The McCann Case

This is an attempt to unravel the facts & the many varied & changing claims surrounding the death, abduction or dissapearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3, whilst on holiday with her parents and younger siblings in Portugal, on the night of 07-May-2007, to try to establish the truth.

Thoughts On Prosecution Considering Details On Twitter re #McCann & #Michael_Wright …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Thoughts On Prosecution Considering Details On Twitter
re #McCann & #Michael_Wright …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:

Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

See also:
‘Clear grounds for the prosecution of
Kate & Gerry McCann’

CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Left alone as babies unattended in a holiday flat, in a foreign country, whilst they went out carousing with chums in a tapas bar.
Their gross & criminal irresponsaibility led to the irrefutable fact that as a result of their action Madeleine McCann disapeared that evning and has not been seen since!
There have been claims made by some that they believe the children were drugged with legitimate medical drugs to make them sleep and as a result Madeleine died and the death was covered up by the parents, others claim there is a possibility of infantiside, some believe Madeleine woke and wandered off looking for her parents – less plausibly of course is the possibility of abduction.
Whatever the cause the outcome was that Madeleine McCann has not been seen since that night was that her parents left their 3 babies alone and unattended, left alone in an irresponsible and selfish act of hedonism by their parents was the one undeniable action that made that outcome possibility.
Sickeningly from the facts presented on Twitter and published below the parents are so concerned that the truth may come out or at least be discussed and speculated on that they have recruited and funded people to ‘run flack’ and deflect people from such natural discussion – be they private detectives, lawyers or a group of vile trolls – like the self styled Michael Walker who we are given to understand is their friend Michael Wright.
Below is just one thread on the subject on Twitter:

Oct 5

mandie

🇬🇧⌛️

Retweeted bluesoup

being caught out (again) being a liar! This mouthpiece is your typical pro troll

mandie

🇬🇧⌛️

added,

s appealing to trolls to stop the abuse on line and on twitter. Look at your supporters who are the most abusive

Another belter from the vile pork loving bum trolls!

what about the autism one and the root vegetable court case. …disgusting abuse in the support of the s

Oct 5

Apparently whoever doesn’t believe the are paedophiles

Says the creep who said that

Oct 5

Oh yeah! We had a huge laugh at that gem😂 he’s no idea

Calling a cancer sufferer a vile leach was one of his greatest hits!

He still posting🙂. How are you ? We’ve been discussing the nasty shits which run the Walker account.

He doesn’t seem to post on the McCann case much now. I think the Walker post deflated him a bit, it was so hurtful & disgusting

Replying to and

Walker is Michael Wright close friend of the duo. he knows what happened he was over in PDL hes paid to monitor, and derail!

Replying to and

thanks for the info – I must say I am not surprised as he is clearly as vile a personality as the duo as they are reported to be by friends of mine who have had the misfortune of working with them! Time to prosecute on ‘s behalf!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

LEAVING KIDS ALONE!

LEAVING KIDS ALONE!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

See also:
‘Clear grounds for the prosecution of
Kate & Gerry McCann’

CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

NSPCC –

Guidelines on when it is acceptable to Leave children at home alone State unequivocally

  1. Babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
  2. Parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect if it is judged that they placed a child at risk by leaving them at home alone

Do be minded that the 3 McCann babies, and yes I do mean babies as the eldest was Madeleine and she was not yet four and in the eyes of the law she was a baby/toddler left in charge of two much younger babies, they were not even left at home – they were left in a strange appartment in a foreign country, where she could not even speak the language!

What the law says

Strange as it may seem, there’s no set age for leaving children home alone. The law simply says that you shouldn’t leave a child alone if they’ll be at risk.

There’s such a wide variation in the rate that children mature that it would be almost impossible to come up with a “one size fits all” law. Instead, the choice is left to parents. They know their children best and can use their own judgement.

Girl baking cake

That’s not to say that there are no laws on leaving children home alone. Under the Children and Young Persons (England and Wales) Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and the Children and Young Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect. This means that they can be fined or sent to prison if they are judged to have placed a child at risk of harm by leaving them at home alone, regardless of where in the UK the child lives.

There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them. They would not be able to protect themselves in an emergency and may even try to leave the property to find you.

NSPCC advice on leaving a child at home

  1. Babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
  2. Children under the age of 12 are rarely mature enough to cope in an emergency and should not be left at home alone for a long period of time
  3. Children under the age of 16 should not be left alone overnight
  4. Parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect if it is judged that they placed a child at risk by leaving them at home alone
  5. A child should never be left at home alone if they do not feel comfortable with this, regardless of their age
  6. If a child has additional needs, these should be considered when leaving them at home alone or with an older sibling
  7. When leaving a younger child with an older sibling think about what may happen if they were to have a falling out – would they both be safe?

Things to consider before leaving a child home alone

No one knows your child quite as well as you do – so use your knowledge of what they’re really like to answer these questions. This won’t give you a definite answer about whether the time is right to leave your child alone at home, but it’ll certainly give you plenty to think about.

  1. Does your child seem to be responsible and mature for their age and always do what you tell him or her?
  2. Would they be able to fix themselves something to eat and drink and would you be happy with them using the cooker or microwave?
  3. Can you imagine how they’d cope in an emergency like a power cut or a flooded bathroom?
  4. Would they know what to do if the phone rang or someone came to the door?
  5. Would they know how to contact you or another family member or friend if they needed to? Do they have these contact numbers to hand?
  6. How would they feel about being left alone – pleased to be given the responsibility or scared by the thought of it?

