McCanns vs Amaral verdict nearing.

parapono

Thank you for the link.

I too am waiting for justice.

Angelique wrote:
I too am waiting for justice.

As is Madeleine Beth McCann, Tony Bennett, Gonçalo Amaral, Brenda Leyland, the ex-employees of MW PdL, hoteliers and B&B owners in PdL, shopkeepers in PdL
various Portuguese police who have been traduced and had their reputations besmirched, dog handlers, professional Police advisors from various places,
and even the Pope ?

PeterMac wrote:

Angelique wrote:
I too am waiting for justice.

As is Madeleine Beth McCann, Tony Bennett, Gonçalo Amaral, Brenda Leyland, the ex-employees of MW PdL, hoteliers and B&B owners in PdL, shopkeepers in PdL
various Portuguese police who have been traduced and had their reputations besmirched, dog handlers, professional Police advisors from various places,
and even the Pope ?

Don't forget to include Keela and Eddie. They were unfairly dismissed as incompetent.

An interesting viewpoint and appraisal of the current quietness...
good reading

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

HelenMeg wrote:An interesting viewpoint and appraisal of the current quietness...
good reading

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

Hi HM,

It is a good read. The last paragraph is very true in that [part quote] "...Not one of us – and that clearly includes the McCanns – has any confirmed knowledge of their thinking or their intentions. All we have is inference..."

However, using Blacksmith's own logic I don't see how the statement can be made that the McCanns have no confirmed knowledge of Grange's thinking. Surely we can all only guess whether or not the McCanns/T7 are just as in the dark as the rest of us?

That's why I consider it appropriate to still challenge the remit.  If Grange is above board and simply saying, as Blacksmith (and logic!) suggests, that unambiguous statements that the (statistically most) likely suspects are not persons of interest because of a need to avoid a media circus, then there's no harm done. We'll be knocked back (as your letter was) and that's to be expected. 

However, if Grange is not above board, then such challenges may lead to appropriate questions being asked and a corrupt investigation appropriately exposed... or someone may lose their bottle... or at the least an audit trail will be present, in years to come, of who may have been complicit in any cover up.

Logic tells me that Grange is above board and legit. However, bearing in mind what, IMO, seems to have happened back in 2007/08... and bearing in mind the published remit and the comments from DCI Redwood... I consider that a real risk exists that it is not. As a consequence, although Blacksmith (& others) make a good logical case for Grange (& of course the PJ's current work) being a bona fide investigation I'm still drafting a challenge to the letter I received from the Met following my IPCC complaint, (n.b. the same letter as TB received and posted to the forum last week).

Knitted wrote:
Logic tells me that Grange is above board and legit. However, bearing in mind what, IMO, seems to have happened back in 2007/08... and bearing in mind the published remit and the comments from DCI Redwood... I consider that a real risk exists that it is not. As a consequence, although Blacksmith (& others) make a good logical case for Grange (& of course the PJ's current work) being a bona fide investigation I'm still drafting a challenge to the letter I received from the Met following my IPCC complaint, (n.b. the same letter as TB received and posted to the forum last week).

Well done Knitted.  It's always better to have all sides covered for just in case.
No harm in putting pressure on OG to let them know they are being watched.
I'd think the authorities that received letters to review or investigate OG,  namely IPCC and London Mayor's Policing Commitee, would inform OG at a need to know stage that they were in receipt of letter requests to audit them.
Also, since you are the only one given an open avenue for follow up complaint, not using it would be waste of opportunity.  The others were given fob off or cop out excuses and cut off from taking it further.
I also happen to believe OG is a bona fide investigation but if they should come up empty handed because no evidence to proceed to Court, it would be of interest to find out what they had done so exhaustively before they came to the nothing more can be done conclusion.

aiyoyo wrote:

Knitted wrote:
Logic tells me that Grange is above board and legit. However, bearing in mind what, IMO, seems to have happened back in 2007/08... and bearing in mind the published remit and the comments from DCI Redwood... I consider that a real risk exists that it is not. As a consequence, although Blacksmith (& others) make a good logical case for Grange (& of course the PJ's current work) being a bona fide investigation I'm still drafting a challenge to the letter I received from the Met following my IPCC complaint, (n.b. the same letter as TB received and posted to the forum last week).

