16 Jul 2008

A GET OUT CLAUSE FOR THE MCCANNS?

Hi All, Whilst I know this may be a bit of a heavy read, I hope people will struggle through it. This man tried to say that because people had actually said he was guilty on the internet he may be deprived of the right to a fair trial. This was a serious consideration and website owners were asked to remove material about the case. His appeal was denied, but I do not think we can ignore the possibility that the purpose of Kate and Gerry McCann constantly seeking publicity is so that they can, at the end of the day, say, well look at all this stuff that has been written about us..how can we get a fair trial now?

Some months back I pointed out that if we got near to charges then comment on the case would have to be dramatically curtailed and I am seriously considering removing this blog now because I for one, would not wish to add to material on the internet that may enable them to raise this as a possible defence.

I realise this may be a disappointment to some people but feel that people will understand what I have always wanted is justice for Madeleine and I for one would not wish to add to anything that may detract from that although I would certainly welcome the views of others.

I hope that other web pages about the McCanns will consider this and think carefully about the Court's judgment below.

Viv x
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Lord Justice General
Lord Macfadyen
Lord Kingarth






[2007] HCJAC 27
Appeal No: XC903/06

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by THE LORD JUSTICE GENERAL

in

NOTE OF APPEAL


under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

by

ANGUS ROBERTSON SINCLAIR
Appellant;

against

HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE
Respondent:

_______



Act: Shead, Jackson; Capital Defence Lawyers, Edinburgh
Alt: Stewart, Q.C., A.D.; Crown Agent

25 April 2007

The circumstances
[1] The appellant has been indicted to stand trial for the rape and murder of two young women. These offences are said to have been committed in October 1977. The appellant has lodged a devolution minute in which he contends that any trial of him for these offences would not be a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal and would thus infringe his right to such a trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. For the Crown to insist in his prosecution on this indictment would, he contends, be ultra vires of the Lord Advocate under section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. He seeks declarator to that effect. Declarator was refused by a single judge at a preliminary hearing. The appellant, with leave of that judge, appeals to this court under section 74 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
[2] The appellant's contention is rested partly on the proposition that certain pre-trial publicity about him and about the circumstances of the offences is of such a character that a fair trial before an impartial tribunal cannot reasonably be expected. His minute also states that access to information on the internet (of a character gravely prejudicial to a fair trial) cannot realistically be controlled before or during any trial.
[3] The sequence of events which, it is alleged, resulted in the rapes and murders of the victims began in a public house, the World's End Public House, in the High Street, Edinburgh. In consequence the circumstances of their deaths have become known as "the World's End murders". For some time after their bodies were found, there was widespread publicity in the print media about their killing, but no one was apprehended. Interest was revived in the mid-1990s when against the background of advances in DNA technology there was fresh speculation in the print media that these, among a number of other unsolved murders, might be solved. This speculation continued until about 2004. It centred on the involvement of the appellant, not only in the two murders which form the basis of the present indictment but also as a possible suspect in four other murders of young women from different parts of Scotland.
[4] The appellant, who is now 61 years of age, has a very serious criminal record. In the early 1960s he received a lengthy prison sentence for lewd and libidinous practices and culpable homicide. In 1982 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for a catalogue of sexual offences, including rape. In 2001 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for offences of rape and murder, which had taken place in the early 1970s. There is clearly a thread of violent and sexual offending which runs through his previous convictions.
[5] The speculation in the print media in the ten years or so prior to 2004 included speculation that the appellant had committed, among other murders, the World's End murders. It made reference to his criminal record. Some of the relative articles included a photograph of the appellant as a young man. After the service on the appellant in March 2005 of a petition charging him with the present offences the print media speculation ceased.
[6] Also founded on by the appellant as prejudicial to his prospects of a fair trial before an impartial tribunal is a book entitled "Scotland's Killers from Manuel to Mitchell" published at the end of 2005. The author asserted at page 190 of the book that the appellant was responsible for the World's End murders. The prosecuting authorities took steps to remove it from sale. It was so removed in the course of 2006. Prior to that removal it had sold about 300 copies.
[7] Of most potential significance to the fairness of any trial of the appellant is the availability on the internet of material prejudicial to him. In the week prior to the hearing before the single judge a search, initiated on behalf of the appellant under the Google search engine with reference to his first name and surname, produced from United Kingdom sources a large number of entries, some of which clearly referred to the appellant. If the searcher then clicked on to the first of these entries, access was obtained to a site entitled "Murder, United Kingdom". On that site there was a clear and unequivocal claim that the appellant had been responsible for the World's End murders. There was also an indication that since May 2004 there had been over 1,300,000 hits on that site. Additionally, a search at that time under the heading "World's End murders" produced a number of other sites which linked the appellant to these murders and to other unsolved crimes. That material may be summarised as recycling many of the claims and speculations which had earlier appeared in the media, in particular in the print media, about the appellant's involvement in these murders, his previous convictions and his supposed links to other unsolved crimes.

The submissions of parties
[8] Mr. Shead for the appellant submitted that the relevant test was whether, in light of the prejudicial material, a fair trial could reasonably be expected (Beggs v H.M. Advocate 2001 S.C.C.R. 836, per Lord Coulsfield at paras. [3] - [4]). At common law the issue was whether, in the light of the prejudicial publicity, it would be oppressive to proceed to trial; it would be oppressive where the risk of prejudice was so grave that no direction of the trial judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it (Stuurman v H.M. Advocate 1980 J.C. 111, per Lord Justice General Emslie at page 122). Under the Convention the starting point was the appellant's right to a fair trial. That right was unqualified. It was not to be subordinated to the public interest in the detection and suppression of crime (Montgomery v H.M. Advocate 2000 S.C.C.R. 1044, per Lord Hope of Craighead at page 1106). In the present case the issue was whether there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure a fair trial. The degree of adverse publicity was similar to that described in Beggs. The single judge was not exercising a discretion (McGill v H.M. Advocate 1997 S.C.C.R. 230, per Lord Justice General Rodger at page 237). It was accordingly unnecessary for the appellant to meet the test for reviewing a discretionary decision. An element of judgment was involved; but what was being reviewed was essentially a matter of law, analogous to whether there was a sufficiency of evidence to warrant a conviction. When the position in respect of safeguards (present and absent) was considered cumulatively it could be seen that the single judge had erred in the conclusion at which he had arrived. In particular he had been unduly influenced by the Stuurman test; he had failed to recognise that this was an exceptional case; he had erred in concluding that what he described as "the more immediate and comprehensive safeguards" would be sufficient to avoid prejudicing the appellant's right to a fair trial. In Scottish practice "jury vetting" was not approved (Spink v H.M. Advocate 1989 S.C.C.R. 413). But, where necessary, the court could react by changing its practice (as in Pullar v H.M. Advocate 1993 S.C.C.R. 514; Pullar v United Kingdom 1996 S.C.C.R. 755). At present there was nothing which could be regarded as an adequate safeguard against a juror having access to prejudicial material on the internet. Contamination of a single juror was sufficient to contaminate the whole jury (McTeer v H.M. Advocate 2003 S.C.C.R. 282). The risk posed by internet access was not restricted to access by persons subsequently cited for jury service but extended to access had by empanelled jurors in the course of the trial. Practice in Scotland did not provide a safeguard against that risk. That risk could clearly lead to a trial being unfair (R. v Karakaya [2005] E.W.C.A. Crim. 346, [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 5). It had been acknowledged and provided for in certain other jurisdictions. Reference was made to a Guide to Jury Deliberations, given to potential jurors in Queensland, and to R. v K [2003] N.S.W.C.C.A. 406 and R. v Scaf [2004] N.S.W.C.C.A. 37 (both from New South Wales), the latter of which took into account the views expressed in R. v Mirza, R. v Connor and Rollock [2004] U.K.H.L. 2, [2004] 1 A.C. 1118. Reference was also made to R. v Sherratt [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509, which demonstrated that wide-ranging safeguards, including jury vetting, were to be found in the Canadian courts. The court should grant a declarator that the Lord Advocate had no power to proceed to trial on the charges in the indictment, failing which it should lay down safeguards beyond those presently in place, sufficient to ensure that a fair trial could reasonably be expected.
[9] The advocate depute moved the court to refuse the appeal and to remit the case to a preliminary hearing already fixed for 1 May 2007. The single judge, it was submitted, had applied the correct test and had had regard to all relevant and to no irrelevant material. His decision should not be altered. It could not be said at this stage that it would be ultra vires of the Lord Advocate to proceed to trial. Although the single judge's decision-making power might not be discretionary in the fullest sense, a substantial element of judgement was involved. In Beggs v H.M. Advocate the court had looked at the issue de novo only after identifying a possible error of approach by the single judge. In the present case it was accepted that there was a problem, but not an insurmountable problem, in relation to prejudicial publicity on the internet. The Crown had, since the hearing before the single judge, been able to take certain steps to mitigate that potential prejudice. With the co-operation of the website owner a particular item of concern had been removed from it - that concerning the appellant on the "Murder, United Kingdom" site. Further steps were being taken in relation to other sites. There was an important distinction between (1) pre-trial publicity affecting potential jurors (against which traditional safeguards were broadly sufficient) and (2) "intra-trial" publicity and its effect on empanelled jurors. It was clear from the single judge's Opinion that he had been addressed only on (1), which he had fully and adequately dealt with. What particular steps should be taken in relation to instructing empanelled jurors (particularly with regard to past or prospective use of the internet) was essentially a matter for the trial judge. There might, in the circumstances of this case, be advantage in possible instructions being discussed with parties at a preliminary or other hearing before the trial judge in advance of the trial. As to whether any "balancing act" was required under the Convention, the Crown reserved its position. The right of an accused to a fair trial under Article 6 might require to be balanced against the rights of victims or their relatives to have effective proceedings brought against persons accused of serious crime. It might on the other hand be that victims' rights could be encompassed within the scope of a "fair trial". It could not be right that a person could avoid trial because the process had been tainted by his own notoriety. If there were to be any suggestion that the holding of the trial in Edinburgh (as against in some other place) was prejudicial to the appellant, it was for him to raise that issue as appropriate.

Discussion
[10] In Montgomery v H.M. Advocate Lord Hope opined that a feature in the case of X. v Sweeney 1982 J.C. 70 (to which Lord Coulsfield had referred in the High Court) did not deprive the Stuurman test of its utility in the Article 6(1) context. Lords Slynn of Hadley, Nicholls of Birkenhead and Hoffman agreed with that part of Lord Hope's judgment. Lord Clyde did not opine on the applicability of the Stuurman test. In Beggs v H.M. Advocate the High Court (presided over by Lord Coulsfield) expressed the view that the test to be applied in the context of the Convention was that to be found in the Opinion of Lord Justice General Emslie in Stuurman, read in the light of the comments by Lord Justice General Rodger and Lord Hope in Montgomery v H.M. Advocate. In Stuurman Lord Justice General Emslie said:
"Each case will depend on its own merits, and where the alleged oppression is said to arise from events alleged to be prejudicial to the prospects of fair trial the question for the Court is whether the risk of prejudice is so grave that no direction of the trial Judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it".
Accordingly, there is built into the common law test the concept of a fair trial, a concept well recognised in the law of Scotland before the Convention was incorporated into domestic law. We find it unnecessary in this case to express any view on the matter raised and reserved by the advocate depute, namely, whether under the Convention there requires in some way to be brought into account the rights of victims of crime or their relatives. To the approved test in Stuurman we would add only this. The reference to "direction of the trial judge" should not be read narrowly but so as to encompass all instructions and advice which the trial judge may give to the jurors at the commencement or during the course of the trial. Additionally, it will be necessary to take into account safeguards inherent in the trial process itself and in the historical context in which it occurs, which may negative or militate against the influence of external prejudicial material. These will include, for example, the discipline of the jury listening to the evidence adduced in court and any lapse of time between the publication in question and the trial.
[11] In approaching the task of evaluation before him, the single judge said, at para. [28] of his Opinion:
"The outcome in each case will always depend upon an examination of its particular facts and circumstances, but where the alleged oppression arises from events said to be prejudicial to a fair trial, the question for the court is whether the issue of prejudice is so grave that no directions by the trial judge, however careful, could reasonably be expected to remove it. In other words the court will only require the indictment to be deserted if it is established, in the circumstances of the case, that the nature and extent of pre-trial publicity is such that it would not be reasonable to expect that the trial judge could secure a fair trial by means of appropriate directions to the jury. These special circumstances must be such as to satisfy the court that, having regard to the principles of substantive justice and a fair trial, to require an accused to face trial would be oppressive. This matter must be considered in all the circumstances of the case in the light of the degree and timing of pre-trial publicity in the media, the real and quantifiable coverage and availability on the internet, and the extent of the distribution of any other material. The issue also has to be considered against the background of the warning and advice given by clerks of court and judges at the outset of the trial, the process and immediacy of the trial itself in front of the jury, and the directions available to the judge in the course of his charge".
[12] We find no error in that approach. It involved no "undue" reliance on the Stuurman test (by which we understand it to be contended that the subsequent observations in Montgomery had not been taken into account) and it encompasses safeguards going beyond those secured by "directions", in any narrow sense, given by the trial judge.
[13] Having made his evaluation of the various classes of material said to be prejudicial to a fair trial, the single judge said:
"I have accordingly concluded that the more immediate and comprehensive safeguards, described earlier, will in all but the most exceptional cases, (of which this is not one), be sufficient to avoid prejudicing an accused's right to a fair trial. The chances of selected jurors actively seeking such material on the internet in the course of the trial may require to be managed by the court, but again I have no doubt that this can be achieved. I am therefore satisfied that individually and cumulatively all these sources of pre-trial publicity or publicity which may be available to jurors during a trial, are not such as would justify the desertion of proceedings in this case".
The safeguards to which the single judge there refers are those noted at para. [28] of his Opinion. Subject to an observation which we shall hereafter make about possible access by potential jurors to internet material in advance of the trial, the safeguards referred to are in our judgment such that a fair trial may reasonably be expected. As to the judge's reference to the present case not being exceptional, we do not understand him to mean that the material is not highly prejudicial; rather that the safeguards available are such that a fair trial can reasonably be expected and that the case is accordingly not such that the court should take steps to prevent it proceeding. The judge also notes in that paragraph that steps may require to be taken against the chances of the selected jurors actively seeking material on the internet in the course of the trial.
[14] The availability of the internet and its increasingly wide use by members of the public, including potential and serving jurors, presents a challenge for the administration of justice. While news reported and opinions expressed in the press or broadcasting media on a daily basis are themselves ephemeral, the internet provides ready access to historical material, including media items. At one time a person seeking reported information about a past event or about a particular individual would require to spend significant time, and possibly expense, in retrieving it from a public library or similar institution; now such information can be accessed by the pressing at home of a few controls on a computer. Moreover, persons with interests in particular fields, including criminal investigations and criminal histories, may choose to set up websites which provide links to historical and other materials. Such materials, if accessed by a juror or jurors, may in some circumstances be potentially highly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial of an accused.
[15] The dangers have been acknowledged and addressed in other jurisdictions. In Queensland, Australia statutory provision has been made to the effect that a person who has been sworn as a juror in a criminal trial must not inquire about the defendant until the trial is over. "Inquire" is defined as including "(a) search an electronic database for information, for example, by using the internet; and (b) cause someone else to inquire". The prohibition is backed by criminal sanction, including the possibility of imprisonment. In R. v K. the New South Wales Court of Appeal recommended that legislation along these lines should be introduced into that State.
[16] In this jurisdiction there is no such legislation but, as the single judge recognised, the chances of selected jurors actively seeking in the course of the trial material on the internet about the circumstances of the murders and about the appellant may require to be managed by the court. That, if appropriate, can be done at the outset of the trial or immediately before the jurors disperse at the end of the first day or at any other suitable time, by a suitably framed instruction by the trial judge. While the possibility remains that a juror or jurors might disobey that instruction, the whole jury system depends on there being trust between judge and jury, including an understanding that jurors will not deliberately disobey the instructions on law or procedure which they are given by the trial judge.
[17] It is possible that a person or persons cited for jury service may some time prior to the commencement of the trial have used the internet and, accidentally or deliberately, have come upon information about the police investigation or about the appellant. Such a person may find himself or herself empanelled on the jury. It is customary (in the light of Pullar v H.M. Advocate) for judges at the outset of the trial, before evidence is led, to tell the jurors that if any of them knows the accused or the victim on any charge or if there is any other good reason why he or she should not serve on the jury, that juror should so advise the clerk during the short adjournment which commonly precedes the leading of evidence. In appropriate cases, and this may be such, a reference to knowledge acquired by use of the internet might usefully be added to that instruction. This is no more than a development of existing practice in the context of technological advances.
[18] We regard it as inappropriate to be any more prescriptive than we have been in the observations made above. Much will depend on the particular circumstances which exist at the commencement of the trial and as it progresses. The particular safeguards which are appropriate to the particular trial in its own time and context are best determined by the trial judge. In the course of the discussion it was suggested that there would be advantage in parties, in advance of the trial diet, making representations to the trial judge as to the terms in which he might instruct the jurors as regards any past or prospective use of the internet. In the circumstances of this case we agree that this would be advantageous - in particular, to enable the trial judge to make informed decisions in the light of such assistance. A further diet appointed under section 72(9) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for that purpose would appear to be an appropriate mechanism. R. v Scaf (where suggested directions are discussed) and the other Australian material might usefully be considered.
[19] We are quite satisfied that, in accordance with the safeguards which are available, it can reasonably be expected that the appellant's trial will not be rendered unfair by prejudicial material coming at a significant time to the knowledge of one or more of the jurors at his trial. Being so satisfied, we must refuse this appeal. We shall then remit the case to the preliminary hearing fixed for 1 May 2007.
[20] We would only add that the discussion before us focused on the guarantee of a "fair trial" rather than of an "impartial tribunal" under Article 6. The authorities referred to have the same focus. It may be that, where prejudicial material potentially affecting the judgment of jurors is in issue, the better focus is on the requirement for an impartial tribunal. However, the difference in focus makes no difference to the general principles or to the result.

