Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Madeleine Beth McCann went missing from PDL in Portugal on the 3rd May 2007, there are so many unanswered questions, please discuss

Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Tigger » Thu May 29, 2008 11:05 pm

SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE PHRASE OF THE DECADE! :evil: :shock: :shock:
Mods if this is duplicate, please delete. Thanks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eared.html


McCanns face child neglect charges for leaving Madeleine alone on night she disappeared
By Vanessa Allen

Last updated at 11:07 PM on 29th May 2008


Kate McCann: Denies the claims

Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Kate and Gerry McCann could still face charges of neglecting their daughter Madeleine, official documents reveal.


The first published court ruling on the 13-month investigation shows Portuguese police have not ruled out neglect, abduction, or that Madeleine was killed and her body hidden.


Mr and Mrs McCann, both 40, strenuously deny any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.


They have also rejected claims that they neglected their three children by leaving them in their holiday apartment while they went out for dinner with friends.


The documents show the police inquiry still covers homicide, abandonment, concealment of a corpse and abduction.


The charge of abandonment carries a maximum ten-year jail sentence in Portugal, but only if prosecutors can prove the McCanns intended to neglect Madeleine.


The couple have repeatedly insisted they believed Madeleine, then three, and their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie were safe in the apartment in Praia da Luz. They were eating only 50 yards away, which enabled them to check on the children regularly.


Details of the continuing investigation were revealed in court documents released by the Supreme Court of Justice in the city of Evora.


Public prosecutor Jose Magalhaes e Meneses had applied to the court for permission to seize the mobile phone records of the McCanns and their friends, the so-called Tapas Seven.


Investigators are interested in 18 text messages allegedly sent from an unidentified number to Mr McCann between May 2 and 4 last year. Madeleine vanished on May 3. Police also wanted details of calls made between April 28, when the group arrived in Portugal, and September 9, when the McCanns left the country to return to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.


But the request was refused by the Supreme Court, which published its ruling. Such publication is unusual in Portugal, where police investigations are covered by strict judicial secrecy laws.


Explaining the decision, Judge Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso said: 'The details of the content of the messages can only be subjected to interception in real time, with due judicial authorisation.'


The McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said they were pleased the documents showed police had not abandoned the theory that Madeleine was abducted.


He added: 'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received, both in Portugal and Britain, is that everything they did that week was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'


Mr Mitchell said Mr McCann had no knowledge of the texts allegedly sent to his phone on May 3 and 4.


He said he only received a few calls to his mobile in the six days before Madeleine's disappearance.



Missing: Madeleine McCann

The charge carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence.

The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, have strongly denied negligence saying they were having dinner just 50 yards from where their daughter was taken.

Details of the investigation were yesterday revealed in a court judgement, explaining why Portuguese prosecutor Magalhaes e Meneses was refused access to the content of 10 mobile phones - believed to belong to Kate and Gerry and their seven friends.

Investigators were particularly interested in 18 text messages allegedly sent from an unidentified mobile number to Mr McCann between May 2 and 4 last year.

Mr Meneses also asked for a full list of all the calls made between members of the McCanns' holidaying group from when they arrived in Portugal on April 28 and when the McCann's left on September 9.

Judge Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso refused the request for the calls and texts, and in his written judgement revealed the directions of the continuing investigation.

He wrote: 'In the case files pending in the Public Prosecution Services... they are investigating the disappearance of M.M. and the eventual carrying out of the crimes of abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment of a child and concealment of a corpse.'


Anguish: Gerry and Kate McCann are being investigated for allegedly neglecting Madeleine

The youngster disappeared from the couple's holiday apartment in Praia de Luz on May 3 last year while they dined with friends a short distance away.

Members of their group would return to the apartment at regular intervals to check on Madeleine and her twin siblings.

The youngster's fifth birthday was on May 12.

Clarence Mitchell, the couple's spokesman, said Kate and Gerry vigorously deny neglecting Madeleine and welcome the news that abduction is a line of inquiry.

He said: 'This court document outlines the areas of the investigation and in no way suggests Kate and Gerry will be facing any such charges.

'Equally we have heard nothing officially to suggest any such area of investigation is being considered.


The view from the tapas bar to the McCann's apartment in the bottom left of the picture

'However we do note that abduction is apparently one of the parameters and we welcome that because that is what Kate and Gerry and their friends have said and that is what happened.

'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received both in Portugal and Britain is that legally speaking everything they were doing that week was well within the bounds of responsible parenting.'
Without prejudice. All posts are opinion based unless backed by a link or quote.


When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah
Tigger
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby gobsmacked » Thu May 29, 2008 11:19 pm

That phrase about them being responsible parents really makes me want to rip the pink pimps lying head off. I notice he's prefaced it with "legally speaking ..."

This is for you Clarence and your employers

Image
"We have been advised that legally our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting ... these types of criticism ... as well as being hurtful are extremely unhelpful in the search for Madeleine". Day 80 22/07/07
User avatar
gobsmacked
New In Town
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: UK

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby redsquare » Thu May 29, 2008 11:20 pm

Yes, they will argue that they were simply performing the Mark Warner baby-listening service for themselves. If that was against the law, then Mark Warner have been offering an illegal service in all their resorts, up to the time they withdrew it.

They will argue that even if the MW baby-listening service HAD been available in PDL it would still not have stopped an abductor striking between rounds/checks.

