Do battered women who kill their husband's deserve leniency under the law, what about battered women, who kill their children?
The evidence in the case of Sara did tend to suggest she was pretty abusive and heavy drinking herself! I think she served about 6 years. Ahluwhalia was an horrific case both in terms of the extreme violence she suffered and the manner in which she killed him, throwing petrol into the room as he slept and then setting light. The law has always favoured men in relation to the defence of provocation in that they tend to react immediately and judges can see oh well they were provoked, but when mental ill health has been caused to the wife and she is in terror there can be what is called a slow burn of rage until it suddenly erupts. Then judges were saying oh you could not have been provoked, you sat and thought about it for weeks and then you killed him, that was murder. The law has become a little more compassionate, a strict application can bring some harsh results. It is a difficult moral dilemma, on the one hand the law has to make clear you cannot take the life of another, but on the other hand also has to demonstrate compassion which it does not always manage to do. Far too many judges are white, Oxbridge etc, are they the right people to be forming a view. Diversity brings differing views, women other cultures etc. The law has a long way to go!
Viv x
Criminal law - provocation
Battered women who kill - Part 1
Mary Luckham, Lectuer SPR; Visiting lecturer, College of Law
During the 1990s “Justice for Women”, a group which began as the “Free Sara Thornton” campaign, together with the Southall Black Sisters, led high profile media campaigns in support of the appeals of Sara Thornton, Kiranjit Ahluwalia and Emma Humphreys – three women who killed their husbands. Justice for Women has since then consistently supported other cases involving women who have been systematically subjected to domestic violence and have killed their abusive partners.
Students of criminal law will be familiar with the names “Ahluwalia” ([1992] 4 All ER 889), “Thornton” ([1992] 1 All ER 306 and (No. 2) [1996] 1 WLR 1174) and “Humphreys” ([1995] 4 All ER 1008). These three cases concern the defences of provocation and diminished responsibility, defences which are only available to charges of murder. A successful plea of either of these defences will result in a conviction of manslaughter instead of one of murder. The advantage here – in addition to the defendant not bearing the stigma of a murder conviction – is flexibility in sentencing. Murder carries a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment whereas for manslaughter, life imprisonment is the maximum penalty. This enables the judge to take all the circumstances into account and sentence accordingly.
The defence of diminished responsibility was created by Section 2 Homicide Act 1957. It requires that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind – which can arise from a number of conditions – which substantially impaired his or her mental responsibility at the time of the killing. It was introduced into English law in response to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (Cmnd 8932 1949-1953) which had recommended an extended insanity defence.
Capital punishment for murder was not finally abolished in this country until the passing of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 which substituted a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. There had been a number of notorious cases where it was felt that the death penalty should not have been imposed. One of these was the case of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in this country. She was hanged on the 13th July 1955 at Holloway Prison despite much public sympathy. The newspapers had clamoured for a reprieve and one of them paid for two defending barristers at her trial.
Ellis had shot her lover outside the Magdala pub in Hampstead. She had been sexually abused by her father and subjected to violent physical abuse by her lover who had ultimately rejected her. Although her case is credited as being one of those which led to the creation of the defence of diminished responsibility (it seems she might have been suffering from battered woman syndrome and could therefore, today, plead this defence) the evidence led at her trial indicated the defence of provocation. However, Mr. Justice Havers, the trial judge, withdrew the defence from the jury stating that he considered there to be insufficient evidence of provocation and, effectively, told the jury to find her guilty which they did, after deliberating for 15 minutes.
Of course, at that time a judge did have the power to withdraw the defence from the jury where he considered there to be insufficient evidence of provocation. In 1957 the common law defence of provocation was modified by Section 3 of the Homicide Act and the position now is that where there is any evidence that the defendant was provoked to lose his self-control then the question of provocation must be left to be determined by the jury. (See also R v Doughty [1986] Crim L.R. 625)
This defence requires, firstly, that the defendant was provoked to lose his self-control and, secondly, that the reasonable man would have been provoked to do as the defendant did. So far as the first criterion is concerned, the jury must consider that, at the time of the killing, the defendant might have been provoked to lose his self-control i.e. was so subject to passion as not be be master of his/her own mind: “Indeed circumstances which induce a desire for revenge are inconsistent with provocation, since the conscious formulation of a desire for revenge means that a person has had time to think, to reflect, and that would negative a sudden temporary loss of self-control which is of the essence of provocation.” Devlin J in Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 .
The second criterion is that the jury must be satisfied that the reasonable man would have done as the defendant did. This was seen to be an “objective” test based upon a hypothetical reasonable person. For a long time, the only characteristics which could be attributed to the reasonable man were age, sex and any personal idiosyncracies which were “relevant” i.e. had some degree of permanence, set the defendant apart in some way and were characteristics against which the provocation had been directed. (See Camplin [1978] AC 705 HL and Newell [1980] 71 Cr App Rep 331).
Both of these criteria have given rise to problems for battered women as will be seen below.
Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who after enduring many years of violence and humiliation from her husband, threw petrol into his bedroom, whilst he was sleeping in there, and set it alight. Her husband died six days later. She was convicted of murder at trial, her defence of provocation having been unsuccessful. The trial judge had directed the jury in accordance with the classic definition in Duffy (above) that provocation required conduct: “…which would cause in any reasonable person and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control.” It is likely, in view of the facts, that the jury did not consider that she might, at the time of the killing not have been master of her mind – it was not an instantaneous reaction.
She appealed to the Court of Appeal who affirmed the judge’s direction to the jury but allowed evidence of endogenous depression at the material time and confirmed that, as it was a major depressive disorder that it could come within the ambit of Section 2 Homicide Act 1957 – diminished responsibility. The Court of Appeal held that, given the medical evidence which had not been properly pursued at her trial, the conviction of murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory and ordered a retrial at which she was convicted of manslaughter. Her sentence reflected the number of years she had already spent in prison and she was released.
Criminal law - provocation
Battered women who kill - Part 2
Mary Luckham, Lectuer SPR; Visiting lecturer, College of Law
Emma Humphreys, who had had, since childhood, a history of cutting her wrists went to live with a man at the age of 16. He lived off her earnings as a prostitute and consistently beat her. On the night she killed him he and his friends had mentioned the possibility of a “gang-bang” and, later, when he taunted her that she had not made a very good job of cutting her wrists she stabbed him, killing him. She was convicted of murder having failed with her defence of provocation but on appeal the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and substituted one of manslaughter holding that characteristics of abnormal immaturity and attention-seeking were relevant and could therefore be attributed to the reasonable man on the basis that they represented a permanent condition from which she suffered.
Emma Humphreys had spent a long time in prison. Leave to appeal had been refused in 1986 but she renewed her application in the 1990’s perhaps because a more liberal approach to the defence of provocation was, by that time being demonstrated. Arguably, by then the erosion of the objective, or the reasonable man test had already begun.
