A Good, Bad or Average Theory What's The Difference?

[Brietta]

Well they've had 6 years & 12 million squids to expend, I'm pretty sure they would have noticed these inconsistencies by now & they'd have ironed all that out when they questioned Kate & Gerry. 
When did that happen again?

You, like the rest of us, haven't the foggiest idea about who was interviewed and who wasn't.

When did they interview "innocent dad"?  When did they interview the victims who were assaulted as children by an intruder in their bedrooms when they were on holiday in the Algarve?  When did they interview anyone as they went about their cold case review of missing Madeleine McCann?

In my opinion they most certainly carried out interviews in the run up to Madeleine's case being reopened because they had to have the evidence which justified that.
How else do you think they gathered evidence if witnesses weren't interviewed?

Just because these interviews were not in the public domain does not mean they did not happen.

[barrier]

You, like the rest of us, haven't the foggiest idea about who was interviewed and who wasn't.

When did they interview "innocent dad"?  When did they interview the victims who were assaulted as children by an intruder in their bedrooms when they were on holiday in the Algarve?  When did they interview anyone as they went about their cold case review of missing Madeleine McCann?

In my opinion they most certainly carried out interviews in the run up to Madeleine's case being reopened because they had to have the evidence which justified that.
How else do you think they gathered evidence if witnesses weren't interviewed?

Just because these interviews were not in the public domain does not mean they did not happen.

Where would the legality be in interfering in a foreign investigation before it was sanctioned and agreed by the PJ,the defence should it ever get to trial would have a field day.Hogan Howe clearly told us what happened,the files had to be translated,that's why all and sundry were able to be eliminated.To get the files there would have to be some official contact,not done on a pretty please.

[Wonderfulspam]

You, like the rest of us, haven't the foggiest idea about who was interviewed and who wasn't.

When did they interview "innocent dad"?  When did they interview the victims who were assaulted as children by an intruder in their bedrooms when they were on holiday in the Algarve?  When did they interview anyone as they went about their cold case review of missing Madeleine McCann?

In my opinion they most certainly carried out interviews in the run up to Madeleine's case being reopened because they had to have the evidence which justified that.
How else do you think they gathered evidence if witnesses weren't interviewed?

Just because these interviews were not in the public domain does not mean they did not happen.

I seem to remember a media fanfare when Robert Murat & the burglars 3 were questioned.

[Venturi Swirl]

There are many inconsistencies in the last hours before the disappearance.

Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies

"When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying," says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five.

When the woman he was questioning said she ran and hid after hearing gunshots -- without looking -- Newberry saw the inconsistency immediately.

"There was something that just didn't fit," says Newberry. "She heard gunshots but she didn't look? I knew that was inconsistent with how a person would respond to a situation like that."

So when she wasn't paying attention, he banged on the table. She looked right at him.

"When a person hears a noise, it's a natural reaction to look toward it," Newberry tells WebMD. "I knew she heard those gunshots, looked in the direction from which they came, saw the shooter, and then ran."

Sure enough, he was right.

"Her story was just illogical," says Newberry. "And that's what you should look for when you're talking to someone who isn't being truthful. Are there inconsistencies that just don't fit?"

https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/10-ways-catch-liar#1

David Payne entering the apartment but he did not according to Kate. David Payne not seeing the open window when he entered the apartment. Kate not looking into the car park for her missing daughter after finding an open window and then abandoning her other children. Kate not checking on the children first when entering the apartment but instead investigating the bedroom door. How the bedroom door moved 3 times between different checks. David Payne not remembering what Kate was wearing when she said she answered the door dressed only in a towel. Gerry doing a check straight after Matt had just returned from checking. Madeleine heard crying by a neighbour for over an hour when they claim to be checking every 30 minutes. Why they claimed the apartment was locked in the day but not at night with children inside. How Jane saw Gerry and Jez but neither saw her on a quiet deserted street. If they were concerned about the unlocked apartment why did they have their backs to their apartment at the table. Why Madeleine was tired on the evening of 3 May 2007 which is complete opposite to the energetic child that never stops. Why no unknown prints were found on the window that was opened. Madeleine was under and on top of covers. How did Gerry see Madeleine in the dark and have his proud father moment when Kate found it difficult to see. When the men first split up outdoors to search where did Gerry search because he has never answered that question except claim that he sent Matt to go to the main reception but according to Matt it was Fiona who told him to go and she corroborated it. Why the only deleted records on their mobiles were from the holiday period in Portugal. How did Matt give a time of 21:50 when Kate left to check and Gerry said it was 22:03 and both were wearing watches. Just quick ones off the top of my head.

Any theory should be backed up by evidence not what IFs.

Is this the evidence that backs up your theory?  Oh dear.  How about you perform the same exercise for the Murats, the nannies, the Tapas staff, Pamela Fenn and her niece and see how many more inconsistencies you can find.  There are quite a few!  They must all be in on it I guess...

[Wonderfulspam]

Is this the evidence that backs up your theory?  Oh dear.  How about you perform the same exercise for the Murats, the nannies, the Tapas staff, Pamela Fenn and her niece and see how many more inconsistencies you can find.  There are quite a few!  They must all be in on it I guess...

None of them were the last to see Maddie.

[Venturi Swirl]

None of them were the last to see Maddie.

How do you know?

[Venturi Swirl]

Well they've had 6 years & 12 million squids to expend, I'm pretty sure they would have noticed these inconsistencies by now & they'd have ironed all that out when they questioned Kate & Gerry. 
When did that happen again?

So do you believe the Met and the PJ are just really thick or are they involved in a cover up to protect the McCanns?

[Brietta]

I seem to remember a media fanfare when Robert Murat & the burglars 3 were questioned.

If I remember correctly from the time, all directly traceable to a Portuguese source via a British blogger.  Initially traces of the old order hadn't yet changed and were still leaking like a sieve.

Amaral was still able to be first with news of the foreign jailed suspect.  How did he manage that since he has no locus in any police investigation.  Judge for yourself whether his information was kosher or not.

[Brietta]

None of them were the last to see Maddie.

How do you know that ???  Holly has been making a case that at least one of them did using exactly the same technique as you.

[Brietta]

How do you know?

           Snap!!!

[G-Unit]

How do you know?

We know because the evidence supports it. The possibility that someone else saw Madeleine after her parents did is just an idea, a guess, a 'perhaps'. There is no evidence to support it, just the words of the parents.

[Venturi Swirl]

We know because the evidence supports it. The possibility that someone else saw Madeleine after her parents did is just an idea, a guess, a 'perhaps'. There is no evidence to support it, just the words of the parents.

So because we know the parents are the last known people to have seen Madeleine inconsistencies in their statements must be treated as suspicious, however inconsistencies in the statements of others in the near vicinity (including a one time arguido) can be explained as just faulty memory, incorrect statement taking, poor translations, etc. Is that it in a nutshell?

[Wonderfulspam]

How do you know that ???  Holly has been making a case that at least one of them did using exactly the same technique as you.

Holly believes Bamber is innocent.
Need I say more?

[Wonderfulspam]

So because we know the parents are the last known people to have seen Madeleine inconsistencies in their statements must be treated as suspicious, however inconsistencies in the statements of others in the near vicinity (including a one time arguido) can be explained as just faulty memory, incorrect statement taking, poor translations, etc. Is that it in a nutshell?

Perhaps you could start a new thread & highlight the many suspicious inconsistencies in Murats account.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps you could start a new thread & highlight the many suspicious inconsistencies in Murats account.

Bennet has already done it... There's loads