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: John on August 11, 2013, 02:28:15 AM
-
Scotland Yard have recently gone on record to announce many persons of interest in the Madeleine case but have not as yet indicated that any of them are suspects. They also felt invlined to go as far as to state that none of the tapas-9 are among those identified.
Are we really any further forward than we were 6 years ago?
-
The Yard have categorically stated that the McCanns and friends are not persons of interest. Don't forget that they have been on this for over 2 years now, so will have had a thorough look at things.
-
The Yard have categorically stated that the McCanns and friends are not persons of interest. Don't forget that they have been on this for over 2 years now, so will have had a thorough look at things.
The Yard are saying that.
The final PJ report said that.
The Portuguese prosecutors said that
Lord Justice Tugendhat, ruling in McCann v Bennett, said that.
Quite astounding that they are all wrong, while convicted torturer Almeida Tavares, with his interim report, was right ...
-
The Yard are saying that.
The final PJ report said that.
The Portuguese prosecutors said that
Lord Justice Tugendhat, ruling in McCann v Bennett, said that.
Quite astounding that they are all wrong, while convicted torturer Almeida Tavares, with his interim report, was right ...
Nail on head, ferryman. Why oh why do people still quote the interim report, I ask myself. It is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. Yet people still think it has credibility.
-
We need to see evidence. Computer simulations showing opportunity isn't evidence it happened.
That's for sure : without evidence of abduction SY will not be able to change the conclusions of the AG and the general opinion that this is a fishy case.
Now the HO speak of "suspects" :
"This is an ongoing police investigation with several suspects at large."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
-
Hi Lyall - I hear what you are saying, but come on! The Yard have categorically stated that the McCanns and friends are not persons of interest.
Oh come on! Do you seriously think if they were Redwood would have said so on camera???
@)(++(*
Ergo, no one knows if they are or not in reality
-
That's for sure : without evidence of abduction SY will not be able to change the conclusions of the AG and the general opinion that this is a fishy case.
Now the HO speak of "suspects" :
"This is an ongoing police investigation with several suspects at large."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Why is it "fishy", Anne?
-
The Yard are saying that.
The final PJ report said that.
The Portuguese prosecutors said that
Lord Justice Tugendhat, ruling in McCann v Bennett, said that.
Quite astounding that they are all wrong, while convicted torturer Almeida Tavares, with his interim report, was right ...
We could discuss the AG report all day and night, and not agree. Everybody sees in it what they want to see.
It just says there is insufficient evidence. Insufficient to determine anything categorically.
-
That's for sure : without evidence of abduction SY will not be able to change the conclusions of the AG and the general opinion that this is a fishy case.
Now the HO speak of "suspects" :
"This is an ongoing police investigation with several suspects at large."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Dear God!
The Home Office needs to get better personnel! preferrably ones who communicate with Operation Grange
@)(++(*
Several raptors running around the continent?
-
We could discuss the AG report all day and night, and not agree. Everybody sees in it what they want to see.
It just says there is insufficient evidence. Insufficient to determine anything categorically.
That answers Rachel's question : a case where the nature of the crime couldn't be determined is fishy, a fortiori if the protagonists refused to reconstruct.
-
That answers Rachel's question : a case where the nature of the crime couldn't be determined is fishy, a fortiori it the protagonists refused to reconstruct.
What the Dickens is a fortiori??!!
-
I dont think so, Scotland Yard are very good, and when they are good theyare very good, then again they can be bad, and when they are bad, its really bad, just like alot of police forces!
In this case the HO have made the same mistake as several newspapers, interpreting people of interest as *suspects*
-
What the Dickens is a fortiori??!!
Wiki helps sometimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_fortiori_argument
In other words, in what was already an odd case, with no conclusion or direction, lingering suspicions against the family and or friends were strengthened by the refusal of the tapas group to help in a reconstruction, this is what Anne meant I believe
-
Latin is part of UK history : Julius Caesar invaded England for the first time in 55 BC.
"a fortiori" means that the second proposition is even more certain than the first, as Redblossom understood.
