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: imustpointout on October 23, 2013, 09:52:58 PM
-
Just information from other forums so far.
but links
PJ want to reopen Maddie case.
Portuguese authorities investigate new lead that should lead to the reopening of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The Portuguese authorities ponder reopen the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, following the analysis by PJ Port over the past two years.
The investigation will be headed by the PJ in Faro and will, for now, involve the cross-examination of witnesses. The Correio da Manhã understands that the thesis then will be the abduction and there may be steps common to that were requested by the British. (English)
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pj-quer-reabrir-caso-maddie
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-pode-reabrir-caso-maddie.html
Please note that I am copying links to press from other forums - I am not copying or quoting the comments from other forums.
-
Cracking stuff. Really great news.
-
Fantastic if this is true imustpointout.
Something the McCann's must be very pleased about!!
-
They must have a lead .they said they would only reopen if hard evidence to support it .
Did anyone used to follow mathew james ? I dont really believe people like that ive seen the so called best and wasnt impressed .he said years ago when the deal is done they will say she has been found .it will involve the finding of other children and the whole case will go around again .
I know its bonkers but its crazy how we are back aain doing the same thing .posting the same things etc etc
If portugal open the case id like to know why
Great news for madeleine god bess her
-
if it's true they must have something new - they have resisted everything else for so long.
-
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-10-23/portuguese-police-set-to-re-open-madeleine-mccann-case/
-
Ok ok just seen on itv
They MAY reopen
-
ITV News understands Portuguese police may be about to re-open the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Madeleine McCann disappeared during a family holiday in Praia da Luz in Portugal in 2007. Credit: Family handout
It is understood a review team, created in March 2012 and involving 37 Portuguese officers, have found two or three new details, which warrant further investigation.
Portuguese police are yet to confirm or deny the reports. Kate and Gerry McCann have always said they would welcome the formal re-opening of the investigation in Portugal.
-
see my post just before yours.
It's the topic that is important - not ......
but the topic is the case IS going to be reopened..why should i believe a tabloid headline..anymore than I believe Maddie was found in Ireland...in any case time will tell if this is bollox or real, im patient
-
but the topic is the case IS going to be reopened..why should i believe a tabloid headline..anymore than I believe Maddie was found in Ireland
my point is that the topic is not about what YOU think
-
Can we have a translation ?
This is excellent news if true ... the Portuguese police have always maintained that the case could not be re-opened without substantive new evidence
If they are re-opening the case, then we can safely assume that Scotland Yard have turned up substantive new evidence
-
Great news, this case should never have been shelved! Hallelujah!
-
my point is that the topic is not about what YOU think
but you have no idea what anyone thinks apart from a redtop, which you couldnt evenbe bothered to translate..... zzzz...proof will be in the pudding wont it......
-
And that line
"Portuguese police are yet to confirm or deny the reports."
Is a useful cloak, the case could have reopened already or may not even open at all. We would be none the wiser.
-
but you have no idea what anyone thinks apart from a redtop, which you couldnt evenbe bothered to translate..... zzzz...proof will be in the pudding wont it......
red - do not stalk me again - you do it every time I post.
Just ignore me if you don't like what I say.
And for once and for all - you do not have to reply.
-
I think I will leave this topic to red and I will move to DCI thread.
@)(++(* ive just noticed we are being watched and it shows warning level
Wonder what we have all done
-
Eduardo Dâmaso stated on CMTV that the PJ crew in Porto may have found a lead that perhaps should be investigated within the scope of abduction. But that does not mean that the investigation will be exclusively aimed at that one theory because otherwise it would be a flawed investigation. All I can say is that I am happy that the case will finally be reopened no matter the initial reason is. The truth must be found.
-
@)(++(* ive just noticed we are being watched and it shows warning level
Wonder what we have all done
... uncalled for comment removed ...
8((()*/
everyone...when u break the rules thats what you get
-
Eduardo Dâmaso stated on CMTV that the PJ crew in Porto may have found a lead that perhaps should be investigated within the scope of abduction. But that does not mean that the investigation will be exclusively aimed at that one theory because otherwise it would be a flawed investigation. All I can say is that I am happy that the case will finally be reopened no matter the initial reason is. The truth must be found.
I wish he'd tell Redwood that!
-
but you have no idea what anyone thinks apart from a redtop, which you couldnt evenbe bothered to translate..... zzzz...proof will be in the pudding wont it......
Well I hope it's true Red ... this case can only be concluded by the police in whose juristiction the crime was committed ( it is not Scotland Yard's case to solve, particulary given their limited remit )
What I find odd, though, is the apparent suggestion that the Portuguese are about to re-open the case as an 'abduction' investigation
That's just silly ... either the case is re-opened with ALL possibilities as 'on the table' as they were when it was shelved ... or it stays shelved
There can be no question, surely, that the case will be re-opened with only one line of investigation open ?
-
Eduardo Dâmaso stated on CMTV that the PJ crew in Porto may have found a lead that perhaps should be investigated within the scope of abduction. But that does not mean that the investigation will be exclusively aimed at that one theory because otherwise it would be a flawed investigation. All I can say is that I am happy that the case will finally be reopened no matter the initial reason is. The truth must be found.
damage limitation
-
APRIL 2012 independent
Portuguese police have refused to reopen the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The decision came after Scotland Yard urged authorities to resume their investigation and released a new "age-progressed" image showing what she might look like as a nine-year-old.
While British detectives believe Madeleine could still be alive, officers in Portugal insist there is no evidence to warrant relaunching the search. And despite the Metropolitan Police's announcement that detectives have identified 195 potential leads, Portuguese police sources said the status of their investigation had not changed.
"......................?
They must have evidence of something if this news is coming out ive learnt not to expect anything
-
Well I hope it's true Red ... this case can only be concluded by the police in whose juristiction the crime was committed ( it is not Scotland Yard's case to solve, particulary given their limited remit )
What I find odd, though, is the apparent suggestion that the Portuguese are about to re-open the case as an 'abduction' investigation
That's just silly ... either the case is re-opened with ALL possibilities as 'on the table' as they were when it was shelved ... or it stays shelved
There can be no question, surely, that the case will be re-opened with only one line of investigation open ?
I have no idea how investigations are carried out in the UK but in Portugal the police don't decide it is an abduction or whatever and will only investigate that possibility to the exclusion of any other. They go where the evidence leads them. They don't decide that someone must be guilty and then try to find the evidence to prove as you often see in the American series.
-
Well I hope it's true Red ... this case can only be concluded by the police in whose juristiction the crime was committed ( it is not Scotland Yard's case to solve, particulary given their limited remit )
What I find odd, though, is the apparent suggestion that the Portuguese are about to re-open the case as an 'abduction' investigation
That's just silly ... either the case is re-opened with ALL possibilities as 'on the table' as they were when it was shelved ... or it stays shelved
There can be no question, surely, that the case will be re-opened with only one line of investigation open ?
Totally agree Icab, it would be strange that it would be reopened on one scenario after being shelved on several..unless someone had SOLID FACTs on one scenario, Solid facts of an abduction...nowhere to be seen.... just rubbish reporting IMO
Hmmmm
-
Totally agree Icab, it would be strange that it would be reopened on one scenario after being shelved on several..unless someone had SOLID FACTs on one scenario, Solid facts of an abduction...nowhere to be seen.... just rubbish reporting IMO
Hmmmm
O dear
-
They must have a lead .they said they would only reopen if hard evidence to support it .
Did anyone used to follow mathew james ? I dont really believe people like that ive seen the so called best and wasnt impressed .he said years ago when the deal is done they will say she has been found .it will involve the finding of other children and the whole case will go around again .
I know its bonkers but its crazy how we are back aain doing the same thing .posting the same things etc etc
If portugal open the case id like to know why
Great news for madeleine god bess her
-
Totally agree Icab, it would be strange that it would be reopened on one scenario after being shelved on several..unless someone had SOLID FACTs on one scenario, Solid facts of an abduction...nowhere to be seen.... just rubbish reporting IMO
Hmmmm
you would say that ..you seem peeved at the news of a possible reopening of the case ..whys that red ?
-
Here is your translation for the opening post related article, at least as best I can get it.
Just information from other forums so far.
but links
PJ want to reopen Maddie case.
Portuguese authorities investigate new lead that should lead to the reopening of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The Portuguese authorities ponder reopen the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, following the analysis by PJ Port over the past two years.
The investigation will be headed by the PJ in Faro and will, for now, involve the cross-examination of witnesses. The Correio da Manhã understands that the thesis then will be the abduction and there may be steps common to that were requested by the British. (English)
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pj-quer-reabrir-caso-maddie
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-pode-reabrir-caso-maddie.html
Please note that I am copying links to press from other forums - I am not copying or quoting the comments from other forums.
-
Translation
Research should be borne by the PJ in Faro and consist, for now, in the examination of other witnesses. The Morning Post then know that the thesis will be to kidnapping and steps may be common
....................
Mine says kidnapping not abduction
-
"de rapto" translates as abduction.
A dinosaur might have abducted madeleine john....LOL sorry
-
A dinosaur might have abducted madeleine john....LOL sorry
what about the occultation
-
Does anyone know if the McCanns will regain their arguido status once the case reopened?
-
Does anyone know if the McCanns will regain their arguido status once the case reopened?
seeing as they are not persons of interest or suspects I doubt it..
-
seeing as they are not persons of interest or suspects I doubt it..
Do you know anything about Portuguese law?
-
Do you know anything about Portuguese law?
a little yes ..do you ?
-
Do you know anything about Portuguese law?
I am sure I saw John holding you up as someone with his ear close to the heart of this case. Clearly you don't actually know anything about Portuguese law and the fundamental role in it of the arguido status or you would not have asked.
But a quick perusal of the relevant articles of the Penal Code (58 is a good starting place) suggests that there is no possibility of the McCanns who the PJ and SY both state (in the case of the PJ so far only via the media) have no involvement in the disappearance being constituted as arguidos again.
The reason for that is clear. Like most justice systems the Portuguese system demands evidence that the individual has committed an offence before action is taken against the person. That is made very clear by the Penal Code. It is not always clear from posts by Anti McCanns that they understand this need (I am not specifically referring to you in this instance) but it is a fundamental requirement.
-
TV news this morning is leading with the story.
-
Just looked at some online editions of newspapers and there seems to be no mention in Guardian, Independent, Telegraph or even Daily Mail. Is everything being swamped by the royal christening or are they just being a bit more circumspect and waiting until the Portuguese judiciary have made their decision ?
-
Listened to the 'story'.
What actually has changed ?
The Portuguese are considering re-opening the case.
New leads..................
What new leads exactly ?
Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.
Proof/evidence of abduction ?
Still waiting on that one.
-
Listened to the 'story'.
What actually has changed ?
The Portuguese are considering re-opening the case.
New leads..................
What new leads exactly ?
Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.
Proof/evidence of abduction ?
Still waiting on that one.
What has changed according the the Portuguese article is that
1 pj have applied to reopen the case
2 They will investigate the case as an abduction
-
We shall see.
Meanwhile where is the proof/evidence of abduction ?
-
We shall see.
Meanwhile where is the proof/evidence of abduction ?
Oh dear.
Such a sad mantra, getting even sadder as the SY and PJ investigations progress.
Yes, we shall see. We shall see eventually why both SY and the PJ have abandoned the Amaral thesis, that one which the AG stated there was no evidence for, and have now focused their efforts on investigating the abduction of Madeleine.
But I fear that your demand that SY or the PJ should present you with the evidence they have for their claims they have made suggests a very poor lack of understanding of the way effective policing is done prior to the laying of charges. You may have been led astray by the chaotic handling of the early part of the investigation and by the leaks of material then which only the police held but which somehow fell onto the desks of journalists.
-
Chaotic investigation, hardly.
Didn't you hear the praise from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in the way the PJ handled the investigation ?
What FACTS point to an abduction ?
-
Chaotic investigation, hardly.
Didn't you hear the praise from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in the way the PJ handled the investigation ?
What FACTS point to an abduction ?
None that have been made public, though there may be some pointers that we are not aware of.
I, for one, am quite content to let things take their course in the hope that a definitive result is achieved, as nothing less will settle the issue.
-
Chaotic investigation, hardly.
Didn't you hear the praise from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe in the way the PJ handled the investigation ?
What FACTS point to an abduction ?
There have been very many examples of bungling and chaos regarding the initial handling of the disappearance.
These include those highlighted by Amaral himself including the failure of the photographer to take photos including people on his initial visit to PDL.
And they include basic policing failures such as that I have just highlighted elsewhere on this forum where it took five months before the PJ even bothered to go to Kelly's bar to retrieve the till receipts and interview staff there in relation to the potentially crucial witness statements of the Smith family. It was only after Rebelo took over that such a basic action was completed.
And no I didn't hear any praise from Sir Bernard of the PJ handling of the investigation. And that is because at no point in his LBC interview does Sir Bernard actually praise the handling of the Madeleine case by the PJ.
What he does do is explain that all investigations are beset by challenges and potential errors which could with hindsight have been better handled. Your mangling of that defence of police in general and twisting/spinning it into some kind of praise does you no credit at all.
Four facts known to us point to an abduction. They are
1. the disappearance of the child
in conjunction with
2. the fact that both the UK investigations and the PJ investigations have found no evidence of the involvement of the McCanns in that disappearance
followed up by
3, the fact that we know that the experts now of the PJ and SY in both instances are looking into abduction as a priority.
and
4. the known fact that there exists an unexplained sighting of a person carrying a child at a time which would suggest a very possible connection with the disappearance.
These four facts are not conclusive but they are nevertheless facts.
As with Jassi, I am content with these four facts for the moment and I await the further outcome of current investigations.
Clearly from your constant repetition of your sad mantra you are not.
We are both entitled to our opinions but it is completely wrong for you to state that there are no facts pointing to an abduction when it is clear that there are.
-
The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.
The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.
The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.
It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.
There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........
-
The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.
The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.
The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.
It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.
There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........
you know better than SY do you ?
-
As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:
"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."
The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.
Interesting times!
-
Well to use that old adage, 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Just remind me of how long SY has had on this investigation and exactly what breakthrough of any meaning they have found ?
-
As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:
"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."
The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.
Interesting times!
Indeed!
Thanks Montclair.
-
The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.
You have made two very bad errors in that one sentence.
The sighting was not "by Mr. Smith". The sigting was by the entire Smith family and there are a number of separate statements in the files which prove that.
The second error is your claim that "the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann (sic) himself." You are wrong. What he claimed was that he believed it was a possibility.
There is no excuse really for your making such crucial errors with regard to this aspect of the case because this has been explained clearly many times here and elsewhere.
The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.
The McCanns (sic) and their friends did what any normal parents and friends would do in the event of a child disappearing. They searched the apartment thoroughly before then involving the police. I am sorry you cannot understand this but it is normal.
And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.
The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.
Correct. The dog alerts were not backed up by any forensics. They were never corroborated. That is one factor which led the AG to point out that there is absolutely no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.
Till anyone provides any evidence at all that something happened to Madeleine within the actual apartment then it is sheer speculation. I prefer evidence and facts.
There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........
Perhaps you have some kind of rosy notion that police work is simple and resolution comes easily (as on TV) whereas the truth is that it doesn't and lead after lead have to be followed up painstakingly one after the other to eventually eliminate each one and narrow the investigative focus.
There is only one reason that these old leads are now being revisited and that is because the PJ failed completely to investigate these leads thoroughly in the first case. The proof of that is the fact that the PJ had all the relevant details to hand which would have allowed them to rule out the Tanner sighting within hours of her statement being made had they bothered to use those details and interview the 8 parents from the night creche who were all almost certainly still in PDL for 48 hours after the disappearance and whose addresses at home were anyway available to the PJ.
