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

marconi wrote:kitkat, who are you?

Hope you don't mind me asking marconi but who are you? And WHY do you keep asking questions aimed at Tony specifically? This thread isn't about Tony!
I just find that a little bit strange.....

7 ducks are not willing to sacrifise themselves again and to get in more trouble than they are now. Perhaps they offer  the truth exchanging it for freedom.
They will appear in court as witnesses, not as suspects, in my opinion.
And that is bad enough.

Rainbow Fairy,  I ask Tony because he is a lawyer, he knows about laws and he is taking part in this blog. We can trust his information. The questions I asked him have to do with law.

I do hope Tony is now wise to ALL methods of entrapment.

Me wrote:

lj wrote:

jozi wrote:

jd wrote:

tiny wrote:The potential suspects are thought to include a handful of known child-sex offenders who are believed to have been in the Algarve when Madeleine disappeared.
The visit by senior CPS lawyers underlines the belief among senior detectives that the case could be solved.

raymond hewlett anyone! :biggrin:Classic set-up

Why would they try to set up Hewlett, the man is dead...... but what about the two who's file is empty ?

Hewlett is the perfect patsy: he's dead and cannot prove or disprove anything. And the conning couple will be on everyone's nerves for ever. Imagine every christmas: we know the abductor is dead, but their is no proof that Maddie uh margareth, uh what was her name, has come to any harm. So fill the collecting bowls.

But why would the CPS get involved? They don't and can't prosecute the dead!

I am sorry Me, I wrote that post before I had read all of the thread. maybe it was a visit to see if they could move the Portuguese to reopen or give them access to the files they did not release. After all a reopening would be decided by the Portuguese equivalent of the CPS.

I just don't believe for a second that the tapas bunch will be prosecuted. That would make too many "important" people look stupid. Plus I think if there was enough evidence to prosecute them the Portuguese would be all too happy to jump in. Sweet revenge.

I would love to be more optimistic, but the mess with the rogatory letter, interviews and all the horrendous stupid statements of people from/about operation Grange have given me not a tiniest bit of hope.

kitkat wrote:

roy rovers wrote:SY / CPS may be aiming to get ALL their ducks in a row before re-interviewing T9 as one confession is worth so much more than any amount of circumstantial evidence. I agree that it is mega significant that it was the CPS not SY in Portugal and that it was their head honcho.

Do you honestly believe that the Portuguese would have refused to re-open the case and NOT leaked info about it to the media if SY had found ANY kind of proof that implicated the family?   Or that, Alison Saunders, who once headed up the CPS Organised Crime Division/specialises in trafficking, is the lead on this case all because SY hope to get "their ducks in a row before re-interviewing T9"?  

Exactly

Woofer wrote:I do hope Tony is now wise to ALL methods of entrapment.

I'm pretty sure he is Woofer taking into account his last reply to a question aimed at him

I think he is very wise

marconi wrote:Rainbow Fairy,  I ask Tony because he is a lawyer, he knows about laws and he is taking part in this blog. We can trust his information. The questions I asked him have to do with law.

Uh huh
Tony was a lawyer. However, I doubt, with the greatest respect to the man himself, that he knows much more about Portuguese law or the ins and outs of what the CPS were doing in PT than the rest of us.
Suspicious I may be, but it seems I'm not the only one!

I don't think for one minute the Portuguese would want to reopen the case, especially if it were to prosecute the McCanns. Financially, extradition and court costs would be a nightmare, and then if they secured a conviction, they would have the cost of keeping anyone found guilty throughout a jail term. If the British were to take this on however, restoring the PJ's reputation at the same time, I think this would suit them just fine.

For the Portuguese, the problem of the McCanns has gone away. They have offered them the chance to take part in a reconstruction but all the Tapas group refused. The view of the PJ is probably that the McCanns brought this situation on themselves and that they have to live with the result of their own actions. However, should more evidence come to light regarding either an abduction, or some other explanation, then the PJ have said they will reopen the case.

