Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

by Guest 14.06.14 2:17

Yes Kate did mention somewhere that the biggest law firm in the UK were working for free. I sincerely doubt that. Maybe it was so people wouldn't look into the fund for such payments ?

I agree about Monday. Hopefully there will be no further hold ups.

by Halfwit 14.06.14 2:22

Okeydokey wrote:[quote=
"...choose to believe" is the operative phase.

Of course Okey but we're churning ourselves up into a stew of whatif's when all we have is instinct (me) and doubts, logic and suspicions.

I believe that the Mc's know what happened to their child.

I believe that they're liars.

I believe that none of their televised appeals or documentaries showed true pain and sufferance.

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 2:30

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

'subtle' changes there from the man who 'knows what happened ' to Madeleine, Mr Donut!

by fossey 14.06.14 9:28

Presumption of Innocence

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

The parents killed her. British police are stupid.

I have been asked many times the question why I don't respect the presumption of innocence in this case, especially by people that know me and my usual respect for human rights. It is not easy to explain.

From the time the news broke in May 2007 until the release of the police files, I had been very much a fence-sitter trying mostly to shed some light onto the hundreds of conflicting news reports. At that time I even was posting under the name Impartial on the Mirror forum and 3As. I could see the discrepancies, the changes to their statements via the media but I could also see two people devastated by the loss of their daughter.

During these months I kept the presumption of innocence high. Even though suspicions became stronger by the day it was my private opinion that even if there had been a terrible accident and the parents had somehow felt the need to cover-up her death in order to avoid repercussions to their other children, the children in the group, their jobs and reputation it was up to the law to investigate, charge, judge and sentence those responsible for it.

This still would be my stance today had it all stopped there. Had there not been added crimes to the original crime. Additional crimes that would never get followed up if the original crime would not be solved.

The crime of fraud for one. Taking money from schoolchildren, old age pensioners and well-meaning mothers. And not to be invested into a fake search for the missing child but very explicitly invested into the build-up of a defense wall that would avoid the proper prosecution of the original crime. Cheating the course of law if you like.

But it was the crime of deliberately casting wrong suspicions on another person that then caused me to drop my caution and restraint. The way in which Robert Murat had been set up by four of the friends of the McCanns, how his life and that of his mother and fiance had been shredded to pieces only because he was "too" helpful, happened to live in the direction of Jane's concocted sighting and coincidentally was also the person to translate the important statements of Dianne Webster and the nannies was my breaking point. In order to get justice for this crime the first one would have to be cleared up. Otherwise there would never be evidence of this follow-up crime. Compensation money by a paper that had been a victim itself was not a substitute for good old proper justice.

Last but not least it was the parents' atrocious treatment of the one man who had committed himself to finding out what had happened to their daughter: Goncalo Amaral
The vicious, vindictive, hate-filled persecution and destruction of another good man was the last straw that changed my view about a highly cherished good, the presumption of innocence. The law is clear, and no mere mortal can change it, but on this blog it was cast aside after the evaluation of the evidence of the police files to express the desire for the truth to be revealed, to put a stop to the never-ending destruction of people and the creation of a parallel universe built on lies and deception.

Eingestellt von Johanna um [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 14.06.14 11:34

Copied - with thanks
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ShuBob 14.06.14 11:36

I wish people won't refer to Redwood as Deadwood. It's most unbecoming!

by Guest 14.06.14 11:41

A picture paints a thousand words!

by **Enid O'Dowd** 14.06.14 11:56

Bellisa wrote:Yes Kate did mention somewhere that the biggest law firm in the UK were working for free. I sincerely doubt that. Maybe it was so people wouldn't look into the fund for such payments ?

I agree about Monday. Hopefully there will be no further hold ups.

Page 289 Irish paperback edition:

'Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

This could have two meanings.

They do a lot of work for us and don't charge us for the majority of it OR they don't charge us at all for the vast amount of work they do for us.

While large professional firms often do have a small budget for pro bono work for good causes (which also helps the firm's profile as well as the good cause) it is not believable that Carter Ruck would write off all or most of the chargeable time of two senior staff like Tudor and Hudson (now Martorell).

by **PeterMac** 14.06.14 12:00

And it was noticeable how quickly that changed to a bill for a third of a million when they were trying to intimidate one of their victims.
What they did, of course, was prove that Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is totally unreliable.
Well done !

by TheTruthWillOut 14.06.14 12:11

PeterMac wrote:And it was noticeable how quickly that changed to a bill for a third of a million when they were trying to intimidate one of their victims.
What they did, of course, was prove that Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is totally unreliable.
Well done !