But remember, if you or your child are even the teeniest bit unsure about leaving them at home on their own, it’s always best to be on the safe side and arrange some other kind of care for them such as a babysitter or childminder.

There is no doubt or argument which exhonourates Drs. Kate & Gerry McCann for having left their 3 babies alone and unattended in a rented flat in a foreign country where they didn’t even speak the language. Do be minded they were not left alone whilst the parents popped out, which would have put the babies at risk, but whilst the two Doctors left their babies to go out carousing with chums in a tavera some 100 yards away out of sight and sound of the babies.

However often they may claim to have returned to check them merely shoqws they knew clearly they were at risk and the periods between visits were the very cause of the outcome that night when Madeleine allegedly went missing.

Had these 2 Doctors acted responsibly and ensured the 3 babies were not abandoned, either by remaining with them, taking them with them or by ensuring they had an approved baby sitter Madeleine would still be in their care as a teenager now!

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

See also:
‘Clear grounds for the prosecution of
Kate & Gerry McCann’

CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

McCanns Plough In A Further £500K of The Money They Have Raised To Keep Cover Going …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
McCanns Plough In A Further £500K of The Money They Have Raised
To Keep Cover Going …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

See also:
‘Clear grounds for the prosecution of
Kate & Gerry McCann’

CLICK HERE

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

many 1,000s of gullible donors paid in hard earned money to help fund a search for Madeleine McCann, yet it seems the McCanns have spent that money on much else and now it seems that includes their lost case to try and suppress the evidence and opinions put forward by the Lead Police Enquiry Officer covering the case, in Portugal.

I presume their actions against Tony Bennett, who gave his opinion and drafted a long list of questions for the McCanns to answer, was funded from this same source!

I believe that it is legitimate to question the morality of collecting money for one cause and then seeing it spent on seeking to impress and bully others with conflicting views into silence, is potentially fraud or the outright embezelling of the fund, but although I believe I am correct and clearly it is morally wrong, whether it is criminally wrong is a matter for the police!!

NEVER GIVING UP

Maddie McCann’s parents ‘plough £500,000 into investment fund’ as they try to keep hunt for missing daughter up ten years since she disappeared

A source said it made sense for the money raised for the Find Madeleine Fund to go as far as possible

KATE and Gerry McCann have poured almost half a million pounds into a string of investments as the search for their daughter Madeleine nears almost a decade.

The couple have reportedly made the investments to top up the Find Madeleine Fund after police vowed they were confident of resolving the world’s biggest missing child mystery.

Kate and Gerry McCann are desperately trying to keep the search for Madeleine alive

PA:Press Association
3
Kate and Gerry McCann are desperately trying to keep the search for Madeleine alive

The Mirror reported that the fund had total assets of £714,000 – taking into account the invested $490,839.

A source told the paper: “They are making best use of the fund’s remaining cash. It makes sense to make sure the money earns as much as possible.”

Most of the money raised by the fund, believed to be more than £3million, has gone towards campaigns and paying private investigators to look into the case.

Little Maddie went missing in 2007

PA:Press Association
3
Little Maddie went missing in 2007

It is not clear what investments the fund made.

Companies House accounts reportedly have shown that the fund, controlled in part by the McCann parents, is down almost £50,000 cash compared to 2015.

The fund reportedly took a hit recently after the family lost a battle with police chief Goncalo Amaral, who claimed that the couple faked their daughter’s abduction.

It was feared the huge legal bill could wipe out search funds for the little girl, despite the family slamming the former cop’s allegations as “untruthful and malicious”.

Supreme Court judges in Portugal met to resolve the couple’s fight against a lower court’s decision in April last year to reverse their 2015 libel win against the former detective.

Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007, when her family, from Leicestershire, were holidaying in the Algarve.

Parents Gerry and Kate left their three children – including toddler twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping in their apartment while they dined at a nearby tapas bar.

When Kate returned to check on the kids at around 10pm that evening she discovered that Maddie was not in her bed and was missing.

The couple have not given up hope of finding their daughter

Getty Images
3
The couple have not given up hope of finding their daughter

Since then, the couple have worked to find their daughter, slamming claims that they plan to make money from her disappearance.

The couple recently shut down claims that they were accepting huge fees for 10 anniversary media interviews.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Comments:

Comments posted on this web site are moderated.

I regret the need to moderate the comments however ALL comments received will be posted other than those submitted anonymously, those which are ad hominem attacks, those containing gratuitous obscenity or offensive profanity and those which are palpably and provably dishonest in content or intent.
Naturally advertising spam and the like will also be deleted.

Caveat:

I appreciate that as a result of exposing the criminality, corruption or abuse of others and/or providing a venue to enable others to do likewise – many who feel threatened by my actions will seek to discredit me in any way they can and will invent or distort facts about me.
I accept that is a risk, to which I expose myself, however I am well aware that my friends know the truth, others with integrity can check the facts by contacting me and the corrupt, dishonest and gullible who promote or believe the lies published about me must answer to their own shame in the long run! Frankly I care not a jot what such people’s opinion of me is as their willingness to lie about me or accept or promote the lies about me speaks volumes of them and very little about me and affects me not one jot.

