American Videos of Review of Madeleine Case and Andy Redwood comments

Bobbin, as I understand it, it merely means they cannot sue for damages, libel etc., on Madeleine's behalf. They can continue to do so on their own behalf, Madeleine cannot be joined as a party by them.
Obviously, there are many better educated people than I on this site who will clarify what exactly the situation is.

sami wrote:Bobbin, as I understand it, it merely means they cannot sue for damages, libel etc., on Madeleine's behalf. They can continue to do so on their own behalf, Madeleine cannot be joined as a party by them.
Obviously, there are many better educated people than I on this site who will clarify what exactly the situation is.

I think it was the IFLG (see PACT and IFLG topic) who advised them to make Maddie WOC. This didn't take effect until the following year although the application was made fairly soon after 3/5.
My idea is that it also gave some substance to their 'belief' that Maddie was alive - it may have been one of the reasons. I don't know what the WOC status of one of your children entails for your other children.
I seem to remember reading a long time ago that they took the children on holiday to Canada in 2008 because it was the last time they could take the twins abroad. No idea where I got that so don't read it as gospel.
But it seems reasonable in terms of law I expect.

The ward of court issue is one of the less well publicised and strangest issues in this story. A child abducted, then you sign her over to the courts, for me it would feel like giving her away, loosing her a second time. This action back fired though as regard the libel cases, am I correct ? They cannot join Madeleine in their libel actions. Bit of a muck up there by McCann and Healy, very unlike them. Badly thought out, hasty decision at the time or a necessary course of action ?

If there is a thread here on the WOC could somebody point me in the direction please ?

There is a topic here Sami.....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I could not agree more that this WOC is one of the most strangest issues in this scam. The mccanns have just had their daughter stolen, we are told how utterly distraught and broken they are (allegedly without proof of it) and what do they do...Give her up to the courts and within a few days. Suddenly within a few days they have lost their daughter and have chosen to have no legal custody of her, not to mention the emotional grief. Something does not add up at all here, it is totally wrong and a huge red flag

Tigger, I remember reading that they took the children on holiday to Canada in 2008 because it was the last time they could take the twins abroad, don't know where this was but I do recall this too

Mira2, I am totally with you that they were there on holiday on business and the private NHS funding is what I am leaning towards too. It does make sense and fits in with everything very well, especially the New Labour angle like a glove on a hand

Would this WOC situation have an impact on Tony Bennett's forthcoming court hearings. Is Madeleine included in the claims made by the McCanns against Tony.

Very good question Bobbin. I wonder if there is some legal 'loophole' that if Maddie is not under the mccanns legal guardianship, can they actually make any claims on her behalf in law. I wonder if its possible that it can only be Justice Hogg and not the maccanns. I think this would be worth investigating if there is some loophole with the WOC status that restricts the mccanns from making any claims on her behalf. When you think about it, how can they make any sort of claim when they do not have legal custody, in effect & in law Maddie being a WOC is not their responsibility but Justice Hogg. They have given her up

Thank you for the link, JD.

So the WOC status may make it similar to say, me, taking action against Amaral. I have no status as far as Madeleine's rights are concerned, technically neither do the McCanns. I guess it will be down to how the case is worded and the basis on which they are taking the action. Interesting .

jd wrote:

In any case why is Madeleine McCann a ward of court?

To me, this is one of the most perplexing questions. No parents would give up legal custody of their missing child, even worse they made the application after just a mere 12 days after Maddie disappeared. And made the application when they launched the Fund. If Maddie was ever found she could not go back to her parents as the courts have legal custody of her. Why on earth is Maddie a Ward of Court, she is missing and I cannot see a single valid reason for this

Does anyone know for sure that the McCanns asked for Madeleine to be made a Ward of Court. I would think that it was more likely the Police, a child protection agency or Social Services would have requested it. We know how the McCanns love to spin things in their own favour that "they requested Social Services to visit them upon their return to the UK". In real terms I doubt they had much choice, Social Services would have been on their doorstep whether they liked it or not, seeing that they neglected three tiny children night after night in a foreign country at their own admission (well, that's what they say). I doubt Social Services could have ignored the circumstances of Madeleine's "disappearance" and they would have to monitor the welfare of the remaining two children and probably still do, there again, the McCanns wouldn't advise anyone if it is still ongoing.

