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: pathfinder73 on April 25, 2017, 09:17:14 PM
-
Read full text here (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8138.msg400450#msg400450) courtesy of Heriberto.
Madeleine McCann: Met Police rules out its four official suspects
By Martin Brunt, Crime Correspondent
The only four official suspects investigated by the Met Police over the abduction of Madeleine McCann have been ruled out of the inquiry.
But Scotland Yard insists it is still investigating one significant lead.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley told Sky News: "We have one significant line of inquiry which is worth pursuing and because it's worth pursuing it could provide an answer."
The suspects were believed by Scotland Yard to have taken her during a burglary gone wrong at the McCanns' rented holiday apartment in Portugal.
They were identified by their mobile phone use, their location near the apartment on the night and their backgrounds.
One is Jose Carlos da Silva, 35, a former driver at the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine vanished on 3 May, 2007.
He and the others were questioned and investigated for six months before being told they would face no further action.
Mr Rowley said: "Somebody's doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child and that's what's leads to Madeleine going missing."
Asked if that was an unlikely scenario and if any surprised burglar would simply run away, Mr Rowley said: "In my experience, if you try to apply the cold, rational logic of a normal person sitting in their front room to what criminals do under pressure, you tend to make mistakes.
"It was a sensible hypothesis and it's not entirely ruled out."
Madeleine disappeared as she slept in a room with her younger twin siblings while their parents Kate and Gerry McCann, both doctors, dined with friends nearby.
Scotland Yard began investigating six years ago after the failure of the first Portuguese police investigation. The team of detectives, cut in 2015 from 29 to four, has spent more than £11m of UK Government funds.
Mr Rowley said new information was still being received daily.
The Metropolitan Police was recently given an extra £85,000 by the Home Office to keep the investigation going until September.
Portugal's deputy national director of the Policia Judiciaria, Pedro do Carmo, told Sky News that he was under no financial or political pressure to wind up his re-opened investigation.
He said: "If the Metropolitan Police decides to close its investigation that doesn't mean we are going to close ours.
"Our two investigations are not dependent on one another."
http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-met-police-rules-out-its-four-official-suspects-10850920
81
-
Maddie breakthrough: Police chief says officers are chasing 'significant' line of inquiry as he confirms McCanns were NOT behind her disappearance and missing tot could still be alive
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html#ixzz4fILLELhu
it is an absolute bombshell ...the parents are NOT under investigation...its official
-
That's the Daily Mail saying that, not Rowley.
-
That's the Daily Mail saying that, not Rowley.
do you think I would get something so wrong...Rowley says it live.....
-
That's the Daily Mail saying that, not Rowley.
Indeed Jassi.
What was self-evident from Rowley, is that he doesn't have a clue.
Just verbal raffle and nothing of consequence, just as I and others predicted.
-
Indeed Jassi.
What was self-evident from Rowley, is that he doesn't have a clue.
Just verbal raffle and nothing of consequence, just as I and others predicted.
you are just so WRONG Rowley says it live
-
Maddie breakthrough: Police chief says officers are chasing 'significant' line of inquiry as he confirms McCanns were NOT behind her disappearance and missing tot could still be alive
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html#ixzz4fILLELhu
it is an absolute bombshell ...the parents are NOT under investigation...its official
If they were you must be living in fantasy luzland to even consider he would inform everyone *&*%£ AP was confirmed to be no longer a suspect then he was arrested. Go figure LOL.
Rowley won't reveal what is the one significant line of inquiry.
"Rowley said: "I know we have a significant line of inquiry which is worth pursuing, and because it's worth pursuing it could provide an answer, but until we've gone through it I won't know whether we are going to get there or not."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39706194
-
Rowley stated...
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
Then says he doesn't know if she is alive or dead.
There is complete understanding of Rowley, he is totally and utterly clueless as to what happened in Portugal.
-
If they were you must be living in fantasy luzland to even consider he would inform everyone *&*%£ AP was confirmed to be no longer a suspect then he was arrested. Go figure LOL.
Undeniably Pathfinder, some people like their fantasies.
-
Rowley has actually contradicted the SC....
-
Rowley stated...
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
Then says he doesn't know if she is alive or dead.
There is complete understanding of Rowley, he is totally and utterly clueless as to what happened in Portugal.
so would you like to tell us what rowley told us live on tv re the parents...or dont you know
-
Nothing Operation Grange say tomorrow is going to convince some sceptics that the McCanns are not suspects.
I rest my case.
-
I rest my case.
spot on and no surprise
-
He said the parents involvement was dealt with by the Portuguese in the original investigation.
It seems that some people have forgotten what happened in the Supreme Court, and was part of that judgement in this regard.
Mmm.
-
I rest my case.
Sadly, so do I.
-
He said the parents involvement was dealt with by the Portuguese in the original investigation.
It seems that some people have forgotten what happened in the Supreme Court, and was part of that judgement in this regard.
Mmm.
youve looked now and you are trying to spin...he stated catagorically Maddie was abduted......he has contradicted the SC judgement as i have already posted
-
He said the parents involvement was dealt with by the Portuguese in the original investigation.
It seems that some people have forgotten what happened in the Supreme Court, and was part of that judgement in this regard.
Mmm.
An open mind he said he had 8(>(( Rowley seems to have caught the contradiction disease in this case. Fact is if you have an open mind then nobody is cleared.
p.s. you do not make the same mistake twice.
-
As we know already there is no evidence worth a damn to show Madeleine was abducted.
No forensic indication to show anyone else in the apartment.
To all intents and purposes, she disappeared off the face of the Earth.
Not one trace of her has emerged, even with checks on the paedophile network in Portugal and elsewhere.
I remember when Anna was Moderator on here, and even though we were on opposite sides, we did agree on one point.
Namely, the only way this case would be solved is by a confession.
Rowley was waffling.
Literally and metaphorically clueless.
-
An open mind he said he had *&*%£ Rowley seems to have caught the contradiction disease in this case. Fact is if you have an open mind then nobody is cleared.
Exactly Pathfinder.
Regardless of the hype, the truth is crystal clear.
Rowley has no idea of what happened to Madeleine.
-
If about 600 people have been excluded from the enquiry, who is left?
-
As we know already there is no evidence worth a damn to show Madeleine was abducted.
No forensic indication to show anyone else in the apartment.
To all intents and purposes, she disappeared off the face of the Earth.
Not one trace of her has emerged, even with checks on the paedophile network in Portugal and elsewhere.
I remember when Anna was Moderator on here, and even though we were on opposite sides, we did agree on one point.
Namely, the only way this case would be solved is by a confession.
Rowley was waffling.
Literally and metaphorically clueless.
it doesnt really matter what you and Anna thought...Rowley believes she was abducted....he has said they have seen all the evidence re the mccanns and are happy with it...the mccanns are not suspects
-
If about 600 people have been excluded from the enquiry, who is left?
they are not saying ..but they have said maddie was abducted
-
If about 600 people have been excluded from the enquiry, who is left?
An interesting question Montclair.
Perhaps someone would like to contact Rowley and find out.
Or the Portuguese of course.
-
An interesting question Montclair.
Perhaps someone would like to contact Rowley and find out.
Or the Portuguese of course.
i read the sky news article froma hour ago it read to me they dont know what did happen to maddie despite what dave says when he is clinging to maddie was abducted
-
An open mind he said he had 8(>(( Rowley seems to have caught the contradiction disease in this case. Fact is if you have an open mind then nobody is cleared.
The four arguidos are in the clear ... as are Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat.
-
Exactly Pathfinder.
Regardless of the hype, the truth is crystal clear.
Rowley has no idea of what happened to Madeleine.
You don't make the same mistake twice so things have to be done different this time if they are wise. The one significant line of inquiry will remain hidden until it's completed and the media will rehash the same old bollox.
-
it doesnt really matter what you and Anna thought...Rowley believes she was abducted....he has said they have seen all the evidence re the mccanns and are happy with it...the mccanns are not suspects
The PJ only concentrated on abduction for the first 3 months in Portugal and got nowhere. If OG is only concentrating on abduction after these all years and they have gotten nowhere, then perhaps they should look elsewhere.
-
i read the sky news article froma hour ago it read to me they dont know what did happen to maddie despite what dave says when he is clinging to maddie was abducted
Im saying...he said maddie was abducted...the aprents are not being investigated...he said taht has been dealt with ...tehy ahve seen all the evidence and they are haooy with it....hes saying that not me...if you dont like it tell him
-
i read the sky news article froma hour ago it read to me they dont know what did happen to maddie despite what dave says when he is clinging to maddie was abducted
Indeed Carly.
It is abundantly clear OG do not know what happened, and today's announcement was little more than a poor attempt you justify all the time and money spent with the possibility of solving the case in some future time.
-
The PJ only concentrated on abduction for the first 3 months in Portugal and got nowhere. If OG is only concentrating on abduction after these all years and they have gotten nowhere, then perhaps they should look elsewhere.
I think its best left to the real professionals
-
PART 1
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from
21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.
Q: Six years’ on of Scotland Yard’s involvement, a team of largely 30 people, £11/12 million you’ve
spent, what have you achieved?
MR: We’ve achieved an awful lot. I think you know that we have a track record for using cold cases
on serious old cases, and we solve many cases that way. This is no different in one respect but is
particularly complicated. I think people get seduced perhaps by what they see in TV dramas where
the most complex cases are solved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes with adverts as well. What we started
with here was something extraordinary. We started with 40,000 documents. We’ve got the original
Portuguese investigation and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work and we did
appeals to the public, four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible. Sifting
that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort. It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality
than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on. And
what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve
announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress. And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at
one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who
were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting,
which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with
multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.
So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects,
people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant. If we didn’t think they were
significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.
Q: So when you talk of success and progress, it’s really a case of eliminating things? You’re not
getting any nearer to finding out what happened?
MR: So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry
McCann. I’d love to guarantee them that we would get an answer, sadly investigations can never be
100 per cent successful. But, it’s our job, and I’ve discussed it with them, we’ll do everything we can
do, reasonably, to find an answer to what’s happened to Madeleine. And I know, Pedro, the senior
Portuguese colleague I’ve worked with and his team, have a shared determination, to find an answer.
That’s what we’re going to do.
Q: You’ve described it as a ‘unique’ case. Why is it unique?
MR: I think it’s unique in two or three respects. First of all the way its captured attention in different
countries is quite unusual. You’ll get a very high-profile case in a particular country, the way it has
captured interest across countries, I think is significant. The length of it. And it’s unusual to have a
case like this where you’re doing a missing persons investigation, where ten years on, we still don’t
have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened. And that’s why we’re open minded, even if
we have to be pessimistic about the prospects, we are open minded because we don’t have definitive
evidence about what happened to Madeleine.
Q: You say you haven’t got definitive evidence, do you have any clues at all which might explain what
happened to her?
MR: So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will
start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a
missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities
will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to
be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open
mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but
I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.
Q: Do you have some evidence, in your six years of investigation, have you unearthed some
evidence to explain what happened?
MR: We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we’re
pursuing those. And those link into the key lines of enquiry we’re doing now. As I said, those are very
much live investigations and I know that’s frustrating when you’re doing a programme looking back
but it’s hard to talk about that now, it’s going to frustrate the investigation.
Q: I know it’s not your money, it has come from the Home Office, but how do you justify spending so
much on one missing person?
MR: Big cases can take a lot of resource and a lot of time and we have that with more conventional
cases which Scotland Yard gets involved with that run over many years. I think it’s worth noting that
this cold case approach we do, every year we’re solving cases that have gone cold years ago. I think
in the last year it’s 35 rape cases, and two murder cases. Some of those reaching back to the 1980s.
The cold case approach does have some expense, it is time-consuming, looking back at old records,
but it does help solve old cases and you give families and victims an understanding of what went on.
It’s worthwhile. This case is unusual, it’s not in Scotland Yard’s remit to investigate crimes across the
world normally. In this case, in 2011, the Portuguese and British prime ministers were discussing the
case and agreed that Scotland Yard would help and recognising that it’s not what we’re normally
funded for, we were given extra money to put a team together to work with the Portuguese and that’s
what we’ve been doing ever since. We’ve tried to be careful about public money and we started with
that massive sifting and we’ve narrowed the enquiry, the funding has reduced accordingly. And we
will stick with it as long as the funding is available, as long as there are sensible lines of enquiry to
pursue.
Q: You’ve talked about 600 people. You at one point had four suspects. Can you tell me the story
about how they came into the frame?
MR: So, one of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was could this be a burglary gone wrong?
Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going
missing.
Q: Most burglars would just run out.
MR: Possibly.
Q: Difficult for the public to understand that potential theory, given that every child wakes up.
MR: In my experience, if you try to apply the rational logic of a normal person sat in their front room to
what criminals do under pressure, you tend to make mistakes, so it was a sensible hypothesis, it’s still
not entirely ruled out, but there was also lots of material about people acting suspiciously, a potential
history of some recent thefts from holiday apartments. Working through that it was a sensible thing to
pursue, and we had some descriptions to work with, and that led to us identifying amongst the 600, a
group of people who were worth pursuing, have they been involved in this activity, have they had a
role in Madeleine going missing? Because what the hypothesis was, then we’ve got some searches,
we’ve worked with the Portuguese, they were spoken to, and we pretty much closed off that group of
people. That’s one example of the journey I spoke about, you start with this massive pool of evidence,
you understand it, structure it, prioritise it, you work through and you try and sift the potential
suspects, and then you end up where we are today with some key lines of enquiry.
Q: As I understand it, the key to your suspicion about those four suspects was very much to do with
their use of mobile phones and one of the criticisms of the original Portuguese police investigation
was that they didn’t interrogate the mobile phone data as thoroughly as they could have done. How
important was it for you as that part of your investigation for you to pick up and thoroughly investigate
the mobile phone data?
MR: So that phone data is always something we will look at and we wouldn’t have had it available if
the Portuguese had not got hold of it at the time so we need to be careful about criticism. But we had
the data available and we worked with the Portuguese and that was part of the background to do with
phone data and various sightings. There was enough there to say, not to prove the case, but there
was something worth looking at in more detail and that’s what we did.
Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese
beginning of July 2014?
MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other
parts of the investigation.
Q: Do you have any other suspects at the moment?
MR: So, we have got some critical lines of enquiry that are definitely worth pursuing and I’m not going
to go into further detail on those. Another I would say though is, these lines of enquiry we have to
date, they are the product of information available at the time and information that has come from
public appeals that we have done. Four Crimewatch appeals, and other media channels have been
incredibly helpful, including yourselves, and thousands of pieces of information have come forward,
some useful some not, but amongst that have been some nuggets that have thrown some extra light
on the original material that came from the time and that is one of the things that has helped us to
make progress and have some critical lines of enquiry we are pursuing today.