Very useful expression BTW.
-
A new thread...so what is the current state of play in the Scotland Yard investigation? Do we really know any more than we did six years ago?
-
no updates for two months
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Latest-update-on-Madeleine-McCann-case/1400018438045/1257246741786
The home office seem to think there are several suspects are large though so they cant say nuffink! In any FOI request
@)(++(*
See 4th entry down
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
-
I think what posters are forgetting is that this is a Portuguese case and up and until we are told by the Portuguese judiciary that the McCanns and their friends have been eliminated from further investigation then SY may as well be whistling Dixie.
-
The Yard have categorically stated that the McCanns and friends are not persons of interest. Don't forget that they have been on this for over 2 years now, so will have had a thorough look at things.
Why have you edited my post, John? What was removed/modified?
-
And where has my post, made last night, which used the latin motto "Dum spiro spero" gone?
Why has that been deleted?
-
I think what posters are forgetting is that this is a Portuguese case and up and until we are told by the Portuguese judiciary that the McCanns and their friends have been eliminated from further investigation then SY may as well be whistling Dixie.
SY have had two years plus to read the files...and thats with a team of over 30 Im sure they have been looking at other stuff too..Im sure its been a nightmare......no one can really know what they are into, doing or thinking, as IF they would tell us all what they were, but lets face it,we know all previous detectives, control risks, whatever they were supposed to be the ones who were on the ground PDQ, metodo 3, proven crooks, halligen, proven crook, dave and edgar *cough* have come up with f*** all apart from manufacturing stories of sightings and pointing fingers and making more stories....and theories and all of came up with diddly squat!
The only ones that properly investigated the case to date are the PJ...and the final PJ police summary and the public prosecutors final report explain it all....ie there is nothng REAL further to date
I do hope SY even though backed up and sent to work by the flimsy wimpy cameron and the dodgy sun /dodgy rebekah come crook wade come up with somethng....solid and true and non flimsy and a lie as has been up to today by others
-
Time and time again it has been necessary to remove posts which are off topic but interesting all the same. Often it is possible to repost them together in a new thread but with the best will in the world it is not always possible to retain everything and especially irrelevant comments.
Would you rather everything be left untouched and end up in a shambles?
-
I think what posters are forgetting is that this is a Portuguese case and up and until we are told by the Portuguese judiciary that the McCanns and their friends have been eliminated from further investigation then SY may as well be whistling Dixie.
We have been told by the Portuguese AG that after taking everything into consideration it is apparent that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter - and that is why he ordered the removal of their arguido status. That sounds pretty unambiguous to me. If you want to read something else into that then that's your prerogative, but I cannot think of any reason why that statement should not be taken as meaning exactly what it says.
-
We have been told by the Portuguese AG that after taking everything into consideration it is apparent that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter - and that is why he ordered the removal of their arguido status. That sounds pretty unambiguous to me. If you want to read something else into that then that's your prerogative, but I cannot think of any reason why that statement should not be taken as meaning exactly what it says.
You have got it backwards...the arguido status was removed because the case was shelved.....because there was no evidence of any crime..ie they didnt know who what where when why. Or xoyodnt prove anything.....that in no way exonerated the mccanns, it really is that simple, and they can be made arguidos agan if the case is reopened, do keep up..the removal of arguido suspect status is a temporary measure
-
We have been told by the Portuguese AG that after taking everything into consideration it is apparent that the McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter - and that is why he ordered the removal of their arguido status. That sounds pretty unambiguous to me. If you want to read something else into that then that's your prerogative, but I cannot think of any reason why that statement should not be taken as meaning exactly what it says.
The AG said there was no evidence AT THAT TIME that the McCanns were involved. That does not, however, rule out that they will be investigated again in the future if further credible evidence comes to light.
-
The AG said there was no evidence AT THAT TIME that the McCanns were involved. That does not, however, rule out that they will be investigated again in the future if further credible evidence comes to light.
