Last year when they interview Do Carmo of the PJ he was emphasising how the investigation will not stop for they need to know where they went wrong with the investigation. https://youtu.be/vQq8XA5IRVs?t=102
Here we are eleven years on from the night that Madeleine McCann mysteriously disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve and for once the entire case appears to be waning. No public statement from her parents this anniversary and nothing of interest from either the Portuguese or English police. Not even an explanation as to how they managed to spend over eleven million quid allegedly looking for the child and still come up with nothing.Madeleine was given up for dead back in 2007 by the PJ IMO, but I don’t think it’s for us to decide what is appropriate now as we don’t know what the current investigation knows - you cannot know they have come up with nothing, unless you’re claiming insider information?. In any case, even if Madeleine is dead (which is likely imo) then there is the small matter of bringing to justice those responsible for her disappearance and death, isn’t justice worth pursuing?
Has the time come to put the case to bed?
Madeleine was given up for dead back in 2007 by the PJ IMO, but I don’t think it’s for us to decide what is appropriate now as we don’t know what the current investigation knows - you cannot know they have come up with nothing, unless you’re claiming insider information?. In any case, even if Madeleine is dead (which is likely imo) then there is the small matter of bringing to justice those responsible for her disappearance and death, isn’t justice worth pursuing?
Yes justice is worth pursuing but it depends - who the justice is for ...i think this imo shows it wont be for maddieYes, because the McCanns are so powerful and important the Met and the Home Office simply bow to their will.
Yes maddie has been given up for dead - so now it is about clearing the mmccanns
This case has never made sense...but imo does if you look at it as it is all still about mccanns.not maddie.
Interesting analyse below - reading between the lines imo the extra funding is public announcement the mcs was not cleared of any wrong doing.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/carlos-anjos-i-believe-that-there-is.html
Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'
SNIP
This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".
I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann.
[read more on link]
Yes, because the McCanns are so powerful and important the Met and the Home Office simply bow to their will.
Why did they not investigate the mccamnns - dont tell me its because they were not suspectsOK, so why do you think the High Ups are protecting the McCanns then? They haven't afforded the same level of protection to Tory MPs such as Charlie Elphicke for example who is under investigation for rape, so what's so very important and special about the two doctors from Rothley in your opinion?
They will have known they wasn't cleared of any involvement.
Police officers were changed - who suspected mccanns.
Thy did go over what the PJ had - apart from mccanns and c/o
Here we are eleven years on from the night that Madeleine McCann mysteriously disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve and for once the entire case appears to be waning. No public statement from her parents this anniversary and nothing of interest from either the Portuguese or English police. Not even an explanation as to how they managed to spend over eleven million quid allegedly looking for the child and still come up with nothing.
Has the time come to put the case to bed?
OK, so why do you think the High Ups are protecting the McCanns then? They haven't afforded the same level of protection to Tory MPs such as Charlie Elphicke for example who is under investigation for rape, so what's so very important and special about the two doctors from Rothley in your opinion?
OK, so why do you think the High Ups are protecting the McCanns then? They haven't afforded the same level of protection to Tory MPs such as Charlie Elphicke for example who is under investigation for rape, so what's so very important and special about the two doctors from Rothley in your opinion?
Yes justice is worth pursuing but it depends - who the justice is for ...i think this imo shows it wont be for maddie
Yes maddie has been given up for dead - so now it is about clearing the mmccanns
This case has never made sense...but imo does if you look at it as it is all still about mccanns.not maddie.
Interesting analyse below - reading between the lines imo the extra funding is public announcement the mcs was not cleared of any wrong doing.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/carlos-anjos-i-believe-that-there-is.html
Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'
SNIP
This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".
I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann.
[read more on link]
IMO the Op Grange investigation has never been about finding Maddie but is all about finding a scapegoat, a patsy, a fallguy. The measley reward which was once upon a time offered by SY was for the prosecution of a perp and not for Maddie's safe return. It is no longer about Maddie, she hardly ever features in any media reporting any more. It is now all about clearing the parents but the Portuguese SC put the kibosh on that.£11m spent on clearing the McCanns? My, they sure are VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
IMO the Op Grange investigation has never been about finding Maddie but is all about finding a scapegoat, a patsy, a fallguy. The measley reward which was once upon a time offered by SY was for the prosecution of a perp and not for Maddie's safe return. It is no longer about Maddie, she hardly ever features in any media reporting any more. It is now all about clearing the parents but the Portuguese SC put the kibosh on that.
£11m spent on clearing the McCanns? My, they sure are VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
Exactly
Yes the SC did put the cat among the pigeons and imo that is why the extra funding - is a way to get round that.
I Remember the reward ...it should have been for the safe return of maddie - money talks and no honor among thieves.
The last thing a reward should have had - is attachments.
It is like everything with the mccanns - they always do what they want take advice from no one.
Or imo - could be connected to someone VERY VERY IMPORTANT.So why hasn’t a patsy / fall guy / scapegoat been identified and the VERY VERY IMPORTANT McCanns cleared years ago, d’you think? Seeing as it’s all a stitch up in yout opinion, this could have been put to bed after a year or two couldn’t it?
Why did they not investigate the mccamnns - dont tell me its because they were not suspects
They will have known they wasn't cleared of any involvement.
Police officers were changed - who suspected mccanns.
Thy did go over what the PJ had - apart from mccanns and c/o
I have to agree VS. I don’t think the investigation was ever to exonerate the McCanns. Some take the remit as proof of this but as Rowley said last year ( and I paraphrase) ‘no matter how Madeleine left that apartment she was abducted’. It would seem the Met are using the word abducted as not leaving the apartment under her own steam. This would be true whether you believe an abductor or the parents were complicit. I believe Rowley chose his words very carefully.You got that wrong.
So why hasn’t a patsy / fall guy / scapegoat been identified and the VERY VERY IMPORTANT McCanns cleared years ago, d’you think? Seeing as it’s all a stitch up in yout opinion, this could have been put to bed after a year or two couldn’t it?
So why hasn’t a patsy / fall guy / scapegoat been identified and the VERY VERY IMPORTANT McCanns cleared years ago, d’you think? Seeing as it’s all a stitch up in yout opinion, this could have been put to bed after a year or two couldn’t it?
So why hasn’t a patsy / fall guy / scapegoat been identified and the VERY VERY IMPORTANT McCanns cleared years ago, d’you think? Seeing as it’s all a stitch up in yout opinion, this could have been put to bed after a year or two couldn’t it?
