UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 02:23:58 PM

Title: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 02:23:58 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 11, 2018, 03:15:05 PM
No
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 03:17:03 PM
No

I don’t think so either jassi. In fact I think the idea that anyone would think that they would frankly ridiculous.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 11, 2018, 03:30:53 PM
No other takers, I see. Still, early days  8(0(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 11, 2018, 03:31:54 PM

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'.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 03:41:24 PM
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'.

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Eleanor on March 11, 2018, 03:47:37 PM

I thought that this was going to be a serious Thread.  Silly me.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 03:48:48 PM
I thought that this was going to be a serious Thread.  Silly me.

It is. Your thoughts Eleanor ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 11, 2018, 03:52:10 PM
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 ?

Would they have denied it, as they did? As opposed to something waffly such as "all leads of enquiry are still being pursued" ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 11, 2018, 03:53:52 PM

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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 04:02:30 PM
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 think they may have learnt their lesson, back in 2014,there were leaks about imminent arrest's early in the year , arguido status for three or four locals later on,rather tellingly since Wall became lead dci nada,its been left to the likes of Rowley who will not comment nor confirm one way or the other if they think Madeleine is alive or dead.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 04:03:21 PM
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?

Bilton tracked them down,interfereing in an ongoing enquiry?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 04:06:01 PM
Would they have denied it, as they did? As opposed to something waffly such as "all leads of enquiry are still being pursued" ?

What else could they have done ?

Can you imagine the scenario.......are the McCanns and their friends suspects ? ........all leads of enquiry are still being pursued"
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 11, 2018, 04:22:12 PM
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.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 04:46:32 PM
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.

It never advanced it,or if it did it ruled out the burglar gone wrong rubbish imo.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 04:50:43 PM
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.

Sauces say it was to protect the Arguidos.


Quote
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.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10942089/Madeleine-McCann-suspects-questioning-leads-to-no-new-developments.html
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 11, 2018, 04:55:08 PM
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 ?

It always pays to announce your intentions, you then have the element of surprise on your side.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2018, 05:49:30 PM
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 ?
Yes  - For if they were investigating the McCanns when they say they are not no one is going to trust SY ever again.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 05:58:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2018, 06:18:39 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 11, 2018, 06:25:55 PM
But didn't they say they are not looking at the parents etc?

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 11, 2018, 10:16:42 PM
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 ?
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 11, 2018, 10:45:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 08:06:59 AM
Hard to know without more information.
Why wasn't that an option when you were asking the questions?!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 12, 2018, 08:51:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 09:12:35 AM
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...
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 09:27:00 AM
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...

What other answer to the question could there be, other than yes or no?

Maybe? Maybe not?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 12, 2018, 09:32:36 AM
The OP asked for a simple yes/no answer. Those unhappy with that needn't answer.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 09:33:33 AM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 09:34:10 AM
The OP asked for a simple yes/no answer. Those unhappy with that needn't answer.

Or we can answer withe answer of ourchoice
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 09:44:20 AM
Or we can answer withe answer of ourchoice

Which would still amount to either a yes or no really wouldn't it.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 09:56:08 AM
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.

I find it interesting that, apparently, the PJ didn't consider the burglars as suspects, yet SY did.

Other than the dead black guy, just who are or have been the PJ's suspects? They don't seem to have leaked anything.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 12, 2018, 10:11:43 AM
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 ?

For obvious reasons the answer is NO.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 10:18:29 AM
I don't think they would answer the question

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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Eleanor on March 12, 2018, 10:22:08 AM
For obvious reasons the answer is NO.

In which case this Thread is rather pointless, don't you think.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 10:23:22 AM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 10:28:28 AM
He would simply say he was unwilling to answer any questions Re suspects... Has his answer reduced speculation

Martin Brunt still needed persuading, for some reason, as was evident in his interview with Rowley.

I can't quite understand why Brunt remained sceptical, given that Redwood had made his not suspect statement previously.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 10:31:09 AM
He would simply say he was unwilling to answer any questions Re suspects... Has his answer reduced speculation

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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 12, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 10:41:05 AM
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.

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?

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 12, 2018, 10:46:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 12, 2018, 10:58:58 AM
I think the same could be said about every thread here.

It's all just hot air & none of it will bring Maddie back.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Could we be related ?   @)(++(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 11:02:20 AM
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?

If they were suspects... Yes
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 12, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
In which case this Thread is rather pointless, don't you think.

Most threads only become interesting when off topic posts appear. I have restricted myself to answering the question asked, but I expect others won't.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 11:05:05 AM
I couldn't have put it better myself.

Could we be related ?   @)(++(*

There were times I thought he was my son!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 11:08:31 AM
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?

In the transcript of his "famous" interview he laboured that specific point.
I sometimes wonder if folk realise what a button labelled "Download Entire Document Here" means !
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2018, 11:15:12 AM
"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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 11:15:30 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 11:20:57 AM
"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?

