**updated** Appeal rejected. McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court's decision

The NHS is a public organisation employer.It should abide by normal safeguarding procedures.When an allegation is made against an employee...and the findings of both the PJ investigation and now the Supreme Court have done just that....the normal procedure is to suspend the employee in order to protect all parties until an investigation is completed by the employer.It does not infer either guilt or innocence.That is for the investigation to determine.

Dr What wrote:The NHS is a public organisation employer.It should abide by normal safeguarding procedures.When an allegation is made against an employee...and the findings of both the PJ investigation and now the Supreme Court have done just that....the normal procedure is to suspend the employee in order to protect all parties until an investigation is completed by the employer.It does not infer either guilt or innocence.That is for the investigation to determine.

From my dealings with the NHS and the GMC, when the McCanns were made arguidos, their responses have been that the McCanns have a "right to employment".

That's despite an article in The Independent dating back to 27 February 2000, which stated "Mr Milburn has told the GMC it has the power to suspend GPs when they are under police investigation, but the GMC is prevaricating."

"Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary, has privately made plain he wants the GMC to carry out a shake-up of its disciplinary procedures to regain the public confidence that was shattered by the disclosures in the Shipman case."


Dear Ms Havern,

In my first email I said that we cannot investigate criminal matters, not that we cannot take action while there is a police investigation ongoing. In the matter of your complaint, we have considered the information you have provided and have decided not to take any further action. We have forwarded your complaint to Leicestershire Constabulary as they are the relevant agency to consider your information.

We have explained our position in previous correspondence and that position has not changed. We will therefore not engage in further correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Laura Sugrue
Investigation Officer
Fitness to Practise Directorate
Direct Dial: 0161 923 6577
Fax No: 0161 923 6578
Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's another letter:

Dear Ms Havern,

Thank you for your email of 22nd October 2008.

We cannot confirm the exact status of the Leicestershire Constabulary investigation as that is a police matter, you would need to contact them directly. They are still accepting information in relation to the matter. However, regardless of what stage their investigation is at, we cannot investigate the criminal matters you refer to as that is the role of the police. This includes the witness statements made to the police alleging the use of “lewd and inappropriate” gestures. If a criminal justice system, in this country or another, convicts any doctor of a criminal offence, then we will take action as appropriate.

Our Fitness to Practise procedures focus on the most serious concerns, which call into question a doctor’s fitness to practise medicine and right to retain unrestricted registration – that is his or her right to work. In many cases, concerns about a doctor can best be considered at a local level, by the doctor’s employer. We note you have already raised these concerns with Dr McCann’s employer.

Dr McCann’s actions following the disappearance of his daughter are not a matter which is related to his professional capability and fitness to practise. We are therefore unable to take action on your concerns.

If you choose to return the consent form, we will send your emails to Leicestershire Constabulary. If you do not return the consent form then we will not contact them with your concerns. If we do not hear from you by 28th October we will take no further action.

Yours sincerely

Laura Sugrue

Investigation Officer

Fitness to Practise Directorate

Direct Dial: 0161 923 6577

Fax No: 0161 923 6578


From the GMC's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

25 You must safeguard and protect the health and well-being of children and young people.

56 Probity means being honest and trustworthy, and acting with integrity: this is at the heart of medical professionalism.

57 You must make sure that your conduct at all times justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.

58 You must inform the GMC without delay if, anywhere in the world, you have accepted a caution, been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence, or if another professional body has made a finding against your registration as a result of fitness to practise procedures.

