The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Mm11

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Regist10

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Inspectorfrost on 10.01.13 21:50

@sonic72 wrote:
@neeley111 wrote:
Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Pam Gurney (and many other internet alias') aka Kate McCann, your tactics are futile, don't make your situation any worse than it already is! You're just digging a bigger hole each time you comment, and believe me, your hole is too big now.

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE
titter
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Join date : 2012-12-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by sonic72 on 10.01.13 21:54

@Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE
COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 82678

How do you know it's not her? You have no way of knowing! She is definitely firmly rooted in their camp and has a personal vendetta against TB, so it does not take a brain surgeon to decipher that at the very least she is working on their behalf.

____________________

sonic72
sonic72

Posts : 342
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by sonic72 on 10.01.13 21:56

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@david_uk wrote:Tony - Is it possible to transfer your savings to someone else that you trust? or this not legal?
This is always possible, and not illegal in itself, BUT should the worst happen and any costs and damages awards against me force me into bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court could look at any such transactions and have the power to set them aside and recover any such monies transferred.

So it would be nice to win!

I did make a comment on this and I cannot see it in the thread, so apologies if this appears twice!

What I did say was that can you not put the money into a trust Tony? I was under the impression that money in trusts are out of bounds?

____________________

sonic72
sonic72

Posts : 342
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ashwarya on 10.01.13 22:18

@sonic72 wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE
COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 82678

How do you know it's not her? You have no way of knowing! She is definitely firmly rooted in their camp and has a personal vendetta against TB, so it does not take a brain surgeon to decipher that at the very least she is working on their behalf.

I believe Pam Gurney works at Peninsula Medical School, which seems likely as we know someone else who works there don't we? I wonder whether all her colleagues are also paid up members of the McCann fan club.
Ashwarya
Ashwarya

Posts : 141
Join date : 2011-04-23

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 10.01.13 22:22

@womandotcom wrote:/quote]
I would be grateful if you did not attempt to speak for everyone on this forum...you certainly don't speak for me/ I support Tony fully and I believe him to be a brave, decent and honest man who has had the guts to stand and be counted for the sake of a little girl whom he did not, and will never, know personally. I wish I were as brave. Good luck Tony and may the best man win x

Belated agreement to your post womandotcom in reponse to the troll invasion on Monday.

I don't believe though that it was Pam Gurney - she's too busy trying to wear HiDeHo down on YouTube with hysterical tirades to bother with this forum!

I think it is definite that she lives in the Exeter area so she isn't Kate either.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 10.01.13 22:24

@Tombraider wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary


  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court

Absolutely correct


  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term

That's also 100% correct


  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect


  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed


I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time





It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

It would appear that there is deception involved in everything to do with the Mccanns case.
Even an ex-inspector commented their "they asked the authorities" to reopen the case appears to be a deception.
The abduction story is a deception in the first place hence so is the Fund for the Search. There is deception from start to finish...well not quite finish...
Oops....they are fury that people doubt them.... but Oops again.... they cant stop my free thought.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 10.01.13 22:47

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Tombraider wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary


  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court

Absolutely correct


  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term

That's also 100% correct


  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect


  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed


I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time





It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

It would appear that there is deception involved in everything to do with the Mccanns case.
Even an ex-inspector commented their "they asked the authorities" to reopen the case appears to be a deception.
The abduction story is a deception in the first place hence so is the Fund for the Search. There is deception from start to finish...well not quite finish...
Oops....they are fury that people doubt them.... but Oops again.... they cant stop my free thought.


Hello Ayoyo,

Thinking along the same lines you do: are we quite sure Maddy was made a ward of Court on the McCs request?

Or could the authorities have stepped in making the arrangements, the McCs spinning that decision in order to make themselves look better?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 10.01.13 23:02

Jean wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028169/McCanns-asked-missing-Madeleine-ward-court.html

Definitely the McCanns' decision, according to this article.

