Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Châtelaine wrote:I'm preparing dinner and have no time to search, Aquila, but I know by heart that there were at the time articles to announce the release of thousands of balloons, lead by BHH. And that there were 3 follow-up articles, that I know of. Two mentioning the presence of Kate's parents for the release of hundreds and one mentioning the presence of "someone" at Mersey police, but NOT BHH  ...

Thank you.  Bon apetit.

The remit of Operation Grange is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' which should provide a clue, namely that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in this matter as the only conclusion which can be reached when a 3 year old child is reported to have been abducted from her bed and there has been no credible sighting of her during a period of almost 7 years, is that what was a review of a cold case has become a proactive investigation into the child's murder.  

To this end, AR heads a MIT whose officers are free to interview and/or formally question British nationals wherever in the world they may be, to interview and/or formally question Portuguese nationals resident in the UK and, unless or until a JIT is established wherein Met police officers and those of the PJ will be free to operate coercively in both Portugal and the UK, to speak to those Portuguese residents who voluntarily make contact with officers of AR's team regardless of whether they are based in the Algarve or London. 

The McCanns' suit for libel against Dr Amaral and his 3 co-defendants is a civil matter, the proceedings and outcome of which have no bearing on the criminal investigations currently being undertaken by SY and the PJ.  

As, IMO, the McCanns have been systematically bleeding the lifestyle fund dry for purposes which I suspect have very little to do with expenditure on legal fees, I will sprinkle any reports of their imminent bankruptcy with the same pinch of salt I reserve for news of spurious suspects, disagreement and discord between the two police forces, and other such fairy tales which can only be attributed to the ever present 'source' who is a proponent of the wee one's mantra that 'confusion is good'.

I await to see whatever freshly minted or rehashed distraction will shortly be unveiled in the UK's MSM in an attempt to divert attention from the resumption of the libel trial which will reportedly take place in the coming week.

ultimaThule wrote:The remit of Operation Grange is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' which should provide a clue, namely that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in this matter as the only conclusion which can be reached when a 3 year old child is reported to have been abducted from her bed and there has been no credible sighting of her during a period of almost 7 years, is that what was a review of a cold case has become a proactive investigation into the child's murder.  

To this end, AR heads a MIT whose officers are free to interview and/or formally question British nationals wherever in the world they may be, to interview and/or formally question Portuguese nationals resident in the UK and, unless or until a JIT is established wherein Met police officers and those of the PJ will be free to operate coercively in both Portugal and the UK, to speak to those Portuguese residents who voluntarily make contact with officers of AR's team regardless of whether they are based in the Algarve or London. 

The McCanns' suit for libel against Dr Amaral and his 3 co-defendants is a civil matter, the proceedings and outcome of which have no bearing on the criminal investigations currently being undertaken by SY and the PJ.  

As, IMO, the McCanns have been systematically bleeding the lifestyle fund dry for purposes which I suspect have very little to do with expenditure on legal fees, I will sprinkle any reports of their imminent bankruptcy with the same pinch of salt I reserve for news of spurious suspects, disagreement and discord between the two police forces, and other such fairy tales which can only be attributed to the ever present 'source' who is a proponent of the wee one's mantra that 'confusion is good'.

I await to see whatever freshly minted or rehashed distraction will shortly be unveiled in the UK's MSM in an attempt to divert attention from the resumption of the libel trial which will reportedly take place in the coming week.

ultimaThule wrote:

The remit of Operation Grange is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' which should provide a clue, namely that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in this matter as the only conclusion which can be reached when a 3 year old child is reported to have been abducted from her bed and there has been no credible sighting of her during a period of almost 7 years, is that what was a review of a cold case has become a proactive investigation into the child's murder.  

To this end, AR heads a MIT whose officers are free to interview and/or formally question British nationals wherever in the world they may be, to interview and/or formally question Portuguese nationals resident in the UK and, unless or until a JIT is established wherein Met police officers and those of the PJ will be free to operate coercively in both Portugal and the UK, to speak to those Portuguese residents who voluntarily make contact with officers of AR's team regardless of whether they are based in the Algarve or London. 

