So what actual searching was there?

[Alfred R Jones]

Well playing devil's avocado were I the IO I would not trust them until they had proved themselves trustworthy as at that point I would not be sure what was going on and the possibility of collusion could not be discounted.
You being the IO and wanting to stick your neck out early doors, by saying they are pure as the driven snow, that's your business.

Pure as the driven snow?  I don't recall saying that.  In fact all I asked was why, in your view, the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied upon, a question which you have failed to answer.

[Alice Purjorick]

So what do you want me to say, seeing as how searching is the subject of this thread?

Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety.
Carry on I  am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater

[pathfinder73]

The independent corroboration of Gerry's whereabouts is (surely) that no one commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alarm.

Think about it.  He is Madeleine's father.  You'd have expected his absence to be instantly noticed.

More, you'd expect there to be commentary in the files on efforts to track him down, including where he was when found and who found him.

Absent.

Why?

Surely because Inspector Carlos called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant ...

You seem to forget that they have the correct timeline now which is much different. Kate left at 9:51 not 10pm.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety.
Carry on I  am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater

I agree totally.  Not much fun is it...?

[Mr Gray]

Well so far you agree that the appropriate Portuguese judicial authorities did search for the child whereas the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
The McCanns searched too in the strictest of senses but the diligence and extent of that search is questioned in some quarters.
It seems to me that in the strictest of senses both parties searched but the disagreement as always is of "the mine's bigger than yours" variety.
Carry on I  am more interested in what The Foxes are doing at present. Catch you rater

good to have confirmation from a leading sceptic that the mccanns did search

[Alfred R Jones]

Stick to the point Lace. Why no mention in the letters declining to take part in the reconstruction of the McCanns begging their friends to take part in the reconstruction ? As you yourself have said, the couple managed to persuade their friends to take part in the Emma Loach documentary so why not an official one ?

Why on earth would the McCanns' friends feel it necessary to inform the police that the McCanns had begged them to take part, but despite the begging they had turned them down?  There is no logic to your question!

[Alfred R Jones]

Ah dear cuddlecat. I remember him well ! Clutched to Kate's breast when a photo opportunity required it , yet tossed in a corner for dear Eddie to find when the cameras were off.

Where is he now ?

This is an example of sheer spite directed at Kate McCann.  You some days ago conceded that the McCanns were loving parents who generally cared for their children.  How is the callous, cynical behaviour you have described above compatible with this view?

[Alice Purjorick]

Pure as the driven snow?  I don't recall saying that.  In fact all I asked was why, in your view, the McCanns' friends testimony cannot be relied upon, a question which you have failed to answer.

I thought I had answered. I'll try again.
Were it me investigating I would assume to start with there was potential for collusion and would therefore rule out the prospect of testimony by T7 being unbiased and reliable. I would therefore look without the group for corroborative testimony re times and what have you. When/if I received that corroboration I would look on it differently but still keep a weather eye out until I was sure there was nothing hookey about all 7.
Were it me sitting by my fireside contemplating the case ditto.

[ShiningInLuz]

I do apologise ShiningInLuz,    I was just going by the experience the McCann's had,  they had to have interpreters,   Robert Murat acted as an interpreter too.   I really don't want to start any myth about the language spoken in Portugal.

The fact is it was the job of the Police to question individuals and not the McCann's.

Interpreters made sense, because very quickly the McCanns got out of any depth they could handle, no matter what scenario is plugged in.

Yes I agree, it was the job of the police to do the investigating.

And while I can say that I personally would not have relied on this (i.e. I would have been out there myself 'cos that's the person I am), I will also say that bashing the McCanns over the searching they did or did not do leads to no new revelation.  Basically, it tells me nothing.

[Alfred R Jones]

I thought I had answered. I'll try again.
Were it me investigating I would assume to start with there was potential for collusion and would therefore rule out the prospect of testimony by T7 being unbiased and reliable. I would therefore look without the group for corroborative testimony re times and what have you. When/if I received that corroboration I would look on it differently but still keep a weather eye out until I was sure there was nothing hookey about all 7.
Were it me sitting by my fireside contemplating the case ditto.

As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening, or do you disagree? 

[Alice Purjorick]

The independent corroboration of Gerry's whereabouts is (surely) that no one commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alarm.

Think about it.  He is Madeleine's father.  You'd have expected his absence to be instantly noticed.

More, you'd expect there to be commentary in the files on efforts to track him down, including where he was when found and who found him.

Absent.

Why?

Surely because Inspector Carlos called it right to say Gerry was in the restaurant ...

The whole thing depends on being able to fix the times accurately. No one appears able to do that.
The time the alarm was raised and the time of the Smithman sighting both seem to be movable feasts based on "best informed guess" and little else.

[Alfred R Jones]

The whole thing depends on being able to fix the times accurately. No one appears able to do that.
The time the alarm was raised and the time of the Smithman sighting both seem to be movable feasts based on "best informed guess" and little else.

According to the Archiving Report the alarm was raised around 10pm, some people choose to interpret around 10pm to be anything from 9.30pm to 10.15pm in order to make their theories work, however in my book around 10pm means 9.55 - 10.05pm - how do you choose to interpret it?

[Alice Purjorick]

As none of the McCanns' friends was ever made an arguido, I think it's safe to assume that potential collusion had been ruled out by the investigating officers, and that corroborative testimony was taken from the restaurant staff which tallied more or less with their statements regarding the events at dinner that evening, or do you disagree?

Why would they be made arguido(a)? the case was about a missing child. T7 were not suspects in "the disappearance crime" and would only be made arguido(a) if they were to be charged as such. The Judiciary would have more control leaving them as witnesses if they thought the testimony was dodgy. I don't think the judiciary had formed an opinion other than a reconstitution was necessary to iron out anomalies in testimonies. That never happened so we can all guess away happily.

[ShiningInLuz]

surely Martin Smith said he didn't see the face so how could he produce an e fit

I've seen somewhere (Parliamentary reply?) that the e-fits were produced by 'the Irish family'.  That makes it the Smiths.

Otherwise, what we need is 9 folks (the Smiths) meandering past Smithman, none of whom did e-fits

OR

9 of the Smiths unable to produce e-fits, plus 2 more folks who also passed Smithman, who do not appear in the PJ Files, and who WERE able to be contacted, and WERE able to make e-fits.

Christmas is coming.  I have it on 1st hand evidence that departure from Luton airport started in clear conditions but the take-off was in heavy snow.  Does this evidence mean I should expect a visit from Santa this year?

[Alfred R Jones]

Why would they be made arguido(a)? the case was about a missing child. T7 were not suspects in "the disappearance crime" and would only be made arguido(a) if they were to be charged as such. The Judiciary would have more control leaving them as witnesses if they thought the testimony was dodgy. I don't think the judiciary had formed an opinion other than a reconstitution was necessary to iron out anomalies in testimonies. That never happened so we can all guess away happily.

So - collusion to cover up a crime is not a criminal offence in Portugal then?