Sara Thornton, who suffered from a personality disorder had been assaulted violently on a number of occasions, by her husband who was an alcoholic. On the final occasion, she went to the kitchen, sharpened a knife and stabbed him, killing him. She was convicted of murder. Her defence of provocation was not accepted by the court.
On her first appeal, the Court of Appeal, as it had in Ahluwalia, approved the dictum in Duffy that there must be a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. However, the court did confirm that a history of provocation could be taken into account – i.e. cumulative provocation. Nevertheless it was held that even though there might have been a history of provocation, if the evidence was that the defendant had not been provoked to lose his or her self control at the time of the killing then the defence would fail.
On her second appeal against conviction in 1996, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory, battered woman syndrome and the personality disorder from which she suffered not having been left to the jury as characteristics to be attributed to the reasonable person. The court ordered a retrial which took place at Oxford Crown Court where the jury convicted her of manslaughter. She was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. However, as she pleaded both provocation and diminished responsibility at her retrial it is impossible to say whether the jury necessarily accepted that her defence of provocation was made out. The jury may have reached its verdict on the basis that she was suffering from diminished responsibility.
These cases and others during this period have highlighted anomalies in the law. A man might receive a comparatively light sentence for manslaughter, where his self-control had snapped and he had killed his wife after years of constant nagging and taunting or where he had discovered that she was having an adulterous affair, whereas a woman subjected to years of physical and mental abuse would be likely to receive a mandatory life sentence because none of the defences available following a charge of murder would be wholly appropriate to the circumstances in which she killed. Women being smaller and physically weaker are less likely to respond in the same way as men, especially where they have already been subjected to violence. They fear it happening again. Both Ahluwalia and Thornton, for example, killed their husbands whilst they were asleep, appeared to be in control and, in the case of Ahluwalia, had planned the killing having purchased the petrol a few days beforehand. In situations like this it is very difficult to assess after the event whether a killing was out of despair and/or ‘slow burn’ resulting in a woman not being master of her own mind or whether it was a planned revenge attack.
Battered women have not normally raised the defence of self-defence (a complete defence) and have been frequently unsuccessful with the defence of provocation. Such women have, at least since Ahluwalia (where the Court of Appeal confirmed that battered woman syndrome was a condition which could come within the ambit of Section 2 Homicide Act 1957) been more successful with the defence of diminished responsibility. However, to raise the defence of diminished responsibility is to admit to mental abnormality, which although preferable to an admission of murder is not one that is necessarily appropriate to or desired by these women.
It has long been argued, that the law on provocation and self-defence, being based upon male standards of behaviour, and perhaps more appropriate to bar-room brawling than to the plight of battered women, results in injustice.
The defence of self-defence in some states in the United States has been interpreted to accommodate these women. So far as the law for England and Wales is concerned, self defence is a justificatory and complete defence – a successful plea resulting in a complete acquittal, unlike provocation or diminished responsibility. It is also a general defence and not just available where the charge is murder. The requirements are that there must be a need to use force and, in addition, any force used must be “reasonable” although pre-emptive strikes are permissible where the threat is imminent. Although it could be argued that, where such women are concerned, the threat is always imminent, juries will be disinclined to return a not guilty verdict on the grounds of self-defence where, for example, the defendant poured petrol over her sleeping husband and set it alight (Ahluwalia) or stabbed her husband to death whilst he was lying down, drunk and unarmed (Thornton). Such force is unlikely to be seen as “reasonable” in the circumstances.
Unless, therefore an excusatory defence of excessive force could be used in cases of murder so as to enable a jury to return a verdict of manslaughter in situations such as this, self-defence is unlikely to benefit many such women. The House of Lords in the case of Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482 said that any such change in the law was a matter for Parliament to consider. In the more recent case of R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] the House of Lords ruled that although the jury could take into account in relation to self-defence the physical characteristics of the defendant, in deciding whether excessive force has been used they were not entitled to take into account whether the defendant was suffering from a psychiatric condition which might make him perceive any circumstances as being a greater threat than would the normal person. The policy behind this decision is that whereas provocation only applies to murder, self-defence applies to all assaults and it is a complete defence and according to Lord Woolf CJ: “There is also the undoubted fact that self-defence is raised in a great many cases resulting from minor assaults and it would be wholly disproportionate to encourage medical disputes in cases of that sort.”
To be continued
16 Apr 2008
15 Apr 2008
Jane Tanner report in The Sun Online
Hi all
A couple of days ago I checked the news in The Sun online. I was searching for the breaking news and found that it was being reported that Jane Tanner had retracted her statement about seeing a man walking past. Obviously, this was in print so I thought their is probably a high level of credibility in the source here.
Imagine my suprise when I read a few more paragraphs and found it being reported that she had apparently told police when they first asked not long after Madeleine went missing that the person she saw looked ' like the child's father.' Now that would be Gerry wouldn't it ?
This report was in The Sun in its breaking news online version. However, it has not been archived and it is now not to be found anywhere on the system now. If you remember my previous life in another forum you will remember me quoting John Pilger from his book 'Hidden Agendas.' In it he says often that the real stories come out but they only do so once because someone then puts the pressure on and it 'miracously' disappears. he mentions these are the stories to look out for.
Thanks to my half term holiday I had managed to see this Jane Tanner breaking news story and it left a huge immediate impression. I believe I saw somewhere months ago an article on how Jane Tanner did not go looking that night with her husband for young Madeleine. Perhaps if this alleged report in The Sun is true about Jane Tanner then she dropped Gerry in it right from the start and has been backtracking since.
It does seem strange the way it was worded and how it has quickly disappeared. Did anyone else see it? Who else could 'like the child's father' be ? Plus, carrying the child in open arms is not one an abductor would do naturally but perhaps is more akin to one a father or mother might well carry a little 'un when their child is injured.
A couple of days ago I checked the news in The Sun online. I was searching for the breaking news and found that it was being reported that Jane Tanner had retracted her statement about seeing a man walking past. Obviously, this was in print so I thought their is probably a high level of credibility in the source here.
Imagine my suprise when I read a few more paragraphs and found it being reported that she had apparently told police when they first asked not long after Madeleine went missing that the person she saw looked ' like the child's father.' Now that would be Gerry wouldn't it ?
This report was in The Sun in its breaking news online version. However, it has not been archived and it is now not to be found anywhere on the system now. If you remember my previous life in another forum you will remember me quoting John Pilger from his book 'Hidden Agendas.' In it he says often that the real stories come out but they only do so once because someone then puts the pressure on and it 'miracously' disappears. he mentions these are the stories to look out for.
Thanks to my half term holiday I had managed to see this Jane Tanner breaking news story and it left a huge immediate impression. I believe I saw somewhere months ago an article on how Jane Tanner did not go looking that night with her husband for young Madeleine. Perhaps if this alleged report in The Sun is true about Jane Tanner then she dropped Gerry in it right from the start and has been backtracking since.
It does seem strange the way it was worded and how it has quickly disappeared. Did anyone else see it? Who else could 'like the child's father' be ? Plus, carrying the child in open arms is not one an abductor would do naturally but perhaps is more akin to one a father or mother might well carry a little 'un when their child is injured.
