The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[G-Unit]

The questionnaires completed by UK holidaymakers would not have been under the cover of anonymity.

These are just a few examples from the files of sightings in the UK sent to the PJ by LP, all of which contain personal information.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1091a.jpg

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg ( confirmed scanned & sent to Portugal)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg (contains sensitive information)



I ask again - what would be the reason for none of the completed questionnaires from the 599 issued being in the PJ files for their reference?

I can think of no reason why the Portuguese would keep them secret. Therefore they are missing because the Portuguese didn't have them (as is suggested by UK police telling the PJ informally what was in them) or the UK wanted them kept secret. The archiving was delayed because these UK organisations got lawyered up and tried to stop things being released;

The Association of Chief Police Officers, The Chief Constable of Leicestershire, The Serious Organised Crime Agency, police and legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Crimestoppers

Some documents slipped through, like the one in your first link which says it shouldn't be seen by the public. That's because the only way to find those random documents was to examine all the files to find them. In the end they settled for removing easily found documents which had been filed together, like the Crimestoppers documents.

It was ironic really. The UK forced it's way into the investigation, showered the PJ with information and advice and then panicked when they realised everything was going to be made public. Not everything done in the UK was given to the PJ; CEOP, for example,  invited holidaymakers to upload their photos to their website but they're not in the PJ files.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

Am I right in thinking the 3 of you are of the opinion that the PJ could not possibly have had access to the original statements made by UK citizens after the UK police left Portugal in September because they were stored on HOLMES?

Would someone care to explain how questions relating to original statements taken by UK police could be formulated when the PJ requested rogatory interviews in 2008?
For example:


From the Letter of Request:


* Interview to RAJINDER RAJ BALU as a witness, 62, BIXXXXXXXX ROXX, HeXXXXXXX, Brentwood, Essex. He should be asked the following questions :

* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?

* What did you do on 3rd May, 2007, between 6.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. ?

* How did you get to know that a child was missing ?

* Did you take part in the searches ? Where and with whom did you look for the missing girl ?

* Do you know a man identified as NEIL BERRY ? Who is he ? How did you know him ? Did you travel together to Portugal ? Did he travel to Portugal with his family ?

* State clearly who went to buy the food at the TAPAS RESTAURANT, what food was it and the way taken.

* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.

* Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR2/cr2_113.jpg

I can only speak for myself. In my case you are wrong in your thinking 

[misty]

I can think of no reason why the Portuguese would keep them secret. Therefore they are missing because the Portuguese didn't have them (as is suggested by UK police telling the PJ informally what was in them) or the UK wanted them kept secret. The archiving was delayed because these UK organisations got lawyered up and tried to stop things being released;

The Association of Chief Police Officers, The Chief Constable of Leicestershire, The Serious Organised Crime Agency, police and legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Crimestoppers

Some documents slipped through, like the one in your first link which says it shouldn't be seen by the public. That's because the only way to find those random documents was to examine all the files to find them. In the end they settled for removing easily found documents which had been filed together, like the Crimestoppers documents.

It was ironic really. The UK forced it's way into the investigation, showered the PJ with information and advice and then panicked when they realised everything was going to be made public. Not everything done in the UK was given to the PJ; CEOP, for example,  invited holidaymakers to upload their photos to their website but they're not in the PJ files.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

IMO the questionnaires were excluded from the PJ files because they were covered by the Data Protection Act.

[misty]

I can only speak for myself. In my case you are wrong in your thinking 

Would you care to elaborate?

[jassi]

IMO the questionnaires were excluded from the PJ files because they were covered by the Data Protection Act.

Does the Data Protection Act apply in Portugal, or is it just a UK law?

If the information went only on to HOLMES and paper copies were never sent to Portugal, then this may well be the case.

[misty]

Does the Data Protection Act apply in Portugal, or is it just a UK law?

If the information went only on to HOLMES and paper copies were never sent to Portugal, then this may well be the case.

The data protection act is an EU directive &  it is up to each member state to adopt legislation. Portugal does have data protectiion laws.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/online-privacy-law/portugal.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

The statements taken in Portugal would not have been subject to data protection laws when used in the typed-up form for research purposes. Only when put on the DVD did it become illegal to share or upload the content onto the internet.
IMO. (unless someone more learned can correct me)

[jassi]

As the DVDs were legally issued to journalists and others, the data they contained must have been outside the protection act - what did the authorities think journalists would do with the information  if not publish it?

