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: VIXTE on February 21, 2014, 12:34:14 PM
-
Thread started by Senior Editor as per request below.
*********************************************************
Why don't you allow the posts that PJ did tell the McCanns, on a meeting they had with the SY that they were not suspects?
Madeleine McCann's parents told they are no longer suspects by Portuguese police
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011#ixzz2txWqDdgE
I also invite all journalists, reading this forum, to clarify this exact matter.. once for all... because it seems exactly this is feeding the trolls, let the truth out please!
Parents are not suspects, neither in UK, or Portugal!
-
Why don't you allow the posts that PJ did tell the McCanns, on a meeting they had with the SY that they were not suspects?
Madeleine McCann's parents told they are no longer suspects by Portuguese police
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011#ixzz2txWqDdgE
I also invite all journalists, reading this forum, to clarify this exact matter.. once for all... because it seems exactly this is feeding the trolls, let the truth out please!
Parents are not suspects, neither in UK, or Portugal!
However, this doesn't prove that they didn't 'do it'.
Troll feed they will always remain & they have no one to blame but themselves. Amen.
-
Why don't you allow the posts that PJ did tell the McCanns, on a meeting they had with the SY that they were not suspects?
Madeleine McCann's parents told they are no longer suspects by Portuguese police
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011#ixzz2txWqDdgE
I also invite all journalists, reading this forum, to clarify this exact matter.. once for all... because it seems exactly this is feeding the trolls, let the truth out please!
Parents are not suspects, neither in UK, or Portugal!
Their Portuguese lawyer Rogerio Alves said yesterday: “The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.
“They also know that this new line of inquiry excludes any responsibility of the parents.
Read it properly, they were not suspects in the line of inquiry used to reopen the case, ie the theory of Monteiro beng possibly involved
Just clarifyng!
eta PT link
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/rogerio-alves-mccanns-lawyer-new.html
-
Their Portuguese lawyer Rogerio Alves said yesterday: “The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.
“They also know that this new line of inquiry excludes any responsibility of the parents.
Read it properly, they were not suspects in the line of inquiry used to reopen the case, ie the theory of Monteiro beng possibly involved
Just clarifyng!
eta PT link
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/rogerio-alves-mccanns-lawyer-new.html
The new evidence excludes the parents..
This is the exact quote"The family was informed that the new evidence does not, in any way, point to the responsibility of the parents", assured the lawyer."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjscMQ_dpw
Transcript from Joana Morais;
Rogério Alves, McCanns' lawyer: 'new evidence rules out the parents responsibility'
24 OCTOBER 2013 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS LEAVE A COMMENT
At a time when the investigation is under the secrecy of justice, Rogério Alves, the McCanns' lawyer has given multiple interviews throughout the day to Lusa news agency, Antena 1 radio, SIC TV news channel, and to RTP (among other mainstream media outlets), stating that "new evidence rules out the parents responsibility".
Maddie Case: 'new evidence rules out the responsibility of the parents'
Lisbon, Oct. 24 (Lusa) 17:16 - The lawyer of the parents of the English child, who disappeared from the Algarve in 2007, has revealed today that the couple was informed that the new evidence, on which the reopening is based, "does not, in any way, point to the responsibility" of Madeleine McCann's parents.
Rogério Alves was speaking to Lusa regarding the reopening of the investigation by the Portuguese Public Ministry and it was then that he was questioned about the possibility of Gerry and Kate MaCann [sic] being constituted as arguidos again.
"The family was informed that the new evidence does not, in any way, point to the responsibility of the parents", assured the lawyer.
in Lusa news agency release, then published in several online newspapers (with the same mistake 'MaCann')
broadcast by RTP, 20:17h, 24 October 2013
McCann couple excluded from responsibilities in the disappearance of their daughter
The lawyer of Madeleine McCann's parents revealed that the couple knew about the reopening of the process. Rogério Alves said that they were given the assurance that the new line of inquiry excludes them from any responsibility in their daughter's disappearance.
Transcript
Rogério Alves - The reopening of the investigation means that there are new leads, new paths which weren't explored and that now the Judiciary police will undertake a new search, or, rather a new set of investigative lines in order to reach the truth. That's what matters, to reach the truth. The family was informed of this reopening of the process. The family was informed of the reason behind the reopening of the process, and the family knows as well that this new line of investigation excludes any responsibility of the parents.
-
Read it properly, they were not suspects in the line of inquiry used to reopen the case, ie the theory of Monteiro beng possibly involved
Yes, very often one is misled by one's own lack of attention (the same works with oral speech) or (rather) expectation.
The same restriction applies to DCI Redwood's words : in the abduction inquiry line, the only one followed because the only one allowing Madeleine to be alive (the starter), the TP9 were no suspects.
-
Masters of "interpretation" come to the scene!
Redwood said it, McCanns lawyer in Portugal explained that PJ said it too..
If this is not enough, then we obviously need further clarification, and this then becomes job of investigative journalists.
But if the journalists clarify it again, in a straight line, if they get a direct quote then you will have another argument: they broke the secrecy law..
Still, I think in this case and now, it is worth 'breaking the secrecy law' to clarify this fact.. and a wish a proper journalist does it right now, for Madeleine's sake!
-
The new evidence excludes the parents..
This is the exact quote"The family was informed that the new evidence does not, in any way, point to the responsibility of the parents", assured the lawyer."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjscMQ_dpw
Transcript from Joana Morais;
Rogério Alves, McCanns' lawyer: 'new evidence rules out the parents responsibility'
24 OCTOBER 2013 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS LEAVE A COMMENT
At a time when the investigation is under the secrecy of justice, Rogério Alves, the McCanns' lawyer has given multiple interviews throughout the day to Lusa news agency, Antena 1 radio, SIC TV news channel, and to RTP (among other mainstream media outlets), stating that "new evidence rules out the parents responsibility".
Maddie Case: 'new evidence rules out the responsibility of the parents'
Lisbon, Oct. 24 (Lusa) 17:16 - The lawyer of the parents of the English child, who disappeared from the Algarve in 2007, has revealed today that the couple was informed that the new evidence, on which the reopening is based, "does not, in any way, point to the responsibility" of Madeleine McCann's parents.
Rogério Alves was speaking to Lusa regarding the reopening of the investigation by the Portuguese Public Ministry and it was then that he was questioned about the possibility of Gerry and Kate MaCann [sic] being constituted as arguidos again.
"The family was informed that the new evidence does not, in any way, point to the responsibility of the parents", assured the lawyer.
in Lusa news agency release, then published in several online newspapers (with the same mistake 'MaCann')
broadcast by RTP, 20:17h, 24 October 2013
McCann couple excluded from responsibilities in the disappearance of their daughter
The lawyer of Madeleine McCann's parents revealed that the couple knew about the reopening of the process. Rogério Alves said that they were given the assurance that the new line of inquiry excludes them from any responsibility in their daughter's disappearance.
Transcript
Rogério Alves - The reopening of the investigation means that there are new leads, new paths which weren't explored and that now the Judiciary police will undertake a new search, or, rather a new set of investigative lines in order to reach the truth. That's what matters, to reach the truth. The family was informed of this reopening of the process. The family was informed of the reason behind the reopening of the process, and the family knows as well that this new line of investigation excludes any responsibility of the parents.
Yes, thanks Vixte for repeating what I already posted
@)(++(*
Yes, very often one is misled by one's own lack of attention (the same works with oral speech) or (rather) expectation.
The same restriction applies to DCI Redwood's words : in the abduction inquiry line, the only one followed because the only one allowing Madeleine to be alive (the starter), the TP9 were no suspects.
Indeed!
-
Yes, thanks Vixte for repeating what I already posted
@)(++(*
Me and you interpret this differently. We understand it differently. This is why I said the further clarification is needed and only the newspapers with good credentials can clarify this now.. so it is clear and not prone to different interpretations.
-
Masters of "interpretation" come to the scene!
Redwood said it, McCanns lawyer in Portugal explained that PJ said it too..
If this is not enough, then we obviously need further clarification, and this then becomes job of investigative journalists.
But if the journalists clarify it again, in a straight line, if they get a direct quote then you will have another argument: they broke the secrecy law..
Still, I think in this case and now, it is worth 'breaking the secrecy law' to clarify this fact.. and a wish a proper journalist does it right now, for Madeleine's sake!
Journalists could do whatever they like for Madeleines sake, I doubt that she would know very much about it. Sadly.
-
Journalists could do whatever they like for Madeleines sake, I doubt that she would know very much about it. Sadly.
That is your problem, not mine..
As if she comes from all of this alive, then I can imagine what would feel like being under your skin.
-
Me and you interpret this differently. We understand it differently. This is why I said the further clarification is needed and only the newspapers with good credentials can clarify this now.. so it is clear and not prone to different interpretations.
Nothng to clarify, the mccanns are not regarded as suspects in the particular new line(s) of inquiry that got the case reopened by the PJ, thats all, all there in black and white.
Edited to remove double word posting
-
I have moved the previous posts so that members can debate this issue.
The way I understand it presently is that they are not considered suspects at the moment in relation to any crime in Portugal. As the investigation continues however and as we have seen in countless other cases, the emphases could change if evidence is found to suggest otherwise.
-
I have moved the previous posts so that members can debate this issue.
The way I understand it presently is that they are not considered suspects at the moment in relation to any crime in Portugal. As the investigation continues however and as we have seen in countless other cases, the emphases could change if evidence is found to suggest otherwise.
Of course if any new evidence arises things could change...however if there is no evidence after seven yrs Ifeel it highly unlikely anything will surface now
-
Of course if any new evidence arises things could change...however if there is no evidence after seven yrs Ifeel it highly unlikely anything will surface now
Does that include Madeleine?
-
Does that include Madeleine?
from what I have heard the evidence SY are working on was already in the files..just not investigated properly because the PJ were concentrating on the parents...therefore I feel the parents have already been thoroughly investigated
-
I have moved the previous posts so that members can debate this issue.
The way I understand it presently is that they are not considered suspects at the moment in relation to any crime in Portugal. As the investigation continues however and as we have seen in countless other cases, the emphases could change if evidence is found to suggest otherwise.
I find that a fair assessment.
The Oporto team have obviously found information, new leads, or ones that hadn't been sufficiently pursued, that were considered more worthy of further investigation than the so-called evidence submitted by a PT tabloid TV talking-head about a non-missing pink blanket.
-
I find that a fair assessment.
The Oporto team have obviously found information, new leads, or ones that hadn't been sufficiently pursued, that were considered more worthy of further investigation than the so-called evidence submitted by a PT tabloid TV talking-head about a non-missing pink blanket.
I think we are all agreed that the very best outcome would be to find Madeleine alive and well and since no-one else is looking for her we must extend our support to SY and the PJ in that endeavor. As Leonor Cipriano once stated, "Better late than never".
-
Nothng to clarify, the mccanns are not regarded as suspects in the particular new line(s) of inquiry that got the case reopened by the PJ, thats all, all there in black and white.
Edited to remove double word posting
I disagree.
Not clarifying this fact very clearly adds a lot of room to the speculation and conspiracy theories.
It becomes 'Holy Grail'- like.
In today's world of technology for any journalist it wouldn't be hard to start working on the mud clearing.. transparency is the word here.. and this would be the 'hit into a heart' or the under carpet pushers..
-
I find that a fair assessment.
The Oporto team have obviously found information, new leads, or ones that hadn't been sufficiently pursued, that were considered more worthy of further investigation than the so-called evidence submitted by a PT tabloid TV talking-head about a non-missing pink blanket.
Have you a link supporting the "s" ? (not to a "PT tabloid". BTW how many are they ?)
One shouldn't forget that, though the MP made it clear it was crucial for the investigation, its request concerned the TP9 and was rejected.
The fact that almost 5 years and a half passed doesn't invalidate the AG report where this is stated.
-
I think we are all agreed that the very best outcome would be to find Madeleine alive and well and since no-one else is looking for her we must extend our support to SY and the PJ in that endeavor. As Leonor Cipriano once stated, "Better late than never".
Why are you kidding ?
-
I disagree.
Not clarifying this fact very clearly adds a lot of room to the speculation and conspiracy theories.
It becomes 'Holy Grail'- like.
In today's world of technology for any journalist it wouldn't be hard to start working on the mud clearing.. transparency is the word here.. and this would be the 'hit into a heart' or the under carpet pushers..
There is nothing to clarify, no conspiracy theories or speculation here, we have a named source, the lawyer, and a verbatim quote from him and a video showng him saying it, it is exactly as reported and reads, you carry on making it into somethng else if you like....
Just to reiterate, the Mccanns are not PJ suspects in their new line(s) of enquiry
-
There is nothing to clarify, no conspiracy theories or speculation here, we have a named source, the lawyer, and a verbatim quote from him and a video showng him saying it, it is exactly as reported and reads, you carry on making it into somethng else if you like....
I am not making it into something else, and I am not wishing to..
What I am saying is that a new source is needed, a named source from Portugal, and recorded for the whole world to see.
-
Have you a link supporting the "s" ? (not to a "PT tabloid". BTW how many are they ?)
One shouldn't forget that, though the MP made it clear it was crucial for the investigation, its request concerned the TP9 and was rejected.
The fact that almost 5 years and a half passed doesn't invalidate the AG report where this is stated.
In the absence of information, whatever led to the reopening could involve several aspects, unless you have knowledge to the contrary.
At to the second part of your comment, I don't understand what you are referring to.
-
I am not making it into something else, and I am not wishing to..
What I am saying is that a new source is needed, a named source from Portugal, and recorded for the whole world to see.
To say what? And like who?
-
Just to reiterate, the Mccanns are not PJ suspects in their new line(s) of enquiry
And do you have a proof that PJ has and is still working on any OLD lines of inquiry?
Or you are hoping that stuffing the English speaking forums with speculations and conspiracies and 'interpretations a la Luz' would make them change their mind?
-
And do you have a proof that PJ has and is still working on any OLD lines of inquiry?
Or you are hoping that stuffing the English speaking forums with speculations and conspiracies and 'interpretations a la Luz' would make them change their mind?
You must be thoroughly confused, as you seem to have gone off the point of discussion completely, and I have no idea what you are mumbling on about now/accusing me of, so never mind, leave you to stuff the forum as it were with your pearls of wisdom! Instead
-
To say what? And like who?
To ask a government figure directly and clearly if the parents are still in any way considered to be suspects? Like they asked Redwood and he said 'no'?
Because now when Redwood said it, and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said it, this is not enough for the posters here.. Luz is still claiming they are still suspects in Portugal and the admin here has left Luz's post meaning the admin here is agreeing with Luz that parents are still suspects in Portugal.
And acceptance of this is allowing other posters to speculate in a way as if the parents are still suspect..
And they seem, including you, to believe that there is some 'secret investigation going on in Portugal still suspecting the parents'.
-
To ask a government figure directly and clearly if the parents are still in any way considered to be suspects? Like they asked Redwood and he said 'no'?
Because now when Redwood said it, and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said it, this is not enough for the posters here.. Luz is still claiming they are still suspects in Portugal and the admin here has left Luz's post meaning the admin here is agreeing with Luz that parents are still suspects in Portugal.
Does it really matter what luz says..luz claims amaral has been cleared in court which is rubbish so no on should take any of the posts seriously
-
Does it really matter what luz says..luz claims amaral has been cleared in court which is rubbish so no on should take any of the posts seriously
But she is not corrected by admins.. while any other posts about Amaral are being deleted.
admins are allowing posts saying ' the parents are suspects in Portugal' ' The parents are killers' and 'parents are blah blah blah' but same time not allowing any 'forum accusations' of Amaral, this is allowing creating a sect like veil around Amaral and other conspiracy theories.
