Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Hobs wrote:To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and

 I know it is very naughty of me to nit pick over the fund and to doubt their version of events, however i couldn't help but think...

Will this lead to kate and gerry being prosecuted via their own fund?

Maddie was allegedly abducted whilst she was left home alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign town and country.

Surely the abduction as claimed could not have taken place if kate and gerry had either dropped them off at the evening creche, hired or made use of the babysitters provided or at least locked all doors and windows and closed appropriate shutters to stop anyone getting out or getting in.

With this in mind, kate and gerry  played a part in assisting the alleged abductor by sedating the children, leaving them home alone in an unlocked apartment of which they had no clear view of the back of the building and none of the front, failing to maintain regular checks as claimed, refusing to cooperate with the investigation fully and openly, to whit, the 48 questions and the reconstruction.

By acting as they have done since day 1 that have actively assisted the alleged abductor, in pursuence of his crimes and subsequent investigation.

Since the tapas 7 have also refused full co-opertation, lied about checks and so on they too are assisting the perpetrator.


Wouldn't it be fun if the fund was used to fully investigate the mccanns and the tapas 7  

plebgate wrote:With millions already gone into the fund, Sy on the case, and Mr. earning a very, very, good salary I would not donate a penny to the fund (not that I did in the first place), but I really cannot see why they need financial help now in their search for Maddie.

Cherry Blossom wrote:Just come across this piece.

It is possible to prosecute a British citizen for a murder or
manslaughter abroad under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This
was last done in 2005 when Christopher Newman was convicted at the Inner
London Crown Court of murdering Georgina Eager in Dublin.

.

Does anyone know if this Act is still in force?

sallypelt wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:Just come across this piece.

It is possible to prosecute a British citizen for a murder or
manslaughter abroad under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This
was last done in 2005 when Christopher Newman was convicted at the Inner
London Crown Court of murdering Georgina Eager in Dublin.

.

Does anyone know if this Act is still in force?

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict c 100) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Although it has been substantially amended, it continues to be the foundation for prosecuting personal injury, short of murder, in the courts of England and Wales.

sallypelt wrote:For those who have the patience to go through the legal document/s in reference to ,Offences Against the Person Act 1861,  here is the link:

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

It appears that changes have yet to be made to some parts of the Act, but are in progress.

Cherry Blossom wrote:

sallypelt wrote:For those who have the patience to go through the legal document/s in reference to ,Offences Against the Person Act 1861,  here is the link:

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

It appears that changes have yet to be made to some parts of the Act, but are in progress.

Thanks for all your info sallypelt, not looked yet but will give it a go.

sheila.edwards wrote:I think a trial anywhere, is needed in case. imo just fact that maddy is still missing in such a high profile case is evidence to some, she most probably is not alive. also the evidence so far seen even, all cannot be totally ignored surely cant all be ignored ! with parents behaviour, even to Refusing to take lie detector test that would have helped search so they could be simply quickly eliminated etc,  gives impression that some kind of accident happened which was covered up IMO If the abductors, existed that were photfitted surely with her eye colomboma and unless they live in countyside with no neighbours, most of Portugal will have been searched in these kind of areas, by now, one would assume, how could such a child be hidden for so long if alive ! Search was damaged by hype and imo  mothers refusal to answer questions to help and both wanting it to be a political case so early on and not willing, to  simply take a lie detector test even so focus could have quickly got back onto SEARCH finding Child with abductor. dosent seem to make sense to me or any logic so cant understand why parents and T7 are not persons of interest by SY. one hopes they know why and so will Court/ public in end.SY have all the info.experience and have experts to seek advice from until a court with jury and judges check all info.They will decide outcome and not sy.who a lot of public have not much confidence in at present with all there problems.

sallypelt wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:

sallypelt wrote:For those who have the patience to go through the legal document/s in reference to ,Offences Against the Person Act 1861,  here is the link:

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

It appears that changes have yet to be made to some parts of the Act, but are in progress.

Thanks for all your info sallypelt, not looked yet but will give it a go.

Just spoke to my law student daughter, and this is what she's said, in a nutshell, in regards to the Act.

The part of the Act of interest to the forum is that:

any person who kills a British citizen abroad, whether or not the person who kills is British or not, they can be tried in this country, provided there is reason why that person can't be tried in the country the crime was committed. So, as far as the Portuguese are concerned, It will be up to the Portuguese to either try the person or persons in Portugal, or agree for them to be tried in the UK.

As my daughter has said, this is a very basic explanation of the Act.

Truthandjustice wrote:How can it be a no holds barred pursuit of truth if only one scenario is being investigated (I heard one of the investigators saying that the T9 are not on the list of suspects)?   If there is no evidence of abduction and a fair number of pointers in the direction of people close to the child not being entirely truthful (conflicting and changing statements) surely that avenue of investigation must also be pursued with the same gusto?  The reconstruction refused by the T9 would be a priority as it could clarify the inconsistencies and potentially put to bed the latter line of inquiry.  Given the statistics on child abduction one would have thought that evidentially eliminating the family and friends  from suspicion would be one of the first things to do (and probably the most cost effective). However, I think there is too much info out on the net for SY to get away with a whitewash  so I am hopeful that truth will out here eventually.