Well done Knitted.  It's always better to have all sides covered for just in case.
No harm in putting pressure on OG to let them know they are being watched.
I'd think the authorities that received letters to review or investigate OG,  namely IPCC and London Mayor's Policing Commitee, would inform OG at a need to know stage that they were in receipt of letter requests to audit them.
Also, since you are the only one given an open avenue for follow up complaint, not using it would be waste of opportunity.  The others were given fob off or cop out excuses and cut off from taking it further.
I also happen to believe OG is a bona fide investigation but if they should come up empty handed because no evidence to proceed to Court, it would be of interest to find out what they had done so exhaustively before they came to the nothing more can be done conclusion.

I agree and in light of all the stuff Scotland Yard has covered up in the past, I feel it appropriate.

aquila wrote:
I agree and in light of all the stuff Scotland Yard has covered up in the past, I feel it appropriate.

As do I.
If Grange is above board and has nothing to fear, nor questions to answer, then no harm can be done.
Innocence demands the right to speak.
Guilt demands the right to silence.

"And so shall it be with Grangia"

Knitted wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:An interesting viewpoint and appraisal of the current quietness...
good reading

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

Hi HM,

It is a good read. The last paragraph is very true in that [part quote] "...Not one of us – and that clearly includes the McCanns – has any confirmed knowledge of their thinking or their intentions. All we have is inference..."

However, using Blacksmith's own logic I don't see how the statement can be made that the McCanns have no confirmed knowledge of Grange's thinking. Surely we can all only guess whether or not the McCanns/T7 are just as in the dark as the rest of us?

That's why I consider it appropriate to still challenge the remit.  If Grange is above board and simply saying, as Blacksmith (and logic!) suggests, that unambiguous statements that the (statistically most) likely suspects are not persons of interest because of a need to avoid a media circus, then there's no harm done. We'll be knocked back (as your letter was) and that's to be expected. 

However, if Grange is not above board, then such challenges may lead to appropriate questions being asked and a corrupt investigation appropriately exposed... or someone may lose their bottle... or at the least an audit trail will be present, in years to come, of who may have been complicit in any cover up.

Logic tells me that Grange is above board and legit. However, bearing in mind what, IMO, seems to have happened back in 2007/08... and bearing in mind the published remit and the comments from DCI Redwood... I consider that a real risk exists that it is not. As a consequence, although Blacksmith (& others) make a good logical case for Grange (& of course the PJ's current work) being a bona fide investigation I'm still drafting a challenge to the letter I received from the Met following my IPCC complaint, (n.b. the same letter as TB received and posted to the forum last week).

and I would agree with you ..
especially as I am of the opinion that if a whitewash had been feasible and easy, this option would have been taken..in fact I think a number of attempts were made before 'they' realised that whitewashing was not going to be simple or in any way the remotest bit credible..

Lord whatsisname hiding behind insanity and getting away with what? 

Watch out, he could be doing a Pinochetty!

Hasn't the Home Office stated Madeleine and Ben cases are officially classed as Missing as there is no clear evidence pointing to abduction in either case?

snook wrote:Hasn't the Home Office stated Madeleine and Ben cases are officially classed as Missing as there is no clear evidence pointing to abduction in either case?

I would bet that Carter-Ruck are kicking themselves for using the word Abduction, rather than "missing" or "disappeared", as that word, used THREE times by Mrs Martorell permitted TB to ask his killer question
"Do you have any EVIDENCE that Madeleine was abducted ?"
To which the hapless woman, who had been working on the case for three years, or so, had to give the honest answer "NO"   And then had to follow this up with the explanation that this was merely what she had been told . . .   by the two principal suspects in the disappearance . . .

This from the woman who had, one supposes, spoken at least once, and more likely on several occasions, to the McCanns, taken their statements, checked them, re-worded them, prepared the affidavit, had it proof-read and checked over by even more senior people in the firm . . .

And they still made this basic and crass error, and blundered right into the elephant trap.
Notable that since then they have been VERY quiet.  
So either the McCanns have not forgiven them for publicly and on the record in the High Court of England exposing the lack of evidence of Abduction,
or they have not forgiven the McCanns for putting a senior lawyer from one of the most famous legal firms in the world in such a "ludicrous' and untenable position

No amount of legal speak could cover for the lack of evidence.

Carter Ruck silenced for a moment in time.

A small victory but at a price for TB.

Angelique wrote:No amount of legal speak could cover for the lack of evidence.
Carter Ruck silenced for a moment in time.
A small victory but at a price for TB.

indeed, but his price was suddenly and inexplicably reduced from a third of a million which was the - perfectly legal - Threat, to a third of his Old Age Pension for the rest of his life.
Did they think the Taxing Master might take a dim view . . . ?

