No
Yes, Yes I do.
I think they'd take every available opportunity to stress the fact.
They'd make it front page on every paper & hire a mobile billboard, there'd be a picture of Kate & Gerry on it, with a big arrow pointed right at them, above that would be flashing neon lights spelling out 'suspects'.
I thought that this was going to be a serious Thread. Silly me.
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
This has me thinking about the burglary abduction gang.
Am I right in thinking that SY never named them publicly as suspects?
Wasn't it anonymous sources who spilled the beans?
Have SY named any suspects in the investigation?
Would they have denied it, as they did? As opposed to something waffly such as "all leads of enquiry are still being pursued" ?
This has me thinking about the burglary abduction gang.
Am I right in thinking that SY never named them publicly as suspects?
Wasn't it anonymous sources who spilled the beans?
Have SY named any suspects in the investigation?
How could they? There's no such thing in the UK.
Some of the people the PJ interviewed on behalf of SY were named as having arguido status in the media; others weren't.
Assuming that that is correct, it may have been the witnesses themselves who requested the status in order to benefit from certain rights. My reasoning for that is that when I last checked, at the time, I couldn't find any legal provision for temporary arguido status in the Portuguese CPP, but neither did I find any provision as to a temporary status in the event of a foreign police force requesting such interviews.
AIFAIK, they are no longer arguidos, which makes me think that it was an ad hoc provision to allow temporary status for the purpose of UK inquiries.
How could they? There's no such thing in the UK.
Some of the people the PJ interviewed on behalf of SY were named as having arguido status in the media; others weren't.
Assuming that that is correct, it may have been the witnesses themselves who requested the status in order to benefit from certain rights. My reasoning for that is that when I last checked, at the time, I couldn't find any legal provision for temporary arguido status in the Portuguese CPP, but neither did I find any provision as to a temporary status in the event of a foreign police force requesting such interviews.
AIFAIK, they are no longer arguidos, which makes me think that it was an ad hoc provision to allow temporary status for the purpose of UK inquiries.
The BBC source said: “The 'arguido' [suspect] status was given to the suspects to protect them.
“It gives them legal rights including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during interviews.
“They were declared arguido due to being identified as suspects in a letter of international request sent by the British to the Portuguese authorities.”
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.Yes - For if they were investigating the McCanns when they say they are not no one is going to trust SY ever again.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
Yes - For if they were investigating the McCanns when they say they are not no one is going to trust SY ever again.Mark Rowley:We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects.
Mark Rowley:We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects.But didn't they say they are not looking at the parents etc?
But didn't they say they are not looking at the parents etc?
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.Well, they did tell us about the people in Portugal they were questioning as arguidos, so quite possibly - if not directly then perhaps via leaks to the media.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
Well, they did tell us about the people in Portugal they were questioning as arguidos, so quite possibly - if not directly then perhaps via leaks to the media.
Here's a simple yes/no question by return: do you believe the McCanns are currently the investigation's main suspects?
Hard to know without more information.Why wasn't that an option when you were asking the questions?!
Why wasn't that an option when you were asking the questions?!
Because they were two very different questions, the first being a question of logic that could be answered based on the information in the question, the second being a matter of opinion based on an individual’s understanding of the case.
The first one is a matter of opinion too and why should a poster try to restrict the answer to a, question rather than let posters, answer as they want...
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
The OP asked for a simple yes/no answer. Those unhappy with that needn't answer.
Or we can answer withe answer of ourchoice
Yes,because they looked at the original interview's carried out under the stewardship of Amaral,which would suggest they are satisfied with it all,only concentrating on that which the PJ didn't consider important aka,the supposed burglars, now who was right one wonders.
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
I don't think they would answer the question
For obvious reasons the answer is NO.
So how would that work ? Would Redwood/Rowley ( fill in the name ) simply leave the question hanging in the air, inviting speculation or claim that all scenarios are still being looked at, yet again inviting speculation ?
He would simply say he was unwilling to answer any questions Re suspects... Has his answer reduced speculation
He would simply say he was unwilling to answer any questions Re suspects... Has his answer reduced speculation
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
Of course they wouldn't, that would be against all good police practise. My own belief is that they had to investigate the parents in order to satisfy themselves that the culprit or culprits lay elsewhere. The fact that they went on to look at others speaks for itself imo.
In which case this Thread is rather pointless, don't you think.
I think the same could be said about every thread here.
It's all just hot air & none of it will bring Maddie back.
So a reporter would say....are the McCanns or their friends being considered suspects in your investigation......to which ( name of officer ) would reply.....I am unwilling to answer any questions regarding suspects. Can you really see that happening?
In which case this Thread is rather pointless, don't you think.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Could we be related ? @)(++(*
Not according to Rowley they didn't.
They are happy that had been dealt with by the original investigation.
If the McCanns had been re-investigated & subsequently ruled out, why wouldn't they just say so?
"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?
"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?
Back in 2013 Redwood was asked whether the McCanns or their friends were suspects. Redwood said no. Rowley was asked the same thing in 2017 to which he no.
Two things. Point one, if the McCanns were not suspects in 2013 why are journalists asking the same question in 2017 ? Weren’t they convinced by the denial in 2013 ? Point two, by asking the same question again does this mean that there is an acceptance that the McCann’s and their friend’s status within the investigation may have changed and is therefore not static ?
If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?
If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?
If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?
Because the Portuguese have primacy.
Why would SY use its own budget when it could use someone else's ?
"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?
I really think posters are in total denial if they think the McCann's are, still being investigated
In the broadest sense they remain part of the investigation, whilst they may not be under suspicion/investigation at this point in time that may change who knows? For certain Mr Rowley alleges they have no definitive evidence and only ideas of what may have happened. With a Rumsfeldish "when we know we will know".
Unless the investigation has already been closed of course.
In the broadest sense they remain part of the investigation, whilst they may not be under suspicion/investigation at this point in time that may change who knows? For certain Mr Rowley alleges they have no definitive evidence and only ideas of what may have happened. With a Rumsfeldish "when we know we will know".
Unless the investigation has already been closed of course.
I think the waffly answer is de rigeur because that's what they do.
We are left with perming one possibility from about four by my reckoning [for the waffly answer that is]. The question is why would any one of those wafflibilties be a better bet than the others?
Remember Bob Dylan and Robert Browning on what they meant by what they had written,when asked.
The answers were remarkably similar, synthesing and paraphrasing it summed up as:
"God knows I have forgotten already but you make it mean whatever you want it to mean"
Waffle would seem to be the option of choice, and that's certainly what I've noticed in a number of cases, but not in this one (at least not at the time of the most recent pressers on the case).
Anything could change, obviously, and if ever it turned out that any of the T9 were involved, then I expect that there would be a PR egg-on-face removal unit to deal with it.
On the other hand, and bearing in mind that the UK does actually give thought to media relations, progressive cop speak waffle could have covered all bases. So far, I can't see any evidence of that.
Strategy debriefs provide an interesting insight, IMO, even if they have to be couched in gentle terms.
I think denial is more accurate..
SY are extremely mindful of the public interest in this case and would spend any amount of money if they knew they could solve it and bring someone to justice. They will have looked at every scenario early on including the parents but now they are casting their nets further afield to see what is dragged up. I fear they are no closer to solving this case successfully than the PJ were when it was originally shelved.
Waffle would seem to be the option of choice, and that's certainly what I've noticed in a number of cases, but not in this one (at least not at the time of the most recent pressers on the case).
