Scotland Yard takes over the inquiry into Maddie's disappearance from Portuguese plus *UPDATE* CPS lawyers fly to Portugal

June 2013 Last updated at 11:47


Madeleine McCann: Met police to take on investigation

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Madeleine was almost four years old when she disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment




The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is to be taken on by the Metropolitan Police.

Home Secretary Theresa May has agreed to fund the operation after Portuguese police failed to make any progress.

Madeleine, from Leicestershire, was almost four when she went missing on holiday from her family's apartment in the resort of Praia de Luz in 2007.

Scotland Yard said her parents, Kate and Gerry, were being kept fully updated on the progress of its work.

In a statement the Home Office said it "remains committed to supporting the search for Madeleine McCann" and has agreed "to provide the Metropolitan Police with the resources they need to investigate her disappearance."
Documents reviewed
A review into the case by police in the UK discovered new potential leads but the police in Portugal have not reopened the case.

The BBC understands that any investigation by Scotland Yard would need the co-operation of the Portuguese authorities.

Scotland Yard would not comment on the latest development but released a statement saying they are encouraged by the progress they are making.

It said: "We are reviewing a significant number of documents and continue to identify potential lines of inquiry.

"We are in regular contact with Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work.

"We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps."

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

Does 'solved' mean that some dead paedophile will be named officially? The case can be closed, Gerry and Kate can wind up the Fund, and get on with family life. Hmm, is that the right script?

Scotland Yard statement:

"We are reviewing a significant number of documents and continue to identify potential lines of inquiry. We are in regular contact with Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work. We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps".

Translation:

"As required originally by Rebekah Brooks and the McCanns, we continue to carry out our review, making sure that those on whose behalf we are acting - namely, the McCanns - 'are kept fully updated on the progress of our work'.

Like Loopzdaloop, I'm a bit disconcerted with the naysayers. We don't know for sure what's happening but I think it's better all round to be positive rather than negative.

Maybe it's worth recapping on what was making the news regarding Madeleine, back in February 2012:

SCOTLAND YARD detectives are poised to interview the so-called Tapas Seven as their inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann steps up a gear. 
 
 
 
The friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who accompanied them on their holiday to Portugal almost five years ago, are expecting interview requests as soon as officers feel they could assist the investigation.
 
So far, the Yard’s Maddie Squad has been concentrating on analysing every scrap of evidence in the case from files supplied by Leicestershire police, ­Portuguese detectives and Metodo 3, the Barcelona-based private investig­ators hired by the McCanns.
 
Officers have flown to Portugal three times and visited Spain twice.
 
 
With much of the analysis over, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood wants to put his team of three detective chief inspectors, five detective sergeants and 19 detective constables to good use.
 
 
They are being supported by six civilian staff and three officers from the specialist murder review group, bringing the total number on the team to 37.
 

"We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork"   A Yard spokesman

By April the cost of the inquiry will be £1.9million but it is thought that figure could double with the “investigative review” going into next year.
 
After nine months of information gathering, officers are checking statements from key witnesses.
 
 
They include the Tapas Seven, so called because they were eating at a tapas bar with Kate and Gerry at the time Madeleine disappeared.
 
In some cases the Yard officers have asked for documents to be retranslated from ­Portuguese to English so that they are absolutely sure of what was said and meant.
 
One theory they are examining is that if someone abducted Madeleine they could have had a copy of the key for the holiday apartment at the Ocean Club in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.
 
 
The Sunday Express has learned that the Tapas Seven “fully expect” to be asked to go over the statements they made to Portuguese officers shortly after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.
 
They were also interviewed by Leicestershire detectives, with Portuguese officers in attendance, when they arrived home.
 
The most significant witness is mother-of-two Jane Tanner, partner of doctor Russell O’Brien, who said she saw a man carrying a child resembling Madeleine some time after 9pm.
 
 
Another key witness is Matthew Oldfield, who went to the apartment to check on Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, who celebrated their seventh birthdays last week.
 
Mr Oldfield saw the twins in their cot but did not push the door open wide enough to see Madeleine, although he was happy all was well.
 
All the Tapas Seven fully support the Yard’s review of the case and hope it will provide a breakthrough.
 