-
As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:
"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."
The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.
Interesting times!
The fact that one of the most senior lawyers/prosecutors in Portugal at the time in the archival report outlined in great detail why the question of legal action relating to abandonment/neglect was not appropriate in this case might be seen by most readers here as more authoritative than a report in newspaper.
I know who I would believe.
-
And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.
***
Where did you read that then Gilet??
-
I am well aware of the Smiths in general.
Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.
Cigarettes and dog hair ???
Searching I understand, but they claimed abduction !
Forensics inconclusive.
So you cannot discount an accident to Madeleine in the apartment.
-
The fact that one of the most senior lawyers/prosecutors in Portugal at the time in the archival report outlined in great detail why the question of legal action relating to abandonment/neglect was not appropriate in this case might be seen by most readers here as more authoritative than a report in newspaper.
I know who I would believe.
Times change and we need to move on from what was said some 5 years ago and listen to what the Judiciary are saying now.
-
Four facts known to us point to an abduction. They are
1. the disappearance of the child
in conjunction with
2. the fact that both the UK investigations and the PJ investigations have found no evidence of the involvement of the McCanns in that disappearance
followed up by
3, the fact that we know that the experts now of the PJ and SY in both instances are looking into abduction as a priority.
and
4. the known fact that there exists an unexplained sighting of a person carrying a child at a time which would suggest a very possible connection with the disappearance.
These four facts are not conclusive but they are nevertheless facts.
As with Jassi, I am content with these four facts for the moment and I await the further outcome of current investigations.
Is that the best you can come up with??
1. The disappearance of a child is hardly evidence of an abduction.
2. SY and the PJ have no evidence of parental involvement and no evidence that they weren't involved.
3. SY and the PJ looking into an abduction as a 'priority' is both funny and sad. Six years on and this is the best they have? Hardly evidence is it.
4. The unexplained sighting could very well be yet another Tannerman. Again hardly evidence of anything.
-
And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.
***
Where did you read that then Gilet??
The reference to the dog hairs is in the files in the Specialist Examination Report 200707060-CR/L.
The reference to the cigarette ash was widely reported in the media in late 2007.
-
Opening the case again does give a fresh opportunity to 'probe' existing witnesses further.
-
I am well aware of the Smiths in general.
Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.
No he did not. He believed it was a possibility. No matter how many times you repeat that claim it will never become true because it is not what he said. And you are hiding the fact that no other member of the Smith family who gave a statement about the same incident made any statement agreeing with his belief in this possibility.
Cigarettes and dog hair ???
Yes the former widely reported and the latter specifically recorded in the files.
Searching I understand, but they claimed abduction !
Forensics inconclusive.
Correct. The forensics do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead, let alone that she died in the apartment.
So you cannot discount an accident to Madeleine in the apartment.
I don't discount anything. But I do rely on evidence not speculation as you are clearly doing.
-
The reference to the dog hairs is in the files in the Specialist Examination Report 200707060-CR/L.
The reference to the cigarette ash was widely reported in the media in late 2007.
I didnt ask about the dog hairs as that info is in the files
Regarding the fag ash alledgedly dropped all over the place by GNR officers - reported in the media wont cut it Im afraid for you to state it as a fact and that it caused significant problems for forensics...I prefer to read the police files than the Sun for facts
-
Times change and we need to move on from what was said some 5 years ago and listen to what the Judiciary are saying now.
What precisely is the difference between what the judiciary are now saying and that report? Are you telling us that the judiciary has given us a new ruling on the matter of the neglect charge? Or are you simply speculating that might happen?
The clear outline of reasoning by a senior Portuguese lawyer has far more standing in my eyes than either this news report or your speculation.
-
I didnt ask about the dog hairs as that info is in the files
Regarding the fag ash alledgedly dropped all over the place by GNR officers - reported in the media wont cut it Im afraid for you to state it as a fact and that it caused significant problems for forensics...I prefer to read the police files than the Sun for facts
I will remember that.
And you made no differentiation in your request for information as to the provenance of the claims between dog hairs and fag ash. Don't try to pretend otherwise now.
-
I leave the delusions to others.
We shall see what happens....................................
No you don't. Your entire position is a delusion that you know better than the experts of Scotland Yard. You are unwilling to accept what they, the experts, are telling you.
And yes, we shall see what heppens. But having ruled out the McCanns as suspects I would not set my hopes (as you clearly are doing) that SY or the PJ are going to suddenly change their minds and follow your amateur opinions.
-
I will remember that.
And you made no differentiation in your request for information as to the provenance of the claims between dog hairs and fag ash. Don't try to pretend otherwise now.
yes I did, i put the two words cigarette ash in bold.....
Dont pretend otherwise now
8((()*/
-
What precisely is the difference between what the judiciary are now saying and that report? Are you telling us that the judiciary has given us a new ruling on the matter of the neglect charge? Or are you simply speculating that might happen?
The clear outline of reasoning by a senior Portuguese lawyer has far more standing in my eyes than either this news report or your speculation.
As far as I'm aware, the judiciary haven't actually said anything recently and have yet to pronounce on the request to reopen the case.
-
This latest precipitation relates to the Smith family sighting, so looks like there will be further interviews in the offing.
One observation though. If SY and now the PJ are putting so much confidence in the Smiths sighting, why aren't they putting the same confidence in the fact that Mr Smith stated that he was between 60% and 80% sure the man was Gerry McCann while his daughter estimated it at 60%?
When I was at school I was taught that 60% is greater than 50% but then that was a while ago.
Some people wonder why the McCanns sat on the Smiths e-fits for 5 years if it was so crucial?????
-
Is that the best you can come up with??
1. The disappearance of a child is hardly evidence of an abduction.
2. SY and the PJ have no evidence of parental involvement and no evidence that they weren't involved.
3. SY and the PJ looking into an abduction as a 'priority' is both funny and sad. Six years on and this is the best they have? Hardly evidence is it.
4. The unexplained sighting could very well be yet another Tannerman. Again hardly evidence of anything.
As I have said on many occasions I have, personally, no idea what happened in PDL that night.
But I do recognise that there is clear evidence of potential abduction as I have outlined above. It may be slim evidence but it remains evidence. The fact you are unwilling to recognise it as such is a great shame but does not devalue it.
The reason that SY are now involved at all is largely because the initial five months of the investigation were botched so badly. It is appalling that Amaral's team did not do the basic policing which would have ruled out the initial sighting within hours of Tanner's statement being made. It is equally appalling that it was not till after Amaral had been removed ignominiously from the case that the PJ even got round to testing the timings of the Smith sighting by interviewing the Kelly's bar staff and requesting the till receipts. It is hardly surprising that SY are moving slowly when everyone knows that the initial few hours and weeks of a missing person investigation are the most fruitful. They have not had the benefit of that immediacy that Amaral so badly squandered.
And when there is a body of expertise both here in the UK and in PT which can find absolutely no evidence of parental involvement of the parents even though they have been thoroughly investigated but can find evidence of potential abduction then I prefer to trust that expertise than amateur speculation such as yours.
-
The second error is your claim that "the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann (sic) himself." You are wrong. What he claimed was that he believed it was a possibility.
There is no excuse really for your making such crucial errors with regard to this aspect of the case because this has been explained clearly many times here and elsewhere.
Find where Mr Smith uses the word possibility. His exact words were:
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
The McCanns (sic) and their friends did what any normal parents and friends would do in the event of a child disappearing. They searched the apartment thoroughly before then involving the police. I am sorry you cannot understand this but it is normal.
And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.
Searched the apartment thoroughly? What about the one solid opportunity for forensic examination, the window and shutters?
From a recent Blackmith Post:
Upon discovery of the scene Gerry immediately "lowered the shutter" (Madeleine page 73), destroying any possibility of load forces test or other aperture dependent tests, including visibility tests, producing any meaningful results. The police have never known how far the shutter was actually open.
The other area for study was, of course, laboratory investigation to determine whether the shutters were opened from inside or out. So what did Gerry McCann, keeper of the "crime scene", do? He "rushed outside" and pushed the shutters upwards, thus destroying at a stroke all possibility of materials analysis: thenceforth any lab results could be put down to Gerry and were therefore forensically worthless. Mathew Oldfield's 9.30 PM evidence at once became incapable of assessment against the facts. And just to complete this triumph of evidence preservation, Kate McCann, as well as "throwing cupboards and wardrobes open" – making it impossible for police to assess at a glance any signs of intrusion or struggle – handled the window, presumably to close it.
This resulted in:
On May 4 and subsequent evenings video/DVD recording from outside and from the bedroom doorway at corresponding and sunset-corrected times would provide court exhibit evidence of the following:
The light entering the bedroom from outside
The obviousness or otherwise of the open shutters to passers-by on the street
Visibility in the room at the appropriate corrected times and
Whether, therefore, Mathew Oldfield's claimed inability to describe the lighting conditions and shutter state was credible or obviously untrue.
Finally, knowing how open the window was would enable controlled testing to establish the feasibility of the famous curtain blow and slamming bedroom door (with patio doors already closed) described by Kate McCann.
The police never even saw this evidence. It was gone before they arrived.
That does not necessarily mean it was a deliberate act to cover their own wrong-doing: what matters though is the effect, not the intention. Perhaps readers can forgive the sense of outrage that sometimes comes smoking off the Bureau pages, after six wearying years of having to make these irrefutable points in the face of public misinformation and denial. They destroyed all the evidence before the police arrived!
And it's the police who are supposed to have contaminated the apartment, the "crime scene".
Correct. The dog alerts were not backed up by any forensics. They were never corroborated. That is one factor which led the AG to point out that there is absolutely no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.
But they were an indication nonetheless, a tool used by Police all over the world. And we all know why there was no evidence? Because the investigation was disturbed. Who disturbed it? Why the McCann's and their cohorts.
Till anyone provides any evidence at all that something happened to Madeleine within the actual apartment then it is sheer speculation. I prefer evidence and facts.
No the dogs provided an indication, which is more than there is to support an abduction. However of course the dogs indications could equally relate to an abductor having committed an act which would cause the dogs to alert.
Why simply dismiss the dogs findings because it is perceived that it implies guilt against the Mccann's? Why couldn't an abductor have killed the child?
-
It is appalling that Amaral's team did not do the basic policing which would have ruled out the initial sighting within hours of Tanner's statement being made.
They did rule out the Tanner sighting though. They said her sighting was unreliable. And it was.
And when there is a body of expertise both here in the UK and in PT which can find absolutely no evidence of parental involvement of the parents even though they have been thoroughly investigated but can find evidence of potential abduction then I prefer to trust that expertise than amateur speculation such as yours.
"Thoroughly investigated"?? Are you sure about that? At the point of a thorough investigation of their movements, critical to determining the guilt or otherwise of the McCann's, they hired the most expensive extradition lawyers in the world and fled Portugal never to return for the reconstruction.
Until such time as they comply with that reconstruction request it is hogwash to suggest they were thoroughly investigated over there.
-
This latest precipitation relates to the Smith family sighting, so looks like there will be further interviews in the offing.
One observation though. If SY and now the PJ are putting so much confidence in the Smiths sighting, why aren't they putting the same confidence in the fact that Mr Smith stated that he was between 60% and 80% sure the man was Gerry McCann while his daughter estimated it at 60%?
When I was at school I was taught that 60% is greater than 50% but then that was a while ago.
But 60% of that one statement amounts to far, far less than 50% of the entire Smith statements. Why do you conveniently forget that no other Smith family member even mentioned the possibility that Gerry might have been the mad in their statements?
And why do you forget that Gerry McCann is reported by at least six other perfectly credible witnesses including one at least one staff member as being in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The fact that one Smith family member reported this as a possibility is greatly outweighed by the fact that no other member did and by the fact that the possibility is made much more difficult by Gerry being identified by people who actually knew him or knew him as the father of the missing child as in a different location.
Hardly surprising when you look at all the facts instead of superficially only concentrating on one of them, that SY are following the course they are following is it?
-
This latest precipitation relates to the Smith family sighting, so looks like there will be further interviews in the offing.
One observation though. If SY and now the PJ are putting so much confidence in the Smiths sighting, why aren't they putting the same confidence in the fact that Mr Smith stated that he was between 60% and 80% sure the man was Gerry McCann while his daughter estimated it at 60%?
When I was at school I was taught that 60% is greater than 50% but then that was a while ago.
Some people wonder why the McCanns sat on the Smiths e-fits for 5 years if it was so crucial?????
When did Mr. Smith's daughter even suggest that it was Gerry McCann they saw?
60% could well be greater than 50%, but not by much. Especially coming from a man whose family didn't agree with him.
-
Wasn't Mr Smith's daughter feeling unwell ? if this was the case, she may not have been paying much attention and been unable to contribute constructively to the description.
-
between 60 and 80% sure! So round it off to 70 for good measure...thats quite high by any measure
And his wife agreed with him!
Something some wish to sweep under the carpet.....
-
But 60% of that one statement amounts to far, far less than 50% of the entire Smith statements. Why do you conveniently forget that no other Smith family member even mentioned the possibility that Gerry might have been the mad in their statements?
And why do you forget that Gerry McCann is reported by at least six other perfectly credible witnesses including one at least one staff member as being in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?
The fact that one Smith family member reported this as a possibility is greatly outweighed by the fact that no other member did and by the fact that the possibility is made much more difficult by Gerry being identified by people who actually knew him or knew him as the father of the missing child as in a different location.
Hardly surprising when you look at all the facts instead of superficially only concentrating on one of them, that SY are following the course they are following is it?
But supporters of the McCann's have been saying for years it is accepted in statement analysis that witnesses timings are prone to be wrong in order to explain discrepancies in the Tapas statements. Why doesn't that same principal apply to Gerry's alibi at this time?
-
Find where Mr Smith uses the word possibility. His exact words were:
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
Searched the apartment thoroughly? What about the one solid opportunity for forensic examination, the window and shutters?
From a recent Blackmith Post:
Upon discovery of the scene Gerry immediately "lowered the shutter" (Madeleine page 73), destroying any possibility of load forces test or other aperture dependent tests, including visibility tests, producing any meaningful results. The police have never known how far the shutter was actually open.
The other area for study was, of course, laboratory investigation to determine whether the shutters were opened from inside or out. So what did Gerry McCann, keeper of the "crime scene", do? He "rushed outside" and pushed the shutters upwards, thus destroying at a stroke all possibility of materials analysis: thenceforth any lab results could be put down to Gerry and were therefore forensically worthless. Mathew Oldfield's 9.30 PM evidence at once became incapable of assessment against the facts. And just to complete this triumph of evidence preservation, Kate McCann, as well as "throwing cupboards and wardrobes open" – making it impossible for police to assess at a glance any signs of intrusion or struggle – handled the window, presumably to close it.
This resulted in:
On May 4 and subsequent evenings video/DVD recording from outside and from the bedroom doorway at corresponding and sunset-corrected times would provide court exhibit evidence of the following:
The light entering the bedroom from outside
The obviousness or otherwise of the open shutters to passers-by on the street
Visibility in the room at the appropriate corrected times and
Whether, therefore, Mathew Oldfield's claimed inability to describe the lighting conditions and shutter state was credible or obviously untrue.
Finally, knowing how open the window was would enable controlled testing to establish the feasibility of the famous curtain blow and slamming bedroom door (with patio doors already closed) described by Kate McCann.
The police never even saw this evidence. It was gone before they arrived.
That does not necessarily mean it was a deliberate act to cover their own wrong-doing: what matters though is the effect, not the intention. Perhaps readers can forgive the sense of outrage that sometimes comes smoking off the Bureau pages, after six wearying years of having to make these irrefutable points in the face of public misinformation and denial. They destroyed all the evidence before the police arrived!
And it's the police who are supposed to have contaminated the apartment, the "crime scene".
