Search for Madeleine costs tax payer £6,000 PER DAY

Panda wrote:

If and when the McCann v Amaral case ever comes to Court since it is a Civil Court I'm not at all sure the McCanns will have to attend and there is some
explanation needed as to why it is taking so long considering the way thhe McCanns have manipulated two Police forces , the High Court , the Press etc. You would think the Portugese Judiciary would have used this case to highlight the inconsistencies of the Tapas statements which bolsters the PJ
theory which Amaral used in his book.

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

@Panda (Hello ........)

The very idea of private financing (even partly) of a Review by SY in all the circumstances is something that not only would not, but could not, be considered remotely acceptable.

As for Cameron and Brooks, well it's easy to see skullduggery around every corner, what with Leveson, Expenses scandals and the rest, but actually much of what goes on is perfectly reasonable, respectable, honest and accountable (ultimately).

It is not credible that any corruption or malpractice could spread so widely and deeply as is sometimes suggested as the reality is that the vast majority of people are decent and honest and simply would not stand (in the long run, at least) for knowingly being involved in matters that were not "above board".

One person - just one - could bring down an entire edifice.

fred wrote:

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

Not acceptable - they brought the Case and there is no over-riding reason why they cannot attend in person. No illness, no pressing engagements. The Judiciary should decline their request and if they still demur, simply throw the Case out.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

fred wrote:

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

Not acceptable - they brought the Case and there is no over-riding reason why they cannot attend in person. No illness, no pressing engagements. The Judiciary should decline their request and if they still demur, simply throw the Case out.

I agree. If they can trot off round Europe publicising their book, they can go to Portugal to attend the hearing of the case they have brought.

The fact is that under normal circumstances when a crime is committed the police are not asked whether they would like to investigate it, they do so because that is what they are there for and what we pay them for. In this case therefore, the British police were duty bound to investigate what happened to the British citizen Madeleine McCann, especially as the parents have, in the words of the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, Quote: “… not been eliminated from involvement in her disappearance.” Yet time and again the Home Office and the police themselves have referred to the jurisdiction of the Portuguese police and implied that they are powerless to do anything apart from support the Portuguese investigation. This is a complete lie. It is very clear from the wording of the CPS guidance on their website that the opposite is in fact true.
Quote: A British subject can be indicted for murder or manslaughter in England and Wales even when he commits the offence outside the jurisdiction. The nationality of the victim is immaterial: section 9 Offences against the Person Act 1861.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#intent
Are we reaching the stage in Great Britain that the only crimes which are investigated are those of which members of the poorly-educated lower classes are suspected because such investigations are usually able to be completed at less expense than those into crimes committed by more intelligent persons who have access to top legal representation? Why do the British authorities insist on ignoring the evidence of the Portuguese and Leicestershire Constabulary investigation and refuse to invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861? Why is this a review and not a murder investigation?

The End Is Nigh wrote:

fred wrote:

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

Not acceptable - they brought the Case and there is no over-riding reason why they cannot attend in person. No illness, no pressing engagements. The Judiciary should decline their request and if they still demur, simply throw the Case out.

Well, acceptable or not, that is how it is. I was due to attend a court case in northern Portugal last week, I requested it be ajourned and it will now take place in September. (A probate case, not criminal or civil case)

@T4Two:

How do you know the British Authorities (which ones, in particular?) are ignoring previous Evidence?

Sy are most certainly not going to keep us informed of the details - Redwood spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing some weeks ago. A very difficult thing to do.

fred wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

fred wrote:

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

Not acceptable - they brought the Case and there is no over-riding reason why they cannot attend in person. No illness, no pressing engagements. The Judiciary should decline their request and if they still demur, simply throw the Case out.

Well, acceptable or not, that is how it is. I was due to attend a court case in northern Portugal last week, I requested it be ajourned and it will now take place in September. (A probate case, not criminal or civil case)

But presumably you are planning to attend in person and are not the instigator of the Case?

