Having watched the first episode of Manhunt Sutton comes across as a calm, quiet and amenable character, but there are moments when his determination shows. It was interesting to see how many things a lead detective has to juggle as an investigation progresses; superiors, inferiors, the public. At the same time he/she has to move things along in the right direction.
One interesting snippet was Sutton's wife suggesting he used a stand alone database rather than HOLMES. He did, and admitted that it was quicker, whatever that meant.
The UK police rely heavily on CCTV and mobile phone technology. In this case it helps them considerably. Without it their jobs are much harder. I thought of the Moors murders which were only solved by an informer coming forward because there was no CCTV in those days allowing tracking of the victims and perpetrators.
The Madeleine McCann case offered little in the way of technological evidence so the UK police's expertise in that area hasn't helped. When OG's remit said they were going to investigate the case as if it happened in the UK, they seem to have thought that modern methods would help, but without technological evidence that wasn't possible.
Having watched the first episode of Manhunt Sutton comes across as a calm, quiet and amenable character, but there are moments when his determination shows. It was interesting to see how many things a lead detective has to juggle as an investigation progresses; superiors, inferiors, the public. At the same time he/she has to move things along in the right direction.
One interesting snippet was Sutton's wife suggesting he used a stand alone database rather than HOLMES. He did, and admitted that it was quicker, whatever that meant.
The UK police rely heavily on CCTV and mobile phone technology. In this case it helps them considerably. Without it their jobs are much harder. I thought of the Moors murders which were only solved by an informer coming forward because there was no CCTV in those days allowing tracking of the victims and perpetrators.
The Madeleine McCann case offered little in the way of technological evidence so the UK police's expertise in that area hasn't helped. When OG's remit said they were going to investigate the case as if it happened in the UK, they seem to have thought that modern methods would help, but without technological evidence that wasn't possible.
I hate the thought of being watched with a passion,but my view can easily be swayed in the way it was used in the investigation by Suttons team,looking as if they have identified a suspects van at the end,purely through cameras.
The Scotland Yard investigation into Madeleine's disappearance has not yet reached conclusion therefore no judgement can be made on how the case has been progressed particularly as the book of its exploits isn't with the printers yet.
That was one of the moments when he showed his metal by insisting on getting that footage before it was lost. He also threw manpower at reviewing it despite others expressing doubts. Another was when he insisted on continuing to search the river. Did you notice him being congratulated on his ability to bullshit? It made me think about some of the things said be Redwood and Rowley lol.
Gave a reasoned insight to the working's of an investigation.
That was one of the moments when he showed his metal by insisting on getting that footage before it was lost. He also threw manpower at reviewing it despite others expressing doubts. Another was when he insisted on continuing to search the river. Did you notice him being congratulated on his ability to bullshit? It made me think about some of the things said be Redwood and Rowley lol.Pity Amaral didn't manage that in Luz ... view from 1:00 ... when timings could have been established not only of the man seen by the Smiths but of their return to their apartment.
Pity Amaral didn't manage that in Luz ... view from 1:00 ... when timings could have been established not only of the man seen by the Smiths but of their return to their apartment.
Pity Amaral didn't manage that in Luz ... view from 1:00 ... when timings could have been established not only of the man seen by the Smiths but of their return to their apartment.
Perhaps because the PJ didn't have the reliance on CCTV that the UK police have developed.
Yep,smithman struck out lucky with that.
The investigation failed to find and check one of the very few CCTV cameras situated in the vicinity of a missing child event and the senior investigating officer is on record as indicating it was a failure. In my opinion there is no 'perhaps' about it 'incompetence' certainly. The camera was located in an unmissable position yet it was overlooked.
Clunes and Sutton. Sutton reminding us that he's written a book about it.. It seems the point was to try to show how the police really work rather than glamourising it as many dramas do. Sutton emphasised the importance of teamwork and that the SIO needs to get the best from the team.
I have offered an explanation but you are determined to see it as a failure, despite not knowing if it would have shown anything of use or not. The point I was making was that the McCann case had more in common with UK police investigations in years gone by. It had nothing in common with those investigations as they are carried out today. Therefore investigating it as if it had happened in the UK was impossible without adding 'years ago'.
I didn't watch the programme but read a review.... Which sain Sutton was given Belfields name by a member of the public... I wonder how many crimes are solved due to information from the public.... Something that is unlikely ti happen in Portugal due to the perception of the public
Having watched the first episode of Manhunt Sutton comes across as a calm, quiet and amenable character, but there are moments when his determination shows. It was interesting to see how many things a lead detective has to juggle as an investigation progresses; superiors, inferiors, the public. At the same time he/she has to move things along in the right direction.My thoughts on watching the first episode (with the caveat that it is not a documentary and therefore subject to artistic license) were: if only Colin Sutton had been in charge of the investigation in Pdl in the very beginning, he might have secured some valuable cctv footage that the PJ never thought to retrieve until it was too late.
One interesting snippet was Sutton's wife suggesting he used a stand alone database rather than HOLMES. He did, and admitted that it was quicker, whatever that meant.
The UK police rely heavily on CCTV and mobile phone technology. In this case it helps them considerably. Without it their jobs are much harder. I thought of the Moors murders which were only solved by an informer coming forward because there was no CCTV in those days allowing tracking of the victims and perpetrators.
The Madeleine McCann case offered little in the way of technological evidence so the UK police's expertise in that area hasn't helped. When OG's remit said they were going to investigate the case as if it happened in the UK, they seem to have thought that modern methods would help, but without technological evidence that wasn't possible.
Clunes and Sutton. Sutton reminding us that he's written a book about it.. It seems the point was to try to show how the police really work rather than glamourising it as many dramas do. Sutton emphasised the importance of teamwork and that the SIO needs to get the best from the team.Yes, it was quite unglamorous and therefore also quite dull as an episode, IMO.
I'm not sure if you and I watched the same film. I must admit I was a bit amazed at the emphasis on Sutton's inexperience which made me wonder a bit about prior and subsequent achievements.Yes Sutton was open to the possibility of a link to other crimes in the area, unlike the PJ who seemed unwilling to countenance it at all, re: the MM case.
The size of the team was impressive enabling the presence of surveillance technology to be fully investigated to prove its worth ... and only thinking outside the box enabled the connection to Milly Dowler three years down the line making one wonder what Bellfield and cohorts might be involved in that we'll never know about.
I didn't watch the programme but read a review.... Which said Sutton was given Belfields name by a member of the public... I wonder how many crimes are solved due to information from the public.... Something that is unlikely ti happen in Portugal due to the perception of the public
A statement was given by one of Bellfield's ex'. It was mentioned to Sutton by the PC who took the statement. He was already homing in on Bellfield's van, but the statement gave him a name and a connection to the murder weapon too.
Now they can see that Bellfield moved around and lived near where other murders took place. He was a 15 second walk from where Milly Dowler was last seen, for example.
The case was a 'career changer'. Succeed and fly, fail and fall by the wayside. At one point Sutton's wife referred to it as a possible poisoned chalice. I think the McCann case may have been Redwood;s chalice.
A statement was given by one of Bellfield's ex'. It was mentioned to Sutton by the PC who took the statement. He was already homing in on Bellfield's van, but the statement gave him a name and a connection to the murder weapon too.
Now they can see that Bellfield moved around and lived near where other murders took place. He was a 15 second walk from where Milly Dowler was last seen, for example.
The case was a 'career changer'. Succeed and fly, fail and fall by the wayside. At one point Sutton's wife referred to it as a possible poisoned chalice. I think the McCann case may have been Redwood;s chalice.
I thought it was very interesting. The guy lead a team who caught a seriel killer. Milly Dowlers parents were very greatful after the behaviousr of thier local police 'investigation'.
Let us slag him off on behalf of the McCANNS supporters who can't stand him because he perhaps doesn't believe the McCanns story... oh err.
If they offered the police the tapes and they didn’t even bother to look at them that would be even worse.
That, it seems, is what happened in the Bellfield case. CCTV footage collected during a previous investigation hadn't been viewed. If it had, Bellfield could have been caught before he killed Amelie Delagrange and Milly Dowler.All valid points, however if Bellfield’s girlfriend hadn’t come forward and given a statement it’s highlt likely that the case would have taken much longer to solve which would no doubt have incurred no end of criticism from the general public about how long the police were taking, how incompetent they were and what a waste of money the whole thing was, and what about all the other missing or murdered people. Actually no it wouldn’t because the McCanns weren’t involved in this one, so no objects of hate for the public to latch on to.
Sutton went to France to apologise in person to Amelie's parents, although the mistake wasn't made by his team. He came across as the kind of police officer we need.
This drama demonstrated just how difficult it can be to get the right evidence to prosecute people. Even though I knew how it ended, I felt the tension as Sutton and his team waited for the CPS to decide whether they had enough to charge Bellfield. Clunes was able to convey Sutton's feeling of satisfaction during his completely unemotional reading out of the charge to Bellfield.
What did I learn? All police forces make mistakes, but like others who provide front line services, their mistakes can be a matter of life and death. Leading a murder squad is a very difficult job and it's made harder by superiors, team members, other forces and the press. It was mostly evidence found by Sutton's team which resulted in Bellfield being convicted of Milly Dowler's murder, but Surrey police were reluctant to accept it at first. HOLMES is slow and unwieldy. On the advice of his wife Sutton's team used a stand alone database for speed when searching for information.
All valid points, however if Bellfield’s girlfriend hadn’t come forward and given a statement it’s highlt likely that the case would have taken much longer to solve which would no doubt have incurred no end of criticism from the general public about how long the police were taking, how incompetent they were and what a waste of money the whole thing was, and what about all the other missing or murdered people. Actually no it wouldn’t because the McCanns weren’t involved in this one, so no objects of hate for the public to latch on to.
Are you finally acknowledging how unacceptable and unfair the vicious and obsessive criticism of the Policia Judiciaria has been? Well done you, if so.No I don’t think they, or any other police force are above criticism, especially not those who throw in the towel and release their files, revealing just how incompetent they were imo.
Are you finally acknowledging how unacceptable and unfair the vicious and obsessive criticism of the Policia Judiciaria has been? Well done you, if so.
I would draw a parallel between the PJ in the inital investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance with the Surrey Police in the Milly Dowler investigation. Convinced they had their man and not interested in any other evidence that pointed elsewhere.
No I don’t think they, or any other police force are above criticism, especially not those who throw in the towel and release their files, revealing just how incompetent they were imo.
My point was aimed at those currently involved in slagging off the Met about how long they are taking without any apparent results. If it transpires that all the Met was doing in the last five years was shuffling paper about and going to Portugal to play golf then obviously they deserve every criticism coming to them.
Perhaps the McCanns, their supporters and the UK media should have remained silent during the time the Policia Judiciaria were carrying out their investigations.Perhaps, though I would say it was totally forgiveable in the McCanns’ case in fact kudos for their admirable restraint in the circs, I would have been a lot more vocal.
It would be useful if the Colin Sutton material was split off into its own thread. It's the nearest we've had so far to a comparative, contemporaneous case in the UK.
Perhaps, though I would say it was totally forgiveable in the McCanns’ case in fact kudos for their admirable restraint in the circs, I would have been a lot more vocal.
Perhaps the McCanns, their supporters and the UK media should have remained silent during the time the Policia Judiciaria were carrying out their investigations.
So it's OK for the McCanns to criticise the PJ before they even began their investigation but not for people to criticise OG until they finish theirs? That sounds like double standards to me.
So it's OK for the McCanns to criticise the PJ before they even began their investigation but not for people to criticise OG until they finish theirs? That sounds like double standards to me.Of course it is, they were there experiencing the incompetence first hand.
Perhaps the McCanns, their supporters and the UK media should have remained silent during the time the Policia Judiciaria were carrying out their investigations.
When you saw how the NOTW’s threat to publish information about the investigation before the suspect’s arrest could have skewed the whole investigation you can see what the PJ were up against with half the world’s media camped on their doorstep, looking for copy.And yet IMO the PJ were utterly complicit in leaking to the media, shame on them!
It would be useful if the Colin Sutton material was split off into its own thread. It's the nearest we've had so far to a comparative, contemporaneous case in the UK.
You really have lost me there ... I cannot see any similarity between Madeleine McCann's case and the content of the film ... the nearest comparison in MO I think is with the Yorkshire Ripper.
It's about the tools, techniques, procedure and organisation used by 'Britain's finest", shortly before Madeleine disappeared.How do the Met compare with the PJ then?
It puts the capability of a large team of UK detectives into direct comparison with the PJ.
And @VS, it would be relevant whatever Sutton has done recently.
Of course it is, they were there experiencing the incompetence first hand.
When you saw how the NOTW’s threat to publish information about the investigation before the suspect’s arrest could have skewed the whole investigation you can see what the PJ were up against with half the world’s media camped on their doorstep, looking for copy.
Perceived incompetence, them not being experts in police procedures in either Portugal or the UK. No police force accepts the opinion of a civilian as to what crime has been committed, and that's all the McCanns were able to offer.So you don't agree that there was any incompetence on the part of the PJ at any point of the initial investigation? Furthermore do you think that police forces the world over should be exempt from criticism by the general public because the general public tends not to be experts in police procedure? How about Stephen Lawrence's mother? Was she out of order to criticise the Met, not being an expert and all?
It's about the tools, techniques, procedure and organisation used by 'Britain's finest", shortly before Madeleine disappeared.
It puts the capability of a large team of UK detectives into direct comparison with the PJ.
And @VS, it would be relevant whatever Sutton has done recently.
The Met had the advantage of a shared language, HOLMES and CCTV footage. I don't think their procedures or organisation were superior to those of the PJ though.Upon what do you base that belief?
So you don't agree that there was any incompetence on the part of the PJ at any point of the initial investigation? Furthermore do you think that police forces the world over should be exempt from criticism by the general public because the general public tends not to be experts in police procedure? How about Stephen Lawrence's mother? Was she out of order to criticise the Met, not being an expert and all?
You seem to be saying that criticism is justified only if you agree with those doing it. Do you agree with those who have criticised Redwood's replacement of Tannerman with Crecheman?I agree with criticism when the full facts are known, or when one has first hand experience of the incompetence and has been directly affected by it. I don't have any criticism for Andy Redwood, so no I don't agree with it, why should I?
Upon what do you base that belief?
I found that particularly interesting given the demise of that Murdoch rag and some who worked at it. The Press have always had far too much power to influence events in this country with the current Brexit debacle being a current example.
On my reading of the PJ files, Amaral's book and watching Manhunt. The PJ have a national force, for example, which enables better cooperation. The UK police suffer, in my opinion, by having autonomous regional forces. The Surrey police resented the Met offering their help with the Dowler case.
I found that particularly interesting given the demise of that Murdoch rag and some who worked at it. The Press have always had far too much power to influence events in this country with the current Brexit debacle being a current example.That's the price of a free press. Or we could go down the Hacked Off route...
The fact that the Met couldn't stop the News of the World from printing a story concerning a live murder enquiry is worrying.
On my reading of the PJ files, Amaral's book and watching Manhunt. The PJ have a national force, for example, which enables better cooperation. The UK police suffer, in my opinion, by having autonomous regional forces. The Surrey police resented the Met offering their help with the Dowler case.Do you not see any parallels between the attitude of the Surrey police and the PJ's initial investigation?
Do you not see any parallels between the attitude of the Surrey police and the PJ's initial investigation?
It all comes down to justification in my opinion According to the drama Sutton didn't give Surrey police any reason to believe he went there as a know-all from The Met.Well the reaction from the Surrey police in that drama certainly seems at odds with your opinion. They didn't seem to like it one bit when he came strolling in from the Big Smoke telling them they had to put Bellfield in the frame. so you can actually see no parallels at all between the PJ and the Surrey police? OK, that tells me all I need to know. Thanks.
According to Gamble the UK police did give the PJ the impression that they were the 'experts'.
That's the price of a free press. Or we could go down the Hacked Off route...
Well the reaction from the Surrey police in that drama certainly seems at odds with your opinion. They didn't seem to like it one bit when he came strolling in from the Big Smoke telling them they had to put Bellfield in the frame. so you can actually see no parallels at all between the PJ and the Surrey police? OK, that tells me all I need to know. Thanks.
I see you are agreeing with Surrey police. Did Sutton really go 'strolling in from the Big Smoke telling them they had to put Bellfield in the frame'? That wasn't my impression.In what way do you think I am agreeing with the Surrey police?! Why did the head honcho go ballistic at Sutton when he went to see them?
I don't want a press which thinks scuppering a murder investigation is acceptable. Neither do I want a police force whose members think leaking information to the press is acceptable.You cannot be serious?!!
Perhaps a law requiring journalists to disclose their sources (and evidence of what was said) would stop a lot of these problems? It would certainly be interesting.
I see you are agreeing with Surrey police. Did Sutton really go 'strolling in from the Big Smoke telling them they had to put Bellfield in the frame'? That wasn't my impression.
The Surrey Detective didn't half get shirty.Indeed. He didn't seem to like Sutton stepping on his patch one bit. Even Sutton's wife seemed to allude to this at one point in the drama, iirc.
In what way do you think I am agreeing with the Surrey police?! Why did the head honcho go ballistic at Sutton when he went to see them?
I'm not sure if you and I watched the same film. I must admit I was a bit amazed at the emphasis on Sutton's inexperience which made me wonder a bit about prior and subsequent achievements.
The size of the team was impressive enabling the presence of surveillance technology to be fully investigated to prove its worth ... and only thinking outside the box enabled the connection to Milly Dowler three years down the line making one wonder what Bellfield and cohorts might be involved in that we'll never know about.
Did you miss the bit at the beginning in that writing stuff that said:
"This DRAMA is BASED on a true story. Some names have been CHANGED......"
"Devised by Colin Sutton and A.N. Other......"
Draw your own conclusions.
If the bit about the News of The World were true it would remain a worry as despite the demise of NOTW The Sun and The Times, members of the the same empire, remain.
Did you miss the bit at the beginning in that writing stuff that said:
"This DRAMA is BASED on a true story. Some names have been CHANGED......"
"Devised by Colin Sutton and A.N. Other......"
Draw your own conclusions.
If the bit about the News of The World were true it would remain a worry as despite the demise of NOTW The Sun and The Times, members of the the same empire, remain.
I viewed the three-part drama with some concern initially but by the end I was actively seeking more. Martin Clunes played Colin Sutton admirably so well done to him. Troubling however was the jealousy between police forces which might well have resulted in a failed investigation.
Did you miss the bit at the beginning in that writing stuff that said:
"This DRAMA is BASED on a true story. Some names have been CHANGED......"
"Devised by Colin Sutton and A.N. Other......"
Draw your own conclusions.
If the bit about the News of The World were true it would remain a worry as despite the demise of NOTW The Sun and The Times, members of the the same empire, remain.
I viewed the three-part drama with some concern initially but by the end I was actively seeking more. Martin Clunes played Colin Sutton admirably so well done to him. Troubling however was the jealousy between police forces which might well have resulted in a failed investigation.
I wonder how much jealosy there is between the PJ and Grange
I wonder how much jealosy there is between the PJ and Grange
Pretty sure the PJ would love to have £12 million extra to spend on solving the Madeleine case.
You seem to think it was because of Sutton's attitude. I didn't see anything wrong with his attitude, did I miss something?Where did I say that? You are deflecting.
I think a lot if that was translating and eviewing the 40 thousand files which the PJ have not had to do
Was talking to an individual last week who had worked at the Times office some time ago. He met Murdoch during a visit by him to the office. He said he was a very small, weedy man with few redeeming features. During the visit he gave their marching orders to one of the cleaners because someone had dropped a piece of litter in the walkway between the desk and it hadn’t been picked up. He said Murdoch’s son seemed okay but was totally in his father’s shadow.Gosh, how insightful.
Nonetheless it remains a drama; a well presented one in my book but I can see why some will disagree.Where has this crazy notion ever been voiced?
It dispels the crazy notion that one can "bung all the data in a computer press the tit and hey presto instant perpetrator".
The jealousy bit is human nature and operates in any large organisation to the detriment of that organisation.
The Surrey Detective didn't half get shirty.
You were able to watch it then? He did have the food grace to apologise later and to acknowledge the strength of Sutton's evidence.Yes, I wonder if we can look forward to a Mea Culpa from anyone in the PJ if and when the MM case is solved and it is established beyond doubt that the parents had nothing to do with it.
What is the definition of "a very small man" these days? According to t'internet Rupert Murdoch is 5ft 8 1/2" My grandfather on my mother's side was 5ft 2" - now he I would describe as a very small man, but have the parameters changed recently?
Let's go all PC, use ONS data and say "of below average height" then. Average being 1760mm according to ONS.Which is a long and convoluted way of saying not very much IMO. The average height of the British male is 5ft 9" so at 5ft 8 1/2" Rupert Murdoch, whilst possibly puny, is surely not a "very small man" even by today's standard. I wonder what it is about this old multimillionaire that so appealed to the less vertically challenged and much younger Jerry Hall...?
BTW why you still using Mickey Mouse units? The UK changed to SI over 40 years ago; are you a "Septic" ** or something?