There is never a wrong time to do the right thing – or to help those less fortunate than oneself, even if there is personal risk.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Brother Asks: ‘Did Kate & Gerry McCann Cover-up Madeleine’s Death’?

Brother Asks: ‘Did Kate & Gerry McCann Cover-up Madeleine’s Death’?.

Posted by:

Greg Lance-Watkins
Greg_L-W
.

.

Madeleine McCann Libel Trial: Kate And Gerry’s Son ‘Asked Whether They Covered Up Her Death’ Because Of Book’s Claims

Posted: 08/07/2014 15:04 BST Updated: 09/07/2014 16:59 BST
 

Gerry and Kate McCann’s son asked them whether they had covered up his sister Maddie’s death after a former cop claimed this happened in a book, the libel trial has heard.

The McCanns spoke to reporters after delivering personal statements at Lisbon’s Palace of Justice in the libel case brought by them against Goncalo Amaral.

They also said they fear their daughter Madeleine‘s kidnapper may “strike again” and believe that he or she will have been “laughing” at a former police officer’s claims that they hid the girl’s body.

He made claims in a book their role in the disappearance of their daughter from the family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve in 2007.

He said Madeleine had died in their apartment and her parents hid the body to cover it up.

Answering questions from judge Maria Emilia Castro during the hearing, Mrs McCann said that her young son Sean had asked her about the allegations that she was involved in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.

She told the court that Sean heard about Mr Amaral’s allegations on the radio while travelling on the school bus.

“Sean asked me in October ‘Mr Amaral said you hid Madeleine’. I just said that he said a lot of silly things,” she said.

Sean and his twin sister Amelie were aged two when Madeleine, who was nearly four, went missing.

goncalo amaralThe McCanns told the libel trial Maddie’s kidnapper was still at large and ‘laughing’ at claims they were responsible

Mr McCann said that whoever was involved must have been laughing during these last six years at what Mr Amaral has claimed – that there was no abduction and there is no predator out there.

“There is – he or she or they may strike again,” he said.

“There’s an unsolved serious crime and there’s a series of other crimes against children which have come to light who have been on holiday so at the very least these people need to be brought to justice.

goncalo amaralFormer police chief Goncalo Amaral claimed the McCanns were responsible for the daughter’s disappearance in his book

“We don’t know if Madeleine is alive or dead but there is no evidence that she is dead and she is a missing child and she is completely innocent.”

The couple earlier told the court that there was no doubt that Mr Amaral’s claims had done “severe damage” to their struggle to find Madeleine.

Mrs McCann said that the couple make efforts to keep information about the abduction away from their children.

“We try and anticipate if there is going to be any media coverage so they don’t get any shocks and are prepared and confident to handle it,” she told the court.

“It is very distressing to us as adults so for a child it would be very, very distressing.”

She also told the court that the children were now old enough to use computers at school and home and had to be supervised.


To view the original article CLICK HERE

See also ‘Clear grounds for the prosecution of Kate & Gerry McCann CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links:
http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS:
CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share:
CLICK HERE

General ‘Stuff’ archive:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.:
http://GregLW.com
Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU

IMO: there is A Case for Prosecuting K&G McCann

IMO: there is A Case for Prosecuting K&G McCann

Posted by:
Greg Lance-Watkins
Greg_L-W
.

Hi,

In My Opinion:

As there is at this time absolutely zero credible or compelling evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted from the holiday flat in which her parentsDoctor Kate McCann & Doctor Gerry McCann had, in an act of gross negligence and in abrogation of their parental duty of care abandoned unattended their 3 babes Madeleine aged 3 and her two siblings twins considerably younger and even less competent.

This act of premeditated gross negligence wittingly and intentionally carried out and being both trained Doctors well aware of the medical risks and dangers and as responsible adults clearly aware of the further risks; I would contend, based upon my interpretation of The CPS outlines of the law published below, that there is a case of gross negligence to answer under law.

Further as there is absolutely no credible or compelling evidence of abduction I believe I am right in saying that after 7 years of absence untraced the legal guardian or next of kin of the missing person may make application to the Courts for a judgement as to morbidity of the missing person and the Court shall be able to pronounce a fact of death and authorise a death certificate.

Madeleine McCann being a Ward of Court the duty to make such application shall thus be that of The Court (of Protection).

As the most likely, statistically, scenario for the absence of Madeleine McCann would seem, in default of any evidence to the contrary, after 7 years, must be presumed to be morbidity be that death by accident, death by misadventure or death by murder or manslaughter – then surely it is the duty of the CPS to authorise charges and the Courts to hear details of those charges against K&G McCann for their part in the outcome of their gross negligence.

CPS – Homicide: by Negligence (Gross)

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is in contrast to voluntary manslaughter and occurs where a person kills, but does so without the intent to kill or cause GBH. Apart from the absence of the requisite intent, all other elements of the offence are the same as for murder.

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter, namely:

that caused by the defendant’s gross negligence; and
that caused by his unlawful or dangerous act.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. The law in respect of this has been clarified in the case of R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 where a four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter known as the Adomako Test was outlined by the House of Lords:

The test involves the following stages:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

There is no manslaughter by “Lawrence Recklessness”, overruling R v Seymour (1983) 2 AC 493.

The Duty of Care

There is no “general” duty of care owed by one citizen to another (No “good Samaritan rule”).

A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty (Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 582).

Prosecutors should see Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 for the test if a duty of care existed.