Don't hold your breath. SY would not have stated that the McCanns are not suspects or even persons of interest in this case without first making absolutely sure of their facts. And they won't just have taken the McCann's word for what happened before coming to that conclusion.
-
Don't hold your breath. SY would not have stated that the McCanns are not suspects or even persons of interest in this case without first making absolutely sure of their facts. And they won't just have taken the McCann's word for what happened before coming to that conclusion.
The point I am making is that it matters not one jot who SY rule in or out, they have absolutely no power where this case is concerned and it will be down to the Portuguese, in the end, to decide who should and should not be investigated further.
-
Don't hold your breath. SY would not have stated that the McCanns are not suspects or even persons of interest in this case without first making absolutely sure of their facts. And they won't just have taken the McCann's word for what happened before coming to that conclusion.
SY didn't say that Bernice. Only Redwood did, on TV. The Met's update didn't say it.
How can the investigation make decisions on Day 1 of the investigation? >@@(*&)
Redwood has the tricky job of handling the press/TV.
-
SY didn't say that Bernice. Only Redwood did, on TV. The Met's update didn't say it.
How can the investigation make decisions on Day 1 of the investigation? >@@(*&)
Redwood has the tricky job of handling the press/TV.
Poor sod been walking on eggshells from the start LooooL
-
SY didn't say that Bernice. Only Redwood did, on TV. The Met's update didn't say it.
How can the investigation make decisions on Day 1 of the investigation? >@@(*&)
Redwood has the tricky job of handling the press/TV.
DCI Redwood was not speaking as a private citizen, he was talking as the official representative of SY - the head of the investigation into what happened to Madeleine. The Met's update did not contradict his statement that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest in any way shape or form. And I'm afraid all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that fact.
-
The Met's update did not contradict his statement that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest in any way shape or form. And I'm afraid all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that fact.
They never confirmed it either LooooL
Do you seriously think if the met suspected the mccanns they would say so on tv when accosted by a journalists question????
get real
-
DCI Redwood was not speaking as a private citizen, he was talking as the official representative of SY - the head of the investigation into what happened to Madeleine. The Met's update did not contradict his statement that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest in any way shape or form. And I'm afraid all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that fact.
And if he'd stood in front of the cameras and said anything else, you know what would have happened.
Would you want that?
-
You have got it backwards...the arguido status was removed because the case was shelved.....because there was no evidence of any crime..ie they didnt know who what where when why. Or xoyodnt prove anything.....that in no way exonerated the mccanns, it really is that simple, and they can be made arguidos agan if the case is reopened, do keep up..the removal of arguido suspect status is a temporary measure
#
I think you've got it backwards Red. There was no evidence of the McCanns committing any crime, which is why their arguido status was removed.
Why do you have to be so rude all the time, it spoils your posts.
-
And if he'd stood in front of the cameras and said anything else, you know what would have happened.
Would you want that?
He didn't need to stand in front of the cameras and say ANYTHING at all about the McCanns. Are you claiming he lied for some devious reason.? Sorry I'm not into conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned SY have been asked to investigate this case, and that is exactly what they are doing. Why should the 38(?) people in the team agree to do anything other than their level best to get to the bottom of it?
-
He was asked the question about them.
He's always asked the question about them.
Two years ago he was asked the same question, when the review began. If he says anything different now to what he said then, you know what will happen. Is that what you would want?
-
You ignore the pressure the man, and his team, are under Benice.
This case is unique.
-
#
I think you've got it backwards Red. There was no evidence of the McCanns committing any crime, which is why their arguido status was removed.
Why do you have to be so rude all the time, it spoils your posts.
Backwards again...the case was shelved, ergo the arguido status was removed, not the other way around, its not hard to get, and my asking you to keep up is not rude, less sensitive and finger pointing might be good too
-
He didn't need to stand in front of the cameras and say ANYTHING at all about the McCanns. Are you claiming he lied for some devious reason.? Sorry I'm not into conspiracy theories. As far as I'm concerned SY have been asked to investigate this case, and that is exactly what they are doing. Why should the 38(?) people in the team agree to do anything other than their level best to get to the bottom of it?
