Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

maebee

Chicke wrote: »

Again I'm open to factual correction. Maybe they did hire some gooduns?

Nope Chicke. The PI's they hired (for Madeleine) were all dodgy and inept (see previous page) but like you said, when it came to hiring lawyers (for themselves), they managed to hire the best.

maebee

Channel 4 Interview about The Fund and the hiring of Kevin Halligen:

http://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-search-fund-low-on-money

DexyDrain

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Where does it say in this article that offering to do a reconstruction would be considered "new evidence"?Nowhere! More nonsense lol!

Here is what the archiving dispatch says about re-opening the case:

"Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.



Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

And here is their report on the aborted reconstruction:


Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others...

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
*
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."


I think it is very clear an agreement to do the reconstruction would allow the reopening of the case.

maebee

DexyDrain wrote: »

Here is what the archiving dispatch says about re-opening the case:

"Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.



Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation."

And here is their report on the aborted reconstruction:


Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others...

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
*
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."


I think it is very clear an agreement to do the reconstruction would allow the reopening of the case.

Of course an agreement to a reconstruction would allow a re-opening of the case but it will have to happen by other means because the Tapas 9 will not agree to it. How can they live with themselves knowing they could have done something requested of them to help this little 3 year old girl but they refused? I just don't understand these people.

dark crystal

iamwhoiam wrote: »

doing a reconstruction and answering questions and co operating would have cost them nothing .I wonder why they didnt take that option .

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

The Portuguese police planned to hold a reconstruction, of the events of the night of Madeleine's disappearance, in May 2008. They asked the McCanns, their friends, and holidaymakers to attend.[141] However, the reconstruction was cancelled after the friends declined to participate

The McCanns did not refuse a reconstruction, their friends did.

Nope Chicke. The PI's they hired (for Madeleine) were all dodgy and inept (see previous page) but like you said, when it came to hiring lawyers (for themselves), they managed to hire the best.

From Wiki again:

At least five firms of private investigators have been engaged to make enquiries. At the end of May 2007 the McCanns hired Control Risks Group.[153] It was announced on 29 September that tycoon Brian Kennedy was paying for private investigators to search in Morocco.[73] Spanish agency Método 3 were engaged with the enquiries led by Francisco Marco.[154] It was disclosed in January 2008 that Hogan International, headed by Noel Hogan, former Metropolitan Police Detective Superintendent, was carrying out a cold case review, in conjunction with Método 3.[155] US-based investigation firm Oakley International was hired for six months in 2008 but it was decided in August not to renew their contract. Brian Kennedy, who underwrites the Fund, thought that their fees of around £500,000 were not value for money.[156] Oakley International owner Kevin Halligen, in November 2009, was being sought by the FBI on an indictment for fraud.[157] Allegations included the suggestion that he failed to pay over to investigators £300,000 that he had received from the McCann fund.[158] Another, unnamed, US organisation was engaged in August 2008, also on a £500,000 six-month contract, to lead the investigation. Método 3 were to continue to follow up information from Spain and Portugal.[159]
Portuguese lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia paid for the Barragem do Arade reservoir, 35 miles (56 km) east of Praia da Luz, to be searched by divers in early February 2008. He claimed to have received intelligence from underworld sources that Madeleine had been killed and dumped in a lake.[89] The initial search was unsuccessful but it resumed in the middle of March, funded by the Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia e Construção.[160][161] Several items were found in the reservoir. Initially discovered were several lengths of cord, some plastic tape and a single white, cotton sock.[162] Then two plastic bags, one containing small bones, were found on 14 March,[163] but the bones were confirmed to be those of a small animal and Correia gave up the search for lack of funds.[164]

So at least two of the private investigators were hired by people other than the McCanns.
Only Halligen was found to be in any way dodgy and even at that, there could be no way the McCanns could know he might try to defraud money!

Mistyeyes321

dark crystal wrote: »

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann



The McCanns did not refuse a reconstruction, their friends did.