It feels like allowing paranormal into science..
-
From the archiving Report, final comments.
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(João Melchior Gomes)
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi9
-
But she is not corrected by admins.. while any other posts about Amaral are being deleted.
admins are allowing posts saying ' the parents are suspects in Portugal' ' The parents are killers' and 'parents are blah blah blah' but same time not allowing any 'forum accusations' of Amaral, this is allowing creating a sect like veil around Amaral and other conspiracy theories.
It feels like allowing paranormal into science..
Luz' comment was removed some time ago. Please keep up!
The Portuguese are rightly keeping all their options open.
-
But she is not corrected by admins.. while any other posts about Amaral are being deleted.
admins are allowing posts saying ' the parents are suspects in Portugal' ' The parents are killers' and 'parents are blah blah blah' but same time not allowing any 'forum accusations' of Amaral, this is allowing creating a sect like veil around Amaral and other conspiracy theories.
It feels like allowing paranormal into science..
personally I think have lost the plot!
Your facts are wrong too, there are PLENTY of anti Amaral posts on the forum, never seen any post that asserts the parents are killers, stop exagerrating, it does not help any argument to skew facts or call this forum a SECT, otherwise who then is lurking into conspiracy paranormal mode!!!
@)(++(*
Be back later to read more of your pearls
crikey
-
personally I think have lost the plot!
Your facts are wrong too, there are PLENTY of anti Amaral posts on the forum, never seen any post that asserts the parents are killers, stop exagerrating, it does not help any argument to skew facts or call this forum a SECT, otherwise who then is lurking into conspiracy paranormal mode!!!
@)(++(*
Be back later to read more of your pearls
crikey
I think everyone would agree that at the moment the McCanns are not suspects and both SY and the PJ are looking at a possible abduction....this means that there must be indications that an abduction is a possibility.
if new evidence comes to light then things could change but as it stands SY must have looked at all the evidence...including the dogs...and have ruled out the parents
-
I think everyone would agree that at the moment the McCanns are not suspects and both SY and the PJ are looking at a possible abduction....this means that there must be indications that an abduction is a possibility.
if new evidence comes to light then things could change but as it stands SY must have looked at all the evidence...including the dogs...and have ruled out the parents
its not quite as you put it all
-
I think everyone would agree that at the moment the McCanns are not suspects and both SY and the PJ are looking at a possible abduction....this means that there must be indications that an abduction is a possibility.
if new evidence comes to light then things could change but as it stands SY must have looked at all the evidence...including the dogs...and have ruled out the parents
The MPS reckon they are about 3/4 way through the documentation so either they are bullshitting or you are.
-
The MPS reckon they are about 3/4 way through the documentation so either they are bullshitting or you are.
Unless its all in one big box or bin bag..which of course it may be...the evidence would be organised as are the files and all the evidence re the mccanns in one section...so perhaps its a simple as you don't understand whats going on
-
Unless its all in one big box or bin bag..which of course it may be...the evidence would be organised as are the files and all the evidence re the mccanns in one section...so perhaps its a simple as you don't understand whats going on
Of course I don't as you tediously keep reminding only the mighty call me MR Davel knows anything on here. Oh ye of brain of planetary proportions please take this undeserving ESN person as your pupil. I clearly have much to learn master. Well in a pigs eye could you teach me much.
-
Unless its all in one big box or bin bag..which of course it may be...the evidence would be organised as are the files and all the evidence re the mccanns in one section...so perhaps its a simple as you don't understand whats going on
Oh I see the Pj were very meticulous and organised now in their recording of all data into imagined sections? LOL
Such supposition! You havent a clue so why speculate/assert, perhaps its because you dont know or understand
-
Of course I don't as you tediously keep reminding only the mighty call me MR Davel knows anything on here. Oh ye of brain of planetary proportions please take this undeserving ESN person as your pupil. I clearly have much to learn master. Well in a pigs eye could you teach me much.
The call me mr davel is a little joke ....I like little jokes...regarding a post made sometime ago..believe it or not I don't believe in egos...
-
Luz' comment was removed some time ago. Please keep up!
The Portuguese are rightly keeping all their options open.
I have never seen a quote from any Portuguese authority source that there is an option of the parents who are currently not being suspects becoming the suspects in future..
I would love to see it though.. it would clarify things!
-
I have never seen a quote from any Portuguese authority source that there is an option of the parents who are currently not being suspects becoming the suspects in future..
I would love to see it though.. it would clarify things!
Does it really matter? The priority is solving the case, their status is totally secondary. Seeing as they have not been totally "cleared" by any police force or judicial authority you will have to wait and see
-
"One of the detectives leading the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has told reporters her parents are not suspects. Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims". "The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said." Mail 31st August 2007
-
"One of the detectives leading the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has told reporters her parents are not suspects. Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims". "The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said." Mail 31st August 2007
Good spot, it proves police dont show their hand
-
The original investigation was unable to clear the parents mainly because they refused to cooperate.
I dont know, if it was my baby girl I would sing the Star Spangled Banner while nakedly riding a unicycle through Times Square, if thats what LE required.
-
saying they haven't been cleared is a stupid thing to say...there is no mechanism to clear anyone...please stick with the facts
Oh!
@)(++(*
-
The original investigation was unable to clear the parents mainly because they refused to cooperate.
I dont know, if it was my baby girl I would sing the Star Spangled Banner while nakedly riding a unicycle through Times Square, if thats what LE required.
You're right they havent been cleared....
-
The original investigation was unable to clear the parents mainly because they refused to cooperate.
I dont know, if it was my baby girl I would sing the Star Spangled Banner while nakedly riding a unicycle through Times Square, if thats what LE required.
you do talk such a load of tosh the portugues COULD NOT have cleared the mccanns and the mcccannns could NOT have proved their innocence
-
Oh!
@)(++(*
its quite simple to prove..has Barry George been cleared
-
you do talk such a load of tosh the portugues COULD NOT have cleared the mccanns and the mcccannns could NOT have proved their innocence
I dont even know what this means.
-
I dont even know what this means.
then perhaps you don't know as much about the case as you think you do
-
then perhaps you don't know as much about the case as you think you do
Oh please.
Every time you're proven wrong, you insult someone.
Reminds me of the McCanns really. Offense being the best defence etc.
-
About the interest of the reconstruction
'Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.'
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi7
Had the McCanns cooporated fully with the original investigation then they probably wouldn't have been left with a cloud of suspicion hanging over them.
Maybe Amaral wouldn't have written the satanic verses, or who knows, maybe Maddie could have been home in time for xmas.
But they didn't 'despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable
So, as much as they may disike the public speculating over every minutia of their lives & that fateful holiday,
it's nobodys fault but their own.
-
Yep NONE of them wanted to a reconstruction
leaving no stone unturned....NOT
-
Yep NONE of them wanted to a reconstruction
leaving no stone unturned....NOT
And you would like a reconstruction in a strange country where they obviously are trying to set you up... and are doing everything except looking for your daughter????
-
And you would like a reconstruction in a strange country where they obviously are trying to set you up... and are doing everything except looking for your daughter????
Portugal was hardly a 'strange country' to the McCanns,
I believe they had recently spent about 5 months there, doing something or other, 'working really hard' or some other bull crap.
-
Portugal was hardly a 'strange country' to the McCanns,
I believe they had recently spent about 5 months there, doing something or other, 'working really hard' or some other bull crap.
I disagree..
Even now there are difficulties between the PJ and SY.. imagine how was it for Kate and Gerry when SY did not have the full picture of the inquiry.
-
It's like the Justice Forum does Question Time 8)-)))
-
It's like the Justice Forum does Question Time 8)-)))
There is no legal mechanism to clear anyone...Barry George has not been cleared
-
There is no legal mechanism to clear anyone...Barry George has not been cleared
He has by me ?>)()<
-
He has by me ?>)()<
the mccanns have by me
-
the mccanns have by me
There's a big difference. The evidence in the George case was examined five times, and you can read both Appeal court rulings online.
Big difference.
-
the mccanns have by me
Your conclusions are based on amateur interpretations of the evidence.
-
There's a big difference. The evidence in the George case was examined five times, and you can read both Appeal court rulings online.
Big difference.
so has Barry George been cleared
-
so has Barry George been cleraed
Acquitted after the 2nd trial.
-
Acquitted after the 2nd trial.
I said cleared...which is the word used re the mccanns ...Barry George has not been cleared despite two trials
-
I said cleared...which is the word used re the mccanns ...Barry George has not been cleared despite two trials
So you believe people are innocent until proven guilty, but someone found not guilty isn't innocent? >@@(*&)
-
So you believe people are innocent until proven guilty, but someone found not guilty isn't innocent? >@@(*&)
we have had this discussion so many times and posters still don't understand.....this is why the idea that the mccnns did not prove their innocence is stupid.
have a look at the meaning of presumption of innocence...no one is ever found innocent of crime . Barry George has not been cleared and not paid compensation..is he innocent...who knows ...is he entitled to the presumption of innocence..yes
-
we have had this discussion so many times and posters still don't understand.....this is why the idea that the mccnns did not prove their innocence is stupid.
have a look at the meaning of presumption of innocence...no one is ever found innocent of crime . Barry George has not been cleared and not paid compensation..is he innocent...who knows ...is he entitled to the presumption of innocence..yes
He only hasn't received compensation because the last government changed the law.
He is as innocent now as he would have been had the police/cps originally decided not to charge him. You're just nitpicking.
-
Cleared, suspect and innocent are all terms which are often used in the Madeleine case. Unfortunately, they mean different things to different people and can also have a different legal meaning depending on which country you happen to be in.
Scotland Yard have stated in no uncertain terms that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. I don't recall them stating that they have been cleared or are innocent because frankly, they can't.
-
Cleared, suspect and innocent are all terms which are often used in the Madeleine case. Unfortunately, they mean different things to different people and can also have a different legal meaning depending on which country you happen to be in.
I agree ..defendents are found not guilty...never innocent...it is virtually impossible to prove innocence...no wonder the mccanns didn't return to Portugal to try and PROVE their innocence
-
Cleared, suspect and innocent are all terms which are often used in the Madeleine case. Unfortunately, they mean different things to different people and can also have a different legal meaning depending on which country you happen to be in.
Scotland Yard have stated in no uncertain terms that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. I don't recall them stating that they have been cleared or are innocent because frankly, they can't.
Cleared of what?
At the same time SY has stated that Madeleine might still be alive.. this is what they believe after a careful review of the case..
-
what exactly are you doing here
It was a serious question.
This is supposed to be about what happened to Madeleine, not about who can be the most offensive.
You're winning by the way.
-
It was a serious question.
This is supposed to be about what happened to Madeleine, not about who can be the most offensive.
You're winning by the way.
I know.... the truth is very powerful
-
I know.... the truth is very powerful
8@??)(
-
Yep NONE of them wanted to a reconstruction
leaving no stone unturned....NOT
The email exchanges between T7 Stuart Prior and Ricardo Paiva are always worth a reread just to appreciate the amount of "ring twitter" that was going on. Draw your own conclusions. I love the one where Paiva finally loses patience.
-
The email exchanges between T7 Stuart Prior and Ricardo Paiva are always worth a reread just to appreciate the amount of "ring twitter" that was going on. Draw your own conclusions. I love the one where Paiva finally loses patience.
it doesn't surprise me that no one wanted to do the reconstruction it had no value IMO and was simply to find evidence to incriminate the McCanns. If arrested the McCanns could have faced a year in custody on remand...It's telling that the new investigations have not seem fit to stage a reconstruction
-
it doesn't surprise me that no one wanted to do the reconstruction it had no value IMO and was simply to find evidence to incriminate the McCanns. If arrested the McCanns could have faced a year in custody on remand...It's telling that the new investigations have not seem fit to stage a reconstruction
It had no value in your opinion. That is some kind of definitive statement?
I fail to understand the relevance of your comment to my post.
-
Cleared, suspect and innocent are all terms which are often used in the Madeleine case. Unfortunately, they mean different things to different people and can also have a different legal meaning depending on which country you happen to be in.
Scotland Yard have stated in no uncertain terms that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest. I don't recall them stating that they have been cleared or are innocent because frankly, they can't.
Scotland Yard have stated in no uncertain terms that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.
@ 1.05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IsP9EVG4XHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
-
Scotland Yard have stated in no uncertain terms that the McCanns are neither suspects or persons of interest.
@ 1.05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IsP9EVG4XHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
They haven't been cleared though, that's the problem.
-
They haven't been cleared though, that's the problem.
At 2.16 Redwood says in that video that they may not be able to solve it but are hopeful of moving it forward?
Such a climbdown! ...move it forward to where exactly? 8-)(--)
-
They haven't been cleared though, that's the problem.
@ 17.48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok&feature=player_embedded
-
They haven't been cleared though, that's the problem.
No absolute meaning can be attributed to the raw claim "they are neither suspects not persons of interest"(Of what ? In which circumstances ? How ? Why not ?).
This claim must be interpreted in the context of DCI Redwood's whole statement.
Not a second does DCI Redwood claim that his task will be to examine thoroughly all hypotheses listed in the AG Report.
Not a second does he even mention that other hypotheses exist (though only one gives Madeleine a chance to be alive).
A child was abducted, is hopefully alive and that is why SY will try and find her.
How could DCI Redwood claim that the parents were suspects ?
-
At 2.16 Redwood says in that video that they may not be able to solve it but are hopeful of moving it forward?
Such a climbdown! ...move it forward to where exactly? 8-)(--)
Towards somebody, ANYBODY, other than the McCanns and their friends.
-
@ 17.48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok&feature=player_embedded
00.27
After Redwood's initial interview the first 'image' does look rather like Redwood himself.
-
They haven't been cleared though, that's the problem.
depends what your definition of cleared is...in one sense they cant be cleared as they have never been charged
-
21st July 2008
McCanns cleared over Madeleine disappearance
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have today been formally cleared of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/44826/McCanns-cleared-over-Madeleine-disappearance
-
I don't think the Daily Star are in a position to clear them are they? I don't recall them being cleared by the judicial system in Portugal at any point but do prove me wrong if indeed I am.
-
depends what your definition of cleared is...in one sense they cant be cleared as they have never been charged
That's a major problem for them - they can never really be cleared of suspicion until someone else is convicted of whatever crime has been committed. Putting the blame on a dead person isn't likely to wash, either.
-
That's a major problem for them - they can never really be cleared of suspicion until someone else is convicted of whatever crime has been committed. Putting the blame on a dead person isn't likely to wash, either.
I am beginning to wonder if convicting someone else, dead or alive, will ever be enough for some. Even a live Madeleine might not do, especially if we aren't allowed to question her. Although I suppose we could try. A Thread entitled, "Questions for Madeleine", mayhap, as she is bound to be reading Forums.
-
@ 17.48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyJwns_MTok&feature=player_embedded
Are you asking us to take the word of a BBC reporter?
Redwood has never used the words cleared wrt the McCanns because he cannot do so. Until such time as it has been determined what happened to Madeleine the tapas 9 including her parents will always be in the equation.
-
depends what your definition of cleared is...in one sense they cant be cleared as they have never been charged
Very simply. Cleared of ANY involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. They are the LAST KNOWN people to have seen her and seen her alive. Thus they will always form a central role in this case irrespective of what Redwood says in public.
-
21st July 2008
McCanns cleared over Madeleine disappearance
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have today been formally cleared of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/44826/McCanns-cleared-over-Madeleine-disappearance
More lies from the Daily Liar. Lifting the arguido status in no way shape or form clears them. As those who are familiar with Portuguese Law have already informed us, the arguido status can be reinstated at any time.
-
Redwood has never used the words cleared wrt the McCanns because he cannot do so. Until such time as it has been determined what happened to Madeleine the tapas 9 including her parents will always be in the equation.
