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

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

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

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Mm11

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Regist10

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Page 8 of 16 Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Bishop Brennan on 25.01.14 11:59

@Mirage wrote:
...

So, my question is: Who, exactly, at the MET, has approved the unique and bizarre situation where a national police appeal across continents is allowed to be diluted by the parents of the missing child? And is it unreasonable for discerning members of the public, already askance at numerous unheard-of practices, to be asking the salient question: Why are the McCanns not only being treated differently to anybody else in a supposed democracy; but being seen to be treated differently to everybody else?

Whilst this is all true, I'm not sure it's as sinister as it might seem. Could it be that SY were flooded with (largely useless) information from the various CW appeals, to the extent that they pointedly did not ask for any more calls on the 'update'. Perhaps they also realise that not one jot of useful info is going to come from the OFM website (remember the report and efits had to be specifically requested, they were not just handed over).

So it's not so much that they feel the OFM site is getting in the way, but rather they see it as a complete irrelevance. As such, they couldn't care less what they decide to write or not write.
Bishop Brennan
Bishop Brennan

Posts : 695
Join date : 2013-10-27

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage on 25.01.14 12:21

@Bishop Brennan wrote:
@Mirage wrote:
...

So, my question is: Who, exactly, at the MET, has approved the unique and bizarre situation where a national police appeal across continents is allowed to be diluted by the parents of the missing child? And is it unreasonable for discerning members of the public, already askance at numerous unheard-of practices, to be asking the salient question: Why are the McCanns not only being treated differently to anybody else in a supposed democracy; but being seen to be treated differently to everybody else?

Whilst this is all true, I'm not sure it's as sinister as it might seem.  Could it be that SY were flooded with (largely useless) information from the various CW appeals, to the extent that they pointedly did not ask for any more calls on the 'update'.  Perhaps they also realise that not one jot of useful info is going to come from the OFM website (remember the report and efits had to be specifically requested, they were not just handed over).  

So it's not so much that they feel the OFM site is getting in the way, but rather they see it as a complete irrelevance.  As such, they couldn't care less what they decide to write or not write.  

Maybe so, B B. In fact, I earnestly hope this is the case for the health of our democracy.

But the question remains that in a cold case which has historically attracted huge amounts of confusion and misinformation, why add another layer? Particularly when the "revelation moment" descends into the realms of : "I tawt I taw a puddy tat a creepin' up on me, I did, I taw a puddy tat, as plain as he could be.'

Not a good image for the MET, let's face it!
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Liz Eagles on 25.01.14 12:58

A 38-strong dedicated team of England's finest detectives, millions of pounds, over two years of review/allegedly now investigation.

And the result is?

Nothing. The result for Madeleine is nothing.

Lots of positive/negative financial results for many people but for Madeleine?

Sod all.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 9734
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aiyoyo on 25.01.14 13:15

The missing piece of jigsaw seems to be elusive...
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 25.01.14 13:20

@jeanmonroe wrote:
So she'll be setting up a standing order at her bank to 'donate' £50/£100 a month to the Find Madeleine 'fund'?


Being too tight to part will save her from that particular act of insanity. Thank goodness.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by russiandoll on 25.01.14 14:28

For clarity : I did ask the OFM why their site was not in line with the Met site and pointed out the differences.

 I had a polite exchange of 3 brief e mails, the first of which thanked me for my suggestion of having it updated with the same info as the Met site, then telling me that it had been updated a week ago....implication smiley face, my suggestion was redundant.


The 3rd and final e mail reply, sent after I forwarded them a copy of the Met page, did not answer my questions 1. why was it at variance and 2. did they not trust the judgment of Redwood? I neither expected nor received a reply to these 2 questions. I was thanked and told to have a nice /good day, a charming American- style goodbye.

 I was told briefly and simply that what is on the OFM site had been cleared with the Met, there was no reference to any specific request to leave discounted Tannerman there.  We can only speculate that this was the case and that it was ok'd for some strange reason, or we can wonder if perhaps they just asked was it ok to update their site post-CW and were told fine and the Met either do not know or care. 

