29 July 2009

Open Letter - Doubts on the McCann Process

The following is an email to a reader and member of the 3 arguidos who had some doubts regarding the Portuguese Penal Code, the McCann's process archival and the feasibility of the request to reopen the process by the former arguidos if they had wished to do so. I believe that it can help to elucidate some doubts, so I'll post here as well.

«I'll try to answer your questions, I just read again the Portuguese Penal Code [the articles 236 up to 310] and asked Astro as well to help me in giving you the correct answers, it's a bit hard to explain legal stuff since I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, there are two distinctions to keep in mind, the request to reopen the process and the request to open the instruction phase.

The reopening of the case by the Public Ministry, with the subsequent investigation by the PJ [the criminal investigative police] only happens if new evidence is considered by the Public Ministry to be relevant. This can happen at any given moment until the process prescribes, generally after 15 years, and if the case is considered to be of homicide, after 20 years. Any person can request the reopening of the process, thus, the arguido, a denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, an assistant to the process, an anonymous denouncer, anyone can request the opening of the process.

The opening of the instruction phase is something different in the procedures and also in the end result; this type of reopening has to be requested in the legal time limit of 20 days after the archival of the process. Here I'll quote extracts of Astros' explanation: “After being notified of either the accusation or the archiving, the arguido or the assistant may request, within 20 days, the opening of the instruction phase, which will then be conducted by the instruction judge. (…) Then, the instruction judge holds an autonomous investigation, with any instruction actions that he finds necessary, and is obliged to hold an instruction debate, where all parties - the Public Ministry, the arguido, his defendant, the assistant and his lawyer - take part. (…) The instruction phase lasts for a maximum of two months if there are any arguidos under arrest, or four months otherwise. At the end of the instruction phase, the judge will either pronounce the arguido for trial, or not.”

The second alternative that Rogério Alves mentions "(...)“I’m analyzing the process to see if it is worthwhile to give some impulse to the process, that is, to request the opening of the instruction or to advance to a hierarchical superior at the Public Ministry" - is another possibility presented under article 278 of the CPP, translated below.

Article 278 - Hierarchical Intervention

1) During the period of 20 days counting after the date when the opening of the instruction can no longer be requested, the immediate hierarchical superior of the magistrate from the Public Ministry may, by is own initiative or by request of the assistant or of the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, determine that the accusation is formally made or that the investigation proceeds, indicating, in this case, which are the diligences to be made as well as the deadline within which they must be completed.

2) The assistant and the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant may, if they opt not to request the opening of the instruction, appeal for a hierarchical intervention, according to the previous article, within the deadline foreseen for said appeal.

Then we have the next article which explains what happens in the case if the legal option to ask for the reopening of the inquest is not made by any of the parties within the deadline foreseen in the CPP, which I will also translate.

Article 279 - Reopening of the Inquest

1) After the ending of the deadline which is referred in the previous article, the inquest can only be reopened if new elements of proof emerge which invalidate the fundamentation argued by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch.

2) From the dispatch of the Public Ministry which delays or refuses the reopening of the inquest there is a complaint made to the immediate hierarchical superior. [This part means that one can appeal to, and make a complaint of the Public Ministry's decision to archive the inquest, but only if the number one of this article is established]

The McCanns could have stopped the archival at any moment up to the end of the deadlines, or even force the reopening of the process now, if for example they requested to do the legal reconstruction with their friends, or if Kate McCann answered the 48 questions that were never answered, or if any of their Tapas friends requested to do new statements, etc.. Those would be evidences that would oblige the Public Ministry to reopen the process - which means that if the McCanns really wanted the process and the legal investigation into the disappearance [presumed death] of their daughter to continue, they could do it.

If we compare the McCanns to the vast majority of parents whose children are missing or were abducted, it's bizarre, to say the least, that the McCanns don't use what is their legal right to force the authorities of the Country where their daughter was allegedly abducted, to continue the investigation.

I imagine that many parents in the state that the McCanns allege to be, would jump immediately at every single opportunity to keep their children's case "alive". In the McCann case, unfortunately, we only see the parents promoting a non charitable fund, t-shirts, plastic bracelets and using the media to excuse [and also obstruct the investigation…] themselves of their culpability of leaving toddlers alone, an indefensible and negligent act.»