The duty can exist even where the deceased and the defendant were engaged in an unlawful activity together (R v Wacker (2003) 1 Cr App R 329; R v Willoughby (2004) ECWA Crim 3365.

The duty can arise from a contract of employment (R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37).

In addition there is the case of R (Rowley) v DPP (2003) EWHC Admin 693 where the Administrative Court referred to a fifth test, that ‘criminal’ involved an element of ‘badness’ – but note that the Adomako test is objective and the Crown need not prove the defendant’s state of mind. The risk must be a serious and obvious risk of death, not merely serious injury: R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328.

The Breach of the Duty of Care

The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a “reasonable person would do in their position”. If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant’s position at the time of the breach.

Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.

An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.

It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant’s position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)

The Grossness of the Breach

It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant’s conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term ‘reprehensible’ would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.

 

Causation

See R v HM Coroner for Inner London, ex parte Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 for a causation test in relation to gross negligence manslaughter

Medical Manslaughter

Medical manslaughter is legally no different from Gross Negligence manslaughter. The term refers to medically qualified individuals who are performing acts within the terms of their duty of care, when the act or omission occurs.

Where a medical individual is appointed to take charge of a person they then take on a duty of care towards them. Simply being a doctor or nurse in a hospital will not necessarily mean there is a duty of care to a specific patient (see section 7 HSWA [ADD LINK] in the legal guidance Corporate Manslaughter).

Please refer to HSE work related deaths protocol http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/100-199/165_9.pdf

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

This is where the killing is the result of:

the defendant’s unlawful act (not omission);
where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
whether or not the defendant realised this.
The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) – see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.

The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant’s conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17.

In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused’s state of mind is relevant only to establish that the act was committed intentionally and that it was an unlawful act.

Once these points are established the question whether the act was dangerous is to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but that of the sober and reasonable man and it is impossible to impute the mistaken belief of the defendant that what he was doing was not dangerous: R v Ball 1989 CLR 730.

 

Cases where Death Results from the Unlawful Supply of Drugs

No “unlawful act” for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter occurs, where a person only supplies drugs or materials to another, who then in turn administers the drug to himself and dies. This is the case even where a person assists another to take the drug by performing preparatory acts, such as applying a tourniquet or preparing a syringe for injection.

The House of Lords considering the point, stated that the criminal law generally assumed the existence of free will and, subject to certain exceptions, informed adults of sound mind were treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions on how to act: R v Kennedy (Simon) (2007) 3 W.L.R. 612 where K supplied the drug to B, who then had a choice, knowing the facts, whether to inject himself or not.

 

Encouraging or Assisting Suicide

CPS Areas must refer cases of Assisting Suicide to the Special Crime Division: see Referral of Cases to CPS Headquarters (Central Casework Divisions, The Principal Legal Advisor, Private Office, Strategy and Policy Directorate, and Press Office), The Chief Crown Prosecutors or Complex Casework Units, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Infanticide

Section 1 Infanticide Act 1938, as amended by section 57 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, provides that infanticide can apply: “Where a woman:

by any wilful act or omission;
causes death of her child being a child under the age of 12 months;
but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child;
or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child then;
notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that, but for this Act, the offence would have amounted to murder (See R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789);
she shall be guilty of an offence of infanticide; and
may for such an offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child.”
Infanticide can be an alternative verdict or charged in its own right. The child that is killed must be the child to whom the birth etc. refers, and the child must be under 12 months old. The death can be by either act or omission.

The case of R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789 has established that there is no requirement that all the ingredients of murder have to be proved before a defendant could be convicted of infanticide. The case has confirmed that the intention of parliament was to create a new offence of infanticide which covered situations much wider than offences that would otherwise be murder. Consequently, the mens rea for infanticide does not require any intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Therefore cases of manslaughter (see above) would fall within the elements of the offence.

In every case where the mother is alleged to have killed her own child who is less than 12 months old, early efforts should be made to obtain medical evidence establishing whether or not infanticide is appropriate and, if so, a charge of infanticide can be preferred pre-committal.

There is a close link between this offence with both voluntary manslaughter and diminished responsibility. However, unlike diminished responsibility, the burden of disproving is on prosecution. Although for an Infanticide offence, the child killed must be the one from whose birth/lactation the defendant is suffering; diminished responsibility might still be argued if another child of the family has been killed.

Note: also the offence of Child Destruction: section 1 Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which prohibits the killing of any child capable of being born alive.

 

Familial Deaths and Serious Physical Harm

Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (‘DVCV Act’) creates an offence of causing or allowing the death of, or causing or allowing serious physical harm to be suffered by, a child under the age of 16 or of a vulnerable adult. This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members. It is an offence triable only on indictment and where death occurs, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment or a fine, or both. Where a child or vulnerable adult suffers serious physical harm the offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.

An offence under section 5 DVCV Act is an offence of homicide for the purposes of venue in the Youth Court.

The offence is made out where evidence exists to establish the following elements:

a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) has died or suffered serious physical harm;
the death or serious physical harm was the result of an unlawful act, course of conduct or omission of a person (“D”) who was member of the same household as V and who had frequent contact with V;
there existed at the time of death a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of any member of that household and either:
a) D was the person whose unlawful act caused V’s death or serious physical harm; or
b) D was, or ought to have been, aware of that risk and failed to take such steps as he or she could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from that risk of serious physical harm; and
c) the death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

Note: ‘significant’ does not mean ‘more than minimal’ as it would for manslaughter but carries its ordinary meaning: R v Mujuru (2007) EWCA Crim 1249.