Unlike the Uk, the Portuguese do not have the responsibility of investigating matters concerning the fund, which has not been set up in Portugal, and does not involve Portuguese residents.

OK, be suspicious, who cares?.

Having studying Laws, I am convinced that he is very competent, being a former lawyer or not. He definitely knows a lot but a lot more than we all probably know in this blog.

suzyjohnson, you are deadly right. Besides it seems that the UK accepts 15 marks DNA and the dogs.
The fund started there and they must have Kelin Halligan's statements.
Ideal place to charge a lot of people. And all of the future videos, documentaries...

suzyjohnson wrote:I don't think for one minute the Portuguese would want to reopen the case, especially if it were to prosecute the McCanns. Financially, extradition and court costs would be a nightmare, and then if they secured a conviction, they would have the cost of keeping anyone found guilty throughout a jail term. If the British were to take this on however, restoring the PJ's reputation at the same time, I think this would suit them just fine.

For the Portuguese, the problem of the McCanns has gone away. They have offered them the chance to take part in a reconstruction but all the Tapas group refused. The view of the PJ is probably that the McCanns brought this situation on themselves and that they have to live with the result of their own actions. However, should more evidence come to light regarding either an abduction, or some other explanation, then the PJ have said they will reopen the case.

Unlike the Uk, the Portuguese do not have the responsibility of investigating matters concerning the fund, which has not been set up in Portugal, and does not involve Portuguese residents.

- and since Portugal's economy depends heavily on tourism, it would be a disastrous move altogether. The press would engender new myths about the dangers of leaving a child alone for five seconds in Portugal.

Imo this is one big strategic 'push' to put the whole saga to bed. Possibly a conviction with suspended sentence for neglect which can be 'proved' - conclusion that Maddie is dead. Perhaps a few allusions to the likes of Von Aesch and Hewlett and perhaps some 'advice' for the McCanns to shut up and close the Ltd. Co. With any luck they'll emigrate. Brazil is my advice.

Interesting, Tigger, Brazil was my choice for them too. It's about that time, the "no comment because of current investigation" followed by rapid flight. And at least the language would be a constant. 

kitkat wrote:

roy rovers wrote:SY / CPS may be aiming to get ALL their ducks in a row before re-interviewing T9 as one confession is worth so much more than any amount of circumstantial evidence. I agree that it is mega significant that it was the CPS not SY in Portugal and that it was their head honcho.

Do you honestly believe that the Portuguese would have refused to re-open the case and NOT leaked info about it to the media if SY had found ANY kind of proof that implicated the family?   Or that, Alison Saunders, who once headed up the CPS Organised Crime Division/specialises in trafficking, is the lead on this case all because SY hope to get "their ducks in a row before re-interviewing T9"?  

No i don't think they would have leaked anything, on the basis that they haven't leaked anything about the team set up that have been liasing with SY over the last few months.

On the reopening of the case it's more likely at this stage that SY have the ability to complete the investigation more easily in the Uk given the location of the last people to see Madeleine alive.

It is i guess also a possibility that SY could do more groundwork and develop more evidence and then Portuguese can reopen the case. Or failing that and given Alison Saunders is now the head of complex cases (if they were going down the route of trafficking why didn't the current head of trafficking go rather than the former one?) SY may be of the opinion they can move forward with what they have got or need issues clarifying before they do so.

Let's not forget the CPS's MO:

As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales the CPS is responsible for criminal cases beyond the police investigatory stage. The CPS will advise the police on cases for possible prosecution, review cases submitted by the police, determine any charges in all but minor cases, prepare cases for court and present cases at court. Primarily, the CPS will review the evidence gathered by the police and provide guidance. During pre-charge procedures and throughout the investigative and prosecuting process the CPS may assist the police by explaining what additional work or evidence could raise the case to a viable charging standard thereby rectifying any evidential deficiencies. Once the evidence is gathered the CPS will then decide, on the basis of this evidence, whether a case should be pursued or dropped."

The one thing they won't be doing is going to Portugal to discuss any of the ludicrous inventions of child rings and dead paedos, as Portugal knows nothing about those and has gathered no evidence to support any of those theories.