By whom, the Metropolitan Police? They would have to convince those who have jurisdiction first; the ones they are assisting. Lots of i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed there.Kizzy’s contention is that the whole operation is a scam to clear the parents by the High Ups. With such a high level conspiracy I’m sure the High Ups have covered the Portuguese angle and are making sure they are playing along with it, otherwise why bother in the first place?
How embarrassing it would be if OG announced their 'solution' and ceased their investigation only for the PJ to continue to investigate and to come up with an alternative explanation.
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.
How anyone could read the above and conclude that the parents are the chief suspects beggars belief.
I think that comment by Rowley was very tongue in cheek and was in no way conducive to the situation. There was no reason why the child couldn't have got out of that apartment on her own. The difficulty however for some is if it is ever proven that she did just that and was taken from the car park or the street outside, a measured culpability then returns to those who had a duty of care over her.I disagree. The same measure of culpability exists with regard to leaving the door unlocked and child alone, whether someone entered and took her, or she exited under her own steam, IMO.
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.
How anyone could read the above and conclude that the parents are the chief suspects beggars belief.
What did Wall say ?Hang on, YOU introduced what Rowley said, now you’re asking a question to which you already know the answer, deflection!
Hang on, YOU introduced what Rowley said, now you’re asking a question to which you already know the answer, deflection!
We interpret what Rowley said differently so is there any need for further discussion or indeed deflection?And one you never tire of asking even though you know it’s unanswerable - do you really think Rowley and her are completely at odds about this investigation? Or that when he says the parents definitely aren’t under investigation that means they definitely are? Seriously??
Now Redwood fronted all the OG updates up to his retirement from the case and that the DCI in charge of a case informs the public of its progress seems the norm. So why haven’t we heard from DCI Wall ? It’s a perfectly acceptable question.
And one you never tire of asking even though you know it’s unanswerable - do you really think Rowley and her are completely at odds about this investigation? Or that when he says the parents definitely aren’t under investigation that means they definitely are? Seriously??
Point of note, you cannot abduct a deceased person.
Nope ... you are wrong.
There was a substantial reward for information leading to Madeleine's safe return on the table ten days after Madeleine disappeared.
Snip
A multi-million pound reward for information leading to the safe return of Madeleine McCann, the British girl who went missing in Portugal 10 days ago, was offered yesterday by a group of leading business figures as her parents spoke of the devastation wreaked by her abduction.
The entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, the impresario Bill Kenwright and retail tycoon Sir Philip Green were revealed as backers of a £1.5m reward announced by the News of the World newspaper. It means the total reward now on offer stands at a record £2.6m after a businessman and a family friend pledged a total of £1.1m last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/13/ameliahill.jamiedoward
What rank is Mark Rowley? Is that higher or lower than DCI Wall? When he refers to “we” in his interview, is that the royal we, or could he be referring to the team that are working together on Operation Grange? Is it usual for a small team of police officers working toghether as a team to be pursuing completely different suspects and theories?
Rowley was an assistant commissioner to the MET,Wall is a DCI.which rank is higher?
How do you account for the fact that every known word and action since Redwood’s statement supports the premise that he Met are treating Madeleine’s disappearance as a criminal act by a stranger?
At least we know that according to the evidence SY believe abduction is possible... Which some posters cannot accept
Does it ? How so ?I’m afraid you appear to be in denial. Yes, every utterance by the Met in interviews, every word written on the Op Grange page on the website, every action taken, following up cases of sex abuse in the Algarve, investigating other known sex attackers, Crimewatch, etc points to the fact that the Met are treating this as a criminal act by a stranger.
Apart from any question to Rowley etc who’s answers were guarded what words and actions has there been ?
A search of the mound seemingly for a body......does that prove OG are looking for an abductor ?
Questioning of suspected burglars........do we know what they were made arguidos for ? Perhaps they were questioned to ascertain what they saw that night but may implicate themselves in a criminal offence while doing so. Likewise the other witnesses. We simply don’t know why they were questioned.
The inclusion of the CPS into the mix would suggest that it is a British citizen who is in OG sights.
Nope ... you are wrong.
There was a substantial reward for information leading to Madeleine's safe return on the table ten days after Madeleine disappeared.
Snip
A multi-million pound reward for information leading to the safe return of Madeleine McCann, the British girl who went missing in Portugal 10 days ago, was offered yesterday by a group of leading business figures as her parents spoke of the devastation wreaked by her abduction.
The entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, the impresario Bill Kenwright and retail tycoon Sir Philip Green were revealed as backers of a £1.5m reward announced by the News of the World newspaper. It means the total reward now on offer stands at a record £2.6m after a businessman and a family friend pledged a total of £1.1m last week.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/13/ameliahill.jamiedoward
Here we are eleven years on from the night that Madeleine McCann mysteriously disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve and for once the entire case appears to be waning. No public statement from her parents this anniversary and nothing of interest from either the Portuguese or English police. Not even an explanation as to how they managed to spend over eleven million quid allegedly looking for the child and still come up with nothing.
Has the time come to put the case to bed?
So back to my opening post, has Maddie been given up for dead?
In the McCann case it appears to be to spend eleven million quid but not look at everything that has gone on. It will be very interesting to hear what the PJ have to say about my own Investigations into criminal conduct post disappearance.Sounds interesting. Have you told the forum about it at all?
ETA. I wouldn't waste my time asking the Met to look into them given what we already know.
In the McCann case it appears to be to spend eleven million quid but not look at everything that has gone on. It will be very interesting to hear what the PJ have to say about my own Investigations into criminal conduct post disappearance.It will be very interesting to hear what they have to say... I agree... When do you intend to ask them
ETA. I wouldn't waste my time asking the Met to look into them given what we already know.
Redwood said it was his belief that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger.
Redwood said it was his belief that Madeleine had been taken by a stranger.
Four years on yet to be proved right,11 yrs on from Amarals theory which is yet to be proved wrong,c'est la vie.
I wonder when we’ll hear from Nicola Wall ?2108
Snip
Scotland Yard is calling for the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance to be reopened, as detectives revealed there is evidence to suggest she might be alive.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
IMO that evidence obviously never lead any where with Rowley last April unable to confirm if she was dead or alive,but just remember the crock of **** offered by the newspapers.
Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
SY said maddie may still be alive...they cannot say either way....you can speculate as much as you wish....we will know more when grange ends...but what we do know is that both investigations have clearly stated the mccanns are not suspects
Nor is any one else,so hardly a unique position.
Redwood was probably correct in that assertion, however, the question arises as to where this stranger encountered the child and the evidence here points only one way.ah but that evidence doesn't fit with the McCanns version of the whoooshing big drama event
I choose not to accept posters on here assertion's that there is evidence.Same difference. IMO There IS evidence whether you take my word for it or not, the proof of this is that this is the line Op Grange is taking.