Everybody will admit any conclusion by the Justice authority, even if it is abduction by unidentified stranger, because nobody here believes that the Justice system would cheat the people and conclude without evidence.
As Jassi remarks, the major problem for the McCanns (involvement of the TP7 isn't plausible) is the impossibility of being really cleared of suspicion until someone else is convicted of whatever crime has been committed.
-
I am beginning to wonder if convicting someone else, dead or alive, will ever be enough for some. Even a live Madeleine might not do, especially if we aren't allowed to question her. Although I suppose we could try. A Thread entitled, "Questions for Madeleine", mayhap, as she is bound to be reading Forums.
I know what you mean. The evidence will have to be beyond all reasonable doubt, and even then I suppose some might claim a miscarriage of justice.
-
That's a major problem for them - they can never really be cleared of suspicion until someone else is convicted of whatever crime has been committed. Putting the blame on a dead person isn't likely to wash, either.
Not if the only piece of "evidence" is that his mobile phone pinged in PDL that day/night
Eta, sorry, cross posted!
-
Not if the only piece of "evidence" is that his mobile phone pinged in PDL that day/night
Eta, sorry, cross posted!
No judiciary entity could claim that the lack of evidence produced by the cellphones lead reveals that the abductors were professional ones, without the planet bursting into laughter.
-
Very simply. Cleared of ANY involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. They are the LAST KNOWN people to have seen her and seen her alive. Thus they will always form a central role in this case irrespective of what Redwood says in public.
It would be fair to say that the AG report cleared them of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter...As I have said before ..it depends what you mean by cleared..has Barry George been cleared...he hasn't been paid compensation because according to some reports he hasn't been found innocent enough...so you could say he hasn't been cleared..there is no legal mechanism that clears anyone... they certainly are in the clear at the moment
-
No judiciary entity could claim that the lack of evidence produced by the cellphones lead reveals that the abductors were professional ones, without the planet bursting into laughter.
It will be interesting to see the result of Operation Grange either way and the PJ reopened case conclusion of course!
-
It would be fair to say that the AG report cleared them of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter...As I have said before ..it depends what you mean by cleared..has Barry George been cleared...he hasn't been paid compensation because according to some reports he hasn't been found innocent enough...so you could say he hasn't been cleared..there is no legal mechanism that clears anyone... they certainly are in the clear at the moment
Moment being the operative word!
I'll leave someone else to comment on what the AG report may or may not have said 8(>((
-
I very much doubt that the abductors, burglars or otherwise, actually know what happened to Madeleine, or where she is now.
Personally, I suspect that they will blame Tractorman for organizing the whole thing, and plead ignorance on the details.
-
Moment being the operative word!
I'll leave someone else to comment on what the AG report may or may not have said 8(>((
Posters have been saying for almost seven years that the McCanns would face charges... they have been proved wrong for almost seven years...I don't see things changing
-
From the archiving Report, final comments.
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(João Melchior Gomes)
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi9
The Archiving Report states in respect of Mr Murat and the McCanns that there is no evidence of criminal activity. The unanswered question is will this remain so?
-
I very much doubt that the abductors, burglars or otherwise, actually know what happened to Madeleine, or where she is now.
Personally, I suspect that they will blame Tractorman for organizing the whole thing, and plead ignorance on the details.
very astute!
8@??)(
-
The Archiving Report states in respect of Mr Murat and the McCanns that there is no evidence of criminal activity. The unanswered question is will this remain so?
So at the moment they are in the clear..my view is that if no evidence was found to accuse them then...it is unlikely that it will be found in the future
-
So at the moment they are in the clear..my view is that if no evidence was found to accuse them then...it is unlikely that it will be found in the future
That evidence could include Madeleine herself if she is found.
-
That evidence could include Madeleine herself if she is found.
of course
-
Moment being the operative word!
I'll leave someone else to comment on what the AG report may or may not have said 8(>((
I think "in the clear" are the operative words
-
It would be fair to say that the AG report cleared them of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter...As I have said before ..it depends what you mean by cleared..has Barry George been cleared...he hasn't been paid compensation because according to some reports he hasn't been found innocent enough...so you could say he hasn't been cleared..there is no legal mechanism that clears anyone... they certainly are in the clear at the moment
T
You must then inform the judge presiding the libel trial. She has informed the witnesses on behalf of the McCanns, who claim that the parents were exonerated, that the archiving report is only evidence and not a judgement. And I believe that that bit of information came as a shock to some of the witnesses as they had been convinced by the parents that they had been "cleared".
-
So at the moment they are in the clear..my view is that if no evidence was found to accuse them then...it is unlikely that it will be found in the future
Stephen Lawrence case! Proves your view can be / IS in this case wrong
-
Stephen Lawrence case! Proves your view can be / IS in this case wrong
Thanks for the reminder of that case Redblossom.
-
T
You must then inform the judge presiding the libel trial. She has informed the witnesses on behalf of the McCanns, who claim that the parents were exonerated, that the archiving report is only evidence and not a judgement. And I believe that that bit of information came as a shock to some of the witnesses as they had been convinced by the parents that they had been "cleared".
As I have said before...it depends on the meaning of the word cleared...As far as I am aware there are several meanings...so it would be true to say...they have been cleared....and it would be true to say...they have not been cleared...both statements could be supported and taken to be true
The archiving report could never be a judgement as there was no trial..so I find your claims a little hard to believe
-
It will be interesting to see the result of Operation Grange either way and the PJ reopened case conclusion of course!
There is the rub ! The only hope for the McCanns, there, is that all hypotheses listed in the old AG Report be suppressed for the benefit of abduction.
-
Stephen Lawrence case! Proves your view can be / IS in this case wrong
I said unlikely.....
The Lawrence case ..like every other case is unique....the daily mail actually accused the defendents in the paper and invited them to sue....I think the McCann case is very different..they have successfully sued
-
There is the rub ! The only hope for the McCanns, there, is that all hypotheses listed in the old AG Report be suppressed for the benefit of abduction.
if you read the report it sates that there is no evidence...and all the evidence used to make the mccanns arguido was flawed...now theres the rub
-
"Cleared", "Not Cleared", does it matter? The McCanns are Not Suspects or Persons of Interest. This means that they are not being investigated. The hope that they might be is merely very nasty wishful thinking. Or an attempt to excuse a seven year hate campaign which still leaves me reeling from shock.
-
"Cleared", "Not Cleared", does it matter? The McCanns are Not Suspects or Persons of Interest. This means that they are not being investigated. The hope that they might be is merely very nasty wishful thinking. Or an attempt to excuse a seven year hate campaign which still leaves me reeling from shock.
I think that just about sums the situation up...a seven year hate campaign with no sign of ending...even though all the evidence initially used to condemn the mccanns has been shown to be flawed
-
"Cleared", "Not Cleared", does it matter? The McCanns are Not Suspects or Persons of Interest. This means that they are not being investigated. The hope that they might be is merely very nasty wishful thinking. Or an attempt to excuse a seven year hate campaign which still leaves me reeling from shock.
That's not the case Eleanor. They are part of the investigation as parents of a missing child. Curiously, the refusal by the tapas-9 to cooperate with the PJ and return for a reconstruction has yet to hit the fan. The question of their reluctance to assist a missing child inquiry is something which has still to be addressed.
-
That's not the case Eleanor. They are part of the investigation as parents of a missing child. Curiously, the refusal by the tapas-9 to cooperate with the PJ and return for a reconstruction has yet to hit the fan.
The tapas 9 refused to cooperate with the original investigation IMO because they had no faith in the PJ...again imo quite rightly...
-
That's not the case Eleanor. They are part of the investigation as parents of a missing child. Curiously, the refusal by the tapas-9 to cooperate with the PJ and return for a reconstruction has yet to hit the fan. The question of their reluctance to assist a missing child inquiry is something which has still to be addressed.
I have no idea if tractor man is important but perhaps the pj would have been better interviewing him rather than trying to frame the parents imo
-
Condemned by whom? A bunch of Internet Posters who get their rocks off cherry picking a load of garbage in the process of dealing with their very sad lives.
Present company excepted, I hope.
There is No Evidence that The McCanns ever harmed any of their children. Even Portugal agrees with this.
According to the PJ report they were negligent in their duty of care towards a minor but since it wasn't intentional they weren't prosecuted. The involvement of Rothley Social Services after their return to the UK was a consequence of this neglect.
-
The tapas 9 refused to cooperate with the original investigation IMO because they had no faith in the PJ...again imo quite rightly...
It wasn't for them to pick or choose. They had a moral duty to partake in that reconstruction but chose their own self interest over that of a missing 4 year old child. That for me says much about them.
If anyone hindered the search for Madeleine they jointly did.
-
Condemned by whom? A bunch of Internet Posters who get their rocks off cherry picking a load of garbage in the process of dealing with their very sad lives.
Present company excepted, I hope.
There is No Evidence that The McCanns ever harmed any of their children. Even Portugal agrees with this.
Still not too late to cross the floor you know.
-
That's not the case Eleanor. They are part of the investigation as parents of a missing child. Curiously, the refusal by the tapas-9 to cooperate with the PJ and return for a reconstruction has yet to hit the fan. The question of their reluctance to assist a missing child inquiry is something which has still to be addressed.
I don't think so. There has never been any evidence to suggest that The Tapas 7 knew anything at all. And Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction.
Amaral refused to do a reconstruction when it might have helped, and was still fresh in people's minds. But Amaral said it wasn't possible. So how come it was suddenly possible a year later?
There is no shit to hit the fan on this one. Or do you think Portugal will apply for European Arrest Warrants?
-
Still not too late to cross the floor you know.
Et toi aussi.
-
The tapas 9 refused to cooperate with the original investigation IMO because they had no faith in the PJ...again imo quite rightly...
So you believe in cherry picking which laws to follow? That way lies anarchy my friend. I assume you are bright enough not to really believe in anarchy. Then on the other hand I feel a lecture coming on so lets see.
-
I don't think so. There has never been any evidence to suggest that The Tapas 7 knew anything at all. And Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction.
Amaral refused to do a reconstruction when it might have helped, and was still fresh in people's minds. But Amaral said it wasn't possible. So how come it was suddenly possible a year later?
There is no shit to hit the fan on this one. Or do you think Portugal will apply for European Arrest Warrants?
Anything is possible at this stage.
-
So you believe in cherry picking which laws to follow? That way lies anarchy my friend. I assume you are bright enough not to really believe in anarchy. Then on the other hand I feel a lecture coming on so lets see.
Amanda Knox did nothing else. She didn't appear at the trial because she's innocent. She would have however if she had no reason to suspect that the Italians would try to frame her. But she had. Didn't she spent years in jail as if she wasn't innocent ? Why really should she risk to be another victim of injustice ?
-
Anything is possible at this stage.
No it isn't. And if it ever had been, which I very much doubt, then it is all much too late now. The Investigation was a complete cock up, and exposing that in Court is hardly what Portugal would want. Any Trial would be a total farce. And even Britain, God rest it's soul, would not comply to European Arrest Warrants against people of whom there is no evidence.
However, I would love to see them try.
-
No it isn't. And if it ever had been, which I very much doubt, then it is all much too late now. The Investigation was a complete cock up, and exposing that in Court is hardly what Portugal would want. Any Trial would be a total farce. And even Britain, God rest it's soul, would not comply to European Arrest Warrants against people of whom there is no evidence.
However, I would love to see them try.
What a strange thing to wish for - putting the McCanns through even more stress and anguish.
-
What a strange thing to wish for - putting the McCanns through even more stress and anguish.
Trust you to misconstrue. This isn't going anywhere. But I bet you wish it was.
-
I don't expect anything to come out of previous, present' or even future investigations. Tracks have been too well hidden.
-
I don't expect anything to come out of previous, present' or even future investigations. Tracks have been too well hidden.
So no chance of The McCanns being innocent for you. Under which Democracy do you live?
-
So no chance of The McCanns being innocent for you. Under which Democracy do you live?
How can you construe that from what I wrote ?
-
What a strange thing to wish for - putting the McCanns through even more stress and anguish.
My sympathy for the McCann's evaporated the minute they walked out if their apartment for the fifth night in a row leaving their babies unattended so they could go enjoy themselves.
Stupid selfish people.
-
My sympathy for the McCann's evaporated the minute they walked out if their apartment for the fifth night in a row leaving their babies unattended so they could go enjoy themselves.
Stupid selfish people.
Yep and had their dinner in a semi permanent tent like structure in what was effectively their garden, with sight of their apartment which was illuminated by the street light opposite.
50 metres away they were ! Amaral said nobody would have gone in via the patio windows; "too close" he said and "too overlooked by the Tapas group". Maybe you live in an apartment with no garden?
Swhiskers, Can I remind you that a few years ago, a child was abducted from her bath whilst her family were in the house. They were actually IN the House with her.
Madeleines abduction was a freak happening ... and could have happened with Kate and Gery on 5A balcony ... as that bath abduction proves.
Get things in proportion. Get a grip SWhiskers.
-
It wasn't for them to pick or choose. They had a moral duty to partake in that reconstruction but chose their own self interest over that of a missing 4 year old child. That for me says much about them.
If anyone hindered the search for Madeleine they jointly did.
it may say a lot to you...but fortunately its the authorities view that counts and it look s like they have the support of the PJ
-
Yep and had their dinner in a semi permanent tent like structure in what was effectively their garden, with sight of their apartment which was illuminated by the street light opposite.
50 metres away they were ! Amaral said nobody would have gone in via the patio windows; "too close" he said and "too overlooked by the Tapas group". Maybe you live in an apartment with no garden?
Swhiskers, Can I remind you that a few years ago, a child was abducted from her bath whilst her family were in the house. They were actually IN the House with her.
Madeleines abduction was a freak happening ... and could have happened with Kate and Gery on 5A balcony ... as that bath abduction proves.
Get things in proportion. Get a grip SWhiskers.
First of all, stop personalising your posts. It makes you sound childish and defensive.
Second of all, Kate ADMITTED she didn't hear Madeleine cry the night/s before.
They admitted their babies woke, scared and alone, cried for an extended period of time, and they COULDNT HEAR THEM.
Did they rush their dinner? No. Stay in? God forbid!
Why did they so urgently need yet another 4-5 hour long "meal" with the same faces, eating off the same menu, when THEY KNEW THEY COULD NOT HEAR THEIR CHILDREN????????
Why didnt they rush out and buy a monitor, if it was that important they go out!?
-
My sympathy for the McCann's evaporated the minute they walked out if their apartment for the fifth night in a row leaving their babies unattended so they could go enjoy themselves.
Stupid selfish people.
There is nothing in the whole wide world to beat a perfect parent. Except beating up those of us who aren't.
My children were never a sacred trust, just a bunch of recalcitrant little monsters who were a lot of fun, when I had the time and didn't have a Nanny.
My Nanny years were the best of my life, when the little horrors weren't at boarding school. But there you go. We did have some fun times, like when I dumped them in a wood to fend for themselves. We often laugh about that.
-
First of all, stop personalising your posts. It makes you sound childish and defensive.
Second of all, Kate ADMITTED she didn't hear Madeleine cry the night/s before.
They admitted their babies woke, scared and alone, cried for an extended period of time, and they COULDNT HEAR THEM.
Did they rush their dinner? No. Stay in? God forbid!
Why did they so urgently need yet another 4-5 hour long "meal" with the same faces, eating off the same menu, when THEY KNEW THEY COULD NOT HEAR THEIR CHILDREN????????
Why didnt they rush out and buy a monitor, if it was that important they go out!?
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
There is nothing in the whole wide world to beat a perfect parent. Except beating up those of us who aren't.