 I would guess that the Met team is way too busy to focus on anything other than their investigation. If they continue to have messages re Tannerman from people getting in their way because OFM asks people to contact OG as well as the campaign team, I have no doubt they will be told to remove it as it is wasting their time, or simply bin every query /piece of info which arrives re Tannerman because as far as they are concerned, he is history.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

russiandoll
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by notlongnow on 25.01.14 14:34

@sharonl wrote:


  •  



McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68+7
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68+7

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68+7
McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Icon_camera_90x68+7



NEW: Police explain why previous 'Maddie timeline' is WRONG









Last night several tourists who were in Praia da Luz that night have come forward, and crucially two have named the same person.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz2rP8JtMXf 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hadn't seen that statement before,very intersting.
avatar
notlongnow

Posts : 482
Join date : 2013-10-16

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule on 25.01.14 22:33

The information in the Mirror article above was subsequently updated by this one http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027 which suggests that Crecheman came forward some time in 2007.

If this is the case, it may go some way to explaining why the McCanns attempted to use certain directions which are made as a matter of course in WOC Orders to discover what information was/is contained in Leicestershire police files.
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 25.01.14 22:46

So if Leicestershire Police had this info on file all along, who benefitted by it not being handed over to the Portuguese police?
Only IMO the McCanns, who have been using this sighting all along to establish their version of the "abduction" timeline.
Which raises the question, did JT really see this person, or did she make him up?
Perhaps she really did see someone, and he was "adapted" into the abduction story to fit the timeline. A handy fallguy, in other words.
So this looks rather bad on the part of the Leicestershire Police.
But it looks even worse for the McCanns, if they had access to the Leicestershire Police records, and conveniently "overlooked" this individual's coming forward to identify himself.
And if that's what happened, then we have an even more interesting story developing - another case of suppression of information.
All IMO.
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by J4MM on 25.01.14 22:51

Many roads lead to Leicestershire police.
avatar
J4MM

Posts : 59
Join date : 2013-10-26

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 25.01.14 22:54

Just to add to my comment above... we've been focussing all along on the idea that JT invented bundleman to assist Kate and Gerry's alibi. And we've been thinking that K & G's fear on CW was due to SY's uncovering of bundleman as a real person, not the abductor.

But if it turns out K&G knew all along that bundleman was an innocent person, not the abductor, then this is something along the same lines as Smithman's photofits not being released to the public. Another case of suppression of information to benefit the McCanns. And perhaps also straying into the territory of wasting police time... ? Impeding the investigation...? Obstruction of justice perhaps...?

Do we know definitively whether K&G had access to the Leicestershire Police files?
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 25.01.14 22:55

@J4MM wrote:Many roads lead to Leicestershire police.

You can say that again!
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Mirage on 25.01.14 22:57

What I can't understand is why, if this fellow came forward in 2007, did he not get in touch with the Leics police and ask why his image was still being touted all over the shop by the McCanns? I cannot imagine he would have been unaware of the situation. He would surely be anxious to ensure that this cloud was lifted from him. And if he was met by the usual do-nothing attitude there, surely he would have made a big fuss?

 It just doesn't ring right, unless I'm missing something.

ETA Although I do agree wholeheartedly with the above comment re. many roads leading to the Leicestershire police. A very dubious outfit to put it mildly IMO
avatar
Mirage

Posts : 1905
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 25.01.14 23:04

Here are the results of the court case where the McCanns were applying to get access to the Leicestershire Police files:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.


So, in other words, it seems that Kate and Gerry may have received the information about the innocent bundleman in the files they were allowed to be given by the Leicestershire Police. Do we know if the innocent father contacted Kate and Gerry as well as the Leicestershire Police? If he didn't get in touch with them first, do we know if the innocent father's information might have been handed over to Kate and Gerry anyway, along with the contact details of the individuals who contacted them directly?

All IMO of course.
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by canada12 on 25.01.14 23:15

@Mirage wrote:What I can't understand is why, if this fellow came forward in 2007, did he not get in touch with the Leics police and ask why his image was still being touted all over the shop by the McCanns? I cannot imagine he would have been unaware of the situation. He would surely be anxious to ensure that this cloud was lifted from him. And if he was met by the usual do-nothing attitude there, surely he would have made a big fuss?

 It just doesn't ring right, unless I'm missing something.

ETA Although I do agree wholeheartedly with the above comment re. many roads leading to the Leicestershire police. A very dubious outfit to put it mildly IMO

Perhaps he did get in touch with the police.
Perhaps the police told him they needed to allow the McCanns to continue to tout his image all over the shop.
Perhaps the term, "give them enough rope..." comes to mind...?
All IMO.
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Okeydokey on 26.01.14 1:10

@canada12 wrote:Here are the results of the court case where the McCanns were applying to get access to the Leicestershire Police files:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.


So, in other words, it seems that Kate and Gerry may have received the information about the innocent bundleman in the files they were allowed to be given by the Leicestershire Police. Do we know if the innocent father contacted Kate and Gerry as well as the Leicestershire Police? If he didn't get in touch with them first, do we know if the innocent father's information might have been handed over to Kate and Gerry anyway, along with the contact details of the individuals who contacted them directly?

All IMO of course.

I would commend everyone to read that section in the McCann Files!   In particular the judgement of Justice Hogg - which I think one of the most outrageous statements ever to be uttered by a British judge. Remember - she said those words while the McCanns were still Arguidos and the judicial process in Portugal had not concluded. And yet - she declares them innocent! - on the basis of absolutely nothing. But we may conclude she had built up a personal relationship with the McCanns - or at least one of them - through her role in the case. This isn't the sort of open court process we normally think about - this is where Gerry can phone up the judge and have a chat about the case.  

Also - please note - when she spoke in court she referred to a single person abductor! On the basis of what? Even she realised she had committed some faux pas and so it becomes "at least one person" in the written-up version. That's British justice for you. :)
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 9:30

I think that the retention of Tannerman on the website, maybe just the desperation of GM, because SY and PJ are not keeping him informed of developments in the case.
It's a situation he finds intolerable. This is an interview from 1st May 2008, when they were still arguidos:

"Dubbing today "May Day for Madeleine", Gerry said: It's the last chance to capture a lot of the information that's gone into the investigation that we're not privy to and clearly we need to know everything that's been done. What we're asking people to do is if you've given information to police, Crimestoppers, Portuguese police, we're asking you to give it to us as well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1918275/Gerry-and-Kate-McCann-Full-interview-transcript.html

It is an outrageous statement for people who were suspects to make.

SY don't care what is on the web-site, because either they know it is irrelevant or they are monitoring it.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by aiyoyo on 26.01.14 9:47

@Okeydokey wrote:
@canada12 wrote:Here are the results of the court case where the McCanns were applying to get access to the Leicestershire Police files:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.


So, in other words, it seems that Kate and Gerry may have received the information about the innocent bundleman in the files they were allowed to be given by the Leicestershire Police. Do we know if the innocent father contacted Kate and Gerry as well as the Leicestershire Police? If he didn't get in touch with them first, do we know if the innocent father's information might have been handed over to Kate and Gerry anyway, along with the contact details of the individuals who contacted them directly?

All IMO of course.

I would commend everyone to read that section in the McCann Files!   In particular the judgement of Justice Hogg - which I think one of the most outrageous statements ever to be uttered by a British judge. Remember - she said those words while the McCanns were still Arguidos and the judicial process in Portugal had not concluded. And yet - she declares them innocent! - on the basis of absolutely nothing. But we may conclude she had built up a personal relationship with the McCanns - or at least one of them - through her role in the case. This isn't the sort of open court process we normally think about - this is where Gerry can phone up the judge and have a chat about the case.  

@ okeydokey "And yet - she declares them innocent....."
Err......where is the evidence for that ?  

@ Justice Hogg
"Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today."

It would be interesting to know who (apart from Mccanns) was/were included in the application.   IFGL or Mccanns lawyers ?
This might have an impact on the WOC.



Also - please note - when she spoke in court she referred to a single person abductor! On the basis of what? Even she realised she had committed some faux pas and so it becomes "at least one person" in the written-up version. That's British justice for you. :)
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Guest on 26.01.14 10:02

dantezebu wrote:I think that the retention of Tannerman on the website, maybe just the desperation of GM, because SY and PJ are not keeping him informed of developments in the case.
It's a situation he finds intolerable. This is an interview from 1st May 2008, when they were still arguidos:

"Dubbing today "May Day for Madeleine", Gerry said: It's the last chance to capture a lot of the information that's gone into the investigation that we're not privy to and clearly we need to know everything that's been done. What we're asking people to do is if you've given information to police, Crimestoppers, Portuguese police, we're asking you to give it to us as well."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1918275/Gerry-and-Kate-McCann-Full-interview-transcript.html

It is an outrageous statement for people who were suspects to make.

SY don't care what is on the web-site, because either they know it is irrelevant or they are monitoring it.
My jaw's just banged against my knees. What?! They are beyond audacious and the pale! Why has this loose cannon not been melted down years ago?

I don't think witnesses are bound by secrecy clauses once they've given their statements to the authorities under normal circumstances? Hopefully, in the case of Operation Grange and the current PJ investigation, the revelant people have learnt from the McCanns' behaviour in the past and have hushed any contributers of new evidence. Certainly seems, despite Clarrie's attempts to plant and comment in the media, to be a very closed shop as bourne out by the varying emotions displayed by the duo on the very few appearances they've made since CW.

At least this means the British police were not completely sitting in their pockets. Hopefully then as now.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Cristobell on 26.01.14 10:03

dantezebu wrote:I think that the retention of Tannerman on the website, maybe just the desperation of GM, because SY and PJ are not keeping him informed of developments in the case.
It's a situation he finds intolerable. This is an interview from 1st May 2008, when they were still arguidos:

"Dubbing today "May Day for Madeleine", Gerry said: It's the last chance to capture a lot of the information that's gone into the investigation that we're not privy to and clearly we need to know everything that's been done. What we're asking people to do is if you've given information to police, Crimestoppers, Portuguese police, we're asking you to give it to us as well."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/1918275/Gerry-and-Kate-McCann-Full-interview-transcript.html

It is an outrageous statement for people who were suspects to make.

SY don't care what is on the web-site, because either they know it is irrelevant or they are monitoring it.



'Anybody who has contacted any authority should contact us.', says Gerry.

They just can't help themselves can they. This pair want complete exoneration, and they are prepared to interfere with any investigation to get the result they want.
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Join date : 2011-10-12

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by marconi on 26.01.14 10:27

They want to control everything. Controlfreaks!
avatar
marconi

Posts : 1082
Join date : 2013-05-20

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 26.01.14 10:30

A-stonishing (as always). Reminds me how I felt when I heard them applying to be Assistientes (sorry if spelling is wrong). If it stinks to us you can be assured that it stinks to some, if not plenty, of the 30+ SY detectives.

____________________
The prime suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be permitted to dictate what can and can't be discussed about the case
ProfessorPPlum
ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Bishop Brennan on 26.01.14 10:36

@marconi wrote:They want to control everything. Controlfreaks!

The following is a definition of narcissistic personality disorder.  

"Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met:


  • Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

    Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion

    Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)

    Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation - or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)

    Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations

    Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends

    Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others

    Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her

    Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted"


Anyone spring to mind...?  Just 5 points required remember...!  big grin
Bishop Brennan
Bishop Brennan

Posts : 695
Join date : 2013-10-27

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by ultimaThule on 26.01.14 10:52

That's the spouse neatly pigeonholed, Bishop, and all we need to do now is file the wee one under 'P'.
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman - Page 8 Empty Re: McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Post by Okeydokey on 26.01.14 10:58

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
 

@ okeydokey "And yet - she declares them innocent....."
Err......where is the evidence for that ?  

@ Justice Hogg
"Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today."

It would be interesting to know who (apart from Mccanns) was/were included in the application.   IFGL or Mccanns lawyers ?
This might have an impact on the WOC.




The evidence that she is declaring them innocent while - REMEMBER! - they were still officially arguidos in Portugal:


Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. [Hogg accepts the McCann account - clearly she accepts that they do not know the whereabouts of Madeleine and are incapable of recovering her themselves. ] I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, [She clearly takes the side of the McCanns against Amaral and other PJ officers on this - she is dismissing the dogs' evidence and the DNA evidence] it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine [Clearly implies they cannot have any knowledge of the circumstances of her disappearance.] . Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine's parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

"The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court".

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. [This clearly identifies the McCanns as victims]

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.  [Since Hogg already accepts the McCanns' search is genuine, this is a further exoneration - it cannot refer to them. Its effect is heightened by the next "purple prose" passage. Since she knows the McCanns, she cannot be referring to the McCanns]

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court.

The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.
avatar
Okeydokey

Posts : 938
Join date : 2013-10-18

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 16 Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12 ... 16  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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