UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2018, 05:26:03 PM
-
"The officer added that however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted" means?
What does it mean, please offer your interpretation?
Copying Brietta's post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg450897#msg450897
"Mr Rowley said there was no ‘definitive evidence’ as to whether Madeleine is alive or dead.
He added: ‘That’s why we describe it as a missing person inquiry. We understand why, after this many years, people will be pessimistic, but it’s important we keep an open mind.’ The officer added that however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/25/madeleine-mccann-police-following-significant-leads-as-10th-anniversary-approaches-6595974/?ito=cbshare "
If you don't believe in abduction doesn't matter I just want to know what Mark Rowley meant.
-
I think what he means is that Madeleine did not leave of her volition. For whatever reason, he discards woke & Wander.
Badly expressed, IMO
-
I think what he means is that Madeleine did not leave of her volition. For whatever reason, he discards woke & Wander.
Badly expressed, IMO
Deliberately ambiguous perhaps ?
-
I think what he means is that Madeleine did not leave of her volition. For whatever reason, he discards woke & Wander.
Badly expressed, IMO
OK interesting but different to what I think, but I won't explain my position till others have had a go.
-
OK interesting but different to what I think, but I won't explain my position till others have had a go.
Simulated abduction,meaning she never left of her own fruition.
Rowley:The officer added that however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted.
-
OK interesting but different to what I think, but I won't explain my position till others have had a go.
Now why should that surprise me ?
-
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
-
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
the actual paragraph in question:
"MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction."
-
Whoever removed Madeleine from the apartment is the abductor - no exceptions. "she was not old enough to set off and start her own life."
-
"At the heart of this has been an abduction".
Some may choose to read this as meaning "at the heart of this the parents are involved" but I take it at face value.
-
Has anyone put that interpretation forward on this thread?
-
Has anyone put that interpretation forward on this thread?
I should hope not!
-
"At the heart of this has been an abduction".
Some may choose to read this as meaning "at the heart of this the parents are involved" but I take it at face value.
So if it is more than a little ambiguous what is your take on its face value. The part where it says "she has been abducted" is rather clear, but it was preceded by "However she left that apartment ..."
To me that means whatever reason you think she left the apartment , ultimately she was abducted.
"Howevers"
wandered out and then abducted.
apartment burgled and then abducted.
killed by Kate and then abducted.
died by accident and then abducted.
targeted by kidnappers and then abducted.
wandered out, had an accident, picked by a stranger to help her and then abducted.
Could be other howevers?
Thought of another however:
wandered out, went to the beach, stung by a Portuguese Man o War, hurt, picked by a stranger to help her, died in his arms and then abducted. lol
-
So if it is more than a little ambiguous what is your take on its face value. The part where it says "she has been abducted" is rather clear, but it was preceded by "However she left that apartment ..."
To me that means whatever reason you think she left the apartment , ultimately she was abducted.
"Howevers"
wandered out and then abducted.
apartment burgled and then abducted.
killed by Kate and then abducted.
died by accident and then abducted.
targeted by kidnappers and then abducted.
wandered out, had an accident, picked by a stranger to help her and then abducted.
Could be other howevers?
Thought of another however:
wandered out, went to the beach, stung by a Portuguese Man o War, hurt, picked by a stranger to help her, died in his arms and then abducted. lol
She was removed from her given address by person/s unknown to the police. However, she could have been abducted /removed by person/s known to MBM. Dead or alive they do not know. It is fair to say MBM was/is a UK citizen who was taken from the UK and has never been identified by anyone or come home to her country of birth.
-
"At the heart of this has been an abduction".
Some may choose to read this as meaning "at the heart of this the parents are involved" but I take it at face value.
I have six honest serving men they taught me all I knew their names are what and where and when and how and why and who.
I down five to go.
Dare I suggest the most important five.
-
I have six honest serving men they taught me all I knew their names are what and where and when and how and why and who.
I down five to go.
Dare I suggest the most important five.
lol I got that lil chat years ago from my gran! My neighbour was a high ranking police officer retired.
ok gowan gowan gowan name em ... start with
what...
-
Abduction;
the action of forcibly taking someone away against their will.
Law. the illegal carrying or enticing away of a person
the act of taking someone away by force or cunning
the wrongful taking away (usually by force) of a person.