Anything could change, obviously, and if ever it turned out that any of the T9 were involved, then I expect that there would be a PR egg-on-face removal unit to deal with it.
On the other hand, and bearing in mind that the UK does actually give thought to media relations, progressive cop speak waffle could have covered all bases. So far, I can't see any evidence of that.
Strategy debriefs provide an interesting insight, IMO, even if they have to be couched in gentle terms.
The thing that interests me is why journalists asked the same question in 2017 that had already been answered in 2013. Where certain journalists privy to information that is not known to the general public ?
Because they were two very different questions, the first being a question of logic that could be answered based on the information in the question, the second being a matter of opinion based on an individual’s understanding of the case.Explain the logic that enabled you to answer the first question with a yes or no answer then.
So a reporter would say....are the McCanns or their friends being considered suspects in your investigation......to which ( name of officer ) would reply.....I am unwilling to answer any questions regarding suspects. Can you really see that happening?yes, very easily, why not?
Of course they wouldn't, that would be against all good police practise. My own belief is that they had to investigate the parents in order to satisfy themselves that the culprit or culprits lay elsewhere. The fact that they went on to look at others speaks for itself imo.It was against all good police practise to tip off the media that a famous popstar's house was about to be raided in a child sex investigation, it doesn't mean it didnt happen.
Because the Portuguese have primacy.How much funds are the Portuguese requesting to investigate the McCanns?
It was against all good police practise to tip off the media that a famous popstar's house was about to be raided in a child sex investigation, it doesn't mean it didnt happen.
The thing that interests me is why journalists asked the same question in 2017 that had already been answered in 2013. Where certain journalists privy to information that is not known to the general public ?If any journalist got a whiff that the McCanns were being investigated by the police again it would be all over the papers. No reason on earth why it wouldn't be and it would be a sensational story that would certainly sell a lot of papers.
If any journalist got a whiff that the McCanns were being investigated by the police again it would be all over the papers. No reason on earth why it wouldn't be and it would be a sensational story that would certainly sell a lot of papers.
Until the McCanns were charged not one newspaper editor would dare touch a story like that with a barge pole.Tell me why not?
Tell me why not?
Don’t be silly sir. Imagine if the investigation came to nothing.And...?
And...?
21 posts and over half directed at me. Old habits eh 8(0(*What is the meaning of this post? Can you not answer my question, alternatively if you cannot then simply choose not to respond forthwith.
What is the meaning of this post? Can you not answer my question, alternatively if you cannot then simply choose not to respond forthwith.
And...?
Jeez Carana are you one of they/them ?
Then I won’t ?{)(**Fine. I will simply reiterate that in my opinion there is no reason legal or otherwise why the media (and especially the Portuguese / American / Australian media) would sit on information that proved the McCanns were being investigated again as part of Operation Grange.
Fine. I will simply reiterate that in my opinion there is no reason legal or otherwise why the media (and especially the Portuguese / American / Australian media) would sit on information that proved the McCanns were being investigated again as part of Operation Grange.
So is that a YES then ?I have already answered the question if you read back.
Fine. I will simply reiterate that in my opinion there is no reason legal or otherwise why the media (and especially the Portuguese / American / Australian media) would sit on information that proved the McCanns were being investigated again as part of Operation Grange.
Fine. I will simply reiterate that in my opinion there is no reason legal or otherwise why the media (and especially the Portuguese / American / Australian media) would sit on information that proved the McCanns were being investigated again as part of Operation Grange.
That is your perogative.That's as maybe. Cliff isn't the first and he won't be the last person whose name has been cited in the press as being investigated for crimes and misdemeanors, and then subsequently not charged. Let us not forget - in 2007 exactly the same thing happened to the McCanns themselves! Did they sue any media outlet simply for reporting the fact that they were being investigated?
Just muse on what has happened to the BBC over the Cliff Richard debacle. No charge, a huge libel payout.
Reiterate? Isn't that the first time I've seen 'proof' mentioned?I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
That's as maybe. Cliff isn't the first and he won't be the last person whose name has been cited in the press as being investigated for crimes and misdemeanors, and then subsequently not charged. Let us not forget - in 2007 exactly the same thing happened to the McCanns themselves! Did they sue any media outlet simply for reporting the fact that they were being investigated?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
They threatened to sue a Portuguese newspaper was stated just that. As far as I remember no British newspaper reported the McCanns were being investigated until it was clear they were going to be made arguidosI think (from memory) that it was very clear in the media before the McCanns were made arguidos that they were under suspicion. I don't recall them threatening any newspaper that simply stated the McCanns were being investigated by the police. Do you have a cite for that?
If you're saying something for the first time you're not reiterating it. I do apologise if you mentioned 'proof' before, but I can't see it.Can you tell me why this matters relevant to the subject under discussion? I used the word "proved" once, so strictly speaking I did not reiterate the word "proved". Therefore you are correct in your observation, but - so what?
I think (from memory) that it was very clear in the media before the McCanns were made arguidos that they were under suspicion. I don't recall them threatening any newspaper that simply stated the McCanns were being investigated by the police. Do you have a cite for that?
Lol. Do you disagree with what I said?
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.htmlThat contentious paper report goes quite some way beyond simply reporting that the McCanns were being investigated by the police, it right out claims they drugged and killed their child.
Now a cite from any British newspaper reporting that the McCanns were under suspicion before it was clear that they were going to be made arguidos please ?
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.htmlWell here's one for a start
Now a cite from any British newspaper reporting that the McCanns were under suspicion before it was clear that they were going to be made arguidos please ?
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.htmlAnd here's another
Now a cite from any British newspaper reporting that the McCanns were under suspicion before it was clear that they were going to be made arguidos please ?
And here's another
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477801/Madeleine-Now-Portuguese-press-claims-scent-corpse-McCanns-keys.html
Fail, British newspaper reports on what the PT newspapers were saying.Why is that a fail? The British reports that the portuguese media claim the McCanns are suspects. It makes banner headlines out of them and leaves the reader in Britain in little doubt that the McCanns are under suspicion by the police, before they are even made arguidos.
And here's another
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477801/Madeleine-Now-Portuguese-press-claims-scent-corpse-McCanns-keys.html
Why is that a fail? The British reports that the portuguese media claim the McCanns are suspects. It makes banner headlines out of them and leaves the reader in Britain in little doubt that the McCanns are under suspicion by the police, before they are even made arguidos.
Madeleine: Now Portuguese press claims scent of corpse was found on McCann's keys
Mystery of Madeleine parents' secret emails 'intercepted by police'
This is what I was asked for
"Now a cite from any British newspaper reporting that the McCanns were under suspicion before it was clear that they were going to be made arguidos please" ?
Are my links from British papers? Yes.
Do they report that the McCanns were under suspicion? Yes.
Was it before they were made arguidos? Yes.
No fail.
By the time of this report Esther McVey was advising the McCanns to come home so it was obvious by then that they would be questioned again and, because these interviews would be accusatory in nature, that they would be made arguidos.I fail to see the relevance of either of your points. The fact of the matter is, somehow that information got transferred from police to the media (it would seem fairly obvious how that happened IMO) and it got reported by the world's media that the McCanns were suspects, long before it was officially confirmed. I can so no reason why, if the McCanns were suspects again, that this information would not have been leaked out (and you have even suggested somewhere on this thread I think that maybe the media know more than they are letting on) and been used as the basis of some story in the papers strongly hinting at their renewed suspect status. If it were true, then there would be no grounds for legal action anyway IMO,, provided the report did not stray into lurid detail of what they were actually suspected of doing. IMO All it need say is (if it were true): "It is understood that the Met are re-investigating the McCanns' and friends' versions of events, the Tapas 9 were re-interviewed under caution, no charges have been brought and there are no further details known at this time, a police spokesman refused to confirm or deny". Such media focus would IMO bring immense pressure back onto the group and might elicit a confession from one of them, if they were indeed guilty of something, and so would IMO be a useful tool for the police to try, if indeed it were the case that they were suspects which as far as we know from everything that has been said and everything that has been done as part of the investigation, they are not.
