Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 22

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a recent prominent case in Britain of an inquest held on a missing person:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BBC Factfile - from its website on 5 December 2007:

When is a missing person declared dead?

[WHO, WHAT, WHY? - A regular part of the BBC News Magazine, Who, What, Why? aims to answer some of the questions behind the headlines]

[Picture: Families of missing loved ones find it hard to grieve]

A man declared dead by a coroner has turned up alive. So if there's no body, when is a person officially "dead"?

Thirteen months after John Darwin disappeared while canoeing near Hartlepool, a coroner recorded an open verdict at his inquest.

Four years later, he walked into a London police station, alive and well.

So what's the process for a missing person to be declared dead?

When someone goes missing, the police will try to establish whether the person has died by checking bank accounts and investigating possible sightings.

If they believe there should be an inquest, possibly to help the family receive a death certificate and reach closure, they will file a report to the local coroner. This will indicate if there are any suspicious circumstances.
THE ANSWER

A coroner requires permission from the justice secretary to hold an inquest without a body.

A death certificate can then be issued.

The coroner has to apply to the secretary of state (then home secretary, now justice secretary) under section 15 of the Coroners Act 1988 for permission for an inquest with no body. There is no time limit in such cases; the rule to wait seven years may only apply in the High Court on the settlement of an estate.

"In this case the secretary of state would have agreed to the order and the inquest would have been held," says a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice.

The number of requests received is less than 10 a year, he adds, and few are refused.

Sometimes there is an emotional pressure from the family who are desperate for a death certificate so they can move on, says one coroner, who does not want to be named.

But an inquest without a body operates very much on the evidence provided by the police, he says, and whether senior officers believe the individual in question has genuinely died.

Malcolm Donnelly, the coroner who held Mr Darwin's inquest, says he recorded an open verdict because the exact circumstances were unclear. "I found he had probably died on or about the date of disappearance."

That decision was based on a balance of probability, and not beyond reasonable doubt.

Proof of death

At the end of an inquest, the coroner sends a death certificate to the Register of Births and Deaths, relating the findings of the inquest. This allows the family to register the death and get a state death certificate.

This is used to claim on a life insurance policy - the insurer will normally require sight of the original death certificate as proof of death, says Jonathan French of the Association of British Insurers.

"Insurers may also make a discretionary payment, even without a formal declaration of death. This happened in several cases following the tsunami in 2004.

"If the circumstances around a claim change, the claimant should inform the insurance company and may be required to pay back any money they had received. If there are suspicious circumstances, then a police investigation will take place. Insurers may also themselves initiate legal proceedings if there is evidence of fraud."

MISSING CANOEIST

March 2002: John Darwin disappears
April 2003: Open verdict recorded at inquest
Dec 2007: Walks into police station

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I cannot begin to imagine what "supposed negligence" is supposed to mean. These weren't three young children that were of questionable age to be left alone. All three of them were toddlers! What on earth was a not yet four year old going to do in the case of ANY kind of emergency? Whether it be a fire (Jerry and Kate MAY have been able to see to that apartment but there is NO WAY they could get there in time to save their babies if there were a fire. By the time they would have seen it from where they were, there would not be enough time to get to them). What about if one of the kids got hurt or sick? What is little Maddie going to do when Sean wakes up and cracks his head open on something (which happens SO often)? How about when Amilie (sp) wakes up and vomits? Even forgetting about the stranger abduction scenerio, honestly what is a three year old going to do in ANY type of emergency? So how is this negligence even remotely questionable??? I don't care what kind of society you live in, TODDLERS need supervision! Geez, I wouldn't even have gone out my front door when my kids were that age, sleeping or not! Because all it takes is a blink of an eye, and they are gone forever.
I really hope that Jerry and Kate didn't harm her, but I think they did. Even if they are innocent of that though, CERTAINLY they are guilty of gross negligence.
 