14 Apr 2008
KATE AND GERRY V THE PRESS IN BRUSSELS..
Hi All
Here is a great summary from notes that 2345 made and emailed to me. THANKS 2345! Sounds like the Daily Express were pressing some awkward questions home. ..Viv x
Here is my summary of the conference taken from my notes. Some editing and some things I was not able to note in time, but nothing significant missing:Clarrie was in charge with McMillan-Scott chairing and K&G on the podium with them. Clarrie made his ritual statement about not being able to comment on the investigation and that they were here to talk about Amber Alert. Below is a summary of the event.CM, EMS, and K&G made a very few brief comments at the beginning.EMS: We are moving forward Amber agenda in EU. K&G are committed fully to supporting it. We are working with PACT and Lady Meyer, MCE, and other missing children NGOs. K&G are meeting later today diplomats, officials, and the British Ambassador to the EU to discuss Amber.Kate: Time is the enemy is discovering missing children. Amber Alert can find missing children before they are too far away.Gerry: Amber Alert is not our idea. A lot of work has been done already. But it is not fully implemented in Europe, every EU country needs it. We have drafted a declaration for MEPs to sign to push the alert forward. Then the questioning began.(Unknown reporter): If Amber Alert had been in place what would have been the chances of Madeleine being found?Kate: They would have been higher. Gerry: We have no idea where Madeleine is. But if abductor had had a vehicle, he would have been in Spain because no-one was looking. Amber Alert prevents abductors using cars. It has an immediate effect.Portuguese newspaper: You are arguidos. Would it not have been better to be associated with Amber later if and when you are no longer arguido?Gerry (stuttering): We are only here and qualified to talk about the Amber system (no direct reply).Clarrie at this point intervenes: “I would like to make clear that Kate and Gerry have not been accused of any crime and they have as much right to be here as anyone else”.Portuguese radio: Will you go back?Kate: Can’t talk about the reconstruction. The anniversary will be private.ITN: Amber Alert works only if police say there is an abduction. In Madeleine’s case they did not declare this only that it was a missing child. Would Amber have saved Maddie?Gerry: Alert should be used for the most dangerous cases. There was a description of Maddie. She was missing and therefore Amber could have been applied.Dutch radio: Should other parents be mobilised into supporting the Amber system? Are you hopeful of Maddie being found?Kate: We still have hope. In Washington we were told children are found after a long time. There is a good chance she is out there. No evidence she has come to any harm.Daily Express: Are you going to go back to Portugal for reconstruction?Gerry: (clearly fumbling) Reconstruction under discussion. If Crimewatch with actors then fine. But need to know if it will help. Not going back on May 3rd.Express guy presses the point about going back.Gerry reiterates stutteringly that they need to know if it will be useful and it is under discussion. (Clearly evasive, obvious to those in the room)The Sun: how did you get to know about Amber?Gerry: “A friend of a friend who was with us on the night of May 3rd already early that morning was doing research in the internet and told us about it on the night Maddie vanished. Then we did our own research later. So we learned more later but we knew about it the night of the disappearance”Mirror: In Portugal, police cannot release clothing details of missing children.Kate: Correct. We need to change national legislation to make Amber work.END OF PRESS CONFERENCEGeneral observations. At the conference K&G were clearly well schooled in the nuances of Amber and had a lot of details at their fingertips. They appeared confident when speaking of the system. When questioned about the case, reconstruction, arguido status, clearly became nervous, stumbling. Quickly switching to party line of “ongoing investigation, can’t comment, we are here to talk Amber”. Clear to neutral observers that they are unsure on their feet when challenged on the case.
TRAGIC CHILD HOMICIDE DATA
Adorable little Maddie feeds her baby sisterxxxxxHELP STOP CHILD ABUSE. FULL STOP. REPORT CHILD ABUSE IMMEDIATELY. YOU MAY BE SAVING A CHILD'S LIFE AND WILL DEFINITELY BE SAVING THEM FROM MISERY. ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR BY PARENTS IS A RISK FACTOR FOR MORE SERIOUS ABUSE. PARENTS DO NOT JUST DO IT WHEN THEY ARE ON HOLIDAY. SUPPORT THE NSPCC. READ THEIR WEBPAGE. MAKE A DONATION. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE ABOUT WHAT ABUSE AND NEGLECT MEAN. ASK YOURSELF ONE SIMPLE QUESTION DOES THAT CHILD DESERVE TO BE TREATED THAT WAY? IF THE ANSWER IS NO REPORT THE ABUSER.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/
Child homicides
Key child protection statistics (December 2007)
The statements in this section are based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales together with some input in the first paragraphs from me.
The statistics below demonstrate just how often children are killed by the parents, more often than in any other case and children under five are at highest risk.
It is heartbreaking to think that in the UK every 10 days another tot will be killed by their parents.
As our poster Swedishmum has told us of the tragic killing of Engla, ten years, by a paedophile we remember the serious risk children are also at from such people. Whilst these cases are more rare it does not make them any less of a terrible tragedy for children.
What can we do to make children safer given the biggest risk they face is from their own parents? A terrible indictment on British Society, its morals, values and stance on the human rights of children..
The government should do far more in terms of educating the public to be better parents, encouraging friends and neighbours to report child abuse concerns as being predictive of greater risks of harm to children and track and monitor known child sex offenders, again clear in the knowledge that sexual abuse of children is a predictor of more serious abuse at some future stage as tragically shown in the killing of Engla in Sweden and Whiting and Huntley for example in the UK. We should be concentrating all our efforts to protect vulnerable little people who are our future and need to grow up without the trauma of abuse or worse still, being prevented from growing up at all. It is a national tragedy and we should all play a part to try and make childrens lives safer and happier.
The term 'homicide' covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and manslaughter are common law offences, which have never been defined by statute, although they have been modified by statute.
Murder means where the perpertrator actually intended to kill or cause serious harm and where it can be proved that was his/her intention at the time of the killing by a careful consideration of the accused's state of mind. This will be considered by assessment of the offender himself and all other relevant evidence e.g. other witnesses, behaviour of the accused both before, since and at the relevant time. Many offenders who commit murder are found to be suffering from personality disorder (e.g. Psychopathy/Anti-Social Personality Disorder or less frequently Narcissism - The Yorkshire Ripper). This means they lack insight into their thoughts and actions and have no empathy for others.
The sentence in UK for murder is mandatory - life, although a judge can set the minimum period which must be served before the person can be consider for release on lifetime licence on parole. This is an important feature of a murder conviction, it actually stays with the person for life and they can be recalled to prison if they misbehave. A typical sentence actually served for murder is 14 years but in serious cases involving a very dangerous offender who it is considered would always pose a risk of serious harm to the public/their offence is so repugnant, an offender who killed a child or a policeman for example, the time served can be much longer and even for the rest of the offender's life in exceptionally serious cases, e.g. Paedophiles Whiting and Huntley, Brady and Hindley, Shipman, The Wests
Manslaugher means the perpretrator was reckless or negligent as to whether death may result from their actions.