My children were never a sacred trust, just a bunch of recalcitrant little monsters who were a lot of fun, when I had the time and didn't have a Nanny.
My Nanny years were the best of my life, when the little horrors weren't at boarding school. But there you go. We did have some fun times, like when I dumped them in a wood to fend for themselves. We often laugh about that.
How many nights in a row did you leave them?
Did they cry, tell you about it, yet get left again regardless?
Was there a pool 10 metres way?
Were they 1 and 3 years old???????
Unless they were your personal anecdote is totally irrelevant.
-
How many nights in a row did you leave them?
Did they cry, tell you about it, yet get left again regardless?
Was there a pool 10 metres way?
Were they 1 and 3 years old???????
Unless they were your personal anecdote is totally irrelevant.
We all have our own opinion and I feel that the mccanns were in the realms of responsible parenting. in the uk parents have been leaving children asleep like this since the age of butlins without any problems...thats all changed now
-
We all have our own opinion and I feel that the mccanns were in the realms of responsible parenting. in the uk parents have been leaving children asleep like this since the age of butlins without any problems...thats all changed now
It might have been the case, but doesn't mean to say that it was a responsible action, even back in those days.
-
It might have been the case, but doesn't mean to say that it was a responsible action, even back in those days.
As I have said before...children were put outside the front door in their prams...not anymore,,,,,,,babylistening services were widespread...not so much now ...but many hotels still offer them
-
How many nights in a row did you leave them?
Did they cry, tell you about it, yet get left again regardless?
Was there a pool 10 metres way?
Were they 1 and 3 years old???????
Unless they were your personal anecdote is totally irrelevant.
You must have missed my posts when I admitted that I had done exactly the same thing as The McCanns. This is strange since I have admitted it several times.
I don't care if you think I am a crap parent. My children don't. But then I don't spend my life slagging off two people with a missing child.
And what exactly do you think your nastiness is going to add to the equation? Does it make you feel better?
God help you if it does.
-
It might have been the case, but doesn't mean to say that it was a responsible action, even back in those days.
smoking in your car with children present is not responsible but many people do it
-
You must have missed my posts when I admitted that I had done exactly the same thing as The McCanns. This is strange since I have admitted it several times.
I don't care if you think I am a crap parent. My children don't. But then I don't spend my life slagging off two people with a missing child.
And what exactly do you think your nastiness is going to add to the equation? Does it make you feel better?
God help you if it does.
I've done it as well...and I don't care if people think I am a crap parent....many uk parents have done the same
-
smoking in your car with children present is not responsible but many people do it
Exactly - the fact that lots of people do something does not make it a responsible activity.
-
Exactly - the fact that lots of people do something does not make it a responsible activity.
Now how many is 'lots', I wonder.
-
Now how many is 'lots', I wonder.
Doesn't 'many' come just after 10 ? 8(0(*
-
Exactly - the fact that lots of people do something does not make it a responsible activity.
I will never accept that what the MccANS did was irresponsible...the chances of a stranger abduction...and that's what SY are investigating are so remote it would just not have been considered a possibility
-
I've done it as well...and I don't care if people think I am a crap parent....many uk parents have done the same
You see, we don't actually have to excuse for ourselves. There was nothing wrong about what we did, and absolutely no possibility of any of us being prosecuted. Not even now.
Suck it up. It is not a crime.
-
Doesn't 'many' come just after 10 ? 8(0(*
Quite possibly.
and anyone who thinks their behaviour as normal and acceptable are as equally as bad as the mccanns.
-
smoking in your car with children present is not responsible but many people do it
I object, smoking has been proven scientifically to have numerous health benefits & life giving properties.
For example smoking is far less hazardous to health than say, crossing a busy street without looking or sticking your face in a fan.
-
Quite possibly.
and anyone who thinks their behaviour as normal and acceptable are as equally as bad as the mccanns.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest to be classed with the McCanns...if all the parents in the uk were as good as parents as the mccannns the uk would be a lot better place to live.. Instead we have children brought up with very little parental guidance..poor morals ...parents poor role models...producing the next generation of criminals
-
Doesn't bother me in the slightest to be classed with the McCanns...if all the parents in the uk were as good as parents as the mccannns the uk would be a lot better place to live.. Instead we have children brought up with very little parental guidance..poor morals ...parents poor role models...producing the next generation of criminals
I think its time you visited the opticians and got a new prescription for those rose-tinted spectacle you wear.
-
I think its time you visited the opticians and got a new prescription for those rose-tinted spectacle you wear.
I stand by what I said...parents like the McCanns do not produce the next generation of criminals that ruin our society....they produce the next generation of doctors who heal our society
-
I stand by what I said...parents like the McCanns do not produce the next generation of criminals that ruin our society....they produce the next generation of doctors who heal our society
Or spin doctors.
-
I stand by what I said...parents like the McCanns do not produce the next generation of criminals that ruin our society....they produce the next generation of doctors who heal our society
Show us the evidence that the progeny of two genii is a genius. ie the definitive evidence as in a learned peer reviewed paper not just another f'rinstance. The chances are the norm will be reverted to. Granted money will give a head start.
-
Show us the evidence that the progeny of two genii is a genius. ie the definitive evidence as in a learned peer reviewed paper not just another f'rinstance. The chances are the norm will be reverted to. Granted money will give a head start.
Indeed.
I've heard some rubbish in my time, but criminals not coming from good backgrounds ?
Now I've heard it all.
-
Indeed.
I've heard some rubbish in my time, but criminals not coming from good backgrounds ?
Now I've heard it all.
you see Stephen...you get everything wrong...I never said either of those statements...I imagine you have heard a lot of rubbish in your time...but you haven't heard it from me
-
you see Stephen...you get everything wrong...I never said either of those statements...I imagine you have heard a lot of rubbish in your time...but you haven't heard it from me
The direct implication of what you typed was clear.
P.S. Doctors do not always beget doctors.
-
Show us the evidence that the progeny of two genii is a genius. ie the definitive evidence as in a learned peer reviewed paper not just another f'rinstance. The chances are the norm will be reverted to. Granted money will give a head start.
you are quite correct in the fact that the progeny will revert toward the norm...the book you have probably read is by Hans Eysenck.....if you want to deny that the poorer parts of our cities produce by far the most criminals...feel free...but Im sure its true
-
The direct implication of what you typed was clear.
P.S. Doctors do not always beget doctors.
Never said that either Stephen..but you are far more likely to become a doctor if one of your parents is a doctor...and you are far more likely to become a criminal if your parents are criminal
-
I think that's when he realised it was time to stop digging 8(0(*
It certainly is interesting that he considers murder first, then 'abduction'.
And furthermore that he doesn't consider the two to be stablemates.
-
Never said that either Stephen..but you are far more likely to become a doctor if one of your parents is a doctor...and you are far more likely to become a criminal if your parents are criminal
That's certainly how our current government likes it.
-
That's certainly how our current government likes it.
not at all...it is the labour government that has spoilt things. I came from a fairly poor background but by going to grammar school I was able to improve my prospects dramatically...labour doesn't like selective schools ...unless their own children are involved
-
not at all...it is the labour government that has spoilt things. I came from a fairly poor background but by going to grammar school I was able to improve my prospects dramatically...labour doesn't like selective schools ...unless their own children are involved
Successive governments had that policy, but I do agree with you actually.
I wasn't allowed to go 8(8-))
-
you are quite correct in the fact that the progeny will revert toward the norm...the book you have probably read is by Hans Eysenck.....if you want to deny that the poorer parts of our cities produce by far the most criminals...feel free...but Im sure its true
Pretty much gave up reading books after working my through The Famous Five, Raymond Chandler and Tim O'Shenko
-
Pretty much gave up reading books after working my through The Famous Five, Raymond Chandler and Tim O'Shenko
no you didn't
-
Never said that either Stephen..but you are far more likely to become a doctor if one of your parents is a doctor...and you are far more likely to become a criminal if your parents are criminal
Harold Shipman.
Timothy Healey.
2 doctors.
The first a murderer.
The second convicted of molesting his male patients.
Were they good doctors ?
-
Harold Shipman.
Timothy Healey.
2 doctors.
The first a murderer.
The second convicted of molesting his male patients.
Were they good doctors ?
and what does your post prove stephen
-
I stand by what I said...parents like the McCanns do not produce the next generation of criminals that ruin our society....they produce the next generation of doctors who heal our society
Bwahahaha!
Harold Shipman had kids didn't he?
He's got the same profile as Gerry and Kate - Working class, blue collar kids who dragged themselves into respectability and the "middle class" by studying and passing exams.
If you want to know Gerry's upbringing, look to Auntie Phil. Straight off the wharves.
Also I notice no one addressed my earlier question -
Did Kate Healey GP ever prescribe a night out on the piss for any of her stressed out patients who couldn't handle the crying of their small children?
-
I think you prove my point very well...are you a child of a doctor or a criminal....ah yes...you are from australia...point proved
Here comes the racism.
You would be somewhat more credible if you didn't revert to personal insults when you're proven wrong.
And you claim to be anti-bullying!!!! Another joke.
You are making a fool of yourself.
-
Arthur Allen Thomas.
I grew up hearing his name, it was such an awful crime it dominated my childhood.
Thanks
-
I do like your directness Silkywhiskers
There is generally a palpable sense of trepidation in most discussions about this case ... almost certainly as a consequence of the threatening air that pervades it
It's refreshing to read your posts because you appear quite unintimidated
This forum should suit you well .... our Admin don't take kindly to threats and intimidation either
Post of the day
-
I do like your directness Silkywhiskers
There is generally a palpable sense of trepidation in most discussions about this case ... almost certainly as a consequence of the threatening air that pervades it
It's refreshing to read your posts because you appear quite unintimidated
This forum should suit you well .... our Admin don't take kindly to threats and intimidation either
Thank you!
Yes the pro Mcann crew around here are definitely showing the strain.
Instead of considered sensible responses were getting bullying, censorship, insult and racism.
Ignore all the bluster and sheer nastiness and what's left? A few survivors standing on a rapidly diminishing iceberg of denial.
No wonder they're panicking....!
-
Thank you!
Yes the pro Mcann crew around here are definitely showing the strain.
Instead of considered sensible responses were getting bullying, censorship, insult and racism.
Ignore all the bluster and sheer nastiness and what's left? A few survivors standing on a rapidly diminishing iceberg of denial.
No wonder they're panicking....!
what angers many too is the mcann supporters make up any excuse for what the mcanns did and there isnt any without their actions of child neglect if not worse on that holiday maddie would still be alive and well going to school like any child deserves instead she was left crying in the dark and for whatever reason vanished and mcann supporters condone that very sad
-
what angers many too is the mcann supporters make up any excuse for what the mcanns did and there isnt any without their actions of child neglect if not worse on that holiday maddie would still be alive and well going to school like any child deserves instead she was left crying in the dark and for whatever reason vanished and mcann supporters condone that very sad
+1
They do condone and apologise for anything and everything, which is very very sad
-
what angers many too is the mcann supporters make up any excuse for what the mcanns did and there isnt any without their actions of child neglect if not worse on that holiday maddie would still be alive and well going to school like any child deserves instead she was left crying in the dark and for whatever reason vanished and mcann supporters condone that very sad
Try and use facts please carly.
-
Try and use facts please carly.
i did use fcts maddie vanished was heard crying and is still vanished?? caused by the mcanns leaving 3 very young children alone no matter what did happen they have responsibility for it
-
i did use fcts maddie vanished was heard crying and is still vanished?? caused by the mcanns leaving 3 very young children alone no matter what did happen they have responsibility for it
No Carly. Those are NOT facts. a child was heard crying on an earlier night by Mrs Fenn. She thought thta it might be from below her, but it might not ... and in any case there were two flats below her, both with children in..
-
No Carly. Those are NOT facts. a child was heard crying on an earlier night by Mrs Fenn. She thought thta it might be from below her, but it might not ... and in any case there were two flats below her, both with children in..
[/b]
No dear just the one
Get your facts right at least
@)(++(*
-
No Carly. Those are NOT facts. a child was heard crying on an earlier night by Mrs Fenn. She thought thta it might be from below her, but it might not ... and in any case there were two flats below her, both with children in..
That is not true
Mrs Fenn did not say that the crying 'might' have come from the McCanns' apartment ... she said that it 'did' come from the McCanns' apartment
Stop creating myths sadie
-
Dearest Chuck.
Are there questions that I have missed? Will try and look in tomorrow
Tara now chuck
yes loads youve ignored, look forward to it
Ps the mot pertinent how you can see a faceless girl and say its madeleine! Silly billy
-
[/b]
No dear just the one
Get your facts right at least
@)(++(*
its shameful how they ignore maddies distress isnt it
-
So she died in 5a?
The burglar stole a dead child?
Hahahahaaaaaa!
No, SY said there is not proof she is dead.
So I believe she might still be alive, and so believes DCI Redwood and every inspector working on the case, including the SY boss.
What I posted is just an possible thesis, just like Amaral did.. but he missed at too many points..
-
No, SY said there is not proof she is dead.
So I believe she might still be alive, and so believes DCI Redwood and every inspector working on the case, including the SY boss.
What I posted is just an possible thesis, just like Amaral did.. but he missed at too many points..
@)(++(*
I suppose each and every one told you so hey?
-
Why would he get out of the car with her at that point? Wouldn't it be more sensible to drive off into the night?
He-she had no car? It was a helper who drove him 'somewhere'.. maybe where he lives.. or similar..maybe there were arguments between the two people..
This theory is somehow possible but I don't think this is what happened.. but I think it is possible..
My own strongest theory is that she was stolen to order...
-
@)(++(*
I suppose each and every one told you so hey?
Well they probably have their own ideas of course, but in general they must all be working towards the same end.
They're not sitting around arguing about it all like us!
-
[/b]
No dear just the one
Get your facts right at least
@)(++(*
Damn, I cant find the photo that shows that Mrs Fenns flat spreads over the Oldfield flat as well as the Mccann flat.
But I tell you something Red, had Madeleine been yelling her head off as carly believes, there would have been three kids bawling. Madeleine would have got them all at it ... as you as a parent will know
-
He-she had no car? It was a helper who drove him 'somewhere'.. maybe where he lives.. or similar..maybe there were arguments between the two people..
This theory is somehow possible but I don't think this is what happened.. but I think it is possible..
My own strongest theory is that she was stolen to order...
Who would order up a dead child?
-
IMO his phone was pinged.. and if he moved from 5A to the place of Smiths sighting it is possible he 'changed' mobile phone towers.. my search showed 2 towers in PDL..
Did he also change his face so he looked just like Gerry?
-
its shameful how they ignore maddies distress isnt it
I am very concerned with Madeleines distress. Where do you get thta from Carly?
-
He-she had no car? It was a helper who drove him 'somewhere'.. maybe where he lives.. or similar..maybe there were arguments between the two people..
This theory is somehow possible but I don't think this is what happened.. but I think it is possible..
My own strongest theory is that she was stolen to order...
OK thanks for the clarification, VIXTE
-
Did he also change his face so he looked just like Gerry?
SY did not show him looking just like Gerry..
There is a photo robot. Done by the experts! Unlike you!
-
Well they probably have their own ideas of course, but in general they must all be working towards the same end.
They're not sitting around arguing about it all like us!
Erm, the assertion was all the uk detectives think the same, a stupid assertion at best! whether they are working towards a same aim has nothing to do with that at all
-
He-she had no car? It was a helper who drove him 'somewhere'.. maybe where he lives.. or similar..maybe there were arguments between the two people..
This theory is somehow possible but I don't think this is what happened.. but I think it is possible..
My own strongest theory is that she was stolen to order...