................................................................................................

ultimaThule, are you absolutely certain of your statement? I'm curious as to the specific info you give on the powers of SY as no-one seems to know exactly what their powers are and there is much speculation on the forum. Do you have some sort of legal background/link to clarify this? I'd really appreciate it because I so want to understand this issue.

great post petermac.

Bellisa wrote:great post petermac.

***
hear, hear!

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:

The remit of Operation Grange is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' which should provide a clue, namely that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in this matter as the only conclusion which can be reached when a 3 year old child is reported to have been abducted from her bed and there has been no credible sighting of her during a period of almost 7 years, is that what was a review of a cold case has become a proactive investigation into the child's murder.  

To this end, AR heads a MIT whose officers are free to interview and/or formally question British nationals wherever in the world they may be, to interview and/or formally question Portuguese nationals resident in the UK and, unless or until a JIT is established wherein Met police officers and those of the PJ will be free to operate coercively in both Portugal and the UK, to speak to those Portuguese residents who voluntarily make contact with officers of AR's team regardless of whether they are based in the Algarve or London. 

................................................................................................

ultimaThule, are you absolutely certain of your statement? I'm curious as to the specific info you give on the powers of SY as no-one seems to know exactly what their powers are and there is much speculation on the forum. Do you have some sort of legal background/link to clarify this? I'd really appreciate it because I so want to understand this issue.

Petermac

''Nor do I.
The PJ are clearly looking at the circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance, and have stated officially and had recorded that they do not believe she was abducted by a stranger.
SY are, in my view, playing a game, and with the trashing of Tannerman have revealed that they too are not interested in Abduction by stranger.
The PJ Probably want to interview them all again, but can't because they won't attend voluntarily, and would claim "arguido" status and remain silent even if they did,
and there is not quite enough evidence to go for EAWs
SY probably want to interview them properly, but can't since they have no jurisdiction over the main offences committed in Portugal. 

And there's a hole in my bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Lisa.

So both forces are spending their time closing of all possible loopholes, eliminating every burglar, cleaner, pruner, white van man, heroin addict, and dead Paedo
so that what remains must be the truth"
And waiting for a sudden outbreak of common decency, or possibly fear of being locked up for Conspiracy to Pervert from just one prepared to tell.

They have to be able to, as we used to say "Charge on a denial".
In other words have the charge sheet prepared before the interview, so that the interview, under caution, in the presence of solicitor, is merely to give the opportunity to present mitigation.''

Châteleine, I think the honoraire Minister of State was already 81, nearly 82 and the Dutch police are not telling anything.
I believe it was not a burgarly because the perpetrator did not take anything with him, her purse, money, etc
She fought back, the poor thing, and I hope there is DNA found under her nails. And I hope that there are enough CCTVs around in that town. Tragic, very tragic.

The following is an extract from an exchange on Tuesday 25 February between TB and diatribe which can be found on pages 73-75 of the COPS AT WAR thread:

"diatribe wrote:  Returning briefly to Tony's correction of Wikipedia's translation as to why his private prosecution failed at the first hurdle on the grounds of it not being within the jurisdiction of the England and Wales judicial system. I find it interesting to note that his application was referred to the Attorney General in the first instance, when surely such matters would normally be decided by a stipendary Mag, or in the case of a lay Mag. the Clerk of the Court. (I'm on uncertain territory here and stand to be corrected).

Tony Bennett replied: I see that since posting this you have found the exact words from the Magistrates Court's letter, which settles the argument: The case was rejected because I could not satisfy the Magistrates that they had jurisdiction. It would be unusual, but by no means unprecedented, for a Chief Clerk to consult a higher authority such as the Attorney-General's office about a tricky query. What amazed me at the time was the breakneck speed in which I received a reply. 

diatribe wrote: Tony then goes on to state that the Attorney General made his decision and dispensed with his application swiftly, which is a clear indication that at this early stage in 2007, there was a distinct reluctance on the part of the British authorities to prosecute the McCanns in the UK even for the comparatively minor charge of child neglect.

