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

MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.12 23:02

Earlier this year, I reproduced this from a letter I received from Carter-Ruck:

"While my firm is not instructed in the libel proceedings instigated in Portugal by the Claimants [Drs Gerald and Kate McCann] against Goncalo Amaral, I understand that...the case is proceeding to a full libel trial, and that a provisional date of 13 September 2012 has been given for the trial".

Since then, I have come across just ONE other reference to the date of the trial, a newspaper saying that the trial would (provisionally) take place over FOUR days, 13 & 14 September, and two days in the week 17-21 September.

There has been a long history of this case being subject to adjournments, postponements and delays, as indeed there was in the criminal trial of Goncalo Amaral - indeed it seems to be par for the course for controversial trials in Portugal.

If anyone has some reliable information about this final 'showdown', could they please post it here? - many thanks

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by Guest on 24.08.12 8:47

@Tony Bennett wrote:There has been a long history of this case being subject to adjournments, postponements and delays, as indeed there was in the criminal trial of Goncalo Amaral - indeed it seems to be par for the course for controversial trials in Portugal.

Your controversial trial has had a fair few delays too.

Who keeps delaying Amaral's trial?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by PeterMac on 24.08.12 9:37

@admin wrote:
Who keeps delaying Amaral's trial?
And why ?
And how do Carter-Ruck know ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by ShuBob on 24.08.12 10:55

@PeterMac wrote:
@admin wrote:
Who keeps delaying Amaral's trial?
And why ?
And how do Carter-Ruck know ?

Why won't they know? They are after all part of a network of lawyers employed by the McCanns.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by Guest on 24.08.12 10:56

@ShuBob wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@admin wrote:
Who keeps delaying Amaral's trial?
And why ?
And how do Carter-Ruck know ?

Why won't they know? They are after all part of a network of lawyers employed by the McCanns.
***
Of course they know. But WHY do they tell .... ????

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by ShuBob on 24.08.12 11:14

Châtelaine wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@admin wrote:
Who keeps delaying Amaral's trial?
And why ?
And how do Carter-Ruck know ?

Why won't they know? They are after all part of a network of lawyers employed by the McCanns.
***
Of course they know. But WHY do they tell .... ????

That's an entire different question for whuch I have no answer!

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

14 days away

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.08.12 23:52

I think I have managed to answer my own question - or, rather, it has been answered by Francisco Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento in a TV interview today, reported here. See the sentence highlighted in blue. So it is now just 14 days to the opening of the final chapter of one of the century's great free speech trails: McCanns v Amaral:

http://sic.sapo.pt/proj_queridajulia/Scripts/VideoPlayer.aspx?videoId={F1A5CB03-5D20-490A-97DF-A0C773098825}

http://mariacpois.blogspot.nl/2012/08/comentarios-de-fmf-e-ps-revisao-e-o.html


Here are the opinions of Francisco Moita Flores and Paul Sargento about rumours that the British ae about to close their review of the Madeleine McCann case.

Programme: 'Dear Julia', 29 August 2012; SIC.

Julia Pinheiro

FMF Francisco Moita Flores

PS Paul Sargento

*******

FMF - It is all very strange. Incidentally, I believe that this is even more strange, because in England, every day, well, not every day, but often, children disappear. This happens also in Portugal - but more often in England.

And this review is a review of a case that's already been fully investigated. What Scotland Yard is doing, or what the British Police is doing, is to review the Portuguese Police investigation. It is not just the police who are spending all this money - the £3 million and more - but those spending the money are always the same people.

It is the British government handing money to the police to ensure that the police alwas come up with the selfsame conclusions, namely that the little girl was abducted. The outcome of this so-called review will be to tell us all how the incompetent Portuguese police failed to find the abductor.

The British police have carried out analyses and interviews and brought along thousands of letters and clues for the Portuguese Police to consider. But that was two months ago. These were all matters that the Portuguese Police had looked into and cleared up.

What do I fear? If the Portuguese authorities once again close their eyes to the facts of the case, I think there will be yet another whitewash.

The script is like this: the little girl was abducted, there's no chance that the parents of this girl could have done anything sinister, so it must be a Moroccan or a Portuguese person, someone with a dark complexion...these were all good, middle-class people on holiday, it's an insult to force them to answer any questions. So why is so much money being spent on a huge bleachng operation?

The invesigation is now archived. The only ones who can re-open it are the Portuguese - the Portuguese prosecutor, They have spent a huge amount f money on the review, yet they still want more time.