Please forgive me if I come across as dismissive VIXTE, ( you are certainly entitled to imagine what happened to the three year old that disappeared almost seven years ago ) but unless there is some significant and provable evidence to support it then your theory is of no more value than any 'story' every member on the forum could dream up
I only mention it because there are several threads now where your theory is being promoted ... I just think it is important that we establish it is groundless as far as evidence is concerned, and merely an abstract 'idea' that you are throwing out there for discussion
-
Damn, I cant find the photo that shows that Mrs Fenns flat spreads over the Oldfield flat as well as the Mccann flat.
But I tell you something Red, had Madeleine been yelling her head off as carly believes, there would have been three kids bawling. Madeleine would have got them all at it ... as you as a parent will know
Oh ok it must havebeen the Oldfields that didnt check their kid for an hour and a quarter then, ok if you prefer that! terrible isnt it
But their kid was a baby, Mrs Fenn said it was an older child, try again dear
-
Thats for the Mccanns if they can be bothered with him
you could send a few screenshots though couldnt you!!!! Like you threatened posters on here in the past, do your best sadie!!
8()(((@#
threats are sooooo nasty and despicable sleep well though wont you
-
In a police investigation smearing and political talk doesn't count
Only clear facts and evidence works..
And in this case while we all are blah blahing and playing armchair detectives the real detectives work with real facts..
Like phone call pings for example..
-
I am simply repeating the words of Scotland Yard.
As most people on this forum are aware, I do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Reacting to posts by shoehorning them into one of two extreme categories, rather than viewing them as threads in a long discussion, does not serve at all in trying to work out what did.
-
That is interpretation, icabod.
I am simply repeating the words of Scotland Yard.
As most people on this forum are aware, I do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Reacting to posts by shoehorning them into one of two extreme categories, rather than viewing them as threads in a long discussion, does not serve at all in trying to work out what did.
But in your post above you implied that Scotland Yard had relegated any suggestion that the missing child's parents were involved in her disappearance to the [ censored word ] file ... that IS what you were implying, isn't it ?
If you genuinely do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine, then you can't do that, can you ?
-
But in your post above you implied that Scotland Yard had relegated any suggestion that the missing child's parents were involved in her disappearance to the [ censored word ] file ... that IS what you were implying, isn't it ?
If you genuinely do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine, then you can't do that, can you ?
Scotland Yard have said quite clearly that they do not believe that the McCanns are involved. It's as simple as that.
Claims, implications and the like don't really come into it.
Of course it may be the case that Scotland Yard are saying one thing and working on the other. Hard to imagine how that would work, but it's possible.
But is that really how Scotland Yard operate?
Have there been any other high profile cases where Scotland Yard have used major news outlets to send the public ( or someone else they are targeting) an essentially false message, or one which goes against their own findings, as part of a clever tactic?
If we are not able to think of a reasonable precedent, then it would be unlikely that this tactic - if indeed it is ever used - is being employed by Scotland Yard on this occasion.
-
Scotland Yard have said quite clearly that they do not believe that the McCanns are involved. It's as simple as that.
Claims, implications and the like don't really come into it.
Of course it may be the case that Scotland Yard are saying one thing and working on the other. Hard to imagine how that would work, but it's possible.
But is that really how Scotland Yard operate?
Have there been any other high profile cases where Scotland Yard have used major news outlets to send the public ( or someone else they are targeting) an essentially false message, or one which goes against their own findings, as part of a clever tactic?
If we are not able to think of a reasonable precedent, then it would be unlikely that this tactic - if indeed it is ever used - is being employed by Scotland Yard on this occasion.
I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard operate
... but here's the thing
How can they possibily say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual, conclusive, and definitive evidence to the contrary ?
There is not is there ? ... otherwise they'd say so, wouldn't they ?
So the most the McCanns can expect, or hope for, at this point, is for Scotland Yard to say they are "almost certainly not involved
Which raises another conundrum
Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' not an abductor , didn't they ? .... and the McCanns felt that 'almost' wasn't good enough ... didn't they ?
If an 'almost' certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned, why should it be for us ?
-
I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard operate
... but here's the thing
How can they possibily say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual, conclusive, and definitive evidence to the contrary ?
There is not is there ? ... otherwise they'd say so, wouldn't they ?
So the most the McCanns can expect, or hope for, at this point, is for Scotland Yard to say they are "almost certainly not involved
Which raises another conundrum
Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' not an abductor , didn't they ? .... and the McCanns felt that 'almost' wasn't good enough ... didn't they ?
If an 'almost' certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned, why should it be for us ?
?{)(**
I'll never believe that SY would deliberately neglect the priority of determining the nature of a crime before hypothetico-deduct the responsible(s) for it.
-
I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard operate
... but here's the thing
How can they possibily say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual, conclusive, and definitive evidence to the contrary ?
There is not is there ? ... otherwise they'd say so, wouldn't they ?
So the most the McCanns can expect, or hope for, at this point, is for Scotland Yard to say they are "almost certainly not involved
Which raises another conundrum
Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was 'almost certainly' not an abductor , didn't they ? .... and the McCanns felt that 'almost' wasn't good enough ... didn't they ?
If an 'almost' certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned, why should it be for us ?
As I have put forward in the past regarding this point, I think that Scotland Yard are being deliberately vague in the language they are using.
They have said that they do not claim to be able to solve this crime, and in my view, for what it's worth, their language in all the interviews they give is in line with that.
Most terms they use, such as 'drawing everything back to zero', are deliberately undefined. Statements like 'Madeleine may be alive, or sadly she may be dead' can seem facile and contradictory - and they are deliberately so. Likewise, they say they are 'almost certainly' sure they have ruled Tannerman out. What does that mean? Vagueness and ambiguity seem to be important here.
If Scotland Yard fail to get to the bottom of what happened to Madeleine, then at the very least they will not have egg on their faces in having posited a specific theory which they could not prove.
As for the McCanns themselves, Scotland Yard have said that they are not 'suspects', and I disagree with you here because I think Scotland Yard must have taken steps to satisfy themselves of the veracity of that before saying it.
Nonetheless, there remains the possibility, according to what we know or don't know so far, that information may come to light at some point in the future which would implicate the McCanns, and in that case the language of Scotland Yard would again be important. DCI Redwood uses the word 'suspect' - a status that can be imposed or lifted according to changing information and context.
-
As for the McCanns themselves, Scotland Yard have said that they are not 'suspects', and I disagree with you here because I think Scotland Yard must have taken steps to satisfy themselves of the veracity of that before saying it.
How could they have done that ?
How could Scotland Yard have 'satisfied themselves' that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved they were not ?
... and if such evidence existed, why wouldn't Scotland Yard have confirmed it ?
Why wouldn't they have come out and made a simple statement to that effect .... just saying that the McCanns are not suspecst because they have conclusive EVIDENCE that suggests otherwise ?
-
How could they have done that ?
How could Scotland Yard have 'satisfied themselves' that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved they were not ?
... and if such evidence existed, why wouldn't Scotland Yard have confirmed it ?
Why wouldn't they have come out and made a simple statement to that effect .... just saying that the McCanns are not suspecst because they have conclusive EVIDENCE that suggests otherwise ?
I think its amusing that the British still believe policemen are always honest upfront and without alterior motives. So Enid Blyton.
SY s just as capable of weasel speak as the next big corporation - check out their lies misrepresentations of Ian Tomlinson's death.
In he case of Danilo Restivo, they actually planted false information in the papers, to draw him out. It worked.
The US cops lied several times in the papers when they were chasing BTK.
Right now the Daniel Morecombe case is on, you simply would not believe the elaborate undercover operation police had going...absolutely mind boggling conniving by police, who BEFRIENDED the suspect to the point he showed them where he'd buried Daniel, only to have the star force burst out of the greenery to arrest them all - including the undercover offices!
Oh yes LE are quite good at using deception. After all they deal with experts all day.
-
I think its amusing that the British still believe policemen are always honest upfront and without alterior motives. So Enid Blyton.
SY s just as capable of weasel speak as the next big corporation - check out their lies misrepresentations of Ian Tomlinson's death.
In he case of Danilo Restivo, they actually planted false information in the papers, to draw him out. It worked.
The US cops lied several times in the papers when they were chasing BTK.
Right now the Daniel Morecombe case is on, you simply would not believe the elaborate undercover operation police had going...absolutely mind boggling conniving by police, who BEFRIENDED the suspect to the point he showed them where he'd buried Daniel, only to have the star force burst out of the greenery to arrest them all - including the undercover offices!
Oh yes LE are quite good at using deception. After all they deal with experts all day.
SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong. But they have.
Anyone who thinks this is all a vast conspiracy by the UK government and SY in cohoots with the PT team and it's really a massive undercover operation to 'snare' the McCanns is going to be very disappointed IMO.
-
SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong. But they have.
Anyone who thinks this is all a vast conspiracy by the UK government and SY in cohoots with the PT team and it's really a massive undercover operation to 'snare' the McCanns is going to be very disappointed IMO.
SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong. But they have.
When asked. Not before.
-
How could they have done that ?
How could Scotland Yard have 'satisfied themselves' that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved they were not ?
... and if such evidence existed, why wouldn't Scotland Yard have confirmed it ?
Why wouldn't they have come out and made a simple statement to that effect .... just saying that the McCanns are not suspecst because they have conclusive EVIDENCE that suggests otherwise ?
To begin with SY would interview the professionals/experts who spent hours and hours with the McCanns from the start. I'm thinking of the Family Liaison Officers, the Trauma counsellors and others.
The FLO's are trained to observe as well as liaise with the parents. I would imagine those officers submitted reports on their observations etc to their superiors on a regular basis. As far as I know, we have only seen the very basic reports from those officers which said they saw nothing untoward or strange or suspicious in the McCanns behaviour. I'm sure an interview with Alan Pike and others would also confirm the same observations.
Sy have the means at their disposal to extensively check into the McCanns backgrounds - going back years.
Common sense dictates that if anything was found to cause suspicion in any way shape or form, then there is no way they would have come to the conclusion that the McCanns were telling the truth and be able to rule them out of the enquiry so emphatically IMO
To believe that the McCanns (and their friends) were all able to keep up a massive pretence - with all the skill of oscar winning actors which that would require - is just too far fetched and fantastical for serious consideration IMO.
-
SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong. But they have.
When asked. Not before.
But they didn't have to - even when they were asked.
-
But they didn't have to - even when they were asked.
Whatever.
-
How could they have done that ?
How could Scotland Yard have 'satisfied themselves' that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved they were not ?
... and if such evidence existed, why wouldn't Scotland Yard have confirmed it ?
Why wouldn't they have come out and made a simple statement to that effect .... just saying that the McCanns are not suspecst because they have conclusive EVIDENCE that suggests otherwise ?
We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.
All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.
We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.
-
We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.
All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.
We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.
SY are keeping their powder dry. They learned an important lesson on the Dando case.
-
We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.
All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.
We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.
They were just TV interviews guys. Nothing has been said officially.
But you know that very well.
-
They were just TV interviews guys. Nothing has been said officially.
But you know that very well.
No one can fathom the workings of The Yard
-
No one can fathom the workings of The Yard
They didn't ask to be involved in this case. We should always remember that.
-
They didn't ask to be involved in this case. We should always remember that.
It's an important point, Lyall, but at the same time they are public servants. They don't have a choice about any of the cases they take on, any more than a soldier makes political decisions about war.
Consciencious objectors they are not.
-
It's an important point, Lyall, but at the same time they are public servants. They don't have a choice about any of the cases they take on, any more than a soldier makes political decisions about war.
Consciencious objectors they are not.
But this investigation is different: the PM indicated - in Parliament - his opinion of how the investigation should proceed.
So it's surely no surprise that has been reflected in everything Mr Redwood has said in interviews.
To do otherwise invites press speculation.
-
But this investigation is different: the PM indicated - in Parliament - his opinion of how the investigation should proceed.
So it's surely no surprise that has been reflected in everything Mr Redwood has said in interviews.
To do otherwise invites press speculation.
This wasn't an investigation when it started, just a review. And mainly a political decision.
DCI Redwood wasn't supposed either to re-interview all witnesses or to carry on the investigation where the Portuguese had to stop it.
There was enough matter to question, had the press been properly informed.
-
We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.
All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.
We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.
I think your post is misleading
The suggestion that Scotland Yard have 'ruled out' the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns ) were, at some point, suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent investigation and evidence had proven that they were not
There is a world of difference between being ( currently ) not suspect and being 'ruled out' as suspects
Scotland Yard have never said the McCanns have been ruled out
With regard to Scotland Yard being 'not obliged' to speak of their reasons for 'ruling out' the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic
If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so ?
I mean, they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw, didn't they ?
They said that he was no longer a suspect because evidence had been found that 'ruled him out'
Why havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence has been found that 'rules them out' ?
-
I think your post is misleading
The suggestion that Scotland Yard have 'ruled out' the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns ) were, at some point, suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent investigation and evidence had proven that they were not
There is a world of difference between being ( currently ) not suspect and being 'ruled out' as suspects
Scotland Yard have never said the McCanns have been ruled out
With regard to Scotland Yard being 'not obliged' to speak of their reasons for 'ruling out' the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic
If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so ?
I mean, they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw, didn't they ?
They said that he was no longer a suspect because evidence had been found that 'ruled him out'
Why havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence has been found that 'rules them out' ?
You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough
-
You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough
8)-)))
-
You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough
It's clear enough to me, but then I understand english. Despite Scottish, French and Irish blood and possibly some German Jewish, I still understand english
Even if I dont write it very well @)(++(*
-
I think your post is misleading
The suggestion that Scotland Yard have 'ruled out' the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns ) were, at some point, suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent investigation and evidence had proven that they were not
There is a world of difference between being ( currently ) not suspect and being 'ruled out' as suspects
Scotland Yard have never said the McCanns have been ruled out
With regard to Scotland Yard being 'not obliged' to speak of their reasons for 'ruling out' the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic
If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so ?
I mean, they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw, didn't they ?
They said that he was no longer a suspect because evidence had been found that 'ruled him out'
Why havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence has been found that 'rules them out' ?
I have explained my opinions on all of these points before, except the Jane Tanner question.
I would imagine that Scotland Yard broadcast this aspect of their inquiry because they wished to appeal to the public regarding the newly-emphasised Smith sighting. That was the context in which they gave over the information.
Even in that context, however, they chose not go into all the details behind their ruling out of Tannerman - in keeping with what seems to be their policy of 'not giving a running commentary'.
-
The Portuguese Attorney General & the National Director of the PJ were very clear when they affirmed that the original investigation was being reopened.
They didn't say the McCann were not suspects, and as the investigation is the same, the McCann are still suspects as they were when the investigation was archived in 2008.
-
I am sorry most people don't understand, but what the Scotland Yard may say about this case has no consequence in Portugal.
-
I am sorry most people don't understand, but what the Scotland Yard may say about this case has no consequence in Portugal.
If you think that Luz then you are solely mistaken. You are also wrong when you claim that the PJ have not said that the McCanns are not suspects. The McCanns arguido status was removed as part of the original investigation.
Turning this thread on its head, neither SY nor the PJ have ever said that the McCanns are 'innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance'.
-
If you think that Luz then you are solely mistaken. You are also wrong when you claim that the PJ have not said that the McCanns are not suspects. The McCanns arguido status was removed as part of the original investigation.
Turning this thread on its head, neither SY nor the PJ have ever said that the McCanns are 'innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance'.
This is something that comes up again and again. Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty there would be plenty on this board who would point out that they had not been declared innocent...Barry George has been found not guilty but he has not been found not innocent
-
The Portuguese Attorney General & the National Director of the PJ were very clear when they affirmed that the original investigation was being reopened.