From Wiki again:



So at least two of the private investigators were hired by people other than the McCanns.
Only Halligen was found to be in any way dodgy and even at that, there could be no way the McCanns could know he might try to defraud money!

Shocking with Friend's like this who need's Enemies?. What is wrong with these People?! A three year old Child is missing & I don't care what their Poxy excuse is they should have done this for this Child! It's the very Least they could have done! Forget about the PJ we're talking about this Child. It's nothing more than a Disgrace shame on them I hope they can sleep at night!

maebee

The Portuguese police planned to hold a reconstruction, of the events of the night of Madeleine's disappearance, in May 2008. They asked the McCanns, their friends, and holidaymakers to attend.[141] However, the reconstruction was cancelled after the friends declined to participate

The McCanns did not refuse a reconstruction, their friends did.

Some friends they are. Your beloved child is missing and it's ok that your friends refuse to do a re-construction which might help find her?

iamwhoiam

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Shocking with Friend's like this who need's Enemies?. What is wrong with these People?! A three year old Child is missing & I don't care what their Poxy excuse is they should have done this for this Child! It's the very Least they could have done! Forget about the PJ we're talking about this Child. It's nothing more than a Disgrace shame on them I hope they can sleep at night!

maebee wrote: »

Some friends they are. Your beloved child is missing and it's ok that your friends refuse to do a re-construction which might help find her?

The big question is why though ,There must be reasons that we dont know about why any decent human being would refuse to help find a little girl .Will the reasons ever be known I wonder .

TheZohanS

dark crystal wrote: »

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann



The McCanns did not refuse a reconstruction, their friends did.

More revisionism.

According to Sky News reports, the controversial plan was abandoned after several members of the 'Tapas Seven' were not able to attend.
Kate and Gerry McCann had already decided not to return to Portugal for the reconstruction of the night of their daughter went missing.
The couple said the re-enactment would do “absolutely nothing” to help find their daughter, who was three when she vanished from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in May 2007.
Mr and Mrs McCann, who are arguidos or suspects in their daughter’s disappearance, had been asked by Portuguese police to return to the Algarve along with the seven friends on holiday with them at the time.
Detectives wanted to stage a reconstruction at the Ocean Club complex where the McCanns were dining, leaving Madeleine and her younger siblings in the unlocked apartment nearby.
But the couple, from Rothley in Leicestershire, have decided not to go back.
A source close to the McCanns said: “There are no plans for Kate and Gerry and their friends to return to Portugal. They have all indicated their intentions to the police.
“The reconstruction will only take place if Kate and Gerry and their friends agree to take part. If they don’t agree it will not happen.
“Kate and Gerry have had grave reservations about the value of it. If the reconstruction was going to help Madeleine, nothing in the world would stop them taking part.
“But Kate and Gerry and their friends cannot see the point of all the disruption it would cause to their busy work schedules and families if, as they believe, it will do absolutely nothing to help find Madeleine.”
The couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate and Gerry and their friends remain committed to doing anything to help find Madeleine.
“I don’t want to comment on what they have told police but, if they do not return to Portugal, it is because they feel it offers no value and no assistance in finding Madeleine.”
Mr Mitchell said that if the reconstruction was televised with the chance of bringing in new leads the McCanns and their friends would agree to do it.
He went on: “They would welcome a Crimewatch-style reconstruction which is properly broadcast for millions of people to see and could generate important new leads and fresh information.”
But Portuguese police said they did not want the reconstruction to be filmed.

Source.

maebee

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The big question is why though ,There must be reasons that we dont know about why any decent human being would refuse to help find a little girl .Will the reasons ever be known I wonder .

Hi iam. We have to hope that the reasons will be known sometime. Hopefully SY will uncover the truth. In 2007 David Payne said in an interview with a British journalist "We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours"
Very strange.

maebee

“But Kate and Gerry and their friends cannot see the point of all the disruption it would cause to their busy work schedules and families"

Indeed. Shur it's only a missing 3 year old. :mad:

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

Hi iam. We have to hope that the reasons will be known sometime. Hopefully SY will uncover the truth. In 2007 David Payne said in an interview with a British journalist "We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours"
Very strange.