HE was asked DIRECTLY.....it would be STUPID of him to say yes we have suspiscions on the Mccanns iF they did...end of LooooL
-
You ignore the pressure the man, and his team, are under Benice.
This case is unique.
I disagree. DCI Redwood would not be speaking publically without knowing beforehand exactly what he was prepared to say and what he not prepared to divulge. It's common sense that he is not going to give a running commentary on the investigation just to please some members of the public and is very careful what he does say.
IMO no way would he have specifically stated that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects unless that was the officially accepted conclusion which SY had arrived at as one result of their investigations. It would be more than his job's worth to make that statement if it wasn't true.
-
The point I am making is that it matters not one jot who SY rule in or out, they have absolutely no power where this case is concerned and it will be down to the Portuguese, in the end, to decide who should and should not be investigated further.
Still catching up I'm afraid but something else I want to ask. SY made a big deal about going back to Portugal a few weeks ago but nothing since. Is it a case that their letter of request has been put in the pending tray? So much for urgency!!
-
I disagree. DCI Redwood would not be speaking publically without knowing beforehand exactly what he was prepared to say and what he not prepared to divulge. It's common sense that he is not going to give a running commentary on the investigation just to please some members of the public and is very careful what he does say.
IMO no way would he have specifically stated that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects unless that was the officially accepted conclusion which SY had arrived at as one result of their investigations. It would be more than his job's worth to make that statement if it wasn't true.
But he said the same two years earlier. How can he say anything different now without exciting the press?
-
The arguido status is given to someone in Portugal who after initially being a witness then comes under suspicion. As most regulars here know, the arguido status gives the individual certain rights, one of them being the right to silence.
If the status is then removed they revert back to witness and are no longer under suspicion. It's that simple. Ergo the PJ ultimately had no evidence to consider the McCanns suspicious.
-
Still catching up I'm afraid but something else I want to ask. SY made a big deal about going back to Portugal a few weeks ago but nothing since. Is it a case that their letter of request has been put in the pending tray? So much for urgency!!
It's the lawyers who are in control now. Paperwork has to be perfect or the whole process is illegal.
Wasn't it near enough six months before UK police carried out requests of the Portuguese in 07/08?
-
My own view is that the Met are on a hiding to nothing, an academic exercise to keep some as yet unnamed people content. This time next year we will be no nearer to the truth than we are now and Madeleine will still be officially missing.
Abduction or manslaughter will still be the question!!
-
My own view is that the Met are on a hiding to nothing, an academic exercise to keep some as yet unnamed people content. This time next year we will be no nearer to the truth than we are now and Madeleine will still be officially missing.
Abduction or manslaughter will still be the question!!
or accidental death and cover up
-
Or hoax.
-
Or hoax.
Interesting but I don't buy that one because the parents were distraught by many accounts
-
Or abduction.
this hypothesis is the most improbable
-
Interesting but I don't buy that one because the parents were distraught by many accounts
Fair enough Red. It's an unlikely theory I know, but I'd really not be surprised by anything in this case.
-
Fair enough Red. It's an unlikely theory I know, but I'd really not be surprised by anything in this case.
Read all the theories Lyall, all the conspiracy ones too, no way was it a hoax, that would involve them willingly putting their families though hell, and for what? What would a hoax be about?
-
Why?
Dog evidence of death n 5 a
Lies of the McCann and friends
PR aggressiveness
Vexatious litigation
lies and more lies
no evidence of abduction
Many many other reasons can't be bothered to list them YET again
You are allowed to believe otherwise but lots of people don't!
-
Read all the theories Lyall, all the conspiracy ones too, no way was it a hoax, that would involve them willingly putting their families though hell, and for what? What would a hoax be about?
I don't know, and I'm not saying I believe in it, but it's always been interesting to me that people have been willing to believe (and discuss again and again) abduction, but nobody discusses a hoax.