Looking at the different paths OG have followed it's difficult to see how they could progress. They paid attention to reports of a man entering properties at night where British children were staying. The PJ haven't commented on that afaik, but unless they were interested OG had no way of investigating these reports in Portugal.My understanding is that they are still pursuing a line of enquiry and that was the basis for more money being granted to the investigation. Every action Op Grange has taken to date supports the contention that “a criminal act by a stranger” is the basis of the investigation.
OG asked to have four 'burglars' interviewed but again the PJ weren't interested in this line of inquiry and it petered out.
In 2013 they decided that Jane Tanner saw a holidaymaker and turned their attention to the Smith sighting. They don't seem to be very interested in him any more, but whether that''s because they've moved on or they've identified him we don't know.
Their next step in 2014 was to dig; obviously looking for a body. That led nowhere either.
In 2015 the team was reduced to four officers and very little has been said since.
In my opinion the main task for those officers is 'Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues'
http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-on-the-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-135459
My understanding is that they are still pursuing a line of enquiry and that was the basis for more money being granted to the investigation. Every action Op Grange has taken to date supports the contention that “a criminal act by a stranger” is the basis of the investigation.
Whether it's their line of inquiry or the PJ's the funding would still be made available.Have you seen or heard anything to suggest that the Met and the PJ are pursuing wildly different theories about what happened to Madeleine?
I don't understand why the McCanns and supporters refuse to consider any possibility if it involves a death of Madeleine. More confusingly, Kate and Gerry did consider this a possibility when the invited Krugel and his machine to look for their daughterYour post falls at the first sentence IMO.
In 2014 Scotland Yard was quoted on the ongoing digs in Praia Da Luz ;
'Scotland Yard said there was still a "substantial amount of work yet to be completed" in its investigation, and that "more activity" was expected to begin shortly.
"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally," it said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html)
So Scotland yard were at one point looking for a body, which means they have considered a death has occurred and it features in at least one of their theories. Where are the criticisms or legal cases directed toward SY by the McCanns as they did with Amaral, saying his theory 'harmed the search'?
SY seem to have been looking at all possibilities in order to progress the investigation, it is therefore not correct to see a murder hypothesis as 'giving up' or harming the search, they are doing what the police should do.
Bernard Hogan Howe also referred to the case as a 'murder' in October 2014 ( Radio 5 live) . I don't see how this can be coincidence along with SY saying they were searching for a body also in 2014. I would argue SY are simply doing their job, looking for a dead child is not 'giving up' on anyone, if it leads to the truth and progresses an investigation.
How SY thought Madeleine could have been taken from 5a and ended up dead on Scrubland on that night between the parents frequent checks remains unknown - but it is a fact that they have considered that possibility. Perhaps burglars featured in that theory? It would be one theory were the dog alerts would be likely be considered to be of some value instead of disregarded entirely. It's odd IMO that some people are desperate to shut down any theory or evidence of a death, even though Scotland Yard have considered it.
Your post falls at the first sentence IMO.
In what way?In the way that it accuses "McCann supporters" of refusing to consider the possibility that Madeleine is dead.
I don't see where it does Vertigo Swirl. Surely the McCanns support the SY investigation which involves investigating theories of a possible death however unpalatable that is to the parents. Surely they want to know what happened?Your first sentence accuses McCann supporters of refusing to consider the possibility that Madeleine is dead. As this is patent nonsense I didn't bother reading the rest of your post, sorry.
You haven't made any comment on the fact Scotland yard were looking for a body in 2014 and they have not been attacked for doing that as the family did with Amaral
No I haven't.I did not use an IMO in my reply
But how do you think there is place in a cogent argument for individual opinion? A cogent argument would be dependant on fact rather than belief.
No I haven't.Why can an opinion not be cogent? I can argue cogently on moral issues such as abortion and a woman's right to choose, or the existnece of a higher being - my argument doesn't have to depend on statistics.
But how do you think there is place in a cogent argument for individual opinion? A cogent argument would be dependant on fact rather than belief.
No McCann Supporter on this Forum refuses to accept this possibility, unless you can provide a Cite. Elsewhere is of no relevance to this discussion.
I thought I was quite obviously talking about 'supporters' in general, I didn't say supporters on this board anywhere. I was unaware this board wasn't allowed to discuss public opinion.Scotland Yard haven't given up on Madeleine. We have no idea what they were looking for in PdL. It may have been a body, it may have been other evidence. Even if they were looking for a body, that is still looking for the girl, and not giving up on her, and striving to give her family closure one way or the other. Amaral IMO harmed the search by pointing the finger at the parents and claiming they did it, and that there was no point looking for the girl as she was definitely dead, or for anyone else in connection with her disappearance. Surely you can see the difference?
and again, the main point I was making is ignored.
Scotland Yard were looking for a body in 2014 and I don't believe this equates to Madeleine being 'given up on'. Thats the point I was trying to make .
Maybe new members could be cut some slack here instead of the wording of each sentence being picked apart which wasn't the actual substance of what I was saying anyway *%^^&
I thought I was quite obviously talking about 'supporters' in general, I didn't say supporters on this board anywhere. I was unaware this board wasn't allowed to discuss public opinion.
and again, the main point I was making is ignored.
Scotland Yard were looking for a body in 2014 and I don't believe this equates to Madeleine being 'given up on'. Thats the point I was trying to make .
Maybe new members could be cut some slack here instead of the wording of each sentence being picked apart which wasn't the actual substance of what I was saying anyway *%^^&
My understanding is that they are still pursuing a line of enquiry and that was the basis for more money being granted to the investigation. Every action Op Grange has taken to date supports the contention that “a criminal act by a stranger” is the basis of the investigation.
I don't understand why the McCanns and supporters refuse to consider any possibility if it involves the death of Madeleine. More confusingly, Kate and Gerry did consider this a possibility when the invited Krugel and his machine to look for their daughter
In 2014 Scotland Yard was quoted on the ongoing digs in Praia Da Luz ;
'Scotland Yard said there was still a "substantial amount of work yet to be completed" in its investigation, and that "more activity" was expected to begin shortly.
"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally," it said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html)
So Scotland yard were at one point looking for a body, which means they have considered a death has occurred and it features in at least one of their theories. Where are the criticisms or legal cases directed toward SY by the McCanns as they did with Amaral, saying his theory 'harmed the search'?
SY seem to have been looking at all possibilities in order to progress the investigation, it is therefore not correct to see a murder hypothesis as 'giving up' or harming the search, they are doing what the police should do.