The fact that Madeleine was made a Ward of Court would probably mean that if she was ever found she would not be automatically returned to the McCanns but would "belong to the Courts" and would have to be assessed as to whether she was being returned to a stable family environment and to what her future may hold, depending on what state of mind she is found in or what special physical/physiological needs she would require. For a 3 to 4 year old to be missing from her family for 5 years, she just wouldn't be able to be given back as if nothing had happened and the family can just carry on as they were before 3rd May 2007. The adjustment for her would be horrendous. She would need long term care and assessment.

Not that I believe that would ever come about, but I suppose every avenue has to be covered in law "just in case".

I ask the question.....How many 'missing' children in the world have been made a Ward of Court? I only know of one

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:09 am




I ask the question.....How many 'missing' children in the world have been made a Ward of Court? I only know of one
___________
jd,
'Missing' is the key word here. In Madeleine's case I can see no justification since to all intents and purposes this child was in the care of her parents and they are still together it is only Madeleine that is missing and furthermore she was not missing in the UK, so how the heck could she be made a ward of court here, since she disappeared abroad. We are led to believe that Gerry and Kate Mc Cann took their 3 year old abroad went out for the night and left her home alone with her 18 month old siblings doors ajar and some bad man wandered in and carted her off and to make things better they made an application to the British courts to have Madeleine made a Ward of Court. So, in effect not only did they commit a serious crime abroad of leaving 3 minors under 4 years old home alone with doors ajar whilst they went out on the razzle, and one of them had dissapeared by the time they got home, they took steps to hand over all responsibilty for this child to the UK courts, then used the wording of Judge Hoggs order, they to bullied Leicester police to hand over to them confidential information relating to the case. This only came to light when the Leistershire police refused to hand over confidential files and took their case to court. As a result of their action Justice Jogg duly ammended her initial order to state that the order did not apply to her majesty's police force.
My feeling is that by then the damage was already done. Clarence has boasted in a TV interview that he had information direct from the cops.
We have also had Clarence on TV pleading for donations and teeling viewers that they can send cash in envelopes direct to Rothay. This is the man who supposedly was beng paid around 70 thousand pounds a year from public donations intended to find Madeleine. SICK
The ward of court issue I can only imagine is again at taxpayers expense, what is intriguing is that it has not prevented Gerry and Kate McCann cashing in on their daughters demise, if Madeleine is indeed a ward of court why has the court not stepped in to protect her name and taken action to stop Gerry and Kate Mc Cann using their daughters name in their litigation actions?
We need answers, something is not quite right here in old blighty.

Well we all know how that tale ended, Clarence was wheeled out to tell us the good news that Gerry and Kate were allowed access to a few files, and they were happy bunnies ( I want to scream)

Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons, 2nd Ed 2010

Produced on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers
by the National Policing Improvement Agency

5.4.1 Homicide

One of the fundamental facts to be determined in a missing person investigation is the reason why the subject has disappeared. In cases where the circumstances are suspicious or are unexplained, use
the maxim:

IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER

Failure to apply such thinking in past cases has led to the loss of valuable investigative opportunities. This can ultimately result in failure to trace the missing person or to establish sufficient evidence to convict a perpetrator.

The status of the relationship between the missing person and the person making the initial report can also be important. Investigators should not always assume that such relationships are stable. There have been numerous cases where the person reporting the crime and/or the missing persons has been found to be the perpetrator of the crime.

Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas

@Ja5eTee ACPO manual missing children - treat as critical incident until evidence suggest otherwise .

1:02 AM - 11 Aug 12 via Twitter for iPhone · Details

ACPO (2010) Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons

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