Scotland Yard's dilemma and the McCann's evidence.

by diatribe 28.04.14 21:05

There appears, perhaps not unnaturally, to be some confusion regarding the McCanns et cie being compelled to give evidence at any subsequent criminal proceedings. In the event that it transpires that they and their friends are themselves the accused parties, there is no way that they can be compelled to answer any police questions or give an account of their actions under oath in a court of law. In view of the previous inconsistencies in their initial depositions to the police, combined with their subsequent actions and the improbable explanation they are forwarding for the cause of the disappearance of their daughter, it is highly unlikely that any defence lawyer would ever advise them to give evidence on their own behalves in a criminal trial were they to be indicted.

The only circumstances where they could be compelled to give evidence would be on a witness basis( that is with the proviso that the same obligations apply in Portuguese law as English law in relation to witnesses who have made signed statements) Obviously for this to occur, there would have to be an independent person or persons indicted for offences in relation to the disappearance of their daughter. Therein lies the difficulty for the Metropolitan police if their real remit is to exonerate the McCanns and the reason why they are consistently putting forward fictitious characters as potential suspects. If one thinks about it, they can never produce a real person, because inevitably that would lead to this person being placed on trial with the consequences of the McCanns having to give evidence for the prosecution.

If as most on this forum believe, the McCanns are the only logical perpetrators of a crime against their daughter, then whoever they decided to charge would by default be innocent. With the eyes of the world scrutinising their every move, the Met Police could not afford the embarrassment of putting on trial a person or persons who are palpably innocent, the aftermath would be cataclysmic for the police and gov. not to mention the McCanns. The prosecution and defence would have the opportunity to question the McCanns et cie which would undoubtably lead to them being classified as hostile witnesses, culminating in their refusing to answer questions on the grounds that it could incriminate them. The result would be a catastrophe, that’s why neither the Portuguese or British police would ever in a million light yrs. embark on such a course.

The only option for the British police is to fit a dead person into the frame, which they have clearly been attempting over the past 3 yrs. Unless, or until this is accomplished, I’m afraid we are going to continue to be bombarded with nearly ran fictitious suspects ie. Crecheman, Smithman, Binman, Tannerman, Tractorman, any man in fact who doesn’t exist or cannot be traced, because any existent man would only result in embarrassment and costly law suits.

by plebgate 28.04.14 21:12

This has been the opinion of a lot of posters for quite a while now diatribe, but stated over several posts and threads, so I think it is good to have it on one thread which clearly spells out posters thoughts on the matter.

by Gillyspot 28.04.14 21:13

Agreed!

Here's to the NEXT 7 years of fake "sightings" , "suspects" etc Sad

by lj 29.04.14 14:48

I don't believe SY needs to really get a man to "exonerate" the conning couple. Look what happened when the McCanns became ex-arguidos. While the archiving report clearly states "
We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (...)".

Still TM claims, and many people, not only the followers, believe this to be true, they are fully exonerated.

So they only have to look very serious, investigating any and all they can put a stamp on, make it very clear from the first step that Portugal is not cooperating, and in the end they can say: we had a lot, but Portugal did not cooperate. Case closed. Who will believe that SY is lying?

They never set out to find a doer or a patsy. What you see now is what they had planned: very busy bees, at least until Andy's pension, a lot of rumor and insinuation and something to blame their failure on: Portugal.

Did you notice the difference in money that was spent on Madeleine and the other missing children. I know Châtelaine, it's peanuts in the whole scheme of things. After all Hillary Clinton "lost" 6 billion in her not even 4 year as secretary of state and just shrugs her shoulders about that. Sad though the discrepancy in treatment of missing children.

by Guest 29.04.14 15:07

Apart from some single cases, there's little information on [or interest in] costs of police searching missing children. E.g. in 2008 it was reported in court [trial against her mother] that the 24-day hunt for Shannon Matthews cost police GBP 3.2million. June last year, the hunt for April Jones was estimated at GBP 8million, 7 of which were covered by Home Office.

by lj 29.04.14 19:30

Quite recently there was a thread here about the costs of missing persons and what it cost the police. One of the topmen was complaining that the police had to carry all those costs, and it gave some numbers in how many missing and what amount spent. For the life of me, again I cannot find that thread anymore. If you took the total cost and divided that by the really missing you came out on a shocking £1200-1500 per case. Of course it does not work like that, but if his numbers were true, that was the average. A shocking disconnect between the media "favorite" (sorry, but I can't find a correct description for those highly publicized cases) and the average just missing person.

Candy, or any good searcher, could you please direct me to that thread if you know which one I mean? Interesting numbers. But then, I believe everyone has the book "how to lie with statistics" and uses every available trick.

by Guest 29.04.14 19:48

I would be interested to, to see that thread again. I hate numbers, but somehow they stick on me ...

And, oh, I know how to manipulate statistics, lj. I've always said: "Give me any number of numbers and I'll make you any picture". BUT, there is a but, I always made honest pictures [and if I may say so, ever since Excell came our way: beautiful pictures smilie

].

by plebgate 29.04.14 23:01

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

by lj 30.04.14 0:05

Thanks Pleb, that was exactly what I was looking for. airkiss

by **PeterMac** 11.05.14 14:59

Sometimes someone manages to put something very succinctly.

I have pinched this - and plead guilty
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by ultimaThule 11.05.14 16:29

PeterMac wrote:Sometimes someone manages to put something very succinctly.

I have pinched this - and plead guilty
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

From various of the articles published in relation to Madeleine disappearance, the holiday accomodation provided to her parents by Mark Warner has been described as being a 'villa', 'hotel room', 'apartment' and 'chalet' and it appears that only 'tent' and 'caravan' have been omitted smilie

It seems probable that, out of all of those who flew to his daugher's side in the immediate aftermath of his grandaughter being 'taken', Mr Brian Healy was an innocent abroad in this sorry tale but once he saw the lie of the land, so to speak, it would be remarkable if he was able to remain in ignorance of the true state of affairs.