1st?

3rd??

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1292278,00.html

Kate and Gerry McCann have refused to rule out legal action against Portuguese detectives for failing to find their daughter.

Is any one going to sue them for leaving minors unattended?

Funny though how everyone gets the blame of neglect except for the parents.

A REMINDER THAT PARTS OF THE NEW BOOK ‘MADELEINE 129′ ARE BEING PUBLISHED ON THE NET

[also re 822 Batman yesterday]

Tony Bennett says:

*** **** EXTRACTS FROM NEW BOOK ‘MADELEINE 129 **** ***

Here’s an extract (below) from the book due to be formally published on 15 November - the day after the McCanns and others from the Find Madeleine Fund meet up for their trustees’ board meeting. And it’s not looking too good for the McCanns and the other members of the ‘Tapas 9′. There’s some strong stuff, and more’s being posted as I type, over at:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=26083

EXTRACT FROM ‘MADELEINE 129′

Quote:

While the staff of the tourist resort and the locals were frenetically looking for the child basically anywhere, Gerry was on the phone and Kate merely waited. One of the couples in their company at dinner was standing by apartment 5A near Kate. Of the remaining friends, there was not a trace. At that time, a little after 23:00, we remind readers, “each one of them was in its apartment”, a source at the Ocean Club informed us. Why did the people with affection ties to Maddie and the McCanns gave up the searches so early?

How to interpret the behaviour of these parents who had just lost their daughter? And how to explain the absence of the couple’s friends?

Since psychology is the science that studies human behaviour, we again seek the assistance of Professor of Clinical Psychology Quintino Aires. “When we are unable to solve a problem that means something to us, we cannot stop thinking about it and we have an absolute need to talk with other persons about what’s happening. Being an emotionally motivated response, it doesn’t depend on the culture of the person in question. It’s called “the Zeigarnik effect”, the name of the Soviet psychologist of German origin who studied this phenomenon, that today is known by all social psychologists. If the parents and the friends of the little girl went into their rooms to sleep, it’s because they knew where she was.”

Unquote:

How can the PJ be sued when facts were not told to them in the first place, obviously.
Why do the McCanns need PR!! Children go missing and to my knowledge there has not been a PR machine for the family, or anyone threatening to sue to authorities

5 dutchbird asked:

“Is anyone going to sue them for leaving minor unattended?”

REPLY: Yes. The papers required for an application for a summons to be issued in the Leicestershire Magistrates Court against both McCanns for child neglect are now in an advanced state of preparation. This will be a private prosecution by a concerned citizen who believes that the offence of child neglect, Children and Young Person Act 1933, can be proved. Here are some extracts from the documents:

QUOTE (EXTRACT)

The evidence that Gerald McCann and Kate McCann committed the offence of child neglect, contrary to Children and Young Persons act 1933, from 28 April 2007 to 3 May 2007 by leaving their three children unattended for significant periods of time:

Below is the evidence that will be led in support of the allegation that Mr Gerald McCann and Mrs Kate McCann committed the offence of child neglect from 28 April 2007 to 3 May 2007 at the Mark Warners Holiday Complex between 28 April 2007 and 3 May 2007:

Statement of Kate McCann published in ‘The Independent’ 5 August 2007:

“Maybe it was because it was family-friendly, because it felt so safe. That week we had left them alone while we had dinner. There is no way on this planet I would take a risk, no matter how small, with my children. I do say to myself ‘why did I think it was safe?’ But it did feel safe and so right. I love her and I’m a totally responsible parent and that’s the only thing that keeps me going. I have no doubt about that.

You don’t expect a predator to break in and take your daughter out the bed. It could have happened under other circumstances and there would still be the regret. It wasn’t like a decision we made. It was a matter of ‘let’s get the kids to sleep, then we’ll have dinner.’ It wasn’t a ’shall I, shan’t I?’ thing. I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren’t there”.

Statement of Gerald McCann on his blog:

“There is a very upsetting story on the front page of a British National Newspaper today. The headline suggests that Kate and I face prosecution for neglecting our children by dining 50 yards away and checking on them regularly. We know that there has been criticism in some quarters of our actions but at the time, we felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at now being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.