Pais de Maddie McCann sofrem nova derrota contra polícia portuguesa
Kate e Gerry McCann perderam o terceiro e último processo judicial, em que tentavam silenciar um policial de Portugal.
Kate e Gerry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] perderam o terceiro e último processo judicial, em que estavam tentando silenciar um policial que afirma que[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. 'Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira' é um livro escrito por Gonçalo Amaral, o policial que liderou o início das buscas por Madeleine McCann, depois que ela desapareceu de um apartamento em Portugal, em maio de 2007. Os pais da menina tentaram impedir a venda do livro, acusando o português de difamação, mas um juiz da corte suprema decidiu em favor do detetive, sustentando o que chamou de "seu direito à liberdade de expressão".
Não há um tribunal superior em Portugal, o que significa que os McCann gastaram todas as suas opções e não podem mais atrasar a venda do referido livro. No livro, Gonçalo Amaral, ex-chefe da polícia judiciária portuguesa, afirma que os McCann fingiram o rapto de sua filha. O casal havia saído para jantar com amigos, deixando Maddie, de três anos, com os irmãos mais novos, no apartamento de férias, no Algarve. No regresso, eles teriam inventado a história do desaparecimento da menina, para encobrir a sua morte dentro do apartamento.






Quando a polícia inglesa ficou liderando a investigação, Gonçalo Amaral escreveu o livro, em 2008, onde expôs a sua tese sobre o caso, tendo por base a sua investigação. Os McCann acreditam que esse livro prejudicou a investigação, com 'falsos argumentos', e chegaram mesmo a pedir uma indenização de mais de 500 mil dólares. Porém, suas acusações têm caído todas e, Amaral não só não vai pagar indenização alguma, como ainda vai voltar a vender o seu livro.
A #[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] está cada vez mais 'apertando' os McCann. No início deste ano, o tribunal português afirmou que os pais não foram acusados, mas isso não significava que eles fossem inocentes neste caso. E, na semana passada, o policial Moita Flores, especialista criminal, declarou que a menina "morreu no apartamento", enquanto que, na Inglaterra,[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] de terem deixado três crianças, com menos de quatro anos, sozinhos em um apartamento.
Entretanto, vários ingleses criaram uma petição online que já[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]para que Gerry e Kate McCann sejam julgados, por abandono. Em Portugal, ficou declarado que eles não foram acusados, em 2007, "por compaixão", perante um cenário de uns pais que haviam acabado de perder sua filha.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

GOOGLE TRANSLATION

 

Maddie McCann's parents suffer new defeat against Portuguese police

Kate and Gerry McCann lost the third and final court case in which they tried to silence a police officer from Portugal.

Kate and Gerry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] lost their third and final lawsuit, in which they were trying to silence a police officer who claims the couple pretended to disappear their daughter, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie' is a book written by Gonçalo Amaral, the policeman who led the search for Madeleine McCann after she disappeared from an apartment in Portugal in May 2007. The girl's parents tried to prevent Selling the book, accusing the Portuguese of defamation, but a supreme court judge ruled in favor of the detective, upholding what he called "his right to freedom of expression."

There is no higher court in Portugal, which means that the McCanns have spent all their options and can no longer delay selling the book. In the book, Gonçalo Amaral, former head of the Portuguese judicial police, says the McCanns pretended to be kidnapped. The couple had gone out to dinner with friends, leaving three-year-old Maddie with their younger siblings at the holiday apartment in the Algarve. On their return, they would have invented the story of the girl's disappearance, to cover up her death inside the apartment.

 
When the British police led the investigation, Gonçalo Amaral wrote the book in 2008, where he presented his thesis on the case, based on his investigation. The McCanns believe that this book undermined the investigation, with "false arguments," and even claimed more than $ 500,000 in damages. However, his accusations have all fallen and Amaral not only will not pay any compensation, but will still sell his book again.

# Justice is increasingly 'squeezing' the McCanns. Earlier this year, the Portuguese court stated that the parents were not charged, but that did not mean they were innocent in this case. And last week police officer Moita Flores, a criminal expert, said the girl "died in the apartment," while in England Katie Hopkins said on TV that parents should be convicted of "negligence" of having left three Children under the age of four, alone in an apartment.