They didn't say the McCann were not suspects, and as the investigation is the same, the McCann are still suspects as they were when the investigation was archived in 2008.
Kate and Gerry McCann have been told for the first time by the Portuguese authorities that they are no longer suspects in their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
The couple were told in a police briefing last week in Lisbon where they were also updated on the new leads that have been unearthed.
Their Portuguese lawyer Rogerio Alves said yesterday: “The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011#ixzz2vh47cpdF
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
-
definitely cleared by the portuguese
-
This is something that comes up again and again. Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty there would be plenty on this board who would point out that they had not been declared innocent...Barry George has been found not guilty but he has not been found not innocent
By the very nature of the beast, courts are only concerned with the balance of possibilities Dave. That is why a jury is asked the question, guilty or not guilty? A jury is never asked, innocent or not innocent?
One also has to ask the question how anyone can be convicted on the basis of a majority verdict. To take this to an extreme, in the fantastic Scottish system a defendant can be convicted even if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 jurors vote not guilty. A monumental farce if there ever was one.
In Scotland, justice is dispensed on the basis of numbers, not on evidence!
-
By the very nature of the beast, courts are only concerned with the balance of possibilities Dave. That is why a jury is asked the question, guilty or not guilty? A jury is never asked, innocent or not innocent?
One also has to ask the question how anyone can be convicted on the basis of a majority verdict. To take this to an extreme, in the fantastic Scottish system a defendant can be convicted even if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 jurors vote not guilty. A monumental farce if there ever was one.
In Scotland, justice is dispensed on the basis of numbers, not on evidence!
What is your suggestion for a fairer system?
-
What is your suggestion for a fairer system?
A jury must be magnanimous and unanimous for any sort of verdict to count. I notice that even in England now, judges are increasingly allowing up to two dissenters in any guilty verdict.
-
A jury must be magnanimous and unanimous for any sort of verdict to count. I notice that even in England now, judges are increasingly allowing up to two dissenters in any guilty verdict.
I most definitely agree with this. It was a sad day when UK Justice decided that majority verdicts would do.
If we don't watch out it will be half and half next, with the balance of probabilities going to The Prosecution.
-
I most definitely agree with this. It was a sad day when UK Justice decided that majority verdicts would do.
If we don't watch out it will be half and half next, with the balance of probabilities going to The Prosecution.
What about countries in which there are occasionally juries in the most serious cases? What is the selection process? What preparation are the jury members given? How could they be immune to a media frenzy, particularly if the tabloids get leaks from the prosecution? If juries are rare, how much would ordinary citizens question so-called expert evidence in the absence of an effective defence?
-
What about countries in which there are occasionally juries in the most serious cases? What is the selection process? What preparation are the jury members given? How could they be immune to a media frenzy, particularly if the tabloids get leaks from the prosecution? If juries are rare, how much would ordinary citizens question so-called expert evidence in the absence of an effective defence?
This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.
-
This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.
Also if the defendant has already been villified, tried and found guilty in the press and the general public have been whipped up to 'lynch' mode by the time the case came to court, then it would be a brave Juror - who would be able to ignore the possible repercussions to themselves of a 'Not guilty' verdict IMO - especially if they were not anonymous.
-
This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.
Or if a defendant has a lousy defence counsel, there is nothing to stimulate the minds of jurors.
-
Also if the defendant has already been villified, tried and found guilty in the press and the general public have been whipped up to 'lynch' mode by the time the case came to court, then it would be a brave Juror - who would be able to ignore the possible repercussions to themselves of a 'Not guilty' verdict IMO - especially if they were not anonymous.
Potentially at risk of vigilante attacks...
-
It is a fact that Portugal relied on the evidence of The PJ for far too long, and even some Judges took it as gospel.
There are now almost countless accusations of torture coming to light, even in 2011.
What price Secrecy when serious cases are leaked to The Media in the most alarming fashion.
Whether or not someone is guilty is beside the point.
-
It is a fact that Portugal relied on the evidence of The PJ for far too long, and even some Judges took it as gospel.
There are now almost countless accusations of torture coming to light, even in 2011.
What price Secrecy when serious cases are leaked to The Media in the most alarming fashion.
Whether or not someone is guilty is beside the point.
Torture, other means of coercion, bluff or not. How would a poor family (in Portugal or elsewhere), with constant PJ "leaks" appearing in the tabloids, be able to adequately defend themselves?
How much time do state-appointed or pro bono attorneys actually spend on studying files? If counter tests need to be done... who pays for that, if anyone? Or don't they get done at all?
-
Torture, other means of coercion, bluff or not. How would a poor family (in Portugal or elsewhere), with constant PJ "leaks" appearing in the tabloids, be able to adequately defend themselves?
How much time do state-appointed or pro bono attorneys actually spend on studying files? If counter tests need to be done... who pays for that, if anyone? Or don't they get done at all?
Not sure if this is Off Topic, but whatever. It was all fast heading this way with The McCanns. The Portuguese Media were doing a sterling job in the court of public opinion. And from sources that can only have come from The PJ. So nothing to suppose that this hadn't happened before.
The McCanns did have the resources, but common peasants in Portugal did not. And no one cared enough anyway.
But it appals me to discover that even in 2011 The PJ were still subjecting people to torture to gain a confession. What do they think will happen under these circumstances, and a Media assault?
And I should not even have to ask this question.
-
Not sure if this is Off Topic, but whatever. It was all fast heading this way with The McCanns. The Portuguese Media were doing a sterling job in the court of public opinion. And from sources that can only have come from The PJ. So nothing to suppose that this hadn't happened before.
The McCanns did have the resources, but common peasants in Portugal did not. And no one cared enough anyway.
But it appals me to discover that even in 2011 The PJ were still subjecting people to torture to gain a confession. What do they think will happen under these circumstances, and a Media assault?
And I should not even have to ask this question.
Eleanor, I have seen it all with my own eyes albeit next door in Alicante. Guardia Civil (Spanish police) beating a disabled British tourist with a stick and functionarios in Foncalent whipping a Spanish inmate with a belt while he was strapped face-down on a bed and that's for starters! Lets face it, many similar things go on in British police stations too.
After the lawyers visit on the night before the Arguido Interviews, Kate herself speaks of being on the verge of being arrested, she was rightly concerned both for themselves as well as the children. She must have been petrified.
-
Eleanor, I have seen it all with my own eyes albeit next door in Alicante. Guardia Civil (Spanish police) beating a disabled British tourist with a stick and functionarios in Foncalent whipping a Spanish inmate with a belt while he was strapped face-down on a bed and that's for starters! Lets face it, many similar things go on in British police stations too.
After the lawyers visit on the night before the Arguido Interviews, Kate herself speaks of being on the verge of being arrested, she was rightly concerned both for themselves as well as the children. She must have been petrified.
I think they were definitely after Kate. How much more frightening can it get, than the ordeal she went through. Do the police not like women in Portugal?
-
Eleanor, I have seen it all with my own eyes albeit next door in Alicante. Guardia Civil (Spanish police) beating a disabled British tourist with a stick and functionarios in Foncalent whipping a Spanish inmate with a belt while he was strapped face-down on a bed and that's for starters! Lets face it, many similar things go on in British police stations too.
After the lawyers visit on the night before the Arguido Interviews, Kate herself speaks of being on the verge of being arrested, she was rightly concerned both for themselves as well as the children. She must have been petrified.
Yes, the same things have been known to happen in UK. And I don't even know if that is over yet. But so much more terrifying in a foreign country.
It only really grieves me that so many lies were told, without the chance of redress. The McCanns faced prison for breaking the secrecy laws, while The PJ completely ignored their own instituted laws.
Whether or not The McCanns were guilty was entirely irrelevant at the time.
Given normal circumstances in Portugal, and without a half decent barrister, Kate McCann would have been found guilty. That is terrifying. And there would have been sweet b....r all that The UK could have done about it.
This was the reality.
-
Eleanor, I have seen it all with my own eyes albeit next door in Alicante. Guardia Civil (Spanish police) beating a disabled British tourist with a stick and functionarios in Foncalent whipping a Spanish inmate with a belt while he was strapped face-down on a bed and that's for starters! Lets face it, many similar things go on in British police stations too.
After the lawyers visit on the night before the Arguido Interviews, Kate herself speaks of being on the verge of being arrested, she was rightly concerned both for themselves as well as the children. She must have been petrified.
That's appalling, John, wherever it takes place. Without wishing to take this thread off topic, I don't understand why you feel that such treatment is unlikely in the Cipriano case.
ETA: For anyone not familiar with this case:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=71.0
-
I think they were definitely after Kate. How much more frightening can it get, than the ordeal she went through. Do the police not like women in Portugal?
Do you know, Anna. I don't know. But they were most definitely after Kate McCann. Perhaps because they think that women are more easy to intimidate. But they wouldn't be alone in that.
Me? I would probably have keeled over at the first hint of violence.
-
I think they were definitely after Kate. How much more frightening can it get, than the ordeal she went through. Do the police not like women in Portugal?
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being any policeWOMEN in Amaral's team - either. And yes I agree - it was Kate who they had firmly in their sights. The 'deal' she was offered that if she admitted to a lesser charge, Gerry could go home was proof of that IMO.
-
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being any policeWOMEN in Amaral's team - either. And yes I agree - it was Kate who they had firmly in their sights. The 'deal' she was offered that if she admitted to a lesser charge, Gerry could go home was proof of that IMO.
La la la. Can you imagine this scenario in Britain? The CPS would be laughed out of existence. Not that they are doing very well at the moment. How many Paedophile Prosecutions have they recently lost?
-
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being any policeWOMEN in Amaral's team - either. And yes I agree - it was Kate who they had firmly in their sights. The 'deal' she was offered that if she admitted to a lesser charge, Gerry could go home was proof of that IMO.
I think, if Kate and Gerry had been suckered into that, both would have ended up in prison for life.
-
I think, if Kate and Gerry had been suckered into that, both would have ended up in prison for life.
That seems fairly obvious to me.
Even if you cave in and admit to something that you hadn't done to try to guarantee that your kids, OH, could go home... it wouldn't have happened. Even if she had "admitted" to an accidental death as a relatively minor charge compared to a full-blown murder one, the next questions would have been "what happened to the body?" and who assisted her.
-
That seems fairly obvious to me.
Even if you cave in and admit to something that you hadn't done to try to guarantee that your kids, OH, could go home... it wouldn't have happened. Even if she had "admitted" to an accidental death as a relatively minor charge compared to a full-blown murder one, the next questions would have been "what happened to the body?" and who assisted her.
Indeed. What happened to the body? But that is a minor detail, only resulting in a run around the countryside. But Portuguese Justice and The PJ know how to deal with that. They have many documented theories. Just pick the least ridiculous.
-
I think, if Kate and Gerry had been suckered into that, both would have ended up in prison for life.
For life.
I agree with you Ferryman. I think it has to be for "life" to shut them up (shut their mouths up) for a long time, cos they might cause trouble if only locked up for a few years. The PJ dont want trouble because someone is publicly unravelling the facts, do they?
-
I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being any policeWOMEN in Amaral's team - either. And yes I agree - it was Kate who they had firmly in their sights. The 'deal' she was offered that if she admitted to a lesser charge, Gerry could go home was proof of that IMO.
MF – Things were different in my time. She would have been under such an attack that before she realised anything, she'd be in jail.
GA – Right, but in your time, in our old times, investigation was made with fuel. Now we all move on honey. Apart from that, this is a process that is uncomfortable for everyone. Nicely archived, nice and quiet, that's how it looks better. Everyone was happy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
She’d be in jail?
-
MF – Things were different in my time. She would have been under such an attack that before she realised anything, she'd be in jail.
GA – Right, but in your time, in our old times, investigation was made with fuel. Now we all move on honey. Apart from that, this is a process that is uncomfortable for everyone. Nicely archived, nice and quiet, that's how it looks better. Everyone was happy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
She’d be in jail?
In other words, "What a pity we didn't dare beat up this one." Although it doesn't seem to have stopped The PJ beating up suspects in other locations.
-
Yes but of course...had the case not been in the full glare of the international Press I have no doubt things would have happened differently.
Which is possibly why The Embassy Staff were so quick to arrive at the scene. They weren't risking another Leonor Cipriano, or perhaps more to the point, another Michael Cook. He was very badly let down by The UK Government.
-
It seems that any arrests can only be executed by the Portuguese Police, so are the British Police (SC) only there to investigate the disappearance and hand their findings to the Portuguese authorities?
If this is the case, only they(PT) can assure us that there is no suspects.
-
It seems that any arrests can only be executed by the Portuguese Police, so are the British Police (SC) only there to investigate the disappearance and hand their findings to the Portuguese authorities?
If this is the case, only they(PT) can assure us that there is no suspects.
An interesting point Anna. You are correct in what you post, SY have no official status in Portugal, they are simply guests of the State as any of us would be. They have to do everything through the Portuguese authorities so I find it curious that they were able to question a witness in a cafe not so long ago unless the PJ arranged it? I believe it is still illegal for foreigners to carry out private investigations into criminal cases in Portugal as Metodo 3 were quick to point out.
-
An interesting point Anna. You are correct in what you post though, SY have no status in Portugal, they are simply guests of the State as any of us would be. They have to do everything through the Portuguese authorities so I find it curious that they were able to question a witness in a cafe.,
Arent they (SC) being followed around by a PT officer? Which may legalise their actions or similar to private investigators, where their interviewees have to be willing to answer any questions.
-
Just to come back to some posters with today's news... it has been reported in several Portuguese papers that the parents of Madeleine McCanns were told about this line of investigation during the meeting they had with PJ and SY.
So this is the proof that McCanns were at this meeting... previously denied by posters on this thread..
From Sol..
PJ source told Lusa news agency that "the information released today by the Metropolitan Police corresponds to the line of research discovered by the PJ team led by Helena Monteiro."
The same source stated that "the reopening of the investigation" legal emerged following the investigation of the suspect by the PJ.
"This line of research was made known to the English police and the parents of Maddie [Gerry and Kate McCann] at a meeting held in October 2013 at the premises of the PJ, in Lisbon," he said.
-
Anyone on here provide any sort of conclusive evidence that the McCanns weren't involved and I will look at it and consider it.
So far, ZILCH
Fortunately that's not how justice works...no one has to prove innocence...
Of course in order to implicate the McCanns you and other posters have to turn our justice system on its head and invent your own system...bizarre
-
Fortunately that's not how justice works...no one has to prove innocence...
Of course in order to implicate the McCanns you and other posters have to turn our justice system on its head and invent your own system...bizarre
Indeed. It would seem that 'Guilty until proved innocent' is the preferred concept for some folk.
-
The inconsistencies are glaring. The behavior is so beyond "normal" to me. I don't know how to think abductor from that. I feel they tried to point things to a certain scenario which to me says staging.
IMO, the inconsistencies cannot be merely from alcohol to confusion.
Why do you think Scotland Yard have stated categorically that the McCanns are not suspects and have been interviewing new arguidos?
-
Why do you think Scotland Yard have stated categorically that the McCanns are not suspects and have been interviewing new arguidos?
Scotland Yard are not going to divulge who may or may not be suspects in the UK so your point is mute and anyway someone can be made a suspect at any time even if they arent one presently. As far as interviewing others in Portugual is concerned this is just them going through the motions in order to cover all loose ends.
-
Scotland Yard are not going to divulge who may or may not be suspects in the UK so your point is mute and anyway someone can be made a suspect at any time even if they arent one presently. As far as interviewing others in Portugual is concerned this is just them going through the motions in order to cover all loose ends.
