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: Lyall on October 15, 2013, 01:14:30 PM
-
>@@(*&) The Portuguese police not taking the sighting seriously has just been demonstrated to have been correct thinking?
It wasn't them who gave it massive publicity.
-
>@@(*&) The Portuguese police not taking the sighting seriously has just been demonstrated to have been correct thinking?
It wasn't them who gave it massive publicity.
Read http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0 before making judgement.
Apart from that, Jane Tanner still could have seen another man, cos her description is remarkably like that of the Smiths. Also, carrying a child in that manner, if correctly portrayed, would be well nigh impossible for such a long distance
-
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
-
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
1) Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner. He lost his potential Goden Witness. Now I am not sure on this, but did he also put lies into her mouth? I fancy he did, but pls correct me if I am wrong
2) I never heard or saw Gerry Mccann ridicule Jane Tanner. He is a very strong minded man and he thought that he was correct. He did over-rule her, but he never ridiculed her to my knowledge
It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.
That is why I have apologised so profusely. Whilst I got the facts of positions and directions right, I failed to take into account other factors which changed the equation. I got it wrong overall and I admitted it.
How about you?
-
1) Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner. He lost his potential Goden Witness. Now I am not sure on this, but did he also put lies into her mouth? I fancy he did, but pls correct me if I am wrong
2) I never heard or saw Gerry Mccann ridicule Jane Tanner. He is a very strong minded man and he thought that he was correct. He did over-rule her, but he never ridiculed her to my knowledge
It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.
That is why I have apologised so profusely. Whilst I got the facts of positions and directions right, I failed to take into account other factors which changed the equation. I got it wrong overall and I admitted it.
How about you?
Dodgy, very dodgy ground for you Sadie. JT's sighting was used by a great many people, and claims were made by them that I don't believe she actually ever did make herself. I'd leave it at that if I were you.
-
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
I'm sorry. What do mean by Gerry ridiculing Jane? I never read or saw him doing that. When would that have been?
-
1) Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner.
Got that right then, didn't he ?
( and in what way did he 'put lies in her mouth' ? )
-
I'm sorry. What do mean by Gerry ridiculing Jane? I never read or saw him doing that. When would that have been?
The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.
-
Got that right then, didn't he ?
( and in what way did he 'put lies in her mouth' ? )
What did she lie about? Amarals the liar, look what he said re Murat!
-
The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.
Yes, poor Jane who tried so much to help !
-
The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.
Ok, thanks. Is that the scene where Gerry and Jane agreed to disagree as to where they were actually standing?
I don't see that as either of them ridiculing the other, they simply had different recollections.
Was Anne suggesting that Gerry a) ridiculed her? and, if so, b) was the first to do so?
I'd find that a somewhat strange assessment as opposed to being declared a non-credible witness by the PT press and by Amaral himself way prior to that 2009 programme.
Just at random:
"It is false, wrong, most of the replies are not true" tvmais (no online link, appears in magazine only)
Hernâni Carvalho
10 September 2008
Interview with Amaral in reply to the McCanns' interview with Expresso.
The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn't seen him as well…
(Gerry says he didn't see because his back was turned while he was chatting with a friend.)
Jane Tanner's testimony has evolved in an inverse manner to human mentality. Initially, she had seen only a person at a distance. As time went by, she started remembering details in such a manner that at the end, she even remembered the texture of the clothing that the man and the little girl were wearing. That was how she pointed at Murat. The only deposition that is credible is the Smiths'.
www.mccannfiles.com
-
It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.
Tell this to yourself and please don't pretend I said SYman was staying in G6.
-
24 July 2008
Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator, what is your thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.
What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?
It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.
How was it proved?
Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat.
Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.
In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.
Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html
-
Precisely because Ms Tanner's sighting was questioned (basically because nobody saw her while she saw everybody), the suggestion of Mr McCann that she was mistaking the side of the street was too much. Apart from that he wasn't saying the truth (see JW's statement)
So you find that Amaral declaring Jane Tanner to be a non-credible witness back in 2008 doesn't ridicule her?
This is what you'd said:
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
-
So you find that Amaral declaring Jane Tanner to be a non-credible witness back in 2008 doesn't ridicule her?
This is what you'd said:
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
No, Carana, simply because Mr Amaral, who isn't Ms Tanner's friend, didn't publicly (watched by millions of people) tell Ms Tanner that she wasn't credible.
Finding Ms Tanner not credible wasn't very original : the MP thought the same.
