Madeleine McCann: Bobby Hands, Cannes And A Hunger For Publicity
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
As Leslie Felperin, the excellent reviewer for Variety magazine remarked to me: the newspaper-reading public can’t be persuaded to react in the same way: they care about Madeleine McCann in a serious mood, or in a non-serious mood, they care about Sir Alan Sugar or Simon Cowell. The idea of actually caring about a violent arthouse film investigating the life of Bobby Sands is a very tall order indeed.
Fact and fiction - the story of Madeleine McCann
Posted: 27th, May 2008 | In: Broadsheets, Madeleine McCann Comments (562) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
May 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
227 val
i’d get ozzy osbourne to play the part of tanner
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
165 jo
” joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/05/pj-forbidden-to-read-mccanns-mobile ”
Also from that article:
QUOTE
(…) 24horas, confirms that the Portuguese Justice system is also reviewing the occurrence of the practice of the crime of exposure by abandonment of a minor, punishable under the Penal Code with a sentence of between 3 and 10 years in prison.
END QUOTE
This sounds quite reasonable. It would be most interesting to know whether there has ever been a prosecution in a similar case under this paragraph.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
227 val
well we all knew the wretched people would not have spines
if i were the pj, i’d stage a reconstruction anyway, using actors
and film it
excellent sport
May 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I say just make ‘em all f’ing arguidos!!
May 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi everybody, breaking news!!
Madeleine: Recovery of missing annulled by the absence of four players - PGR
May 27, 2008, 16:00
Lisbon, May 27 (Lusa) -
The reconstitution of the facts concerning the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann, scheduled for Thursday and Friday, was cancelled due to lack of four contributors, today informed the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) .
According to a note of the PGR, the investigation was “given no effect” due to “no show already announced” four friends of the couple McCann who were on holiday in the tourist resort of Praia da Luz, Algarve, when the child disappeared, May 03, 2007. Kate and Gerry McCann showed willingness to participate in rebuilding the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, but their friends put in question the validity and the proposed model.
“Basically, it is not up to Gerry and Kate [the completion of restoration] because they are defendants and, if requested their presence, they will have to go”, recently assured the spokesman of the couple, Clarence Mitchell, the Agency Lusa.
Everything depends on friends, who were also invited to go but, as they are not defendants have the right to question the usefulness of the exercise and whether vai help find Madeleine - and the answer now seems to be no, “he said.
A reconstitution of all steps taken by parents and friends present at the time was suggested by the Judicial Police (PJ) about a month, the first by the lawyers of the McCann and then convened by individual.
CC / WB / CF.
Lusa / End
———————————————————————
I think we all guessed this would happen, now let”s guess who the 4 are!!!
I would say, JT and O”B and Oldfield and Webster.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
223
Ferdinand Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
212 jo Says:
” Ferdinand
Hiding a corpse following an accident wouldn’t be that severe.
On which planet do you live? ”
” joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/05/pj-forbidden-to-read-mccanns-mobile ”
From the court decision linked there, by Google translation:
QUOTE
This item is all the more relevant constitutional as a matter of criminal prosecution for exceptions to the inviolability of telecommunications are not the rule, or rather, are counter-rule. Indeed, in ordinary law stands, even in matters of criminal procedure, the interference in telecommunications is only allowed in cases of the type of crime correspond to the legal catalogue of crimes whose seriousness and social relevance of social peace that allows interference (see Art. 187. of the CPP). ”
END QUOTE
So there is a catalogue of serious crimes where phone tapping can be allowed, and it can be found in Art. 187 of the Portuguese code of criminal procedure.
——————————————————
And always remember that Metodo3 is best known for their skill in telecommunications; hence the photo of Marco’s Mummy in handcuffs…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
On Joana Morais there is a beautiful piece entitled “what are the chances”.
I highly recommend reading of this, and perhaps distribution of it.
Not one of these questions raised could one dispute and that is what makes up truth.
The indisputable.
Imagine one editor, willing to risk all to uncover a really big story.