Wow...really? What are the specifics on this?

It is things like this that would show this country that have relied on the gagged MSM their true character.

by puzzled 14.06.14 12:14

fossey wrote:
I have been asked many times the question why I don't respect the presumption of innocence in this case, especially by people that know me and my usual respect for human rights. It is not easy to explain.

From the time the news broke in May 2007 until the release of the police files, I had been very much a fence-sitter trying mostly to shed some light onto the hundreds of conflicting news reports. At that time I even was posting under the name Impartial on the Mirror forum and 3As. I could see the discrepancies, the changes to their statements via the media but I could also see two people devastated by the loss of their daughter.

During these months I kept the presumption of innocence high. Even though suspicions became stronger by the day it was my private opinion that even if there had been a terrible accident and the parents had somehow felt the need to cover-up her death in order to avoid repercussions to their other children, the children in the group, their jobs and reputation it was up to the law to investigate, charge, judge and sentence those responsible for it.

This still would be my stance today had it all stopped there. Had there not been added crimes to the original crime. Additional crimes that would never get followed up if the original crime would not be solved.

The crime of fraud for one. Taking money from schoolchildren, old age pensioners and well-meaning mothers. And not to be invested into a fake search for the missing child but very explicitly invested into the build-up of a defense wall that would avoid the proper prosecution of the original crime. Cheating the course of law if you like.

But it was the crime of deliberately casting wrong suspicions on another person that then caused me to drop my caution and restraint. The way in which Robert Murat had been set up by four of the friends of the McCanns, how his life and that of his mother and fiance had been shredded to pieces only because he was "too" helpful, happened to live in the direction of Jane's concocted sighting and coincidentally was also the person to translate the important statements of Dianne Webster and the nannies was my breaking point. In order to get justice for this crime the first one would have to be cleared up. Otherwise there would never be evidence of this follow-up crime. Compensation money by a paper that had been a victim itself was not a substitute for good old proper justice.

Last but not least it was the parents' atrocious treatment of the one man who had committed himself to finding out what had happened to their daughter: Goncalo Amaral
The vicious, vindictive, hate-filled persecution and destruction of another good man was the last straw that changed my view about a highly cherished good, the presumption of innocence. The law is clear, and no mere mortal can change it, but on this blog it was cast aside after the evaluation of the evidence of the police files to express the desire for the truth to be revealed, to put a stop to the never-ending destruction of people and the creation of a parallel universe built on lies and deception.

Got to say, this hits the nail on the head. Even in the unlikely event that the McCanns were innocent of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, nothing - nothing at all - can justify the vindictive spitefulness with which they've tried to destroy anyone who questions them. Though it should also be said that such stalking behaviour is another characteristic of psychopaths.

by roy rovers 14.06.14 12:16

Will Andy Redwood retire later this year empty handed? Will he be Jack Slipper to Gerry McCann's Ronnie Biggs?
From Wiki
'Slipper travelled to Brazil, where he attempted to arrest Biggs in a hotel in Rio de Janeiro, with the words "Long time no see, Ronnie." But the Brazilian government turned down the request for extradition, on the grounds that Biggs was to become the father of his pregnant Brazilian girlfriend's child (Michael Biggs, to be born August 16, 1974), and Slipper was forced to return home empty-handed. Famously, Slipper was photographed on the plane home, sleeping next to an empty seat, and was christened "Slip-up of the Yard" by the press.'

by SchrodingersBody 14.06.14 13:47

roy rovers wrote:Will Andy Redwood retire later this year empty handed? Will he be Jack Slipper to Gerry McCann's Ronnie Biggs?
From Wiki
'Slipper travelled to Brazil, where he attempted to arrest Biggs in a hotel in Rio de Janeiro, with the words "Long time no see, Ronnie." But the Brazilian government turned down the request for extradition, on the grounds that Biggs was to become the father of his pregnant Brazilian girlfriend's child (Michael Biggs, to be born August 16, 1974), and Slipper was forced to return home empty-handed. Famously, Slipper was photographed on the plane home, sleeping next to an empty seat, and was christened "Slip-up of the Yard" by the press.'

Just shows, knowing exactly who is responsible is not enough.

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 15:03

DCI Redwood will always, imo, be 'remembered' forever (possibly not by CHOICE) as the man that left NO stone unturned to exonerate his 'clients', the McCann's, from possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine.

IN MY OPINION, OBVIOUSLY.