Bernard Hogan Howe also referred to the case as a 'murder' in October 2014 ( Radio 5 live) . I don't see how this can be coincidence along with SY saying they were searching for a body also in 2014. I would argue SY are simply doing their job, looking for a dead child is not 'giving up' on anyone, if it leads to the truth and progresses an investigation.
How SY thought Madeleine could have been taken from 5a and ended up dead on scrubland on that night between the parents frequent checks remains unknown - but it is a fact that they have considered that possibility. Perhaps burglars featured in that theory? It would be one theory were the dog alerts would likely be considered of some value instead of disregarded entirely. It's odd IMO that some people are desperate to shut down any theory or evidence of a death, even though Scotland Yard have considered it.
That would certainly seem logical given that SY have not once offered a reward for the safe return of the missing child. Surely the parents of any missing child who truly believe him/her to be alive eleven years on should as a matter of some priority be offering a substantial reward for any information which might see them rescued? After all, they have nothing to lose but everything to gain.
How are SY supposed to appeal to the people of Portugal, the country in which the crime took place, and then follow up on information received which falls outside their jurisdiction?
Protocol dictates that official enquiries in Portugal are channelled through the Portuguese police. However, there are many ways of getting around this as Jenny Murat very publicly achieved in 2007. She was very aware of the very issue you raise.
Jenny Murat was not working outside Portugal or offering monetary reward in exchange for information (afaik). She was not acting for either the police or the victim's family.
What was the attitude of the Portuguese police, via the media, when the Met had seemingly uncovered information which warranted the re-questioning of the 3 burglars?
If a person came forward with information suggesting someone who had already been cleared by the PJ knew what had happened to Madeleine, how would the PJ treat that information? The information may be genuine & justify receipt of reward but if the PJ refuse to follow up the matter then what good would any offer be by the Met?
Why on earth would the PJ not wish to follow up on crucial information?
Did they follow up on Dr. Totman? Did they follow up with the other people who came forward to say they'd seen Murat at OC on 3/5/07 evening?
There may be crucial information sitting in files which only the PJ have access to. Maybe there are avenues which they, too, are reluctant or forbidden to pursue.
Dr Totman never spike to the PJ, so how could they 'follow up' on him? Which other people saw Murat? Did they speak to the PJ? A few people have said they did, but there's no evidence to support their assertions.do you know the names of the people you imply.
do you know the names of the people you imply.
Dr Totman never spike to the PJ, so how could they 'follow up' on him? Which other people saw Murat? Did they speak to the PJ? A few people have said they did, but there's no evidence to support their assertions.He spoke to the GNR who did nothing, if my memory serves me correctly...?
I can only think of the Wiltshire/Jensen story.Interesting that these women were 100% sure they saw Murat but have been largely ignored by police and online commentators as Murat had an alibi (his mother), whereas so many still have such great faith in Smith’s 60-80% sure he saw Gerry, despite the fact that he too had numerous alibis. Why do you suppose that is?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
He spoke to the GNR who did nothing, if my memory serves me correctly...?
Allegedly.Which bit, allegedly?
Scotland Yard haven't given up on Madeleine. We have no idea what they were looking for in PdL. It may have been a body, it may have been other evidence. Even if they were looking for a body, that is still looking for the girl, and not giving up on her, and striving to give her family closure one way or the other. Amaral IMO harmed the search by pointing the finger at the parents and claiming they did it, and that there was no point looking for the girl as she was definitely dead, or for anyone else in connection with her disappearance. Surely you can see the difference?
Did they follow up on Dr. Totman? Did they follow up with the other people who came forward to say they'd seen Murat at OC on 3/5/07 evening?
There may be crucial information sitting in files which only the PJ have access to. Maybe there are avenues which they, too, are reluctant or forbidden to pursue.
Scotland Yard were quoted as saying they were looking for a body in 2014...so we do know they were looking for a body at that point. I did make the point that looking for a body is not 'giving up', it's looking for the truth, so on that we agree.Bolded bit,not just the press.
I don't believe Amaral harmed the search or wanted to stop looking for a body. I think he was doing exactly what SY have been doing, progressing the investigation and he would have looked for a body, but his investigation was closed down and was not carried through to the end was it? He was attacked by the UK press amongst others for theorising about how a body would have been moved or hidden....which IMO is exactly what SY must have done when they were looking for a body in 2014. The difference is that SY have not commented on how they think a body could have got to the scrubland.
Interesting that these women were 100% sure they saw Murat but have been largely ignored by police and online commentators as Murat had an alibi (his mother), whereas so many still have such great faith in Smith’s 60-80% sure he saw Gerry, despite the fact that he too had numerous alibis. Why do you suppose that is?
Which bit, allegedly?
That he spoke to the GNR.Well either he did or he’s lying, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be accusing him of that would you?
The point was not about who was or wasn’t allegedly carrying a child, the point was the degree to which the witnesses were convinced about what they saw, off set by the respective alibis, and the fact that one set if witnesses (the surer set) have been all but ignored in this case, while the less sure (the Smiths) - their sighting is considered of huge significance in this case (by some at any rate) - got it now?
Allegedly.
Who do you consider the surer set - friends & relatives or independents ?Those who claim something with 100% surety, in this case two independents. Now, back on topic as per John’s instructions.
Posters are reminded not to get distracted by side issues.
This thread relates to current events or more precisely the absence of them when considering if the case is being intentionally allowed to peter out.
Well either he did or he’s lying, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be accusing him of that would you?
Posters are reminded not to get distracted by side issues.
This thread relates to current events or more precisely the absence of them when considering if the case is being intentionally allowed to peter out.
Protocol dictates that official enquiries in Portugal are channelled through the Portuguese police. However, there are many ways of getting around this as Jenny Murat very publicly achieved in 2007. She was well aware of the very issue you raise.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gcIbzfNm70Q/VrsrzU_ojII/AAAAAAAAr4A/98L--SE3y4Y/s640/jenny%2Bmurat.jpg)
That's not for me to say. All I can say is there's no evidence which confirms the assertion.There’s no evidence which confirms Martin Smith’s assertion, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Posters are reminded not to get distracted by side issues.
This thread relates to current events or more precisely the absence of them when considering if the case is being intentionally allowed to peter out.
Jenny Murat is an elderly former local who happens to be fluent in both English and Portuguese (which most of the GNR and the PJ weren't) and, at that time, unconnected to the saga.
I find it quite plausible that she was a) aware of the language barrier and b) could think of numerous reasons why people with potentially useful information might have been reluctant to queue up for formal police interviews.
The McCanns didn't, quite aside from the fact that by all accounts they were barely able to function in the initial aftermath.
How could they have manned a stand inviting anonymous tips with the world's media filming everyone who came anywhere near them?