But as you know Carana this isn’t a normal case.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: John on March 12, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
"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 have to agree with the waffly answer because that is what police say when they are up a blind alley and facing a brick wall.  There are only a handful of possibilities in this case yet it is clear that neither the PJ nor the Met have been able to whittle them down.  I don't personally hold with the theories that the parents had a direct criminal involvement in Madeleine's disappearance but events post disappearance do leave me with serious concerns.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: misty on March 12, 2018, 11:31:40 AM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: John on March 12, 2018, 11:36:25 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 12:07:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 12, 2018, 12:18:47 PM
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?

Why would SY use its own budget when it could use someone else's ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 12:28:23 PM
Because the Portuguese have primacy.

I really think posters are in total denial if they think the McCann's are, still being investigated
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: misty on March 12, 2018, 12:38:35 PM
Why would SY use its own budget when it could use someone else's ?

So if the McCanns were still suspects, it would be in SY's interests to wait for Portugal to issue ILORs so PJ detectives could re-question the Tapas 9 in the UK.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 12:45:47 PM
"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 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"

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 12:58:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 12, 2018, 01:14:01 PM
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 denial is more accurate..
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 12, 2018, 01:34:16 PM
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.

Rowley has his hands full with the latest botch in Salisbury.  The mind boggles as to how many people have come into contact with the nerve agent before they secured the area properly.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2018, 02:11:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 03:02:16 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 03:34:12 PM
I think denial is more accurate..

You believe Mr Rowley is in denial of something ?
Tell us more.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2018, 03:43:13 PM
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.

John, I agree with most of that, although "any amount of money" seems a bit OTT to me.

A budget presumably has to be presented and approved, even if there is a percentage for contingencies. Most of the donkey work has been apparently been done now, and I presume that that means that available info has been entered into the database, sifted, whatever can be eliminated has been... and so staff time is now vastly reduced.

However this was packaged ("Madeleine), there are still the other kids who were sexually abused, or on the verge of, in that neck of the woods. They deserve answers as well.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 03:45:13 PM
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.

Jeez Carana are you one of they/them ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2018, 03:45:26 PM
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 ?

Perhaps to see if there was anything new to report?

Even if there isn't, it still fills a few lines to say that there isn't (plus a blurb of copy/paste of history).
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:31:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:33:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:35:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:37:42 PM
Because the Portuguese have primacy.
How much funds are the Portuguese requesting to investigate the McCanns? 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 12, 2018, 06:41:06 PM
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.

At least the Portuguese can't be blamed for that one.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:41:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 06:44:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:50:14 PM
Until the McCanns were charged not one newspaper editor would dare touch a story like that with a barge pole.
Tell me why not?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 06:57:33 PM
Tell me why not?

Don’t be silly sir. Imagine if the investigation came to nothing.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 06:58:49 PM
Don’t be silly sir. Imagine if the investigation came to nothing.
And...?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 07:10:43 PM
And...?

21 posts and over half directed at me. Old habits eh  8(0(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 07:15:26 PM
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 07:22:17 PM
What is the meaning of this post?  Can you not answer my question, alternatively if you cannot then simply choose not to respond forthwith.

Then I won’t  ?{)(**
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: kizzy on March 12, 2018, 07:25:41 PM
And...?

And what, lol
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2018, 07:27:59 PM
Jeez Carana are you one of they/them ?

Lol. Do you disagree with what I said?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 08:03:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 12, 2018, 08:07:40 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 09:01:42 PM
So is that a YES then ?
I have already answered the question if you read back.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 09:13:24 PM
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.

Just muse on what has happened to the BBC over the Cliff Richard debacle. No charge, a huge libel payout.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 12, 2018, 09:15:59 PM
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.

Reiterate? Isn't that the first time I've seen 'proof' mentioned?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
That is your perogative.

Just muse on what has happened to the BBC over the Cliff Richard debacle. No charge, a huge libel payout.
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 09:31:07 PM
Reiterate? Isn't that the first time I've seen 'proof' mentioned?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 09:36:17 PM
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?

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 arguidos
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 12, 2018, 09:37:14 PM
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 09:43:21 PM
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 arguidos
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 09:47:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 10:00:24 PM
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?

Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.html

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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 12, 2018, 10:05:35 PM
Lol. Do you disagree with what I said?

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:06:17 PM
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.html

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 ?
That 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:16:24 PM
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.html

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 ?
Well here's one for a start
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-473408/Mystery-Madeleine-parents-secret-emails-intercepted-police.html
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:20:39 PM
Here you go https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561796/McCanns-sue-paper-to-defend-reputations.html

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 12, 2018, 10:26:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:31:26 PM
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.   
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:37:30 PM
On 7th August the Independent ran a headline "Madeleine's parents are suspects", link no longer works but is referred to at the bottom of this page
https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports:_Parents_of_missing_girl_Madeleine_McCann_are_suspects_in_her_disappearance
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 10:39:45 PM
And here's another
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-477801/Madeleine-Now-Portuguese-press-claims-scent-corpse-McCanns-keys.html

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.

Was it after these reports that Olegario Sousa said the McCanns were not suspects ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 12, 2018, 10:40:40 PM
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.

Quote
Madeleine: Now Portuguese press claims scent of corpse was found on McCann's keys

Quote
Mystery of Madeleine parents' secret emails 'intercepted by police'
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 10:45:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 11:00:34 PM
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.