-
Abduction;
the action of forcibly taking someone away against their will.
Law. the illegal carrying or enticing away of a person
the act of taking someone away by force or cunning
the wrongful taking away (usually by force) of a person.
the 4th definition could cover a deceased person.
-
the 4th definition could cover a deceased person.
Child Abduction Act 1984
1984 c. 37 Part I Section 2
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1)[F1Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below.] commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a)so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b)so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/37/section/2
-
AFAIK, the notion of "against their will" doesn't apply to a minor: it's still technically abduction even if the child is a 15-year-old (i.e. under the age of consent) who willingly takes off with (I presume) an adult without parental consent.
ETA: IMO, the "against their will" implies that the person has a say in the matter and is therefore necessarily alive. However, if that notion doesn't apply to minors, the question of dead or alive may be irrelevant.
That legal definition from the Child Act doesn't actually stipulate a living child.
-
Child Abduction Act 1984
1984 c. 37 Part I Section 2
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1)[F1Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below.] commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—
(a)so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or
(b)so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/37/section/2
'Other persons' weren't mentioned by Rowley, just 'abduction'.
-
'Other persons' weren't mentioned by Rowley, just 'abduction'.
What's the alternative? Parental abduction?
1 Offence of abduction of child by parent, etc.
(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (8) below, a person connnected with a child under the age of sixteen commits an offence if he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.
[F1(2)A person is connected with a child for the purposes of this section if—
(a)he is a parent of the child; or
(b)in the case of a child whose parents were not married to each other at the time of his birth, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is the father of the child; or
(c)he is a guardian of the child; or
[F2(ca)he is a special guardian of the child; or]
(d)he is a person [F3named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live; or]
(e)he has custody of the child.
(3)In this section ’the appropriate consent’, in relation to a child, means—
(a)the consent of each of the following—
(i)The child’s mother;
(ii)the child’s father, if he has parental responsibility for him;
(iii)any guardian of the child;
[F4(iiia)any special guardian of the child;]
[F5(iv)any person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live;]
(v)any person who has custody of the child; or
(b)the leave of the court granted under or by virtue of any provision of Part II of the Children Act 1989; or
(c)if any person has custody of the child, the leave of the court which awarded custody to him.
(4)A person does not commit an offence under this section by taking or sending a child out of the United Kingdom without obtaining the appropriate consent if—
[F6(a)he is a person [F7named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live] and he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom for a period of less than one month; or]
[F6(b)he is a special guardian of the child and he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom for a period of less than three months.]
(4A)Subsection (4) above does not apply if the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom does so in breach of an order under Part II of the Children Act 1989.]
(5)A person does not commit an offence under this section by doing anything without the consent of another person whose consent is required under the foregoing provisions if—
(a)he does it in the belief that the other person—
(i)has consented; or
(ii)would consent if he was aware of all the relevant circumstances; or
(b)he has taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person but has been unable to communicate with him; or
(c)the other person has unreasonably refused to consent,
[F8(5A)Subsection (5)(c) above does not apply if—
(a)the person who refused to consent is a person—
[F9(i)named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live;]
[F10(ia)who is a special guardian of the child; or]
(ii)who has custody of the child; or
(b)the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom is, by so acting, in breach of an order made by a court in the United Kingdom.]
(6)Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, there is sufficent evidence to raise an issue as to the application of subsection (5) above, it shall be for the prosecution to prove that that subsection does not apply.
[F11(7)For the purposes of this section—
(a) “guardian of a child”, [F12 “special guardian”, ] [F13 “child arrangements] order” and “parental responsibility” have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; and
(b)a person shall be treated as having custody of a child if there is in force an order of a court in the United Kingdom awarding him (whether solely or jointly with another person) custody, legal custody or care and control of the child.]
(8)This section shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act in relation to a child who is in the care of a local authority [F14detained in a place of safety, remanded [F15otherwise than on bail] or the subject of] proceedings or an order relating to adoption.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/37/section/1
-
What's the alternative? Parental abduction?
1 Offence of abduction of child by parent, etc.
(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (8) below, a person connnected with a child under the age of sixteen commits an offence if he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.
