Madeleine McCann: More Evidence, Tony Parsons Knows And Claims
MADDIE WATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns win right to see key evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance held by police”
The parents of Madeleine McCann today won the right to see key documents held by police relating to her disappearance.
Won?
The McCanns had planned to take Leicestershire Police to the High Court but no case was heard as the force agreed to give them access to 81 pieces of information gathered as part of the investigation.
Progress? Elsewhere, in the same online article:
The couple, who are both 40, are not expected to attend today’s hearing in London before Mrs Justice Hogg…The hearing is scheduled to take place in the High Court’s family division, although it will be held in open court.
Such is the news.
DAILY MIRROR: “Portuguese police to rule out Madeleine McCann abduction theory”
Portuguese police have decided that Madeleine McCann could not have been abducted, it was claimed yesterday.
Claimed.
They believe the youngster died in her family’s rented holiday flat in Praia da Luz.
Believe.
The newspaper Correio da Manha said a 50-page report, handed to prosecutors last week, reveals “new and strong doubts” about Gerry and Kate McCanns’ claim that their daughter was snatched.
So says a report about a report in a Portuguese newspaper.
TONY PARSONS: A case of cruelty
It happens less and less these days, simply because the story of Madeleine McCann is slipping from the news.
But every time that little girl’s face appears on the TV screen, our five-year-old daughter looks up and says exactly the same five words: “Did they find Madeleine yet?”
That little girl, the one who disappeared.
Somebody knows something. Almost certainly more than one person knows something. It’s not enough to shrug and walk away.
The Mirror’s Lori Campbell didn’t shrug.
Posted: 7th, July 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann, Tabloids Comments (522) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
July 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
230
Noseycow Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I don’t know where Gandy got the stuff he posted; it’s not a full judgement to my knowledge.
It may be, of course, what the Judge wants published. I shall wait to see what goes up on Bailii.
I don’t think we will ever know what all the orders were; the one we do know about has turned out to be a disaster.
Though Clarrie is spinning, the reality is that both SOCA and the Attorney General lined up with the criminal investigators here and in Portugal, and not the McCanns.
And the McCanns very expensive lawyers have been made to look rather foolish…
July 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
253
Noseycow Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
G&G
You forgot this part of the Judges Statement.
I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.
————
Nosey
They were just being kind.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
#
250
Julie Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Garth, we work in cents here not pence. And I can say what the FUCK I want to say here, as long as it doesn’t lead to a libel suit! Geddit now?
—————
Well im talking in pence luvvy.
Now Justice Julie’
You always seem to jump on the band wagon when its ‘ ave a got at another poster time’.
Noseycow said her piece. No need for you to stick yer nose in.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
G&G
You forgot this part of the Judges Statement.
I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2262506/Madeleine-McCann-Judge’s-plea.html
July 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
#
248
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
No Garth. I’m not getting it. I’m not falling for your spin. Now stop wriggling and start believing.
I’ll try to get on later - i gotta train to catch.
—————
Ah right, so the clueless bit aint working now so we’ll use the ’spin’ approach.
Go and catch that train for gawds sake and when you come back I’ll look forward to your take on it.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
243
Julie Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I have noticed VERY few posters here doing that sort of thing
============================================
Julie, when I said that a while ago I was told that there were lots……???? Not imo though.
Surely it’s Madeleine that should seek attention, not individual posters?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Garth, we work in cents here not pence. And I can say what the FUCK I want to say here, as long as it doesn’t lead to a libel suit! Geddit now?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
245, Thank you, nosey! My brain is rotating!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
No Garth. I’m not getting it. I’m not falling for your spin. Now stop wriggling and start believing.
I’ll try to get on later - i gotta train to catch.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
#
243
Julie Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
239
jo Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
To try and blame an entire nation like Portugal and its police force for the selfishness of 2 in-human beings is just not on
____________________
I have noticed VERY few posters here doing that sort of thing - the only ones I’ve seen are here to disrupt anyway! Could you name a few? You have offended many English people here. I realise you are very passionate about wanting Justice for Madeleine, but why alienate your fellow posters in the process?
————-
Why have you always got to get your 10 pence worth in?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
BabyJane
I understood that these 81 pieces of information were from people who origionally contacted the mcC’s legal team but then didn’t give them any information.
This may have been for many reasons, but I would imagine that most genuine informants would possibly contact the police in the first instance.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
#
238
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
If you’re trying to tell me that out of 1100 pieces of information that the police had they only wanted 81 then you’re a fool. A funny one at that so don’t go away xx
—————-
You firkin idiot!
The 81 pieces were in connection with any information which may be deemed helpful to the McCanns in their own investigation. It would have been the police themselves i guess who would have sifted through the crap which they felt relevant to aid the McCanns cause. The rest of the info would have been irrelevant.
M and A
Less of the name calling Garth.
Remember your heroes are SUSPECTS , and they are not entitled to know what the evidence against them is
Now are y ou getting it?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
239
jo Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
To try and blame an entire nation like Portugal and its police force for the selfishness of 2 in-human beings is just not on
____________________
I have noticed VERY few posters here doing that sort of thing - the only ones I’ve seen are here to disrupt anyway! Could you name a few? You have offended many English people here. I realise you are very passionate about wanting Justice for Madeleine, but why alienate your fellow posters in the process?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Very interesting thread - I would have understood nothing just from reading the official newsreports. And thank you, chenier, for explaining.