Q: The question of other suspects, is there anyone like those four who have been dismissed, is there
anyone who has the “alguido” status?
MR: I’m not going to give that level of detail away, we have got some critical lines of enquiry and we
are working with the Portuguese on that, we are both interested in. Disclosing any more information
on that will not help the investigation.
Q: You said the burglary gone wrong theory is not completely dismissed. What are the other theories?
You have spoken in the past, Andy Redwood spoke in the past about focussing on the idea of a
stranger abduction, is that still the focus, or a focus?
MR: Whilst we’ve got some lead ideas there is still a lot of unknown on this case. We’ve got a young
girl gone missing 10 years ago. Until we get to the point where we have solved it, we’re unlikely to
have definitive evidence as to exactly what happened at the time. All the hypothesises that you or I
could come up with, they all have to remain open and the key lines of enquiry open today focus on
one or two of those areas but we have to keep them all open until we get to that critical piece of
evidence that narrows it down and helps us to be more confident as to exactly what has happened on
the day Maddie went missing.
Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men,
watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus
charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?
MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.
Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese
police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a
series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that
been to your investigation?
MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide
and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences
need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are
currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which
could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been
doing.
-
PART 2
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right
back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an
abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from
the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine
simply walking out of the apartment.
MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction.
Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is
that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.
Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No
Q: Let’s move to today, recently you were given more funding £84,000 to £85,000, how is that going
to be used?
MR: As you understand we started with a full-sized murder team of 30 officers, that was a standard
operating approach at the time. So we start with that team and work through the massive amount of
investigation. The Home Office has been funding that and of course it is public money so they review
that from time to time and as the enquiry has gone on we suggested we could run it with a smaller
group of people and that is what happened. That recent level of funding reflects that it’s keeping the
team going for the next six months and we will want to keep this running as long as there are sensible
lines of enquiry and keep asking the Home Office to fund it as long as there are those open lines of
enquiry.
Q: I know you don’t want to go into detail but are there more forensic tests, is that what is going on?
MR: I’m not going to talk about detail of the type of work going on but there are critical lines of enquiry
of great interest to ourselves and our Portuguese counterparts and there are some significant
investigative avenues we are pursuing that we see as very worthwhile.
Q: Are you still waiting for answers to new ‘rogatory’ letters. I understand how the system works if you
want something in Portugal, you have to send ‘rogatory’ letter and get that approved over there. Are
there letters in the post?
MR: That process you describe reflects the first four or five years of our work there, sifting through
mass amounts of material, putting together with new evidence that comes from appeals, generates
new enquiries and the legal requirements the Portuguese have is quite labour intensive in terms of
dotting I’s and crossing T’s and working through that detail. Where we are now is much narrower
much more focussed.
Q: Is there anyone you are still looking for?
MR: Where we are now is much narrower and much more focussed.
Q: There was a report recently that there was an international manhunt in regards to a person you
were interested in talking to, maybe not even a suspect, maybe a witness?
MR: There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are
nonsense.
Q: You say in your statement, you are getting information on a daily basis, new information, what sort
of information?
MR: First of all it is indicative of the level of interest in this case, not just in this country but across the
world. The team are getting emails, phone calls, new information all the time and it ranges from the
eccentric, through to information that on the surface looks potentially interesting and needs to be
bottomed out and are constantly sifting through them.
Q: Are you any closer to solving this then you were six years ago?
MR: I know we have a significant line of enquiry that is worth pursuing, and because of that, it could
provide an answer. Until we have gone through it, I won’t know if we will get there or not.
Q: What area is that enquiry?
MR: Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by
putting titbits out on it publically.
Q: How confident are you this will solve it for you?
MR: It is worth pursuing
Q: What does your instinct say about what happened to Maddie?
MR: If I start going in to my instinct having read the material of interest we are dealing with at the
moment it would give away what we are looking in to so I’m not going to answer that. But what I would
say from my experience of dealing with cold cases and these types of investigations is that this time,
even sadly after 10 years of Maddie being missing there are nuggets of information and lines of
enquiry that are worth pursuing and it is possible they may lead to an answer. As long as we have the
resources to do it, and as long as we have those sensible lines of enquiry because if we can provide
an answer to a family in this horrible situation that is what we must do.
Q: Do the significant lines of enquiry suggest to you Maddie is alive or dead?
MR: As I said earlier on we have no definitive evidence as to whether Maddie is alive or dead. We
have to keep an open mind that is why we describe it as a missing person enquiry. Of course we
understand why after so many years people would be pessimistic but we are keeping an open mind
and treating it as a missing person enquiry.
Q: You’ve said you are realistic about what you are dealing with, what do you mean by that?
MR: We are realistic about the prospects and the assumptions people will make 10 years on when a
little girl has gone missing but there is no definitive evidence and as long as that is the case we have
to have an open mind and treat it as a missing person enquiry.
Q: If she is alive, she is nearly 14, do you have any idea what she might be doing, where she might
be, the circumstances she might be living?
MR: That is such a hypothetical question I cannot begin to answer.
Q: There is a chance she may still be alive.
MR: We have to keep an open mind, it is a missing person enquiry, we don’t have that definitive
evidence either way.
Q: How confident are you that you will solve the case?
MR: I wish I could say we will solve this. We solve more than 90 per cent of serious cases at Scotland
Yard. I wish I could say I could definitely solve it but a small number of cases don’t get solved. What I
have always said on this case and I’ve said to Kate and Gerry. We will do everything we can that is
possible to try to find and answer. I hope to find an answer but can’t quite guarantee and as a
professional police officer and dealing with the families in awful situations it always hurts you can’t
guarantee success, but we will do everything we can to try to get there.
Q: How long might it keep going, your investigation?
MR: It is impossible to be exactly clear. We have a small number of ongoing lines of enquiry, they are
critical and we need to deal with those and see how long it takes.
Q: You talk about lines of enquiry because last year the ex-commissioner said there was one piece of
work still to be done and when that was completed that would be the end of the investigation. You are
rather suggesting things have moved on since then and there is more to pursue, is that true?
MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry and that’s what we are focussed on.
Q: But he was the boss and he was quite specific ‘one piece of work to do’, you are saying something
different?
MR: We have a small number of lines of enquiry, that is what we are pursuing today.
-
The PJ only concentrated on abduction for the first 3 months in Portugal and got nowhere. If OG is only concentrating on abduction after these all years and they have gotten nowhere, then perhaps they should look elsewhere.
Quite right.
The PJ could jot find evidence of abduction, because it did not exist.
Nothing has changed.
Madeleine disappeared that night.
Cause unknown.
Fate undetermined.
-
STATEMENT
[Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley]
As an investigation team we are only too aware of the significance of dates and anniversaries. Whatever the inquiry, we want to get answers for everyone involved.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is no different in that respect but of course the circumstances and the huge public interest, make this a unique case for us as police officers to deal with. In a missing child inquiry every day is agony and an anniversary brings this into sharp focus. Our thoughts are with Madeleine's family at this time - as it is with any family in a missing person’s inquiry - and that drives our commitment to do everything we can for her.
On 3rd May 2017, it will be 10 years since Madeleine vanished from her apartment in Praia Da Luz, a small town on the Algarve. In the immediate hours following her disappearance, an extensive search commenced involving the local police, community and tourists. This led to an investigation that has involved police services across Europe and beyond, experts in many fields, the world’s media and the public, which continues to this day. The image of Madeleine remains instantly recognisable in many countries across the world.
The Met’s dedicated team of four detectives, continues to work closely on the outstanding enquiries along with colleagues of the Portuguese Policia Judiciária. Our relationship with the Policia Judiciária is good. We continue to work together and this is helping us to move forward the investigation.
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead. It is a missing person’s inquiry but as a team we are realistic about what we might be dealing with - especially as months turn to years.
Now is a time we can reflect on an investigation which captured an unprecedented amount of media coverage and interest. The enormity of scale and the complexity of such a case brings along its own challenges, not least learning to work with colleagues who operate under a very different legal system. The inquiry has been, and continues to be helped and supported by many organisations and individuals. We acknowledge the difference these contributions have made to the investigation and would like it known that we appreciate all the support we have and continue to receive.
Since the Met was instructed by the Home Office to review the case in 2011, we have reviewed all the material gathered from multiple sources since 2007. This amounted to over 40,000 documents out of which thousands of enquiries were generated. We continue to receive information on a daily basis, all of which is assessed and actioned for enquiries to be conducted.
We have appealed on four BBC Crimewatch programmes since April 2012. This included an age progression image which resulted in hundreds of calls about alleged sightings of Madeleine; an appeal for the identity of possibly relevant individuals through description or Efit; and information sought relating to suspicious behaviour or offences of burglary. These programmes collectively produced a fantastic response from the public. The thousands of calls and information enabled detectives to progress a number of enquiries. This was in addition to over 3,000 holiday photographs from the public in response to an earlier appeal.
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects. I am pleased to say that our relationship with the Portuguese investigators is better than ever and this is paying dividends in the progress all of us are making.
We are often asked about funding and you can see that we are now a much smaller team. We know we have the funding to look at the focused enquiry we are pursuing.
Of course we always want information and we can't rule out making new appeals if that is required. However, right now, new appeals or prompts to the public are not in the interest of what we are trying to achieve.
As detectives, we will always be extremely disappointed when we are unable to provide an explanation of what happened. However the work carried out by Portuguese and Met officers in reviewing material and reopening the investigation has been successful in taking a number of lines of interest to their conclusion. That work has provided important answers.
Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion.
However the Met, jointly with colleagues from the Policia Judiciária continue the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with focus and determination.
-
I don't understand why Operation Grange decided to speak at this moment. All they have to say is more of what they have said before, so why bother?
-
Im saying...he said maddie was abducted...the aprents are not being investigated...he said taht has been dealt with ...tehy ahve seen all the evidence and they are haooy with it....hes saying that not me...if you dont like it tell him
The parents were investigated in 2007 but all they got in the suspect interview was no comment by Kate. I wonder if the 4 new suspects in this case answered no comment like Kate &%+((£ Doubt it if they've been cleared 8)--))
-
I don't understand why Operation Grange decided to speak at this moment. All they have to say is more of what they have said before, so why bother?
Absolutely no need at all.
They haven't found a thing.
Mind you, they seem to have employed someone to type out a list of clichés.
-
youve looked now and you are trying to spin...he stated catagorically Maddie was abduted......he has contradicted the SC judgement as i have already posted
Maybe that is why its still unresolved,they set their stall with a review and a remit to investigate an abduction,they are still sure of an abduction but no matter what they still can't find any one to fit the bill.
-
The parents were investigated in 2007 but all they got in the suspect interview was no comment by Kate. I wonder if the 4 new suspects in this case answered no comment like Kate &%+((£ Doubt it if they've been cleared 8)--))
I wonder if they were asked 48 questions ?
Perhaps they even launched 48 balloons afterward at a party in the West End.
-
I wonder if they were asked 48 questions ?
Perhaps they even launched 48 balloons afterward at a party in the West End.
so the long and short of it maddie is sitll missing no proof of abduction or anything. so nothing has changed
-
so the long and short of it maddie is sitll missing no proof of abduction or anything. so nothing has changed
It was abundantly clear reading through today's 'announcement', for want of a better term, that this case is no closer to bring solved, than it was in the original investigation.
-
It was abundantly clear reading through today's 'announcement', for want of a better term, that this case is no closer to bring solved, than it was in the original investigation.
I think it is...we dont know
-
Do any of you believe that SY would say when asked that the parents were part of the investigation? They would never say that, it would cause a huge media frenzy and ruin their investigation.
If in fact SY had never interviewed the parents at the beginning, that is really poor police work. Even if they believed they were not involved, the parents could provide important information.
-
Do any of you believe that SY would say when asked that the parents were part of the investigation? They would never say that, it would cause a huge media frenzy and ruin their investigation.
If in fact SY had never interviewed the parents at the beginning, that is really poor police work. Even if they believed they were not involved, the parents could provide important information.
That's why SY would have interviewed the McCanns
Rowley didn't have to mention the McCanns
He chose to
-
I don't understand why Operation Grange decided to speak at this moment. All they have to say is more of what they have said before, so why bother?
They said a lot more than that ... which it why it is an on-going investigation following active investigative leads with cooperation affirmed between the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard.
-
That's why SY would have interviewed the McCanns
Rowley didn't have to mention the McCanns
He chose to
He didn't choose to, he was asked the question about them.
-
The parents were investigated in 2007 but all they got in the suspect interview was no comment by Kate. I wonder if the 4 new suspects in this case answered no comment like Kate &%+((£ Doubt it if they've been cleared 8)--))
Do try to move on ... everyone else has.
-
If about 600 people have been excluded from the enquiry, who is left?
the person who did it presumably
-
so the long and short of it maddie is sitll missing no proof of abduction or anything. so nothing has changed
A lot has changed. Active lines of inquiry are being followed. When was the last time anyone in authority was able to appear publicly and make that statement?
-
Do try to move on ... everyone else has.
You can type what you wish Brietta.
They haven't solved the case and show no signs whatsoever of doing so.
-
A lot has changed. Active lines of inquiry are being followed. When was the last time anyone in authority was able to appear publicly and make that statement?
Haven't you being paying attention.
We have have heard similar statements for some time.
-
It was abundantly clear reading through today's 'announcement', for want of a better term, that this case is no closer to bring solved, than it was in the original investigation.
Do give the PJ and SY some credit for working through the mountains of information they have and having eliminated anything not of significance, to emerge with something worth investigating. Both here and in Portugal there is a real resolve to take this case if not to conclusion as far as it will go.
-
He didn't choose to, he was asked the question about them.
Yes he was
It's even better
He seems to say they decided on abduction because they had looked at the evidence against the parents and decided they were not involved
-
I don't understand why Operation Grange decided to speak at this moment. All they have to say is more of what they have said before, so why bother?
Because it is the tenth anniversary of the disappearance and because there is a huge amount of interest still in this cae, and because of the mean-spirited criticism of Op Grange it is a good time to take stock of what the Met have been doing, what has and hasn't been achieved and what is still left to do. I thought the interview was very interesting.
-
Do try to move on ... everyone else has.
Excuse me? You need to start living in the real world. Police won't tell you who they are after because it will screw up their case. The one significant line of inquiry is the man with the LONG-SLEEVED child. Amaral was on it 10 years ago. Both SY and the PJ will be working together on that one significant line of inquiry.
