Madeleine McCann: Jasper Gerard - What I Did On My Holidays
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
PRIVATE Eye reports that Telegraph columnist Jasper Gerard – a sometime sports writer who surely needs billing as ‘Jaspie G’ - marked the first anniversary of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance by travelling to Portugal with his wife and two children.
He also, allegedly, took along a security guard for baby minding duties.
Sadly, the reported investigation was never published, it being said to be too revolting for the paper’s Travel Editor, although it may yet appear in the main news section…
Mr Gerard has not replied to the rumour…
Posted: 29th, May 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (348) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Anorak on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Paul Wainwright on The Pirelli 2010 Calendar In Artful Nudity (NSFW)
- yampster on X Factor: Hairy Jordans Jedward To Star On I’m A Celebrity And Coronation Street
- Pete on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity Watch: Katie Price Is More Hated Than Baby P’s Mum
May 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
44
xklamation Says:
that’s a good link, lots of newspaper reports on it. interesting is also how it throws up related stuff/names. thanks
May 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Rasputin
I haven’t got the legal background to dispute your assertions about European law, and the legality of the various legal systems from every country in Europe. I am happy to leave it to Salomon, whom I trust to be learned and accurate.
I repeat, though, what I just said, I don’t think Portugal or my country have got illegal systems. I didn’t know that Europe had laws which were above every country’s, and opposed to them. I don’t think the court of human rights in Strasbourg judges the Portuguese, or French systems illegal, and fights them. Or does it?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Rasputin - stick to the questions and see if you’re able to structure a solid enough argument.
Start with the fundamentals - WHICH EUROPEAN LAWS deem the arguido status illegal?
I feel you’re particularly tense today. What about Aberdeen?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Salomon ES, I know you have no idea, I am glad to see that you admit to it. You obviously have no idea as you readily admit about European law, Aberdeen has that effect on people.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
This is for Duncan, please scroll.
Looks like a ringer Duncan.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WzvbVZRL7O8&feature=related
M and A
Saul, have emailed the link to Duncan, in case he misses it later , June
May 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
70 Rasputin
This is getting a bit boring. Arguido status is illegal under WHICH European Law?
It’s not because you repeat it that it is accurate.
Let me try again… There is no case in law that tells me that the arguido status as defined in the Portuguese CPP is illegal or incompatible with any relevant provision in international law.
On the “retrospectively” thing… I’m really sorry but I have no idea what you’re on about.
But do keep trying.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Salomon ES, I would hope that you would agree that if a law is on the statute book, and is available to be used legally under any relevant circumstances, that any attempt to prevent that legal usage, would be perverting the course of justice.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Marie Nicholas, I repeat arguido status is illegal under European law, the Portuguese also breached their own laws by retrospectively addressing this particular case, so that it was not subject to the new legislation which brought Portugal into line with general European law, to which they had signed up for.
Mods and Admin
Rasputin you are just repeating yourself ad nauseam, now please provide sources for your claims, both that arguidoship is illegal under EU Law and that the Portuguese retrospectively broke their own laws.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
56 Rasputin
I forgot to add a non-legalistic element to this discussion but that may be relevant.
The use of European HR laws to combat any possible charges and convictions is a right that assists every European citizen (and indeed non-European as we have as recently as yesterday when an HIV-infected African citizen was “legally” expelled from the UK according to the ECHR in Strasbourg).
However, we need to be cautious (and politically sensitive) with trying to use these laws not to enforce what are fundamental rights of the individual, but to circumvent the enforcement of criminal laws from another EU member state.
Today in the corridors of many institutions responsible for overseeing judicial cooperation within the EU, the United Kingdom is known to have a very poor track record when it comes to judicial cooperation with other EU countries. The political backlash of using the Strasbourg courts to obstruct justice being served in another Member State of the EU could potentially have devastating effects for British institutions, judicial and diplomatic interests.
I personally, would find that very interesting (from an academic point of view)…
May 29th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Jo 65
As far as I understand the status of “mis en examen” is about the same as the arguido status, and our system is very similar to the Portuguese’s, with the secrecy laws for investigation and “instruction du dossier”. I never heard it was illegal. It protects the rights of the person, and a serene process of justice.
I still hope the PJ will be able to progress in the case and whatever the result, it will be very interesting, and will help understand the truth.
I also think it was less damaging for the MCs and friends not to allow a re-construction than it would have been to let one be done. They’d rather give food for thought and suspicion to the public, than risk a re-construction, and its consequences. Doesn’t it say a lot?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
McCann re-make is vital, 29 May 2008
McCann re-make is vital The Sun (No online link, appears in paper version only)
Kelvin MacKenzie (Editor of the Sun 1981-1994)
29/05/2008
I am puzzled at the refusal of the McCanns to fly to the Algarve today for a police reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared.
It is said they are suspicous of police motives and do not believe it will help find their daughter.
Are they really the best placed people to make that decision? after all, they remain the leading suspects in the case and despite Portuguese police handling the investigation badly, the law remains their best hope for justice.
Already the McCanns have tried worldwide publicity - including roping in the pope - and that didn’t work.
They have taken the public’s money and spent it on £50,000-a-month private detectives, and that certainly hasn’t worked.
Those with decent memories may well recall these private eyes claiming they would have Madeleine home by christmas.
So why wouldn’t the Mccanns and the Tapas seven try one more throw of the dice ? according to a “friend”, it would have disrupted their family and business schedules.
Their “schedules” have already been disrupted and tragically will remain so for as long as Madeleine remains missing.
Could I urge them to have a change of heart and co-operate with the police.
Until they do so my personal jury will remain out.
