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: Angelo222 on July 22, 2018, 08:25:50 PM
-
It might be the way things are done in Portugual but making the police files public is something that we here in the UK are not accustomed to. There are both positive and negative aspects to doing this but in my opinion the very fact that files including some pretty damning statements were made public has prevented more people from coming forward. Nobody wants to see their name and the information they provide plastered all over the internet.
What do the members think?
-
It might be the way things are done in Portugual but making the police files public is something that we here in the UK are not accustomed to. There are both positive and negative aspects to doing this but in my opinion the very fact that files including some pretty damning statements were made public has prevented more people from coming forward. Nobody wants to see their name and the information they provide plastered all over the internet.
What do the members think?
I think it’s a gross breach of trust. In this country witnesses with important information are told that any information they give the police will be treated in strictest confidence. Obviously not in Portugal!
-
It might be the way things are done in Portugual but making the police files public is something that we here in the UK are not accustomed to. There are both positive and negative aspects to doing this but in my opinion the very fact that files including some pretty damning statements were made public has prevented more people from coming forward. Nobody wants to see their name and the information they provide plastered all over the internet.
What do the members think?
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There are several witnesses I can think of who would have been unlikely to have come forward had they known that their statements would end up in the public domain.
-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There are several witnesses I can think of who would have been unlikely to have come forward had they known that their statements would end up in the public domain.
Can you name one as an example please?
-
I think it’s a gross breach of trust. In this country witnesses with important information are told that any information they give the police will be treated in strictest confidence. Obviously not in Portugal!
With exceptional circumstances notwithstanding, ALL witnesses in this country must stand in full view of the public and give an account of what they saw,heard. and be available to answer questions under oath (in good faith) from the prosecution, the judge and even jury members (via the judge).
I can't think of any reason why the PJ would not allow, as they do in this country, protection for witnesses under threat. They can also receive anonymous information and add that to the investigation to see where it leads.
I am on the fence as to whether it is a good or bad thing to have the investigation in its entirety placed in the public domain.
With regards to this case; I can fully appreciate why. The McCanns took it global, created a company, and were shown to be unreliable as witnesses to the disappearance of MBM...there was perceived political influence, and vile accusations against the PJ- which still exists to this day by supporters. Getting there side out was a good thing. It should be remembered there was a very large sum of money offered as a reward. no one took that up.
-
It is difficult to conceive how files released after closure of an investigation could affect the investigation.
A bit of LBTR:
https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/access-to-documents-held-on-the-court-file/
http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/06/26/not-all-witness-statements-should-be-made-public-ahead-of-a-trial/
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-204-3034?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/high-court-judge-says-litigation-document-public-he-grants-guardian-access-serco-internal-report/
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Portugal1.html
• Portuguese Law is based on Germanic law not something cobbled up by bent coppers and avocados over a scoop or two of Macieira. [just to head off the nonsense and xenophobia].
• Is a witness statement a public document? It can be. Any document appended to a witness statement is a public document.
• In the UK once a witness statement is read out in court its content becomes public for the media to report on, or not, as it sees fit, and the whole, or part, of the court proceedings is available as a transcript to anyone who cares to ask.
• In the UK witnesses are advised what they say may be used in court i.e it becomes public.
In Portugal it would appear there are specified persons who are entitled to view the files of an archived case.
-
It is difficult to conceive how files released after closure of an investigation could affect the investigation.
A bit of LBTR:
https://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/access-to-documents-held-on-the-court-file/
http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/06/26/not-all-witness-statements-should-be-made-public-ahead-of-a-trial/
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-204-3034?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/high-court-judge-says-litigation-document-public-he-grants-guardian-access-serco-internal-report/
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Portugal1.html
• Portuguese Law is based on Germanic law not something cobbled up by bent coppers and avocados over a scoop or two of Macieira. [just to head off the nonsense and xenophobia].
• Is a witness statement a public document? It can be. Any document appended to a witness statement is a public document.
• In the UK once a witness statement is read out in court its content becomes public for the media to report on, or not, as it sees fit, and the whole, or part, of the court proceedings is available as a transcript to anyone who cares to ask.
• In the UK witnesses are advised what they say may be used in court i.e it becomes public.
In Portugal it would appear there are specified persons who are entitled to view the files of an archived case.
I thought that too.
There doesn't seem to be anything to support the idea that there are important witnesses out there too shy to come forward and spill the beans.
IMO
-
Do you think the female Gaspar doctor would have been so keen to give her statement had she known her words would later be published and used as the subject of a thousand online threads and tweets, used to cast the father of a missing child in such an unsavoury light?
-
While I sure Mrs Gaspar would have no idea that her statement would be made public it doesn’t change what she said and she would have know that her evidence painted both DP and GM in a bad light.
-
While I sure Mrs Gaspar would have no idea that her statement would be made public it doesn’t change what she said and she would have know that her evidence painted both DP and GM in a bad light.
You’re missing the point though aren’t you? If there was another witness with information that may or may not be relevant might they not be put off making a statement to the Portuguese police knowing that their statement might be plastered all over the internet.
-
If it was a true statement, why should they be concerned ?
-
If it was a true statement, why should they be concerned ?
The situation may have happened but then there is her implied interpretation of the events.
-
If it was a true statement, why should they be concerned ?
I presume you would have no concerns at all about dobbing in a friend and having your statement plastered all over the net after no charges are brought against them, some however might find the situation somewhat awkward, embarrassing or even damaging to themselves.
-
I presume you would have no concerns at all about dobbing in a friend and having your statement plastered all over the net after no charges are brought against them, some however might find the situation somewhat awkward, embarrassing or even damaging to themselves.