The prosecution does not have to prove which of the two possible alternatives, (a) or (b) above, applies. In other words, D is equally liable to conviction whether he or she was the perpetrator of the act that actually caused V’s death or serious physical harm or simply failed to protect V from a foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from another member of the household who had frequent contact with V. It will quickly be appreciated how this dual basis for criminal liability remedies one of the main perceived difficulties with the law relating to other possible charges such as murder or manslaughter.

In every case the prosecution must prove that V’s death or serious physical harm occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen. This requirement protects, from criminal liability, those whose dependants die from unlawful acts that had nothing to do with the foreseeable risk of harm within the household, e.g. where V is at risk of serious harm from an abusive parent but is subsequently killed by a friend of the family who had had until then little contact with the household.

Further, section 5(6) DVCV Act confirms that in this context ‘serious’ harm is to be equated with the level of physical harm that amounts to grievous bodily harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The risk that must be foreseen relates to that level of harm and the risk itself must be significant rather than minimal or fanciful. The section also contains definitions of the terms child and vulnerable adult amongst others. The definition applied to vulnerable witnesses is wider than that applied to the same phrase in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

However, it is clear from the wording of section 5 that the test of what could be foreseen is not purely
subjective but contains a ‘reasonableness’ dimension as well. In determining potential liability the proper test to be applied is ‘what would have been reasonable for this defendant to have foreseen?’ Therefore, a defendant may be fixed with knowledge if the nature of the risk was such that he or she should reasonably have been aware of it even if they claim not to have been.

Frequent contact

Frequent contact could include family members or carers, but is not confined to that group.

Household

Household is defined in sectino 5(4)(a) DVCV and will be given its ordinary meaning. It is not likely to include care homes or nurseries where a child is looked after with a number of others. A paid or voluntary domiciliary carer or housekeeper or an au-pair or similar may fall under the definition, if it would be reasonable in the circumstances. Under the Act, a person may be regarded as a member of the household for the purpose of this offence if they visit so often and for such periods of time that it is reasonable to regard that person as a member of the household. Membership of a household will be for the courts to determine on a case by case basis.

The offence only applies to those over 16 years of age, unless the suspect is the mother or father of the victim.

If the person who caused the death lacks or may lack criminal responsibility the other persons in the household can still be charged with ‘allowing’ the death or serious injury.

Unlawful act

Subsection (5) defines an unlawful act as one that constitutes an offence or would be were it not for the fact that the person lacks criminal responsibility.

 

Age of Responsibility

If D was under the age of 16 at the time of the act which caused V’s death he or she cannot be guilty of an offence under this section. Further, where it is sought to prosecute D on the basis of a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the risk of serious harm, D is assumed not to have been capable of taking any such step before attaining the age of sixteen (s.5(3)(b)). However, neither of these exceptions applies to the mother or father of the deceased child who may be prosecuted for a section 5 offence whatever their age. This distinction is justified on the basis that parents bear a special responsibility for the safety of their children.

Application of Dangerous Offender Provisions

An offence under section 5 is a “serious specified offence” for the purposes of the Dangerous Offenders provisions set out in Chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (DV Act, Schedule 10, paragraph 65).

Procedural Changes

Section 5 creates a substantive offence that can be charged alone and which is clearly designed to remedy situations where it has been impossible in the past to bring charges of murder or manslaughter because of a lack of evidence to prove which of a limited number of suspects caused V’s death. Such situations will doubtless continue to occur and the principle in R v Lane and Lane (1986) 82 Cr App R 5 (referred to above) will continue to have effect.

However, the Act also has in contemplation circumstances where the evidence, reviewed according to the normal standards of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, justifies charging one of more of the defendants with either murder or manslaughter in respect of the same death. Where this is done, it is important to ensure that the defendant is also charged with a section 5 offence. Not only does this afford the jury an opportunity of convicting of an alternative count but several significant advantages flow from the fact that a defendant is charged with both offences.

 

Ruling Out Dismissal of the Case before Arraignment

Following a sending by the magistrates’ court the charge of murder or manslaughter cannot be dismissed under the Indictable Only procedure unless the section 5 DVCV Act offence is also dismissed – section 6(3) DVCV Act .This means that as long as there is a case to answer on the familial homicide offence, the defence will not be able to apply to have the more serious charge dismissed before arraignment under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on the ground that there is not a prima facie case in relation to murder or manslaughter.

Postponing the Decision on whether there is a case to answer

A similar restriction also applies during the course of the trial itself. As long as the defendant continues to face a charge under section 5 of the DVCV Act the question of whether there is also a case to answer on the charge of murder or manslaughter cannot be determined until the close of all the evidence including the defence evidence (if any defendant elects to give evidence) .

The purpose of the provision is to afford the jury the greatest possible opportunity of hearing the oral evidence of at least one of the defendants during the trial and to weigh that testimony as evidence against the other accused. So, where a defendant is charged in respect of the same death with both familial homicide and either murder or manslaughter, and the prosecution evidence establishes a case to answer on the section 5 DVCV Act offence, the defence cannot make a submission of no case to answer on the murder/manslaughter charge until the close of the defence case.

