Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

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

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

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

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

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

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Interesting that the female witness can state with certainty that JT nor GM,JW were not in the road at 9.15. JT didn't see anyone and SY know it, they have played a blinder by concocting a story in order to dismiss it.

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

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

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Interesting that the female witness can state with certainty that JT nor GM,JW were not in the road at 9.15. JT didn't see anyone and SY know it, they have played a blinder by concocting a story in order to dismiss it.

In that case the T9 must know they have been rumbled.

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

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

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Interesting that the female witness can state with certainty that JT nor GM,JW were not in the road at 9.15. JT didn't see anyone and SY know it, they have played a blinder by concocting a story in order to dismiss it.

However the revelation has come about, ah don't ask no questions, ah don't need to know nuffink.  
Suffice it to say, after a CrimeWatch programme that was so tedious and mish-mashy that I dozed off mid-performance I am glad that I had taped it and Nereid has now made a transcript.
I went to bed really hacked off, but woke up with my own 'revelation'.
I now have a sneaking sense of optimism and (shhhh....perhaps even a little bit of respect for AR) because I think he has maybe pulled a big fat white rabbit out of the hat.  

russiandoll wrote:and we need to accept uncritically that mistaken man had one set of clothes on holiday and his child one pair of pjs.

 How in hell could he recall what he and his child wore at a specific time, on a specific day, YEARS AGO?

 and accept that JT could see the detail she claimed.

 which bizarrely matched a description of what an abducted child would be carried away in soon afterwards!

Ssssh.....


 

Am waiting for the rest of the fairy tail to be debunked.

Some great posts on this thread.

Last night I was stunned and bewildered.

But now, 24 hours later, I can see more clearly.

This is an appeal for more witnesses to come forward and say where and when they saw the Smiths' man.

What was he doing? And, of course, do you recognise him?

This man must have gone somewhere. He could have been spotted elsewhere before or after, with or without a child. Someone else must have seen him, surely?

Maybe SY already know at least some of that info. But Smiths' word isn't enough. The need more witnesses.

I said on another thread that on Sky News many people had phoned in with the same name of the Smith sighting.  

And was this a one way journey, or was it part of a return journey, one with child, one without?

Nina wrote:And was this a one way journey, or was it part of a return journey, one with child, one without?

Indeed.

Lance De Boils wrote:Some great posts on this thread.

Last night I was stunned and bewildered.

But now, 24 hours later, I can see more clearly.

This is an appeal for more witnesses to come forward and say where and when they saw the Smiths' man.

What was he doing? And, of course, do you recognise him?

This man must have gone somewhere. He could have been spotted elsewhere before or after, with or without a child. Someone else must have seen him, surely?

Maybe SY already know at least some of that info. But Smiths' word isn't enough. The need more witnesses.

Sky have said tonight their may be CCCTV footage of that sighting as there were cameras in that area.  

If is it obvious to us that a planned abduction would involve a getaway car then SY know it too.
The man walking to the beach with the child had no choice but to walk, he had no use of a vehicle did he!
Regarding the tapas 9, maybe some were left out of the loop but definitely not JT and ROB.

It is interesting to note that an elderly British woman came forward to give a statement to say that on the night M went missing she noticed a female hanging about outside the McCann's apartment. She looked Portuguese, was wearing purple and acting suspicious, she did not want to be noticed. I believe the lady was talking about JT.
  
 Scroll down to,' woman outside Maddie's flat'.  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Was she keeping a look out?

Jane Tanner looks Portuguese and she did wear a lot of purple in PDL.

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

Do you think 'the blonde man' might be the tennis instructor. Who Kate and Gerry spent all their time with on the last day.
The Tranmere photofit that was supressed. Who met ROB on the night with a car?

See ROB's statement.

He say's he met Dan -- who had a car -- by the Millenium--on the search.

All I know is one of the tennis instructors is blonde.

endgame wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory".  The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Redwood does not have to make ridiculous unfounded statements about planned abductions. OK Andy you're convinced it's an abduction but you have have no idea how, when or who, no evidence and yet you're able to state that it has hallmarks. What are they? You mean any planned abduction would have the abductor wandering half way round Praia da Luz with his prey past two car parks where the co-conspirators could have easily parked the getaway car and heading off into nowhere. That is all you actually think you know. I don't see how those are hallmarks of anything.