The CPP code can be downloaded in full here [PDF document]

40 comments:

  1. Look, it's simple.

    ''The McCanns could have stopped the archival at any moment up to the end of the deadlines, or even force the reopening of the process now, if for example they requested to do the legal reconstruction with their friends, or if Kate McCann answered the 48 questions that were never answered, or if any of their Tapas friends requested to do new statements, etc.. Those would be evidences that would oblige the Public Ministry to reopen the process - which means that if the McCanns really wanted the process and the legal investigation into the disappearance [presumed death] of their daughter to continue, they could do it.''

    BUT only if any of those things which are mentioned would have thrown up any new evidence. If they know that the account they gave of the night is fundamentally correct, and that answering questions such as 'were you planning to give your daughter away' would give no new leads, then why on earth would they bother? That is the logical fallacy of whichever fine legal mind thought up this response.
    In exactly the same way that kate not answering the 48 wuestions is completely irrelevant to ther parents IF THEY KNOW THEY DIDNT DO IT, why the hell would Kate Mccann continue to feed a line of enquiry which she knew to be completely erroneous?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon, you seem to be under the same impression as the Mccanns that they were running the investigation and not PJ. When you are a suspect in a case you do yourself no favours by not answering police questions. Nor are you in the position to decide which questions bear relevance to the case. A person that harms another as anyone will tell you is not going to admit it. They will lie to get away with their crime.

    The Mccanns were very happy with the way PJ were working until the finger started pointing in their direction...then PJ became bumbling cops.


    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ironside, I don't think you are correct that the McCanns were happy with the PJ UNTIL the PJ's started pointing fingers at them as ARGUIDOS.

    I think the McCanns had a lot of misgivings about the way the investigtion was being handled but were trying to play this down as the McCanns knew they required the co-operation of the PJ's to continue the search for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. May 16: Madeleine's aunt Philomena lobbies for support at Westminster. Gordon Brown pledges to help "in any way he can". His eyes fill with tears as he holds her hand. Philomena said: "He was very emotional." Many MPs wear yellow ribbons. A fighting fund is launched at Leicester City's Walkers Stadium to support Madeleine's family and "bring her abductors to justice".



    xxxxxx

    Anon there are plenty of photos that the Mccanns were pleased to have taken of their smiling faces....all that changed on the day they were made arguidos....

    Aunt Phil..where is she....

    Article states "fighting fund" to support madeleines family and bring her abductors to justice...So, do we have more than one abductor?...shortly after the mccanns made two mortgage payments...

    This you will see was May 16th....maddie had been missing a matter of days.


    Nothing here about the search for madeleine. This was all about the mccanns and a publicity stunt from Aunt Phil...


    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tout à fait d'accord avec anonymous!
    A tort ou à raison les mccann ont été mécontents dès le départ du travail de la police. De nombreux temoignages font état de leur frustration dès les premières heures. C'est pourquoi ils ont décidé de prendre en main la situation en faisant à la sauce anglo-saxonne : maximum de communication.
    Ils n'avaient donc aucun intérêt de réouvrir l'enquête et (s'ils sont innocents) je supposent attendent de nouveaux élément pour faire réouvrir le cas. Ils ont d'ailleurs essayé avec Hewlett sans succès.
    Si on suppose qu'ils sont coupables alors leur stratégie est perverse.
    Mais si on suppose qu'ils sont innocents alors elle est cohérente.

    Enfin Ironside, as tu lu les questions? je n'aurai pas non plus répondu à certaines qui les auto incriminaient et qui sont choquante si on pense à l'état de stress dans lequel ils devaient être!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 14.59

    IRRELEVANT?!What kind of a mother would think something like that?!!!She was told by the police she was jeopardising the investigation by not answering those questions.It seems she was ok with it because she still continued to refuse to answer those 48 questions.It was her choice not to cooperate with the men and women who were trying to find out what had happened with her beloved daughter, the one she claims has benn abducted by a paedophile.....What a loving mother...
    If she had answered those questions she wouldn't be feeding an erroneous line of enquiry, she would be having the opportunity to
    show the police was wrong and to demonstrate she had nothing to do with her daughter's disapearence.That's what a innocent mother would think.

    "IF THEY KNOW THEY DIDNT DO IT"

    Do what anon?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The 48 questions are fully and correctly translated here - "The 48 questions that remained unanswered - Correio da Manhã" 03 August 2008- http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/08/48-questions-that-remained-unanswered.html

    So please, French anonymous & Company go and read that again. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with French anonymous and company, well said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To the person who replied to yesterday's comment about the elementary police procedure and said the GNR were the first to get to the apartment -- how does this matter? Would they not know ELEMENTARY police procedures and who would have sent the GNR to the apartment.

