................................ ................................ NBC Chicago August 11th 2010
Has the rhetoric in the Illinois Senate campaign sunk to libelous levels?
Nadhmi Auchi, the human peg with which Mark Kirk tied oppenent Alexi Giannoulias to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has sicced his lawyers on the North Shore Congressman. Kirk accused the Iraqi-born businessman and Broadway Bank client of handling the personal accounts of Saddam Hussein and selling him Italian warships in the 1980s.
Auchi’s attorneys, Carter-Ruck, responded with a seething letterobjecting to the “serious and false accusations that you made about our client at the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs on 8 August 2010.”
According to the letter, “it is wholly untrue that Mr. Auchi was ‘a banker to Saddam Hussein or involved in ‘arms deals to Saddam Hussein.’ Mr. Auchi had absolutely no ties or links to Saddam Hussein … Saddam Hussein was in fact responsible for murdering one of Mr. Auchi’s brothers. Mr. Auchi was imprisoned, beaten and tortured by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Auchi left Iraq in 1980 and did not return until after the U.S.-led invasion and the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
The letter charges that the newspaper articles that formed the basis of Kirk’s accusation came from the British newspaper The Observer. Auchi took legal action against the paper, forcing the paper to admit the articles contained “significant inaccuracies,” and removing them from their website. Carter-Ruck is demanding that Kirk “withdraw the false allegations and … apologize to our client.”
Kirk seems inclined to do nothing of the sort. In fact, a Kirk aide linked to the letter in an e-mail to supporters, and wrote of Auchi, “Maybe he’ll even threaten to sue us for mentioning his well-documented criminal past.” Just so you know that Kirk isn't intimidated by a litigious British billionaire.
Kirk's campaign also provided Ward Room with a link to an Observer articleinsinuating that Auchi supplied warships to Saddam Hussein's Navy. (See Note)
The aide's e-mail also mentioned that Auchi had been convicted of fraud by a French court for receiving illegal commissions in an oil scandal, and has been banned by the State Department from entering the United States. Auchi did not dispute those allegations, only the characterization of his relationship with Saddam Hussein.
“The reporting of the New York Times and the Observer of London concerning Mr. Auchi, a convicted felon who is barred from entering the United States, speaks for itself," Kirk spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a statement. "The very fact that Broadway Bank has a long track record of loaning money to thugs, criminals and mobsters like Auchi and Rezko should tell voters everything they need to know about Alexi Giannoulias, his judgment and whether he is suited to represent them in the United States Senate.”
Kirk seems to be daring Auchi to sue him for libel. Does Kirk really want to get into another battle over who’s telling the truth? If Auchi does sue, it won’t be the first time Kirk has been accused of playing fast and loose with the facts, but it will be the first time he’s hauled into court for it.
Note: This is the Observer article which Carter-Ruck claims has been deleted from the newspaper's web site.
Nadhmi Auchi in 2004 with Illinois Governor Blagojevich.
On Monday August 9th, Republican Mark Kirk referred to billionaire Nadhmi Auchi in comments to journalists following a speech on foreign policy.
Kirk again harped on a nearly $23 million loan recently reported by the Chicago Sun-Times that went to a development company with ties to convicted Illinois political insider Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire who was embroiled in a fraud scandal of his own.
Auchi was convicted of receiving illegal commissions as part of France's giant Elf-Aquitaine oil scandal that sent top executives to jail. In 2003, Auchi got a suspended sentence and was fined. He has denied any role in the scandal.
Carter-Ruck is acting on behalf of a man who was convicted of fraud in 2003 by a French court.
A controversial Iraqi-British billionaire who funds one of the UK's most strongly anti-Zionist websites organised a banquet in honour of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, and a fundraiser for Susan Kramer, the party's candidate in the high-profile seat of Richmond Park.
Nadhmi Auchi, 73, was convicted of fraud in the giant French Elf-Aquitaine oil company trial in 2003 and given a suspended sentence, although he is seeking to appeal the verdict.