Such valid deferments are commonplace, but a Plaintiff finding reasons not to attend a Case they themselves are bringing is almost certainly likely to result in nothing more than a final delay with a commitment for attendance in person.

Disinclination is not a valid reason and as they are not at risk or in danger if they go to Portugal then one way or another, and at some time, they surely must be obliged to go?

The End Is Nigh wrote:

fred wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

fred wrote:

September 12th is the date, it was delayed 'yet again' by the Mccanns as they have requested to appear in a video link, rather than in person!

Not acceptable - they brought the Case and there is no over-riding reason why they cannot attend in person. No illness, no pressing engagements. The Judiciary should decline their request and if they still demur, simply throw the Case out.

Well, acceptable or not, that is how it is. I was due to attend a court case in northern Portugal last week, I requested it be ajourned and it will now take place in September. (A probate case, not criminal or civil case)

But presumably you are planning to attend in person and are not the instigator of the Case?

Such valid deferments are commonplace, but a Plaintiff finding reasons not to attend a Case they themselves are bringing is almost certainly likely to result in nothing more than a final delay with a commitment for attendance in person.

Disinclination is not a valid reason and as they are not at risk or in danger if they go to Portugal then one way or another, and at some time, they surely must be obliged to go?

I am actually the instigator in this case, I have to attend or send a legal representative (solicitor) to appear in my place, which I am going to do, as I don't wish to meet the people involved. It can't be delayed again, which is good (for me) unless the 'other side' come up with a legal reason for it to be delayed. You know lawyers, they can always find a loophole? It isn't only in Portugal,where legal loopholes are used to delay court cases, I believe it is all over the world, lawyers get rich off the backs of their clients, whether we like it or not.

@Fred:

Ah, ok - all understood.

Yes, the only winners are the Lawyers!

Well good luck with getting the right result when the time finally comes.

Probate can be a drawn-out nightmare even without litigation as I found out from Executing a Will four years ago - and finishing no more than two years ago ........................

PS

As for Healy & McCann, I wonder if their disinclination is based on "inconvenience" or something a little meatier - an aversion to handcuffs, maybe? (Well, most of the time).

The End Is Nigh wrote:PS

As for Healy & McCann, I wonder if their disinclination is based on "inconvenience" or something a little meatier - an aversion to handcuffs, maybe? (Well, most of the time).

Or simply not expecting to get a good reception from Portuguese people.

Yes indeed ................

Ben Needham's Mother could not get help from her local Police when her son went missing in Greece, she was told they could not intervene in a case
abroad. NOw, they are falling over themselves to help and the Greek Police are involved again.

@TEIN

We both know that many MP's fiddled their expenses , many of them Cabinet Members. They have a good Salary, Pension, allowances , cheap Bar in
Westminster and many serve themselves , not their Country. Cameron always jumps on a bandwagon and has proved a very ineffective Prime Minister,
as has the Chancellor.

Cameron was definitely swayed by Murdoch and Brooks. Did Murdoch print the McCanns letter to embarass Cameron for some reason???? I will bet you
£10 now that Cameron will not get re-elected.

I'm not going to subscribe in any way to a Political debate here, P >>>> Friendships can be tested too hard!

The End Is Nigh wrote:I'm not going to subscribe in any way to a Political debate here, P >>>> Friendships can be tested too hard!

What's that saying TEIN....never discuss Politics and Religion. I was not offering a debate, merely an observation.

Well, anyway, I have enjoyed the Pageantry so am signing off now before I overcook my dinner.

The End Is Nigh wrote:@T4Two:

How do you know the British Authorities (which ones, in particular?) are ignoring previous Evidence?

Sy are most certainly not going to keep us informed of the details - Redwood spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing some weeks ago. A very difficult thing to do.

Aah yes, it's a dastardly plot to fool the suspects by Scotland Yard's finest

T4two wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@T4Two:

How do you know the British Authorities (which ones, in particular?) are ignoring previous Evidence?

Sy are most certainly not going to keep us informed of the details - Redwood spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing some weeks ago. A very difficult thing to do.

Aah yes, it's a dastardly plot to fool the suspects by Scotland Yard's finest

Seems like the dastardly plot is working - and not just fooling the suspects

T4two wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@T4Two:

How do you know the British Authorities (which ones, in particular?) are ignoring previous Evidence?

Sy are most certainly not going to keep us informed of the details - Redwood spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing some weeks ago. A very difficult thing to do.

Aah yes, it's a dastardly plot to fool the suspects by Scotland Yard's finest

T4T Ive said right from Redwood alive or dead speach that he was having to say what he did because he couldn't say anything else, he was hardly going to shout of the BBC roof tops what evidence they have and what their plans are, so yes it was avery good "destardly plot" and we will find out in the not to distant future....what he really knows and whats going to happen, Team McCann's silence is unbelevable Ive never in the last 5 years known such silence from them, either someone or something has shut them up and I bet its the latter

The End Is Nigh wrote:@Fred:

Ah, ok - all understood.

Yes, the only winners are the Lawyers!

Well good luck with getting the right result when the time finally comes.

Probate can be a drawn-out nightmare even without litigation as I found out from Executing a Will four years ago - and finishing no more than two years ago ........................

We tried to do this all very civil! (Step family involved in land dispute) Big mistake! Should have got the legal people in to start with, now almost 10 years later it might be resolved in September. Big bill, but some answers! Hey ho!

As they are supposedly not together , will they be questioned via link, separately ?


Or are they just plain scared to go and lie under oath .




Seems a case as Important to state that your child is alive is not as Important as going to Europe and
Promoting your book.

As was seen from the Philpotts' case, the police are your friend one minute and not the next. What Redwood said doesn't mean a thing really, the 195 leads may all point to the McCanns & Co for all we know.

This 195 leads business is a dead herring: They are issues that have already been assessed as not worthy of pursuit either by PJ or by the dubious various Private Agencies. It seems somewhat unlikely that many (If any) of them will be re-assessed by SY as requiring much (if any) further work.

The End Is Nigh wrote:This 195 leads business is a dead herring: They are issues that have already been assessed as not worthy of pursuit either by PJ or by the dubious various Private Agencies. It seems somewhat unlikely that many (If any) of them will be re-assessed by SY as requiring much (if any) further work.

TEiN have they got 195 leads???, found this on another post, I dont kno if this is true or not, but would be very interesting if it is......

http://www.worstkeptsecrets.co.uk/madeleine-mccann-found-the-truth.html ..... see last blog at the bottom 3/5/2012

Because of the scandal with the 2 MILLION pounds given by PM to find Maddy in 2011. So until the day of this email, front covers (at least 5-6 of them) were filled with this new hope of new leads and so called 195 leads they had to reopen the case. A DAY after my email on 26th April, the hype was totally pulled back. There was not much news, other than a small online from BBC and a middle page in The Sun, saying actually now we are NOT reopening the case, and we DON’T have 195 leads! Come on guys, make up your minds! LOL. EVEN though just two days earlier on 25th April 2012, they seemed pretty sure on Panorama!

Not worthwhile leads, no: It was undoubtedly just a reference to all the sightings and other potential wild-goose chases that had arisen and which were not previously followed up by PJ etc - The point being that not following them up was the right thing then (already assessed as of no value) ergo not following them up (ie expending shoe leather) now is equally the right thing.

Sadly, however, that particular aspect of Redwood saying nothing at all got seized upon and an entire planet-full of mountains were made out of it.

Now history.

The Review would be failing in it's remit if it hadn't turned up those (worthless) "leads" in the course of applying the necessary painstaking methodology - but on the flipside, SY are hardly going to tell us what important and valuable matters they have identified as worthy of pursuing.

Quite rightly, we remain in the dark for now.

I don't doubt for one moment that the SY team are acting professionally and without undue influence.