Was it after these reports that Olegario Sousa said the McCanns were not suspects ?
It was clear the McCanns were going to be questioned again. It had been from the beginning of August.So you accept then that the press were able to report that the McCanns were suspects and reported as much prior to them becoming official suspects? If the press know nothing then that's probably why they keep asking the same questions, in the pursuit of new information for their articles.
So what if the press know nothing ? Why do you think they keep asking the same question ?
Let us not forget we were told (indirectly via the media) that the police were re-questioning Murat and Malinka (as witnesses admittedly), though going through it all again with the media attention must have felt damaging and unpleasant for them both. Why, if the McCanns and Tapas group were being investigated, have they not been questioned since 2008, and if they have then why haven't we heard about it, as we have with Murat and Malinka?
Let us not forget we were told (indirectly via the media) that the police were re-questioning Murat and Malinka (as witnesses admittedly), though going through it all again with the media attention must have felt damaging and unpleasant for them both. Why, if the McCanns and Tapas group were being investigated, have they not been questioned since 2008, and if they have then why haven't we heard about it, as we have with Murat and Malinka?It could be addressed another way,if through the lack of reporting its indicative of the McCanns not being interviewed by SY (IMO), is it a sign of a major failing not to so?
It could be addressed another way,if through the lack of reporting its indicative of the McCanns not being interviewed by SY (IMO), is it a sign of a major failing not to so?"It could be addressed another way,if through the lack of reporting its indicative of the McCanns not being interviewed by SY (IMO), is it a sign of a major failing not to so?" That is not a simple question.
Edit (IMO) added.
So you believe that if the McCanns were being investigated Rowley would admit it ?Possibly, but more likely it would have leaked out to the media by now. You dodged all the points I raised in my post btw.
It could be addressed another way,if through the lack of reporting its indicative of the McCanns not being interviewed by SY (IMO), is it a sign of a major failing not to so?It would be a major failing if, having reviewed all the evidence, the police felt there was any possibility that the McCanns were responsible.
Edit (IMO) added.
Ok, so, assuming the McCann's have been re-interviewed & re-investigated (but no one bothered to tell the press) sometime since 2011.
Assuming that happened, what evidence might SY have found which demonstrates to their satisfaction that the McCann's had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance?
Or, from another angle, what evidence might they have which proves Maddie was abducted by way of criminal act by a stranger?
It seems that is exactly what has happened so you need to ask SY
Possibly, but more likely it would have leaked out to the media by now. You dodged all the points I raised in my post btw.
It seems that is exactly what has happened so you need to ask SY
It would be a major failing if, having reviewed all the evidence, the police felt there was any possibility that the McCanns were responsible.Haven't they already done that and find the McCanns not responsible for the abduction?
Not significantly.
I believe, however, the police will have an overall strategy for this sort of circumstance. Like: "we are going to give away nothing we do not want to".
The tactics for each interview will, in my opinion, be worked out on the hoof with the objective of reaching the end of the interview having not undermined the overall strategy. If the tactics used make them look daft to the uninformed layman I am sure they don't give the proverbial rat's wotsit provided the overall strategy has been preserved without compromise.
As for what the overall strategy is faites vos jeux.
edit: removed redundant word
I didn’t dodge the points I was simply stopping you pulling this topic further off topic.
So you think that if Rowley, or Redwood, was asked directly if the McCanns were suspects and they were they’d possibly admit it ? Really ?
Which brings us full circle. How do we know the McCanns are not suspects, because Redwood/Rowley said so. If they McCanns were suspects would Redwood/Rowley admit it ? IMO definitely not. How say you Davel ?I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence
How do you understand this?
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-investigation-12944725
And... from the PT side:
Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?
Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence
I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.
I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.
How do you understand this?
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.
“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-investigation-12944725
And... from the PT side:
Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?
Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
The PJ must have done an exemplary job, if OG was unable to fault their investigation of the Tapas group and were willing to accept it verbatim.My hunch (IMO) is that the Tapas 9 have owned up to what happened (so they know the no matter how Madeleine got out of the apartment part - that is solved), but the MPS still want an answer to the abduction. Where did she go?
The PJ must have done an exemplary job, if OG was unable to fault their investigation of the Tapas group and were willing to accept it verbatim.
I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.
They may not have conclusive evidence, but I would find it extraordinary if they hadn't examined the T9 in minute detail as a precursor.
That's not the impression I get from the strategy debrief in the Shannon case, nor from other documents / clips I've read / watched.
IMO, the aspects seem to be a) what and when to inform the media (on or off the record) about details related to the actual investigation; b) another seems to be broader in terms of public perception of the credibility of the police, and c) any impact on community relations.
We can all think of times when police forces (anywhere) have had egg-on-face situations for all sorts of reasons. I presume that a goal is to minimise them.
If that's the case, I can't think of a logical reason why the Met would have been so blunt early on that the McCanns and their friends were not suspects if they had not gone over everything that they had access to (including possibly informal interviews for any points that needed to be clarified subsequent to the review). IMO, it would have been much easier to stay waffly: all options open, egg-on-face avoidance.
I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.
I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence
More than half the forum consider the McCann's guilty of several crimes without the complete information... Practically the whole forum is a discussion without complete information
I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.
The OP demanded a simple "yes" or "no" which in my opinion is a rather inward looking approach and one cannot help but wonder at the apparent inability to look beyond Kate and Gerry and the friends they holidayed with anyway.
Surely the obvious fact that following that path led the Amaral investigation into a cul de sac from which it could not be extrapolated even by the change of coordinator for the simple reason the theory was unsustainable because of a lack of evidence.
Someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened to Madeleine McCann and when it became obvious to the Portuguese judiciary there was nothing to justify Kate and Gerry's arguido status making it by definition neither of them; nor there having been any evidence to make any of their friends arguidos in the first instance meaning it was none of them either, in my opinion it merited the net being cast a bit wider to encompass those who were there on the night and who had the opportunity.
Yet here we are nearly eleven years down the line and there are still those who cannot let go of the discredited theory which took Madeleine's case off track and sadly left it there until the advent of Operation Grange.
I didn’t dodge the points I was simply stopping you pulling this topic further off topic.I have answered your question on this I think twice already. My opinion has not changed in thr intervening hours.
So you think that if Rowley, or Redwood, was asked directly if the McCanns were suspects and they were they’d possibly admit it ? Really ?
And yet the journalists keep asking.That's their job.
That's their job.What the job of a journalist? So can you give me an example please?
Do you mean something specific that you, personally, have further information about, or do you mean in general?
I've never said I had complete information and I doubt that anyone does, including the police - if they did the case would presumably be solved.
I mean in general.
I would not work on the presumption that the police game plan was merely to counter punch to whatever came along.
We, having incomplete information a lot of which comes from dubious sources, are not likely to drop the shot into the right county let alone town but it's fun pretending we can.
I mean in general.
I would not work on the presumption that the police game plan was merely to counter punch to whatever came along.
We, having incomplete information a lot of which comes from dubious sources, are not likely to drop the shot into the right county let alone town but it's fun pretending we can.