At that stage the court will have heard the evidence of any of the defendants who decide to go into the witness box and the decision whether there is a case to go to the jury will then be taken in the light of that evidence, not simply the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The potential use of so-called ‘cut-throat’ defences here is obvious. (See R v Ikram (Abid) [2008] EWCA Crim 586).

To view the source from which this is an abstract CLICK HERE.
This abstract was first published @ CLICK HERE.

You may well find the compilation of 100 Questions it is felt Kate & Gerry McCann should respond to would clear a lot of doubt and may well give greater sound cause for prosecution or at the very least, in the interim, a Coroners Enquiry:

100 Reasons why Kate and Gerry McCann should be investigated

1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO
2. Did they use any listening devices? NO
3. Did they leave three children under 4 alone while going out drinking? YES
4. Did they do this every night? YES
5. Did they, under British law, endanger Maddie? YES
6. In the UK is significant harm a form of child abuse? YES
7. Is significant harm used by the UK courts in child abuse cases? YES
8. Does leaving the children as they did qualify under these rules? YES
9. Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie? YES
10. Are the frequent checks by the Tapas group challenged by other witnesses? YES
11. Was the bedroom within sight of where they sat? NO
12, Were they within earshot? NO
13. Did anyone other than Tanner see any abductor? NO
14. Has anyone come up with a credible abductor? NO
15. Is there any evidence of an abduction? NO
16. Were the shutters in the room tampered with? NO
17. Did Kate say the shutters were tampered with? YES
18. Did Kate change her story to saying the door was unlocked? YES
19. Was the door unlocked on any other night? NO
20. Is there any physical evidence at all of a break in? NO
21. Is there any physical evidence of another party being in the room? NO
23. Were the McCann’s told not to inform the media? YES
24. Were they told it might harm the chances of finding Maddie alive? YES
25. Were the media informed by a McCann family member? YES
26. Were specially trained British dogs brought in to search the apartment? YES
27. Did they find anything? YES
28. Have these dogs been successful in over 200 cases? YES
29. Do sniffer dogs lie? NO
30. Do the specially trained dogs get confused by other smells? NO
31. Did they find cadaver (dead body) scent in the apartment? YES
32. Did they find blood? YES
33. Did they find cadaver scent behind the sofa? YES
34. On the child’s toy? YES
35. In a cupboard in the room? YES
36. Did they find cadaver scent on Kate’s clothes? YES
37. Did someone try to explain this by saying she had examined dead bodies before holiday? YES
38. Is there any record of her doing so? NO
39. Has anyone come forward to say they saw her doing so? NO
40. Was the hire car rented after Maddie disappeared ? YES
41. Were tests done on DNA found in the car? YES
42. Did the dogs alert to the hire car? YES
43. Is a billion to one odds that it may be someone else’s DNA? YES
44. Were the doors and boot left open to get rid of the smell in the car? YES
45. Did the parents explain it away as rotting meat? YES
46. Smelling due to taking rubbish to the tip in the hire car? YES
47. Smelling due to dirty nappies in the hire car? YES
48. Smell due to sea bass in the hire car? YES
49. Did the parents say the dogs were wrong? YES
50. Do you need tons of excuses if the dogs are just plain wrong? NO
51. Have the dogs ever been wrong? NO
52. Did Kate & Gerry flee Portugal? YES
53. Did they hire extradition lawyers? YES
54. Did the McCann’s hire libel lawyers to gag anyone with a different view? YES
55. Did the government lend spin doctor Clarence Mitchell to the parents? YES
56. Dio spin doctors twist the truth for a favourable outcome? YES
57. Are they paid to do this? YES
58. Did the McCann’s set up a fund in order to search for Maddie? YES
59. Did they use the money donated for anything other than searching? YES
60. Do the parents have a media monitoring unit? YES
61. Are there internet trolls helping the parents to quash getting at the truth? YES
62. Have the Portuguese police been portrayed as incompetent? YES
63. Did they look at all aspects of the case? YES
64. Did they conclude any abduction took place? NO
65. Did they conclude that Maddie was dead and the parents responsible? YES
66. Are there two British investigations into Maddie being missing? YES
67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? NO  (Amended UNCLEAR)
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES  (Amended UNCLEAR)
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO (Amended UNCLEAR)
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO  Amended (UNCLEAR)
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO  (Amended UNCLEAR)
72. Have the parents made millions from Maddie being missing? YES
73. Did Kate write a book that the twins might read mention torn genitalia ? YES
74. Did Gerry have his wallet stolen at Waterloo station as he claimed? NO
75. Does the CCTV footage from that day bear out his claims? NO
76. Did the Portuguese police ask British government for medical records? YES
77. Were they handed over? NO
78. Did they ask for bank statements? YES
79. Were they handed over ? NO
80. Did they ask for mobile phone records? YES
81. Were they handed over? NO
82. Have the media printed the McCann version of events? YES
83. Are the media intimidated by threats of libel? YES
84. Have the parents admitted they are responsible for Maddie’s disappearance? NO
85. Have the parents faced any criminal charges to date? NO
86. No charges for manslaughter? NO
87. For neglect? NO
88. Did the McCann’s say they would take a polygraph (lie detector test)? YES
89. Did the McCann “people” contact Don Cargill head of polygraph studies? YES
90. Did the McCann’s tell the world they would take one to prove innocence? YES
91. Have they taken one in the 2,000+ days since saying they would? NO
92. Did the parents impose a list of conditions for taking one? YES
93. Did Don Cargill say the list was “impossible to satisfy”? YES
94. Did Don Cargill state “They had no intention of taking one”? YES
95. Did Clarence Mitchell say they were innocent and did not need to do one? YES
96. IS Amaral on trial because he wrote a book stating the facts of the case? YES
97. Is it a proper account of the police investigation ? YES
98. Have the McCann’s fought desperately to have this book banned? YES
99. Is it banned? NO
100. Is Maddie missing because of the actions of the parents? YES

To view the source of this list CLICK HERE.

