The Search and its status

by Woofer 30.09.13 11:41

IMO `The Search` has attained almost majestic status over the last 6 years, almost as much as Madeleine and her parents.

It has now been raised to such importance that it is cited as being damaged in a Writ.

What I`d like to know is does this `Search` have status in law, who authorised and is responsible for it.

Since the official search was shelved, it has almost become like the Search for the Holy Grail commissioned by some superior authority that the whole world is supposed to have got involved in.

Dr. Martin Roberts has written recently :-

"............... and the damage done to the 'search' for Madeleine (whether defined as a brand or an activity is unclear)."

and

"The 'search' for Madeleine McCann has been considered a worldwide activity since her parents first stepped aboard that hired Learjet on their tour of Europe, and then 'did America'.......".

So I will be interested to know exactly how the Lisbon Court will define `The Search`.

ETA: Also whether the Court will give any credibility to the Search by two firms of private investigators the McCanns hired who have subsequently turned out to be ... (add your own words).

by Newintown 30.09.13 12:15

Woofer wrote:IMO `The Search` has attained almost majestic status over the last 6 years, almost as much as Madeleine and her parents.

It has now been raised to such importance that it is cited as being damaged in a Writ.

What I`d like to know is does this `Search` have status in law, who authorised and is responsible for it.

Since the official search was shelved, it has almost become like the Search for the Holy Grail commissioned by some superior authority that the whole world is supposed to have got involved in.

Dr. Martin Roberts has written recently :-

"............... and the damage done to the 'search' for Madeleine (whether defined as a brand or an activity is unclear)."

and

"The 'search' for Madeleine McCann has been considered a worldwide activity since her parents first stepped aboard that hired Learjet on their tour of Europe, and then 'did America'.......".

So I will be interested to know exactly how the Lisbon Court will define `The Search`.

I was thinking along the same lines a day or two ago, that if my dog went missing for a week or more (if I had a dog that is) would the McCanns be obliged to spend 6 years looking for it in the same way they have expected the population of the whole World to endlessly search for Madeleine for the past 6 years, as I can't see what the difference is but perhaps I'm missing something. Would I also be able to set up a fund** for donations as I would need to spend months and months travelling the length and breadth of the UK looking for my lost doggie (if I had one).

And if the McCanns refused to search for my dog would I be able to sue them for hindering "the search".

Perhaps someone with more brain cells than "wot I have" be able to say why the McCanns think the World has an obligation to look for Madeleine. smilie

**Of course it would have to be a Ltd Co Fund as I would only be looking for one dog, not all the lost doggies in the UK (that's one thing I've learnt from the McCanns if I ever have to set up a Fund). winkwink

by Woofer 30.09.13 14:34

Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.

by Cristobell 30.09.13 15:00

Woofer wrote:Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.

The McCanns' own search is bizarre on every level. It was insulting to the PJ, and as you mention, illegal. That it hindered the official Portuguese investigation goes without saying. PDL was over run with journalists waiting for the mccanns daily photo calls, and attention seekers everywhere were reporting sightings of little blonde girls.

We have had none of the 'search' nonsense since Scotland Yard stated they are opening an official investigation. Come to think of it, there haven't been any sightings either.

by Newintown 30.09.13 15:07

Woofer wrote:Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.

Yes, it's completely going against all reasonable thinking, especially when the PIs they brought in had no experience in searching for lost children. If you had £millions in a Fund to find Madeleine, you would want the best PIs money could buy, but oh no, not the McCanns.

I also read somewhere that is is illegal to employ PIs when an official search is taking place by the PJ, but then the McCanns are a law unto themselves and people seem to be afraid to say "no" to them, for some reason.

The PIs should have been shipped back to the UK PDQ for interfering with the PJ investigation but perhaps the PJ were over ruled by "forces from up high"!

by bobbin 30.09.13 15:16

Woofer wrote:Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.

As Newintown says in a previous post, and as you are now saying, Woofer, the whole McCann BLEAT has been that the public was dissuaded from searching (because of Goncalo Amaral's book, the documentary etc.) yet they also call the 'search', as that which they paid privately to be carried out, not by officially charged police forces but by, (a) general thieves and brigands, (b) illegally on Portuguese soil.
Yet they sue Goncalo Amaral for his book, TV1 etc. for the documentary, saying that it was the PUBLIC who were dissuaded.
So what was 'the search'?
No, I (the PUBLIC) am not bound by the 'Laws of McCann Negligence' to go out on my holidays or any other time, whilst they drink, swim and jog, to look for what they 'claim' (but for which they cannot demonstrate even the slightest convincing argument) that they have lost.
I have not read Goncalo Amaral's book, nor seen the documentary, so have been persuaded by neither.
I disbelieved the McCs the moment I first saw them making their mockery of a public appeal, and have been convinced of my disbelief by just about every twist and turn that they have subsequently made.
What a complete bunch of absolutely arrogant f*****g t*****s (to use Kate's elegant vernacular) the McCs are...AIMO of course.

by Newintown 30.09.13 15:28

bobbin wrote:
Woofer wrote:Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.
As Newintown says in a previous post, and as you are now saying, Woofer, the whole McCann BLEAT has been that the public was dissuaded from searching (because of Goncalo Amaral's book, the documentary etc.) yet they also call the 'search', as that which they paid privately to be carried out, not by officially charged police forces but by, (a) general thieves and brigands, (b) illegally on Portuguese soil.
Yet they sue Goncalo Amaral for his book, TV1 etc. for the documentary, saying that it was the PUBLIC who were dissuaded.
So what was 'the search'?
No, I (the PUBLIC) am not bound by the 'Laws of McCann Negligence' to go out on my holidays or any other time, whilst they drink, swim and jog, to look for what they 'claim' (but for which they cannot demonstrate even the slightest convincing argument) that they have lost.
I have not read Goncalo Amaral's book, nor seen the documentary, so have been persuaded by neither.
I disbelieved the McCs the moment I first saw them making their mockery of a public appeal, and have been convinced of my disbelief by just about every twist and turn that they have subsequently made.
What a complete bunch of absolutely arrogant f*****g t*****s (to use Kate's elegant vernacular) the McCs are...AIMO of course.

I haven't read GA's book either nor seen the documentary. Like you I disbelieved them from day one when they gave that statement to the waiting press, as someone mentioned a long time ago on the forum it was if "GM was reading out an advert for a car he had for sale", no emotion, no passion, nothing to show they were the distraught parents of a missing 3 year old. Then to put the topping on the cake, they put the twins back in the creche after 2 or 3 days, from then on I was sure the McCanns knew what happened to Madeleine, that said it all really.

by Woofer 30.09.13 15:43

"......yet they also call the 'search', as that which they paid privately to be carried out, not by officially charged police forces but by, (a) general thieves and brigands, (b) illegally on Portuguese soil."

Exactly Bobbin ..... and I`m trying to determine whether a private search holds any status in Portuguese law and whether the Judge will throw that part of their Writ out. Or she may say that their search does have rights, but then she`ll have to consider whether its a crime to disrupt it.

by Angelique 30.09.13 16:01

If this is a "search" undertaken voluntarily then I don't think anyone has the right to say its been disrupted. I am not under the guidance of the McCanns. I live my own life. If I should choose to search for something - its my choice not the McCanns.

So - No I don't think the Search for Madeleine is an entity in its own right.

by Liz Eagles 30.09.13 16:15

I think the McCanns also need to define 'campaign' alongside 'search'.

A few thousand posters and various paraphernalia, a website calling for donations to finance aforementioned and a visit to the USA to be advised high visibility is the key seem to be a 'campaign' which is linked to a 'search'.

I hope I'm making sense.

by Newintown 30.09.13 16:23

aquila wrote:I think the McCanns also need to define 'campaign' alongside 'search'.

A few thousand posters and various paraphernalia, a website calling for donations to finance aforementioned and a visit to the USA to be advised high visibility is the key seem to be a 'campaign' which is linked to a 'search'.

I hope I'm making sense.

Just because some members of the public are naive enough to buy the posters, wristbands, luggage tags etc, as part of the "campaign" it doesn't make it some law that the whole universe is responsible for looking for Madeleine.

The McCanns can visit every country in the World to "supposedly" look for Madeleine for the next 30 years (except they didn't get off their arses in PDL to look for her), it still doesn't make the universe responsible to look for Madeleine.

by Liz Eagles 30.09.13 17:04

Newintown wrote:
aquila wrote:I think the McCanns also need to define 'campaign' alongside 'search'.

A few thousand posters and various paraphernalia, a website calling for donations to finance aforementioned and a visit to the USA to be advised high visibility is the key seem to be a 'campaign' which is linked to a 'search'.

I hope I'm making sense.
Just because some members of the public are naive enough to buy the posters, wristbands, luggage tags etc, as part of the "campaign" it doesn't make it some law that the whole universe is responsible for looking for Madeleine.

The McCanns can visit every country in the World to "supposedly" look for Madeleine for the next 30 years (except they didn't get off their arses in PDL to look for her), it still doesn't make the universe responsible to look for Madeleine.

"campaign" and "search" seem inextricably linked for the McCanns. I haven't to date seen anything of substance in either.

Just my opinion of course (whilst I'm still allowed an opinion before the interweb is shut down).

Madeleine McCann's parents who lack humility (the Brits and the Portuguese could have understood humility) are back in the headlines to sue someone else.

Also my opinion.

by plebgate 30.09.13 17:29

bobbin wrote:
Woofer wrote:Everything seems completely the wrong way round because there was an `OFFICIAL` search which was, in fact, DISRUPTED by none other than the MCanns themselves (and UK political interference).

Yet, here they are sueing someone for disrupting their own personal search, of which their contractors were convicted or suspected of very dubious activities. I can`t understand how this personal search can hold any status at all legally or be recognised by the Lisbon Court.

Otherwise it would be ok for anyone to disrupt an official search and instigate their own personal search. In fact I thought it was illegal in Portugal.
As Newintown says in a previous post, and as you are now saying, Woofer, the whole McCann BLEAT has been that the public was dissuaded from searching (because of Goncalo Amaral's book, the documentary etc.) yet they also call the 'search', as that which they paid privately to be carried out, not by officially charged police forces but by, (a) general thieves and brigands, (b) illegally on Portuguese soil.
Yet they sue Goncalo Amaral for his book, TV1 etc. for the documentary, saying that it was the PUBLIC who were dissuaded.
So what was 'the search'?
No, I (the PUBLIC) am not bound by the 'Laws of McCann Negligence' to go out on my holidays or any other time, whilst they drink, swim and jog, to look for what they 'claim' (but for which they cannot demonstrate even the slightest convincing argument) that they have lost.
I have not read Goncalo Amaral's book, nor seen the documentary, so have been persuaded by neither.
I disbelieved the McCs the moment I first saw them making their mockery of a public appeal, and have been convinced of my disbelief by just about every twist and turn that they have subsequently made.
What a complete bunch of absolutely arrogant f*****g t*****s (to use Kate's elegant vernacular) the McCs are...AIMO of course.

This is how I feel exactly.

Good OP Woofer and excellent answers from everyone.

by Woofer 30.09.13 17:34

Even if the Pope had authorised the Search, it isn`t a crime to disrupt it.

Its only a crime if authorised by the official authorities, i.e. the police.

by Truthandjustice 30.09.13 17:56

If I had happened to be in PDL at the time I would have joined the search in the first day or so. However, I would not search for Madeleine now because statistically it is likely that she was dead within 48 hours of 'abduction' (particularly given the publicity around her special eye marking). So GA's book, though fascinating, has no bearing at all on my participation or not in said search. I would imagine a large chunk of the populace would be informed by the statistics in this case even if they believed every word the Mcs uttered.

by aniandr 30.09.13 20:51

Very interesting post. A definition of "search" is very important in this case. And the line between "search" and "campaign"

What seach did the book interrupt. Is it their own worldwide seach? That would make no sence in court. The files has the same conclusion as the book, so, it cant br the official search. So it must be the Campaign it interrupted. But a campaign isnt protected by the law? Im confused.

The emotional things the sue GA for. Why ahould he not be allowed to write a book? Kate wrote a book also, it just had a different conclusion. If the book make them sad GA can say "ok im sad to hear your sad i am sad becouse you destroyed my career, family and life and wrote a book about me so ill sue you right back".

Is the fund short of money ore what?

by Ollie1 30.09.13 21:02

I don't understand how they can sue when it was their own 'search', they should have to prove what was being done in their search, we now know that Dave Edgar was the first professional investigator so imo there wasn't much of a search by the McCann's going on anyway. People coming forward with information would naturally die down. People also move on and probably don't give much thought to Madeleine unless they read a newspaper.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.13 21:38

Perhaps they should have used the word "QUEST"
as in the quest for the Holy Grail.

Not exactly 'looking' for it, but something altogether on a higher plane, some more rarefied and esoteric metaphysical pilgrimage.
The sort of think you can do by "Keeping Vigil" rather than by going outside to call your missing daughter's name, for example.
The sort of thing you can do by collecting money, (another long established Holy Tradition ! !)

The sort of the thing the Mormons did.
Joseph Smith "Lost" the gold tablets he had been given by GOD. So instead of asking at the nearest Police Station or Lost Property Office, they founded a religion, and chose him as their leader.
Instead of stoning him to death as the most useless, negligent, stupid, and idle idiot on the planet.

So far as I know no one has even bothered 'physically ' searching for the gold tablets, which given modern metal detecting techniques should not be too difficult.
I doubt God would have let anyone melt them down ! ! !
But the "Quest" continues, no doubt.
Please give generously !

by Woofer 30.09.13 21:53

You make me giggle PM.

By their past actions, its often crossed my mind that they`re planning a new religion. It goes well with the virgin Mary poses. Trouble is I doubt if MBM is about to rise from the dead. Well I suppose it all depends how the dig goes in Mrs. M`s garden.

by Monty Heck 30.09.13 21:57

Woofer wrote:IMO `The Search` has attained almost majestic status over the last 6 years, almost as much as Madeleine and her parents.

It has now been raised to such importance that it is cited as being damaged in a Writ.

What I`d like to know is does this `Search` have status in law, who authorised and is responsible for it.

Since the official search was shelved, it has almost become like the Search for the Holy Grail commissioned by some superior authority that the whole world is supposed to have got involved in.

Dr. Martin Roberts has written recently :-

"............... and the damage done to the 'search' for Madeleine (whether defined as a brand or an activity is unclear)."

and

"The 'search' for Madeleine McCann has been considered a worldwide activity since her parents first stepped aboard that hired Learjet on their tour of Europe, and then 'did America'.......".

So I will be interested to know exactly how the Lisbon Court will define `The Search`.

ETA: Also whether the Court will give any credibility to the Search by two firms of private investigators the McCanns hired who have subsequently turned out to be ... (add your own words).

"Search" and "campaign" do seem mutually interchangable.  Until SY stepped in, a search of some kind going on: the work of the PIs employed by the couple; the translation of the released files and KMcC's trawl of the files might also come under that heading. Perhaps even the lobbying work to get politicians to review the case might be construed as part of the search in the widest sense, but there is ample evidence that was not adversely affected by GA's book.

Everything else that has been done falls under the heading awareness raising.  A call to action for the public to keep a look out for this child who could be anywhere in the world. There has never been any call to action from the team for people to actively go out and search their local area, wherever in the world that might be.  Even if there had been such a call to action, any searches would still be completely voluntary, as someone already pointed out.

To sum up, the McCs were running an awareness raising campaign but GA wrote a book which has so influenced people they stopped keeping an eye out for the child.  The book may have influenced a few or many people but the fact is there were no searches that he could possibly hinder, in Portugal or anywhere else.  Statistically, the number of people who have not read the book, even in Portugal where it was freely available, far outnumber those who have, and even then there is no guarantee any single individual was influenced by it either way.  It will be interesting to find what the judge makes of these extravagant claims.

by susible 30.09.13 22:06

The McCanns constantly bleating on about the "search" whether they're moaning about someone "hampering" it or sitting on Lorraine's sofa telling "Everyone" to do it, really grinds my gears.

Because if we are to believe their official story, then it was their own negligence that caused Madeleine to disappear in the first place, so why the heck should it be everyone else's responsibility to look for her. And really, what chances have people got of inadvertently "finding" Madeleine now, 6 years have passed and okay the McCanns keep getting "Renewed Hope" when some young person turns up after being missing for years, but they were much older when they went missing and generally tend to "Find Themselves" (in a literal rather than philosophical way)

And what exactly is "Hampering the Search" Imagining the scenario, Dave Edgar in the lawless hills of PdL goes up to indigenous local with a bunch of pictures, one of a 3 yr old, and a couple of questionable age-progressed ones

DE: "Err have you seen this child?"

Local "Nope...apart from all the images that I have seen on TV and in the press"

DE "Okay if you see her, or someone who might look like her, could you call our hotline number"

Local "Erm well, she's not going to look like what she did when she was 3 and the other pics are just how an artist imagine she would look, so how would I know if it was her or not?

DE: "Well look if you see any child that is about 8, 10 or 14 yrs old, with blonde or dark hair, maybe fair or maybe darker skin, maybe speaking English or even another language could you let us know?"

Local: "Err look mate, that could apply to anybody, and to be honest she's sadly probably not alive now"

McCann's: "The Portuguese are hampering the search"