PS: There is always an agenda. All of this latest news, especially when coming from the British media, is for a reason. What Bernard Hogan-Howe has said is that nothing is going to happen. He says it is up to the government. He himself isn't going to close the investigation.

I fully endorse everything that Francisco said. All that they are doing is reviewing what the police have done. It is a waste of time and money!

What really counts is that shortly we'll have, on September 13th and 14th and on the 20th and 21st, more of the final hearing of the libel rial of the main action of the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral.

The police are just trying to maintain interest in the case - keep it in the limelight - because, really, nothing whatseover is happening in the case, except that there is some news about the Scotland Yard Review Team needing more money form the Met Police. The Scotland Yard Review Team was put in place to give an air of respectability to this continuing farce.

FMF: Well, they have more respectability than the British government

PS: Remember (turning to FMF) that Prime Minister David Cameron was in a pub having a drink and forgot his daughter and left here there. This seems to keep on happening with the English. This is all just media strategy and spin, maintaining the spotlight on the McCanns.

FMF: There was one very critical error that the SY Review Team should focus on, something I always considered a serious error in the investigaton, and I have no problem giving my advice to the SY team. That is, why did not the Portuguese Police focus immediaetly on the family, instead of protecting the McCanns and their friends?

I know police and journalist colleagues who look at this whole case through rose-tinted spectacles: They think: "Oh, poor parents, the poor things, their friends out there with them, they are all good people and only drink glasses of red wine and had nothing to do with the child's disappearence, she was asleep just 200 yards away, it is all the fault of the evil police.

This blessed, noble and moral 'vision' has nothing to do with how one is supposed to address investigations of serious crimes like crimes of violence and homicides. You should treat everyone equally. You should place under suspicion those closest to the victim, those that were the last to see the victim. For certain, everyone who had access to the flat should be looked at particularly closely.

After that, there was interference in the investigtion by the British government and the British Embassy.

Then there is one key question that is simpler than all the technical and forensic questions for the police to answer gesture, and it is this. Ichallenge anyone here present, to go to a house with semi-closed shutters, and leave with a child on his: And back.

PS: And climbing over a bed...

FMF: What we need is a reconstruction...put a child on someone's back and then try to go with that child through the window. Let's see how difficult it is.

PS: There are only two ways this case can be reopened:

One is this, and I'm sorry for hiw I'm putting this, but it needs the Attorney-General to open both eyes of his to see - he should now order new lines of enquiry to be investigated...

The second is this, like the story of the fly and the honey, and that is to get the girl's mother to answer all the questions she's refused to answer for the past 5 years. If the girl's mother wants answers, it will surely help if she herself gives us the answers to all those [48] questions.

The police officer who interrogated her asked her: "Do you realise that by not answering these questions, you are hindering the investigation?" And she replied: "Yes, if that's what the investigation thinks".

Maybe if she rethinks her refusal to answer, we will all know what really happened.

[based on a Google translation]

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by listener on 30.08.12 0:31

Has she ever made an attempt to expain her action (refusing to answer) ?

listener

Posts : 565
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I

Post by aniandr on 30.08.12 1:32

Dont know. But no matter it seems Strange? Its not that she was in a hurry to go searching herself.

Were the suspects when they were to anwser? Im thinking: other country, no lawyer etc? Maybe they thought it would be loosing time and wanted a lawyer if they were to anwser? In case of problems and foreign language? And told not to anwser by lawyer on phone? I think it would be normal procedure to refuse to anwser without a lawyer by your side, hence everything you say Will be used against you, and hell know if they are allowed to ask. Where i live you have the Right to have a lawyer by you side and the police get you one until you get your own. Did they have a lawyer by Their side - ore was the questions befor they were made suspects? I mean - if i was suspect in a foreign country i would refuse to anwser A's Well befor my lawyer came.


aniandr

Posts : 162
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by jd on 30.08.12 2:08