-
Do give the PJ and SY some credit for working through the mountains of information they have and having eliminated anything not of significance, to emerge with something worth investigating. Both here and in Portugal there is a real resolve to take this case if not to conclusion as far as it will go.
How far will this metaphorical piece of string extend with nothing to show for it ?
I stand by my prediction made when the review/investigation started.
It will find nothing, and the case will be shelved again.
-
You can type what you wish Brietta.
They haven't solved the case and show no signs whatsoever of doing so.
They are and intend to continue working on it ... because despite the volume of work already done ... there is more to do.
You don't solve anything by giving up on it ... neither do you solve cold cases by taking the files out every so often to give them a dust and put them back into store till the next time.
Law enforcement here and in Portugal are to be congratulated for the work they have done and the work they continue to do to solve Madeleine McCann's case ... not derided.
-
Anyone still labouring under the belief that the net is closing in on the McCanns really needs a severe dose of reality.
-
Excuse me? You need to start living in the real world. Police won't tell you who they are after because it will screw up their case. The one significant line of inquiry is the man with the LONG-SLEEVED child. Amaral was on it 10 years ago. Both SY and the PJ will be working together on that one significant line of inquiry.
LOL. What are they doing then? What does this work entail in your view?
-
They are and intend to continue working on it ... because despite the volume of work already done ... there is more to do.
You don't solve anything by giving up on it ... neither do you solve cold cases by taking the files out every so often to give them a dust and put them back into store till the next time.
Law enforcement here and in Portugal are to be congratulated for the work they have done and the work they continue to do to solve Madeleine McCann's case ... not derided.
...and of course Brietta, no matter how much you would like to type to the contrary, if there was no abduction as many people believe, the case will not be solved by looking for someone who doesn't exist.
-
...and of course Brietta, no matter how much you would like to type to the contrary, if there was no abduction as many people believe, the case will not be solved by looking for someone who doesn't exist.
How do you know. Were you there?
-
LOL. What are they doing then? What does this work entail in your view?
The timeline will give them answers. Proving the BS ones is a good start on whom to track.
-
STATEMENT
[Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley]
As an investigation team we are only too aware of the significance of dates and anniversaries. Whatever the inquiry, we want to get answers for everyone involved.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is no different in that respect but of course the circumstances and the huge public interest, make this a unique case for us as police officers to deal with. In a missing child inquiry every day is agony and an anniversary brings this into sharp focus. Our thoughts are with Madeleine's family at this time - as it is with any family in a missing person’s inquiry - and that drives our commitment to do everything we can for her.
On 3rd May 2017, it will be 10 years since Madeleine vanished from her apartment in Praia Da Luz, a small town on the Algarve. In the immediate hours following her disappearance, an extensive search commenced involving the local police, community and tourists. This led to an investigation that has involved police services across Europe and beyond, experts in many fields, the world’s media and the public, which continues to this day. The image of Madeleine remains instantly recognisable in many countries across the world.
The Met’s dedicated team of four detectives, continues to work closely on the outstanding enquiries along with colleagues of the Portuguese Policia Judiciária. Our relationship with the Policia Judiciária is good. We continue to work together and this is helping us to move forward the investigation.
We don't have evidence telling us if Madeleine is alive or dead. It is a missing person’s inquiry but as a team we are realistic about what we might be dealing with - especially as months turn to years.
Now is a time we can reflect on an investigation which captured an unprecedented amount of media coverage and interest. The enormity of scale and the complexity of such a case brings along its own challenges, not least learning to work with colleagues who operate under a very different legal system. The inquiry has been, and continues to be helped and supported by many organisations and individuals. We acknowledge the difference these contributions have made to the investigation and would like it known that we appreciate all the support we have and continue to receive.
Since the Met was instructed by the Home Office to review the case in 2011, we have reviewed all the material gathered from multiple sources since 2007. This amounted to over 40,000 documents out of which thousands of enquiries were generated. We continue to receive information on a daily basis, all of which is assessed and actioned for enquiries to be conducted.
We have appealed on four BBC Crimewatch programmes since April 2012. This included an age progression image which resulted in hundreds of calls about alleged sightings of Madeleine; an appeal for the identity of possibly relevant individuals through description or Efit; and information sought relating to suspicious behaviour or offences of burglary. These programmes collectively produced a fantastic response from the public. The thousands of calls and information enabled detectives to progress a number of enquiries. This was in addition to over 3,000 holiday photographs from the public in response to an earlier appeal.
The team has looked at in excess of 600 individuals who were identified as being potentially significant to the disappearance. In 2013 the team identified four individuals they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation.
We will not comment on other parts of our investigation - it does not help the teams investigating to give a commentary on those aspects. I am pleased to say that our relationship with the Portuguese investigators is better than ever and this is paying dividends in the progress all of us are making.
We are often asked about funding and you can see that we are now a much smaller team. We know we have the funding to look at the focused enquiry we are pursuing.
Of course we always want information and we can't rule out making new appeals if that is required. However, right now, new appeals or prompts to the public are not in the interest of what we are trying to achieve.
As detectives, we will always be extremely disappointed when we are unable to provide an explanation of what happened. However the work carried out by Portuguese and Met officers in reviewing material and reopening the investigation has been successful in taking a number of lines of interest to their conclusion. That work has provided important answers.
Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion.
However the Met, jointly with colleagues from the Policia Judiciária continue the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with focus and determination.
Thank you, Heri, for taking the time to show the full statement here over 3 posts.
-
As long as a culprit as not been found, arrested and tried, the McCanns can never be considered eliminated from the investigation. That is basic police work. Even Leicester police said that.
BTWit is a Portuguese investigation and the parents have not been cleared although the case was shelved.
-
The timeline will give them answers. Proving the BS ones is a good start on whom to track.
They've been working on the timeline for 4 years now, trying to prove it's bullshit? How exactly in your view?
-
How do you know. Were you there?
You say there was a burglar.
How do you know there was Rob ?
-
Excuse me? You need to start living in the real world. Police won't tell you who they are after because it will screw up their case. The one significant line of inquiry is the man with the LONG-SLEEVED child. Amaral was on it 10 years ago. Both SY and the PJ will be working together on that one significant line of inquiry.
That really is denial. If you have an interest in Madeleine McCann's case being resolved look not to the past which has been checked out by ...
- Rebelo
- the Policia Judiciaria and New scotland Yard
Just as they all did ... they checked the evidence and progressed from there discarding that which was redundant and moved to the next progression. Just as the investigation is o longer interested in the latest four arguidos ... no-one is the slightest bit interested in the original three.
Maybe we will find out if the lead they are following now was available to investigators in 2007 or is as a result of later information becoming available ... I think you will find that whatever, the length of pyjama sleeves will not come into it.
-
That really is denial. If you have an interest in Madeleine McCann's case being resolved look not to the past which has been checked out by ...
- Rebelo
- the Policia Judiciaria and New scotland Yard
Just as they all did ... they checked the evidence and progressed from there discarding that which was redundant and moved to the next progression. Just as the investigation is o longer interested in the latest four arguidos ... no-one is the slightest bit interested in the original three.
Maybe we will find out if the lead they are following now was available to investigators in 2007 or is as a result of later information becoming available ... I think you will find that whatever, the length of pyjama sleeves will not come into it.
snipped
MR: So, we have got some critical lines of enquiry that are definitely worth pursuing and I’m not going
to go into further detail on those. Another I would say though is, these lines of enquiry we have to
date, they are the product of information available at the time and information that has come from
public appeals that we have done.
-
...and of course Brietta, no matter how much you would like to type to the contrary, if there was no abduction as many people believe, the case will not be solved by looking for someone who doesn't exist.
The terminology really does seem to concern you. Fortunately neither the PJ or NSY seem to be weighted down by preconceived ideas ... they are actively following the evidence.
As far as I am concerned my hope is, that is to Madeleine McCann. You appear to hope they will desist.
-
The timeline will give them answers. Proving the BS ones is a good start on whom to track.
If the "timeline" will give answers ... why do you suppose it hasn't already?
-
That really is denial. If you have an interest in Madeleine McCann's case being resolved look not to the past which has been checked out by ...
- Rebelo
- the Policia Judiciaria and New scotland Yard
Just as they all did ... they checked the evidence and progressed from there discarding that which was redundant and moved to the next progression. Just as the investigation is o longer interested in the latest four arguidos ... no-one is the slightest bit interested in the original three.
Maybe we will find out if the lead they are following now was available to investigators in 2007 or is as a result of later information becoming available ... I think you will find that whatever, the length of pyjama sleeves will not come into it.
Then Mr Rowley said in various formats in various places during the interview:
"we are open minded because we don’t have definitive
evidence about what happened to Madeleine".
Which is executive speke for "we don't have much of a clue".
It's in the document Heri so kindly posted.
-
Then Mr Rowley said in various formats in various places during the interview:
"we are open minded because we don’t have definitive
evidence about what happened to Madeleine".
Which is executive speke for "we don't have much of a clue".
It's in the document Heri so kindly posted.
The investigators may not yet know what happened to her but they haven't said they don't know who was responsible for whatever happened.
-
They've been working on the timeline for 4 years now, trying to prove it's bullshit? How exactly in your view?
OG work on the case not you but the significant one passed on connects to the Smith family sighting. The man knew he was seen by many eye witnesses so he had to change the time.
-
As long as a culprit as not been found, arrested and tried, the McCanns can never be considered eliminated from the investigation. That is basic police work. Even Leicester police said that.
BTWit is a Portuguese investigation and the parents have not been cleared although the case was shelved.
I think that is a description of how you would like things to be ... it does not match with the reality of the present investigation.
Somewhere within all that negativity is a missing person perhaps waiting to be found ... and a family who have been deprived of her presence readying themselves for the tenth anniversary of the last time they saw their little girl.
Give a little thought to the victims in this case and consider your opinions may very well be wrong.
-
As long as a culprit as not been found, arrested and tried, the McCanns can never be considered eliminated from the investigation. That is basic police work. Even Leicester police said that.
BTWit is a Portuguese investigation and the parents have not been cleared although the case was shelved.
exactly it is a pourtugese investigation not uk
-
You say there was a burglar.
How do you know there was Rob ?
It is part of my theory.
-
It is part of my theory.
A gloveless burglar?
-
A gloveless burglar?
Mysteries never cease. I don't know, but it would standard kit today.
-
(https://image.ibb.co/gmQ5fk/markrowley.jpg)
*** *** ***
(https://image.ibb.co/h84gLk/markrowley2.jpg)
*** *** ***
(https://image.ibb.co/dFatY5/markrowley3.jpg)
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
-
(https://image.ibb.co/gmQ5fk/markrowley.jpg)
*** *** ***
(https://image.ibb.co/h84gLk/markrowley2.jpg)
*** *** ***
(https://image.ibb.co/dFatY5/markrowley3.jpg)
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
You have lumped together three separate comments from different parts of a seven page document.
Please modify your post to reflect this ... for example page and line number where I have put in asterisks. Thank you
-
I don't understand why Operation Grange decided to speak at this moment. All they have to say is more of what they have said before, so why bother?
It's called a damage limitation exercise. They had to say something because of what the Portuguese Supreme Court stated categorically and that was that the archiving report did not find the parents innocent. The second reason is because of the imminent anniversary a week today.
The interview was a perfect smokescreen imo. For all that was said, very little was imparted. It has left me in no doubt whatsoever now that SY are totally incapable of bringing this enquiry to a conclusion.
-
It's called a damage limitation exercise. They had to say something because of what the Portuguese Supreme Court stated categorically and that was that the archiving report did not find the parents innocent. The second reason is because of the imminent anniversary a week today.
The interview was a perfect smokescreen imo. For all that was said, very little was imparted. It has left me in no doubt whatsoever now that SY are totally incapable of bringing this enquiry to a conclusion.
The Policia Judiciaria show no signs of winding down and I think that there is little doubt that the inquiry will be taken as far as it will go as long as there is any evidence for them and SY to follow ~ let alone something described as 'critical'.
Hopefully that will result in finding out what happened to Madeleine and even better that she will be recovered. The amount of work they have got through to get to this stage must have been phenomenal ... in my opinion they should be left in peace to get on with it and take it as far as it will go.
-
The Policia Judiciaria show no signs of winding down and I think that there is little doubt that the inquiry will be taken as far as it will go as long as there is any evidence for them and SY to follow ~ let alone something described as 'critical'.
Hopefully that will result in finding out what happened to Madeleine and even better that she will be recovered. The amount of work they have got through to get to this stage must have been phenomenal ... in my opinion they should be left in peace to get on with it and take it as far as it will go.
It is more than likely that the PJ are merely paying lip service to this case now regardless of what Rowley has implied. They probably know very well what happened to Madeleine but just can't prove it yet. Hopefull the key piece of information they are missing will eventually come their way but it will most certainly not be found in London. If SY were serious about solving this case they would have ensconced themselves in Luz long ago. The fact that they didn't is very telling.
-
What was clear from that is SY think it was an abduction, they are no ruling out a bungled burglary as part of it, and Amaral's theory is old school.
-
What was clear from that is SY think it was an abduction, they are no ruling out a bungled burglary as part of it, and Amaral's theory is old school.
As someone else pointed out do you really think that SY would tell us anything even if they knew? Abduction is a very vague term and without qualification is meaningless. When asked if she could have been abducted after leaving the apartment Rowley made some bizarre comment about her not being an adult and setting up home on her own. That comment alone destroyed the little remaining faith I have in operation grange. Reading between the lines Rowley was evasive and extremely guarded. My gut feeling is that in reality he had little to say, the many contradictions in the interview gave the game away.
-
One thing that came out was that SY have looked at all the evidence and have ruled out thr parents
-
One thing that came out was that SY have looked at all the evidence and have ruled out thr parents
I think Rowley was asked if the parents had been interviewed as 'potential suspects' to which he replied No. Given that the Portuguese enquiry didn't find them innocent I wonder what evidence Rowley has since uncovered to make that determination?
-
I think Rowley was asked if the parents had been interviewed as 'potential suspects' to which he replied No. Given that the Portuguese enquiry didn't find them innocent I wonder what evidence Rowley has since uncovered to make that determination?
No that's not what happened
Enquiries never find anyone innocent they rule them out
And the McCanns have been ruled out by SY
-
No that's not what happened
Enquiries never find anyone innocent they rule them out
And the McCanns have been ruled out by SY
You're in denial Dave. The SC judgement stands.
-
What was clear from that is SY think it was an abduction, they are no ruling out a bungled burglary as part of it, and Amaral's theory is old school.
You need to read it again Rob.
What was abundantly clear, is that SY haven't got a clue what happened.
Rowley's speech was the biggest load of meaningless waffle I have seen in a long time, in this case.