266 comments:

1 – 200 of 266   Newer›   Newest»
Zodiac said...

Morning all,

Viv,

I respect your wishes. To all who participate on this blog it has been nice communicating with people who want JFM and all neglected children. Just wanted to write this just now. Viv, what about keeping the blog as a read only blog for the moment. Your posts are reassuring amongst all the spin.

JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE AND ALL NEGLECTED CHILDREN.

BBFN.

docmac said...

I have to say I'm astonished by this post, Viv.

By their very nature, juries are never completely impartial. Having said that, it will surely not be difficult to to select and properly vet a jury from citizens who have never visited a blog about the Madeleine McCann case, or even used the internet for that matter.

Furthermore, I just don't believe that any judge would make the sort of ruling that you have inferred the McCanns and their legal team may seek. Such an order would create a precedent that would have a disastrous effect on the whole criminal justice system, and not only in the UK mind you. Can you just imagine the ramifications of this?

Thirdly, what you are saying contradicts your own mission statement at the top of your blog. As it states, the public have a right to freely discuss the issues of this and any other cases they so choose.

Finally I have to say that if Madeleine had a say in this, what would her wishes be? What would she say if she saw those who have spoken on HER behalf abandoning her? She 'knows' what really happened, her parents know what really happened and I think I do too. That's good enough for me. The rest of it, the lawyers, the pink puppet, I don't give a fuck.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi Viv

Three points occur to me:

I) The judgement was within the Scottish legal system (I presume) and therefore would need to be re-tested under English Law.

II) Even if all the blogs vanished (I wonder if others would in fact close down) any book on the subject would serve to create the same problem. The anticipated book for example by Mr Amaral might contain matters that would be inadmissible in a Court of Law and only make the position worse. What is to stop someone like CM from writing a book under a pen name damning the McCanns as a legal ploy?

III) If you feel that this blog is damaging to any future court case could you not change the format so that only members can read it (as the blog of Alsabella seems to be, true or not).

ICTOANx

ICantThinkOfAName said...

I'm back for a second bite.

IIa) Could it be that the McCanns' reason for wanting the files to be opened is the certain knowledge that they would quickly get into the public domain and thus be another reason to claim prejudice.

Zodiac said...

Viv,

Does that mean that any Criminal could open blogs and use them, stating they would not get a fair trial?

Cláudia said...

Well, I certainly respect Viv's wishes. If she really decides to close this blog down, there is nothing we can do. But that does not mean I agree with it. I don't. And I am certainly not going to give up, no matter what they say. This blog has played a very important role in all this. Bigger and more important than many would think. And Viv is the one responsible for it. In my opinion it will be investigative journalists and common citizens the ones who will prevent this case from dying. And I will certainly be part of those people. Here or elsewhere.

Niki said...

Hi Viv and Claudia!

Sure do respect Vivs wishes if she finds it correct to close this blog, but think it is a pity...

What about your blog Claudia, would that be a "safe" place to continiue the conversation?

Have a nice day:)

Cláudia said...

Niki, I hope it won't be necessary.
Really hot here today. Deciding if I stay home or go swim in the ocean, river or swimming pool.
Have a nide day too.

Stonemaid said...

Hi Viv

I know I'm mainly a lurker who tries to read posts here as much as possible, and contributes next to nothing, but I would certainly miss the chance to read what is happening from a source such as this rather than depend on biased journalism.

I hope you keep going, but naturally understand that the decision is yours alone.

Stonemaid

lizzy said...

Hi Viv,
I don't often comment these days but always read your blog.
I agree if the Mccanns were likely to face charges that it would be a good thing to withdraw your blog,in case a trial was prejudiced, however im sure they have copies of past posts etc of various blogs and as I don't feel it is likely they will face charges,I personally wouldn't but am sure all posters on here will respect your decision as it is after all your blog. All the best anyway Lizzy

J J said...

I do hope you decide against closing the site down.
I fully understand what you are saying about the publicity and not getting a fair trial. But I would have thought it is too late now.
The information has been there for over a year, what is the point in removing sites now?
I'm sure the lawyers will have copies of everything they think is useful to themselves anyway.
And they will use it whether the site is still running or not.

mandarinn said...

Hi all!!
Of course i respect VIV's decision, it is her blogg, but in other hand i agree with other comments about it. I could made mines the words of docmac and zodiac (9.31).
I hope maybe Claudia find a way to us to continue commenting this cases and others of social and justice interest.
bjs claudia

docmac said...

See ST and his trusty anonymous sidekick have not been fooled as they have known about 'our secret place' for some time.

Well they must know more than I do because you have certainly fooled me, lol!!

Cláudia said...

ST is the most easily manipulated idiot I've ever seen, Doc.

hope4truth said...

Hello ALL

If Viv decides it is time to reomove the blog it will be a shame but I understand her reasons.

Posting here I have been accused of being sick twisted and many other foul things.

I post for one reason and one reason alone Children should have more rights than adults and when unfit parents choosed to neglect their children and create a huge media circus portraying themselves as the victims whilst using their neglected child as a marketing campaingn it is not only sick it is very wrong.

Whatever happend to Madeleine is her parents fault. If she was taken then the sick scum that took her deserves to burn in hell for eternity. Her parents left her alone with her younger siblings so they could enjoy some me time. They do not deserve any sympathy Madeleine does as if she was taken as they are hopeful she was she will be in the worse kind of hell.

Peadophiles are everywhere we all know this which is why we protect our children they chose not to and have made a lot of money out of their neglect.

Pictures of the joyful McCann's day's after she was taken to hell make me sick a picture tells a thousand story's and to ever show that much joy again in life would be hard but day's after she was taken???

There is also a very big chance that they know exactly what happend to her and accident of fit of rage they may be responsible for her death and convering it up.

I had sympathy for them I cried when Kate went into the police station I could not think how she must feel (even if there had been an accident and she had covered it up)she had still lost a daughter and may well be taken away from her twins. That thought really cut me up.

In the weeks and months that have passed they have tried to spin themselves into Victims no thought for Madeleine. It was so important for us all to belive she was taken and the spin made me sick.

If this blog goes it will be a shame but Madeleines voice is being heard loud and clear in the public domaine now more than ever. People who just thought it was sad she was missing are now doubting her parents and the condemnation of the neglect grows louder.

Childrens Charity's and the Law needs to be made very clear to any idiot who thinks leaving children alone is ok the proof that it is not is clear as Madeleine is missing (although maybe not because of the neglect)...

Children first and if people feel the McCann's need defending let them get on with it but they are not defending Madeleine or any other neglected child they are saying loud and clear that Gerry and Kate McCann had every right to leave her alone to go and have a good time and she really did not matter.

Gerry wishes they had been with her when she was taken well so do I because then she may have had a chance at life and I would never have heard of him or his wife.

Madeleine deserves the truth and the only truth I know is her parents neglected her that is discusting and they are doing all they can to prove it is not and I find myself asking again why is it so important they are not blamed for neglect?

I am off see you later if we are still here xxx

Cláudia said...

Hope, her voice will continue to be heard. That's for sure.
Have a good afternoon.

LittleGreyCell said...

Afternoon All,

There are a few points I'd like to make on this...

Firstly, the McCanns will, presumably, be tried in Portugal, where I believe the proceedings will be heard by three judges and no jury.

The stringent reporting restrictions we have in the UK as laid down by the 1980 Act are so that JURIES are not swayed by what comes out in the media about the accused, as Joe/Jo Public can't be expected to exercise true objectivity because he/she hasn't been trained to do that in a purely legal context. Would the McCanns be able to claim a trial would be unfair in Portugal because of this issue? Personally, I think not, partly because if that was the case, Portugal would have similar reporting restrictions to the UK.

Secondly, you must do what you feel you must do, Viv, of course. However, there's LOADS AND LOADS of stuff on the net (and in the press) the McCanns can already cite as being heavily prejudicial to any trial.

Thirdly, we live in a country where free speech is the norm (which is why any one of 600 agencies can legally bug our homes to see what we're saying...another story, but couldn't resist a dig :)). Whilst proof of internet defamation may well have been established, personally I believe the publishing of material (potentially) liable to prejudice a trial is something completely different. (And I'm also glad to see my learned friends above agreed with me. LOL :)).

I don't see how they could have come to any other conclusion, though, otherwise you'd have to find jurors who hadn't ever been exposed to conversations in pubs, sat on buses where people were talking, been abroad and read the foreign media where the same restrictions aren't applied, and so on.

I'm going to be contentious now: I think there's a good case to be made for abolishing the whole rule which says a jury must not hear about a defendant's previous record until after the end of the trial. (The above case pursuades me more of this, too).

Here's a really interesting link with pros and cons for those who are really interested in really interesting pros and cons:

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=204

In the end, Viv, you are the legal eagle here, the rest of us are mere lay penguins, (I might be sued for the use of 'mere' in that sentence, I now realise); and you have to do whatever your conscience says you have to do...

X Little Grey Court Jester

docmac said...

Hey LGC

Did Viv pass on that pic I sent to her for you?

Zodiac said...

Claudia,

Just read this post on 3 A's.

'Caso Madie'
Attorney General announces "solution" on Monday

The PGR will present "a solution" for the "Maddie Case" on Monday, announced the prosecutor, Pinto Monteiro.

In statements to the press ... the PGR announced that he will announce an update about the Maddie Case on Monday.

"That is, the Maddie Case will have a solution on Monday which we will communicate to you," according to Pinto Monteiro.

http://aeiou.expresso.pt/gen.pl?p=stori ... ies/368854

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

the same here:

http://www.rr.pt/InformacaoDetalhe.aspx ... tId=254024

and from Lusa:

http://noticias.sapo.pt/lusa/artigo/4b1 ... 80b95.html


Last edited by astro on Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LittleGreyCell said...

Hi Docmac,

No...not unless I've missed it somewhere... :)

docmac said...

Everybody still hiding? :-))) Going to turn in really early tonight. There is news coming out of Portugal about an important announcement to be made by the PGR this coming Monday, but I'm too tired to post it! I'm sure someone else will relay the information.

Enjoy the evening.

Cláudia said...

Zodiac, it's true!

Doc, are you getting old? :p

docmac said...

lol Claudia!