The McCanns did get an amazing pass on the whole "negligence" issue. I think this was because:

a) They got there firstest, with the loudest, in terms of press, thanks to friend connections in significant places. They immediately began broadcasting the "abduction" story and emphasized it repeatedly, even though logically there was no direct evidence of an abduction other than Kate's word about the shutters and the placement of the toy. (Remember, Jane Tanner could not, and did not, immediately identify "Bundleman" as carrying a child, much less identify Maddie's pajamas.)

b) The McCanns are a well-educated, very attractive, well spoken couple with three lovely children. They're the kind of people we instinctively sympathize with and identify with.

c) In the ensuing days, Gerry used words like "dining in the garden" and Kate talked about "how safe it felt." They repeatedly minimized the distance AND the actual circumstances. If you saw only their interviews and did not actually examine the maps and photos of the MW resort, you would not realize just how far off those comments were.
 
Texana said:
The McCanns did get an amazing pass on the whole "negligence" issue. I think this was because:

a) They got there firstest, with the loudest, in terms of press, thanks to friend connections in significant places. They immediately began broadcasting the "abduction" story and emphasized it repeatedly, even though logically there was no direct evidence of an abduction other than Kate's word about the shutters and the placement of the toy. (Remember, Jane Tanner could not, and did not, immediately identify "Bundleman" as carrying a child, much less identify Maddie's pajamas.)

b) The McCanns are a well-educated, very attractive, well spoken couple with three lovely children. They're the kind of people we instinctively sympathize with and identify with.

c) In the ensuing days, Gerry used words like "dining in the garden" and Kate talked about "how safe it felt." They repeatedly minimized the distance AND the actual circumstances. If you saw only their interviews and did not actually examine the maps and photos of the MW resort, you would not realize just how far off those comments were.
Click to expand...

In other words Texana, they were really really crafty, cute, wiley whatever the adjective appropriate to anyones language is! They had it all sussed, they knew the strings to pull & certainly were not left unassisted. I ask why? What is so darned special about two child abusers who leave 3 babies while they go out on the proverbial p***?

Something stinks in this case & I would sure love to know what! It goes way higher than these two imbeciles!

& sadly I have to correct you, they have two lovely children not three, thanks to their gross negligence & abuse of precious children that were placed in their care!
 
I couldn't agree with you more Barnaby.. and to be honest, I don't find them good looking, charming, or "upper class" enough to overlook such disgusting, negligent, behavior (at best). I am appauled that they DO still have those TWO children.
 
this is nice from 3A's




******dear little madeleine******

i come to this page because it feels so right
i come to pray for you each and everynight
that you are warm and tucked up tight
sleep baby sleep everythings going to be alright

we will watch over you each and every night
youre voice is our plight to take care of you
and look to the stars that shine so bright
and to the sky that looks so blue
its all that we have got left to think of you
praying that you were with us tonight

ill light a candle and say a prayer
as ive done every night for just over a year
i cry in my heart as ive done from the very start
in youre name madeleine we will plod on
youre justice has only just begun
in god is a must that we must trust
to become one for peace on earth for everyone

god lights the way, sometimes we have to pay
other people should stop and think
that this could happen to them one day
heres hoping and praying that this wont be so
because madeleine mcCann we love you so

godbless you little angel
please be carefull and do take care
because madeleine we are always there
do not be afraid or even scared
because madeleine you know we really cared.

Goodnight godbless you sweet little angel
we love you and thats not hard to do
love is free and love is unconditional
you can have some of mine because it is divine
sleep in peace.
 
armywife210 said:
I couldn't agree with you more Barnaby.. and to be honest, I don't find them good looking, charming, or "upper class" enough to overlook such disgusting, negligent, behavior (at best). I am appauled that they DO still have those TWO children.
Click to expand...

I reckon that it is a PR exercise, typical any Govt. service can be corrupt when it comes to certain people. They wouldn't take the children from these people because there would be an outcry - They lost one child now you have taken their others - know what I mean? Plus of course their connections in high places!

Look at what happened that Irish couple in Portugal last week, their children were immediately placed in a home even though they had them with them & claim they did not drink much at all, that it was food poisoning & contrary to all Press reports it was only the mother who passed out, the father took her to hospital & left the children in the care of the hotel staff! They are going to sue! Huge difference in the treatment of the two couples!
 