But they were an indication nonetheless, a tool used by Police all over the world. And we all know why there was no evidence? Because the investigation was disturbed. Who disturbed it? Why the McCann's and their cohorts.
No the dogs provided an indication, which is more than there is to support an abduction. However of course the dogs indications could equally relate to an abductor having committed an act which would cause the dogs to alert.
Why simply dismiss the dogs findings because it is perceived that it implies guilt against the Mccann's? Why couldn't an abductor have killed the child?
He doesn't use the word possibility. He makes it clear by referring to a percentage it is not a certainty and therefore is only a possibility.
I am not responding to posts from blogs. We have been told by admin to refrain from bringing such material here so I will not comment till you bring actual evidence for me to comment on. I am rather shocked that you should rely on blogs so heavily.
As for the dogs, yes they are an indication. Not evidence. But they were an indication that was thoroughly investigated at length and still no corroboration was found. I believe Martin Grime tells us that the alerts are of no evidential value unless corroborated.
Unfortunately the equally valid indications of abduction (ie sigitings of men carrying children away from the area of the apartment) were not thoroughly investigated by the PJ under Amaral. Their total failure to rule out the Tanner sighting when the means to do so within hours of her making her statement is proof of that as is the fact that the PJ didn't even bother to check the timing of the Smith sighting by obtaining the till receipts till five whole months after the disappearance when Amaral had been removed from the case.
That is why the focus is now rightly on abduction.
-
Wasn't Mr Smith's daughter feeling unwell ? if this was the case, she may not have been paying much attention and been unable to contribute constructively to the description.
Are you going to suggest that this unwellness of the daughter also contributed to the son's inability to pick out Gerry or have you a different excuse for that one?
-
When did Mr. Smith's daughter even suggest that it was Gerry McCann they saw?
60% could well be greater than 50%, but not by much. Especially coming from a man whose family didn't agree with him.
My mistake sorry. She in fact said she was 60% certain it was Madeleine McCann she saw. So if the father is 60%-80% certain it was Gerry McCann what are we supposed to believe? Coincidence??
-
Wasn't Mr Smith's daughter feeling unwell ? if this was the case, she may not have been paying much attention and been unable to contribute constructively to the description.
So because she wasn't feeling well this somehow suggests that her failure to comment means that she believed it was Gerry?
I think I've just about heard it all now.
-
between 60 and 80% sure! So round it off to 70 for good measure...thats quite high by any measure
And his wife agreed with him!
Something some wish to sweep under the carpet.....
We have no evidence that his wife agreed with him. She refused to give a statement and the husband's word is simply hearsay.
It is not sweeping it under the carpet to re-iterate that there is no evidence she ever said it.
-
between 60 and 80% sure! So round it off to 70 for good measure...thats quite high by any measure
And his wife agreed with him!
Something some wish to sweep under the carpet.....
You would think that people would be hopeful that Smithman actually was abductorman, and thus provide some evidence of a stranger abduction, instead of suggesting that the Smith testimony is flawed and unreliable.
-
We have no evidence that his wife agreed with him. She refused to give a statement and the husband's word is simply hearsay.
It is not sweeping it under the carpet to re-iterate that there is no evidence she ever said it.
pedantic libel
-
Wasn't Mr Smith's daughter feeling unwell ? if this was the case, she may not have been paying much attention and been unable to contribute constructively to the description.
No, his 12 year old daughter Aoife was perfectly sound as was her eyesight. It was his daughter in law who was unwell.
-
No, his 12 year old daughter was perfectly sound as was her eyesight. It was his daughter in law who was unwell.
Ah, thanks, wrong female.
-
You would think that people would be hopeful that Smithman actually was abductorman, and thus provide some evidence of a stranger abduction, instead of suggesting that the Smith testimony is flawed and unreliable.
Mr Smith is the latest baddie because he thinks it was GM he saw......thing is...months before he said that the mccanns never advertised the family sighting at all either, curious.......in my book....and even if it was in the media that he had said that, the FACT put out that GM was seen in the restaraunt at the same time is somethng else that shouldnt have stopped them....instead the elephant in the room was ignored whikst they chased australian socialites that might have had some connextion to a marina in spain....deary me
-
Ah, thanks, wrong female.
No probs jassi. I make mistakes all the time too as there is so much to take in. No wonder a case like this supports so many myths.
-
But supporters of the McCann's have been saying for years it is accepted in statement analysis that witnesses timings are prone to be wrong in order to explain discrepancies in the Tapas statements. Why doesn't that same principal apply to Gerry's alibi at this time?
But there are no discrepancies in this instance. They all put him in the same place at the same time.
-
No, his 12 year old daughter Aoife was perfectly sound as was her eyesight. It was his daughter in law who was unwell.
And oddly neither felt able to even confirm the possibility that Martin claimed regarding the man being Gerry. Nor did the son either.
-
Paulo Rebelo reviewed thoroughly the Amaral investigation, he's now deputy national director of the PJ.
-
He doesn't use the word possibility. He makes it clear by referring to a percentage it is not a certainty and therefore is only a possibility.
I am not responding to posts from blogs. We have been told by admin to refrain from bringing such material here so I will not comment till you bring actual evidence for me to comment on. I am rather shocked that you should rely on blogs so heavily.
No need for the faux shock about the blogs. The point is i am of the same opinion regarding the crime scene in direct contradiction to your outrageous claim that the parents did not contaminate the crime scene.
So for the sake of discussion let us say that it is my position and my argument.
The fact is the parents did contaminate the scene before the police arrived and the McCann's destroyed the only solid physical evidence that would have determined the key questions about the apartment which could then have been used in court.
And that's why you will not respond to the piece, because you cannot argue with the logic. it debunks your assertion and you are not prepared to discuss it because to do so would be to admit you were wrong.
As for the dogs, yes they are an indication. Not evidence. But they were an indication that was thoroughly investigated at length and still no corroboration was found. I believe Martin Grime tells us that the alerts are of no evidential value unless corroborated.
So we have an indication, right? Not an indication the McCann's did anything but an indication of a death in the apartment. Why are you not prepared to admit that an abductor could have been responsible for the death in the apartment?
That's the problem with McCann supporters and the dog evidence. It's nothing to do with the indications they gave, it's the implication of who was involved that causes McCann supporters to dismiss them and libel Grime at every turn.
Unfortunately the equally valid indications of abduction (ie sigitings of men carrying children away from the area of the apartment) were not thoroughly investigated by the PJ under Amaral. Their total failure to rule out the Tanner sighting when the means to do so within hours of her making her statement is proof of that as is the fact that the PJ didn't even bother to check the timing of the Smith sighting by obtaining the till receipts till five whole months after the disappearance when Amaral had been removed from the case.
Why is it an equally valid indication? After all the so called abductor, dismissed by SY, was the one who the Tapas mob built their statements around.
He turned out to be someone walking his child home who took 6 years to come forward. You cannot say men walking with children is an indication of an abduction. Tannerman is ample proof of that.
What's more interesting is that it actually further calls into question the statements. How had the door moved by Gerry's check, was replaced back to its position then looked to have moved again by Oldfield's check if the abduction didn't happen until around 50 minnutes after Gerry's check and 25 minutes after Oldfield's?
That is why the focus is now rightly on abduction.
Well we will see won't we, because if the parents were suspected i have no doubt that both SY and the PJ would not be reopening the case in PT shouting to the world the parents are involved.
Citing abduction is the only way the case can ever be reopened, irrespective of the evidence to hand, short of a confession.
To think otherwise displays naivety of epic proportions.
-
Paulo Rebelo reviewed thoroughly the Amaral investigation, he's now deputy national director of the PJ.
So? Whats that to do with the discussion?
-
So what happened to Mary Smiths first statement? We know according to Martin that she didn't want to make another one.
-
My mistake sorry. She in fact said she was 60% certain it was Madeleine McCann she saw. So if the father is 60%-80% certain it was Gerry McCann what are we supposed to believe? Coincidence??
She did describe the abductor wearing beige trousers possibly with buttons and we have a picture of Gerry in June/July in Portugal wearing trousers that match that description....
So we have Mr Smith saying he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry and Mrs Smith describing trousers we have photographic evidence of Gerry having in Portugal....
ETA... Sorry i believe it was his daughter who described the trousers not Mr Smith's wife.
The point stands about the corroboration though.
-
Paulo Rebelo reviewed thoroughly the Amaral investigation, he's now deputy national director of the PJ.
Yes and we were told just how appalled he was at the way the case had been handled by Amaral.
It is a great shame that he was not co-ordinator from the beginning.
Did you know it was not till the 10th of October for example (just after he was installed) that the PJ even got around to attempting to confirm the timing of the Smith sighting reported to them 5 months earlier by doing the basic police work of interviewing the Kelly's Bar staff and asking for the till receipts.
-
So what happened to Mary Smiths first statement? We know according to Martin that she didn't want to make another one.
We don't know for certain anything about Mary Smith having made any statement. Did she return to Portugal in May 2007? We only have hearsay from Martin about her comments. That is not evidence at all.
-
Again, anyone know why Mrs Smiths statement is missing from the files?? It was the Garda officer Sergeant Liam Hogan who stated she didn't want to make another thus :
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg)
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
She did describe the abductor wearing beige trousers possibly with buttons and we have a picture of Gerry in June/July in Portugal wearing trousers that match that description....
So we have Mr Smith saying he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry and Mrs Smith describing trousers we have photographic evidence of Gerry having in Portugal....
ETA... Sorry i believe it was his daughter who described the trousers not Mr Smith's wife.
The point stands about the corroboration though.
So two possibilities, one that the man carried the child in the same way as Gerry (most people do by the way) and that was the only point of similarity mentioned by Martin. And one similarity between trousers (a kind that was popular that year). But nothing at all from the other Smith witnesses and at least five (including one independent one) positively confirming without any doubt that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
No matter how many times you look at it there is no way people can't understand why SY on balance are coming down on the side that it was not in fact Gerry.
-
Again, anyone know why Mrs Smiths statement is missing from the files??
When you offer some actual evidence that she returned to Portugal with the others and made a statement instead of just presuming that as a fact we might take your question seriously.
Isn't it perfectly possible that she may have remained in Ireland to look after the younger children?
-
Again, anyone know why Mrs Smiths statement is missing from the files?? It was the Garda officer who stated she didn't want to make another thus :
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
The obvious assumption to make is that she stayed in Ireland and gave her statement to the Gardia......something which like many other statements given in the UK are not contained in the files.....she did give a statement ...that much we know.....anyone desperately for some reason insinuatng otherwise is calling mr smith/gardia liars
-
The obvious assumption to make is that she stayed in Ireland and gave her statement to the Gardia......something which like many other statements given in the UK are not contained in the files.....
I agree, wouldn't that be an interesting piece of paper to see??
-
So two possibilities, one that the man carried the child in the same way as Gerry (most people do by the way) and that was the only point of similarity mentioned by Martin. And one similarity between trousers (a kind that was popular that year). But nothing at all from the other Smith witnesses and at least five (including one independent one) positively confirming without any doubt that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
No matter how many times you look at it there is no way people can't understand why SY on balance are coming down on the side that it was not in fact Gerry.
It's called evidence Gilet!! Looks like some Irish folks are going to be busy with interviews again and we all know where that leads!! @)(++(*
-
I agree, wouldn't that be an interesting piece of paper to see??
ive no doubt whatsoever it will all come out in the big wash....
8((()*/
-
ive no doubt whatsoever it will all come out in the big wash....
8((()*/
Whitewash?? >@@(*&)
-
When you offer some actual evidence that she returned to Portugal with the others and made a statement instead of just presuming that as a fact we might take your question seriously.
Isn't it perfectly possible that she may have remained in Ireland to look after the younger children?
I never said she returned to Portugal with the others to give a statement so she must have given one to the Garda in Ireland.
Why it was never sent to Portugal is another mystery??
-
Whitewash?? >@@(*&)
No I think all the smalls will be out on the washing line for all to see....
-
So two possibilities, one that the man carried the child in the same way as Gerry (most people do by the way) and that was the only point of similarity mentioned by Martin. And one similarity between trousers (a kind that was popular that year). But nothing at all from the other Smith witnesses and at least five (including one independent one) positively confirming without any doubt that Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
Disinformations : No, No, "the" determines which time ?
-
So what happened to Mary Smiths first statement? We know according to Martin that she didn't want to make another one.
You will find Mary didn't want to make another statement, according to Sergeant Liam Hogan of Detective Branch Drogheda County Lough, not Martin. Seems they took hers and Martins first statements, too.
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
Liam Hogan
-
the thing about the Smith sighting - is that he never claimed he saw his face - in fact he said in his initial statement that he didn't see the face
His claim that it could have been Gerry ( 60-80% ) is based on how Gerry carried one of the twins - and seeing him on TV weeks later
Coupled with the fact that there are witnesses who put Gerry around the Tapas Bar at about 10'ish - can you ever see this getting anywhere near a court - he would get crucified
But lets forget all that - are we really still saying that Gerry at about 10.00pm - bearing in mind what had just kicked off was really somewhere else desperately trying to " hide " his daughter ?? really ??? I just cant see how this could ever have happened - timing wise , why maddie was never ever found , why no one else saw this ,
I think there is more credence in some of the theories that they had a false maddie going to the crèche every day than this - even over in haverns site which thinks Gerry is a close second to atilla the hun they don't think that this is possible
just cant see it
-
the thing about the Smith sighting - is that he never claimed he saw his face - in fact he said in his initial statement that he didn't see the face
His claim that it could have been Gerry ( 60-80% ) is based on how Gerry carried one of the twins - and seeing him on TV weeks later
Coupled with the fact that there are witnesses who put Gerry around the Tapas Bar at about 10'ish - can you ever see this getting anywhere near a court - he would get crucified
But lets forget all that - are we really still saying that Gerry at about 10.00pm - bearing in mind what had just kicked off was really somewhere else desperately trying to " hide " his daughter ?? really ??? I just cant see how this could ever have happened - timing wise , why maddie was never ever found , why no one else saw this ,
I think there is more credence in some of the theories that they had a false maddie going to the crèche every day than this - even over in haverns site which thinks Gerry is a close second to atilla the hun they don't think that this is possible
just cant see it
Unfortunately, those who chose to believe Amaral's theory have to accept not just the implausible, but the downright ludicrous. Can you imagine it, two parents realise their daughter has fallen off the back of the sofa and died and the father says - Kate, we'll go down to dinner as normal, then at about ten you make a big fuss and get everyone running around while I nip the body down to the beach. If it's still there in three weeks we'll pick it back up, rent a car and drive it to Spain. Oh, and call your pals at Sky will you? The more people who know about this, the better.
-
SY - TIMELINE IS CRITICAL
-
We all know who are the believers of the McCann doxa. But who here is a believer of the Amaral/PJ thesis ? I can't remember one.
-
We all know who are the believers of the McCann doxa. But who here is a believer of the Amaral/PJ thesis ? I can't remember one.
@)(++(* @)(++(*
Turn that question round the other way, too Anne. We all know who are the believers of the Amaral/PJ doxa. . But who here is a believer of the McCann thesis ? I can't remember one.
-
We all know who are the believers of the McCann doxa. But who here is a believer of the Amaral/PJ thesis ? I can't remember one.
Amaral's thesis was that the parents disposed of the body ..............that was it . I have never to this day seen any plausible thesis on the how , when where why they did it - how it got from hidey place 1 to hire car . Ton of gaps to fill in to that thesis
-
Amaral's thesis was that the parents disposed of the body ..............that was it . I have never to this day seen any plausible thesis on the how , when where why they did it - how it got from hidey place 1 to hire car . Ton of gaps to fill in to that thesis
He also threw in some lurid insinuations about DP just for the hell of it - no attempt to actually link them in. And of course, there was all the nonsense about the hire car, sedation, the sofa, Kate's mental health - none of it fitted together into a single theory, it was all just mud and he hoped if he threw enough of it some would stick.