The question really is, WHY DID SY NEVER INVESTIGATE AND INTERVIEW THE MCCANN'S AND CO ?
-
There is a lot of information in the interview transcript actually. With regard to the McCanns Rowley is very clear on Operation Grange's position;
"So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann."
[Part 1]
"the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation."
[Part 2]
"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"
[Part 2]
So their mission (remit?) is to find an answer for Kate and Gerry. They looked at what the Portuguese had done and decided that the involvement of the parents had been dealt with. Operation Grange did not revisit that possibility. At that point the interviewer really should have mentioned out the Supreme Court's point that the Portuguese investigation was closed with unanswered questions remaining, particularly in relation to the timeline on the evening of 3rd May.
Still, those who thought it was ridiculous to think that Operation Grange did not 'clear the ground' and eliminate the parents now know. The parents have not been investigated and cleared by Operation Grange.
-
You're in denial Dave. The SC judgement stands.
The SC judgement stands. Amaral is allowed his opinion but none of the official investigations are backing him. It is a hollow victory.
-
You're in denial Dave. The SC judgement stands.
I've never said it didn't
but SY have said the McCanns have been ruled out
-
The SC judgement stands. Amaral is allowed his opinion but none of the official investigations are backing him. It is a hollow victory.
Hollow victory ?
How many times have we been told by Mccann supporters that SY investigated them ?
We know now it never happened, and that it appears OG have totally disregarded what happened in the court case in Portugal.
I wonder if the current PJ 'investigation' knew about this failure.
-
Hollow victory ?
How many times have we been told by Mccann supporters that SY investigated them ?
We know now it never happened, and that it appears OG have totally disregarded what happened in the court case in Portugal.
I wonder if the current PJ 'investigation' knew about this failure.
What an odd misinformed post
What relevancef has the SC judgement got on the investigation
None whatsoever
Grange looked at the evidence against the McCanns and decided they were not involved
-
Hollow victory ?
How many times have we been told by Mccann supporters that SY investigated them ?
We know now it never happened, and that it appears OG have totally disregarded what happened in the court case in Portugal.
I wonder if the current PJ 'investigation' knew about this failure.
But what about you do you see sufficient reason to look at the McCanns again?
-
Could there be arguidos that no-one knows about?
"Q: The question of other suspects, is there anyone like those four who have been dismissed, is there
anyone who has the “alguido” status?
MR: I’m not going to give that level of detail away, we have got some critical lines of enquiry and we
are working with the Portuguese on that, we are both interested in. Disclosing any more information
on that will not help the investigation."
[Part 1]
-
But what about you do you see sufficient reason to look at the McCanns again?
No other party has been found to have been in the apartment on that night.
There is no evidence of a burglary/intruder, forensic or otherwise.
The McCann's were not cleared by the original investigation.
What this tends to show, is either OG has been incompetently run, and/or they were told not to investigate the McCann's.
-
No other party has been found to have been in the apartment on that night.
There is no evidence of a burglary/intruder, forensic or otherwise.
The McCann's were not cleared by the original investigation.
What this tends to show, is either OG has been incompetently run, and/pt they were told not to investigate the McCann's.
According to SY the McCanns were cleared by the original investigation
Have you read the transcript
-
According to SY the McCanns were cleared by the original investigation
Have you read the transcript
They made a massive mistake there then.
-
They made a massive mistake there then.
No they didn't
The SC didn't say the McCanns were not cleared
The said there was no evidence of innocence
I thought you understood that
-
They made a massive mistake there then.
When the case was shelved it stated it had not cleared the parents, so why would SY claim otherwise ?
Could they not read ?
Did it not occur to them that others could read the report shelving the case ?
Rowley's report has unleashed a major faux pas.
-
When the case was shelved it stated it had not cleared the parents, so why would SY claim otherwise ?
Could they not read ?
Did it not occur to them that others could read the report shelving the case ?
Rowley's report has unleashed a major faux pas.
no where does it state the parents were not cleared....cite
you are posting absolute rubbish and showing your complete ignorance of the facts
you have claimed taht when the case was shelved it was stated the mccanns were not cleared...cite...its total rubbish
-
If the "timeline" will give answers ... why do you suppose it hasn't already?
Cos four years isn't nearly long enough to study the arcane secrets that the timeline holds.
*&*%£
-
No they didn't
The SC didn't say the McCanns were not cleared
The said there was no evidence of innocence
I thought you understood that
They said both, in two separate judgements.
-
They said both, in two separate judgements.
cite....for the cleared one
-
OG work on the case not you but the significant one passed on connects to the Smith family sighting. The man knew he was seen by many eye witnesses so he had to change the time.
What have Operation Grange actually been doing for Four years then? What leads have they been pursuing, given that you believe they think Gerry dunnit? Have they questioned him? Arrested him? If not, why not?
-
It's called a damage limitation exercise. They had to say something because of what the Portuguese Supreme Court stated categorically and that was that the archiving report did not find the parents innocent. The second reason is because of the imminent anniversary a week today.
The interview was a perfect smokescreen imo. For all that was said, very little was imparted. It has left me in no doubt whatsoever now that SY are totally incapable of bringing this enquiry to a conclusion.
A smokescreen to hide what?
-
They made a massive mistake there then.
Maybe we surmise too much? From what we can glean it appears as if the McCanns have not been looked at. If so, it beggars all sorts of conspiracy style questions imo. Or perhaps, SY felt given the circumstances and logistics it was illogical that the McCanns could be involved and were then ruled out. I think anyone can admit that a theory of how they may have been responsible is almost impossible to come up with... given the timings that night... you would certainly expect questions to be asked though given they claimed they went back to square one. Agreed it's a huge mistake if that is not the case and one could only imagine it was not within their remit. It's easy to jump to conclusions though when you don't really know anything!
-
It is more than likely that the PJ are merely paying lip service to this case now regardless of what Rowley has implied. They probably know very well what happened to Madeleine but just can't prove it yet. Hopefull the key piece of information they are missing will eventually come their way but it will most certainly not be found in London. If SY were serious about solving this case they would have ensconced themselves in Luz long ago. The fact that they didn't is very telling.
Ensconced themselves in Luz?! Do you mean move there on a semi permanent basis?
-
They made a massive mistake there then.
No, they came to the only logical and plausible conclusion after review thousands and thousands of bits of evidence and that is that neither the parents nor their friends were involved. This is the only logical conclusion, one that I came to years ago, and it's nice to have it backed up by one of the finest police foreces in the world.
-
You have lumped together three separate comments from different parts of a seven page document.
Please modify your post to reflect this ... for example page and line number where I have put in asterisks. Thank you
I provided the link for every viewer to read the whole 7 pages of the interview. Bottom line is they are not going to reveal the critical lines both OG and the PJ are working on. The PJ have never cleared the McCanns. If you refuse to answer 48 police questions then don't expect to be. This case is unprecedented due to the media frenzy it provokes so critical lines will remain hidden. The reason will become clear if they solve it.
-
no where does it state the parents were not cleared....cite
you are posting absolute rubbish and showing your complete ignorance of the facts
you have claimed taht when the case was shelved it was stated the mccanns were not cleared...cite...its total rubbish
I really don't know how many times I've posted this;
Page 70
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In reply to this claim by the appellant's lawyer;
Page 40
and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
-
Maybe we surmise too much? From what we can glean it appears as if the McCanns have not been looked at. If so, it beggars all sorts of conspiracy style questions imo. Or perhaps, SY felt given the circumstances and logistics it was illogical that the McCanns could be involved and were then ruled out. I think anyone can admit that a theory of how they may have been responsible is almost impossible to come up with... given the timings that night... you would certainly expect questions to be asked though given they claimed they went back to square one. Agreed it's a huge mistake if that is not the case and one could only imagine it was not within their remit. It's easy to jump to conclusions though when you don't really know anything!
I think it is a mistake to assume that Kate and Gerry have not been looked at ... or anyone else for that matter.
"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"
Means just that ... they have not been interviewed as potential suspects ... not that they haven't been interviewed at all as witnesses.
-
I really don't know how many times I've posted this;
Page 70
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In reply to this claim by the appellant's lawyer;
Page 40
and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
I
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
I will look at the original Portuguese when I get a chance later
From a wick look it talks of innocence
Not cleared
-
No, they came to the only logical and plausible conclusion after review thousands and thousands of bits of evidence and that is that neither the parents nor their friends were involved. This is the only logical conclusion, one that I came to years ago, and it's nice to have it backed up by one of the finest police foreces in the world.
I think you'll find they have never even considered the possibility Alfie. They assumed, as did the McCanns, that the possibility of parental involvement had been 'dealt with' by the original investigation. It has recently emerged, of course, that their assumption was wrong.
-
No other party has been found to have been in the apartment on that night.
There is no evidence of a burglary/intruder, forensic or otherwise.
The McCann's were not cleared by the original investigation.
What this tends to show, is either OG has been incompetently run, and/or they were told not to investigate the McCann's.
So from all of those you would say they should be investigated. But each of those points could be explained in other scenarios, like the woke and wandered scenario and abducted from the outside scenario, Both of those reasons would give you "no evidence of a burglary/intruder, forensic or otherwise" and "No other party has been found to have been in the apartment on that night".
-
So from all of those you would say they should be investigated. But each of those points could be explained in other scenarios, like the woke and wandered scenario and abducted from the outside scenario, Both of those reasons would give you "no evidence of a burglary/intruder, forensic or otherwise" and "No other party has been found to have been in the apartment on that night".
Have you been paying attention Rob, to what I have been saying.
None of the scenarios has enough evidence to place one above the other.
Know we know OG never investigated the parents, despite them not having been cleared by the original investigation.
SIMPLY STAGGERING INCOMPETENCE.
IMHO, of course.
-
I think it is a mistake to assume that Kate and Gerry have not been looked at ... or anyone else for that matter.
"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"
Means just that ... they have not been interviewed as potential suspects ... not that they haven't been interviewed at all as witnesses.
They were not interviewed as witnesses "we are happy that was dealt with at the time". If they were interviewed he would have said so. They are the parents of the missing girl we are doing are best for is their official line.
-
Have you been paying attention Rob, to what I have been saying.
None of the scenarios has enough evidence to place one above the other.
Know we know OG never investigated the parents, despite them not having been cleared by the original investigation.
SIMPLY STAGGERING INCOMPETENCE.
IMHO, of course.
Those two scenarios don't stack "one above the other" they continue from one to the other (woke and wandered then abducted from the outside).
Whereas with parental involvement scenario I have not seen a feasible scenario being promoted to answer the Gerry McCann questions "when did she have an accident" and "when did we have time to dispose of her body"?
If there was a sensible theory no doubt SY would have investigated the parents.
-
They were not interviewed as witnesses "we are happy that was dealt with at the time". If they were interviewed he would have said so. They are the parents of the missing girl we are doing are best for is their official line.
So in your opinion, despite Gerry being chief suspect in his daughter's disappearance and the net closing in on him, neither he nor any of his friends or wife have been interviewed by Op Grange? Why not, in your view?
-
As a reminder....................
' Rowley stated...
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
Then says he doesn't know if she is alive or dead.'
He hasn't got a clue.
-
Those two scenarios don't stack "one above the other" they continue from one to the other (woke and wandered then abducted from the outside).
Whereas with parental involvement scenario I have not seen a feasible scenario being promoted to answer the Gerry McCann questions "when did she have an accident" and "when did we have time to dispose of her body"?
If there was a sensible theory no doubt SY would have investigated the parents.
In any proper and thorough investigation Rob, they would have been.
NOW WE KNOW THEY WEREN'T.
-
The Madeleine McCann investigation, codenamed Operation Grange within the Metropolitan Police, has always suffered from the inadequacies of the original Portuguese investigation.
Just one was the fact that mobile phone call records from Praia Da Luz that night were collected, but not interrogated for clues.
At least they were collected, says the Met, which has now caught up with the huge task of examining them. But who knows what opportunities have been missed?
Detectives on the case have developed hypotheses about Madeleine's disappearance and it is clear they are still trying to confirm at least one of them - a "significant", "critical" line of inquiry.
Even if this bears fruit, it may not answer that chilling, decade-old question: Where is Madeleine McCann?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39706194?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter
The most important information given out by the police is that they are saying there remains significant information about Madeleine's case under active investigation.
Of less importance but something which is relevant to posters like ourselves is the admonition that Madeleine's case is not some soap opera ... it is real life.
It is not our real lives ... it is someone else's in which people like us are mere ill informed, self opinionated intruders.
The BBC cite continues with the quote from Madeleine's mother ...
Ahead of the 10th anniversary Kate McCann wrote in a message on the Official Find Madeleine Campaign Facebook page:
"Ten years - there's no easy way to say it, describe it, accept it.
"I remember when Madeleine first disappeared I couldn't even begin to consider anything in terms of years...
"And now here we are... Madeleine, our Madeleine - ten years."
She said she and husband Gerry were "bracing ourselves for the next couple of weeks" of coverage.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/official-find-madeleine-campaign/ten-years/1487222091329410/
-
As a reminder....................
' Rowley stated...
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
Then says he doesn't know if she is alive or dead.'
He hasn't got a clue.
If you haven't seen someone for 10 years you would be entitled to say "he doesn't know if she is alive or dead."
-
If you haven't seen someone for 10 years you would be entitled to say "he doesn't know if she is alive or dead."
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
As a reminder....................
' Rowley stated...
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
Then says he doesn't know if she is alive or dead.'
He hasn't got a clue.
The "it" referred to is the vast amount of information gathered to date, the "it" does not refer to what happened to Madeleine McCann. You are being unduly harsh on the investigation - you could equally apply "he hasn't got a clue" to Amaral, the PJ, yourself. The Met are not miracle workers, they cannot promise to solve every crime. Your expectations are pitched far too high.
-
The "it" referred to is the vast amount of information gathered to date, the "it" does not refer to what happened to Madeleine McCann. You are being unduly harsh on the investigation - you could equally apply "he hasn't got a clue" to Amaral, the PJ, yourself. The Met are not miracle workers, they cannot promise to solve every crime. Your expectations are pitched far too high.
I said several years ago Alfie, that they wouldn't solve this crime.
We both agree I believe , there is a lack of evidence.
-
"We have achieved a complete understanding of it all"
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
%£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
I said several years ago Alfie, that they wouldn't solve this crime.
We both agree I believe , there is a lack of evidence.
that doesnt rule the mcanns out though after all kate was the last to see maddie
-
I said several years ago Alfie, that they wouldn't solve this crime.
We both agree I believe , there is a lack of evidence.