Doing just that might have stood the McCanns in better stead with the Portuguese people instead of scurrying off home as soon as the police allowed them.How so? Are you suggesting that people in Portugal have been deliberately witholding evidence in this case simply because of their dislike of the McCanns?
Had the McCanns made some effort with the Portuguese people this case might have been solved long ago.
Doing just that might have stood the McCanns in better stead with the Portuguese people instead of scurrying off home as soon as the police allowed them.
Had the McCanns made some effort with the Portuguese people this case might have been solved long ago.
Jenny Murat is an elderly former local who happens to be fluent in both English and Portuguese (which most of the GNR and the PJ weren't) and, at that time, unconnected to the saga.Did Jenny Murat set up this booth before or just after Robert was made arguido?
I find it quite plausible that she was a) aware of the language barrier and b) could think of numerous reasons why people with potentially useful information might have been reluctant to queue up for formal police interviews.
The McCanns didn't, quite aside from the fact that by all accounts they were barely able to function in the initial aftermath.
How could they have manned a stand inviting anonymous tips with the world's media filming everyone who came anywhere near them?
Snip
But Mr Totman, a GP, had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that he could be the man seen by Ms Tanner that night.
Wife Rachel told the Sun: ‘My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years. ‘We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.’ Rachel, who lives with Julian in the West Country, said police in the UK and Portugal never got back to them.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/?ito=cbshare
A garbled and in my opinion an inaccurately assessed version was put on his internet blog by Paolo Reis in 2009. Which in my opinion reveals that the information was there in 2007 and although misinterpreted by this blogger was available and ready for further police investigation which might have progressed Madeleine's case. In my opinion the case for the allegation that important information which might have helped to recover Madeleine was ignored is self evident from snippets like this and the testimony of witnesses saying they had given information and heard nothing further.
In my opinion the evidence is that the police had determined an agenda and ignored anything that did not fit their preconceived version of events.
Snip
Light was thrown on the identity of “JW” in an article in the Sun on 12th May 2009 by Antonella Lazzeri (another McCann close confidante) who stated:
She is a 36 year old mother of two: one a 3 year old girl
She rented an apartment 3 doors away from Apartment 5A
She reported her suspicions to her local police – in Wiltshire – in May 2007
***************************************************************
Another link between the Weinbur or Weinbergers and Wiltshire is the fact that they made dinner bookings at the Tapas Bar with Dr Julian Totman who is also from Salisbury in Wiltshire.
Miss Lazzeri reported that JW, on returning from Portugal, in May 2007, informed her local police – based in Wiltshire (and thus a link to Paul M Weinberger in Wiltshire) who advised the Leicestershire police who
“failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate nearly two years later (thus in April or May 2009 possibly to get a bit more spice for the Channel 4 program) that a photofit based on her description was put together…. When Kate asked me to help, I agreed immediately. But the police should have asked 2 years ago. It was only after Kate got in touch that the woman learnt two other witnesses saw an identical man… I can’t believe our three sightings weren’t linked earlier”
The problem is, which “JW” was not told, that the descriptions given to the PJ by the “two other witnesses” were nothing like “Pimple Man” and that their reports had been fully investigated, the suspects identified and eliminated. But failure to act on “JW’s” evidence adds to the Leicestershire Police’s record of tardiness in its delayed handing of the statements of Kate and Arul, photographs of potential suspects: not to mention a recent detailed report on the crèche records. Can any police force be that bad? Or was Leicestershire’s job simply to kill the investigation, possibly on Home Office instructions, whose political intervention – in such cases as Damian Green – are so worrying? And if “JW” attached any importance to her sighting why did she do nothing further about it for 2 years, especially when it might have qualified her for a large reward? And why did Kate McCann leave it until the last moment to call her? The bottom line is that “JW’s” “evidence” justifies very close scrutiny.
So according to Totman's wife they were ignored by the GNR and the UK police? Hoe unlucky!How suspicious don't you mean?
How suspicious don't you mean?That does seem to be the inference.
That does seem to be the inference.unlucky is rather different to suspicious to me so I missed that, but you are right pass it off as "unlucky" then, very suspicious.
Did Jenny Murat set up this booth before or just after Robert was made arguido?
So according to Totman's wife they were ignored by the GNR and the UK police? Hoe unlucky!
Quite ... and I am sure you can see the significance of that.
If he had "told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May" of his whereabouts and "didn’t hear anything for years" there must have been a massive breakdown of communication somewhere along the line which had the potential of providing information which might have advanced the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
That nothing was heard for years suggests to me that they heard nothing until Scotland Yard started reviewing the case and is probably an indication of the type of the 195 investigative opportunities to which DCI Redwood referred.
In my opinion that is inexcusable.
There was no feedback and they didn't "know if our information was ever passed on" because no-one ever got back to them.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/?ito=cbshare
On that basis I would be of the opinion your criticism of the police deserves to lie squarely where it should and that is in Portugal.
If the appropriate action had been taken based on information received in May 2007 instead of forming the opinion that Madeleine was dead ... tying up the loose ends such as Dr Totman's statement could have led to her recovery.
Quite ... and I am sure you can see the significance of that.
If he had "told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May" of his whereabouts and "didn’t hear anything for years" there must have been a massive breakdown of communication somewhere along the line which had the potential of providing information which might have advanced the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
That nothing was heard for years suggests to me that they heard nothing until Scotland Yard started reviewing the case and is probably an indication of the type of the 195 investigative opportunities to which DCI Redwood referred.
In my opinion that is inexcusable.
There was no feedback and they didn't "know if our information was ever passed on" because no-one ever got back to them.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/?ito=cbshare
On that basis I would be of the opinion your criticism of the police deserves to lie squarely where it should and that is in Portugal.
If the appropriate action had been taken based on information received in May 2007 instead of forming the opinion that Madeleine was dead ... tying up the loose ends such as Dr Totman's statement could have led to her recovery.
I think it depends on what “told the GNR” actually entailed.
I'm sure the PJ would have been most interested. They could have pretty much eliminated Jane Tanner's sighting just as OG did in 2013. Jane would have been relieved that she didn't see the abductor. Gerry would have been reassured that no abductor was in the apartment moving doors. (I wonder who did that?)
Hmmmm ... I had the impression given by Amaral in his book that Tannerman already had a zero rating and Jane's non recognition of him as the then suspect added a few minuses to the zero.
Precisely.
Who knew about Tannerman in May 2007?
Was Dr Totman interviewed along with the other crechedads/mums?
Or did he volunteer his information.