I'm just rambling. It's late. Bedtime good folks ?{)(**
-
I don't know, and I'm not saying I believe in it, but it's always been interesting to me that people have been willing to believe (and discuss again and again) abduction, but nobody discusses a hoax.
I'm just rambling. It's late. Bedtime good folks ?{)(**
what would be the purpose behind such a cruel hoax though? parents, grandparents, other family devastated, nah, I dont think so, but SOMETHING STINKS somewhere,100% but where????? OK goodnight, catch up tomorrow, off myself now eventually some shady and some funny characters made me stay up past bedtime looooL
-
Dog evidence of death n 5 a
Lies of the McCann and friends
PR aggressiveness
Vexatious litigation
lies and more lies
no evidence of abduction
Many many other reasons can't be bothered to list them YET again
You are allowed to believe otherwise but lots of people don't!
The silence of the friends is a big alert to me. That's what made me suspicious in 07 - the apparent lack of urgency (plus the diversion onto RM).
Later guys (unless the case is solved overnight! 8((()*/)
-
The silence of the friends is a big alert to me. That's what made me suspicious in 07 - the apparent lack of urgency (plus the diversion onto RM).
Later guys (unless the case is solved overnight! 8((()*/)
They were under secrecy of justice so had to shut up
Two of them didn't though Jane tanner and Rachel, they both spoke out
All the rest have even after the case was shelved in 2008 not a peek from anyone
Until the mccanns c4 documentary, Jane and Matthew turned up for it.....
-
Read all the theories Lyall, all the conspiracy ones too, no way was it a hoax, that would involve them willingly putting their families though hell, and for what? What would a hoax be about?
Think of the Piltdown man. How has that hoax deceived so many scientists for more than 40 years ? What can explain the lack of criticism from the British palaeoanthropologists ? This hoax reveals interestingly how in scientific matters theories are filters through which facts are interpreted. Nowadays the association of a human skull with a monkey jaw would seem extremely unlikely. But at the beginning of the XXth the cultural prejudice among anthropologists was that his voluminous skull had allowed man to dominate nature.
-
So has SY gone quiet now that there isn't any more bad news to bury? @)(++(*
-
Scotland Yard have recently gone on record to announce many persons of interest in the Madeleine case but have not as yet indicated that any of them are suspects. They also felt invlined to go as far as to state that none of the tapas-9 are among those identified.
Are we really any further forward than we were 6 years ago?
I am not going to read the whole thread, but I have a hard time believing that the Scotland Yard would make such foolish statements as have been reported recently by the Media.
The Yard is in possession of the files from the portuguese investigation, so they are not starting from scratch, why would they nominate 38 persons of interest and explicitly exclude the ones that are more obvious?! Especially when those 38 have been already scrutinized and cleared by the previous (and only) investigation team?
Is this a deviation strategy? Are they trying to get the real suspects off guard?
If not, than this pretense re-investigation (re-read of the files) is just a whitewash.
-
There is nothing to indicate that the 38 persons currently of interest are those already cleared by the Portuguese investigation, though some or all of them may be. Apart from the released files, the SY investigation will include other information that has come to light since the shelving of the case from all kinds of sources apart from the files. They have been able to state, categorically, that the McCanns and their friends are NOT among those being investigated.
Tough on the sceptics, but that's the reality today.
-
There is nothing to indicate that the 38 persons currently of interest are those already cleared by the Portuguese investigation, though some or all of them may be. Apart from the released files, the SY investigation will include other information that has come to light since the shelving of the case from all kinds of sources apart from the files. They have been able to state, categorically, that the McCanns and their friends are NOT among those being investigated.
Tough on the sceptics, but that's the reality today.
There is nothing 'tough' about being sceptical ( it's easy to be open-minded and rational ) ... the strain comes in being dogmatic and immoveable, regardless of logic and reason ( I would imagine )
-
I am not going to read the whole thread, but I have a hard time believing that the Scotland Yard would make such foolish statements as have been reported recently by the Media.
