What does this mean?
Why does the Home Office need
CRUCIAL EVIDENCE????
It is not the job from Mrs. Smith to see the evidence.
Hasn´t she just to sign the questions?
Please, can anyone help?
Here ist the article from the "Daily Record"
Greetings, Lilemor aus München
Madeleine McCann Cops Failed To Send Evidence To UK
Jan 31 2008 Daily Record
THE Madeleine McCann investigation descended into farce yesterday as Portuguese authorities admitted failing to send crucial evidence to Britain.
A letter of appeal which gives the go-ahead for fresh interviews in the case was signed by prosecutors in the Algarve a month ago.
It should have been passed to the Home Secretary in Britain. But it has yet to arrive.
In a further blow to the McCanns, Portuguese police revealed they had stopped searching for the scruffy stranger who appeared in an e-fit last week.
A friend of the McCanns said: "We are beyond being angry. The whole process is just geared up for non-activity. It's a fiasco."
The letter of appeal is vital to the investigation. Detectives say they cannot proceed with the case until they have reinter-viewed the seven friends who dined with Kate and Gerry McCann on the night four-year-old Madeleine went missing onMay 3, last year.
McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "How long does it take to send documents between two countries? This bureaucracy is verging on the inhumane. It's ridiculous."
Mitchell said Kate and Gerry, both 39, would be "concerned" to hear Portuguese police had dropped investigations into the e-fit man.
He said: "We believe he could be Madeleine's abductor."
IsItRelevant
"It is not the job from Mrs. Smith to see the evidence."
It is the job of the home secretary to see the evidence when signing these requests.
astromum
see my thread translating sos maddie reply to this story
sans_souci
If a foreign police force wanted to question you, would you not be grateful that your government would like to see the grounds for that questionning?
tylersmum
The original convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters says that it is the job of the Justice Minister.The Home Secretary is no longer also the Justice Minister.The Justice Minister is Jack Straw
Lilemor
Hallo sans souci and all the other members who answered me,
I think the suspect status is enough evidence.
Or not?
Is there not any trust into the investigation teams in the EU?
And the sniffer dogs and the fact that the parents leave little Madeleine alone in PDL should be reason enough to let the couple be questioned.
Mrs. Smith - I don´t know, but I think - has only a few knowledge of justice. Not enough to make such an improtant desicion. She is not a judge. And only a judge woud be able to decide.
Responsible for justice is the PJ/Portugal in this case.
Why should a HO secretary not allow to let the couple be questioned. That is my question here. The McCanns want to get cleared. So they would realy need the questioning. There is no reason not to allow it.
What do you mean?
And -it could help the McCanns.
And if the HO is in posession of all crucial evidence, and Mr. G. Brown is friend of the McCanns....
Do you think what I think now...
Because this case is soooo SPECIAL (friends in high places...)
Sorry for my english!
Lili aus München
sans_souci
You raise an interesting point, and in the spirit of debate, I would like to take the liberty of truing it back.
I understand that it is customary, when requests of this nature are made, for the requesting authority to provide a summary of the evidence and the grounds for the request.
Simply saying that they are suspects is not enough (except in the case of a request from the USA, but that is a different matter). The evidence you cite is from leaks and newspaper reports.
It would appear, IF one can believe the reports, that the further details aspect was not covered in the request. If the evidence is solid, and exists, what is the problem with providing details?
tylersmum
For English police to arrest and question someone they only have to have a reasonable suspicion why should it be any different for a foreign police force.They merely want to ask questions,even with letters rogatory asking for the freezing of bank accounts or seizure of property the requesting country only has to give a summary.
It would be ridiculous if it is harder to question someone then to arrest them under EAW
Lilemor
Hallo sans souci,
okay, I understand.
The leaks.
I thougth Eurojust (because neutral, HO ist maybe not neutral in this case) would test the evidence against the McCanns.
And second, the police wants to finish this case.
So why not question the McCanns?
I do not know why, specially because the McCanns said, they would like to communicate with the PJ to help their doughter.
For me it is all a paradox circus.
Why not this circus before the first bzw. second questionings of the McCanns?
Why now? Only because they are back in UK now?
Lili from München
Impartial
What would be the use of the portuguese extending the silence on the case if the British were to receive all the evidence???