-
In the light of the reopening of the case by Portugal who are now following The Abduction leads, do any Sceptics now believe that The McCanns are Innocent?
-
He also threw in some lurid insinuations about DP just for the hell of it - no attempt to actually link them in. And of course, there was all the nonsense about the hire car, sedation, the sofa, Kate's mental health - none of it fitted together into a single theory, it was all just mud and he hoped if he threw enough of it some would stick.
So if nobody is convinced of that "nonsense" (though Amaral's second name isn't Gaspar), what kind of relevance it has to mention him constantly ?
-
In the light of the reopening of the case by Portugal who are now following The Abduction leads, do any Sceptics now believe that The McCanns are Innocent?
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
-
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
Sad but true. Even if another individual confessed there are still some who would be shrieking about patsies, whitewashes, freemasons and god knows what else.
-
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
Oh. Oh well, never mind. It won't make an difference. None of them are witnesses or even credible, so no one will take any notice.
-
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
You guys seriously need to listen to what the police actually say themselves, instead of getting over-excited.
I'd believe it if and when we see evidence, but so far we haven't seen any. Instead we have seen Crimewatch in which the 'revelation' was "don't worry about that suspect we've been on about for 6 years, but here's another one we've known about for five but never bothered to show you previously".
No wonder people are still sceptical. 8(0(*
-
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
Alot of posters on is forum? Pls dont speak for others, ta, it all depends on the evidence and credibility of info given in that hypothetical situation....I think its more of a matter of many here never believing she wasnt abducted! the closed minds cult club is....well, we all know where.....
@)(++(*
-
There is a line in the sand that a lot of posters on this forum will never cross. It doesn't matter how much evidence is produced they will never believe that Maddie was abducted...never
And should enough evidence be found to bring charges against the parents, would you then accept their guilt?
-
Oh My Goodness. The PJ have just said that The McCanns aren't suspects.
-
And should enough evidence be found to bring charges against the parents, would you then accept their guilt?
Not at that point, no, I would after their conviction in a court of law though.
How about you? A third party found, arrested and convicted ?
Would you accept their innocence?
-
Oh My Goodness. The PJ have just said that The McCanns aren't suspects.
Interesting news. Where does this come from?
-
Not at that point, no, I would after their conviction in a court of law though.
How about you? A third party found, arrested and convicted ?
Would you accept their innocence?
Me? Yep.
-
Me? Yep.
Past events, not being persons of interest to the Met, the reopening...........................you're a tough crowd, that wasn't enough for you?
-
Interesting news. Where does this come from?
A report from state broadcaster RTP has this evening stated that Kate and Gerry McCann have been excluded as having had any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.
-
A report from state broadcaster RTP has this evening stated that Kate and Gerry McCann have been excluded as having had any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Good, innit.
-
Superb.
-
He also threw in some lurid insinuations about DP just for the hell of it - no attempt to actually link them in. And of course, there was all the nonsense about the hire car, sedation, the sofa, Kate's mental health - none of it fitted together into a single theory, it was all just mud and he hoped if he threw enough of it some would stick.
I find that to be a fair summary, except that it misses out his apparent total lack of understanding about any of the forensic aspects.
-
Superb.
Does this mean the English hacks will stay at home now? 8)-)))
-
I thought the Portuguese Judiciary were not supposed to comment on such matters. Is someone leaking again ?
-
I thought the Portuguese Judiciary were not supposed to comment on such matters. Is someone leaking again ?
Indeed seems a bit strange. Amaral informed us of the Oporto squad & Anglo Portuguese liason some time ago, and the AG confirmed it. Which would perhaps imply that the investigation in Portugal has been going on for some time, and only now they inform us the case has been reopened, Add to that the CPS visit in june...
-
A report from state broadcaster RTP has this evening stated that Kate and Gerry McCann have been excluded as having had any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.
Portugal orders re-opening of Madeleine case
by Brendan de Beer, in News · 24-10-2013 07:46:00 · 2 Comments
Interest in the case of Madeleine McCann, missing since 3 May 2007, has gained renewed impetus following news on Thursday that the Portuguese Attorney-General’s office had ordered the re-opening of the case it shelved in July 2008 due to lack of evidence.
Portuguese authorities have ordered the re-opening of the case into disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
A statement sent to The Portugal News explained: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office has determined the re-opening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a proposal by the Polícia Judiciária and due to the presentation of new elements which justify the continuation of the investigation.”
While a case review has been underway in Portugal since January 2012, led by leading missing persons detective Helena Monteiro and her team in Oporto, official lines of inquiry were closed in the summer of 2008 by the Attorney-General’s office. At the time, the office said that the case would only be re-opened “should new evidence emerge.”
Reports this had suggested that the PJ Police, perhaps as a result of headway made following last week’s Crimewatch programme on the BBC, felt they now had enough new evidence to initiate an official line of inquiry that could include the questioning of persons of interest and possible suspects.
It is believed the PJ team in Oporto uncovered shortcomings in the initial investigation conducted by their counterparts in the Algarve and were now actively pursuing the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
Helena Monteiro and her four-man team of detectives, who were handed the case due to their expertise and neutrality, having never worked on it before, are also reported to be keen on speaking to a number of people who were never questioned during the first investigation led by inspectors in the Algarve.
At the time, sources close to the case in Portugal told The Portugal News that they support the Portuguese review in that they hope it will conclude “an investigation which was ended while still in its infancy.”
Any new leads into Madeleine’s disappearance can only be considered by Portuguese police detectives once the case is active once again, which might explain the call by the PJ to have the case re-opened.
While Oporto detectives have been working on a review of existing evidence, six detectives from the PJ’s branch in Faro have been assisting their colleagues from Scotland Yard in the ambit of an international coopperation request based on the issuing of rogatory letters.
PJ police in Lisbon stressed in comments to The Portugal News that at this stage of the review, the PJ branches in Oporto and Faro are “working independently.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/portugal-orders-re-opening-of-madeleine-case/29711
Comments
At last Portugal something positive for Madeleine and her family.
(Then we have Goncalo Amaral:- Well what have you to say for yourself-------OH DEAR - OH DEAR - OH DEAR)!
by Graham Perry from UK on 24-10-2013 02:58:00
Mr Amaral can write another book
titled `The Truth Of My Mistakes`
by Troy from UK on 24-10-2013 01:43:00
-
A report from state broadcaster RTP has this evening stated that Kate and Gerry McCann have been excluded as having had any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.
RTP probably got this information from BBC who got it from Jim Gamble. Here, in Portugal the PJ have not made any such statement and never would say any such thing, especially now that the "segredo de justiça" is going to be applied severly and nothing of the investigation will be known until the case has been resolved. Enough speculation!
-
A report from state broadcaster RTP has this evening stated that Kate and Gerry McCann have been excluded as having had any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.
Wonderful stuff!
-
RTP probably got this information from BBC who got it from Jim Gamble. Here, in Portugal the PJ have not made any such statement and never would say any such thing, especially now that the "segredo de justiça" is going to be applied severly and nothing of the investigation will be known until the case has been resolved. Enough speculation!
I wouldn't know the rights and wrongs of this story, but the PJ seem on a hiding to nothing if unable to respond to something the media states, whether true or false.
-
McCanns are not suspects in the new investigation into their daughter's disappearance
Oct 24, 2013 17:27 / Updated on Oct 24, 2013 17:32
The prosecutor ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British girl. RTP knows that Maddie McCann's parents are not considered suspects in the new line of investigation. The decision is a consequence of the proposal of the Judicial Police and the introduction of new evidence justifying the investigation continues.
In a statement, adding that the prosecution was required to the investigating judge to postpone the access to the file, for a period necessary to complete the investigation. The case dates back to May 2007. The child, 4 years old at the time, disappeared from the room where he slept with his brothers, in a resort in Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the English family was on vacation. 's decision, the Attorney General's Office revealed today comes a week after British police have put forward a portrait robot a new suspect and evidence of progress in the investigation. Scotland Yard welcomed the reopening of the investigation in Portugal and stresses that will run in parallel with the British investigation.
Watch video
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=690593&tm=7&layout=122&visual=61
-
And should enough evidence be found to bring charges against the parents, would you then accept their guilt?
Cariad..you need to think a little more...if enough evidence was found to bring charges it would then go to court. I certainly wouldn't accept guilt if they were merely charged.. I would wait for the court case
-
McCanns are not suspects in the new investigation into their daughter's disappearance
Oct 24, 2013 17:27 / Updated on Oct 24, 2013 17:32
The prosecutor ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British girl. RTP knows that Maddie McCann's parents are not considered suspects in the new line of investigation. The decision is a consequence of the proposal of the Judicial Police and the introduction of new evidence justifying the investigation continues.
In a statement, adding that the prosecution was required to the investigating judge to postpone the access to the file, for a period necessary to complete the investigation. The case dates back to May 2007. The child, 4 years old at the time, disappeared from the room where he slept with his brothers, in a resort in Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the English family was on vacation. 's decision, the Attorney General's Office revealed today comes a week after British police have put forward a portrait robot a new suspect and evidence of progress in the investigation. Scotland Yard welcomed the reopening of the investigation in Portugal and stresses that will run in parallel with the British investigation.
Watch video
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=690593&tm=7&layout=122&visual=61
I see that the Judiciary statement does not mention that the McCanns are not suspect.
A line from RTP has been slipped in there to make it look as if its part of the statement.
-
Cariad..you need to think a little more...if enough evidence was found to bring charges it would then go to court. I certainly wouldn't accept guilt if they were merely charged.. I would wait for the court case
Just not gonna happen though, is it?
McCanns are not suspects in the new investigation into their daughter's disappearance 8((()*/
-
I see that the Judiciary statement does not mention that the McCanns are not suspect.
A line from RTP has been slipped in there to make it look as if its part of the statement.
so says you @)(++(*
-
Doncha just lurve the smell of desperation.
-
Look for yourself - Post 141
-
I see that the Judiciary statement does not mention that the McCanns are not suspect.
A line from RTP has been slipped in there to make it look as if its part of the statement.
Has a line been slipped in here too?
Portugal News
Portuguese authorities have ordered the re-opening of the case into disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
-
Look for yourself - Post 141
thought you was going away for week 8((()*/
-
thought you was going away for week 8((()*/
Tommorow 8(0(*
-
Tommorow 8(0(*
8@??)(
-
McCanns are not suspects in the new investigation into their daughter's disappearance
Oct 24, 2013 17:27 / Updated on Oct 24, 2013 17:32
The prosecutor ordered the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of British girl. RTP knows that Maddie McCann's parents are not considered suspects in the new line of investigation. The decision is a consequence of the proposal of the Judicial Police and the introduction of new evidence justifying the investigation continues.
In a statement, adding that the prosecution was required to the investigating judge to postpone the access to the file, for a period necessary to complete the investigation. The case dates back to May 2007. The child, 4 years old at the time, disappeared from the room where he slept with his brothers, in a resort in Praia da Luz in the Algarve, where the English family was on vacation. 's decision, the Attorney General's Office revealed today comes a week after British police have put forward a portrait robot a new suspect and evidence of progress in the investigation. Scotland Yard welcomed the reopening of the investigation in Portugal and stresses that will run in parallel with the British investigation.
Watch video
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=690593&tm=7&layout=122&visual=61
Brilliant news isn't it, what the McCann's have been waiting for 8((()*/
-
Portugal orders re-opening of Madeleine case
by Brendan de Beer, in News · 24-10-2013 07:46:00 · 2 Comments
Interest in the case of Madeleine McCann, missing since 3 May 2007, has gained renewed impetus following news on Thursday that the Portuguese Attorney-General’s office had ordered the re-opening of the case it shelved in July 2008 due to lack of evidence.
Portuguese authorities have ordered the re-opening of the case into disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
A statement sent to The Portugal News explained: “The Public Prosecutor’s Office has determined the re-opening of the inquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a proposal by the Polícia Judiciária and due to the presentation of new elements which justify the continuation of the investigation.”
While a case review has been underway in Portugal since January 2012, led by leading missing persons detective Helena Monteiro and her team in Oporto, official lines of inquiry were closed in the summer of 2008 by the Attorney-General’s office. At the time, the office said that the case would only be re-opened “should new evidence emerge.”
Reports this had suggested that the PJ Police, perhaps as a result of headway made following last week’s Crimewatch programme on the BBC, felt they now had enough new evidence to initiate an official line of inquiry that could include the questioning of persons of interest and possible suspects.
It is believed the PJ team in Oporto uncovered shortcomings in the initial investigation conducted by their counterparts in the Algarve and were now actively pursuing the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
Helena Monteiro and her four-man team of detectives, who were handed the case due to their expertise and neutrality, having never worked on it before, are also reported to be keen on speaking to a number of people who were never questioned during the first investigation led by inspectors in the Algarve.
At the time, sources close to the case in Portugal told The Portugal News that they support the Portuguese review in that they hope it will conclude “an investigation which was ended while still in its infancy.”
Any new leads into Madeleine’s disappearance can only be considered by Portuguese police detectives once the case is active once again, which might explain the call by the PJ to have the case re-opened.
While Oporto detectives have been working on a review of existing evidence, six detectives from the PJ’s branch in Faro have been assisting their colleagues from Scotland Yard in the ambit of an international coopperation request based on the issuing of rogatory letters.
PJ police in Lisbon stressed in comments to The Portugal News that at this stage of the review, the PJ branches in Oporto and Faro are “working independently.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/portugal-orders-re-opening-of-madeleine-case/29711
Comments
At last Portugal something positive for Madeleine and her family.
(Then we have Goncalo Amaral:- Well what have you to say for yourself-------OH DEAR - OH DEAR - OH DEAR)!
by Graham Perry from UK on 24-10-2013 02:58:00
Mr Amaral can write another book
titled `The Truth Of My Mistakes`
by Troy from UK on 24-10-2013 01:43:00
Reading this there are a couple of things I find odd
"It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance."
Firstly there doesn't appear to be specification from where exactly this bit 'emerged'
And secondly there seems to be a word missing 'abduction'.
-
From what I can gather, reading other forums, it is the McCanns lawyer, Rogerio Alves, who declared that they are 'excluded'
He aslo confirmed that the McCanns will ask to be 'assistants' in the process
... what does that mean ?
-
I think the point is, the news is the case is being re opened, the Mccanns were of no interest to the Met inquiry and are of no interest to the PJ. The rest is semantics and "who said?". It's only a glimmer of hope, but it's there, why now, when it should have been there 6 years ago is anyone's guess.
-
They are working on three lines of inquiry so that could change in time now the investigation has been reopened.
-
From what I can gather, reading other forums, it is the McCanns lawyer, Rogerio Alves, who declared that they are 'excluded'
He aslo confirmed that the McCanns will ask to be 'assistants' in the process
... what does that mean ?
Perhaps our Portuguese members will know
Does being an 'assistant in the process' carry official status, or does it just mean that they want to be kept informed of developments ?
-
That'll be interesting to know. Will the straws to clutch at ?e pulled away? What then? Gut instinct? The files? "I just know they DID IT"?
-
From what I can gather, reading other forums, it is the McCanns lawyer, Rogerio Alves, who declared that they are 'excluded'
He aslo confirmed that the McCanns will ask to be 'assistants' in the process
... what does that mean ?
I heard Rogerio Alves, one of their Portugueses lawyers, say he was contemplating asking for them to be assistants in the process. It requires to have a lawyer who will accompany the process for or with you. The main interest is to have access to the data..
