The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Next Trial Date

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sallypelt on 02.12.14 12:20

@aiyoyo wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her,  drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears.  Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place.  It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY.  Was Murat amongst one of those 7 suspects ermm witnesses?  

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
 'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?  
'Did you help in the disposal'?
I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.

sallypelt

Posts : 3299
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by aiyoyo on 02.12.14 12:41

@sallypelt wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her,  drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears.  Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place.  It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY.  Was Murat amongst one of those 7 suspects ermm witnesses?  

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
 'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?  
'Did you help in the disposal'?
I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.


If I am not wrong, the article states that seven of them were originally planned to be interviewed as "suspects" (SY's original request perhaps given to the new prosecutor for perusal hence the postponement, relevant notification to interviewees etc), but the new prosecutor saw fit to change that (subject to SY concurrence or not as the case may be since SY has no say in that, being the purview of the Prosecutor to grant or object to the terms/conditions of ILOR) and opted for them to be interviewed as 'witnesses' first - then play it by the ears...on necessity basis.....if it comes to that, the status can be changed to allow them the privilege of 'arguido' status ie their right to lawyer, their right not to answer question that can incriminate them etc....

That still leaves my question open, why had SY requested for them to be interviewed as "suspects" (assuming this presumption to be correct, hence the change taken by the Judge)  What evidence does SY have that calls for that is anyone guess.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sallypelt on 02.12.14 12:51

@aiyoyo wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Unhelpful that the story about the re-interviewing of the suspects / witnesses concentrates on the question
DID YOU KILL MADELEINE

Not Abduct, Hide, kidnap, cause an accident, trip whilst you were carrying her,  drop her into the sea by accident . . .
In other words OG KNOW she is dead.
And that the fund is a fraud

Al Capone ?

The new Prosecutor, Ines Sequeita, changed the 7 people originally planned to be interviewed as 'suspects' to be interview as 'witnesses', wisely playing things by the ears.  Either she did not believe SY has the required evidence to interview them under caution ('arguidos' by Portuguese law) or it's a clever move.

That begs the question what evidence-led basis caused the SY to ask for the 7 to be interviewed as "suspects" in the first place.  It would be interesting to see the names of those 7 of 'special interest' to SY.  Was Murat amongst one of those 7 suspects ermm witnesses?  

253 questions spread among 11 interviewees - average 23 questions each - not a lot, but more than suffice to ask
 'where were you at X date and X time' ?
'Did you kill Madeleine'?  
'Did you help in the disposal'?
I have highlighted part of the above post to compare it with what is being said in the Correio da Manha, this morning. From the translation (Google?) it states that they will first be heard as "witnesses" but this status can be changed during/after the questioning, if it is felt that they have some involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Moreover, from my understanding of the article in Correio, witnesses do not need lawyers, but once made a arguido, then they will need a lawyer.


If I am not wrong, the article states that seven of them were originally planned to be interviewed as "suspects" (SY's original request perhaps, hence the postponement), but new prosecutor saw fit to have it changed and opted for them to be interviewed as 'witnesses' first - then play it by the ears...on necessity basis.....if it comes to that, the status can be changed to allow them the privilege of 'arguido' status ie their right to lawyer, their right not to answer question that can incriminate them etc....

That still leaves my question open, why had SY requested for them to be interviewed as "suspects" (assuming that presumption to be correct, hence the change taken by the Judge)  What evidence does SY have that calls for that is anyone guess.
I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

sallypelt

Posts : 3299
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.12.14 12:53

@Portia wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Is it a libel trial?  I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM.  Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time.  Thanks.

LIR, you understand correctly
With due respect, Portia, that's not quite right.

Some, including IIRC Textusa, have made a big song-and-dance saying it's NOT a libel trial, but it's a damages trial, and that we shouldn't call it a libel trial but a damages trial.

Again, with all due respect, this is complete nonsense - and it is wholly wrong to draw an artificial distinction between a libel trial and a damages trial.