-
24 July 2008
Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator, what is your thesis?
Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.
What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?
It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.
How was it proved?
Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat.
Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.
In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.
Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html
Amara lstates that his thesis is supported by british police..does he have ONE pice of evidence to support this...no he doesnt
-
No, Carana, simply because Mr Amaral, who isn't Ms Tanner's friend, didn't publicly (watched by millions of people) tell Ms Tanner that she wasn't credible.
Finding Ms Tanner not credible wasn't very original : the MP thought the same.
It was only Amaral and his bungling team who thought Jane Tanner not to be credible.
I don't know if you were watching last night but the officers of Operation Grange showed that Jane Tanner's description was perfectly credible. It matched very closely indeed the person who those officers had interviewed.
Only in an extremely odd part of the universe would such an accurate statement about a potential suspect be deemed "not credible".
If Amaral's team had but bothered to shift themselves a little on the first day or two of the investigation, had they discovered the fact that parents regularly carried their children around PDL late in the evening from the Creche, then this very credible and accurate witness statement would have been matched to the man. After all it would not have taken many hours to interview 8 potential witnesses whose names and addresses were all held by the OC staff would it? Its the sort of thing that UK police would do so why did Amaral's team not do it?
Why did Amaral not discover just how credible this witness was and eliminate this person (or further investigate this person as necessary) back in 2007? For pity's sake Amaral never even knew this man existed,
So stop calling accurate witness statements "not credible" and start addressing the real issue, that Amaral and his team failed to even bother to investigate the statement properly.
-
It was only Amaral and his bungling team who thought Jane Tanner not to be credible.
I don't know if you were watching last night but the officers of Operation Grange showed that Jane Tanner's description was perfectly credible. It matched very closely indeed the person who those officers had interviewed.
Only in an extremely odd part of the universe would such an accurate statement about a potential suspect be deemed "not credible".
If Amaral's team had but bothered to shift themselves a little on the first day or two of the investigation, had they discovered the fact that parents regularly carried their children around PDL late in the evening from the Creche, then this very credible and accurate witness statement would have been matched to the man. After all it would not have taken many hours to interview 8 potential witnesses whose names and addresses were all held by the OC staff would it? Its the sort of thing that UK police would do so why did Amaral's team not do it?
Why did Amaral not discover just how credible this witness was and eliminate this person (or further investigate this person as necessary) back in 2007? For pity's sake Amaral never even knew this man existed,
So stop calling accurate witness statements "not credible" and start addressing the real issue, that Amaral and his team failed to even bother to investigate the statement properly.
Not credible that it was 'an abductor' gilet. And the police were right weren't they.
-
Not credible that it was 'an abductor' gilet. And the police were right weren't they.
It was a perfectly credible witness statement. Anne Guedes was completely and utterly wrong to describe Jane Tanner as "not credible".
I am not sure that a failure on the part of the PJ to discover the actual person who Jane Tanner witnessed, when they only had to interview 8 witnesses all of whose names and addresses they had within their grasp is best described as being proved right.
I am not sure that discounting such an accurate and credible witness statement for completely the wrong reasons as the PJ under Amaral did is best described as being proved right.
I am not sure that Amaral's description (and yes he is personally the signatory to the eventual appeal) of this man as having been seen around 21.30 carrying a child or package in the area of Praia da Luz is the best interpretation of Tanner's statement about the precise area and details of the child is best described as being proved right.
I am not sure that the holding on to the very accurate description of this man for 21 days as the PJ and Portuguese authorities did before making any announcement is best described as even very helpful in the case of a missing child.
I actually pity any parents (Portuguese or otherwise) who ever in the future have to go through the horrendous situation of having to beg the authorities there to release information which may well have been crucial in the investigation. In turn the PJ had to petition the government to make the appeal they did eventually make on May 25th. That is not, in my opinion nor that of experts throughout the world, the best way of trying to find missing children.
When asked why it had taken so long, Olegario Sousa who was the person who actually delivered Amaral's appeal at the press conference said among other things, "We did not feel it was necessary." and "These decisions are made by those who direct the investigation. If the description has not been given already, there was a reason.".
-
It was a perfectly credible witness statement. Anne Guedes was completely and utterly wrong to describe Jane Tanner as "not credible".
LOL!
