Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Vertigo Swirl]

But were they fake?

It wasn’t so much that they were fakes (which they were), it was the fact that he claimed Bruckner had long dreadlocks at the time of the disappearance which was a complete lie, as thr video of Bruckner in his van(which was not plastered in graffiti images as Amara, had also claimed) made shortly beforehand proves.

[Mr Gray]

But were they fake?

As I recall Amaral admitted they were photo shopped

[Brietta]

No you dont need GA to tell you were the mccs were concerned -  something wasn't right IMO

Myster posted a link today which shows precisely some of what disastrously "wasn't right" about the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c  Chief amongst which was the squandering of the golden hours which determine whether or not a child is found sometimes alive, sometimes not.

[Brietta]

As I recall Amaral admitted they were photo shopped

It is like so many of the other factoids Amaral has responsibility for generating I think it would have ended up as the Gospel truth for many if the Daily Mail hadn't published its then exclusive of the video of Brueckner sporting a short haircut at the time in question.

Why was he so desperate to make the attempt to derail the German investigation with such an obvious lie.

[faithlilly]

Myster posted a link today which shows precisely some of what disastrously "wasn't right" about the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c  Chief amongst which was the squandering of the golden hours which determine whether or not a child is found sometimes alive, sometimes not.

Golden hours...don’t you mean hour ?

“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.

“The forensic evidence is uninterrupted, witnesses may still be in proximity and the CCTV footage will be current, so you need to act quickly because if the footage is recorded on a loop you must make sure you can seize it before it’s automatically erased.”

It is worth pointing out that by the time the police were informed of Madeleine’s disappearance the ‘golden hour’ had elapsed and it was almost two hours since Madeleine had been seen. IMO the half hourly checking regime hampered the search much more than anything that came afterwards.

[sadie]

You think.  The McCanns never did have to prove their Innocence.

They know they are innocent and their friends know that too.

Senior Officers of the various Police Forces say there was an abduction.   That and other pointers proved that they are innocent IMO.

But as Elli says, they don't have to prove their innocence.  They are though.

I really cannot imagine what causes some of you to keep putting the boot in. 
Maybe it makes you feel superior, maybe you are a tadge sadistic, maybe you are unable to see the light, maybe you know someone involved or …… maybe you are enjoying your five minutes of 'fame'?


Dunno.  It is a mystery to me.

[Brietta]

Golden hours...don’t you mean hour ?

“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.

“The forensic evidence is uninterrupted, witnesses may still be in proximity and the CCTV footage will be current, so you need to act quickly because if the footage is recorded on a loop you must make sure you can seize it before it’s automatically erased.”

It is worth pointing out that by the time the police were informed of Madeleine’s disappearance the ‘golden hour’ had elapsed and it was almost two hours since Madeleine had been seen. IMO the half hourly checking regime hampered the search much more than anything that came afterwards.

With reference to the link provided in my post  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c


6:08 if it is not solved within the first two or three days it is very likely this is going to be a cold case forever

6:26 the first forty eight hours after a murder abduction these are the golden hours for the police or law enforcement to solve this crime

PROFILER; Mark Hofmann  2020

____________________________________________________________

‘Golden hours’ wasted

In the years since Madeleine’s disappearance, I have also raised my concerns as to whether agencies across Europe are still any better prepared for these types of investigations. When an investigation team doesn’t gather information or act in a timely and systematic fashion, the investigation gets away from them and this dramatically reduces the chances of the crime being solved.

My experience then, and even more so now having studied the behaviour of non-familial child abductors and murderers in-depth as a criminologist, is that the first 24 to 48 hours of a child abduction investigation – often referred to as the “golden hours” – are critical to its successful outcome. It requires strong, dynamic leadership supported by clear defensible decision making.

This must be backed up by systems and structures designed to collect and evaluate information quickly. At the same time, information must be retained in a manner so that it can be revisited at appropriate times as the investigation moves forward and alternative lines of enquiry are considered.

