UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on October 28, 2018, 12:21:30 AM
-
From the wording of the remit to Rowley’s statement that the McCann’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance had been dealt with by the Portuguese, SY must have known that questions would be asked about the neutrality of an investigation that didn’t clear the ground beneath their feet. So why open themselves and their investigation up to ridicule? Why claim the investigation had such a narrow focus before a page of evidence had been looked at ? What did they gain ?
-
From the wording of the remit to Rowley’s statement that the McCann’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance had been dealt with by the Portuguese, SY must have known that questions would be asked about the neutrality of an investigation that didn’t clear the ground beneath their feet. So why open themselves and their investigation up to ridicule? Why claim the investigation had such a narrow focus before a page of evidence had been looked at ? What did they gain ?
A get out clause?
-
From the wording of the remit to Rowley’s statement that the McCann’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance had been dealt with by the Portuguese, SY must have known that questions would be asked about the neutrality of an investigation that didn’t clear the ground beneath their feet. So why open themselves and their investigation up to ridicule? Why claim the investigation had such a narrow focus before a page of evidence had been looked at ? What did they gain ?
It seems clear it wasn't SY's decision to open the investigation. Perhaps they had the narrower remit foisted upon them and this was their way of saying as such, without outwardly appearing to criticise the Home Office who may well have set the remit. All IMO of course.
-
It seems clear it wasn't SY's decision to open the investigation. Perhaps they had the narrower remit foisted upon them and this was their way of saying as such, without outwardly appearing to criticise the Home Office who may well have set the remit. All IMO of course.
OK, here’s another question of the day: why would the Home Office insist on “the narrower remit”?
-
OK, here’s another question of the day: why would the Home Office insist on “the narrower remit”?
I guess its only the HO who could answer that,even if its a narrow remit or a wide ranging one the end result or rather where its at today is the same,no abductor.
-
I guess its only the HO who could answer that,even if its a narrow remit or a wide ranging one the end result or rather where its at today is the same,no abductor.
The whole thread is an invitation to speculate, so why not have a go?
-
The whole thread is an invitation to speculate, so why not have a go?
The whole board is an invitation so fill your boots.
-
The whole board is an invitation so fill your boots.
Speculation is a pointless waste of time isn’t it? A posh name for gossiping really IMO.
-
From the wording of the remit to Rowley’s statement that the McCann’s part in Madeleine’s disappearance had been dealt with by the Portuguese, SY must have known that questions would be asked about the neutrality of an investigation that didn’t clear the ground beneath their feet. So why open themselves and their investigation up to ridicule? Why claim the investigation had such a narrow focus before a page of evidence had been looked at ? What did they gain ?
Six
I find it quite disturbing that the crime was apparently identified by Operation Grange before they had properly begun their analysis of all the evidence. It wasn't based on any evidence as far as I can see. In fact six years later A C Rowley said they were treating it as a missing person's case because they didn't know what had happened. He also, of course, said Madeleine was abducted. He seems to be contradicting himself in my opinion.
-
Six
I find it quite disturbing that the crime was apparently identified by Operation Grange before they had properly begun their analysis of all the evidence. It wasn't based on any evidence as far as I can see. In fact six years later A C Rowley said they were treating it as a missing person's case because they didn't know what had happened. He also, of course, said Madeleine was abducted. He seems to be contradicting himself in my opinion.
I agree G- They do seem unsure- Could this be because they cannot find ANY evidence of a stranger abduction. but have been warned not to upset the parents or challenge their story? < This is my thinking on this.
-
I agree G- They do seem unsure- Could this be because they cannot find ANY evidence of a stranger abduction. but have been warned not to upset the parents or challenge their story? < This is my thinking on this.
Of course, to publicly admit would also be upsetting and damaging to the parents.
OG seem stuck between a rock and a hard place.
IMO
-
If the ECHR rejects the McCann's application the Portuguese Supreme Court's ruling will stand unchallenged. A C Rowley's belief that the Portuguese 'dealt with' the question of the McCann's involvement will be null and void.
-
If the ECHR rejects the McCann's application the Portuguese Supreme Court's ruling will stand unchallenged. A C Rowley's belief that the Portuguese 'dealt with' the question of the McCann's involvement will be null and void.
the SC made it quite clear that they have made no judgeemnt on the innocence or guilt of the mccanns...do you not understand that
-
Six
I find it quite disturbing that the crime was apparently identified by Operation Grange before they had properly begun their analysis of all the evidence. It wasn't based on any evidence as far as I can see. In fact six years later A C Rowley said they were treating it as a missing person's case because they didn't know what had happened. He also, of course, said Madeleine was abducted. He seems to be contradicting himself in my opinion.
That’s the thing, anyone reading the remit would have questioned its neutrality. Do we really believe that SY, regarded as one of the finest police force’s in the world, would open themselves up to such questioning, even if it was insisted on by the HO ? In fact why would the HO wish to protect two provincial doctors in such a way ?
-
the SC made it quite clear that they have made no judgeemnt on the innocence or guilt of the mccanns...do you not understand that
Their judgement also made it quite clear that the UK MSM were wrong when they said this;
Kate and Gerry McCann were today formally cleared by the Portuguese authorities of involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
But right when they said this;
ortugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
-
Their judgement also made it quite clear that the UK MSM were wrong when they said this;
Kate and Gerry McCann were today formally cleared by the Portuguese authorities of involvement in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
But right when they said this;
Portugal's attorney general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, said there was insufficient evidence to continue the police case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/21/madeleinemccann.internationalcrime
Reading back through old threads on here it seems to me that supporters made the same error as the media G-Unit.