Yes I can't argue with that. It seems the perfect crime has been committed. Some people here believe that in a mad panic, with virtually no planning, in a foreign country and with few if any tools for hiding a body at their disposal and with dozens of potential witnesses to their actions, the parents were able to pull off that perfect crime leaving no evidence of it whatsoever. I think that's absurdly far fetched.
-
Yes I can't argue with that. It seems the perfect crime has been committed. Some people here believe that in a mad panic, with virtually no planning, in a foreign country and with few if any tools for hiding a body at their disposal and with dozens of potential witnesses to their actions, the parents were able to pull off that perfect crime leaving no evidence of it whatsoever. I think that's absurdly far fetched.
Apart from the perpetrator, if a crime occurred, or a confession, we will probably never know what actually happened.
-
I think it is a mistake to assume that Kate and Gerry have not been looked at ... or anyone else for that matter.
"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"
Means just that ... they have not been interviewed as potential suspects ... not that they haven't been interviewed at all as witnesses.
Part 2
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
I understand that as saying that they looked at the evidence from the Portuguese investigation, decided they had found nothing to support parental involvement, and moved forward from there. They therefore ignored the questions raised during the archiving process. The legal summary is quite clear that there were unanswered questions which, it was said, only a reconstitution could answer. As no reconstitution took place, those questions remained unanswered. Those questions are listed under this heading;
E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Part 2
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
I understand that as saying that they looked at the evidence from the Portuguese investigation, decided they had found nothing to support parental involvement, and moved forward from there. They therefore ignored the questions raised during the archiving process. The legal summary is quite clear that there were unanswered questions which, it was said, only a reconstitution could answer. As no reconstitution took place, those questions remained unanswered. Those questions are listed under this heading;
E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The Portuguese Legal summary was quite wrong to say that only a reconstitution would answer "unanswered questions". I think the Met are a little bit smarter than you give them credit for, frankly.
-
The Portuguese Legal summary was quite wrong to say that only a reconstitution would answer "unanswered questions". I think the Met are a little bit smarter than you give them credit for, frankly.
You think the PJ were wrong, the Legal Summary was wrong, the Portuguese Appeal Court was wrong, the Portuguese Supreme Court was wrong............do I detect a theme here?
The Met may be smart but what use is that if their remit restricted their investigations.
-
I think it is a mistake to assume that Kate and Gerry have not been looked at ... or anyone else for that matter.
"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"
Means just that ... they have not been interviewed as potential suspects ... not that they haven't been interviewed at all as witnesses.
That's how I read it.
-
Part 2
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.
So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
I understand that as saying that they looked at the evidence from the Portuguese investigation, decided they had found nothing to support parental involvement, and moved forward from there. They therefore ignored the questions raised during the archiving process. The legal summary is quite clear that there were unanswered questions which, it was said, only a reconstitution could answer. As no reconstitution took place, those questions remained unanswered. Those questions are listed under this heading;
E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The MET had Holmes
May well have made a virtual reconstruction
The bottom line is that the MET having looked at all the evidence have ruled out the parents
-
I noticed that when asked if the McCanns were ever considered suspects, Rowley does not answer the question. He only states, when pushed by Brunt, that they were not questioned as suspects, that is under caution.
-
It appears that far from clearing matters SY have inadvertently raised more questions.
-
If Madeleine was stolen by some sort of trafficking Organization and then passed on to whoever wanted her, then it is likely that The PJ and Scotland Yard don't know where she is now, or if she is still alive.
I don't suppose that the people who have her have kept the abductors updated on their whereabouts.
-
It appears that far from clearing matters SY have inadvertently raised more questions.
I think they have confirmed what some have suspected from the beginning; that they were set up to find an abductor. What the McCanns (and everyone else) needed to hear was that the parents and their friends are not suspects and, more importantly, why.
Rowley confirmed they are not suspects but was unable to give a convincing reason why they're not. In light of recent developments his claim that the original investigation dealt with the question is clearly wrong.
-
I noticed that when asked if the McCanns were ever considered suspects, Rowley does not answer the question. He only states, when pushed by Brunt, that they were not questioned as suspects, that is under caution.
You can infer all you like as can others
The fact is that SY consider them not to be suspects
-
Pretty well every post by sceptics on every thread attempts to show why the McCanns should be and are implicated
The fact is they are not
Simple
-
You can infer all you like as can others
The fact is that SY consider them not to be suspects
Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.
-
Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.
Such breathtaking arrogance.
Who cares about justice?
Clearly not G-Unit.
-
Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.
Exactly.
The trouble is, certain people will remain in denial, no matter what what information is given them.
Then you wonder why.
-
Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.
It's based on the evidence which we have all seen
The fact is you and others think the dogs are significant
That the minor inconsistencies in th statements are significant
That Gerry touching his ear is significant
None of them are
-
Such breathtaking arrogance.
Who cares about justice?
Clearly not G-Unit.
Justice would be finding out what really happened.
It doesn't mean protection of the McCann's from investigation, as they should have been.
-
Justice would be finding out what really happened.
It doesn't mean protection of the McCann's from investigation, as they should have been.
Why?
There was/is no evidence against them.
-
I think they have confirmed what some have suspected from the beginning; that they were set up to find an abductor. What the McCanns (and everyone else) needed to hear was that the parents and their friends are not suspects and, more importantly, why.
Rowley confirmed they are not suspects but was unable to give a convincing reason why they're not. In light of recent developments his claim that the original investigation dealt with the question is clearly wrong.
SY went back to the beginning and studied all the information they had to hand- including all the information they had concerning the McCanns - which according to the following quote - they clearly did not ignore or exclude from the investigation, until they were satisfied that the McCanns were not a line of enquiry that needed to be pursued.
Quote
we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value.
End quote
People forget that SY had tens of thousands of documents that we have never seen. It is highly likely that SY have information that we don't have - which assisted them to come to their various conclusions - one of which is that the McCanns are not suspects.
AIMHO
-
Such breathtaking arrogance.
Who cares about justice?
Clearly not G-Unit.
Are you equating the Metropolitan Police with justice? Justice for Madeleine requires all hypotheses being considered, investigated and eliminated. By their own admission the Met have ignored one hypothesis; that of parental involvement.
-
Exactly.
The trouble is, certain people will remain in denial, no matter what what information is given them.
Then you wonder why.
basically imo scotland yard needs to butt out it is nothing really to do with them it didnt happen in the uk its a bit olike when we aussies and the uk butted in with the war in iraq etc you know how that went ...
-
I am stunned. I don't know what to say. What exactly is it that some of you want before you will accept that Scotland Yard and The PJ Investigations have ruled out The McCanns?
-
Are you equating the Metropolitan Police with justice? Justice for Madeleine requires all hypotheses being considered, investigated and eliminated. By their own admission the Met have ignored one hypothesis; that of parental involvement.
no they haven't they have considered it and ruled it out
-
that doesnt rule the mcanns out though after all kate was the last to see maddie
No she wasn't.
-
Exactly.
The trouble is, certain people will remain in denial, no matter what what information is given them.
Then you wonder why.
Couldn't have put it better myself ?{)(**
-
I note, even now, some people are still ignoring what happened in the initial shelving of the case and the Supreme Court Judgement.
Denial of those has become increasingly ridiculous.
-
Exactly.
The trouble is, certain people will remain in denial, no matter what what information is given them.
Then you wonder why.
Oh, the irony.
-
Couldn't have put it better myself ?{)(**
Read my previous post. 8)--)) 8)-)))
-
SY went back to the beginning and studied all the information they had to hand- including all the information they had concerning the McCanns - which according to the following quote - they clearly did not ignore or exclude from the investigation, until they were satisfied that the McCanns were not a line of enquiry that needed to be pursued.
Quote
we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value.
End quote
People forget that SY had tens of thousands of documents that we have never seen. It is highly likely that SY have information that we don't have - which assisted them to come to their various conclusions - one of which is that the McCanns are not suspects.
AIMHO
Succinctly put.
I cannot comprehend the efforts being made to suggest that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria blundered into the middle of a complex case without covering all the bases beforehand.
They are not amateurs.
-
I note, even now, some people are still ignoring what happened in the initial shelving of the case and the Supreme Court Judgement.
Denial of those has become increasingly ridiculous.
Nobody is interested in the failures of 2007 to solve Madeleine's case.
The interest now lies in where "the critical lead" has the potential to correct those failures in the initial investigation.
The shelving in 2008 is absolutely nothing to crow about ... it was not a triumph ... it was an admission of defeat which spectacularly let Madeleine McCann down very badly indeed.
In my opinion the shelving of her case was officially and disgracefully writing her off and abandoning her to her fate without a care in the world about what that might be.
As proved by the present inquiry ... there were many investigative avenues which could have and should have been investigated back in 2007.
They could have been and should have been. The question is ... why weren't they?
-
It's based on the evidence which we have all seen
The fact is you and others think the dogs are significant
That the minor inconsistencies in th statements are significant
That Gerry touching his ear is significant
None of them are
We don't have to agree on that Davel, and I don't. I think the dog alerts are significant. Minor consistencies could be important. Gerry's reaction could have importance.
-
I am stunned. I don't know what to say. What exactly is it that some of you want before you will accept that Scotland Yard and The PJ Investigations have ruled out The McCanns?
I'm sure some would like the use of the guillotine.
-
Nobody is interested in the failures of 2007 to solve Madeleine's case.
The interest now lies in where "the critical lead" has the potential to correct those failures in the initial investigation.
The shelving in 2008 is absolutely nothing to crow about ... it was not a triumph ... it was an admission of defeat which spectacularly let Madeleine McCann down very badly indeed.
In my opinion the shelving of her case was officially and disgracefully writing her off and abandoning her to her fate without a care in the world about what that might be.
As proved by the present inquiry ... there were many investigative avenues which could have and should have been investigated back in 2007.
They could have been and should have been. The question is ... why weren't they?
Including The Cell Phone Log. None of which appears to have even been looked at. Apart from those pertaining to The McCanns.
-
I'm sure some would like the use of the guillotine.
Like The Death Penalty, you mean.
Whoops, sorry we got that wrong.
-
Are you equating the Metropolitan Police with justice? Justice for Madeleine requires all hypotheses being considered, investigated and eliminated. By their own admission the Met have ignored one hypothesis; that of parental involvement.
The McCanns were thoroughly investigated by the first investigation and (rightly) ruled out.
The Portuguese prosecutors even said that Kate and Gerry could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee an abduction 0f any of their children.
Couldn't be clearer.
-
I note, even now, some people are still ignoring what happened in the initial shelving of the case and the Supreme Court Judgement.
Denial of those has become increasingly ridiculous.
the SC judgment has no relavence whatsoever to the present criminal investigation
-
Nobody is interested in the failures of 2007 to solve Madeleine's case.
The interest now lies in where "the critical lead" has the potential to correct those failures in the initial investigation.
The shelving in 2008 is absolutely nothing to crow about ... it was not a triumph ... it was an admission of defeat which spectacularly let Madeleine McCann down very badly indeed.
In my opinion the shelving of her case was officially and disgracefully writing her off and abandoning her to her fate without a care in the world about what that might be.
As proved by the present inquiry ... there were many investigative avenues which could have and should have been investigated back in 2007.
They could have been and should have been. The question is ... why weren't they?
Nobody is interested ?
Well you clearly are interested in the so called 'failures'.
It appears to have never crossed your mind that there was no abduction, or it has, and you know full well the consequences of there not being one.
The only people to have let fin Madeleine are her parents.
Until you accept that, you will progress no further in this case.
Never forget either, how many people searched for Madeleine, whilst her parents did nothing after the morning of the 4 the May 2007.
-
The McCanns were thoroughly investigated by the first investigation and (rightly) ruled out.
The Portuguese prosecutors even said that Kate and Gerry could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee an abduction 0f any of their children.
Couldn't be clearer.
You really are not in touch in reality.
-
i havebeen saying for a couple of years that with the parents being ruled out abduction becomes the most likely scenario...SY agree with me...we cant both be wrong
-
i havebeen saying for a couple of years that with the parents being ruled out abduction becomes the most likely scenario...SY agree with me...we cant both be wrong
If you are wrong, then so, too, are the Portuguese prosecutors.
And Joao Carlos, who said that, at the moment of the Smith sighting, Gerry was at the Tapas Restaurant.
-
i havebeen saying for a couple of years that with the parents being ruled out abduction becomes the most likely scenario...SY agree with me...we cant both be wrong
Is this leading to the saying two wrongs don't make it right.
-
the SC judgment has no relavence whatsoever to the present criminal investigation
I still hold out (probably vain!) hope that the Supreme Court judges may, yet, have the humility to acknowledge that they got it wrong.
-
I still hold out (probably vain!) hope that the Supreme Court judges may, yet, have the humility to acknowledge that they got it wrong.
The Supreme Court didn't get it "Wrong", if you carefully consider The Legal Jargon. Nor did they get it right. It wasn't about that.
-
The Supreme Court didn't get it "Wrong", if you carefully consider The Legal Jargon. Nor did they get it right. It wasn't about that.
It was about 'free speech' .....
-
For years the McCann's supporters have maintained that Operation Grange would definitely have investigated and ruled out the involvement of the parents in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
AC Rowley has now confirmed they did not. He has said that the original investigation did that, and Operation Grange accepted it.
We know now that the original investigation did not rule out parental involvement after all; the trial in Portugal made that clear.
The situation today is that the McCanns may be innocent of any wrong doing, but it cannot be said that they have been ruled out by either investigation.
-
For years the McCann's supporters have maintained that Operation Grange would definitely have investigated and ruled out the involvement of the parents in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
AC Rowley has now confirmed they did not. He has said that the original investigation did that, and Operation Grange accepted it.
We know now that the original investigation did not rule out parental involvement after all; the trial in Portugal made that clear.
The situation today is that the McCanns may be innocent of any wrong doing, but it cannot be said that they have been ruled out by either investigation.
You are making things up
Rowley says the Portuguese ruled out the parents
They investigated them and could find no real evidence against them SY looked at this and agreed
Rowley was quite definite the McCanns were not involved
-
The Madeleine McCann investigation, codenamed Operation Grange within the Metropolitan Police, has always suffered from the inadequacies of the original Portuguese investigation.
Just one was the fact that mobile phone call records from Praia Da Luz that night were collected, but not interrogated for clues.
At least they were collected, says the Met, which has now caught up with the huge task of examining them. But who knows what opportunities have been missed?
Detectives on the case have developed hypotheses about Madeleine's disappearance and it is clear they are still trying to confirm at least one of them - a "significant", "critical" line of inquiry.
Even if this bears fruit, it may not answer that chilling, decade-old question: Where is Madeleine McCann?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39706194?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter
The most important information given out by the police is that they are saying there remains significant information about Madeleine's case under active investigation.