What to me is astonishing is that they had the gall, the effrontery, the impertinence, and in plain English the dishonesty, to try it on in the first place.
If TB had not been on the ball he might have missed the opportunity to ask that question, the moment would have passed, and the record in the High Court would say "Abduction"
As it is the record is very clear
There is NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION
Their own tame highly paid lawyers, from one of the best, and certainly the most feared firms in the entire WORLD, said so.

There is NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION

There is NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION

There is NO EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION

One of these days, pretty soon, Dona Castro y Melo will confirm this indirectly, and Alison Saunders's boys -no longer AR/SY but now AS/SY- will see no other option than to confirm it. In plain language. And then the PJ. And then the MBM. And then the Coroner. And then...

Curtains

And, AND, CR, one of the world's most 'expensive' law firms, is 'supposedly' doing all 'work' for McCann's PRO-BONO, FREE, GRATIS, FOR NO RENUMERATION, NOT A PENNY!

IN THEIR (CR) 'SPARE TIME, AFTER HOURS'!

Now WHY would CR be 'doing that'?

jeanmonroe wrote:And, AND, CR, one of the world's most 'expensive' law firms, is 'supposedly' doing all 'work' for McCann's PRO-BONO, FREE, GRATIS, FOR NO RENUMERATION, NOT A PENNY!
IN THEIR (CR) 'SPARE TIME, AFTER HOURS'!
Now WHY would CR be 'doing that'?

Sorry, but if you believe that, then I have a lovely old Victorian Bascule operated bridge to sell you ! ! !

Whaaaat a major law firm doing all that work for free after hours in their spare time????????

Most peeps would be asking for double time I would have thought.

[quote="jeanmonroe"]And, AND, CR, one of the world's most 'expensive' law firms, is 'supposedly' doing all 'work' for McCann's PRO-BONO, FREE, GRATIS, FOR NO RENUMERATION, NOT A PENNY!

IN THEIR (CR) 'SPARE TIME, AFTER HOURS'!

Now WHY would CR be 'doing that'?[/quote]

What DID they do?

Scare TB out of his well-earned pension, yes. But what else?

Can't think of anything

Can you?

Compo from the newspapers - big payouts.  

Suspended prison sentence for TB.  

All for free??????

PeterMac wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:And, AND, CR, one of the world's most 'expensive' law firms, is 'supposedly' doing all 'work' for McCann's PRO-BONO, FREE, GRATIS, FOR NO RENUMERATION, NOT A PENNY!
IN THEIR (CR) 'SPARE TIME, AFTER HOURS'!
Now WHY would CR be 'doing that'?

Sorry, but if you believe that, then I have a lovely old Victorian Bascule operated bridge to sell you ! ! !

How much?

20th April - surprised that the verdict has not been communicated yet.  There appears to differing thoughts about whether the verdict will be read in Court before being issued in written statements to the two parties.  Whatever, it is taking a while although I guess we had Easter interruption.  I'm wondering whether anything could have stalled it. I believe the Election may well stall progress for Operation Grange. It shouldn't but it probably will ... mainly because DC will be busy with Election and he ultimately will be in the loop for O Grange.

To be quite frank, this must be the longest case of it's type I've ever come across, with the exception of the Chilcott report. What on earth is holding back the result? Unless both parties are already privy to the result and for reasons only known to them they have been instructed to hold back against going public. Can't think of anything else.

Maybe this is quite normal for Portugal. Maybe there is a backlog following Easter break.
Maybe the result has implications which must be assessed prior to any announcement.

Maybe the result affects the investigation  - for instance if the M c Canns are awarded even a small amount of damages could this have an impact on any investigation ? Likewise with
a verdict of no damages awarded. Who knows - but it is certainly taking what seems to be an unnecessary amount of time.

Hopefully it is for a good reason

The last news we had was of the meeting in Portugal with UK and Potuguese police, the Attorney General, etc. I'm wondering if this delay has anything to do with that? Some sort of agreement to hold back the verdict for some reason?

I vaguely remember some commentary that there were 3 females in Portugal with relation to the Mc Cann case - who were determined to get to the bottom of things.

I can remember who they were but they held quite key positions...  it may or may not be relevant - will see if I can find the article.