As I say he doesn't have to trot out this c**p. It's only purpose is to reinforce the idea of abduction.

How is expanding the window of opportunity, pointing the finger at a suspect and claiming that everything adds up to a planned abduction "breaking the theory"? Removing Jane Tanner may make her look stupid but it opens up the possibilities of abduction rather than closes them down. He has in one move taken away the it couldn't have happened because there were only 1m 20 secs free argument.

Actually, I agree with what Redwood said. 
What he said was factual. 

it IS "one interpretation" of what happened. 
Unfortunately, there are more compelling interpretations.

I mentioned a couple of times today that SY did CW to get more evidence related to the Smith sighting. When I spoke about arrests in the UK (as others on this forum had been saying the same thing) somebody ("Andy" if I remember from earlier) said that the Mccanns cannot be guilty of anything that can be prosecuted in the UK. Does this mean that all evidence gained will have to be given to the PJ to reopen the case and prosecute there? Can anybody say if arrests can be made within the UK if it involves any of the T9? Would they only be able to prosecute for something like fraud (the fund) i.e. something that actually happened in this country? I do get a bit confused on this one.

rolodog wrote:Do you think 'the blonde man' might be the tennis instructor. Who Kate and Gerry spent all their time with on the last day.
The Tranmere photofit that was supressed. Who met ROB on the night with a car?

See ROB's statement.

He say's he met Dan -- who had a car -- by the Millenium--on the search.

All I know is one of the tennis instructors is blonde.

I have read somewhere (can't remember now) that ROB had a surfing friend who lived in PDL.

Shrike wrote:I mentioned a couple of times today that SY did CW to get more evidence related to the Smith sighting. When I spoke about arrests in the UK (as others on this forum had been saying the same thing) somebody ("Andy" if I remember from earlier) said that the Mccanns cannot be guilty of anything that can be prosecuted in the UK. Does this mean that all evidence gained will have to be given to the PJ to reopen the case and prosecute there? Can anybody say if arrests can be made within the UK if it involves any of the T9? Would they only be able to prosecute for something like fraud (the fund) i.e. something that actually happened in this country? I do get a bit confused on this one.

I think that probably you're referring to me. Firstly I apologise if you think I was picking on you - I wasn't. You are quite right that there are many others that profess the same view as you with respect to prosecutions in the UK. I've read most, if not all, of them and I guess your post was the one that reached my frustration limit due to a cumulative affect. Sorry, its nothing personal.

The point that I was trying to make and which no-one has yet managed to address (much to my disappointment) is that I cannot see any offence over which the police forces of either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction with respect to Madeleine's disappearance. This remains true regardless of whether it was an abduction or the parents concealed her death and hid her corpse. The implication of all this is, to my mind at least, the proverbial elephant in the room; what on earth are SY investigating? (Because if they're not investigating with a view to a prosecution in GB, why have the tax payers agreed to spend £5m on what appears to be a completely pointless exercise)

In respect of "Fund fraud" I'm not convinced there has been any (although to be fair, the last time I raised this there were quite a few people with opposing views, unlike my views on jurisdiction)

AndyB wrote:

Shrike wrote:I mentioned a couple of times today that SY did CW to get more evidence related to the Smith sighting. When I spoke about arrests in the UK (as others on this forum had been saying the same thing) somebody ("Andy" if I remember from earlier) said that the Mccanns cannot be guilty of anything that can be prosecuted in the UK. Does this mean that all evidence gained will have to be given to the PJ to reopen the case and prosecute there? Can anybody say if arrests can be made within the UK if it involves any of the T9? Would they only be able to prosecute for something like fraud (the fund) i.e. something that actually happened in this country? I do get a bit confused on this one.

I think that probably you're referring to me. Firstly I apologise if you think I was picking on you - I wasn't. You are quite right that there are many others that profess the same view as you with respect to prosecutions in the UK. I've read most, if not all, of them and I guess your post was the one that reached my frustration limit due to a cumulative affect. Sorry, its nothing personal.