From the Peter MacLeod letter to Crimewatch, 7 October 2013:
QUOTE
Severe doubts about the credibility of Jane Tanner
The reasons for doubting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
• changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she
claimed to have seen was walking
• her recollection of details about the abductor and the child improving with time,
such as ‘recollecting’ on a second interview precise details of the pattern of the pyjamas of
the girl being carried (in line with what she then knew about Madeleine’s pyjamas)
• rambling and over-elaborate descriptions of the abductor and what he was wearing,
both when interviewed by the Portuguese police and later when re-interviewed by
Leicestershire Police
• her positive identification on 13 May 2007 of Robert Murat as the person she’d seen
carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment - only for her to change her mind
about this months later
• her willingness to claim that the person she claimed to have seen looked like a
moustachioed man seen a sketch by a Mrs Gail Cooper, despite the fact that Jane Tanner
admitted never having seen the man’s face on 3 May
• the fact that at a press conference in August 2009, the McCanns’ chief investigator,
Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been mistaken and seen a woman carrying
a child, not a man
• the fact that her story was so vague and inconsistent that the Portuguese police
dismissed it as a fabrication from very early on in their investigation.
UNQUOTE
This is what the doubters have been saying for years...
-
LOL!
From the Peter MacLeod letter to Crimewatch, 7 October 2013:
QUOTE
Severe doubts about the credibility of Jane Tanner
The reasons for doubting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
• changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she
claimed to have seen was walking
• her recollection of details about the abductor and the child improving with time,
such as ‘recollecting’ on a second interview precise details of the pattern of the pyjamas of
the girl being carried (in line with what she then knew about Madeleine’s pyjamas)
• rambling and over-elaborate descriptions of the abductor and what he was wearing,
both when interviewed by the Portuguese police and later when re-interviewed by
Leicestershire Police
• her positive identification on 13 May 2007 of Robert Murat as the person she’d seen
carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment - only for her to change her mind
about this months later
• her willingness to claim that the person she claimed to have seen looked like a
moustachioed man seen a sketch by a Mrs Gail Cooper, despite the fact that Jane Tanner
admitted never having seen the man’s face on 3 May
• the fact that at a press conference in August 2009, the McCanns’ chief investigator,
Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been mistaken and seen a woman carrying
a child, not a man
• the fact that her story was so vague and inconsistent that the Portuguese police
dismissed it as a fabrication from very early on in their investigation.
UNQUOTE
This is what the doubters have been saying for years...
Do we know the weather conditions that night, maybe it was misty. Like in the old "Ray Stevens" hit.....
-
LOL!
From the Peter MacLeod letter to Crimewatch, 7 October 2013:
QUOTE
Severe doubts about the credibility of Jane Tanner
The reasons for doubting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:
• changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she
claimed to have seen was walking
• her recollection of details about the abductor and the child improving with time,
such as ‘recollecting’ on a second interview precise details of the pattern of the pyjamas of
the girl being carried (in line with what she then knew about Madeleine’s pyjamas)
• rambling and over-elaborate descriptions of the abductor and what he was wearing,
both when interviewed by the Portuguese police and later when re-interviewed by
Leicestershire Police
• her positive identification on 13 May 2007 of Robert Murat as the person she’d seen
carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment - only for her to change her mind
about this months later
• her willingness to claim that the person she claimed to have seen looked like a
moustachioed man seen a sketch by a Mrs Gail Cooper, despite the fact that Jane Tanner
admitted never having seen the man’s face on 3 May
• the fact that at a press conference in August 2009, the McCanns’ chief investigator,
Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been mistaken and seen a woman carrying
a child, not a man
• the fact that her story was so vague and inconsistent that the Portuguese police
dismissed it as a fabrication from very early on in their investigation.
UNQUOTE
This is what the doubters have been saying for years...
The trouble with the doubters claims is that none of what this man's letter claims is right.
Jane Tanner was proven to be spot on with her statement.
There was nothing at all wrong with her testimony.
Did you not see either the BBC or Sky programmes?
What was a terrible failure was that the PJ did not eliminate this man for the proper reasons by using the most basic police technique of interviewing easily locatable witnesses.
-
Do we know the weather conditions that night, maybe it was misty. Like in the old "Ray Stevens" hit.....
Hmmm, the weather, yes, but I was thinking in Jane Tanner's case that this would be more like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXOPAFMOp0
"Stormy weather...just can't get my [story] together..."
-
Some old posts which have now become quite significant in the light of the Crimewatch revelations. Was Dr Amaral right all along when he said that Jane Tanner's sighting was not credible?