Tony Bennett replied: Maybe, but not necessarily. See above.

diatribe wrote: Therefore, unless there has been a seismic change of attitude from the British authorities, it is extremely unlikely that recent CPS visits to their Portugese counterparts had anything to do with persuading them to relinquish jurisdiction rights over this matter.  As previously stated, it is my opinion that if there were ever any prosecution involving the McCanns in relation to the disappearance of their daughter, those proceedings would transpire in Portugal, as opposed to the UK. Further that the aforementioned would be in spite of the intervention of both the British gov. and police, not because of it.

Tony Bennett replied: It has already been mentioned, on another thread I think, that the British governement does have jurisdcition to try certain alleged crimes in this country, even though the crime occurred abroad. Murder was one. The rape and sexual abuse of minors was another. I forget what the third one was."
                                                                                              
This ------------------------------------------------------------------- signifies the end of TB's and diatribe's exchange

Without wishing to second guess him, it occurs to me that Tony's 'third one" may have been manslaughter but there are a number of other offences where specific statutes enable the UK to exercse extra-territorial jurisdiction when it is suspected these offences have been committed by British nationals abroad.  The offences and statutes are:

Murder and manslaughter: The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 subsections 9 and 10.

Sexual offences against children: The Sexual Offences Act 2003 - NB a new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards.

Fraud: The Fraud Act 2006 imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences in subsections 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 and dishonesty.  The Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 continues to apply to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968.

Terrorism: The Terrorism Act section 17 and subsections 59, 62-63.  Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 continues to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

Bribery: The Bribery Act 2010 repealed the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011 and for those offences imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction.

If/when he reads the above, I trust it will be some consolation for Tony to know it's highly improbable a "top barrister" would have succeeded where he failed for the simple reason that the offence of child neglect when committed by British nationals abroad is not one where the UK has extra-territorial jurisdiction.

With regard to PeterMac's "SY probably want to interview them properly, but can't since they have no jurisdiction over the main offences committed in Portugal"; the issue of jurisdiction having been established (above), as I have made clear in my earlier post, AR and his team cannot act coercively in Portugal unless or until such time as a JIT is effected but, in any event, regardless of whether there is any discord between the Met and the PJ, I would not expect either force to pre-empt or prejudice the investigation of the other.

Should PeterMac read this thread, I trust he will be able to confirm that the letters 'MIT', which can be seen on the door through which AR walks into the incident room as shown on either the Crimewatch programme or its update, give probable cause to assume that homicide of a particular complexity known to the police as a Category A or Category B murder is being investigated by trained detectives, crime investigators, and Major Incident Room staff responsible for operating the HOLMES2 computerised system.

aquila wrote:ultimaThule wrote:

The remit of Operation Grange is to 'investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK' which should provide a clue, namely that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction in this matter as the only conclusion which can be reached when a 3 year old child is reported to have been abducted from her bed and there has been no credible sighting of her during a period of almost 7 years, is that what was a review of a cold case has become a proactive investigation into the child's murder.  

To this end, AR heads a MIT whose officers are free to interview and/or formally question British nationals wherever in the world they may be, to interview and/or formally question Portuguese nationals resident in the UK and, unless or until a JIT is established wherein Met police officers and those of the PJ will be free to operate coercively in both Portugal and the UK, to speak to those Portuguese residents who voluntarily make contact with officers of AR's team regardless of whether they are based in the Algarve or London. 

................................................................................................

ultimaThule, are you absolutely certain of your statement? I'm curious as to the specific info you give on the powers of SY as no-one seems to know exactly what their powers are and there is much speculation on the forum. Do you have some sort of legal background/link to clarify this? I'd really appreciate it because I so want to understand this issue.

