Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
What I notice is that it keeps Madeleine's name in the media, it keeps the public interested in the case, even if it is only criticising the parents actions.  Spend 50k on private detectives or 50k on taking a case to the ECHR and I'd guarantee more value for their money from the court case. (All a matter of opinion).

That would depend on what the aim was.  Neither action is likely to find her.  IMO
2
Dictionary corner?  How does appealing to the ECHR 'safeguard Madeleine's interests' I wonder. In my opinion it's not in her parent's interests, let alone hers.
What I notice is that it keeps Madeleine's name in the media, it keeps the public interested in the case, even if it is only criticising the parents actions.  Spend 50k on private detectives or 50k on taking a case to the ECHR and I'd guarantee more value for their money from the court case. (All a matter of opinion).
3
A summary was probably OK too Misty otherwise they had to translate all that information into Portuguese as well.

Think of all those opportunities for translation errors.
4
Equally there is no evidence they weren't given all statements from witnesses in Luz on 3/5/07, without which they could not possibly carry out a proper investigation.
A summary was probably OK too Misty otherwise they had to translate all that information into Portuguese as well.
5
It doesn't matter how hard you try, there's no evidence that the PJ had the questionnaires. They are mentioned twice in the files and it's LP officers who mention them, not the PJ. The context in both examples is they are informing the PJ what is in the questionnaires.

Equally there is no evidence they weren't given all statements from witnesses in Luz on 3/5/07, without which they could not possibly carry out a proper investigation.
6
So Smithman looks something like Gerry, but not Gerry himself.  That is a very good start really.
"The man he saw had the same stature as Gerry McCann"  Mary Smith
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8771.html
7
I'm blowed if I know what your actual point really is, Alice.

Aw! I am sure you do really.
But if not don't worry this is not real life.
8
At the time those pictures were published, someone inside the PJ was breaching judicial secrecy. That is not the same as the data protection act. The release of Pamela Fenn's statement was a breach of data protection.

If you read the links you would know that the UK tabloids took the pictures from the released files. Who released Mrs Fenn's statement?
9
Leics police set up a Major Incident room, supported by HOLMES, to process all the documentation & messages from the UK end so there was a single database for all UK activity. They also set up one in Portugal, close to the main PJ team,  & had a Portuguese-speaking officer assigned to it (presumably Jose Defreitas)which provided a direct link to the Portuguese investigation.
(See Operation Task debrief page 4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf)

I can still see no reason why the PJ did not have sight of any of the completed questionnaires, given that there were around 21000 pages at the time of the legal summary & we haven't even seen half of them.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm 1st paragraph
"Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution."

It doesn't matter how hard you try, there's no evidence that the PJ had the questionnaires. They are mentioned twice in the files and it's LP officers who mention them, not the PJ. The context in both examples is they are informing the PJ what is in the questionnaires. 

10
I don't see your point in relationship to what I posted.
First para you are telling me something I obviously already knew as I had posted about it earlier.
Second para we don't know they didn't but there are more than enough reasons why they didn't if they didn't
Third para: yeah so there was a lot of bumf flying around ?

I'm blowed if I know what your actual point really is, Alice.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10