Sun article - EIGHT YEARS ON, HOW 'SUPER SLEUTH' FAILED THE McCANNS plus Express and Sun Articles

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32603168

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp sees net profits halve
6 May 2015

The success of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper helped lift revenues in News Corp's books division
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, owner of The Times, The Sunday Times and The Wall Street Journal newspapers, saw third quarter net profits fall 52%, compared with the same period in 2014.
Declining advertising revenues and circulations for print publications meant profits fell to $23m (£15.2m; €20.6m) for the quarter ended 31 March.
Revenues also slipped 1% to $2.06bn.
Chief executive Robert Thomson highlighted a strong performance in its property listing business, Realtor.com.
"The new News Corp continues to build a firm foundation for digital growth," said Mr Thomson.
"We see that most clearly in the successful integration of realtor.com, which grew audience and revenue at record levels in the third quarter.
"News Corp is now a global leader in digital real estate."
Revenues for the online property division rose 67% to $170m for the quarter, after results from its Move subsidiary were included.
Newspapers, on the other hand, continued to struggle, with revenue in News Corp's news and information division falling 9% overall, as ad revenue declined 12%, and circulation and subscription revenue fell 6%.
But revenue in News Corp's book publishing division, which includes HarperCollins, rose 14% to $402m over the quarter.
The company said the continued popularity of the late Chris Kyle's autobiography, American Sniper, had helped boost results. The book was turned into a Hollywood film starring Bradley Cooper.
The group revenue results were below analyst expectations - a fact the company blamed partially on currency fluctuations.

(bolding mine and some bits - pictures etc. removed for clarity)

So, just for News Corp:

caricature wrote:

My block of red 5a?

Looks like it to me caricature.

dogs don't lie wrote:

caricature wrote:

My block of red 5a?

Looks like it to me caricature.

Yes, that is 5a.

HOW 'SUPER SLEUTH' FAILED THE McCANNS


Wasn't DCI Redwood brought in as a Super Sleuth, with a proven track record of success in Cold Case Reviews . . . ?

Posting this here in the hope someone can explain this to me. Who instigated the reopening of the case by the PJ?
During an interview GA had this to say:
Quote

...but I can't say anything else because of the temporary injunction. [As long as the McCanns, Murat, or anyone from the Tapas group don't ask for the re-opening of the case, no police force in Portugal, in Britain or otherwise will be investigating the case - The McCanns could legitimately - as assistants to the process - have asked for the re-opening of the case; they didn't. The McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group could ask at any time to be heard and give evidence, or even offer to undertake the reconstruction, which would force the Portuguese Public Ministry to lift a certificate from the archived process, thus reopening it. The official investigation would then continue.]

So if none of the group asked for the case to be re-opened, how was it possible?

According to CdM and other sources in October 2013, the PJ themselves felt that there were shortfalls in the original investigation and decided to revisit certain matters voluntarily. Click on the links below for the full story:

PJ to reopen case

Portugal Resident

Not sure about this but it was reopened due to new info, think it was about EM, don't quote me though.

Shock horror I have just realised that GA mentioned that the Macs had assistente status.
"The McCanns could legitimately - as assistants to the process - have asked for the re-opening of the case; they didn't."

I thought they applied for it and were refused. Anyone know more?

Does that not mean, if they DID have it, they COULD have asked for a re-opening? Because IIRC, they did ask but were refused. I'm sure that if the status was eventually granted, we would have heard about it.

Resistor wrote:Does that not mean, if they DID have it, they COULD have asked for a re-opening?  Because IIRC, they did ask but were refused.  I'm sure that if the status was eventually granted, we would have heard about it.

They asked as early as 27 Aug 07 and here is the answer from the Public Ministry saying they had no objections.





From the Public Ministry

Conclusion 29-08-2007

Within the scope of the current investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a British citizen, born on the 12-05-2003 from a bedroom in the OC resort where she was staying with her family, made up of her parents Gerald McCann and Kate Healy and her twin siblings.

They are now requesting to be constitutes as Assistentes.

That is how the case is presented to the judge, bearing in mind that the current state of the case, it is repeated that they are the parents and have a legitimate right (article 68 no. 1), they have each paid the taxes and hired a lawyer, I do not have any objection to the constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as assistentes in the case.


However after they were made arguidos this was reversed on 11/9 07 by Menezes.

1. I suggest the apprehension is validated and that the translation of the photocopies is carried out as well as the eventual collection of elements to bring to the process if they are necessary to the investigation.

2. As a result of the terms of folios 2553 and 2565, those making the request on folio 2510, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy were in the meantime constituted as arguidos because there was an alteration in their position in the process, incompatible with their quality of assistentes, due to which we now oppose their intervention as such, which we now make clear.

Signed

Public Prosecutor

Dr Jose Magalhaes e Menezes

Source McCannfiles
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mccannpjfiles.co.uk%2FPJ%2FMCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm&ei=xk9LVcXaBoWCzAOu9IDAAw&usg=AFQjCNGzWFSpYn5D01qpmCyzoTcaj3xIEA

I have read however that it is possible to be arguido and assistente and wondered if they had reapplied after the case was reopened and they no longer had arguido status.

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:According to CdM and other sources in October 2013, the PJ themselves felt that there were shortfalls in the original investigation and decided to revisit certain matters voluntarily. Click on the links below for the full story:

PJ to reopen case

Portugal Resident

Thanks Chop.

chirpyinsect wrote:Shock horror I have just realised that GA mentioned that the Macs had assistente status.
"The McCanns could legitimately - as assistants to the process - have asked for the re-opening of the case; they didn't."

I thought they applied for it and were refused. Anyone know more?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm

I think they were assistentes in the original investigation and, as such, had the power to request the re-opening of the shelved case.

However, once the case was re-opened they had to reapply for assistente status to the new investigation. Which they did, according to numerous media reports at the time:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011

Whether that request was granted I don't know - I can't find any reports on that. But the suggestion that the McCanns were not considered suspects in the re-opened Portuguese case would indicate it likely the status would be given.

However, it is only newspaper reports that state the McCanns were not suspects in the new investigation, so pinch of salt again? If they were under suspicion, surely the request would be denied. It is strange no-one ever got wind of the outcome, for sure.