 
Other members of the group include Mr Oldfield’s wife Rachael, David and Fiona Payne and her mother Dianne Webster.
 
A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”
 
The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

"To assist ATTEMPTS". Something desperate about that statement IMO

sallypelt wrote:
The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

"To assist ATTEMPTS". Something desperate about that statement IMO

It is obviously a mis-print,
They meant to say "Resist attempts"

I am feeling positive about this SY investigation.

British Police have no jurisdiction over an offence of abduction committed in Portugal. None. It is not within their powers to investigate it.
So what are they going to be investigating ?

According to the BBC, they are still working with the Portuguese. Let's wait and see what the Portuguese say about this latest development before poo poo-ing on it.

Attackers can no longer 'hide’ abroad, David Cameron and Nick Clegg to announce.

Currently, only murder and paedophile offences committed abroad can be prosecuted in British courts

In English law, where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, if it was committed by a British citizen (see s9 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (OAP) and s3 British Nationality Act 1948). In R v Cheong (2006) AER (D) 385 the appellant was living in Guyana in 1983. He shot and killed a man who had just robbed his wife and sister-in-law. Under local law he was charged only with the unlicensed possession of a firearm; but as a British citizen, s9 OAP Act 1861 applied when he returned to England and he was charged with murder

This guidance from the CPS should be considered when discussing whether or not any offences committed against Madeleine McCann could be prosecuted in the U.K.

It is quite clear from this that a whole variety of offences can by agreement between two E.U. countries [under the provisions of EUROJUST, or indeed otherwise] be prosecuted in a country other than where the offence was committed:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jurisdiction

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

Principle


Code for Crown Prosecutors - Considerations

Prosecutors will have come across an increasing number of cases in recent years that are not solely confined to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
In practice in cross-border cases, issues of forum will usually be decided between the police of the two (or more) jurisdictions, often before prosecutors become involved. In other cases, however, prosecutors of the relevant jurisdictions will have to make decisions as to where to prosecute, as the extent of the criminality and/or evidence in each of the countries may not be apparent until the conclusion of the investigation or even when the prosecution process is under way. There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.


General principles

There are several ways by which a state can exercise jurisdiction:

• Territory;
  
  
  
  
  
• Active personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the offender);
  
  
  
  
  
• Passive personality (i.e. the accused will be prosecuted in the country of the nationality of the victim);
  
  
  
  
  
• Universal jurisdiction (i.e. the state will be able to prosecute regardless of the nationality of the offender, the victim, and where the offence was committed, e.g. torture).
  
  
  
  
  

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


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 offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.
  
  
  
  
  

For a list of particular offences with an extra-territorial reach see Archbold .

Cross-border cases

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), an offence must have a "substantial connection with this jurisdiction" for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country. (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

Conflict of jurisdiction - European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

See the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] legal guidance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Guidance


Generally

In cross-border cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions, the best practice is for prosecutors and investigators of the relevant jurisdictions to meet face to face to consider and balance the different factors that should be considered when reaching a decision where to prosecute. Prosecutors should consider the following factors:

• Whether the prosecution can be divided into separate cases in two or more jurisdiction;
  
  
  
  
  
• The location and interests of the victim or victims;
  
  
  
  
  
• The location and interests of witnesses;
  
  
  
  
  
• The location and interests of the accused;
  
  
  
  
  
• Delays.
  
  
  
  
  

The Eurojust Annual Report 2003 has produced some guidelines that prosecutors can refer to when considering such issues. Prosecutors can also use them as guidance when dealing with non-EU Member States. A copy of these guidelines can be found at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. For the full report, see

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


Cross-border cases between Scotland and Northern Ireland
The criminal legal system that operates in England and Wales has remained entirely separate from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland and they are considered as separate jurisdictions. Prosecutors should therefore refer to the principles above apply to cross-border cases between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland.


Concurrent UK-US jurisdiction

Prosecutors should note that some offences may come within US extra-territorial jurisdiction even though none of the criminality occurred within US territory.

Prosecutors dealing with cases which have a factual nexus with the United States of America should refer to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Particular offences

Money Laundering

For the purpose of Part 7 the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, offences which were committed abroad are relevant predicate crimes if laundering acts are committed within our jurisdiction where the predicate offence committed abroad (from which proceeds were generated) would also constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred here (section 340 (2)(b)) (see Archbold ). See the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] legal guidance.

Ships at sea

The state whose flag is flown by a ship can claim jurisdiction. See the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] legal guidance.

Visiting forces

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 together with the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 make provision for dealing with offences committed by members of visiting naval, military and air forces from certain listed countries by their own service authorities and service courts rather than by United Kingdom authorities and courts. See the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] legal guidance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Procedure


Eurojust

Eurojusts role is to stimulate and facilitate co-operation in the investigation of serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime. As such it deals with large and complex cross-border cases, usually involving more than two EU Member States. In such cases, where prosecutors cannot reach an agreement, they may refer the case to Eurojust, which can be used as a final arbiter.

In such cases, prosecutors should consult with the Eurojust National Member for the UK. If prosecutors consider there is anything of significance the International Division should be informed.

For further details on Eurojust, see the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] legal guidance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Annex A - Eurojust Guidelines, Annual Report 2003, Making the Decision - "Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?"

A Presumption

There should be a preliminary presumption that, if possible, a prosecution should take place in the jurisdiction where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was sustained. When reaching a decision, prosecutors should balance carefully and fairly all the factors both for and against commencing a prosecution in each jurisdiction where it is possible to do so.

There are a number of factors that should be considered and can affect the final decision. All these factors should be considered at the meeting of prosecutors from the relevant states affected by the criminality concerned. Making a decision will depend on the circumstances of each case and this guidance is intended to bring consistency to every decision-making process.

Some of the factors which should be considered are:

The Location of the Accused

The possibility of a prosecution in that jurisdiction and whether extradition proceedings or transfer of proceedings are possible will all be factors that should be taken into consideration.

Extradition and Surrender of Persons

The capacity of the competent authorities in one jurisdiction to extradite or surrender a defendant from another jurisdiction to face prosecution in their jurisdiction will be a factor in deciding where that defendant may be prosecuted.

Dividing the Prosecution into Cases in Two or More Jurisdictions

The investigation and prosecution of complex cases of cross border crime will often lead to the possibility of a number of prosecutions in different jurisdictions.

In cases where the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions, provided it is practicable to do so, prosecutors should consider dealing with all the prosecutions in one jurisdiction. In such cases prosecutors should take into account the effect that prosecuting some defendants in one jurisdiction will have on any prosecution in a second or third jurisdiction. Every effort should be made to guard against one prosecution undermining another. When several criminals are alleged to be involved in linked criminal conduct, whilst often it may not be practicable, if it is possible and efficient to do so, prosecutors should consider prosecuting all those involved together in one jurisdiction.

The Attendance of Witnesses

Securing a just and fair conviction is a priority for every prosecutor. Prosecutors will have to consider the willingness of witnesses both to give evidence and, if necessary, to travel to another jurisdiction to give that evidence. In the absence of an international witness warrant, the possibility of the court receiving evidence in written form or by other means, such as remotely (by telephone or video-link), will have to be considered. The willingness of a witness to travel and give evidence in another jurisdiction should be considered carefully as this is a factor likely to influence the decision as to where a prosecution is issued.

The Protection of Witnesses

Prosecutors should always seek to ensure that witnesses or those who are assisting the prosecution process are not endangered. When making a decision on the jurisdiction for prosecution, factors for consideration may include, for example, the possibility of one jurisdiction being able to offer a witness protection programme when another has no such possibility.

Delay

A maxim recognised in all jurisdictions is that: "Justice delayed is justice denied". Whilst time should not be the leading factor in deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute, where other factors are balanced then prosecutors should consider the length of time which proceedings will take to be concluded in a jurisdiction. If several states have jurisdiction to prosecute, one consideration should always be how long it will take for the proceedings to be concluded.

Interests of Victims

Prosecutors must take into account the interests of victims and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rather than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.

Evidential Problems

Prosecutors can only pursue cases using reliable, credible and admissible evidence. Evidence is collected in different ways and often in very different forms in different jurisdictions. Courts in different jurisdictions have different rules for the acceptance of evidence often gathered in very diverse formats.

The availability of evidence in the proper form and its admissibility and acceptance by the court must be considered as these factors will affect and influence the decision on where a prosecution might be brought. These are factors which prosecutors must consider when reaching any decision on where a prosecution should be instituted.