Maybe the question now is stupid and proves I haven’t in fact understood anything, but is it possible that the 81 pieces of information are mostly “sightings”?
M and A
Yes it was about the sightings. As suspects they are NOT entitled to know anything else.
As point of interest the main headline on the news is about wastage of food, and not the MCC
July 7th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I love it when you bite
July 7th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
236
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
————-
Wrong again. Clueless is another poster.
Any what do you mean clueless? Do you mean you havent got a clue yourself? Explain Mr firkin know all…………
July 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
If you’re trying to tell me that out of 1100 pieces of information that the police had they only wanted 81 then you’re a fool. A funny one at that so don’t go away xx
July 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Garthy
It tells me that they’ve got 81 potential law suits pending to feed the fund.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
234
Garth Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
#
229
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Garth. You said you love it. Now tell me which bit. I’ve read it. I don’t love it so now you tell me which bit you love or is it simply too hard to understand or is it that you don’t actually have a clue what you’re talking about?
——————-
I think it more a case of you dont actually understand what im talking about. But I’ll give you a little help so you can have a good old think about it.
The police hold 1100 pieces of information apparently but the McCanns were happy with only 81 pieces which were obviously relevant to their own private investigation.
Now what does that tell you pigeon pie?
It tells me exactly what I thought about you garth. Clueless.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
HIya Muddler - nice to see you again.
Don’t leave it so long next time
July 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
#
229
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Garth. You said you love it. Now tell me which bit. I’ve read it. I don’t love it so now you tell me which bit you love or is it simply too hard to understand or is it that you don’t actually have a clue what you’re talking about?
——————-
I think it more a case of you dont actually understand what im talking about. But I’ll give you a little help so you can have a good old think about it.
The police hold 1100 pieces of information apparently but the McCanns were happy with only 81 pieces which were obviously relevant to their own private investigation.
Now what does that tell you pigeon pie?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
bye muddler
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
anyway, i’m off. c u sometime!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
227 Jo
Grow up! This isn’t a game.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Thanks Chenier.
No chance of finding out what ‘other orders’ they were granted in order to assist in the search for Madeleine then?
Judgment of Justice Hogg:Madeleine went missing on 3/5/07 a few days before her 4th birthday while on holiday in the Algarve. On 17/5, Madeleine parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Children and Custody Act and the Hague Convention. They sought various Orders and Directions to assist in ascertaining her whereabouts. Madeleine became a ward of court
And the comment about the courts not knowing if she is alive also strikes me as rather odd.
Judgment of Justice Hogg: edit ..It is not known if she is alive, but there is no evidence to the contrary
So if the court admits that they do not know whether she is alive or not, is the wardship still legal?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Garth. You said you love it. Now tell me which bit. I’ve read it. I don’t love it so now you tell me which bit you love or is it simply too hard to understand or is it that you don’t actually have a clue what you’re talking about?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
216
chenier Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
182
Noseycow Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Chenier
Who could have predicted 14 months ago that the delightful McC’s would set themselves up against the Police.?
Presumabley not Mrs Justice Hogg, the british press or even the PJ…. now if they’d only read anorak
—————————————
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
It is extraordinary for a Family Court Judge to have to deliver a judgement relating to a minor in open Court; I know of no precedent.
There have been a lot of complaints down the years that the Family Courts had gone rogue; that was probably why the Lord Chancellor put a commercial lawyer as the new Head of the Division rather than someone from the ranks. That was why they started publishing at least some anonomysed judgements; the aim was to dispel suspicion that the Judges, lacking the restraint imposed by public awareness, were doing more or less what they pleased.
Parliament has enacted at considerable length legislation governing how people can obtain information from others, backed up by an entire structure of a specialist organisation and a Tribunal to rule on requests which cannot be resolved. There are specific provisions relating to the Police and other law enforcement bodies.
Justice Hogg appears to have thought that she could drive a horse and cart through Parliament’s provisions, and issued, in secret, an order which the McCanns’ lawyers could serve on anyone it thought fit demanding information about Madeleine.
The McCanns’ lawyers used that order to demand all 11,000 pieces of information held by the Leicestershire police.
And that was when the ordure hit the airconditioner.
The Leicestershire police, perfectly properly, refused, and the McCanns attempted to get the Family Court to enforce the order issued by Justice Hogg.
The Attorney General and SOCA added themselves as parties to the litigation alongside the Leicestershire police, since the order was clearly contrary to the public interest, and should never have been made in the form that it was.
And Justice Hogg was forced to amend her order in public this morning since it was the public interest which had been damaged by the Mccanns’ action against the police under her order.
All in all a good day for Madeleine and a good day for us, as well…
—————–
ahhhh, the beauty of your clarity! deserves many bumps.
makes me wonder whether the esteemed judge had thought through the implications of that wide-reaching and potentially damaging order?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
he likes your point now too lone!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#
220
Lone Pigeon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Now garth, after Cherniers last post - which bit do you love again me ol mucker?????
—————–
Think! Else you’re gonna be a lone stuffed pigeon!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
210 Nosey
At last!!
Glad you said that cos I would probably have been banned….again!
She goes way too far but…gets away with it.
Why??