    As for the 48 questions, I am in complete agreement with the French Anonymous' comments.

    After this fiasco of a police investigation, I would not have had any confidence in the police force.

    As for Philomene McCann, after the treatment she received at the hands of the press, I think she was right to disappear from the public.

    Personally, I am glad that the various government agencies are refusing to be whipped into what some bloggers want.

    Justice belongs in court not on blog pages - citing one's opinion is fine but calling for people who may or may not be innocent to be put in jail is very, very wrong and interferring with the legal system (flaws and all).

    ReplyDelete
  10. French anon...any parent would be under stress if their child had been abducted...even more so if they were the guilty ones trying to hide a secret...The stress would be three fold.

    An innocent parent would answer anything to clear their names. Why if the mccanns are innocent have they made such a good job of making themselves look guilty?



    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 14;59

    why the hell would kate mccann continue to feed a line of enquiry which she knew to be completely erroneous?

    But she wouldn't have been 'feeding' an erroneous line of enquiry at all. She would simply have been helping police with their enquiries. It happens all the time, anon. Her answers could possibly have helped in eliminating her from said enquiries. The question remains: what the hell was she so afraid of?
    We are not dicussing a parking fine or drunk and disorderly order, anon. We are talking about a missing three-year old child, for God's sake. A three year old whose parents, as half the world now knows, lied about a break-in to bolster the abduction theory. Now why the hell would parents of a missing toddler do something like that, anon?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous @ 29/07/09 14:59
    wrote:-

    "IF THEY KNOW THEY DIDNT DO IT, why the hell would Kate Mccann continue to feed a line of enquiry which she knew to be completely erroneous?"

    For a couple who are evidently not averse to telling lies, The equal and opposite of this would be:-

    IF THEY KNOW THEY DID IT, why the hell would Kate Mccann continue to feed a line of enquiry which she knew to be completely true?!


    I believe any innocent mother, desperate to find her lost daughter would willingly answer any and every question put to her.

    Kate McCann refused to answer 48 police questions and that's a shocking betrayal of Madeleine, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. [Quote://I think the McCanns had a lot of misgivings about the way the investigetion was being handled but were trying to play this down as the McCanns knew they required the co-operation of the PJ's to continue the search for Madeleine ://end of quote]

    How dishonest can one be. The McCnns didnot search themselves at all, GM socking on a lollypop while PG was searching for the truth... The McCnns fooled the whole world and blame the whole world, knowing Madeleine will never be found. They caused the sad situation and blame others for it and sacrifice everybody, to stay out of jail themselves! How long will this last?
    "Our" poooor Madeleine, what happened to her!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Any concerned parent would have done anything to cooperate fully with the police. Any innocent parent would make sure that he/she is eliminated as a suspect ON DAY ONE so the police can fully focus on other possibilities. Any caring parent would have offered the police anything that they needed, in order to advance the inquiry at top speed.
    WHY did the PJ have to go through time-consuming, complicated international channels to get the information that ANY police force needs to eliminate a suspect - medical records, bank information, etc - when the McCanns could have given them that info within HOURS? Innocent people have nothing to fear and privacy matters little or nothing when YOUR CHILD IS AT RISK!!!

    This is what nobody can explain. This is what will never go away.

    WHY didn't the McCann couple DEMAND that the PJ put a tap on their phone? The ABDUCTOR could have phoned them to demand a ransom, any decent person would have thought about that.

    On the day that someone manages to explain ALL OF THIS - then I have another few innocent questions for the couple.

    INNOCENT they are not. Guilty of what? Time will tell.

    Justice for Madeleine will be done.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I like to add this to my earlier comment, read it on the 3A-forum:

    [Quote://
    I found some very interesting information. Clearly I'm not the only one that thinks something just isn't right. I'm not saying they murdered their daughter. I'm saying they should have been looked at a whole lot more closely than they were. It's as if they put themselves in a position of bullying and intimidating the investigators until the cowed. They created the potential for a ferocious backlash if anyone dared imply there was something abnormal about going to dinner with their chums and abandoning their children to their fates. Normal parents don't do this - the arrogant, foolish and entitled do this. Sounds like the McCann's to me."
    :// end of quote]

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 29/07/09 18.58

    Where on earth do you get your information from?