Of course, a baby-listening service provided in a self-contained resort complex is a different animal to a baby-listening service in a spread out resort like PDL, where apartments are outside the actual complex grounds.

The big question is: Have the PJ got enough solid evidence to prove they either didn't check at all or not as often as they have claimed?

Have they got CCTV evidence?
redsquare
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:26 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby veritas » Thu May 29, 2008 11:21 pm

Tigger wrote:
Quote from CM

...legally speaking everything they were doing that week was well within the bounds of responsible parenting.'


"Legally Speaking"???

Not the right thing to do, the normal thing almost every other parent would do - not looking after your children properly - but "legally speaking" responsible parenting.

Since when has leaving 3 babies alone whilst out on the pizz been responsible parenting in any language!
.

He's NOT the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
User avatar
veritas
Suspect
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby JillyComeLately » Thu May 29, 2008 11:24 pm

.
As this appears to be Mitchell's own view then put quite simply, he is unfit to be a parent himself. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
.
"It is a fact that in the right formation, the lifting power of many wings can achieve twice the distance of any bird flying alone."
User avatar
JillyComeLately
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:39 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby vancouver1 » Thu May 29, 2008 11:24 pm

Of course it was "responsible parenting" - their legal advice would have been based on what they had told to their counsel.

Their legal advisors would have given advice based on what they were told by the McCanns.

If the McCanns lied about what they actually did or didn't do that night, then the advice they received would obviously be compromised as well.

If they were honest about what had gone on that night... it's possible their advisors would have come to different conclusions.
vancouver1
Local Lag
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:45 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Tigger » Thu May 29, 2008 11:27 pm

redsquare wrote:Yes, they will argue that they were simply performing the Mark Warner baby-listening service for themselves. If that was against the law, then Mark Warner have been offering an illegal service in all their resorts, up to the time they withdrew it.

They will argue that even if the MW baby-listening service HAD been available in PDL it would still not have stopped an abductor striking between rounds/checks.

Of course, a baby-listening service provided in a self-contained resort complex is a different animal to a baby-listening service in a spread out resort like PDL, where apartments are outside the actual complex grounds.

The big question is: Have the PJ got enough solid evidence to prove they either didn't check at all or not as often as they have claimed?

Have they got CCTV evidence?


Now that redsquare is the $64,000 question!! :wink: I wonder! :wink:
Without prejudice. All posts are opinion based unless backed by a link or quote.


When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah
Tigger
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Francesca 12 » Thu May 29, 2008 11:32 pm

'Within the bounds of responsible parenting' - my a*se.
Francesca 12
New In Town
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:41 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby veritas » Thu May 29, 2008 11:38 pm

vancouver1 wrote:Of course it was "responsible parenting" - their legal advice would have been based on what they had told to their counsel.

Their legal advisors would have given advice based on what they were told by the McCanns.

If the McCanns lied about what they actually did or didn't do that night, then the advice they received would obviously be compromised as well.

If they were honest about what had gone on that night... it's possible their advisors would have come to different conclusions.



Thank God the trial will take place in Portugal in front of three Judges.

Lawyers like Caplan make a living confusing 'members of the Jury' - that just isn't going to happen - and he must know it!
.

He's NOT the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
User avatar
veritas
Suspect
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:50 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby mexx » Thu May 29, 2008 11:44 pm

It's obvious to me they "intended" to neglect the children.

How can they possibly say they didn't "intend" to leave them alone????
mexx
On Parole
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Tigger » Thu May 29, 2008 11:48 pm

mexx wrote:It's obvious to me they "intended" to neglect the children.

How can they possibly say they didn't "intend" to leave them alone????


When they planned to get showered, dressed and made beautiful, walk out of the apartment leaving 3 angels behind them to party!???? NEARLY EVERY NIGHT! Don't make sense to me either Mexx! :roll:
Without prejudice. All posts are opinion based unless backed by a link or quote.


When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah
Tigger
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby bugalugs1970 » Thu May 29, 2008 11:49 pm

just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????
I'm on the payroll........WHAT...you didn't know!!!!!!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Savekids/
http://www.truthformadeleine.com
User avatar
bugalugs1970
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Squirrel stalking in Breacon Beacons

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Tigger » Thu May 29, 2008 11:53 pm

bugalugs1970 wrote:just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????


Leave your watch at home so you won't know how long it takes you and DON'T take your mobile, you may be needed! :wink: JOKING bugalugs!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Without prejudice. All posts are opinion based unless backed by a link or quote.


When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah
Tigger
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby bugalugs1970 » Thu May 29, 2008 11:54 pm

Tigger wrote:
bugalugs1970 wrote:just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????


Leave your watch at home so you won't know how long it takes you and DON'T take your mobile, you may be needed! :wink: JOKING bugalugs!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:



8) :wink: :lol:
I'm on the payroll........WHAT...you didn't know!!!!!!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Savekids/
http://www.truthformadeleine.com
User avatar
bugalugs1970
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Squirrel stalking in Breacon Beacons

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby veritas » Thu May 29, 2008 11:56 pm

bugalugs1970 wrote:just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????



Not a problem.

Apparently half an hour is the going rate for responsible parenting (legally speaking).

Just ensure you leave the front door wide open (in case of fire) make sure your child doesn't say anything (in passing) before you leave - plenty of time to get some baccy AND stop off for a pint!
.

He's NOT the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
User avatar
veritas
Suspect
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:50 am

Next

Return to Justice for Madeleine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests
cron