does that tell you because it certainly leaves me with the distinct impression that this case has been thwarted by the UK authorities from the get-go.


IIRC one of those requests was regarding Maddies health ..or if she suffered from heart problems I think.

Offline John

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1534 on: July 10, 2020, 06:28:04 PM »
They were denied things because in the UK it needs a court order to release these things and a court order requires evidence. I think the UK authorities tried to help but the PJ didnt want it...remember the dogs came from the UK...how can that not be trying to help

The police don't need a court order to investigate a crime.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1535 on: July 10, 2020, 06:38:43 PM »
The police don't need a court order to investigate a crime.

they need a court order to get credit card details......medical records

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1536 on: July 10, 2020, 06:39:44 PM »
What about ? I have a short attention span.
You know what that’s a sign of don’t you...?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1537 on: July 10, 2020, 06:41:23 PM »
You know what that’s a sign of don’t you...?
No, I've forgotten.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1538 on: July 10, 2020, 06:42:23 PM »
they need a court order to get credit card details......medical records

All they need is a bench warrant.
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 Eleanor

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1539 on: July 10, 2020, 06:42:53 PM »
I think you have a very good point, the Portuguese sent several requests to the UK for information and background reports concerning the parents but were denied them. What does that tell you because it certainly leaves me with the distinct impression that this case has been thwarted by the UK authorities from the get-go.

I really don't believe you sometimes.  You have better access to information than the rest of us?  Probably not.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1540 on: July 10, 2020, 06:45:52 PM »
All they need is a bench warrant.
They have to apply to a judge...I've just been through the process...and the judge requires evidence to support the application

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1541 on: July 10, 2020, 06:49:41 PM »
I think you have a very good point, the Portuguese sent several requests to the UK for information and background reports concerning the parents but were denied them. What does that tell you because it certainly leaves me with the distinct impression that this case has been thwarted by the UK authorities from the get-go.

I think it's been thwarted by the Portuguese from the word go

Offline Eleanor

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1542 on: July 10, 2020, 06:56:28 PM »
I think it's been thwarted by the Portuguese from the word go

You only "Think."

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1543 on: July 10, 2020, 07:15:33 PM »
All they need is a bench warrant.

The specific law which deals with PRODUCTION OF BANK STATEMENTS is s.345 POCA 2002. This enables a police constable to apply for a court order to obtain bank statements and correspondence.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Goncalo Amaral.
« Reply #1544 on: July 10, 2020, 07:24:22 PM »
medical records...

In this case the GP contacted the Medical Defence Union. The case
was listed in order to discharge the order on the basis that medical
records were excluded material under section 11 of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) and the access conditions for
the production of excluded material under Schedule 1 paragraph 3 of
PACE were not met.
In the event the CPS agreed with the submission and the order was
discharged. It transpired at the hearing that orders such as this were
being made frequently. GPs following the GMC’s Confidentiality
Guidance may not appreciate that an order under PACE requiring the
production of medical records is itself unlawful.