    Phillomena - treated badly by the press - I don't think so! Your last comments are the most interesting. We all agree that any criminal act should be judged in a court of law but the problem here is that nobody has appeared before a law court and the case remains unsolved. According to your line of thinking no further action is necessary therefore the case remains unsolved.

    If I may point out, the very things that you are accusing web blogs of perpetuating are the very same as bloggers consider to be crimes for which Clan Mccann are undeniably guilty. In particular, siting innocent victims to further their own ends and refusing to allow legal law enforcement bodies to operate effectively, if at all!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Justice belongs in court not on blog pages- citing one's opinion is fine but calling for people who may or may not be innocent to be put in jail is very, very wrong and interferring with the legal system (flaws and all).

    Really?You should tell that to your friends mccanns.They seem to think justice belongs in the media not in courts.They also seem to think that all the people they have been harrassing through their "private investigators" deserve to be blamed for a crime they did not commit and to be put in jail without a shred of evidence against them.They also seem to think that they have the right to insult and spread lies about a country, its people and its police force but they get very upset when people question what theu say and what they did. They can say what they want about anyone but the others can't talk about them?Are they special for any reason? And they were the ones (with the help of some friends) who interfered in the legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Little Madelaine died Portugal 2 years ago her parents know what happened to her. I don't think there are many people who would deny this. But no matter what we say on this or any other blogs. The facts are they remain innocent in law and untill the Portugese justice system stop acting like the clowns the Maccann,s know they are. and the Labour Govenment in England ( we all know they are clowns anyway) The Maccanns have got away with it They are laughing at everyone even their own dead daughter. Why is the Portugese justice system so slow in allowing a pair or wicked liars to outwit them all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If the process gets re-opened, can the Public Prosecuter demand the Mccanns' presence in court, as witnesses, is England than obliged to deliver them to Portugal for a couple of days, for new interrogations, and can the Public Prosecuter ask Kate(than as witness) all the 48 questions she refused to answer when she was still an arguido? As witness she would be obliged to answer all the questions. Can the Public Prosecuter demand David Payne's presence if he thinks it is necessary? Of can Amaral request it?

    Who can answer me these questions?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another question:

    Can the Public Prosecuter demand the presence of that ex- British Ambassador and the ex-consul and interrogate them?
    It has to do with the death of a innocent little girl and the responsible ones got away with it.

    A death, no tomorrow, no future for Madeleine.


    Another question:

    could it be that the person who received and kept the body, that night, knew an old grave in the sorroundings, where the child was burried later?

    ReplyDelete
  21. When are the Mccann's and the Pro Mccann's going to understand that at Public eyes they will be guilty forever, unless they re-open the case and allow a properly investigation done by official polices ( PJ or British, no matter) with a court to clear them after every step of the investigation being deep investigated and clarified with no doubts? This is the only way for them. IF THEY ARE INNOCENT... THEN PROUVE IT! APART ALL THE EVIDENCES THAT THE POLICE FIND ( and again I should remember that it is a huge error considering only PJ because it was a team of polices from Portugal and UK and sometimes with suport of Europol and Interpol) IT WAS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MCCANN'S AND THEIR FRIENDS WHICH START ALL THE SUSPICIONS.
    IF THEY ARE INNOCENTS...WHY:
    - They need to change the story of the door and the window of the flat, locked/open? It is impossible for anybody, even for the most irresponsable person, to not remember if the door from the flat where they live was left openned or closed with childs inside. Then, no place for two different statments in something which it is a fact. They lie about the way they left the door to suit the most convennient behavior at the beginning, which was showing the police that they did not neglect their childs. The problem starts when the only evidence in the window, was a fingerprint from Kate. No traces of the MOST WANTED ABDUCTOR force them to change the story to suit now the most convennient theory, THE ABDUCTION.

    -They spend 4 months in Portugal with excuse that they will not leave the Country as a family of 4 when they arrive as a family of 5, and runway on the same weekend they are made arguidos? Innocent parents will stay and fight with all the political influence (which we know they have) in Portugal, in locco, helping the police...answering all the questions and clarifying all the situations to erase any doubt involving their names and at same time forcing the police to follow all the lignes of the investigation with suport of Europol and Interpol. I just think on Filomena Teixeira ( mother of Rui Pedro) and other parents of child missed in Portugal.... How happy they will be if the police asked them thousands of questions when their childs disapeared? They will answer all of them to help geting close to any evidence.

