Amaral and the dogs

[mercury]

The British police had no jurisdiction ... in the meantime, in Portugal those who did and do were sitting on the self same efits ...funny that.  By your reckoning, the PJ had no "nous" either.

They were tasked to assist and they failed if for years Tannerman was Crecheman.

Portuguese police did not have info on Crecheman OR Smithman efits, at least until 2009, if at all,  after the case was shelved

[stephen25000]

I note earlier that some people still expect Madeleine to be found alive and well, even though there been no trace of her in over 8 years.

There is blind belief, but what happens if she never returns home ?

What will they do then ?

[Carana]

They were tasked to assist and they failed if for years Tannerman was Crecheman.

Portuguese police did not have info on Crecheman OR Smithman efits, at least until 2009, if at all,  after the case was shelved

They were tasked to assist, yes: they offered expert assistance and dealt with most of the coordination of the sightings with Interpol (to double-check), and any requests for UK-based enquries.

But why would that include obtaining crèche records for them? LP may have thought they'd done that, and it might have sounded a bit offensive to ask them if they had.

[pathfinder73]

Good try

But you got the wrong hill 

Tell me more  I know they did and you would move a body out of town not into it (if not inside) so those cliffs would be first thought you know where they ran to and surrounded by 12 dogs

[mercury]

They were tasked to assist, yes: they offered expert assistance and dealt with most of the coordination of the sightings with Interpol (to double-check), and any requests for UK-based enquries.

But why would that include obtaining crèche records for them? LP may have thought they'd done that, and it might have sounded a bit offensive to ask them if they had.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027

I realise this is off topic and also another Groundhog day event!

[Carana]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027

I realise this is off topic and also another Groundhog day event!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-anyone-saying-were-2965383

[mercury]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-anyone-saying-were-2965383

Not exactly clear or helpful that article, is it?

[G-Unit]

So no-one knows why the 'innocent' Dad was overlooked and no-one knows who failed to spot his statement. No-one knows if LP passed the statement to the PJ, and if they did, what happened to it next. Very informative.

[Alice Purjorick]

So no-one knows why the 'innocent' Dad was overlooked and no-one knows who failed to spot his statement. No-one knows if LP passed the statement to the PJ, and if they did, what happened to it next. Very informative.

Very true but the article manages to sow this little seed of doubt without any evidence to back it up:-
snip >>>>
In their liaison role, they may have simply forwarded the questionnaires to Portuguese police without analysing them themselves.
Even if they did consider the content, they may not have realised the relevance without access to all of the material.
The information should have been recognised as of great relevance by the Portuguese police.
snip <<<<
Or in other words: "nothing to do with us pal it were Johnny Foreigner what was less than diligent"   %&5%£

[Alfred R Jones]

And as we know "Johnny Foreigner" should always remain above criticism lest one be accused of xenophobia.

[Carana]

So no-one knows why the 'innocent' Dad was overlooked and no-one knows who failed to spot his statement. No-one knows if LP passed the statement to the PJ, and if they did, what happened to it next. Very informative.

It's possible that LP lost it, just as it's possible it was just passed on with whatever else came in. The PJ weren't interested in Tannerman anyway, once Jane couldn't identify the person as Murat. They then seem to have decided she'd made it up.

They were interested in Smithman, but that wasn't Murat either. And then they only appear to have pricked up their ears when Martin thought it might have been Gerry.

Did they ever actually check the night crèche records? There are no sheets in the files, yet there are Tapas reservations, the day crèche ones and accommodation bookings.

If it is accurate that crècheman contacted LP, then it wasn't the PJ requesting LP to follow up on records they'd obtained. If they had got the records (and they're simply not in the accessible files), and had asked LP to follow up and contact then, there's no correspondence to that effect.

The GNR and the PJ did ask a number of people whether they'd seen a man carrying a child or anything suspicious, but I can't see anything to indicate that the PJ had been asking if they themselves or someone they knew had carried their own child home that night.

[G-Unit]

Very true but the article manages to sow this little seed of doubt without any evidence to back it up:-
snip >>>>
In their liaison role, they may have simply forwarded the questionnaires to Portuguese police without analysing them themselves.
Even if they did consider the content, they may not have realised the relevance without access to all of the material.
The information should have been recognised as of great relevance by the Portuguese police.
snip <<<<
Or in other words: "nothing to do with us pal it were Johnny Foreigner what was less than diligent"   %&5%£

Quite. I have no idea if the information was ever given to LP or if they ever passed it to the PJ. However, the PJ didn't rate Jane Tanner's evidence for two reasons; she wasn't seen by the two men she allegedly passed and her description of the man she saw got more detailed over time. Consequently, the PJ would have been very happy to have this info and would have chased it up diligently.

[G-Unit]

It's possible that LP lost it, just as it's possible it was just passed on with whatever else came in. The PJ weren't interested in Tannerman anyway, once Jane couldn't identify the person as Murat. They then seem to have decided she'd made it up.

They were interested in Smithman, but that wasn't Murat either. And then they only appear to have pricked up their ears when Martin thought it might have been Gerry.

Did they ever actually check the night crèche records? There are no sheets in the files, yet there are Tapas reservations, the day crèche ones and accommodation bookings.

If it is accurate that crècheman contacted LP, then it wasn't the PJ requesting LP to follow up on records they'd obtained. If they had got the records (and they're simply not in the accessible files), and had asked LP to follow up and contact then, there's no correspondence to that effect.

The GNR and the PJ did ask a number of people whether they'd seen a man carrying a child or anything suspicious, but I can't see anything to indicate that the PJ had been asking if they themselves or someone they knew had carried their own child home that night.

Before asking if the PJ checked the night creche records you first need to establish that they existed.

[Alice Purjorick]

Quite. I have no idea if the information was ever given to LP or if they ever passed it to the PJ. However, the PJ didn't rate Jane Tanner's evidence for two reasons; she wasn't seen by the two men she allegedly passed and her description of the man she saw got more detailed over time. Consequently, the PJ would have been very happy to have this info and would have chased it up diligently.

A position seemingly supported by probably the best police force in the world.
Sorry! but it's mantra time again 
"It's never been the same since that nice DCI Redwood fragged Tannerman the Abductor".
Wait for it wait for it.

[G-Unit]

A position seemingly supported by probably the best police force in the world.
Sorry! but it's mantra time again 
"It's never been the same since that nice DCI Redwood fragged Tannerman the Abductor".
Wait for it wait for it.

There are those who think nice DCI Redwood may have got it wrong. Just like the 'Drs McCann' they prefer Tannerman. I wonder why? Perhaps because nasty Mr Amaral favoured Smithman.