And what about Mr Auchi's former business associates?
"Tony Rezko's Billionaire Buddy."
On a spring day in 2004, Nadhmi Auchi, one of the world's richest men, flew in to Midway Airport on a private jet. Met by a welcoming party that included Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (there at the request of the Blagojevich administration) and businessman Tony Rezko, Auchi was brought to a downtown hotel where he was the guest of honor at a reception hosted by Blagojevich.
The Iraqi-born billionaire -- who lives in London -- had come to Chicago on business. He would go on to invest nearly $170 million in a prime piece of vacant land in the South Loop -- 62 acres along the Chicago River that Rezko wanted to develop.
Now, Auchi is surfacing in Rezko's corruption case, set to go to trial Monday. Auchi is mentioned by prosecutors in the court filing that got Rezko's bail revoked and landed him in jail.
Rezko was indicted in October 2006 in a scheme to shake down firms seeking state pension business to enrich himself and Blagojevich's campaign fund. He got $3.5 million from Auchi's company in April 2007 but never told a judge about it, raising concerns that Rezko, a native of Syria, might flee the country.
Auchi wasn't accused of wrongdoing regarding Rezko. But he had faced legal troubles in Europe, prosecutors noted, having been "convicted several years ago in France on fraud charges" and sentenced to 15 months in prison, "but the sentence was suspended as long as Auchi committed no new crimes."
They raised the possibility that, even though Auchi's Luxembourg-based General Mediterranean Holding has taken control of the valuable South Loop property from Rezko, Auchi might be barred from entering the United States. "In November 2005, after Auchi was unable to enter the United States, Rezko directly appealed to the State Department to permit Auchi to enter the United States and, it appears, asked certain Illinois government officials to do the same," prosecutors wrote.
So how was Auchi not allowed in the United States in November 2005 but able to come here in 2004 -- despite his criminal conviction in France in 2003?
Auchi's London-based lawyer, Alasdair Pepper, wouldn't answer that. State Department and Homeland Security officials said they couldn't comment.
So, now I turn to the controversial Wikileaks site for their:
"Debunking The Carter-Ruck Defence of British-Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi."
It's a very long entry on the Wikileaks site. So, I shall just copy significant parts of it and ask you to read the article in its entirety on the web site. This article seems to totally debunk Carter-Ruck's claim that Nadhmi Auchi was not associated in any way with Sadam Hussein.
“A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser (dual US-Syrian citizen Tony Rezko) just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses. The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr. Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.” -- The Times of London February 26, 2008
The Auchi-Rezko-Obama connection came to public attention with federal marshals pounding on the door of Tony Rezko’s Wilmette Chicago mansion in the early morning of January 28, 2008. They hauled Rezko to jail after his bail was revoked for concealing a $3.5 million Auchi loan from the court. The Times outlines the story in two sentences. It should be of tremendous interest to the American public and the world.
But there is more to this story than run-of-the mill political corruption. Nadhmi Auchi is alleged to have a long affiliation with Iraqi Baathism and Saddam Hussein—which his attorneys deny. How close were they? According to a 1960 US Embassy report, Auchi was convicted along with Saddam by an Iraqi court for his part in a failed 1959 assassination attempt against then-Iraqi Prime Minister Qassim. For his crime, Auchi earned a sentence of “three years rigorous imprisonment.”
The US Embassy report is an interesting counterpoint to Auchi’s September, 2004 interview with the LondonTimes in which he claims, “I left the Ba’ath party in 1962 and was jailed in Iraq when the party came to power in 1963….” What does “was jailed” mean? For those unaware of the 1960 US Embassy report, Auchi’s claim implies he was jailed by the Baathists when they came to power. But it might also mean he was still in jail from the 1960 sentence.