It was clear the McCanns were going to be questioned again. It had been from the beginning of August.

So what if the press know nothing ? Why do you think they keep asking the same question ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 11:13:49 PM
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.

Was it after these reports that Olegario Sousa said the McCanns were not suspects ?
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 11:17:05 PM
It was clear the McCanns were going to be questioned again. It had been from the beginning of August.

So what if the press know nothing ? Why do you think they keep asking the same question ?
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 12, 2018, 11:22:40 PM
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? 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 12, 2018, 11:48:38 PM
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?

So you believe that if the McCanns were being investigated Rowley would admit it ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 13, 2018, 06:58:26 AM
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?
Edit (IMO) added.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 07:32:47 AM
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?
Edit (IMO) added.
"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.

Is it a sign of a major failing not to so?  is the question.

"if through the lack of reporting its indicative of the McCanns not being interviewed by SY"  That is some sort of condition. 
If [the condition is met] then Is it a sign of a major failing not to so?  Still an unanswerable question for the answer feeds back into the condition.  In coding that would be called a circular argument, and was not allowed.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2018, 08:08:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2018, 08:10:03 AM
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?
Edit (IMO) added.
It would be a major failing if, having reviewed all the evidence, the police felt there was any possibility that the McCanns were responsible. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 13, 2018, 09:05:49 AM

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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:35:03 AM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 13, 2018, 09:41:15 AM
It seems that is exactly  what has happened  so you need to ask SY

Since that isn't possible, I am asking members here what they think there might be.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 13, 2018, 09:48:20 AM
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.

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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 13, 2018, 09:53:42 AM
It seems that is exactly  what has happened  so you need to ask SY

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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 10:24:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 10:27:17 AM
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

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.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 10:33:58 AM
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 ?

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 10:42:14 AM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 13, 2018, 10:49:47 AM
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 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 13, 2018, 10:51:03 AM
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 agree. There is no evidence which shows their innocence.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 13, 2018, 10:53:55 AM
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 doubt we shall ever know.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 10:55:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 13, 2018, 10:57:15 AM
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

And yet the journalists keep asking.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 13, 2018, 10:58:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 11:03:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 13, 2018, 11:05:20 AM
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.

And we were all lead to believe that they were an incompetent bunch of country yokels who couldn’t run a brothel never mind an investigation. Just goes to show !
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 13, 2018, 11:06:37 AM
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.

If that were true then that would fly in the face of the publicly known evidence and that revealed by Goncalo Amaral which indicated that nobody entered 5a via the bedroom window.  Add to this the evidence provided by two tracker dogs and abduction appears a remote possibility.  I for one would love to know how SY explain this all away in favour of an abduction.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Wonderfulspam on March 13, 2018, 01:13:15 PM
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.

I suppose you must imagine that Kate answered all questions put to her during this top secret examination, which has never been reported by anyone.

Maybe she explained how she searched the wardrobe & looked out of the open window.

It must have annoyed her a bit though, given this was time wasted which would be better spent looking for Maddie.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 01:14:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 01:25:31 PM
I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 02:01:26 PM
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

Therein lies the rub.
Unless you have been into the Portuguese archive to read the files which are there, you know only that which has been spoonfed to you by the press/media/tinternet.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 02:06:30 PM
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

So?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 13, 2018, 02:12:35 PM
Maybe if we had all the information it would be far more than half the forum   ?{)(**
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 02:22:55 PM
I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 13, 2018, 04:47:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 13, 2018, 04:49:19 PM
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.

IYO
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2018, 05:27:55 PM
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 ?
I have answered your question on this I think twice already.  My opinion has not changed in thr intervening hours.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2018, 05:31:55 PM
And yet the journalists keep asking.
That's their job.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 05:37:43 PM
That's their job.
What the job of a journalist?  So can you give me an example please?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 05:44:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 05:53:38 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 06:01:58 PM
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 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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 13, 2018, 06:02:37 PM
IYO

Please be specific and differentiate what you consider to be opinion as opposed to fact in the post you complain about.
Thank you.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 13, 2018, 06:26:15 PM
Please be specific and differentiate what you consider to be opinion as opposed to fact in the post you complain about.
Thank you.

Most of it.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 07:10:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 13, 2018, 07:26:26 PM
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.

Talking of Grime's boss, it would be fascinating to know what Mr McCann had to say to him;

I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm



Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
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

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(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 07:42:33 PM
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 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

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2018, 07:43:16 PM
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(*

I agree with the bit in bold. That was also a consideration in the Shannon debrief (you don't actually have to know that much about the case, just a skim will flag the media issues).