IYO
Please be specific and differentiate what you consider to be opinion as opposed to fact in the post you complain about.
Thank you.
But when we have precise information from impeccable sources.... The alerts have no evidential reliability... It seems to make no difference to those with a set in stone mindset
As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.
So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.
As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.
So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.
I wasn't suggesting that, Alice.
I'm just offering my opinion, I'm not expecting anyone to necesarily agree with it.
I've listened to statements made on TV, supposedly verbatim quotes from pressers, and I've read several strategic debriefs.
I hope you'd consider those sources as possibly more reliable than a number of tabloid stories churned out in the early media frenzy that some still seem fond of regurgitating as gospel?
ETA: And my comment had 3 aspects to it:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9247.msg451169#msg451169
As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.
So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.
I was doing the same.
I thought my opinion of the press was well known?
Best summed up by paraphrasing Stokeley Carmichael in another connexion but "The punk's lying, period"
I did not comment on the Shannon case because I don't know enough about it.
The police and the media? . IMO the police use the media to their own ends and don't much care about how they go about it within limits. They will cast a little bread upon the water where it is beneficial to them [the police]; overall a kind of mutualism.
The last bit falls into the second guessing category in my book.
If there is anything else you want clarified just yell out... 8(0(*
As I have repeatedly said Messrs Grime and Harrison may say what they like out of court.
In court they simply would not be allowed to say "The alerts have no evidential reliability" as that is assuming a power they do not have. They may well be correct but that would not be the point should it wind up in court. In that case it would be up to the judge to direct and the judges and jury [if any] to decide the weighting if any given.
So what precise information with impeccable sources do you have to offer?
The case extends somewhat further than a pair of dogs, their handler and his boss.
you also posted..I am sure you are wrong when you say that " according to grime and harrison they are not" reliable. They need corroborating evidence, that does not imply they are themselves unreliable.
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.
so the cort would first need to be satisfied taht the alerts are relaible... according to grime and harrison they are not
I am sure you are wrong when you say that " according to grime and harrison they are not" reliable. They need corroborating evidence, that does not imply they are themselves unreliable.
What the job of a journalist? So can you give me an example please?What are you asking for exactly?
the fact that they cannot be relied upon without corroboration..makes them....unreliable...both grime and Harrison use the words ...no reliability....The point of corroboration is that the combination becomes stronger evidence, the initial initial evidence plus the corroborating evidence work together.
The point of corroboration is that the combination becomes stronger evidence, the initial initial evidence plus the corroborating evidence work together.
the initial alert has no evidential value ...thats none...zero ....without corroboration....th corroboration is what is mportant...it really is quite simpleWell if I understand it correctly they work hand in hand.
as I have pointed out before...both grimes and harrisons statemnts are evidence that could be presented in court...are you suggesting that the alerts could be presented to a jury and the evidence of grime and harrisson witheld.......absolute rubbish
Well if I understand it correctly they work hand in hand.then you dont understand...how can they work hand in hand if there is no corroboration...the sound of one hand clapping
Witnesses in court are questioned by both prosecution and defence. Judges and Juries then decide what value their evidence has, not the witnesses.
you also posted..
Expert evidence will only be admissible where it will assist the court in
reaching its conclusions and is given by an expert who is impartial and
sufficiently qualified in a field of expertise, which itself is considered to be
reliable.
so the cort would first need to be satisfied taht the alerts are relaible... according to grime and harrison they are not
You seem to think Mr Grime and Mr Harrison are the only arbiters of this "science".
It was at least 30 years old at the time MBM disappeared.
you raelly do not understand the alert evidence,...the whole point is the dogs cannot be cross examined
If anyone misunderstands anything it's you in my opinion. So much so that I see no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss the subject with you.
you raelly do not understand the alert evidence,...the whole point is the dogs cannot be cross examined
The owners /Trainers can! there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence which can be brought to court and discussed and weighted. But you know that anyhow.getting a bit manic!!!!!!!!!
Re the OP. Ther are two things to think about,
1. We were told The parents were NOT suspects in an abduction..,
2. we were also told that they had accepted the PJ's investigation regarding the parents so felt no need to re interview them.
What do we take from that? Do they believe the PJ theory or parts of it, and that the parents were culpable in some way. leaving the children alone, leaving door unlocked kind of thing?. Do they accept that Kate's version about jemmied windows etc was a load of ole bulllonie ?and what do they believe the reason for this time wasting episode by the parents was?
I am just asking questions... no need to delete.
getting a bit manic!!!!!!!!!
Well go lie down in a dark room...
Im referring to you dear
Oh so the personal insults are allowed again are they? Thanks John we all missed this sh'iteé
So what was it specifically about my posts you didn't like to gie such a educated response Davel dearest.
All a bit hypothetical, but anyway.
If the McCanns had been tried in PT, would Grime and Harrison have had to testify in person? Or would the rogs have sufficed (it must be somewhere in the articles I posted earlier, but I haven't actually read it all yet).
Next question: if they had to testify in person, who would have been competent to question whether corroborative / physical / forensic evidence was necessary? The didn't have such dogs in PT, so there would have been no precedent.
I found it a little manic...with so many points raised....difficult to know where to start ..dont take offence...some of the most interesting people I know are quite manic
Yes so many points. I should have just stuck to the one, had I known you would be so confused. I took no offence I wouldn't know how to.
I was just showing off. calling you and your mod supporters who are easily offended, about a little ikey bity hypocrisy.
sheesh.
Still a bit manic for meaningful discussion
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.Bet you don't think the questions so simple now. (&^&
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
could you provide a cite for your meaningful discussions on this board. yeah just one.
Alice, you do know someone, somewhere is going to tell you the dogs can't give evidence.. even after all you have typed. hahaha
Bet you don't think the questions so simple now. (&^&
Yes, Yes I do.This is not too far from the truth first time round, only it was the PT authorities utilising the PT press to point the big arrow at them.
I think they'd take every available opportunity to stress the fact.
They'd make it front page on every paper & hire a mobile billboard, there'd be a picture of Kate & Gerry on it, with a big arrow pointed right at them, above that would be flashing neon lights spelling out 'suspects'.
This is not too far from the truth first time round, only it was the PT authorities utilising the PT press to point the big arrow at them.
Allegedly.The Portuguese press was continually being fed stories during the months leading up to the McCanns being made arguidos. Do you think they simply made them up themselves or were they being tipped off, in your opinion?
The Portuguese press was continually being fed stories during the months leading up to the McCanns being made arguidos. Do you think they simply made them up themselves or were they being tipped off, in your opinion?
I don't have the evidence needed to form an opinion. Journalists frequently quote anonymous 'sources' which can't be checked. Some people wrongly believed that Martin Smith had changed his evidence thanks to unreliable reporting.Some people wrongly believed that Martin Smith had changed his evidence thanks to unreliable reporting. that is opinion.
I don't have the evidence needed to form an opinion. Journalists frequently quote anonymous 'sources' which can't be checked. Some people wrongly believed that Martin Smith had changed his evidence thanks to unreliable reporting.Here's some evidence, from a Portuguese journalist
Some people wrongly believed that Martin Smith had changed his evidence thanks to unreliable reporting. that is opinion.
Martin Smith gave a direct quote to the Mirror on 16th October 2013“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.” Tells me nothing for we don't know what he "said to the police and the media at the time". Did he tell the PIs he had changed his mind? They aren't in the same subsets as Police and Media. The PIs would be most unlikely to do the E-fits if he was still identifying Gerry IMO.