What I AM GETTING at is that if the three women are linked across legal / courts / police then the suggestion that the court may have been asked to delay the verdict may me quite
right ....

will dig

Here is one of the key females:
 Courtesy of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A new Portuguese prosecutor has been charged with solving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seven years after the British child vanished from her holiday apartment.
Ines Sequeira will lead the investigation into the case as Scotland Yard prepares to return to Praia da Luz to 're-interview' three suspects.
Ms Sequeira is said to be 'utterly determined' to solve the case, bringing fresh hope to the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann. 
'Ines is still trying to get her feet under the table and is having to be briefed on scores of cases including Madeleine’s,' a source close to the investigation said.
'But she has been appointed as the new prosecutor and the Scotland Yard team has been given renewed hope of being able to start work again in Portugal before the end of the month.
'Ms Sequeira is one of the sharpest and most ambitious prosecutors in Portugal. 
'She is utterly determined to get a result on the Madeleine inquiry.'
It comes after British police sent a fifth letter to Portuguese officers requesting access to the investigation.
'They’re banking on this new meeting with Portuguese police being their chance to argue their case face-to-face,' the source added. 
'Ines will obviously take the final decision on the letter but she’ll consult the police chiefs on the Algarve before making her mind up.'

Aha ! I found it:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Hope for Maddie? The 3 women who could solve riddle of Madeleine McCann's disappearance

THREE women are the key players in determining whether Scotland Yard's costly Madeleine McCann investigation will succeed or fail.

The trio hold top positions in the Portuguese judiciary and police and all have privately vowed to do everything in their powers to discover the fate of Madeleine and bring those responsible to justice.

For the first time in years all the vital departments are working in tandem, which is a major relief to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who heads the Yard's Operation Grange team trying to solve the seven-year riddle.

Ines Sequeira, the chief state prosecutor covering Praia da Luz where Madeleine vanished in May 2007, and the one with the most power, has given the case priority status.

The 49-year-old mother of four high flier is a breath of fresh air in the department.

She has instructed her team to let nothing stand in the way of bring a successful conclusion to the investigations.

She is based in a huge office in the grand marble-clad court house in Portimao, a large coastal town some 12 miles from Luz on the Algarve.

It will be she who decides on whether to prosecute or not.

Slim and stylishly dressed Ms Sequeira trained in Lisbon, where she is believed to have met her husband, now a judge.

She was the main prosecutor in the town of Silves, 10 miles from Portimao for years, working on robberies, murders, sex offences and assaults.

A colleague said: "She quickly built up a very good reputation in Silves, particularly with her work on homicides.

"She is very precise and demands high standards.

"She can see mistakes before others realise their significance and weeds them out.

"No one was surprised she won promotion.

"She likes to work away from the spotlight, quietly and methodically in her office."

She works with Ana Paulo Rito, the criminal co-ordinator of the Policia Judiciaria in Portimao, the role once taken by Goncalo Amaral, who is now locked in a libel action with Kate and Gerry McCann over his claims that Madeleine died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club.

A legal source said: "Both women are clear thinking, driven, hard-working and utterly determined to do whatever they can to solve the case.

"They have brought fresh minds to the case and have similar character traits with no big egos and a quiet and efficient work ethic.

"They are both ambitious and career minded and they want results without cutting any corners.

"Both are quite new in their positions and they want to prove themselves and bring pride to their departments."

The third woman is Ms Helen Monteiro, who leads the Portuguese detectives' review of the case in Porto in the north of the country.

Work by her team has greatly helped the Yard in their efforts to finally solve Madeleine's disappearance.

Three Algarve men have been given arguido or suspect status and the Yard wants to speak to them further.

Last week there was clear evidence of the new spirit of cooperation with an unprecedented meeting about potentially case breaking DNA material from the flat where Madeleine McCann was taken. 

Hairs found inside the apartment have not been matched to any of the people who were known to have entered the property before or after Madeleine vanished aged nearly four in May 2007.

So now they are set to be examined in Britain or Portugal in the coming months.

Francisco Brizida, Portugal's leading expert in forensic science, last week told Yard officers that curtain fabric, potentially harbouring DNA samples, is also available for testing.

Four women, if you count DCI Wall.

aiyoyo wrote:Four women, if you count DCI Wall.

FIVE! if you 'include' a rather 'perceptive' judge @ libel 'case'.

With no 'time' for sufference from a SIXTH, rather 'unhelpful' and 'un-cooperative', female?