Meanwhile, several Englishmen have created an online petition that already has thousands of signatures for Gerry and Kate McCann to be tried for abandonment. In Portugal, it was stated that they were not charged in 2007, "out of compassion," against a backdrop of parents who had just lost their daughter.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

Dr What wrote:Gven that the Supreme Court judgement has now been released stating that Prosecutors had not managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the McCanns and that they have not been declared innocent, shouldn't the NHS take steps to protect members of the public who may come into contact with McCann?

No, because they haven't been declared guilty either. Amusing though it would be...

Have the McCanns made any comment on the latest development? The only reference I can find is in the Express, but they quote the McCanns as saying 'It is obviously extremely disappointing' - that's exactly word-for-word what they said after they received the original appeal ruling, so I think the dear old Express may have got its knickers in a muddle there.

'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'

An interesting choice of words.
It does not say there was NO indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants, only that it was not possible to obtain ENOUGH indications of the practice of crimes.

This would indicate there was evidence to implicate the mccanns in the practice of crimes although it is not said what crimes.
The implication is the crimes of which Dr. Amaral has stated:
Homicide
Concealment of a corpse
Filing a false police report.

Given that in almost 10 years there has been not one iota of evidence to prove there was abduction apart from the say so of the mccanns  (and tapas 7)
The alleged sighting by tanner which was discredited and then ruled out completely by The Met.

There is however actual physical evidence  that something happened in 5a to Maddie which resulted in blood loss.
There is also the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs Keela and Eddie who have never been wrong, in the apartment in places behind the sofa and in the parents bedroom, items of clothing belonging to kate, a childs red t shirt and the infamous cuddlecat and also to the hire car hired and used by the mccanns 3 weeks after Maddie was allegedly abducted.
There is also physical evidence of body fluids in the hire car belonging to Maddie which should not have been in there.
Evidence which was blamed on rotting meat, dirty diapers, sweaty sandals and so on and then latterly and perjuratively denied by kate in the Leveson Inquiry.

We also have the admissions by both kate and gerry that Maddie is dead, words spoken using the process of free editing, including kate introducing the word Murder and gerry telling us "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.
What I want to know is, who told them all that?"

His own words leak the truth.
He doesn't deny it, instead he wants to know who leaked the truth, who spoke out.

They are liable for a bucket load of legal fees, their own for all the suits they brought plus that of those they sued, 6 figure sums at a minimum.
Would their expensive UK lawyers do all that work for nothing?
Would it be no win no fee?

Any reputable lawyer would be doing checks and interviews with their client to learn the truth, did their client do what is alleged or not. This is done so they know how to proceed with the case, whether to let their client take the stand (not reccommended if their client is guilty)
Even to whether they will be getting paid or not, if they think the publicity gained will be worth more than a fee.

Would carter-ruck take on such a high profile case where all the evidence points to the mccanns guilt for free?
If so did they take on only certain parts of the case?
They won round one and then lost subsequently, would their lawyers have said "Look you cannot possibly win. You can appeal but you will lose all the way to the Supreme Court. If you persist then we will have to charge you our normal fees"

Did the mccanns have to pay out installments for each stage of the case and their subsequent appeals repayable if they won?

It could be interesting if the mccanns cannot pay their legal fees as to which lawyers get priority.
Will they have to come up with a payment plan for their own lawyers?

What happens when they have to pay the legal costs of Dr. Amaral and others?

Will the mccanns declare themselves bankrupt in an effort to keep what they have?
If so what happens to the fund?

Since the fund is not a charity and we have been told the fund is being used for legal expenses does this mean the fund will be used to pay all that the mccanns owe and will then be closed?

We have also been told that some £500,000 has been converted to fixed assets, what does this mean?
Could this be the house?

What happens if Dr. Amaral sues the mccanns for damages?
Given what is already known would their lawyers expect part payments before taking on the case?
Would they qualify for legal aid given that they have the fund and a house?

My concern now is that kate will become really unstable.
She told us she wanted to press a button and it would all be over.
Now they have nowhere left to go.
Everything they worked for, she worked for has come crashing down.
Not only have they lost their lawsuits with the consequences that ensue, they are still in the same situation they were in the night they claimed Maddie had been abducted.

After 10 years work of litigation and threats to sue, spin doctoring, all the interviews and statements, the book and the mockumentary, the threats of prosecution for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report still hangs over their head.
Despite eveything they have said and done, it is the PJ that will arrest them and prosecute them since the crime took place in Portugal.

They also have the fear that the Met will charge them in elation to the fund.
Once they are prosecuted for involvement in Maddie's death and disposal, this makes the fund fraudulent since they knew Maddie was dead.
Out of one cell and into another.

They could then face suits from those they sued or those who settled out of court.

They also need to fear the wrath of their supporters who will be furious they were taken in, conned, made to look fools.
All those who supported them to the exclusion of everything else, who believed with all their heart the mccanns were telling the truth will be raging that they were made to look foolish, to look gullible.
It is those people whom the mccanns need to beware of.

When i look at what is to come for the mccanns, their downfall, i fear for the safety of the twins.
The house must be a tinderbox as kate rages against the man she tried to destroy only to have her attempts blocked or denied.
Her anger has to go somewhere and she has forewarned us of
her possible intent.
She now has nothing to lose.

Hobbs wrote:We also have the admissions by both kate and gerry that Maddie is dead, words spoken using the process of free editing, including kate introducing the word Murder and gerry telling us "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.
What I want to know is, who told them all that?"

His own words leak the truth.
He doesn't deny it, instead he wants to know who leaked the truth, who spoke out.

Sorry Hobbs, this is "statement analysis" at it's worst.

You've just read what you want to read into that.

Why didn't you offer the full context.

The article says this prior to the above.

Mirror wrote:
THE SLURS


Portuguese newspapers launched a hate campaign against the McCanns and police accused them of unspeakable acts.
Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.
What I want to know is, who told them all

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

In context what Gerry says fits. I've followed this case from the beginning and "the slurs" were there from early on. Gerry is repeating them.

I hate "statement analysis", it's mostly cherry picking and confirmaton bias.

BlueBag wrote:

Hobbs wrote:We also have the admissions by both kate and gerry that Maddie is dead, words spoken using the process of free editing, including kate introducing the word Murder and gerry telling us "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.
What I want to know is, who told them all that?"

His own words leak the truth.
He doesn't deny it, instead he wants to know who leaked the truth, who spoke out.

Sorry Hobbs, this is "statement analysis" at it's worst.

You've just read what you want to read into that.

Why didn't you offer the full context.

The article says this prior to the above.

Mirror wrote:
THE SLURS


Portuguese newspapers launched a hate campaign against the McCanns and police accused them of unspeakable acts.
Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.
What I want to know is, who told them all

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

In context what Gerry says fits. I've followed this case from the beginning and "the slurs" were there from early on. Gerry is repeating them.

I hate "statement analysis", it's mostly cherry picking and confirmaton biasI

in this instance, Gerry was clearly quoting others. However, used properly, I am sure that Statement Analysis can be very revealing.

I am sure that Statement Analysis can be very revealing.

It's subjective, open to multiple interpretation and bias.

BlueBag wrote:

I am sure that Statement Analysis can be very revealing.

It's subjective, open to multiple interpretation and bias.

That is probably true of most evidence gathering methods. In helping to build a picture of what really happened in a case, surely the words that come out of suspects' mouths have to be significant. Whatever is on someone's mind and in their heart will be revealed by their words.

Cmaryholmes wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

I am sure that Statement Analysis can be very revealing.

It's subjective, open to multiple interpretation and bias.

That is probably true of most evidence gathering methods. In helping to build a picture of what really happened in a case, surely the words that come out of suspects' mouths have to be significant. Whatever is on someone's mind and in their heart will be revealed by their words.

It can be helpful on the understanding that it is subjective and could be wrong. However if it leads to corroborating evidence then great.

Plucking statements out of context as "leaked truth" is a million miles from being useful. 

People are watching and we need to be careful about stated truths.

This is the last time I am going to post this - I like to think I know what I would do if I were in this situation of possibly being declared bankrupt.

To save my family and all I had worked for I would take a lie detector and get back to Portugal to do a reconstruction of the events that took place that terrible night when a little girl when missing.  

I believethat if Mr and Mrs did this then more people would be inclined to maybe put their hands in their pockets  but I don't believe there are that many people who would be willing to do so (again) without some sort of "gesture" by them.

What better time really than coming up to the tenth anniversary?

JRP wrote:Are Lie Detectors accurate?


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

Yes we already know that and it has been discussed many times.

Same with the dogs - a lot of people set great store by their alerts, as they do with lie detector tests - Jeremy Kyle show is a good example.

plebgate wrote:

JRP wrote:Are Lie Detectors accurate?


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

Yes we already know that and it has been discussed many times.

Same with the dogs - a lot of people set great store by their alerts, as they do with lie detector tests - Jeremy Kyle show is a good example.

If they failed, they'd probably say, lie detector tests are unreliable.
My point was that it's not just one thing which proves their guilt or innocence it's a culmination of things.
They won't take a lie detector test because they don't have to, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to volunteer.

I don't think anyone is holding their breath JRP as it doesn't affect anyone else.
The point that has been made many times is that it might help with people putting more money into the fund if one was taken and gave a positive "reading".

We have read in the past that even though they cannot be used in a court of law, some police forces have carried them out for obvious reasons.

plebgate wrote:I don't think anyone is holding their breath JRP as it doesn't affect anyone else.
The point that has been made many times is that it might help with people putting more money into the fund if one was taken and gave a positive "reading".

We have read in the past that even though they cannot be used in a court of law, some police forces have carried them out for obvious reasons.

I'm sure they could easily find someone willing to do a recorded lie detector test with them in secret, only to be released if the results are favourable to them. Sure, there would still be sceptics, but the media would make a huge thing of it and a lot of people would be instantly back on their side.

Makes you wonder why they haven't tried it really... or, then again, perhaps they have...

Point taken Plebgate, we are discussing the same thing but for different purposes.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I'm sure they could easily find someone willing to do a recorded lie detector test with them in secret, only to be released if the results are favourable to them.

Like they allegedly did with the forensic examination of the Renault Scenic and the twins hair to test for drugs?  Those 'private' arrangements did nothing to enhance their public image - if anything I think it made people more suspicious.

Where will it all end, who's ever heard the like - prime suspects in a criminal investigation undertaking their own private forensic examinations.  'Allo 'allo 'allo nothing suspicious 'ere....

There is nothing wrong with suspects doing their own forensics, and if there is enough material it would be against natural justice for the police not to permit the defence to arrange their own tests.

For instance, in the UK, a murder victim's funeral is sometimes delayed for months to allow for the possibility of the defence team wanting their own autopsy.

Given that expert witnesses (who are very well paid) are hoping for repeat business from the prosecution, I can certainly see why there might be a worry about their objectivity.

I don't feel that we can read anything into the desire to repeat tests done by the PJ, if I had the money and had been accused of a serious crime I would do exactly the same.

Verdi wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:  I'm sure they could easily find someone willing to do a recorded lie detector test with them in secret, only to be released if the results are favourable to them.

Like they allegedly did with the forensic examination of the Renault Scenic and the twins hair to test for drugs?  Those 'private' arrangements did nothing to enhance their public image - if anything I think it made people more suspicious.

Where will it all end, who's ever heard the like - prime suspects in a criminal investigation undertaking their own private forensic examinations.  'Allo 'allo 'allo nothing suspicious 'ere....

Can you imagine it though? K, G and C at a 10th anniversary press conference announcing 'And by the way, to all you doubters, Kate and Gerry have done a lie detector test, which, unlike the dogs, is completely reliable. The results prove their total innocence. Next question, please!'

Verdi wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I'm sure they could easily find someone willing to do a recorded lie detector test with them in secret, only to be released if the results are favourable to them.

Like they allegedly did with the forensic examination of the Renault Scenic and the twins hair to test for drugs?  Those 'private' arrangements did nothing to enhance their public image - if anything I think it made people more suspicious.

Where will it all end, who's ever heard the like - prime suspects in a criminal investigation undertaking their own private forensic examinations.  'Allo 'allo 'allo nothing suspicious 'ere....

And if they did do their own forensic examinations, why haven't they made them public if they were favourable to them?

Psychopaths can beat lie detector tests.

JimbobJones wrote:Psychopaths can beat lie detector tests.

I think people can be trained to confuse lie detectors.

And any results are subjective anyway, it's not a science, it's an interpretation of the results by an "expert".

They are not admissible in court for good reasons.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Verdi wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I'm sure they could easily find someone willing to do a recorded lie detector test with them in secret, only to be released if the results are favourable to them.

Like they allegedly did with the forensic examination of the Renault Scenic and the twins hair to test for drugs?  Those 'private' arrangements did nothing to enhance their public image - if anything I think it made people more suspicious.

Where will it all end, who's ever heard the like - prime suspects in a criminal investigation undertaking their own private forensic examinations.  'Allo 'allo 'allo nothing suspicious 'ere....

And if they did do their own forensic examinations, why haven't they made them public if they were favourable to them?

I'll wager because the private forensic examinations never happened.  According to a source close to the McCanns, a certain John Geherty kept the car in his personal custody pending examination but I question when that might have been.   The return of the Renault Scenic to the hire company, is recorded in the PJ files as 23rd September 2007, the McCanns fled Portugal on Sunday 9th September 2007 - two weeks between the two dates;  prior to departure one can assume the McCanns were still using the hired car.  It is of course possible that a private forensic examination did take place but I'd very much like to know who when and where.

Evidence of cadavar and blood presence in the Renault Scenic was entirely due to the trained dogs, Eddie and Keela, flown over from the UK.  I therefore ask exactly what mode of examination was carried out by McCanns independent forensic medium.  Couldn't have been trained dogs because Gerry McCann proved [sic.] them to be unreliable, so what did they do? 

If the source close to the McCanns is to be believed that the PJ planted eau de cadavar, then surely the McCanns independent forensic inspection would have also found evidence of blood and cadavar and subsequently arranged for a forensic science laboratory to analyze samples to confirm it wasn't humanoid but in fact Channel No. Whiffy - or essence of sea bass - or pong de nappy - or steak saignant.

It didn't happen did it.

If your child had been abducted but blood and cadaver dogs alerted to these scents in your room, wouldn't you be DEMANDING to know more about the alerts rather than calling them unreliable?
JohnyT

Of course you would, but not if the alerts were found in the hire car too

Definitely! And my pants!

JohnyT wrote:If your child had been abducted but blood and cadaver dogs alerted to these scents in your room, wouldn't you be DEMANDING to know more about the alerts rather than calling them unreliable?
JohnyT

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Kate say she felt relaxed shown the dogs findings?

Lie detector tests are only trustworthy if the right questions are asked using only the suspects own words.

A paedophile could pass a lie detector if ask if he molested little Tiffany (when he did) and he says no.
In his mind he was tickling, cuddling, wrestling with little Tiffany.
To him molestation could mean he hurt her, she cried.
If she did neither then it wasn't molestation in his mind.

The polygrapher would have to start by asking if he touched little Tiffany and from there where he touched her, was it over or under her clothes, what he touched her with and, just as importantly if little Tiffany touched him! since it is not unheard of for child abusers and child rapists to claim their victim came onto them, forced themselves on him or even raped him!