Why would lawyers pay for evidence? Is it legal?

by worriedmum 20.06.14 11:22

''Wednesday, 13 August 2008

McCann case: 24 pictures that may help to re-open the case

A tourist that was at the Tapas Bar, on the night of May 3, took several pictures where the table with the McCann and their friends is visible. The tourist was with his wife and another couple and they took pictures from each other, with the McCann table on the background.

The owner of the pictures is negotiating with several British newspapers to sell the rights for an exclusive publication, but with a condition: before being published, the pictures must be sent to the Portuguese police. The tourist is well aware that the pictures may have important evidence related with a crime and not sending it to police is considered also a crime, in his country.

Yesterday, a well known legal office from UK knew about the existence of those pictures and contacted the owner, offering to buy all pictures for 600,000 Euros. But the British lawyers didn't accept the condition set by the owner – that the pictures should be sent to the Portuguese police, just before the transaction. The lawyers' office wanted to be free to choose the moment when the pictures would be send to Portuguese authorities, so the offer was refused by the tourist.

Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis''

I have just copied this from another thread. I don't remember reading this before and I have to say I am shocked if it is true...

by fossey 20.06.14 11:26

Do you have an original link / source to this?

Not seen it before either.

Fascinating if true.

by MaybeMaybenot 20.06.14 11:33

A well known legal office.....hmm

by **PeterMac** 20.06.14 11:36

fossey wrote:Do you have an original link / source to this?
Not seen it before either.
Fascinating if true.

Ran it through google. It may be this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by canada12 20.06.14 11:39

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

ETA: You beat me to it PM :-)

by fossey 20.06.14 11:47

PeterMac wrote:
fossey wrote:Do you have an original link / source to this?
Not seen it before either.
Fascinating if true.
Ran it through google. It may be this
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for that.

Very interesting indeed.

If there are any 'twitterers' on here, then this sort of thing needs to be out in the public domain again, so people can see it.

by worriedmum 20.06.14 11:50

Actually , isn't the article debunked in those links(thank you for the links, PeterMac)- that it is just an elaborate fabrication ..ie no photos, no lawyers, in fact no story...