The legal situation in the trial of McCanns v. Amaral is no different from any comparable libel trial in the U.K.


The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all.

The Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and the Supreme Court (March 2011) ruled that, pending the final libel trial, it was reasonable to allow Goncalo Amaral's book to be sold once again. I think the Court of Appeal judgment is available to read on CMOMM in English; if not, it is certainly available elsewhere on the net.

When it makes its final decision, the Lisbon Court will have to pay special attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the so-called 'Free Speech' article.

In terms, this says that we all in Europe have the legal right to free speech, EXCEPT in limited circumstances such as, e.g. speech inciting hate or violence, or - relevant in this case - harming the reputation of others.

At the heart of this case will be whether Goncalo Amaral has told the truth, or whether he was reasonable to publish his opinion of what was the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

First base is for the McCanns to establish that they have been libelled - that their reputation has been damaged. If they fail to establish this, then they have lost, and can expect a big costs bill from the courts and from Goncalo Amaral and his lawyers.

IF they succeed in establishing this, THEN and ONLY THEN can the court look at how much damages should be paid to the McCanns.

Also, Ladyinred suggests that any damages would be "because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM".

REPLY: No, it is much wider than that. Look at the libel writ. It basically asks for damages because of the ruinous effect on their health - Amaral's alleged libels are claimed to have caused them all manner of dreadful things...permanent emotional distress, indefinable fear, insomnia, anxiety etc. etc.

And IF the judge gets to that point, she will no doubt have to consider any medical evidence about the harm done to the McCanns' health (the Court doesn't seem to have received any) and - if they have been harmed - how much is due to the mystery abductor and how much is due to Goncalo Amaral's book.

Another issue to be decided is whether the McCanns can make a claim on behalf of Madeleine, which forms part of their claim for damages as set out in their libel writ, back in June 2009. That doesn't look terribly likely after the Court obtained particulars of the 2007 Wardship proceedings from the High Court last year

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by aiyoyo on 02.12.14 13:03

@sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other -  but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.

What evidence led them to that......?
Where is Redwood's onion core (home or away)...that is what I would like to know.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sallypelt on 02.12.14 13:06

@aiyoyo wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other -  but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.
What we know is from the newspapers, as SY is saying nothing. And we all know how "accurate" our toilet paper newspapers can be.

sallypelt

Posts : 3299
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by aiyoyo on 02.12.14 13:08

@sallypelt wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@sallypelt wrote:I can only guess, aiyoyo. Maybe  if they were to be questioned as "suspects" this would give those being questioned an excuse to have their lawyers present. This could delay things further, and cause all kinds of difficulties, as we have seen over the past 7 years. So, to be called as a "witness" does away with the need of a lawyer. Getting them there is the key, I believe. Once that has been achieved, and it's felt that they have some part in all this, then they can be made arguidos, there and then.

This is only my opinion, for what it's worth!

I'm well aware of what an 'arguido' status is and what it entails.
I think we are discussing wrong end of the stick.
It's not a question why the Prosecutor changed it - pros and cons of each or the other -  but why SY believed those 7 are of more than "persons of interest" to them that interests me.
What we know is from the newspapers, as SY is saying nothing. And we all know how "accurate" our toilet paper newspapers can be.


Hmmm...that is not UK scrape papers.....btw....the Portuguese press does a better job .....

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by ultimaThule on 02.12.14 13:32

@PeterMac wrote:But the dogs didn't find anything,  they really didn't,  they were wrong '  they are notoriously unreliable   really, honestly  they were acting, they were playing to the camera


No, McCann, curse thyself, curse Lucifer,
That hath deprived thee of the joys of heaven.
The clock strikes twelve.
Oh, it strikes, it strikes! Now body turn to air,
Or Lucifer will bear thee quick to hell.
Oh soul, be changed into little water drops
And fall into the ocean, ne'er be found.
My God, my God, look not so fierce on me.
Adders and serpents, let me breathe awhile.
Ugly hell, gape not, come not, Lucifer!