IMO:
Prosecution of the parents of Madeleine McCann would serve a number of functions:

  1. It would permit a Court to hear all of the various scenarios put forward by K&G McCann and others, providing the Court with the opportunity to adjudicate as to the plausibility of the various claims and scenarios.
  2. In testing the facts and scenarios other facts may be brought to light.
  3. The Court can adjudicate as to the probable outcome of that fateful night.
  4. A judgement can be made apportioning blame, which may well also include a proportion of blame to other persons or organisations other than the parents.
  5. IMO – I do not believe that when found guilty, as I believe they are, K&G McCann should face ANY direct sentence other than a suspended sentence, suspended until the outcome of any further case brought against them or other persons unknown in the future AND a care order being put in place in respect of any other children they have or may have in the future.
  6. I believe their guilt of neglect is a prima facie case which when heard by the Courts would prove a salutary lesson to others who have a duty of care for children and as a result could prove very beneficial in terms of individuals, the police and the state acting more responsibly and thus saving many children’s lives in the future.

I state my personal opinion in this matter as a concerned citizen and minded that Justice must be seen to be done and in my opinion Justice has NOT been seen to be done in respect of Madeleine McCann.
.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
http://Leave-The-EU.com
Documents, Essays & Treaties: https://GLWdocuments.wordpress.com/
The Hamlet of Stroat: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com
The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
Chepstow Chat: http://ChepstowChat.wordpress.com/
Christopher Storey: http://ChristopherStory.wordpress.com/
Des Watkins DFC: http://DesWatkins.wordpress.com/
Hollie Greig etc.: http://HollieGreigetc.wordpress.com/
Psycheocraphy: http://Psycheocracy.wordpress.com/
The McCann Case: http://TheMcCannCase.wordpress.com/
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: http://SSOE.wordpress.com/
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: http://StolenKids-Dunblane.blogspot.com/
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.co.uk/

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technology eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technology
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for violent rape, mass or for pleasure murder , child abuse etc.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

 

McCann Case Stalled; An Incompetent Muddle!

McCann Case Stalled; An Incompetent Muddle!

.

Posted by:

Greg Lance-Watkins
Greg_L-W
.

.

Posted by portugalpress on March 25, 2014
Madeleine case

The gist of the latest statement from the Met police in London in their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann sounded remarkably similar to what has long been in the public domain, but the so-called ‘quality’ press, along with the tabloids, churned it out as if it were a hot “new lead” and even “a breakthrough”.

The statement appealed for further information on “a potential linked series of twelve crimes which occurred between 2004 and 2010, mostly in low season, whereby a male intruder gained access to mainly holiday villas occupied by UK families on holiday in the Western Algarve”.

In four of the cases, the intruder is alleged to have sexually assaulted five white girls, aged between seven and 10, in their beds.
Senior ex-police officers, led by former detective inspector Dave Edgar and hired by parents Kate and Gerry, looked into sexual attacks on at least five English girls between 2004 and 2007. Their findings were described in some detail by the News of the World in May 2009.

Kate McCann also wrote about the assaults in her book published in May 2012: “One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve. This discovery made me feel physically sick. I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds while their parents slept in another room. In three further incidents, children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms, who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.”
Yet even The Times last week felt moved to report that “A sex attacker who preyed on young British girls holidaying with their families on the Algarve is a key suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seven years ago, police said today.”

Other “key” suspects over the past few months have ranged from Gypsies, Germans and East Europeans to burglars and British cleaners, but according to the latest Met statement, witnesses described the supposedly lone sex attacker as “having dark (as in tanned skin) with short dark unkempt hair”.

The Met did not identify the latest “key” suspect, but a headline in the Guardian the day after the Met appeal read: “Madeleine McCann suspect died in 2009.” It called this a “revelation” gleaned from “a source close to Portuguese investigators.” We had read it all before, of course.
Early last November, the Daily Mail, among many other papers, named and carried a photograph of a 40-year-old black African, saying the Portuguese police believed he may have killed Madeleine two years before he died in a tractor accident.

This disclosure came soon after all the BBC Crimewatch fuss over new e-fit images that turn out not be new at all, depicting a man who certainly did not look like a black African.
The Guardian’s source said the dead man had been at the centre of Portuguese police inquiries since they reopened the case last October, but they had not drawn any definite conclusions about him.

He “could” have been involved in the five assaults on white girls – and even the disappearance of Madeleine – but it was no more than a “possibility”, the source said.
The Guardian also ran a story last week headlined: “Madeleine McCann: a breakthrough that could be devastating.”
It did not mean devastating to the widow of the smeared African, a man with no record of child molestation and no opportunity to defend himself.
The Guardian explained that by identifying a series of sex attacks, the Met Police had made a breakthrough in its investigation, but that based on similar cases, “it could mean an end to hopes that Madeleine is alive”.
It is a hope many have long abandoned. Even Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, the senior British investigating officer, has conceded she may have died in the apartment.
Portuguese detectives and prosecutors, as well as specialist British investigators and a British police dog handler, came to that conclusion years ago.