He does not even need to do anything other than publish a brilliant article.
Anyone out there willing.
Anyone.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
218
âde Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
it would be interesting to have to prove an accident took place
especially if the body is well and truly disposed of
what fun
———————————————
Now that is a truly nasty thought.
What fun, indeed…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
212 jo Says:
” Ferdinand
”
Hiding a corpse following an accident wouldn’t be that severe.
On which planet do you live?
” joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/05/pj-forbidden-to-read-mccanns-mobile ”
From the court decision linked there, by Google translation:
QUOTE
This item is all the more relevant constitutional as a matter of criminal prosecution for exceptions to the inviolability of telecommunications are not the rule, or rather, are counter-rule. Indeed, in ordinary law stands, even in matters of criminal procedure, the interference in telecommunications is only allowed in cases of the type of crime correspond to the legal catalogue of crimes whose seriousness and social relevance of social peace that allows interference (see Art. 187. of the CPP). ”
END QUOTE
So there is a catalogue of serious crimes where phone tapping can be allowed, and it can be found in Art. 187 of the Portuguese code of criminal procedure.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
219
sam Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
this is the translation of the document
—————————–
Thank you, Sam.
Interesting that it took place before the 3 month extension was granted…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
216
âde Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I asked Salomon ES whether Portugual has any equivalent to our ‘causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult’ provisions, and he says not.
It carries a maximum 14 year sentence…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
213
âde Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
so hiding a corpse is not severe…
how about if someone collected money fraudulently?
i’d have thought stuff like contents of laptops and mobile phone activity would be fair game to nail ‘em
didn’t pj take murrat’s laptop - and the russian chappie?
where’s the human rights there?
————————————————————
I think there’s a real difference between trying to cover up an accidental death and murdering someone.
I also think that both Murat and Malinka are pretty happy that they did have their computers checked by professional forensic computer examiners, not least because they can prove there was nothing on them to cause suspicion in any way.
If Team McCann has to resort to trying to avoid questions on their use of mobile phones then inevitably sooner or later their professed claim to leave no stone unturned in the search for their daughter must be called into question.
Just as their refusal to honour their undertaking to return to Portugual calls their professed claim into question…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
this is the translation of the document
http://tinyurl.com/4rkdf9
as i understand it, the pj sought permission to access files from three telecommunication companies relating to a list of phone numbers they had in the case of madeline maccann. the judge refused this access stating that it wouldn’t be legal for the companies to release such information (and possibly they may not even be allowed to hold such information) because at the time there hadn’t been a listening or similar order in place ( i might be wrong on that) and as such giving the pj permission to access the files would violate privacy laws. the pj requested two types of information, information regarding the content of sms and text messages, and, information regarding location, time ,duration. both were denied as the judge see’s no distinction between content and place, time duration etc.
as such the pj have been denied permission to apply for information from the three telecommunication companies.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
it would be interesting to have to prove an accident took place
especially if the body is well and truly disposed of
what fun
May 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Sam…. I think sometimes the papers like to sensationalise and ’shackled’ to the bed is a far more emotive word than ‘handcuffed’. I didn’t read the story so am speculating!
Was she in prison or out in hospital?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
this one should put the frighteners on the wretched couple
“Girl, 7, believed starved to death at family home
Two people have appeared in court charged with neglect after the death of a seven-year-old girl, police said yesterday. There were reports that neighbours had said the girl had starved to death, but police pointed out that the cause of death had yet to be established because a post mortem examination has not been carried out.
West Midlands police named the child as Khyra Ishaq, from Handsworth, Birmingham. She died after being admitted to hospital at the weekend.
Angela Gordon, 33, and Junaid Abuhamza, 29, believed to have been Khyra’s mother and stepfather, were charged with causing or allowing the death of a child between May 9 and May 17. They appeared before Birmingham magistrates court on Monday and were remanded in custody until next Wednesday.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/22/ukcrime.childprotection
i reckon disposal of a body is pretty serious stuff
May 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
211
Ferdinand Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
209 chenier Says:
” I would have thought that the alleged kidnapping of a three year old child was a severe crime… ”
If that’s alleged. Hiding a corpse following an accident wouldn’t be that severe.