With regard to the Faustian drama which has continued to occupy us since 2007, it seems probable there has already been some heated debate wishful thinking offstage on the subject of burning certain books, PeterM, and it's to be hoped that the cursing of 'the parents that engend’red me' will be played in full view of the audience in the near future.  .

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by plebgate on 02.12.14 16:44

IF the newpaper report is correct that witnesses will be asked whether they killed Maddie,  could that one question affect the result of the libel hearing next week?

Brunt posted that final legal argument will be heard next week.   Is it possible that Rocky's solicitors will be able to use this info. (IF correct) next week?

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Guest on 02.12.14 17:29

@plebgate wrote:IF the newpaper report is correct that witnesses will be asked whether they killed Maddie,  could that one question affect the result of the libel hearing next week?

Brunt posted that final legal argument will be heard next week.   Is it possible that Rocky's solicitors will be able to use this info. (IF correct) next week?
I think all evidence that has been heard is what the case depends on,it's just the closing submissions from the lawyers now.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Guest on 02.12.14 18:54

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Portia wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Is it a libel trial?  I understood the McCann's were claiming damages because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM.  Could someone clarify this for me as I am unclear what this court case is about - it's been going on for such a long time.  Thanks.

LIR, you understand correctly
With due respect, Portia, that's not quite right.

Some, including IIRC Textusa, have made a big song-and-dance saying it's NOT a libel trial, but it's a damages trial, and that we shouldn't call it a libel trial but a damages trial.

Again, with all due respect, this is complete nonsense - and it is wholly wrong to draw an artificial distinction between a libel trial and a damages trial.

The legal situation in the trial of McCanns v. Amaral is no different from any comparable libel trial in the U.K.


The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all.

The Portuguese Court of Appeal (October 2010) and the Supreme Court (March 2011) ruled that, pending the final libel trial, it was reasonable to allow Goncalo Amaral's book to be sold once again. I think the Court of Appeal judgment is available to read on CMOMM in English; if not, it is certainly available elsewhere on the net.

When it makes its final decision, the Lisbon Court will have to pay special attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the so-called 'Free Speech' article.

In terms, this says that we all in Europe have the legal right to free speech, EXCEPT in limited circumstances such as, e.g. speech inciting hate or violence, or - relevant in this case - harming the reputation of others.

At the heart of this case will be whether Goncalo Amaral has told the truth, or whether he was reasonable to publish his opinion of what was the truth about what really happened to Madeleine.

First base is for the McCanns to establish that they have been libelled - that their reputation has been damaged. If they fail to establish this, then they have lost, and can expect a big costs bill from the courts and from Goncalo Amaral and his lawyers.

IF they succeed in establishing this, THEN and ONLY THEN can the court look at how much damages should be paid to the McCanns.

Also, Ladyinred suggests that any damages would be "because they allege Amaral's book hindered the search for MBM".

REPLY: No, it is much wider than that. Look at the libel writ. It basically asks for damages because of the ruinous effect on their health - Amaral's alleged libels are claimed to have caused them all manner of dreadful things...permanent emotional distress, indefinable fear, insomnia, anxiety etc. etc.

And IF the judge gets to that point, she will no doubt have to consider any medical evidence about the harm done to the McCanns' health (the Court doesn't seem to have received any) and - if they have been harmed - how much is due to the mystery abductor and how much is due to Goncalo Amaral's book.

Another issue to be decided is whether the McCanns can make a claim on behalf of Madeleine, which forms part of their claim for damages as set out in their libel writ, back in June 2009. That doesn't look terribly likely after the Court obtained particulars of the 2007 Wardship proceedings from the High Court last year


Thank you Mr Bennett, for taking time off for your explanation. 

I shortcircuited my reply to LIR because her understanding was my understanding as well.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 02.12.14 19:07

I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by j.rob on 02.12.14 20:02

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

Yes, I agree. Because if Amaral's conclusion is true. If Madeleine is dead and the parents pretended she had been abducted, then how could the publication of his book have hindered the search for Madeleine? 

