Latest news on the search for Madeleine McCann

[Benice]

Yep but the police kicked this wave off in the first week of January.

What has followed they may or may not be happy about, but they never say a word about it. Ever. That's the point.

Neither does TM.

What can they say or do about it?   IMO Contrary to popular belief in some quarters the McCanns do not control the Press and neither do SY.

All the Press is doing at the moment IMO is proving that Lord Levesons's recommendations should have been implemented.

[Lyall]

What can they say or do about it?   IMO Contrary to popular belief in some quarters the McCanns do not control the Press and neither do SY.

All the Press is doing at the moment IMO is proving that Lord Levesons's recommendations should have been implemented.

They do comment, pretty much in every article. But what they don't ever say is anything critical of anything the press do in those articles.

GM may do some PR for Hacked Off occasionally, but when they provide a quote for the great many articles published in the current wave of hype they don't ever indicate any hint at all that the hype isn't considered helpful.

That's why some people will believe they're not unhappy with it.

[Benice]

They do comment, pretty much in every article. But what they don't ever say is anything critical of anything the press do in those articles.

GM may do some PR for Hacked Off occasionally, but when they provide a quote for the great many articles published in the current wave of hype they don't ever indicate any hint at all that the hype isn't considered helpful.

That's why some people will believe they're not unhappy with it.

What proof do you have that the McCanns comment?    Any bona fide comments made by the McCanns come via Clarence Mitchell and his name is always quoted in those cases.

'Sources close to the McCanns' are not real people - it is a ploy used by reporters to bulk out articles to make them more sensational - with the sole aim of making people  buy the newspaper.

Didn't this latest articel emanate from THE STAR?  If so that says it all IMO.



 

[Lyall]

What proof do you have that the McCanns comment?    Any bona fide comments made by the McCanns come via Clarence Mitchell and his name is always quoted in those cases.

'Sources close to the McCanns' are not real people - it is a ploy used by reporters to bulk out articles to make them more sensational - with the sole aim of making people  buy the newspaper.

Didn't this latest articel emanate from THE STAR?  If so that says it all IMO.

I indicated what is strongly suggestive: the fact that outside the occasional Hacked Off PR no adverse comments are ever made. You neglected to explain that. This has been the pattern since the 2008 court agreements (and prior to that): comment in front of parliamentary committee, comment at Leveson, comment in Hacked Off PR - but never any adverse comment in any of the day-to-day articles.

[VIXTE]

Yep but the police kicked this wave off in the first week of January.

What has followed they may or may not be happy about, but they never say a word about it. Ever. That's the point.

Neither does TM.

That's why some people will assume they're happy with what goes on.

IMO on that meeting with PJ and SY, McCanns were warned about the secrecy laws now the Portugal has opened the investigation.

IMO they were also told Madeleine life possibly now depends on this secrecy.. they wouldn't comment.. no way..

They may say this or that to friends, especially Gerry being a Gemini,  and friends say things to friends and this is how the journos get their reactions but IMO in general they won't comment.

On contrary, I expect SY to leak info IF  PJ doesn't react soon.. and this leak is going to be big.. this is just my intuition and the PJ knows this.. IMO there is a big leak on its way..

[Lyall]

Big hype more like.

You guys may be the only peeps who believe any of it.

[Cariad]

Can anyone help me understand the CPS thing please?

I've read in numerous places now that their involvement indicates a British suspect, however, I don't know whether that's actually the case, or just 'wishful thinking' so to speak...

Do the CPS have a roll to play outside of UK suspects?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory by the way, I genuinely don't understand.

[Mr Gray]

worth posting again..

you are continually asking posters to prove  a negative..read this and see if you understand...

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences

[Mr Gray]

Theres nothing wrong with using google..its like having  a massive library at your fingertips

[Wonderfulspam]

Can anyone help me understand the CPS thing please?

I've read in numerous places now that their involvement indicates a British suspect, however, I don't know whether that's actually the case, or just 'wishful thinking' so to speak...

Do the CPS have a roll to play outside of UK suspects?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory by the way, I genuinely don't understand.

I find it a little confusing also.

The CPS is responsible for prosecutions within it's jurisdiction.

As far as I know that excludes Portugal....

However the Met have said they are 'investigating the 'abduction' as if it happened in the UK'.

[sadie]

I find it a little confusing also.

The CPS is responsible for prosecutions within it's jurisdiction.

As far as I know that excludes Portugal....

However the Met have said they are 'investigating the 'abduction' as if it happened in the UK'.

I find it very interesting.  In fact very encouraging. 

[Mr Gray]

I find it very interesting.  In fact very encouraging. 

No one is clear it would appear so should not be making false claims...my understanding is that the cps are involved in the rogatory letters

[stephen25000]

I noticed it was missing too.  Just a truncated version left   Why?

Such a profound piece too.



Is it considered that the average reader on here would not be able to work out its meaning?

Stephen didn't have an answer for it, did he?  I wonder why?

Oh sadie.

Can't you remember or didn't you notice.

It was what davel referred to as a fact ?

Meanwhile I'm waiting in anticipation for your next theory.

[sadie]

Oh sadie.

Can't you remember or didn't you notice.

It was what davel referred to as a fact ?

Meanwhile I'm waiting in anticipation for your next theory.

Good, good

Wont be long, I expect.  Time permitting.  Am still up to my neck with problems in real life but some easing .....

Btw, you still haven't taken up on davels post, now removed, but repeated in smaller print in a quotation.

[Serendipity]

I find it a little confusing also.

The CPS is responsible for prosecutions within it's jurisdiction.

As far as I know that excludes Portugal....

However the Met have said they are 'investigating the 'abduction' as if it happened in the UK'.

Unless the CPS have invoked Section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - 'A British subject can be indicted for murder or manslaughter in England and Wales even when he commits the offence outside the jurisdiction. The nationality of the victim is immaterial: section 9 Offences against the Person Act 1861.'

Source https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/

The ILOR's may well just be them looking to speak to Portuguese POIs as witnesses against possible British suspects.