I find the debriefs interesting as they give an insight into police strategy, although obviously couched in the inevitable diplobabbly consultancyspeak.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 07:47:53 PM
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..
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 08:00:49 PM
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
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 08:03:54 PM
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.

the  fact that they cannot be relied upon without corroboration..makes them....unreliable...both grime and Harrison use the words ...no reliability....
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 13, 2018, 08:16:43 PM
What the job of a journalist?  So can you give me an example please?
What are you asking for exactly? 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 08:35:37 PM
deleted
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 09:22:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:25:34 PM
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 simple
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 13, 2018, 09:26:58 PM
the initial alert has no evidential value ...thats none...zero ....without corroboration....th corroboration is what is mportant...it really is quite simple
Well if I understand it correctly they work hand in hand.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 13, 2018, 09:28:20 PM
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

Witnesses in court are questioned by both prosecution and defence. Judges and Juries then decide what value their evidence has, not the witnesses.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:30:13 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:32:51 PM
Witnesses in court are questioned by both prosecution and defence. Judges and Juries then decide what value their evidence has, not the witnesses.

you raelly do not understand the alert evidence,...the whole point is the dogs cannot be cross examined
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 09:38:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:41:43 PM
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.

cite....dont get VRD confused with the scent of death alerts
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 13, 2018, 09:49:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 09:59:11 PM
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 have claimed...

Grimes opinion ws that the alers were triggered by cadaver

that the dogs were scientifically tested

the alerts in the gilroy case have be corroborated..


there is no evidence to support any of these claims so im not surprised you wish to give up
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 13, 2018, 10:03:08 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 10:05:22 PM
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.

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!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 13, 2018, 10:08:14 PM
getting a bit manic!!!!!!!!!

Well go lie down in a dark room...
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 10:11:50 PM
Well go lie down in a dark room...

Im referring to you dear
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 13, 2018, 10:15:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 10:18:22 PM

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.

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2018, 10:30:38 PM
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.

OK lets play “What Would Have Happened If The Titanic Had Radar”!

1)The expert witness submits a report to the court to whom he has strict obligations . He does not of necessity have to appear in court in UK. What Germanic Law says I do not know.

The CPS says:
The first question for prosecutors to consider is always going to be:
Is expert evidence needed in this case? If a bench or jury is going to be able to decide upon the case by listening to or viewing the evidence and bringing to bear their own senses, knowledge and experience, then no expert is needed. In many cases, prosecutors can prove the point in issue by reference to other evidence where unnecessary use of experts may result in confusion.

And:
Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states that an expert's report is admissible as evidence of fact and opinion, whether or not the expert attends court to give oral evidence, but if it is not proposed to call the expert witness, the leave of the court must obtained prior to introducing it.
and:

For expert opinion to be admissible it must be able to provide the court with information which is likely to be outside a judge’s or a jury's knowledge and experience, but it must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions.

The role of the expert is to give their opinion based on their analysis of the available evidence. The Bench or jury is not bound by that opinion, but can  take it into consideration in determining the facts in issue.
If the expert is seeking to advance an opinion which is not relevant to an issue in the case or which might be deemed a matter of common sense upon which the jury could reach its own conclusions, then the opinion of an expert will be inadmissible.


2) One presumes the prosecutor would make application to the court to accept case law from other countries. I don't see that posing a problem were that other country an EU member state
but that is mere supposition on my part.

Mr Justice Cresswell ruled:
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in
relation to matters within his expertise (see Polivitte Ltd. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.
Plc., [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 379 at p. 386 per Mr. Justice Garland and Re J, [1990] F.
C.R. 193 per Mr. Justice Cazalet). An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.
[/b]

There are about 68 pages of the CPS doc if you want it.


Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 13, 2018, 10:33:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 13, 2018, 10:45:33 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 13, 2018, 11:12:54 PM
Still a bit manic for meaningful discussion

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 14, 2018, 07:04:56 AM
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 ?
Bet you don't think the questions so simple now. (&^&
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 07:47:31 AM
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

Yes, right up there with the 'dogs don't lie' soundbite.

I found a very interesting article by an American law firm who found themselves having to learn about dogs, handlers and evidence for one of their cases. They discuss all the drawbacks and conclude that each dog is unique and therefore generalisations aren't possible. What is relevant in a case is the experience, track record and qualifications of the particular dog and handler team used.

The evidence is given by the handler, of course. If qualified, the handler can testify about their own qualifications and those of their dog. They can say, for example, that they trained the dog in question; that the dog was trained to alert; to what the dog was trained to alert; what the dog’s history of searches has been. They may testify about what they observed about the dog’s behaviour during the search in question, including whether the dog alerted.

Only if their qualifications allow it can handlers give an opinion about what an alert means.

Although it's American, I think it's enlightening.

https://hbslawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/best-in-show-110919.pdf
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 14, 2018, 09:10:10 AM
Bet you don't think the questions so simple now. (&^&

It is really. Just that some people like to use a hundred words where one would do.  8(0(*
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 06:04:16 PM
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'.
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 06:09:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 06:11:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 07:28:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 14, 2018, 07:32:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 08:17:09 PM
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

"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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 08:21:21 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 08:24:19 PM
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

 “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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 14, 2018, 08:33:24 PM
Martin Smith gave a direct quote to the Mirror on 16th October 2013

 “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
“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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 08:40:25 PM
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?

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 08:50:41 PM
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
My second link co firms it was the police.  From the horse's mouth.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 08:56:02 PM
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...

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 09:51:18 PM
So, which were genuinely police leaks and which weren't? Who knows...