[F1(2)A person is connected with a child for the purposes of this section if—
(a)he is a parent of the child; or
(b)in the case of a child whose parents were not married to each other at the time of his birth, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is the father of the child; or
(c)he is a guardian of the child; or
[F2(ca)he is a special guardian of the child; or]
(d)he is a person [F3named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live; or]
(e)he has custody of the child.
(3)In this section ’the appropriate consent’, in relation to a child, means—
(a)the consent of each of the following—
(i)The child’s mother;
(ii)the child’s father, if he has parental responsibility for him;
(iii)any guardian of the child;
[F4(iiia)any special guardian of the child;]
[F5(iv)any person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live;]
(v)any person who has custody of the child; or
(b)the leave of the court granted under or by virtue of any provision of Part II of the Children Act 1989; or
(c)if any person has custody of the child, the leave of the court which awarded custody to him.
(4)A person does not commit an offence under this section by taking or sending a child out of the United Kingdom without obtaining the appropriate consent if—
[F6(a)he is a person [F7named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live] and he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom for a period of less than one month; or]
[F6(b)he is a special guardian of the child and he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom for a period of less than three months.]
(4A)Subsection (4) above does not apply if the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom does so in breach of an order under Part II of the Children Act 1989.]
(5)A person does not commit an offence under this section by doing anything without the consent of another person whose consent is required under the foregoing provisions if—
(a)he does it in the belief that the other person—
(i)has consented; or
(ii)would consent if he was aware of all the relevant circumstances; or
(b)he has taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person but has been unable to communicate with him; or
(c)the other person has unreasonably refused to consent,
[F8(5A)Subsection (5)(c) above does not apply if—
(a)the person who refused to consent is a person—
[F9(i)named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live;]
[F10(ia)who is a special guardian of the child; or]
(ii)who has custody of the child; or
(b)the person taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom is, by so acting, in breach of an order made by a court in the United Kingdom.]
(6)Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, there is sufficent evidence to raise an issue as to the application of subsection (5) above, it shall be for the prosecution to prove that that subsection does not apply.
[F11(7)For the purposes of this section—
(a) “guardian of a child”, [F12 “special guardian”, ] [F13 “child arrangements] order” and “parental responsibility” have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; and
(b)a person shall be treated as having custody of a child if there is in force an order of a court in the United Kingdom awarding him (whether solely or jointly with another person) custody, legal custody or care and control of the child.]
(8)This section shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act in relation to a child who is in the care of a local authority [F14detained in a place of safety, remanded [F15otherwise than on bail] or the subject of] proceedings or an order relating to adoption.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/37/section/1
Just 'illegally carrying away' seems to cover various possibilities.
-
AFAIK, the notion of "against their will" doesn't apply to a minor: it's still technically abduction even if the child is a 15-year-old (i.e. under the age of consent) who willingly takes off with (I presume) an adult without parental consent.
ETA: IMO, the "against their will" implies that the person has a say in the matter and is therefore necessarily alive. However, if that notion doesn't apply to minors, the question of dead or alive may be irrelevant.
That legal definition from the Child Act doesn't actually stipulate a living child.
As I read it "(b)so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child"; a parent has lawful control over their child (dead or alive) therefore no one is entitled just to remove the child (dead or alive).
There have been some difficult cases in NZ as to which family has the right over the deceased person. The two factions may dispute the place for burial.
-
I don't think I've ever come across the term "abduction" in terms of the removal of a dead body... Sounds odd to me.
-
I think it's smart.
-
I don't think I've ever come across the term "abduction" in terms of the removal of a dead body... Sounds odd to me.
It may seem strange C , In days of old I am told it was called 'grave robbing' even though the cadavers were not actually buried.
-
It may seem strange C , In days of old I am told it was called 'grave robbing' even though the cadavers were not actually buried.
Can you give us an example please to demonstrate what you are saying please?
-
Can you give us an example please to demonstrate what you are saying please?
Well, I am not an eye witness to anything BUT. in the late 1800's early 1900's medical practitioners would go looking for dead people in houses or on the streets to use as experiments, some even paid for people to dig up bodies, they were called grave robbers. see below.
Grave robbery, tomb robbing, or tomb raiding is the act of uncovering a tomb or crypt to steal artifacts or personal effects. A related act is body snatching, a term that is related to the taking of one's body (usually not from a grave).
Grave robbery - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_robbery