This is why, in August 2007, they required that statute when they became aware, through an informal interview that Mrs McCann mentions in "Madeleine", that they were considered like persons of interest. The request was even accepted by the MP, a couple of days before they were made arguidos. The two statutes aren't officially exclusive of each other, but technically are (the rights are about the same), so, although their lawyer tried to argue, the request was declared obsolete.
-
Didn't Amaral offer to be an Assistant at one point after he was sacked. I am pretty sure he did. But they must have turned him down.
He won't like it if The McCanns are made Assistants.
-
That'll be interesting to know. Will the straws to clutch at ?e pulled away? What then? Gut instinct? The files? "I just know they DID IT"?
Nope sorry mate but you dont !!!!! Fact
-
Perhaps our Portuguese members will know
Does being an 'assistant in the process' carry official status, or does it just mean that they want to be kept informed of developments ?
They do have more or less the same rights an arguido has, for example request, justifying it, some diligence here and there, a deeper investigation on determined points, etc.
This modality requires a lawyer and lawyers are expensive..
Curiously they never used these rights once they were made arguidos. I always wondered why, as they many times complained not to know what was going on.
-
They do have more or less the same rights an arguido has, for example request, justifying it, some diligence here and there, a deeper investigation on determined points, etc.
This modality requires a lawyer and lawyers are expensive..
Curiously they never used these rights once they were made arguidos. I always wondered why, as they many times complained not to know what was going on.
How do you know they never used them?
-
pedantic libel
Explaining that hearsay is not evidence is neither pedantic, nor libel.
-
It's called evidence Gilet!! Looks like some Irish folks are going to be busy with interviews again and we all know where that leads!! @)(++(*
Yes it leads to the Police doing proper investigations, then ruling out people who are no longer of interest.
Both SY and the PJ have done that and both have within the last two weeks now ruled out the McCanns.
Use smilies as much as you like, they will not disguise the facts.
-
Explaining that hearsay is not evidence is neither pedantic, nor libel.
Yes it is, for all intents and purposes......you are not in a court of law where Mrs Smith is not going to be called.....,Mr Smith would know what his wife said to him when they were discussing the issue....and he made a statement regarding the issue to police.....not tittle tattle to any tom dick or harry.....,to question his statement is to cast aspersions on him....as you did when you suggested Mary Smith never made any statement....two errors....next...oh never mind dont reply to me on such a small issue.....Im sure you have a long list to go through lol
-
Disinformations : No, No, "the" determines which time ?
Not disinformation at all. Every fact in my post is absolutely correct. And you posting no, no, no will not change that.
By the way the plural is "disinformation".
-
the thing about the Smith sighting - is that he never claimed he saw his face - in fact he said in his initial statement that he didn't see the face
His claim that it could have been Gerry ( 60-80% ) is based on how Gerry carried one of the twins - and seeing him on TV weeks later
Coupled with the fact that there are witnesses who put Gerry around the Tapas Bar at about 10'ish - can you ever see this getting anywhere near a court - he would get crucified
But lets forget all that - are we really still saying that Gerry at about 10.00pm - bearing in mind what had just kicked off was really somewhere else desperately trying to " hide " his daughter ?? really ??? I just cant see how this could ever have happened - timing wise , why maddie was never ever found , why no one else saw this ,
I think there is more credence in some of the theories that they had a false maddie going to the crèche every day than this - even over in haverns site which thinks Gerry is a close second to atilla the hun they don't think that this is possible
just cant see it
Excellent points.
-
He also threw in some lurid insinuations about DP just for the hell of it - no attempt to actually link them in. And of course, there was all the nonsense about the hire car, sedation, the sofa, Kate's mental health - none of it fitted together into a single theory, it was all just mud and he hoped if he threw enough of it some would stick.
And Amaral and his thesis has now been thrown to the wolves by the PJ from Oporto who have found sufficient sustainable evidence for the case to be re-opened and have gone on record as stating that evidence is not concerning the McCanns who are not suspects, arguidos or persons of interest but potential abductors.
-
Pt police just going through the motions IMO - will lead nowhere
-
Good, innit.
Excellent news and only to be expected really.
The team in Oporto, being made up entirely according to the news of child abduction experts, are pursuing real leads and have no need of Amaral's thesis to divert their time. The fact that almost all the parts of Amaral's thesis were investigated five years ago and shown not to have any evidential bearing on the McCanns might have given people a clue but they seem to have missed it.
-
Pt police just going through the motions IMO - will lead nowhere
Well that means that the Portuguese government in the role of the MP is also going through the motions as following your idea they will be aware that there is no substantial evidence on which to base the re-opening.
Will Obama and Putin have been consulted do you think?
-
And Amaral and his thesis has now been thrown to the wolves by the PJ from Oporto who have found sufficient sustainable evidence for the case to be re-opened and have gone on record as stating that evidence is not concerning the McCanns who are not suspects, arguidos or persons of interest but potential abductors.
Well quite though, if the leads are about line of inquiry is a foreign paedophile gang, as reported in the news, they wont be suspects in this instant will they? And no no interim PJ (NOT Amaral) report has been thrown to the wolves, Id keep that knee jerk under control if I were you....
-
RTP probably got this information from BBC who got it from Jim Gamble. Here, in Portugal the PJ have not made any such statement and never would say any such thing, especially now that the "segredo de justiça" is going to be applied severly and nothing of the investigation will be known until the case has been resolved. Enough speculation!
So you are now calling RTP liars even though you showed last night you actually have no understanding of PT law. Its a very resounding answer to your question regarding arguido status though isn't it.
I don't think there is any speculation about that at all. Clearly the McCanns who discussed the re-opening last week with the PJ are not arguidos at all. That rather backs up the RTP statement and demonstrates it is not speculation.
-
Well quite though, if the keads are about line of inquiry is a foreign paedophile gang, as reported in the news, they wont be suspects in this instant will they?
What point are you trying to make?
-
Well quite though, if the keads are about line of inquiry is a foreign paedophile gang, as reported in the news, they wont be suspects in this instant will they?
No, and not in the future either. The people against whom who the evidence has been put to the AG will be the suspects.
-
They do have more or less the same rights an arguido has, for example request, justifying it, some diligence here and there, a deeper investigation on determined points, etc.
This modality requires a lawyer and lawyers are expensive..
Curiously they never used these rights once they were made arguidos. I always wondered why, as they many times complained not to know what was going on.
AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.
-
What point are you trying to make?
I thought it was clear enough......the new lines of inquiry relate to a foreign paedo gang....so thats why the Mccanns are not suspects, hello?
-
Well that means that the Portuguese government in the role of the MP is also going through the motions as following your idea they will be aware that there is no substantial evidence on which to base the re-opening.
Will Obama and Putin have been consulted do you think?
Amaral won't be consulted. We can be sure of that.
-
AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.
Any proof of your claims about the ambassador yet? Might want to back that one up before you make any more.
-
No, and not in the future either. The people against whom who the evidence has been put to the AG will be the suspects.
Of course, I said no different....but you cannot on that basis become mystic meg all of a sudden can you?and decree anything.....you are not party to information, the investigation or anything else.....
@)(++(*
-
AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.
What? Don't be ridiculous. Afraid of what?
-
Doncha just lurve the smell of desperation.
There are no real answers.
PT team are experts in child "abduction".
PT team have found enough substantial evidence pointing to abduction to have the case re-opened.
PT team have discussed the case in person with the McCanns in Portugal last week and who are now back in the UK.
AG has accepted that evidence as substantial and re-opened the case.
PJ and SY are working on two separate threads but in tandem.
SY have declared that they do not consider the McCanns to be suspects or persons of interest in their investigation.
PJ have declared that they do not consider the McCanns to be suspects or persons of interest in their inquiry.
The McCanns are not arguidos, something the [ censored word] have been relying on.
Really not a lot of comfort for those who still stick to their conspiracy ideas and questions about the McCanns in the face of the reality of the situation is there? I've even seen a post here a few minutes ago suggesting that the PJ are really just part of that massive conspiracy and are just going through some motions or other.
-
Reading this there are a couple of things I find odd
"It has also emerged that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, of having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance."
Firstly there doesn't appear to be specification from where exactly this bit 'emerged'
And secondly there seems to be a word missing 'abduction'.
Yes, of course.
Two words come to mind, "straws" and "clutching".
And I feel I should add the one £leanor introduced, "desperate".
-
Yes it is, for all intents and purposes......you are not in a court of law where Mrs Smith is not going to be called.....,Mr Smith would know what his wife said to him when they were discussing the issue....and he made a statement regarding the issue to police.....not tittle tattle to any tom dick or harry.....,to question his statement is to cast aspersions on him....as you did when you suggested Mary Smith never made any statement....two errors....next...oh never mind dont reply to me on such a small issue.....Im sure you have a long list to go through lol
No, it isn't. No matter how you spin it. Hearsay isn't evidence. Even someone who only watches TV tec shows for their knowledge might be expected to know that.
There is still no evidence that Mary Smith ever made a statement.
One officer suggests it may have happened. Nothing more.
Get over it as they say.
-
Well quite though, if the leads are about line of inquiry is a foreign paedophile gang, as reported in the news, they wont be suspects in this instant will they? And no no interim PJ (NOT Amaral) report has been thrown to the wolves, Id keep that knee jerk under control if I were you....
Stating the facts as presented on TV and more directly by quotation from individuals concerned is not as you choose to term it "a knee jerk" reaction. It is, in fact, looking at the reality.
-
No, it isn't. No matter how you spin it. Hearsay isn't evidence. Even someone who only watches TV tec shows for their knowledge might be expected to know that.
There is still no evidence that Mary Smith ever made a statement.
One officer suggests it may have happened. Nothing more.
Get over it as they say.
Oh so a police officer says she made a statement but thats not good enough for you? like who are you? And where did the officer say she MAY have made a statement?? What crap is this?
@)(++(*
he must be dodgy/lying/mistaken too.....another one to add to your desperate little list
Get over it as they say
-
Good news for Madeleine and let us hope that it finally brings some closure to this case. I have to say that whilst neutral I always felt that something wasn't quite right with the parents. I hope that these developments end up proving me wrong.
On a side note, as the investigation appears to be looking at a pedophile group based in the Algarve, does anyone know of any cases where such a group has been exposed? I have read a lot about pedophile 'rings' where pornography and (less often) children are shared but can't recall of any where children have been abducted.
It's one of those things where I'm sure I SHOULD know of such a group - but can't for the life of me remember such a case. All the abductions I have read about seem to be of older females and have been for trafficking (i.e. work in the sex trade or used as cheap labour).
N
-
This is encouraging news but it is just the start of a new chapter. Obviously there are a lot of disagreements on this forum but I think that all of us, whatever our viewpoint, would be happy to be proven wrong in our theories if, in return, we could see Madeleine found safe and well.
-
AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.
Either arguidos or assistentes no processo in the fase de instrução, they would have had an active part, but for some reason Rogerio Alves rejected it (perhaps for the same reason that made Pinto de Abreu advise his clients not to answer the PJ questions).
I understand they wish to snoop inside of the investigation. If it's related to paedophilia, will it be considered appropriate ?
-
Stating the facts as presented on TV and more directly by quotation from individuals concerned is not as you choose to term it "a knee jerk" reaction. It is, in fact, looking at the reality.
well then you will quote whoever said amarals theory, sic, the PJ theory, has been thrown to the wolves......wont you...its ok not holding breath dont worry
-
And Amaral and his thesis has now been thrown to the wolves by the PJ from Oporto who have found sufficient sustainable evidence for the case to be re-opened and have gone on record as stating that evidence is not concerning the McCanns who are not suspects, arguidos or persons of interest but potential abductors.
Where is this 'on the record' quote from the PJ ?
As far as I can see the only quotes regarding the McCanns exclusion from the re-opened investigation comes directly from their lawyer, Rogerio Alves
I do not think the PJ have said anything, either on, or off, the record ... have they ?
-
I would love to see Madeleine found alive but I strongly believe if they identify Smithman they can crack the case.
-
Good news for Madeleine and let us hope that it finally brings some closure to this case. I have to say that whilst neutral I always felt that something wasn't quite right with the parents. I hope that these developments end up proving me wrong.
On a side note, as the investigation appears to be looking at a pedophile group based in the Algarve, does anyone know of any cases where such a group has been exposed? I have read a lot about pedophile 'rings' where pornography and (less often) children are shared but can't recall of any where children have been abducted.
It's one of those things where I'm sure I SHOULD know of such a group - but can't for the life of me remember such a case. All the abductions I have read about seem to be of older females and have been for trafficking (i.e. work in the sex trade or used as cheap labour).
N
Just like you I can't recall a paedophile ring abducting a child. Paedophiles are paedophiles, not abductors, it would be too much I suppose.
I also have asked if someone knew of a little child abducted from bed in Europe, but no reply.
I'm still sceptic and, as the Portuguese on the very first day, think that the story was badly told.
-
I would love to see Madeleine found alive but I strongly believe if they identify Smithman they can crack the case.
No doubt about that.
-
I think whoever made the decision in Portugal deserves a massive expression of thanks for re-opening the investigation.
-
Where is this 'on the record' quote from the PJ ?
As far as I can see the only quotes regarding the McCanns exclusion from the re-opened investigation comes directly from their lawyer, Rogerio Alves
I do not think the PJ have said anything, either on, or off, the record ... have they ?
You're right, Icabodcrane, it's just usual disinformation.
-
No doubt about that.
Hmm not so sure. We don't even know that Smithman was carrying Maddie. He could be a false lead. We just don't know unfortunately.
-
I hope some people who posted on this topic since it was started at 09:52:58 PM yesterday look back and look at their comments.
-
Hmm not so sure. We don't even know that Smithman was carrying Maddie. He could be a false lead. We just don't know unfortunately.
I bet Smithman walked with Madeleine pressed against his shoulder. Who was he ? An Amish paedophile ?
-
I bet Smithman walked with Madeleine pressed against his shoulder. Who was he ? An Amish paedophile ?
I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.
-
I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.
If that were the case, then there is no sighting of an abductor - that we aware of. However, there were several people in the Smith party, so unlikely that they all got it wrong.
-
I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.
Yes, tend to agree with you there!! As for confusing days I doubt it very much....they were specific about one of thrm flying back the next morning, then we have their restaraunt and bar receipts unless they ate and each night at the same time in same place.....
-
If that were the case, then there is no sighting of an abductor - that we aware of. However, there were several people in the Smith party, so unlikely that they all got it wrong.
all got it wrong?
Nine in the party, only 3 statements.
-
all got it wrong?
Nine in the party, only 3 statements.
I'm sure they would have conferred to check something as basic as that.
-
I'm sure they would have conferred to check something as basic as that.
If they did confer then that maybe devalues the evidence. One of them could have persuaded the others, for example, that they saw something they didn't.
This seems the only decent lead available so the police have to run with it but witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in many circumstances and so that's why I'm urging caution.
-
Of course, I said no different....but you cannot on that basis become mystic meg all of a sudden can you?and decree anything.....you are not party to information, the investigation or anything else.....
@)(++(*
I have no desire to be known as a soothsayer. I leave that to others.
I am simply re-iterating the news and commenting on the facts presented there.
-
AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.
It is intriguing that a person who had to openly ask on this forum whether the McCanns would become arguidos should the case be re-opened is now regaling us with legal opinion and speculation based on that opinion and expecting us to take it seriously.
-
Oh so a police officer says she made a statement but thats not good enough for you? like who are you? And where did the officer say she MAY have made a statement?? What crap is this?
@)(++(*
he must be dodgy/lying/mistaken too.....another one to add to your desperate little list
Get over it as they say
There is no actual evidence of any statement having been made. When such appears I will look at it.
I am not accusing the man of lying at all. I am stating that his claim is not backed up by any evidence.