Which statement would that be, aquila?  Fwiw, in considered matters of law I do not post in haste, I always state any uncertainty I may have with regard to various issues which may be raised therein, and I am exceedingly careful to avoid posting any information which could aid the defence of those who are responsible for heinous crimes against a three year old child.

Without wishing to give offence, you have been a member of this forum for considerably longer than I have and, having read many of your valuable contributions, it's clear to me that it is well within your capabilities to undertake your own research before questioning the veracity of the findings of others.

Uff!

ultimaThule wrote:"K&G actually came to believe the abduction story themselves feted by the Pope, Oprah, invited to tea in No 10 ,Government ministers on speed dial to facilitate their every wish. Tycoons offering their private jets. It went to their heads and they would fight tooth and nail to keep their new VIP lifestyle."

Do you have a direct line to the inside of K&G's minds?  If not, given how they trip themselves up every time they open their mouths, how can you say they 'came to believe the abduction story themselves' with any degree of certainty 

Ftr, far from being 'feted' by the Pope, the McCanns were not granted a private audience with the Pontiff and were merely invited to attend one of the regular Sunday gatherings of worshippers in Rome where, on having them brought to his attention, the Pontiff somewhat pointedly blessed the photo of Madeleine which Kate was clutching and failed to extend his benficence to the child's parents, 


From the little I've seen of their appearance, Oprah appeared to regard them as curious specimens best viewed from the wrong end of a telescope and, as far as I'm aware, they've not been asked back nor, despite the wee one's avowed intention of 'going global', have they been able crack the American market - no regular appearances on any of the numerous networks, radio programmes, lecture tours, etc, and I suspect that rankles with Gerry.


The McCanns have most certainly not been invited to take tea at No.10.  Gordon Brown refused their request for a meeting and there have been no photoshoots with either him or Cameron, or Clegg for that matter.  As for 'Government ministers on speed dial to facilitate their every wish' perhaps you can provide a link to where you obtained this information?


Branson, Green, et al, are always up for any free publicity that serves to persuade the public they're philanthropists at heart but the smart money has always stayed well away from the McCanns, as evidenced by the fact that only a misguided businessman of some wealth, but of limited fame and no knighthood, was willing to bankroll them in terms of actual cash rather than promises of rewards etc. 


However, as the published accounts of the McCanns' limited company lifestyle fund fail to show any significant donations from individuals, it may be that Kennedy's public promises contained a fair proportion of the hot air of the type that causes Virgin balloons to rise in certain locations across the UK.  


In the unlikely event that the McCanns emerge victorious from the current libel proceedings, vanquishing Dr Amaral will be akin to chopping a head off the hydra; the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and it's not going back in the McCanns' lifetimes, nor those of the twins.  

As for their VIP lifestyle, they're back on easyJet flights and are reduced to making appearances at football matches in aid of another questionable charity. 

Should judgement be awarded in favour of Dr Amaral and his co-defendants, where does that leave your scenario?  Will NSY and the CPS abandon what you claim is a whitewash and haul the McCanns and their cohorts into the dock at the Old Bailey?

UT many good points here. As far as the US opinion market is concerned the facts are simple:
Kate and Gerald McCann abandoned their daughter and babies to go partying.
Kate and Gerald McCann presented a false picture of events to the media recognisable as atrocious lies.
Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the investigating Police Service in relation to her daughter's disappearance.
The people in the US of A are quite simplistic but by no means stupid unlike their British counterparts. Answers to the above would be enough to convince a jury to convict them.
As for Clarrie Mitcholl, well his applications for government and his cohorts in the GBL fraternity would be the laughing stock of the NYT.
                    

To get back to the OP's post I would like to add something and feel free to pull it apart if you think I am wrong.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute lets assume it was an abduction and the McCann's are indeed completely innocent of any wrong doing other than the neglect.  They have already been questioned and the police couldn't find enough evidence to be sure a conviction would happen.  Now back to the SY caper again assuming they are innocent.  