THE WEAKNESSES IN JANE'S WITNESS STATEMENT
Friday May 4th, at 8pm, we criss-cross Praia da Luz to take note of the activity in the village at dinner time and to check the street lighting. We stay there until 10pm while the forensic team from the police laboratory get on with their investigation.
Certainly, today there are people who wouldn't normally have been here: police officers and journalists. But, even so, it is noticeable that there is very little movement. The place where the abductor happened to be is dimly lit: how did Jane manage to describe him so accurately? Witnesses confirm that the streets were also deserted yesterday.
Why did the potential abductor choose to walk around like that, in the open, running the risk - in spite of the darkness - of being recognised by a passer-by? If he had planned the abduction, he would have taken the time to study, not only the habits of the family, but also the topography of the place. If he wasn't from the village, he would probably have come by car, and he would have sought to conceal it in a dark corner. But the darkest area is situated in exactly the opposite direction to that indicated by Jane Tanner. Did she actually see that man going towards the east? Wouldn't he rather be going towards the west? Leaving by car, he would inevitably have had to go towards the centre of the village, in which case, he would have to go either past the entrance to the restaurant where Madeleine's parents were dining, or by the main road that leads to EN125*
(*The road running west out of the village towards Sagres and east towards Lagos.)
We walk around Vila da Luz, covering all the roads, trying to imagine the options that presented themselves to the abductor. Without a car, and not knowing the place, the safest approach to the village is the beach. In the few bars, restaurants and cafes open at this time of year, no one noticed anything at all strange during the evening of May 3rd, no suspicious behaviour, nothing out of the ordinary. Most of the establishments had closed at around 9pm.
TOTL by Goncalo Amaral
Streets deserted. Smithman seen at around 10pm heading towards the beach.
Amazingly prescient considering that it was almost a fortnight later before anyone knew Smithman had acted almost as described.
Amazingly prescient considering that it was almost a fortnight later before anyone knew Smithman had acted almost as described.Anything is possible after the event.
Except Smithman, of course.As far as we know, Smithman hasn't written a book justifying his actions or with any intention of determining the fate of the child he was carrying.
As far as we know, Smithman hasn't written a book justifying his actions or with any intention of determining the fate of the child he was carrying.
Back on topic now please ... "Eleven years on, has Maddie been given up for dead?"
What has writing a book got to do with anything?Pathfinder quoted a lengthy chunk from Amaral's epic tome which triggered this latest discussion - that's probably what it's got to do with it.
What has writing a book got to do with anything?
The point of the post was actually to indicate the thread was straying off topic yet again which is why I included the request ..." Back on topic now please ... "Eleven years on, has Maddie been given up for dead?" "
Any regular follower of the Maddie case will have noticed a small but discernible change over the last twelve months. IMO the McCanns are now attempting a low profile lifestyle for the sake of their two remaining children. Very sensible imo and a long time coming. No doubt the last ruling by the Portuguese Supreme Court put pay to any future ambitious they might have had in Portugal.
Kate and Gerry have never given up on Madeleine and I don't think they ever will.
Hopefully the present Portuguese and British investigation will resolve the situation and dispense with any future necessity for them to seek publicity or do anything proactive on Madeleine's behalf.
I think they began to retire from active campaigning long prior to twelve months ago. There was no longer the necessity for them to do so when Madeleine's case became an active one again.
In my opinion they have been keeping a low profile since late 2013 when that was brought about.
Kate and Gerry have never given up on Madeleine and I don't think they ever will.
Hopefully the present Portuguese and British investigation will resolve the situation and dispense with any future necessity for them to seek publicity or do anything proactive on Madeleine's behalf.
I think they began to retire from active campaigning long prior to twelve months ago. There was no longer the necessity for them to do so when Madeleine's case became an active one again.
In my opinion they have been keeping a low profile since late 2013 when that was brought about.
Do you associate active campaigning with search for Maddie because I see them as two completely different entities. The McCanns have a campaign fund which was set up to search for the child but the majority of expenditure from it over the last few years has been on litigation aimed at protecting their good names. How utterly sick is that?
Every parent of a missing child would never give up on their child.
They will always have hope that one day they will find out what has happened to their child.
Without the long-running litigation aimed at ex-PJ coordinator who declared Madeleine dead & her parents culpable via various media outlets, how much continued interest in the case would have been maintained in Portugal? IMO it has been money well spent, despite the SC decision.
Without the long-running litigation aimed at ex-PJ coordinator who declared Madeleine dead & her parents culpable via various media outlets, how much continued interest in the case would have been maintained in Portugal? IMO it has been money well spent, despite the SC decision.
Without the long-running litigation aimed at ex-PJ coordinator who declared Madeleine dead & her parents culpable via various media outlets, how much continued interest in the case would have been maintained in Portugal? IMO it has been money well spent, despite the SC decision.
Always assuming of course that they don't already know.
How much interest in reality is there,the Bilton documentary showed the residents of Luz less than enthusiastic, albeit it was a small sample,the stop the McCann circus road signs being another,what of the PJ how many on their team? all imo of course.
are you suggesting the mccanns may already know?
When it was revealed that the private detectives were required to sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts the proverbial cat was then out of the bag. Secrecy has always been a poor friend to innocence.???
Outside the immediate Luz area I cannot see many people being particularly interested. Within Luz the name Madeleine equates to wrecked businesses and unemployment, not to mention many a lost Portuguese reputation.It's odd then that the case (Madeleine, the McCanns, Amaral etc) continue to get covered by the Portuguese media every time there's any news, seeing as how no one's interested. Maybe it's only the media that's interested and every time there's a related story Portuguese citizens hurriedly turn the page or switch over.
Money wasted you mean surely misty? The point though is that the McCanns have used money which was supposed to have been used to search for their missing daughter. Had they really wanted to assist the investigation they would have cooperated fully with the police and encouraged their tapas friends to do the same. They would not have scurried off back to the UK like scared rabbits plotting revenge as they went. Is it little wonder that some directors of the Madeleine Fund removed themselves from the board when the parents became more important than the child?
IMO the money was well spent because it served 2 purposes - attempting to quieten the main protagonists in the death thesis whilst keeping Madeleine's name & case in the Portuguese national press at the same time.
The McCanns had to return to the UK at some stage. I think the only surprise is that they didn't come home much sooner and perhaps it would have been better if they had, from their perspective. The UK police would have also disappeared from the scene & there would probably have been no dogs......
The English police were summoned home the minute the McCanns left Faro Airport. That in itself speaks volumes imo.What does it say to you?
The English police were summoned home the minute the McCanns left Faro Airport. That in itself speaks volumes imo.
When it was revealed that the private detectives were required to sign confidentiality clauses in their contracts the proverbial cat was then out of the bag. Secrecy has always been a poor friend to innocence.