The Yard is in possession of the files from the portuguese investigation, so they are not starting from scratch, why would they nominate 38 persons of interest and explicitly exclude the ones that are more obvious?! Especially when those 38 have been already scrutinized and cleared by the previous (and only) investigation team?
Is this a deviation strategy? Are they trying to get the real suspects off guard?
If not, than this pretense re-investigation (re-read of the files) is just a whitewash.
It's simple Luz. They are about to depart on yet another fools errand and spend £millions on it while getting some badly needed sun exposure. They have to come up with some crap to justify it all. @)(++(*
-
There is nothing to indicate that the 38 persons currently of interest are those already cleared by the Portuguese investigation, though some or all of them may be. Apart from the released files, the SY investigation will include other information that has come to light since the shelving of the case from all kinds of sources apart from the files. They have been able to state, categorically, that the McCanns and their friends are NOT among those being investigated.
Tough on the sceptics, but that's the reality today.
Just in the same way they were categorically right about the killer of Jill Dando eh?
-
The idea that the group have been ruled out is false in a technical sense.
In reality Redwood said they were not persons of interest or suspects as he stood there on that day giving that interview.
That is not the same as saying they have been investigated and categorically ruled out.
It can be perfectly true that then they aren't suspects or POI then BUT it does not automatically mean they never will be as the investigation runs its course.
For example once the 38 have been checked out and if there is nothing which suggests involvement there is nothing to stop the Yard making the T9 suspects at that point.
The thing that doesn't add up for me about the 38 POI is why he would broadcast that before those 38 were investigated?
That's bad policing because if as a copper you felt there was a genuine chance that one of 38 POI had Madeleine you would not broadcast it to the world and let a potential abductor know that at some point in the future, when you had sorted the paperwork out, you were going to swoop on them.
It would put Madeleine's life in danger or alert a suspect to flee.
-
The idea that the group have been ruled out is false in a technical sense.
In reality Redwood said they were not persons of interest or suspects as he stood there on that day giving that interview.
That is not the same as saying they have been investigated and categorically ruled out.
It can be perfectly true that then they aren't suspects or POI then BUT it does not automatically mean they never will be as the investigation runs its course.
For example once the 38 have been checked out and if there is nothing which suggests involvement there is nothing to stop the Yard making the T9 suspects at that point.
The thing that doesn't add up for me about the 38 POI is why he would broadcast that before those 38 were investigated?
That's bad policing because if as a copper you felt there was a genuine chance that one of 38 POI had Madeleine you would not broadcast it to the world and let a potential abductor know that at some point in the future, when you had sorted the paperwork out, you were going to swoop on them.
It would put Madeleine's life in danger or alert a suspect to flee.
This may well be the case. The british approach to this sort of crime is to rule out the parents at the very start of the investigation. I would think that SY have already considered the evidence against the MCcanns.
-
This may well be the case. The british approach to this sort of crime is to rule out the parents at the very start of the investigation. I would think that SY have already considered the evidence against the MCcanns.
absolutely to think that SY would have spent the last 3 years not considering the parents and making sure that their story is water tight is ludicrous
-
This may well be the case. The british approach to this sort of crime is to rule out the parents at the very start of the investigation. I would think that SY have already considered the evidence against the MCcanns.
Would think or definitely know?
The point is no one really knows and the way that Redwood worded it left another room to justify the comments BUT make them suspects later if necessary.
After all he could say "at that time they weren't suspects, but having ruled out the 38 POI our suspicion has now fallen on the group".
The very nature of this case means all "normal" rules of investigation can be thrown out of the window. I do not think it is unreasonable for SY to be pursuing a strategy of ruling out people and theories by process of elimination working from the out inwards.
That way if all other theories and suspects are ruled out and attention focuses on the group there can be no allegations that the police have ignored all other possibilities.
-
Albertini:
The thing that doesn't add up for me about the 38 POI is why he would broadcast that before those 38 were investigated?
That's bad policing because if as a copper you felt there was a genuine chance that one of 38 POI had Madeleine you would not broadcast it to the world and let a potential abductor know that at some point in the future, when you had sorted the paperwork out, you were going to swoop on them.
