This just gone on to Daily Mail.

aiyoyo wrote:
I don't understand when the 30-days was supposed to take effect from, or why it has been dragged on until now since this was first mentioned on 1 June 2014 that the Mcs had to obtain it.
 

After that hearing is completed, the proceedings will be suspended for 30 days. During that period, Madeleine’s parents “shall arrange for the collection and documentation in the records of the British Court’s authorization for the bringing of this action on behalf of the minor Madeleine McCann”. If they fail to do so, the defendants will be “acquitted of the proceedings concerning the requests that have been formulated on behalf of the latter”.

The judge has proposed the date of 16th June for the final session, but each of the lawyers involved have the possibility of declining said date and suggesting alternative dates.

Ladyinred wrote:Good to read the rags have dropped the "disgraced" over the past few days.  Things are changing...

woodforthetrees wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Good to read the rags have dropped the "disgraced" over the past few days.  Things are changing...

Only in a media coverage aspect, i.e they are being cautious not to libel Amaral at the moment, they don't want any more embarrassing payouts.

In an ideal world it would be great to be thinking "this must mean that Amaral was right with his theory, SY will crumble, then agree and the McCanns will subsequently be found guilty" but in the real world, the only thing that this changes is that they don't get their hands on the £1m and Amaral can continue to sell his book, which may sway more public opinion.

SY have not and will not be pursuing the McCanns as supects. The only hope of this is if the Portuguese police find new evidence against them to bring them back in, but as yet, this hasn't happened.

Unfortunately.

ScarletLaw wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Good to read the rags have dropped the "disgraced" over the past few days.  Things are changing...

Only in a media coverage aspect, i.e they are being cautious not to libel Amaral at the moment, they don't want any more embarrassing payouts.

In an ideal world it would be great to be thinking "this must mean that Amaral was right with his theory, SY will crumble, then agree and the McCanns will subsequently be found guilty" but in the real world, the only thing that this changes is that they don't get their hands on the £1m and Amaral can continue to sell his book, which may sway more public opinion.

SY have not and will not be pursuing the McCanns as supects. The only hope of this is if the Portuguese police find new evidence against them to bring them back in, but as yet, this hasn't happened.

Unfortunately.

I read somewhere that the new Portugese investigation is not pursuing the McCanns as suspects and I feel with political influence that has happened behind the scenes, nothing will happen there. I think this will be like Diana; a case where we all know what happened, and there will be lots of books and documentaries with various theories but Scotland Yard will cover it up and not bring a case against them. I am hoping though investigative journalists from one of the broad sheets might go for it one day because it is a story that people can make a career on. I noticed on the Mail they're letting the avoidance of a lie detection test comments come through and there was someone mentioning that Kate refused to help with the questioning though, and that gives me a glimmer of hope that things are changing a little because up to now they've suppressed these coming on.

endgame wrote:It may well be that the court has already made a decision [it wouldn't be public] and the Mcs have not owned up or that the court cannot simply transfer the ability to act on Madeleine's behalf and would have to become a joint party to the action themselves [and they not the Mcs would receive any money paid for M!]. In which case they would become liable to costs and all kinds of other consequences. If they have spent more than 5 minutes looking at the case and have a half a brain cell, they would have opted out long ago.

What I don't understand is why the judge apparently keeps giving them 30 days. IIRC this is the third time they have been given the 30 days. If they failed first time, the Madeleine element should have automatically been struck out unless there were serious extenuating circumstances.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Good to read the rags have dropped the "disgraced" over the past few days.  Things are changing...

Only in a media coverage aspect, i.e they are being cautious not to libel Amaral at the moment, they don't want any more embarrassing payouts.

In an ideal world it would be great to be thinking "this must mean that Amaral was right with his theory, SY will crumble, then agree and the McCanns will subsequently be found guilty" but in the real world, the only thing that this changes is that they don't get their hands on the £1m and Amaral can continue to sell his book, which may sway more public opinion.

SY have not and will not be pursuing the McCanns as supects. The only hope of this is if the Portuguese police find new evidence against them to bring them back in, but as yet, this hasn't happened.

Unfortunately.

I read somewhere that the new Portugese investigation is not pursuing the McCanns as suspects and I feel with political influence that has happened behind the scenes, nothing will happen there. I think this will be like Diana; a case where we all know what happened, and there will be lots of books and documentaries with various theories but Scotland Yard will cover it up and not bring a case against them. I am hoping though investigative journalists from one of the broad sheets might go for it one day because it is a story that people can make a career on. I noticed on the Mail they're letting the avoidance of a lie detection test comments come through and there was someone mentioning that Kate refused to help with the questioning though, and that gives me a glimmer of hope that things are changing a little because up to now they've suppressed these coming on.