    - Gerry Mccann answer so confidently the portuguese journalists immediatly after Maddie disapeared, with NO, when they ask him if somebody knowed by the family can be the abductor? The question have alots of sense if we think that the child disapeared few days after arriving in Portugal and from a private place. If they believe on an abduction then they should, at least considere also the probability of her being kidnaped by somebody which know's the behavior of the parents, which had problems with parents in the pass, somebody which follow the family from England and wait for a good oportunnity to finalise the crime. This was the only scenary which we can considere an abduction, but Gerry totally refuse it and was not happy with question. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Anonymous said...

    If the process gets re-opened, can the Public Prosecuter demand the Mccanns' presence in court, as witnesses, is England than obliged to deliver them to Portugal for a couple of days, for new interrogations, and can the Public Prosecuter ask Kate(than as witness) all the 48 questions she refused to answer when she was still an arguido? As witness she would be obliged to answer all the questions. Can the Public Prosecuter demand David Payne's presence if he thinks it is necessary? Of can Amaral request it?

    Who can answer me these questions?"

    When the process is reopened, the McCanns are automaticaly arguidos again, with the same rights and duties that they had before.

    The Ministério Público can summon anyone for questioning; whether people attend, in good faith, is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  23. IF THEY ARE INNOCENT... THEN PROUVE IT

    Depuis quand, dans une démocratie, on doit prouver son innocence????

    C'est à la police de prouver la culpabilité et apparemment elle n'a pas réussi.
    C'est parfaitement normal dans ces conditions que le MP ait classé l'affaire.
    A moins de penser que les juges portugais sont tous pourris et corrompus. Personnellement, j'ai plus d'égard pour la justice portugaise et suppose que la police n'a pas réussi à trouver des indices probants et concordant et uen scénario crédible qui impliquerait la mise en examen des mccann.
    Je ne sais pas si les mccann sont coupables ou innocents, ce qui est sur c'est que je ne crois pas à la théorie du complot, elle implique trop de gens pour être crédible à mon sens.
    Mais libre à vous de penser autrement et que le portugal est gangréné et aux ordres des anglais.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous who posts in French: you seem to be prepared to defend the Portuguese judicial system - the same system that stated that the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance because they were not in the room when it happened.
    Good grief, how anyone can defend this kind of reasoning and say that Justice was right in archiving a case that was - and obviously still is - riddled with contradictions, lies and loose ends, simply defies belief.
    Good for you that you can live peacefully knowing that a little girl was done such an incredible disservice by Justice, with the agreement (!) of her own parents.
    Maybe you can tell us why there is not a single police force - I said police force, not private "investigators" - actively searching for Madeleine? Because that's something that many of us simply cannot understand: how the McCanns allowed for this case to be shelved (and please spare us the mantra of "what else could they do" because it's painfully clear that they could have prevented it from happening).
    The Portuguese judicial system prevented the PJ from investigating the McCanns as thoroughly as it investigated Mr Murat, for example. Why the difference in criteria?
    The Portuguese judicial system, in this case, could have gone a lot further in the discovery of the material truth.
    Madeleine deserved more.

    ReplyDelete
  25. you seem to be prepared to defend the Portuguese judicial system - the same system that stated that the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance because they were not in the room when it happened.

    Ce n'est pas ce qui a été dit, mais qu'il n'existe pas de preuves de leur implication, pas plus qu'il n'existe de preuves d'un kidnapping.
    C'est bien ce qui me gêne car chacun peut en tirer une conclusion différente.

    Ce qui me fait douter de leur culpabilité personnellement est :
    - qu'avec tout ce travail minutieux d'enquête, aucune preuve matérielle qui serait valable devant un tribunal n'est venue accuser les mccann, et ce malgré des centaines de policiers, experts, spécialistes en tout genre qui ont tout tenté pour les coincer
    - que deux ans après les mccann continuent leurs actions, ont embauché des policers privés... n'étant plus arguido ils n'ont aucune raison de faire cela, bien au contraire des coupables se feraient tout petits.

    Maintenant, si les mccann sont coupables alors cette affaire serait la plus extraordinaire que l'histoire du crime ait à connaître avec des personnes d'une extrème perversion et extrèmement forts pour être passées entre les mailles du filet policier.
    J'en doute personnellement.

