Re: The Cancelled Reconstruction

by Guest 22.06.14 18:50

I still cannot take in the fact that emails went between the tapas friends and the police officers using each other's first names. Even if you are nicked for speeding one would expect to be addressed as Sir/Madam or Mr so and so, to which my reply would be to address the police officer as Officer. Why the familiarity? It is so out of place imo.

by ultimaThule 22.06.14 23:32

Dee Coy wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I am not sure whether UK Police can oblige witnesses to participate in CW if crime happened in UK.
I would have thought not.
However, refusing to participate would make them look seriously dodgy. Plus, if they were to say they need to consult lawyers first that would set alarm bell ringing, more reason to monitor their movements and phones closely.

If this happened in UK, they would be invited into Police stations and probably held in custody until Police are satisfied with their answers or until there is no reason to hold them.

Exactly, aiyoyo, if the crime had been committed here, any witnesses are obliged to give evidence to the police's satisfaction. At the very least they can be questioned at will. How convenient it would be if one was reluctant to be questioned to find oneself not having to present oneself to the police because the police force in question was in a foreign country, and therefore could only appeal to your goodwill. You'd feel very secure in the knowledge that you couldn't legally be forced to attend, and be relieved that any crime you'd witnessed just happened to occur abroad and not in the UK. In my opinion.

If you had anything to hide, of course.

FTR, it is not the custom for UK police forces to carry out reconstructions of crime scenes as featured on television programmes such as Crimewatch using real life witnesses. Witnesses are not "obliged to give evidence to the police's satisfaction", nor can any witness be forced to attend a police station or compelled to assist the police with their enquiries. Furthermore, witnesses are under no compulsion to testify in criminal cases unless they have been subpoenaed by either the prosecution or the defence.

There are rules governing the length of time suspects can be held in custody and, except in cases of terrorism, the police are required to apply for an extension if they wish to detain anyone for longer than 24 hours without charge,

From the copy emails, it's quite clear that the only way the PJ could have got the McCanns and the Tapas 7 back to Luz for the purposes of a reconstruction is to have declared them suspects and applied for EAWs. Given what a meal the pink one and the army of paid image makers/reputation enhancers/fancy lawyers/bigmouth relatives would have made of that, it's unsurprising the PJ passed on that particular option.

As it is, the failure of this bunch of abject cowards to comply with an eminently reasonable request to assist the PJ speaks for itself and reveals them all to be disinterested in furthering the investigation into the fate of the 3 year old child whose welfare and wellbeing was in their hands.

by aiyoyo 23.06.14 10:13

Dee Coy wrote:

Exactly, aiyoyo, if the crime had been committed here, any witnesses are obliged to give evidence to the police's satisfaction. At the very least they can be questioned at will. How convenient it would be if one was reluctant to be questioned to find oneself not having to present oneself to the police because the police force in question was in a foreign country, and therefore could only appeal to your goodwill. You'd feel very secure in the knowledge that you couldn't legally be forced to attend, and be relieved that any crime you'd witnessed just happened to occur abroad and not in the UK. In my opinion.

If you had anything to hide, of course.

If the crime had happened in UK, the T7 being associated to the parents, and present at the crime scene as well as involved in the rota check of the children are primary witnesses.
They would have no choice but to attend police station to give their statements as witnesses if asked to. Given their direct association, refusing to show up voluntarily would look seriously dodgy.

If they come under the Police radar, other method can be used to oblige them to attend, but they would be entitled to have their lawyers in tow.

Normal innocent people would just attend the interview when asked to, answer the questions honestly, and consider the slight inconvenience as doing their citizen's duty to assist the investigations.

I don't see how the T7, given the circumstances they were in, can avoid Police invite for interview and expect not to look dodgy.

by fossey 23.06.14 10:18

It would of been another one of Gerry's 'Disaster' moments if they were made to do that Reconstruction. In fact a disaster for all the Tapas lot.

It would of looked a complete utter shambles and be clear as day for all to see that their 'version of the truth' was nothing more than a fantasy.

Utter tosh in other words.

The Cancelled Reconstruction