“The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.
“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Here is an 84 page thread showing how people preferred to believe uncorroborated reports in the media that he had changed his mind.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7062.0
Here's some evidence, from a Portuguese journalist
"However, Jose Manuel Oliveira, who has covered the case since the beginning for the respected daily Diario de Noticias, said: ‘‘Who is responsible for all the information and counterinformation? It’s the police themselves.’’
Under Portuguese secrecy laws, police are forbidden from revealing details of an investigation.
Yet, as they struggle to cope with the whirlwind generated by ‘‘Caso Maddie’’, they have used a series of daily leaks to Portuguese journalists about supposed forensic evidence, diary extracts and tapped phone calls to insinuate that the couple were involved in the disappearance of their own daughter".
Link to follow.
https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-press/20070918/281921653668753
Was it the police or people connected to the police?My second link co firms it was the police. From the horse's mouth.
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
And if you don't trust the word of the Portuguese journalist then perhaps you'll accept the word of a Portuguese policeman?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488887/We-DID-leak-stories-press-Madeleine-Portuguese-cop-confesses.html
So, which were genuinely police leaks and which weren't? Who knows...So, we have ascertained that the Portuguese leaked stories to the PT press, akin to the scenario painted by Wonderfulspam I quoted earlier this evening - imo the police used the papers to, in effect, mount a giant "suspects" arrow above the heads of the McCanns.
Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the Policia Judiciaria, told top Spanish daily El Pais: "There have certainly been leaks but less than what it seems.
"What is clear is that we have to have the calmness to separate the story, the fantasy, from what is the police side of things.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488887/We-DID-leak-stories-press-Madeleine-Portuguese-cop-confesses.html#ixzz59l6Y0MJC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So, we have ascertained that the Portuguese leaked stories to the PT press, akin to the scenario painted by Wonderfulspam I quoted earlier this evening - imo the police used the papers to, in effect, mount a giant "suspects" arrow above the heads of the McCanns.
Some leaks took place according to Rebeiro. The rest of your post is speculation on your part in my opinion.IMO the police used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light.
IMO the police used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light.
IMO the police used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light.
Was it the police or people connected to the police?
JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PG5Wkg4lLvo/hqdefault.jpg)
In my opinion there was only one aim in the constant press onslaught directed against the McCanns ... starting with "A Badly Told Story" in the 'golden hours' ... and in my opinion it had the potential to be spectacularly successful.
Posting an opinion is one thing. Claiming as fact that the Portuguese police 'used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light' is another, and is against forum rules as I understand them. Could you perhaps clarify that for me?
I think you have missed the point.(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PG5Wkg4lLvo/hqdefault.jpg)
In my opinion there was only one aim in the constant press onslaught directed against the McCanns ... starting with "A Badly Told Story" in the 'golden hours' ... and in my opinion it had the potential to be spectacularly successful.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9247.msg451528#msg451528
Misrepresenting another member's post is against forum rules and in my opinion that is precisely what you are attempting to do here. DESIST!
I think you have missed the point.
The DN report claims the Portimão PJ leaked.
Presumably the Portimão PJ did leak, unless the DN reporters invented it. I have nothing beyond the DN report to go on with that one, so I am not going to push on this aspect.
IIRC, the UK press had by this point raised jemmied shutters, from a McCann source. Please correct me if my timing is out. Since there were no jemmied shutters, it was indeed a badly told/leaked story.
The question G-Unit is asking is valid. A poster has stated as fact the police were using (manipulating) the Portuguese press. Without wrapping it in an IMO.
It should have been wrapped in an IMO, not stated as a fact.
Unless the said user can show there was intent on the part of the PJ to use (manipulate) the press to convey the McCanns in a negative light.
I think you have missed the point.
The DN report claims the Portimão PJ leaked.
Presumably the Portimão PJ did leak, unless the DN reporters invented it. I have nothing beyond the DN report to go on with that one, so I am not going to push on this aspect.
IIRC, the UK press had by this point raised jemmied shutters, from a McCann source. Please correct me if my timing is out. Since there were no jemmied shutters, it was indeed a badly told/leaked story.
The question G-Unit is asking is valid. A poster has stated as fact the police were using (manipulating) the Portuguese press. Without wrapping it in an IMO.
It should have been wrapped in an IMO, not stated as a fact.
Unless the said user can show there was intent on the part of the PJ to use (manipulate) the press to convey the McCanns in a negative light.
NB ... I am not that "said user"!I know and knew you were not the said user.
Who told the Telegraph there was 100% match? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
It can only be the PJ who were leakingBut we are not allowed to use reason to state that they did this to build up a perception of the McCanns as the guilty parties, in order to put pressure on the couple to confess. We must say there were leaks but who knows why IMO the police leaked? Incompetence? Greed? Malice? Take your pick!
Who told the Telegraph there was 100% match? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
'Sources close to the case' ' a source close to the Portuguese investigation'. Not close enough to 'leak' the truth, it seems;
A sample that was a full match to Madeleine's DNA was allegedly found on the windowsill of the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
I wonder who told them this?
Social workers were expected to visit the family home in the village of Rothley this week to assess whether the children were being cared for properly and whether they had been in any way traumatised by the events of the past four months.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
'Sources close to the case' ' a source close to the Portuguese investigation'. Not close enough to 'leak' the truth, it seems;Who, apart from the police, would be in a position to leak sensitive information about DNA to the media? Who, within the PJ, do we know who has a very shaky understanding of the DNA results, as demonstrated in numerous interviews afterwards?
A sample that was a full match to Madeleine's DNA was allegedly found on the windowsill of the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
I wonder who told them this?
Social workers were expected to visit the family home in the village of Rothley this week to assess whether the children were being cared for properly and whether they had been in any way traumatised by the events of the past four months.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
The source was close enough to reveal what the PJ thought... Who else thought there was a 100% matchWe already know the PJ leaked, they admitted it themselves so why it should be considered unlikely that they leaked this information is really quite puzzling.
But we are not allowed to use reason to state that they did this to build up a perception of the McCanns as the guilty parties, in order to put pressure on the couple to confess. We must say there were leaks but who knows why IMO the police leaked? Incompetence? Greed? Malice? Take your pick!
You have just told me it's not proof the PJ were leaking yet you cannot come up with an alternative source.. So it's, proofThe debate was not about Martin Brunt, nor whether the PJ was leaking. You appear to be deflecting.
Just make it clear that it's your opinion. Unless you can prove that it was a deliberate strategy used by the PJ? Unless you can, it could a) be someone other than a police officer and b) be due to any of the motives you have listed.
The debate was not about Martin Brunt, nor whether the PJ was leaking. You appear to be deflecting.
The source was close enough to reveal what the PJ thought... Who else thought there was a 100% match
The fact that the claim to a complete match was pretty well identical to what Amaral claimed is proof the leak came from the PJ... Unless you can come up with a realistic source to counter my claim
Do you have a cite that the PJ thought there was a 100% match?
Cite?
'Sources close to the case' ' a source close to the Portuguese investigation'. Not close enough to 'leak' the truth, it seems;
A sample that was a full match to Madeleine's DNA was allegedly found on the windowsill of the McCanns' apartment at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
I wonder who told them this?