Viv.
A particular category is 'Section 2' manslaughter which refers to the provisions of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, which allowed for the defence of diminished responsibility. The Infanticide Act of 1922 (amended 1938) created the offence of infanticide in the case of a woman who caused the death of a child under 12 months while "the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child"
The data on child homicides published by the Home Office are given for the year in which the police initially recorded the offence as homicide. This is not necessarily the year in which the incident took place, or the year in which any court decision was made. The Home Office data refer to the position as at 9 October 2006, when recording closed down for the purpose of analysis. Subsequent court hearings or other information received will change the figures given. Where the police initially recorded an offence as homicide, it remains so classified unless the police or the courts decide later that no homicide took place.
On average, every week in England and Wales one to two children are killed at the hands of another person 1 2 .
Each week at least one child dies from cruelty 3 .
On average, 67 children in England and Wales are killed at the hands of another person every year 1 2 .
In 2005/2006, 55 children were killed at the hands of another person in England and Wales 4 .
Infants aged under one are more at risk of being killed at the hands of another person than any age group of child under 18 in England and Wales 1 5 6 .
Almost two thirds of children killed at the hands of another person in England and Wales are aged under five 1 7
Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent 8 9 .
"Killings of children by a natural parent are committed in roughly equal proportions by mothers (47%) and fathers (53%), but that where the child is killed by someone other than a parent, males strongly predominate"
"The proportion of child homicides in which the perpetrator is a parent is exceptionally high among infants". For example between 1995 and 1999 in England and Wales, 80% of homicide victims under one year old were killed by a parent
The proportion of child homicides 16 where a parent is the principal suspect falls as children get older. For homicides of children aged under five the proportion of cases where a parent was the principal suspect was over 70%; for homicides of children aged 14 or 15 it was a quarter or fewer 17 .
In half (52%) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect 10 .
In 2005/2006 in England and Wales, 24 children were killed at the hands of their parents 11 .
In a study into the relationship between child deaths and child maltreatment, 63% of the paediatricians sampled had some experience of suspicious child death. Of these, the most commonly cited alerting factor was inconsistent accounts (such as parents or carers changing their story), followed by unusual bruising, and the death of another child in the family.May-Chahal et al. (2004) The relationship between child death and child maltreatment: a research study on the attribution of cause of death in hospital settings. London: NSPCC.
In 2005/2006 in England and Wales parents were the principal suspect in 24 child homicide cases (44% of all cases).
A further 13 children (24% of all cases) were the victim of suspects known to them (i.e. other family member, friend or acquaintance).
12 children (22% of all cases) were the victim of strangers 13 .
As of October 2006, there were no suspects for 6 (11%) of the victims.Coleman, K. et al (2007)
On average, 11 children per year in England and Wales are killed at the hands of strangers 12 13 14 . This equates to an annual average of 16% of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person 14
Footnotes
1. The reference to 'killed at the hands of another person' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales. Reducing homicide: a review of the possibilities. London: Home Office. p.iii).
6. In five out of seven years (1997/98 to 2003/04) the homicide rate for under one year olds has been the highest of any single year age band.
7. This is a five year average of 63% of all child homicides based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.07).
8. The reference to 'killed at the hands of their parent' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
9. Home Office child homicide statistics record the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect. The figures quoted here are for child homicides where the principal suspect is a biological parent, step parent, adopted parent of the victim or the resident or non resident partner of the victim's parent. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office) . The definition of 'parent' was established through private correspondence with David Povey at the Home Office.
10. This is a five year average of 35 child homicides per year where the parent is the principal suspect, or 52% of all child homicides based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04) .
11. The reference to 'killed at the hands of their parents' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
12. The reference to 'killed at the hands of strangers' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
13. Home Office homicide data for 'strangers' as the principal suspect includes cases where the suspect is identified but there is insufficient information to determine the relationship to the victim.(Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04).
14. The figure quoted here is a five year average based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04).
15. Apart from parents, the other groups from which most killers of children were drawn were step-parents, 'other family' and 'friends or ex friends'.
16. Home Office data on the number of homicides of children recorded by the police in England and Wales are for children aged under 16.17. These figures are based on a five year total from 1999/00 to 2003/04.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/
Child homicides
Key child protection statistics (December 2007)
The statements in this section are based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales together with some input in the first paragraphs from me.
The statistics below demonstrate just how often children are killed by the parents, more often than in any other case and children under five are at highest risk.
It is heartbreaking to think that in the UK every 10 days another tot will be killed by their parents.
As our poster Swedishmum has told us of the tragic killing of Engla, ten years, by a paedophile we remember the serious risk children are also at from such people. Whilst these cases are more rare it does not make them any less of a terrible tragedy for children.
What can we do to make children safer given the biggest risk they face is from their own parents? A terrible indictment on British Society, its morals, values and stance on the human rights of children..
The government should do far more in terms of educating the public to be better parents, encouraging friends and neighbours to report child abuse concerns as being predictive of greater risks of harm to children and track and monitor known child sex offenders, again clear in the knowledge that sexual abuse of children is a predictor of more serious abuse at some future stage as tragically shown in the killing of Engla in Sweden and Whiting and Huntley for example in the UK. We should be concentrating all our efforts to protect vulnerable little people who are our future and need to grow up without the trauma of abuse or worse still, being prevented from growing up at all. It is a national tragedy and we should all play a part to try and make childrens lives safer and happier.
The term 'homicide' covers the offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder and manslaughter are common law offences, which have never been defined by statute, although they have been modified by statute.
Murder means where the perpertrator actually intended to kill or cause serious harm and where it can be proved that was his/her intention at the time of the killing by a careful consideration of the accused's state of mind. This will be considered by assessment of the offender himself and all other relevant evidence e.g. other witnesses, behaviour of the accused both before, since and at the relevant time. Many offenders who commit murder are found to be suffering from personality disorder (e.g. Psychopathy/Anti-Social Personality Disorder or less frequently Narcissism - The Yorkshire Ripper). This means they lack insight into their thoughts and actions and have no empathy for others.
The sentence in UK for murder is mandatory - life, although a judge can set the minimum period which must be served before the person can be consider for release on lifetime licence on parole. This is an important feature of a murder conviction, it actually stays with the person for life and they can be recalled to prison if they misbehave. A typical sentence actually served for murder is 14 years but in serious cases involving a very dangerous offender who it is considered would always pose a risk of serious harm to the public/their offence is so repugnant, an offender who killed a child or a policeman for example, the time served can be much longer and even for the rest of the offender's life in exceptionally serious cases, e.g. Paedophiles Whiting and Huntley, Brady and Hindley, Shipman, The Wests
Manslaugher means the perpretrator was reckless or negligent as to whether death may result from their actions.
Viv.