We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken. These types of criticism, particularly at this stage, as well as being hurtful are extremely unhelpful in the search for Madeleine. From the moment we discovered Madeleine missing Kate and I have done everything in our power to try and help get her back.

Our opinion now is completely clouded by what has happened to us and of course has sent shock waves through thousands of families. The real issue is that we should not have a constant fear of abduction of our children from their bedrooms, gardens or streets for that matter. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve and no one should forget that the real criminal is the predator who has taken a completely innocent child in such a premeditated fashion. It is this act that has wreaked havoc on our family and affected millions of other people”.

Relevant law

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 c 12

Cruelty to persons under sixteen

Section 1

(1) If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.

Case precedents

(1) R v Jasmin

In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to Section 1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.. Lord Justice Law in summing up stated that: “…there was no evidence of any physical harm resulting from this neglect [but] “that both parents had difficulty in accepting the idea that their child was in any danger”.

Jurisdiction in England and Wales

It is submitted that by virtue of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (see Article 17 below) that if the parents are resident in England and Wales and are alleged to have committed the offence of child neglect whilst temporarily abroad, then the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to try the case. I reproduce below an extract from the official Internet reference to Article 17, reference:

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text’cid=70

HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, RECOGNITION, ENFORCEMENT AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (Concluded 19 October 1996) (Entered into force 1 January 2002)

Article 17

The exercise of parental responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence. If the child’s habitual residence changes, it is governed by the law of the State of the new habitual residence.”

END OF EXTRACTS

amended (my apologies for the silly spelling errors) …

I’ve finally realised why it has taken the police so long to track down Madeleine (alive or …) - other than them not doing their jobs properly from the get-go! They seemed so easily swayed by the media’s speculation, instead of focusing on following all evidence which is right under their noses. Now I wonder who are the actual puppets around here, and just who are the puppeteers?

As we all know in the beginning the PJ’s dawdled while the McCann’s campaigned - allowing all DNA to age. At that stage the McCann’s only seemed to show emotion when anyone suggested that Maddie might be dead. Is there anyone out there who thinks that the McCann’s intention was to play the ‘Pied Piper’ and lead masses away from the truth with their campaigning - with the hope that all DNA would age knowing most tests would prove inconclusive …?

What happened about the polygraph (lie detector) tests the McCann’s offered to go for? Oh yes, if I remember correctly their spokesman Mr Mitchell squooshed this thought before the public got ideas about them really going for it! Pity, even though it is not admissable in most Courts around the world … at least we would know the truth! Gawd … there is no mystery unless you want to make it one by avoiding the truth!

MARINA

Exactly the macscams were doing all the direction, always in the opposite direction to where the /body of evidence lay’.

12 marina

Actually no ———many many criminals have passed lie detectors tests 3 times or more including one female who over 14 years smothered no less than 7 of her own kids and 3 she had adopted ( to replace the ones she offed )…..she passed and passed and passed. That criminal psychologist on the 5 documentary about The Criminal Mind reckons they simply get into denial ,and so pass with ease.

This lot need a truth drug which they cannot control and Clarence will never allow that…and not acceptable in court either.

Dead before dinner is a popular theory on Anorak..I always said here I suspect Kate walloped her because she would not go to sleep before dinner and she died, possibly from bashing her had on wall and having brain hemorrhage… others also believe the before dinner theories are a possible.

All allegedly of course. Otherwise it was the speedy opportunistic “abductor”………….. who managed to see, in tealeaves ,these little windows of opportunity.

17 Tony Bennett
I hope that works. Britain today has a child neglect charter thanks to the McCann’s.

17 - Tony Bennett - Best news I’ve heard for a long time. What do you think are the chances of success?

People who know much more about this than me…assuming the McCanns are hiding something, do you think CM / their legal team know the truth?