Social workers were expected to visit the family home in the village of Rothley this week to assess whether the children were being cared for properly and whether they had been in any way traumatised by the events of the past four months.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
Just make it clear that it's your opinion. Unless you can prove that it was a deliberate strategy used by the PJ? Unless you can, it could a) be someone other than a police officer and b) be due to any of the motives you have listed.IMO the fact that there was no interest on the part of the PJ in trying to establish who was doing the leaking tells me all I need to know, coupled with the verbatim admission from the head of the PJ that they were leaking - it very much stands to reason IMO that it WAS leaked by the police IMO. As for their motives: malice, incompetence, greed or all three, it does not paint a pretty picture of how the PJ behaved towards the family of a missing child IMO.
Who told the Telegraph there was 100% match? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
I agree, and...?
Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
I agree, and...?
It clearly answers the nonsense of the 100% match,the press make it up as they go along.
It clearly answers the nonsense of the 100% match,the press make it up as they go along.so the PJ did not believe there was a DNA match for Madeleine?
so the PJ did not believe there was a DNA match for Madeleine?
In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects.
It matters not,what matters is what SY have to say,they have been resolutely silent since Redwood on what is going on.Have you not heard what Rowley has had to say
Have you not heard what Rowley has had to say
It matters not,what matters is what SY have to say,they have been resolutely silent since Redwood on what is going on.Sorry I thought we were discussing the source of leaks to the Portuguese media? Obviously the PJ did believe the DNA results proved it was Madeleine as Amaral himself states in an interview, so do you believe it is pure coincidence that the media also claimed the DNA was Madeleine's and that there was no leaking at all?
2014 was the last time there was any action seen by officers from OG,with Rowley having this to say.
Yes,he said nothing.
Rowley:We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects.
is there a quote from anyone in the PJ saying there was a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA yet?Amaral says in his book the preliminary results had 96% reliability, I also quoted him above stating the DNA in the car belonged to Madeleien, no equivocation. IMO he was convinced by the preliminary report and believed subsequent report was the subject of some sort of sinister interference. IMO.
In this fast moving forum the topic of debate evolves...so do you deny the PJ were leakingThe OP is
DNA tests on samples taken from the car proved inconclusive, but the Portuguese police wrongly told journalists they were a “100 per cent match” for Madeleine.That article is replete with errors.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
is there a quote from anyone in the PJ saying there was a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA yet?
Not directly, at the time, that I can remember.Astounding! IMO.
In GA's frozen cadaver exclusive interview, IMO, that reads to me as if he's stating as fact that her "residues" were definitely in the boot, and it would have required a full match to come to that "we policement, experts" opinion.
Correio da Manha - What do you think happened to the body?
Gonçalo Amaral “Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.
Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.
CdM 24 July 2008
Everyone claimed to have inside information, but they clearly didn't.What is the point of this post? The PJ have admitted leaking to the press, do you dispute this?
The tiny traces of blood - invisible to the naked eye - were found at a low height on the wall in the bedroom of the McCann holiday apartment at the Ocean Club.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/TELEGRAPH2_06_08_2007.htm
TRACES of Madeleine McCann's blood have been discovered in the bedroom of the holiday flat where she was last seen, according to reports in a Portuguese newspaper.
It was also reported that attempts had been made to wipe away any sign of the blood.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/SCOTSMAN_06_08_2007.htm
Intercepted telephone calls and emails between the McCanns and their friends have "confirmed the death of Madeleine" say police, according to one Portuguese newspaper today.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/FIRSTPOST_08_08_2007.htm
Aerobics instructor Najoua Chekaya was chatting with Gerry and Kate McCann and their friends when Madeleine, then three, vanished from the family's Algarve apartment in Praia da Luz.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Aerobics_instructor.htm
OLICE hunting for missing Madeleine McCann discovered a syringe in her parents’ bedroom, it was dramatically claimed last night
In the latest slur against Kate and Gerry McCann, the hypodermic needle was allegedly found in a cupboard at the apartment where their daughter vanished.
According to reports in the Portuguese press, police are examining the theory that the needle could have been used by Madeleine's parents -both doctors - to administer sedatives to their children to help them sleep.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/express-30-08-07.htm
Astounding! IMO.Doesn't mean GA was wrong.
Everyone claimed to have inside information, but they clearly didn't.I have a feeling that each one of these leaks were explained in another way in the end. How many of them were proven true factually in the end?
The tiny traces of blood - invisible to the naked eye - were found at a low height on the wall in the bedroom of the McCann holiday apartment at the Ocean Club.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/TELEGRAPH2_06_08_2007.htm
TRACES of Madeleine McCann's blood have been discovered in the bedroom of the holiday flat where she was last seen, according to reports in a Portuguese newspaper.
It was also reported that attempts had been made to wipe away any sign of the blood.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/SCOTSMAN_06_08_2007.htm
Intercepted telephone calls and emails between the McCanns and their friends have "confirmed the death of Madeleine" say police, according to one Portuguese newspaper today.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/FIRSTPOST_08_08_2007.htm
Aerobics instructor Najoua Chekaya was chatting with Gerry and Kate McCann and their friends when Madeleine, then three, vanished from the family's Algarve apartment in Praia da Luz.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Aerobics_instructor.htm
OLICE hunting for missing Madeleine McCann discovered a syringe in her parents’ bedroom, it was dramatically claimed last night
In the latest slur against Kate and Gerry McCann, the hypodermic needle was allegedly found in a cupboard at the apartment where their daughter vanished.
According to reports in the Portuguese press, police are examining the theory that the needle could have been used by Madeleine's parents -both doctors - to administer sedatives to their children to help them sleep.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/express-30-08-07.htm
What is the point of this post? The PJ have admitted leaking to the press, do you dispute this?
What is the point of this post? The PJ have admitted leaking to the press, do you dispute this?
Some of the leaks, not all. The stories I have linked to were all completely untrue. I expect some conspiracy theorists think that was part of some evil plan hatched by the PJ, but in my opinion that doesn't make sense. My opinion is that a lot of the stories quoting 'police sources' said that just to add credence to their nonsense.IMO. It may not make sense to you but you have no way of knowing whether or not the police were, on top of leaking genuine information to the press, also feeding them a load of misinformation, either out of malice, greed, xenophobia, revenge, a desire to break down their chief suspects,who knows. Plenty of motives when you think about it.
DNA tests on samples taken from the car proved inconclusive, but the Portuguese police wrongly told journalists they were a “100 per cent match” for Madeleine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
The police didn't do the DNA analyses, that effort was undertaken by the discredited Forensic Science Service in England. We know that they were telling the Portuguese one thing but failing to later back it up.
Doesn't mean GA was wrong.
Some of the leaks, not all. The stories I have linked to were all completely untrue. I expect some conspiracy theorists think that was part of some evil plan hatched by the PJ, but in my opinion that doesn't make sense. My opinion is that a lot of the stories quoting 'police sources' said that just to add credence to their nonsense.
This is what matters.
Rowley:
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead.
The OP was this:
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.
If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
Even replying may now seem OT.
Personally, I find that it would have gone less OT if Faith had offered more than a binary response.
Yes
No
Maybe
Other
Explain why according to your selection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTe4lHLlcsThere may well be other reasons for the police to give information to the press... Not just because they may benefit from it.... And I see no reason that the police simply stated the mccanns we're not suspects due to all the previous unfair speculation in portugal
The first ten minutes of this video shows the consequences of revealing one's intentions in advance and why it is a really dumb idea. In boxing terms it's known as "telegraphing your punches".
"The police and the media? . IMO the police use the media to their own ends and don't much care about how they go about it within limits. They will cast a little bread upon the water to see what comes up/back that is beneficial to them [the police]; overall a kind of symbiotic mutualism".
I doubt police forces send out subliminal messages as a conscious tactic.