No, I have to be in a town called George by 8.30 in the morning. About 450km away and you know I'm not going to fly if I don't have to!! :-)) Then at noon I leave for home again.

I have some final adjustments to make on a ppt file before I go to sleep. Must be up in about 5 hours from now, so I must get it done soon!

Cláudia said...

Are you going to a cleaning convention? If you are presenting a paper, e-mail me a copy. I would be very pleased to know the latest in the cleaning world.

docmac said...

NO!!

I am delivering a lecture on the use of Viagra in babies would you believe!

Cláudia said...

I've heard about it. Not pretending to be an expert or anything but isn't it recommended in some heart problems or something? Quite some time ago I translated something about that.

docmac said...

Pulmonary hypertension. Heart defects are a common cause.

Cláudia said...

Yep, that's it. Coming back to me now. I did translate something about it a couple of years ago.

docmac said...

Claudia you must translate some fairly technical stuff occasionally then. Can't be for textbooks and so on, surely! Where do reference the translations for the medical terms and how do you confirm that the translation is medically correct?

Got to go, I don't want to 'drive drowsy'.

Beijos.

docmac said...

Where do YOU reference..

zzzzz.....

Cláudia said...

Doc, I mostly translate for people who are working on their PhDs and Post PhDs (don't know if there is a better equivalent in English) and who need translated material. To be honest, the medical jargon is not the worst. The vast majority of the clinical and technical terms are quite similar. The legal jargon though I find more difficult. And a lot more boring (sorry, Viv!). The last thing I translated in the medical area was related to AIDS and it was a paper a PhD student was presenting in Belgium, if I remember correctly.

Cláudia said...

P.S: when there are questions, having an anesthesiologist friend also helps. :-)

atardi said...

Viv,

I will repeat a part of Zodiac's post from this morning.

Respect your wishes. To all who participate on this blog it has been nice communicating with people who want JFM and all neglected children.

Thank you Viv that you gave us the opportunity to come together on your blog and discuss this tragic case.

Cláudia said...

Sickle-cell disease - this one took me some time to translate because it's a bit different in Portuguese. I will never forget it: anemia falciforme/ doença falciforme!

Cláudia said...

Atardi, you're not giving up that easily, are you?

atardi said...

Cláudia,

Of course not. Will search the whole www until I find a place where I can find all posters from this blog.

docmac said...

"Dr" Googlemum21

Stop throwing old and non-technical research information at me. Things have moved on a bit you know. You're really going to have to try much harder if you want a Googledegree.

docmac said...

Claudia

Ask "Dr" Googlemum about it. She'll get back to you with an article from 2005 or prior within 50 minutes.

Hi and bye Atardi

Dorme bem all.

Cláudia said...

Atardi, I hope it won't be necessary. However, picturing you searching the whole www made me smile! :-)

Doc, wiki again? lololol
At least Google Scholar... ;-)

Cláudia said...

Doc, sorry, do not wish to ask anything from that specimen.

Sleep tight and have a safe trip. Hope all goes well in the cleaning convention. :-)

Beijinhos.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

From the Daily Mail:

Boy, 2, dies in baking hot car in France after parents go shopping and forget about him


Last updated at 4:07 PM on 16th July 2008



The boy, 2, died after being left in a Renault in which the temperature may have reached 45C (113F)

A boy aged two-and-a-half died from dehydration after being left in a baking hot car after his parents went shopping and forgot about him.

Now the boy's parents, who have not been identified, face charges after the horrific accident.

The pair were said to be in "a state of shock". A local police spokesman added: “When the parents are in a fit state they will be interviewed at length. This was their only son and they are naturally traumatised.

“It appears that the father forgot all about the child when he parked up. The child was left in the vehicle for some three hours. It was exposed to direct sunlight.

“The child was rushed to hospital on being freed, but all attempts to revive him failed.”

Possible charges range from neglect of a minor to manslaughter.

The horrific accident happened in the centre of Pont-de-Chéruy, a market town in the Rhone-Alpes region of south east France.

While the temperature was 25C (77F), it was thought to have reached 45C (113F) inside the vehicle - a Renault which did not have its windows open.

French state prosecutor Franck Rastoul said: “The boy’s father, age 38 and a resident of Pont-de-Chéruy, has indicated that he forgot his son was in the car which was parked in the sun for several hours.”

The child was seen at around 5pm on Tuesday and alerted the police. They smashed windows to free him but could not revive him.

viv said...

Hiya all

Thanks for your comments which are really helpful and interesting.

What is really important from a legal point of view that may be considered to prejudice a fair trial is what is available on the internet (to take this particular example), following defendants being charged and in the run-up to trial. For that reason, I have not been concerned that we exercise our right to free speech whilst the case is being investigated. However, the Portuguese have clearly announced their own investigation is drawing to a close and therefore the possibility of the McCanns being charged cannot be ignored. It does not matter at all what has been written in this blog in the past.

I can only say again, I think it is a very real possibility the McCanns could be put on trial in the UK, and then the concerns about influence upon jury members would come into play.

I think that the best solution for the time being, at least, is to make the blog, available to members only. That way we can continue our debate, and if, at some future stage it becomes clear the McCanns will not be charged then it can be opened up again. So that is what I propose to do as I can see people want to be able to continue to discuss the case. So long as this is not published on the internet that is fine. I think the case is now at such a crucial state this is necessary to ensure we do not come into conflict with authorities who may wish to put the McCanns on trial and a much better discussion could take place, in private.


Thanks to you all for your support and understanding in this.


Viv x

Stonemaid said...

Thanks Viv

I am sure all posters/members will be very glad that they will still have access to this site. I know I will!

Let us all hope that something will soon transpire that will finally bring justice for little Madeleine.

Stonemaid

LittleGreyCell said...

Hello Viv,

I see what you're saying. Good decision!

X

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi Viv

Glad you're keeping the group together.

southerncross said...

Good evening Viv and everyone

Viv, In my opinion you have made a wise decision to make this blog for members only for the time being.

I hope you are all well

atardi said...

Viv,

Thank you. You know what it is. Your articles are always so well written. (However, it take me "hours" to read them.)

If it is necessary to close the blog to reach JFM. No problem.

I'm sure we "see" each other somewhere.

atardi said...

Cláudia,

I was already searching!

viv said...

Thanks again for your support, I think what is to transpire could prove very interesting!

I will continue to post as interesting events unfold and have certainly not given up on the idea that we will see Justice for Madeleine and what we have always wanted to be the knock on effect on other child abusers if such a high profile couple take a fall:-))) They made themselves high profile but in terms they are no better than any other parents who abuse and neglect their children.

I have a feeling I am doing what the police and prosecutors would now want us to do!

Viv x

Cláudia said...

Atardi, if something ever happens or if anyone wishes to publish something they want to be read by others, my place is available.

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Cláudia said...

Viv, I only read today you last nigh post where you mentioned my dear God daughter Sara.Thank you. She is fine. And she now weighs 2, 580 Kg. :-)

viv said...

Hiya darling

I am thrilled Sara is doing so well and gaining weight.

Claudia Hun, maybe we will make some public posts on your blog, but I do think we need to be careful at the moment. It is all happening!

I think the McCanns were very wise to have that nice long break in Canada!

Viv x

Cláudia said...

Yeah, Sara is great. And so beautiful. :-))))))
My blog will always be available to anyone who wishes to support the PJ or seek justice for Madeleine.

Cláudia said...

Is it also hot in the UK?

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Claudia

It was at the lap dancing club that burned down.

viv said...

No Hun

I am afraid it is not, yesterday was about 25 and today cooler. The forecast predicts yet more rain. We are having a very bad summer!

Maybe in August September time it will be warm, this sometimes happens!

Cláudia said...

ICTOAN, lolololol

Viv, you may not believe it but I would gladly have a 25C temperature here. Today here it was around 33C. Too hot.

ICTOAN, that article about the 2 year old, ;-(

viv said...

Hiya darling

I would be very happy if it was always about 25 which is just nice for me. 33 gives me blisters! but somehow I cope abroad because I just do very little else but swim!

It is not so much fun if you actually live there and have to work and get on with your life in such heat! I can certainly understand that.

xxxxxxxx

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Claudia

How can you forget you have a child with you?

Cláudia said...

Viv, when it's this hot the evryday things are better done in the morning when it's cooler. In the afternoon people rarely go out (unless they go to cafés and shopping centers because it's kind of hot to go for walks. Swimming is the best alternative.

ICTOAN, how do you forget you have three?

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Claudia

"TOUCHE"

viv said...

Claudia Hun perhaps you can help me with this article from Correio de manha.

It is saying that there may be two criminal cases against two Portuguese newspapers but more crucially, civil cases when the file is revealed and Murat can see who falsely accused him.

I am struggling to understand the law in Portugal but the way I read it is this. If, newspapers write making defamtory assertions about a criminal suspect then they have breached the criminal law, but if it is an individual, rather than a newspaper then it is a civil claim for damages. So the way I read it is this, Murat's lawyer seems to be clearly threatening, the McCanns, Jane Tanner, and OB, Fiona Payne and Rachel for falsely putting him in the frame. It must have been a horrible experience for him to be accused by OB, Fiona and Rachel in the PJ organised confrontation in July last year. Great detective work but I am sure Murat could say that this in itself was extremely traumatic for him and entitle him to hefty damages. Rachel lives in considerable style in a £1M pad, so it seems to me some of these people could be worth sueing, I do not know about the McCanns though, I think their financial situation is a lot to do with the motivation for their behaviour, in short they had no money..being mortgage in a house they could not afford and bills for IVF etc..

It would be fantastic if Murat does sue them!!



Viv x

British gets to have more than 600 thousand euros, 11 newspapers and Sky News. Here are more processos16 July 2008 - 00:30 am

If Maddie - Lawyer weighs action against the Portuguese state
Murat is agreement with thousands of newspapers
Aprioridade of Robert Murat is "finally make it to be accused", 14 months after the Judiciary of Portimão Tuesday indicted by the abduction of Madeleine. Only then "will be considered a possible action against the Portuguese state," the lawyer advances to BC Francisco Pagarete. For already confirmed the agreement of hundreds of thousands of euros in compensation of 11 British newspapers and Sky News.


According to own television channel, are known figures already agreed with eight of the 11 publications: between 313 thousand and 626 thousand euros. The contours of the decision will be known tomorrow morning, a Superior Court hearing in London. The newspapers initially concerned are: Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World, Sun and Scotsman.

The understanding with Murat also includes an apology writing, adds the BBC News, and the second this channel, the total amount of compensation can even reach 690 thousand euros. It is recalled that the case against the newspaper and Sky News for defamation was brought in April, although, to handle these cases, Murat, who goes on purpose to England, has always been represented by lawyers sociedadebritânica of Simons Muirhead & Burton.

Regarding publicaçãoescocesa 'Scotsman', it was agreed in May when the request for apologies by the Murat article with allegations "completely false and defamatory serious." As for cases already running in our country, the advogadoFrancisco Pagarete states that "so far are two - the criminal complaints against Portuguese newspapers - and there may be two more civil cases but which are still being studied."

When you have access to the file, Francisco Pagarete vai also "verify who provided false evidence" to incriminate Murat. After "will be processed."

APPROVAL OF COUPLE

Paid 550 thousand pounds

The other two defendants, Kate and Gerry McCann, succeeded in March compensation from the Express Newspapers group amounting to 550 thousand pounds.

Request for apology

The four newspapers in the group asked the couple excuses.

Henrique MachadoCOMENTARLER COMENTÁRIOSENVIARIMPRIMIR
'COMMENTS
July 16, 2008 - 16:00 | Fatima Solipa

Murat is only bill but it also has its reason. For Mccann (.....).
July 16, 2008 - 11h47 | A. Santiago

A child disappears, research instead be only on a case by police, begins to take the weight policy. An inspector is removed. After all the stresses that this case? Some of their players, for various circumstances, make use of fortunes. It is a case "sui generis", whose main objective failed.

Cláudia said...

ICTOAN, unbelievable but true!

Cláudia said...

Viv, I read the article in Portuguese and yes, Mr Pagarete said that once the files are opened they will evaluate the possibility of sueing witnesses who lied and who placed Mr Murat where he said he never was.

viv said...

Appreciate people will say but hang on the McCanns have lots of money. I think that is tied up legally in a limited company and they are not directors of that company. Maybe it was a very clever move to put their own libel damages in their, that way they can be given money by the directors but they can say it is not their own to do with as they will and therefore is not available to pay any libel damages.

Do people remember that article in the Daily Express where Kate McCann was saying Murat had a case to answer..what a bloody nerve!

docmac said...

Hi Viv et al

I was trying to get some shut-eye but couldn't stay asleep. Decided to get up now and make myself a greasy full English before setting off.

33C too hot? lol! You are NEVER going on safari then :-)) Flip, my 'office' is kept at a constant 28.2C and I spend a fair amount of my day with my head under the ventilation trays' radiation heaters which are set to 36.6C. And people wonder why I'm almost bald at my tender age :-)))

Well I'll go and get the cooker fired up then. Have a great day.

viv said...

Well I for one would love to see the headlines

Murat v Payne, Tanner, O'Brien, Oldfield

Then we will see how much any of these people cared about justice and little Madeleine! They cared so much they never even bothered to check on their own children x

Cláudia said...

Doc, that sort of heat I only expect after I die, when I will definately go to hell! lololol I'm an air con girl. One of those who showers 3 times a day when it's hot.

viv said...

Hiya Doc

It is annoying that I cannot cope with the heat and get prickly heat etc.

My sister is dark skinned, quite the opposite to me and certainly can. She went trekking in the forests in Thailand, that must have been fantastic. We both love wildlife and there is so much of it where it is hot and also sometimes pretty steamy too.

Do not worry, you know what they say about bald men!

Viv x

viv said...

Claudia

You remind me of a man who I went out with some years back who was telling people in a crowded pub how fussy I am showering sometimes 5 times a day. I embarassedly had to point out I am not a hygiene fanatic, it was just that it was very hot and I needed to keep cooling down!

His indiscretion showed him the door!

Cláudia said...