-
It is intriguing that a person who had to openly ask on this forum whether the McCanns would become arguidos should the case be re-opened is now regaling us with legal opinion and speculation based on that opinion and expecting us to take it seriously.
I thought it was a reasonable question tbh.
Of course, on this forum one has to be correct 100% of the time or anything else you say will be ridiculed by the pedants ...
N
-
Where is this 'on the record' quote from the PJ ?
As far as I can see the only quotes regarding the McCanns exclusion from the re-opened investigation comes directly from their lawyer, Rogerio Alves
I do not think the PJ have said anything, either on, or off, the record ... have they ?
I apologise. I should not have said "on the record".
But it would be foolish to think that the lawyer has lied on TV about this. It would rebound very quickly on him were he doing so.
It would also be extremely foolish to forget that Gerry and Kate were involved in the latter part of the meeting at which Scotland Yard and the PJ discussed the re-opening of the case. Hardly the action of either police force if there was suspicion regarding the parents' involvement. Do you know of cases which are discussed by the police in that way with suspects? Really?
-
There is no actual evidence of any statement having been made. When such appears I will look at it.
I am not accusing the man of lying at all. I am stating that his claim is not backed up by any evidence.
keep digging.......you may come out the other side sometime.....and you will come face to face with a police officers statement and a husbands statements of facts......
-
I thought it was a reasonable question tbh.
Of course, on this forum one has to be correct 100% of the time or anything else you say will be ridiculed by the pedants ...
N
It was a perfectly reasonable question and demonstrated that the person asking it was not au fait with PT law. Now, however, that same person is regaling us with knowledge and speculation based on that knowledge. That is intriguing.
No-one has suggested that any forum member must be 100% accurate in all their posts. Indeed while you were typing this I was preparing a post in which I admit to an error.
-
I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.
Come on, they were 9 people and had a bar ticket with the date and hour on it.
-
I have no desire to be known as a soothsayer. I leave that to others.
I am simply re-iterating the news and commenting on the facts presented there.
no you were not... You were NOT reiterating any news that the Mccanns will NEVER be suspects in the future....something YOU alone decreed
@)(++(*
-
keep digging.......you may come out the other side sometime.....and you will come face to face with a police officers statement and a husbands statements of facts......
As I said, I shall willingly read her statement and consider it if it ever appears. Till then there is nothing definitive which indicates that it does.
I am not digging. I am just waiting for the proof.
-
Indeed while you were typing this I was preparing a post in which I admit to an error.
Lol ! THE error intended to suggest all others aren't !
-
Come on, they were 9 people and had a bar ticket with the date and hour on it.
But they didn't report anything for 5 days? And was every day similar? Did they mix their bar tickets up? How much had they been drinking?
You are right if you are suggesting they are the best witnesses available. But I'm just advising objective caution. >@@(*&)
-
no you were not... You were NOT reiterating any news that the Mccanns will NEVER be suspects in the future....something YOU alone decreed
@)(++(*
I did not "decree" this as you state. I offered that opinion as part of a post. Like all posters I am entitled to offer opinion. It is not soothsaying (as in your nasty dig about me being as one with Mystic Meg), nor is it decretal to offer such opinion. It is part and parcel of the forum interaction.
My opinion is moreover based on the facts that SY have declared (yes declared) the McCanns to be out of their remit of suspicion and interest and that the PJ involved the couple in the meeting at which the re-opening of the case was discussed.
If you can offer evidence of any other cases where suspects have been involved in such meetings, having been declared not to be suspects by one of the police forces involved, I shall gladly reconsider my opinion. Till then I shall remain of the view I offered previously.
-
The thing is, if Smithman turns out to be an innocent, and Tannerman has been effectively ruled out, where does that leave the abduction theory?
N
-
Not seeing it .its getting so boring about it being gerry .mr smith didnt say it was .
The sacked copper did
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry.
-
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry.
its almost as accurate as the dna
-
Come on, they were 9 people and had a bar ticket with the date and hour on it.
I agree. I think the Smiths were in Kelly's bar on May 3rd as they stated.
We know that for certain because just days after Amaral was dismissed from the case for gross breaches of the code of behaviour for officers, the PJ eventually got round to doing the basic police task of confirming the time by interviewing the staff and collecting a copy of the till receipt. I cannot imagine why they did not do this fundamental inquiry in the previous five months.
Do you have any suggestions as to why they didn't?
-
The thing is, if Smithman turns out to be an innocent, and Tannerman has been effectively ruled out, where does that leave the abduction theory?
N
It will remain an unproven theory. Pretty much like it is now, only more so! ?{)(**
-
The thing is, if Smithman turns out to be an innocent, and Tannerman has been effectively ruled out, where does that leave the abduction theory?
N
What difference would it make to the abduction theory?
-
can someone provide the source for the PJ saying this is being treated as an abduction with the McCanns ruled out - otherwise we have to assume it's Clarence making things up again
-
The two efits being of the same person are a bit of a joke, probably reflecting the joker who had them made.......who was he?
>@@(*&)
He couldn't do what did the hero of Dark Passage, so the unique solution was to cover tracks and confuse the issue.
-
Martin Smith said he was 60-80% certain it was Gerry.
Nope wrong again do keep up .
We have already been told he didnt say that .and we have heard him say on the phone to the police would hypnosis help .the policeman said would you do that
If it helps then i would he replied .
-
All this talk of a foreign paedophile gang. Foreign to whom?
-
Dont be so silly.........
Nothing silly about pointing out the fact that Mr Smith did not in fact say the Man was Gerry, nor for that matter about stating the fact that there is no other statement even suggesting that possibility.
Of all the Smith statements only the second one given by Mr Smith mentions it as even a possibility.
And that possibility is based entirely on him thinking Gerry carrying a child in a position hundreds of thousands of people use daily made him consider the idea because that is how the man sighted by the family also carried the child.
-
It will remain an unproven theory. Pretty much like it is now, only more so! ?{)(**
Oh but they have a few blonde men acting suspiciously and charity collectors still to get through.....and if that fails burglars that no one saw......
-
What difference would it make to the abduction theory?
not much - from the start it never had any credibility
-
not much - from the start it never had any credibility
What makes you say that?
-
Lol ! THE error intended to suggest all others aren't !
Not at all. What other errors?
-
Nope wrong again do keep up .
We have already been told he didnt say that
told by you maybe the official record tells a different story
-
can someone provide the source for the PJ saying this is being treated as an abduction with the McCanns ruled out - otherwise we have to assume it's Clarence making things up again
Even if it were true, they wouldn't tell it. Top Secret !
That's why Rogerio Alves wants them assistants in the process..
-
What difference would it make to the abduction theory?
Victoria I think the difference it makes is that Smithman at least provides some evidence for the fact that Maddie was abducted (unless Smithman was actually Gerry McCann, but that's another argument). If the Smiths were wrong then that evidence is gone, and so all the speculation becomes even hotter air. But of course, even if the the Smith's didn't see someone carrying Maddie, this still doesn't prove she wasn't abducted.
-
What makes you say that?
probably the complete lack of any evidence of an abduction
-
Oh but they have a few blonde men acting suspiciously and charity collectors still to get through.....and if that fails burglars that no one saw......
8)-))) I had forgotten those promising ones !
-
probably the complete lack of any evidence of an abduction
What do you mean by lack of evidence? What evidence would you expect if an abduction had taken place?
-
probably the complete lack of any evidence of an abduction
And stats concerning "from bed one".
-
What do you mean by lack of evidence? What evidence would you expect if an abduction had taken place?
A full letter probably
-
Under portuguese law you can only reopen a case if you have fresh evidence
-
What difference would it make to the abduction theory?
From an investigative point of view the theory would be exhausted. No evidence, no suspects. At that point the investigation would either turn its attention elsewhere or the case closed.
Plus, SY have put so much store in this that they would suffer a massive loss of face.
Smithman is pivotal to the investigation.
N
-
From an investigative point of view the theory would be exhausted. No evidence, no suspects. At that point the investigation would either turn its attention elsewhere or the case closed.
Plus, SY have put so much store in this that they would suffer a massive loss of face.
Smithman is pivotal to the investigation.
N
I would think SY have more than smithman..just my opinion
-
Nothing silly about pointing out the fact that Mr Smith did not in fact say the Man was Gerry, nor for that matter about stating the fact that there is no other statement even suggesting that possibility.
Of all the Smith statements only the second one given by Mr Smith mentions it as even a possibility.
And that possibility is based entirely on him thinking Gerry carrying a child in a position hundreds of thousands of people use daily made him consider the idea because that is how the man sighted by the family also carried the child.
Just more pedantic rubbish....Par for the course....mr Smith was shaken when he saw the footage...it obviously triggered something in his unconscious that was very important.....perhaps so important to explain the Mccanns not shouting this sighting of a young blond child seeing being carried ON THE NIGHT their child was abducted from the rooftops but chasing after creepy charity collectors nowhere near them in time or distance!!! pffft
-
From an investigative point of view the theory would be exhausted. No evidence, no suspects. At that point the investigation would either turn its attention elsewhere or the case closed.
Plus, SY have put so much store in this that they would suffer a massive loss of face.
Smithman is pivotal to the investigation.
N
Given that he was allegedly identified by more than one respondent to the Crimewatch programme strange that there have been no arrests for questioning
-
And that possibility is based entirely on him thinking Gerry carrying a child in a position hundreds of thousands of people use daily made him consider the idea because that is how the man sighted by the family also carried the child.
I agree that it can't be what was engraved in Mr Smith's memory for such a long time, something nobody would expect seeing in the street of a calm little village before the dead of night.
-
I bet Smithman walked with Madeleine pressed against his shoulder. Who was he ? An Amish paedophile ?
That's racist Anne
nothing wrong with the Amish any more than the Catholic or the Menonite or the Jew or the ......
They are a peace loving quiet people who are very religious and believe in the simple life.
Have you ever seen any in real life?
-
That's racist Anne
nothing wrong with the Amish any more than the Catholic or the Menonite or the Jew or the ......
They are a peace loving quiet people who are very religious and believe in the simple life.
Have you ever seen any in real life?
The Amish are not a race.
You could claim it was xenophobic if you want.
I saw some when I was studying in Boston - if it wasn't for the religion I could go for the lifestyle.
N
-
The thing is, if Smithman turns out to be an innocent, and Tannerman has been effectively ruled out, where does that leave the abduction theory?
N
It leaves it with the other suspicious people reported by independent witnesses in PDL whose presence was not investigated by the first PJ team. It leaves us with the separate inquiries of the PJ.
-
It leaves it with the other suspicious people reported by independent witnesses in PDL whose presence was not investigated by the first PJ team. It leaves us with the separate inquiries of the PJ.
It leaves SY with egg on it's face. Come on a few people hanging around are hardly suspicious surely?
N
-
I would think SY have more than smithman..just my opinion
They told you three weeks ago what they have. "We have found part of the needle in the haystack".
The police themselves have consistently played down the hype, if people actually listen to what they say. DCS Campbell did on his last day in charge in May, and Assistant Commissioner Rowley is now.
-
The new leads are from people who was questioned once according to sky .
They left statements but was never questioned again
-
They told you three weeks ago what they have. "We have found part of the needle in the haystack".
The police themselves have consistently played down the hype, if people actually listen to what they say. DCS Campbell did on his last day in charge in May, and Assistant Commissioner Rowley is now.
I think withholding information for a week so the BBC can advertise Crimewatch can hardly be described as playing down the hype.
N
-
The thing is, if Smithman turns out to be an innocent, and Tannerman has been effectively ruled out, where does that leave the abduction theory?
N
Turning to be another innocent ? Difficult. But he could die and have post mortem a little treatment to match both e-fits ;)
-
Under portuguese law you can only reopen a case if you have fresh evidence
And that evidence has to be substantial (ie of substance).
-
And that evidence has to be substantial (ie of substance).
Martin on sky just said .its a witness or witnesses who was only questioned once .
If i could be bothered id go through the files again but it takes hours reading them pages .
-
Just more pedantic rubbish....Par for the course....mr Smith was shaken when he saw the footage...it obviously triggered something in his unconscious that was very important.....perhaps so important to explain the Mccanns not shouting this sighting of a young blond child seeing being carried ON THE NIGHT their child was abducted from the rooftops but chasing after creepy charity collectors nowhere near them in time or distance!!! pffft
So it triggered this and then he waited a full eleven days before bothering to phone Leicester Police with this new concern of his?
Sorry, I simply do not accept your view.
You clearly cannot accept that Gerry McCann was identified by witnesses including at least one independent witness who identified him as being elsewhere.
You clearly cannot accept that of all the Smith statements only one even mentions the possibility that it might have been Gerry McCann and that only on the basis of the way he carried the child.
Thankfully, SY and the PJ (the accredited experts in the field) both appear to have come to conclusions which totally and utterly differ from your view and which match far more closely mine.
-
The Amish are not a race.
You could claim it was xenophobic if you want.
I saw some when I was studying in Boston - if it wasn't for the religion I could go for the lifestyle.
N
Not even xenophobic ! Cariad suggested Smithman could be an Amish when I suggested he could hate all the gadgets of post-modernity (since he did the less expected in a case of abduction : walk).
-
We heard martin smith talking on the phone on crimewatch
He didnt say it was gerry ,the pj got lost in translation
-
So it triggered this and then he waited a full eleven days before bothering to phone Leicester Police with this new concern of his?
Sorry, I simply do not accept your view.
You clearly cannot accept that Gerry McCann was identified by witnesses including at least one independent witness who identified him as being elsewhere.
You clearly cannot accept that of all the Smith statements only one even mentions the possibility that it might have been Gerry McCann and that only on the basis of the way he carried the child.
Thankfully, SY and the PJ (the accredited experts in the field) both appear to have come to conclusions which totally and utterly differ from your view and which match far more closely mine.
You can only state what their conclusions are when they have been written for posterity 8)-))) Don't confuse PR with policing.
-
The new leads are from people who was questioned once according to sky .
They left statements but was never questioned again
This seems to be a fundamental flaw in both the initial police investigation and in the understanding of the nature of police work on the part of the anti McCanns.
Both the initial PJ team and the anti McCanns have this view that statements once made are fixed, that they seem to become fact simply by being statements. But the reality is that statements themselves have to be investigated and followed up. More questioning follows and only then does a police team get closer to the truth of a case.
It would appear as you suggest that many witness statements were simply filed and not followed up properly. That is what the PJ Oporto team have discovered and which have led to this re-opening.
-
This seems to be a fundamental flaw in both the initial police investigation and in the understanding of the nature of police work on the part of the anti McCanns.
Both the initial PJ team and the anti McCanns have this view that statements once made are fixed, that they seem to become fact simply by being statements. But the reality is that statements themselves have to be investigated and followed up. More questioning follows and only then does a police team get closer to the truth of a case.
It would appear as you suggest that many witness statements were simply filed and not followed up properly. That is what the PJ Oporto team have discovered and which have led to this re-opening.
Thats what they said .
But also i wonder if it was a nightmare there was that many statements
-
You can only state what their conclusions are when they have been written for posterity 8)-))) Don't confuse PR with policing.
Initial conclusions about the direction in which an investigation should proceed are not usually written for posterity. They are merely working conclusions but nonetheless are indeed conclusions and no matter how many silly smilies you may introduce that fact will not change.
There is no PR involved in making regular reviews of an investigation and making conclusions at those reviews which lead to further procedures. That is precisely what has occurred at this juncture.
The review done in Oporto has come to the conclusion (as has the SY review) that there should be investigation not into the McCanns but into abduction by persons unknown. Those two separately made conclusions have led to the two investigations which are now open.
-
So it triggered this and then he waited a full eleven days before bothering to phone Leicester Police with this new concern of his?
Sorry, I simply do not accept your view.