................................. .................................. This letter, reproduced below, is the Madeleine Foundation's response to a communication from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients, Kate and Gerry McCann. The communication from Carter-Ruck can be read on a previous post on this blog.
Carter-Ruck
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street LONDON EC4A 3AE
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Your ref: Stevie Loughrey
AT/IH/SVL//13837.5
Dear Sirs
re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - Your letter of 16 July
This letter follows my responses to your e-mail of 15 July by telephone from Bournemouth on Friday 16 July at 10.28am and again at 1.28pm and my e-mail to you dated 19 July (reproduced below) and timed at 7.36am.
Further actions following receipt of your letter
In addition to the actions mentioned in my previous e-mail that we have already taken in response to your letter of 15 July, we have made several further changes to the material on our website concerning Mr Gonçalo Amaral, Gonçalo Amaral Day etc. In specific response to the demands you made about our leaflet, The Madeleine Foundation has decided in addition not to distribute this leaflet any further nor print further copies of it. Several thousand copies had already been distributed in the weeks leading up to Saturday 17 July which we termed ‘Gonçalo Amaral Awareness Day’.
The claims of breaches of my undertakings given on 13 November 2009
I have carefully studied your letter.
You claim that: “We have advised our clients [the McCanns] that your conduct represented a number of clear breaches of your undertaking to the court…it is clear that on a number of occasions you have breached [your] undertaking…there can be no doubt whatsoever that notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up”.
In support of this claim, your letter refers specifically to the following six matters only:
My letter to Theresa May, Home Secretary, dated 4 July 2010, a copy of which you and your clients have clearly seen
A posting on a thread on a forum now called ‘The complete mystery of Madeleine McCann’, run by a Mrs Jill Havern. The title of this forum was I understand named after your clients’ Chief Public Relations Officer, Mr Clarence Mitchell, himself referred to the disappearance of Madeleine as ‘a complete mystery’ in a Channel 4 TV interview in March this year
The contents of The Madeleine Foundation’s recent leaflet: ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’, of which you claim “…readers of this publication will have understood it to mean that here are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral’s suspicions that Madeleine McCann died in our clients’ care and that they subsequently conspired to cover up her death…”
An internet posting by me on a forum, said to have been made at 1.03am on 12 July which you said “…would lead readers to have understood that Amarals’ theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untruehe sees as the truth [my underlining] about… Madeleine…” [your underlining] and simply does not withstand proper scrutiny’. You based this on my words that “Amaral…has sacrificed the rest of his career to bring us what
Allegedly ‘hiding behind’ quotes or purported quotes from other people ‘when publishing outrageous slurs of our clients’ (although you do not cite a single example in your letter)
The video recording: ‘Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate McCann Refused to Answer’.
You do not give particulars of any other alleged breaches of my undertakings.
You also in the penultimate paragraph of your letter advised that any individual ‘linked to’ The Madeleine Foundation’ who ‘disseminates serious falsehoods’ about your clients places her/himself at risk of being pursued for ‘appropriate legal relief’.
On page 3 of your letter, you made four demands. I respond as follows:
Demand 1. The Madeleine Foundation has agreed not to republish ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ nor to authorise anyone else to republish it. We shall not be making any further distribution of the leaflet.
Demand 2. The downloadable version of ‘Your Questions Answered About Gonçalo Amaral’ was removed on 18 July from The Madeleine Foundation website as a result of your request. The non-downloadable version has also been removed from our website since your letter. Other material about Gonçalo Amaral remains on our website though in view of the undertaking I gave to the court we do not on The Madeleine Foundation website link to his book nor indeed to the documentary he made, although as you must know, many other forums and blogs do so.