Non-familial child abduction attracts vast amounts of media attention. High-profile cases often attract national media coverage and cases where the child is murdered become, what is called in criminology, “mega-homicides”. These cases can attract worldwide attention and generate vast amounts of information.

The potential for this information to overwhelm even the best-prepared investigation agency during the early hours or days of an inquiry is considerable. For this reason, there is a need for a systematic approach to core policing functions to deal with the complexity. And it is vital to have a thorough, well documented investigation strategy.

These investigations also require highly skilled and experienced investigators who have the ability to make defensible decisions based upon reliable information and create investigative strategy and policy that can stand the test of hindsight. A failure to do so can have serious consequences.

Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010, I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation, which was subsequently passed to the Home Office. The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/209174/McCanns-seek-joint-Madeleine-review  led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.

The information timeline, when fully known, may offer clarity and explanations to many of the questions that have been swirling around this case since 2007. But these explanations may also raise more uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of the initial police inquiry and the competence of the people who led it. I only hope this new information leads to some form of closure for the McCanns.
Jim Gamble

https://theconversation.com/madeleine-mccann-investigation-was-flawed-from-the-start-says-senior-detective-who-was-there-140132

[G-Unit]

They know they are innocent and their friends know that too.

Senior Officers of the various Police Forces say there was an abduction.   That and other pointers proved that they are innocent IMO.

But as Elli says, they don't have to prove their innocence.  They are though.

I really cannot imagine what causes some of you to keep putting the boot in. 
Maybe it makes you feel superior, maybe you are a tadge sadistic, maybe you are unable to see the light, maybe you know someone involved or …… maybe you are enjoying your five minutes of 'fame'?


Dunno.  It is a mystery to me.

Nobody said they had to prove their innocence. Kate McCann thought the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police was treating them as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ when he said;

‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’

He wasn't, he was merely speaking the truth. It was true in July 2008 when he said it and it's still true today imo.

[faithlilly]

With reference to the link provided in my post  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvqu9Wd388c


6:08 if it is not solved within the first two or three days it is very likely this is going to be a cold case forever

6:26 the first forty eight hours after a murder abduction these are the golden hours for the police or law enforcement to solve this crime

PROFILER; Mark Hofmann  2020

____________________________________________________________

‘Golden hours’ wasted

In the years since Madeleine’s disappearance, I have also raised my concerns as to whether agencies across Europe are still any better prepared for these types of investigations. When an investigation team doesn’t gather information or act in a timely and systematic fashion, the investigation gets away from them and this dramatically reduces the chances of the crime being solved.

My experience then, and even more so now having studied the behaviour of non-familial child abductors and murderers in-depth as a criminologist, is that the first 24 to 48 hours of a child abduction investigation – often referred to as the “golden hours” – are critical to its successful outcome. It requires strong, dynamic leadership supported by clear defensible decision making.

This must be backed up by systems and structures designed to collect and evaluate information quickly. At the same time, information must be retained in a manner so that it can be revisited at appropriate times as the investigation moves forward and alternative lines of enquiry are considered.

Non-familial child abduction attracts vast amounts of media attention. High-profile cases often attract national media coverage and cases where the child is murdered become, what is called in criminology, “mega-homicides”. These cases can attract worldwide attention and generate vast amounts of information.

The potential for this information to overwhelm even the best-prepared investigation agency during the early hours or days of an inquiry is considerable. For this reason, there is a need for a systematic approach to core policing functions to deal with the complexity. And it is vital to have a thorough, well documented investigation strategy.

These investigations also require highly skilled and experienced investigators who have the ability to make defensible decisions based upon reliable information and create investigative strategy and policy that can stand the test of hindsight. A failure to do so can have serious consequences.

Three years after Madeleine’s disappearance, in 2010, I conducted and wrote CEOP’s internal review of the Portuguese investigation, which was subsequently passed to the Home Office. The review contained observations and recommendations that, after repeated requests from the McCanns, https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/209174/McCanns-seek-joint-Madeleine-review  led to the Met being tasked to establish their own investigation, Operation Grange.

The information timeline, when fully known, may offer clarity and explanations to many of the questions that have been swirling around this case since 2007. But these explanations may also raise more uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of the initial police inquiry and the competence of the people who led it. I only hope this new information leads to some form of closure for the McCanns.
Jim Gamble

https://theconversation.com/madeleine-mccann-investigation-was-flawed-from-the-start-says-senior-detective-who-was-there-140132

I refer you back to my previous quote.


“The first hour after any crime is critical because this is the ‘golden hour’ of any investigation,” says Paul Bourne, a former Detective Superintendent who served for 30 years in the Metropolitan Police.‘

And this.

‘ An Hour to Catch A Killer takes viewers to the heart of the all-important window of time that can make or break a murder investigation – the ‘Golden Hour’. A principle outlined in British Police’s Murder Investigation Manual, it describes how the decisions detectives make during that first hour impact on whether or not they catch the killer.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/crucial-golden-hour-alice-ruggles-killer_uk_59df25aae4b0fdad73b2190b?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGrqvuCE4W6yzXOuna73fviH___vfgg3sbeDw6CQ8hlUctV9JzlRWfGI3YSbINN5o56tb9GJEOC6wpN-717r7BadZxdMmLHivSKPeGdTDwUQv8kCyt92RvH6RD2gBtbNc_LyWALqc8iRlwDn1m70UW5Hn7qg1bvKzgBUDeEOBlaB

‘

DS Greenwood, who worked in the Criminal Investigation Department at the time of filming, said one of the toughest parts of her investigation was when it briefly came to a “stalemate” through a lack of physical evidence.

The 48-year-old, who joined the force in 1996 after a stint in the RAF, said when that happens officers just have to continue with their inquiries until a breakthrough and in such crimes offenders chance their luck again.

She said: “There is a golden hour after a crime is committed where it is vital for us to gather as much information and evidence as possible and secure the scene.‘

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15480990.golden-hour-is-vital-for-gathering-evidence-and-cracking-crime-in-our-city/

[Brietta]

Nobody said they had to prove their innocence. Kate McCann thought the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police was treating them as ‘guilty until proven innocent’ when he said;

‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’

He wasn't, he was merely speaking the truth. It was true in July 2008 when he said it and it's still true today imo.

With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

[G-Unit]

With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

There's no mention there of 'clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance', so what the ACC said was correct.

[John]

With the greatest respect in my opinion you are talking nonsense by totally ignoring the Archiving despatch which says

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

I have always found that claim somewhat bizarre. Nobody except possibly the culprit(s) could possibly know when she disappeared as she was not seen in public after the family left the restaurant at teatime.

If the parents are innocent then the above is a correct statement but the opposite is also true. In essence, this statement infers without a shred of proof that the parents are innocent and then attempts to justify the claim.

As for the 'normal behaviour' they supposedly exhibited afterwards, I think this is an extremely blinkered claim.

[Mr Gray]

There's no mention there of 'clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance', so what the ACC said was correct.

clear evidence eliminating them is neither here nor there...its a slur used by sceptics imo. Thers no clear evidence eliminating the Needham family...Nor barry George.

theres no clear evidence eliminating CB

[John]

clear evidence eliminating them is neither here nor there...its a slur used by sceptics imo. Thers no clear evidence eliminating the Needham family...Nor barry George.

theres no clear evidence eliminating CB

Actually, in the case of the Needhams and Barry George, there is NO evidence implicating them. The same can't be said of the McCann case imo.

[Eleanor]

I have always found that claim somewhat bizarre. Nobody except possibly the culprit(s) could possibly know when she disappeared as she was not seen in public after the family left the restaurant at teatime.

If the parents are innocent then the above is a correct statement but the opposite is also true. In essence, this statement infers without a shred of proof that the parents are innocent and then attempts to justify the claim.

As for the 'normal behaviour' they supposedly exhibited afterwards, I think this is an extremely blinkered claim.

Have you watched the "60 Minute" Video?