Having been questioned about the disappearance I am sure they would want to seek reassurance that the same would not happen again during a new review/inquiry.  They have more than enough legal support to get this sorted before it starts.   

There is little doubt this was a big PR stunt for all and unfortunately getting headlines seems to be more important than a missing child. It was made quite clear from the beginning the police were investigating an abduction as if it happened in the UK.  They also made it clear the parents and friends were not suspects and Maddie maybe alive or sadly dead.

The only consistency in this review/investigation is they are chasing so called abductors, they are grabbing headlines at every opportunity and the McCann's have not been questioned (to the best of our knowledge) or any other of the Tapas group.

I know this is very frustrating for those who seek the truth but Operation Grange is still years in following its original remit.  More than enough time to rule out an abduction but they still seek abductors without a single arrest so far.  

I think that SY have dug themselves a hole they are struggling to get out of.  They have spent 7 million pounds yet not questioned a single person and I strongly believe they haven't questioned anyone as they like to leak everything they feel is significant to justify this ridiculous amount of money spent.

7 million for what? 7 million and no co-operation between police forces after years of paper shuffling.  7 million and not a single person brought in and questioned.  7 million and lets face it even the most loyal supporter of them would have to admit nobody is any the wiser what happened that night.

Pershing36 wrote:To get back to the OP's post I would like to add something and feel free to pull it apart if you think I am wrong.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute lets assume it was an abduction and the McCann's are indeed completely innocent of any wrong doing other than the neglect.  They have already been questioned and the police couldn't find enough evidence to be sure a conviction would happen.  Now back to the SY caper again assuming they are innocent.  

Having been questioned about the disappearance I am sure they would want to seek reassurance that the same would not happen again during a new review/inquiry.  They have more than enough legal support to get this sorted before it starts.   

There is little doubt this was a big PR stunt for all and unfortunately getting headlines seems to be more important than a missing child. It was made quite clear from the beginning the police were investigating an abduction as if it happened in the UK.  They also made it clear the parents and friends were not suspects and Maddie maybe alive or sadly dead.

The only consistency in this review/investigation is they are chasing so called abductors, they are grabbing headlines at every opportunity and the McCann's have not been questioned (to the best of our knowledge) or any other of the Tapas group.

I know this is very frustrating for those who seek the truth but Operation Grange is still years in following its original remit.  More than enough time to rule out an abduction but they still seek abductors without a single arrest so far.  

I think that SY have dug themselves a hole they are struggling to get out of.  They have spent 7 million pounds yet not questioned a single person and I strongly believe they haven't questioned anyone as they like to leak everything they feel is significant to justify this ridiculous amount of money spent.

7 million for what? 7 million and no co-operation between police forces after years of paper shuffling.  7 million and not a single person brought in and questioned.  7 million and lets face it even the most loyal supporter of them would have to admit nobody is any the wiser what happened that night.

I understand your frustration Pershing36, but I am more optimistic and prepared to sit this out for the long haul.
Re any of the investigations:
1 We have no clue as to whom, or whom not, has been interviewed.
2 The SY /PJ are not leaking, they are keeping schtum.

I keep thinking of analogies.
If I wanted to catch a thief out, in the act, the LAST thing I would do, would be to let him see me setting a camera up, tell all and sundry that I'm hoping to catch him out, tell his friends down the pub about my plans....
Why should we expect Scotland Yard to do just this....

Also, look at what we are dealing with. Psychopaths/sociopaths are remarkably slippery, not necessarily very clever, but nevertheless, very slippery.

We (on this forum and many places elsewhere) have spent 7 years with many of the best brains, working almost full time, sharing research, thoughts and analysis, and we still do not know what the McCs did exactly, with Madeleine.

Yes, SY and the PJ have info that we do not have.

But the slippery-ness of the McCs is such that they can lie and tell themselves that they are NOT lying.