-
Some old posts which have now become quite significant in the light of the Crimewatch revelations. Was Dr Amaral right all along when he said that Jane Tanner's sighting was not credible?
Clearly he was ... Scotland Yard have verified it
-
Some old posts which have now become quite significant in the light of the Crimewatch revelations. Was Dr Amaral right all along when he said that Jane Tanner's sighting was not credible?
Of course Jane Tanner's sighting was credible! She reported accurately what she saw. The fault lies with Amaral and his team for not undertaking the basic police investigation which would have ruled out the person she saw right at the beginning of the investigation.
The person who lacks credibility here is Amaral - not Jane Tanner.
-
Of course Jane Tanner's sighting was credible! She reported accurately what she saw. The fault lies with Amaral and his team for not undertaking the basic police investigation which would have ruled out the person she saw right at the beginning of the investigation.
The person who lacks credibility here is Amaral - not Jane Tanner.
Exactly. IMO It's clear that Amaral had no problem at all with Jane Tanner's 'credibility' when he arranged for her to attend an identity 'parade' when he'd got Robert Murat in his sights. It was only when his case against RM failed and he decided to pursue the parents instead that JT's sighting suddenly became a 'spanner in the works' to his theory - and so his answer to that 'problem' was to attempt to discredit her.
If he had really been interested in the Smith sighting he would have arranged with the Smiths for an E-fit to be generated at the time of the first interview - a couple of weeks after Madeleine disappeared. It was only when Mr. Smith said that there was a possibility Gerry could be the man he saw that Amaral suddeny decided he was a key witness - because that fitted in with his theory that the parents had disposed of their daughter' body.
IMO.
However, if it is correct - the Times article states that Mr. Smith has since changed his mind.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
End Quote
Jane Tanner has been completely vindicated. IMO if Amaral had done his job properly her sighting could have been ruled out within days if not hours of Madeleine being abducted.
-
I heard somewhere the Smith family were 'visited' some time ago by representatives of the Mccanns.
If true this is interference with a witness.
-
Exactly. IMO It's clear that Amaral had no problem at all with Jane Tanner's 'credibility' when he arranged for her to attend an identity 'parade' when he'd got Robert Murat in his sights. It was only when his case against RM failed and he decided to pursue the parents instead that JT's sighting suddenly became a 'spanner in the works' to his theory - and so his answer to that 'problem' was to attempt to discredit her.
If he had really been interested in the Smith sighting he would have arranged with the Smiths for an E-fit to be generated at the time of the first interview - a couple of weeks after Madeleine disappeared. It was only when Mr. Smith said that there was a possibility Gerry could be the man he saw that Amaral suddeny decided he was a key witness - because that fitted in with his theory that the parents had disposed of their daughter' body.
IMO.
However, if it is correct - the Times article states that Mr. Smith has since changed his mind.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
End Quote
Jane Tanner has been completely vindicated. IMO if Amaral had done his job properly her sighting could have been ruled out within days if not hours of Madeleine being abducted.
Ah I see,
Everything is Amarals fault.
-
tragically and sadly he has a great deal to answer for and he knows this but will not admit it.
-
tragically and sadly he has a great deal to answer for and he knows this but will not admit it.
neither will the mcanns nor supporters admit what they did was at best morally wrong and at worst child neglect
-
tragically and sadly he has a great deal to answer for and he knows this but will not admit it.
Pray tell which two parents went out to drink for several nights in a row, leaving their children unattended ?
Oh yes, the Mccanns.
-
neither will the mcanns nor supporters admit what they did was at best morally wrong and at worst child neglect
Don't you understand?
Everything is Amarals fault.
-
Don't you understand?
Everything is Amarals fault.
yep they must think he has superpowers
-
superpowers definitely not he knows he made major errors and I agree The McCanns should not have left their children and they have apologised and regret it everyday. 8(8-))
-
superpowers definitely not he knows he made major errors and I agree The McCanns should not have left their children and they have apologised and regret it everyday. 8(8-))
Do you recall what km said on crimewatch.............
Words to the effect 'our parenting skills are no longer an issue'.
-
Do you recall what km said on crimewatch.............
Words to the effect 'our parenting skills are no longer an issue'.
kate is right they are no longer an issue..."no charge against the parents" ...its only forum McCann bashers that keep making it a issue..and its out of your control ..fortunately 8((()*/
-
Do you recall what km said on crimewatch.............