Me being non PC and 1880mm height, 1760 is positively short arsed in my book but then at enlistment age The Grenadier Guards would have considered me a short arse as 1880mm was then their lower height limit.
Question is answered, no?
Good innit.
** rhyming slang
You were able to watch it then? He did have the food grace to apologise later and to acknowledge the strength of Sutton's evidence.
Co operation from the public was a massive help in solving this case... With the Portuguese people on the whole beleiving the McCann's are guilty... Due to amarals book and the press... There has been no public help
Yes, I was able to watch it. It was up on Pirate Television almost immediately.
To me, most of Sutton's success seems to have been due to instinct, although I was a bit confused as to why he thought it was Bellfield in the first place. Just a white van parked for about twenty minutes. I have no idea why he picked on that.
Martin Clunes was marvellous, and even looked somewhat like Sutton.
Of course it is, they were there experiencing the incompetence first hand.
Why... When we knew the mistakes they were making... Their incorrect belief that maddies death in the, apartment was confirmed... This was a massive error
Swallowed pills and died??! What sort of pills? Do children of 4 swallow pills?
Nothing has been confirmed regarding MBM's mortal state.
You do not know if MBM was killed in that apartment. She could have swallowed pills and died- she could have been killed by an intruder- she could have fell over and banged her head and died. So many possibilities, and you have no evidence of anything about what happened in that apartment you were not there.... Or were you?
I wonder how useful people would have found this dramatization if Sutton hadn’t recently inveigled his way into the Anti McCann camp on twitter and become a bit of a champion of the sceptic cause??
Swallowed pills and died??! What sort of pills? Do children of 4 swallow pills?
Do children of 4 swallow smarties/malteesers/MnMs? the answer is YES! children do swallow pills thinking they are sweets...I’ve got two children and neither of them has ever swallowed large quantities of any of the afore mentioned confectionery. Where’s the fun in swallowing and not munching sweeties? So what pills do you think Madeleine could have swallowed in lethal quantity and caused her to die so very quickly?
That is quite a slurr. I admire the man for the work he has done, his compassion, and dedication. Is that why you can't stand him and are slagging him off because you believe he is an anti-Mccann.. OMG!Before we move on to the meat of your post please can you tell me how you have surmised that I can’t stand the man? That’s a ridiculous assumption. I have not slagged him off once, merely stated facts.
Colin Sutton said a couple of things I am aware of:
1. He was advised not to touch the OG investigation , if he was offered it, as it had a strict remit- only abduction.
2. He mentioned that the investigation should focus on what actually happened - go back to the beginning- which would involve questioning the parents and family.
AS far as I know he has never said anything derogatory of the parents or tapas. So how you figure him to be anti McCann says more about you.
Yes, I was able to watch it. It was up on Pirate Television almost immediately.
To me, most of Sutton's success seems to have been due to instinct, although I was a bit confused as to why he thought it was Bellfield in the first place. Just a white van parked for about twenty minutes. I have no idea why he picked on that.
Martin Clunes was marvellous, and even looked somewhat like Sutton.
Nothing has been confirmed regarding MBM's mortal state.
You do not know if MBM was killed in that apartment. She could have swallowed pills and died- she could have been killed by an intruder- she could have fell over and banged her head and died. So many possibilities, and you have no evidence of anything about what happened in that apartment you were not there.... Or were you?
Yes, I wonder if we can look forward to a Mea Culpa from anyone in the PJ if and when the MM case is solved and it is established beyond doubt that the parents had nothing to do with it.
Did they speak to the UK police officers like that Surrey policeman spoke to Sutton? Did they refuse to listen to the UK police officers like that officer refused to listen to Sutton? He had every reason to apologise, the PJ don't have any reason to do so.
I think you are being over-optimistic if you expect it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the parents had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Did they speak to the UK police officers like that Surrey policeman spoke to Sutton? Did they refuse to listen to the UK police officers like that officer refused to listen to Sutton? He had every reason to apologise, the PJ don't have any reason to do so.I was thinking of Amaral actually, a man who would have every reason to apologise to the McCanns should it be established they had nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance but who is IMO probably far too proud and arrogant to ever consider such a course of action. I am quite certain that if this case is ever solved (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) that the McCanns innocence will be established beyond reasonable doubt. Why is that being overly optimistic?
I think you are being over-optimistic if you expect it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the parents had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
I was thinking of Amaral actually, a man who would have every reason to apologise to the McCanns should it be established they had nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance but who is IMO probably far too proud and arrogant to ever consider such a course of action. I am quite certain that if this case is ever solved (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) that the McCanns innocence will be established beyond reasonable doubt. Why is that being overly optimistic?
Just think! One day you might find you were wrong all along. In my opinion that would be hilarious.Why would that be hilarious? It’s never going to happen anyway so dream on.
Which is a long and convoluted way of saying not very much IMO. The average height of the British male is 5ft 9" so at 5ft 8 1/2" Rupert Murdoch, whilst possibly puny, is surely not a "very small man" even by today's standard. I wonder what it is about this old multimillionaire that so appealed to the less vertically challenged and much younger Jerry Hall...?
Let's go all PC, use ONS data and say "of below average height" then. Average being 1760mm according to ONS.
BTW why you still using Mickey Mouse units? The UK changed to SI over 40 years ago; are you a "Septic" ** or something?
Me being non PC and 1880mm height, 1760 is positively short arsed in my book but then at enlistment age The Grenadier Guards would have considered me a short arse as 1880mm was then their lower height limit.
Question is answered, no?
Good innit.
** rhyming slang
Well you would know all about that.I don’t do long and convoluted, I don’t do youtube videos either.
But in answer to your last question you maybe answered it yourself.
Like Mose says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTSVy3yzts
Well you would know all about that old stick.
But in answer to your last question you maybe answered it yourself.
Like Mose says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTSVy3yzts
Why would that be hilarious? It’s never going to happen anyway so dream on.
I would find it hilarious because in my opinion everything you say is based on what you believe is the truth, not on what you know is the truth. Do you agree with those who criticise Redwood's crecheman idea by the way?What is intrinsically hilarious about having strongly held beliefs? Would you find it hilarious if Amaral’s beliefs were proven to be wrong? I very much doubt it.
It seems we have never fully adopted SI units... Al our road signs are in mph.... Police still report the height of suspects in feet and inches.. So your post is a bit of nonsense
Your link doesn't exist
So?So no need to take the piss out of me for writing about feet and inches, 'kay? .
What is intrinsically hilarious about having strongly held beliefs? Would you find it hilarious if Amaral’s beliefs were proven to be wrong? I very much doubt it.
As for your question, you’ve already asked me that once today, and I have already answered, how many more times do you require me to answer?
People are entitled to believe anything they like. Pretending that their beliefs are correct is another matter entirely.I am pretending nothing. I am quite certain I am correct, and I believe that time will prove me right. I believe I am entitled to state that and if you think the prospect of me being proven wrong is a matter of great hilarity, well that says more about you than me IMO.
Amaral was not asking people to believe what he believed, he was explaining what the investigation concluded.
Sorry, I didn't see your answer to my question. I'll go and find it.
Found it. So you don't think Redwood made a mistake when replacing Tannerman with Crecheman? You think Jane Tanner saw crecheman heading towards the night creche even though the man concerned said he was leaving the creche having collected his child?
I am pretending nothing. I am quite certain I am correct, and I believe that time will prove me right. I believe I am entitled to state that and if you think the prospect of me being proven wrong is a matter of great hilarity, well that says more about you than me IMO.
As for the second part of your post - I don't criticise Andy Redwood no. I don't know what was discussed between the Met and Totman, or any of the finer details which led them to their decision. I don't believe the Met are really that bloody stupid as to not notice the contradiction in the directions each man was walking. But I am fully prepared to heap scorn and ridicule upon Redwood if and when it turns out that he really IS that bloody stupid. I trust I won't have to keep on answering this question now?
I think someone found that questionnaire saying that man was around with his child in the same area as Tanner's sighting at about the same time and no-one thought to double-check the map. Instead of explaining Jane's sighting they just added more confusion.Are you saying that in your opinion the Met never even spoke to Totman and really are totally incompetent?
Are you saying that in your opinion the Met never even spoke to Totman and really are totally incompetent?
They spoke to someone and photographed him but he didn't look much like Totman or the man Jane Tanner described. Neither did his clothing or the pyjamas his child was supposed to be wearing. Why a blanket was photographed I don't know because Jane saw no blanket.I thought he looked very similar to the man JT saw, in fact the press made a big deal of how similar they were. Remember they are comparing the actual man with a woman’s memory of a fleeting glimps of a man in the semi darkness. There are plenty of similarities, why do you overlook them?
I don't know if OG were incompetent or not. All I do know is that the Crecheman story isn't convincing for all the above reasons as well as his direction of travel.
To those who are full of admiration for the working methods of the Met as described in the series about Colin Sutton, do you think that these stringent and diligent methods were ditched for the Madeleine McCann case, or do you think it’s only because Colin Sutton was put in charge of the investigation that there were results? In other words was the work leading up to the Lee Bellfield arrest somewhat atypical of the Met’s working methods, or do you think the Met have atypically done a really bad job on the MM investigation either through incompetent leadership or because of pressure from above?
I think that each investigation is different and so are the people involved in them. Hard work is important, but so is a certain amount of luck. Sutton had a free hand to investigate what he wished and he had some luck too.This would seem to suggest either a conspiracy at a high level or criminal incompetence, which do you think it is?
Operation Grange was atypical because The Met seem to have been investigating just one hypothesis which was decided by those higher up in the chain of command. It has been hampered by it's distance from the site of the crime and it's lack of freedom to investigate there.
I thought he looked very similar to the man JT saw, in fact the press made a big deal of how similar they were. Remember they are comparing the actual man with a woman’s memory of a fleeting glimps of a man in the semi darkness. There are plenty of similarities, why do you overlook them?
This would seem to suggest either a conspiracy at a high level or criminal incompetence, which do you think it is?
People have declared that they believe the parents aren't involved, but no one has explained why they hold that opinion. If it's based on Redwood's 'forensic' analysis of the timeline the fact that it was a group effort seems to have been ignored. If it's based on a personal assessment of the parent's demeanor then that's just an opinion. The assistant Chief Constable of LP was right; there is no evidence which excludes them
People have declared that they believe the parents aren't involved, but no one has explained why they hold that opinion. If it's based on Redwood's 'forensic' analysis of the timeline the fact that it was a group effort seems to have been ignored. If it's based on a personal assessment of the parent's demeanor then that's just an opinion. The assistant Chief Constable of LP was right; there is no evidence which excludes them
what you are saying simply isnt true....ive made several posts explaining exactly why i dont think the parents are involved...tehre have been long discussions about teh possibility of a fatal fall beteween 8.30 and 10...do you not remeber them...the discussions about...why would teh mccanns campaign to ahve the case reopenend if they were guilty...have you forgotten those too...lets just add...taht is not what teh chief constable said...you have misquoted him...there is lots of evidence which excludes the mccanns
As true now as it was then;
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance." [madeleine]
now you have quoted him correctly...he said no clear evidence...not no evidence...there is plenty of evidence
and you are wrong about supporters not giving their explantion too..
PDC of the PJ said they are not suspects and thers no evidence against them....Its clear tehy are not being investigated........you are in total denial of the true facts...imo
Whether they are being investigated or not the fact remains that no policeman has ever said there is clear evidence that eliminates them.
do you understand what clear evidence means...it means basically proof. No policeman has ever said there is no clear evidence to eliminate Ben Needhams grandmother...as i said...imo...you are in total denial
If Maddie ws abducted...what clear evidence would you expect to eliminate the mccanns
Ben Needham's grandmother didn't try to get hold of police evidence whilst being an official suspect in the case, so no police officer needed to make any statement about her status.
A C Rowley could have said Madeleine was abducted because he had evidence that the parents weren't involved. He chose instead to justify his belief in abduction by referring to Madeleine's age.
Looking at what the police haven't said is as informative as looking at what they have said in my opinion.
The McCanns actually only tried to recover information that they themselves had handed to The Police.
I believe they tried for much more than that, but that's all they got
As I started my sentence with "I believe" I don't think it needs a cite.
However - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2164743/Madeleine-McCann-parents-court-bid-for-information.html
" The McCanns hope their application to Mrs Justice Hogg will result in Leicestershire Police opening their files on scores of reported sightings of Madeleine, most of which have been passed on to them by police in Portugal, where the four-year-old disappeared in May last year. "
What was wrong with asking for reports of sightings?
What was wrong with asking for reports of sightings?
Nothing at all, unless you were implying that all the sightings of Madeleine had come from the McCanns themselves.
Your post
The McCanns actually only tried to recover information that they themselves had handed to The Police.
Kate McCann wasn't at all pleased;
Having to withdraw was quite galling, especially as the eighty-one items disclosed to us included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place.
[madeleine]
No. I just wondered why you all seem so pleased that The McCanns were deprived of sightings of Madeleine.
What was wrong with asking for reports of sightings?
Sometimes in life you have to be careful what you wish for.
Somehow Kate McCann had formed the impression that LP wanted to give them the evidence but were unable to do so because of the Portuguese secrecy laws. What she learned from this unsuccessful case was that the UK authorities had no intention of giving them the evidence. The Portuguese secrecy laws were an excuse, not a reason.
No. I just wondered why you all seem so pleased that The McCanns were deprived of sightings of Madeleine.
I think the UK police would have been happy to give the McCanns the information but didn't want to upset the portuguese.... Who would have been very upset... And the statement was to apppease the Portuguese... Imo
I think the UK police would have been happy to give the McCanns the information but didn't want to upset the portuguese.... Who would have been very upset... And the statement was to apppease the Portuguese... Imo
I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated; this evidence was given to the McCann lawyer on request and it was McCann private detectives who had to play catch up with evidence held in Judicial Police archives since the case was officially shelved in 2008.
But just as intriguing is why on a thread especially requested to exemplify successful British police work we are yet again at groundhog full circle to denigrate the victims of botched Portuguese police work ... of which a prime example must be the files considered irrelevant to Madeleine's case mouldering away quietly in Paiva's office.
The worth of that information proved to be what?
I think the UK police would have been happy to give the McCanns the information but didn't want to upset the portuguese.... Who would have been very upset... And the statement was to apppease the Portuguese... Imo
The worth of that information proved to be what?
Really? In my opinion you've got that completely wrong.
The UK authorities hired Portuguese lawyers to stop the Public Ministry from releasing certain information provided by them. They included;
"The Association of Chief Police Officers, The Chief Constable of Leicestershire, The Serious Organised Crime Agency, police and legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Crimestoppers"
What did they want to keep secret?
"A. Material relating to condemned and suspected sex offenders
B. Intelligence Reports
C. Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
D. Communication between Police Forces
E. Orientation of the NPIA"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm
Well we wont ever know that will we? Isn't it great that the expertise of Colin Sutton's team regarding the two CCTV films one of which hadn't been viewed is lauded while the same people ignore the dereliction of Paiva's team in following evidence and indeed excuse it?
So no need to take the piss out of me for writing about feet and inches, 'kay? .
I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated; this evidence was given to the McCann lawyer on request and it was McCann private detectives who had to play catch up with evidence held in Judicial Police archives since the case was officially shelved in 2008.
But just as intriguing is why on a thread especially requested to exemplify successful British police work we are yet again at groundhog full circle to denigrate the victims of botched Portuguese police work ... of which a prime example must be the files considered irrelevant to Madeleine's case mouldering away quietly in Paiva's office.
Do you have a cite for this ?
‘I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated’
Paiva went to great lengths to explain that although the investigation was officially shelved it still continued and still does to this day. Although he no longer works in the Portimão office, new information still comes in all the time as far as he is aware and is logged and cross checked and correlated. He says that he himself continued to work on the case even after it was shelved.
What is the context of your cite? Has it anything to do with the McCann court action or is it all to do with ensuring that information was not released willy-nilly when the PJ files were released into the public domain?
You are unaware then that British Imperial Measure was booted into touch from 1959 to 1963 and was thenceforth defined legally by its relationship to SI units ? The poor old ISY became, legally, 0.9144m,
an inch existed but in name only; as a unit of linear measurement its legal definition is 25.4mm. It has been thus for practically 60 years.
The only imperial names we elected to retain were pint and mile but they are both legally metric measures defined as 568ml and 1609.344m respectively. Which makes 30 mph rather interesting. The legal definition being.
h= time =3600x SI base unit.
m(ile)= linear measurement =1609.344 m; m = SI base unit.
30mph well work it out for yourself but legally it is derived from SI base units........ *%87
Love it.
The context is that a member thought that UK authorities would have released the information the McCanns wanted if it hadn't been for those pesky Portuguese secrecy laws. The truth is that the UK authorities were more concerned with secrecy than the Portuguese were. That's why they refused the McCann's request. My cite demonstrates how the UK authorities took action to keep their information from being released with the Portuguese files.
Well we wont ever know that will we? Isn't it great that the expertise of Colin Sutton's team regarding the two CCTV films one of which hadn't been viewed is lauded while the same people ignore the dereliction of Paiva's team in following evidence and indeed excuse it?
If Madeleine had been one of the children in photographs described as being "shockingly similar to Madeleine" but which was never shown to Madeleine's parents ... do you really think that for the two years the photograph lay mouldering in Paiva's ignored dossier of evidence ... that child was going to still be there waiting for the McCann private detectives to find? I think not.
you are quoting your opinion nothing more....The UK police did not want certain things released...the names of sex offenders for one.....for obviouis reasons
Therefore, as I said, there was no way they were going to accede to the McCann's request for all the evidence held by LP.
As 'Manhunt' is the subject of the thread why have people ended up criticising the PJ? Lest we forget, a mistake by the UK police allowed Bellfield to kill more victims before he was caught.
Therefore, as I said, there was no way they were going to accede to the McCann's request for all the evidence held by LP.
People have declared that they believe the parents aren't involved, but no one has explained why they hold that opinion. If it's based on Redwood's 'forensic' analysis of the timeline the fact that it was a group effort seems to have been ignored. If it's based on a personal assessment of the parent's demeanor then that's just an opinion. The assistant Chief Constable of LP was right; there is no evidence which excludes themIMO The parents did not have the means, motive or opportunity to dispose of a child’s body within the framework of the known facts, at least not without the full cooperation and collusion of their entire group of friends it really is that simple. If you think that you can come up with a plausible reason why an entire group of holiday makers would involve themselves in a cover up of the accidental death of their friends’ child then I’d love to hear it, also a plausible and coherent theory of how they got away with such an audacious crime. I know you won’t because I know you can’t. Call me arrogant, find me hilarious, it’s the truth. BTW you didn’t answer the question:Operation Grange - conspiracy or incompetence
Totman's height is similar to Russell O'Brien's. Jane described someone well below six feet tall. The man in the OG photo was wearing a normal black jacket Jane described a 'bomber' jacket with a gathered hem. The man had curly hair, Jane described it as 'glossy' which suggests it was straight.So you’re making no allowances for the fact that JT saw him at some distance, in semi darkness and at a time when she wasn’t intent on memorizing everything little detail for posterity. Do you think that’s very reasonable of you? Do you not acknowledge any similarities AT ALL between her description and Totman?
did they ask for all the evidence held by LP .....do you have a cite
You are unaware then that British Imperial Measure was booted into touch from 1959 to 1963 and was thenceforth defined legally by its relationship to SI units ? The poor old ISY became, legally, 0.9144m,God, you’re so clever it makes me want to weep.
an inch existed but in name only; as a unit of linear measurement its legal definition is 25.4mm. It has been thus for practically 60 years.
The only imperial names we elected to retain were pint and mile but they are both legally metric measures defined as 568ml and 1609.344m respectively. Which makes 30 mph rather interesting. The legal definition being.
h= time =3600x SI base unit.
m(ile)= linear measurement =1609.344 m; m = SI base unit.
30mph well work it out for yourself but legally it is derived from SI base units........ *%87
Love it.
Of course, already provided.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg509642#msg509642
some of us understand police make mistakes...some think the portuguese police do not
So where in that a nk does it mention... Al the evidence held by LP... It doesn't... That's the second time today your cite dies not support your claim
Of course they do, but some seem obsessed with pointing out the PJ's shortcomings at every opportunity. On and on they go, about the PJ, Portuguese judges and Portuguese laws.
Do you have a cite for this ?
‘I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated’
Should have gone to Specsavers;
an application we had made on Madeleine’s behalf for access to all the information held by Leicestershire police relating to her case.
The context is that a member thought that UK authorities would have released the information the McCanns wanted if it hadn't been for those pesky Portuguese secrecy laws. The truth is that the UK authorities were more concerned with secrecy than the Portuguese were. That's why they refused the McCann's request. My cite demonstrates how the UK authorities took action to keep their information from being released with the Portuguese files.
Therefore clearly absolutely nothing at all to do with either the McCann's legal action or anything to do with them at all which your post appears to misleadingly imply.
God, you’re so clever it makes me want to weep.
Are you not British? or are you actually one of The Grauniad Types you so decry?8)><(
It's all about being British and eccentric.
Make a law in 1963 and nearly sixty years later no one takes much notice of it or even knows it exists except a few engineers and scientists.
A bit like 80 grands worth of motor on the drive and a garage, with locks and alarms, containing a grands worth of tat.
So dreadfully British and droll.
I'll pm you a packet of Handy Andies.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7353737/Madeleine-McCann-more-than-50-new-leads.html
This is what you posted :LOL at “this is what Paiva actually ssys”. From someone who rejects everything written in the press especially if there are no direct quotes you post is really quite laughable.
‘I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated’
This is what Paiva actually said in court ( with thanks to Barrier)
‘Paiva went to great lengths to explain that although the investigation was officially shelved it still continued and still does to this day. Although he no longer works in the Portimão office, new information still comes in all the time as far as he is aware and is logged and cross checked and correlated. He says that he himself continued to work on the case even after it was shelved.’
Now please provide a cite that supports your contention or remove your accusation please. As a mod you really should know better.
‘
This is what you posted :
‘I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated’
This is what Paiva actually said in court ( with thanks to Barrier)
‘Paiva went to great lengths to explain that although the investigation was officially shelved it still continued and still does to this day. Although he no longer works in the Portimão office, new information still comes in all the time as far as he is aware and is logged and cross checked and correlated. He says that he himself continued to work on the case even after it was shelved.’
Now please provide a cite that supports your contention or remove your accusation please. As a mod you really should know better.
‘
The Judge asks when he participated in the investigation.
RP says it was from the very beginning and lasted up to the shelving of the process. He adds that even afterwards, he continued to analyse information which kept arriving at the Portimão Criminal Investigation Department (DIC).
a) Guerra & Paz's lawyer, Dra Fátima Esteves, is the first to question the witness.
GP – Considering the investigation, can you affirm whether, because of the book, the PJ stopped collecting information?
RP As I said to the Court, there was no effect on the collection and subsequent examination of new information on this case.
GP – Do you know if the investigation was reopened later, with new information?
RP It wasn't formally reopened. However, several pieces of information arrived about possible places where Madeleine could be. Individuals also said they had information. All this was investigated and the proceedings were released to the Portimão Court.
SO – When the files are shelved, is it normal to continue to process information?
RP says "yes". The police have to examine every piece of information in order to establish whether it is relevant or not.
SO – Was a work team constituted to process information?
RP says they were two officers for that job, both of them having knowledge about the case. The witness then alludes to the Scotland Yard review and says that the processed information was transmitted to the team that worked with SY.
From the trial 8/10/2013.http://mccannvamarallibeltrial.blogspot.com/2013/10/ricardo-paiva.html
b) GA's lawyer, Dr Santos de Oliveira.
So, say a sighting comes in to the PJ in 2009 from the police in New Zealand of a possible sighting of Madeleine. Paiva says it is investigated and marks it irrelevant. On what basis, exactly? How is the investigation conducted into the sighting?
Do you not think that the NZ police would investigate the claim to their own satisfaction before informing the Portuguese?Do you not think if the NZ police investigated it and discovered it was not Madeleine they would have bothered to send it to the PJ?
To not investigate a claim on their own soil would leave them open to criticism of their professionalism - IMO
Why not? It's no great hardship to send an email saying ' we had a report of a sighting on Madeleine McCann her in NZ but it turned out to be nothing of the sort'That doesn’t appear to be how it works.
Even if they'd notified Portugal before doing any investigation, it's not as if Portugal would send anyone out there, outside of their jurisdiction and with no authority, so NZ would have to do the investigation anyway.
Same with any country really, PJ would rely on local police to investigate and report back.
Girl spotted in New Zealand is not Madeleine McCann, police claim
A young girl resembling Madeleine McCann captured on CCTV film in a New Zealand shop is not the missing girl, police have said.
05 Mar 2010
Officers in the country said they had identified the girl in the image, which was published in a series of British newspapers as a potential sighting of Madeleine.
A statement from New Zealand's National Police headquarters said: ''Police have identified the child and family thought by a retail assistant to be missing British girl Madeleine McCann. She is not the missing British girl.''
The CCTV footage was taken in a Dunedin shop in December 2007, and showed a child hand-in-hand with a stout man wearing a white T-shirt and black shorts.
Details of the incident were included among 2,000 pages of previously secret case documents held by Portuguese police which were released to British newspapers this week.
They contain dozens of possible sightings of Madeleine after she disappeared from her family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz, southern Portugal, in May 2007, just before her fourth birthday.
New Zealand police said previously they had investigated the Dunedin image, but were unable to get any further information.
Acting Southern Police District Commander Inspector Dave Campbell said he was not going to identify the girl in the picture.
He added: ''New Zealand Police are mindful of the stress on the McCann family from possible sightings of their daughter worldwide.''
Other leads in the newly-released Portuguese police dossier include a report of a small blonde girl being dragged along the road to Faro airport in the Algarve - an hour's drive from Praia da Luz - on the night Madeleine vanished.
Another details how a young girl who looked like the missing child was seen being held at gunpoint on a French motorway by a half-naked man in August 2008.
Kate and Gerry McCann's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said all the information should be released to the private detectives hired by the family.
He said: ''Kate and Gerry have made it clear that they were shocked to see the lack of follow-up work done by the Portuguese police since the investigation was shelved.
''All the information in these files must go to the private investigators as they are the only people still looking for Madeleine.''
The McCanns, both 41 and from Rothley, Leicestershire, spoke last month of their frustration that police had failed to investigate new leads in their daughter's disappearance.
Mrs McCann said: ''It's heartbreaking, to be honest.''
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7365443/Girl-spotted-in-New-Zealand-is-not-Madeleine-McCann-police-claim.html
___________________________________________________________________
The files to which Paiva referred in court contained information on the Dunedin sighting which was sent to Portugal via Interpol and there it sat ignored until released to the McCann lawyers in 2010 by order of the judge.
___________________________________________________________________
Portuguese ignored NZ Madeline McCann 'sighting' - police
3 Mar, 2010
Snip
A 2000-page dossier from Portugal police contained a series of sightings from around the world - including CCTV footage from the Dunedin supermarket of a child resembling Madeleine - which were never investigated, Britain's Daily Mail reported today.
The Dunedin footage showed a girl "very like" Madeleine being led into a supermarket by a "portly man in shorts", The man's behaviour aroused the suspicions of a security guard who approached the girl to establish whether she was British.
Although the girl said her name was Hailey, the security guard was convinced the girl was Madeleine and reported the incident to police.
Dunedin police today confirmed they had received the information from the security guard.
Acting Southern District Commander, Inspector David Campbell, said police spoke with the woman to establish what had been seen.
A report was filed and police gathered security footage of the child, who had the appearance of Madeleine McCann, and the family with her, Mr Campbell said.
Police could not get any other information to help with the inquiry.
The file was then forwarded to Interpol, Mr Campbell said.
"The lead jurisdiction, in this case, Portugal, directs how the case progresses and has not asked NZ Police for any follow-up to date."
The file has remained open ever since, Mr Campbell said.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629715
Portuguese ignored NZ Madeline McCann 'sighting' - police
3 Mar, 2010 7:00pm 2 minutes to read
A CCTV image from a Dunedin supermarket showing a girl strongly resembling Madeleine McCann. Photo / Supplied
A CCTV image from a Dunedin supermarket showing a girl strongly resembling Madeleine McCann. Photo / Supplied
Herald online
New Zealand police are defending their response after reports of a possible sighting of missing British girl Madeline McCann in a Dunedin shop.
Madeline was four-years-old when she disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in Portugal in July 2008 while her parents dined at a restaurant less than 100m away.
A massive worldwide search for her was mounted but with no success.
However, it has just been revealed she may have been seen by a security guard at a Dunedin supermarket in December 2008, but the information was disregarded.
A 2000-page dossier from Portugal police contained a series of sightings from around the world - including CCTV footage from the Dunedin supermarket of a child resembling Madeleine - which were never investigated, Britain's Daily Mail reported today.
The Dunedin footage showed a girl "very like" Madeleine being led into a supermarket by a "portly man in shorts", The man's behaviour aroused the suspicions of a security guard who approached the girl to establish whether she was British.
Although the girl said her name was Hailey, the security guard was convinced the girl was Madeleine and reported the incident to police.
Dunedin police today confirmed they had received the information from the security guard.
Acting Southern District Commander, Inspector David Campbell, said police spoke with the woman to establish what had been seen.
A report was filed and police gathered security footage of the child, who had the appearance of Madeleine McCann, and the family with her, Mr Campbell said.
Police could not get any other information to help with the inquiry.
The file was then forwarded to Interpol, Mr Campbell said.
"The lead jurisdiction, in this case, Portugal, directs how the case progresses and has not asked NZ Police for any follow-up to date."
The file has remained open ever since, Mr Campbell said.
Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate were reported to be "gutted" and "incensed" that their private investigators were not given access to the information, The Daily Mail reported
"There are instances where information which we think is very credible and worthy of information has not been actioned," Mrs McCann said.
Information that police forces in the United States, Europe and North Africa considered important was also discarded, the dossier revealed.
I found it ... you found it before me ... seems easy enough.
However as far as the context of the thread is concerned I think we can categorically state that it is laughable to make any comparison with the portrayal of the conduct of the English police and the actuality of the Portuguese and Madeleine's case.
And both your reports where superseded by the report posted by myself in which NZ officials said the little girl was not Madeleine. Further if the very sighting the newspapers used to prove sightings hadn’t been followed up by the Portuguese was demonstrably false what of the veracity of the claim that the other 1999 hadn’t been eitherThat’s beside the point. At the time of the sighting the PJ ignored the information from NZ. THAT’S the point.
Girl spotted in New Zealand is not Madeleine McCann, police claim
However as far as the context of the thread is concerned I think we can categorically state that it is laughable to make any comparison with the portrayal of the conduct of the English police and the actuality of the Portuguese and Madeleine's case.
I find it difficult to believe that people expected the PJ to investugate every so-called sighting of Madeleine McCann. According to The Sun there were over 8,000 of them in 101 countries. The McCanns asked the world to look for Madeleine and people responded but that really wasn't helpful in my opinion.The Met did it so why shouldn’t the PJ?
The Met did it so why shouldn’t the PJ?
I found it ... you found it before me ... seems easy enough.
However as far as the context of the thread is concerned I think we can categorically state that it is laughable to make any comparison with the portrayal of the conduct of the English police and the actuality of the Portuguese and Madeleine's case.
The comparisons between the UK police and the Portuguese police are indeed laughable. The forces work under different legal systems, are organised differently, meet different needs and use different tools. The only thing they have in common is that both make mistakes as do all police forces.
Looking at these two specific cases we know that the UK police made a mistake which probably cost lives. The PJ have been accused of making mistakes but I have yet to see proof that they did, let alone that their mistakes were significant.
According to the sun.Having presumably looked at and discarded the rest. You think not following up 600 people of interest is a good reflection on the PJ?
Rowley back in 2017 said they had 600 people of interest at one stage,not quite the 8,000 but hey oh! lets not quibble over a few thousand.
The comparisons between the UK police and the Portuguese police are indeed laughable. The forces work under different legal systems, are organised differently, meet different needs and use different tools. The only thing they have in common is that both make mistakes as do all police forces.laughable. Even Amaral concedes they did but you seem to think they were practically perfect. Laughable. Why aren’t you up in arms about the “lives lost” by the Met?
Looking at these two specific cases we know that the UK police made a mistake which probably cost lives. The PJ have been accused of making mistakes but I have yet to see proof that they did, let alone that their mistakes were significant.
Having presumably looked at and discarded the rest. You think not following up 600 people of interest is a good reflection on the PJ?
Having presumably looked at and discarded the rest. You think not following up 600 people of interest is a good reflection on the PJ?
O – When the files are shelved, is it normal to continue to process information?
RP says "yes". The police have to examine every piece of information in order to establish whether it is relevant or not.
SO – Was a work team constituted to process information?
RP says they were two officers for that job, both of them having knowledge about the case. The witness then alludes to the Scotland Yard review and says that the processed information was transmitted to the team that worked with SY.
Following 600 leads, the vast majority, if not all of which went nowhere could be seen as poor selection process by OG
Following 600 leads, the vast majority, if not all of which went nowhere could be seen as poor selection process by OGOr it can be seen as being diligent, thorough and leaving no stone unturned. Do you prefer your police to just consign leads to the filing cabinet on the basis that “it’s probably nothing”?
which leads me back to the question I asked yesterday. How was a sighting in NZ, sent in by NZ cops followed up? Over to you.
Who says they weren't followed up,Rowley certainly never did.
Read Paivas testimony in the McCann v Amaral he said that .Q&A
So who says that information was not followed up?
Or it can be seen as being diligent, thorough and leaving no stone unturned. Do you prefer your police to just consign leads to the filing cabinet on the basis that “it’s probably nothing”?
In your opinion were the Met wrong to follow up on these leads that seemed to have been left not properly investigated by the PJ? Should the Met have said to themselves: the PJ cast an eye over these sightings, stamped them “not relevant” so let’s take their word for it and ignore them too”? Would that have been “best practice “ in your view?
Narrowed down to 4 from Luz,world wide mystery tour indeed!
I think the outcomes support the idea that it was nothing.Do you inderstand the concept of leaving no stone unturned, or do you think stones should be left to lie as they are as there’s probably nothing under them?
In your opinion were the Met wrong to follow up on these leads that seemed to have been left not properly investigated by the PJ? Should the Met have said to themselves: the PJ cast an eye over these sightings, stamped them “not relevant” so let’s take their word for it and ignore them too”? Would that have been “best practice “ in your view?
In your opinion were the Met wrong to follow up on these leads that seemed to have been left not properly investigated by the PJ? Should the Met have said to themselves: the PJ cast an eye over these sightings, stamped them “not relevant” so let’s take their word for it and ignore them too”? Would that have been “best practice “ in your view?
On the say so of those in possession of the 40000 documents, unles it is your firm belief that the Met followed up leads already thoroughly investigated by the PJ and just invented 600 persons of interest? Of course this is what the tin foil hat brigade belief, are you one of them?
40,000 documents OG started with,so once again what was not investigated by the PJ and on whose say so?
40,000 documents OG started with,so once again what was not investigated by the PJ and on whose say so?
laughable. Even Amaral concedes they did but you seem to think they were practically perfect. Laughable. Why aren’t you up in arms about the “lives lost” by the Met?
On the say so of those in possession of the 40000 documents, unles it is your firm belief that the Met followed up leads already thoroughly investigated by the PJ and just invented 600 persons of interest? Of course this is what the tin foil hat brigade belief, are you one of them?
??? Oh for a tiny sliver of logical thinking on this thread.
Seeing has OG haven't advanced past the stage of how did she leave 5a,its hard to argue against your summary.
The Met, we are told, did not look at the parents. The PJ, it is surmised by supporters, did not follow up a citing that proved not to be Madeleine. In a sane world what would have hampered the search for the truth more ?
I think you'll find if you actually read my post that I said the PJ made mistakes. My opinion about what those mistakes were probably differs from yours, the McCann's, Amaral's and the media's however. It is, after all, opinion rather than fact. None of the sightings, for example, has been shown to be significant as yet. No-one knows if the Estrada CCTV would have been useful or not. It all seems to consist of maybes.”No one knows” does not cancel out the fact that no one did. You seem to be saying that if all the leads and CCTV were followed up and proved to be nothing then that means the PJ didn’t make any mistakes? How in any sane world does thst make sense?
The UK police, on the other hand, made a mistake which could have stopped a killer. As most police forces make mistakes why would anyone be 'up in arms' about that? Amelie Delagrange's parents very graciously acknowledged that people make mistakes, even tragic ones.
PS I don't think it was The Met who neglected to view that tape.
There was a sighting of a couple with a young female child at 6am in Lagos Marina on the 4th May 2007. This sighting was marked “not relevant to the investigation “ by Ricardo Paiva. On what basis was it marked irrelevant? What actual follow up did the PJ conduct? Were the couple ever tracked down and interviewed? These are the sorts of questions I would have had if I’d been leading Operation Grange. Or should I just have said to myself “ nah, not worth the bother”?
Rowley did say that the Parents had been dealt with in the initial investigation, an endorsement of the PJ,what was in the rest of the files that OG could glean anything of worth to further it,zilch it would seem.Its why its where its at today.
So on the one hand we have people seemingly in awe and admiration of the diligence and dogged determination of Colin Sutton to leave no stone unturned in his pursuit of justice, on the other we have nothing but sneering contempt for the Met in their attempt to do the same for Madeleine. Of course Sutton got a lucky break, without it, perhaps his efforts would also be subject to criticism and contempt.
The only sneering and contempt I have seen on this forum is that directed at the PJ, the Portuguese legal system and their judges. I have seen criticism of the Met but why not, if people think they got it wrong? No police force should begin an investigation with a restrictive remit on my opinion.
The only sneering and contempt I have seen on this forum is that directed at the PJ, the Portuguese legal system and their judges. I have seen criticism of the Met but why not, if people think they got it wrong? No police force should begin an investigation with a restrictive remit on my opinion.
According to whom? Did the police find her?
Perhaps the child bore no resemblance to Madeleine.
Colin Sutton has also questioned the accuracy of the statements due to the way they were taken.... Why do you want to ignore that criticism
There was a sighting of a couple with a young female child at 6am in Lagos Marina on the 4th May 2007. This sighting was marked “not relevant to the investigation “ by Ricardo Paiva. On what basis was it marked irrelevant? What actual follow up did the PJ conduct? Were the couple ever tracked down and interviewed? These are the sorts of questions I would have had if I’d been leading Operation Grange. Or should I just have said to myself “ nah, not worth the bother”?
The Met, we are told, did not look at the parents. The PJ, it is surmised by supporters, did not follow up a citing that proved not to be Madeleine. In a sane world what would have hampered the search for the truth more ?Unlike all the evidence that poured in to the PJ that Madeleine might be alive somewhere in the world the PJ thoroughly investigated the McCanns, they were easy meat, seeing as how they were there on the PJ’s doorstep offering themselves up for thorough investigation, no need to give serious consideration to any other suspects, these ones will do nicely, ta.
Unlike all the evidence that poured in to the PJ that Madeleine might be alive somewhere in the world the PJ thoroughly investigated the McCanns, they were easy meat, seeing as how they were there on the PJ’s doorstep offering themselves up for thorough investigation, no need to give serious consideration to any other suspects, these ones will do nicely, ta.
The only sneering and contempt I have seen on this forum is that directed at the PJ, the Portuguese legal system and their judges. I have seen criticism of the Met but why not, if people think they got it wrong? No police force should begin an investigation with a restrictive remit on my opinion.I wasn’t restricting my comment about sneering contempt to this forum, though there’s been plenty here too. You really need to go to Specsavers IMO.
A sI thought you were a scholar of the Files? Go and find it yourself, you probably know the page number better than I do.
Please provide a cite for Paiva marking this sighting 'not relevant'.
This is what Sutton is reported as saying.
‘Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Very sensible observations.
Does your opinion differ? Do you think the PJ did not thoroughly investigate the McCanns?
In your opinion.
This is what Sutton is reported as saying.Sutton says the McCann's have not been formally interviewed... Not that they haven't been interviewed
‘Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Very sensible observations.
In your opinion.
According to whom? Did the police find her?There is a page missing,perhaps that covers your concerns.
This is what Sutton is reported as saying.
‘Former Met detective chief inspector Collin Sutton has recently called for fresh interviews be undertaken with all the key British witnesses involved in the Madeleine McCann case.
Collin Sutton, "We’re talking about interviews given by the McCanns and friends through an interpreter, written down in Portuguese and then translated back into English so officers from Grange can read them. The room for error would be enormous.”
Madeleine McCann’s parents and ‘Tapas Seven’ have NEVER been formally interviewed as witnesses by Brit cops – as police hunt ‘person of significance’. Met detectives have been relying on Portuguese transcripts of formal interviews with key witnesses, including Maddie's parents.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Very sensible observations.
Sutton says the McCann's have not been formally interviewed... Not that they haven't been interviewed
I don't think they mistranslated the "No Comment" replies by Kate McCann though. I still find her responses to all those questions appalling given the circumstances. What did she think she was going to be charged with? Child neglect??
Image the public debate if SY were to take them in for questioning.
Does your opinion differ? Do you think the PJ did not thoroughly investigate the McCanns?
This argument makes so sense. The McCanns from almost day one had the support of the media and also impressive legal and governmental support. Murat, on the other hand, didn’t. If a pasty was to be found surely Murat would have fitted the bill perfectly.The McCanns were reviled in the Portuguese media from day one weren’t they? Perhaps you supply links to all the positive support the McCanns enjoyed in Portugal (the country in which the PJ were operating in, in case you forgot).
There is a page missing,perhaps that covers your concerns.@)(++(* is that the one which describes how the family were seen getting on their unicorn and riding off into the sunset?
They thoroughly cocked up. IMO 8)--))
I'm surprised you can bring yourself to admit the PJ did anything thoroughly.
According to whom? Did the police find her?
As a general opinion on this subject, it is my impression that where we have no subsequent written paperwork relating to arrival and embarkations of certain boats, the PM (maritime police) followed up with port surveillance footage (CCTV), or by direct contact through radio/GPS or even ship-to-ship contact, or with visits by officers to port/marina authorities.
Rivers, coastal inlets and beaches were also visited and local residents and holiday makers in those places were questioned. One vessel was tracked through Lisbon up to Nazar?on the Portuguese coast so, in general terms, I don't think anything was overlooked.
@)(++(* is that the one which describes how the family were seen getting on their unicorn and riding off into the sunset?
I thought you were a scholar of the Files? Go and find it yourself, you probably know the page number better than I do.
From the files.
Please can you tell me how that (IMO non sequitur of a reference) answers the question of how the police decided the girl did not look like Madeleine..?
From the files.
As you're the one making the claim the onus is on you to provide the appropriate evidence or withdraw the claim.Tell you what. I will supply the reference but only if you agree to acknowledge my efforts and thank me for providing it, instead of ignoring it as usually happens, deal?
Please can you tell me how that (IMO non sequitur of a reference) answers the question of how the police decided the girl did not look like Madeleine..?
I thought one boat went missing altogether. They have no paperwork, so how would they know?
And who would see anything on beaches and in inlets in the dark?
I thought one boat went missing altogether. They have no paperwork, so how would they know?
And who would see anything on beaches and in inlets in the dark?
As it crossed your mind that some one could well have given a description or that the girl and family were known to those that needed to know.Lots f things have crossed my mind, where is any evidence that ANY of it crossed the mind of those that mattered, ie: those investiating Madeleine’s disappearance?
No, but the Met do and that is why they had reams of leads to follow up, geddit now?
You have knowledge of what is missing?
VS was on about the marina in daylight,not isolated beaches and inlets.
So the boat lurked about until dark.
What boat?
Does your opinion differ? Do you think the PJ did not thoroughly investigate the McCanns?
The PJ failed to confirm the timeline at the beginning. I can think of some questions they could have asked which would have helped them to do that.To quote Barrier, “there are pages missing, how do you know they didn’t”? LOL. But seriously, how do you think the answers to ANY of those questions would have helped establish the guilt or innocence of the McCanns? Still at least you seem to be conceding that the PJ weren’t very thorough, so not thorough in trying to nail their key suspects, it stands to reason they were even less thorough in investigating possible leads into an abduction doesn’t it.
1. Question the Irwins and the Sperreys who were booked into the Tapas at 8.30 and 9 pm respectively.
2. Question the Executive Chef again about his testimony and check if he had witnesses as to the times he went to and returned from the Tapas.
3. Check the statement of Barend Weijdom and his alleged meeting with Paul Wortelboer.
4. Check who informed the nannies at the creche about Madeleine's disappearance and find out how she knew.
5. Find out which Mark Warner employee went into the Duke de Jaollande bar at 10.15 and asked for help with the search.
No, but the Met do and that is why they had reams of leads to follow up, geddit now?
And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that together and that takes real time.
I can't say. It might be libellous as I can't prove it.
600 persons of interest to follow up is "reams" in my book. What is "reams" in your book? Officially a ream is 500 pages btw.
Quote for the reams of leads?
Rowley never describes them as such.
To quote Barrier, “there are pages missing, how do you know they didn’t”? LOL. But seriously, how do you think the answers to ANY of those questions would have helped establish the guilt or innocence of the McCanns? Still at least you seem to be conceding that the PJ weren’t very thorough, so not thorough in trying to nail their key suspects, it stands to reason they were even less thorough in investigating possible leads into an abduction doesn’t it.
I have no reason to believe that the PJ withheld statements taken from local people. Rebelo certainly thought the timeline was significant, and I agree with him. I have never said the PJ were thorough, so I'm not conceding anything. I have simply rebutted some of the more inventive or nebulous reasons people have relied on for criticising them.Upon what basis then did the police dismiss the sighting of two adults with a young female child on the mornng after Madeleine's disappearance then?
I have no reason to believe that the PJ withheld statements taken from local people. Rebelo certainly thought the timeline was significant, and I agree with him. I have never said the PJ were thorough, so I'm not conceding anything. I have simply rebutted some of the more inventive or nebulous reasons people have relied on for criticising them.If the PJ were not thorough is that not a good reason for criticising them, or must we keep quiet and defer to them?
What would be easier to state is the laughable image that the press actually have a knowledge of just what is happening and happened to be relied upon as a certifiable cite,its a case of he said,they said, I said.
Lets go back to almost the very beginning, where a story in the Telegraph still accessible today of Madeleine died from a sleeping tablet overdose, is that true?
I find it difficult to believe that people expected the PJ to investugate every so-called sighting of Madeleine McCann. According to The Sun there were over 8,000 of them in 101 countries. The McCanns asked the world to look for Madeleine and people responded but that really wasn't helpful in my opinion.
It is true insofar as the Telegraph reported the lies reported in the French press which emanated from the lies the Judicial Police were spreading at the time.
Snip
A source at the newspaper claimed: "We are not simply repeating rumours carried in other papers. This is not a theory, but a fact contained in hard evidence in the hands of the Portuguese authorities.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563090/Madeleine-McCann-died-from-overdose.html
What I find perplexing is why you feel it necessary to keep repeating nonsense and misinformation spread like manure from 2007 which is totally unrelated to the thread topic?
Is there an on topic connection which I have failed to pick up on?
You are off topic ... or is there some connection to Colin Sutton's film which I'm not picking up on?
It is true insofar as the Telegraph reported the lies reported in the French press which emanated from the lies the Judicial Police were spreading at the time.
Snip
A source at the newspaper claimed: "We are not simply repeating rumours carried in other papers. This is not a theory, but a fact contained in hard evidence in the hands of the Portuguese authorities.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563090/Madeleine-McCann-died-from-overdose.html
What I find perplexing is why you feel it necessary to keep repeating nonsense and misinformation spread like manure from 2007 which is totally unrelated to the thread topic?
Is there an on topic connection which I have failed to pick up on?
??? Oh for a tiny sliver of logical thinking on this thread.
Or even something which could be considered to be ON TOPIC 8**8:/: Does anyone other than me find it totally irrational that every single thread on this board gravitates sooner rather than later into a slanging match directed against the Mccann family?
You are off topic ... or is there some connection to Colin Sutton's film which I'm not picking up on?
I'm no more off topic than anyone else. Going back to page one I was interested in having a reasonable discussion about whether the skills used by UK police officers were more useful in the McCann case than those of the PJ. Given the reliance on CCTV evidence in the Bellfield case, which isn't available in Portugal, I thought not.
Instead of a reasonable discussion there was an immediate attack on one PJ officer; Amaral, for failing to view the footage from just one CCTV camera in Luz. The camera in question, of course, shouldn't have been filming the public highway, and even if it was it might not have picked anything up. Even so, it's a useful stick to beat Amaral with and must be highlighted at every opportunity!
There's no possibility of remaining on topic or of having reasonable discussions while such point scoring continues in my opinion.
I'm showing just how reliable the non verifiable sources from the rags are,some hold them up to the paragon of truth.
Rowley: There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
Much along the lines of the manner in which you are intent on relocating Paiva's revelations regarding the irrelevant dossier of information he was sitting on from his court appearance in 2010 into the future by a few years.
If you have to rewrite history to sustain your argument don't you think your argument is flawed?
Much along the lines of the manner in which you are intent on relocating Paiva's revelations regarding the irrelevant dossier of information he was sitting on from his court appearance in 2010 into the future by a few years.
If you have to rewrite history to sustain your argument don't you think your argument is flawed?
Much along the lines of the manner in which you are intent on relocating Paiva's revelations regarding the irrelevant dossier of information he was sitting on from his court appearance in 2010 into the future by a few years.
If you have to rewrite history to sustain your argument don't you think your argument is flawed?
I believe the situation was resolved as a result of Paiva's testimony at the libel trial in 2010 when he admitted to holding a dossier of more than 2,000 pages containing information on Madeleine's case which had not been properly investigated; this evidence was given to the McCann lawyer on request and it was McCann private detectives who had to play catch up with evidence held in Judicial Police archives since the case was officially shelved in 2008.
SO – When the files are shelved, is it normal to continue to process information?
RP says "yes". The police have to examine every piece of information in order to establish whether it is relevant or not.
SO – Was a work team constituted to process information?
RP says they were two officers for that job, both of them having knowledge about the case. The witness then alludes to the Scotland Yard review and says that the processed information was transmitted to the team that worked with SY.
Let’s highlight it again, just for good measure, but this time let the great man speak for himself:
Mr Amaral said: “I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera.
“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over.
"It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down.”
Having presumably looked at and discarded the rest. You think not following up 600 people of interest is a good reflection on the PJ?600 people of interest to the Met?
Do you inderstand the concept of leaving no stone unturned, or do you think stones should be left to lie as they are as there’s probably nothing under them?Try that argument with Kate and Gerry.
It still has no bearing on whether the skills possessed by the UK police were likely to be more successful than those of the PJ in the McCann case.
600 people of interest to the Met?What’s your problem?
*%87
The PJ believed that the alerts proved death in the apartment... They were wrong... How can anyone defend that
You posted this.
When asked for a cite you came up with this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7353737/Madeleine-McCann-more-than-50-new-leads.html
Which never mentioned Paiva,it said G McCann saying that he had been sitting on it,along with their lawyer.
Meanwhile in court in 2013 Paiva said just for clarity.
Q&A.
Far from rewriting history I'm not relying on rags for info but court proceedings.
Policing is a small world, it seems. Apparently Mark Rowley was with Surrey Police and was involved with the investigation into the murder of Milly Dowler.Cite?
Policing is a small world, it seems. Apparently Mark Rowley was with Surrey Police and was involved with the investigation into the murder of Milly Dowler.
Indeed G... and the parents were very unhappy and complained about them to Mary Doll UK PM. She went to visit them. Apparently, levi told a cell mate he did it, and the cell mate was about to be released- there was a chance the parents would hear information via the media. Hence they had to go and visit the parents.What is Mary Doll UK PM?
It still has no bearing on whether the skills possessed by the UK police were likely to be more successful than those of the PJ in the McCann case.
I do wonder though if this happened here in the UK if the police would not wear kid gloves as the PJ did. I believe the tapas group would have been seperated and questioned that night. No time to collaborate timelines etc. The social work would most definately have been informed and they would have been more intuitive regarding the claim about UK culture of leaving children alone every night while parents go drinking. They would certainly NOT have been allowed to spout out abduction, and set up a company and, become celebrities. I think many lessons were learned from Human trash like Philpots etc...
The story would indeed have been very different had it happened in the UK.Or Costa Rica. Or Indonesia.
I do wonder though if this happened here in the UK if the police would not wear kid gloves as the PJ did. I believe the tapas group would have been seperated and questioned that night. No time to collaborate timelines etc. The social work would most definately have been informed and they would have been more intuitive regarding the claim about UK culture of leaving children alone every night while parents go drinking. They would certainly NOT have been allowed to spout out abduction, and set up a company and, become celebrities. I think many lessons were learned from Human trash like Philpots etc...Would they get people out of their beds during the night?
Would they get people out of their beds during the night?
Not to look for a missing child who may have wandered about in the local area I don't think.Could that ever happen when it is only Kate who id saying she has been taken and everyone one else is thinking she has just wandered off. Could Kate take control of that situation?
An abduction using violence and force to gain entry to an apartment well maybe?
It is my belief that the opportunity was missed to establish that MBM came to harm in the apartment had the parents called the police instantly, and left the apartment off limits- in its natural state Kate claimed it was in.
Their version of what happened just doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Could that ever happen when it is only Kate who id saying she has been taken and everyone one else is thinking she has just wandered off. Could Kate take control of that situation?
Well, in my opinion, as I watched and read this story unfold back in the day, it was the behaviour that seemed to suggest a conspiracy of sorts.LOL. 13th May. 2007. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454466/Madeleines-parents-left-patio-doors-unlocked.html
I do believe Sr Amarals assertion that the abduction via the window was faked. One theory put out in anoher forum was: they were worried what their families and work colleagues would say when they found out they left their children alone every night for hours to go wining and dining without carrying out physical checks.
This theory does seem to tie in with the abductor claims being made when the police arrived. Because, before that, they were all looking for a 'missing' girl. A girl who had perhaps wandered out of an unlocked apartment?
Has any main stream media ever ,mentioned the unlocked door?
LOL. 13th May. 2007. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454466/Madeleines-parents-left-patio-doors-unlocked.html
lol indeed VS. why not mention it that night in their first interview...and where did that bit of news come from? the family perhaps?
For heaven's sake, what else did you want The McCanns to have mentioned that night in the first interview?
There's a great deal of unknowns re conversations that night. M Oldfield seemed unconvinced by 'abduction' when he failed to press for a phone call to the police at OC reception around 10:15pm, so I for one would be most interested to know when this line of thought was first put to the GNR.
*%87
whynotwhynotewhynot. Why not lock the door in the first place? Why not stay at the apartment? Why not holiday in Rothley? What is your point, lololol, hahahaha, etc?
lol indeed VS. why not mention it that night in their first interview...and where did that bit of news come from? the family perhaps?
There's a great deal of unknowns re conversations that night. M Oldfield seemed unconvinced by 'abduction' when he failed to press for a phone call to the police at OC reception around 10:15pm, so I for one would be most interested to know when this line of thought was first put to the GNR.
*%87
There's a great deal of unknowns re conversations that night. M Oldfield seemed unconvinced by 'abduction' when he failed to press for a phone call to the police at OC reception around 10:15pm, so I for one would be most interested to know when this line of thought was first put to the GNR.
*%87
Not sure if this has been posted before but a very interesting talk by Colin Sutton on Operation Grange.
https://youtu.be/gtLoPzPr7Eg
I notice he picked up on Simon Foy's bizarre statement that 'they were where they were where they were when the child went missing'.
He also questions Rowley's assertion that the question of parental involvement was dealt with at the time by the Portuguese.
He seems to find these assertions as incomprehensible as many of us do, but he has the advantage of knowing how investigations normally proceed. In my opinion those who find nothing strange about the Met's pronouncenents are far too trusting.
Both Foy and Rowley know a lot more about the case, than Sutton.... So I prefer to take notice of what they say... IMO... Sutton wants his 15 mins of fame..
Has, Sutton commented on P D Carmos comments Re not suspects and no evidence. It isn't just what the police say that lead me to believe the mccanns are not involved... It's the whole picture.. .
Is Suttin making money out of talks on criminal cases... It looks like it... That explains to me why he's making somewhat controversial statements
Sutton has a track record in bringing Bellfield to book, whats Foy and Rowley done?
Any comment on Do Carmo when asked do you accept the girl was abducted replying we don't know what happened and have to be prepared for different scenarios. Its the whole picture after all.
Both Foy and Rowley know a lot more about the case, than Sutton.... So I prefer to take notice of what they say... IMO... Sutton wants his 15 mins of fame..
Has, Sutton commented on P D Carmos comments Re not suspects and no evidence. It isn't just what the police say that lead me to believe the mccanns are not involved... It's the whole picture.. .
Is Suttin making money out of talks on criminal cases... It looks like it... That explains to me why he's making somewhat controversial statements
I don't think Foy and Rowley are experts on the case at all. If they were they should have been able to explain how the McCanns were ruled out. They couldn't.
They couldn't... In your opinion... You seem to be assuming your opinion is fact... I think they could... But chose not to... It would not serve any purpose..
So who do you think is an expert on the case... Amaral
I don't think Foy and Rowley are experts on the case at all. If they were they should have been able to explain how the McCanns were ruled out. They couldn't.
So you think they deliberately chose not to offer a sensible explaination?
Why should they offer any explanation... Why should they want to satisfy a small group on the net ....did Bush ever deny he was behind 911......did Blair deny being complicit in the UK terror attacks
Rowley referred to the case as unique. One of it's unique features is the suspicion surrounding tha parents. A firm and believable explanation of how OG 'know' they weren't involved would have helped the McCanns. Instead he told a lie about the first investigation which didn't help either the McCanns or the Met. The McCanns have never been eliminated by any police force imo.What lie did he tell? Are you saying The Met has not eliminated the McCanns? What do you base this on?
What lie did he tell? Are you saying The Met has not eliminated the McCanns? What do you base this on?
He said that the first Portuguese investigation had 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement so there was no need for OG to revisit that. The first investigation was unable to rule out parental involvement so there was every reason to revisit that question.The first investigation investigated the parents thoroughly and found no evidence against them so it was fair enough to say that parental involvement had been dealt with. The fact that the current Portuguese investigation is not focusing on the parents either suggests that they too feel that parental involvement has been dealt with. I don’t think you should be accusing Rowley of lying.
The first investigation investigated the parents thoroughly and found no evidence against them so it was fair enough to say that parental involvement had been dealt with. The fact that the current Portuguese investigation is not focusing on the parents either suggests that they too feel that parental involvement has been dealt with. I don’t think you should be accusing Rowley of lying.
OK. maybe he didn't know all aout the case and thought he was relling the truth. Maybe the McCanns told him they'd been cleared and he believed them. Maybe he never really examined the conclusions of the first investigation. After all, as head of anti-terrorism he was a busy man.Maybe you’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Maybe you refuse to accept the blatantly obvious.
Maybe you’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Maybe you refuse to accept the blatantly obvious.
OK. maybe he didn't know all aout the case and thought he was relling the truth. Maybe the McCanns told him they'd been cleared and he believed them. Maybe he never really examined the conclusions of the first investigation. After all, as head of anti-terrorism he was a busy man.
As Head of Anti-terrorism, why was he involved at at ?
The first investigation investigated the parents thoroughly and found no evidence against them so it was fair enough to say that parental involvement had been dealt with. The fact that the current Portuguese investigation is not focusing on the parents either suggests that they too feel that parental involvement has been dealt with. I don’t think you should be accusing Rowley of lying.
There is no comparison with the Sutton led investigation into Levi Bellfield's murderous rampages and the Amaral led investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
The former was evidence led.
The latter was not.
The latter failed to produce any evidence which far from leading to the possibility of solving the case was botched and non-existent.
As in the failed forensic examinations made in the McCann apartment in the early hours of the 4th May which might actually have destroyed evidence.
Or was misinterpreted by the investigators ... as in the forensic evidence supplied by the FSS ... prior to Kate and Gerry McCann being constituted arguidos as a precursor to charges being laid against them.
The fact no charges were laid and Amaral was sacked from the investigation speaks volumes.
Amaral was taken off the case and transferred to Faro after criticising the British police for following prime suspect leads. Please let me know how that one works? What a farce!
Or maybe not.Well by your own admission you don’t really have a clue so probably best to say nothing until you’re in full possession of the facts, IMO.
Well by your own admission you don’t really have a clue so probably best to say nothing until you’re in full possession of the facts, IMO.
-one on the forum is in possession of all the facts but Rowley seemed to know even less in my opinion.@)(++(* sure, we all know better than the guy with full possession of the facts.
@)(++(* sure, we all know better than the guy with full possession of the facts.
If you want to believe that A C Rowley examined all the evidence feel free, but I think you'll find he did no such thing.Does Rowley have full possession of the facts of this case or do you?
I don't believe any police officer, past or present is in position of the full facts of this case.
I don't believe any police officer, past or present is in possession of the full facts of this case.yet G-Unit seems to think she knows more than Rowley, who has the full files at his disposal, as well as all the information gathered by the McCanns’ detectives, as well as information on the current investigation being undertaken by the Portuguese as well as direct access to the McCanns themselves.
yet G-Unit seems to think she knows more than Rowley, who has the full files at his disposal, as well as all the information gathered by the McCanns’ detectives, as well as information on the current investigation being undertaken by the Portuguese as well as direct access to the McCanns themselves.
You have a strange idea of how hierarchies work. Rowley perhaps could have sat in his office ploughing through all that information but in my opinion he did no such thing. He had underlings who did that and wrote reports. The underlings were looking for lines of enquiry relating to abduction because of the remit. Above all, they 'knew' 'Kare and Gerry' were in the clear. I expect he was known to them as 'Mark'.I'd be surprised to find Rowley was permitted access to the files. I'd be surprised to find his job description requires such access. I would expect him to rely on executive summaries, with occasional briefings, but otherwise to be pretty ignorant of the details.
You have a strange idea of how hierarchies work. Rowley perhaps could have sat in his office ploughing through all that information but in my opinion he did no such thing. He had underlings who did that and wrote reports. The underlings were looking for lines of enquiry relating to abduction because of the remit. Above all, they 'knew' 'Kare and Gerry' were in the clear. I expect he was known to them as 'Mark'.Did I say he ploughed through all the information personally? I said he had access to it all including privileged information , so is in full possession of the facts, unlike you, but if want to continue to believe that you and your fellow sceptics know better than him then feel free to live in a state of denial and delusion.
I don't believe that the head honcho in an investigation would be aware of every piece of evidence either. He has staff to inform him of items of interest and may take part in the daily briefing but that would be all.
As others have said he would be far to busy to do everybody else's job for them.
He says the Portuguese dealt with it, but Foy seemed to be saying that OG checked the McCann's alibi. How can someone have an alibi when no-one knows what crime was committed or when it happened? In order for Foy to say the McCanns were where they said they were he clearly beleived that the crime occured between 9.05 and 10pm. Therefore OG believed what the parents told them. The PJ, on the other hand, started theit clock when the child was last seen; either 5.30 or 6.30.And what have the PJ done to re-examine events that occurred between 5.30pm and the time the McCanns left the apartment? Have they re-interviewed all the protagonists? Made them arguidos? What?
He says the Portuguese dealt with it, but Foy seemed to be saying that OG checked the McCann's alibi. How can someone have an alibi when no-one knows what crime was committed or when it happened? In order for Foy to say the McCanns were where they said they were he clearly beleived that the crime occured between 9.05 and 10pm. Therefore OG believed what the parents told them. The PJ, on the other hand, started theit clock when the child was last seen; either 5.30 or 6.30.
Did I say he ploughed through all the information personally? I said he had access to it all including privileged information , so is in full possession of the facts, unlike you, but if want to continue to believe that you and your fellow sceptics know better than him then feel free to live in a state of denial and delusion.
And what have the PJ done to re-examine events that occurred between 5.30pm and the time the McCanns left the apartment? Have they re-interviewed all the protagonists? Made them arguidos? What?
Having access to something doesn't mean it's actually been accessed, as you now admit. Rowley simply repeated what he was told imo. Those who think he did any more than that are the ones in denial and deluding themselves in my opinion.Hang on, you accused him of lying to begin with. Which shadowy figure in the Met do you think told him what to say and why?
AFAIK the PJ aren't investigating anything.@)(++(* oh that’s alright then.
The, Portuguese have said the, mccanns, are not suspects.... Are you now, suggesting Maddie disappeared before the, mccanns, left for, the, tapas... In order to try and make, sense, you make no sense
The only evidence that Madeleine was OK until 9pm was provided by her parents.You really need to have a long hard think about what you are suggesting.
Hang on, you accused him of lying to begin with. Which shadowy figure in the Met do you think told him what to say and why?
The only evidence that Madeleine was OK until 9pm was provided by her parents.
AFAIK the PJ aren't investigating anything.
I think anyone who believes that if the McCanns were being investigated we’d be told are just being ridiculous.
When specifically asked if the parents are suspects what do supporters expect any police officer to say....’ oh yes we’re investigating them but we don’t have enough evidence yet’ ?
There is widespread denial on this board but not on the sceptic side.
So it seems there are people on this forum who genuinely do believe they have a greater understanding of this case based on their partial access to the case files as they appear online than the Met who have been investigating the case for the last 5 years. Oh, the arrogance!
'The Met' is made up of individuals. Each individual knows a cetain amount. I don;t think any individual has examined all the evidence.
So Operation Grange are in charge then?
Any 'shadowy figures' are a figment of your imagination, it's not what I meant. A higher up person asks for information from those below them.So is it those “below him” that are feeding him lies in your opinion?
I think anyone who believes that if the McCanns were being investigated we’d be told are just being ridiculous.Isn’t that precisely what the PJ did in September 2007?
When specifically asked if the parents are suspects what do supporters expect any police officer to say....’ oh yes we’re investigating them but we don’t have enough evidence yet’ ?
There is widespread denial on this board but not on the sceptic side.
'The Met' is made up of individuals. Each individual knows a cetain amount. I don;t think any individual has examined all the evidence.Unlike you of course, @)(++(*
Operation Grange are in charge of whatever it is they're doing. The Portuguese are in charge of deciding whether Operation Grange have found anything worth pursuing through the Portuguese Courts. If they decide it's not, then OG must accept that.They obviously decided that the latest arguidos were worth pursuing, odd if they thought the parents were involved between 5.30pm and 8.30pm.
You really need to have a long hard think about what you are suggesting.
The only evidence that Madeleine was OK until 9pm was provided by her parents.
You seem fond of 'facts'. Well that's one of them. I'm suggesting nothing more and nothing less. What you think I'm suggesting is coming from your mind, not mine.What a silly thing to say. If you seriously think that concentrating on the hours between 5.30pm and 8.30pm would help the police to solve this case then it doesn’t take a genius to know precisely what it is you are suggesting, deny it all you like.
So is it those “below him” that are feeding him lies in your opinion?
I've no idea. Foy and Redwood at least claimed to have checked the timeline. Rowley didn't mention that. He seemed to think the Portuguese dealt with the questiion of parental involvement. I don't think lies are involved, just confusion. Trying to explain why their investigation didn't begin at the beginning isn't easy.That’s because you’re not in full possession of the facts.
That’s because you’re not in full possession of the facts.
I don't need to be in full possession of the facts to form the opinion that OG is struggling to justify it's stance.You are entitled to form any opinion you like but in my opinion the more information you have at your disposal the more valid your opinion will be. Therefore in my opinion The Met’s opinion is worth more than your opinion, feel free to tell me why, in your opinion, I am wrong.
what is the significance of that
IMO it could prove significant if other evidence emerges.
so you think after 12 yeras of looking..they still havent found enough evidence but are still looking...they would have more luck with the loch ness monster
Who knows what they’ve found over the last seven years. All it would need was for one of the main protagonists to change there story or a piece of forensic evidence to be re-examined with the latest techniques. I’m sure Russell Bishop thought he was in the clear when acquitted.Exactly the same could happen in the Needham case..
Who knows what they’ve found over the last seven years. All it would need was for one of the main protagonists to change there story or a piece of forensic evidence to be re-examined with the latest techniques. I’m sure Russell Bishop thought he was in the clear when acquitted.What piece of forensic evidence currently in the possesion of the police do you think could be re-examined to provide evidence of the McCanns’ involvement? I can help with that. Nothing, that’s what.
Exactly the same could happen in the Needham case..
Many things are possible... Maddue could have been abducted by an extra terrestrial.... It's what's probable that's important
After Russell Bishop was tried and acquitted I’m sure no one thought that it was probable that he would one day be re-arrested, tried and convicted of the same crime. No one thought that it was probable that over 30 years after the murder evidence would be found that would help to convict the original suspect.
Until arrests are made and charges laid we will have absolutely no idea who the police are investigating and that includes the parents.
After Russell Bishop was tried and acquitted I’m sure no one thought that it was probable that he would one day be re-arrested, tried and convicted of the same crime. No one thought that it was probable that over 30 years after the murder evidence would be found that would help to convict the original suspect.
Until arrests are made and charges laid we will have absolutely no idea who the police are investigating and that includes the parents.
I think we do have an idea.... I think it's absolutely 100% obvious the mccanns are not suspects or being investigated.. I think some are in total denial
Okay then tell me of one investigation where until there was arrests the public knew who was being investigated?
After Russell Bishop was tried and acquitted I’m sure no one thought that it was probable that he would one day be re-arrested, tried and convicted of the same crime. No one thought that it was probable that over 30 years after the murder evidence would be found that would help to convict the original suspect.I thought it was possible, probable even, but not in the case of Madeleine’s parents, as there is no evidence that could be found that would convict them apart from a full confession from one or both of them.
Until arrests are made and charges laid we will have absolutely no idea who the police are investigating and that includes the parents.
every missing child case...including the mccanns and the needhams....next
You are entitled to form any opinion you like but in my opinion the more information you have at your disposal the more valid your opinion will be. Therefore in my opinion The Met’s opinion is worth more than your opinion, feel free to tell me why, in your opinion, I am wrong.
Okay then tell me of one investigation where until there was arrests the public knew who was being investigated?The McCann case 2007
The police investigating both cases made no statement about the investigation into any individual until they were made suspects. If you dispute that fact perhaps you can provide a cite ?yourquestion was...
That there was unofficial leaks about the progress of the case is indisputable but we are not talking about unnamed sources but official police statements.
You can believe what you like, as can I. I see no point in arguing about it because neither of us will convince the other.OK, carry on believing you know better than the experts then, it won’t do you any good but that’s your problem not mine.
Okay then tell me of one investigation where until there was arrests the public knew who was being investigated?Cliff Richard. Charlie Elphicke.
isnt prince phillip being investigated...
The Duke of Edinburgh could be sent on a drivers’ awareness course, it has emerged, as police continue to investigate a crash which left two women hospitalised.
The Duke, 97, is understood to have no intention of giving up driving, having been photographed on public roads driving a new car less than 48 hours after the accident.
He is understood to be complying with a Norfolk Police investigation, which will see him interviewed about what happened.
so some think the mcccanns are being protected...but prince phillip isnt
Why would anyone protect the McCanns?
yourquestion was...
Okay then tell me of one investigation where until there was arrests the public knew who was being investigated?
you have now changed the question having been shown to be wrong on the first one.....laughing emoticons indicated but im far too sophisticated...and its were arrests ...not was
isnt prince phillip being investigated...
The Duke of Edinburgh could be sent on a drivers’ awareness course, it has emerged, as police continue to investigate a crash which left two women hospitalised.
The Duke, 97, is understood to have no intention of giving up driving, having been photographed on public roads driving a new car less than 48 hours after the accident.
He is understood to be complying with a Norfolk Police investigation, which will see him interviewed about what happened.
so some think the mcccanns are being protected...but prince phillip isnt
I assumed it was understood I meant from official statements...obviously not.
Okay from police statements we had no idea that the parents were being investigated. In fact it was emphatically denied just days before they were made suspects by a police spokesman.
The police will not disclose details of individuals being investigated until arrests are made....even if specifically, or especially, if asked by the media.
It would be prejudicial and may even jeopardise any resulting trial.
I assumed it was understood I meant from official statements...obviously not.
Okay from police statements we had no idea that the parents were being investigated. In fact it was emphatically denied just days before they were made suspects by a police spokesman.
The police will not disclose details of individuals being investigated until arrests are made....even if specifically, or especially, if asked by the media.
It would be prejudicial and may even jeopardise any resulting trial.
You misunderstand faithlillys question... You also misunderstand supporters..
I can't understand why you and others cannot appreciate thst whilst many things are remotely possible they are so unprobable as to be approaching zero probability...
You misunderstand faithlillys question ???Remember who this thread is about? He doesn’t seem to think the McCanns are being investigated? Is he deluded as well?
The only way we have of knowing whether the parents are being investigated is from the investigators..and they aren’t allowed to tell. QED.
You misunderstand faithlillys question ???
The only way we have of knowing whether the parents are being investigated is from the investigators..and they aren’t allowed to tell. QED.
you misunderstand faithlillys question...this is it
Okay then tell me of one investigation where until there was arrests the public knew who was being investigated?
obviously if you are looking for an answer to a dfferent one.....you need to ask a different question
My, my you really don’t want to answer my question do you ?
Guidance on police naming suspects
In his 2012 ‘Report on the Culture Practices and Ethics of the Press’, Leveson LJ stated that ‘save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (eg, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public’.
This view was echoed in the College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’ which stated that ‘save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public’.
Such circumstances include a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime or a matter of public interest and confidence. A decision to release the name of an arrested person should be made at a chief officer level and a record made of the reason for releasing the information. Forces may, however, provide non-identifiable information such as the age, gender, offence and a general location of arrest.
When someone is charged, the College of Policing guidance says, information released to the media can include the name, address, occupation and charge details for an adult and should be released where no legal restrictions apply. Crown Prosecution Service advice stipulates that if an individual is not named at point of charge, that decision should be taken in conjunction with them.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/media-identification-of-suspects/
You claim this is guidance on police naming suspects...it isnt....its guidance on the press naming suspects.
This view was echoed in the College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’ which stated that ‘save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public’.
tell that to Sir Cliff.
This view was echoed in the College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’ which stated that ‘save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public’.
you need to show the exact wording of the ...College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’...because we know in reality....suspects names are regularly released.....
the GUIDANCEalso says this...
There is nothing to prevent police forces from naming an arrested person
where there is a policing purpose for doing so. The media will often
identify and name an arrested person without assistance from the police.
Individuals themselves have the right to inform others of their arrest.
An arrested person.
so you are still under the delusion that police do not name suspects...because they do
Of course they do...the guidelines allow for it..
‘This view was echoed in the College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’ which stated that ‘save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public’.
Such circumstances include a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime or a matter of public interest and confidence.’
Of course they do...the guidelines allow for it..I think those guidelines are so loose that the police would have no problem revealing that the McCanns were suspect, if indeed they were. In fact it would pile so much pressure on them it would be a good tactical move, so why haven’t they done it, seeing as how the ONLY way of nailing them is if one of them cracks?
‘This view was echoed in the College of Policing’s 2013 ‘Guidance on Relationships with the Media’ which stated that ‘save in clearly identified circumstances, or where legal restrictions apply, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released by police forces to the press or the public’.
Such circumstances include a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime or a matter of public interest and confidence.’
the portuguese told us the mccanns were suspects...so why are they not telling us now
Sheesh....only after they had been they had been named arguido. It was emphatically denied that they were suspects before.And they are not arguidos now because...?
And they are not arguidos now because...?
Sheesh....only after they had been they had been named arguido. It was emphatically denied that they were suspects before.
What reason is that?
The same reason no one else is.
You are talking about the initial investigation which has been shown to be totally inept
Has it? By whom? You?
You are talking about the initial investigation which has been shown to be totally inept
I think theres as much chance Grange are investigating you...and will arrest you shortly...as there is of them investigating the Mccanns...can you prove me wrong...QED and all that ????????
If such a thing was about to happen you wouldn’t hear about that either.
so grange are not telling us if they are investigating you....they might be.. who knows
Exactly, and why don’t you know ?
exactly... I dont know if grange are investigating you... I think its more likely they are than the mccanns...gunit sounds a bit suspicious... and perhaps angelos involved...who knows
And they are not arguidos now because...?
You are talking about the initial investigation which has been shown to be totally inept
I think theres as much chance Grange are investigating you...and will arrest you shortly...as there is of them investigating the Mccanns...can you prove me wrong...QED and all that ????????
Well according to the archive report it is because of an absence of evidence.So that obviously continues to be the case doesn’t it, despite many more years of supposedly being investigated.
How inept? We don't know what happened to the child yet, the Portuguese might have been spot on.
We know fir a fact the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence
We all know that Madeleine was abducted for some reason that is not yet known. There is no other logical explanation. But if some people want to go on trying to find ways in which to involve her parents then that is okay by me.
I have never been wild about Colin Sutton because he tried to make it all about him. But I thought Martin Clune was wonderful.
That's not a fact, that's your opinion.
We know Madeleine disappeared, there are lots of logical explanations for that.
No it's, a fact.... They thought the alerts confirmed cadaver... It's in the filesvas a proven fact.... Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment... Both false.... Not opinion... Fact
If it says in the flles that 'the alerts confirmed cadaver' (whatever that means) please provide a cite from those files. You can't quote Amaral as if he was representing the views of the investigation because he wasn't. He was giving his own oersonal opinion.Confirmation of cadaver is in the proven facts... Amaral claimed his views were shared by the investigation. Is he not being truthful
If it says in the flles that 'the alerts confirmed cadaver' (whatever that means) please provide a cite from those files. You can't quote Amaral as if he was representing the views of the investigation because he wasn't. He was giving his own oersonal opinion.
If it says in the flles that 'the alerts confirmed cadaver' (whatever that means) please provide a cite from those files. You can't quote Amaral as if he was representing the views of the investigation because he wasn't. He was giving his own oersonal opinion.
exactly... I dont know if grange are investigating you... I think its more likely they are than the mccanns...gunit sounds a bit suspicious... and perhaps angelos involved...who knows
Confirmation of cadaver is in the proven facts... Amaral claimed his views were shared by the investigation. Is he not being truthful
If it says in the flles that 'the alerts confirmed cadaver' (whatever that means) please provide a cite from those files. You can't quote Amaral as if he was representing the views of the investigation because he wasn't. He was giving his own oersonal opinion.
Your original claim was that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence. Please provide a cite from the PJ files confirming your claim.
AFAIK there are no 'proven facts' in the files.
You also claimed 'Amaral said he could prove Maddie died in the apartment'. Please note that claim is his, it has nothing to do with the investigation which clearly couldn't prove any such thing. If it had been able to the case wouldn't still be being investigated.
Parental Involvement isn't one of them. Logistics just doesn't allow for this. Presuming you understand Logistics, of course.
I've provided a cite from amaral.... How many times it is ckauned thst it wasn't just amaral who believed the mccanns were guilty... Then we have his book... Using the word we... He was speaking fir himself and other officers
Then we have the archiving report.... Which tells us what evidence was used to make the mccanns arguidos
If you're so confident of your 'facts' you will be able to confirm them by providing cires from the PJ files showiing that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidemce. I have reason to believe that it's no longer acceptable to refuse to do so.
have you read the report by Almeida
Is that the one translated by LUZ with the heading ...
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
thats the one..its in the FILES
have you read the report by Almeida...
Not less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine's DNA as being present at the apartment 5A behind the sofa, a place marked by the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA.
that is not true
Is that the one translated by LUZ with the heading ...
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
10 September 2007
(Processo: VOL ,X, p. 2587-2602)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
There was no evidence that 'pointed towards' Maeleine's DNA being behind the sofa? Swab 3a was taken from behind the sofa;
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That certainly suggests (or points to) Madeleine's DNA being behind the sofa. It's a fact that all Keela's indications resulted in DNA being found.
Which, it is alleged, was due to 'misunderstanding the evidence'. It is that which I require a cite for;which evidence was misunderstood?
We all know that Madeleine was abducted for some reason that is not yet known. There is no other logical explanation. But if some people want to go on trying to find ways in which to involve her parents then that is okay by me.
I have never been wild about Colin Sutton because he tried to make it all about him. But I thought Martin Clune was wonderful.
That result dies not point the DNA being maddies... That's, quite untrue
Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.
Please provide a cite for that.https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
That's a matter of opinion, not of fact.
That's a matter of opinion, not of fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book
It can't be an Opinion. It's either true or not.
Thank you. Alneida claimed to have formed an opinion. That was his prerogative, surely? His belief wasn't based entirely on the dog alerts, by the way, there was other evidece.
The FSS didn't say either way.
Thank you. Alneida claimed to have formed an opinion. That was his prerogative, surely? His belief wasn't based entirely on the dog alerts, by the way, there was other evidece.Cite please.
They didnt say it pointed to Maddie
They gave no opinion either way. Therefore, as they didn't rule out the possibility that it belonged to Madeleine Almeida was entitled to form his own opinion.He can have any opinion he wants... But he should not present it as fact...... When the, evidence does not support it..
Cite please.
Where there is a reference to the 'main' evidence it's obviously not the only evidence. The rest of it can be found in his report which you can find here;
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg511786#msg511786
He can have any opinion he wants... But he should not present it as fact...... When the, evidence does not support it..
Where there is a reference to the 'main' evidence it's obviously not the only evidence. The rest of it can be found in his report which you can find here;so remove the dog alerts and what have you got? Pretty much nothing as evidenced by the report.
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10539.msg511786#msg511786
Do you think saying A 'points to' B is a statement of fact?
It is a, statement of fact
It isn't. It's a suggestion.”A may point to B” is a suggestion.
It isn't. It's a suggestion.
A may point to B is a sugestion.
If Madeleine's DNA was found behind rhe couch that could 'point to' various scenaruis. In Ameida's opinion it pointed to her death.So what? Did he list all the possible scenarios? Did he express any doubt?
If Madeleine's DNA was found behind rhe couch that could 'point to' various scenaruis. In Ameida's opinion it pointed to her death.Then it points to his poor logic in assessing evidence....
So what? Did he list all the possible scenarios? Did he express any doubt?
Why should he? Why shouldn't he form a belief? It seems to me that's endemic in this case.As a professional his belief as articulated in an official document should be backed up by solid evidence. He thought the dog alerts supported his belief but he was wrong to suppose it as they had no evidential value..
As a professional his belief as articulated in an official document should be backed up by solid evidence. He thought the dog alerts supported his belief but he was wrong to suppose it as they had no evidential value..
Why is it extraordinary that a DNA match for Madeleine was found in a place where it is known that she had been in residence?
If the DNA behind the couch was Madeleine's how did she leave bodily fluids in an inaccesible place?Bodily fluids??
You seem to expect the police to conpletely ignore any dog alert that doesn't uncover a body or DNA. That would be ridiculous.Explain why it would be ridiculous. Almeida seemed quite happy to ignore or disbelieve human testimony, why should dogs be listened to in preference?
Bodily fluids??
Explain why it would be ridiculous. Almeida seemed quite happy to ignore or disbelieve human testimony, why should dogs be listened to in preference?
That's what the FSS said;That doesn’t sound to me like it was definitely a bodily fluid. But...presumably it could have come from a bogey flicked behind the sofa.
it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
If the DNA behind the couch was Madeleine's how did she leave bodily fluids in an inaccesible place?
Well I have heard of no case where the police completely ignored dog alerts. In the Suzanne Pilley case the unconfirmed dog alerts were very helpful as an aid to working out what happened.Who is talking about completely ignoring them? Basing your entire belief around them is quite another thing. I take it you disagree with the expert Martin Grime about dog alerts having no evidential reliability on their own?
That's what the FSS said;
it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That doesn’t sound to me like it was definitely a bodily fluid. But...presumably it could have come from a bogey flicked behind the sofa.
Well. despite strenuous efforts I have seen nothing which shows that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence. They gathered a body of evidence which suggested to them that there was no abduction and that Madeleine may have died in 5A. They couldn't prove their hypothesis, but no-one has disproved it either.
The body of evidence suggested to them....but the main evidence... The dogs... Had no evidential value.... And the DNA could not be shown to be from Madeleine... Hence they didn't understand the evidence.. It's quite clear that neither piece if their so called evidence supported their conclusion... As shown by the archiving report
I think you should stop trying to prove that your opinion has more value than that of the PJ.I'm showing that Grimes opinion... And the opinion of the FSS has more value than the original opinion of the pj.... It's clear that their conclusion was not based on evidence
I'm showing that Grimes opinion... And the opinion of the FSS has more value than the original opinion of the pj.... It's clear that their conclusion was not based on evidence
I have argued previously that your interpretation of Grime's opinion is incorrect and misleading. As to the FSS they gave no opinion on swab 3A;
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
That is very similar to this, which has been accepted without question;
An incomplete, low-level DNA profile that matched corresponding components in the profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material present on the card key
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
You would need to read the while report on the DNA samples
The DNA evidence does not show that the sample came fron Maddie... The FSS explained these markers are common to a lot of people... And the alerts themselves are not evidence...
You refuse to accept reality imo
EtA.... You will find the difference in the DNA is because the sample in the key FOB came from one person... Whilst the previous one came from 3 to 5 people... Can you see the difference
I see no point in continuimg to argue about opinions., which are all you have despite your belieg that you have more.
Yes indeed. Keela that blood detection dog had a habit of alerting to anything and everything but blood.??? Bogeys can contain traces of blood you know.
Well. despite strenuous efforts I have seen nothing which shows that the initial investigation misunderstood the evidence. They gathered a body of evidence which suggested to them that there was no abduction and that Madeleine may have died in 5A. They couldn't prove their hypothesis, but no-one has disproved it either.What is the body of evidence that suggests there was no abduction?
Blimey over 24 hours without a single post in this part of the forum, how marvellous! 8((()*/
Everyone is far too busy fighting over Brexit. And no one is particularly interested in the opinion of the only Member who has actually lived in France permanently for twenty five years.
But then I am all about Food Banks due to my appalling British State Pension.
No-one who lives in the UK is expected to live on the basic state Pension.
Not helped by a plummeting pound of course.
So the British State Pension isn't fit for purpose. So much for paying for it for all of your working life.
Blimey over 24 hours without a single post in this part of the forum, how marvellous! 8((()*/
Surely there is nothing new to say.Makes being a moderator easy.
I paid towards my state pension all of my working life and also paid a large amount of superannuation each month of my working life and it is this pension which ensures we can live fairly comfortably.
But how I resented the money at the time and I was often tempted to stop payment but now of course I am glad I did not.
The young generation are having to plough much more of their income into future pensions and will have to wait til nearer their seventies to retire.
So the British State Pension isn't fit for purpose. So much for paying for it for all of your working life.
Reading up on other European Pensions it appears most require significant contributions through your working life, hence it is comparing apples and oranges. The British State pension was designed to cover the approx 5 years between retirement and death.
I decided to live a bit longer. Sorry about that.
Glad you did, just pointing out the basis on which the pension was established.
I got my pension at 60, but worked until I was 70. I think a lot of people are able to do that these days.
Yes, I know. This fact has long been played down. It was such an insulting attitude. Fortunately, the powers that be at the time had no real conception of The War Generation Survivors. We are tough old cookies. I shall get my pound of flesh. It's wot keeps me going.
Your circumstances may have been different but generally most.people begin their working life.by the time they are twenty, if not even earlier and in my opinion working for forty five years is quite long enough.
I began teaching at nineteen and retired at sixty, having had eight years away while my children were under school age.
I retired at sixty and my position was taken by a young teacher who until then had.had only temporary appointments.
My own feeling is that.if someone has the financial capability to retire, then they should.indeed do so and allow their.job to be.taken by a young person who is seeking employment.
The retired person can always find satisfaction in voluntary work.
This of course would be personal choice, and no one should be forced to retire.
I cannot think of any almost seventy year old Primary teacher having the stamina to continue teaching infant or junior classes.lol
8((()*/ 40 years working in the NHS is more than enough for anyone
The state pension is not enough to live n but is topped up in the UK by a generous benefit system.... A generous benefit system thst is open to any EU resident who comes to live in the UK... Cameron tried to limit this and got short shrift from the EU.... As I understand that's one of the points, that tipped him towards, a referendum... We simply couldn't afford to pay benefits to EU citizens.. Some who didn't even live in the country
I qualify for No Benefits at all, although I don't have problem with this. I don't live in Britain. Thank God.
But I do have a problem with The Winter Fuel Allowance, of which I have been deprived. It's tropical here according to Osbourne. Oh Really. Such perfidy is incomprehensible.
The Winter Fuel Allowance was and is not a Benefit. It was awarded to all Pensioners to redress the dire amount of Pensions in some small part.
Your circumstances may have been different but generally most.people begin their working life.by the time they are twenty, if not even earlier and in my opinion working for forty five years is quite long enough.
I began teaching at nineteen and retired at sixty, having had eight years away while my children were under school age.
I retired at sixty and my position was taken by a young teacher who until then had.had only temporary appointments.
My own feeling is that.if someone has the financial capability to retire, then they should.indeed do so and allow their.job to be.taken by a young person who is seeking employment.
The retired person can always find satisfaction in voluntary work.
This of course would be personal choice, and no one should be forced to retire.
I cannot think of any almost seventy year old Primary teacher having the stamina to continue teaching infant or junior classes.lol
I qualify for No Benefits at all, although I don't have problem with this. I don't live in Britain. Thank God.
But I do have a problem with The Winter Fuel Allowance, of which I have been deprived. It's tropical here according to Osbourne. Oh Really. Such perfidy is incomprehensible.
The Winter Fuel Allowance was and is not a Benefit. It was awarded to all Pensioners to redress the dire amount of Pensions in some small part.
Of course it depends on the job. Mine was suitable, but others aren't. I was taught English Literature at College by a lady of 70 who was a 'supply' lecturer. She loved her subject and still wanted ro share her in-depth knowlege of it.
I remember my boss saying he was embarassed to be getting it as he didn't need it. He moved to a chateau in France when he retired, so I expect he's embarassed no longer lol.
I can imagine she did.
I'm not sure I would have enjoyed being in charge.of thirty little children, especially PE lessons. @)(++(*
I once helped out with a scheme which offered actibities for small children. We took them to a park with a paddling pool and they all threw off their shoes and socks and headed for the water. I then learned that small children don't always recognise their own socks. I still don't know how many went home in the socks they arrived in. Small children are hard work.
I see no problem paying benefits to British citizens who don't live in this country... I'm talking about paying benefits to EU citizens who have never set foot in this country
Indeed.
That seems very familiar.
The most exhausting days were not ones spent teaching but school outings.
Continually counting little people, dealing with toileting and feeling sick issues and even worse the time spent in the gift shops which nowadays seem to b at every school outing venue.
I used to come home, slump into a comfortable chair and reach.for a glass.of wine
I once helped out with a scheme which offered actibities for small children. We took them to a park with a paddling pool and they all threw off their shoes and socks and headed for the water. I then learned that small children don't always recognise their own socks. I still don't know how many went home in the socks they arrived in. Small children are hard work.
Any minute now we're all going to be told to get back on topic.
But they aren't, are they? If they eventually do live and work in UK, then I don't have a problem with that either.
I was actually offered a French Supplement on my British State Pension, to approximately 200 Euros a month. But this remains recoverable from your Estate when you die. This is a fact. And there was no way in which I was going to leave that sort of debt to my children. If I live to be over 100, which I have every intention of doing, then it could even amount to everything I own. So everything about my life, my home and my family would have been for nothing.
Besides, I am very good when the going gets a bit rough.
benefits have and probabaly are still being paid to EU children...family members of people here...who have never been to the uk.......theres no stipulation to work.....we have a good benefit system but it neeeds some control over who receives benefits
How do they do this? Is this Child Allowance for children who are separated from their parents who are working in UK? Are these parents entitled to Child Allowance? I don't know anymore.
David Gauke, the Treasury minister, published the figures for payments to 23,855 families, who live outside the UK but in the European Union, in response to a question from the Conservative MP Priti Patel.
By far the biggest proportion of children for whom claims are being made – nearly two-thirds – are living in Poland. The remaining third of claimants are in the other 25 EU countries and three others: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. In all cases, families can claim £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for each subsequent child.
Patel said the figures were "alarming". "Hard-pressed taxpayers are going to be absolutely appalled to see money leeching out of their pockets to pay these payments at a time when [they] are squeezed anyway," she said.
The Treasury defended the overseas payments, saying that they were obliged under European law, and pointed out that claims could only be made if at least one parent was working in the UK and paying National Insurance."These payments make up less than 0.5% of child benefit awards," added a Treasury spokesman.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/23/child-benefit-payments-outside-uk
I don't see a problem legally, as it stands at the moment, if the parent is paying National Insurance. Where the child lives would appear to be irrelevant.
Will this change IF Britain leaves The EU?
I don't see a problem legally, as it stands at the moment, if the parent is paying National Insurance. Where the child lives would appear to be irrelevant.
Will this change IF Britain leaves The EU?
I’m not sure Eleanor but I’m like you. If you pay NI, no matter your country of origin, you are entitled to the benefits that become eligible with that tax. Why anyone would disagree with that has a very skewed view of a fair benefit system.
As to our benefits sysyem perhaps if more nationals concentrated on the appalling treatment of claimants here instead of what others are claiming then we might not have diabetics dying because they don’t have enough to pay their electricity bills and can’t store their insulin.
Originally there was no payment for the first child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Allowances_Act_1945
I’m not sure Eleanor but I’m like you. If you pay NI, no matter your country of origin, you are entitled to the benefits that become eligible with that tax. Why anyone would disagree with that has a very skewed view of a fair benefit system.
As to our benefits sysyem perhaps if more nationals concentrated on the appalling treatment of claimants here instead of what others are claiming then we might not have diabetics dying because they don’t have enough to pay their electricity bills and can’t store their insulin.
Which leads me to suspect that The EU isn't half as bad as some claim. But only after the endless rubbish that I have been subjected to over God knows how long. And since none of them seem to know anything about what they are talking of.
In the absence of any trustworthy statistics, there is NO evidence to suggest that the UK has benefited from being members of the EU as it stands today. I mean fiscally, socially, ecologically. as there are no stats to say we will be worse off.
Just two arguments of 'wooda cooda shooda'.
Therefore,the endless rubbish you claim to have heard would be the growth of EU nationals from poorer states coming here to work or beg or commit crime as they do in their own country- when we have all that here already. Why food banks in a rich country? the food banks became an industry under the guise of 'charity' aka private company who pays no tax.
I love Europe and travel frequently over it and also holiday there. I just do not need another shelf of government which is unaccountable to me. And I do not need to be part of a social engineering ploy by those who have no clue what they are doing.
we have so many 'rulers' and people we must obey it is becoming a nightmare.
we have local,regional,national, international governments we have a queen- a pope 'Jewish and muslim council leaders who likes to poke their noses into how we should live our lives according to their beliefs. Enough already please!
If you want to differentiate between reality and fiction about the way the Madeleine case 'should' have been handled, please read this very interesting BBC article about how murder incidents in London are investigated.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46838618
It's one week in the life of a Major Investigative Team.
8((()*/
Some cases are being prepared for court, some are already in the trial process, others are long-running investigations with police searching for a breakthrough, and a smaller number are recent homicide inquiries that need intensive work.
From the link.
Bolded bit,this imo is where Grange are at,no dedicated team but a team familiar to the case on call should anything turn up.
If that is the case ... what do you suppose is the purpose of the Home Office agreeing to the funding of the continued investigation of Madeleine's case?
Sutton explains in a video in this thread about funding.
You opined ... not Sutton
" ... this is where Grange are at, no dedicated team but a team familiar to the case on call should anything turn up."
So what do you think is happening to the money ring fenced by the Home Office for Madeleine McCann's investigation given the opinion you have posted.
It seems to me that the last time funding was mentioned it seemed to be being paid retrospectively. That suggests intermittent costs rather than regular fixed costs.
You opined ... not SuttonColin Sutton explaining grange is not a dedicated team.
" ... this is where Grange are at, no dedicated team but a team familiar to the case on call should anything turn up."
So what do you think is happening to the money ring fenced by the Home Office for Madeleine McCann's investigation given the opinion you have posted.
When did the 31st March 2019 become "retrospective"?
Grange seems to have received six monthly payouts. The media have reported these payouts as up-front funding, but have the Home Office or Grange ever confirmed that? It seems it's not quite so clear-cut as the media thinks it is;
Funding for Special Grant applications can be paid retrospectively for operational work already done in the same financial year. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the MPS would have to discontinue its operational work after 30 September 2018 unless additional funds were provided in advance of this date.
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/25/home-office-in-the-media/
You obviously misunderstood my question which was ... "When did the 31st March 2019 become "retrospective?"
Madeleine's case will be financed by the Home Office until then and if the Scotland Yard need more time and money to follow active lines of enquiry no doubt they will make a case to justify that continued funding ... if they have reached the end of the line as far as the investigation goes they won't.
At the moment Scotland Yard have received an advance payment which covers them until the future date of the 31st.
Thereafter it remains to be seen if there will be a necessity to request continuation of the funding.
I think you are attempting to push a pretty petty point here unless there is a purpose to it which evades me.
Can you guarantee that the six monthly funds are for future expenditure rather than previous expenditure?
Can you guarantee that the six monthly funds are for future expenditure rather than previous expenditure?Are you suggesting that the Met would do six months worth of work and then face the possibility of being denied funds to cover that period? Seems an odd way to go about things.
Are you suggesting that the Met would do six months worth of work and then face the possibility of being denied funds to cover that period? Seems an odd way to go about things.
Does it matter?
I'm suggesting just that, but I expect there's little chance of the Home Office refusing to pay documented costs. How exactly do you suggest that Grange can predict how much they are going to spend during a given period of time?You obviously don’t understand the process of budgeting and forecasts.
You obviously don’t understand the process of budgeting and forecasts.
Describe to me how to forecast what's going to happen in the next six months please.By using common sense, and looking at the previous six months spend, looking at what areas you plan to explore and any trips you know you need to take etx. It’s really not rocket science you know!
Salaries and Serveillance Costs.
Surveillance? where? when? in Britain?
Sorry. I can't say.
In this imagined scenario, Madeleine is fast approaching 16,its likely where ever she is to have been brought up in a vastly different culture if abroad to Britain, just suppose she's well looked after, educated, fast approaching higher education no doubt having learnt the mother tongue of where this imagined scenario happens to be, do you think its fair on the girl and her parents for OG just to observe and then presumably take her away from it.Do you think its likely that where ever your imagined surveillance is being conducted its with the full authority of the local forces, if not then its illegal.
The FOI regarding OG only showed 5 return flights to Portugal in the year 2017/18 with a breakdown of costs of accommodation of £811,obviously not staying long
In this imagined scenario, Madeleine is fast approaching 16,its likely where ever she is to have been brought up in a vastly different culture if abroad to Britain, just suppose she's well looked after, educated, fast approaching higher education no doubt having learnt the mother tongue of where this imagined scenario happens to be, do you think its fair on the girl and her parents for OG just to observe and then presumably take her away from it.Do you think its likely that where ever your imagined surveillance is being conducted its with the full authority of the local forces, if not then its illegal.
The FOI regarding OG only showed 5 return flights to Portugal in the year 2017/18 with a breakdown of costs of accommodation of £811,obviously not staying long
Taking this a little further, at the point that she reaches the age of majority, UK police will have no authority to intervene in her life at all.
They need to get a move on.
IMO
I seem to remember a senior police officer saying that no matter how Madeleine left the holiday apartment she had been abducted.
Don't you think in the scenario you repeat that the people who have allegedly given her the ideal childhood and adolescence described might have some pertinent answers to give to questions asked about that?
A three year old child is not a commodity who can be appropriated planned or on a whim and spirited away from all she knows and loves by anyone as if she were a puppy dog.
They may or may not have, but not necessarily Madeleine.
These hypothetical people may well be beyond the reach of OG in any case.
The ongoing police investigation into Madeleine's case is not hypothetical.
Do you think that the men and women of Scotland Yard working on it over the years have not been equally as proficient at their jobs as Sutton and his team were at theirs?
The ongoing police investigation into Madeleine's case is not hypothetical.
Do you think that the men and women of Scotland Yard working on it over the years have not been equally as proficient at their jobs as Sutton and his team were at theirs?
I tend to judge by results and in this particular case those have been abysmal.
A proficient policeman raised concerns about Peter Sutcliffe but was ignored by his superiors.
The ongoing police investigation into Madeleine's case is not hypothetical.There is no evidence to support the idea that OG has visited Luz, the June 2014 triple dig aside.
Do you think that the men and women of Scotland Yard working on it over the years have not been equally as proficient at their jobs as Sutton and his team were at theirs?
Taking this a little further, at the point that she reaches the age of majority, UK police will have no authority to intervene in her life at all.
They need to get a move on.
IMO
So every Private Detective who ver watched anyone has to get permission from the local Police Force?
There is no evidence to support the idea that OG has visited Luz, the June 2014 triple dig aside.
When the Stephen Lawrence case was re-investigated as a cold case, the SIO felt correct procedure was to return to examine the event scene personally, and to examine it in considerable detail, to gain an understanding of the crime.
This is another example of why OG appears to be unfit for purpose.
A point that interested me was sufficient data had been loaded into HOLMES incorrectly that the SIO decided to junk it all and start again. I don't know what OG have or have not done re HOLMES, but this makes 2 major investigations where the SIO has been critical of the system.
Are you suggesting the HO is funding these which is what we are on about,funding that is.
There is no evidence to support the idea that OG has visited Luz, the June 2014 triple dig aside.
When the Stephen Lawrence case was re-investigated as a cold case, the SIO felt correct procedure was to return to examine the event scene personally, and to examine it in considerable detail, to gain an understanding of the crime.
This is another example of why OG appears to be unfit for purpose.
A point that interested me was sufficient data had been loaded into HOLMES incorrectly that the SIO decided to junk it all and start again. I don't know what OG have or have not done re HOLMES, but this makes 2 major investigations where the SIO has been critical of the system.
Are you suggesting the HO is funding these which is what we are on about,funding that is.
Actually I think we are supposed to be discussing the similarities between Sutton's investigation as outlined in his documentary of his book and Madeleine's case.
Actually I think we are supposed to be discussing the similarities between Sutton's investigation as outlined in his documentary of his book and Madeleine's case.
I thought we were comparing the two;
Sutton's investigation was successful. Operation Grange's investigation is unsuccessful so far.
Sutton had a free hand, Operation Grange was limited by it's remit.
There was a stage in Sutton's investigation where exactly the same accusation of lack of success could be levelled.
Sutton's investigation did not allow him a free hand insofar that he was bound by restrictions of having to look for and follow whatever evidence might have been available to him.
His remit was to do that within the confines of the law and by following procedure to be able to present a case against a suspect to allow for arrest and subsequent trial.
It is utterly risible to imagine that the remit of the investigation into Madeleine's case limits police procedure to allow exactly the same freedom to follow the evidence as enjoyed by Sutton.
That is what the police do ... and it is what Helen Monteiro's team did both at review stage and into the reopening of Madeleine's case.
I doubt very much that Sutton embarked on his successful investigation without casting an eye over all the evidence already gathered and deciding what to keep to work on and what to set aside. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that wasn't done in Madeleine's case and there seemed to be plenty of leads which just had not been followed through for them to be going on with.
So what evidence is it you think the PJ investigation of the parents and Robert Murat missed and what is it that that you think Monteiro's review team missed that directed them open a case which enabled them to investigate a stranger abduction?
There was a stage in Sutton's investigation where exactly the same accusation of lack of success could be levelled.
Sutton's investigation did not allow him a free hand insofar that he was bound by restrictions of having to look for and follow whatever evidence might have been available to him.
His remit was to do that within the confines of the law and by following procedure to be able to present a case against a suspect to allow for arrest and subsequent trial.
It is utterly risible to imagine that the remit of the investigation into Madeleine's case limits police procedure to allow exactly the same freedom to follow the evidence as enjoyed by Sutton.
That is what the police do ... and it is what Helen Monteiro's team did both at review stage and into the reopening of Madeleine's case.
I doubt very much that Sutton embarked on his successful investigation without casting an eye over all the evidence already gathered and deciding what to keep to work on and what to set aside. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that wasn't done in Madeleine's case and there seemed to be plenty of leads which just had not been followed through for them to be going on with.
So what evidence is it you think the PJ investigation of the parents and Robert Murat missed and what is it that that you think Monteiro's review team missed that directed them open a case which enabled them to investigate a stranger abduction?
Ludicrous to imagine? Risible? Monteiro?
Surely you should have whacked a ginormous IMO around your speculation?
On what basis do you state that the PJ were investigating stranger abduction. AFAIK that has never been said by anyone in authority. Please provide your source.
"Portugal's Attorney General has determined the reopening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a request from the Policia Judiciaria."
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said she was unable to comment on the new lines of inquiry.
She said: "I do not know what they are and how significant they are and even if I did I couldn't comment because of the secrecy order.
"However it is clear from the statement we have released that the decision to reopen the Madeleine McCann investigation has been based on new elements that indicate it's a justifiable action."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/438868/Portuguese-police-reopen-Madeleine-McCann-investigation
Groundhog day yet again?
Seriously though ... do you ever bother to read any of the links I post? Here is one I did earlier ... 2015 to be exact
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3699.msg253733#msg253733
Here is one tying in with that ...
Snip
A Polícia Judiciária (PJ) esclareceu nesta quarta-feira que a ligação entre o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann e um homem que abusou sexualmente de cinco meninas no Algarve, entre 2004 e 2006, corresponde à linha de investigação descoberta pela equipa daquela polícia, criada no Porto, em Março de 2011, para reanalisar o caso, e que fundamentou o pedido de reabertura do inquérito do caso Maddie, em Outubro do ano passado.
The Judiciary Police said Wednesday that the link between the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and a man who sexually abused five girls in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006 corresponds to the line of investigation discovered by the police team, Porto in March 2011 to re-examine the case, which provided the basis for the request to reopen the Maddie case in October last year.
https://www.publico.pt/2014/03/19/sociedade/noticia/pj-reabriu-inquerito-maddie-ha-meses-por-causa-de-suspeito-procurado-agora-pelos-ingleses-1628961
Interestingly enough is that Colin Sutton concurs with the present investigators that Madeleine's abduction may not have been outwith the bounds of possibility.
Snip
A former Scotland Yard police officer also suggested that Maddie was kidnapped and trafficked to Mauritania in West Africa before being sold to a wealthy Middle Eastern family.
Former detective Colin Sutton told the Mirror: "Mauritania is certainly a possibility that needs to be explored."
"If anyone wanted to take the three-year-old girl to Africa, it would be the most obvious route to take."
"The infrastructure and the contacts to carry out the contraband of people already exist".
https://www.gnoticia.com.br/detetive-do-caso-madeleine-acusa-governo-de-acobertar-o-caso/
I'm sorry but I see nothing saying that the PJ were investigating stranger abduction.You need to put your specs on then.
You need to put your specs on then.
If you can see it perhaps you would be so kinf as to tell me where it says the PJ were investigating stranger abduction?I don’t know how to be kinf but if you look again you will see that the Portuguese police were investigating a possible link between a sex attacker and Madeleine’s disappearance and it was this that formed the basis of the request to reopen the case. If that is not investigating stranger abduction what would you call it?
I don’t know how to be kinf but if you look again you will see that the Portuguese police were investigating a possible link between a sex attacker and Madeleine’s disappearance and it was this that formed the basis of the request to reopen the case. If that is not investigating stranger abduction what would you call it?
That, to me, is journalistic speculation, not a fact, but thank you for interpreting it for me.Which bit isn’t a fact?
Which bit isn’t a fact?
That the PJ were investigating stranger abduction. I'm not even convinced that they were looking at those reports about British children, except perhaps at the request of OG.So the paper is lying in your opinion when it writes this:
So the paper is lying in your opinion when it writes this:
“The Judiciary Police said Wednesday that the link between the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and a man who sexually abused five girls in the Algarve between 2004 and 2006 corresponds to the line of investigation discovered by the police team, Porto in March 2011 to re-examine the case, which provided the basis for the request to reopen the Maddie case in October last year”.
No-one knows what the Porto team did, but their remit was to re-examine the files. There was nothing in the files about these children.I’ll ask the question again: when the Portugese paper states that the JP were investigating a link between the sex attacks on the Algarve and Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they completely made it up?
the National Director of the Judiciary Police, in March 2011, assigned to a team of investigators from the North Directorate a task to re-examine the whole wide range of information contained in the inquest
I’ll ask the question again: when the Portugese paper states that the JP were investigating a link between the sex attacks on the Algarve and Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they completely made it up?
This story arose because OG turned it's attention to this line of enquiry. The UK media took the opportunity to criticise the PJ (again) for not telling OG about it earlier;So, for the third time, in your opinion did the Portuguese paper make it all up regarding what it says the PJ said “on Wednesday”? Furthermore do you concede that it may NOT be making it up and that the PJ were indeed investigating possible links to sex attacks on the Algarve, which in turn indicates investigating stranger abduction as Brietta said earlier?
Wednesday 19th March 2014
Redwood appeals for information about the man who allegedly attacked children in the Algarve. A burgandly top was mentioned. It was said that there were 12 incidents, nine of which were reported to the Portuguese police. UK news said that the Portuguese police didn't pass on the information about these crimes to OG; they only found out about it when three families responded to an appeal for information in 2013.
https://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-police-appeal-sex-attacker
Well that's wrong for a start. Kate McCann wrote about it in her book in 2011. She said she found the information in some files. However;
The Portuguese have been accused once more of incompetence, so anything they say is going to be defensive. Amongst other things, they said that OG was told about it in October 2013 by the PJ, but OG decloned to comment;
Contacted by PÚBLICO, one of the spokesmen of the Metropolitan Police of London declined to comment on the clarifications made by the PJ, refusing to confirm or deny that British investigators were informed months ago by the Portuguese about this line of investigation. It remains to be explained why Scotland Yard decided to announce on Wednesday that it is looking for a sex offender.
https://www.publico.pt/2014/03/19/sociedade/noticia/pj-reabriu-inquerito-maddie-ha-meses-por-causa-de-suspeito-procurado-agora-pelos-ingleses-1628961
In my opinion it's by no means clear where the information came from or who knew about it and when. There were rumours but nothing concrete was said by any identifiable source.
So, for the third time, in your opinion did the Portuguese paper make it all up regarding what it says the PJ said “on Wednesday”? Furthermore do you concede that it may NOT be making it up and that the PJ were indeed investigating possible links to sex attacks on the Algarve, which in turn indicates investigating stranger abduction as Brietta said earlier?
I don't know what was said to the press or who said it. Therefore I don't know whether it's true or not. I do know that Pedro do Carmo said in 2017 that the PJ didn't know what crime was committed, so whatever lines of inquiry they have followed they have reached no conclusions.Do you therefore concede it is entirely possible if not likely that the PJ were investigating child sex attacks on the Algarve to explore possible links to the case? Or do you think its far fetched?
Do you therefore concede it is entirely possible if not likely that the PJ were investigating child sex attacks on the Algarve to explore possible links to the case? Or do you think its far fetched?
I asked fr a cite showing that the PJ investigated stranger abduction. I didn't get one. I got newspaper speculation from which people deduced that the PJ investigated stranger abduction.The newspaper does not speculate, it states as fact, or it is lying, which is it?
The newspaper does not speculate, it states as fact, or it is lying, which is it?
Vague and unattributed quotes are not facts. A year earlier Monteiro was being quoted as the reason the case was reopened;You spectacularly miss the point. YOU are the one doing the speculating, not the paper. YOU are speculating that they are not reporting factually. Either you are right and the paper completely fabricated the story about the PJ's stated claims on "Wednesday" and the PJ have NEVER investigated any link between Algarve sex attacks and the MM case (if not, why not, laziness, incompetence, cover up??) or you are WRONG, and they have done, as correctly reported in the paper.
Correio da Manha claimed: ‘Police suspicions about the former Ocean Club employee arose during the review of the case carried out by a PJ team from Porto.
‘This was the strongest new lead presented to state prosecutors which led to the investigation being reopened.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2484011/Main-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-heroin-addict-used-rob-holiday-apartments.html
You spectacularly miss the point. YOU are the one doing the speculating, not the paper. YOU are speculating that they are not reporting factually. Either you are right and the paper completely fabricated the story about the PJ's stated claims on "Wednesday" and the PJ have NEVER investigated any link between Algarve sex attacks and the MM case (if not, why not, laziness, incompetence, cover up??) or you are WRONG, and they have done, as correctly reported in the paper.
There's no way to check if the newspaper was telling ther truth. You have chosen to believe what they said, I haven't. In my opinion you should remember what Rowley said about newspaper reports.Right, at last. You believe that the paper is probably lying and that the PJ couldn't be bothered or chose not to investigate sex attacks on the Algarve with a view to a possible link to the MM case. Fine. That is your belief. It makes little sense when you think about it, but if that's what you want to believe then that is your prerogative.
Right, at last. You believe that the paper is probably lying and that the PJ couldn't be bothered or chose not to investigate sex attacks on the Algarve with a view to a possible link to the MM case. Fine. That is your belief. It makes little sense when you think about it, but if that's what you want to believe then that is your prerogative.
You, on the other hand, have chosen to believe the nespaper despite the fact that they were unable to verify their story by offering any details of who told them. In fact the newspaper has printed many stories about the McCann case, and very few of them were correct.Oh really? That's rubbish IMO. Here's a link to the first 20 Madeleine McCann articles on the Publico search facility. According to you only very few will be correct, therefore the majority will be false according to you - kindly point to the false stories amongst these 20 thanks
How many more? It's obvious they were all copying the same story. Or do you think all the journalists found the same source at PJ headquarters and he told them all the same story one after the other? @)(++(*It’s obvious to me (if not to you) that the Portugal News story by Brendan de Beer is the source of the story. He claims his paper spoke to the PJ source, so are you telling me he made it up? If so, to what end?
This story arose because OG turned it's attention to this line of enquiry. The UK media took the opportunity to criticise the PJ (again) for not telling OG about it earlier;
Wednesday 19th March 2014
Redwood appeals for information about the man who allegedly attacked children in the Algarve. A burgandly top was mentioned. It was said that there were 12 incidents, nine of which were reported to the Portuguese police. UK news said that the Portuguese police didn't pass on the information about these crimes to OG; they only found out about it when three families responded to an appeal for information in 2013.
https://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-police-appeal-sex-attacker
Well that's wrong for a start. Kate McCann wrote about it in her book in 2011. She said she found the information in some files. However;
The Portuguese have been accused once more of incompetence, so anything they say is going to be defensive. Amongst other things, they said that OG was told about it in October 2013 by the PJ, but OG decloned to comment;
Contacted by PÚBLICO, one of the spokesmen of the Metropolitan Police of London declined to comment on the clarifications made by the PJ, refusing to confirm or deny that British investigators were informed months ago by the Portuguese about this line of investigation. It remains to be explained why Scotland Yard decided to announce on Wednesday that it is looking for a sex offender.
https://www.publico.pt/2014/03/19/sociedade/noticia/pj-reabriu-inquerito-maddie-ha-meses-por-causa-de-suspeito-procurado-agora-pelos-ingleses-1628961
In my opinion it's by no means clear where the information came from or who knew about it and when. There were rumours but nothing concrete was said by any identifiable source.
I don't know what was said to the press or who said it. Therefore I don't know whether it's true or not. I do know that Pedro do Carmo said in 2017 that the PJ didn't know what crime was committed, so whatever lines of inquiry they have followed they have reached no conclusions.
Please provide a cite for Pedro do Carmo's statement, thank you.
He said
First because there was a deliberate and legitimate effort on the part of the child's parents in keeping the issue on the agenda of the media. But there are also other elements, such as the circumstances of the disappearance. Ten years later we still do not know what happened, which makes it possible to say, at least in relation to Portugal, that this is a unique case. We had never had one, and we did not have a similar case again. There were other cases of disappearances of children where it was not possible to bring the perpetrators to justice. But in those cases we either caught someone or it was possible for the police to understand what had happened. In this case we are not yet in a position to say what is behind the disappearance. This makes it a unique case. And maybe an extremely rare case worldwide.
Link (it was one of your posts Brietta) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8172.15
Kate McCann did not get her information from "some files". In her book she clearly states that the information was given to her by the British consul for the Algarve, Bill Henderson.
Please provide a cite for Pedro do Carmo's statement, thank you.
Did he write to her?No he did not write to her ... he spoke to her directly. It was quite sometime later when she had access to the files of which that was obviously part which was not published on the internet about which Kate wrote in her book:
August 2008
She read of 'five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds while their parents slept in
another room'.
[madeleine]
No he did not write to her ... he spoke to her directly. It was quite sometime later when she had access to the files of which that was obviously part which was not published on the internet about which Kate wrote in her book:
Snip
I guessed these were the reports that Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleine’s abduction, had told me about. MADELEINE
But of course you already know that.
The udea that Kate McCann received information which wasn't published on the internet is an opinion, not a fact.???
Kate McCann did not get her information from "some files". In her book she clearly states that the information was given to her by the British consul for the Algarve, Bill Henderson.
The Consul was very lucky he didn't get into trouble. He seems to have been a very undiplomatic diplomat. If Kate McCann had repeated what he told her the tour operators would have been very upset imo. He pretty much accused them of putting profit before the safety of their guest's children.And what would be the problem with that?
And what would be the problem with that?
British Consul admits he knew about child sex attacks in the Algarve.
Holidaymakers were kept in the dark by Tour Operators keem to protect their businesses.
I take it that is your headline and not one the McCanns and their party would have seen while choosing a holiday destination?
Do you think parents embarking to a supposedly safe destination catering for children of all ages should have been denied that information to enable informed choices?
We're back to the old "if the police source isn't named by the paper we don't have to believe it" excuse. Pathetic game playing IMO.
The information was allegedly kept quiet by tour operators and a British diplomat. Was that acceptable? Why did the diplomat then throw caution to the winds following the disappearance of a child and tell that child's mother about it? Didn't he realise that he was exposing them all to accusations of deceiving British tourists by omission?
Please supply the link.
British Consul admits he knew about child sex attacks in the Algarve.
Holidaymakers were kept in the dark by Tour Operators keem to protect their businesses.
I asked what would be the problem of accusing tour operators of putting profit before the safety of their guests children, something which you claim he did but now seem to be claiming the reverse with your headline. Which is it?
British Consul admits he knew about child sex attacks in the Algarve.
Holidaymakers were kept in the dark by Tour Operators keem to protect their businesses.
The information was allegedly kept quiet by tour operators and a British diplomat. Was that acceptable? Why did the diplomat then throw caution to the winds following the disappearance of a child and tell that child's mother about it? Didn't he realise that he was exposing them all to accusations of deceiving British tourists by omission?
The wonder is that the Portuguese police of the time failed to do what Colin Sutton is alleged to have done in his investigations ... that is to dot the i's ~ cross the t's and go that extra mile.
The Portuguese police of the time appear to have paid scant regard to looking for let alone apprehend the perpetrator who assaulted children in their beds while their parents slept in the next room.
Don't you think a police officer of Sutton's calibre given the evidence available in 2007 might not have checked out links between assaults on British girls ... and the disappearances of Joana Cipriano (difficult for the Portuguese I know since they had already 'solved' Joana's case and saw her mother jailed for her murder) and Madeleine McCann.
There are actually quite a few British child victims of crime who have been denied justice and that can only be due to the Portuguese police failure and not the civilians you blame.
Would Sutton have squandered the golden hours had he been in charge of the Portuguese investigation when it mattered in 2007?
Given his eye for detail do you think he would have ignored reports of a man entering holiday lets and the beds of children in a case involving a child disappearing from her bed in a holiday let?
I don't think he would have ignored all or any of that if his record is anything to go by.
I'm not convinced they knew about it. Apparenly the tour operators, the British Consul and Kate McCann knew, but did any of them chase it up with the police? It seems they didn't.
Kate McCann was given the information shortly after Madeleine's disappearance and states in MADELEINE that she was unsure why she put the information to the back of her mind for many months.
Except that at the time in her mind she could not cope with thinking of Madeleine's disappearance together with the cases of these abused little girls.
The McCanns tried to convince the police that Madeleine had been abducted and we see how far they got with that.
Yet again your post seems to be shifting the onus of investigating crime away from the police and onto the victims.
The police had a job to do and if they weren't already chasing up these assaults on children and ruling them in or out in Madeleine's case ... I think it is obvious they just were not doing their job.
The police can only investigate crimes if they know about them. It was four years before these crimes were mentioned by anyone. Apparently the British Consul thought about them right away and wondered if there was a connection but wasn't concerned enough to speak to the PJ avout it.Cite? Did none of the crimes get reported to the police at the time?
Cite? Did none of the crimes get reported to the police at the time?
The police can only investigate crimes if they know about them. It was four years before these crimes were mentioned by anyone. Apparently the British Consul thought about them right away and wondered if there was a connection but wasn't concerned enough to speak to the PJ avout it.
The police can only investigate crimes if they know about them. It was four years before these crimes were mentioned by anyone. Apparently the British Consul thought about them right away and wondered if there was a connection but wasn't concerned enough to speak to the PJ avout it.
One wonders when and why a DNA sample was taken from the Judicial Police suspect in these assaults and was able to rule him out of involvement years down the line and after his death?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-investigation-prime-suspect-3497005
One wonders when and why a DNA sample was taken from the Judicial Police suspect in these assaults and was able to rule him out of involvement years down the line and after his death?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-investigation-prime-suspect-3497005
Even the CdaM seems to acknowledge that they were reported to the GNR, which then passed them on to the PJ...
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/ingleses-investigam-7-abusos-sexuais-antes-de-maddie-desaparecer
Amazing as it may seem, newspaper stories are not always correct.
That one dates from 2017, not 2007.
All I know is that according to 'madeleine'one woman wrote a letter of complaint to the GNR. There's no mention of the PJ being involved.What was the nature of the complaint? BTW, when did you become exempt from the cite rules of this forum? That’s twice you’ve ignored my requests.
What was the nature of the complaint? BTW, when did you become exempt from the cite rules of this forum? That’s twice you’ve ignored my requests.Here you are; she knew all the technical terms. didn't she? 'Building up profiles' and all that.....
Here you are; she knew all the technical terms. didn't she? 'Building up profiles' and all that.....see my replies #653 and #659, two requests for cites, both ignored.
a letter of complaint from one mother to the GNR regarding the sexual abuse of her daughter and the lack of proper attention paid to it by the authorities. The final line in particular has haunted me ever
since:
It is difficult to see with this lack of investigation or interest how a profile of this man can be built up. It did not appear to us that there was any great incentive or determination to find the offender and bring him to justice . . .
Furthermore, it could all have been so much worse . . . indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he’s not stopped now.
[madeleine]
What else do you want a cite for? If it's 'four years before the crimes were mentioned' I think they were first mentioned in 'madeleine' in 2011, but feel free to correct me.
see my replies #653 and #659, two requests for cites, both ignored.
Also, since when has “building a profile” been a technical term, and so what if it is? What is the significance?
#653 I attempted to illustrate what the newspapers might have said if they had been told that the British Consul knew about these incusions and said nothing. It wasn't a quote.The British Consul not being concerned enough about the sex attacks to speak to the police about them.
#659 Cite for what?
The British Consul not being concerned enough about the sex attacks to speak to the police about them.
I would have expected it to be in the files if he had made a statement.So no cite then, ie not a fact, just an opinion.
Here you are; she knew all the technical terms. didn't she? 'Building up profiles' and all that.....
a letter of complaint from one mother to the GNR regarding the sexual abuse of her daughter and the lack of proper attention paid to it by the authorities. The final line in particular has haunted me ever
since:
It is difficult to see with this lack of investigation or interest how a profile of this man can be built up. It did not appear to us that there was any great incentive or determination to find the offender and bring him to justice . . .
Furthermore, it could all have been so much worse . . . indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he’s not stopped now.
[madeleine]
What else do you want a cite for? If it's 'four years before the crimes were mentioned' I think they were first mentioned in 'madeleine' in 2011, but feel free to correct me.
The problem with cherry picking quotes to suit a particular prejudice or to make a particular debating point is that quite often the essence of the point being made is missed.If there was no DNA database in existence why take DNA?
Kate was appalled that the Portuguese Police in many instances had not even bothered to log the reported crimes treating them instead as if no actual crime had been committed.
The parents complained that on reporting the crime they felt the complaint was not treated with the gravity it merited ...Kate also notes that in the majority of the cases there was no indication that there had been a break in.
- statements were not taken
- evidence in the form of DNA or fingerprints was seldom looked for
Of more relevance is that when the parents of these crime victims realised that there could have been a link to what had happened to Madeleine and to their child ... which prompted them to contact the British police.
So the question arises ... when news of Madeleine's disappearance broke ... why were the parents of victims capable of thinking there might be a connection but the Policia Judiciaria were incapable of taking that elementary step?
If there was no DNA database in existence why take DNA?
How else could PJ match a suspect to DNA samples found in 5A?
The problem with cherry picking quotes to suit a particular prejudice or to make a particular debating point is that quite often the essence of the point being made is missed.
Kate was appalled that the Portuguese Police in many instances had not even bothered to log the reported crimes treating them instead as if no actual crime had been committed.
The parents complained that on reporting the crime they felt the complaint was not treated with the gravity it merited ...Kate also notes that in the majority of the cases there was no indication that there had been a break in.
- statements were not taken
- evidence in the form of DNA or fingerprints was seldom looked for
Of more relevance is that when the parents of these crime victims realised that there could have been a link to what had happened to Madeleine and to their child ... which prompted them to contact the British police.
So the question arises ... when news of Madeleine's disappearance broke ... why were the parents of victims capable of thinking there might be a connection but the Policia Judiciaria were incapable of taking that elementary step?
You continue to assume that the PJ had knowledge of these crimes. I've seen no evidence that they did.