Viv, I always like to be clean and fresh. :-)
Think it's bed time.
Dorme bem e beijinhos.
Boa noite, all.

docmac said...

Yes Viv I do know

"That's not a bald spot, it's a panel on a solar-powered sex machine." lol!

Gonna finish making me brekky, get in that machine and head off into the moonlight.

Nite x.

Cláudia said...

Doc, boa viagem! :-)
Beijinhos!

viv said...

Oh Doc!

Well I cannot say whether or not you are a sex machine but will take your word for that. One thing you definitely are is hilariously funny and that has always been an important thing in a man so far as I am concerned!

Boa noite e beijinhos to you both!

PMSL XXXXXX

viv said...

Well I am wondering, will Clarence Mitchell be standing on the steps of the HIgh Court today putting his own peculiar brand of spin on it, or would Robert ask him to leave! I saw on Sky, who of course he also sued, a video interview with Max Clifford where he stated, he is getting considerably more than the figures quoted by you! Well I should think so! Surely 8 or even 11 media outlets between them can stump up more than half a million! I remember us commenting some months back Robert would finish up being a rich man, I hope it will help him put all this misery behind him :-)))


McCann case: Madeleine suspect wins libel damagesLeigh Holmwood and Oliver Luft The Guardian, Wednesday July 16, 2008 Article historyRobert Murat, an official suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, has settled his libel action against a number of British newspapers over claims he was involved in her disappearance.

Murat, 34, will fly from Portugal to London on Thursday for the settlement at the high court, his lawyers confirmed yesterday.

The settlement is with eight UK national newspapers, with damages totalling between £250,000 and £500,000, according to Sky News. Murat launched his action in April against 11 newspapers and one broadcaster in what was the largest number of claims ever made against different British media outlets in the same case.

Murat was seeking a formal public apology and undisclosed damages from Sky, the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World, Sun and the Scotsman.

A spokeswoman for Murat's law firm, Simons Muirhead & Burton, said: "Robert Murat is due in court for the settlement hearing at 10am on Thursday, after which it's expected either he or his legal representative will give a statement to the press." The firm secured an apology from the Scotsman in May over an article headlined, Madeleine: He jokes of being No 1 suspect, which the newspaper admitted contained a "number of defamatory allegations" about Murat.

Murat, who lived close to the Praia da Luz apartment in Portugal where Madeleine went missing in May 2007, was the first formal suspect, or arguido, in the McCann case but has denied any involvement in her disappearance in May 2007.

viv said...

What utter balderdash "the 50 page final police report".

Three prosecutors were assigned to work on the final police file, 17 pages each! I do not think so. From my own experience in the law, they would be having to look at countless thousands of pages!

If we are to be given a "solution" to the Maddie case, then, shelving it with no charges, could hardly be described in those terms. This is certainly not what I am expecting to hear. I would prefer to hear the case warrants further investigations which will be mainly conducted by Leicester Police, but we shall soon see!

Mind you, given how biased the Daily Mail have been this is not too bad a report, I am finding the Daily Telegraph are far worse! The bit about Mrs Justice Hogg ordering them to hand over 81 files was a bit much though, what her order actually said was she was reversing her earlier order and no British authorities were ordered to disclose any information to the McCanns, all 11,000 of them and counting! The Chief Constable voluntarily handed over information that was originally in their possession, just details of 81 telephone calls made in the early days, I would say before the McCanns seriously started their fraudulent activities that the police are so interested in and will be used against them.

Portugal's law chief says he will announce 'solution' to Madeleine McCann case next week

By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 10:13 PM on 16th July 2008


Comments (0) Add to My Stories


Missing: Madeleine McCann, pictured on the day she went missing
Portugal's law chief says he will announce a 'solution' next week to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Attorney-general Fernando Pinto Monteiro's words raised the prospect of Kate and Gerry McCann finding out if they will be formally cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

Although Mr Pinto Monteiro failed to elaborate on what he meant, his comments reinforce speculation the 14-month investigation is finally drawing to a close.

Speaking to Portuguese reporters in Lisbon, Mr Pinto Monteiro said: 'The "Maddie Case" will have a solution on Monday and you will hear of it.'

Prosecutors have been reviewing the final investigation report on Madeleine's disappearance and it would appear Mr Pinto Monteiro will be making his decision early next week, based on their recommendations.

Reports suggested he would announce whether the case would be closed, charges would be brought or the police would be asked to undertake further inquiries.

Madeleine disappeared on May 3 last year, nine days before her fourth birthday.

The McCanns left her, and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie, alone in the flat while they dined with holiday companions at a tapas restaurant 50 yards across their holiday complex in Praia Da Luz.

Madeleine's parents, both doctors from Rothley in Leicestershire, were subsequently designated by Portuguese police as official suspects.

When the case is wrapped up the couple, who have denied any wrongdoing, could be cleared.

However according to reports in a Portuguese tabloid, the Correio da Manha, they could face neglect charges.

The paper said although the 50-page final police report on the case concludes there is no evidence the couple were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, it leaves open the possibility that the McCanns could be charged with abandoning Madeleine and the twins, then aged two.

The charge of abandonment carries a maximum ten-year jail sentence in Portugal, but only if prosecutors can prove the McCanns, both 40, intended to neglect Madeleine.

Ex-pat Robert Murat was the only other individual made an official suspect by Portuguese police. He also has denied any wrongdoing and, if the case concludes, will find out if he will be cleared or face further investigation.

The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said the family had not been contacted by the Portuguese authorities.

"We've heard nothing official and our lawyers have heard nothing official," he said.

"It may well be true, but we can't comment because we haven't heard. We're not going to prejudice anything."

He earlier made it clear the family would 'vigorously' defend any neglect charges.

Last week a High Court Judge made an astonishing appeal for Madeleine's abductor to 'show mercy and come forward'.

Speaking as she ordered Lancashire Police to hand over details of 81 potential witnesses to the disappearance, Mrs Justice Hogg called for an end to Kate and Gerry McCann’s suffering and said she prayed Madeleine would be found alive soon.

viv said...

It is amazing how the same information can be given such different treatment, here CNN honestly report, charge decision imminent..and they do not say that 3 prosecutors were studying a document only 50 pages long either! Nice not to have your intelligence insulted!

July 16, 2008 -- Updated 1650 GMT (0050 HKT)
Share this on:
Mixx
Digg

Facebook

del.icio.us

reddit

StumbleUpon

MySpace

Madeleine McCann charge decision imminentStory Highlights
Attorney-general to say whether there will be charges over girl's disappearance

Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3, 2007 from Portuguese resort

Prosecutors have been reviewing the final report on the girl's disappearance
Next Article in World »


Read VIDEO PHOTOS TIMELINE

LISBON, Portugal (AP) -- Portugal's attorney-general says he will announce next week whether he plans to bring charges in the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann.

Attorney-General Fernando Pinto Monteiro could also order the case closed or request that police continue investigating the girl's May 2007 disappearance in Portugal's southern Algarve region.


Pinto Monteiro told reporters on the sidelines of an official ceremony Wednesday that "the 'Maddie Case' will have a solution on Monday, and you will be informed of it." He did not elaborate.

Prosecutors have been reviewing the final investigation report on the girl's disappearance, just days before her 4th birthday. The attorney-general said he would make his decision early next week based on their recommendations.

viv said...

Well, if Robert did agree to only £550,000 I guess that would cause him a smug smile of satisfaction that he got exactly double his accusers, who only got that figure between them!

Sometimes achieving justice can be even more important than the money itself and I suspect this is the case with Robert. Although of course his life and business were ruined and he clearly needs the money.



£550,000 libel win for McCann 'suspect'

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Wednesday, 16 July 2008

Print Email Search
Search
Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?

Change font size: A | A | A
Eight British newspapers are to pay a combined total of £550,000 to a man they accused of being a prime suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.


Lawyers for Robert Murat, who owns a villa 150 yards from the flat where Madeleine went missing while on holiday with her family in Portugal, confirmed yesterday that he had settled his claim for defamation against at least eight papers.

The case follows a similar sized libel payout by Express Newspapers to Gerry and Kate McCann, who won front-page apologies in the Daily Express and Daily Star over allegations that they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.

In May, The Scotsman published an apology to Mr Murat after its "seriously defamatory" and "untrue" coverage likened his behaviour to that of the Soham murderer Ian Huntley, suggesting that he was involved in the abduction of the thee-year-old girl.

Mr Murat, 34, was questioned by police 11 days after Madeleine went missing from the Praia da Luz resort on 3 May 2007, before being made a formal suspect or arguido. Police searched the villa where he lived with his mother after the Sunday Mirror journalist Lori Campbell spoke to the British embassy and the police about Mr Murat.

Last month Mr Murat said he hoped the return of computers seized from him by police signalled that they would soon drop his status as a suspect.

His mother, Jenny Murat, has always maintained she was with her son at home on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

Mr Murat is expected to return to Britain on Thursday to attend a formal High Court hearing in which an agreed statement will be read out by his lawyers.

In their April statement, his lawyers named The Sun, the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World and The Scotsman.

Early this month, Portugal's attorney-general confirmed that prosecutors had received the final police report, but said the case was still "the subject of careful assessment".

Local media said detectives have concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone, and that the case should be closed.

lizzy said...

Hi
Quite sad if true, and sounds as if it is. Maddie Case will be archived next Monday

The process relative to Madeleine McCann disappearance will be available for consultation to the lawyers from next week. The secrecy of justice was not extended and the Public Ministry is getting ready to conclude the final report.


Source:Correio da Manhã
Lizzy

hope4truth said...

Well all I can say is poor Troll what will she write about now? Then again she has allways insisted she is a much loved and trusted poster amongst us (and at the same time belives we have another secret site LOL)...

Good to still be here in a rush so have not had time to read everything will do so later...

Have a good day all (we are wet here:o(...)...

Have a nice day xxx

Zodiac said...

Morning all,

Viv, Thanks for keeping the blog open, I do understand your position.

Atardi/Claudia,

'Atardi said...

Cláudia,

Of course not. Will search the whole www until I find a place where I can find all posters from this blog.

Wednesday, 16 July 2008 22:18:00 o'clock BST



Cláudia said...
Atardi, I hope it won't be necessary. However, picturing you searching the whole www made me smile! :-)'

LOL!

BBFN

ICantThinkOfAName said...

£600k damages for Murat.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Robert Murat was very dignified in his appearence outside the court.

I wonder how many newspapers will carry the apology on the front pages?

Zodiac said...

ICTOAN,

His girfriend nearly brurst into tears, especially when talking about her daughter. I liked the fact one of the reporters started talking to him in English then changed to another language, he looked very comfortable talking to her. Wonder what language it was and what they were saying.

BBFN.

Zodiac said...

'burst'

marga said...

Hi everyone!

I'm glad Viv made this blog private.Things were getting worse re blog attacks and it is good to discuss this case without those unnecessary "wars" that will not help the truth to be known.

I've been only reading as I have a teeth infection and not in a good mood. Next month I will have to go under a wisdom teeth extraction operation sth that I have been postponing.

Dyl,
thanks for the proposal but this year I'm not going to the UK. Next year, however I'm attending a summer course in Cambridge or Canterbury and it would be a great idea.

In today's 24Horas there is already the cover of GA's book.
The photo he had chosen to put on it is not one of the most seen.

Hope the release of the book can help him overcome the terrible times he had to face during and after his investigation.

http://www.24horasnewspaper.com/total.php?numero=2894&link=08

ICantThinkOfAName said...

I liked the following exchanges on 3A:


He comes across as a very intelligent man!
Well done Robert!

wjk


Intelligent, well-spoken and dignified.

Primavera


He could give Clarrie a good run for his money any day of the week!

tequilasunrise


I doubt he'd want to represent the McCanns

RadioLady

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Zodiac

I missed the question you referred to.

I blame it on my partial deafness.

Zodiac said...

I think Robert Murat did look very calm and dignified. When asked about the Arguido status he very calmly said that was not what today was about. I am surprised that there has been no pink spin as yet re Monday. My thoughts are Robert Murat Arguido status dropped and the least the very least the McC's charged with child neglect, if they had not left their 3 little children aged 3 and under alone in a holiday flat to fend for themselves open to all kinds of danger let alone abduction then M would be at home in Rothley living her life, only my opinion. Their actions were not within the bounds of reasonable parenting and for them to suggest it was speaks volumes about them,imo. I do not believe an Archived case is closed case, I do not believe an Archived cased clears her parents of anything, imo.

BBFN

mandarinn said...

Good afternoon all!
VIV
Thank you for make possible to us to continue reading your interesting and informative threads.I don't post very much, because i don't have news things to informe the other, but i'm an attentive reader.

THANK YOU
and

JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE AND ALL ABUSED CHILDREN

viv said...

Hiya all

I think it was pertinent that Robert was able to stand on the steps of the High Court today and make his own statement

The newspapers in this case caused me and my family immense distress..

How come Kate and Gerry have never managed to appear and speak for themselves?

Link to short video on Sky who confirm they are not currently defendants but have a story running about how he was accused of being a paedophile/member of such rings etc. No wonder Rosie and Co suddenly put on their blog a warning there should be no such claims made, well they have been repeating these terrible lies about Murat for the last fourteen months, what wicked people! He did not abduct Madeleine and they have always known that, but were quite happy to blacken someone else's character in a perverse attempt to vindicate the McCanns..they have to live with themselves.

Hope you made me smile, that was exactly what I was thinking, Supertroll was upset when she got excluded from commenting on this site, now she cannot even read it, how can she stalk me and others now! She must be utterly desolate and what is the purpose of her blog now!! I am trying to find out where our secret blog is, she is just obsessed!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Robert-Murat-Settles-Libel-Action-Against-British-Newspapers-Over-Madeleine-McCann-Case/Video/200807315041824?lpos=video_15&lid=VIDEO_15041824_Robert%2BMurat%2BSettles%2BLibel%2BAction%2BAgainst%2BBritish%2BNewspapers%2BOver%2BMadeleine%2BMcCann%2BCase

viv said...

Michaela and Walzchuch also get £100,000!