Placing the information on line may or may not  have been illegal, however, no one seems interested to pursuing it in law.

[misty]

As the DVDs were legally issued to journalists and others, the data they contained must have been outside the protection act - what did the authorities think journalists would do with the information  if not publish it?

Placing the information on line may or may not  have been illegal, however, no one seems interested to pursuing it in law.

Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?

[G-Unit]

Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?

They seemed to prefer looking at pictures to ploughing through written evidence;

The Mail got quite excited when it found;

Murat mugshot taken days after Madeleine disappeared made public for first time

The Sun found the photos of 5A fascinating;

First pictures of Madeleine's bed

The News of the World liked the CCTV of the Paraiso (all together except the McCanns, of coursese;

All together then tragedy

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/NEWS_AUG_2008.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

Would you care to elaborate?

See post #61.

Or to put it another way all the different parties involved vieing for top dog slot doing their own thing => SNAFU with no need whatever for malice aforethought, skulduggery or call it what you will.
Despite all the lip service blah de blah the two countries were clearly not acting on a single point of contact principle. A good recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

[Brietta]

Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?

I don't know of any other journalist either British or foreign who has done so.  As explained by Paulo Reis: "I can't reproduce (in verbatim...) documents or reprint pictures and/or images from the files, or I may risk a prison sentence up to two years. I can report about the content of those documents, using my own words (artº 88º, Portuguese Penal Code."

Just as journalists allegedly protect their sources ... it seems they also protect their integrity when granted access to official documents, probably understanding that failure to do so will ensure that neither they or their publication will be granted similar access on future occasions.

[misty]

They seemed to prefer looking at pictures to ploughing through written evidence;

The Mail got quite excited when it found;

Murat mugshot taken days after Madeleine disappeared made public for first time

The Sun found the photos of 5A fascinating;

First pictures of Madeleine's bed

The News of the World liked the CCTV of the Paraiso (all together except the McCanns, of coursese;

All together then tragedy

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/NEWS_AUG_2008.htm

How did publishing those images breach the data protection act?

[G-Unit]

I don't know of any other journalist either British or foreign who has done so.  As explained by Paulo Reis: "I can't reproduce (in verbatim...) documents or reprint pictures and/or images from the files, or I may risk a prison sentence up to two years. I can report about the content of those documents, using my own words (artº 88º, Portuguese Penal Code."

Just as journalists allegedly protect their sources ... it seems they also protect their integrity when granted access to official documents, probably understanding that failure to do so will ensure that neither they or their publication will be granted similar access on future occasions.

Well UK journalists certainly printed pictures from the files as seen in my links above. David Harrison wrote a piece from which someone could easily be found in the Telegraph;

ortuguese files also reveal Trevor Francis, a British yachtsman, told police he had seen Madeleine on the island of Margarita on May 16 this year.

 Mr Francis, who is retired but owns a nursing home in Worthing, West Sussex, and captains a charter yacht, told police in a statement in June
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/18-Aug8/Telegraph-09-08-08-Transcript.htm

[G-Unit]

How did publishing those images breach the data protection act?

I was just pointing out that the UK comics tabloids were busy finding pictures, not words. That was, it seems, against Portuguese law, but that didn't stop them.

[misty]

See post #61.

Or to put it another way all the different parties involved vieing for top dog slot doing their own thing => SNAFU with no need whatever for malice aforethought, skulduggery or call it what you will.
Despite all the lip service blah de blah the two countries were clearly not acting on a single point of contact principle. A good recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

Leics police set up a Major Incident room, supported by HOLMES, to process all the documentation & messages from the UK end so there was a single database for all UK activity. They also set up one in Portugal, close to the main PJ team,  & had a Portuguese-speaking officer assigned to it (presumably Jose Defreitas)which provided a direct link to the Portuguese investigation.
(See Operation Task debrief page 4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf)

I can still see no reason why the PJ did not have sight of any of the completed questionnaires, given that there were around 21000 pages at the time of the legal summary & we haven't even seen half of them.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm 1st paragraph
"Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution."