Has Scotland Yard dodged a bullet in the Maddie case?

[Brietta]

If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.

They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.

Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.

One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.

In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.

For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.

Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.

This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm


Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...

But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.

In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.

[xtina]

Who was it that warned him, please.

I would hardly think he would go on sky news ...etc etc etc ..do you..

especially with the gagging ...procedure on this case....

[G-Unit]

The very fact that SY wanted  JIT... And didn't get one

A JIT is set up in cross-border cases when each State involved agrees that one is needed, not because one State 'wanted' one. According to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe;

 the force was seeking agreement for the team from the UK and Portuguese governments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25124643

I don't know why it wasn't agreed. If you do, please provide your evidence. 

[xtina]

One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.

In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.

For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.

Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.

This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm


Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...

But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.

In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.

IIRC...wasnt the mccs complaining about the PJ and SY....early on in the case...

IMO when the finger was pointing at them...from both sides.....

then bingo ....SY 2013.... treat the mccs as innocent......

aww then the mccs were so grateful to SY

[Mr Gray]

A JIT is set up in cross-border cases when each State involved agrees that one is needed, not because one State 'wanted' one. According to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe;

 the force was seeking agreement for the team from the UK and Portuguese governments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25124643

I don't know why it wasn't agreed. If you do, please provide your evidence.

What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one  .imo

[slartibartfast]

What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one  .imo

As it says “each state”, either country could have vetoed.

[Mr Gray]

As it says “each state”, either country could have vetoed.

But we know as a fact SY wanted it

[Mr Gray]

If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.

They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.

Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.

When did the Met say they believed they could solve the case..... Im fairly sure they never said that

[G-Unit]

What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one  .imo

So you are assuming the Portuguese didn't want one? You have no evidence for your assumption?

[Mr Gray]

So you are assuming the Portuguese didn't want one? You have no evidence for your assumption?

The evidence is
SYwanted one
There isn't one
That's, more evidence than you have for Portugal being amenable to one

[G-Unit]

The evidence is
SYwanted one
There isn't one
That's, more evidence than you have for Portugal being amenable to one

I have never said that Portugal was amenable to a JIT because I don't know what their opinion was and neither do you. There are many possible reasons why it didn't happen and no evidence that it was because the Portuguese rejected it.

[Mr Gray]

I have never said that Portugal was amenable to a JIT because I don't know what their opinion was and neither do you. There are many possible reasons why it didn't happen and no evidence that it was because the Portuguese rejected it.

Give us some reasons you believe may be possible

[G-Unit]

One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.

In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.

For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.

Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.

This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm


Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...

But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.

In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.

What makes you think that the only body the police have to answer to is Home Office?

The Oporto team was set up first. Pedro do Carmo;

PC - "The constitution of this task team came from the National Directorate of the Judiciary Police, independently and actually preceded the creation of the Metropolitan Police team."........

"The British authorities have set up a team to review the ­investigation. They have been to Portugal and agreed to collaborate with the PJ.

"We are doing the same. The Porto team is very ­experienced in these cases."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

What JIT is?

A joint investigation team is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between competent authorities – both judicial (judges, prosecutors, investigative judges…) and law enforcement – of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/joint-investigation-teams

In my opinion had a JIT been in operation when Scotland Yard opened a case on Madeleine and the Judicial Police revisited theirs a lot of time and effort could well have been saved with two teams working differently but together.

I think it could only have been beneficial for the investigation and ultimately for Madeleine ... surprised only that you felt it necessary to ask the question.

A JIT in this instance would have been set up, in association with Eurojust and Europol, in Portugal with the lead being taken by the Portuguese Judiciary. The last word on the case having been the archiving document. Had the OG remit been as narrowly focused as has been suggested by some in this forum then OG would have been guilty of prejudging an investigation before it started bringing into question their usefulness. I would imagine were that the case the Portuguese Judiciary, with some justification, would have complained to Eurojust and Europol.
I do not however see O.G being so daft considering the College of Policing has published a manual dealing with European Investigations as have The Council of The European Union.

[G-Unit]

Give us some reasons you believe may be possible

I think I asked for your evidence first, which seems to amount to;

snip/
"What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one  .imo"

I don't call that evidence, I call it speculation.

Either or both sides could have decided that there was nothing to be gained from setting up a JIT.