My point is not "mute" (sic), the Met went out of its way to stress that neither the McCanns nor their friends were suspects. They didn't have to do that. If they thought there was the remotest possibility that they might be involved they would have said nothing on that subject. If they thought the parents were involved in any way they would have insisted that they were made arguidos, not the four PT nationals that they questioned instead.
-
My point is not "mute" (sic), the Met went out of its way to stress that neither the McCanns nor their friends were suspects. They didn't have to do that. If they thought there was the remotest possibility that they might be involved they would have said nothing on that subject. If they thought the parents were involved in any way they would have insisted that they were made arguidos, not the four PT nationals that they questioned instead.
Do you have a link to Andy Redwood declaring neither the McCanns or their friends are people of interest ? Was the declaration in response to a question from the press and if so can you imagine the speculation if Redwood had either said they had not been ruled out of the investigation or even that he was not going to comment ?
-
Do you have a link to Andy Redwood declaring neither the McCanns or their friends are people of interest ? Was the declaration in response to a question from the press and if so can you imagine the speculation if Redwood had either said they had not been ruled out of the investigation or even that he was not going to comment ?
there is a clip on dutch Tv where redwood declares that the mccanns are not suspects...so I don't think there is any misunderstanding....some people just don't want to accept it as their ideas are so entrenched
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
-
there is a clip on dutch Tv where redwood declares that the mccanns are not suspects...so I don't think there is any misunderstanding....some people just don't want to accept it as their ideas are so entrenched
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
Also here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsP9EVG4XHY
-
there is a clip on dutch Tv where redwood declares that the mccanns are not suspects...so I don't think there is any misunderstanding....some people just don't want to accept it as their ideas are so entrenched
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
Redwood answers a direct question from the presenter and has to respond and he does so in the only possible way he can without fuelling all kinds of speculation.
-
Faithlilly wants us to "imagine the speculation" if Redwood had refused to comment on whether or not the McCanns and their friends were persons of interest does she...? Well, would that be a different sort of speculation I'd need to imagine to the sort that happens daily on sceptic forums in which it is speculated that when Redwood said they aren't suspects he actually meant they ARE suspects and is simply playing a clever long game...?
-
there is a clip on dutch Tv where redwood declares that the mccanns are not suspects...so I don't think there is any misunderstanding....some people just don't want to accept it as their ideas are so entrenched
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otjtz8C-_p8
'They are parents whose daughter is lost.'
Not 'abducted' then.
Thought so.
-
If Redwood wanted to put the wind up the McCanns and get them to crack because he thought they dunnit he would have refused to comment on whether or not they were still in the frame. He might even have hinted that they were being investigated by saying "all theories and avenues are still being pursued, NOTHING and NOONE has been ruled out". Imagine the stress on the McCanns if they actually were guilty, not to mention the stress it would put on their friends. That would have been the clever thing to do, if the Met genuinely thought the McCanns and their friends had engaged in a cover-up. But perhaps SY just aren't as clever as we thought, eh?
-
Also here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsP9EVG4XHY
Yet again obviously a reply to a specific question.
Tell me Alfred what would you expect Redwood to say in that position ?
-
It really is fkin absurd that we're even having this conversation, it really is. Absolutely EVERYTHING that the Met has said in the last year points firmly and convincingly at the fact that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects and that the Met (and the PJ for that matter) are investigating other leads. Anyone who thinks otherwise has done a very successful job in deluding themselves 100%. Get real, doubters!
-
If Redwood wanted to put the wind up the McCanns and get them to crack because he thought they dunnit he would have refused to comment on whether or not they were still in the frame. He might even have hinted that they were being investigated by saying "all theories and avenues are still being pursued, NOTHING and NOONE has been ruled out". Imagine the stress on the McCanns if they actually were guilty, not to mention the stress it would put on their friends. That would have been the clever thing to do, if the Met genuinely thought the McCanns and their friends had engaged in a cover-up. But perhaps SY just aren't as clever as we thought, eh?
Saying he would not comment on whether the McCanns were suspects when he had answered all the churnalist's other questions would have simply fuelled speculation too.
-
Saying he would not comment on whether the McCanns were suspects when he had answered all the churnalist's other questions would have simply fuelled speculation too.
So what? Everything Redwood said has fuelled speculation in some quarter, it doesn't matter what he says - even when he categorically states one thing, you all speculate he means the complete opposite. It's absurd and pathetic.
-
Faithlilly wants us to "imagine the speculation" if Redwood had refused to comment on whether or not the McCanns and their friends were persons of interest does she...? Well, would that be a different sort of speculation I'd need to imagine to the sort that happens daily on sceptic forums in which it is speculated that when Redwood said they aren't suspects he actually meant they ARE suspects and is simply playing a clever long game...?
To think that all Mr Redwood need do is show us, the hateful trolling public, this evidence he has which proves beyond doubt that the McCanns definitely didn't dunnit, then bingo , no more McCann trolling.
Not forgetting that the search for Madeleine would benefit enormously from the influx of newly converted searchers all joining the support group and atoning for their sins.
Why won't he just do that for them, for Maddie , why ?
What a b*stard.
-
It really is fkin absurd that we're even having this conversation, it really is. Absolutely EVERYTHING that the Met has said in the last year points firmly and convincingly at the fact that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects and that the Met (and the PJ for that matter) are investigating other leads. Anyone who thinks otherwise has done a very successful job in deluding themselves 100%. Get real, doubters!
Absurd seems the name of the game with some ... and it aint our side
-
Madeleine may be dead, police say
Saturday, 11 August 2007
Police in Portugal have acknowledged for the first time that missing Madeleine McCann may be dead.
Speaking to the BBC, one of the detectives leading the investigation said new evidence had given "intensity" to the possibility she was killed.
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa said Kate and Gerry McCann were not being considered as suspects following recent rumours they were under suspicion.
Madeleine vanished 100 days ago in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.
Mr Sousa said renewed searches by detectives with British sniffer dogs have revealed clues which could point to Madeleine's death.
He was referring to traces of blood found inside the apartment room where Madeleine was sleeping, which are now being analysed by forensic scientists in Britain.
Mr Sousa refused to confirm or deny reports in Portuguese newspapers that the sniffer dogs had detected odours of a dead body that had been in the apartment.
The police spokesman made it clear that other lines of inquiry have not been ruled out.
He said Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends who had been on holiday with them were not being treated as suspects
A spokeswoman for the McCann family said: "It is obviously heartening that the police in Portugal have finally confirmed that Kate and Gerry McCann are not suspects following the hurtful and unhelpful comments that have been made this week.
"Kate and Gerry understand that the police in Portugal are working hard to do everything in their power to find Madeleine McCann.
"They continue to hope and pray that Madeleine is still alive."
Mr Sousa spoke after Kate and Gerry McCann attended a church service marking 100 days since Madeleine's disappearance.
The church of Nossa Senhora da Luz was packed with holidaymakers and locals, many wearing green and yellow to symbolise hope.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942198.stm
u
-
Yes, it is all in the grammar and interpretation.
They are defiantly NOT suspects in the involvement of their daughters disappearance. ( very clear)
is not the same as;
1. they are not being TREATED as suspects.
2. they are not being considered as suspects following reports on rumours ( no one said what the rumours were) what ever the rumours were the McCanns were not considered as suspects on those specifics.
There all sorted.
-
Yes, it is all in the grammar and interpretation.
They are defiantly NOT suspects in the involvement of their daughters disappearance. ( very clear)
is not the same as;
1. they are not being TREATED as suspects.
2. they are not being considered as suspects following reports on rumours ( no one said what the rumours were) what ever the rumours were the McCanns were not considered as suspects on those specifics.
There all sorted.
SY have stated the mccanns are not suspects...fact...anything else is merely opinion
-
Wouldn't it be a glaring omission if Mr Redwood spent millions of pounds without even bothering to interview
the last person known to have definitely seen the missing child.
Surely GM must have been interviewed by SY?
-
Wouldn't it be a glaring omission if Mr Redwood spent millions of pounds without even bothering to interview
the last person known to have definitely seen the missing child.
Surely GM must have been interviewed by SY?
Of course he has.
Pegasus, you are suprising me to even suggest that.
-
Of course he has.
Pegasus, you are suprising me to even suggest that.
When?
-
Of course he has.
Pegasus, you are suprising me to even suggest that.
Also it seems obvious to me that SY as part of their investigation will have interviewed KM as it was she who discovered that the missing person was apparently not in the apartment.
-
I would have thought that all members of the tapas-9 had been interviewed by SY as a prelude to a full investigation.
-
I would have thought that all members of the tapas-9 had been interviewed by SY as a prelude to a full investigation.
Although there is no proof that they have been so it is speculation by those that say they have.
-
They could have been spoken to informally possibly to clear up certain issues. I know that if I were leading the investigation I would start with those witnesses who last saw Madeleine on the day she disappeared. I would be wanting to know why the group refused the reconstitution for example.
-
They'll be leaving that until last for a number of reasons - one the media circus and two evidence of a body. They will investigate all other possibilities first.
-
They'll be leaving that until last for a number of reasons - one the media circus and two evidence of a body. They will investigate all other possibilities first.
At least this time the McCanns won't be able to claim the investigation was botched.
-
They'll be leaving that until last for a number of reasons - one the media circus and two evidence of a body. They will investigate all other possibilities first.
Those closest to the missing person are always interviewed first. The Met conducted a very discrete investigation reading all the files and interviewing people finally culminating in the CW appeal to which the response of some was a disgusting sabotage attempt.
What is it you do not understand about being neither suspects or persons of interest?
-
Those closest to the missing person are always interviewed first. The Met conducted a very discrete investigation reading all the files and interviewing people finally culminating in the CW appeal to which the response of some was a disgusting sabotage attempt.
What is it you do not understand about being neither suspects or persons of interest?
Not in this case. This case is very high profile and it's 7 years later. Whilst they're searching for a body with cadaver dogs they can investigate all other possibilities first. After that there's one to go!
-
When?
Jeez, Spammy, as if they are going to tell you and me when and where !!.
Common sense prevails. Of course they will have interviewed the parents and friends, that would be the first stage.
-
Not in this case. This case is very high profile and it's 7 years later. Whilst they're searching for a body with cadaver dogs they can investigate all other possibilities first. After that there's one to go!
John is ex job and he says the first thing he would have done is to reinterview the Drs McCann and their friends ... so that is the professional opinion.
My armchair detective opinion is the same.
How stupid would SY look if they dug up half of PDL and how stupid would the PJ look if they let them ... only to decide at a later date ... whoops lads better check the parents out!! That has been done at the earliest stage of this investigation.
-
John is ex job and he says the first thing he would have done is to reinterview the Drs McCann and their friends ... so that is the professional opinion.
My armchair detective opinion is the same.
How stupid would SY look if they dug up half of PDL and how stupid would the PJ look if they let them ... only to decide at a later date ... whoops lads better check the parents out!! That has been done at the earliest stage of this investigation.
No, it hasn't.
-
It's all very well this 'common sense dictatates that' & 'of course they would have been' & 'only a fool would think otherwise' & 'Johns an ex copper & he said' & yap, yap, blahhdy blah, yaddy yaddy yadder...
but the fact remains there isn't a single media report of the day/days the McCanns & their friends were re-interviewed, neither are there any pictures of Kate & co emerging from the police station looking radiant.
There is a very good reason for that isn't there.
It's because it hasn't happened.
-
It's all very well this 'common sense dictatates that' & 'of course they would have been' & 'only a fool would think otherwise' & 'Johns an ex copper & he said' & yap, yap, blahhdy blah, yaddy yaddy yadder...
but the fact remains there isn't a single media report of the day/days the McCanns & their friends were re-interviewed, neither are there any pictures of Kate & co emerging from the police station looking radiant.
There is a very good reason for that isn't there.
It's because it hasn't happened.
Didn't see a front page spread on 'innocent dad' formerly known as 'Tannerman' did we? But he has been interviewed possibly by the simple expedient of checking the creche register.
It is fatuous to suppose that the proper diligence of checking everyone out has not been carried out.
-
Didn't see a front page spread on 'innocent dad' formerly known as 'Tannerman' did we? But he has been interviewed possibly by the simple expedient of checking the creche register.
It is fatuous to suppose that the proper diligence of checking everyone out has not been carried out.
It hasn't.
-
It would seem to me that SY are investigating, by elimination, all other probable factors to see if there was an abuction- murder- accident, sold as a slave.
It does seem they are looking for a body. ( Which is heart breaking)
They would then have to go back to the beginning...
However, for those who can't understand what the SY said here it is again, (Please do not feel free to put words into their mouths to fit your *they are innocent* agenda).
1. they are not being TREATED as suspects.
2. they are not being considered as suspects following reports on rumours ( no one said what the rumours were) what ever the rumours were the McCanns were not considered as suspects on those specifics.
not the same as "they are not suspects" is it?
-
No, the police have not said they have ruled out the tapas crew in public on TV.
Oh how some like to twist and turn sentences.
-
It's all very well this 'common sense dictatates that' & 'of course they would have been' & 'only a fool would think otherwise' & 'Johns an ex copper & he said' & yap, yap, blahhdy blah, yaddy yaddy yadder...
but the fact remains there isn't a single media report of the day/days the McCanns & their friends were re-interviewed, neither are there any pictures of Kate & co emerging from the police station looking radiant.
There is a very good reason for that isn't there.
It's because it hasn't happened.
They have interviewed them on several occasions since the new inquiry started. Any investigated worth his salt will start with the basics and then move forward. Believe me the British Press have been well warned what they can and cannot divulge in this case.
-
It would seem to me that SY are investigating, by elimination, all other probable factors to see if there was an abuction- murder- accident, sold as a slave.
It does seem they are looking for a body. ( Which is heart breaking)
They would then have to go back to the beginning...
However, for those who can't understand what the SY said here it is again, (Please do not feel free to put words into their mouths to fit your *they are innocent* agenda).
1. they are not being TREATED as suspects.
2. they are not being considered as suspects following reports on rumours ( no one said what the rumours were) what ever the rumours were the McCanns were not considered as suspects on those specifics.
not the same as "they are not suspects" is it?
And they could only make such an announcement if they had already done the basics and that includes speaking to the tapas group.
-
No, the police have not said they have ruled out the tapas crew in public on TV.
Oh how some like to twist and turn sentences.
"Everything we are doing is focused towards trying to find Madeleine McCann. There are no guarantees of any outcome, but I can assure you of our absolute determination to try and establish what has happened to her."
He stressed that neither her parents nor the McCanns' friends who were having dinner with them that night are among the 38 people identified.
"Neither her parents or any of the members of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.
"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter and we are doing all we can to bring resolution for them to find out what has happened to Madeleine."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/231942-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-investigated-in-new-met-police-probe/
The majority of people know all about the first part of the satatement ... I have highlighted what I believe is the salient part.
This isn't a whodunnit on TV or a book of detective fiction ... this is a real life family tragedy involving people who have suffered the loss of a precious child and who are doing all they can to get her back or at the least discover what happened to her.
-
No, the police have not said they have ruled out the tapas crew in public on TV.
Oh how some like to twist and turn sentences.
Well Miss, it would seem from Biretta's post that you are indeed Miss Taken. 8)--))
-
"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter"
So, not 'abducted' then.
-
"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter"
So, not 'abducted' then.
From the same post by Brietta.
""Neither her parents or any of the members of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."
Why pick out one word out of context with all the others?
-
From the same post by Brietta.
""Neither her parents or any of the members of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects."
Why pick out one word out of context with all the others?
It is not out of context?
-
From the Daily Mail :
'One of the detectives leading the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has told reporters her parents are not suspects.'