*********
The wind is blowing in an other direction
It is going to be a “mediatic lynch”
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id79.html
May 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
56 Rasputin - I obtusely disagree.
Let us first try to frame what the case you’re trying to build. What do you mean European Law? Do you mean European Community Law (in which case we’d be talking not about the ECHR)? Or are we talking about teh European Convention on Human Rights?
Firstly I diagree with the assertion that arguido status as defined in the portuguese penal code is incompatible with the ECHR. I do not find any provision in European Community Law - notably the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (from which the UK has negotiated an opt-out) that could be used to attack the legality of the arguido status as currently defined by the CPP.
Secondly I disagree with the assertion that the McCanns in this particular case would have standing to lodge a complaint in Strasbourg without exhausting the national courts of appeal (by-passing the national courts). The complainant must have used all the remedies provided to him/her in Portugal that might have been able to redress the situation they are complaining about. This will mean further appeals to higher courts such as the supreme court or constitutional court in Portugal.
Thirdly, I disagree that a possible recourse and eventual ruling by the Strasbourg court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that the arguido status (as determined in the CPP) is incompatible with the convention would deem any possible convictions against the McCanns void. They should have to bring forward substantial evidence that the arguido status has influenced or affected the decision of the national court.
Finally, any suggestions that the applications to the ECHR in Strasbourg would in anyway delay extradition or affect Portuguese court proceedings is ill-informed and maybe naive. Having said that, I don’t mind that the McCanns and their lawyers entertain that idea… no harm whatsover.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
63
Marie Nicholas
No.It is not againt the european parliament,otherwise they would not be arguidos.
Very simple
What do you think about the last news?
The spin is unwinding,isnt it?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
LP said……… That’s what pigeons do - nit pick
they also crap all over my conservatory roof and eat the fruit off the trees…… wood pigeons and doves galore.
Or are you one of Ken’s flying rats?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Rasputin
Are you sure arguido status is against European law, as we have something similar in my country, and I never heard it was illegal as regards European law?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
56
Rasputin
May 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
60
coolandcalm Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Jass 55. Right or wrong that is how I see it.
LP….. lost me again with your nit-picking. Your problem with me is?
That’s what pigeons do - nit pick
May 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Coolandcalm 39
In France, nobody knows about Ben Needham.
Everybody knows about Madeleine MCann. People don’t follow the news about the investigation everyday, but when they learn you are interested, they ask - “Quest-ce que ça devient? ” (Something new about the case?). Then they usually say how they don’t really trust the parents’ account of the facts. I can tell you people are patiently waiting for the end of the investigation. It is one case they aren’t going to forget. We had one case like that years ago: l’affaire Gregory, which we still rememeber vividly, though the murderer of the little boy was never caught. (It was most probably a family thing. The mother was suspected, but nothing could ever be proved against her. Her phone bills had a very sudden rise in them which was very telling and that she couldn’t explain, but it wasn’t enough for the courts).
People here will be very interested again as soon as the secrecy laws don’t apply any more.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Jass 55. Right or wrong that is how I see it.
LP….. lost me again with your nit-picking. Your problem with me is?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
so, have the boogers been buggered yet???
May 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ooo, I do so hope it will be Jecca Craig!
May 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Salomon ES, I do believe you are being deliberately obtuse, arguido status is against European law, therefore the McCanns can petition the EHCR direct, without exhausting the Portuguese Judicial system, they can simply by-pass it. EAW’s will also take time to obtain if they are ever requested, adding more time to the McCann’s legal teams window of opportunity, all down to the dithering of the PJ. They had the arguidos in the palm of their collective hands, and the Prosecutor refused to back up his PJ Inspectors request to hold KM.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Xclamation:
BTW, I meant no criticism of the blog - quite the opposite.
I just wonder why cool and calm is saying the latest news means little, and trying to compare it with the totally different case of Ben Needham.
She paints a scenario where someone goes for heart treatment in a few years: “Mr McCann…that name rings a bell.
“Oh, yes, I remember. Did you ever find out what happened to your Madeleine?”
May 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
coolandcalm says:
because of my views on the case you seem to think that I want it to fade away
Um….I think you just gave yourself away there sweetie
Noone said that. I think you’re thinking out loud again! You give a lot away you do.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
48 Rasputin - you talk too much, too early and yet don’t seem to answer my question.
Would the possible incompatibility (that you allege) of the arguido status Codigo de Processo Penal with art 6 of the ECHR deem any conviction of the McCanns by a portuguese criminal court void - or it would not?
It’s a yes or no answer. You’re a qualified lawyer aren’t you?
May 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
49
xklamation Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
c&c - glad you don’t use my blog as a reference.
Don’t try to hide your head in the sand - you know perfectly well what your did and your actions were commented by many here in Anorak,
……………………………
Explain what you mean please.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Sam… LP…. Well DUH, I could have linked to that!! It was easy…… however 24 horas is on a par with the National Enquirer so any story from there needs double double checking. (even the National Enquirer gets it right sometimes. Law of averages!)
because of my views on the case you seem to think that I want it to fade away. I don’t, if I did I wouldn’t be here. I want whoever is responsible to be charged. If that did turn out to be the paresnts / friends /murat / the priest / a passing psycho it matters not. Just get whoever did it is my wish.
I genuinely don’t think it was the McCanns but that is my opinion.
I was stating a fact that the story is fading and the longer it goes on the less likely it is that the perpetrator(s) will be caught. Which is of course a shame for Madeleine!
May 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
thanks xklamation, will look at it later.
must be off now. 
May 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
c&c - glad you don’t use my blog as a reference.
Don’t try to hide your head in the sand - you know perfectly well what your did and your actions were commented by many here in Anorak,
as Paulo Cristóvão said about Nacho Abad: “parvoíce não é crime”.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Salomon ES, European law does not countenance the unfettered application of suspicion, or of holding one a suspect indefinitely.