Is It Groundhog Day ?

[Mrs. B]

Again ridiculing, Mrs B ? Is it irresistible every time somebody doesn't agree with you ?
Let's be serious : abduction will have to be proved, this is common sense, even if the perpetrator isn't found.

Jeez, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't agree with you, it's not ridiculing you, it's that simple. And Redwood does not have to "prove" abduction to rule out the McCann, NSY can do that anyway & unless the guilty party is found & the case goes to trial we may NEVER know what evidence they have to rule them out. You would just have to accept it as the rest of law abiding citizens have to. It's up to them what information they decide that the public may know or not, as in any police investigation.

ETA LOL & here comes the broken record again who hasn't got a clue what NSY has got or hasn't got. There is proof of abduction, it doesn't cease because someone is too blinkered to understand it.

[Benice]

Again ridiculing, Mrs B ? Is it irresistible every time somebody doesn't agree with you ?
Let's be serious : abduction will have to be proved, this is common sense, even if the perpetrator isn't found. Mr Redwood knows his word will not be sufficient (read again the end of his speech). A police force observing another one is no news, they worked together on the ground up to the departure of the McCanns.
This investigation will have to find some conclusion (it might be the AG's one), they say about 35/40% of the files are still to be reviewed. I frankly don't see how 35 experts working full time and equipped with lots of sophisticated software haven't done more.

I think you will find Anne that even if the sceptics don't accept it - SY have accepted that a missing child,  raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses  of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted.      Especially as they have been able to forensically prove that there was a window of opportunity - which complies with all the statements, for an abduction to take place.

I would bet my last penny that the McCanns and Jane Tanner (and probably the others) have been interviewed by SY at some length and so (unlike Amaral),  SY police officers have been able to assess the credibility of those people by actually meeting them personally and interviewing them.     

They will also almost certainly have interviewed the British FLO's who spent time with the McCanns in PdL - and probably even the Trauma Psychologist, Alan Pike - all of whom could verify the behaviour of the McCanns.

It's quite apparent that they are satisfied that the McCanns and their friends are indeed credible witnesses.

What SY do not know is whether Madeleine was abducted and kept alive, or abducted and murdered - and that is what they are now endeavouring to find out.

AIMHO

[Rachel Granada]

I think you will find Anne that even if the sceptics don't accept it - SY have accepted that a missing child,  raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses  of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted.      Especially as they have been able to forensically prove that there was a window of opportunity - which complies with all the statements, for an abduction to take place.

I would bet my last penny that the McCanns and Jane Tanner (and probably the others) have been interviewed by SY at some length and so (unlike Amaral),  SY police officers have been able to assess the credibility of those people by actually meeting them personally and interviewing them.     

They will also almost certainly have interviewed the British FLO's who spent time with the McCanns in PdL - and probably even the Trauma Psychologist, Alan Pike - all of whom could verify the behaviour of the McCanns.

It's quite apparent that they are satisfied that the McCanns and their friends are indeed credible witnesses.

What SY do not know is whether Madeleine was abducted and kept alive, or abducted and murdered - and that is what they are now endeavouring to find out.

AIMHO

Good call.  At least DCI Redwood and the Grange team will have met the McCanns.  Unlike Amaral who went on to line his pockets with lies about people he had never even met, let alone interviewed.

[AnneGuedes]

Jeez, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't agree with you, it's not ridiculing you, it's that simple. And Redwood does not have to "prove" abduction to rule out the McCann, NSY can do that anyway & unless the guilty party is found & the case goes to trial we may NEVER know what evidence they have to rule them out. You would just have to accept it as the rest of law abiding citizens have to. It's up to them what information they decide that the public may know or not, as in any police investigation.

ETA LOL & here comes the broken record again who hasn't got a clue what NSY has got or hasn't got. There is proof of abduction, it doesn't cease because someone is too blinkered to understand it.

It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules,  SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle  created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.

BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.

[AnneGuedes]

SY have accepted that a missing child,  raised shutters and an open window- which were both closed when the parents left 5A and two separate sightings by 4 witnesses  of a man carrying away a child, is enough proof for them to be satisfied that Madeleine was abducted.   

