Author Topic: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?  (Read 11132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luz

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2013, 11:04:27 PM »
it's simple - she is saying she could have said that Madeleine is either dead or alive, that the review is a waste of time and that she could have said that for free.

Good. Finally you got it right.

Instead of a review I defend that there should be a re-opening of the investigation. That could bring new evidence and if the child is alive, that would be the only way to bring her back, not going over old papers about searches that  have already been made.

amaraltheofficeboy

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2013, 11:07:20 PM »
it's simple - she is saying she could have said that Madeleine is either dead or alive, that the review is a waste of time and that she could have said that for free.

Good. Finally you got it right.

Instead of a review I defend that there should be a re-opening of the investigation. That could bring new evidence and if the child is alive, that would be the only way to bring her back, not going over old papers about searches that  have already been made.

then why did you deny it?

amaraltheofficeboy

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2013, 11:11:43 PM »
luz denial

Quote
   
Quote
well according to luz she could have done the review without spending a pence (sic)

That's not what I said. I'm the foreigner but it seems that's you that needs some reading lessons.

registrar

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2013, 11:14:32 PM »
it's simple - she is saying she could have said that Madeleine is either dead or alive, that the review is a waste of time and that she could have said that for free.

Good. Finally you got it right.

Instead of a review I defend that there should be a re-opening of the investigation. That could bring new evidence and if the child is alive, that would be the only way to bring her back, not going over old papers about searches that  have already been made.

There can be no re-opening of the investigation without new evidence.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

that's it in a nutshell

come on Luz - produce the famed smoking gun

or shut up

Offline Luz

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2013, 11:16:11 PM »
it's simple - she is saying she could have said that Madeleine is either dead or alive, that the review is a waste of time and that she could have said that for free.

Good. Finally you got it right.

Instead of a review I defend that there should be a re-opening of the investigation. That could bring new evidence and if the child is alive, that would be the only way to bring her back, not going over old papers about searches that  have already been made.

There can be no re-opening of the investigation without new evidence.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

But there is new evidence immediately available as long as Mr. and Mrs. McCann agree to a reconstruction or simply if Mrs. McCann answers the questions she refused to. As simple as that.

Offline Luz

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2013, 11:22:36 PM »
What lead to the archiving of the process was the impossibility to continue the investigation due to the lack of cooperation both from the UK authorities, that wouldn't release fundamental data, and the McCann & friends that chose to obstruct any attempt to dig deeper what could possibly have happened during the previous days and on that night regarding Madeleine.
If any of those parts, and especially the parents, showed any wish to make themselves available, the investigation would immediately be re-opened.

registrar

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2013, 11:25:04 PM »
What lead to the archiving of the process was the impossibility to continue the investigation due to the lack of cooperation both from the UK authorities, that wouldn't release fundamental data, and the McCann & friends that chose to obstruct any attempt to dig deeper what could possibly have happened during the previous days and on that night regarding Madeleine.
If any of those parts, and especially the parents, showed any wish to make themselves available, the investigation would immediately be re-opened.

non-sensical post

amaraltheofficeboy

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2013, 11:25:36 PM »
What lead to the archiving of the process was the impossibility to continue the investigation due to the lack of cooperation both from the UK authorities, that wouldn't release fundamental data, and the McCann & friends that chose to obstruct any attempt to dig deeper what could possibly have happened during the previous days and on that night regarding Madeleine.
If any of those parts, and especially the parents, showed any wish to make themselves available, the investigation would immediately be re-opened.

complete and utter bollocks - not one word of your post is true and it is quite simply offensive.

Offline Benice

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2013, 09:01:35 AM »
it's simple - she is saying she could have said that Madeleine is either dead or alive, that the review is a waste of time and that she could have said that for free.

Good. Finally you got it right.

Instead of a review I defend that there should be a re-opening of the investigation. That could bring new evidence and if the child is alive, that would be the only way to bring her back, not going over old papers about searches that  have already been made.

There can be no re-opening of the investigation without new evidence.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

But there is new evidence immediately available as long as Mr. and Mrs. McCann agree to a reconstruction or simply if Mrs. McCann answers the questions she refused to. As simple as that.

May I ask....

What new evidence have you in mind Luz which could come to light as a result of a reconstruction?

and

Why didn't the Pj ask those 48 questions the day before when KM spent 11 hours being interrogated  - and as a 'witness' would have been obliged by law to answer them at that time?




The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2013, 09:11:40 AM »
Why didn't the Pj ask those 48 questions the day before when KM spent 11 hours being interrogated  - and as a 'witness' would have been obliged by law to answer them at that time?

Ah!

There is a balance there, Bernice.  You're quite right that informal witnesses are denied the right not to answer questions.

On the other hand, neither can they asked leading or (potentially) incriminating questions.

That can only happen once the arguido status is imposed.

Offline Benice

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2013, 09:45:23 AM »
Why didn't the Pj ask those 48 questions the day before when KM spent 11 hours being interrogated  - and as a 'witness' would have been obliged by law to answer them at that time?

Ah!

There is a balance there, Bernice.  You're quite right that informal witnesses are denied the right not to answer questions.

On the other hand, neither can they asked leading or (potentially) incriminating questions.

That can only happen once the arguido status is imposed.

Thanks for that info Ferryman.

On re- reading the questions I see many which would have already been asked and answered during previous interviews.   
e.g 

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

IMO Kate did not answer the questions because she couldn't or didn't want to  - she simply took the advice of her Lawyer.   And as he was the professional expert on Portuguese law and she wasn't -  then she would have been unwise not to. 







The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Lace

Re: For How Long Should the Review Be Funded ?
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2013, 10:03:02 AM »
With a reported 4.5 million pounds having already been spent on the Scotland Yard review and with no visible signs that they are any nearer to establishing what happened to Madeleine how long should taxpayers money be spent on this ?

With only £600,000 having been spent on the Jill Dando case review is a disproptionately large amount of money being spent on this case considering the crime happened on foreign soil ?

It should never had started. It's a ridiculous waste of money and manpower just to review papers. Considering that the portuguese investigation was accompanied by UK police, and that all the PIs work was just to throw sand into people's eyes, what does Grange expect to accomplish?!

So far they reached the brilliant conclusion that Madeleine could  be either alive or dead. That I could do without spending a pence.
............................................................................................
Luz

SY said they were following two lines of investigation 1. That Madeleince is alive.  2.  That sadly she is dead. 
Two lines of investigating.

I believe it should be left up to SY to decide when enough has been spent on the review.