Of less importance but something which is relevant to posters like ourselves is the admonition that Madeleine's case is not some soap opera ... it is real life.
It is not our real lives ... it is someone else's in which people like us are mere ill informed, self opinionated intruders.
The BBC cite continues with the quote from Madeleine's mother ...
Ahead of the 10th anniversary Kate McCann wrote in a message on the Official Find Madeleine Campaign Facebook page:
"Ten years - there's no easy way to say it, describe it, accept it.
"I remember when Madeleine first disappeared I couldn't even begin to consider anything in terms of years...
"And now here we are... Madeleine, our Madeleine - ten years."
She said she and husband Gerry were "bracing ourselves for the next couple of weeks" of coverage.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/official-find-madeleine-campaign/ten-years/1487222091329410/
Perhaps the phone call analyses in the PJ Files have passed you by, but not me. The idea that the calls were collected and not analysed does not stand up to scrutiny for a millisecond.
-
Perhaps the phone call analyses in the PJ Files have passed you by, but not me. The idea that the calls were collected and not analysed does not stand up to scrutiny for a millisecond.
Rowley says clearly that the pj collected the call data but didn't analyse it
Have you read it
Perhaps they just didn't do it to the level SY wanted
-
Perhaps the phone call analyses in the PJ Files have passed you by, but not me. The idea that the calls were collected and not analysed does not stand up to scrutiny for a millisecond.
Everything which was an operational matter passed me by ... mainly because the investigation teams failed to keep me in the loop regarding their activities.
Hence there are certain issues which have passed me by and for which I am reliant on quotes from those in the know which they have allowed into the public domain.
In the post to which you refer, I have expressed no opinion regarding the phone analysis in the PJ files.
The referral is to the actuality of the situation as found by Scotland Yard in the course of their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.
Q: As I understand it, the key to your suspicion about those four suspects was very much to do with their use of mobile phones and one of the criticisms of the original Portuguese police investigation was that they didn’t interrogate the mobile phone data as thoroughly as they could have done. How important was it for you as that part of your investigation for you to pick up and thoroughly investigate the mobile phone data?
MR: So that phone data is always something we will look at and we wouldn’t have had it available if the Portuguese had not got hold of it at the time so we need to be careful about criticism. But we had the data available and we worked with the Portuguese and that was part of the background to do with phone data and various sightings. There was enough there to say, not to prove the case, but there was something worth looking at in more detail and that’s what we did.
-
How does G-Unit get away with peddling this libellous garbage?
I'm sure Ferryman wishes my post was libellous garbage, but it isn't.
-
You are making things up
Rowley says the Portuguese ruled out the parents
They investigated them and could find no real evidence against them SY looked at this and agreed
Rowley was quite definite the McCanns were not involved
What am I making up?
-
I'm sure Ferryman wishes my post was libellous garbage, but it isn't.
The SC had no jurisdiction to rule on guilt in Madeleine's disappearance. The PJ had no evidence of the parents' involvement in any crime against Madeleine so to suggest otherwise is libellous.
-
Nobody is interested in the failures of 2007 to solve Madeleine's case.
The interest now lies in where "the critical lead" has the potential to correct those failures in the initial investigation.
The shelving in 2008 is absolutely nothing to crow about ... it was not a triumph ... it was an admission of defeat which spectacularly let Madeleine McCann down very badly indeed.
In my opinion the shelving of her case was officially and disgracefully writing her off and abandoning her to her fate without a care in the world about what that might be.
As proved by the present inquiry ... there were many investigative avenues which could have and should have been investigated back in 2007.
They could have been and should have been. The question is ... why weren't they?
Sorry, I must have misread the archiving report.
Did it say there were lots of investigative avenues remaining?
The one I remember was along the lines of nothing further to investigate 'cos we are blocked on a reconstruction.
-
Sorry, I must have misread the archiving report.
Did it say there were lots of investigative avenues remaining?
The one I remember was along the lines of nothing further to investigate 'cos we are blocked on a reconstruction.
SY looked through the files and decided there were things worth investigating....simple...
-
Including The Cell Phone Log. None of which appears to have even been looked at. Apart from those pertaining to The McCanns.
There's yards of cell phone material in the PJ Files.
Kindly stop saying it hasn't been looked at. It has.
-
The McCanns were thoroughly investigated by the first investigation and (rightly) ruled out.
The Portuguese prosecutors even said that Kate and Gerry could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee an abduction 0f any of their children.
Couldn't be clearer.
Ruled them out of a charge of neglect.
Couldn't be clearer.
-
i havebeen saying for a couple of years that with the parents being ruled out abduction becomes the most likely scenario...SY agree with me...we cant both be wrong
Let me see.
You are putting yourself in the same category as a team which dug up Luz to find, allegedly, a sock and a cannabis plant.
*&*%£
-
There's yards of cell phone material in the PJ Files.
Kindly stop saying it hasn't been looked at. It has.
There's Looked At and there's Looked At. Which kind of Looked At did they do?
-
Rowley says clearly that the pj collected the call data but didn't analyse it
Have you read it
Perhaps they just didn't do it to the level SY wanted
Another example of 'if only this had happened in the UK'.
What does 'the level SY wanted' have to with the price of chips?
8((()*/
-
There's yards of cell phone material in the PJ Files.
Kindly stop saying it hasn't been looked at. It has.
Some of it was. Unfortunately it appears, only that which was of interest to "the investigation".
-
Everything which was an operational matter passed me by ... mainly because the investigation teams failed to keep me in the loop regarding their activities.
Hence there are certain issues which have passed me by and for which I am reliant on quotes from those in the know which they have allowed into the public domain.
In the post to which you refer, I have expressed no opinion regarding the phone analysis in the PJ files.
The referral is to the actuality of the situation as found by Scotland Yard in the course of their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.
Q: As I understand it, the key to your suspicion about those four suspects was very much to do with their use of mobile phones and one of the criticisms of the original Portuguese police investigation was that they didn’t interrogate the mobile phone data as thoroughly as they could have done. How important was it for you as that part of your investigation for you to pick up and thoroughly investigate the mobile phone data?
MR: So that phone data is always something we will look at and we wouldn’t have had it available if the Portuguese had not got hold of it at the time so we need to be careful about criticism. But we had the data available and we worked with the Portuguese and that was part of the background to do with phone data and various sightings. There was enough there to say, not to prove the case, but there was something worth looking at in more detail and that’s what we did.
Are these the same people made arguidos in July 2014 but apparently no longer persons of interest?
Reality is a hard task master for some.
-
Do we know if any of this much vaunted phone data has proved to be of any use? It doesn't seem to have led to any 'break through'
-
I'm sure Ferryman wishes my post was libellous garbage, but it isn't.
@)(++(* denial is still around supporters
-
SY looked through the files and decided there were things worth investigating....simple...
A sock on a small hill in Luz?
One could not make this up if one tried.
-
There's Looked At and there's Looked At. Which kind of Looked At did they do?
That would be of the kind of the analyses in the PJ Files.
-
That would be of the kind of the analyses in the PJ Files.
They certainly Looked At The McCann's phone calls. Is that the kind of Looked At you mean?
-
Do we know if any of this much vaunted phone data has proved to be of any use? It doesn't seem to have led to any 'break through'
I am led to believe, from a source I consider reliable, that the phone data was important in making 3 of the 4 people of July 2014 arguidos. That would require that the data passed an OG test, and that whoever decides arguidodom in Portugal also deemed it passed muster.
The phone data that interests me is the call that does not appear in the PJ Files. However, access to the original data has been requested and has been refused.
This seemingly missing call was communicated to OG months ago.
-
They certainly Looked At The McCann's phone calls. Is that the kind of Looked At you mean?
Actually, I was referring to the analysis of the 74,104 calls and texts in/out of Luz on 2 May to 4 May 2007.
I don't think the McCanns had a significant impact on that traffic, as most of it was from before Madeleine went missing.
-
I am led to believe, from a source I consider reliable, that the phone data was important in making 3 of the 4 people of July 2014 arguidos. That would require that the data passed an OG test, and that whoever decides arguidodom in Portugal also deemed it passed muster.
The phone data that interests me is the call that does not appear in the PJ Files. However, access to the original data has been requested and has been refused.
This seemingly missing call was communicated to OG months ago.
Presumably these are the 4 people who are no longer of interest, in which case it would suggest that the phone data did not provide answers and only created more work to sift through.
-
@)(++(* denial is still around supporters
There is certainly no denying that Scotland Yard have progressed and continue to progress with Madeleine McCann's case.
Who knows ... before this is over we may find out what happened to Madeleine ... who knows, she may even be found.
What is it that appears to displease you about that?
-
Indeed.
Progressing to the inevitable shelving.
-
Indeed.
Progressing to the inevitable shelving.
i can predict it now they will say so and so did it even the dead ones they suspected 10 years ago and thats it
-
Presumably these are the 4 people who are no longer of interest, in which case it would suggest that the phone data did not provide answers and only created more work to sift through.
Everything that was 'sifted through' represents work. That is how the 'significant' lead now being actively followed was discovered.
Unlike fictional detectives and Amaral whose cases are solved only by their brilliance ... real police work includes sifting through accumulations of data to weed out the wheat from the chaff to enable progress.
I think the sceptic attitude we have seen displayed since the SY announcement that they are actively following evidence is very revealing and is not a pretty sight.
-
Everything that was 'sifted through' represents work. That is how the 'significant' lead now being actively followed was discovered.
Unlike fictional detectives and Amaral whose cases are solved only by their brilliance ... real police work includes sifting through accumulations of data to weed out the wheat from the chaff to enable progress.
I think the sceptic attitude we have seen displayed since the SY announcement that they are actively following evidence is very revealing and is not a pretty sight.
I was astounded to read this quote from an ex top cop in Portugal regarding the scale of the original investigation. If his comment represents the normal attitude towards complex investigations then Madeleine stood no chance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-top-cop-breaks-madeleine-10278020
He said: “When Madeleine disappeared, we had 12 other missing children – three or four in the Madeira islands, the rest on the mainland.
“The money we spent on Madeleine was a million times more than all the others put together.
“I don’t know if it was pressure from government or the media, but it was the most expensive investigation in the history of Portugal – by far.
“That’s one of the lessons too, not always putting big numbers and lots of policemen. Sometimes you don’t need 400 officers, you need only three or four to focus on the results.”
-
Everything that was 'sifted through' represents work. That is how the 'significant' lead now being actively followed was discovered.
Unlike fictional detectives and Amaral whose cases are solved only by their brilliance ... real police work includes sifting through accumulations of data to weed out the wheat from the chaff to enable progress.
I think the sceptic attitude we have seen displayed since the SY announcement that they are actively following evidence is very revealing and is not a pretty sight.
The report was full of cliches and meaningless twaddle.
The case is going nowhere as regards abduction, as predicted.
-
The report was full of cliches and meaningless twaddle.
The case is going nowhere as regards abduction, as predicted.
we are all aware that chances of this case being solved are slight...your prediction is a very obvious statement
-
The report was full of cliches and meaningless twaddle.
The case is going nowhere as regards abduction, as predicted.
Madeleine's case is still under investigation and a 'significant lead' is being followed.
I don't regard that information as a cliche or meaningless twaddle. You see negativity I see hope.
-
Madeleine's case is still under investigation and a 'significant lead' is being followed.
I don't regard that information as a cliche or meaningless twaddle. You see negativity I see hope.
The term 'significant lead' is merely a cliche.
Mark my words on that.
-
The term 'significant lead' is merely a cliche.
Mark my words on that.
We will don't you worry!
-
The term 'significant lead' is merely a cliche.
Mark my words on that.
Yeah, all leads are significant - until they aren't
-
what I took from the announcement was that SY consider the McCanns investigated enough to rule them out. So the idea it was an accidental death followed by a disposal of the body is ruled out. end.
So unless it was some weirdo Madeleine was in the apartment alive till someone abducted her, then took her alive or dead out of the apartment or she woke and wandered then abducted.
Yeah, all leads are significant - until they aren't
All posts are worth reading till they aren't as well!
-
We will don't you worry!
You will, when the case is shelved.
-
You will, when the case is shelved.
You will when the case is solved. You will be made to eat humble pie.
-
The SC had no jurisdiction to rule on guilt in Madeleine's disappearance. The PJ had no evidence of the parents' involvement in any crime against Madeleine so to suggest otherwise is libellous.
The SC didn't rule on guilt in Madeleine's disappearance. They ruled on the claim by the McCann's lawyer that the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them. The SC judges said it didn't. If the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them they were NOT 'ruled out' by the Portuguese.
-
You will when the case is solved. You will be made to eat humble pie.
What would you expect to see if it were solved? What does solve mean to you?
Before you ask, I consider solved to mean a culprit identified and sent to trial.
-
You will when the case is solved. You will be made to eat humble pie.
Dream on Rob, we've heard that for years.
It will be shelved.
Then you will be eating the humble pie.
-
The SC didn't rule on guilt in Madeleine's disappearance. They ruled on the claim by the McCann's lawyer that the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them. The SC judges said it didn't. If the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them they were NOT 'ruled out' by the Portuguese.
thats the whole point...SY disagree with them...they have looked at the evidence in the files and decided the mccanns are not suspects therefore ruling them out
-
What would you expect to see if it were solved? What does solve mean to you?
Before you ask, I consider solved to mean a culprit identified and sent to trial.
It depends on what you want. I would be happy to see Madeleine found, and I expect that The McCanns would as well.
-
It depends on what you want. I would be happy to see Madeleine found, and I expect that The McCanns would as well.
Madeleine found alive ought to be what we all crave above everything else.
For some of us, beyond doubt, it is.
What's incomprehensible is that the statement immediately above (this one!) should be subject to any sort of qualification .....
-
It depends on what you want. I would be happy to see Madeleine found, and I expect that The McCanns would as well.
Agreed, but if it were just her remains, would you be satisfied with that or would you want to know what actually happened and who was responsible ?
-
Agreed, but if it were just her remains, would you be satisfied with that or would you want to know what actually happened and who was responsible ?
I haven't thought beyond Madeleine being found alive. And I don't intend to unless I have to.
-
The SC didn't rule on guilt in Madeleine's disappearance. They ruled on the claim by the McCann's lawyer that the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them. The SC judges said it didn't. If the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' them they were NOT 'ruled out' by the Portuguese.
The SC actually changed the point of law in the archiving report to substantiate their own opinion.
-
Do we know if any of this much vaunted phone data has proved to be of any use? It doesn't seem to have led to any 'break through'
Any criminal worth his salt would have been using a burner phone anway.
-
The SC actually changed the point of law in the archiving report to substantiate their own opinion.