Words to the effect 'our parenting skills are no longer an issue'.
They're not - finding out what happened to Madeleine is the issue - and IMO it's only those people who want to persecute them for the rest of their lives and enjoy doing that so much they don't want to let it go. If Madeleine is not found they will still be regurgitating the same 'ole same ole' when they're drawing their pension. Stuck Record syndrome IMO.
-
kate is right they are no longer an issue..."no charge against the parents" ...its only forum McCann bashers that keep making it a issue..and its out of your control ..fortunately 8((()*/
No.
It is where this case started and where it will end.
The Mccanns are responsible for leaving their children whilst they wined and dined.
Nobody else.
-
They're not - finding out what happened to Madeleine is the issue - and IMO it's only those people who want to persecute them for the rest of their lives and enjoy doing that so much they don't want to let it go. If Madeleine is not found they will still be regurgitating the same 'ole same ole' when they're drawing their pension. Stuck Record syndrome IMO.
Well no, we can always add 'they suppressed important information for 5 years' too now.
-
They're not - finding out what happened to Madeleine is the issue - and IMO it's only those people who want to persecute them for the rest of their lives and enjoy doing that so much they don't want to let it go. If Madeleine is not found they will still be regurgitating the same 'ole same ole' when they're drawing their pension. Stuck Record syndrome IMO.
That's your standard response.
However, no matter how you, your fellow supporters and the Mccanns try to wiggle out of it, more people are now aware of what they failed to do.
-
Well no, we can always add 'they suppressed important information for 5 years' too now.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
No.
It is where this case started and where it will end.
The Mccanns are responsible for leaving their children whilst they wined and dined.
Nobody else.
tell it to SY and the pj..its not a issue with them ..or they would be charged..the issue is finding out where madeleine is and who took her out of her bed ....you don't have a damn clue where this case will end ...what a silly boy you are 8-)(--)
-
tell it to SY and the pj..its not a issue with them ..or they would be charged..this is finding out where madeleine is and who took her out of her bed ....you don't have a damn clue where this case will end ...what a silly boy you are 8-)(--)
Well they've had 2 and a half years and spent over £5,000,000.
It's SY which doesn't have a clue it seems, metaphorically and literally.
P.S. Stupid insults merely emphasize the weakness of your position.
-
Well no, we can always add 'they suppressed important information for 5 years' too now.
I disagree - until and unless we know ALL the facts then IMO no final conclusions can be made.
We have a newspaper article. My own opinion of newspapers is that there is a 50-50 chance that they might have got the date right at the top of the page. And once I read the word 'source' I know that what follows is usually the speculation of the newspaper disguised as the words of someone else.
The only definite conclusion to be made from this is that the theory that C.Mitchell and the McCanns control the press has effectively been blown out of the water. IMO.
-
Well no, we can always add 'they suppressed important information for 5 years' too now.
where's your proof it was the mcCanns that suppressed important information..you don't have a clue do you 8-)(--)
-
tell it to SY and the pj..its not a issue with them ..or they would be charged..this is finding out where madeleine is and who took her out of her bed ....you don't have a damn clue where this case will end ...what a silly boy you are 8-)(--)
so who's fault would it have been if this had of happened then .................maddies
As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.
-
where's your proof it was the mcCanns that suppressed important information..you don't have a clue do you 8-)(--)
I potentially do. A letter from their solicitor, binding the PI's to their confidentiality agreement. Whether that will ever be made public is another matter.
Where is your proof that they didn't? They haven't even denied it!
-
I disagree - until and unless we know ALL the facts then IMO no final conclusions can be made.
We have a newspaper article. My own opinion of newspapers is that there is a 50-50 chance that they might have got the date right at the top of the page. And once I read the word 'source' I know that what follows is usually the speculation of the newspaper disguised as the words of someone else.
The only definite conclusion to be made from this is that the theory that C.Mitchell and the McCanns control the press has effectively been blown out of the water. IMO.
well said benice 8@??)(
-
Well they've had 2 and a half years and spent over £5,000,000.
It's SY which doesn't have a clue it seems, metaphorically and literally.
P.S. Stupid insults merely emphasize the weakness of your position.
So what is your opinion of the Portuguese police who have also ruled out the McCanns as suspects and are looking for an abductor?
-
I potentially do. A letter from their solicitor, binding the PI's to their confidentiality agreement. Whether that will ever be made public is another matter.