Demand 3. The YouTube video you refer to which went live on 13 July was removed by YouTube as you already know on 16 July. We have no plans to republish it on YouTube or elsewhere. Having said that, we do not accept that to reproduce what the Portuguese Police have themselves published as the official record of the questions they asked Dr Kate McCann can possibly be construed as ‘libellous’, especially since these have been in the public domain for almost two years and, so far as I am aware, your clients have made no challenge to date as to their authenticity. The BBC website carries exactly the same list of 48 questions that your client refused to answer; it can easily be found in its archive for 2008
Demand 4. I have endeavoured at all times to draw a distinction between the information which Mr Amaral gives in ‘The Truth About A Lie’ about his investigation and the deductions he makes from that information. For example, in explaining the ‘Gonçalo Amaral Support Project’, we wrote this: “Why is G.A.S.P. needed? ANSWER: Before giving you the details, why did we set up our new campaign on behalf of Mr Amaral? Our reasons include: The fact that without his book, A Verdade daMentira (‘The Truth About A Lie’) there is much important information [my underlining] surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann that otherwise we would not know”. To give one example, in one chapter of his book, Mr Amaral explains how your clients’ friend Jane Tanner on the afternoon of Sunday 13 May came to identify Robert Murat as the man wearing mustard chinos she said she’d seen carrying a child at around 9.15am on Thursday 3 May, the night Madeleine was reported missing. These and other facts, we say, are important to an understanding of the case, whether Mr Amaral is right, or mistaken, in his views on what really happened to Madeleine.
To give a second example, Mr Amaral explains how, when he was re-interviewed by police on 10 and 11 July 2007, Mr Murat gave a very different story about his movements from 1 to 4 May 2007 inclusive than he did when first taken in for questioning on 14 May. We are advised that there can be no ban on reasonablediscussion of these and other important facts in Mr Amaral’s book. His theory is another matter.
I am happy to repeat my undertakings given previously to the court. In particular, in the light of your e-mail, I will refrain from suggesting that Mr Amaral’s suspicions about your client may be correct, whilst at the same time we are advised that to continue reasonable discussion of the information he has provided us is not libellous.
So far as Mr Amaral is concerned, it must also be remembered that your clients’ libel action against him has not yet been heard. It could well be that the Portuguese libel court will not uphold your clients’ allegation of libel. He has just as much right to defend himself against what he sees as lies and smears against him in the British media (and to have people in Portugal, the U.K. and elsewhere support him), as your clients have a similar right to defend themselves against what they claim is libel.
In your clients’ case, they appear to have been able to call on the services of your firm with regularity. As your clients have but one wage-earner, it seems reasonably clear that your fees must be being paid from other sources, possibly unnamed benefactors (such payments would of course be liable to be declared to the Inland Revenue as income). One assumes that the donations made by the general public to the Find Madeleine Fund are not being used since we recall statements by your clients and their Chief Public Relations Officer that those donations would not be used to fund lawyers’ fees and court costs etc. Mr Amaral is in a very different and difficult financial position. There does not appear therefore to be an ‘equality of arms’ in the current libel action against Mr Amaral although this principle is now enshrined in British civil litigation. That is another reason behind our support for him.
Furthermore, the legal advice I have received is that neither myself nor anyone else can be prohibited by a libel court or otherwise from reporting on and making reasonable comment on information in the public domain, and especially so given that this information comes specifically from police sources. I give two examples. The interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, dated 10 September 2007, gives an accurate summary of the police investigation up to that point. It has been published. It can therefore be commented on, both by those who disagree with what he says, and those who agree.
Similarly, in the interlocutory hearing in your clients’ libel action in Lisbon in January 2010, the Public Ministry Prosecutor, Magalhães e Menezes, who made the decision to archive the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, was quoted by the press as saying: “The death thesis is the most likely one to explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance”. Furthermore, Inspector Tavares de Almeida, who was actively involved in the investigation, was quoted in the same hearing as saying: “Gonçalo Amaral does not usurp the conclusions of the investigation; his conclusions come from investigation itself”.
These comments were made on oath in a court of law. They cannot easily be dismissed. The legal advice I have received is that anyone is entitled to publish these statements (as the Portuguese press and media have done) and, within reason, comment on them. Similarly, as you will appreciate, the final report of the Policia Judiciara archiving the investigation specifically left on the table the two main theories in the case: (a) that Madeleine was abducted and (b) that Madeleine died in your clients’ apartment.
This incidentally is why I and others have raised perfectly legitimate concerns with the Home Office about the statements that have been made in the press since March about your clients having meetings with the former and current Home Secretaries and their senior civil servants about a possible ‘review’ or ‘re-investigation’ into Madeleine’s disappearance. It appeared to us (we may be wrong) that your clients were seeking to persuade the Home Office to approach an as-yet unnamed British police force to carry out a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance which would have concentrated exclusively on your clients’ assertions that Madeleine was abducted, and would not examine other possibilities.
As I have done in the YouTube video of the ‘48 Portuguese Police Questions’ which your client refused to answer, I will in any comments on the disappearance of Madeleine give due prominence to your clients’ ‘take’ on any matter. In that YouTube video, I refrained from making any comment except to ensure that, right at the beginning, your client’s position was fairly explained, i.e. your client’s right to silence, your client having relied on legal advice in refusing to answer questions, and your client believing the police were wholly wrong to place her under suspicion instead of looking for Madeleine.
The Madeleine Foundation Committee has asked me to point out that under our Constitution, our objects include: “To pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007”. The Committee plans to continue to research and analyse all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine and that includes giving due prominence to all cogent evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
I reproduce my e-mail sent on Monday (19th) below.
Yours faithfully
Anthony Bennett
E-mail sent to Stevie Loughrey of Carter-Ruck 19 July 2010
Dear Sirs,
Both myself and some members of The Madeleine Foundation Committee have now had an opportunity to view your letter.
This follows my telephone call to you from Bournemouth at 10.42am on Friday 16 July and my voicemail message left at 1.28pm the same day, to neither of which you responded.
In response to your letter e-mailed to me at 6.10pm on Thursday 15 July:
(1) The '48 Questions' video with myself reading out the 48 questions that your client Dr. Kate McCann refused to answer on 7 September 2007 does not seem to us to be capable of being construed as libellous. Not only is it merely the reading out of the questions she refused to answer, but I took the specific precaution in the introduction to the video, acting on legal advice, to put your client's point of view, namely:
a) that she had the right to remain silent (under both Portuguese and British law) and was acting on legal advice, and
b) that she believed the Portuguese Police were in error in suspecting her and her husband of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, and were not therefore looking for Madeleine as she believed they should have been.
Your letter asks me to "Remove the video referred to above from YouTube'.
The video was taken down by YouTube during Friday 16 July. Your letter urged us to 'seek legal advice upon this letter...' I am in the process of seeking legal advice and that will include advice on whether that YouTube video is libellous.
(2) You asked for the leaflet about Mr Goncalo Amaral 'to be removed from our website(s)'. The Madeleine Foundation Committee agreed to remove this last night, and where the downloadable version used to be, there is now the following notice:
"On 15th July Carter Ruck asked us to remove this downloadable leaflet on Goncalo Amaral. We have agreed to this request pending receipt of legal advice".
(3) You objected to a paragraph in a posting I made on 4 July this year on a forum run by Jill Havern, at this link.
I have taken immediate action to remove the paragraph you objected to and the following notice now appears on Mrs Havern's forum instead of the offending paragraph:
NOTE: The first sentence of this posting has been removed following legal objections to it raised by Mr Stevie Loughrey of Carter-Ruck in a letter I received from them on 15 July 2010.
(4) In the light of your letter, an urgent review of the content of The Madeleine Foundation website has been undertaken, and last night additional material and links have been removed where there was a doubt in our minds as to whether any material could be construed as libellous.
I shall address the remainder of your letter as soon as practicable and of course after taking the legal advice which you urge me to take in the final sentence of your letter.