It is the British government handing money to the police to ensure that the police always come up with the selfsame conclusions
Of course, this is their agenda. Jill Dando was another one headed by Redwood towing the line against the real truth. Trust me I know
The British police have carried out analyses and interviews and brought along thousands of letters and clues for the Portuguese Police to consider. But that was two months ago. These were all matters that the Portuguese Police had looked into and cleared up.
In truth they don't want the case reopened, they are playing the game in the media to 'APPEAR' that they do
PS: There is always an agenda. All of this latest news, especially when coming from the British media, is for a reason.
Exactly. There is always an agenda, hidden or not
The police are just trying to maintain interest in the case - keep it in the limelight - because, really, nothing whatseover is happening in the case, except that there is some news about the Scotland Yard Review Team needing more money form the Met Police. The Scotland Yard Review Team was put in place to give an air of respectability to this continuing farce.
Yes yes yes
I know police and journalist colleagues who look at this whole case through rose-tinted spectacles: They think: "Oh, poor parents, the poor things, their friends out there with them, they are all good people and only drink glasses of red wine and had nothing to do with the child's disappearence, she was asleep just 200 yards away, it is all the fault of the evil police.
This is how they have always spun it from 10pm 3rd May 2007 and want the GBP to believe. They were purporting this before even contacting the police. This was a big part of the agenda and selling the lie. Keeping you away from the truth was the goal
After that, there was interference in the investigtion by the British government and the British Embassy.
From the first night whilst everyone was searching. The phone call came onto the mobile of an OC employee for the GNR

What we need is a reconstruction
No Stone Unturned is the tagline. Yet the facts are no reconstruction and the lengthy obstruction using lawyers is the reality. kate mccann refusing to answer 48 questions is another one. Of course the Tapas really cared for Maddie and leaving no stone unturned in finding her! NOT!!

WHO PULLED THE STRINGS...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections....LOOK NO FURTHER IF YOU DARE

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I

Post by aniandr on 30.08.12 2:28

Just found This:
"September 7, 2007(...)Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind"
http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/08/the-48-questions-that-remained-unanswered/

Tbh 4 months on they are made arguida, and A's far A's they have done it, why should they anwser? If they havent, why should they anwser. The question clearly points to that they have done it, so it would incriminate themself - therefor in Their Right to refuse to anwser no matter what.

Like
What does the expression “we let her down” mean?

Its an Odd question. "Im sorry i let you Down" - its like the question try to put a meaning into it and therefor a loose-loose for anyone to anwser. It seems it would be a good question if backed up by hard evidence, but This is very incriminating questions.

Im not backing the mccanns up. I actually Think they have something hidden in the closet so to speak.

But i dó understand the no need to anwser these question im afraid.

aniandr

Posts : 162
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by jd on 30.08.12 2:35

Tbh 4 months on they are made arguida, and A's far A's they have done it, why should they anwser?

Maybe leaving No Stone Unturned to find their daughter?...isn't finding Maddie all that matters? Wouldn't any real parent give themselves up for their childs future and happiness?

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Well

Post by aniandr on 30.08.12 3:02

Absolutely. But in a investigation its actually not legal to let arguidos incriminate themself - therefor you have a lawyer.

And even when your Child are missing, if you are made arguidos, that is a basic rule in criminal courts.

Im not convinced they want All them Stones to be turned. But even if they did, what closer to finding Madeleine would the question above bring them?

And yes - they could anwser them now by not beeing arguidos anymore. But A's far A's there is no hard evidence, no questions of the 48 Will imo solve the mysteri of what happend to Madeleine. I just dont see what Stone they will turn? They would create Many headlines - but not solve the case imho

aniandr

Posts : 162
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by aniandr on 30.08.12 3:17

But i so totally agree what a waste of money.no sy Will not find anything by going through evidence already investigated

They need to turn focus on parents - Thats the Real part begging to be investigated

aniandr

Posts : 162
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by aiyoyo on 30.08.12 5:21

But he (Redwood) refused to say what evidence they had uncovered to suggest Madeleine was alive. “Evidence that she is alive stems from the forensic view of the timeline,” he said. “There were opportunities there for Madeleine McCann to have been taken as part of a criminal act.
“We are developing material we believe represents genuinely new information. “We would like the case to be reopened. We are working with the police to get ourselves to that position.”

“We do still believe, however, that
there are matters which need to be considered,
and therefore we are currently seeking a more formal way of addressing this.”
We have received a steady flow of calls following yesterday’s appeal and officers are now working through the information.



The above three statements cant be any clearer about the objective of the Review.
Developing new genuine materials, appealing for witnesseses, and working through the new information.
Does this look like typical work of a Review team? Remember they're not investigative team.
Did he have to qualify it with the word " genuine" --- implying what otherwise?
Anyway I read the leads he compiled were already looked at by the Portuguese.


We can’t compel the Portuguese to do anything but we will keep trying and we don’t think this is the end. We will keep lobbying.”
The underscored bits are just political statements.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by aiyoyo on 30.08.12 6:43

I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind.

We were untouched by anything that’s gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she’s not...and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she’s alive.

Kate Garraway: So what are the things that make you think that…because I think you know we’re all clinging to the hope, aren’t we?