From Times OnlineJuly 17, 2008

Robert Murat accepts £600,000 after Madeleine McCann allegations
Nico Hines
Robert Murat has accepted a £600,000 settlement from media outlets who made false accusations against him in the wake of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Mr Murat, 34, launched the libel action after dozens of stories implicated him in the disappearance of the four-year-old, who vanished last May from the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

Outside the High Court today, he said: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress. I can now start to rebuild my life.”

The Algarve-based property consultant was in court to hear his solicitor, Louis Charalambous, tell Mr Justice Eady that it was now acknowledged that the allegations against him were entirely untrue.

Related Links
Police 'to close Madeleine inquiry'
Police to open up Maddy evidence files
Papers reveal McCann neglect probe
Mr Charalambous said the newspaper journalists and their editors had acted “with a reckless disregard for the truth”.

Mr Murat's lawyers brought proceedings against Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers over nearly 100 “seriously defamatory” articles.

As well as Mr Murat, Sergey Malinka, a Russian IT operative, and his girlfriend, Michaela Walczuch, accepted more £100,000 each in damages for allegations made against them in the British press.

Mr Charalambous said “Let’s not forget Mr Malinka’s and Ms Walczuch’s lives have also been devastated by the baseless, inaccurate media coverage that has proliferated about them through swathes of the British press over the last year.

“Today’s public apology and the six figure sum in damages that each of these parties have also secured will go some way to compensating for the distress they have suffered and restoring their good names.

“It will bury the lies published about them which included made up allegations of sexual perversion and, in Mr Malinka’s case, a criminal record.”

J J said...

Good for him!
He has behaved with great dignity throughout the investigation.

I hope he is left alone, to get his life back together again.

LittleGreyCell said...

I think I'm probably going to be entirely alone here, but I'm not absolutely convinced myself that Robert Murat was only given arguido status because the Tapas Lot fingered him - I think the PJ are a bit more thoughtful than that.

There are some things which still niggle me - such as something he is reputed to have said at the time about something having gone horribly wrong (sorry, can't immediately remember the exact quote) - and other things which make me believe he may have been involved in some way with the McCanns and some of the Tapas friends both prior to that holiday and during it.

I have to be honest here (as usual)...this is how you know I'm not a clone :)

marga said...

Hi again!

To be honest I also don't agree with the timing of GA book to be released.
He should have waited until the secrecy to be lifted and the excuse with the publisher decision to publishit next week doesn't wash IMO.

marga said...

* publish IT

LOL

marga said...

LGC,

I agree with you.
Otherwise it would be ridiculous to the PJ

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Marga

I'm glad you corrected your wording as the original describes what Clarrie exudes.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

The Times "trailer" on its UK News Page states as follows:

Murat gets £600,000 payout after Madeleine claims
Robert Murat has accepted an apology and a substantial settlement from 11 newspapers and a television channel Watch video

Neither the story or video mentions the identity of the TV company.

Can anyone help me with the information? Please.

Cláudia said...

Marga, in legal terms it would be impossible for the PJ not to make Murat an arguido if there were witnesses saying things like: he behaved suspiciously, he was there at the scene, someone was seen carrying a child in the direction of his home, etc. Apparently he denied all claims, but assuming the witnesses 'incriminated' him, he had to be made an arguido for legal reasons. It would be the same with any of us in Portugal.

J J said...

I know it's a long time ago, and the memory isn't all it should be but, I thought it was a British journalist who originally fingered Robert Murat.

It was about the same time that the reward for information topped £2,000,000!

I have always felt sorry for Robert Murat.
I hope the money he's got today will help him put all this behind him.
I doubt it though, it will probably haunt him for the rest of his life.
There will always be those who point the finger until 'someone' is convicted for the crime.

I hope that time will not be too long in coming

viv said...

Hiya

It is Sky the news channel who are also accused of libelling Murat but on their own webpage they say this is not part of the settlement deal he has just achieved. This would seem to suggest there is more to come!

It was reported that Sky originally signed a deal with the McCanns for exclusive coverage and as we know they have been very blatantly biased towards them and not only said, but allowed to be written in comments some pretty astounding libel, similar to what Rosie/Christabel etc wrote on the Daily Express.

I agree with Claudia, that if the police wanted to put to him that he was directly involved in abducting Madeleine on the basis of Jane Tanner's evidence she saw the man walk towards Murat's house and the others saying he was hanging around, then they had to make him an arguido first. This is to give him the legal rights a suspect is entitled to and they are very fundamental legal rights, the right to remain silent and the right to a solicitor to represent him. Had they not made him an Arguido and it subsequently turned out they questioned him without affording him these legal rights, then they would not have been able to prosecute him. I also believe it was a Sky news reporter who fingered him and again this looks highly suspicious and likely why the case against them has not proceeded as yet. I think it will be alleged they acted in tandem with the McCanns and their cohort to falsely accuse him, this could be truly devastating for Sky! Murat's lawyer has said he is waiting for the file to be released so that he can see who has wrongly accused him and we know it was the McCanns' friends and a reporter, as I say, I think, a Sky reporter so this holding off is for that reason! But Murat will be getting a lot more money yet, mark my words!


Viv x

Cláudia said...

It was Lori Campbell of the Sunday Mirror.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Thanks Viv

I look forward to that day.

dylan said...

Lol, Marga!

It is a good job this is now readers only as the troll scum would have gone to town on "publishit" !! :)))) If you are still blogging next year and go to Cambridge, of course I would love to come and meet you x ( I hope you like chocolate cake and cofee!)

Zodiac, how are my elephants coming along? oh, and the pandas of course! I have bought an extra supply of bin bags just in case you hear of any randy ones on the rampage, they are only tesco's own but I thought £50 per bag in a brown envelope should just about cover it? pardon the pun :)

Viv, thank you for retaining this Blog. I for one am glad the dark side can no longer vent their spite on us but even more pleased that we still have this haven of a site to chat about JFM. What will the demons from hell talk about now? ;-)

Hello LGC. How are you? I am glad for RM that he has a chance to get his life back, but, like you, I've often wondered if the McCanns roped him into something he wasn't all together happy about doing and then turned on him. He seems to be a decent person and if he did do anything at all, I think in a very naiive way, he may have only being trying to help two parents in anguish. Pure speculation as I don't really know his character and although I have great suspiscions as to what happened to Maddie, I can't say for sure unless court deems [the parents] guilty as charged etc.

Hi to everyone else. Have to go now.

xx

viv said...

Hi LGC

I do take your point about certain other suspicions concerning Robert Murat, there was the report that he was desperate to hire a car a few days later when he already owned two or three, but this could have been a plant in the media by Clarence/Sky etc! There is also what seems a high likelihood he was known to the McCanns and other TAPAS members. He has connections to political rallies in Leics and also clear connection to Exeter.

But I tend to think he was used as a perfect Patsy by Gerry McCann, he arranged that holiday knowing Murat was there. There just has to be a reason why Gerry got so angry and refused to answer when that reporter said

and do you know Robert Murat

Yes, I believe he does, but Robert is not involved. The timing of his libel action could not be more pointed just a couple days ahead of the Portuguese Attorney General making his announcement, Robert knows for a fact he is innocent and that is what will be announced.

Gerry got angry on one occasion and flustered /ear rubbing on another when asked about sedating the children and for me he verified this by announcing they had tests done on the twins, when their hair had grown out, several months later! Just as useless as having Kate and the car tested, when it is too late, but by feeling the need to do this they confirm that this is evidence against them that they are very worried about. If it was just news reports then why would they bother!

Vivxxxx

viv said...

Thanks very much for that Hun, well the Sunday Mirror..no surprises there and again a paper that has been blatantly and quite ridiculously pro-McCann.

My mom had the Daily Mirror one day and about half way through it there was this picture of the so called abductor that looked like cyclops with an eye up in the head, it was grotesque. Mum and I actually finished up crying with laughter at it and the fact the Mirror could print this and expect readers to believe a person could actually look like that!

I did ask my mom and step dad to stop paying money for that obnoxious rag !

bath theory said...

Viv much better having it like this, a cosy group determined to carry on with our service to madeleine + it will drive them crazy not being able to control our minds and thoughts.

bath theory said...

and not knowing what they are :)

viv said...

Hiya BT

It does please me that ST had a blog to write about me and now she does not know what I am saying, so what will be her raison de etre now! and likewise Rosie's blog has more posts about us than anything else, where can they channel their hate and venom now!

I think it is important that at present we have free reign to just be able to comment upon events as they are unfolding, and they will just not know what we are doing!

I personally believe things will only get hotter for the McCanns, even if the PJ state there is no more for them personally to investigate they most certainly will not be saying the McCanns are innocent or freed of their arguido status IMO. What is going to be even more horrifying for the McCanns their one and only so called abductor suspect is going to be declared wholly innocent IMO which will only serve to emphasise what a wicked bunch of liars McCanns and their cronies really are. Leicester Police will take over conduct of this matter IMO. Will the McCanns be saying well we want to run off to Canada now!! Wherever the Police are after us, we just do not want to be, they are nasty and spiteful!

Viv x

dylan said...

Bath Theory,

I think they know very well what our thoughts are - they are just too far beneath us to understand them ;)

xx

viv said...

I found a great post from LGC on the other thread which isnot being used so copy it here. I think she makes a very strong point that rather than spy carte blanche the government should enhance the powers to spy on criminal suspects. It is like the DNA database, the logic seems to be, well if we have everyone's fingerprints then when someone breaks the law tracking them down is a simple matter, but whilst I can see the utility of this massive state surveillance opens up all sorts of prospects for abuse. What of the conservative MP who is having a torrid affair whilst we have a labour government. It truly is a horrifying thought that his sexy emails to his secretary could be read/published by government officials, maybe this is just going too far!

I am torn on this issue but can certainly say that with President Clinton I could not understand how congress were demanding to know what he did with his cigar etc, it was perverse and repugnant that he should be forced to disclose details of his extra marital romps. I felt very strongly the Clintons were entitled to their privacy on this. She knew her husband but surely did not want the whole world to know every gory little detail. Whenever we follow the States, I think it is true we get it seriously wrong. The Child Support Agency! Mass locking up of petty drug users, creating even more social problems for them and encouraging, yet more drug abuse. It would be nice if UK could be a little more unique in its thinking and independence from US!


LittleGreyCell said...
RANT ALERT!!!

I am completely and utterly against this!

I have nothing (illegal) to hide, Docmac, but the idea that there would be legislation enabling government agencies to listen at will into my private conversations, or look at my private emails, is totally abhorrent to me. Why should they be allowed a secret window into my private life because of the likes of the McCanns?

How would this information stop them from shooting dead completely innocent people on London tube trains?

Apart from anything else, as we see virtually every week in the UK, one institution or another REGULARLY loses giant databases (often which have not been encrypted) containing extremely sensitive personal information. One of the latest examples is the disc containing the bank account details of ALL UK citizens who currently receive Child Benefit going astray a few months ago. This means that unscrupulous beings might now, as I write this, be hacking into my bank account at will!

Who is to say that any other information gathered by the government cannot fall into wrong hands?

The medical profession recently 'lost' the professional and personal details of every doctor applying for a job.

Or, read this about the proposed DNA database for every UK citizen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2007/11/28/hdna128.xml

EXTRACT:
"Following the loss last week of the personal and bank details of 25million Britons, there is now concern about the security of genetic information held by the authorities. Ministers have been accused of creating an "Orwellian database" that is open to sinister forms of abuse".

But the real problem I have is the one of the fundamental right to personal privacy in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy. I am sure there are agencies very interested in who I vote for, what my medical details are, whether I'm having an affair with my someone famous...all of these things should be private unless I choose to reveal them to people. They are none of the government's business.

Currently, this New Labour administration has legislated for an excess of 600 agencies (including local councils) to be able to legitimately place 'bugs' into houses if they suspect people of fly-tipping and such-like. This legislation was originally designed as an anti-terrorist measure, not to spy on people who MIGHT be breaking LOCAL BYLAWS.

A few weeks ago there was a story in the papers about a woman who, along with her children, was physically tailed, with a car following her day and night and sitting outside her house noting down what time she switched the lights on and off.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4036229.ece

At the moment there has to be official approval for each individual request for the monitoring of telephone calls and emails. If the law was better developed in this way the courts would have approved such monitoring in the McCanns case and the police would have had access to the information they wanted about those 14 text messages.

I wholeheartedly believe THIS is the way to go: improve the law - still subject to individual case approval, mind - relating to suspects of MAJOR crime, rather than intrude on the privacy of every UK citizen - in excess of 60 million people - to monitor those whom officials only SUSPECT of being complicit in something illegal in the first place.

Sorry for the rant - it's something very close to my heart!

AAaaarrrggghhhhhh!!!!!!

Thursday, 17 July 2008 12:37:00 o'clock BST

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Viv's transfer of a post by LGC reminds me of the story about a very important database that that appeared in the press. I quote the version that was on the BBC News website:

Soham inquiry changes 'not made'


The government has been criticised for failing to implement almost a third of the recommendations on police forces sharing data after the Soham murders.
Sir Ian Magee, who is examining the collection of data on criminals, said it was a "matter of concern".
He said the failure to set up a key system - a single intelligence database for police in England and Wales - meant "at least some of the risks" remained.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith acknowledged there was "more to do".
The Bichard Inquiry made its recommendations four years ago after the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
They were killed by school caretaker Ian Huntley in Soham, Cambridgeshire.

ONE STOP SHOP

The inquiry made 31 recommendations to try to improve the way police shared information on potentially dangerous individuals, but Sir Ian said nine were still outstanding.
Key among those was the PND (police national database) which was meant to be a one-stop shop for information for all forces in England and Wales.
Also yet to be implemented is a system for electronically transmitting court data onto the existing police national computer.


"The delay in full implementation means that we are still living with at least some of the risks," Sir Ian said.
"Ministers believe they have taken action to remove the risk by accepting the recommendation and launching the programme to implement it.
"Furthermore, front-line police officers see little or no tangible action and may conclude therefore that this cannot be a priority."
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said great strides had been made in the collection, sharing and use of information about criminals, "but there is more to do and I am committed to pressing forward with further improvements".