    Quant à Maddie, elle mérite que l'on connaisse la vérité, je ne suis pas sure que colporter des rumeurs commes certains journalistes tant anglais que portugais ont fait en soit le meilleur moyen.
    Les faits rien que les faits, or certaines pistes n'ont pas été totalement explorées, comme la piste polonaise (voir livre d'amaral).
    Peut être n'est ce pas impossible au fond que la petite ait été enlevée??? et voila où est le débat en ce qui me concerne car cela signifierait qu'un fou est en liberté et peut récidiver.

    Dans cette mesure je comprends les juges, mettre en cause les mccann directement et sans preuve matérielle est un risque enorme en cas d'erreur de jugement. Personnellement je ne l'aurai pas pris.

    ReplyDelete
  26. from albym in the 3 Arguidos forum

    "Thanks Jo, Astro and Kaz for that very clear explanation.

    I would just like to add, if I may, two additional facts about events in mid-2008:

    1 - Between 22 July and 4 August, the McCanns and their legal team(s) were granted a full 14-day (inclusive of weekends) head start on their access to the content of the case file (Processo). The law is clear in that the media should have been granted access at the same time, but the McCanns were granted that extra time before the media were given access.

    2 - As stated in the OP above, the law stipulates 20 days within which the instruction may be demanded by a competent party - that is, I believe, 20 working days. However, ostensibly because of the 'judiciary summer break', the McCanns were granted an additional 20 days until 20 September - double the time prescribed by law.

    The powers-that-were, at that time, bent over backwards to give the McCann teams the fullest opportunity to review the case and to push for an instruction phase.
    Had they done that, and had the Instructing judge declined to proceed to trial, then the McCanns would have been totally cleared of ALL suspicion.

    I say this because, as I understand it (and as noted in the article above), the Instruction phase is a FULL legal debate, including analysis of all the evidence as well as legal arguments from all parties. It is, for all intents and purposes, a formal "trial" held outside - not inside - a formal courtroom. Had they walked away freely after such an Instruction phase then it would, in effect, have been the equivalent of a full acquittal.

    For some reason they did not push for that Instruction phase in 2008. Why not?

    In my opinion, they were scared that something else might have been revealed to their detriment. To me, only such a fear could account for their not availing themselves of that opportunity, and I feel that the same fear persists to this day, and will to all future days."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good morning Jonan, I found this on a blog I have no idea if it is true have done a search and feel that if this were the case you would know about it more than I...However if true, it makes perfect sense why the mccanns have used the children also to sue Amaral...Either way the Mccanns get the money as they are directors of the fund.


    xxxxxxx


    McCann Children to Sue Kate and Gerry for Negligence!

    Legal Bastards
    Dr Suusi Watson 14/07/2009 03:46


    Madeleine McCann - One way or the Other
    UK - Hot on the news that Kate and Gerry McCann are to try and sue the Portuguese detective for £1,000,000-00 comes a surprise move taken by Mrs Justice Hogg on behalf of the McCann children.

    Just like cases where children are injured in car crashes by their parents, where the responsibility for the car crash lies with the parents. Mrs Justice Hogg has appointed a litigation friend for Madeline McCann and her siblings Sean and Amelie so that they can collectively sue Kate and Gerry McCann.

    As far as the Bastard's legal team can make out the action will claim that Madeleine would have been safe in the holiday flat, if her parents had been babysitting or had arranged for a babysitter to look after the children on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

    It is the failure of Kate and Gerry McCann to have baby sat or to have made use of the resorts excellent babysitting service, that provides the grounds for an action alleging Negligence on the part of the parents.

    A second string to the action is to protect any legal winnings for the children from the case against the parents, and against the Portuguese detective by placing any winnings in a trust fund administered by the court until the children's 18th birthdays.

    This has the side benefit of helping with the legal principal, that you should not be able to profit from ones misdeeds. In this case it would force the children's Parents Kate and Gerry McCann to use any winnings that they had to be used to continue the Find Madeleine fund. Thus preventing them form profiting from their negligence.