Dan Lobb: Yeah. I mean it’s kind of hard evidence but there is still going to be hope - as long as she’s not found dead

Redwood: Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger, and so from that - she’s… and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive.

"as experienced investigators" ..hmmm already Implanting the seed about their capability over the Portuguese ---- sounds familiar yet? Else what was he implying?
What statistics and on what "people" was he basing his statement on I wonder? Another statement that sounds familiar hey?
As "an experienced investigator" talking about statistics one would have thought at the very least he has studied the statistics before shooting his gob...........?


Dan Lobb: Very quickly, let’s take, take another - another look at that picture that you guys have released - the age-progression picture, and in, in what…what help this could possibly do to the investigation?

Redwood: It’s a critically important stage for us, if you look at the image, you will see that it has great resemblance to a school photograph, this is the sort of image that every parent proudly presents – on their, on their dining room um you know, you know, your dining room table This image has been carefully prepared by a United Kingdom forensic specialist in human identification and…and art and - close collaboration with Mr and Mrs McCann who agree that this is a close - close resemblance to their, to their daughter - and my appeal to the public today is clear - look at the image carefully please -

To the poster on the other thread who said that Redwood didn't allude to the Yard having commissioned the image - well, Redwood's answer is very incriminating for the Yard.
Let's just say if it wasn't approved by Yard on their Review budget, what would be the reason for forensic specialist to take it upon themselves to come up with the image - on whose instructions and cost otherwise, if not the Yard?
And you better believe it - Yard was updating the Mccanns all along - even the image was produced in close (from the horse's mouth) collaboration with the Mccann, and this is the best part 'to resemble a school girl from middle-class background suitable for display in dining room.'

Cant bear to think what those "experienced investigators and experts" had in mind when they produced the photo on basis of display photo for middle class...would that be accurate representation of how Maddie would look like in her capture circumstances?

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by tigger on 30.08.12 7:06

@aniandr wrote:Absolutely. But in a investigation its actually not legal to let arguidos incriminate themself - therefor you have a lawyer.

And even when your Child are missing, if you are made arguidos, that is a basic rule in criminal courts.

Im not convinced they want All them Stones to be turned. But even if they did, what closer to finding Madeleine would the question above bring them?

And yes - they could anwser them now by not beeing arguidos anymore. But A's far A's there is no hard evidence, no questions of the 48 Will imo solve the mysteri of what happend to Madeleine. I just dont see what Stone they will turn? They would create Many headlines - but not solve the case imho

In some medical circles the term ' we let her/him down' means letting them die. As Kate is a medical person, the question was totally relevant.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Stated reasons for Dr Kate McCann not answering the 48 questions

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.08.12 7:59

@listener wrote:Has she ever made an attempt to explain her action (refusing to answer) ?
Yes, as I explained fully in the introduction to my recital of the 48 Questions on a YouTube video [now removed voluntarily because of the impending committal-to-prison trial], Dr Kate McCann and her advisers have said on the record that she did not answer the questions because she believed that she and her husband were being framed by the Portuguese Police and that, in any event, the European Court of Human Rights conferred on all criminal suspects the absolute right to silence. Whether those reasons are ever justified by a mother claiming that her child has been abducted and who represents herself as being desperate to be reunited with her and says she is doing all she can to find her is another matter

____________________

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


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Only the guilty feel the need to remain silent

Post by Guest on 30.08.12 9:24

I like to watch programmes about real life crimes (even prior to 2007 I did!) and it's common for suspects to sit there and say "No comment" to absolutely everything - two recent examples I've seen are of Sarah Payne's killer and the Suffolk strangler.

I know that people are entitled to do so but what impression does it give other than that they are guilty as (about to be) charged?

I'll be interested to hear of any case where a suspect did this and was later cleared with no lingering doubt that they had done it but it couldn't be proved.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by pauline on 30.08.12 9:34

I've always wondered why she didn't use the 'truthful' book as a vehicle for answering the 48 questions. I can understand not answering in the Portuguese police station out of fear of her replies being mistranslated. In her position I might have done the same, even if I knew I was innocent.

Didn't Gerry answer his questions though? a bit odd when she didn't?

But in the book she could have answered the questions and had the lawyers check the answers. most of the questions seem innocuous anyway.