If you are worried about friendship then you shouldn't make the statement.
If on the other hand you believe you have a valid statement to make then friendship doesn't enter into it.
You either have a moral code or you don't.
-
If you are worried about friendship then you shouldn't make the statement.
If on the other hand you believe you have a valid statement to make then friendship doesn't enter into it.
You either have a moral code or you don't.
It doesn’t have to be about friendship - it could prevent employees dobbing in their boses, petty criminals dobbing in a gang member or fellow criminal, etc etc.
-
I imagine that making the files public will put some people off coming forward although I gather that at least 2 members of this forum have sent information to scotland yard. It clearly didn't put them off.
Perhaps they could answer?
-
I imagine that making the files public will put some people off coming forward although I gather that at least 2 members of this forum have sent information to scotland yard. It clearly didn't put them off.
Perhaps they could answer?
IMO there's scant likelihood that either were taken seriously and in any case it is not UK policy to disclose statements is the way that the Portuguese did.
-
I presume you would have no concerns at all about dobbing in a friend and having your statement plastered all over the net after no charges are brought against them, some however might find the situation somewhat awkward, embarrassing or even damaging to themselves.
Oh I don't know. The McCanns did not feel awkward, embarrassed or suffered any damage by telling their story about a open window , whooshing curtains jemmied shutter and abductor...they went straight on the defensive!
Dobbing in a friend ? I would do If they were harming their children absolutely!
No charges does not mean they are innocent.
It doesn’t have to be about friendship - it could prevent employees dobbing in their boses, petty criminals dobbing in a gang member or fellow criminal, etc etc.
As has been mentioned. Information can be relayed anonymously like the 'Brenda Layland file' composed by anonymous supporters and sent to SY- who chucked it.
Also gangstas can get new IDs etc. they can also 'dob in' anonymously as well.
-
IMO there's scant likelihood that either were taken seriously and in any case it is not UK policy to disclose statements is the way that the Portuguese did.
Perhaps this time the UK policy is better.
In my opinion in this regard it is.
-
Oh I don't know. The McCanns did not feel awkward, embarrassed or suffered any damage by telling their story about a open window , whooshing curtains jemmied shutter and abductor...they went straight on the defensive!
Dobbing in a friend ? I would do If they were harming their children absolutely!
No charges does not mean they are innocent.
As has been mentioned. Information can be relayed anonymously like the 'Brenda Layland file' composed by anonymous supporters and sent to SY- who chucked it.
Also gangstas can get new IDs etc. they can also 'dob in' anonymously as well.
We’re not talking about information sent anonymously to the police, we are talking about witnesses coming forward to make statements to the PJ, statements that will be released with full identity disclosure if and when the case is shelved again.
-
We’re not talking about information sent anonymously to the police, we are talking about witnesses coming forward to make statements to the PJ, statements that will be released with full identity disclosure if and when the case is shelved again.
I know what the discussion is about. I am saying witnesses can be protected and if they do not want to be witneses they can give information anonymously!
The witnesses knew if it came to court they would ALL be asked to speak in an open court. Are you saying the Gaspars are thick and didn't know this?
-
I know what the discussion is about. I am saying witnesses can be protected and if they do not want to be witneses they can give information anonymously!
The witnesses knew if it came to court they would ALL be asked to speak in an open court. Are you saying the Gaspars are thick and didn't know this?
Are you putting words in my mouth again? No I am not saying that. I’m saying they had no idea that if the case did not come to court, and that if no prosecution was brought that their statements would be plastered all over the internet and be used as source material for hundreds of saddoes, anonymous beings some of whom have even appropriated their own surnames into their online ids, to pore over for the rest of eternity.
-
Are you putting words in my mouth again? No I am not saying that. I’m saying they had no idea that if the case did not come to court, and that if no prosecution was brought that their statements would be plastered all over the internet and be used as source material for hundreds of saddoes, anonymous beings some of whom have even appropriated their own surnames into their online ids, to pore over for the rest of eternity.
Have they contacted you and told you this?. Have Gerry and David sued this women for her dobbing thingy? if not why not? I suspect they would be well aware that this was a public showing of teeth. what they knew and what they know now has not resulted in a death has it? Have the Gaspars retracted? No. so nothing to see here. They have nothing to be embarrassed about, they did their duty for little 3 year old girl. It took a lot of guts to do what they did. IMO.
-
Have they contacted you and told you this?. Have Gerry and David sued this women for her dobbing thingy? if not why not? I suspect they would be well aware that this was a public showing of teeth. what they knew and what they know now has not resulted in a death has it? Have the Gaspars retracted? No. so nothing to see here. They have nothing to be embarrassed about, they did their duty for little 3 year old girl. It took a lot of guts to do what they did. IMO.
Have who contacted me and told me what? I don’t think you can sue people for making a statement to the police, because then that would be another reason why people would not come forward with information. Death? Who mentioned death? The Gaspars have made no public statement at all, and why would they? Their statements are not and never have been news, the interest is all internet based and that’s probably where theynwould prefer it to stay IMO. In any case Dr Gaspar (male) had nothing bad to say about anyone, if anything he spoke in glowing terms about Gerry.
-
Have who contacted me and told me what? I don’t think you can sue people for making a statement to the police, because then that would be another reason why people would not come forward with information. Death? Who mentioned death? The Gaspars have made no public statement at all, and why would they? Their statements are not and never have been news, the interest is all internet based and that’s probably where theynwould prefer it to stay IMO. In any case Dr Gaspar (male) had nothing bad to say about anyone, if anything he spoke in glowing terms about Gerry.
Oh Good, The Gaspars didn't complain, they were not sued, no one died, so all is good. Sorry what was your issue with this ?