One of the great oddities in the whole sad tale ,a pact that stops you help find a child must lie heavely on ones mind .

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

Hi iam. We have to hope that the reasons will be known sometime. Hopefully SY will uncover the truth. In 2007 David Payne said in an interview with a British journalist "We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours"
Very strange.

Interview source? For context.

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann



The McCanns did not refuse a reconstruction, their friends did.




From Wiki again:



So at least two of the private investigators were hired by people other than the McCanns.
Only Halligen was found to be in any way dodgy and even at that, there could be no way the McCanns could know he might try to defraud money!

Wiki is very good but it can be biased, especially with something like this, as The Zohan showed.

dark crystal

TheZohan wrote: »

The couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate and Gerry and their friends remain committed to doing anything to help find Madeleine.
“I don’t want to comment on what they have told police but, if they do not return to Portugal, it is because they feel it offers no value and no assistance in finding Madeleine.”
Mr Mitchell said that if the reconstruction was televised with the chance of bringing in new leads the McCanns and their friends would agree to do it.
He went on: “They would welcome a Crimewatch-style reconstruction which is properly broadcast for millions of people to see and could generate important new leads and fresh information.”
But Portuguese police said they did not want the reconstruction to be filmed.

Why did the Police not want a televised reconstruction? Surely the whole point of a reconstruction is to find any potential new witnesses?

Mistyeyes321

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The big question is why though ,There must be reasons that we dont know about why any decent human being would refuse to help find a little girl .Will the reasons ever be known I wonder .

It might be because as has been said on this thread, These people don't trust the PJ. My thinking is what harm could it do?. How do these people know nothing will come from it?! How could they possible know what could come from a reconstruction?! Apart from the fact the Timelines arn't true & this would prove it beyond any doubt I mean!
Putting that on oneside it still wouldn't stop me from taking part because just maybe there could be something come out of it in a Positive way...Meaning they could find this Child...They already took enough chances leaving all their children alone night after night, Yet they are prepared to run the risk of never knowing what they could have found out from this reconstruction, Yeah there might be nothing comes from it, still they have Nothing to Lose & maybe something to Gain I know which one I would choose! I couldn't live with myself knowing I didn't do everything I could have. Shocking!

ISDW

Can I ask what people think the point of a reconstruction is?

I would see it as a way of jogging people's memories that were in the vicinity on the night in question, I think thats usually why they are done.

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

Wiki is very good but it can be biased, especially with something like this, as The Zohan showed.

No, Wikipedia is a neutral source of information. If you visit the Wiki site concerning the disappearance of Madeleine, it includes all sides of the story, including critisism of both the Portugese police and the McCanns.

I think it's a little disingenuous to critisise Wikipedia for being biased, when much of the information posted on this thread has come from anti McCann websites, in fairness.

iamwhoiam

dark crystal wrote: »

Why did the Police not want a televised reconstruction? Surely the whole point of a reconstruction is to find any potential new witnesses?

Or to jog the memories of those directly involved .If you reconstruct a scene it jogs memories and you remember details you may have archived or forgotten or simply not taken in fully at the time . I am sure the police us reconstrutions many times that is not televised to aid those closest to the scene to re visit and maybe give helpful new details ,

DexyDrain

ISDW wrote: »

Can I ask what people think the point of a reconstruction is?

I would see it as a way of jogging people's memories that were in the vicinity on the night in question, I think thats usually why they are done.

The PJ report makes it very clear that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements could only be tested through a reconstruction.

For example, Jane Tanner sees the 'abductor' walking past the top of the road, but two witnesses deny ever seeing her walk past along that road at all.

Gerry and Jane disagree what side of the road he was on.

How did Jane Tanner walk past the window and shutters opened by the abductor and not notice?

How did Matt walk in to the apartment, see the two cots but not notice the open window and shutters behind them?