Well isn't that what supporters have been telling us for months but wait :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects
Is history repeating itself ? Are Redwood and co taking their lead from the Portuguese and denying the McCanns and friends are suspects in public while investigating them in private ?
-
From the Daily Mail :
'One of the detectives leading the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has told reporters her parents are not suspects.'
Well isn't that what supporters have been telling us for months but wait :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects
Is history repeating itself ? Are Redwood and co taking their lead from the Portuguese and denying the McCanns and friends are suspects in public while investigating them in private ?
You can make up any theory you like and convince yourself its true by ignoring and twisting facts which do not suit you. David Icke thinks the Queen is a shape shifting lizard...and has thousands of followers who believe him....perhaps you are one of them
-
You can make up any theory you like and convince yourself its true by ignoring and twisting facts which do not suit you. David Icke thinks the Queen is a shape shifting lizard...and has thousands of followers who believe him....perhaps you are one of them
No, I think that is another poster... 8(0(*
-
From the Daily Mail :
'One of the detectives leading the inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has told reporters her parents are not suspects.'
Well isn't that what supporters have been telling us for months but wait :
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478885/Madeleine-Top-policeman-inisists-McCanns-victims-suspects
Is history repeating itself ? Are Redwood and co taking their lead from the Portuguese and denying the McCanns and friends are suspects in public while investigating them in private ?
No. But carry on with the wishful thinking. Maybe someone will have a dream and SY will change the whole direction of their investigations on the strength of it.
-
No. But carry on with the wishful thinking. Maybe someone will have a dream and SY will change the whole direction of their investigations on the strength of it.
Until then they'll keep looking for that Portuguese paedophile gang member who wore buttoned trousers, changed Madeleine's pyjamas & looks a bit like her dad.
-
"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter"
So, not 'abducted' then.
Little wonder that there are those who are having difficulty with the very plain statements made by the PJ and the Met that Madeleine's parents and their friends are not persons of interest to the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance - (abduction - kidnap - capture): there are a lot of strange belief systems out there as illustrated from Heaven's gate to the People's Temple but if the dizzying heights of the membership of organisations such as the Madeleine Foundation are anything to go by (wait for the book - but at the zenith allegedly 45) the 'truth seekers' who do not understand the Queen's English are actually very few in number.
I have discovered that the English language suffers from all sorts of interpretation when one mentions Madeleine; to write ‘grieving’ equates with saying that she is dead: similarly to write ‘lost’ leads to accusations that she was not abducted.
Then twisting and altering facts and taking words entirely out of context is a tactic which illustrates either a very poor command of the English language – duplicity, or perhaps even both.
Sad thing is that it is so predictable, when I used ‘lost’ instead of ‘abducted’, I thought about it … then I decided no one would be that stupid.
Hmmm >@@(*&)
-
Briefly remind us Brietta of the status of the case in Portugal.
I'm sure your command of the English Language is sufficient to do so.
-
Briefly remind us Brietta of the status of the case in Portugal.
I'm sure your command of the English Language is sufficient to do so.
In case you missed it, Stephen, the current status of the case in Portugal is that it is an open, active investigation into the case of a missing child - in which the PJ team do not consider the parents suspects.
"Inquérito agora reaberto será conduzido pelo mesmo procurador que já fora titular do processo anteriormente arquivado
Enquiry now reopened will be conducted by the same prosecutor who had been the holder of the procedure previously filed process.
O advogado dos pais da criança inglesa, desaparecida no Algarve em 2007, revelou que o casal foi informado de que os novos indícios, na base da reabertura do inquérito, «em nada apontam para a responsabilização» dos progenitores de Madeleine McCann.
The lawyer for the parents of the English child, disappeared in the Algarve in 2007 , revealed that the couple was informed that the new evidence on the basis of the re-investigation "excludes the 'parents of Madeleine McCann"." http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/503/sociedade/maddie-madeleine-mccann-rogerio-alves-tvi24/1502871-4071.html
-
As has been pointed out many times and in many cases, someone who has initially been discounted as a suspect can suddenly become one as new evidence is found. Redwoods comments were targeted at public consumption and intended to stifle speculation, I would be very much surprised if they reflected in any way the inner thinkings of the investigation imo.
-
As has been pointed out many times and in many cases, someone who has initially been discounted as a suspect can suddenly become one as new evidence is found. Redwoods comments were targeted at public consumption and intended to stifle speculation, I would be very much surprised if they reflected in any way the inner thinkings of the investigation imo.
Well I dont believe they are considered suspects . I think they have been ruled out. Whatever evidence SY has that rules them out, I can only guess. Perhaps they believe they know who did it?
Anyway, I am happy to wait.
-
Well I dont believe they are considered suspects . I think they have been ruled out. Whatever evidence SY has that rules them out, I can only guess. Perhaps they believe they know who did it?
Anyway, I am happy to wait.
SY have stated that the tapas 9 are neither suspects nor persons of interest. That however is not set in stone. And for all anyone knows Madeleine could have met with an accident in the dark entirely on her own as she sought out her parents.
-
As has been pointed out many times and in many cases, someone who has initially been discounted as a suspect can suddenly become one as new evidence is found. Redwoods comments were targeted at public consumption and intended to stifle speculation, I would be very much surprised if they reflected in any way the inner thinkings of the investigation imo.
I think the SY team were very well aware of the feeding frenzy which would have been unleashed without such a statement and feared it would interfere with the investigation. They themselves had been on the periphery of some of it with numerous FOI requests and constant criticism and interference in an attempt to have Operation Grange shut down.
-
SY have stated that the tapas 9 are neither suspects nor persons of interest. That however is not set in stone. And for all anyone knows Madeleine could have met with an accident in the dark entirely on her own as she sought out her parents.
I agree its not set in stone but it would mean that with the evidence available at the moment they are not suspects.
-
I agree its not set in stone but it would mean that with the evidence available at the moment they are not suspects.
...at least in mid 2013.
-
...at least in mid 2013.
agreed..but they have been declared not suspects and everything else is mere speculation with no basis in fact. Add to this that SY have been interviewing other arguidos in portugal...another fact
-
agreed..but they have been declared not suspects and everything else is mere speculation with no basis in fact. Add to this that SY have been interviewing other arguidos in portugal...another fact
and of course the mccanns arguido status can be restarted for up to 20 years after the initial period.
-
The status of MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE is 'type of crime unknown' , as you know well.
Now if the the PJ and SY say she was abducted, not that I believe that, then why hasn't the status of the crime in Portugal changed ?
It's a very simple question.
-
The status of MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE is 'type of crime unknown' , as you know well.
Now if the the PJ and SY say she was abducted, not that I believe that, then why hasn't the status of the crime in Portugal changed ?
It's a very simple question.
where have you got this status thing from..
-
where have you got this status thing from..
Unbelievable. 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
-
The status of MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE is 'type of crime unknown' , as you know well.
Now if the the PJ and SY say she was abducted, not that I believe that, then why hasn't the status of the crime in Portugal changed ?
It's a very simple question.
I will give you simple one. To change the status of criminal prociding once is open you have to have the following
1. Evidence
2. Suspects
3.Formal criminal filing within investigative judge or public prosecutor depend on the legal system with the 2 previously mentioned .
As you now we are at stage 2 still pending, since it is expected to have more suspects or person of interest. Be patient pls. Even if you have all of the above it takes a lot of paperwork to put them in the legal framework for proceeding. Justice will be served.
-
Unbelievable. 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
no...link please
-
I will give you simple one. To change the status of criminal prociding once is open you have to have the following
1. Evidence
2. Suspects
3.Formal criminal filing within investigative judge or public prosecutor depend on the legal system with the 2 previously mentioned .
As you now we are at stage 2 still pending, since it is expected to have more suspects or person of interest. Be patient pls. Even if you have all of the above it takes a lot of paperwork to put them in the legal framework for proceeding. Justice will be served.
Very well explained, Bros, and at stage one having analysed all the available evidence Scotland Yard detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
-
Aoife was the only witness to say that the child being carried was wearing a long sleeved top; if the child was Madeleine, she could simply have been mistaken.
We really have no idea what the NSY take is on Smithman except that if they thought there was the slightest possibility he was Madeleine’s father, they would not have eliminated him from the inquiry.
1) Tannerman did not come forward to rule himself out after seven years of his very precise e-fits doing the rounds; NSY checked the crèche records to find him.
2) Mr Smith did not get a good look at the man’s face partly because of the poor lighting and it is widely accepted that his later identification of the man as Madeleine’s father has been withdrawn; just as the identification made by Richard and Susan McCluskey in exact circumstances has been discounted - ie they were influenced by images on the media.
Both misidentifications made in good faith are on record as being unfounded, yet you continue to ignore this in one instance and not the other. It has been discussed on the forum very recently so you are at risk of showing more than bias with your insistence.
I don't know why you think that in unsolved cases people are totally ruled out because they aren't. And in this case the timeline may change ?>)()<
-
Innocent creche dad completed an LC questionnaire in 2007.
'Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
Quite ... NSY found the evidence, not from crèche records but they found it nonetheless.
- snipped - But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027#ixzz39Y1Svbz7
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
But you have failed to explain why you continue to promote Mr Smith's erroneous change to his statement while totally ignoring the erroneous changes the McCluskeys made to their statements. Mr McCluskey also made the change when he saw Madeleine's father exiting from the plane so the circumstances couldn't have been more similar (see below).
So why do you continue to post as you do?
- snipped - I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
(signed).......R McCluskey
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
-
Quite ... NSY found the evidence, not from crèche records but they found it nonetheless.
- snipped - But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027#ixzz39Y1Svbz7
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
But you have failed to explain why you continue to promote Mr Smith's erroneous change to his statement while totally ignoring the erroneous changes the McCluskeys made to their statements. Mr McCluskey also made the change when he saw Madeleine's father exiting from the plane so the circumstances couldn't have been more similar (see below).
So why do you continue to post as you do?
- snipped - I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
(signed).......R McCluskey
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
I've not seen SY appealing for information on white van man recently.
I've seen some e-fits of Smithman though, one of which happens to look a bit like Mr McCann, a bizzare & unfortunate coincidence it is too.
-
I've not seen SY appealing for information on white van man recently.
I've seen some e-fits of Smithman though, one of which happens to look a bit like Mr McCann, a bizzare & unfortunate coincidence it is too.
Well then, I think we may have established that neither the PJ or the Met consider Dr Gerry McCann as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. I think we have also established exactly who you would like Smithman to be.
One belief based on all the evidence being sorted through since 2011; the other based on wishful thinking and an acknowledged error in identification.
Bit strange you should want to appear so intransigent.
-
Well then, I think we may have established that neither the PJ or the Met consider Dr Gerry McCann as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. I think we have also established exactly who you would like Smithman to be.
One belief based on all the evidence being sorted through since 2011; the other based on wishful thinking and an acknowledged error in identification.
Bit strange you should want to appear so intransigent.
Well of course, I'm entirely wrong aren't I. SY are in possesion of evidence which proves an abduction occured & there in, that Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsover in Madeleine's disappearance.
They can't say what it is though, that might cause the abductor to panic & maybe harm Maddie.
-
Well of course, I'm entirely wrong aren't I. SY are in possesion of evidence which proves an abduction occured & there in, that Kate & Gerry had absolutely no involvement whatsover in Madeleine's disappearance.
They can't say what it is though, that might cause the abductor to panic & maybe harm Maddie.
I don't think it is usual for the police to give a full account of everything which passes through their hands in the course of an investigation.
As you have said, it would be most helpful to a perpetrator whatever the case being worked and it is obviously in the public interes to have these people caught.
-
I don't think it is usual for the police to give a full account of everything which passes through their hands in the course of an investigation.
As you have said, it would be most helpful to a perpetrator whatever the case being worked and it is obviously in the public interes to have these people caught.
It would indeed Brietta.
Now please tell me again why you think SY are telling us the truth about the McCanns status ?
-
It would indeed Brietta.
Now please tell me again why you think SY are telling us the truth about the McCanns status ?
Answering on Brietta's behalf, but perhaps for the same reason that they were telling the truth about Greg Reardon in the Joana Yeates murder enquiry, when (long before the case was solved) they commended Mr Reardon as a 'first class witness'.
-
Perhaps Faithlilly would like to tell us why she thinks SY are LYING to the general public and why they have put 4 PT nationals through hell by linking them publicly to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, when all along they think it was the parents wot dunnit?
-
Perhaps Faithlilly would like to tell us why she thinks SY are LYING to the general public and why they have put 4 PT nationals through hell by linking them publicly to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, when all along they think it was the parents wot dunnit?
Redwood's statements with regard to the McCann's and their friend's status have always been in response to a direct question from a journalist. What would you expect him to say even if there was suspicions with regard to them ?
-
Redwood's statements with regard to the McCann's and their friend's status have always been in response to a direct question from a journalist. What would you expect him to say even if there was suspicions with regard to them ?
You have ducked my question.
-
Perhaps Faithlilly would like to tell us why she thinks SY are LYING to the general public and why they have put 4 PT nationals through hell by linking them publicly to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, when all along they think it was the parents wot dunnit?
They have to cover all possibilities this time so come on down dead tractorman, smelly binman, OC employees, etc. Photo man may be next. The McCanns don't need to be involved at this time but a different story could be happening behind the scenes. You will see what they want you to see.
Introducing Photo Man
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUMEIa_Page_194.jpg)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzabductord.jpg)
It was possible to determine that the vehicle was rented on the 28/04/07 at Faro airport by Polish citizen Wojciech Krokowski who was staying in the Solimar apartments in Burgau
-
They have to cover all possibilities this time so come on down dead tractorman, smelly binman, OC employees, etc. Photo man may be next. The McCanns don't need to be involved at this time but a different story could be happening behind the scenes. You will see what they want you to see.
Introducing Photo Man
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUMEIa_Page_194.jpg)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzabductord.jpg)
It was possible to determine that the vehicle was rented on the 28/04/07 at Faro airport by Polish citizen Wojciech Krokowski who was staying in the Solimar apartments in Burgau
Yes it COULD be, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is, however there IS evidence in abundance that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects - you choose to believe the scenario for which there is no evidence, I choose to believe the scenario which is supported by the evidence. That's the difference between us I guess.
-
Redwood's statements with regard to the McCann's and their friend's status have always been in response to a direct question from a journalist. What would you expect him to say even if there was suspicions with regard to them ?
IMO You are suggesting that Andy Redwood panicked and made something up on the spur of the moment. That is preposterous imo.
As the lead investigator he is the one person who would know without doubt the status of the McCanns and the rest of the group which he and his team had been able to establish as a result of their investigations. No way would he have made such a clear and unambiguous statement to the public unless SY were completely satisfied that the McCanns and their friends had emphatically been ruled out as suspects or even persons of interest.
That is not the only statement Andy Redwood has made which clearly indicates that SY have ruled them out.
Anyone who still thinks SY are conducting some convoluted ginormous double bluff which involves massive and continual lying not only to the McCanns but to the UK General Public (and the rest of the world) are deluding themselves IMO. Their credibility as a professional police force would be destroyed for ever.
This is not a soap opera.
-
Perhaps Faithlilly would like to tell us why she thinks SY are LYING to the general public and why they have put 4 PT nationals through hell by linking them publicly to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, when all along they think it was the parents wot dunnit?
I'm not aware that the Met named these people. Where did the leaks come from?
-
Redwood's statements with regard to the McCann's and their friend's status have always been in response to a direct question from a journalist. What would you expect him to say even if there was suspicions with regard to them ?
The truth is that it wouldn't make a scrap of difference how Redwood phrased his support of the parents you would not believe it
-
What SY are saying publicly and what they are thinking privately probably have little in common. They aren't stupid, well not most of the time anyway, so they are most certainly not going to give anything away unless they expect it to pay dividends.