A particular category is 'Section 2' manslaughter which refers to the provisions of section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, which allowed for the defence of diminished responsibility. The Infanticide Act of 1922 (amended 1938) created the offence of infanticide in the case of a woman who caused the death of a child under 12 months while "the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child"
The data on child homicides published by the Home Office are given for the year in which the police initially recorded the offence as homicide. This is not necessarily the year in which the incident took place, or the year in which any court decision was made. The Home Office data refer to the position as at 9 October 2006, when recording closed down for the purpose of analysis. Subsequent court hearings or other information received will change the figures given. Where the police initially recorded an offence as homicide, it remains so classified unless the police or the courts decide later that no homicide took place.
On average, every week in England and Wales one to two children are killed at the hands of another person 1 2 .
Each week at least one child dies from cruelty 3 .
On average, 67 children in England and Wales are killed at the hands of another person every year 1 2 .
In 2005/2006, 55 children were killed at the hands of another person in England and Wales 4 .
Infants aged under one are more at risk of being killed at the hands of another person than any age group of child under 18 in England and Wales 1 5 6 .
Almost two thirds of children killed at the hands of another person in England and Wales are aged under five 1 7
Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent 8 9 .
"Killings of children by a natural parent are committed in roughly equal proportions by mothers (47%) and fathers (53%), but that where the child is killed by someone other than a parent, males strongly predominate"
"The proportion of child homicides in which the perpetrator is a parent is exceptionally high among infants". For example between 1995 and 1999 in England and Wales, 80% of homicide victims under one year old were killed by a parent
The proportion of child homicides 16 where a parent is the principal suspect falls as children get older. For homicides of children aged under five the proportion of cases where a parent was the principal suspect was over 70%; for homicides of children aged 14 or 15 it was a quarter or fewer 17 .
In half (52%) of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect 10 .
In 2005/2006 in England and Wales, 24 children were killed at the hands of their parents 11 .
In a study into the relationship between child deaths and child maltreatment, 63% of the paediatricians sampled had some experience of suspicious child death. Of these, the most commonly cited alerting factor was inconsistent accounts (such as parents or carers changing their story), followed by unusual bruising, and the death of another child in the family.May-Chahal et al. (2004) The relationship between child death and child maltreatment: a research study on the attribution of cause of death in hospital settings. London: NSPCC.
In 2005/2006 in England and Wales parents were the principal suspect in 24 child homicide cases (44% of all cases).
A further 13 children (24% of all cases) were the victim of suspects known to them (i.e. other family member, friend or acquaintance).
12 children (22% of all cases) were the victim of strangers 13 .
As of October 2006, there were no suspects for 6 (11%) of the victims.Coleman, K. et al (2007)
On average, 11 children per year in England and Wales are killed at the hands of strangers 12 13 14 . This equates to an annual average of 16% of all cases of children killed at the hands of another person 14
Footnotes
1. The reference to 'killed at the hands of another person' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales. Reducing homicide: a review of the possibilities. London: Home Office. p.iii).
6. In five out of seven years (1997/98 to 2003/04) the homicide rate for under one year olds has been the highest of any single year age band.
7. This is a five year average of 63% of all child homicides based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.07).
8. The reference to 'killed at the hands of their parent' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
9. Home Office child homicide statistics record the relationship of the victim to the principal suspect. The figures quoted here are for child homicides where the principal suspect is a biological parent, step parent, adopted parent of the victim or the resident or non resident partner of the victim's parent. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office) . The definition of 'parent' was established through private correspondence with David Povey at the Home Office.
10. This is a five year average of 35 child homicides per year where the parent is the principal suspect, or 52% of all child homicides based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04) .
11. The reference to 'killed at the hands of their parents' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
12. The reference to 'killed at the hands of strangers' is based on Home Office statistics on the number of homicides of children aged under 16 recorded by the police in England and Wales.
13. Home Office homicide data for 'strangers' as the principal suspect includes cases where the suspect is identified but there is insufficient information to determine the relationship to the victim.(Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04).
14. The figure quoted here is a five year average based on figures from 2001/02 to 2005/06. (Coleman, K. et al (2007) Homicides, firearms offences and intimate violence 2005/2006: supplementary volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006. London: Home Office. Table 1.04).
15. Apart from parents, the other groups from which most killers of children were drawn were step-parents, 'other family' and 'friends or ex friends'.
16. Home Office data on the number of homicides of children recorded by the police in England and Wales are for children aged under 16.17. These figures are based on a five year total from 1999/00 to 2003/04.
13 Apr 2008
TIMELINE OF AN AGGRESSIVE AND HIGH RISK STRATEGY
See where you are coming from Gerry with the aggressive er strategy..If I was doing a risk assessment on him, yes I would say high! in fact very high but there again we must keep an open mind and listen to Clarence..Bloody hell I would not like to bump into him when he has got a few drinks down him! I bet he does not even like me x He likes himself though..Hi All
I found this timeline really helpful in reminding me of all the aggressive demands, all the extraordinary claims, all the renewed vigour whenever moves were being made against them. To see it all in one place, really does place the McCann "campaign" into perspective. Truly, Gerry, no stone has been left unturned... I wonder why you dropped that mantra? Seems to get dropped with all your blog posts when the new webpage came along, somethings are best quietly dropped I guess, not Metodo 3 though, strange that. Oh well at least they got a big paycut, I hear they are now getting just £8,000, minus the other £50,000, I wonder if that annoyed them..
If anyone wants to read some real Gerrymandering check out the Daily Mail, they seem to think Mr Ribeiro was here not Mr Rebelo and that he rushed home in a rage, ho humx
Madeleine McCann timeline: The case so far
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
MAY 3 2007 Madeleine disappeared from the family apartment in Praia da Luz. Kate McCann raised the alarm at 10pm.
MAY 4 Sniffer dogs were brought in, the Spanish and border police and airports notified and volunteer teams combed the village, resort and beach for clues. The McCanns spoke publicly for the first time, directly appealing to their daughter's abductors and speaking of their "anguish and despair".
MAY 5 Detectives said they believed Madeleine was abducted and said they had a sketch of a potential suspect.
advertisement
MAY 10 Police admitted the ground search for Madeleine was being wound down. Around 350 potential leads - including sketches of potential suspects - had been followed up and produced no breakthrough.
MAY 12 Madeleine's fourth birthday. Mr and Mrs McCann attended a special birthday mass in the village where they said they were convinced Madeleine was alive. Celebrities including JK Rowling and Sir Phillip Green donated towards a £2.5 million reward being offered for Madeleine's safe return. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, expressed his sympathy for the parents and later talks to them offering to do "anything he can to help".
MAY 14 In the first major development, police launched a search at the home of Anglo-Portuguese man Robert Murat, just 100 yards from where Madeleine disappeared. Mr Murat was taken in for questioning and made an "arguido" or formal suspect, the next day. He said he was being made a "scapegoat" in the investigation.
MAY 16 Detectives swooped on home of Russian computer expert Sergey Malinka, who designed a website for Mr Murat, and interviewed him as a witness.
MAY 17 An official website and fund was launched. The website had more than 125 million hits within a week and the fund has now raised £1 million.