Legal Requirements

Prosecutors must not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another simply to avoid complying with the legal obligations that apply in one jurisdiction but not in another.

All the possible effects of a decision to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another and the potential outcome of each case should be considered. These matters include the liability of potential defendants and the availability of appropriate offences and penalties.

Sentencing Powers

The relative sentencing powers of courts in the different potential prosecution jurisdictions must not be a primary factor in deciding in which jurisdiction a case should be prosecuted. Prosecutors should not seek to prosecute cases in a jurisdiction where the penalties are highest. Prosecutors should however ensure that the potential penalties available reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct which is subject to the prosecution.

Proceeds of Crime

Prosecutors should not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another only because it would result in the more effective recovery of the proceeds of crime. Prosecutors should always give consideration to the powers available to restrain, recover, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime and make the most effective use of international co-operation agreements in such matters.

Resources and Costs of Prosecuting

The costs of prosecuting a case, or its impact on the resources of a prosecution office, should only be a factor in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in one jurisdiction rather than in another when all other factors are equally balanced. Competent authorities should not refuse to accept a case for prosecution in their jurisdiction because the case does not interest them or is not a priority for the senior prosecutors or the Ministries of Justice.

Where a competent authority has expressed a reluctance to prosecute a case for these reasons, Eurojust will be prepared to consider exercising its powers to persuade the authority to act.

We have all read the official police statements & documents, proven all the many lies they have said etc....We know that there is not one single shred of evidence after 6 years and all the evidence clearly shows the mccanns & their friends guilt 

You do have to ask, why our current government continue with this fraud, and are now using our taxpayer money to employ valuable police resources to investigate this case when even a 5 years old who read the files would know exactly where to be looking

This current government were not involved when this story first happened, so why are continuing governments so protecting the mccanns? Has any government ever got themselves involved in a child missing case? And new governments continuing to be involved 6 years later? (even worse when there is no evidence of an abduction)

There just has to be something massive that is being covered up by the government, it must be so big that it could bring down not only government, but the establishment, to be going to these lengths still after 6 years where there is no evidence of what the parents have ever said & what has been said only shows their guilt

Tony, this is a small extract, copied and pasted from your post:

 There are a number of factors that can affect the final decision, and this will depend on the circumstances of each case. Prosecutors should balance all of these factors carefully and fairly, as this will weigh heavily on whether there is enough evidence to prosecute and whether it would be in the public interest to do so.


I don't believe there's been a cover-up in regards to British police or British law. The Leicester police, for example, know far more than the public knows about.
I believe that the lack of concrete evidence to successfully bring a prosecution, has caused problems. This has allowed the McCann machine to steamroller over everything and everyone that won't fit into their agenda.

I remain very positive about what seems to be happening.

It's not my place to remind you, but I still will: 5 million of tax-payers money is approx. 10 cents per head ... I am convinced that nobody in the UK would be against spending that money on solving this "celebrity" case ...

Note to self: I shouldn't tell old Maman the news before lunch. She's now dancing through the kitchen and food is getting cold

I hope this news will bring Joana Morais out of hibernation. I'd like to hear the view from Portugal. A comment from Amaral will be very welcome too

I feel very positive about this news and I believe it will lead to arrests and prosecution(s) and finally justice for Madeleine.

It seems to me that it's not so much about Portugal refusing to re-open the case but more about SY being better placed to investigate.

Now it has become a SY official investigation there ought to be no need for any form of partnership with the McCanns. There ought (we hope) to be no more media machine manipulation and no leaks. SY are investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The McCanns must be pleased that SY are looking for their daughter. I am and the cost is irrelevant.

The McCanns will no longer need the fund or the extradition lawyers or any of the other lawyers imo. They will no longer need a PR spokesperson. Their campaign will only need to be based on posters and awareness which are simple and inexpensive things to achieve via the internet.

The McCanns will have no longer have cause for further criticism of the Portuguese police/language difficulties.

Scotland Yard have already reviewed every shred of evidence and are moving to a formal investigation.

I may sound too positive but I do have a spring in my step and I think in the not too distant future (meaning not years) there will be arrests made.

Something is happening for Madeleine McCann.