In summary:
1 To reveal one's full intentions in advance imo is dumb and likely to lead to rapid failure.
2 IMO opinion the police will give info to the press if they feel they, the police, will benefit from it . The question is the level of reliability/exclusivity of the info imparted by the police. Bearing in mind the sole object of the press is to sell copy it rather puts the police in the driving seat.
There may well be other reasons for the police to give information to the press... Not just because they may benefit from it.... And I see no reason that the police simply stated the mccanns we're not suspects due to all the previous unfair speculation in portugal
There may well be other reasons for the police to give information to the press... Not just because they may benefit from it.... And I see no reason that the police simply stated the mccanns we're not suspects due to all the previous unfair speculation in portugal
All of which seems to have been repeated by the media in the UK.
Yes, as the PT press was the major source of "news", and I'll add IMO until I find evidence of this again, adding negative adjectives / adverbs / phrases from the usual tabloid drop-down menu ("incredibly", "latest slur", "bungling"........) was a fig leaf for a legal grey area in terms of reporting on a foreign investigation involving UK nationals.
You have to agree that the McCanns or their representatives briefing the press against the PJ and, I believe from Bilton, Murat didn’t help ?It is unacceptable to give opinion as fact and then disguise it as a question when it isn't even a question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTe4lHLlcs
The first ten minutes of this video shows the consequences of revealing one's intentions in advance and why it is a really dumb idea. In boxing terms it's known as "telegraphing your punches".
"The police and the media? . IMO the police use the media to their own ends and don't much care about how they go about it within limits. They will cast a little bread upon the water to see what comes up/back that is beneficial to them [the police]; overall a kind of symbiotic mutualism".
I doubt police forces send out subliminal messages as a conscious tactic.
In summary:
1 To reveal one's full intentions in advance imo is dumb and likely to lead to rapid failure.
2 IMO opinion the police will give info to the press if they feel they, the police, will benefit from it . The question is the level of reliability/exclusivity of the info imparted by the police. Bearing in mind the sole object of the press is to sell copy it rather puts the police in the driving seat.
You have to agree that the McCanns or their representatives briefing the press against the PJ and, I believe from Bilton, Murat didn’t help ?
I don't understand your question, Faith.
From memory, there was the initial family frenzy of getting the media on board with various garbled versions of facts in the immediate aftermath, and the impression that the GNR/PJ weren't actually doing anything, when in fact they were, with the resources at hand.
That all calmed down once it was established that there was evidence that there was an active investigation.
Zoom on. There was the "gloves off" time around arguidodom, but with a sustained media blitz of supposedly incriminating "leaks" from PT.
Sooo... no, I don't understand your question, particularly with respect to Murat. Could you explain?
Of course. Bilton in the 10th anniversary documentary said he was approached from someone within the McCannk camp asking him basically to dig up information on Murat in exchange, if I remember correctly, for greater access to the McCanns. A dirty trick I’m sure you’ll agree.
As to the McCanns denigrating the PJ we have firstly Gerry using the fellow Smith to get his viewpoint point out and various family members doing the same thing around arguido time to name but two.
Subliminal messages to whom?
If they hadn't been eliminated, the simplest would have been a PR waffly phrase to include all possibilities. Egg-on-face avoidance 101.
The PJ also reopened their investigation, and clearly stated that the McCanns weren't suspects - although I agree that that had been denied in the past just prior to arguidodom - but times have moved on. They could also have stated that they were taking the case back to zero.
The latest update was that the Met is now concentrating on a single outstanding lead.
As it hasn't been divulged what that is, speculation is still rife.
Some may still have "hope" that it's a subliminal message that it's the McCanns "whatdunnit".
I find it far more likely that both forces are still trying to work out the identity of one or more potential offenders in a broader investigation involving a spate of sexual actual/attempted/about to attempt cases in the area at the
time. As I still haven't found anything in the media that would indicate that anyone has been charged with those offences, I find that to be a likely possibility.
And, that may even include whether that or those persons were in the vicinity of Joana's disappearance at the time, for whom there is no evidence that she ever af that which I wrrrived back home that night.
How would I know?.
Having said, however, I do not believe the police do it as a conscious tactic that makes my comment global rather than specific so the answer in the context of that which I writ must be anyone and everyone.
This appears to be the last public comment by The MPS.
[i]Q: There is a chance she may still be alive.
MR: We have to keep an open mind, it is a missing person enquiry, we don’t have that definitive
evidence either way.
Q: How confident are you that you will solve the case?
MR: I wish I could say we will solve this. We solve more than 90 per cent of serious cases at Scotland
Yard. I wish I could say I could definitely solve it but a small number of cases don’t get solved. What I
have always said on this case and I’ve said to Kate and Gerry. We will do everything we can that is
possible to try to find and answer. I hope to find an answer but can’t quite guarantee and as a
professional police officer and dealing with the families in awful situations it always hurts you can’t
guarantee success, but we will do everything we can to try to get there.
Q: How long might it keep going, your investigation?
MR: It is impossible to be exactly clear. We have a small number of ongoing lines of enquiry, they are
critical and we need to deal with those and see how long it takes.
Q: You talk about lines of enquiry because last year the ex-commissioner said there was one piece of
work still to be done and when that was completed that would be the end of the investigation. You are
rather suggesting things have moved on since then and there is more to pursue, is that true?
MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry and that’s what we are focussed on.
Q: But he was the boss and he was quite specific ‘one piece of work to do’, you are saying something
different?
MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry, that is what we are pursuing today.
[/b][/i]
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from
21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.
2017
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
25th April 2017
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
You have to agree that the McCanns or their representatives briefing the press against the PJ and, I believe from Bilton, Murat didn’t help ?
WE have to recall how early on the negative press was directed at the PJ. I believe to deflect responsibility from the 'loving parents' during those first few days when apparently no one was looking for Maddie.
Why do you think they did that?
Perhaps it was a reaction to the negative and untrue things, propaganda, that were being said against the Mccanns?
Perhaps it was to do with the fact that the PJ were reported as only looking for a dead Madeleine?
AIMO
One of the very first reports from PDL from one of the McCann’s friends said the PJ were doing nothing. The propaganda war IMO started right there. Perhaps if the McCanns hadn’t been quite as eager to denigrate the work of the police officers from the start things would have been less nasty.In the early days, I read avidly everything said about The Mccanns and about The PJ. The Mccanns praised the PJ to begin with for a good few weeks, even after the untrue propaganda being put out against them.
In the early days, I read avidly everything said about The Mccanns and about The PJ. The Mccanns praised the PJ to begin with for a good few weeks, even after the untrue propaganda being put out against them.
It must have been dawning upon them that the PJ were not looking for a living Madeleine and were not taking notice of their wishes for an immediate reconstitution and for blood tests on the twins, yet for a long time they publicly praised the PJ. The propaganda must have been bewildering and very hurtful to them, but they silently shouldered it and continued to praise the PJ.
Undoubtedly the mass of the PJ worked really hard, but were they led in the right direction, I wonder?
IMO
Well the propaganda certainly seems to have worked.
The McCanns never asked for a reconstition in the early days or at any other time. A decision was made within the PJ hierarchy that a reconstition would not be feasible. Of course if you have a cite verifying your claim it would clear the matter up.
The McCanns never asked for the PJ to have the twins blood tested. Again if you have a cite for your claim it would be helpful.
Deniability was the watchword of the McCann campaign then as it is now. Always sending ‘a source’, ‘a pal’ or their spokesperson to do their dirty work meant the McCanns could say what they liked without getting their hands dirty.