Why would the CPS go to Portugal to disucss evidence that the PJ and Portuguese Prosecutors haven't gathered?

Think it's a safe bet they have have gone over there to discuss the evidence they have gathered.

Me wrote:
Think it's a safe bet they have have gone over there to disucss the evidence they have gathered.

Quite so.

Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

scotlandMe, thank you for your comment. It became more clear to me.
My hope grows by the minute. Now I believe an action will not last long. It compensates Europe's bad summer and  worse economy.

again a mistake. I did not mean to write scotlandme but only the word Me.

kinell wrote:Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

Exactly!

For information, Marconi, comments can be edited within about half an hour of being posted, which avoids making another entry to state whatever was wrong.

The mobile and email evidence the PJ got but couldn't use because of a technicality.  Will that be able to be used by the UK investigation?

aiyoyo wrote:

kinell wrote:Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

Exactly!

I fail to see how asking Kate McCann how she managed to get her clothes reeking of death scent can cost the UK taxpayer £5million quid! Surely the MET have the capability of checking out her 6 corpses at work story. 

marconi wrote:Tony Bennett, what is the function of a prosecutor lawyer now, whilsh there are  trial nor charges going on and what can we expect of such a person?
 
Who sent her to Portugal, in your opinion, and is it a sign that  soon charges could be brought to suspects?

In view of TB's willingness to answer marconi, my previous post is no longer valid. Thus I have deleted it.


 

kinell wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

kinell wrote:Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

Exactly!

I fail to see how asking Kate McCann how she managed to get her clothes reeking of death scent can cost the UK taxpayer £5million quid! Surely the MET have the capability of checking out her 6 corpses at work story. 

Who is to say they haven't nor the CPS?

I think the idea of the cost of this case is for me a bit of a red herring. The costs of running a police force are fixed so there would still be the costs for these officers irrespective of what case they were investigating. Plus if evidence is brought against the McCann's or others and the case is solved inline with the general belief of the vast majortity on this forum would the cost of bringing the perpetrators to justice then be so much of an issue to anyone?

The cost of the case echoes the principal of crime investigation and resources, National Insurance and NHS costs and indeed general insurance costs and insurance payouts. The many pay their premiums (or taxes) for the benefit of the few who need it.

Personally the cost does not bother me as i want the case to be investigated and for justice to be done irrespective of the cost.

Me wrote:

kinell wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

kinell wrote:Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

Exactly!

I fail to see how asking Kate McCann how she managed to get her clothes reeking of death scent can cost the UK taxpayer £5million quid! Surely the MET have the capability of checking out her 6 corpses at work story. 

Who is to say they haven't nor the CPS?

I think the idea of the cost of this case is for me a bit of a red herring. The costs of running a police force are fixed so there would still be the costs for these officers irrespective of what case they were investigating. Plus if evidence is brought against the McCann's or others and the case is solved inline with the general belief of the vast majortity on this forum would the cost of bringing the perpetrators to justice then be so much of an issue to anyone?

The cost of the case echoes the principal of crime investigation and resources, National Insurance and NHS costs and indeed general insurance costs and insurance payouts. The many pay their premiums (or taxes) for the benefit of the few who need it.

Personally the cost does not bother me as i want the case to be investigated and for justice to be done irrespective of the cost.

Likely they know they have no need to waste time checking the 6 corpses story because they know it's utter bullock.
After all their other possessions not taken to work were also reeking of cadaverine.
No cost involves here even if the MET were to want to check the 6 corpses story. Just need to ring up the Registrar or Birth & Death to verify kate's story after she'd provided the name of the 6 corpses. Can't be that difficult or costly!

marconi wrote:Tony Bennett, what is the function of a prosecutor lawyer now, whilst there [is neither] trial nor charges going on - and what can we expect of such a person?
 
Who sent her to Portugal, in your opinion, and is it a sign that soon charges could be brought to suspects?
 
Did such a prosecutor lawyer appear on the horizon because probably the Yard has already an answer?