IMO the only political influence/help has been to cover up the neglect from the McCanns and the tapas group. If the gvt or senior police officials wanted to close it down to turn off the spotlight, they would have done so a long time ago, not dragged it out. Something (of which we do not know, other than keeping OG staff in jobs) is keeping the investigation going.

Even an investigative journalist can't turn the tables on this. The only things that can are:

- Confession by the guilty suspect
- Madeleine's body discovered which gives away DNA clues
- An ex OG/SY person provides the public with whatever incriminating evidence they have in their internal case files (which justify the on-going search for the perp).

I agree, it will never get 'closed', there are too many people/mistakes/theories and subsequent dodgy activities that happened post event that need covering up for everyone. It's simply too big to clean up. This is regardless of who is guilty of the crime that should be being focused on... who killed and took Madeleine from the apartment.

Doug D wrote:Isn’t it good to read the bollocks in The Mail:
 
‘the disgraced former detective’
 
‘Portuguese papers signalled the outcome of last Wednesday’s hearing as a positive one for heart specialist Gerry and Kate moments after it finished.
But as the full findings became apparent they changed their tune to portray the judge’s rulings as a slap in the face for the couple.’
 
Clearly not the reliable English papers though (duh! Express?) And it’s the papers that are blamed for the story, when we are reliably informed by Anne Guedes that there were no reporters in Court and the three 'outside' people in the courtroom were not given direct access to the Judges ‘facts’.
 
‘No date has been set yet for the final judgement in the libel case. The judgement will be read out in court before being released in writing on the same day.
A source close to the McCanns said last night: ‘We expect it to be ready for next month.’
 
CM not in complete hiding then!


eta. Just re-reading:

'The judgement will be read out in court before being released in writing on the same day.'


I don't think that's right either.

aiyoyo wrote:Not only that.  The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings?  Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.

sammyc wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Apologies if this has already been posted, I have been having a quick look through different topics and haven't seen it yet.

Joss wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Not only that.  The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings?  Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.

So would the correct term for the Trial be specifically a "Damages Trial"? For any pain & suffering to the McC's because of the book & Documentary? Surely they must of known as parents of a missing child that the police would investigate them first to rule out any foul play by the parents? This is usually what happens in most missing child cases to my knowledge. And as to who last saw the child alive. Investigators can only go by forensic and other evidence they have to try and decipher what could possibly have happened. And most high profile cases of missing children have a cloak of suspicion on the parents, until more information is revealed to possibly rule them out. And most innocent parents would do all in their power to help the police and investigating authorities to help locate their child, not hinder an investigation and sue a lead investigator in their case that was there to help them.
But i think as we all know by now everything the McC's have done appears to be for their own reputation and name, first & foremost, and shut anyone up that sees them in a negative way. And what does that say about them as parents of a missing child? Not much, IMO.

j.rob wrote:In March 2014 Scotland Yard announced that a lone intruder sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006. The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls.
The four incidents, one of which involved two girls, were among 12 in which men had entered holiday accommodation in the area, including two incidents in Praia da Luz. The force also said it was looking at 38 “people of interest” and were researching the backgrounds of 530 known sex offenders, including 59 regarded as high interest
-----
Where are the press reports of this? Surely it would have received press coverage?


"The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls." What an odd sentence. Given that the proceeding sentence makes it clear that this same man was a lone intruder who sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 years old.  Why the need to state that his interest in young white girls was "very, very unhealthy." Surely this is self-evident. 

ScarletLaw wrote:

j.rob wrote:In March 2014 Scotland Yard announced that a lone intruder sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006. The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls.
The four incidents, one of which involved two girls, were among 12 in which men had entered holiday accommodation in the area, including two incidents in Praia da Luz. The force also said it was looking at 38 “people of interest” and were researching the backgrounds of 530 known sex offenders, including 59 regarded as high interest
-----
Where are the press reports of this? Surely it would have received press coverage?


"The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls." What an odd sentence. Given that the proceeding sentence makes it clear that this same man was a lone intruder who sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 years old.  Why the need to state that his interest in young white girls was "very, very unhealthy." Surely this is self-evident. 

Where's this from?

ScarletLaw wrote:

Joss wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Not only that.  The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings?  Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.

So would the correct term for the Trial be specifically a "Damages Trial"? For any pain & suffering to the McC's because of the book & Documentary? Surely they must of known as parents of a missing child that the police would investigate them first to rule out any foul play by the parents? This is usually what happens in most missing child cases to my knowledge. And as to who last saw the child alive. Investigators can only go by forensic and other evidence they have to try and decipher what could possibly have happened. And most high profile cases of missing children have a cloak of suspicion on the parents, until more information is revealed to possibly rule them out. And most innocent parents would do all in their power to help the police and investigating authorities to help locate their child, not hinder an investigation and sue a lead investigator in their case that was there to help them.
But i think as we all know by now everything the McC's have done appears to be for their own reputation and name, first & foremost, and shut anyone up that sees them in a negative way. And what does that say about them as parents of a missing child? Not much, IMO.