Where is your proof that they didn't? They haven't even denied it!
Plus the fact the Mccanns never made a pip squeek about these efits anywhere ever.....
-
So what is your opinion of the Portuguese police who have also ruled out the McCanns as suspects and are looking for an abductor?
The Mccanns are not suspects in the PT police's current line of inquiry...........
Devils in the detail....
-
The Mccanns are not suspects in the PT police's current line of inquiry...........
Devils in the detail....
Isn't it though, current as in new and ongoing.
-
I potentially do. A letter from their solicitor, binding the PI's to their confidentiality agreement. Whether that will ever be made public is another matter.
Where is your proof that they didn't? They haven't even denied it!
im not the one bleating on about it..i don't have to prove anything ...they have more important things to do than to deny anything for likes you a blogger on a forum..
i prefer to wait it will come in time ..have patience my dear... instead of jumping up and down with glee its not a football match ... 8-)(--)
-
where's your proof it was the mcCanns that suppressed important information..you don't have a clue do you 8-)(--)
Haven't you been reading the news ?
-
A spokesman for Find Madeleine said “all information privately gathered” had been “fully acted upon where necessary” and passed on to Scotland Yard.
"A spokesman for Find Madeleine said “all information privately gathered” had been “fully acted upon where necessary” and passed on to Scotland Yard."
-
The Mccanns are not suspects in the PT police's current line of inquiry...........
Devils in the detail....
Wishful thinking IMO Red. I don't think they would have entertained seeing and speaking to the McCanns if they thought there was the slightest chance that they could be potential suspects.
(Must go out now)
-
Do you have proof they did ?
-
It seems I and at least one other can't quote imustpointout. Why is that?
That report says all relevant information was passed on to the police.
-
Do you have proof they did ?
Haven't you been reading the news ?
-
Do you have proof they did ?
You are absolutely ridiculous. Do you have "proof" they didn't? Let's see your "proof".
-
Isn't it though, current as in new and ongoing.
No, the specific line of inquiry that the PJ gave evidence to the AG of to reopen the case.....
-
in big denial today i see are the pros
-
Wishful thinking IMO Red. I don't think they would have entertained seeing and speaking to the McCanns if they thought there was the slightest chance that they could be potential suspects.
(Must go out now)
Nope, nothng to do with wishful thinking.....you need to be more discerning when you read, try reading more widely too
-
No, the specific line of inquiry that the PJ gave evidence to the AG of to reopen the case.....
Twist it all you want. You are wrong. Unless that is you can produce "proof".
-
Have the PJ now released a statement saying the Mccanns are no longer suspects then, or is this still the quote from the Mccanns lawyer that is being bandied around like fact?
-
in big denial today i see are the pros
Really? Please share your insight with me, one of "the pros". What am I denying?
-
It seems I and at least one other can't quote imustpointout. Why is that?
That report says all relevant information was passed on to the police.
thats because they havent written anything to quote, just inserted a quote themselves
And yes, the operative word is relevant....someone decides what is relevant...in this case seems someone decided it wasnt
-
thats because they havent written anything to quote, just inserted a quote themselves
And yes, the operative word is relevant....someone decides what is relevant...in this case seems someone decided it wasnt
But the efits were with the police, so they weren't decided to be irrelevant.
Unless you can prove they were?
-
Twist it all you want. You are wrong. Unless that is you can produce "proof".
Not twisting anything at all, just posted the facts...from the mccanns own lawyers mouth
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/rogerio-alves-mccanns-lawyer-new.html
now, lets have YOUR evidence that the Mccanns are not considered suspects in any way shape form or in any other potential future line of inquiry
-
It seems I and at least one other can't quote imustpointout. Why is that?
That report says all relevant information was passed on to the police.
I have now edited my post so that it can be quoted.
here it is "A spokesman for Find Madeleine said “all information privately gathered” had been “fully acted upon where necessary” and passed on to Scotland Yard."
-
But the efits were with the police, so they weren't decided to be irrelevant.
Unless you can prove they were?
Sigh
Were they? Says who? Which police? PJ or SY? Oh never mind....
-
Sigh
Were they? Says who? Oh never mind
Who says they weren't?
*sigh*
-
Have the PJ now released a statement saying the Mccanns are no longer suspects then, or is this still the quote from the Mccanns lawyer that is being bandied around like fact?
why don't you write to the pj and ask them ..why they havent issued a statement that the mcCanns are not suspects...
the pj haven't denied that statement from the mcCanns lawyer and DCI Redwood
===================================================
-
"Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago.""