Have you ever walked in her shoes?
Indeed. I have long suspected that the parents were concerned about their reputations from 1st moment, and went straight into the nasty world of blaming and demolishing everyone and anyone who even tired to discuss other theories, or offer help which didn't include money making ideas. which I find very strange -as a mother I would want ALL and very theory looked at. AND as I work in health I would automatically expect to be a suspect of some wrong doing AND being the person who I am, I would be disgusted with myself with self hating for years for letting my beautiful 3 years old daughter be........
Have you ever walked in her shoes?
Is it necessary to go through the same set of circumstances as someone to know how you would react yourself? I don't think so.Well people can behave differently when actually faced with a crisis, than what they might have imagined they would.
Is it necessary to go through the same set of circumstances as someone to know how you would react yourself? I don't think so.
I disagree.
One can imagine, think, assume how one would react if being in the same circumstance to someone experiencing a tragic\ traumatic event but the reality of dealing with the trauma/ tragedy may present in one not having the same decisive, level headed reactions as one might have anticipated.
Well the propaganda certainly seems to have worked.what "dirty work" specifically are you accusing the McCanns of delagating?
The McCanns never asked for a reconstition in the early days or at any other time. A decision was made within the PJ hierarchy that a reconstition would not be feasible. Of course if you have a cite verifying your claim it would clear the matter up.
The McCanns never asked for the PJ to have the twins blood tested. Again if you have a cite for your claim it would be helpful.
Deniability was the watchword of the McCann campaign then as it is now. Always sending ‘a source’, ‘a pal’ or their spokesperson to do their dirty work meant the McCanns could say what they liked without getting their hands dirty.
I disagree.
One can imagine, think, assume how one would react if being in the same circumstance to someone experiencing a tragic\ traumatic event but the reality of dealing with the trauma/ tragedy may present in one not having the same decisive, level headed reactions as one might have anticipated.
It's not about reacting to trauma, it's about the guilt a parent feels if their choices harm their child.
The sad fact is that parents can make wrong choices which do result in their child coming to harm.
How awful it must be for those parents.
There's a big difference between making a wrong choice and abject stupidity imho.
There's a big difference between making a wrong choice and abject stupidity imho.The law exists to punish those who make criminally bad or stupid decisions. In this case legally speaking the McCanns actions were neither. That being said what in your opinion is the difference between a wrong choice and and abject stupidity?
The law exists to punish those who make criminally bad or stupid decisions. In this case legally speaking the McCanns actions were neither. That being said what in your opinion is the difference between a wrong choice and and abject stupidity?
Well let's see... *%87 there's going out night after night leaving three toddlers alone in an unlocked apartment for starters.
There was a recent case here where an English tourist decided to go out for a walk in Glencoe. Sadly for her, she made a wrong decision but for some it was abject stupidity!
The result of her wrong decision/abject stupidity resulted in the mountain rescue having to be called in, at heavens knows what expense and tragically she was found dead.
Wrong decision versus abject stupidity ?
I prefer to think that at the moment she decided to go for a walk she felt it was safe to do so.
Whichever it was subsequent feelings of guilt don't come into the equation.
There was a recent case here where an English tourist decided to go out for a walk in Glencoe. Sadly for her, she made a wrong decision but for some it was abject stupidity!
The result of her wrong decision/abject stupidity resulted in the mountain rescue having to be called in, at heavens knows what expense and tragically she was found dead.
Wrong decision versus abject stupidity ?
I prefer to think that at the moment she decided to go for a walk she felt it was safe to do so.
Well let's see... *%87 there's going out night after night leaving three toddlers alone in an unlocked apartment for starters and even when one of the children alerted to the fact that they were awake and howling for daddy.I know what they did, that wasn't the question I asked though.
I know what they did, that wasn't the question I asked though.Ask the question again please.
Ask the question again please.Please see post #296
Please see post #296The law exists to punish those who make criminally bad or stupid decisions. In this case legally speaking the McCanns actions were neither. That being said what in your opinion is the difference between a wrong choice and and abject stupidity?
The law exists to punish those who make criminally bad or stupid decisions. In this case legally speaking the McCanns actions were neither. That being said what in your opinion is the difference between a wrong choice and and abject stupidity?
Someone's opinion.
Is it necessary to go through the same set of circumstances as someone to know how you would react yourself? I don't think so.
Abject stupidity is when you make the same mistake over and over again - IMO
its all opinion so of value only to the person whose opinion it is...I have total sympathy for the whole mccann fammily and for any family who have sufferred loss.What about Goncalo Amaral's family after he lost his job?
I do. How can you possible have any conception otherwise?
I can only guess of how I would feel if one of my children had been abducted. But that is only initially. Long term is completely beyond me, so I don't go there.
Have you ever walked in her shoes?
What about Goncalo Amaral's family after he lost his job?
He wasn't obliged to write his book about the McCanns & he resigned from the PJ as opposed to losing his job.
He wasn't obliged to write his book about the McCanns & he resigned from the PJ as opposed to losing his job.
Nobody has been obliged to write a book about this, but they did
It began with 'no evidence' that she had been harmed. I think someone must have pointed out that she must have suffered mentally if not physically, so it then became 'no evidence' of physical harm.
Coming to "harm" or to "serious harm" can be a euphemism.Was euphemism the right word?
Was euphemism the right word?
"euphemism
noun
a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
"the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts"
synonyms: polite term, substitute, mild alternative, indirect term, understatement, underplaying, softening, politeness, genteelism, coy term
"‘professional foul’ is just a euphemism for cheating""
Yes. Many adults would understand, but kids could be watching their TV appeals as well.OK you got me there. I don't follow you.
Yes. Many adults would understand, but kids could be watching their TV appeals as well.
Yes. Many adults would understand, but kids could be watching their TV appeals as well.
This pre- dates the Brunt report by some 4 days.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id71.htm
Final report not yet sent to Portugal Gazeta Digital
6.9.07
Portuguese TV crew creates panic in Birmingham
The final report of the analysis being made at Forensic Science Service (FSS), the British Police laboratory in Birmingham, wasn't yet sent to Portugal. Only some partial results were sent and Portuguese CID received it today, September 5. The British Police laboratory has been sending some partial results to the Portuguese authorities since the second week of August, as The Times referred, in August 16.
Meanwhile, a Portuguese TV crew that was recording in front of FSS building, in Birmingham, was threatened and Police was called, by the private security of FSS. Tiago Contreiras, from RTP, was warned first, by a security element that "he should leave the place, immediately, for security reasons, as that area was off-limits for journalists". When the journalist questioned that order, somebody who introduced herself as the laboratory director, talking in a "very aggressive way", as Tiago Contreiras told, threatened the journalists, saying that if he didn't moved from that place immediately he would face some unpleasant consequences.
A police car came to the place but the policemen remain inside and took no action. Inside the FSS building, there was total panic. As soon as a foreign TV crew was spotted, internal security gave orders to close all the windows and the building's entry was blocked, with orders to not allow anyone to go out or come inside.
The TV crew has an interview scheduled wit Madeleine's grandmother but, after this episode, the McCann family Press Office called Tiago Contreiras and cancelled the interview.
Paulo Reis with Duarte Levy in Birmingham
======================================================================
The reference of Mr. Levy about we, both having access to a FSS report signed by "more than ten FSS professionals" is completly false and was done after I cut all relations with him.
The reference of Mr. Levy about we, both having access to a FSS report signed by "more than ten FSS professionals" is completly false and was done after I cut all relations with him.