 This is from 2013 Joss in statistics. In the vast majority of cases, children who are homicide victims are killed by a parent. Figures from England and Wales over the last decade, on average around 70% of child homicides where there was a suspect were committed by a parent.
Just over 16% were committed by another family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, while the remaining 15% were committed by strangers (figures are rounded). Around one in 165,000 children aged one to four are killed each year out of statistics.

 So for the McCanns not to be looked at would be severe negligence on Amarals part because there's a large difference between 70 and 15%.

j.rob wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

j.rob wrote:In March 2014 Scotland Yard announced that a lone intruder sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006. The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls.
The four incidents, one of which involved two girls, were among 12 in which men had entered holiday accommodation in the area, including two incidents in Praia da Luz. The force also said it was looking at 38 “people of interest” and were researching the backgrounds of 530 known sex offenders, including 59 regarded as high interest
-----
Where are the press reports of this? Surely it would have received press coverage?


"The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls." What an odd sentence. Given that the proceeding sentence makes it clear that this same man was a lone intruder who sexually assaulted five girls aged between seven and 10 years old.  Why the need to state that his interest in young white girls was "very, very unhealthy." Surely this is self-evident. 

Where's this from?

Several paragraphs from the end of the article:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

j.rob wrote:"The man, who has never been caught, was said to have a “very, very unhealthy interest” in young white girls."


-------


Didn't the Gaspers - or at least Mrs Gasper - reach a conclusion a bit similar to this with regard to David Payne? 


“I remember thinking whether he would look at my daughter and other little girls in a different way than I or others do. I imagined that he had perhaps visited internet sites related to little children. In a word, I thought that he could be interested in child pornography on the web. During our holiday in Majorca, each parent would bath the children in turn. I was keen to stay near the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children. I remember I said to Savio to be careful and to be close by if Dave was helping to bathe the children and my daughter in particular. I did this [stay hear the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children] quite obviously because hearing what he said had troubled me and I didn’t trust him bathing ‘A’ [our first child].

“When I heard Dave say this for the second time, it reinforced what I had already been thinking concerning his thoughts about little girls. 


“The first time I heard the terrible news regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the radio, my thoughts raced immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holiday with the McCanns in Portugal, but he didn’t know. I watched TV to catch the coverage of the news and eventually discovered that Dave was there with the McCanns.

“Then I saw him on TV a few days after Madeleine disappeared. I therefore believed that he was on holiday with the McCanns in Portugal. 







[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

j.rob wrote:And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May. Which he claims not to remember having made late that evening.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

j.rob wrote:And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May. Which he claims not to remember having made late that evening.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joss wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

Joss wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Not only that.  The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings?  Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.

So would the correct term for the Trial be specifically a "Damages Trial"? For any pain & suffering to the McC's because of the book & Documentary? Surely they must of known as parents of a missing child that the police would investigate them first to rule out any foul play by the parents? This is usually what happens in most missing child cases to my knowledge. And as to who last saw the child alive. Investigators can only go by forensic and other evidence they have to try and decipher what could possibly have happened. And most high profile cases of missing children have a cloak of suspicion on the parents, until more information is revealed to possibly rule them out. And most innocent parents would do all in their power to help the police and investigating authorities to help locate their child, not hinder an investigation and sue a lead investigator in their case that was there to help them.
But i think as we all know by now everything the McC's have done appears to be for their own reputation and name, first & foremost, and shut anyone up that sees them in a negative way. And what does that say about them as parents of a missing child? Not much, IMO.

 This is from 2013 Joss in statistics. In the vast majority of cases, children who are homicide victims are killed by a parent. Figures from England and Wales over the last decade, on average around 70% of child homicides where there was a suspect were committed by a parent.
Just over 16% were committed by another family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, while the remaining 15% were committed by strangers (figures are rounded). Around one in 165,000 children aged one to four are killed each year out of statistics.

 So for the McCanns not to be looked at would be severe negligence on Amarals part because there's a large difference between 70 and 15%.

Thanks for the info. ScarletLaw. Yes most of those cases involve a parent/s, or another family member. Wow that's a phenomenal amount of children that die each year. It's like a damn epedemic actually. Poor babies.
 And yes,  Mr. Amaral was just doing his job as an investigator on the case. The McC's should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they have caused IMO.