You clearly cannot accept that Gerry McCann was identified by witnesses including at least one independent witness who identified him as being elsewhere.
You clearly cannot accept that of all the Smith statements only one even mentions the possibility that it might have been Gerry McCann and that only on the basis of the way he carried the child.
When you make a mistake, when you're corrected, the next step is to make the same mistake again. Here they're 3.
-
Thats what they said .
But also i wonder if it was a nightmare there was that many statements
Of course, it was a nightmare.
But that is what policing is all about. Taking thousands of statements and reviewing each one carefully to sift out the useful and reject only those which have no value. That is what most civilised countries expect of the police, especially in a missing child case.
The initial PJ inquiry we are told failed in that respect.
The review in Oporto by the PJ has discovered this and found aspects of statements which were not followed up and which constitute substantial evidence regarding potential abductors.
-
It leaves SY with egg on it's face. Come on a few people hanging around are hardly suspicious surely?
N
A few people hanging around so much so that people noticed them and took note of their appearance and noted that they were looking explicitly at The Mccanns apartment in the days before a little girl was abducted.
I'd say that was extremely suspicious ! Why do you think that it was not, BFB ?
-
Not even xenophobic ! Cariad suggested Smithman could be an Amish when I suggested he could hate all the gadgets of post-modernity (since he did the less expected in a case of abduction : walk).
I did. I thought it was a perfect explanation for his lack of an auto mobile!
I didn't really, I just thought it was funny*
*cue the indignant 'you're laughing at a missing child comments!!'
anyway, back on topic: What do we actually know? Is the verifiable news just that the case is being reopened? I've spent all day (on and off) reading the news, lurking on Facebook groups and forums, but after sifting through the disinformation all I can really come up with is 'The case will be reopened in Portugal'.
-
When you make a mistake, when you're corrected, the next step is to make the same mistake again. Here they're 3.
I think you are wrong, Anne
Can you elucidate pls?
-
When you make a mistake, when you're corrected, the next step is to make the same mistake again. Here they're 3.
Not one of the so-called mistakes you have highlighted is a mistake.
Every one is fact.
Martin Smith waited after seeing the BBC News report on 9th September a whole eleven days before reporting his suspicion by telephone to the LP on 20th September as recorded by the Holmes Indexer at Braunstone Police Station. (Folio 2873)
A worker at the Tapas Restaurant places Gerry McCann at that scene at precisely the time of the disappearance. (Folio 122)
And I repeat there is only one statement from the Smith family which states that Gerry McCann may have been the man they sighted. If there are others please give links to them so that we can read where that is mentioned as a possibility. If you cannot provide such links to these statements then we will be forced to the conclusion that it is not in fact me making mistakes here.
-
Initial conclusions about the direction in which an investigation should proceed are not usually written for posterity. They are merely working conclusions but nonetheless are indeed conclusions and no matter how many silly smilies you may introduce that fact will not change.
There is no PR involved in making regular reviews of an investigation and making conclusions at those reviews which lead to further procedures. That is precisely what has occurred at this juncture.
The review done in Oporto has come to the conclusion (as has the SY review) that there should be investigation not into the McCanns but into abduction by persons unknown. Those two separately made conclusions have led to the two investigations which are now open.
You know very well the consequences if they say anything different. This is once again the most high profile missing child case in the world. Portugal does not want the English press back 8(0(*
-
I think that was Peter Smith (Martin's son) who you are referring to Kaz, and speaking to a journo not a policeman ! Unless of course you can provide a link to the phone conversation that you quote ?
No got no link i remember them saying martin didnt say it was gerr he said he was similar looking to gerry
Not sure about phone call now as it was last week .
-
A few people hanging around so much so that people noticed them and took note of their appearance and noted that they were looking explicitly at The Mccanns apartment in the days before a little girl was abducted.
I'd say that was extremely suspicious ! Why do you think that it was not, BFB ?
did they take note? or did they just remember seeing someone once they found out a crime had been committed?
When I was a smoker I used to stand outside of places looking round while I smoked - was I suspicious? Only if something bad happened and I was unlucky enough to be there.
People often hang around not doing much of anything when on holiday and I wouldn't say it was suspicious.
Don't get me wrong - I hope they find out what happened but they just don't seem to have much of anything to go on really.
Still, time will tell and I wish the SY and PJ good fortune.
N
-
You know very well the consequences if they say anything different. This is once again the most high profile missing child case in the world. Portugal does not want the English press back 8(0(*
So you cannot fault what I have said other than to suggest a kind of conspiracy of silence in order to discourage journalists from returning to Portugal.
That may well be your opinion of the matter. It most certainly is not mine. I have made my view clear and given reasons why I hold that view.
-
I am somewhat disappointed (though not actually surprised) that you have not yet responded to this post Anne Guedes, especially as the board information suggests you have been reading here for some considerable time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2756.msg93919#msg93919
I repeat there are no mistakes within my post and I now go further and ask you to explain why you have made that suggestion.
-
Not one of the so-called mistakes you have highlighted is a mistake.
Every one is fact.
Martin Smith waited after seeing the BBC News report on 9th September a whole eleven days before reporting his suspicion by telephone to the LP on 20th September as recorded by the Holmes Indexer at Braunstone Police Station. (Folio 2873)
A worker at the Tapas Restaurant places Gerry McCann at that scene at precisely the time of the disappearance. (Folio 122)
And I repeat there is only one statement from the Smith family which states that Gerry McCann may have been the man they sighted. If there are others please give links to them so that we can read where that is mentioned as a possibility. If you cannot provide such links to these statements then we will be forced to the conclusion that it is not in fact me making mistakes here.
There were many go between : the Gardai, DC Hughes, Stuart Prior, Bernard Gattney
Mr Smith didn't call DCI Hughes directly.
Page 122, nobody places Mr McCann at the Tapas table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_122.jpg
Mr Smith said his wife agreed with him. She never denied it.
-
There were many go between : the Gardai, DC Hughes, Stuart Prior, Bernard Gattney
Mr Smith didn't call DCI Hughes directly.
Page 122, nobody places Mr McCann at the Tapas table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_122.jpg
Mr Smith said his wife agreed with him. She never denied it.
Your mistake I believe.
I have never suggested that Mr Smith phoned DC Hughes directly.
What I clearly posted was that he telephoned Leicestershire Police nine days after having watched the BBC News bulletin which gave him concern and that is absolutely correct.
His call was logged by the Holmes Indexer (standard procedure) and passed by that person within a matter of a few hours to DC Hughes.
DC Hughes then on the same day sent the information to Portimao PJ.
That information was then held by the PJ in Portimao for a full 12 days before Paiva telephoned Smith. I wonder why no contact was made with him for nearly two weeks after his initial contact with LP and why the PJ sat on the information?
Stuart Prior was only involved in that the email from DC Hughes to Portimao was copied to him.
The Gardai (via their Madrid representative, Gattney) only became involved long after the initial phone call and the contact made with Smith by Paiva.
I was absolutely correct in what I posted on this matter.
On the matter of the placing of Gerry McCann at the table I suggest you read the page I referred you to more carefully. There you will find the following.
" Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared."
That clearly places Gerry at the table when his wife left to do the final check and only after she returned from that check did he leave with the other guests.
Once again I was absolutely correct.
As for the question of you claiming I made a mistake when I stated that of all the Smith statements only one (the second one of Martin Smith) even suggests that there was a possibility that the sighting was of Gerry McCann I was absolutely correct.
As I expected you have utterly failed to prove that I have made a mistake in that claim because you cannot. There are no other statements which mention Gerry McCann.
That same statement does offer the hearsay comment that Martin Smith's wife agreed with him but that is not what I referred to.
I would appreciate an apology from you as not one of the three mistakes you attributed to me is actually a mistake at all, but am pretty certain that none will be forthcoming.
-
You're happy with a witness who says GM was away from the table for 30 mins between 9.30 and 10(ish), gilet?
-
You're happy with a witness who says GM was away from the table for 30 mins between 9.30 and 10(ish), gilet?
I am giving the evidence which I stated exists. Whether such evidence is correct or not can only be judged by further questioning of that witness.
The point is that I was not mistaken in what I posted. There is evidence putting Gerry at the table at the appropriate time.
There was no mistake in my post.
-
Just information from other forums so far.
but links
PJ want to reopen Maddie case.
Portuguese authorities investigate new lead that should lead to the reopening of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The Portuguese authorities ponder reopen the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, following the analysis by PJ Port over the past two years.
The investigation will be headed by the PJ in Faro and will, for now, involve the cross-examination of witnesses. The Correio da Manhã understands that the thesis then will be the abduction and there may be steps common to that were requested by the British. (English)
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pj-quer-reabrir-caso-maddie
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-pode-reabrir-caso-maddpedophile networksie.html
Please note that I am copying links to press from other forums - I am not copying or quoting the comments from other forums.
Thank you for initiating this thread.
The reopening of the Inquiry is based on possible clues that can revive the abduction hypothesis, especially because lately there seems to be evidence that pedophile networks have been operating in the Algarve.
This strategy is quite logical.
Since he absence or lack of evidence could not be used to provoke the re-opening of the investigation, and as everyone knows, in what concerns the involuntary death and cadaver occultation, there was a blockage not only from the main perpetrators but also from the UK authorities, the only way to get around it was to re-enact the other hypothesis.
And in fact, the reason that was used to request the reopening of the investigation has nothing to do with considering the parents suspects.
However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account.
Which means that all the hypothesis stated by Tavares de Almeida and that were the ones maintained in the Archiving Report will be under investigation again:
»Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.»
In synthesis, all the following will be again under investigation:
1. Negletful homicide
2. Intended homicide
3. Targetted abduction
4. Oportunistic abduction
-
I am giving the evidence which I stated exists. Whether such evidence is correct or not can only be judged by further questioning of that witness.
The point is that I was not mistaken in what I posted. There is evidence putting Gerry at the table at the appropriate time.
There was no mistake in my post.
Fair enough. That's logical. But I think something about the 10pm sighting mustn't be.
I know everyone's concentrating on it now, for obvious reasons, but just a few weeks ago few were, including it seems the McCanns.
How else can we explain why the efits were not used for so many years?
-
Fair enough. That's logical. But I think something about the 10pm sighting mustn't be.
I know everyone's concentrating on it now, for obvious reasons, but just a few weeks ago few were, including it seems the McCanns.
How else can we explain why the efits were not used for so many years?
I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.
-
Your mistake I believe.
I have never suggested that Mr Smith phoned DC Hughes directly.
What I clearly posted was that he telephoned Leicestershire Police nine days after having watched the BBC News bulletin which gave him concern and that is absolutely correct.
His call was logged by the Holmes Indexer (standard procedure) and passed by that person within a matter of a few hours to DC Hughes.
DC Hughes then on the same day sent the information to Portimao PJ.
That information was then held by the PJ in Portimao for a full 12 days before Paiva telephoned Smith. I wonder why no contact was made with him for nearly two weeks after his initial contact with LP and why the PJ sat on the information?
Stuart Prior was only involved in that the email from DC Hughes to Portimao was copied to him.
The Gardai (via their Madrid representative, Gattney) only became involved long after the initial phone call and the contact made with Smith by Paiva.
I was absolutely correct in what I posted on this matter.
On the matter of the placing of Gerry McCann at the table I suggest you read the page I referred you to more carefully. There you will find the following.
" Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared."
That clearly places Gerry at the table when his wife left to do the final check and only after she returned from that check did he leave with the other guests.
Once again I was absolutely correct.
As for the question of you claiming I made a mistake when I stated that of all the Smith statements only one (the second one of Martin Smith) even suggests that there was a possibility that the sighting was of Gerry McCann I was absolutely correct.
As I expected you have utterly failed to prove that I have made a mistake in that claim because you cannot. There are no other statements which mention Gerry McCann.
That same statement does offer the hearsay comment that Martin Smith's wife agreed with him but that is not what I referred to.
I would appreciate an apology from you as not one of the three mistakes you attributed to me is actually a mistake at all, but am pretty certain that none will be forthcoming.
You're misleading people, Gilet, and all you demonstrate is pure bad faith : you suggest Mr Smith was alone thinking he had crossed Mr McCann, whilst he said his wife agreed with him. Can't you understand why she didn't want to state ? It's just a question of finesse.
Then you pretend a waiter saw Mr McCann at the Tapas table when his wife alerted, but you omit saying that the same waiter saw the same man, possibly Mr McCann, coming back after being away for half an hour (i.e having time to cross the Smith family), a fact that neither Mr McCann nor none of his acquaintances reported.
-
I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.
You're pushing on an open door, it always was the most likely, for the PJ and for any objective mind (not for the McCanns for obvious reasons).
-
Thank you for initiating this thread.
The reopening of the Inquiry is based on possible clues that can revive the abduction hypothesis, especially because lately there seems to be evidence that pedophile networks have been operating in the Algarve.
This strategy is quite logical.
Since he absence or lack of evidence could not be used to provoke the re-opening of the investigation, and as everyone knows, in what concerns the involuntary death and cadaver occultation, there was a blockage not only from the main perpetrators but also from the UK authorities, the only way to get around it was to re-enact the other hypothesis.
And in fact, the reason that was used to request the reopening of the investigation has nothing to do with considering the parents suspects.
However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account.
Which means that all the hypothesis stated by Tavares de Almeida and that were the ones maintained in the Archiving Report will be under investigation again:
»Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.»
In synthesis, all the following will be again under investigation:
1. Negletful homicide
2. Intended homicide
3. Targetted abduction
4. Oportunistic abduction
I would like to know why you believe the following which you posted. Which part of the Codigo Penal states that this is so? And even what the purpose for such might be?
"However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account."
My reason for asking is that you have completely neglected one important factor.
This re-opening of the inquiry does not sit in isolation.
It comes after a thorough review done by the PJ team in Oporto where they have sifted for a very long time the evidence from the past.
It is on the basis, not of generality, but on the specific findings of this review team about flaws in the initial inquiry and further leads which were not followed up about potential abductors that the PG has agreed to the re-opening of the case.
What earthly reason would there be to then undertake a repeat of the initial 2007/8 inquiry where, I remind you, the summation stated that no evidence of any crime had been found against the McCanns and of the Oporto Review where the only substantial leads were found to relate to potential abductors?
Do you not realise how illogical your claim that everything which has already been looked at thoroughly twice and dismissed, should once again be allowed to cloud the genuine leads which the case has to work with?
-
I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.
Several times the McCanns indicated the 9.15 and 10pm men might be one and the same, and there was no efit for 9.15 man, so why not use the ones they did have?
It's puzzling.
-
You're misleading people, Gilet, and all you demonstrate is pure bad faith : you suggest Mr Smith was alone thinking he had crossed Mr McCann, whilst he said his wife agreed with him. Can't you understand why she didn't want to state ? It's just a question of finesse.
Then you pretend a waiter saw Mr McCann at the Tapas table when his wife alerted, but you omit saying that the same waiter saw the same man, possibly Mr McCann, coming back after being away for half an hour (i.e having time to cross the Smith family), a fact that neither Mr McCann nor none of his acquaintances reported.
I repeat there is no mistake in the post I made. Your claim that there is, is simply wrong.
There was no other statement that supported Martin Smith's assertion that the man they saw was possibly Gerry McCann. That is plain and simple fact and no matter how you spin the issue of the hearsay from Smith about his wife that will remain the plain and simple truth.
As for his wife refusing to make a statement to the effect that she agrees with what her husband claims, no, I have no idea why a woman might refuse to do so. It is not finesse to refuse to make such a statement at all. What is your supposition as to the reason?
With regard to the witness in the Tapas restaurant the Smiths did not leave Kelly's bar till 21.55 and the sighting was at 22.00, precisely when the witness places Gerry McCann in the Tapas Restaurant. Unless he can be in two places at once (which is impossible) then I am absolutely correct and there is, as I pointed out, an independent witness who places him in the bar at the time of the sighting.