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all. 

I would imagine this is quite tricky seeing as there is no evidence of a mystery abduction and also given the huge number of discrepancies in the Tapas 9 witness statements. Plus also changing their statements. Plus there is evidence from sniffer dogs that a dead body was in their apartment, and on Kate's clothes and in their hire car.

How nice that, for once, the McCanns have to prove something. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" - Gerry McCann.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by canada12 on 02.12.14 20:51

@j.rob wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

Yes, I agree. Because if Amaral's conclusion is true. If Madeleine is dead and the parents pretended she had been abducted, then how could the publication of his book have hindered the search for Madeleine? 

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all. 

I would imagine this is quite tricky seeing as there is no evidence of a mystery abduction and also given the huge number of discrepancies in the Tapas 9 witness statements. Plus also changing their statements. Plus there is evidence from sniffer dogs that a dead body was in their apartment, and on Kate's clothes and in their hire car.

How nice that, for once, the McCanns have to prove something. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" - Gerry McCann.
Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?
Curious, because if they're able to get a warrant to access her records without the parents' permission, then they could easily discover whether or not Madeleine had a coloboma.
If no coloboma, then that's fraud right there, isn't it, re: the Fund?

canada12

Posts : 1457
Reputation : 185
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sharonl on 02.12.14 20:59

@canada12 wrote:
@j.rob wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't know how it stands from a legal point of view, but is it not the case that the damages trial and OG are intrinsically linked?

Is it possible that OG can't move forward in the case (if the M's are involved) until the end of this trial? Is it possible for Amaral to lose the case but for the M's, if there is evidence, to be charged with crime(s)?

Tell you what though, this case is a international tangled web of red tape of huge proportions.

Yes, I agree. Because if Amaral's conclusion is true. If Madeleine is dead and the parents pretended she had been abducted, then how could the publication of his book have hindered the search for Madeleine? 

The first thing that the McCanns must prove in this case is that they have been libelled at all. 

I would imagine this is quite tricky seeing as there is no evidence of a mystery abduction and also given the huge number of discrepancies in the Tapas 9 witness statements. Plus also changing their statements. Plus there is evidence from sniffer dogs that a dead body was in their apartment, and on Kate's clothes and in their hire car.

How nice that, for once, the McCanns have to prove something. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" - Gerry McCann.
Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?
Curious, because if they're able to get a warrant to access her records without the parents' permission, then they could easily discover whether or not Madeleine had a coloboma.
If no coloboma, then that's fraud right there, isn't it, re: the Fund?

It is unlikely that the police would need the parents permission to access any records in this case.  Besides, lets not forget that Madeleine had been made ward of court, her parents are not her legal guardians.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3565
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.12.14 21:10

@canada12 wrote:
Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?
Contrary to sharonl's answer above, actually, the answer is 'Yes' - consent is needed.

It is a vexed and topical question here at the moment, as per this article recently in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/10/police-right-to-see-medical-records

Both patients and doctors regard the privacy of medical records as sacrosanct:

(From the above article) "Fahy accepted the public may be sceptical about his calls for greater powers but said privacy concerns which either deny officers access to information or slow the process down cost police money and time".

At present, my understanding is that the police have to obtain a court order to be able to seize medical records.

 The police have recently started making noises about demanding the right to see medical notes of people as and when they want to - one of them being Sir Peter Fahy of Greater Manchester Police.

He is best known at the moment for a comprehensive failure by him and his officers to prevent organised sexual abuse over two decades by vicious gangs in Rochdale and Manchester.

I doubt, however, if the police could solve many crimes by having greater access to medical records. The reasons given by Fahy seem spurious.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, if Madeleine had been abducted as claimed, I cannot think that many parents would refuse access to their child's medical records.

The McCanns refused to disclose Madeleine's medical records; IIRC the PJ asked the Home Secretary and Leicestershire Police to obtain them but were met with a curt refusal. I think there is a paragraph in Goncalo Amaral's book about this.