For them the act of lying does not carry the social obligations that a non-sociopath/psychopath would feel, a sense of shame or guilt, a need to show contrition, guilt-ridden enough to 'acknowledge' their cheating lies.

The case against them has to be absolutely iron-clad and water-tight or they will just slip out, like greased eels, from whatever hold the law might try to apply to them.

The one thing I have faith in is this. The police 'know' the criminals that they deal with, on a daily basis, and their thinking patterns.

I would think there is only a hairs-breadth gap, for a really experienced and efficient officer, between being on the one side of the law as opposed to the other, in terms of having a 'mental grip or understanding' on a criminal's mind-set.

The less SY and the PJ say, the better, and if a leak comes out, let us assume that it's a premeditated leak, which is intended to serve a purpose in their grander scheme of things.

In the meantime, had there ever been (or if there still might be) any plan from any political faction, to have this thing whitewashed, we, need to keep on with our analysis and fact finding/ assembling, as we have done since May 3rd 2007, for the following reasons :-

1. to assist the powers that be to bring justice to Madeleine.
2. to make it more than evident, that we will at no time, settle for a whitewash, and will push this thing until the day that justice for Madeleine has finally been attained.

Great post Bobbin!  

Good post, indeed   

bobbin wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:To get back to the OP's post I would like to add something and feel free to pull it apart if you think I am wrong.

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute lets assume it was an abduction and the McCann's are indeed completely innocent of any wrong doing other than the neglect.  They have already been questioned and the police couldn't find enough evidence to be sure a conviction would happen.  Now back to the SY caper again assuming they are innocent.  

Having been questioned about the disappearance I am sure they would want to seek reassurance that the same would not happen again during a new review/inquiry.  They have more than enough legal support to get this sorted before it starts.   

There is little doubt this was a big PR stunt for all and unfortunately getting headlines seems to be more important than a missing child. It was made quite clear from the beginning the police were investigating an abduction as if it happened in the UK.  They also made it clear the parents and friends were not suspects and Maddie maybe alive or sadly dead.

The only consistency in this review/investigation is they are chasing so called abductors, they are grabbing headlines at every opportunity and the McCann's have not been questioned (to the best of our knowledge) or any other of the Tapas group.

I know this is very frustrating for those who seek the truth but Operation Grange is still years in following its original remit.  More than enough time to rule out an abduction but they still seek abductors without a single arrest so far.  

I think that SY have dug themselves a hole they are struggling to get out of.  They have spent 7 million pounds yet not questioned a single person and I strongly believe they haven't questioned anyone as they like to leak everything they feel is significant to justify this ridiculous amount of money spent.

7 million for what? 7 million and no co-operation between police forces after years of paper shuffling.  7 million and not a single person brought in and questioned.  7 million and lets face it even the most loyal supporter of them would have to admit nobody is any the wiser what happened that night.

I understand your frustration Pershing36, but I am more optimistic and prepared to sit this out for the long haul.
Re any of the investigations:
1 We have no clue as to whom, or whom not, has been interviewed.
2 The SY /PJ are not leaking, they are keeping schtum.

I keep thinking of analogies.
If I wanted to catch a thief out, in the act, the LAST thing I would do, would be to let him see me setting a camera up, tell all and sundry that I'm hoping to catch him out, tell his friends down the pub about my plans....
Why should we expect Scotland Yard to do just this....

Also, look at what we are dealing with. Psychopaths/sociopaths are remarkably slippery, not necessarily very clever, but nevertheless, very slippery.

We (on this forum and many places elsewhere) have spent 7 years with many of the best brains, working almost full time, sharing research, thoughts and analysis, and we still do not know what the McCs did exactly, with Madeleine.

Yes, SY and the PJ have info that we do not have.

But the slippery-ness of the McCs is such that they can lie and tell themselves that they are NOT lying.

For them the act of lying does not carry the social obligations that a non-sociopath/psychopath would feel, a sense of shame or guilt, a need to show contrition, guilt-ridden enough to 'acknowledge' their cheating lies.