I am afraid that the mistakes are yours. The three points I made are absolutely correct and are backed up with specific evidence from the files and you have failed completely to demonstrate otherwise.
-
Several times the McCanns indicated the 9.15 and 10pm men might be one and the same, and there was no efit for 9.15 man, so why not use the ones they did have?
It's puzzling.
A puzzle maybe. But one that I suspect has been discussed between them and Scotland Yard. We are not privy to those discussions of course.
Personally, I have no idea what the reasons may have been but knowing that the McCanns have been in very close contact with SY I am sure there is no issue.
-
I repeat there is no mistake in the post I made. Your claim that there is, is simply wrong.
There was no other statement that supported Martin Smith's assertion that the man they saw was possibly Gerry McCann. That is plain and simple fact and no matter how you spin the issue of the hearsay from Smith about his wife that will remain the plain and simple truth.
As for his wife refusing to make a statement to the effect that she agrees with what her husband claims, no, I have no idea why a woman might refuse to do so. It is not finesse to refuse to make such a statement at all. What is your supposition as to the reason?
With regard to the witness in the Tapas restaurant the Smiths did not leave Kelly's bar till 21.55 and the sighting was at 22.00, precisely when the witness places Gerry McCann in the Tapas Restaurant. Unless he can be in two places at once (which is impossible) then I am absolutely correct and there is, as I pointed out, an independent witness who places him in the bar at the time of the sighting.
I am afraid that the mistakes are yours. The three points I made are absolutely correct and are backed up with specific evidence from the files and you have failed completely to demonstrate otherwise.
No, you haven't understood the finesse (I'm not surprised).
I'm afraid you don't understand the implication of your sticking to an (uncertain : "he could have been") identification of the second man with Mr McCann. Since no one from the group nor Mr McCann himself stated that he left the table after coming back from his chat with Mr Wilkins, you're simply accusing them of lying, at least by omission.
The time for the alert goes from after 21h30 to 22h10 depending on the witness and sometimes the statement of the same witness, a lot of time to meet the Smith family.
-
Hello, I am new. I have a question: where is it stated that the Portuguese police are reopening the case with an abduction scenario? I have only been able to read the Portuguese press through google translate, but that only translates using the word "disappearance". Also, Scotland Yard statements do sometimes talk of abduction but they more often very carefully use only the word "disappearance", so it would be strange if the UK police are talking mainly of a disappearance but the Portuguese police are talking specifically of an abduction.
I could be wrong though and the Portuguese police have indeed opened up an abduction inquiry, but I've seen no information on this
-
I think the Portuguese are investigating the abduction gang theory. SY are certainly investigating the Smithman lead because of the efits they released on Crimewatch.
-
Thanks, but that's not the same as the Portuguese having specifically stated that they are pursuing an abduction theory, as the title of this thread and some of the posts in it imply.
SY are following the Smithman sighting, they're also following the charity collectors sightings and the Dutch or German men sightings. Are they pursuing these sightings as all being part of one single gang that was working together or as a number of separate and unrelated possibilities?
-
Nope sorry mate but you dont !!!!! Fact
Did you quote the wrong post there?
-
I repeat there is no mistake in the post I made. Your claim that there is, is simply wrong.
There was no other statement that supported Martin Smith's assertion that the man they saw was possibly Gerry McCann. That is plain and simple fact and no matter how you spin the issue of the hearsay from Smith about his wife that will remain the plain and simple truth.
As for his wife refusing to make a statement to the effect that she agrees with what her husband claims, no, I have no idea why a woman might refuse to do so. It is not finesse to refuse to make such a statement at all. What is your supposition as to the reason?
With regard to the witness in the Tapas restaurant the Smiths did not leave Kelly's bar till 21.55 and the sighting was at 22.00, precisely when the witness places Gerry McCann in the Tapas Restaurant. Unless he can be in two places at once (which is impossible) then I am absolutely correct and there is, as I pointed out, an independent witness who places him in the bar at the time of the sighting.
I am afraid that the mistakes are yours. The three points I made are absolutely correct and are backed up with specific evidence from the files and you have failed completely to demonstrate otherwise.
What is the name of the independent witness who, with certainty, said he saw Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at precisely 22.00pm ?
-
The evidence places Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at 10pm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.0
706 Replies
18608 Views
-
The evidence places Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at 10pm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.0
If that supposition is wrong, even if he was (say) just visiting the gents at the exact moment of Kate's alert, it is amazing that Gerry's absence from the table was not noticed, especially given that he is Madeleine's father.
You'd have expected a full commentary in the file of efforts to find Gerry and tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him.
The (excellent) reason for the absence of any such commentary in the files is that Joaoa Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report) had it right.
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant.
-
The evidence places Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at 10pm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.0
706 Replies
18608 Views
Thank you
That thread made a thorough investigation of the claim that independent witnesses said they saw Gerry at the tapas bar at 10pm .... it was found that none did
However, Gilet may have found the name and witness statement of a staff member we missed, who did say, with certainty, that he saw Gerry at precisely 10pm
That is why I ask, again ... what is the witnesse 's name ?
-
Hello, I am new. I have a question: where is it stated that the Portuguese police are reopening the case with an abduction scenario? I have only been able to read the Portuguese press through google translate, but that only translates using the word "disappearance". Also, Scotland Yard statements do sometimes talk of abduction but they more often very carefully use only the word "disappearance", so it would be strange if the UK police are talking mainly of a disappearance but the Portuguese police are talking specifically of an abduction.
I could be wrong though and the Portuguese police have indeed opened up an abduction inquiry, but I've seen no information on this
Hello Aegean and welcome on this forum !
You're right, the MP hasn't claimed that the PJ will investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if it was a fact.
They said that new elements challenged the conclusions of the AG report and had to be inquired. The secret aspect of the investigation has been underlined.
-
Hello Aegean and welcome on this forum !
You're right, the MP hasn't claimed that the PJ will investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if it was a fact.
They said that new elements challenged the conclusions of the AG report and had to be inquired. The secret aspect of the investigation has been underlined.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/
-
Thank you
That thread made a thorough investigation of the claim that independent witnesses said they saw Gerry at the tapas bar at 10pm .... it was found that none did
However, Gilet may have found the name and witness statement of a staff member we missed, who did say, with certainty, that he saw Gerry at precisely 10pm
That is why I ask, again ... what is the witnesse 's name ?
Gilet referred to page 122 at the bottom of which starts the statement of Mr Batista (Mr Batista refers to a group of 8/9, seeming to acknowledge the fact that on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday one of them was missing).
Gilet's trick is amazing deduction after extracting an element from a whole sentence. Mr Batista saying the "second man" came back after 30 minutes, shortly before all left the table except for one and could be the father of the child, becomes Mr McCann was at the table at 10 pm.
-
http://www.theportugalnews.com/
Have you heard the "report from RTP", Ferryman ? Can you provide a link to such a claim by the MP?
Expresso, who always was defending the McCanns, doesn't say so.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/ministerio-publico-reabre-caso-maddie=f837383?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mail&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=2013-10-25 (http://expresso.sapo.pt/ministerio-publico-reabre-caso-maddie=f837383?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mail&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=2013-10-25)
-
Have you heard the "report from RTP", Ferryman ? Can you provide a link to such a claim by the MP?
Expresso, who always was defending the McCanns, doesn't say so.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/ministerio-publico-reabre-caso-maddie=f837383?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mail&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=2013-10-25 (http://expresso.sapo.pt/ministerio-publico-reabre-caso-maddie=f837383?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mail&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=2013-10-25)
It would appear that some 'spin' has flown south for the winter.
-
Gilet referred to page 122 at the bottom of which starts the statement of Mr Batista (Mr Batista refers to a group of 8/9, seeming to acknowledge the fact that on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday one of them was missing).
Gilet's trick is amazing deduction after extracting an element from a whole sentence. Mr Batista saying the "second man" came back after 30 minutes, shortly before all left the table except for one and could be the father of the child, becomes Mr McCann was at the table at 10 pm.
Well then that is the 'mistake' in Gilet's post
No-one, apart from his mates, say that Gerry was definately at the tapas bar when the Smiths made their sighting
-
Thank you
That thread made a thorough investigation of the claim that independent witnesses said they saw Gerry at the tapas bar at 10pm .... it was found that none did
However, Gilet may have found the name and witness statement of a staff member we missed, who did say, with certainty, that he saw Gerry at precisely 10pm
That is why I ask, again ... what is the witnesse 's name ?
A good start would be to educate yourself on what an independent witness is
And can you point to where, in the files, there is any reference to Gerry, as Madeleine's father, being absent from the restaurant, and what steps were taken to find him, including where he was when found and who found him?
No
Course not.
That'll be, either because they are part of the 'hidden' files that will blow the case apart and prove the McCanns' culpability, or because Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert ...
-
A good start would be to educate yourself on what an independent witness is
And can you point to where, in the files, there is any reference to Gerry, as Madeleine's father, being absent from the restaurant, and what steps were taken to find him, including where he was when found and who found him?
No
Course not.
That'll be, either because they are part of the 'hidden' files that will blow the case apart and prove the McCanns' culpability, or because Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert ...
Better leave it to Gilet to mislead posters truncating witnesses' statements.
-
Well then that is the 'mistake' in Gilet's post
No-one, apart from his mates, say that Gerry was definately at the tapas bar when the Smiths made their sighting
When was that for sure ?
-
Better leave it to Gilet to mislead posters truncating witnesses' statements.
Pot. Kettle. Black?
-
It would appear that some 'spin' has flown south for the winter.
The only source for the claim that the McCanns are no longer suspects is their lawyer, Rogério Alves. He just states that the new "indícios" (indications) found do not point towards the McCanns. That is all and now everyone has translated this twisted legalese as "the McCanns are no longer considered suspects." RA is known, here in Portugal, for loving the limelight and the sound of his own voice.
Nor the MP nor the PJ have made any statements regarding the status of the McCanns in the investigation and I doubt very much that they will.
-
http://www.theportugalnews.com/
I notice that, more than once, you have brought this link up, without commenting on it
So let's talk about it
There is only one direct quote from the police :
The Public Prosecutor's Office has determined the re-opening of the enquiry relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann following a proposal by the Policia Judiciaria and due to the presentation of new elements which justify the continuation of the investigation
That's it ... that's all the police have said
The rest of the article quotes un-named sources and consists of 'It is believed' type assumptions
For instance, the 'emerged' claim that police in Portugal have excluded the possibility of Madeleine's parents having had any involvement in their daughter's disappearance' came not from the police themselves ... but from the McCann's own lawyer, Rogerio Alves
-
The only source for the claim that the McCanns are no longer suspects is their lawyer, Rogério Alves. He just states that the new "indícios" (indications) found do not point towards the McCanns. That is all and now everyone has translated this twisted legalese as "the McCanns are no longer considered suspects." RA is known, here in Portugal, for loving the limelight and the sound of his own voice.
Nor the MP nor the PJ have made any statements regarding the status of the McCanns in the investigation and I doubt very much that they will.
That sums up very well the situation, thank you Montclair !
-
Prosecutors announced the reopening of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, after the Judicial Police have filed new elements.
The McCanns is not named as suspect, the new line of investigation that prosecutors decided to open the disappearance of Maddie, found a second Renaissance . Judicial Police says have sufficient evidence to reopen the case, which has now happened for determining Attorney General's Office. A new line of research proposed by the Judicial prosecutors did not include the couple McCann as a suspect. This thesis, defended at times by the Judiciary seems to be abandoned in the light of new evidence collected by the team that has been to re-examine this case since March 2011. Such research team, based in Port Judiciary, recently presented new evidence, which impose further research, so that has met the requirements of the Criminal Code, so that the investigation be reopened. A Judicial communicated these facts to the Attorney General's Office, which decided to continue the process, ordering the reopening of the investigation in District of Portimão. Fountain authorized officer ensures the Renaissance that this development in Portugal, has nothing to do with the efforts of British justice, as it is a mere coincidence and where they can not even look for other similarities, eg the lines of research . Madeleine McCann disappeared a few days before to four years, May 3, 2007, the room where she was sleeping with her two twin brothers, younger, in an apartment of a tourist resort in Praia da Luz The parents dined with friends in a nearby restaurant.
http://rr.sapo.pt/informacao_detalhe.aspx?fid=26&did=126889
-
Hello Aegean and welcome on this forum !
You're right, the MP hasn't claimed that the PJ will investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if it was a fact.
They said that new elements challenged the conclusions of the AG report and had to be inquired. The secret aspect of the investigation has been underlined.
And rightly so too!! SY leaked like a sieve in 2007 and still do today. If I were the PJ I would only divulge that which is only absolutely necessary.
-
The only source for the claim that the McCanns are no longer suspects is their lawyer, Rogério Alves. He just states that the new "indícios" (indications) found do not point towards the McCanns. That is all and now everyone has translated this twisted legalese as "the McCanns are no longer considered suspects." RA is known, here in Portugal, for loving the limelight and the sound of his own voice.
Nor the MP nor the PJ have made any statements regarding the status of the McCanns in the investigation and I doubt very much that they will.
The McCanns and their followers are desperate to lose the 'suspect' label and that is why Mitchell is putting out these Press Releases.
Clearly no evidence exists to clear the McCanns of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance with the libel trial testimony of Moita Flores being somewhat damning towards them when he insisted under oath that it was impossible for an abductor to take Madeleine out the bedroom window. The Press haven't picked up on that one??
-
The McCanns and their followers are desperate to lose the 'suspect' label and that is why Mitchell is putting out these Press Releases.
Clearly no evidence exists to clear the McCanns of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance with the libel trial testimony of Moita Flores being somewhat damning towards them when he insisted under oath that it was impossible for an abductor to take Madeleine out the bedroom window. The Press haven't picked up on that one??
Do you think that The Judge doesn't know about the door?
-
The McCanns and their followers are desperate to lose the 'suspect' label and that is why Mitchell is putting out these Press Releases.
Clearly no evidence exists to clear the McCanns of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance with the libel trial testimony of Moita Flores being somewhat damning towards them when he insisted under oath that it was impossible for an abductor to take Madeleine out the bedroom window. The Press haven't picked up on that one??
it seems like you haven't understood it. He didn't say it was impossible to take maddie out of the front door did he
-
And rightly so too!! SY leaked like a sieve in 2007 and still do today. If I were the PJ I would only divulge that which is only absolutely necessary.
The sober words of the MP actually point to this.
Of course it's a bit short for the press, so they "ornament".
-
it seems like you haven't understood it. He didn't say it was impossible to take maddie out of the front door did he
No he didn't but was she alive when she went out that front door?? Fact is someone staged the open shutter and open window for a reason.
-
I think this is great news and the fact that the PT teams and UK teams will be working together no matter what the doubters say.
8@??)(
I wish them all the success in finding out Who did it? Where is Madeleine now?
-
it seems like you haven't understood it. He didn't say it was impossible to take maddie out of the front door did he
Mr Moita Flores said abduction was possible but not through the window.
After being the way of entry for a short time only because no trace of forced shutters had been found, the window became the exit way. And remained so for almost 3 years, up to January 2010. In the trial it was proved that the window couldn't have been the exit way. Some days later, Mrs McCann, on their site, noted that the window, besides being the exit way, was also possibly a red herring.
-
Fact is someone staged the open shutter and open window for a reason.
What reason ? And how can we isolate this fact from the forced, broken, jemmied shutters told all night to family and friends ? And also from Mr McCann manipulating immediately the shutters ?
-
Fantastic news that the case has been reopened..well done SY 8@??)(
I hope it leads to finding madeleine..its a long shot after 6 years I know but its possible 8((()*/