Sadly yet more independent witnesses are labelled 'liars' in a case where indeed the senior investigating officer was later found to be guilty of perjury???
Which independent witnesses claimed that the Policia Judiciaria were informed about these criimes?
How else could PJ match a suspect to DNA samples found in 5A?Have you any idea of the laws surrounding DNA, in Portugal, around 2007?
Have you any idea of the laws surrounding DNA, in Portugal, around 2007?
Here's a starter.
Police were prevented, by law, from cross referencing one DNA sample to another in another case. They could only test within the case, and only with the consent of the provider,
That's why the PJ Files have lots of DNA consent forms.
That is possibly why there appears to be still unconfirmed DNA found in 5A.
Are you seriously ignoring the parents of the victims of these crimes despite being aware that Kate McCann had access to files we have not seen? You did actually quote her from MADELEINE.
Wherein she has written in one of the passages you have cut and pasted from ... that she cried for hours on reading a complaint from one mother to the GNR that the sexual abuse of her daughter had not received proper attention adding that ...
Snip
The final line in particular has haunted me ever since: ... Furthermore, it could all have been so much
worse . . . indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he’s not stopped now. Madeleine
Have you any idea of the laws surrounding DNA, in Portugal, around 2007?
Here's a starter.
Police were prevented, by law, from cross referencing one DNA sample to another in another case. They could only test within the case, and only with the consent of the provider,
That's why the PJ Files have lots of DNA consent forms.
That is possibly why there appears to be still unconfirmed DNA found in 5A.
I challenge you to demonstrate that your assumptions are facts. Where does it say that those parents reported the crimes to the Policia Judiciara? Where does it say that the McCanns received information from the first investigation which was withheld from everyone else?
You really don't know this already?
Snip
Portuguese police knew about the attacks but ruled out a link to Madeleine’s disappearance because the crimes were spread over a wide geographical area and there were no apparent attempts at abduction.
Four of the burglaries were in Carvoeiro, six in the Vale da Parra, Praia da Gale district, and two in Praia da Luz.
Nine of the 12 incidents were reported to Portuguese police at the time they happened, but British investigators only became aware of three break-ins when the victims came forward in response to televised appeals last autumn.
https://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-police-appeal-sex-attacker
Interesting don't you think that one senior investigating officer and his team ruled out a link ... but another senior investigating officer used exactly that as the new information necessary to have Madeleine's case reopened and began to cast around for a suspect later named in the Portuguese press ... who had links to the ocean club ... and a phone which was making calls from Luz despite him sitting at his computer at home writing a poem.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Snip
“Who’s thinking about child abductions in a sleepy, out-of-town tourist resort?” asked Gerry McCann, expressing the common view among parents that places stuffed full of other parents with small children are supremely secure.
Chillingly, the McCanns learnt after the abduction that not only are such resorts an obvious target for paedophiles, but also that parents should have been warned to be vigilant.
In 2008, when the Portuguese police officially stopped pursuing the case, their files revealed that in the three years preceding Madeleine’s disappearance, three intruders had been disturbed in children’s bedrooms within an hour’s drive of Praia de Luz and five children had been abused in their beds while on holiday in the Algarve.
Evidence had not been collected, let alone collated or publicised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8503610/Kate-McCann-why-didnt-they-believe-her.html
Is that information ... or the note detailing the dining arrangements available to you or me in the files we have seen? Yet it was familiar enough to Kate McCann for her to make reference to it in MADELEINE.
I wouldn't call it speculation ... I would deduce (arrive at a fact or a conclusion by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion) that Kate McCann had access to information unavailable to you or I.
Thank you for the cites. No facts, just media stories presented as facts in my opinion. Do you believe everything you see in the media? Do you believe this?
"In 2008, when the Portuguese police officially stopped pursuing the case, their files revealed that in the three years preceding Madeleine’s disappearance, three intruders had been disturbed in children’s bedrooms within an hour’s drive of Praia de Luz and five children had been abused in their beds while on holiday in the Algarve."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8503610/Kate-McCann-why-didnt-they-believe-her.html
Where did that information come from?
I really don't see how the McCanns could have been given files which were explicitly not released from judicial secrecy. That would have been against Portuguese law.
I notice that Kate McCann claimed to have '5,000 or so' pages in her case files. The online DVD has over 11,000 pages.
It was all very fishy.Only because you are not in full possession of the facts.
Only because you are not in full possession of the facts.
You really don't know this already?
Snip
Portuguese police knew about the attacks but ruled out a link to Madeleine’s disappearance because the crimes were spread over a wide geographical area and there were no apparent attempts at abduction.
Four of the burglaries were in Carvoeiro, six in the Vale da Parra, Praia da Gale district, and two in Praia da Luz.
Nine of the 12 incidents were reported to Portuguese police at the time they happened, but British investigators only became aware of three break-ins when the victims came forward in response to televised appeals last autumn.
https://www.channel4.com/news/madeleine-mccann-police-appeal-sex-attacker
Interesting don't you think that one senior investigating officer and his team ruled out a link ... but another senior investigating officer used exactly that as the new information necessary to have Madeleine's case reopened and began to cast around for a suspect later named in the Portuguese press ... who had links to the ocean club ... and a phone which was making calls from Luz despite him sitting at his computer at home writing a poem.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Snip
“Who’s thinking about child abductions in a sleepy, out-of-town tourist resort?” asked Gerry McCann, expressing the common view among parents that places stuffed full of other parents with small children are supremely secure.
Chillingly, the McCanns learnt after the abduction that not only are such resorts an obvious target for paedophiles, but also that parents should have been warned to be vigilant.
In 2008, when the Portuguese police officially stopped pursuing the case, their files revealed that in the three years preceding Madeleine’s disappearance, three intruders had been disturbed in children’s bedrooms within an hour’s drive of Praia de Luz and five children had been abused in their beds while on holiday in the Algarve.
Evidence had not been collected, let alone collated or publicised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8503610/Kate-McCann-why-didnt-they-believe-her.html
Is that information ... or the note detailing the dining arrangements available to you or me in the files we have seen? Yet it was familiar enough to Kate McCann for her to make reference to it in MADELEINE.
I wouldn't call it speculation ... I would deduce (arrive at a fact or a conclusion by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion) that Kate McCann had access to information unavailable to you or I.
Despite the best efforts of some to link Madeleines disappearance to some alleged sex attacker,a prime suspect and patsy taboot was ruled out.
Madeleine: DNA finally clears dead suspect:
https://www.portugalresident.com/2014/11/10/madeleine-dna-finally-clears-dead-suspect/
Only because you are not in full possession of the facts.
I didn't think any of the children identified the man as being black did they?
Rather an old fashioned view of those with not fair skin.
I would say that Kate McCann has a greater understanding of the police files and what was in those than anyone on this forum and also a greater understanding of what the Met are currently investigating.
Who is?
Anyone who thinks the media have the facts is mistaken in my opinion.Anyone who thinks they have a greater understanding of the facts of this case than either the media (who are known to have direct sources in many police departments) or the victims’ families is living in a cloud of delusion, IMO.
It seems to me that Amaral who must have known about the man who went into apartments and abused children, ignored it. He didn't ask himself how the man got into the apartments either. Amaral made a huge show trying to prove there was no abduction first by saying no one could have broken into 5a, yet here was a man who had been entering apartments and leaving no evidence of a break in. Unbelievable IMO
Please explain your post.
It seems to me that Amaral who must have known about the man who went into apartments and abused children, ignored it. He didn't ask himself how the man got into the apartments either. Amaral made a huge show trying to prove there was no abduction first by saying no one could have broken into 5a, yet here was a man who had been entering apartments and leaving no evidence of a break in. Unbelievable IMO
Anyone who thinks they have a greater understanding of the facts of this case than either the media (who are known to have direct sources in many police departments) or the victims’ families is living in a cloud of delusion, IMO.
The media were convinced that Martin Smith changed his mind about who he thought he saw on 3rd May. Many people believed them and cited their stories as 'proof'. The stories were all wrong.Of course the media does get things wrong (and it’s usually the tabs who do have to be taken with a pinch of salt) but can I ask - how do you have any idea what is going on in the country or the world generally? Do you get you news from nameless individuals on internet forums or do you rely on reputable news outlets to keep abreast of current affairs and stories of public interest? Are you one of these people who doubts everything they read on newspaper websites or on the BBC news in favour of what you hear on the internet grapevine? Do you think you have a greater insight into what is happening behind the scenes in this case than the “MSM”?
I don't know who these victim's families are?
The media were convinced that Martin Smith changed his mind about who he thought he saw on 3rd May. Many people believed them and cited their stories as 'proof'. The stories were all wrong.There are issues with this story, based on the information released or published so far.
I don't know who these victim's families are?
Self explanatory.
Cite for leaving no evidence of break ins please.
It is mentioned in this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26646885
Of course the media does get things wrong (and it’s usually the tabs who do have to be taken with a pinch of salt) but can I ask - how do you have any idea what is going on in the country or the world generally? Do you get you news from nameless individuals on internet forums or do you rely on reputable news outlets to keep abreast of current affairs and stories of public interest? Are you one of these people who doubts everything they read on newspaper websites or on the BBC news in favour of what you hear on the internet grapevine? Do you think you have a greater insight into what is happening behind the scenes in this case than the “MSM”?
Was there any outcome to that part of OG's investigation?
They haven't reported that they'd found him but he could still be a suspect in their investigation. IMO
What I don't do is rely on the media to get things right or to quote them as if they were authorities. You mention the tabloids, but it was the Telegraph who claimed that the PJ files contained something they didn't.Define “independently verified”.
Whatever source I use I look for evidence that the information they are giving can be independently verified. If there's no evidence that it can then I suspend judgement.
There are issues with this story, based on the information released or published so far.
Logistics. How does a perp target only white British children across half of the Algarve?
Why does the British Consulate know about these?
The Algarve in 2007 was a popular destination for other nationalities, including Portuguese, German, French, Dutch, Irish (and American and Australian). Why just British? Rather than white girls, or white girls who spoke English?
Indeed. Were only British children targetted? How did the perp know they were British? If other nationalities have suffered similar attacks why haven't they spoken up?Do you have a cite for the British Consul agreeing to keep quiet about these crimes?
Why did the British Consul agree to keeo these crimes quiet? Until he met Kate McCann, of course, when he decided to add to her alarm by telling her all about it. Luckily for him, imo, she didn't realise the sugnificance for over a year. Unluckily for her it was seven years after her daughter disappeared and around three years after they ceased before anyone publicised the crimes.
Define “independently verified”.
Do you have a cite for the British Consul agreeing to keep quiet about these crimes?
Were holidaymakers warned?I have no idea, do you have a cite for the British Consul agreeing to take part in a cover up? It’s a serious allegation which I presume you can back up with actual facts.
I used to think that quoting a named person was sufficient, until Colin Sutton accused a journalist of blatantly attrubuting words to hm that he didn't say. Sometimes even what people say in filmed interviews is misquoted in print. In this case verification has been particularly difficult.Sooooo, what do you accept as independent verification or do you simply pick and choose as it suits your argument to do so?
Yet they are reduced to 4 guys (or gals) sitting in an office somewhere in London. pushing paperwork, so not likely in my opinion.
Still, hope springs eternal for some, I guess
Yet they are reduced to 4 guys (or gals) sitting in an office somewhere in London. pushing paperwork, so not likely in my opinion.
Still, hope springs eternal for some, I guess
You said 'so not likely in my opinion' how can you say that? You have no idea what their investigating, and then to say 'hope springs eternal for some' well yes hope that OG are on to something to catch whoever took Madeleine or even catch that evil paedophile who assaulted the children I can't understand why you wouldn't want the same IMO
I don't need to justify my opinion to you and I have no intention of doing so.
Hope is a waste of time. Wait for reality.
I don't need to justify my opinion to you and I have no intention of doing so.So in effect you are hopeless. I'd go along with that... 8)--))
Hope is a waste of time. Wait for reality.
So in effect you are hopeless. I'd go along with that... 8)--))
It usually takes one to know one. 8(0(*I'm not remotely as hopeless or as cynical as you are, thank god (who I don't believe in btw).
You said 'so not likely in my opinion' how can you say that? You have no idea what their investigating, and then to say 'hope springs eternal for some' well yes hope that OG are on to something to catch whoever took Madeleine or even catch that evil paedophile who assaulted the children I can't understand why you wouldn't want the same IMO
Despite the best efforts of some to link Madeleines disappearance to some alleged sex attacker,a prime suspect and patsy taboot was ruled out.
Madeleine: DNA finally clears dead suspect:
https://www.portugalresident.com/2014/11/10/madeleine-dna-finally-clears-dead-suspect/
The "(dead) alleged sex attacker ~ prime suspect ~ and patsy to boot" was the property of the Judicial Police; unless you can recall DCI Redwood ever mentioning anything to the contrary.
There are issues with this story, based on the information released or published so far.
Logistics. How does a perp target only white British children across half of the Algarve?
Why does the British Consulate know about these?
The Algarve in 2007 was a popular destination for other nationalities, including Portuguese, German, French, Dutch, Irish (and American and Australian). Why just British? Rather than white girls, or white girls who spoke English?
Redwood never mentioned any name any time including tannerman,not least because he's looking at an abduction as per their remit.Do I need to put imo, no b....r else seems to?
Why were the Judicial Police investigating an individual with contacts in the Ocean Club whose phone was active in Luz after Madeleine's disappearance?
Who was in the loop of these calls? Other persons of interest to the PJ? And are they still interested?
Rhetorical questions ... to which a Sutton might have answers.
Have you never pondered who gave the PJ their remit ... they too are checking out abduction ... please do not insult yourself by requesting a cite for that.
I won't ask for a cite that the PJ are exploring abduction because there isn't one imo. There's a cite for do Carmo saying they are still looking at all scenarios.
I won't ask for a cite that the PJ are exploring abduction because there isn't one imo. There's a cite for do Carmo saying they are still looking at all scenarios.Do you steadfastly refuse to accept that there is clear evidence that the PJ have been investigating stranger abuction? Even your statement above proves it.
Do you steadfastly refuse to accept that there is clear evidence that the PJ have been investigating stranger abuction? Even your statement above proves it.
I have seen no clear evidence of the PJ investigating anything.So is it your belief that they are lying to the public?
So is it your belief that they are lying to the public?
Have they spoken to the public?Yes. You even refer to De Carmo’s interview above. Now, when he says they are investigating all scenarios do you believe he is lying and they are actually investigating nothing?
Yes. You even refer to De Carmo’s interview above. Now, when he says they are investigating all scenarios do you believe he is lying and they are actually investigating nothing?
You need to listen to what he actually said instead of putting words into his mouth imo.YOU said that he claimed the PJ were investigating all scenarios then you asked if the PJ had spoken to the public. You’re all over the place IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic [29:33]
YOU said that he claimed the PJ were investigating all scenarios then you asked if the PJ had spoken to the public. You’re all over the place IMO.
Did I say 'investigating'?Oh I see. You want to play games. You used the words “looking at”. So you think they are just looking at all scenarios but not actually investigating any of them. Rightyho then... @)(++(*
Oh I see. You want to play games. You used the words “looking at”. So you think they are just looking at all scenarios but not actually investigating any of them. Rightyho then... @)(++(*
The PJ have never, as far as I know, said they're investigating anything. Operation Grange seem to have just one theory "However she left that apartment she was abducted" said Mark Rowley. The PJ are willing to consider other possibilities. So as at Spring 2017 the two forces still weren't in complete harmony.They won’t get very far “considering other possibilities “ without doing a bit of investigating too. Do you think they just can’t be arsed?
The PJ have never, as far as I know, said they're investigating anything. Operation Grange seem to have just one theory "However she left that apartment she was abducted" said Mark Rowley. The PJ are willing to consider other possibilities. So as at Spring 2017 the two forces still weren't in complete harmony.
SY are at a distinct disadvantage operating from arms length in London so I'm not in the least surprised that they haven't come up with anything significant. Only the PJ who are on the ground are capable of bringing anything new to this enquiry but they appear to have given up.When are you having your meeting with them? Perhaps you can kick them up the collective jacksys and get them investigating for a change, instead of “considering scenarios” and “looking” at the case!
SY are at a distinct disadvantage operating from arms length in London so I'm not in the least surprised that they haven't come up with anything significant. Only the PJ who are on the ground are capable of bringing anything new to this enquiry but they appear to have given up.
It's strange that they took it on given the distance, the language barrier, the different jusicial system and the cold trail. No-one seemed to consider the difficulties they would face, did they?
It's strange that they took it on given the distance, the language barrier, the different jusicial system and the cold trail. No-one seemed to consider the difficulties they would face, did they?The case could only be re-opened if new evidence came to light. Do you think the PJ re-opened the investigation under false pretences?
You must remember that it was all politically driven and that they are not known for their attention to detail, so wouldn't appreciate the operational difficulties.
Thinking back, there was some grumbling at the beginning. The lack of a joint inbestigation, the fact that the PJ didn't immediately reopen the investigation in Portugal, the slowness of the responses to the rog requests. Perhaps OG thought they were going to have more freedom to act than they got.Or perhaps they believed the PJ actually wanted to help solve this case, how mistaken were they?!
Or perhaps they believed the PJ actually wanted to help solve this case, how mistaken were they?!
Or perhaps they believed the PJ actually wanted to help solve this case, how mistaken were they?!
You seem to think OG were in charge, but they weren't and aren't. They have made it quite clear that the Portuguese have primacy and OG are the ones helping.And you seem to think the PJ are in charge and doing absolutely nothing apart from “looking at” and “considering”. If true then shame on them.
And you seem to think the PJ are in charge and doing absolutely nothing apart from “looking at” and “considering”. If true then shame on them.
That's not what I said, it's what you think I said.
The PJ definitely have primacy whatever anyone thinks; it's the legal reality.
Although I have seen no evidence telling me what the PJ have been doing, that doesn't mean I've decided they're doing nothing. It means I don't know.
Don't you think this is a bit of a redundant argument?
Are you referring to my post? I didn't post an argument, I posted facts. The PJ have primacy and we don't know what they are doing. What they aren't doing, accotding to do Carmo, is restricting themselves,like OG, to investigating abduction.
Are you referring to my post? I didn't post an argument, I posted facts. The PJ have primacy and we don't know what they are doing. What they aren't doing, accotding to do Carmo, is restricting themselves,like OG, to investigating abduction.
That's not what I said, it's what you think I said.So when they re-opened the case and said they were looking at all scenarios you don’t know if they actually did any investigating or not. Is it not reasonable to expect that they did, and would it not be extremely unreasonable of them to have spent the last few years doing no investigating at all?
The PJ definitely have primacy whatever anyone thinks; it's the legal reality.
Although I have seen no evidence telling me what the PJ have been doing, that doesn't mean I've decided they're doing nothing. It means I don't know.
Do you think that Sutton would have ignored evidence because he was bound by a 'remit'? What remit restricted the Portuguese investigation in 2007 from checking out cases which might have had a link to Madeleine's case?
Snip
Police are especially interested in a 2005 sexual assault against a 10-year-old girl in the very resort in Praia de Luz where McCann disappeared two years later. The perpetrator had never been caught, but the girl had given a clear description of the attacker to police. “In this new tranche of information we have got one crime which is very clearly in the heart of Praia da Luz in 2005, on a young, white, 10-year-old girl,” chief detective Andy Redwood told reporters on Wednesday. “Clearly the fact that we’ve now got an assault that is in the heart of Praia da Luz, very close to where a previous matter had been reported, means that we are even more interested in this as part of the inquiry.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/was-madeline-mccann-one-of-many
So when they re-opened the case and said they were looking at all scenarios you don’t know if they actually did any investigating or not. Is it not reasonable to expect that they did, and would it not be extremely unreasonable of them to have spent the last few years doing no investigating at all?
I will leave the speculating to you if you don't mind.I wasn’t asking you to speculate if you read what I wrote properly.
I wasn’t asking you to speculate if you read what I wrote properly.
What were you asking?Go back and read my post. I can’t write it any plainer than that.
Go back and read my post. I can’t write it any plainer than that.
Here it is;Thank you. At least we can agree about something!
"So when they re-opened the case and said they were looking at all scenarios you don’t know if they actually did any investigating or not."
1. They didn't say anything about scenarios when they reopened the case.
2. I never saw any evidence that they were investigating anything between 2013 and now. No appeals, no reports
of interviewing, no arguidos,no digging or searching.
"Is it not reasonable to expect that they did, and would it not be extremely unreasonable of them to have spent the last few years doing no investigating at all?"
You are now telling me what is or is not 'reasonable in your opinion, and asking me if I agree.
I do agree, and I would expect them to be doing something, but that's not the point. The point is what I know, not what I think. I don't know whether they have done anything or what it was.
Or perhaps they believed the PJ actually wanted to help solve this case, how mistaken were they?!
Well not so mistaken as neither police forces have found an abductor... and now OG have joined up thinking with the PJ with regards to woke and wandered. leave Kaate and CREW to explain about the whooshing and moving doors all being 'evidence' of an abduction- as the main'evidence' the JT eyewitness account was thrown away.Not mistaken there.