The point that I was trying to make and which no-one has yet managed to address (much to my disappointment) is that I cannot see any offence over which the police forces of either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction with respect to Madeleine's disappearance. This remains true regardless of whether it was an abduction or the parents concealed her death and hid her corpse. The implication of all this is, to my mind at least, the proverbial elephant in the room; what on earth are SY investigating? (Because if they're not investigating with a view to a prosecution in GB, why have the tax payers agreed to spend £5m on what appears to be a completely pointless exercise)

In respect of "Fund fraud" I'm not convinced there has been any (although to be fair, the last time I raised this there were quite a few people with opposing views, unlike my views on jurisdiction)

Actually Andy, their mandate is to be able to investigate the crime as if it happened in the UK.
It therefore appears that they have claimed jurisdiction. 

The reason in the UK we as the public should be happy to spent until a final result is so that no-one is above the law or can manipulate the law through a disparity in arms. Our tax is an insurance, and I'm glad they are claiming on this one. 

As to your question of 'what are SY investigating?' I think it is pretty clear. 

As Redwood said one interpretation is that there was an audicious kidnapping by a highly professional pedo gang that NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT.(everyone could agree with that, if it was true)
or another interpretation postulated by Goncalo and developed by the British Police was an accident, cover up and subsequent fraud. 

How this adds up is as simble as ABC.
(A (Accident) + B (Body) + C (Cover up) + D (Deception) + E (Evangelicalism) = F - (FRAUD) )


Luckily


/ G (Goncalo) X H (Haven, Jill + rest of forum members) + I (Investigative review) = J (JAIL)

Furthermore, if there has been a shadowy group of people manipulating public opinion that might include politicians, PR Companies, Legal organisations as well as the media. All corruption should be cleansed from our society. 

Value for money if you ask me.

loopzdaloop wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Shrike wrote:I mentioned a couple of times today that SY did CW to get more evidence related to the Smith sighting. When I spoke about arrests in the UK (as others on this forum had been saying the same thing) somebody ("Andy" if I remember from earlier) said that the Mccanns cannot be guilty of anything that can be prosecuted in the UK. Does this mean that all evidence gained will have to be given to the PJ to reopen the case and prosecute there? Can anybody say if arrests can be made within the UK if it involves any of the T9? Would they only be able to prosecute for something like fraud (the fund) i.e. something that actually happened in this country? I do get a bit confused on this one.

I think that probably you're referring to me. Firstly I apologise if you think I was picking on you - I wasn't. You are quite right that there are many others that profess the same view as you with respect to prosecutions in the UK. I've read most, if not all, of them and I guess your post was the one that reached my frustration limit due to a cumulative affect. Sorry, its nothing personal.

The point that I was trying to make and which no-one has yet managed to address (much to my disappointment) is that I cannot see any offence over which the police forces of either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction with respect to Madeleine's disappearance. This remains true regardless of whether it was an abduction or the parents concealed her death and hid her corpse. The implication of all this is, to my mind at least, the proverbial elephant in the room; what on earth are SY investigating? (Because if they're not investigating with a view to a prosecution in GB, why have the tax payers agreed to spend £5m on what appears to be a completely pointless exercise)

In respect of "Fund fraud" I'm not convinced there has been any (although to be fair, the last time I raised this there were quite a few people with opposing views, unlike my views on jurisdiction)

Actually Andy, their mandate is to be able to investigate the crime as if it happened in the UK.
It therefore appears that they have claimed jurisdiction. The money is clearly being well spent. 

The reason in the UK we as the public should be happy to spent until a final result is so that no-one is above the law or can manipulate the law through a disparity in arms. Our tax is an insurance, and I'm glad they are claiming on this one. 

As to your question of 'what are SY investigating?'

Either A> an audicious kidnapping by a highly professional pedo gang that NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT.
(everyone could agree with that, if it was true)
or B> An accident, cover up and subsequent fraud. Along with a huge shadowy group of people manipulating things ranging from politicians, to PR firms to legal eagles that has corrupted the media and all it has touched.

Value for money if you ask me.