It's not bad policing at all.
What would be bad policing is naming any of the 38 people (which Scotland Yard have not done).
As it is, if any of the (unnamed) 38 people have anything sinister to hide, the state of play for them, now, is exactly the same as it was at the beginning when the Scotland Yard review was announced.
-
absolutely to think that SY would have spent the last 3 years not considering the parents and making sure that their story is water tight is ludicrous
Just a point here. How can they have checked out anything when they haven't been to Portugal?
-
Just a point here. How can they have checked out anything when they haven't been to Portugal?
Who is "they"? The Met? If so, what makes you think that they haven't been to Portugal??
-
Who is "they"? The Met? If so, what makes you think that they haven't been to Portugal??
Not in the last 6 years they haven't as they have no authority there. And curiously, the letter of request appears to have fallen on stoney ground.
-
Not in the last 6 years they haven't as they have no authority there. And curiously, the letter of request appears to have fallen on stoney ground.
I am sure there is far more cooperation at a working kevel that is put in public - I would imagine that the PJ would give SY courtesy and help as they probably work together on other crimes all the time. The McCann's is not the only case that has happened in the past years
Have certain officers visited PDL under the radar to meet and see for themselves - don't know. I would be surprised if not - I know several Met police at a friendly level - some long standing and they are forever going abroad to work on cases or assist .
-
Quite a few PO from the LC spent many months in Portimão working with the PJ.
-
Not in the last 6 years they haven't as they have no authority there. And curiously, the letter of request appears to have fallen on stoney ground.
Yes, why have things fallen silent on the letter of request?
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Amaral trial by any chance, would it?
-
Yes, why have things fallen silent on the letter of request?
This wouldn't have anything to do with the Amaral trial by any chance, would it?
Got it in one Sherlock!! @)(++(*
If Gonçalo manages to defend his theory in the Lisbon court it will not fair well for any abduction investigation.
-
I am sure there is far more cooperation at a working kevel that is put in public - I would imagine that the PJ would give SY courtesy and help as they probably work together on other crimes all the time. The McCann's is not the only case that has happened in the past years
Have certain officers visited PDL under the radar to meet and see for themselves - don't know. I would be surprised if not - I know several Met police at a friendly level - some long standing and they are forever going abroad to work on cases or assist .
You are right. There has been cooperation about drugs, persons and sexual trafficking and terrorist cases. But when it comes to the involvement of potential British suspects, UK has been very scarce in its cooperation. There has been cases where Britain has facilitated the escape of suspects or even convicted felons and criminals from Portugal. That's why I don't have any hope about the intervention of SY in this case, in particular because the primary suspects, so far, are the parents and/or close friends (all British, unfortunately - if they were swarthy ugly looking foreigners the cooperation would be more prolific).
By the way, did you know there were hundreds of convicts for sexual crimes sent by Britain to the Algarve, where they are being kept in rented apartments paid by the UK Government, and the Portuguese authorities were never notified?!
-
By the way, did you know there were hundreds of convicts for sexual crimes sent by Britain to the Algarve, where they are being kept in rented apartments paid by the UK Government, and the Portuguese authorities were never notified?!
Can you back this claim up Luz??
-
Can you back this claim up Luz??
I second that request. I would like to see a source for that extraordinary claim.
-
Can you back this claim up Luz??
Yes.
In 2002 a mother (Katherine Penny) abandoned a 3 months baby in the streets of Albufeira and was never extradited to Portugal to stand trial. [one of the articles: [urlhttp://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?id_news=31268][/url] ]
After Madeleine's case there was a drunk mother whose daughter was recovered in the streets of Albufeira, after being denounced to the authorities that recovered the child and put her in an Emergency Center. The woman was supposed to appear at the Court in Faro but she never did. She took a plane and was never sent back to attend a Court Trial.