I doubt that they have to send it. Being arguido to a crime that has a sentence of a couple of years is enough for the British to comply I think.
And refusing the channels via Eurojust ist another way of saying they are not complying to european law.
_________________
"If she is dead she is dead but not by their hands", Clarence Mitchell said
Lilemor
Yes, and the questionings - do not to forget - would in the end probably help little Madeleine.
I think that is the very most most most important point.
The UK shoud be absolutely aware of that.
The PJ have to rule out different possibilitys.
So why do not let them end their expensive nine month investigation (including questioning) quickly?
Does anybody think it would be okay to drop the case on this stage???
Then all actions for Maddie would be absolutely over and at an end.
Horrible thought for all loving parents. That is why I can not understand that the McCanns did not fly back to Portugal to the PJ office to Mr. Rebelo. To help.
L. aus München
sans_souci
Good points made.
But for a EAW, it is necessary for a person to have been accused of an offense carrying a prison term of 1 year plus, or must have been sentenced.
And again, IF reports can be believed, the UK government are expecting the rules to be followed. Which is sensible.
It goes both ways - if the McCanns are innocent, then it is in their interests that it is established that the PJ actually do have a case.
If they are in fact guilty, then it is important that the rules are followed to the letter.
I cannot see the problem with this.
Lilemor
Thanks for the answers,
yes it seems to be extremely sensible.
I hope that nobody (HO and PJ) will forget Madeleine with the same sensibility when making a desicion!
In the end the questioning would help in finding the truth!
That´s important to know for the HO. Why hindering finding the truth?
Bye bye,
I have to stop now because i think i am an maddie forum addict.....
Lili aus München
It is a double-edged sword, perhaps. If details of "crucial" evidence are not included then on technical grounds any future legal action could be deemed invalid by the courts. On the other hand, if details of "crucial" evidence are sent to Britain the McCanns are more likely to know the full technical nature of the case to be brought against them.
Gerry, speaking of the inquiry being conducted by the Portuguese police into the disappearance of his daughter in which he is an official suspect, said: "It's a fiasco."
Shouldn't he be referring to the undue influence he has succeeded in exerting over the British press? He remains an official suspect in this case, after all. Had Madeleine disappeared in Britain would the British public so easily have accepted his version of events given the huge number of apparent inconsistencies and contradictions contained in his story?
I'm totally confused.
I though the requests was to interview the Tapas 7, *NOT* the McCanns.
The Tapas 7 aren't (at the moment) accused of anything, they are not suspects, they are to help provide witness statements and clarify some points. Why the need for "evidence"?
For example if whilst on holiday in Europe I witnessed a bank robbery, gave a statement and returned to England. It may be reasonable for the PJ to wish to clarify a few points of my witness statement, get me to identify suspects from photos etc.
In such circumstances I hope they could rely on the UK police to ask the questions, take the statement. Would the Home Office need to see the evidence for the bank robbery, make a judgement call on the guilt of the suspect, or would they just need to have the information necessary to clarify the witness statement?
What am I missing? Other witnesses have been interviewed by the UK police back in the UK, why are the Tapas 7 being treated differently?
For the seizure of items belonging to suspects in the case, I presume that would be a different matter, but questioning witnesses - surely not!
Rufus.
Posters on this thread may be interested to know that the initial report in the Daily Record is patently false! The PJ evidence in the rogatory letters were sent to the Home Office via Eurojust at the beginning of January. They were received in The Hague and this was confirmed by Eurojust's official spokesman on January 16, 2008. They were forwarded to the Home Office, but Jacqui Smith chose to send them back to Portugal for further clarification (the second time this has been done, and after a Portuguese and an English member of Eurojust had worked on them to make sure that all the "i"s and "t"s had been dotted and crossed!).
The Home Office is insisting that these rogatory letters now have to go through regular diplomatic channels, instead of through Eurojust. This now means even further delays before they can go to the Leicestershire Police.
The headline on today's 24Horas is ENGLISH TANTRUM DELAYS PROCESS. I recommend that posters on this thread read about all of these shananigans on the thread, entitled UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PJ ROGATORY LETTERS at:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2037&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30
***************************************************************
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 