I am going to answer your question about the role of CPS lawyers by giving you an insight into the actions of CPS lawyers in the case of the death of Lee Balkwell, in which I have been involved for the past 6 years.

Early on the morning of 18 July 2002, Lee was reported dead or dying, trapped in a concrete mixer. Ever since then, argument has raged over whether this was a genuine accident, or 'tragic accident' as Essex Police maintained from the off, or a murder disguised as an accident.

After a cursory 5-week investigation, DCSupt Graeme Bull closed his investiagtion and out up a file to the CPS, recommending that no criminal charges should be laid against anyone.

He then, in accordance with normal practice, passed his thin file to the chief CPS lawyer for Essex, Christopher McCann (no relation, so far as I am aware).

McCann basically rubber-stamped Bull's recommendation of no criminal charges. In an interim report dated 29 June 2009 and a final report dated 30 Januayr 2012, the IPCC branded Bull's investigation as 'seriously flawed', upheld 13 separate allegations of misconduct against him, and 13 more allegations of msiconduct against other senior police officers in the case were also upheld.

A lengthy review of evidence took place. The subsequent reviewing officer, Simon Coxall, on at least two further occasions, consulted the CPS (Christopher McCann) again. Once again, the verdict from McCann was 'no crime has been committed'.  

From 22 January to 9 February, there was an Inquest. Essex Police approached this by continuing to maintain that it was 'a tragic accident'. A verdict of 'accidental death' was being sought.

Lee Balkwell's father was represented by a barrister, Tony Ventham, at the Inquest. In his closing speech to the Coroner, he said, and I quote, that "there is overwhelming evidence that Lee Balkwell was murdered".

The Coroner, however told the jury that she would not allow them to bring in a verdict of homicide as there was 'insufficient evidence'.

The 10-person jury returned this unanimous verdict: 'Unlawfully killed due to gross negligence/manslaughter'.

That verdict clearly required Essex Police to reconsider the case. The jury had said that there was an unlawful killing. That meant that someone must be responsible for that unlawful killing.

After several weeks, it appeared to us that Essex Police were once again trying to close their file without prosecuting anyone. They told us that they were, quote, 'preparing a file for the CPS'.

At that stage, we wrote to the then head of the East of England CPS service, Ken Caley, suggesting that up to now the CPS (i.e. Christopher McCann) had acted unprofessionally - i.e. he had never addressed the possibility that Lee Balkwell had been murdered, and had merely rubber-stamped the clearly flawed reports from Essex Police.  

Mr Caley agreed that the matter should be reviewed by an independent CPS lawyer, and so that matter was passed to Nick Staite, the chief CPS lawyer for Cambridgeshire. We were told that he was entirely independent of Essex CPS.

He has had the file for over 4 years. During that time, he has had at least two major meetings with the police and other professionals to discuss the evidence in the case. He has also met separately with myself and Les Balkwell on one occasion, and with Les Balkwell and members of his family on two other occasions.  

On the last occasion, 4 February, Nick Staite met with Les Balkwell and his daughter. There, Mr Balkwell learnt what to him was devastating news that Nick Staite's line manager was now Christopher McCann, who had been promoted to Head of the CPS for the whole of the East of England.

At around the same time, we learnt that Essex Police had arrested members of the Bromley family not for a deliberate act against Lee Balkwell but for 'gross negligence', a charge which we say is not supported at all by the evidence. We say unequivocally, as Les balkwell's barrister did over 5 years ago, that he was unlawfully, deliberately, killed.

Thus Christopher McCann is now managing the very person who, 11 years ago, rubber-stamped Essex Police's 'seriously flawed' investigation. The 'independnece' we were promised back in 2008 by Ken Caley has clearly been lost.

We have complained, back in April, against Nick Staite's obvious lack of independence. We took our complaint to Keir Starmer Q.C., Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is causing the CPS a headache in how to deal with the case. This letter arrived yesterday from Mr Frank Ferguson, Acting Deputy Chief Crown Prosecuter, CPS East of England:

"Dear Mr Bennett

In my letter of 24 May 2013 I indicated that I would update you as to the position by 18 June 2013. I apologise for the slight delay in responding to you.