Telegraph 19/10/13 - before the Sunday Times article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10391348/Madeleine-McCann-is-there-hope-at-last.html
-
I can't believe the police took the Tanner sighting serious at all. 5 years wasted. Pull the other one. Abduction can also be ruled out in the Smithman sighting IMO because no abductor would be crazy enough to sneak into an apartment and walk of with a child in their arms through the streets for everyone to see. Pre-planned abduction with all the comings and goings that night. Suicidal more like.
-
"Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago.""
Telegraph 19/10/13 - before the Sunday Times article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10391348/Madeleine-McCann-is-there-hope-at-last.html
interesting that a fuss wasn't made of this at the time
-
"It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago,
answer to this is...(Amaral)
-
I can't believe the police took the Tanner sighting serious at all. 5 years wasted. Pull the other one. Abduction can also be ruled out in the Smithman sighting IMO because no abductor would be crazy enough to sneak into an apartment and walk of with a child in their arms through the streets for everyone to see. Pre-planned abduction with all the comings and goings that night. Suicidal more like.
This is the big practical problem we have now.
If bundleman could be ruled out at the drop of a hat, Smithman could easily be found to be some kind of red herring. Then what?
It may even be the case that information about Smithman does exist somewhere, and has been overlooked, like much of the material in the early investigation. Who's to say that SY won't uncover old information on him as apparently they did with bundleman?
But the main problem for SY with regard to Smithman is that he contradicts their current position that Madeleine's disappearance bears the hallmarks of a professional abduction, involving reconnaissance and a team of people. The professional team aspect is the one thing that SY have been explicit about with relation to their current search.
There is absolutely nothing professional, however, about Smithman's MO.
-
"It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago,
answer to this is...(Amaral)
Yeah, wasn't he replaced in september of /07 and these came out in November /08?
God, that man really does have super powers!
-
Smithman definitely exists. As Redwood should've said "This BS has been going on for far too long!" If there's no evidence of an abduction taking place you start looking at alternatives. This is easy to piece together but hard to prove without eye witnesses coming forward and identifying Smithman.
-
Amaral vindicated?
Have the McCanns been proved to have driven Madeleine anywhere dead in the Renault Scenic?
-
Yeah, wasn't he replaced in september of /07 and these came out in November /08?
God, that man really does have super powers!
yes you could be right god knows what powers he did have ..but his powers are weak now arnt they 8-)(--)
-
Have they found the fridge and not told anyone?
-
interesting that a fuss wasn't made of this at the time
That was a quote from Mitchell. It's incredibly easy to blame the PJ knowing they won't respond.
What's more telling is that he didn't use that answer in the Sunday times article.
It's spin pure and simple and the clutching of straws at comments made by the mcCann's own spokesman as though it's some official word is laughable.
-
That was a quote from Mitchell. It's incredibly easy to blame the PJ knowing they won't respond.
What's more telling is that he didn't use that answer in the Sunday times article.
It's spin pure and simple and the clutching of straws at comments made by the mcCann's own spokesman as though it's some official word is laughable.
Carlos Anjos said of Clarence Mitchell: "He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth."
-
I can't believe the police took the Tanner sighting serious at all. 5 years wasted. Pull the other one. Abduction can also be ruled out in the Smithman sighting IMO because no abductor would be crazy enough to sneak into an apartment and walk of with a child in their arms through the streets for everyone to see. Pre-planned abduction with all the comings and goings that night. Suicidal more like.
At least one could presume that Tannerman had his car parked in the private car park he was heading to. But Smithman couldn't. He was heading to a part of PDL where there are no car parks.
-
Smithman definitely exists. As Redwood should've said "This BS has been going on for far too long!" If there's no evidence of an abduction taking place you start looking at alternatives. This is easy to piece together but hard to prove without eye witnesses coming forward and identifying Smithman.
They do have now the tricky task to find some paedophile looking vaguely like Mr McCann and having no alibi for that night.
-
There is absolutely nothing professional, however, about Smithman's MO.
Imagine Smithman had found Madeleine hurt in the street and, not knowing where she belonged, had resolved to take her to his home, would he have crossed the Smith family without asking for help ?
-
They do have now the tricky task to find some paedophile looking vaguely like Mr McCann and having no alibi for that night.
An environmentaly friendly paedophile ring effecient at traceless abduction