I still trying to figure out something, maybe someone can help? (particularly the Mc Cann's supporters since they go unusually quiet in issues like this):

What the heck is the connection between the kids waking up in the middle of the night crying and a kidnapper entering the room? I just don't get it. COMMON SENSE (obviously lacking here terribly) would indicate that if your kid wakes up in the middle of the night crying is because they feel either sick, they had a nightmare or simply they miss mommy or daddy. Who in the right mind would associate a tot waking up with a stranger trying to abduct them?

Thoughts???
 
Also I just watched the Youtube video of the interview with Sandra Felgueiras and I could not believe what Mrs. Mc Cann indirectly stated about the kids bathing (check first comment on video). Around 1:18. So besides being irresponsible and leaving their kids ALONE while partying they also leave them UNATTENDED in the bathtub? You have to be freaking kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
SleuthMom said:
I still trying to figure out something, maybe someone can help? (particularly the Mc Cann's supporters since they go unusually quiet in issues like this):

What the heck is the connection between the kids waking up in the middle of the night crying and a kidnapper entering the room? I just don't get it. COMMON SENSE (obviously lacking here terribly) would indicate that if your kid wakes up in the middle of the night crying is because they feel either sick, they had a nightmare or simply they miss mommy or daddy. Who in the right mind would associate a tot waking up with a stranger trying to abduct them?

Thoughts???
Click to expand...

This explanation is another lame attempt at trying to divert the "blame" for the crying from the McCanns (for leaving them alone) to the "kidnapper" (who may have been in the apartment, not necessarily attempting a kidnapping). What gets me is if a "presence" in the apartment was enough to awaken and frighten Maddie and Sean on the night of the 2nd then why didn't a "presence" and an actual abduction not bring on hysterics on the night of the 3rd??

You know what they say about a "tangled web"??? IMO, this is this biggest load of hooey!!! Maddie cried because she woke up in the dark and was frightened and Sean woke up because Maddie was crying out for her mom. There was no crying on the night of the 3rd because Maddie was dead and Sean was sedated. I am really getting fed up with this cr*p!
 
McCanns' status as suspects in Madeleine's disappearance 'will be lifted by August'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=565124&in_page_id=1770

Kate and Gerry McCann will be cleared within three months of any involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance, their Portuguese lawyer said today.

Rogerio Alves said that by August at the latest the couple's status as suspects, or arguidos, will be lifted.
Mr Alves, a criminal lawyer with contacts in the judicial system, said: "I believe that by August the police will close the case and lift arguido status.
"I believe it is a very strong possibility."

The out-going national director of the judicial police, Alipio Ribeiro, hinted today that the investigation will be shut down.
 
Right on, Moms - Sleuth and Colo!

That has to be one of the lamest defenses ever. Maddie awoke and cried because there was a kidnapper in the room - but failed to mention that wee little point when telling her mom about the cries???? Give me a break! Hwo stupid do those people think we are?

Let's see, have I got this right?

Kidnapper enters the room for a run-through, dress rehearsal. Maddie sees him and cries. He promptly threatens her saying, "Ok, you can go ahead and tell your mom you cried but don't you dare mention I was in the room! I'll see ya tomorrow night!"

Yea, sure.....sounds ever so plausible.
 
april4sky said:
McCanns' status as suspects in Madeleine's disappearance 'will be lifted by August'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=565124&in_page_id=1770

Kate and Gerry McCann will be cleared within three months of any involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance, their Portuguese lawyer said today.

Rogerio Alves said that by August at the latest the couple's status as suspects, or arguidos, will be lifted.
Mr Alves, a criminal lawyer with contacts in the judicial system, said: "I believe that by August the police will close the case and lift arguido status.
"I believe it is a very strong possibility."

The out-going national director of the judicial police, Alipio Ribeiro, hinted today that the investigation will be shut down.
Click to expand...

Yea....lifted. Lifted because charges will be brought.... :mad:
 
SleuthMom wrote: "What the heck is the connection between the kids waking up in the middle of the night crying and a kidnapper entering the room?"

REPLY: Er, none whatsoever. Except, of course, that it promotes the idea of an evil abducter lurking and waiting to pounce on Madeleine.

One of the McCanns' early - and repeated - claims was that 'it felt so right' [per Kate McCann] and safe to leave the three children all alone in a strange apartment, because it was a 'family-friendly' environment etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.