Recently in 2012, a drunk couple left a 2 year old alone on the streets near Lisbon while they went to a bar. The police was called and took the child to an emergency center where she was bathed and fed. Once again they were not tried because the Brit authorities never returned them. [http://www.ptjornal.com/2012090710671/geral/sociedade/crianca-abandonada-por-pais-embriagados-esta-em-casa-de-acolhimento-de-emergencia.html (http://www.ptjornal.com/2012090710671/geral/sociedade/crianca-abandonada-por-pais-embriagados-esta-em-casa-de-acolhimento-de-emergencia.html)
In the late nighties, I am unable to recover any link right now, a British citizen of Indian origin was condemned for murder. He was able to flee to Britain and while the PT authorities awaited for the UK to respond to an extradition request (we know how long it takes, in this case it was more than 2 years) he went to India with which Portugal has no extradition accord.
I could cite many more, but I have a bad memory for names and it makes it difficult to dig for links.
-
Luz. You have claimed that sex offenders were sent to the Algarve and were supported there financially by the UK Government. Is this yet another fallacy?
Before you answer can I point out that sex offenders are all registered in the UK and have to notify their whereabouts at all times.
-
Luz. You have claimed that sex offenders were sent to the Algarve and were supported there financially by the UK Government. Is this yet another fallacy?
Before you answer can I point out that sex offenders are all registered in the UK and have to notify their whereabouts at all times.
Those are the files that were sent by the Uk. Maybe you remember that the British authorities requested that Portugal didn't divulge certain documents when the case files had to be made public? Well, those sex offenders files were kept secret. I can't tell you how I know, but it is no secret now that this has been happening for decades.
Edit to ad
I didn't say they didn't notify the UK authorities about their whereabouts. In fact they were always in touch in order to receive their checks. Only the stupid portuguese authorities and population didn't know they were here.
-
This is what Luz said in her original post:
did you know there were hundreds of convicts for sexual crimes sent by Britain to the Algarve, where they are being kept in rented apartments paid by the UK Government, and the Portuguese authorities were never notified?!
If a sex offender has served his sentence he is allowed to live wherever he chooses, provided he is on the sex offenders register and notifies the authorities of his address. This is a far cry from being "sent by Britain to the Algarve." I find it difficult to believe that the Portuguese authorities are not made aware of where these previous offenders live, and this is what Luz is asked to provide a source for (a) that Britain "sent" them to the Algarve, and (b) did not inform the Portuguese authorities of their whereabouts.
-
Let us not forget the gangs of british pensioners involved in illegal gambling and vice dens.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/24/britons-arrested-for-playing-bingo-in-portugal-3853414/
-
This is what Luz said in her original post:
did you know there were hundreds of convicts for sexual crimes sent by Britain to the Algarve, where they are being kept in rented apartments paid by the UK Government, and the Portuguese authorities were never notified?!
If a sex offender has served his sentence he is allowed to live wherever he chooses, provided he is on the sex offenders register and notifies the authorities of his address. This is a far cry from being "sent by Britain to the Algarve." I find it difficult to believe that the Portuguese authorities are not made aware of where these previous offenders live, and this is what Luz is asked to provide a source for (a) that Britain "sent" them to the Algarve, and (b) did not inform the Portuguese authorities of their whereabouts.
Perhaps the Algarve is a new penal colony like Australia used to be and that's why they are sent there.
-
If there are hundreds of sex offenders all living in the Algarve were they all interviewed alibis checked ? I mean there you go I would look at known offenders living in the vicinity - pretty standard stuff
-
Got it in one Sherlock!! @)(++(*
If Gonçalo manages to defend his theory in the Lisbon court it will not fair well for any abduction investigation.
Correct.
At the same time, if the McCanns win, demonstrating a level of dishonesty at the Portuguese end, it will not fare well for Anglo-Portuguese relations, jeopardizing Operation Grange.
Strange then, either way, that the McCanns would have been advised to press this matter in court at the very time SY was trying to close in... or, to put it the other way around, strange that SY would choose such a sensitive time to petition to the Portuguese authorities to come to Portugal to complete their work.
How do we explain this?