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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 14, 2018, 10:06:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 14, 2018, 10:16:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 14, 2018, 11:42:47 PM
IMO the police used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light.

And the McCanns did exactly the same to the PJ. You have to wonder why they did that ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 07:13:37 AM
IMO the police used the papers to portray the McCanns in a negative or suspicious light.

How do you know what their motives were? Do you have a cite or are relying on 'stands to reason' again?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 15, 2018, 09:05:03 AM

(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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 15, 2018, 09:52:07 AM
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


05 DE MAIO DE 2007
20:49
José Manuel Oliveira e Paula Martinheira

O desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, a criança inglesa de três anos que se encontrava de férias em Lagos, "é uma história muito mal contada", confidenciou ao DN fonte da Polícia Judiciária de Portimão. A afirmação reflecte as dúvidas das autoridades face aos depoimentos "confusos" expressos ontem pelas testemunhas ao longo de todo o dia.

A afirmação reflecte as dúvidas das autoridades face aos depoimentos "confusos" expressos ontem pelas testemunhas ao longo de todo o dia.

https://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-maddie/noticias/interior/esta-e-uma-historia-muito-mal-contada-977892.html


I understand that to mean: "... a Portimão PJ source confided to DN".

That was published on 5 May, the day after they were first interviewed. It says that the comment reflects the authorities' doubts over "confused" statements.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 09:55:57 AM
(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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 15, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
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?

(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!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 15, 2018, 11:39:17 AM
(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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: slartibartfast on March 15, 2018, 12:21:53 PM
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 would agree with that. It is very easy for the press to talk to a retired or ex police officer or even someone who worked for the police to get their opinion and they can then quote a “police source”.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 15, 2018, 02:44:49 PM
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"!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 15, 2018, 04:02:01 PM
           NB ... I am not that "said user"!
I know and knew you were not the said user.

DN reported the story - fact as we have the report.

The Portuguese police may or may not have intentionally maligned the McCanns.  I don't know the truth of that one way or the other.

However, the issue was whether someone can claim that as a fact.  If someone can show compelling evidence that that is how it went, then I will accept it most readily and gratefully as a small step forward in this case.

Until then, such comments should be opinion, not dressed up as fact.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 15, 2018, 04:16:14 PM
The leaked diary.

Mr Jay

Was there anything about the diary which caused you to speculate as to its source or was your state of mind the same as it had been previously?
Link in context
Link
Mr Daniel Sanderson

Thinking back, I mean it had obviously been translated from English to Portuguese. I mean, the source was -- I suppose, thinking back, it must have come from the Portuguese police, absolutely.
Mr Jay

Why do you say that?
Mr Daniel Sanderson

From memory, when I was looking through the documents, I believe there were comments on certain pages, I think. I can't remember.
Mr Jay

Which -- obviously you don't speak Portuguese --
Mr Daniel Sanderson

No, but there were notes and comments, and I don't know, it looked like some kind of official document, if that makes any sense.
Mr Jay

So was it at that point that you realised that the source was probably the Portuguese police?
Mr Daniel Sanderson

Oh yes, no absolutely, absolutely.
Mr Jay

Did that cause you any concerns?
Mr Daniel Sanderson

The whole thing caused me concern. The whole thing caused me concern.
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-15-december-2011/mr-daniel-sanderson



Kate 'complained frequently'
2007-09-13 14:25

Lisbon - Portuguese newspapers on Thursday quoted what they said were extracts from the personal diary of Kate McCann, portraying her as a woman worn out by her three children, including missing toddler Madeleine.

The daily Publico said a copy of the diary had been seized during a police search of the Portuguese holiday home of the couple, who have been named as official suspects in the search for Madeleine.

Jornal de Noticias said the diary and other personal documents were now in the hands of examining magistrate Pedro Danielo dos Anjos Frias, who under Portuguese law must rule if they can be used as evidence.

Correio da Manha said that Kate McCann complained frequently in her diary that her children were "hysterical" and Madeleine in particular was hyperactive, while her husband Gerry did not help in household tasks.

According to Publico, events following the disappearance of Madeleine from the family's holiday apartment on May 3 while her parents were dining nearby with friends, are also described.

They include "the mother's anguish and despair, the solidarity of friends and the impact in the media", Publico said, adding that the police were interested in making comparisons or checking for contradictions in the various entries.

Publico said Portuguese prosecutors had asked the judge to summon Kate McCann back to Portugal from Britain, where they returned on Sunday.

According to Philomena McCann, Kate's sister-in-law, police suspect her of accidentally killing Madeleine then hiding her body.
https://www.news24.com/World/News/Kate-complained-frequently-20070913


A thread on leaks here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5973.0

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 06:54:43 PM
Who told the Telegraph there was 100% match?  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 06:55:56 PM
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 leaking
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 06:59:39 PM
It can only be the PJ who were leaking
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!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 07:14:50 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 07:18:18 PM
'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

The source was close enough to reveal what the PJ thought... Who else thought there was a 100% match
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 07:19:46 PM
'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
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 07:23:12 PM
The source was close enough to reveal what the PJ thought... Who else thought there was a 100% match
We 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 15, 2018, 07:23:43 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/28/leveson-madeleine-mccann-dna-police?CMP=twt_gu
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 07:24:07 PM
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!