The former lead detective in the original Portugal investigation, Gonçalo Amaral, reiterated in a recent interview his firm belief that Madeleine died in the apartment the same day or night she disappeared. He claimed his investigation was marred by high-level political involvement, which left DNA samples untested and key witnesses overlooked.

Amaral and his many supporters completely reject the notion that Madeleine was abducted – and, indeed, there is no hard evidence to support this theory.
In using the term ‘abduction’ or ‘kidnapping’ of Madeleine McCann, the mainstream media rarely qualify this assertion with words such as ‘alleged’, ‘possible’ or ‘suspected’.

Nor were such words used when Redwood said last week: “The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.”

Twenty thousand pounds! It’s a far cry from the £2.5 million reward offered within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, and a drop in the ocean compared to the millions Kate and Gerry have since received in donations on top of the amount the Met has spent so far in its fruitless search.

By LEN PORT
news@algarveresident.com

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links:
http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS:
CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share:
CLICK HERE

General ‘Stuff’ archive:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.:
http://GregLW.com
Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU

An Express View of British & Portuguese Police Fallout

An Express View of British & Portuguese Police Fallout

.

Posted by:

Greg Lance-Watkins
Greg_L-W
.

.

Scotland Yard and Portuguese police fall out over identity of key Madeleine McCann suspect

SCOTLAND Yard’s hunt for Madeleine McCann is in jeopardy because of foot-dragging by Portuguese police who think they know who was responsible for her disappearance.

By: James Murray

High-ranking officers in Portugal are convinced African thief Euclides Monteiro took Madeleine and was responsible for sex attacks on five other British girls before being killed in a tractor accident in 2009.

However, the frustrated Yard team believes there is insufficient evidence. One attack believed to be significant to the Madeleine inquiry took place the year after Monteiro died. The clash is threatening to stall the Yard probe at a crucial time, with detectives here having made 287 requests for leads to be  pursued in Portugal.

The Sunday Express understands they have asked for forensic work at holiday apartments where sex attacks took place, in their hunt for a breakthrough clue, a fingerprint or hair.

Yet delays by Portuguese officials are slowing progress and increasing tensions between the two forces.

Last week Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt admitted he was “frustrated” with the pace of the investigation.

The Yard is interested in Monteiro but pointedly declined to name him during a briefing for journalists last week when it made a fresh appeal for help from the public. The ex-junkie was sacked as a waiter at an Ocean Club restaurant in Praia da Luz for stealing a year before Madeleine vanished from a holiday apartment there in May 2007.

Portuguese police have been interested in the volume of calls on his mobile phone on the night she vanished, which indicate he was near the scene.

Yard officers want to know if he acted alone as a thief or was part of a wider, more sinister paedophile ring which could still pose a risk to British children holidaying on the Algarve.

They also want to investigate possible links with burglars operating in Praia da Luz whom he was known to associate with.

Last week the Yard revealed it was focusing on 12 “potentially” linked break-ins between 2004 and 2010 on the western Algarve. In four cases between 2004 and 2006 a man sexually assaulted five white girls aged between seven and 10 in their beds. Two were assaulted in one villa.

The man remained calm throughout all the attacks and even when disturbed by waking parents or children he made no attempt to run away, leaving villas slowly, apparently unconcerned about being caught.

Two break-ins occurred in Praia da Luz in 2006 and 2010 but children were not assaulted in those incidents. As Monteiro died in 2009 he could not have been responsible for the last break-in in 2010.

In most of the 12 cases nothing was taken and there was no sign of forced entry, suggesting access to holiday apartment keys. All were within about an hour’s drive.

The Yard said: “Witnesses describe the man as having dark, as in tanned, skin with short dark unkempt hair. He spoke English with a foreign accent. His voice was described as slow or possibly slurred.”

McCANN ID Pic 01

Witnesses describe the man as having dark, as in tanned, skin with short dark unkempt hair. He spoke English with a foreign accent. His voice was described as slow or possibly slurred

Scotland Yard

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said: “We need to establish the identity of this man. These offences are very serious and no one has been charged. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Portuguese police later leaked that the person being sought was identified by their officers as Monteiro, although he was never formally charged with any of the offences because of insufficient evidence.

However, the information offered by the Yard suggests it is far from convinced by the evidence uncovered by Portuguese detectives. They have Monteiro’s DNA as the Cape Verde immigrant had served time for theft.

British officers have pointed out to the Portuguese that a key sighting of a man holding a child in Luz at 10pm, shortly after Madeleine was taken, was not of a black man. Irishman Martin Smith and family saw him.

Former Portuguese inspector Goncalo Amaral was about to fly Mr Smith to Portugal when he was removed from the case. DCI Redwood said last week: “We still need to establish the identity of a man seen by three witnesses, carrying a child fitting Madeleine’s description towards the beach or town at about 22.00 on the night Madeleine disappeared.

“The witnesses have described the man in the e-fits as being white, aged in his 30s, with short brown hair of medium build, medium height and clean shaven.”

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links:
http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS:
CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share:
CLICK HERE

General ‘Stuff’ archive:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General ‘Stuff’ ongoing:
http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.:
http://GregLW.com
Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU