McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

Mirage wrote:

sami wrote:

Jemmied_Shatter wrote:When are you people on this forum and the rest of the world going to get it into your heads that the Kate & Gerry McCann version of events in THE ONLY version that can be considered to be the TRUTH. Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that Madeleine's ABDUCTOR got away because the PJ were so overwhelmed that the just treated the case as that of any other missing CHILD. 

Why is it the only version that can be considered ?

What was wrong, in your opinion, with the PJ treating the case as that of any other missing child ?  At the outset, what were they supposed to do ?  A child was reported missing, they investigated it, in the first instance as a missing child.  I don't understand what you are saying.

Sami, I think Jemmied Shatter was being sarcastic.
ETA I hope so, anyway!!!

Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that

diatribe wrote:

Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that

One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

melisande wrote:

diatribe wrote:

Jemmied_Shatter wrote: Oh sure there might be some inconsistencies but lets not forget here that

One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

It's not just the lies and inconsistencies, it's the deliberate placing of new suspects in the media whenever the heat is on them.  So obvious, that we expect it and nine times out of ten can accurately guess when it is going to happen.  In all my years I have never seen anything like it.  I don't believe for a minute that our government and police force are oblivious to what the Mccann's are doing especially when Clarence Mitchell is at the front of it.  We have GCHQ for god's sake and a lot of intelligent people in this country.   Why would it take all this time to get nowhere with this case.

diatribe wrote:
One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

PeterMac wrote:

diatribe wrote:
One would have to be a genius of the highest order to believe the palpable lies of the McCanns and their friends.

I think it takes even more than that.
What you need is an Orwellian 1984 ability to believe two things simultaneously.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

You have to be able to believe that Gerry went in through the front door using his key AND that he went in through the Patio door which was unlocked.
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe Kate when she says the curtains were wide open AND when she says they were tightly shut
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account
You have to be able to believe that you can sit by a pool sweating in brilliant sunshine, on a day when there was no sun and a cold wind was blowing.   And so on
If you can't believe both of these, then a bogey man from Carter-Ruck will come and eviscerate your bank account

In fairness to Carter-Ruck (why, one asks ?) Adam Tudor is not a stupid man.  Mrs Matorrell is not a stupid woman.
Quite the contrary.
They both know perfectly well that the McCanns were not telling the truth on some occasions; that their clients were in fact lying.
They know perfectly well that Trafigura are deserving of opprobrium.
But they are paid good money to ensure that this is never tested in a court, by 'fudging' the issues with procedural points.
They boast openly about this on their web site.
They are brilliant at what they do.

Portia wrote:

You, the people of the UK, somewhere down the line, allowed these procedural points to enter your legal system; no one else did that

Why? In order for these points to be raised in attack or defense, why else?

So why blame anyone making a living by raising them, successfully or otherwise?

If CR are doing something illegal they will be disbarred

So, whereas some of their actions may be judged unpleasant or immoral by some (or by many) they are not illegal until proven to be so in a disciplinary tribunal or court of law

If you don't like this: change the law!

Please understand I'm not saying this in order to be unpleasant or to ruffle someones feathers. The above is central to most legal systems. Procedures to a greater or lesser extent guarantee that the law extends the same amount of protection to everyone. If you did away with procedural rules, you could very well end up depending on the good will (or bad will) of the judge, and who knows what kettle of fish you would then find yourself in

mysterion wrote:Which are the most democratic countries then?

diatribe wrote:

mysterion wrote:Which are the most democratic countries then?

I would have thought amongst the most undemocratic countries in the world would be Japan, Singapore, Great Britain, N Korea, China.

Casey5 wrote:Sept 2007 George Galloway, MP for Respect party said:
"
The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.
Either way, the name McCann is now well and truly in the history books."

aiyoyo wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

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.

okeydokey,
With due respects that's only your interpretations.
While it is fair to say Justice Hogg took things at face value which is inevitable since the Mccanns were neither arrested nor charged for any crime, it is not quite correct to say she "declares" them innocent.  If you've seen official declaration by Judge Hogg that the mccanns are innocent, please post it up.  Otherwise it is plain obfuscation on your part.

sharonl wrote:

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]+7
New timeline: The Crimewatch special revealed that police were now looking at Madeleine's abduction as being at 10pm and not 9.15pm

This means Kate McCann may have missed the abduction of her daughter by a matter of minutes on May 3, 2007.

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: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Okeydokey wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

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.

okeydokey,
With due respects that's only your interpretations.
While it is fair to say Justice Hogg took things at face value which is inevitable since the Mccanns were neither arrested nor charged for any crime, it is not quite correct to say she "declares" them innocent.  If you've seen official declaration by Judge Hogg that the mccanns are innocent, please post it up.  Otherwise it is plain obfuscation on your part.

That's very silly. If you are saying that the statements in bold can be reconciled with a belief that the McCanns may have knowledge of the fate of their child, then you have to show why you think that, not just assert. I have explained why I think those statements all imply that persons other than the McCanns have knowledge of the fate of their child - and that is, given this was a statement in formal court, a declaration of innocence. For the avoidance of doubt, there was absolutely no requirement on Hogg to make any of those statements.  She had only to decide on whether the McCanns had the right to access the LP files, in line with the original court order requiring official agencies to aid the McCanns. She could have done that without any of those references.

ultimaThule wrote:

 as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:

diatribe wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

 as citizens of the UK, we are free to engage in open debate here and elsewhere:

Oh the irony, I wonder if Tony Bennet would concur with your sentiments. In any event, even if the above were true, I don't consider being able to say what one wants as long as one does as one is told constitutes living in a democracy.

As for the illusion of elected governments, when one has the choice of basically three parties where there isn't a scintilla of difference between their policies, that is tantamount to a totalitarian state. With regards to all your examples which I presume you consider to have more oppressive regimes, there wouldn't be one thing that was permissable or legal in the UK that would not be so in any of them, but there would be many things that would be legal and permissable in the aforementioned that are banned here.

For instance, an iraqi citizen wouldn't be risking a mandatory 5 yr. sentence for possessing a blank firing pistol, they also would not be risking having their money confiscated if they preferred to deal in cash. They also wouldn't have to stand out in the freezing cold like a pariah if they happened to want to smoke a cigarette, or be under surveillance every time they strayed out of their private abode. Oh, and they wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of paying £6 plus per gal. for their gasoline.

jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]

Châtelaine wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]

***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...

jeanmonroe wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]

***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe WILL LEAD the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

AND

The balloons will COST a pound to sponsor and ALL MONEY WILL GO TO the Madeleine appeal FUND.

IF that's NOT being associated with 'fund raising' for the McCanns, Madeleine appeal 'fund' i don't know what is!

Unless, of course, BHH is so 'mean' that he, personally, did not/would not actually pay a small wee pound to 'sponsor' a single balloon at a balloon launch he led.

Châtelaine wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote: [...]  'sponsored balloon, fund raiser for McCanns', BHH, (Andys boss) 'elite' team  [...]

***
I see Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe regularly referred to as a fund-raiser for the McCanns. Today I decided to finally seriously going a bit into the matter again, only to find out that the ONLY reference of BHH with McCanns is a mid June 2007 announcement, that he's [whilst still leading Merseyside police] going to lead a sponsored balloon-release in Liverpool. I have not found one single follow-up article about the him and this balloon-release, nor have I been able to find any photograph documenting this "fund-raising for the McCanns" affair. Instead I found articles about the release of 100 [not 1,000] balloons, witnessed by Kate's parents.

ETA if anyone has better documentation and/or photos, I stand corrected ...

aquila wrote:Have you considered moving to Iraq?

ultimaThule wrote:'Publish and be damned' is one thing if facts are to hand to substantiate what rolls off the press, but when it comes to contempt of Court for breaching an injunction or other Order it is, indeed, a brave editor who publishes with the sure and certain knowledge they'll be seeing the inside of a prison cell for what may be a very long period - and an equally brave newspaper proprietor who permits them to commit such a folly.

Dr What wrote:
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?

Dr What wrote:Aren't the facts contained in the official Police files on the case sufficient? The Gaspar statements?
As I say, what is the point of a 'free' Press if it refuses to take difficult issues on?