MAY 25 In their first interview, the McCanns told of how the "guilt" of not being with Madeleine when she was abducted would never leave them. Police finally released the description a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine's abduction near their apartment at the time she disappeared. It had been known since the night itself but was only issued after pressure from the McCanns, their legal team and the British Government.
MAY 30 Mr and Mrs McCann launched the start of a campaign to raise awareness of Madeleine's plight by attending an audience with the Pope at the Vatican. They went on to give press conferences and meet officials in Germany, Morocco, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States.
MAY 31 In a sign of increasing desperation, police said they were trawling through two dossiers of emails and messages from clairvoyants who said they knew where Madeleine was. They said they were trying to find out if any of the messages could be from her kidnapper.
JUNE 6 On a trip to Berlin, the parents were shocked when asked for the first time in public if they had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance. They denied any involvement.
JUNE 13 An anonymous tip-off suggested that Madeleine's body was buried in deserted scrubland nine miles from where she was went missing. Police found nothing and the parents were "very upset" at the claims she was dead.
JUNE 17 Portuguese police forensic results revealed nothing of significance. Detectives said Madeleine's friends and family may have unwittingly destroyed vital evidence in the first few hours after her abduction, during their search for her. Spokesman Olegario Sousa says their well-meaning actions could prove "fatal" for the investigation.
JUNE 21 The first of a series of reported sightings of a girl resembling Madeleine are reported in Malta. Other alleged sightings were reported in Morocco, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, and even as far away as Argentina and Guatemala.
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
MAY 3 2007 Madeleine disappeared from the family apartment in Praia da Luz. Kate McCann raised the alarm at 10pm.
MAY 4 Sniffer dogs were brought in, the Spanish and border police and airports notified and volunteer teams combed the village, resort and beach for clues. The McCanns spoke publicly for the first time, directly appealing to their daughter's abductors and speaking of their "anguish and despair".
MAY 5 Detectives said they believed Madeleine was abducted and said they had a sketch of a potential suspect.
advertisement
MAY 10 Police admitted the ground search for Madeleine was being wound down. Around 350 potential leads - including sketches of potential suspects - had been followed up and produced no breakthrough.
MAY 12 Madeleine's fourth birthday. Mr and Mrs McCann attended a special birthday mass in the village where they said they were convinced Madeleine was alive. Celebrities including JK Rowling and Sir Phillip Green donated towards a £2.5 million reward being offered for Madeleine's safe return. Gordon Brown, then Chancellor, expressed his sympathy for the parents and later talks to them offering to do "anything he can to help".
MAY 14 In the first major development, police launched a search at the home of Anglo-Portuguese man Robert Murat, just 100 yards from where Madeleine disappeared. Mr Murat was taken in for questioning and made an "arguido" or formal suspect, the next day. He said he was being made a "scapegoat" in the investigation.
MAY 16 Detectives swooped on home of Russian computer expert Sergey Malinka, who designed a website for Mr Murat, and interviewed him as a witness.
MAY 17 An official website and fund was launched. The website had more than 125 million hits within a week and the fund has now raised £1 million.
MAY 25 In their first interview, the McCanns told of how the "guilt" of not being with Madeleine when she was abducted would never leave them. Police finally released the description a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine's abduction near their apartment at the time she disappeared. It had been known since the night itself but was only issued after pressure from the McCanns, their legal team and the British Government.
MAY 30 Mr and Mrs McCann launched the start of a campaign to raise awareness of Madeleine's plight by attending an audience with the Pope at the Vatican. They went on to give press conferences and meet officials in Germany, Morocco, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States.
MAY 31 In a sign of increasing desperation, police said they were trawling through two dossiers of emails and messages from clairvoyants who said they knew where Madeleine was. They said they were trying to find out if any of the messages could be from her kidnapper.
JUNE 6 On a trip to Berlin, the parents were shocked when asked for the first time in public if they had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance. They denied any involvement.
JUNE 13 An anonymous tip-off suggested that Madeleine's body was buried in deserted scrubland nine miles from where she was went missing. Police found nothing and the parents were "very upset" at the claims she was dead.
JUNE 17 Portuguese police forensic results revealed nothing of significance. Detectives said Madeleine's friends and family may have unwittingly destroyed vital evidence in the first few hours after her abduction, during their search for her. Spokesman Olegario Sousa says their well-meaning actions could prove "fatal" for the investigation.
JUNE 21 The first of a series of reported sightings of a girl resembling Madeleine are reported in Malta. Other alleged sightings were reported in Morocco, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, and even as far away as Argentina and Guatemala.
Madeleine McCann timeline: The case so far
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
JULY 10 Mr Murat returned to the police station in Portimao for further questioning. He went back the next day for a "confrontation" with three friends of the McCanns - Russell O Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne - who claimed they saw him at the scene helping with searches on the night Madeleine disappeared. Around this time police picked up a new lead and shifted the investigation towards the belief that Madeleine was dead. They focused again on the apartment, which had been rented out again to holidaying couples, and called in specialist British sniffer dogs which could detect tiny traces of blood and human remains.
AUGUST 3 The sniffer dogs started new searches at the apartment, at Mr Murat's house and of surrounding areas. They also searched nine cars, some belonging to Mr Murat, and the hire car of the McCanns. Later it was reported that small traces of blood were amongst dozens of samples being sent to Britain for examination.
AUGUST 8 The Portuguese press started accusing the McCanns and their friends. A family spokesperson said they were disgusted at an apparent smear campaign against them. The couple were frustrated that police had started to take a more formal tone with them, and feared the investigation had gone back to "square one".
advertisement
AUGUST 11 The 100th day since Madeleine disappeared. The McCanns attended a poignant service of prayers for Madeleine at a church in Praia da Luz. Without telling the parents, Portuguese police acknowledged publicly for the first time that Madeleine could be dead. Mr Sousa said the parents were not being considered as suspects. His comments were echoed later by Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro.
AUGUST 21 Detectives leading the investigation admitted off the record their main theory was now that Madeleine died by accident. They said the apartment had "all the answers" to the case and that all leads on it being a possible kidnap had been exhausted.
AUGUST 24 In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr McCann attacked a series of police leaks which have fuelled "preposterous" speculation about what happened to his daughter. He said the couple were considering returning home and he was thinking about returning to work. He reacted with amazement and fury to a newspaper report claiming "the parents killed Madeleine" and the couple later launched a libel action.
AUGUST 29 Mr McCann made the first direct appeal to the abductors since the first week, urging them to end the nightmare.
SEPT 1 Portuguese police received "significant" results of forensics tests carried out in Britain. Sources said a key piece of DNA had been found in an "area where it should not have been." Mr McCann was called two days later and told he and his wife would be required for further questioning. SEPT 6 Mrs McCann was questioned for more than 11 hours by Portuguese police.
SEPT 7 Mrs McCann returned and was given "arguida" status as she was asked 22 key questions by police. Mr McCann arrived at 2pm to be questioned separately. He was officially made "arguido" status about 12 hours after his wife.
SEPT 9 The McCanns fly back to England with their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.
SEPT 11 Portuguese police hand the papers in the case to the public prosecutor, Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses, for him to decide whether to bring charges against anyone. OCT 2 Goncalo Amaral, the detective in charge of the inquiry, is removed from the case after criticising the British police in a Portuguese newspaper interview.
OCT 9 The case is taken over by Paulo Rebelo, a senior detective with Portugal's investigative Policia Judiciaria who is normally based in Lisbon.
OCT 25 The McCanns release a new artist's impression drawn by an FBI-trained expert showing the man described by Jane Tanner.
NOV 1 Gerry McCann returns to work as a consultant cardiologist at Leicester's Glenfield Hospital.
NOV 19 A BBC Panorama documentary screens a video of Gerry McCann speaking of his belief that a "predator" was watching his family in the days before Madeleine's disappearance. In the same programme Mr Murat's mother, Jenny Murat, accuses three of the McCanns' friends of lying about seeing her son on the night of May 3.
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
JULY 10 Mr Murat returned to the police station in Portimao for further questioning. He went back the next day for a "confrontation" with three friends of the McCanns - Russell O Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne - who claimed they saw him at the scene helping with searches on the night Madeleine disappeared. Around this time police picked up a new lead and shifted the investigation towards the belief that Madeleine was dead. They focused again on the apartment, which had been rented out again to holidaying couples, and called in specialist British sniffer dogs which could detect tiny traces of blood and human remains.
AUGUST 3 The sniffer dogs started new searches at the apartment, at Mr Murat's house and of surrounding areas. They also searched nine cars, some belonging to Mr Murat, and the hire car of the McCanns. Later it was reported that small traces of blood were amongst dozens of samples being sent to Britain for examination.
AUGUST 8 The Portuguese press started accusing the McCanns and their friends. A family spokesperson said they were disgusted at an apparent smear campaign against them. The couple were frustrated that police had started to take a more formal tone with them, and feared the investigation had gone back to "square one".
advertisement
AUGUST 11 The 100th day since Madeleine disappeared. The McCanns attended a poignant service of prayers for Madeleine at a church in Praia da Luz. Without telling the parents, Portuguese police acknowledged publicly for the first time that Madeleine could be dead. Mr Sousa said the parents were not being considered as suspects. His comments were echoed later by Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro.
AUGUST 21 Detectives leading the investigation admitted off the record their main theory was now that Madeleine died by accident. They said the apartment had "all the answers" to the case and that all leads on it being a possible kidnap had been exhausted.
AUGUST 24 In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr McCann attacked a series of police leaks which have fuelled "preposterous" speculation about what happened to his daughter. He said the couple were considering returning home and he was thinking about returning to work. He reacted with amazement and fury to a newspaper report claiming "the parents killed Madeleine" and the couple later launched a libel action.
AUGUST 29 Mr McCann made the first direct appeal to the abductors since the first week, urging them to end the nightmare.
SEPT 1 Portuguese police received "significant" results of forensics tests carried out in Britain. Sources said a key piece of DNA had been found in an "area where it should not have been." Mr McCann was called two days later and told he and his wife would be required for further questioning. SEPT 6 Mrs McCann was questioned for more than 11 hours by Portuguese police.
SEPT 7 Mrs McCann returned and was given "arguida" status as she was asked 22 key questions by police. Mr McCann arrived at 2pm to be questioned separately. He was officially made "arguido" status about 12 hours after his wife.
SEPT 9 The McCanns fly back to England with their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.
SEPT 11 Portuguese police hand the papers in the case to the public prosecutor, Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses, for him to decide whether to bring charges against anyone. OCT 2 Goncalo Amaral, the detective in charge of the inquiry, is removed from the case after criticising the British police in a Portuguese newspaper interview.
OCT 9 The case is taken over by Paulo Rebelo, a senior detective with Portugal's investigative Policia Judiciaria who is normally based in Lisbon.
OCT 25 The McCanns release a new artist's impression drawn by an FBI-trained expert showing the man described by Jane Tanner.
NOV 1 Gerry McCann returns to work as a consultant cardiologist at Leicester's Glenfield Hospital.
NOV 19 A BBC Panorama documentary screens a video of Gerry McCann speaking of his belief that a "predator" was watching his family in the days before Madeleine's disappearance. In the same programme Mr Murat's mother, Jenny Murat, accuses three of the McCanns' friends of lying about seeing her son on the night of May 3.
Madeleine McCann timeline: The case so far
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
NOV 22 Portugal's attorney general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, says the huge publicity surrounding Madeleine's disappearance could have resulted in her kidnapper killing her.
NOV 29 Forensic experts from the UK and Portugal meet at Leicestershire Police headquarters to discuss DNA samples collected during the inquiry.
DEC 13 Francisco Marco, the director general of Metodo 3, a private detective agency being paid by the McCanns, claims he knows who took Madeleine and that he could have her back with her family before Christmas.
advertisement
DEC 22 Mr and Mrs McCann send a public message to their daughter, telling her: "Our only Christmas wish is for you to be back with us again."
JAN 9 2008 Mr McCann plays down speculation they may approve a movie about Madeleine's disappearance after their spokesman meets the IMG agency, the firm behind the award-winning drama-documentary Touching The Void.
JAN 20 The McCanns release police artist sketches, based on a statement given by a British holidaymaker, of a man they believe may have abducted Madeleine.
FEB 4 Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
FEB 13 Portuguese justice minister Alberto Costa says the police investigation into the young girl's disappearance is nearing its end.
MARCH 19 Mr and Mrs McCann accept £550,000 libel damages and front-page apologies from Express Newspapers over allegations they were responsible for Madeleine's death.
MARCH 26 Kate and Gerry McCann urge Portuguese police to investigate the movements of a suspected Spanish paedophile on the day their daughter vanished. The 52-year-old man was arrested on on suspicion of killing another five-year-old girl.
APRIL 7 Portuguese police arrive in Britain to observe as the friends of Kate and Gerry McCann are interviewed about the night Madeleine went missing.
APRIL 8 Gerry and Kate McCann are asked to return to Portugal to take part in a large-scale re-enactment of the hours surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. They say they will consider the proposal
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
NOV 22 Portugal's attorney general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, says the huge publicity surrounding Madeleine's disappearance could have resulted in her kidnapper killing her.
NOV 29 Forensic experts from the UK and Portugal meet at Leicestershire Police headquarters to discuss DNA samples collected during the inquiry.
DEC 13 Francisco Marco, the director general of Metodo 3, a private detective agency being paid by the McCanns, claims he knows who took Madeleine and that he could have her back with her family before Christmas.
advertisement
DEC 22 Mr and Mrs McCann send a public message to their daughter, telling her: "Our only Christmas wish is for you to be back with us again."
JAN 9 2008 Mr McCann plays down speculation they may approve a movie about Madeleine's disappearance after their spokesman meets the IMG agency, the firm behind the award-winning drama-documentary Touching The Void.
JAN 20 The McCanns release police artist sketches, based on a statement given by a British holidaymaker, of a man they believe may have abducted Madeleine.
FEB 4 Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
FEB 13 Portuguese justice minister Alberto Costa says the police investigation into the young girl's disappearance is nearing its end.
MARCH 19 Mr and Mrs McCann accept £550,000 libel damages and front-page apologies from Express Newspapers over allegations they were responsible for Madeleine's death.
MARCH 26 Kate and Gerry McCann urge Portuguese police to investigate the movements of a suspected Spanish paedophile on the day their daughter vanished. The 52-year-old man was arrested on on suspicion of killing another five-year-old girl.
APRIL 7 Portuguese police arrive in Britain to observe as the friends of Kate and Gerry McCann are interviewed about the night Madeleine went missing.
APRIL 8 Gerry and Kate McCann are asked to return to Portugal to take part in a large-scale re-enactment of the hours surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. They say they will consider the proposal
12 Apr 2008
WHAT DO THE VIDEOS OF THE BRUSSELS TRIP TELL US?
Don't you worry about Kate, Gerry, Clarence is keeping a concerned eye..
I wonder why Tanner and O'Brien have matching, pronounced frown lines right above their noses, unusual in young couples?
can you believe this guy would go anywhere without his watch and his mobile!!!
Nice bundleman outfit, Gerry! but you could be seen in the dark..Hiya all, I have been listening to a couple of interviews with the McCanns available here on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7339940.stm
I just noted down some of the comments below from Kate and Gerry. This seems to me to be a couple who are just in complete denial of the reality of their situation. What was the point of leaving the twins also for a recent trip to Washington, how can Kate still protest Madeleine is "still out there". How on earth can she say there is "absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine has come to any harm". We are talking about a mother here, who admits, she left her and her even younger siblings on their own to cry. We are talking about a mother who is prime suspect for killing Madeleine, on the basis of forensic evidence clearly demonstrating the death of Madeleine in her and her husband's care. But we are also talking about a mother who sat there and gave this interview, not knowing that on the same day shocking details of her own witness statement would be released. Why does Kate always get so nervous when being asked to actually talk about Madeleine, would this not be the most natural thing in the world for a mom to do? Why does she always have to emphasise Madeleine was a "very loved little girl"?
How on earth can she state, with admittedly faltering and noticeably poor language skills creeping back in here "we havn't actually been accused of anything".
Is this the most perverse piece of failing to accept responsibility or comlete and utter denial we have yet seen from Kate McCann?
In relation to Gerry, he tells us that for months he has been working on this Amber Alert Project, but why, how would this get Madeleine back? As ever he is actually telling us he has been working for months on how he can try to defend them.
Again, he tells us where all the spin actually comes from, galvanising the public into responding and providing information…of false sightings and bizarre feelings about other people in PDL etc, anything to muddy the waters..We are optimistic…a further video I listened to he spoke of arguido status generally being lifted after 8 months so then they should be in the clear but as he pointed out a three months extension can be granted. Everyone can be absolutely clear the focus should be back on finding Madeleine, well now we have heard that a few times! It seems to me that Gerry in particular wants to brainwash the "ignorant public" (Kate's amazing words). Sorry Gerry but we have minds of our own. Looking at the pic above of how you just march onto the train without so much as a backward glance for your wife, we have a clear picture of you, too. I notice the concerned look at Kate, coming from Clarence Mitchell. I have often wondered just what are his feelings towards her, does he see her as a sad child killer who he is trying to protect because she appeals to his manly instincts?
Kate: Recent trip to Washington and there is still a good chance that Madeleine is still out there
We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine has come to any harm.
I actually think the public are ignorant!
(Pause, hand starts bouncing up and down) Madeleine was an incredibly happy, confident and very loved little girl
Difficult to come here still suspect? You know, we havn't actually been accused of anything you know and um
Gerry: Culmination of a lot of work that has gone on in the background over the months, particularly over the last four months (since the Portuguese Judge said the case must continue in January?)
We want key information to be disseminated to the public to galvanise their response and help lead to the successful recovery of the child.
We are pretty optimistic that our arguido status will be lifted soon and everyone can be absolutely clear that the focus should be on trying to find Madeleine
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7339940.stm
I just noted down some of the comments below from Kate and Gerry. This seems to me to be a couple who are just in complete denial of the reality of their situation. What was the point of leaving the twins also for a recent trip to Washington, how can Kate still protest Madeleine is "still out there". How on earth can she say there is "absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine has come to any harm". We are talking about a mother here, who admits, she left her and her even younger siblings on their own to cry. We are talking about a mother who is prime suspect for killing Madeleine, on the basis of forensic evidence clearly demonstrating the death of Madeleine in her and her husband's care. But we are also talking about a mother who sat there and gave this interview, not knowing that on the same day shocking details of her own witness statement would be released. Why does Kate always get so nervous when being asked to actually talk about Madeleine, would this not be the most natural thing in the world for a mom to do? Why does she always have to emphasise Madeleine was a "very loved little girl"?
How on earth can she state, with admittedly faltering and noticeably poor language skills creeping back in here "we havn't actually been accused of anything".
Is this the most perverse piece of failing to accept responsibility or comlete and utter denial we have yet seen from Kate McCann?
In relation to Gerry, he tells us that for months he has been working on this Amber Alert Project, but why, how would this get Madeleine back? As ever he is actually telling us he has been working for months on how he can try to defend them.
Again, he tells us where all the spin actually comes from, galvanising the public into responding and providing information…of false sightings and bizarre feelings about other people in PDL etc, anything to muddy the waters..We are optimistic…a further video I listened to he spoke of arguido status generally being lifted after 8 months so then they should be in the clear but as he pointed out a three months extension can be granted. Everyone can be absolutely clear the focus should be back on finding Madeleine, well now we have heard that a few times! It seems to me that Gerry in particular wants to brainwash the "ignorant public" (Kate's amazing words). Sorry Gerry but we have minds of our own. Looking at the pic above of how you just march onto the train without so much as a backward glance for your wife, we have a clear picture of you, too. I notice the concerned look at Kate, coming from Clarence Mitchell. I have often wondered just what are his feelings towards her, does he see her as a sad child killer who he is trying to protect because she appeals to his manly instincts?
Kate: Recent trip to Washington and there is still a good chance that Madeleine is still out there
We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine has come to any harm.
I actually think the public are ignorant!
(Pause, hand starts bouncing up and down) Madeleine was an incredibly happy, confident and very loved little girl
Difficult to come here still suspect? You know, we havn't actually been accused of anything you know and um
Gerry: Culmination of a lot of work that has gone on in the background over the months, particularly over the last four months (since the Portuguese Judge said the case must continue in January?)
We want key information to be disseminated to the public to galvanise their response and help lead to the successful recovery of the child.
We are pretty optimistic that our arguido status will be lifted soon and everyone can be absolutely clear that the focus should be on trying to find Madeleine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)