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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 15, 2018, 07:28:16 PM
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, proof
The debate was not about Martin Brunt, nor whether the PJ was leaking.  You appear to be deflecting.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 07:30:15 PM
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 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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 07:31:04 PM
The debate was not about Martin Brunt, nor whether the PJ was leaking.  You appear to be deflecting.

In this fast moving forum the topic of debate evolves...so do you deny the PJ were leaking
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
The source was close enough to reveal what the PJ thought... Who else thought there was a 100% match

Do you have a cite that the PJ thought there was a 100% match?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 07:39:43 PM
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

Cite?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 07:56:13 PM
Do you have a cite that the PJ thought there was a 100% match?

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/
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 07:59:40 PM
Cite?

As for the second case, after an explanation about the DNA components in Madeleine's genetic profile, it concludes that 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine's profile are present in the sample examined. Only 4 short of 100% reliability.

from his book...amaral talking of near 100% reliability

and

According to the files, Mr McCann was told on September 7 that Madeleine's DNA was discovered in the boot of the rented Renault Scenic, and behind a sofa in the family's holiday apartment.

"Confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was gathered from behind the sofa and from the boot of the vehicle, and analysed by a British laboratory, he said he could not explain why this would be," the officer wrote.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 15, 2018, 08:03:19 PM
'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

The DNA bit sounds like a mangled version of the 3A swab results.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 08:29:04 PM
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 15, 2018, 08:44:28 PM
Who told the Telegraph there was 100% match?  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562710/Madeleine-McCann-DNA-an-accurate-match.html


Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 08:53:17 PM

Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
I agree, and...?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 15, 2018, 08:59:51 PM
I agree, and...?

It clearly answers the nonsense of the 100% match,the press make it up as they go along.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 09:05:30 PM
It clearly answers the nonsense of the 100% match,the press make it up as they go along.

The nonsense of the 100% match... Isn't that basically what the, PJ told Gerry they had found
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 09:12:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 15, 2018, 09:15:29 PM
so the PJ did not believe there was a DNA match for Madeleine?

It matters not,what matters is what SY have to say,they have been resolutely silent since Redwood on what is going on.

2014 was the last time there was any action seen by officers from OG,with Rowley having this to say.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 09:18:17 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: barrier on March 15, 2018, 09:20:38 PM
Have you not heard what Rowley has had 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 09:29:18 PM
It matters not,what matters is what SY have to say,they have been resolutely silent since Redwood on what is going on.

2014 was the last time there was any action seen by officers from OG,with Rowley having this to say.
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?
". I recall that before we had the official report, we had a preliminary report which indicated that the fluids found in the car rented a month after the disappearance belonged to Madeleine McCann" - Amaral.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 15, 2018, 09:29:30 PM
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 that all he, said... Lol
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 09:58:01 PM
is there a quote from anyone in the PJ saying there was a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA yet?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 10:03:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: misty on March 15, 2018, 10:05:22 PM
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


======================================================================
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 15, 2018, 10:30:54 PM
In this fast moving forum the topic of debate evolves...so do you deny the PJ were leaking
The OP is
"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 nothing to do with Martin Brunt, or whether the PJ were leaking.

So you are derailing the topic.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 15, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
Everyone claimed to have inside information, but they clearly didn't.

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

POLICE 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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 15, 2018, 10:52:44 PM
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/
That article is replete with errors.

Is there a better source?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 15, 2018, 11:06:29 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 11:51:26 PM
Not directly, at the time, that I can remember.

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
Astounding!  IMO.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 15, 2018, 11:55:30 PM
Everyone claimed to have inside information, but they clearly didn't.

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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 15, 2018, 11:56:20 PM
Astounding!  IMO.
Doesn't mean GA was wrong.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 16, 2018, 12:00:00 AM
Everyone claimed to have inside information, but they clearly didn't.

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
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: John on March 16, 2018, 01:49:36 AM
What is the point of this post?  The PJ have admitted leaking to the press, do you dispute this?

A PJ official might well have admitted to leaking some information to the press which in reality is what the police do regularly just about everywhere.  It's a big leap however from this to claiming that their reason for doing so was to incriminate someone.

The convention on this forum for some time now is to mark opinion with the words "in my opinion" or the abbreviation "imo".  New members may not necessarily be aware of this thus why I am making you aware.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 16, 2018, 07:15:59 AM
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. 
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 16, 2018, 08:37:46 AM
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.
ETA: lying to their suspects in the interview room is a well known police tactic, so why not anonymously via the media? IMO
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 16, 2018, 09:01:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 16, 2018, 09:14:11 AM
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.

Perhaps the mistake was that the Forensic Science Service communicated directly with the Portuguese police and not via the intermediary of the Portuguese scientific experts who would have had a clear understanding of the forensic information being relayed to them.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 16, 2018, 09:15:02 AM
Doesn't mean GA was wrong.

Someone could say she'd been taken by aliens, with the usual "prove me wrong".