If it was her fear of being stitched up that kept her quiet, she really should have put the replies in the public domain once she was 'safe' in the Uk away from the evil sardine munchers. the book wasn't out til may 2011 but it was a missed opportunity. I wonder was it even considered to answer there?

pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

no comment

Post by anne49 on 30.08.12 16:00

[quote="Jean"]I like to watch programmes about real life crimes (even prior to 2007 I did!) and it's common for suspects to sit there and say "No comment" to absolutely everything - two recent examples I've seen are of Sarah Payne's killer and the Suffolk strangler.

I know that people are entitled to do so but what impression does it give other than that they are guilty as (about to be) charged?

I'll be interested to hear of any case where a suspect did this and was later cleared with no lingering doubt that they had done it but it couldn't be proved.[/quote
Jean, on the flip side to your last question I'm sure there have been many cases where an innocent person has been convicted after answering questions put to them by the police.

Nowadays most criminal lawyers will advise their clients to "no comment" every question with the exception of confirming name, address and place of birth.
Also, it maters not, what impression a no comment reply gives as the CPS (in the UK at least) are forbidden from looking unfavourably on a "no comment" reply. Here in the UK the onus is on the CPS to prove guilt not the suspect to prove innocence.

anne49

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by Guest on 30.08.12 16:14

Curtailment of the right to silence


The right of silence, long considered the most fundamental right of a suspect, was curtailed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This permits the court hearing the charge against you to draw such inferences as appear proper from the fact of your silence in the following circumstances:

•Failure to mention a fact when questioned under caution before charge which is relied on in your defence.
•Failure on being charged with an offence or informed of likely prosecution, to mention a fact which it would have been reasonable for you to mention at the time.
•Failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks found on your person, in or on your clothing or otherwise in your possession, in the place where you were arrested.
•Failure or refusal after your arrest to account for your presence at a place at or about the time the offence is alleged to have been committed.
No inferences may be drawn, however, if you were not given an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned, charged, informed of a prosecution, or requested to explain the matters referred to above. The caution in these cases is differently worded from that stated below. It is simply ‘you do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence’.

Before inferences can be drawn in the last two cases the officer should first have explained in ordinary language, amongst other things, the nature of the offence, the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn and that a record is being made of the interview which could be used in the trial. This is in addition to the caution that is now worded as follows:

‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’

This caution must be given before any questioning of someone who is suspected of committing an offence about his or her involvement in the offence. You should normally be cautioned on arrest and before any interviewing or continuation of an interview. If you are charged, you should be cautioned in the same way, but if you are questioned after charge, the caution is simply that anything you say may be used in evidence but that you do not have to say anything (as above). This is because there is no provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for inferences to be drawn from silence after charge.

The restrictions introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, have been reviewed many times by the courts. The European Court of Human Rights regards any inroads into the right of silence very seriously under Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), and there have been many challenges to the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

You cannot be convicted of an offence solely on the basis of your failure or refusal to answer questions or furnish information.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/the-rights-of-suspects-in-the-police-station/curtailment-of-the-right-to-silence.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by ShuBob on 30.08.12 16:27

Anne, the fact is that it should have been in Madeleine and well as in Kate's best interest to answer all questions as truthfully as she could to help recover Maddie as quickly as possible if she really was abducted. This wasn't a situation where someone was suspected of committing a crime against, say, a stranger or even a friend. This was her young daughter whom she claimed had been forcibly snatched from her bed as she slept. I do however take your point about innocent people being sent to jail after answering questions but was there any such risk to Kate? She had her expensive and influential lawyer sat next to her during the interview. There was no risk of misinterpretation or mistranslation as far as I can make out.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MCCANNS v AMARAL: The final trial...Will it start in 3 weeks - or will there be another postponement? UPDATE NOW DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY

Post by ShuBob on 30.08.12 16:35

Thanks for the link Candyfloss. Very interesting!

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

no comment

Post by anne49 on 30.08.12 17:01

@ShuBob wrote:Anne, the fact is that it should have been in Madeleine and well as in Kate's best interest to answer all questions as truthfully as she could to help recover Maddie as quickly as possible if she really was abducted. This wasn't a situation where someone was suspected of committing a crime against, say, a stranger or even a friend. This was her young daughter whom she claimed had been forcibly snatched from her bed as she slept. I do however take your point about innocent people being sent to jail after answering questions but was there any such risk to Kate? She had her expensive and influential lawyer sat next to her during the interview. There was no risk of misinterpretation or mistranslation as far as I can make out.

ShuBob, I agree with you that Kate should have answered the questions put to her, if you care to read my post properly you will see that I was answering Jean's questions. I was generalising on the "no comment" issue and at no point in my post was I McCann specific.

anne49

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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