'POOR REPUTATION ABROAD'

Sir Ian was also highly critical of the way Britain handles information about crimes committed overseas.
His report revealed that forces in the UK make just 20 requests to international police agency Interpol each day for details about non-EU criminals, compared with more than 20,000 a day by French officers.
And he said Britain had a poor reputation elsewhere in the EU for the way in which it responded to requests for information from other countries.
Sir Ian also criticised the complexity of the systems used to handle data on criminals.
He said police in England and Wales held 70 million records split across more than 350 systems, and had 77 separate "watch lists" for criminal suspects.


These multiple systems were "inefficient as well as unhelpful in minimising risk", he said, and some £300m could be saved if they were streamlined.
The home secretary said the government would produce an "action plan" in the autumn and would consult on one of Sir Ian's key recommendations - the creation of a Commission for Public Protection Information.
Huntley was found guilty of double murder in December 2003 and jailed for life.
After his conviction, it emerged that he had been accused of a series of sex crimes while living in Grimsby, but Humberside Police had failed to keep proper records of the allegations.
Meanwhile, officers from Cambridgeshire Police failed to ask Humberside for any information on Huntley when they vetted him for the job of school caretaker in Soham.
In his report, Sir Michael Bichard said there had been "very serious failings" in record keeping and communication between the two forces that meant a dangerous man like Huntley had "slipped through the net".
Sir Ian said that when he examined the situation again in early 2009, he expected real progress to have been made.

Perhaps before we are subjected to having our private lives "recorded"
(I hope that never happens) the important records related to true crime should be centrally available.

What do others think?

BTW note the comment about international reputation.

marga said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7511907.stm


Last part of the interview.
Mr Murat said he did not understand why he was made an official suspect or arguido and said he wanted to be exonerated.

"I have to live my life knowing that I was linked to this situation but with a strong family I do have a future, I do feel I have a future".

"I have been through hell and back without doing anything wrong".

He said that despite his situation he thought the Portuguese police should carry on with the case.

"I don't want to be an arguido... I want to carry on with my life. But it doesn't necessarily mean I want the case to be shelved in Portugal. I do think the case should continue - I do think they should carry on to find that child".

Unlike the parents he din't ask to be made an arguido.

This says it all.
According to Jn latest news his lawyer
Francisco Pagarate also stressed that even if the case be shelved, "depends on the type of closure."

"It's different in a filing that it is better to wait because no proof or evidence gathered or where it is clearly said that particular person had no interference in the case", he argued, adding that "the only" that will "satisfied" will be one in which "is clearly written that Murat had no involvement in the events."

Cláudia said...

Marga, Murat has got, in my opinion, the kind of public behaviour which makes me think he is not afraid because he has got nothing to hide. As I said before, if there were any witnesses incriminating him in their testemonies, the PJ would be forced to make him an arguido under our law. However, the important question is: why were there those testemonies in the first place?

Di said...

Hi Viv & all

Have just been looking back, sorry I can't stay for long loads of things to do. My husband thinks I am mad as the workmen will create all the mess again tomorrow, my theory is, tomorrow is another day and today I want a clean house.

I just needed to say I am so glad we are still able to read and post, not that I contribute much, but I do enjoy reading all the interesting information when I get the chance.

Thanks Viv :o))

docmac said...

Hi, battling to log in and post.

I see what LGC says. However, that was not entirely the point I was trying to get across. These databases already exist, all of them. The Government just wants access to them to be made simpler. I agree. There really is no difference to what is currently happening. If the info is deemed important it should be available without delay.

Nobody is going to be interested in my calls or e-mails. My DNA is likely never to require recording either. Even if it was, what would some bloke do with the information if he ever came across it? He'd think it was a barcode for a bottle of beer or something.

The measures are aimed at combatting crime. For that I am grateful. There is nothing 'big brother' (in the 21st century) about it at all IMO, it's just a potential loss of total freedom in my own interest after all. The world has become an evil place and I am prepared to compromise if there is a small chance it may save one of my kids from being blown to bits in a No. 23 bus one day.

The fact that employees keep dropping CDs is a separate issue that has not been sorted yet by the incompetent fools who employ other incompetent fools. Sort them out then, permanently. No 300k retirement packages or bonuses, just get rid.

And let's face it, this legislation IS going to be passed sooner or later, whether anyone likes it or not. That's just the way it is now. If it were still the 1960s I would strongly object.

Or maybe living in Africa makes one more laid back about this sort of stuff :-)))). Everyone here knows that unless you commit a crime nobody give a toss about your personal details or life.

dobby said...

Hello everyone!
I just wanted to say hello to you all. Having read this blog and all of the interesting comments for months I for one would miss it terribly. Like an addict I need my fix!
Thank you Viv for all your hard work.

Cláudia said...

Doc, naaaa.
I live in Portugal and I too don't give a damn about what info the governmemt may or may not colect on me. We have a saying here: quem não deve, não teme. Which translates as something like: he who hides nothing, has nothing to fear.

docmac said...

Yes Claudia

And the other thing that makes me happy here is that if you do the crime you will do the time. Nobody is going to arrest me and take my DNA if I defend myself or my family by waving a broomstick at a young thug who is robbing an elderly lady of her bag and whose mummy then reports me for assault.

Just doesn't happen. In fact here the mums turn their OWN kids in if they are mischief makers!


Welcome, Dobby.

Cláudia said...

Doc, here we also don't have much simpathy for criminals and deliquents either. :-)

docmac said...

If the case is shelved, one could always hope that Kate will one day do a "Constance Kent".

What a fascinating story!

docmac said...

Oh, you are all off to the place that I don't know about again :-)

Goodnight all.

Cláudia said...

Doc, I'm not! :p

docmac said...

Claudia you're Portuguese right?

Do you play that game called 'sardines' there? I'm feeling a bit like the tit who can never find the rest.

Cláudia said...

Nope, no such game.
E-mailing you in a few seconds.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Doc

I've felt like that most of the day.

I often feel that when I make an appearance the room rapidly clears.

docmac said...

Sardines is a game I played as a child. It's a bit like hide and seek but only one person hides. Whoever finds that person has to hide WITH them, and so it continues until you have only one person left looking for the others, who are by then usually squashed up like sardines in a tin. It was a great way to meet girls :-))

docmac said...

Hi ICTOAN

Well I was away all day and when I arrived that's exactly how it felt!

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Doc

In these times, if you were lucky enough to keep finding the same girl you would be accused of harassment.

Cláudia said...

Doc, I played more interesting games! :-)
I would never leave a room when you and ICTOAN enter.

docmac said...

ICTOAN too right mate.

Claudia!!!! Perhaps it is better that we are 'offline' at the moment!!!

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Thank you Claudia.

Cláudia said...

ICTOAN, :-))))

Well, we are offline, aren't we?

docmac said...

I'm just scratching about for something to eat. Nothing in the tummy since 11am. Starving!

Cláudia said...

Doc, mail.

Cláudia said...

Sorry, go eat! :-)

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Posted by kjo2 on 3A:

Sky news paper review for tommorrow. The Sun front page. Mccanns cleared. Repeated at 11.30 pm tonight. No mention of Murat apology.

Cláudia said...

ICTOAN; well, that's unbiased reporting! lololol

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Waiting for Sky news. See you soon.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Very biased commentators on the discussion programme.

Daily Express has hidden apology on page 5.

Sun says:

FOR all the ineptitude of the Portuguese police “hunting” Madeleine McCann, their most shameful act was the persecution of the little girl’s parents.
A mum and dad are obvious targets for initial suspicion when a child goes missing. But in this case there was not one shred of evidence.

All the vicious leaks about DNA traces and alibis that didn’t add up were nonsense.

The police had tunnel vision. They simply did not believe a child could be kidnapped on their patch and made Kate and Gerry “arguidos” because they had nothing else.

So, on top of the pain, longing and guilt they already endured, the McCanns had to live with the black mark of suspicion too.

The lifting of their suspect status after ten months will be a merciful end to this particular chapter.

But for them — if not for Portugal’s witless detectives — the story goes on.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 244723.ece

docmac said...

ICTOAN

The S*n, specifically Kelvin McKenzie, lied about Liverpool fans while 96 people were dying at Hillsborough.... Never read it since.

Goodnight.

docmac said...

And boa nocte Claudia. Tired after those pilchards :-)

docmac said...

Sh*t, 'nocte'. I sound like I'm at work, lol! Noite I mean.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Nos Da Doc

Cláudia said...

Sleep weel, Doc.
Boa noite e beijinhos.
xxxx

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Claudia

I see you've picked yourself up from the floor.

Cláudia said...

ICTOAN, can you expand a little bit on that? I'm tired. :-)

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Did you read my 23.44 posting?

Cláudia said...

Oooops, ICTOAN. I did. But I can't say that after a year I'm affected by what the Sun prints! :-)))

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Ithink I need to call it a day. See you tomorrow.

Cláudia said...

Me too, ICTOAN.
This heat makes my blood pressure so low it's ridiculous. Today it was 100/50.
Boa noite.

viv said...

Hiya all

I thought the report posted by ICTOAN earlier was interesting that we have still not prioritised devising a system to successfully share information about people like Huntley who pose a risk of serious harm to children.

Jacqui Smith admits there is still much to do, well yes, stop giving police officers meaningless targets to hit, just like they do with probation officers. I know this has turned the probation service into an organisation that only cares about filling out paperwork to please the government, not about actually working with offenders, no time for that. If Jacqui Smith done something about getting rid of managerialist rubbish, get rid of all the Whitehall idiots who get paid to devise them and instead started spending the money on proper administrative staff doing a proper job, updating computers with information, computers that are properly networked across agencies, then childrens lives really could be saved. It is not a question of the money not being spent, or the money not being available, it is a question of spending it wisely. This country has become overrun with bureaucratic managers who do not even understand the businesses they try to manage. Take the Health Service! Some crackpot came up with the theory you do not need to understand the business you just need to be a good manager,what tosh!

How amazing the French Police make 20,000 communications to Interpol every single day compared with British Police 20, is that 1 per cent! Well I hope the Leicester Police have been using up most of the quota liasing on the McCann enquiry. Also note from the bit I extract below, we do not have a good record for co-operating in any enquiry abroad, now somehow that does reflect the Portuguese position on the difficulties they have had. But at ground level, I get the distinct impression the likes of Det Sup Prior and his superiors have been trying much harder in recent months to properly co-operate in assimilating evidence against the McCanns. Seems to me, as ever, the problems emanate at higher level than that...Whitehall! Layers and layers of managers and no one co-ordinates what anyone else is doing! 77 different lists! Jacqui Smith should get some serious hard headed people to sort this mess out once and for all, maybe I could volunteer!

-------

His report revealed that forces in the UK make just 20 requests to international police agency Interpol each day for details about non-EU criminals, compared with more than 20,000 a day by French officers.
And he said Britain had a poor reputation elsewhere in the EU for the way in which it responded to requests for information from other countries.
Sir Ian also criticised the complexity of the systems used to handle data on criminals.
He said police in England and Wales held 70 million records split across more than 350 systems, and had 77 separate "watch lists" for criminal suspects.

viv said...

Oh Bless the Crow and all those people who worked to save him:-)))

It renews my faith in human nature in the UK to read a story like this, in The Sun of all places, that there are still people around who even care about a defenceless and injured bird! Sad there are many who do not care about defenceless little children, like the McCanns three little babes x

A MASSIVE rescue operation was launched after a bird got stuck in a TREE.
Clinton the crow was left dangling upside down for three days after getting tangled up in his own nest.

He was finally rescued by a team of SEVEN firefighters using a fire engine and an aerial platform.



As the crow flies ... or not

Geoff Robinson

They eventually lifted him to safety after working on him for more than an HOUR.

Resident Danny Coles, 39, said: "It's a bit ironic that a bird had to be rescued from a tree.

Advertisement

"It must have taken the firemen at least an hour to get him down and quite a crowd gathered to watch."

The crow, nicknamed Clinton after the road in Northampton where he lives, had got his foot caught in a piece of string used to line his nest.

RSPCA officers, who also helped with the rescue, believe he had been dangling for at least three days because he was so weak and thin.

Crew manager Shaun O'Neill, from Mereway fire station in Northampton, said: "He was in a very precarious position ten metres up in the tree and it wasn't safe to use a ladder to rescue him."

The crow, who was exhausted and dehydrated, was taken to St Tiggywinkle's Wildlife Hospital in Buckinghamshire. He is now recovering from his ordeal.

viv said...

The Sun tells us today that Kate and Gerry's torment as suspects will end on Monday but in another article where they do not bother to apologise to Robert Murat they remind us he is still a suspect, so I am wondering, how do they know that Kate and Gerry are to be cleared on Monday but do not have a clue about Murat, strange that what the rest of the world is waiting to hear The SSun already knows, or do they:-))) Now I can just see the Attorney General's Office having a nice chat with The Sun!

The Version for Kate and Gerry
KATE and Gerry McCann’s torment as suspects in their daughter’s disappearance will end on Monday – but with the fresh hell of Portuguese cops scrapping the search for little Madeleine.


The couple will be officially told there is NOTHING to implicate them, The Sun can reveal.

The shock move emerged a day after Portugal’s attorney general Fernando Pinto Monteiro vowed: “The Maddie case will have a solution on Monday.”

Sources close to the police inquiry revealed to The Sun the “solution” is to give up on the investigation.



The version for Robert Murat:


Robert Murat, 34, last night remained a suspect, but wants his arguido status lifted shortly.

You know I think the Super Sun got this completely arse up!

Cláudia said...

Apparently Correio da Manhã is reporting that there is a team of british officers (police officers, I don't know because I only saw the cover) who are in Portimão and who are trying to stop some files from becoming public, especially the ones about the FSS results. From what I understood they are not interested that the 'changes' in the lab results become public, i.e the first report (which was the reason the McCanns were made arguidos) and the final one (which apparently contradicts the first).

dylan said...

Hello Dobby,

Excuse my ignorance (I only came here well after the DE days as I was too scaredy cat to post) but would I recognise you as someone from the DE days? Welcome anyway!