But, since then, the McCanns and their spokesman have been at pains to claim there WAS evidence of an evil abductor lurking. Over the past few months, we have had:

* Stories of strange people lurking around the apartments and door-knocking for charity
* A TV programme (Panorama on 19 November 2007) which included a lengthy reference to a block of flats overlooking the Ocean Club apartments i.e. where an abductor might have been lurking
* The possibility - hinted at - that Madeleine might have been crying late at night on May 2nd/3rd because an evil abductor disturbed her at night.

Yet despite that, and despite Madeleine (allegedly) cheerily telling the McCanns that she and Sean were crying the night before, we are asked to believe that the McCanns happily tripped off to the Tapas bar at 8.30pm for another drinking session. Though personally I regard what happened on the evening of 3rd May as a charade to cover up a child already dead and being hidden away or - even worse - destroyed.

We are also asked to believe that the evil abductor might have been lurking behind a door to the children's room, or even hiding in a cupboard or under the bed, as Gerry McCann did his (claimed) 9.10pm check. After all, we recently had Gerry's testimony that he noticed, on his fabled 9.10pm check, that the door to the children's room was at around 60 degrees instead of 45 degrees as it was before.

Of course, he only realised the possible significance of the door being 15 degrees more open than before (give or take a degree or two) several months afterwards.

That is, after he and his wife were declared arguidos.

Surely one of the most inexplicable things about this whole story is how these patently absurd stories have not been challenged byany of the main media, but have only been properly discussed on Forums like this

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
april4sky (who I assume is some kind of spokesperson for the McCanns) wrote: "McCanns' status as suspects in Madeleine's disappearance 'will be lifted by August'".

REPLY: But, april4sky, we have been here many times before, always with reports of the McCanns' arguido status 'about to be lifted'. Here's a report from over 4 months ago in the 'Daily Mirror':

McCanns' fury at police chief's warning

By Rod Chaytor and Paul Byrne 4/01/2008

1E50B1D7-F14E-1122-40E2FCC9FD583C85.jpg
McCanns (Getty Images)


Related Articles
Related Tags
Kate and Gerry McCann were furious last night after learning they are still prime suspects in daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

The couple's hopes of being cleared today were crushed when police chief Paulo Rebelo asked a judge to extend their arguido status because detectives are sticking to their belief that they accidentally killed the four-year-old.​

Their anger was compounded when they heard officers also want to keep Robert Murat as an official suspect over claims he was involved in her kidnap.​

A friend of the McCanns, both 39, said: "The police can't have it both ways." Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: "They are frustrated and angry.​

"Frustrated because, yet again, there appears to be no movement in the case when they know they are innocent.

"They will continue to push for their arguido status to be lifted."​

Madeleine vanished from Praia da Luz eight months ago today. Under Portuguese law arguidos can ask to be cleared or charged after that time.​

But the McCanns fear they could now be left with a cloud of suspicion hanging over them for years after a new police file was handed to a judge claiming they were still in the frame - despite a lack of evidence.​

Mr Mitchell added: "This latest report, if it exists, was an opportunity to move forward and for them to be cleared. They feel a degree of anger and upset because whenever such an opportunity arises it appears to be squandered."​

National Union of Portuguese Judges president Antonio Martins warned the McCanns could face a lengthy wait to clear their name. He added: "The problem at the moment is that no one knows what type of crime was committed. For homicide, suspects can still be tried for up to 20 years after the crime was committed."​

Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha said the police file asked the judge to lengthen the "secrecy of justice" period in the case.​

The couple's friend said: "As we understand it, the report talks about the police's continued belief that Madeleine died accidentally in the apartment and that is why Kate and Gerry remain arguidos. But it also talks about Murat remaining an arguido and it discusses the possibility of her being abducted." Expat Murat, 34, denies involvement.​

Correio da Manha also claimed Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, could be charged with perjury and wasting police time.​

They have been warned by their legal team they they may have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to get their arguido status lifted.​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 149 more.
Total: 2,097 (members: 150, guests: 1,947)

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
1,947
Total visitors
2,097
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,225
Messages
18,184,354
Members
233,275
Latest member
Crowskullsearch33
Back
Top