The article merely states Mitchell says the McCs asked for the child to be made a ward of Court.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 10.01.13 23:12

Under the picture of Gerry and Kate (the latter clutching Cuddlecat -COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 273236) it says that "Madeleine was made a ward of the High Court of England and Wales".
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ange on 11.01.13 0:26

Mrs Justice Hogg: Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here. The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine.

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/96/


BBM: I'm unsure if I was aware of the 'reason' behind their application, I'm wracking my brain here. I know there's been so much information to take in over the years, and we can't remember every single thing, but I'm surprised at myself If i've had this knowledge and forgotten it. Getting old I suppose.


avatar
Ange

Posts : 40
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 11.01.13 3:41

Far as I know, it was the Mccanns' idea to make Maddie 'Ward of Court' so that they could lay their hands on info which otherwise was refused to them by LP. If there was a court order then the Police would have to oblige or so they thought. Which they were not wrong except unfortunately for them, not everything they sought under Mrs Justice Hogg's name was given to them. Some materials deemed sensitive were held back by the Police; and no surprise the Mccanns were furious (as usual ) over it.

Effectively they were handed back leads that came through their hot-line (that the Police were within their right to retain). Quite why they wanted those info that they had to use Court's power to obtain is anyone's guess. It couldn't have been just curiosity that made them resort to that drastic measure to lay their hands on those info; as they couldn't possibly do anything with the info; not as if they were leading their own investigation officially neither was their PIs parallel investigation legal under Portuguese law.

The 'Ward of Court' is not per se (not the in real sense we know it) but a transistory one. One where Justice Hogg was being used by the Mccanns for their own agenda. Control over Maddie's welfare was not relegated to Court and Justice Hogg was not empowered to take over control of her welfare. For obvious reasons..the Mccanns were not stupid to relegate that as otherwise they could not have controlled and spin the investigation to suit their agenda.

The length they went to to get their hands on investigation materials is not compatible (in fact in stark contrast) with their non-action to engage the investigators not to shelve the case. If anything they expressed relief when the process was shelved as along with that their arguido status was also shelved. Yes, shelved not lifted as they would have people believed. May have been stated as lifted by the press but it can be re-instated when the process re-open, so effectively, shelved and not lifted. As in the case shelved but not closed.





aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by fabpete on 11.01.13 16:40

Quote Portia

Hello Ayoyo,

Thinking along the same lines you do: are we quite sure Maddy was made a ward of Court on the McCs request?

Or could the authorities have stepped in making the arrangements, the McCs spinning that decision in order to make themselves look better?
[/quote]

I've been thinking along the same lines, it does seem that the "version" of events presented by TM often don't tally with the real events.
Along those lines, could it then be possible that The standing down of the Private Investigators while the "review" is being undertaken, could be more along the lines of they have been ordered or advised to stop?
Could even be a reason for the delay in the Fund accounts?

I'm Probably putting far too much faith in the Review, but TM spin is not always how it really transpored as we all know
avatar
fabpete

Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-07-05

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Tombraider on 11.01.13 19:17

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Tombraider wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary


  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court

Absolutely correct


  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term

That's also 100% correct


  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect


  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed


I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time





It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

It would appear that there is deception involved in everything to do with the Mccanns case.
Even an ex-inspector commented their "they asked the authorities" to reopen the case appears to be a deception.
The abduction story is a deception in the first place hence so is the Fund for the Search. There is deception from start to finish...well not quite finish...
Oops....they are fury that people doubt them.... but Oops again.... they cant stop my free thought.


Can't argue with that aiyoyo, this case seems to be steeped in deception alright.

As for Tony's case, I’m not a lawyer so my understanding of the law is somewhat limited, but in relation to the transaction that took place which caused the breach of this order., I would think that some agreement, albeit possibly a verbal agreement between the parties took place.