Viv/LGC
I read 1984 at school. If I had never had to read it for my English Lit, I would have said that it would be fine, whatever the details the gov have on me. I've nothing to hide. I have never had any criminal deeds filed against me. I haven't even stolen a sweet from a pick and mix. In fact, my worst crime was to ride my bycicle on the pavement at the age of 16 because some git had stolen my lights and I didn't want to get run over, nor have to walk 4 miles home in the dark!

What worries me (from the 1984 book) is that it is not what you are or maybe guilty of doing in the future that they can use on you, but that of the "thought crime". This is the really scary thing. We are lucky to live in a country that allows free speech - for now. How long will that last? I feel that "political correctness", however just that may seem, is the first step along the way to suffocating our celebration of diversity in a modern world.

What is next? I can tell you (and I hope I am wrong here) is that when the people 'above' have gathered all of our internet searches etc., etc, we will, eventually, be accused of "thought crime". Horrible, but possible. Let's face it, the dark side will be discussing our thought crimes from now on because they don't see our actual 'conversations' anymore.

The wheels have started in motion. Nothing will be secret anymore and the government will have us profiled before you can say "click, woosh"!

All very disturbing for people who say they have nothing to hide. In no time at all we will be wishing we could disappear!

Me? I would rather just stay anonymous with my innocence with the choice that I can divulge what I had for breakfast, whenever and with whom I choose.

Arrgh! all so confusing!

xx

dylan said...

Viv -

You know I think the Super Sun got this completely arse up!

- and probably tits up too! ;-)

dylan said...

Nite nite.

See you tomorrow. Sleep well.
xx

docmac said...

Hi Viv

I have to go out, so there will be little sleep for me now :-(

Er, regarding the 1 percent: it's actually 10 times worse than that!

Sleep tight when you get there.

Hi Dyl :-)

viv said...

Claudia darling your last post is absolutely music to my ears, here we go, here we go, here we go!


Leicester Police clearly are gunning for the McCanns FANTASTIC!

Cláudia said...

yep, that's what they are reporting. The first results said that 15 out of 19 belonged to Madeleine but the final report said the results were inconclusive because of evidence contamination. Apparently a British official delegation is in Portugal and wants to prevent the lab results from becoming public. Now I ask: how can preliminary results say one thing and final results be inconclusive due to contamination. And more important: who is interesting in hiding the inconsistencies?

Cláudia said...

Viv, I hope you're right. But I don't think that's what Correio da Manhã wants to transmit to its readers.

Cláudia said...

* I meant 15 out of 19 DNA markers.

dylan said...

...and for thinking that Troll et al., should be burnt at the stake and disemboweled! Ouch!

Night x

dylan said...

Doc, don't forget your mop ;-)

really going to bed. Shattered. xx

viv said...

Claudia darling,

Maybe you missed the point, it is the fact that there is a deputation of British Police there trying to prevent evidence that will be used in a future trial against the McCanns being made public.

Such forensic evidence could never prove a case on its own, I do not think it matters if the second test was inconclusive, you can bet the Police have a heck of a lot more than that!

In order for UK to successfully prosecute the McCanns there is no way we can allow such evidence to be put into the public domain, the McCanns would shout unfair trial, what I have been warning about. Things are getting very hot and I am now absolutely certain UK intend to prosecute them. This is the solution your attorney general is talking about!

Viv x

docmac said...

Claudia ,

Ask mr bluesky on 3a . hes an expert . And he wikis great , nearly as well as Cristaballs .

Cláudia said...

Doc, I have no idea what you're talking about! lolol
Viv, trying to find out more about the article. Although I would love to agree with you because that would mean JFM, sadly I don't think that's why they're here. Time will tell. And being wrong would make me the happiest chic in the world!

docmac said...

Claudia I'm off . mr bluesky posts on other blogs as mark . dont you see the resemlansec ?

And to answer your question at 01.18, the answer is THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT aka GOLLUM BROWN.

viv said...

Hiya Claudia

Why would Leicester Chief Constable go to the High Court and oppose the McCanns requests for the file to be disclosed and why would a deputation of British Police now be in Portugal trying to prevent same. There can be only one reason we would bother to do this! If UK were not minded to prosecute them they simply would not bother, they would let them have the information. There is a clear conflict of laws here in that we simply will not put information in relation to a case in the public domain like this ahead of charges and trial. Even after trial the file would still largely remain secret other than what the press of course gather during trial which is most of it!

I hope we are not about to enter into battle with Portugal over this, I do not think so, I believe the solution is he will hand it over to British authorities for obvious reasons!

Remember he said the files should be available to the McCanns and their lawyers on 14 July but then retracted this and secrecy was further extended, there is some bigtime wrangling going on about process between the two countries here!
Viv x

Cláudia said...

Unfortunately, I agree with Doc on this. And I say unfortunately, because your take on this would be ideal. However, I was told of some of the things that happened during this whole ordeal and those things don't point towards the optimistic theory. Sonn I will be able to share more with you and Doc, hopefully.

viv said...

Hiya again Claudia

another thought, why would the McCanns go to the High Court trying to get disclosure of the file if they genuinely believed the Portuguese authorities were just about to hand it to them anyway. I believe it will be announced the Portuguese have handed the file to the British and under Mrs Justice Hogg's Order the police are not required to disclose any information to the McCanns. This clearly means Leics Police have more work to do before they can charge them. Once they are actually charged then they will be entitled to all evidence the police intend to adduce against them, but this does not mean handing over the police file! Typically a police file will contain many other pieces of information defendants and their lawyers never get to see, e.g. reports of investigating officers to more senior officers giving their opinions and seeking legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, none of this is disclosable. Neither is the risk register that police and social services would hold on the McCanns in relation to perhaps risk of suicide, domestic violence, risks to the twins etc. Once probation become involved it will be the same, certain things an officer writes about an offender are disclosable, e.g. sentence plans, pre sentence reports etc but much of it is not!

Viv x

Cláudia said...

"Claudia I'm off . mr bluesky posts on other blogs as mark . dont you see the resemlansec ?

And to answer your question at 01.18, the answer is THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT aka GOLLUM BROWN."

I don't read other blogs to be honest and I believe I have never read anything from mr bluesky.
As for the rest of your comment, that's what I fear. But soon, we'll all have more info on that matter. Soon.

Cláudia said...

Viv, I think that was just a PR stunt like many others. I respect your opinions and I to ne honest I would give anything for them to come true soon. I just have good reasons to believe they will never be charged. But I still have a bit of hope something will happen. Sooner or later. Anyway, soon we'll have the answer.

Cláudia said...

*I meant BE not NE! lololololol Oh my, I should be sleeping! lolololol Just waiting if I can get more info on the latest news.

viv said...

Hiya

Well it was reported that FSS and Portuguese labs analysed these samples, I do not profess to have the scientific knowledge to comment on why one test would show a good match and another would not, but is that clearly what is being said? 15 out of 19 is not a perfect match, it is clearly indicative. My understanding is these tests are not so much used for their evidential value but to inform the police as to whether they are pursuing the right line of enquiry, i.e. did Madeleine die in that apartment? When taken with the evidence from all three dogs this is very powerful but would not be sufficient to convict the McCanns, but things like getting Jane TAnner to lie, Smith saying he saw Gerry carrying Madeleine, them immediately changing their story to say well actually the windows were not jemmied, arranging for false sightings of Madeleine etc etc will convict them! It is the totality of the evidence the Crown can present as a whole that convicts including evidence of domestic violence, Kate's state of mind, heavy drinking and leaving children etc that will take a case to the required standard of proof and it would need a lot without Madeleine's body, but I believe they are getting there!

viv said...

Claudia Hun

It is time we were all asleep but these developments are obviously fascinating regardless of how you interpret them, hopefully by Monday we should be a lot clearer.

It would be great if you can update us because as ever, we only get decent news from Portugal! Reading our papers is just a waste of time, I cannot even find an apology for Murat!

Nite all!


Viv xxxx

Cláudia said...

Not a perfect match but indicative as you say. Of course it stops being indicative if the final report contradicts the preliminary one and says all results are inconclusive because of evidence contamination. I just wonder how the evidence wasn't contaminated in the preliminary reports and was contaminated in the final one. I wonder that and so do many investigative journalists who can't wait.
This conversation is great but I really have to go to bed. I'm getting old, Viv! lololol I still remember that when I was in college I could do an all nighter no problems. Man, I miss those times! :-))))
I hope you sleep well and have nice drema, "Mrs Clooney"! :-)
Beijinhos!

Cláudia said...

Viv, the difference in reporting from the McCanns settlement and Murat's makes it perfect clear how disgustingly biased the media is. And Murat is an English citizen.
Sleep well, all.

docmac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
viv said...

Hiya darling

Senior PJ have said several months ago the lab results were not "conclusive" which to stand alone as evidence in its own right to convict it would need to be. They never had this. This was always a problem.

I do not take the suggestion of evidence contamination as any implied criticism of the Portuguese Police. I believe what they are referring to is extensive cleaning that took place in the apartment so that only minute fragments of degraded blood samples could be found, cleaning will damage those samples. Likewise any fragments of blood or body fluids in the hire car would have degraded with the effects of sun, heat, soiling and cross contamination etc. The McCanns are clearly clever enough to make absolutely sure there were no really good forensic samples available and they immediately flooded the apartment for about 40 minutes with people to make the contamination was far worse still, the GNR officers were bemused by this behaviour from the McCanns and immediately suspicious, not least because they were talking about a break in when clearly there was no break in.

The criticism here is for a couple of child abusing and manipulative criminals determined to save their own hide, not the Portguese or British Police who have clearly extracted every bit of evidence that they could. The fact FSS had to use low copy number DNA demonstrates they did not have good quality samples to analyse and that is simply not the fault of the police. We should also remember the only fingerprints found on the shutters were Kate McCanns, ON THE INSIDE and it was she who was screaming they broke in and damaged them, they were open etc etc. She is a liar and will be brought to justice! So will her personality disordered and aggressive and controlling husband!

Viv x

viv said...

Hiya Doc

I do believe that Gordon Brown was heavily involved from the off because he was manipulated by Gerry McCann playing on GB's vulnerable point, the fact that he lost a child. To someone with a personality like Gerry's he would not miss this, psychopaths know exactly how to play at being nice and they know how to exploit weaknesses in others. GB was a PM in waiting worried about is rep - he thought he saw a good opportunity and was a real fool to announce he would do everything in his power to get Madeleine back, he lacks political savvy. But one thing he is not is a supporter of child abusers or someone who would oppose criminals being brought to justice. This is an absurd suggestion and I will continue to say so.

I believe it is very possible some of that vermin are paid from the "Find Maddie Fund". They clearly know they talk a load of rubbish, so must be either friends relatives, or paid lackeys! Such people clearly do exist, Ironside has done a lot to prove this and that is the whole point of the tool Clarence developed to monitor adverse comment on the internet - you then take counter measures. Well you do if you are into media manipulation and there are some big firms in the UK making big bucks doing just that, and so does the McCanns £700 per hour solicitor!

Nite Nite xxxxxx

viv said...

By the way forgive my rudeness, welcome to new or renewed posters,

Dobby, JJ and Stonemaid!

Nice to have you on board:-)))))

Viv x

viv said...

Well it seem the Purple McGangsters are attempting to address the thorny issues in their own peculiar way. Not without good cause I suggest did Doc christen this poster, "Blandz". For sheer mind-numbing logic defying rubbish she does take the biscuit.

Someone comes in kills your child and clears off with the body, what do you call that, murder??? NO, NO, abduction, they are going to cling onto that word no matter how desperate, or even downright daft they may sound!

Did it also escape the attention of Blandz the McCanns did not sue either the PJ or Portuguese newspapers? As Claudia explained that would be making criminal allegations and they would have to go to court and prove it, not something I suspect the McCanns want to do. Even when extracting half a million out of Express Newspapers they just could not bear to set their feet in court and eyeball a judge, even the lovely (!) Mrs Justice Hogg, who I suspect is as tough and astute as they come and has absolutely no illusions about the delightful Kate and Gerry McCann, but she will want them to have a fair trial!

Interestingly Metro was one of the papers Murat just sued, does not seem to have shut them up!


by Mandz on Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:27 am

METRO.co.uk
Police: Maddie did die in flat
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Missing Madeleine McCann could not have been abducted, Portuguese police are said to have concluded.
The final police report suggests the youngster died in the family's holiday apartment in Praia Da Luz on the Algarve, it was claimed.
Police have no evidence the youngster's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, were involved in the disappearance of their daughter on May 3 last year.
The couple, who strongly deny having a hand in her possible death, say they last saw Madeleine when they left the three-year-old sleeping in the flat while they went out for dinner.
But an exhaustive 13-month investigation showed it was 'theoretically impossible' the youngster was abducted, the newspaper Correio da Manha said.
Forensic tests on the apartment's window, through which an abductor might have carried Madeleine, revealed no traces of the girl.
The McCanns, both 40-year-old doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, were made suspects in the case in September. They were unavailable for comment.

***************************************************************************
What I would like to know is why have they not told the McCann’s this? They have 0 on them therefore they have a right to know if this is true. Maddie is their CHILD.

How is abduction impossible? If she did die in the flat then perhaps a stranger went in and harmed her then left with her.

Who lives in PDL..?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2681658.ece
Possible escape routes aside, one of the most convincing arguments I have heard for an abduction by a local came from my colleague at Liverpool University, Professor Kevin Browne:
Compared with other countries in Western Europe, Portugal convicts a much smaller proportion of child abusers. Children are more likely to be removed from their families, ending up in institutions while their abusers walk free. As a consequence, there are not only potentially more abusers within society unmarked and unmonitored, but a of whole new generation of people with an increased likelihood of becoming abusers because of their own experiences.

This comes back to the police investigation. It has been reported: They have no evidence therefore whose fault is that?

Sky News 3:35pm UK, Tuesday May 08, 2007
It is claimed that the police responded too slowly to news of Maddie's abduction, wasting the crucial first few hours and failing to alert border police until the morning after she went missing.
McCann’s should start suing the Portuguese Newspapers for printing these stories and out the source – once and for all.

The McCann's should sue the Portuguese Newspapers for printing these stories***

Mandz

hope4truth said...