A different Police Officer, but one of a much higher 'grade' than DCI Redwood, said: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

eta: I will apologise, personally, to DCI Redwood, if he produces/provides, publicly, irrefutable evidence or proof that his 'clients', the McCann's, had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

Can't be fairer than that, can i?

by **PeterMac** 14.06.14 17:19

jeanmonroe wrote:
eta: I will apologise, personally, to DCI Redwood, if he produces/provides, publicly, irrefutable evidence or proof that his 'clients', the McCann's, had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
Can't be fairer than that, can i?

By "involvement" you must specifically exclude the acts to which they freely admit which provided both the Means and the Opportunity for the alleged crime to have been committed.
Namely leaving the patio door unlocked every night, ensuring that visits were accurately timed, and not randomised, - and therefore available for anyone who was "taking notes " to interpret -
talking freely and at length in non-private places to others about the above arrangements
and so on.

All of this they have cheerfully admitted, and from their own website it is clear that they do not believe that this inculpates them in any way.
Just one those things, Hey Ho !

involve
verb [ trans. ]
(of a situation or event) include (something) as a necessary part or result

The open patio doors and the serial abandonment are clearly a necessary part of their official story.. Without them they can not maintain that Madeleine was Abducted

by Liz Eagles 14.06.14 17:26

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
eta: I will apologise, personally, to DCI Redwood, if he produces/provides, publicly, irrefutable evidence or proof that his 'clients', the McCann's, had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
Can't be fairer than that, can i?

By "involvement" you must specifically exclude the acts to which they freely admit which provided both the Means and the Opportunity for the alleged crime to have been committed.
Namely leaving the patio door unlocked every night, ensuring that visits were accurately timed, and not randomised, - and therefore available for anyone who was "taking notes " to interpret -
talking freely and at length in non-private places to others about the above arrangements
and so on.

All of this they have cheerfully admitted, and from their own website it is clear that they do not believe that this inculpates them in any way.
Just one those things, Hey Ho !

involve
verb [ trans. ]
(of a situation or event) include (something) as a necessary part or result

The open patio doors and the serial abandonment are clearly a necessary part of their official story.. Without them they can not maintain that Madeleine was Abducted

I have finally arrived at a theory (it's taken years) and it hinges on the part of your post I've underlined.

I'm not sharing this theory with anyone at present other than to say it's very easy to tell a partial truth if you can honestly claim you are not in full possession of the absolute facts as to how Madeleine disappeared.

The 'we're innocent' is much easier if you don't have the full picture, i.e. a third party.

by **PeterMac** 14.06.14 17:58

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And it was noticeable how quickly that changed to a bill for a third of a million when they were trying to intimidate one of their victims.
What they did, of course, was prove that Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is totally unreliable.
Well done !
Wow...really? What are the specifics on this?

Have a look at the very long thread on the Libel trial against TB.
Essentially C-R threatened TB that if a single sentence of his book were found to be libellous he would have to bear the entire costs - which from memory were 0.3m
So all the guff about pro-bono was just that. A lie by Kate / Janet, repeated in her book, Exhibit KH 1 but proved to be false by C-R themselves
Under that sort of Financial pressure - WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL, if morally reprehensible - TB gave the undertaking not to repeat what he had said.

C-R are experts in this. Acknowledged across the Western World as Masters of using procedural law in this way, and therefore of ensuring that the main argument - that of the FACTS - never, ever comes before a court.
That is their skill and expertise, and we saw it at work.
But TB did manage to get one fact out into the open and into the record.
That despite having spend several YEARS preparing the case, C-R were unable to produce a single piece of evidence that Madeleine had been abducted.
Not one. Nothing NADA
And the reason ? Because there obviously is none.

And then they slammed TB with costs after the trial, and he has to pay a third of his State Pension for the rest of his life, for what Kate / Janet says was "pro-bono" work

by Guest 14.06.14 18:21

PM could you please explain the difference between "pro bono" and "no win, no fee" !!

As I understand it, pro bono is for the public good so would this also mean for an individual's good? Is pro bono work done for individuals?

I have spent rather a lot of time today reading the Portuguese Constitution and also C-R's website plus information about libel, defamation etc. I am as confused as ever.

A minor point maybe, but when Kate/Janet says pro bono is she perhaps misunderstanding "no win, no fee" do you think ?