What "residues" were found?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 16, 2018, 09:22:01 AM
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.

Hmm. Actually, some are based on half-truths (IMO). I've found the probable origin (IMO) for quite a few of them. One or two others are totally invented details within a broader half-truth or even true context.

It would take me a while to dig it all out again, though.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 16, 2018, 10:09:04 AM
Leveson inquiry: ex-police chief defends not preventing false McCann DNA reports
Matthew Baggott says it was correct 'not to put the record straight' over false reports about Madeleine McCann case




The UK police were right not to "put the record straight" over false reports claiming Gerry and Kate McCann were implicated in their daughter's disappearance, the Leveson inquiry has heard.

Matthew Baggott, the former chief constable of Leicestershire police, told the inquiry on Wednesday he could not have released information about DNA tests conducted in the UK to counter leaks by the Portuguese police that falsely claimed they showed the McCanns had hidden Madeleine in the boot of a hire car in Portugal.

Baggott said there were both legal and professional reasons for this. Portuguese secrecy laws made it "utterly wrong to have somehow, in an off-the-record way, have breached what was a very clear legal requirement upon the Portuguese themselves", he told Lord Justice Leveson.


Last November the Leveson inquiry heard how the Daily Express reported there was DNA evidence that could show the little girl's body had been stored in the spare tyre well of a hire car.He also said the Leicestershire force's priority was to maintain a positive relationship with the Portuguese police, with a view to "eventually ... resolving what happened to that poor child".

It turned out the analysis conducted in the UK was "inconclusive" and there was no foundation for making that allegation. Express Newspapers paid £550,000 damages to the McCann's in 2008 for inaccurate reporting by the Daily Express and the publisher's three other titles.

Leveson asked Baggot about evidence submitted by a Daily Star crime reporter two weeks ago that the Leicestershire police "knew perfectly well that the results didn't demonstrate that", and could have given off-the-record briefings to British journalists not to report a DNA link.

"Even with the benefit of hindsight, sir, I'm still convinced we did the right thing and I think integrity and confidence, particularly with the Portuguese, featured very highly in our decision-making at that time," said Baggott.

He added: "So the relationship of trust and confidence would have been undermined if we had gone off the record in some way or tried to put the record straight, contrary to the way in which the Portuguese law was configured and their own leadership of that."

When they appeared before Leveson late last year, Gerry and Kate McCanntold how they were left distraught by false claims in the UK press that they were responsible for their daughter's disappearance or her death.

Leveson later accused the Daily Express of writing "complete piffle" and "tittle tattle" about Madeleine McCann.



https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/28/leveson-madeleine-mccann-dna-police
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 16, 2018, 10:48:31 AM
This is what matters.
Rowley:
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead.

That is what's important
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 16, 2018, 11:18:05 AM
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.

ETA: And for any poll-style question, whoever initiates it.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Lace on March 16, 2018, 12:27:24 PM
I don't think SY would say if they were investigating the McCann's,  though neither do I think SY would have said the McCann's and their friends are not suspects, if they were.    I think they would probably have just left it with 'we are investigating all avenues'  or something like that.   I doubt very much that SY would have made a point of saying the McCann's were not suspects, if they were investigating them.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 16, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
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=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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 16, 2018, 12:47:48 PM
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.
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 16, 2018, 01:13:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 16, 2018, 03:02:04 PM
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

I am sure that is the case.
So delineate the other reasons you believe may exist.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: John on March 16, 2018, 11:51:09 PM
Could we stay on topic please. TY
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 17, 2018, 06:10:13 AM
"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 suppose analysis of historical methods of information release is within the scope of the OP.  The idea that a thread would just be a list of yes's or No's would simply be unrealistic IMO.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 11:43:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2018, 11:50:16 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 17, 2018, 11:55:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
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.

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 arrived back home that night.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 12:27:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 17, 2018, 01:23:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 17, 2018, 01:27:11 PM
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.

Let's have a cite of the actual words used rather than what you think you remember
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 17, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
More info

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/bbc-panoramas-richard-bilton-supporters-mccanns-asked-act-spy/


snip
I have no relationship with Madeleine McCann’s parents. As I have examined the case over the years, I have received warning letters from their lawyers, Carter Ruck. But I have never seen anything that makes me doubt their innocence, and I have always felt for them as parents enduring an ongoing nightmare.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 17, 2018, 02:03:40 PM
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]
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 02:23:27 PM
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]


Thanks for digging that out, Alice.

When did that date from?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 17, 2018, 02:31:55 PM
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from
21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 02:39:06 PM
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from
21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.

Thanks Byron. Which year?

Any chance of a link from someone?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 17, 2018, 02:50:42 PM
2017

http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 02:56:44 PM
2017

http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf

 8((()*/

It doesn't say which year. A clue is 6 years on.

It would seem to be from end of April 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzDNDtpzDDA
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: byron on March 17, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
25th April 2017

http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2018, 03:12:15 PM
25th April 2017

http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743

Many thanks, Posts at the same time.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 17, 2018, 05:56:34 PM
Yep! That's the one I took it from.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 18, 2018, 05:41:16 PM
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?