    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hope it is not true that, if the McCanns come to Alagarve when the process is reopened, that they immediatelly come as arguidos.
    They are not arguidos right now and they will arrive again as witnesess and victims.
    Amaral says he knows a lot more about the case. In this case it can be re-opened because of other reasons, reasons that were not used or known during the interrogations in september 2007.
    Like (I would ask) why did the Mccanns continue their close friendship with the Paynes after the Mallorca incident, knowing Madeleine was at risk. Why did Gerry allow David Payne to go to 5a at bath time.
    Why were they again spending vacation with him.
    Who knows, that witness in Mallorca knows more by now, from colleagues and friends, and is willing to come to Alagarve for more statements.
    Who knows that British lady who went to the McCanns, the day after,
    found out where she knows D.P.from and approached the victims who are willing to come to Algarve for a statement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "French anon: "qu'avec tout ce travail minutieux d'enquête, aucune preuve matérielle qui serait valable devant un tribunal n'est venue accuser les mccann, et ce malgré des centaines de policiers, experts, spécialistes en tout genre qui ont tout tenté pour les coincer
    - que deux ans après les mccann continuent leurs actions, ont embauché des policers privés... n'étant plus arguido ils n'ont aucune raison de faire cela, bien au contraire des coupables se feraient tout petits"

    HOW DO YOU ARRIVE TO THAT CONCLUSION? The Mccann's are not deep investigated because they used all the connections they can with politics and the Media to avoid and interfere on the police work... Even after a non deep investigation ( DONE BY A HUGE AND MULTI TEAM OF POLICES) ALL the lignes and the evidences pointed on the PARENTS DIRECTION. IT is a error if you considere that there was no evidences find by the police against the Mccann's. THERE WAS ENNOUGH EVIDENCES TO KEEP THEM IN PRISON AND WHAT WE DON't ACCEPT IT IS WHY THIS EVIDENCES ARE NOT BE CONSIDERED ON MCCANN'S CASE IF THEY ARE CONSIDERED IN OTHER CASES? No any oficial police refute the evidences keeped on PJ files.

    THE DOGS USED IN MANY OTHER INVESTIGATIONS WITH 100% OF SUCCESS MARKED CADAVER SENSE AND BLOOD ONLY ON MCCANN'S FLAT, CAR AND CLOTHES. SOMEBODY DIED IN THE FLAT... IF WAS NOT MADELEINE WHICH STILL MISSED, then who died there and was not reported to the authorities? A cadaver was transported on the Renault Scenic. The Renault Scenic was a rented car and normally rented cars are quite news and don't stay for long on rental compagnies. The police investigated all the previous people which rented the car and again everything pointed on Mccann's direction. A body was in the car with several DNA alels matching Madeleine. IF WAS NOT SHE, THEN WHO IS?

    YES... PORTUGAL IS A DEMOCRACY... AND ON THAT DEMOCRACY THE MCCANN" NEED TO PROUVE THAT THEY ARE INNOCENTS... because all the evidences ( and there is evidences) pointed on their direction and they managed to get ride of justice. WHY? In democracy it was suposed to get the same treatment for everybody because we are EGUALS UNDER JUSTICE EYES. But THE MCCANN'S ARE TREATED AS EXCEPTIONS FOR ALL THE BAD TASTE SITUATIONS THAT KEEP THEM RIGHT INSIDE AND IN THE CENTER OF A CRIME INVOLVING THEIR DAUGHTER.

    IF there was not a single evidence, yes I will accept that they should be considered innocent and it is with the police to investigate and bring the evidences. But the police find evidences and accordind with independent and international experts on criminology ( SOME ARE FROM FRENCH JUDICIARY POLICE) the evidences founded by the police are ENNOUGH TO BRING THE MCCANN'S TO THE COURTS AND TO PRISON.

    THEY WILL REMAIN SUSPECTS AND GUILTY FOREVER, AGAIN LEAVING A BAD AND HEAVY FUTURE FOR THE TWINS. They WILL GROW UP REMAINING THE BROTHERS OF A LITLE GIRL WHICH WILL BE FOREVER REMEMBERED- AS a victim of her parents ( ACCidental or not) and leaved out of justice after being used by her parents to became famous and rich. BUT THE MCCANN'S, AS USUAL, THEY JUST CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES AND LEAVE THE CHILDS AND THEIR PAIN ON THE LAST PLACE. IF THEY ARE INNOCENTS... PROUVE IT... FOR THE TWINS AND FOR MADELEINE MEMORY.
    Anyone of us will have a big fight with justice on the same situation. The Mccann's just wait for the case to fade, feeding the story with all the circus which can distract the public for the real foccus: THEM! That was O.J. Simpson strategy. He also managed to mannipulate the court one time... but not forever. The mccann's will fall one day aswell...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ironside, you're are great!
    What about getting married to me?
    You're a great help to Madeleine,Joana, Astro and us.
    I pray this is true!
    Maybe Tony Bennett can check on this for us.
    Mrs. Justice Hogg is a much better human being than a thought.
    Yeaah, great idea.
    It was already high time somebody would defend Maddie in England.
    I bet she saw Amaral's documentary and said:

    -"Wait a minute..."