I don't know where to ask this , but as it has just been mentioned on this thread hope that is OK as I'm a novice at law terms.

eta: C-R do take on work on "no win, no fee" basis.

by Judex 14.06.14 18:22

PeterMac wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And it was noticeable how quickly that changed to a bill for a third of a million when they were trying to intimidate one of their victims.
What they did, of course, was prove that Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is totally unreliable.
Well done !
Wow...really? What are the specifics on this?
Have a look at the very long thread on the Libel trial against TB.
Essentially C-R threatened TB that if a single sentence of his book were found to be libellous he would have to bear the entire costs - which from memory were 0.3m
So all the guff about pro-bono was just that. A lie by Kate / Janet, repeated in her book, Exhibit KH 1 but proved to be false by C-R themselves
Under that sort of Financial pressure - WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL, if morally reprehensible - TB gave the undertaking not to repeat what he had said.

C-R are experts in this. Acknowledged across the Western World as Masters of using procedural law in this way, and therefore of ensuring that the main argument - that of the FACTS - never, ever comes before a court.
That is their skill and expertise, and we saw it at work.
But TB did manage to get one fact out into the open and into the record.
That despite having spend several YEARS preparing the case, C-R were unable to produce a single piece of evidence that Madeleine had been abducted.
Not one. Nothing NADA
And the reason ? Because there obviously is none.

And then they slammed TB with costs after the trial, and he has to pay a third of his State Pension for the rest of his life, for what Kate / Janet says was "pro-bono" work.

From The Catechism of The Catholic Church.

"There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).

Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth."

Just a thought... for the day.

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 18:22

That despite having spend several YEARS preparing the case, C-R were unable to produce a single piece of evidence that Madeleine had been abducted.
----------------------------

Good ol' Izzy M, i'd say laughat

Years of work down the drain in the twinkling of an ~~affadavit~~ eye!

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 18:25

daffodil:

"pro bono" is what Gerry gets when Kate grabs his crotch on tv interviews! winkwink

by Snifferdog 14.06.14 18:34

by Guest 14.06.14 18:34

jeanmonroe wrote:daffodil:

"pro bono" is what Gerry gets when Kate grabs his crotch on tv interviews!

:puke: Sorry jeanmonroe, just can't put the thought into words !

by fossey 14.06.14 18:41

Just seen this picture doing the rounds on Twitter.

Thought the word used summed it up extremely well.....

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

by ultimaThule 14.06.14 18:47

jeanmonroe wrote:daffodil:

"pro bono" is what Gerry gets when Kate grabs his crotch on tv interviews!

You sure know how to put a gal off her food, jeanm. I shall hold that thought next time I'm tempted to scoff a box of Krispy Kremes or pig out on a gallon of Movenpick ice cream. big grin

by **PeterMac** 14.06.14 19:15

jeanmonroe wrote:That despite having spend several YEARS preparing the case, C-R were unable to produce a single piece of evidence that Madeleine had been abducted.
----------------------------

Good ol' Izzy M, i'd say
Years of work down the drain in the twinkling of an ~~affadavit~~ eye!

There is a real art in cross examination.
And the fundamental rule, for lawyers and police is
Never ask a question of a suspect or an accused unless you already know the answer.

Or as one QC put it when he submitted his bill after a hearing which lasted less then twenty minutes,
"You are not paying me for the questions I did ask, you are paying me for the questions I did not ask"

TB got it exactly right. He let IM use the world "Abduction" three times, under oath and on the record
before he asked his seemingly innocent question.

And in the final judgment His Honour Mr Justice Tugendhat mused aloud, and therefore on the record, that the legal situation might be very different
if it could be shown that Madeleine had NOT been abducted.

Slowly that day is approaching.

by plebgate 14.06.14 19:21

He's a good wily one is Tony. I would love to have seen that, Tony letting her use the word abduction on oath 3 times before he questioned it. ha ha.

Perry Mason move over.

by **Nina** 14.06.14 19:42

Have I missed something? Who is Janet please?

by bobbin 14.06.14 19:47

Nina wrote:Have I missed something? Who is Janet please?

Janet Marie Kennedy, if I have it right, is the 'anon' that has been discovered to be Kate McCann's posting name.
Someone else hopefully will say which site it is from, and if I'm correct. laughat

by Guest 14.06.14 19:53

bobbin wrote:
Nina wrote:Have I missed something? Who is Janet please?
Janet Marie Kennedy, if I have it right, is the 'anon' that has been discovered to be Kate McCann's posting name.
Someone else hopefully will say which site it is from, and if I'm correct.

I think it was Janet Marie James? Janet Kennedy is her aunt.

Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Johanna's latest

Another one shamelessly plagiarised !

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

Latest topics