If so and it can be shown that this turned out to be a dishonest agreement or arrangement, in which one party was deceived into taking an action contrary to their duty, which in this instance could mean legal duty or responsibility, then surely this is something that any court / judge would need to consider very carefully.
avatar
Tombraider

Posts : 61
Join date : 2012-12-24

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Inspectorfrost on 11.01.13 20:03

@sonic72 wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE
COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 82678

How do you know it's not her? You have no way of knowing! She is definitely firmly rooted in their camp and has a personal vendetta against TB, so it does not take a brain surgeon to decipher that at the very least she is working on their behalf.

I dont KNOW its not her, I just find it extremely hard to believe, the two are chalk and cheese, besides, it wouldnt be hard to disprove, ie just find a post of the gurn troll made when KM was at a public function, easy enough

Back on topic, how does carter ruck say that these undertakings are set for life, whatever happens? Does that mean that in the hypothetical situation the mccanns were tried and found guilty in a court, of being involved, would Mr Benenett still have to stay shtum?? Seems bizarre if true
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Join date : 2012-12-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by PeterMac on 11.01.13 23:30

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Back on topic, how does carter ruck say that these undertakings are set for life, whatever happens? Does that mean that in the hypothetical situation the mccanns were tried and found guilty in a court, of being involved, would Mr Benenett still have to stay shtum?? Seems bizarre if true

From what you have written, I can deduce that you are not an English Lawyer ! !

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10663
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Inspectorfrost on 11.01.13 23:34

@PeterMac wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Back on topic, how does carter ruck say that these undertakings are set for life, whatever happens? Does that mean that in the hypothetical situation the mccanns were tried and found guilty in a court, of being involved, would Mr Benenett still have to stay shtum?? Seems bizarre if true

From what you have written, I can deduce that you are not an English Lawyer ! !

Think Im proud, erm, think
titter
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Join date : 2012-12-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ange on 11.01.13 23:51

@aiyoyo wrote:Far as I know, it was the Mccanns' idea to make Maddie 'Ward of Court' so that they could lay their hands on info which otherwise was refused to them by LP. If there was a court order then the Police would have to oblige or so they thought. Which they were not wrong except unfortunately for them, not everything they sought under Mrs Justice Hogg's name was given to them. Some materials deemed sensitive were held back by the Police; and no surprise the Mccanns were furious (as usual ) over it.

Effectively they were handed back leads that came through their hot-line (that the Police were within their right to retain). Quite why they wanted those info that they had to use Court's power to obtain is anyone's guess. It couldn't have been just curiosity that made them resort to that drastic measure to lay their hands on those info; as they couldn't possibly do anything with the info; not as if they were leading their own investigation officially neither was their PIs parallel investigation legal under Portuguese law.

The 'Ward of Court' is not per se (not the in real sense we know it) but a transistory one. One where Justice Hogg was being used by the Mccanns for their own agenda. Control over Maddie's welfare was not relegated to Court and Justice Hogg was not empowered to take over control of her welfare. For obvious reasons..the Mccanns were not stupid to relegate that as otherwise they could not have controlled and spin the investigation to suit their agenda.

The length they went to to get their hands on investigation materials is not compatible (in fact in stark contrast) with their non-action to engage the investigators not to shelve the case. If anything they expressed relief when the process was shelved as along with that their arguido status was also shelved. Yes, shelved not lifted as they would have people believed. May have been stated as lifted by the press but it can be re-instated when the process re-open, so effectively, shelved and not lifted. As in the case shelved but not closed.






Hi Aiyoyo. It was pretty clear from Gerry's blogs in the beginning that the intelligent doctor was no legal junkie, judging by the terminology in his ramblings daily account of their ordeal. We would have been forgiven for thinking here was a man with a lot of spare times on his hands. I digress.

I realise everyone has varying degress of legal knowledge, but I struggle to think the McCanns would have better knowledge of the law than most. Medics are busy and in the main, comfortable financially, the boring legalities of everyday life can be left to others. Likewise with their profession, say, if they happened to have a law suit brought against them, either the NHS or a private insurance body would take care of the legalities. For some reason I have a bug bear about their legal awareness, I always have done. Even taking into account that their knowledge by 2nd April 2008 would be far greater than pre-3rd May 2007, I simply don't accept they had acquired legal knowledge to the extent with which they used it in the Ward of Court application. Which begs the questions, who advised them to make Madeleine such? In the great scheme of things neither you nor I would want our child to be made WoC, indeed it is a right usually taken away from, not sought by, parents. Who would be confident enough to think the application would be granted? Who [bold]else[/bold] needed to know what information LP had withheld from the McCanns? Why the fury from the McCanns, it was well documented by then they were 'suspect' in the eyes of the thinking public, so it couldn't have been the fear of exposure? Was it a fear of further exposure? But if so, why wasn't it acted on by the police? What IS that information? Were the PJ aware of this information? Why did Justice Hogg grant the application, such as it stood?

The political intervention in this case was puzzling in the beginning. Of course had it brought the 'result' everyone was hoping for, I'm sure I would've been first giving it the big hurrah. When the dust settled, like many a curious mind, I would have gone back to it and wondered who they knew, then dismissed it with a 'good to have friends in high places' attitude, as long as the neglect issue was addressed. If only.

What has gone on since is no longer puzzling, it's utterly sinister. I erased sinister a few times there, but no, for me that's what it is. And what they and CR initiated with Tony was equally so. It's no wonder the McCanns believed themselves untouchable considering the sickeneing level of backing they had from this and subsequent Governments and their lackeys, and of course the questions this in itself raises, as asked nigh on a weekly basis. Levenson's comments re this lot (I do not include the Dowlers) could have come from ME they were so farcical and out of touch with reality and what the LI was 'supposed' to be all about. I believe slowly, but surely, the noose is getting tighter. IMO.



avatar
Ange

Posts : 40
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 12.01.13 1:45

Only someone with something to hide and fear being exposed would be desperate to lay hand on Police info.
In this case, no one apart from the Mccanns who were suspects would want those info.
When the Police denied them that, even as lay people not au fait with law, one imagines they possess basic common sense to know that you can use the Court route to meet objective.
As to how best to go about it (suitable type of application/filing to Court etc ) logic dictates they must have consulted their lawyers on that and gotten advice to turn Maddie into WOC for just that purpose.
Am guessing that under the circumstances there's no other legal options to force Police to release info to the suspects other than to make Maddie WOC thereby empowering the Court to force Police to hand over the info to Court, then the Court hand it to Mccanns' laywers and down the chain to Mccanns ultimately.. Simple as that. The WOC thing was just a mean to one narrow end.

Because it was such an unusual step to obtain info from Police during ongoing investigations that people questioned the rationale behind Justice Hogg approval of it. Under the circumstances it is understandable that most people would like to know: Was Mrs. Hogg leaned on, and by who? Was she persuaded or did social connections influence her decision?



aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by jozi on 12.01.13 12:44

aiyoyo wrote

Because it was such an unusual step to obtain info from Police during ongoing investigations that people questioned the rationale behind Justice Hogg approval of it. Under the circumstances it is understandable that most people would like to know: Was Mrs. Hogg leaned on, and by who? Was she persuaded or did social connections influence her decision?
-----------------------------

It was unusual and I don't think they got all the info that they asked for either (maybe wrong here ).To have your child made a ward of court is a very drastic step to take and what would have happened if Maddie had turned up or still turns up ? Does anybody know what happens in such cases,I have no clue but feel that to take the step of having their findable missing daughter made a WOC they knew that Maddie was not going to be found !!!

I am sure Justice Hogg is related to the Guy ( sorry don't know his name ) who flew out in the early morning that Maddie disappeared,he claimed to have a photo of his children playing with Maddie but I don't think it materialized ???
jozi
jozi

Posts : 710
Join date : 2012-05-15

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 12.01.13 14:09

Jozi, the man you're thinking of is Philip Edmonds and his aunt is the Labour MP Margaret Hodge.