The case against them has to be absolutely iron-clad and water-tight or they will just slip out, like greased eels, from whatever hold the law might try to apply to them.

The one thing I have faith in is this. The police 'know' the criminals that they deal with, on a daily basis, and their thinking patterns.

I would think there is only a hairs-breadth gap, for a really experienced and efficient officer, between being on the one side of the law as opposed to the other, in terms of having a 'mental grip or understanding' on a criminal's mind-set.

The less SY and the PJ say, the better, and if a leak comes out, let us assume that it's a premeditated leak, which is intended to serve a purpose in their grander scheme of things.

In the meantime, had there ever been (or if there still might be) any plan from any political faction, to have this thing whitewashed, we, need to keep on with our analysis and fact finding/ assembling, as we have done since May 3rd 2007, for the following reasons :-

1.  to assist the powers that be to bring justice to Madeleine.
2.  to make it more than evident, that we will at no time, settle for a whitewash, and will push this thing until the day that justice for Madeleine has finally been attained.

   Great stuff Bobbin!

Agree entirely that SY and PJ are keeping their cards close to their chests, slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.

Lets also remember 'Double Jeopardy' - the prosecution will be up against a Defence team who have been preparing their case for 7 years. If the McCanns are cleared - they walk, if my understanding of Double Jeopardy is correct.

38 FULL time 'experienced, professional' Met police 'investigators'.

2 YEARS 9 MONTHS FULL TIME 'investigation'

£7.5 MILLION, and rising daily, by £6.772, 'costs'

And not a 'sniff' not a 'whisper' about 'disappearance'?

BS!

Cristobell
Lets also remember 'Double Jeopardy' - the prosecution will be up against a Defence team who have been preparing their case for 7 years. If the McCanns are cleared - they walk, if my understanding of Double Jeopardy is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales.
The ban on "double jeopardy", which has existed for around 800 years, took effect from Monday.

The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced.

The change will apply retrospectively, so someone could face a second trial if evidence such as DNA material, new witnesses or a confession came to light.

Well put bobbin , I'm in awe of this forum when the big hitters come out and hammer the ball into the ' no surrender ' section .

jeanmonroe wrote:Cristobell
Lets also remember 'Double Jeopardy' - the prosecution will be up against a Defence team who have been preparing their case for 7 years. If the McCanns are cleared - they walk, if my understanding of Double Jeopardy is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A legal principle which prevents people being tried for the same crime twice has been scrapped in England and Wales.
The ban on "double jeopardy", which has existed for around 800 years, took effect from Monday.

The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced.

The change will apply retrospectively, so someone could face a second trial if evidence such as DNA material, new witnesses or a confession came to light.

Thank you Jean. I do remember the mother of the poor girl in that case fighting all out for a change in the Law.

The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced.
-----------------------------------------------------

Strangely the PJ used the same words, when they said, they would ONLY 're-open/unshelve' their case about Madeleine if "new and compelling" evidence was to become available.

Well, they have indeed 're-opened' the case.

Ergo: They, the PJ, MUST have "new and compelling" evidence.

Wonder what 'it' (the NEW and COMPELLING 'evidence') is, they HAVE?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The change will apply retrospectively, so someone could face a second trial if evidence such as DNA material, new witnesses or a confession came to light.

ultimaThule wrote:Which statement would that be, aquila? Fwiw, in considered matters of law I do not post in haste, I always state any uncertainty I may have with regard to various issues which may be raised therein, and I am exceedingly careful to avoid posting any information which could aid the defence of those who are responsible for heinous crimes against a three year old child.

Without wishing to give offence, you have been a member of this forum for considerably longer than I have and, having read many of your valuable contributions, it's clear to me that it is well within your capabilities to undertake your own research before questioning the veracity of the findings of others.