Jane gives a detailed account of what the 'abductor' was wearing and the colour of the pyjamas worn by the abductee, it was dark and the lighting was poor, is it reasonable she was able to make out colours etc.?

Kate gives a very cinematic, vivid account of doors slamming and curtains blowing open, given the sliding door was closed, is this a reasonable account given the door had not slammed during the previous 40 minutes?

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

No, Wikipedia is a neutral source of information. If you visit the Wiki site concerning the disappearance of Madeleine, it includes all sides of the story, including critisism of both the Portugese police and the McCanns.

I think it's a little disingenuous to critisise Wikipedia for being biased, when much of the information posted on this thread has come from anti McCann websites, in fairness.

I'd say more unreliable than biased.

DerekWaters

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say more unreliable than biased.

Yeah wiki can be edited by anybody. It is often the source for spoof stories.

The sky interview with the McCanns spokesman confirms that Gerry & Kate did not want to take part in the re-construction.

I doubt there is any set of parents who's child was abducted that would not agree to a re-construction, it is bewildering to hear some posters on here making excuses for it.

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say more unreliable than biased.

Ah, I can't win this one can I??

Wikipedia is unreliable, Kate's book is unreliable.... yet the anti McCann quotes are never pulled up as being so! That Wikipedia site doesn't seem unreliable to me at all, in that it seems to be neutral and informative - no untruths in there as far as I can see.

By the by, I suspect the Tapas 9 are fairly mistrustful of the Portugese police, therefore, I reckon that's why they are resisting a 'private' reconstruction. It does say in Zohan's link that they would be willing to do a televised one - wouldn't that cover the same bases and also jog other potential witnesses memories as well?

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah, I can't win this one can I??

Wikipedia is unreliable, Kate's book is unreliable.... yet the anti McCann quotes are never pulled up as being so! That Wikipedia site doesn't seem unreliable to me at all, in that it seems to be neutral and informative - no untruths in there as far as I can see.

By the by, I suspect the Tapas 9 are fairly mistrustful of the Portugese police, therefore, I reckon that's why they are resisting a 'private' reconstruction. It does say in Zohan's link that they would be willing to do a televised one - wouldn't that cover the same bases and also jog other potential witnesses memories as well?

Wiki is good as I said but it's unreliable. The Zohan posted the quote.

Oh look............there's a brick wall over there.

dark crystal

K-9 wrote: »

Wiki is good as I said but it's unreliable. The Zohan posted the quote.

Oh look............there's a brick wall over there.

DexyDrain

dark crystal wrote: »

It does say in Zohan's link that they would be willing to do a televised one - wouldn't that cover the same bases and also jog other potential witnesses memories as well?

When you read the emails in the PJ files that went back and forth, it seems that the 'televised reconstruction' suggestion only came up when the relevant procedure and codes under Portuguese law were presented and they specifically state publicity around such reconstructions should be avoided as far as is possible.

DerekWaters

dark crystal wrote: »

there is a quote on sky TV that directly contradicts the wiki link,,,,,,


But you know that already

dark crystal

DerekWaters wrote: »

there is a quote on sky TV that directly contradicts the wiki link,,,,,,


But you know that already

How did it directly contradict the Wiki link? It said basically the same thing, except for the fact the McCanns spokesman gave reasons as to why they refused to take part in such a reconstruction.

I didn't get the brick wall comment was all.

Anyway, looks like I'm on my own trying to defend the McCanns here again, so I'll take my leave and let ye all get on and read all the 'proper' links.

geetar

can the mods move this thread to the conspiracy theories forum so it can die in peace instead of taking up all of AH because of repptitive posting by what seems to be around only 5 different people....

dark crystal

geetar wrote: »

can the mods move this thread to the conspiracy theories forum so it can die in peace instead of taking up all of AH because of repptitive posting by what seems to be around only 5 different people....

It's more than 5 people, but I actually agree with you.

This has turned into one huge conspiracy theory thread now at this stage. There's no use anyone who believes the McCanns may actually be innocent posting here any more, tbh.