Work has been carried out since receipt of your correspondence to enable me to consider the most appropriate way forward but this is going to take a little longer. I will write to you again within 14 days to confirm the position.

Yours sincerely..."

It remains the view of Les Balkwell and myself that this case continues to be handled corruptly with a view to hiding the true circumstances of Lee's death and a multitude of other sins committed by Essex Police senior officers.

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

That background will perhaps be an insight into how the CPS get involved in what would certainly be called another 'complex' case.

They receive evidence about an event, about a possible crime.

They advise on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge any individual.

They advise on what legal charges it is appropriate to bring.

They advise on what more evidence might be needed in order to achieve a successful prosecution.

To answer your questions about what the CPS senior lawyers might be doing in Portugal in April:

1. They had no business being there at all unless it was on the basis that there was a reasonable amount of evidence to consider a prosecution of one or more individuals for their part in the disaappearance of Madeleinde McCann

2. The fact that it was the CPS No. 1 and No. 2 lawyers going to Portugal probbaly indicates the complexity or seriousness of the possible charges, and/or the importance of this case to the British government

3. It suggests that a prosecution of someone in England and Wales is being considered

4. They might have gone to try to extract more evidence from the PJ files (presumably to strengthen the case against someone)

5. They might have gone to discuss the practicalities of a prosecution in England e.g. what witnesses, police or otherwise, might be required, how they are going to get to an English court, what will be needed in the way of translation services, who will pay for them etc. etc.  

6. You asked: "Who sent the CPS lawyers to Portugal?" It must have been done, at least in part, at the request of the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, DCI Andy Redwood. Unless he already has significant evidence against one or more individuals, then the CPS lawyers travelling to Portugal would be just a sham, a performance for public consumption. No doubt Keir Starmer Q.C. was himself involved in ordering his top two lawyers over to Portugal. Whether someone else leant on Keir Starmer Q.C. to send his two top CPS lawyers to Portugal, I have no way of knowing.

Well Marconi certainly got an answer from Tony, only prob. now I am not so optimistic as I had become.

I do  not doubt the rank and file officers, but you have to wonder whether there is going to be a whitewash when you read something like Tony's post about Lee.

I must take my hat off to Tony Bennett for his pursuit in the truth for Lee and his family and hope that someone  will do the decent thing and investigate properly what has gone on in the past, but wont hold my breath.

Re. Portugal and its financial situation.

I did read a short while back that 30,000 civil servants were going to lose their jobs over the coming years.  That is just civil servants alone.   I can imagine that the powers that be would not want to make an announcement that millions of Pt. Euros were going to be spent on re-opening the investigation into Maddie's disappeaarnce.

Let's hope that any investigaiton by SY is not going to be a whitewash and waste millions more of UK taxpayers' money.

Isn't it about time that The Fund money was given to the public coffers to assist in this investigation as there is no need for a private investigation now?

kinell wrote:Why would the SY be looking for dead paedo's when they have a person of interest who reeked of cadavar odor?

As far as I'm aware they haven't restricted themselves to dead paedophiles but remember that their remit wasn't to establish what really happened to Madeleine. It was to provide the PJ with new leads to identify the abductor: "It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter." (My emphasis). [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The whole of operation Grange has been underpinned by the assumption that Madeleine was abducted. It's entirely possible that SY have identified one or more potential abductors and the CPS went to Portugal to try and persuade their counterparts to prosecute

plebgate wrote:Re. Portugal and its financial situation.

I did read a short while back that 30,000 civil servants were going to lose their jobs over the coming years.  That is just civil servants alone.   I can imagine that the powers that be would not want to make an announcement that millions of Pt. Euros were going to be spent on re-opening the investigation into Maddie's disappeaarnce.

Let's hope that any investigaiton by SY is not going to be a whitewash and waste millions more of UK taxpayers' money.

Isn't it about time that The Fund money was given to the public coffers to assist in this investigation as there is no need for a private investigation now?

Exactly Plebgate