I appreciate your riposte is directed at Aquila, but you have also quoted my exchange with Tony Bennett on the same matter where you included part of our conversation, although not all of it. It is in this vein that I have combined the two in order to avoid cross referencing and further confusion. Despite Tony's prognosis that his private prosecution could have been dealt with in the UK court system , it was the ruling of the Clerk of the Court under advisement from the Attorney General that this matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the UK. Clearly a line in the sand was drawn here.

Despite the fact that RIPM has pointed out to you that none of the statutory laws you have quoted apply in the case of Madeleine McCann, for some obscure reason that eludes me, you persist in advancing the same argument. Despite my explaining that the case you cited where the family of a woman murdered abroad was able to be prosecuted in the UK was because the murder conspiracy emanated in the UK and despite Petermac, an ex police officer/researcher stating that the Met police have no jurisdiction rights to question the McCanns et cie in relation to a potential crime committed in Portugal, you continue to rely on the same argument.

You now seek to justify refusing to provide Aquila with substantiation of your claims on the grounds that it could aid the defence of the McCanns who have got the best legal minds in the country at their disposal. In the immortal words of John McEnroe ''You cant be serious, man.'' You appear to be an intelligent woman with an erudite sense of humour and good research capability, yet on this matter at least, you purport to insult the intelligence of other forum members. Why??

IMO within a very short time of their eldest daughter's disappearance there was more than sufficient evidence to warrant prosecuting the McCanns for a number of serious offences, since when the evidence against them which is in the public domain has grown into a veritable mountain and one can only speculate as to the quantity of evidence which is yet to published but will, no doubt, come to light during their trial and that of their conspirators. 

The Metropolitan police were given the task of reviewng a cold case and, after 2 years and several million £s worth of work by 35+ NSY personnel, this review could have concluded with a finding of satisfaction that everything that could be done to find the child and/or apprehend her abductors had been done and there was no further action which could be taken to facilitate her recovery. 

The fact that the review has now become a proactive investigation, together with the re-opening of the PJ's shelved investigation, leads me to believe that justice will be done for Madeleine McCann.

Indeed, UT. And didn't Kate and Gerry belatedly only want a review to occur...? Not a full-blown investigation? The morphing of the review into the current investigation may have come as an unwelcome surprise to them, no...?

I am sometimes given to wonder whether K&G regret accepting Rebekah's offer of a helping hand in their unconvincing quest for the UK police to review the case, canada12, but no doubt they are ecstatic that NSY is pulling out all the stops and, unasked when all it would have taken is the price of a stamp, the PJ have re-opened their shelved investigation in order to 'leave no stone unturned' as the saying goes. 

It occurs to me that the McCanns must derive immense comfort from knowing that, as jeanmonroe has said, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad. 

It's to be hoped the grieving parents are able to find some small cause for celebration every day for what is life if there's nothing to look forward to except spending the rest of it behind bars?   

Please, don't wonder too long, ultima.
I"m sure they never meant to get any other police force involved in the case, they were just making smokes and mirrows, playing the role of victims, believing that Portugal would never bouw to the Yard. Oh, they regret!

I haven`t attempted to write the first paragraph of a whitewashed report as PeterMac requested - well I have tried for a split second then immediately the dogs prevent me thinking any further.

If they are going to whitewash this crime, SY have to discredit Martin Grimes, Eddie and Keela.  So will we see this happen ?

Sorry as invited people have rubbished my post and I don't have a problem with it.

But the facts remain that SY are seeking assistance from the PJ to arrest suspects.  I know many think this is complete made up BS that the papers have published.  The Senior boss of SY confirmed this line of inquiry on the radio.  I really can't see any Miss Marple left in this case.

I believe (most) of the support the McCanns received emanates from the astonishing campaign they began in the days after Madeleine disappeared. I have stumbled on this video starring Michael Wright, McCann libel witness and Chief Media Monitor giving a statement in PDL on 17th May - the Launch of the Fund and the No Stone Unturned campaign (begging letters).

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