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just checked on the Bastards, not because I don't trust Ironside but I wanted to enjoy that text again.
    Now, Mccanns, this is a problem, is't it?
    I can't wait.

    Nige, suddenly judge Justine Hogg became a beautiful woman in my opinion.
    I changed my mind!

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Aunt Phil..where is she....?"

    may be in a wellness farm to loose weight? (by the way Aunti Phil is a very "heavy" personality what is not healthy any way special if you have a cardiologist brother .
    but with a lot of money from the finde-Madeleine the whole family can now take care of their good life style.
    Aunti Phil, do you know how to realize if you are overweight?
    No?
    here the answer:

    If you lie on the beach and the nice people from Green Peace try to save you!

    sorry I am bad, Aunti Phil!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have no idea if this is true or where Dr.Suusi found this information...It does however make perfect sense when the mccanns said Madeleine and the twins along with the them are set to sue Amaral...as we all know by now the mccanns never do or say anything without a reason.

    Maybe they were advised sometime back to make the children a ward of court for this soul purpose.

    We never understood the reasoning behind it at the time.

    Who knows.



    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  34. Now thank god there is silence for the moment from the mccanns (wonder what they are plotting?) It is amusing to look back and see some of the reporting we were supposed to believe. Hewlett , was meant to be the man to end the poor mccanns suffering...odd then how this was the sketch drawn up by the description of Granny Cooper. ....and yet she was not at anytime interviewed about Hewlett...


    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article10662.ece



    IRONSIDE

    ReplyDelete
  35. Is the Mrs Justice Hogg case true or False having just seen the Bastards web site I am not impressed it may not be true, I hope it is but surely the press in the uk would have reported this.

    ReplyDelete
  36. An.,the press in the UK will never publish the steps of judge Justice Hogg.
    It would cost 1 million pounds to each news paper.
    The fact they are not publishing it could mean it is true.
    I pray it is true and not written by a person suffering of levytitis.
    Or duartitis.
    Joana, can you confirm this, please?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you so much for answering me this little girl's fate has affected so many of our lives she seems to be everybody's child. She did not deserve this.

    I do hope the Mrs Justice Hogg legal action is true but it seems too much to hope for. To date everything has gone the way the Maccanns want it to.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The mrs Justice hogg senario is not true

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just have a look at Gerry & Kate’s message on their website.

    They start by: “It is now more than two years since Madeleine was taken from us” (That’s an odd sentence. Shouldn’t it be: “since Madeleine was abducted?” Or do they mean ‘since she died’?)

    They say: “it is important that the person who took Madeleine Remains free” (shouldn’t that be ‘remained free’? Or aren’t they talking about an abductor that still poses a threat to other little children? Or do they know what happened, but it’s important, that the person responsible for taking Madeleine (‘s life) remains free?).
    Than they continue with: “Other children could be at risk from this person too” (so we’re not sure that this person is a man? But we do know it is just one person? Could it be a woman than?)
    Furthermore they write: “As such, Madeleine and possibly other children are dependent on good moral ‘everyday’ people to help them”. (Are we talking about the twins here?)
    And: “We kindly ask you to share this responsibility with us” (Are they begging us to put an end to the charade?)

    Than they continue:
    - There is absolutely nothing to suggest Madeleine has been harmed. (Aside from the cadaver odour in their apartment and their rental car. Or are they saying ‘it’ was an accident, but she didn’t really suffer?)
    - Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her. (Well, aren’t you and your detectives looking anymore? Why the use of the word ‘someone’? Shouldn’t ‘everyone’ be looking, shouldn’t ‘we all’ be looking, shouldn’t ‘the police’ be looking? Or will ‘someone’ be enough?).

    Let’s wait and see how long this message will remain on their website, without being altered…….

    ReplyDelete