They did claim she was abducted by a paedophile gang so they obviously must have based that on some knowledge or are you suggesting that was all an invention?cite for this claim please.
cite for this claim please.
Is your memory failing?no - cite please
I think the investigation is dead never mind anything else, problem is that SY haven't faced that reality yet. They squandered 11 million and came up with nothing frankly. The Portuguese Supreme Court however spend less than a million and delivered the killer blow.When you have your meeting with the PJ perhaps you could ask them how much they have squandered coming up with nothing? Ta in advance!
Like Amaral I know it only too well. No indications of any intruder the night Maddie disappeared. I think it's time SY faced that reality and stopped pissing public money up against the wall of evidential fact.and no evidence in the apartment that maddie died...although amaral thinks there is proof...no wonder he was sacked
When you have your meeting with the PJ perhaps you could ask them how much they have squandered coming up with nothing? Ta in advance!
Like Amaral I know it only too well. No indications of any intruder the night Maddie disappeared. I think it's time SY faced that reality and stopped pissing public money up against the wall of evidential fact.What are the evidential facts that prove Madeleine was not abducted?
What are the evidential facts that prove Madeleine was not abducted?
There are a couple of threads on this already on why she couldn't have been abducted from the apartment and why it is more than likely she was lifted from the street outside. Happy reading.
There are a couple of threads on this already on why she couldn't have been abducted from the apartment and why it is more than likely she was lifted from the street outside. Happy reading.So it’s a fact she couldn’t have been abducted from the apartment now is it?
So it’s a fact she couldn’t have been abducted from the apartment now is it?
A distinct possibility based on hard evidence.
Yet secrecy is supposedly paramount in the workings of the Portuguese Justice system.
That would be an operational secrecy... quite different.
So it’s a fact she couldn’t have been abducted from the apartment now is it?
It's hardly operational when the secrecy extends to witnesses who are forbidden to speak about the case.
Well yes, according the the investigating police force in Portugal. No evidence she was abducted from the apartment. None, not a spot...So no evidence of something = proof it didn’t happen, is that your view?
Can you explain who you are referring to Misty I don't follow?
So no evidence of something = proof it didn’t happen, is that your view?
So no evidence of something = proof it didn’t happen, is that your view?
That seems to be a variation on "If you can't give an example of where it happened before then it can't happen".
Hey ho says Rowley,
I was referring to all the people who made statements to the PJ & were subsequently bound by judicial secrecy.
Thank you Misty.
What police force/service do you know of who let witnesses chat about a case which is a live investigation. As an example If I said I witnessed a man breaking a window and pointed him out in a line up and then go and tell everyone what chance does he have to a fair trial? and what If I picked out the wrong person? it could cause problems. Jurors are sworn to secrecy and for a good reason.
That seems to be a variation on "If you can't give an example of where it happened before then it can't happen".No one has ever said that.
Hey ho says Rowley,
No one has ever said that.
I am content that is cleared up.In context it may well be
Perhaps your acknowledgement will now put a stop to the dreadful pox of "show us where it has happened before ...you cannot" as it is meaningless forming no sensible part of debate.
I am content that is cleared up.I think you possibly credit me with more influence on others than I actually have...?
Perhaps your acknowledgement will now put a stop to the dreadful pox of "show us where it has happened before ...you cannot" as it is meaningless forming no sensible part of debate.
In context it may well be
Every parent of a missing child would never give up on their child.
They will always have hope that one day they will find out what has happened to their child.
As long as someone else is looking? Out of interest Ern, when was the last time the McCanns took part in any organised search for their child?Do you think they would look in the right place or the wrong place?
Ever?
As long as someone else is looking? Out of interest Ern, when was the last time the McCanns took part in any organised search for their child?The Mccann search has been impressive. They are extremely clever people and they have used their brains to find the best way to search.
Ever?
The Mccann search has been impressive. They are extremely clever people and they have used their brains to find the best way to search.Oddly enough, the McCanns are well-placed to progress a physical search for Madeleine. If, as is contended, Madeleine was alive in 2012, then Kate and Gerry could develop that enquiry, but 6 years on Madeleine is still waiting.
They couldn't have done better than involve Scotland Yard and to have re-interested the PJ in renewing the search. I think your method of walking around Portugal and poking in ditches, asking Portuguese natives etc., is very nineteenth century.
They have done the 21st century thing of involving arguably some of the Worlds leading experts in criminal cases and missing children.
They have used their brains, rather than their brawn.
Well done the Mccanns! Just hope that SY and Porto special Madeleine Mccann group are able to prove something. How wonderful it would be if they managed to bring Madeleine home and stop the stealing of children
Oddly enough, the McCanns are well-placed to progress a physical search for Madeleine. If, as is contended, Madeleine was alive in 2012, then Kate and Gerry could develop that enquiry, but 6 years on Madeleine is still waiting.
Has it passed you by that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard were embarked on a physical search and inquiry over the timescale you indicate ... how on earth could Kate and Gerry improve on that?Soooooooo .......
Why do you even think it would be appropriate for them to attempt to do so for as long as the PJ and SY continue their search for Madeleine?
Soooooooo .......Keeping the official website going is more than enough.
Sit on their rear ends and wait? Really?
That recipe has an obvious flaw. "What are you doing to find Madeleine today, mummy?, daddy?" "We are simply waiting, child."
Hmmmm, no, don't think so. It fails the twins test.
Keeping the official website going is more than enough.That fails the twins test too.
That fails the twins test too.In your opinion.
Oddly enough, the McCanns are well-placed to progress a physical search for Madeleine. If, as is contended, Madeleine was alive in 2012, then Kate and Gerry could develop that enquiry, but 6 years on Madeleine is still waiting.If by some miracle the girl turned up alive and well it'll show up SY to be complete fools for digging up waste ground looking for something that didn't exist,(cadaver.)
Soooooooo .......What would pass the “twins test” then? “We are giving up our jobs, putting granny in charge and traveling the world looking for your sister, see you in a few months or years, g’bye”?
Sit on their rear ends and wait? Really?
That recipe has an obvious flaw. "What are you doing to find Madeleine today, mummy?, daddy?" "We are simply waiting, child."
Hmmmm, no, don't think so. It fails the twins test.
What would pass the “twins test” then? “We are giving up our jobs, putting granny in charge and traveling the world looking for your sister, see you in a few months or years, g’bye”?The twins will be the arbiters of the twins test.
The twins will be the arbiters of the twins test.You invented the “twins test” you seem to think you know what will and won’t pass muster with them. What arrogance.