Which point of law?
-
Which point of law?
The SC rejection
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
The original legal summary http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
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.
-
The SC rejection
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277 of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
The original legal summary http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
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.
They pointed out that the wrong part of Article 277 had been quoted in the archiving dispatch. That wasn't changing a point of law, it was clarifying it.
-
Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.
This is a simply absurd statement to make. You seem to be suggesting that the Met did nothing more than read the archiving report and then were too dumb to actually understand it. Do you seriouly believe that?
-
They pointed out that the wrong part of Article 277 had been quoted in the archiving dispatch. That wasn't changing a point of law, it was clarifying it.
The SC altered the context of the archiving dispatch, whichever way you look at it.
-
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.
If there are no indications of any crime then they are no longer suspects as they are no longer suspects in the SY investigation.....
what else could the archiving report say...it could not declare them innocent
where does this idea that there was insufficient evidence to charge them.....there was none...no indications
-
Will someone please explain to me the precise difference between the provisions of Article 277-1 and Article 277-2 and the impact thereof on the SC ruling ?
-
Will someone please explain to me the precise difference between the provisions of Article 277-1 and Article 277-2 and the impact thereof on the SC ruling ?
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.
ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.
-
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.
ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.
Yeah I have already read that document and came to the same conclusion i.e it had no impact.
Are you suggesting the SC removed the archiving report and overwrote it then re filed it or that as G-Unit suggests were merely correcting something which was incorrect in the appeal documentation?
I am struggling to see your point.
-
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/projects/JusticeForum/Portugal180309.pdf
See attached screenshot as it won't C&P.
ETA It has absolutely no impact on the SC's decision but shows that they took a decision to over-write the legal archiving report wording upon which the appeal was launched.
so the archiving report said there was NO indications of any crime 277(1) and the SC overwrote that to there was insufficent evidence to charge 271(2)..is that right
-
so the archiving report said there was NO indications of any crime 277(1) and the SC overwrote that to there was insufficent evidence to charge 271(2)..is that right
In a nutshell, yes. Clarified/altered/overwrote - they changed the context of the official archiving report.
-
Yeah I have already read that document and came to the same conclusion i.e it had no impact.
Are you suggesting the SC removed the archiving report and overwrote it then re filed it or that as G-Unit suggests were merely correcting something which was incorrect in the appeal documentation?
I am struggling to see your point.
The AG decided which section of the penal code applied to the filing process based on the complete files. Why did the SC need to change it, apart from the need not to have egg on their faces?
-
In a nutshell, yes. Clarified/altered/overwrote - they changed the context of the official archiving report.
then that is an absolute disgrace...how are they allowed to basically change the archiving report
-
The AG decided which section of the penal code applied to the filing process based on the complete files. Why did the SC need to change it, apart from the need not to have egg on their faces?
they changed it because 277(1) clears the mccanns but 271(2) doesnt
so the archiving report did clear the mccanns until the SC changed it
it will be interesting to see how many posters understand that important point
-
then that is an absolute disgrace...how are they allowed to basically change the archiving report
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it's clear to me that the alteration was not made until the SC got involved. Here is the wording from the Appeal Court judgement in April 2016.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/
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.” (...)
-
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it's clear to me that the alteration was not made until the SC got involved. Here is the wording from the Appeal Court judgement in April 2016.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/
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.” (...)
its clear...the archiving report clears the mccanns ...no indications of any crime 277(1) then the SC changed it from none to not insufficient...implying there is some 277(2)...a disgrace
-
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but it's clear to me that the alteration was not made until the SC got involved. Here is the wording from the Appeal Court judgement in April 2016.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/
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.” (...)
Am I being obtuse or does that amount to perverting the course of justice?
-
Am I being obtuse or does that amount to perverting the course of justice?
I think we have learnt that the courts of portugal are a law unto themselves....the archiving process cleared the mccanns ....the SC decided to ignore that..in fact not ignore...but to change that
-
Am I being obtuse or does that amount to perverting the course of justice?
I think the self-ruled legal system is exempt from such an offence. :)
-
They pointed out that the wrong part of Article 277 had been quoted in the archiving dispatch. That wasn't changing a point of law, it was clarifying it.
on what grounds did they decide the wrong part of article 277 was quoted
the archiving report made their decision on the evidence....
-
The Supreme Court made the correct decision.
There was no alteration of the shelving report.
The only twisting is observable by those who would wish it otherwise
We'll done the Portuguese legal system. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(.
-
In a nutshell, yes. Clarified/altered/overwrote - they changed the context of the official archiving report.
As the supreme legal authority in Portugal their job is to clarify points of law. It seems the prosecutors used the wrong part of Article 277.
-
As the supreme legal authority in Portugal their job is to clarify points of law. It seems the prosecutors used the wrong part of Article 277.
You know use the phrase "It seems"....it seems very strange the SC changed a legal document in a way that negatively impacts teh mccanns and give no explanation......
-
You know use the phrase "It seems"....it seems very strange the SC changed a legal document in a way that negatively impacts teh mccanns and give no explanation......
They gave a full explanation if you read their judgements. @)(++(* The prosecutors made a mistake.
-
They gave a full explanation if you read their judgements. @)(++(* The prosecutors made a mistake.
could you point me to the full explanation...it doesnt give much confidence when teh archiving report is accused of being mistaken....it doesnt wash
-
They gave a full explanation if you read their judgements. @)(++(* The prosecutors made a mistake.
Indeed they did G-Unit.
Yet some will always try and twist the truth.
-
They gave a full explanation if you read their judgements. @)(++(* The prosecutors made a mistake.
Surely not? They are Portuguese after all and therefore it's not possible they made a mistake....? &%+((£
-
Indeed they did G-Unit.
Yet some will always try and twist the truth.
you dont understand 277 1 and 2 do you...you havent got a clue what we are talking about
-
you dont understand 277 1 and 2 do you...you havent got a clue what we are talking about
Have you got the text of these two standards? So we can compare the meaning of each please.
-
Predictable.
-
In a nutshell under Article 277-1 the investigation would not have been eligible for reopening. It was stated at the time that the investigation could be reopened if new evidence was found. Therefore it was archived under Article 277-2.
although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1......what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.
Now what is obviously underscored in that order is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had been convinced that the appellants did not commit any crime but because it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants.
It means that the archiving would have been determined under article 277-2 of the CPP, and not under the first paragraph of that article, although the latter is quoted in the order.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
In a nutshell under Article 277-1 the investigation would not have been eligible for reopening. It was stated at the time that the investigation could be reopened if new evidence was found. Therefore it was archived under Article 277-2.
although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1......what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.
Now what is obviously underscored in that order is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had been convinced that the appellants did not commit any crime but because it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants.
It means that the archiving would have been determined under article 277-2 of the CPP, and not under the first paragraph of that article, although the latter is quoted in the order.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
Like I said G-Unit, some people will never accept the truth.
-
Have you got the text of these two standards? So we can compare the meaning of each please.
misty posted it a liitle earlier...basically
the archiving report quoted 277 (1) which refers to there being no evidence to charge....and implies innocence
the SC changed this to 277(2) which refers to insufficient evidence to charge...which implies some doubt of innocence
-
Like I said G-Unit, some people will never accept the truth.
when we know the truth i will accept it...perhaps you should do the same
-
The Supreme Court laid out the judgement.
That is the only one that counts.
The law in Portugal has been satisfied.
Anything else now, is a sign of the par for the course strop and the resulting 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.
-
The Supreme Court laid out the judgement.
That is the only one that counts.
The law in Portugal has been satisfied.
Anything else now, is a sign of the par for the course strop and the resulting 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.
this is a discussin forum...could you stop trying to stop discussion
-
If we are playing mods this morning , this line about SC is well off topic 8)--))
-
this is a discussin forum...could you stop trying to stop discussion
you do that all the time @)(++(*
-
If we are playing mods this morning , this line about SC is well off topic 8)--))
If you have followed the discussion it's on topic
Rowley is implying the Portuguese cleared the McCanns
Posters are saying he is wrong
-
The Supreme Court obviously doesn't think much of The Attorney General. A waste of time having one, if you ask me.
-
Q: Do you have some evidence, in your six years of investigation, have you unearthed some evidence to explain what happened?
MR: We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we’re pursuing those. And those link into the key lines of enquiry we’re doing now. As I said, those are very much live investigations and I know that’s frustrating when you’re doing a programme looking back but it’s hard to talk about that now, it’s going to frustrate the investigation.
Says it all really.
-
Deleted
-
This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -
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.
Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread, he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them. Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's' in my way of thinking. He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.
So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.
-
This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -
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.
Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread, he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them. Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's' in my way of thinking. He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.
So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.
The Portuguese shelved the case, because they found insufficient evidence of anything.
The accidental death scenario has not been disproven or proven, just like the other possibilities.
-
The Portuguese shelved the case, because they found insufficient evidence of anything.
The accidental death scenario has not been disproven or proven, just like the other possibilities.
If there had been an accidental death who removed the body Stephen? It definitely wasn't the McCanns. Admit it.
-
This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -
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.
Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread, he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them. Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's' in my way of thinking. He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.
So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.
I remember Olegário de Sousa saying more or less the same thing just before the McCanns were made arguidos. No police force would show their hand and state that they suspected the parents.
-
If there had been an accidental death who removed the body Stephen? It definitely wasn't the McCanns. Admit it.
Admit what Rob ?
Accidental death remains on the table.
...and how can you know what happened. You weren't there.
-
when we know the truth i will accept it...perhaps you should do the same
The truth is that the McCanns lost their case against Amaral. During the course of the case it emerged that they were mistaken in their belief that the archiving report cleared them.
Operation Grange appears to have believed that the McCanns had been cleared, so their investigative review has concentrated on exploring theories which didn't include them and their friends.
The McCanns may or may not be innocent, but the truth is they have never been ruled out.
No amount of denigration of Portugal, it's people or it's Judiciary can change that, although those who wish to deny the truth seem to think it might.
-
I remember Olegário de Sousa saying more or less the same thing just before the McCanns were made arguidos. No police force would show their hand and state that they suspected the parents.
the reason there was a change of mind was because amaral thought he had some evidence ...he didn't...don't use the incompetence of the PJ to suggest the McCann's may still be suspects
-
This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -
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.
Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread, he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them. Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's' in my way of thinking. He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.
So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.
The Attorney General wrote no report.
-
The Attorney General wrote no report.
Nitpicking imo. IIRC the final report was sent to the AG - who obviously approved it.
-
The truth is that the McCanns lost their case against Amaral. During the course of the case it emerged that they were mistaken in their belief that the archiving report cleared them.
Operation Grange appears to have believed that the McCanns had been cleared, so their investigative review has concentrated on exploring theories which didn't include them and their friends.
The McCanns may or may not be innocent, but the truth is they have never been ruled out.
No amount of denigration of Portugal, it's people or it's Judiciary can change that, although those who wish to deny the truth seem to think it might.
you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...
The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.
the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.
so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved
-
you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...
The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.
the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.
so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved
The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.
-
The Attorney General wrote no report.
http://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html
-
The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.
As I have said no ones opinon on here is of any importance...but there are some who think theres is
-
The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.
Some people are deluded their opinion will change what has happened, and/or just arguing the toss.
-
Some people are deluded their opinion will change what has happened, and/or just arguing the toss.
some supporters argue for the sake of it imo
-
you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...
The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.
the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.
so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved
As I have said, the facts are there but some people are determined to ignore or undermine them.
-
As I have said, the facts are there but some people are determined to ignore or undermine them.
and you have failed to answer the point made in my post...but its of no importance as SY regard them as cleared
-
you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...
The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.
the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.
so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved
Agh!
No, it isn't.
This is a lesson Jean-Pierre taught me way back and I've remembered it.
To be 'cleared' you first have to be charged and tried.
The McCanns were never charged and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, via the imposition of their 'arguido' status, they were wrongly accused.
-
Agh!
No, it isn't.
This is a lesson Jean-Pierre taught me way back and I've remembered it.
To be 'cleared' you first have to be charged and tried.
The McCanns were never charged and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, via the imposition of their 'arguido' status, they were wrongly accused.
As a reminder, the arguida status can still be re-invoked.
-
http://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html
Is that where the idea that the Attorney General wrote a report came from? It was written by those whose names appear at the end of it;
The Republic's Prosecutor
José de Magalhaes e Menezes
The Joint General Prosecutor
Joao Melchior Gomes
The Attorney General was Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro,
-
As a reminder, the arguida status can still be re-invoked.
I don't need 'reminding' of that (yes!) fact that, in the abstract, arguido status can be re-imposed.
In the particular, there is not the slightest indication of that happening to the McCanns; indeed quite compelling indications that it will not (happen).
-
I don't need 'reminding' of that (yes!) fact that, in the abstract, arguido status can be re-imposed.
In the particular, there is not the slightest indication of that happening to the McCanns; indeed quite compelling indications that it will not (happen).
It won't be happening to anyone ferryman.
The case will be shelved.
It's merely a question of time.
-
and you have failed to answer the point made in my post...but its of no importance as SY regard them as cleared
Your 'point' seems to consist of your own opinions about the SC judges rulings. Your opinions are, as you know, irrelevant. It is the opinions of the judges which count.
The relevance of what SY think remains to be seen. What is clear is that despite the oft-repeated cry by McCann supporters that a professional police force like the Met would obviously have investigated the McCanns before ruling them out, they didn't.
-
Is that where the idea that the Attorney General wrote a report came from? It was written by those whose names appear at the end of it;
The Republic's Prosecutor
José de Magalhaes e Menezes
The Joint General Prosecutor
Joao Melchior Gomes
The Attorney General was Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro,
The archiving report was obviously signed off by the AG although there doesn't seem to be a copy in the files. However, the format of the summary is the same as the one used at the Appeal Court stage, so clearly 2 prosecutors & the AG had no issue with the article under which the case was shelved.
Unfortunately for the AG, it appears he was not whiter than white. Is there really no end to the extent of corruption on the Portuguese side of Madeleine's case? (I see also he was involved with the Portuguese Football Federation, another area attracting much negative press)
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Pinto_Monteiro&prev=search
*snipped*
Suspicions have been raised that he had lunch with former Prime Minister José Sócrates a few days before his arrest on 22 November 2014 on suspicion of tax fraud, money laundering and corruption. [ 2 ] [ 3 ]
On March 25, 2015 he was accused in Antena 1 by the President of the Union of Magistrates of the Public Prosecutor's Office António Ventinhas to have prevented investigations to powerful public figures. [ 4 ]
-
Your 'point' seems to consist of your own opinions about the SC judges rulings. Your opinions are, as you know, irrelevant. It is the opinions of the judges which count.