Finally, your letter is marked: 'STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL'. I should like to advise you that a vociferous and regular supporter of your client on the internet, namely 'muratfan', whom we believe to be Mr Ian West of Norwich, is boasting that he has read your letter.
.................................................... This letter was sent to Tony Bennett of The Madeleine Foundation following the uploading to YouTube of the video of Tony Bennett reading the 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer in September 2007.
Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller has been noted as saying: confidential means everyone knows about it, whereas MI5 has 'secrets and top secrets.' So, here is the 'STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL,' letter from Carter-Ruck to Tony Bennett.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw has launched a consultation with lawyers from major newspapers following the row over "super-injunctions" following the Trafigura row.
Junior justice minister Bridget Prentice told MPs last week that a number of senior judges would also be involved in a consultation over court orders which ban publication of certain information and also ban reporting about the order being made.
Prentice told MPs: "We are very concerned that super-injunctions are being used more commonly, particularly in the area of libel and privacy.
"The Secretary of State for Justice [Straw] has already asked senior officials in the department to discuss the matter with lawyers from the major newspapers. We are also involving the judiciary in a consultation.
"We are looking specifically at how the use of super-injunctions has had an effect and what we therefore need to do on that."
"We are looking specifically at how the use of super-injunctions has had an effect and what we therefore need to do on that."
Prentice told MPs during a debate on 21 October she would relay MPs message that further guidelines might be needed for judiciary to the Justice Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice.
The Prime Minister told MPs earlier this month Straw would examine the use of so-called "super injunctions" after the Guardian reported that it had been prevented from reporting a Parliamentary question tabled by Newcastle-under-Lyme MP Paul Farrelly, a former journalist, relating to oil company Trafigura because of an injunction obtained by the firm's lawyers, Carter Ruck.
Prentice told MPs the advice given to the Guardian by Carter-Ruck that the newspaper would be in contempt for reporting Farrelly's question, was incorrect.
She added: "I am happy to ensure that we send them a copy of Article 9 [of the Bill of Rights 1689], so that they can read and peruse it at their leisure."
So, let's have a wee look at this mega expensive company Carter Ruck. It amazes me that a couple of doctors like Kate and Gerry McCann can associate themselves with a company like Carter Ruck, that tries to use such tactics against a national newspaper, with legal advice that is incorrect. And a firm of solicitors that would seek to prohibit the publication of information about a company like Trafigura polluting the environment at serious risk to health and the environment?
Have the McCanns no shame? Or do they just not care as long as they have, "..the most feared libel lawyers," and they can shut people up, whatever the tactics or the cost to their wealthy backers? Let's face it, the McCanns must have some seriously heavy-duty backing to be able to afford to use five hundred quid an hour Carter Ruck to put the thumbscrews on ordinary people like those who set up The Madeleine Foundation.
The police files from the Maddie investigation in Portugal are in the public domain: they were released when the case was archived. The Madeleine Foundation simply presents information that is already in the public domain, but possibly few members of the general public have read it. The McCanns by way of Carter Ruck would seek to make sure that ordinary Joe Public does not have this information presented to him in a user-friendly way.
Conclusion: the McCanns have no shame, either about leaving three small children on their own, night after night in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, or in using a bunch of heavy-handed legal representatives like Carter Ruck.
Jack Straw please do your job and get this properly investigated. Carter Ruck must be stopped from silencing people with their mighty fist of super-injunctions and efforts to intimidate people who do not have the financial resources to defend themselves.
"HOME Secretary Alan Johnson is prepared to ask US spy chiefs for satellite images which may show the face of Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper, following intervention by the Sunday Express."
"Hope of new progress came after it emerged Leicestershire Police never made a formal request to the Home Office for views of Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve at the time the little girl vanished in May 2007."
Yet, further on in the Express article, we are told that the Portuguese police had actually asked Leicestershire police to make a formal request for this information. A senior Portuguese police source said:
"We hoped spy images may have captured the kidnapper watching the apartment prior to the event or even on the day itself. Obviously, having a picture would have speeded up the apprehension of the offender.”
"Yet more than two years after Madeleine was snatched no help has been forthcoming, despite early requests from senior Portuguese detectives."
"The Portuguese source explained: “This was fully discussed with Leicestershire Police and officials with the British Government.
“We were confident of getting progress because of Gordon Brown’s interest in the case and this apparent special relationship between Britain and the United States.
“Your ambassador to Portugal even visited our officers soon after the kidnap.
“The bad news for us is that we got nowhere with this avenue of inquiry, which was both frustrating and infuriating.”
For, despite all the talk, nothing appears to have been done officially with the British government and the formal requests were never made." It seems that if Leicestershire police received the request, they did not pass it on and we need to ask why.
THE INVESTIGATION HAMPERED FROM THE BEGINNING
Early on in the investigation, the Portuguese police asked the British authorities for information about the McCanns and their friends with whom they went on holiday to Praia da Luz. That information never came. Specifically information about bank accounts was requested. This was part of the reply:
""No record of a current bank account is held," said the English about Madeleine's father, adding that "there is no record of credit cards or loans."
The request for this information was repeated in the rogatory letter sent in November 2007 to England. The British authorities refused the request and simply said, as a justification, that they would not provide financial information on the couple. And the information never arrived.
In January this year, when British journalists tried to clarify the situation, this was the response from the Home Office:
"The Home Office (British Ministry of Foreign Affairs) cannot confirm or deny" that the McCanns have had bank accounts between the 25 of April 2007 and 12 September 2008."
The complete Home Office response can be read on the McCann Files web site. This is an extract from that response:
"Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your request. Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first of these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested is actually held by that authority. The second duty is for that information to be disclosed where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under s1(1)(b). The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the Act: * Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations; * Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law Enforcement activities; and * Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety. This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.
(The above information was published by Correio da Manha in February 2009 and translated by Joana Morais.)
YET ANOTHER REFUSAL UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
"A Magical Mystery Tour," the McCann Files, October 17th 2009.
"On March 19 this year the FOI News reported thus:
'Sensitive e-mails concerning the hunt for missing child Madeleine McCann will remain secret for fear of offending the Portuguese authorities who were tasked with finding her.
'A request for the disclosure of 13 e-mails and one letter, which were written in the two months after Madeleine went missing, was refused by the Information Commissioner.'...........
............"'He went on to say: "...even now, to disclose full information about the then ambassador's communications with the Portuguese authorities then, on a balance of probabilities, substantial damage to the international relationship would result."
So, there appears to be quite a lot of evidence here that the British authorities did not wish to assist the police of another EU sovereign state in their investigation into the disappearance of a British child.
* Information on bank accounts - not forthcoming. * Request for communication between the British ambassador and the Portuguese authorities under the FOI Act, refused. * Request for satellite imaging information: never formally passed on by the Leicestershire police.
Further, an early request to the British authorities for Madeleine McCann's medical records was refused. Why?
Putting all these requests together with these facts: that there were 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police; the McCanns did a quick flit from Portugal immediately after being made arguidos and later refused to return to participate in a reconstruction of the events; the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness statements from the "Tapas Nine," it is no wonder the Portuguese police decided to archive this case. When banging one's head against a brick wall, it must be wonderful when you stop!
The Sunday Express has made significant moves towards the re-opening of the Madeleine McCann case. Perhaps it's time for other UK newspapers to take up the baton.
After the Carter Ruck/Trafigura fiasco, perhaps a few journalists need to be asking why Madeleine's parents needed to use Carter Ruck to attempt to silence the Madeleine Foundation, who were publishing information already in the public domain. Letters from Carter Ruck to the Madeleine Foundation can be viewed here. The Madeleine Foundation: the site the McCanns want to ban. (With the heavyweight help of Messrs Carter Ruck.)