Cristobell wrote:

Truthandjustice wrote:How can it be a no holds barred pursuit of truth if only one scenario is being investigated (I heard one of the investigators saying that the T9 are not on the list of suspects)?   If there is no evidence of abduction and a fair number of pointers in the direction of people close to the child not being entirely truthful (conflicting and changing statements) surely that avenue of investigation must also be pursued with the same gusto?  The reconstruction refused by the T9 would be a priority as it could clarify the inconsistencies and potentially put to bed the latter line of inquiry.  Given the statistics on child abduction one would have thought that evidentially eliminating the family and friends  from suspicion would be one of the first things to do (and probably the most cost effective). However, I think there is too much info out on the net for SY to get away with a whitewash  so I am hopeful that truth will out here eventually.

The McCanns wanted a REVIEW, not an investigation, and were probably counting on a Review to clear them so they could get the Fund up and running again with an official stamped 'no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm'.  

It has all gone horribly wrong as we can see from the dramatic change in their appearance at this year's anniversary vigil. 

A whitewash is simply not possible, there are too many people involved.  Relationships change and break down. All of their lives and careers are affected by whatever happened on 3rd May 2007.  Michael Wright has not done himself, his family or his career any good whatsoever, by revealing himself as a 'monitor' (troll) for the McCanns.  Jane Tanner's evidence has no credibility whatsoever - we can only imagine her interview with a seasoned homicide detective. David Payne is living with paedophile allegations against him that have never been challenged or disproved.  

The Fund doesn't stand up to scrutiny, there is no named Administrator, no employees, no sign of the book proceeds, no breakdown of income or outgoings and definitive proof that any 'searching' has been, or is, going on.  Some might think the Fund has been used to protect the parents from criminal charges and to pervert the course of justice.  Scotland Yard cannot ignore this.

Someone said on this site that Scotland Yard may be allowing their Portuguese counterpart, Goncalo Amaral, to clear his name with this libel trial.  I think there may well be some truth in that.  Police the world over must be wondering why the detective who investigated the case of a missing child, is in the dock with his livelihood threatened by former suspects who have never been cleared!

candyfloss wrote:I'm still trying to keep positive about this review.  Firstly, they have to be seen to be checking everything, all angles, leaving no stone unturned so to speak, to cover themselves against any accusation of just looking in one direction.  I am almost sure, they will have interviewed those closely connected to that night, or will do in the near future.  We did have those headlines about the Tapas 7 being re-interviewed.  I supposed Andy Redwood, has to check into everything, otherwise any defence can bring up these things and say they were leads but not investigated.  The only thing that didn't seem right was AR parking his bum on the breakfast sofa and giving interviews.  I have never seen that in any case before.  However, this could be  a tactic, whilst people are looking here, the police are actually looking elsewhere?  As Snifferdog said, the element of surprise.  Still hopeful, especially with confidence in the police at an all time low, and with leveson, and all the arrests for payments and corruption happening, I just cannot see how anyone would even attempt to cover this up.  These things always come out in the end and it would totally ruin SY. I just have to believe and keep the faith with our boys in blue.

mysterion wrote:A lot of time has elapsed since  the new investigations started. I don`t know all the details of all the SY activity but the thought occured to me. Is there any real evidence that any actual investigation is going on? Has there been any reporting of anyone being questioned? Has there been any reporting of SY visiting anywhere with cameras and notebooks? 
Basically, is it purely a political exercise in appearing to do something?

T4two wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

T4two wrote:British law is quite clear on this point and there are sufficient precedences - British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes which are committed against British citizens irrespective of whether the crime was committed at home or abroad, if sufficient grounds exist to indicate that the crime was perpetrated by a British citizen or citizens. This does not interfere in any way shape or form with the jurisdiction of the police and courts in the country where the crime was committed.

This is very interesting. Are you saying that British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes abroad only if both the victim and the perpetrator(s) are British citizens? What if then there is not sufficient evidence to prove such crime was perpetrated by British citizens but thought just as likely committed by a person(s) of another nationality, for example, by a non-British abductor? In other words, is it possible that SY are seen to be so ineffective precisely because they adhere to the abduction theory purported by the McCanns which largely excludes the likelihood of the crime being committed by British citizens?

1. To the first part of your question: The following is from the current CPS website. I am actually wrong in maintaining that the victim must also be British. Apparently this is not so - it is sufficient that the perpetrators of the crime or those suspected of such crime be British. (apologies for the rather haphazard result of cut and paste - a formatting problem)



Resolving jurisdictional
conflicts


Where the offence occurred on
a single territory


Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the
offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground
jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise
extra-territorial jurisdiction:

• sexual offences against children (section 72 of
      the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the
      Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14
      July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is
      brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct
      occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the
      offences they cover are not identical;
  
• murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of
      the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
  
• fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial
      jurisdiction in respect od offences in subsection. 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of
      the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still
      applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
  
• terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism
      Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
  
• bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common
      law and the statutory offences of corruption. For future offences the
      Bribery Act imposes extra-terratorial jurisdiction although section 109 of
      the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2011 still exists in respect of
      offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011
  

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








Subsection 9 and 10 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861

9 Murder or
manslaughter abroad.





Where any
murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom,
whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed
were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of
Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the
offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F9, may be dealt with, inquired of,
tried, determined, and punished . . .  in
England or Ireland . . . : Provided, that nothing herein contained shall
prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for
any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same
manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.


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


To the second part of your question: The following is a statement made under oath by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire before the Family Court, judge Hogg, as reason for not releasing the Leicestershire Constabulary files to the McCanns following their application to the court after their return to England.



“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
In other words, both of them are suspects. If this was valid then and still is valid, then the English police are duty-bound to carry out a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A full investigation - not a so-called review.