The relevance of what SY think remains to be seen. What is clear is that despite the oft-repeated cry by McCann supporters that a professional police force like the Met would obviously have investigated the McCanns before ruling them out, they didn't.
that's just your opinion
The fact is they are not under suspicion and are not being investigated
-
When OG started, it was supposed to be with an open book , and all possible eventualities examined.
That clearly has never been the case.
Obvious deductions then ensue.
-
When OG started, it was supposed to be with an open book , and all possible eventualities examined.
That clearly has never been the case.
Obvious deductions then ensue.
Do you tar the current PJ investigative team with the same brush?
-
Do you tar the current PJ investigative team with the same brush?
Of course.
If they haven't re-questioned the Mccanns and the others.
If neither have done so, it smacks of intervention IMO.
-
Of course.
If they haven't re-questioned the Mccanns and the others.
If neither have done so, it smacks of intervention IMO.
Rest assured they have
-
Agh!
No, it isn't.
This is a lesson Jean-Pierre taught me way back and I've remembered it.
To be 'cleared' you first have to be charged and tried.
The McCanns were never charged and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.
Rather, via the imposition of their 'arguido' status, they were wrongly accused.
Yup. The most recent set of arguidos haven't been cleared either, so we can spend the next twenty years casting doubts on their innocence too. That's how it appears to work in Portugal.
-
It won't be happening to anyone ferryman.
The case will be shelved.
It's merely a question of time.
So, can I take that as an acknowledgement that the McCanns were falsely accused?
-
Yup. The most recent set of arguidos haven't been cleared either, so we can spend the next twenty years casting doubts on their innocence too. That's how it appears to work in Portugal.
Do you read the news?
-
Do you read the news?
Yes, why do you ask?
-
Yes, why do you ask?
The 4 people are no longer persons of interest. That came from the UK, not Portugal.
I have no information as to whether the 4 have been de-arguidoed in Portugal.
-
The 4 people are no longer persons of interest. That came from the UK, not Portugal.
I have no information as to whether the 4 have been de-arguidoed in Portugal.
So what? My point stands. It seems these people have not been cleared. Now tell me they have. @)(++(*
-
So what? My point stands. It seems these people have not been cleared. Now tell me they have. @)(++(*
I gave you the source.
If you think otherwise, time for a cite.
Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.
-
that's just your opinion
The fact is they are not under suspicion and are not being investigated
The judge's opinions, not mine. The archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns, although, unfortunately for them, they rested a lot on their belief that it did. They thought it said they were innocent, but it didn't.
SY are not interested in the McCanns, but we've known that for years. The only difference now is that they've explained their thinking; they too thought the first investigation had reached a favourable conclusion about the McCanns. It didn't.
-
I gave you the source.
If you think otherwise, time for a cite.
Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.
Good to see you feel these 4 have been cleared
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_1J0XiXr3Tc/VcnIt6VTqoI/AAAAAAAAGR0/kP2ROdGn_Tk/s640/blogger-image-522051888.jpg)
-
I gave you the source.
If you think otherwise, time for a cite.
Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.
You just don't get it do you? Have the McCanns been cleared? No? Why not? Because you say not? Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos? Have they been cleared? Yes? Why so? Because you say so? OK!
-
You just don't get it do you? Have the McCanns been cleared? No? Why not? Because you say not? Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos? Have they been cleared? Yes? Why so? Because you say so? OK!
The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;
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.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;
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.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Not one single ex-arguido has been cleared in this case, that was the point I was making - do you agree or disagree?
-
You just don't get it do you? Have the McCanns been cleared? No? Why not? Because you say not? Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos? Have they been cleared? Yes? Why so? Because you say so? OK!
Is there something difficult about the difference between a statement made in Portugal in the archiving report and a statement made (presumably) in London by the Met?
-
Not one single ex-arguido has been cleared in this case, that was the point I was making - do you agree or disagree?
Have they claimed they were? Or was that just the McCanns...........
-
The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;
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.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer
The McCanns did not lose the possibility of proving their innocence. It was taken away from them by the PJ's insistence that all the required witnesses took part in the reconstitution plus the non-compliance of said witnesses due to certain assurances not being given by the PJ. Quite what sort of prima facie evidence a reconstitution would have provided is anyone's guess & the PJ held no other evidence to allow a successful prosecution.
-
The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;
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.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
so does article 277(2) also apply to murat
-
The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary,
Where?
although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;
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.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
In what you cite, substitute the word 'demonstrate' for 'prove' (what the prosecutors actually said) and you have something closer to what the prosecutors said.
The prosecutors, presumably, didn't feel it necessary to add that there was no need for those (falsely) accused (via the arguido status) to (demonstrate!) their innocence.
More's the pity.
-
Have they claimed they were? Or was that just the McCanns...........
I think if you told Murat he hadn't been cleared of suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann he wouldn't be best pleased, what do you think?
-
I think if you told Murat he hadn't been cleared of suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann he wouldn't be best pleased, what do you think?
Does he give a jot?
-
Does he give a jot?
I would say he cares very much about a slur on his character with which it appears he will be branded for the rest of his life.
-
I would say he cares very much about a slur on his character with which it appears he will be branded for the rest of his life.
I would agree wholeheartedly with your point above, as would anyone with an ounce of empathy and understanding.
-
Does he give a jot?
he does not care a jot...he cares £600,000....
-
I would agree wholeheartedly with your point above, as would anyone with an ounce of empathy and understanding.
and of course sense...I'm beginning to sense a certain poster doesnt have any
-
I would say he cares very much about a slur on his character with which it appears he will be branded for the rest of his life.
We have evidence that the McCanns care about a 'slur' on their characters with which it appears they will be branded with for the rest of their lives.
They lost.
Reality bites.
-
We have evidence that the McCanns care about a 'slur' on their characters with which it appears they will be branded with for the rest of their lives.
They lost.
Reality bites.
Robert Murat was suspected of being involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There was no evidence to support that suspicion and Murat was not charged with any offence against Madeleine.
Kate and Gerry McCann were suspected of involvement in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There was no evidence to support that suspicion and neither were charged with any offence against Madeleine.
It is morally wrong that three people who were in effect questioned under caution and released without charge are expected to be sanguine about having their names continually dragged through the mud ... in one instance by a convicted axe murderer.
-
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer
The McCanns did not lose the possibility of proving their innocence. It was taken away from them by the PJ's insistence that all the required witnesses took part in the reconstitution plus the non-compliance of said witnesses due to certain assurances not being given by the PJ. Quite what sort of prima facie evidence a reconstitution would have provided is anyone's guess & the PJ held no other evidence to allow a successful prosecution.
If the McCanns had wanted their friends to attend they would have, in my opinion.
-
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer
The McCanns did not lose the possibility of proving their innocence. It was taken away from them by the PJ's insistence that all the required witnesses took part in the reconstitution plus the non-compliance of said witnesses due to certain assurances not being given by the PJ. Quite what sort of prima facie evidence a reconstitution would have provided is anyone's guess & the PJ held no other evidence to allow a successful prosecution.
Thank you Misty. That was exactly as I thought too. Why should they be punished for the non-compliance of the other Tapas members and Jez Wilkins.
-
Thank you Misty. That was exactly as I thought too. Why should they be punished for the non-compliance of the other Tapas members and Jez Wilkins.
More pertinently, why didn't they take part in a re-construction ?
There were no excuses.
-
More pertinently, why didn't they take part in a re-construction ?
There were no excuses.
They were told not to bring their children and refused any assurances. I suspect that they feared for their freedom as witnesses and the possibility of being made Arguidos themselves.
I don't know about Jez Wilkins, but it would have been pointless without him.
-
They were told not to bring their children and refused any assurances. I suspect that they feared for their freedom as witnesses and the possibility of being made Arguidos themselves.
I don't know about Jez Wilkins, but it would have been pointless without him.
Why would they have been made arguida ?
-
They were told not to bring their children and refused any assurances. I suspect that they feared for their freedom as witnesses and the possibility of being made Arguidos themselves.
I don't know about Jez Wilkins, but it would have been pointless without him.
Jes Wilkins said he would go if the others did.
What assurances were refused? All their questions were answered here;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
-
Why would they have been made arguida ?
Why were The McCanns made Arguidos?
-
Why were The McCanns made Arguidos?
Suspicion of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
Inconsistent and changing accounts of events.
No evidence of abduction.......................
-
More pertinently, why didn't they take part in a re-construction ?
There were no excuses.
The McCanns made themselves available but the others didn't. Who do you blame for that?
-
The McCanns made themselves available but the others didn't. Who do you blame for that?
When did they make themselves available ?
While they were still in Portugal ?
-
When did they make themselves available ?
While they were still in Portugal ?
Misty posted the agreement of the McCanns to attend.
I'll copy it (I assume it is correct)
"Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogerio Alves
Lawyer"
-
Suspicion of involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
Inconsistent and changing accounts of events.
No evidence of abduction.......................
Are not the other Tapas group being accused of the same thing?
-
When did they make themselves available ?
While they were still in Portugal ?
They were all available at the start, but Amaral refused.
-
Are not the other Tapas group being accused of the same thing?
Which ones ?
-
They were all available at the start, but Amaral refused.
For understandable reasons.
The area was awash with the media.
-
For understandable reasons.
The area was awash with the media.
He could of cordoned off an area. Would it have interfered with the operation of the Ocean Club too much?
-
He could of cordoned off an area. Would it have interfered with the operation of the Ocean Club too much?
So many ifs.
-
Which ones ?
I think The Jury is still out on that one.
-
For understandable reasons.
The area was awash with the media.
And you think it wouldn't have been when it was finally mooted?
Besides, it was all far too late by then, and just a last ditch effort to make it look as though The PJ had really tried.
-
I'm surprised no one has picked up on the article in today's sun
A bit of a bombshell
-
I see the Sun is continuing in it's predictable way of printing the same old rollocks.
Mind you, they've had decades practice. *&*%£
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3408355/chilling-e-fits-of-suspects-wanted-in-the-hunt-for-madeleine-mccann-over-the-10-years-since-she-vanished/
-
Is there anything new here or just repackaged stories from years ago?
-
Is there anything new here or just repackaged stories from years ago?
Nope.
Just the same old B.S.
I saw the image of the two people the woman claims she saw 'Maggie' , then 'Maddie' with in in Amsterdam, and they looked a bit like the McCann's.
Allegedly, of course.
-
Nope.
Just the same old B.S.
I saw the image of the two people the woman claims she saw 'Maggie' , then 'Maddie' with in in Amsterdam, and they looked a bit like the McCann's.
Allegedly, of course.
You obviously missed it
Keep looking
-
Nah, if you can't be arsed to tell us , I can't be bothered.
-
Nah, if you can't be arsed to tell us , I can't be bothered.
Well, it's the Sun.
A bastion of Truth and Justice. %£5&% %£5&% %£5&%
-
Nah, if you can't be arsed to tell us , I can't be bothered.
I sympathise with that sentiment.
-
I see that the Mirror is also giving us a re-hash and listing the infamous 48 questions that Kate declined to answer. ?{)(**
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-48-questions-portuguese-10253481
-
I see that the Mirror is also giving us a re-hash and listing the infamous 48 questions that Kate declined to answer. ?{)(**
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-48-questions-portuguese-10253481
Good. That will inform the readers of how nonsensical so many of those questions were.
-
I suspect the McCanns might not see it quite like that.
-
I suspect the McCanns might not see it quite like that.
What do you suspect?
-
What do you suspect?
I suspect that they are seething with fury - as they do @)(++(*
-
I suspect that they are seething with fury - as they do @)(++(*
You are ridiculous.
-
I suspect that they are seething with fury - as they do @)(++(*
Why will they be"seething with fury"?
The article reinforces that Kate was "hounded" and anyone reading those questions will see how ridiculous some of the questions were and how they, the McCanns were"grilled" for eleven hours inspite of the British experts saying the DNA evidence was "inconclusive"and"flawed"
-
Good. That will inform the readers of how nonsensical so many of those questions were.
Tell us what is wrong with these first 5 questions?
1 On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2 Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
3 (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4 Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?
5 How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine's disappearance?
-
Good. That will inform the readers of how nonsensical so many of those questions were.
Ah yes, the painstaking investigation, which didn't include questioning the McCann's or their associates.
So, it has been a total lie from the beginning, promising an open investigation and all options open.
-
...and here's the question Kate mccann didn't answer.
I WONDER WHY THE MIRROR IGNORED IT. 8)--))
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz4fXhKKjSB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Here are the questions OG asked the Mccann's.............
0
-
Is there anything new here or just repackaged stories from years ago?
I think I will go with AC Rowley's recent assessment of tabloid reports.
I suppose after that nice DCI Andy took a club hammer and bolster to the keystone of the arch there is a natural tendency to attempt to shore up the structure with anything that comes to hand.
-
Tell us what is wrong with these first 5 questions?
1 On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2 Did you search inside the master bedroom wardrobe?
3 (Shown two photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4 Why was the curtain by the sofa near the side window tampered with? Did someone go behind the sofa?
5 How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected Madeleine's disappearance?
Depending on your theory these could be very important answers. I wonder if she will ever tell us?
-
Robert Murat was suspected of being involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There was no evidence to support that suspicion and Murat was not charged with any offence against Madeleine.
Kate and Gerry McCann were suspected of involvement in Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There was no evidence to support that suspicion and neither were charged with any offence against Madeleine.
It is morally wrong that three people who were in effect questioned under caution and released without charge are expected to be sanguine about having their names continually dragged through the mud ... in one instance by a convicted axe murderer.
Interesting that you should mention the convicted axe murderer.
Suddenly realised he'd got it all wrong (where the McCanns are concerned) and just vanished off the scene.
Never quite summoned up the courage to admit he got it all wrong, but at least desisted from accusing and maligning the innocent McCanns.
-
Depending on your theory these could be very important answers. I wonder if she will ever tell us?
Well to be fair she did answer, the whooshing, jemmied and all that jazz.
I have worked out in simple terms what Rowley said- nothing of interest no imminent arrests, no charges brought, suspect/s of crime still unknown- but still suspected.
Chasing rainbows...
-
Well to be fair she did answer, the whooshing, jemmied and all that jazz.
I have worked out in simple terms what Rowley said- nothing of interest no imminent arrests, no charges brought, suspect/s of crime still unknown- but still suspected.
Chasing rainbows...
he also said the mccanns are not under invstigation...did you miss that bit
-
he also said the mccanns are not under invstigation...did you miss that bit
No Davel I didn't. Why would they be investigated for abducting their own child from a bedroom window? That is the only thesis they are investigating so it is a no brainier of a statement really.