Much of what you said resonates though. "We're off to see the Pope, bye." "We're off to Huelva, bye." "We need to fly across the pond to see Oprah, bye." "We're off to Fatima, bye." "We're going out for a meal and a drink with friends, bye." "Your sister has been abducted. I'm going to leave you here, exposed and on your own, while I nip out to get Gerry, bye."
The twins will be the arbiters of the twins test.
Soooooooo .......
Sit on their rear ends and wait? Really?
That recipe has an obvious flaw. "What are you doing to find Madeleine today, mummy?, daddy?" "We are simply waiting, child."
Hmmmm, no, don't think so. It fails the twins test.
The twins will be the arbiters of the twins test.
Much of what you said resonates though. "We're off to see the Pope, bye." "We're off to Huelva, bye." "We need to fly across the pond to see Oprah, bye." "We're off to Fatima, bye." "We're going out for a meal and a drink with friends, bye." "Your sister has been abducted. I'm going to leave you here, exposed and on your own, while I nip out to get Gerry, bye."
The twins will be the arbiters of the twins test.
Please tell me SIL how you would go about searching if it was your child that was missing, I am interested to hear what your strategy would be, bearing in mind she could be anywhere in the world.
The Pope was interested in the McCann case what a huge opportunity to get Madeleine's name out there.
Again Oprah millions watch her programme, good way to put their little girls name out there.
So they weren't allowed to have a break with friends? Surely the twins would be in bed if they went out with friends for a meal and a drink?
The twins were two years old, they were having fun in the creche, they had plenty of people around to give them attention. What sort of picture do you think it would show them to see their parents crying and distraught?
It was better that the parents were doing something they thought was beneficial in the search for their child than weeping an wailing pacing the floor of the apartment infront of the twins don't you think?
Please tell me SIL how you would go about searching if it was your child that was missing, I am interested to hear what your strategy would be, bearing in mind she could be anywhere in the world.
The idea that a missing child could be 'anywhere in the world' seems to have been a new idea which emerged when Madeleine McCann disappeared. In previous cases the assumption seemed to be that the child was still in the country where it disappeared, except for across-border family abductions.
SY weren't of an opinion she was anywhere else apart from from the waste ground in 2014.That is the trouble with opinions - they aren't always correct.
That is the trouble with opinions - they aren't always correct.
The idea that a missing child could be 'anywhere in the world' seems to have been a new idea which emerged when Madeleine McCann disappeared. In previous cases the assumption seemed to be that the child was still in the country where it disappeared, except for across-border family abductions.Apart from the 1.2m children who are trafficked world wide each year for various reasons of course.
Police investigations should be lead by evidence,so what was it (evidence) that convinced them to dig?The 2014 dig was positioned strategically, close to 3 major anomalies - the Italian restaurant, the kebab take-away, and the Chinese restaurant. For £11m, these anomalies surely had to be resolved.
The 2014 dig was positioned strategically, close to 3 major anomalies - the Italian restaurant, the kebab take-away, and the Chinese restaurant. For £11m, these anomalies surely had to be resolved.That's all news to me!
The 2014 dig was positioned strategically, close to 3 major anomalies - the Italian restaurant, the kebab take-away, and the Chinese restaurant. For £11m, these anomalies surely had to be resolved.
The idea that a missing child could be 'anywhere in the world' seems to have been a new idea which emerged when Madeleine McCann disappeared. In previous cases the assumption seemed to be that the child was still in the country where it disappeared, except for across-border family abductions.
So they weren't allowed to have a break with friends? Surely the twins would be in bed if they went out with friends for a meal and a drink?
Well that's exactly what they did - didn't they
The only thing was the twins were in bed - maddie wasn't.
Of more importance what would the strategy of SY be,seeing as they reduced their man power in 2015.
SY weren't of an opinion she was anywhere else apart from from the waste ground in 2014.
That's not true, they were searching the waste ground because of what a witness said about hearing men talking and saying 'why did you bring the body here' or similar words. They obviously had to check it out IMO https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case
That's not true, they were searching the waste ground because of what a witness said about hearing men talking and saying 'why did you bring the body here' or similar words. They obviously had to check it out IMO https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case
It seems to me that SY were concentrating on checking out statements made long after the event. This witness was allegedly interviewed by the PJ but said nothing until April 2008. As that wasn't to the PJ I can only assume she spoke to the McCann's PI's. Quite a few people seem to have given information to the PI's but not to the police; even those who had the opportunity to do so. In my opinion information 'remembered' after a year is a flimsy reason to spend hundreds if not thousands on this digging.Now, eleven years later, what would constitute a good reason to start digging anywhere, in your opinion?
So they base their investigation on rumours.
In my opinion rumours are intelligence which may on occasion be investigated to see if there is any evidence to substantiate them.
Now, eleven years later, what would constitute a good reason to start digging anywhere, in your opinion?
I wouldn't do it on the word of a woman who took a year to remember hearing a suspicious conversation and I don't believe the Met. would either. I think they had a different reason.and yet you seem to have less of a problem with Pamela Fenn and the Smiths recalling details months after the event. How odd.
So you’re investigating the disappearance of a child that has mystified millions, and no trace of the child has ever been found. Someone comes to you with some information years after the event about where some vital evidence may be found, the body even. It’s in the same town as the child went missing. Do you a) investigate further by arranging for the likely areas to be excavated or b) ignore it, it’s bound to be just a rumour.SY - dig for it.
and yet you seem to have less of a problem with Pamela Fenn and the Smiths recalling details months after the event. How odd.
SY - dig for it.
PJ - just ignore it.
Ignore what? We don'r even know why SY were digging. There was nothing in the files to suggest the PJ should excavate Luz.Sorry but I can't help you either.
So you’re investigating the disappearance of a child that has mystified millions, and no trace of the child has ever been found. Someone comes to you with some information years after the event about where some vital evidence may be found, the body even. It’s in the same town as the child went missing. Do you a) investigate further by arranging for the likely areas to be excavated or b) ignore it, it’s bound to be just a rumour.There should be a hyperbole award. Classic. 8@??)(
There should be a hyperbole award. Classic. 8@??)(There is no hyperbole in my post. Please try not to deflect and kindly address the point. Police often act on tip-offs, is this an unknown concept to you?
Who was the guy who decided the body was buried under Murat's drive?
I have no problem with anyone who speaks to the correct authorities.So nothing to do with the length of time to remember important details then.
There should be a hyperbole award. Classic. 8@??)(
Who was the guy who decided the body was buried under Murat's drive?
Stephen Birch. Somehow he's managed to slip under SY's radar.And slip over Murat's fence!
Stephen Birch. Somehow he's managed to slip under SY's radar.
Possibly true, IMO its but a rumour after all the girl was abducted.