I think you're missing the point.  In both of your suggestions there has clearly been a criminal offence but the offence was committed in Portugal, is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese and can only be prosecuted by them. SY should only be involved if there is a criminal offence that is triable within their jurisdiction, i.e. GB. What offence do you believe has been committed that is triable in GB?

As far as I can see there is no offence here and that includes their limited company, which, as much as I might agree with you in respect of the morality of its advertising and the way it raised money, is, IMO, operating entirely within its articles of association and therefore not fraudulently.

@ Andy, surely if the "Fund" had stated aims to exist to search for Madeleine, then if it's founders / directors knew her to be dead then they would be obtaining money from the public by deception.
That's fraud, pure and simple.

snipped  @ Andy post....

The point that I was trying to make and which no-one has yet managed to address (much to my disappointment) is that I cannot see any offence over which the police forces of either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction with respect to Madeleine's disappearance. This remains true regardless of whether it was an abduction or the parents concealed her death and hid her corpse. The implication of all this is, to my mind at least, the proverbial elephant in the room; what on earth are SY investigating? (Because if they're not investigating with a view to a prosecution in GB, why have the tax payers agreed to spend £5m on what appears to be a completely pointless exercise)

In respect of "Fund fraud" I'm not convinced there has been any (although to be fair, the last time I raised this there were quite a few people with opposing views, unlike my views on jurisdiction)[/quote]Actually Andy, their mandate is to be able to investigate the crime as if it happened in the UK.
It therefore appears that they have claimed jurisdiction. The money is clearly being well spent. 

The reason in the UK we as the public should be happy to spent until a final result is so that no-one is above the law or can manipulate the law through a disparity in arms. Our tax is an insurance, and I'm glad they are claiming on this one. 

As to your question of 'what are SY investigating?'

Either A> an audicious kidnapping by a highly professional pedo gang that NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT.
(everyone could agree with that, if it was true)
or B> An accident, cover up and subsequent fraud. Along with a huge shadowy group of people manipulating things ranging from politicians, to PR firms to legal eagles that has corrupted the media and all it has touched.

Value for money if you ask me.[/quote]I think you're missing the point.  In both of your suggestions there has clearly been a criminal offence but the offence was committed in Portugal, is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese and can only be prosecuted by them. SY should only be involved if there is a criminal offence that is triable within their jurisdiction, i.e. GB. What offence do you believe has been committed that is triable in GB?

As far as I can see there is no offence here and that includes their limited company, which, as much as I might agree with you in respect of the morality of its advertising and the way it raised money, is, IMO, operating entirely within its articles of association and therefore not fraudulently.[/quote].................
............................

@ Andy Snipped, can't get into new quote box..........
NEW POST by bobbin
But by mutual arrangement between police forces now, can they be arrested by UK cops to be extradited for proceedings in Portugal. There have been conversations about 'co-operation' and why did the CPS go down to Portugal, and what about European Arrest Warrants, could there be any lee way in any of this ?

AndyB wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Shrike wrote:I mentioned a couple of times today that SY did CW to get more evidence related to the Smith sighting. When I spoke about arrests in the UK (as others on this forum had been saying the same thing) somebody ("Andy" if I remember from earlier) said that the Mccanns cannot be guilty of anything that can be prosecuted in the UK. Does this mean that all evidence gained will have to be given to the PJ to reopen the case and prosecute there? Can anybody say if arrests can be made within the UK if it involves any of the T9? Would they only be able to prosecute for something like fraud (the fund) i.e. something that actually happened in this country? I do get a bit confused on this one.

I think that probably you're referring to me. Firstly I apologise if you think I was picking on you - I wasn't. You are quite right that there are many others that profess the same view as you with respect to prosecutions in the UK. I've read most, if not all, of them and I guess your post was the one that reached my frustration limit due to a cumulative affect. Sorry, its nothing personal.

The point that I was trying to make and which no-one has yet managed to address (much to my disappointment) is that I cannot see any offence over which the police forces of either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction with respect to Madeleine's disappearance. This remains true regardless of whether it was an abduction or the parents concealed her death and hid her corpse. The implication of all this is, to my mind at least, the proverbial elephant in the room; what on earth are SY investigating? (Because if they're not investigating with a view to a prosecution in GB, why have the tax payers agreed to spend £5m on what appears to be a completely pointless exercise)

In respect of "Fund fraud" I'm not convinced there has been any (although to be fair, the last time I raised this there were quite a few people with opposing views, unlike my views on jurisdiction)

Actually Andy, their mandate is to be able to investigate the crime as if it happened in the UK.
It therefore appears that they have claimed jurisdiction. The money is clearly being well spent. 

The reason in the UK we as the public should be happy to spent until a final result is so that no-one is above the law or can manipulate the law through a disparity in arms. Our tax is an insurance, and I'm glad they are claiming on this one. 

As to your question of 'what are SY investigating?'

Either A> an audicious kidnapping by a highly professional pedo gang that NEEDS TO BE CAUGHT.
(everyone could agree with that, if it was true)
or B> An accident, cover up and subsequent fraud. Along with a huge shadowy group of people manipulating things ranging from politicians, to PR firms to legal eagles that has corrupted the media and all it has touched.

Value for money if you ask me.

I think you're missing the point.  In both of your suggestions there has clearly been a criminal offence but the offence was committed in Portugal, is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese and can only be prosecuted by them. SY should only be involved if there is a criminal offence that is triable within their jurisdiction, i.e. GB. What offence do you believe has been committed that is triable in GB?

As far as I can see there is no offence here and that includes their limited company, which, as much as I might agree with you in respect of the morality of its advertising and the way it raised money, is, IMO, operating entirely within its articles of association and therefore not fraudulently.

if there was an accident and a body and a cover up then then they knew that they were committing fraud, both personally (Fraud Act 2006) and via the Companies Act 1985 which impacts on everyone who has ever been involved with the fund. Other relevant legislation includes the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

As a reminder 

Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH. - See more at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the professional, planned abduction pedophilia group exists, despite all academic forensic literature highlighting that it is highly unlikely, or exceptionally rare even in a straight forward case. And by straight forward I mean not even taking into account all the other issues that are regularly discussed here then everyone here will again be ecstatically happy for them to be caught. 

With regard to Jurisdiction if that is not the case, the crown prosecution service has a lovely page which indicates why this investigative review, operated as if it happened in the UK would be able to bring charges should the alternative interpretation be correct. 

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

gbwales wrote:@ Andy, surely if the "Fund" had stated aims to exist to search for Madeleine, then if it's founders / directors knew her to be dead then they would be obtaining money from the public by deception.
That's fraud, pure and simple.

On a moral level, yes, but what about companies that make exaggerated claims about their products? Are they fraudulent or is that just advertising and "sales puff"? The "Fund" has spent money on searching for Madeleine - fortunes have been spent on PIs, maybe not wisely but it has been spent. Besides, the company also exists to "help the McCann family" or something similar (sorry don't have the articles of association to hand) so its quite wrong (IMO) to say that its fraudulent just because all the money hasn't been spent on searching.

loopzdaloop wrote:if there was an accident and a body and a cover up then then they knew that they were committing fraud, both personally (Fraud Act 2006) and via the Companies Act 1985 which impacts on everyone who has ever been involved with the fund. Other relevant legislation includes the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

In the UK yes, but the events happened in Portugal not the UK. It is therefore outwith the jurisdiction of SY or any other GB police force

loopzdaloop wrote:As a reminder 

Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH. - See more at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the professional, planned abduction pedophilia group exists, despite all academic forensic literature highlighting that it is highly unlikely, or exceptionally rare even in a straight forward case. And by straight forward I mean not even taking into account all the other issues that are regularly discussed here then everyone here will again be ecstatically happy also.

With regard to Jurisdiction if that is not the case, the crown prosecution service has a lovely page which indicates why this investigative review, operated as if it happened in the UK would be able to bring charges should the alternative interpretation be correct.

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

I'm aware of where the fund was incorporated but I'm not sure what the relevance of all this is. You appear to be conflating the fund, which, by your own admission, is a private limited company and therefore a distinct legal entity in its own right with the McCanns themselves.

Oh and just because the terms of reference for the original review were to investigate the "abduction" as if it happened in the UK, doesn't alter UK or international law - SY have no jurisdiction unless they are investigating murder, manslaughter, offences under the official secrets act, bigamy or certain sexual offences. Which of these do you think they are investigating?

I don't think it's in anyway comparable or on any kind of spectrum with things like exaggerated claims. And it's nothing to do with morals.
If they know Madeleine is dead, and lead the public to believe she is alive and thereby take the public's money, then it is deception.


Purely out of interest this is from GA's book.....

During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present. 

gbwales wrote:I don't think it's in anyway comparable or on any kind of spectrum with things like exaggerated claims. And it's nothing to do with morals.
If they know Madeleine is dead, and lead the public to believe she is alive and thereby take the public's money, then it is deception.

It's not "they" though is it, it's "it", the limited company. You can't conflate the two. The courts are very reluctant to interfere with the way that companies operate. If I got a Consumer credit license and loan sharked to people at 1000% pa I'd be shut down and arrested in no time. If I did the same thing and incorporated and called my company, say Wonga, would the same thing happen?

From a page on law regarding limited companies....

The directors incur no personal liability as all their acts are undertaken as agents for the company. However, there are certain circumstances where liability may be imposed by the court, particularly in respect of wrongful or fraudulent trading.

bobbin wrote:
@ Andy Snipped, can't get into new quote box..........
NEW POST by bobbin
But by mutual arrangement between police forces now, can they be arrested by UK cops to be extradited for proceedings in Portugal. There have been conversations about 'co-operation' and why did the CPS go down to Portugal, and what about European Arrest Warrants, could there be any lee way in any of this ?

Sorry Bobbin, just noticed this (and apologies if I've not addressed any other points you raised but I'm very tired and I couldn't pick them out because the quoting didn't work for some reason - please feel free to ask again)
You ask valid questions and I don't known the answer to any of them, although I will give you my opinion on one in a minute, but the main point is this: Yes, all those things exist but only to facilitate countries prosecuting that which is within  their own jurisdiction. None of it allows SY to prosecute the McCann's here I'm afraid.

As to why the CPS went to Portugal, I suspect it was to try to persuade the Portuguese to join in with prosecuting a framed "abductor" and, because they refused we now have the farce investigation that, by definition, is going nowhere

AndyB wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:if there was an accident and a body and a cover up then then they knew that they were committing fraud, both personally (Fraud Act 2006) and via the Companies Act 1985 which impacts on everyone who has ever been involved with the fund. Other relevant legislation includes the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

In the UK yes, but the events happened in Portugal not the UK. It is therefore outwith the jurisdiction of SY or any other GB police force

loopzdaloop wrote:As a reminder 

Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH. - See more at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If the professional, planned abduction pedophilia group exists, despite all academic forensic literature highlighting that it is highly unlikely, or exceptionally rare even in a straight forward case. And by straight forward I mean not even taking into account all the other issues that are regularly discussed here then everyone here will again be ecstatically happy also.

With regard to Jurisdiction if that is not the case, the crown prosecution service has a lovely page which indicates why this investigative review, operated as if it happened in the UK would be able to bring charges should the alternative interpretation be correct.

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

I'm aware of where the fund was incorporated but I'm not sure what the relevance of all this is. You appear to be conflating the fund, which, by your own admission, is a private limited company and therefore a distinct legal entity in its own right with the McCanns themselves.

Oh and just because the terms of reference for the original review were to investigate the "abduction" as if it happened in the UK, doesn't alter UK or international law - SY have no jurisdiction unless they are investigating murder, manslaughter, offences under the official secrets act, bigamy or certain sexual offences. Which of these do you think they are investigating?

I'm not sure where you are losing the thread. If evidence comes to light about any crime, including those I have clearly detailed above which would have occurred should the alternative interpretation of the evidence be accurate then the police are always willing to investigate and make arrests. 

Nazi War criminals are still being hunted down and taken to court at this very moment. 

There will always be a court waiting for a 'sophisticated, professional gang of pedo child snatchers' or 'accident cover up, deception, audacious fraud (based upon needing knowledge of the previous accident and deception to carry out the fraud) and subsequently obtaining proceeds by crime' etc etc'

Perverting the course of Justice could surely be tried in the UK. There is maybe a fair few who could face that charge.

It carries a hefty penalty so I believe.