I'd certainly like to see the independent evidence he supposedly has of Madeleine on holiday as the "official" photos are highly suspect.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by jozi on 12.01.13 14:38

Jean wrote:Jozi, the man you're thinking of is Philip Edmonds and his aunt is the Labour MP Margaret Hodge.

I'd certainly like to see the independent evidence he supposedly has of Madeleine on holiday.

Thanks for pointing that out Jean, must be having a blonde moment, LOL.
jozi
jozi

Posts : 710
Join date : 2012-05-15

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 12.01.13 15:21

@jozi wrote:aiyoyo wrote

Because it was such an unusual step to obtain info from Police during ongoing investigations that people questioned the rationale behind Justice Hogg approval of it. Under the circumstances it is understandable that most people would like to know: Was Mrs. Hogg leaned on, and by who? Was she persuaded or did social connections influence her decision?
-----------------------------

It was unusual and I don't think they got all the info that they asked for either (maybe wrong here ).To have your child made a ward of court is a very drastic step to take and what would have happened if Maddie had turned up or still turns up ? Does anybody know what happens in such cases,I have no clue but feel that to take the step of having their findable missing daughter made a WOC they knew that Maddie was not going to be found !!!

I am sure Justice Hogg is related to the Guy ( sorry don't know his name ) who flew out in the early morning that Maddie disappeared,he claimed to have a photo of his children playing with Maddie but I don't think it materialized ???

As said earlier when they made her WOC it was not to cede control of her welfare to the Court. It was merely to seek disclosure of data. Maddie did not feature into the equation at all be her dead or alive. The implication of the application had nothing to do with Maddie and everything to do with her parents.

As reported in the Press "The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine.

By any Police standards and under normal circumstances the last thing Police would do is reveal info to suspects, but the Mccanns while arguidos were seeking that. Thus it would appear their lawyers must have explored ways to circumvent that problem then came up with the only route possible that Maddie had to be made WOC to oblige the Police to hand over info to the Court; thus ultimately to the Mccanns all in the name of their own private search. In a nutshell the Court was helping the Mccanns to obtain those info.

Since when it is alright for parents of missing child, not cleared yet by Police, to have the right to legally demand disclosure of information from Police Force? That's the reason why people questioned Justice Hogg's decision to allow that (1) given that the Mccanns were still "suspects" in their daughter disappearance at the time of the application; and (2) given that the investigations were still ongoing, what caused Justice Hogg to know that the Police were no longer searching for Maddie that the Mccanns must be given the info for their own private search (as that was reason given for the application).

By any standards you would expect a Court not to approve that sort of application in context of the "suspects" and the other circumstances.
But lo and behold the high profile Mccanns with their spin, clout, powerful mouthpiece, powerful lawyers, and what not managed to get away with it and set unprecedented precedence.






aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 12.01.13 17:30

O/T

The Blacksmith Bureau

Friday, 11 January 2013
Please Question Us! Part Two

pigs

Tapas 7 seen volunteering to return to Portugal



Who Dunnit?

As usual the Bureau takes the conservative non-dramatic view of events, believing that, given these circumstances, Rebelo didn't have to be a clean-up man tasked with killing the investigation. It didn't need one. Whatever the speculation about cover-ups etc. the evidence above clearly suggests that the actual killers were the Tapas Nine, acting alone except for their lawyers.

It only needed Rebelo's PJ to make the understandable, if slightly dodgy, claim in their report that the rogatory interviews "revealed nothing new" (they hadn't even been translated, let alone analysed in depth) rather than "they don't get us any nearer a charge and it's time to give up", and for Rebelo and Menezes to agree that further timescale extensions were not on, for the investigation to end.