All in my opinion.

aiyoyo wrote:Can anyone tell me how to reply outside the quote box perimeter?


This new format is not user friendly.

aiyoyo, click on the last square in the list of icons at the top or reply box......'switch to editor mode'.......this will change the format and you get the [quote] in brackets at the end to type your post after. Hope that makes sense.

ShuBob wrote:I hope this news will bring Joana Morais out of hibernation. I'd like to hear the view from Portugal. A comment from Amaral will be very welcome too 

Isn't the final decision for the Amaral v mccann case on whether it goes to trial due within the next few weeks

Timing is everything!  

jd wrote:

ShuBob wrote:I hope this news will bring Joana Morais out of hibernation. I'd like to hear the view from Portugal. A comment from Amaral will be very welcome too 

Isn't the final decision for the Amaral v mccann case on whether it goes to trial due within the next few weeks

Timing is everything!  

I no longer have any idea what's going on with that case . I do hope you are right though

I am of the same opinion as Sallypelt.The lack of concrete evidence is a problem.If it had just been the McCanns involved, then I believe we would have seen a resolution to all this years ago.The fact that there is an 'independent' witness to a possible abduction, Jane Tanner, who has made an official statement, can not be dismissed when considering a legal course of action.The McCanns have a solid defence against any charge.Their holiday colleagues have not broken ranks, and show no sign of doing so.There is a kind of stalemate going on.

I'm sure, as with anyone who has read the police files, the SY team have a good idea who they really need to put under the microscope in that holiday group, but they must tread carefully.Most of us would just prefer that they get on with it.It is taking far too long. Perversely, the generosity of the public have ensured that the McCanns are protected by a strong legal team, well able to delay any proceedings.

I could well be wrong...and the McCanns appear on the next Queen's honours List! But until that happens, the Police tactic of keeping your enemy close, is understandable.

Dr What wrote:I am of the same opinion as Sallypelt.The lack of concrete evidence is a problem.If it had just been the McCanns involved, then I believe we would have seen a resolution to all this years ago.The fact that there is an 'independent' witness to a possible abduction, Jane Tanner, who has made an official statement, can not be dismissed when considering a legal course of action.The McCanns have a solid defence against any charge.Their holiday colleagues have not broken ranks, and show no sign of doing so.There is a kind of stalemate going on.

I'm sure, as with anyone who has read the police files, the SY team have a good idea who they really need to put under the microscope in that holiday group, but they must tread carefully.Most of us would just prefer that they get on with it.It is taking far too long. Perversely, the generosity of the public have ensured that the McCanns are protected by a strong legal team, well able to delay any proceedings.

I could well be wrong...and the McCanns appear on the next Queen's honours List! But until that happens, the Police tactic of keeping your enemy close, is understandable.

I can't believe they still haven't solved this case, what do they do with their time?! Are they really that incompetent?!

Chop, chop!

Home Office to fund Met Police investigation into Madeleine McCann disappearance
The Home Office has given the green light to directly fund a full scale Metropolitan Police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

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


Interesting the Telegraph include this in their article, which has appeared recently and no mention like the other papers of parents being kept informed., ..........



It emerged last month that the review had identified more than 20 people "of interest", including Britons, who have not been eliminated from the case.

Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, who supervised the Met’s review said there were a "good number" of individuals who should be questioned.

DCS Campbell said it was “perfectly probable” that information which could identify the suspect responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance was already within the Portuguese files.

He added: “We have to ask ourselves why are cases unsolved and, on many occasions, we find we passed the suspects by already and the suspect sits within our system.
"The purpose of the review was to look at the case with fresh eyes and there is always real benefit in doing so. The review has further identified both investigative and forensic opportunities to support the Portuguese

sonic72 wrote:I can't believe they still haven't solved this case, what do they do with their time?! Are they really that incompetent?!

Chop, chop!

They are not incompetent, they are trying to make a whitewash plausible explanation in the face of the facts that the whole world knows. Its been a step by step process, slowly over the past few months/year trying to put into our minds the thoughts of other paedos who could have taken her with media reports etc. Now they seem to be starting on the final road to implementing their real goal now that the foundation has been set up

Portuguese Police need to make sure they keep copies of any info they hand over to British Police just in case it 'goes astray' or accidently gets shredded.