—————————————–
Certainly not, in my view; the difficulty is that the childs’ parents are alleging that she was kidnapped, which takes us back into choppier waters.
I’ve pulled up another reference to the use in our Courts:
‘Cell site evidence of the activities on Murphy’s phone suggested that the call made on his mobile phone at 10.28pm was made in the vicinity of Greenbank Park. This information, served on the morning of the first day of the trial, caused particular embarrassment to Murphy because it contradicted the terms of his defence statement that he was at home at the material time, and he was compelled to explain in evidence the fact that his defence statement was false.’
Heron v R. [2005] EWCA Crim 3245 (21 December 2005)
I’m assuming that the Prosecutor enjoyed that morning…
May 27th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
201
Surely not Jose Pacheco, Eric Britt, Haynes Hubbard or Paul Seddon so whose robes, Gandolf?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
so hiding a corpse is not severe…
how about if someone collected money fraudulently?
i’d have thought stuff like contents of laptops and mobile phone activity would be fair game to nail ‘em
didn’t pj take murrat’s laptop - and the russian chappie?
where’s the human rights there?
May 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
211
Ferdinand
Hiding a corpse following an accident wouldn’t be that severe.
On which planet do you live?
May 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
209 chenier Says:
” I would have thought that the alleged kidnapping of a three year old child was a severe crime… ”
If that’s alleged. Hiding a corpse following an accident wouldn’t be that severe.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
208 chenier
nice one
May 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
207
Ferdinand Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
203 chenier Says:
” See Raphael & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 (13 May 2008) for the use of mobile phone evidence in a murder trial here… ”
In case of murder or other “most severe” crimes, the rules may well be different.
——————————————————–
I would have thought that the alleged kidnapping of a three year old child was a severe crime…
May 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
194
âde Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
i think ted was talking to him in his tractor in the lower field last week
—————————————————–
Did he have waist-length hair?
He always claimed it saved him a great deal of time and energy, though not in obvious ways.
I once accompanied him to Bramshill, where he was giving a lecture to some very, very keen people; he walked out onto the platform, waited for the gasps of horror to subside, and said:
“Gentlemen, you don’t have to worry about people who look like me.”
Long pause.
“You do need to worry about people who look like you.”
May 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
203 chenier Says:
” See Raphael & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 (13 May 2008) for the use of mobile phone evidence in a murder trial here… ”
In case of murder or other “most severe” crimes, the rules may well be different.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
193
coolandcalm Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Sam… they don’t get shackled in UK prisons. Best we do is handcuffs going to and from court etc. and cuff them to the beds if they’re in hospital.
US have shackles… are you not in UK?
US jail is far harder than here.
oh, was that story from the us then, the one with a pregnant woman being shackled?, i thought that was here.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
181
sam Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
‘They may be able to use other info, such as times and locations?’
i’m not sure if they can or not. it’s quite difficult to read that it makes sense.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
i’m beginning to think the odious ones may be feeling a little uncomfortable
and the other seven too, especially if they have been saying porkies
the “pact” seems to be going through a tough time and i’m wondering if one of them will break ranks
excellent entertainment
just been reading (on a site that rhymes with Mcconnpiles) that the reconstruction was scheduled for thursday this week
nice fun to set the weekend off to a good start
May 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
192
val Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
182 jo
I was just signing off and saw your post. the reason the Judge refused permission for
the phone evidence is to do with Human Rights and Privacy. I think the same principle
would be used in a U.K. Court.
——————————————–
No.
See Raphael & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1014 (13 May 2008) for the use of mobile phone evidence in a murder trial here…
May 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Gandolf, Sledgie annd Soothsayer all back.
It must be Old Mr Anoraks birthday. They’ve declared a general amnesty
M and A
Gandolf has been back a while, they are on best behaviour however.