Unfortunately Menezes made a poor fist of his role. Naturally the "missing paragraph" required to explain a shelving despite a key area remaining unexplored couldn't have been written as frankly as we've given it above: that's not the way the world goes round and would likely have cost him and his colleague their jobs. His task, and challenge, though, was to justify the shelving while maintaining the integrity of the PJ and its investigation on the one hand, and avoiding leaving a black cloud of suspicion over two of the arguidos and their friends on the other. The latter would have caused uproar – claims of a smear job by the terrifying UK press and loud demands to lay hands on the McCanns by a dissatisfied Portuguese public, demands that, as we've seen, couldn't be met.

A Clever Plan

Menezes attempted to square this circle by minimizing the significance of the Nine' s behaviour and evidence while stressing how exhaustive the inquiry had been. The PJ report section on the needs of the reconstruction couldn't be omitted from the archiving summary since the PJ wouldn't permit it so Menezes attempted to counter its explosive implications by smothering them with love. Hence the embarrassing purple-prosed final paragraphs in which his rhetoric took wing with references to European literature, the art of the who-dunnit and the analytical power of the average man. All it lacked was a swooning reference to the "fragrance" of Kate McCann, such as a dribbling English judge had once made about a Mrs Archer during her well-known, and crooked, husband's libel case.

So intent was Menezes on being "fair" to the two arguidos that he skimmed, misread or minimised the evidence against them. Thus his summary used the collusive and in places untruthful first batch (May 4) of statements by the group, not the later ones in which they had been forced to change their stories under questioning; and he got them wrong too, the dolt, referring to Russell O'Brien leaving the Tapas restaurant with Mathew at 9 PM, for example. Russell? A mistake like that in an official prosecutors' report!* And with all the smothering the smoke was still escaping, as in his famous reference to the McCanns being "victims". What were they terrible victims of, Menny, a miscarriage of justice? Why, they were victims, he said, of their wilful refusal to co-operate with the investigation, thus losing the chance to "demonstrate their innocence", poor lambs. Such victimhood.

So that was the archiving summary, their "exoneration".There's no need to waste any more words on this lamentable work. We repeat we can't see that Menezes, Rebelo or Monteiro had any choice but to wind up the affair as best they could, given the forensics, time-scale and their impotence in the face of the Nine.

Winners or Dreadful Losers?

But what about the Nine who had thus got away with refusing to co-operate, what did they achieve for themselves? The only defence any of them have regarding the fact of their killing off the police search for the child is that they believed that the Portuguese police were out to get them, but once you force your way through the self-pity it isn't much of one, is it? As so many people have said, your own safety is normally put to one side, or not even considered, when there is a chance, however small, of helping to save your child. As for most of the other seven, just what risks terrified them so much that they wouldn't return? Portugal isn't Iran or Putin's Russia and they were never at risk of lengthy custody. Yet they opted for cowardice, by their own account of events, or something worse if their accounts are untrue, abandoning a four year old child to her fate. Brrr! Chilly.

The McCanns: failed to demonstrate their innocence, according to the official summary report. The Seven: failed to assist for "unknown reasons" according to the official summary report. It seems incredible that nine adults should be content to have their reputations sullied for the rest of their lives by these official conclusions. That is the legacy of condemnation and suspicion they are going to leave their children.

It follows, naturally, that a new investigational review offers all of them their only chance of removing this blemish.It can't happen passively, as it were –simply waiting while a review/investigation which doesn't include the close examination of their stories is concluded. Even if the child's body is discovered that won't lift the cloud over them since, after many years, the circumstances in which she died may be no more conclusive than the circumstances of her disappearance. Only their willing assistance can give them all the chance to demonstrate their innocence.

That is why Kate and Gerry McCann should have been pleading with the Yard for the last eighteen months for the opportunity to answer any questions at all, no holds barred. And so should their cowardly friends.

Much more to read in this link:
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.sg/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=3
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 4 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by ShabbyTiger on 12.01.13 18:27

The harrassment complaint can still be revived.

____________________

ShabbyTiger
ShabbyTiger

Posts : 42
Join date : 2010-12-28

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum