Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

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: http://mccannfundfraud.info/fund-faqs/#sthash.KyaCWuYN.dpuf

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. 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/
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: http://mccannfundfraud.info/fund-faqs/#sthash.KyaCWuYN.dpuf

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.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/
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: http://mccannfundfraud.info/fund-faqs/#sthash.KyaCWuYN.dpuf

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.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/
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.

gbwales wrote: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.

Companies limited by shares, yes. Companies limited by guarantee are different - the directors do have liability but to be trading fraudulently is not the same as the directors making false claims. Its things like if the company continue to trade despite not having enough cash to cover the corporation tax at the end of the year. Company law is very different to what you might think

littlepixie wrote: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.

Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal

AndyB wrote:

littlepixie wrote: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.

Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal

I think you forgot one thing, SY have now taken over the investigation.......it is no longer just a review but a full blown investigation - hence the CPS in Portugal.

loopzdaloop wrote:

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: http://mccannfundfraud.info/fund-faqs/#sthash.KyaCWuYN.dpuf

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.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/
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'

I'm not losing the thread, it is you that cannot follow an argument. Please look up "international jurisdiction" on wikipedia or whatever source you prefer.

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

littlepixie wrote: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.

Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal

I think you forgot one thing, SY have now taken over the investigation.......it is no longer just a review but a full blown investigation - hence the CPS in Portugal.

Sorry if this comes across as rude but I'm very tired now (and getting very frustrated). How does the fact that SY have started an investigation alter UK or international law? They haven't taken over Portuguese sovereignty so it might be an idea if people look up "international jurisdiction" before telling me that SY can prosecute anything or anyone for the Madeleine McCann disappearance

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

littlepixie wrote: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.

Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal

I think you forgot one thing, SY have now taken over the investigation.......it is no longer just a review but a full blown investigation - hence the CPS in Portugal.

Sorry if this comes across as rude but I'm very tired now (and getting very frustrated). How does the fact that SY have started an investigation alter UK or international law? They haven't taken over Portuguese sovereignty so it might be an idea if people look up "international jurisdiction" before telling me that SY can prosecute anything or anyone for the Madeleine McCann disappearance

Have a sleep on it and then come back and tell my why our Criminal Prosecution Service would get involved if they weren't thinking of prosecuting anyone in the UK.

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

littlepixie wrote: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.

Perverting the course of justice (or at least conspiracy to) is indeed a very serious offence but they haven't perverted GB justice, only Portuguese (assuming they have at all). This is therefore only an offence in Portugal

I think you forgot one thing, SY have now taken over the investigation.......it is no longer just a review but a full blown investigation - hence the CPS in Portugal.

Sorry if this comes across as rude but I'm very tired now (and getting very frustrated). How does the fact that SY have started an investigation alter UK or international law? They haven't taken over Portuguese sovereignty so it might be an idea if people look up "international jurisdiction" before telling me that SY can prosecute anything or anyone for the Madeleine McCann disappearance

Have a sleep on it and then come back and tell my why our Criminal Prosecution Service would get involved if they weren't thinking of prosecuting anyone in the UK.

I may be wrong but wasn't there a law brought in a few years back which allowed the UK to prosecute Joe Bloggs from London if he had committed a crime abroad. (No offence to Mr Bloggs or Londoners).

I'm wondering if SY have played a great game.

By throwing in other efits of charity workers/burglers,people lurking etc.. i think the guilty would be happy that the scent was going elsewhere.

But the smith sighting and the JT wipeout would have some very concerned people who may start making phone calls that will flush them out.

I don't believe anyone has been found in connection with the JT sighting,and it was just a clever ploy to get things moving.

Portia wrote:

Searcher wrote:Sky News are saying there is a special programme tonight at 8.30 pm on Sky.  DCI Redwood also said in interview that he hopes to work with the Portuguese police in a re-opening of the case.  I think he said something to the effect that there could be 'a sharing of information'.

Apparently there was a video camera in the vicinity of the Smith sighting but it wasn't checked.

I think it was checked, but its contents appeared to have been whooshed almost immediately after the walkabout
Correct me if I'm wrong please

I remember the same.

notlongnow wrote:I'm wondering if SY have played a great game.

By throwing in other efits of charity workers/burglers,people lurking etc.. i think the guilty would be happy that the scent was going elsewhere.

But the smith sighting and the JT wipeout would have some very concerned people who may start making phone calls that will flush them out.

I don't believe anyone has been found in connection with the JT sighting,and it was just a clever ploy to get things moving.

Welcome Notlongnow, and please accept this as a 'like' for a great first post!