EXTRACTS FROM THE PAPERS WHICH WILL ALLEGE CHILD NEGLECT AGAINST THE MCCANNS

The evidence that Gerald McCann and Kate McCann committed the offence of child neglect, contrary to Children and Young Persons act 1933, from 28 April 2007 to 3 May 2007 by leaving their three children unattended for significant periods of time:

Below is the evidence that will be led in support of the allegation that Mr Gerald McCann and Mrs Kate McCann committed the offence of child neglect from 28 April 2007 to 3 May 2007 at the Mark Warners Holiday Complex between 28 April 2007 and 3 May 2007:

Statement of Kate McCann, ‘Independent’ newspaper, 5 August 2007

“Maybe it was because it was family-friendly, because it felt so safe. That week we had left them alone while we had dinner. There is no way on this planet I would take a risk, no matter how small, with my children. I do say to myself ‘why did I think it was safe?’ But it did feel safe and so right. I love her and I’m a totally responsible parent and that’s the only thing that keeps me going. I have no doubt about that.

You don’t expect a predator to break in and take your daughter out the bed. It could have happened under other circumstances and there would still be the regret. It wasn’t like a decision we made. It was a matter of ‘let’s get the kids to sleep, then we’ll have dinner.’ It wasn’t a ’shall I, shan’t I?’ thing. I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren’t there”.

Statement of Gerry McCann:

“There is a very upsetting story on the front page of a British National Newspaper today. The headline suggests that Kate and I face prosecution for neglecting our children by dining 50 yards away and checking on them regularly. We know that there has been criticism in some quarters of our actions but at the time, we felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at now being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.

We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting and subsequently been assured that no action will be taken. These types of criticism, particularly at this stage, as well as being hurtful are extremely unhelpful in the search for Madeleine. From the moment we discovered Madeleine missing Kate and I have done everything in our power to try and help get her back.

Our opinion now is completely clouded by what has happened to us and of course has sent shock waves through thousands of families. The real issue is that we should not have a constant fear of abduction of our children from their bedrooms, gardens or streets for that matter. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve and no one should forget that the real criminal is the predator who has taken a completely innocent child in such a premeditated fashion. It is this act that has wreaked havoc on our family and affected millions of other people”.

Relevant law

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 c 12

Cruelty to persons under sixteen

Section 1

(1) If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable-

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively…or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.

Relevant case law

(1) R v Jasmin

In R v Jasmin, L (2004) 1CR, App.R (s) 3, the Appellants had left their child aged 16 months old alone in the home for periods of up to 3 hours, whilst they went off to work. This happened on approximately three separate occasions. The Appellants were both found guilty of offences relating to neglect contrary to Section 1(1) Childrens’ and Young Persons Act 1933 and were sentenced to concurrent terms of 2 years imprisonment.. Lord Justice Law in summing up stated that: “…there was no evidence of any physical harm resulting from this neglect [but] “that both parents had difficulty in accepting the idea that their child was in any danger”.

Jurisdiction in England and Wales

It is submitted that by virtue of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (see Article 17 below) that if the parents are resident in England and Wales and are alleged to have committed the offence of child neglect whilst temporarily abroad, then the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to try the case. I reproduce below an extract from the official Internet reference to Article 17, reference:

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text’cid=70

HAGUE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, RECOGNITION, ENFORCEMENT AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN (Concluded 19 October 1996) (Entered into force 1 January 2002)

Article 17

“The exercise of parental responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence. If the child’s habitual residence changes, it is governed by the law of the State of the new habitual residence.”

22 Savenay
“do you think CM / their legal team know the truth?
yes i do…
and i think it’s a problem as it could lay them open to charges of perverting the course of justice - as other posters here have written
this has other implications too
just as we are seeing cracks appearing in the taparatti 7’s “pact” - for individuals to save their own arses, i think we may see the same braking of ranks in the spin machine - and maybe in the financial backers - i.e. beardie, the window cleaner and rowling…
much fun awaits, i fear

TB - Reading the onfo you just posted it seems they dont stand a chance then on neglect charges.

22 - savenay - I am not sure if Clarrie knows if they are guilty or not. I think he has to say he beleives in them because thats what he is paid to do. What does annoy me is that he is constantly saying they are completely innocent. He wasnt there at the time, how can he be so sure? unless of course, he does know more than we do.