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: sadie on March 18, 2018, 11:24:33 PM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 18, 2018, 11:32:58 PM
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 out of 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: sadie on March 19, 2018, 12:07:39 AM
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. 

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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 19, 2018, 11:22:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 19, 2018, 03:00:36 PM
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.


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........
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 19, 2018, 04:21:00 PM

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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 19, 2018, 05:31:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 19, 2018, 05:40:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Erngath on March 19, 2018, 05:41:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Brietta on March 19, 2018, 05:58:34 PM
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.

In my opinion the life changing event of finding one's eldest child missing from bed must be among the greatest tragedies imaginable.  I truly do feel great sympathy for those who apparently are incapable of understanding that.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 19, 2018, 06:01:56 PM
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.
what "dirty work" specifically are you accusing the McCanns of delagating?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 19, 2018, 06:17:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Erngath on March 19, 2018, 06:26:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 19, 2018, 06:34:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Erngath on March 19, 2018, 06:44:04 PM
There's a big difference between making a wrong choice and abject stupidity imho.

Not if you are the parent who has made the wrong choice, whether through abject stupidity or not!
The suffering and guilt would still be hard to live with.



Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 19, 2018, 06:46:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 19, 2018, 07:28:01 PM
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 and even when one of the children alerted to the fact that they were awake and howling for daddy.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Erngath on March 19, 2018, 07:36:38 PM
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.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 19, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Erngath on March 19, 2018, 07:45:37 PM
Whichever it was subsequent feelings of guilt don't come into the equation.


No, she's dead.
So no guilty feelings for her!
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: faithlilly on March 19, 2018, 07:58:39 PM
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.

If she had had responsibility for a minor who was with her do you think her decision would have been different ?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 19, 2018, 08:01:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 19, 2018, 09:24:11 PM
I know what they did, that wasn't the question I asked though.
Ask the question again please.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Venturi Swirl on March 19, 2018, 09:30:55 PM
Ask the question again please.
Please see post #296
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 19, 2018, 09:38:09 PM
Please see post #296
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.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 20, 2018, 09:00:43 AM
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.

Abject stupidity is when you make  the same mistake over and over again - IMO
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Eleanor on March 20, 2018, 04:43:57 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 20, 2018, 05:06:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 20, 2018, 06:54:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 20, 2018, 08:01:45 PM
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.

I wasn't discussing havng a child abducted.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 20, 2018, 10:56:57 PM
Have you ever walked in her shoes?

Have I lost child through someone's selfish act. Yes I have.

I didn't do the jogging and blogging and merry fund raising,setting up businesses etc. I was in deep mourning for over a year.  It never leaves me what happened, it took a very long time to come to terms with my loss. However, I know for sure that if I thought anyone had snatched my child from her bed and suspected paedophiles YES I would not act like those parents did.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: misty on March 20, 2018, 11:00:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 20, 2018, 11:09:23 PM
He wasn't obliged to write his book about the McCanns & he resigned from the PJ as opposed to losing his job.

I  Think constructive resignation would be  the UK label.  His position became untenable, his reputation  as an coordinator was under question.

His book- which I have never read- was written to address his situation he found himself in.

We must not forget the many people affected by the McCanns behaviour- not counting their daughters life. That whole community suffered- reputation of being  a paedophile capital of the world, the PJ being useless-job loses and the slur of not caring when so many people gave up a lot of time to search for MBM.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: jassi on March 21, 2018, 08:45:01 AM
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
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 21, 2018, 11:57:13 AM

Nobody
has been obliged to write a book about this, but they did

I doubt those who did wrote what they writ for reasons of altruism or "setting the record straight".
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 24, 2018, 04:15:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 24, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
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.

Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 24, 2018, 05:03:17 PM
Coming to "harm" or to "serious harm" can be a euphemism.
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""
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Carana on March 24, 2018, 05:05:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 24, 2018, 05:17:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: G-Unit on March 24, 2018, 10:35:55 PM
Yes. Many adults would understand, but kids could be watching their TV appeals as well.

Are you suggesting they were being careful so as not to scare these children?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on March 26, 2018, 01:37:47 PM
Yes. Many adults would understand, but kids could be watching their TV appeals as well.

Was euphemism the right word?

 No.

The PR machine was in full swing from the:
 'like sitting in your garden'
 'we could see the flat from where we were sitting'
'it is a UK cultural thing to leave your children alone in strange coutries'
the story move from 'abducted by paedophiles' to being cradled in the arms of a a loving couple
Then we have  'she came to no harm' (OK that was changed to there is  no evidence BUT being snatched form your bed by a stranger is indeed causing harm)- therefore absolving themselves of any responsibility what so ever. And that pope visit was a great PR boost.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: pjcvreis on July 05, 2018, 05:55:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: misty on July 05, 2018, 06:49:28 PM
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.

Did you ever have any indication as to who was behind Levy?
Title: Re: A Simple Question.
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2018, 06:58:10 PM
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.

quote by misty....Did you ever have any indication as to who was behind Levy?

Was this the preliminary  report that was supposed to have existed but now claimed to be completely false