No, Benice, SY wasn't asked to examine the McCanns statements nor to interview the TP9 again. It wasn't the point. They were asked to start with the study hypothesis that the McCanns' story of abduction was true.
The shutters/window/curtains seen open (PJ)/forced (family and friends > medias) only by the McCann, evidence ?
Hum.
The Smithcarrier, a Mr McCannlookalike man, evidence that Mr McCann wasn't involved ?
Hum.

[Mrs. B]

It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules,  SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle  created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.

BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.

Unadulterated rubbish!

The Met's remit was as follows:-

"This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation/s that have been conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance."

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2012/jan_2012/2011120000848.pdf

ETA There is proof of an abduction, several people saw a man - or two different men - carrying away a child on the very night a child had been taken from the area. Unidentified person/s has NOT come forward to eliminate themselves.  The "accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing.

[Benice]

No, Benice, SY wasn't asked to examine the McCanns statements nor to interview the TP9 again. It wasn't the point. They were asked to start with the study hypothesis that the McCanns' story of abduction was true.
The shutters/window/curtains seen open (PJ)/forced (family and friends > medias) only by the McCann, evidence ?
Hum.
The Smithcarrier, a Mr McCannlookalike man, evidence that Mr McCann wasn't involved ?
Hum.

Anne that's nonsense.       SY were asked to review the whole of the case in it's entirety - from the beginning.  They had all the statements at their diisposal and could interview anyone they wanted to.   It may well be true that they believed the McCanns to be innocent from the start as the McCann's behaviour in the years since Madeleine disappeared has been the complete opposite of a couple who were guilty - and as experienced policemen that would not have gone unnoticed.       

Even so, I still think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends for several various reasons - one of which would be to make their own personal assessments of them.

Why Amaral didn't do the same or even want to do the same is incomprehensible - and a decision he knows was wrong or he wouldn't have gone such lengths to hide that fact from the public.
   

[sadie]

It's 40° here, everywhere, no kitchen problem !
Your point is always the ruling out of the McCanns. Mr Redwood never pretended he ruled them out. The fact is the McCanns' involvement was never contemplated, it was off the game ! Amazingly regardless of basic rules,  SY wasn't requested to start where the PJ ended, but to find an abducted child whose parents kept insisting she was alive by default. They were never asked to examine whether those parents had told the truth or not. This wasn't the subject. Why is another question.
A SY that just does the asked job, not wanting to make waves, hasn't much in common with the SY of the origins, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle  created a figure inspired in Mr Whicher, Sherlock Holmes.

BTW there's no more proof of abduction than there's proof of accident. 15 all.

You are wrong.

There were witnesses ... but Amaral chose to ignore them.  He chose to ignore all the brits.

There is NOTHING to suggest an accident apart from the story of a cop who has proved himself a liar

.... and has history as a story teller.

[AnneGuedes]

There is proof of an abduction, several people saw a man - or two different men - carrying away a child on the very night a child had been taken from the area. Unidentified person/s has NOT come forward to eliminate themselves.  The "accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing.

I'll certainly not send you back "Unadulterated rubbish!", let it vanish !
Are you a police officer within the SY's secrets ? What authority allows you to affirm that "the 'accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing" ? There's no evidence of accident but no evidence of abduction as well.

[AnneGuedes]

Anne that's nonsense.       SY were asked to review the whole of the case in it's entirety - from the beginning.  They had all the statements at their diisposal and could interview anyone they wanted to.   It may well be true that they believed the McCanns to be innocent from the start as the McCann's behaviour in the years since Madeleine disappeared has been the complete opposite of a couple who were guilty - and as experienced policemen that would not have gone unnoticed.       

Even so, I still think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends for several various reasons - one of which would be to make their own personal assessments of them.

Why Amaral didn't do the same or even want to do the same is incomprehensible - and a decision he knows was wrong or he wouldn't have gone such lengths to hide that fact from the public.
 

Benice, can't we leave Mr Amaral aside ? I don't know him, I don't agree with him, I'm not defending him. People like you just push me to try to know him, understand him and help him, which I wish I will not do.
You think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends, but you don't know. Or do you ?
Why would they have kept this secret ? They didn't have to conclude !
Their agenda never was to investigate the McCanns, but to obey PM's orders, subsequent to an open letter from Mrs McCann and the tabloid's queen's, Rebekah Brook, pressure : find Madeleine, she's alive !
Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !

[sadie]

I'll certainly not send you back "Unadulterated rubbish!", let it vanish !
Are you a police officer within the SY's secrets ? What authority allows you to affirm that "the 'accident" is pure fantasy based on nothing" ? There's no evidence of accident but no evidence of abduction as well.

So why introduce an accident, if there is nothing to point to it?  It is just make believe.

I could say that Anne Guedes was in 5A at that time, but I would not for three reasons:
1) Nothing to point to it
2) I dont think you were
3) It would be just make believe


I am NOT suggesting that you are in any way involved, Anne, but am just using your name to drive a point home.

Edited : Three reasons not two

[Benice]

Benice, can't we leave Mr Amaral aside ? I don't know him, I don't agree with him, I'm not defending him. People like you just push me to try to know him, understand him and help him, which I wish I will not do.
You think they will have interviewed the McCanns and their friends, but you don't know. Or do you ?
Why would they have kept this secret ? They didn't have to conclude !
Their agenda never was to investigate the McCanns, but to obey PM's orders, subsequent to an open letter from Mrs McCann and the tabloid's queen's, Rebekah Brook, pressure : find Madeleine, she's alive !
Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !

So you think SY were given instructions just to read through the paperwork but under no circumstances could they interview anyone - even if that would assist them in their deliberations?    IMO Common sense dictates that would not be the case as there is no sensible reason why such an obstructive proviso would be included in their remit.
 
IIRC we were told at the beginning that SY would not be giving a public running commentary on the review, and that is what has happened.  We've had  general announcements but no details.  So nothing unexpected or sinister there.
 
IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.       
 
You obviously don't agree.   You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.   
 
 
 

[AnneGuedes]

So why introduce an accident, if there is nothing to point to it?  It is just make believe.

I'm not introducing an accident, Sadie, a cadaver dog pointed to it in the 5A.
As a man carrying a child pointed to an abduction.
No more, no less.

[AnneGuedes]

So you think SY were given instructions just to read through the paperwork but under no circumstances could they interview anyone - even if that would assist them in their deliberations?    IMO Common sense dictates that would not be the case as there is no sensible reason why such an obstructive proviso would be included in their remit.
 
IIRC we were told at the beginning that SY would not be giving a public running commentary on the review, and that is what has happened.  We've had  general announcements but no details.  So nothing unexpected or sinister there.
 
IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.      
 
You obviously don't agree.   You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.   

I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
If SY had been asked to resume the PJ investigation instead of searching for Madeleine, they would logically have started where the Portuguese, according to the AG's report, were forced to stop. They didn't, they looked for leads, new leads, as every new sighting of Madeleine was comforting the search she could be found. About 200 leads after one year review ! It sounded as if they had done a pretty job ! Miroir aux alouettes, imo.
Now, after 2 years they've got to make a move, though those 38 persons of interest don't appear do be "enough" (they're still asking for the help of the public). Will it bring the needed evidence of, as they say, "abduction and or murder" ?
My mind is open, Benice, I've no rigid idea about what happened to Madeleine. The only certainty I have is that she's either dead or fine.

[Benice]

I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
If SY had been asked to resume the PJ investigation instead of searching for Madeleine, they would logically have started where the Portuguese, according to the AG's report, were forced to stop. They didn't, they looked for leads, new leads, as every new sighting of Madeleine was comforting the search she could be found. About 200 leads after one year review ! It sounded as if they had done a pretty job ! Miroir aux alouettes, imo.
Now, after 2 years they've got to make a move, though those 38 persons of interest don't appear do be "enough" (they're still asking for the help of the public). Will it bring the needed evidence of, as they say, "abduction and or murder" ?
My mind is open, Benice, I've no rigid idea about what happened to Madeleine. The only certainty I have is that she's either dead or fine.

Ann first of all you said

''Give me an argument turning unlikely the most plausible event, an accident !''

To which I replied-

''IMO the theory of accidental death and the subsequent disposal of Madeleine's body by her parents, aided and abetted by 7 others is completely unbelievable.       
 
You obviously don't agree.   You must have given it a lot of thought to come to that conclusion so why don't you share your thoughts with us and describe what you think may have happened to Madeleine - why her parents reacted in the way you think they did, and what their subsequent actions were.''
 
   
Then you said:-

I never suggested that and, like you, I find it unbelievable.
-----------------------------------------------------------

So which one is it please?  As they are contradictory statements.

.