The McCanns' refusal to disclose them invited suspicion about why they did refuse

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sharonl on 02.12.14 21:15

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@canada12 wrote:
Do the UK police need the parents' permission to access Madeleine's medical records?
Contrary to sharonl's answer above, actually, the answer is 'Yes' - consent is needed.

It is a vexed and topical question here at the moment, as per this article recently in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/10/police-right-to-see-medical-records

Both patients and doctors regard the privacy of medical records as sacrosanct.

The police have recently started making noises about demanding the right to see medical notes of people as and when they want to - one of them being Sir Peter Fahy of Greater Manchester Police.

He is best known at the moment for a comprehensive failure by him and his officers to prevent organised sexual abuse over two decades by vicious gangs in Rochdale and Manchester.

I doubt, however, if the police could solve many crimes by having greater access to medical records. The reasons given by Fahy seem spurious.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, if Madeleine had been abducted as claimed, I cannot think that many parents would refuse access to their child's medical records.

The McCanns' refusal to disclose them invited suspicion about why they did refuse

As Madeleine is a ward of court, would permission be sought from her parents, or from her legal guardian?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3565
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.12.14 21:35

@sharonl wrote:
As Madeleine is a ward of court, would permission be sought from her parents, or from her legal guardian?
The Wardship Order doesn't replace parental rights and responsibilities. The McCanns keep them. 

It is a kind of 'extra' - the High Court has extra powers to intervene on Madeleine's behalf. 

If they wanted Madeleine's medical records, they would have to ask the Drs McCann.

If they refused, I don't think the High Court could help, the police would have to go to a judge to get a Court Order to seize the records.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by sharonl on 02.12.14 21:45

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@sharonl wrote:
As Madeleine is a ward of court, would permission be sought from her parents, or from her legal guardian?
The Wardship Order doesn't replace parental rights and responsibilities. The McCanns keep them. 

It is a kind of 'extra' - the High Court has extra powers to intervene on Madeleine's behalf. 

If they wanted Madeleine's medical records, they would have to ask the Drs McCann.

If they refused, I don't think the High Court could help, the police would have to go to a judge to get a Court Order to seize the records.


Thank you for clearing that up.

When the PJ asked for these records, who refused them and could the Portuguese have done anything more to obtain them?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron

sharonl


Posts : 3565
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by plebgate on 08.12.14 17:00

Are the gen. public allowed in to hear legal argument?   Let's hope so and some kind folk report back as they did previously.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by Silverspeed on 10.12.14 13:54

Joana Morais @xklamation    ·  5 mins 5 minutes ago
Trial update: "Same judge" "Ended. Jan 21st for reading of proven facts. Not verdict yet. Will update later" http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm#13 … #mccann

Silverspeed

Posts : 138
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2014-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by jeanmonroe on 10.12.14 16:31

Can THIS even be TRUE?
---------------------------------------------------------

So Goncalo Amaral was in court today but Isobel Duarte was not....

Denise Thomson ‏@Syn0nymph 59 secs60 seconds ago
@AdirenM Anne Guedes was there. Duarte was not in court but Amaral was. Anne will have her report out as soon as she can I'm sure #mccann
-----------------------

Hope Izzy Bizzy got 'paid' up FRONT! winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5128
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by plebgate on 10.12.14 17:52

@Silverspeed wrote: Joana Morais @xklamation    ·  5 mins 5 minutes ago
Trial update: "Same judge" "Ended. Jan 21st for reading of proven facts. Not verdict yet. Will update later" http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm#13 … #mccann
Same judge, well that's something then.

I believe that Rocky is going to win.   If "the other side" was a no show, not even their solicitor (?), then I would be greatly surprised if he were to lose.

ETA - 21st Jan. for reading of proven facts.    This will be very interesting IMO.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Next Trial Date

Post by plebgate on 10.12.14 18:09


plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum