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

ARGUIDO STATUS

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by plebgate on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:03 pm

@russiandoll wrote:WOC status might have been conferred on Maddie to secure her wellbeing should she be found abroad, the State ensuring her safe return to the UK and taking responsibility for her in the interim period between discovery and journey home.

 Will do some research on this issue.
I remember reading on the WOC info ( a few years ago now) that no details regarding medical history etc. will be made available about a child until 30 years after the child turns 18 years of age, so that could be a possible  reason why that status was conferred on Maddie?

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by diatribe on Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:55 pm

dantezebu wrote:

And so by insisting now that they are not suspects or Arguidos opens the way for them to be questioned by the PJ without the protection offered by this status. ie they could not refuse to answer any questions.

They could always refuse to answer any questions, Dante, whether it be be under caution or on a voluntary basis, even in the Peoples' Republik of Britain that would be their prerogative. The biggest problem the PJ have is that unless they come up with some tangible evidence to support issuing a request for extradition warrant, they are never going to be able to get them in a position where they can further investigate them. That's why the McCanns left Portugal at the earliest opportunity back in 2007, whilst at the same time engaging the services of a counsel specialising in extradition proceedings.

I appreciate this is contested by others on this forum so I'll use the initials, IMO. The British police are impeded by the fact that this matter is not within their jurisdiction, thereby inhibiting them from formally questioning the McCanns under caution(not that it would advance matters, because they have already indicated to the PJ their intent to rely on an accused's right to silence.) With regards to questioning and statements etc. the only way the British police could approach either the McCanns or their friends is on a voluntary basis, as with their TV and media appearances, the questions would be confined to those agreed by their lawyers. It really is a Catch 22 position which can only be resolved if the PJ manage to come up with some tangible evidence which doesn't seem likely after failing to do so over the past 7 yrs.

My personal opinion on this state of affairs is that it is perfectly acceptable to retain the position of 'it's not an accused person's job to prove their innocence, but for the police to prove their guilt.'  However, in the case of the McCanns where they are looking for public sympathy and more poignantly, asking them for money, I don't feel they are justified in hiding behind lawyers, PR spokespersons etc and refusing to answer pertinent questions relating to the disappearance of their daughter. In the aforementioned circumstances, they have an obligation to those of whom they ask sympathy and request financial donations to at least make an attempt to convince them of their innocence

The McCanns are a classical example in practising the art of simultaneously having and eating one's pie.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by bobbin on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:11 pm

@diatribe wrote:
dantezebu wrote:

And so by insisting now that they are not suspects or Arguidos opens the way for them to be questioned by the PJ without the protection offered by this status. ie they could not refuse to answer any questions.

They could always refuse to answer any questions, Dante, whether it be be under caution or on a voluntary basis, even in the Peoples' Republik of Britain that would be their prerogative. The biggest problem the PJ have is that unless they come up with some tangible evidence to support issuing a request for extradition warrant, they are never going to be able to get them in a position where they can further investigate them. That's why the McCanns left Portugal at the earliest opportunity back in 2007, whilst at the same time engaging the services of a counsel specialising in extradition proceedings.

I know this is contested by others on this forum so I'll use the initials, IMO. The British police are impeded by the fact that this matter is not within their jurisdiction, thereby inhibiting them from formally questioning the McCanns under caution(not that it would advance matters, because they have already indicated to the PJ their intent to rely on an accused's right to silence.) With regards to questioning and statements etc. the only way the British police could approach either the McCanns or their friends is on a voluntary basis ,where as with their TV and media appearances, the questions would be confined to those agreed by their lawyers. It really is a Catch 22 position which can only be resolved if the PJ manage to come up with some tangible evidence which doesn't seem likely after failing to do so over the past 7 yrs.

My personal opinion on this state of affairs is that it is perfectly acceptable to retain the position of 'it's not an accused person's job to prove their innocence, but for the police to prove their guilt.'  However, in the case of the McCanns where they are looking for public sympathy and more poignantly, asking them for money, I don't feel they are justified in hiding behind lawyers, PR spokespersons etc and refusing to answer pertinent questions relating to the disappearance of their daughter. In the aforementioned circumstances, they have an obligation to convince those of whom they ask sympathy and request financial donations to convince them of their innocence.

The McCanns are a classical example in practising the art of simultaneously having and eating one's pie.
I think there is something important in AR's statement that the investigation will be carried out 'as if it had happened in UK' (not verbatim).
To me, this would indicate that all of the above reference to catch 22 would be invalid.
It would imply that the UK police force can act accordingly, in its investigation, to its own UK investigatory practices and rules. IMO.
I do not believe that Andy Redwood chose those words very carefully without having a purposeful intention.
I also think that by 'not having the McCs as persons of interest' was as deliberate as it leaves the route open to bring them in when the time is right.  spin 
I do feel that I detected a weighty sincerity, sadness and determination in Andy Redwood's mien when he said that he wanted to find out what had happened to Madeleine.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by russiandoll on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:18 pm

Could not have worded that better, bobbin

  "I do feel that I detected a weighty sincerity, sadness and determination in Andy Redwood's mien when he said that he wanted to find out what had happened to Madeleine. "


 I was also struck by his use of the words WE ARE FIGHTING FOR MADELEINE.

 He never mentioned working very hard to return her to her family. There were no appeals to look at the age progressed picture, no appeals for anyone holding her to do the right thing. he has one focus and that is the child.

 We = the police of 2 countries imo and did not include her parents.

 Fighting is a word that brings to mind opposing sides. Why would he have that idea in his mind...who, I wonder, are the police forces' opponents?
 Imo he meant others working against the police.

 I have faith in the man.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by diatribe on Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:37 pm

@bobbin wrote:
It would imply that the UK police force can act accordingly, in its investigation, to its own UK investigatory practices and rules. IMO.

I'll agree to disagree on this matter, Bobbin, as I'm sure you'll already know this is a well trodden and discussed path. What I will however state, is that if you are correct in your assumption that the British police do in fact have the power of arrest, etc, in this matter, then they are certainly biding their time, because they haven't given any indications of even wishing to question either the McCanns or their friends, let alone arrest them in coming up to 3 yrs. of their investigation.


I also think that by 'not having the McCs as persons of interest' was as deliberate as it leaves the route open to bring them in when the time is right.  spin 

I agree, it would have been a pointless exercise to state that the McCanns were the prime objective of their investigation. However, the way in which they set their stall out on Crimewatch ie, devoting the entire programme to the pursuit of spotty complexioned characters, wannabe Sydney Cooke lookalikes, organised gangs of paedophiles etc. certainly gave the impression that they had discluded the McCanns from their investigation, unless of course it was a £700,000 exercise in lulling them into a false sense of security.

If the prime objective of the Met. police is to prove a non ransom kidnapping transpired, then by default, that would disclude the McCanns and almost certainly their friends.



diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by diatribe on Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:16 pm

@russiandoll wrote:Could not have worded that better, bobbin

  "I do feel that I detected a weighty sincerity, sadness and determination in Andy Redwood's mien when he said that he wanted to find out what had happened to Madeleine. "


 I was also struck by his use of the words WE ARE FIGHTING FOR MADELEINE.

 He never mentioned working very hard to return her to her family. There were no appeals to look at the age progressed picture, no appeals for anyone holding her to do the right thing. he has one focus and that is the child.

 We = the police of 2 countries imo and did not include her parents.

 Fighting is a word that brings to mind opposing sides. Why would he have that idea in his mind...who, I wonder, are the police forces' opponents?
 Imo he meant others working against the police.

 I have faith in the man.

I think that perhaps because of your sincere and well intentioned ideals, Russian, you may be in danger of optimistically reading into words that which isn't there. I fully appreciate that Inspector Redwood is undertaking the role of a politician as well as a policeman in this matter, but policemen don't normally engage in the noble art of semantics.

I hope at the end of the day that my pessimistic view of the Met. Police role in this matter is proved wrong and that your hopes don't transpire to be forlorn.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by russiandoll on Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:23 pm

Diatribe, let us forget semantics.

 Fighting suggests an opponent to me. Who do you think that might be?

 If we interpret the word to mean that he has a hell of a battle, it is just hard work, why do you think he chose to use this verb rather than say we are working like Trojans to find out what happened ?

 He said  " we are fighting for Madeleine. He is a policeman and I think it reasonable to assume that he was referring to Grange.

I still reckon that he knows who his opponents are, all the people who muddy the waters.


 Until I am convinced otherwise, I believe that he accepts that a little girl has no voice  and the FOR means on her behalf.
 H

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ARGUIDO STATUS

Post by diatribe on Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:53 pm

@russiandoll wrote:

 

I still reckon that he knows who his opponents are, all the people who muddy the waters.



------ and his job isn't made any easier by the fact that many of those muddying the waters are enemies within.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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