Portuguese launch new Maddy probe

I don't know what's true and what isn't true anymore. Whatever offences the McCanns committed in Portugal, had nothing to do with the Leicestershire police. I feel sure that the McCanns could not be prosecuted in the UK, for something they did in Portugal.

Scotland Yard have also said that they are only over in Portugal to assist the PJ. The PJ are in charge of the review, not Scotland Yard. If Leicestershire police also had a hand in scuppering the PJ's investigation, then I am quite sure the PJ would not welcome Scotland Yard coming over and getting involved with a review. David Cameron or the Home Secretary, must have spoken to the PJ, to ask them if they would be willing to conduct a review, with Scotland Yard's assistant.


At the moment, I cannot find any link to what I am about to write, but I have a feeling this information, may lie in the archived pages on Joana Morais's forum. Goncalo Amaral, said they wanted to bring charges against the McCanns, but couldn't due to British Government intervention. I don't know what charges the PJ were going to bring against the McCanns, but I wondered why the McCanns or the British Government, didn't make any comment about Goncalo Amaral's remark.

Also a former senior officer in the Portuguese police, said that the British Government intervened with this investigation. He said it in the witness box, in the Lisbon Court, when the McCanns were trying to get Goncalo Amaral's book permanently banned. Anyone who watched the Sky News coverage, live on the Sky News website, may remember this man's statement, as information came out in dribs and drabs.

I might be wrong, but this could have been the reason Gerry stomped out of the court.

I once read on a forum, that Gordon Brown met Jose Socrates and Brown had supposedly done a deal with Socrates, for something he was in trouble for in the UK. In return, Socrates had to make sure no charges were brought against the McCanns. I don't know if this is true or not.

kathybelle wrote:I don't know what's true and what isn't true anymore. Whatever offences the McCanns committed in Portugal, had nothing to do with the Leicestershire police. I feel sure that the McCanns could not be prosecuted in the UK, for something they did in Portugal.

Scotland Yard have also said that they are only over in Portugal to assist the PJ. The PJ are in charge of the review, not Scotland Yard. If Leicestershire police also had a hand in scuppering the PJ's investigation, then I am quite sure the PJ would not welcome Scotland Yard coming over and getting involved with a review. David Cameron or the Home Secretary, must have spoken to the PJ, to ask them if they would be willing to conduct a review, with Scotland Yard's assistant.


At the moment, I cannot find any link to what I am about to write, but I have a feeling this information, may lie in the archived pages on Joana Morais's forum. Goncalo Amaral, said they wanted to bring charges against the McCanns, but couldn't due to British Government intervention. I don't know what charges the PJ were going to bring against the McCanns, but I wondered why the McCanns or the British Government, didn't make any comment about Goncalo Amaral's remark.

Also a former senior officer in the Portuguese police, said that the British Government intervened with this investigation. He said it in the witness box, in the Lisbon Court, when the McCanns were trying to get Goncalo Amaral's book permanently banned. Anyone who watched the Sky News coverage, live on the Sky News website, may remember this man's statement, as information came out in dribs and drabs.

I might be wrong, but this could have been the reason Gerry stomped out of the court.

I once read on a forum, that Gordon Brown met Jose Socrates and Brown had supposedly done a deal with Socrates, for something he was in trouble for in the UK. In return, Socrates had to make sure no charges were brought against the McCanns. I don't know if this is true or not.

Please refer to the pertinent British laws governing jurisdiction of crimes committed by British Citizens abroad against British citizens for a better understanding of my argumentation.

British Nationality Act 1948
The Act today
The only significant provision of the Act to survive today is section 3, which concerns the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the criminal courts over crimes committed by British subjects overseas. Generally, British criminal law does not apply to things done overseas, but there are some exceptions for acts done abroad by British subjects, such as murder. Section 3 restricted the scope of this jurisdiction to CUKCs (except in respect of crimes which would be against UK law even if committed by aliens). This was necessary so that, for example, a Canadian citizen who committed murder in Canada could not be prosecuted for it in a British court instead of in Canada.
As modified by section 51 of the British Nationality Act 1981, section 3 now restricts this jurisdiction to British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens and British Nationals (Overseas).
(Note however that section 3 is subject to any subsequent legislation which is to different effect, such as section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as amended).)

More here:
http://www.enotes.com/topic/British_Nationality_Act_1948

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Dual criminality
Section 72 provides differing levels of dual criminality for specified offences according to the UK citizenship status of an offender. For UK nationals, acts performed outside the UK that would amount to an offence in the UK can be prosecuted as if they had been performed in the UK. Acts performed outside the United Kingdom have to constitute an offence in the country where they are committed, in order to constitute an offence under this Act.

More here:
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Sexual_Offences_Act_2003

kathybelle wrote:

Iris wrote:Or maybe it is because the crime of neglect never actually took place, and the Pt police know it.

A crime of neglect, may or may never have taken place, but one thing for sure is, a crime against Madeleine has certainly taken place. If the McCanns were telling lies, when they said they left their children unsupervised, all but one evening of that so called family holiday, someone must have been looking after the children.

Warner confirmed that the McCanns refused their baby sitting facilities, which consisted of the evening creche or a baby sitter who would have stayed in the McCanns apartment, while the McCanns were out. This means that whoever was looking after the children, was obviously someone known to the McCanns. If the twins and Madeleine, were all in the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared, then this person is responisble for whatever happened to Madeleine.

I don't understand the logic of the McCanns telling the police they left their children unsupervised, if they weren't. The McCanns were confessing to crimes they hadn't committed. Also the Tapas 7 were not only verifying the McCanns story, they must have been lying when they said they were making regular checks on the McCanns children. There would be no point in these people checking on the McCanns children, if they were not left unsupervised.

The McCanns are adamant that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance and if that is true, then they must be protecting the one who looked after their children.

Why would the McCanns protect someone, who is responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine? It just doesn't make sense.

If the McCanns children, were not left unsupervised, when the McCanns were out, Mrs Fenn must have been lying, when she said she heard Madeleine crying for a couple of hours. No babysitter, would allow Madeleine to cry for a couple of hours, they would contact the place where the McCanns were and ask them to come and see to her.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the twin's were in the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. I believe they were taken to the apartment of one of their friends, while Madeleine was being dealt with. Hence no bedding in the twin's cots.

Hi Kathybelle,the logic of admitting neglect but diluting it with dining in your back garden is...it sure beats the alternative,if you subscribe to the theory that something happened to Madeleine before may 3rd then neglect could be introduced to fit the bill,ie telling every man & his dog that you leave your children alone whilst providing independent witnesses to neglect & possibly they could of all been in one room with one member of the tapas "sick" or all in one apartment with a monitor that the paynes had...abduction night they may of had to all take a risk & leave their own children in their own apartments
If the twins were in 5a before they were moved to another apartment...i would think that whoever scooped them up would of wrapped them up with their blankets,could explain the pictures we see with no bedding,if we think abduction was staged then the Mccanns would have made sure that the twins looked as snug as bugs in rugs for the arrival of the police...after all they are very responsible parents