Morning

I see a certain site is rejoycing and celebrating that we are now "underground" what a sad sick woman (well women) the only thing I could think about celebrating would be Madeleine returning home alive and well after being taken by a nice lady who thought she could do a better job than her neglectful parents.

Then it is not about Madeleine for one old lady it is about being the spiteful evil and nasty person she pretends not to be in real life.

If Kate and Gerry spent the rest of their lives in jail it would not be a reason to celebrate there is not an outcome in this tragedy that would be worth celebrating unless my option above is reality.

Madeleine is missing and if there really is the scent of death in 5A and no one else ever died there then she is probebly dead and their Heros know exactly what happend to their beautiful little girl and have chosen to save their own skin over the memory of Madeleine.

If she was taken again the Hero McCann's are fully responsible for not protecting their children (an instinct that comes naturally to most of us)and instead of showing remorse and regret at their selfish actions have lied about how far away they were and tried to imply it is something we all do on holiday.

I am vile for posting here oh tee hee hee we are all going to be done for libel and slander. Sorry to disapoint the sick child neglect supporters but I will continue to say that Madeline was neglected and her parents need to take on the responsibility that whatever happend to Madeleine it was their fault.

Gerry wishes he had been with her when she was taken well it is this stupidity that show's they are only intrested in damage control. Gerry should have been with his children in a locked apartment and then she would not have been taken.

Sorry Pro's your Hero's are liars and they are not thinking of Madeleine they are thinking of themselves. If she was taken then releasing the picture of her eye was the cruelest thing they could have done but hey good marketing is hard to resist even if the experts are advising you not to do it. After all if the Peadophile ring that took her (and she will be fine giving her tuppence worth to the big scary men that have hurt her)it will have cost her life and is any marketing ploy worth that?

My children are the most important thing in my life so maybe that is why I am such a nasty person towards anyone who thinks children are a trophy to take out and show off when it suits.

I am so pleased I am not liked by certain people who in the past have tried to bully and intimidate (they think they know me hapless hope poor weak thing) well all you have done is made me realise that to you Madeleine comes a very big second to Gerry and Kate.

I was asked if I would want people I know to read what I write about two Neglectfull parents and I would let anyone read it if they so wished to. I dont talk about this every day all day to people I know but now when people talk about it even people who think she may have been taken ask why her parents were so stupid to leave them alone and were very wrong to have neglected the children.

hope4truth said...

Oh Dobby

Are you the same racist pro poster from the DX??

I am assuming you are not as if you were would not be thick enough to use the same name (I am sure some of the pros have a few braincells?)... Thought I had better ask as if you are not a few of us may be wondering. If you are not welcome if you are wont be posting you again...

Below a racist rant on a Muslim Women (the A***holes comment shows the idiots contempt I think) by Dobbywallah....

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD!
08.01.08, 7:29pm
This woman is a criminal who should be deported to where ever she or her family originated. Living off the state and the backs of honest, decent, hardworking british cityzens. i am sick of this country bowing and scraping to these aliens, they should not haqve been allowed into this country in the first place but now they are here (in their millions) they must live and obey the laws and customs of this country or get to hell out of here! Suppose a Motor cylclist turned up at court in his crash helmet, a Hoody turned up in disguise, or a Bank robber turned up in a Balaclaver? Why not, if she can turn up in disguise so can every other arsehole! Is this OUR country or not?
• Posted by: Dobywalah • Report Comment

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi Hope

It is natural to be suspicious of unknown new posters.

Dobywalah (often called Doby by Mum21) was very much a member of Rosiepops gang. I also think that he/she was banned from this blog by Viv some months ago when it first became posting by members only.

In the case of Dobby there is a poster of that name registered with the Daily Express whose contributions to that paper can be Googled. Whether our Dobby is the same I know not but I trust Viv to do all possible to preserve the integrity of this blog.

docmac said...

Perhaps Hope could explain this. It was deleted very quickly by the poster ST but I had copied it..


supertroll said...

docmac said...
See ST and his trusty anonymous sidekick have not been fooled as they have known about 'our secret place' for some time.

Well they must know more than I do because you have certainly fooled me, lol!!

Wednesday, 16 July 2008 15:38:00 o'clock BST


Cláudia said...
ST is the most easily manipulated idiot I've ever seen, Doc.

Wednesday, 16 July 2008 15:47:00 o'clock BST

Well Claudia, it was not an anon who told us, but Hope. We have since been told this by others who are sick of the Vile blos, her lies, and who are ashamed of ever having posted there.

I don't particularly regard Hope as a manipulator.

ST

16 July 2008 19:32

Cláudia said...

hope4truth said...
Morning

"I see a certain site is rejoycing and celebrating that we are now "underground" what a sad sick woman (well women) the only thing I could think about celebrating would be Madeleine returning home alive and well after being taken by a nice lady who thought she could do a better job than her neglectful parents"

Hope, of course they are celebrating. They have no opposition now. They think we are scared, hiding under our beds, praying for the McCanns not to sue us because we dared to question them. They suspect the case will be shelved on Monday and think we are hiding because we lost and are too afraid and embarassed. They think their hard work has paid off and that they have silenced us. Of course they are celebrating, Hope.

hope4truth said...

Hi Doc

The only thin I can think of is Ages ago I did post something like oh well at least they cant read our real site but I was joking I thought that much was obvious.. I expect it is on a thread somewhere but when I said it is beyond me it really was a throw away comment...

Oh well if any of them have wasted a few hours searching for a non excistant site I guess that is very sad... If they wasted more than a few hours searching for it that is very funny....

I am certainly not a manipulator but I do take the P*ss sometimes sorry to disapoint ST though...


Hey if you all do have a secret site that you post on where is my invite??? xxx

ICTOAN

Yes IN Viv I Trust and hope he is not the same guy xxx

I am off be back later (bet you cant wait LOL) xxx

Have a nice day all xxx

hope4truth said...

Hi Claudia

Yes they really are that shallow that nothing matters as long as G&K are not blamed for being such terrible parents.
Got to go see you xxx

dylan said...

OMG! What WAS I on last night??!!Apologies for that. It was our group's usual Thursday night out but at least I didn't leave the kids at home - they were at their father's. A few pints and I think I am some sort of philospher - lol!

Hi Hope, I wouldn't worry about anything the trolls say about you or anything they think about us. I don't put any value on their opinions at all. After all,they are child neglect supporters and also condoners of murderers (as in the Cipriano case). For what Cipriano did to her daughter, I think a black eye is a very small punishment.

Anyway, have to go.

Hi to everyone else & keep the news coming!

xx

viv said...

Hiya all

I had not made any connection between Dobby and Dobywalah and think we should give new posters the benefit of the doubt unless or until they prove otherwise.

There have been certain posters who I have actually been quite certain are McCann trolls but found it interesting to have them on board so long as they are polite.

It does not matter if they are able to somehow read this site, the point is that at the moment I think that Leics Police (most likely) are intent on prosecuting the McCanns and I do not wish to do anything to prejudice their right to a fair trial. Now if the trolls decide to reproduce this blog on the internet they will be falling into the trap which they are quite stupid enough to do.

If they are rejoicing now, they will be crying real tears on Monday! I suspect not of joy.

Viv x

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hope and Viv

The Dobby on the express has only posted a few times and his (repeat his) posts are financial/political and not about JFM.

Dobby if you're reading, I regard you as OK until you prove otherwise (if ever).

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Have you seen this extract from a posting by Snow-White on 3A:

""Daily Record

Exclusive: Scots charity firm boss quits over after sick Madeleine McCann joke

Jul 18 2008 By Joanne Curran

A CHARITY boss facing the sack over a sick joke about Madeleine McCann has quit her job.

Senior manager Lynn McBain was suspended and faced a disciplinary hearing because of the jibe.

The Record told last month how she referred in a staff newsletter to "McCann oven chips" disappearing from her oven after she left them in for 20 minutes.

Madeleine, four, disappeared from her family's holiday flat in Portugal 14 months ago.

McBain resigned before her showdown with charity bosses.

She wrote the tasteless gag in a 10- page booklet for Enable Scotland....."


I don't know whether to laugh or cringe.

LittleGreyCell said...

Hi Dillie!

Yes, I totally agree with your post yesterday about RM. I also think he was involved with them over something else then got roped in and finally set up as a fall guy.

How's the work going?

X

viv said...

Hiya ICTOAN

Well that just shows how lacking in empathy some people are. I suspect she laughs at herself but no one laughs with her.

Hiya LCG

We are not hearing anything at all linking Murat to the death or disposal of Madeleine and think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Logically, it has just never made sense for him to be an accomplice of the McCanns but for them and their friends to then be pointing the finger at him. That clearly suggests he is totally innocent IMO because he could point the finger back!

I have already said I do believe they knew of Murat and he just got wickedly set up. Hence Gerry's angry and guilty response, it is the old story with the McCanns, if you have nothing to hide then you would answer any questions put..

Viv x

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi Viv

Interesting editorial on MSN News:

"Stop the press: when the media goes too far

Madeleine McCann suspect Robert Murat's acceptance of £600,000 libel damages from 11 British tabloids has confirmed what most of us in the press corps already knew: the tabloids' coverage of the case has been a disgrace from day one. MSN weighs up the damning verdict.

It always starts innocently enough: a chance encounter; a shoulder bump at the bar. But when my accidental acquaintance asks what I do for a living, all hell has a tendency to break loose. Sneers, jeers and leers are just some of the reactions I’ve met with: I spend my days kicking down celebrities’ bedroom doors – or so you might think. As it happens, you’d be wrong, but defending my profession against accusations of treachery is becomingly an increasingly trying way of passing the time.

When Robert Murat appeared on the steps of London’s High Court on Thursday, after accepting a ‘record’ £600,000 in libel damages from 11 newspapers with a combined circulation of 15million, the man questioned by Portuguese police over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann couldn’t have looked less like a deviant.

Perfectly composed – and remember this is a man certain British tabloids had implied was a child trafficker, a paedophile, or worse and thus had every right to be incandescent with rage – Murat, who remains an official suspect, addressed the attending press: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life and caused immense distress.”

Murat – whose mother’s house was about 150 metres from the McCann’s holiday apartment – had often spoken to reporters in the days just after Madeleine’s disappearance, saying she looked like his daughter in England. The tabloids immediately made up a series of allegations – including claims he had an interest in child pornography and might have been part of a paedophile ring. At one point, even his glass eye was considered ‘evidence’ of his guilt.


Seeping sore

Publishers of the papers involved eventually apologised, admitting the claims were untrue. Murat’s lawyer, Louis Charalambous, said his client had had watched silently as “the worst elements of the British media” destroyed his good name and reputation. “The behaviour of tabloid journalists and their editors has been grossly irresponsible, demonstrating a reckless disregard for truth,” he said – showing considerable verbal restraint, given the circumstances.

Red-top coverage of the McCann case has been a seeping sore on our reputation, but even the so-called heavies haven’t been guilt-free. In May, The Scotsman was forced to apologise for a piece it ran about the four-year-old’s disappearance. Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, also took legal action over stories suggesting they may have killed their daughter, which prompted front page apologies from the Daily Express and Daily Star and a ‘donation’ of £550,000.

This errant approach to journalism is shameful, but nothing new. The rise of sensational reporting dates back to the 19th century, when the world’s most notorious serial killer was stalking the streets of Whitechapel. In the absence of any legitimate leads, ‘popular’ newspapers seized on the most salacious scraps they could muster, recounting Jack the Ripper’s savage crimes in visceral detail. Readers were riveted, circulation skyrocketed and the tabloid newspaper was born.

Today’s tabloids, which thrive on sensationalism and the invasion of privacy, consistently out-sell their higher-brow brethren. And when you have very deep pockets, being sued for libel tends to be a secondary concern (mostly – Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre got a nasty shock in 2001 when he was ordered to pay Sir Alan Sugar £100,000 plus £500,000 costs after the paper accused him of being a miserly boss while at Tottenham: the same sum for hurt feelings that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme recommended at the time for the loss of both arms or both eyes).

But while sensationalism may sell vast quantities of newspapers, it does little or nothing for public service. And serving you is primarily why we exist – to expose corruption, call governments to account and keep you abreast of current affairs (political, not sexual). After all, we are not the Crown Prosecution Service and it is certainly not our place to pre-judge.

Gone too far

To borrow from Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, the fundamental issue is one of rights versus responsibility: “the extent to which freedom of expression has to be balanced with other rights – the right to a reputation, the right to privacy, the right to be free from racial harassment, and so on.” And while there may be limited sympathy for celebrities who seek libel damages, media treatment of ordinary citizens is a more delicate matter.

Many years ago, during a rookie stint with Top Gear, I was involved in a car crash with then England goalkeeper David Seaman. The day after a snatch appeared in the Daily Mail (an enterprising snapper just happened to be at the scene), I walked into the office to find every phone ringing off its hook. The tabloids were frantically bidding against each other for an exclusive – and it took less than 48 hours for them to ask whether David and I were having an affair. After three days of arriving home to find a reporter on my doorstep, the joke wore a little thin.

Of course, on occasion, newspapers manipulate the truth harmlessly and in most excellent humour. Take the Sun’s famously tongue-in-cheek venture during the 1980s circulation wars, when it blew out its front page with the headline ‘Pope: no news.’ Record numbers of readers frantically pored over the paper for word of the pontiff’s implied predicament, only to find – you guessed it – no news.

But to assume all journalists deal in untruths is to assume all priests are paedophiles; all footballers are wife-beaters and every Muslim is a jihadist just waiting to happen. As with so many things in life, it’s the yellow rat-bastard minority who ruin the reputation of the majority.



Asked during an interview with the BBC why he had taken the tabloids to court, Murat said he felt the media “had gone too far and that this might, possibly, pull them back.” But is the threat of financial penalty really sufficient deterrent? One can’t help but wonder if, for the more salacious members of the press corps, a compulsory ball-gag might be more effective. Failing that, sack the lot of them and then camp out on their doorsteps, scrutinising their every move through a metre-long lens. We could even publicly imply they have carnal knowledge of hamsters. See how they bloody well like it."

Cláudia said...

Well,

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 266   Newer› Newest»