Would a guilty person have kept the case alive for 6 years?

[Wonderfulspam]

AFAIK, the police files which were made public are not made up of an extensive summary and they do include all "actions and messages". All of the reports, documents, photocopies, photographs, everything, not just a summary. And all of this is available to the British press on DVDs if they make a request at Portimão courthouse. Have you looked at the files or have I not understood you correctly?

Thankyou, I remember Simon McCoy on BBC News some years back announcing that they had received the Dvd & files (or words to that effect).
They could not have failed to see the full info on the Smiths sighting.

[Victoria]

   
Now that the Tanner sighting has been 'debunked' (as described by crimewatch), the Smiths sighting is the last known possible sighting of Madeleine,  2 witnesses to this sighting believe with between 60 to 80% accuracy, that the man carrying Madeleine was Gerry McCann.
That is a pretty strong lead for the Met to go on.
There is already evidence in their statements & the sticker book timeline, that some of the T9 have not been entirely honest.

Do you think the Met will not have noticed?
Do you think Gerry can have been entirely ruled out as the man the Smiths saw?

Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.

As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.

[Victoria]

Yes that's the spirit, start bashing the Smiths credibility, they are the next new target of the McCann supporters, threatening as they are with their malicious lies intent on destroying the fairytale abduction story the McCann team have promoted.
I bet Amaral told them to say it, that nasty man.

They are obviously not great witnesses. That's not 'bashing them'. I don't doubt their integrity and their intentions, but unfortunately they are not a huge amount of investigative use. Their sighting needs to be eliminated though and I'm glad the Met are trying to find out who they saw because I believe they saw someone.

[Wonderfulspam]

They are obviously not great witnesses. That's not 'bashing them'. I don't doubt their integrity and their intentions, but unfortunately they are not a huge amount of investigative use. Their sighting needs to be eliminated though and I'm glad the Met are trying to find out who they saw because I believe they saw someone.

I think the Met believe they saw someone also.
And I think your a little to eager to believe Redwood is being entirely honest.
The media are itching to give the full account of the Smiths statements, Sky News all but blurted it out last night & the Daily Star quoted the Smiths account all be it via Gonçarlo Amaral.
The media are altering their posture.
Who do you think is leaking stories to the press?
The Met said they were not going to comment publicy at the start of the investigation, they have not stopped talking since.
   

[AnneGuedes]

Would a guilty person really have bothered to keep the case alive for over 6 years?

It depends on the guilt. Running away doesn't reduce it. The point of no return is swiftly reached, and then you have no choice (or rather think so).

[Redblossom]

Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.

As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.

So their descriptions in their statements of the man are....what exactly?

[Albertini]

Strange that as the Portuguese police have always said they won't re open the case until  new evidence has been found.     Show me where they have said they will open it if the McCann's ask them to.

No problem! From the archiving report (note the word assistant)

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.

[Wonderfulspam]

It depends on the guilt. Running away doesn't reduce it. The point of no return is swiftly reached, and then you have no choice (or rather think so).

Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.

[Wonderfulspam]

No problem! From the archiving report (note the word assistant)

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.

Thankyou Albertini,
I knew it was there somewhere but I couldn't be bothered to look.

[Victoria]

Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.

Why do you suppose they made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister to get the Met to look at the case?

[Cariad]

Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.

As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.

Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?

Benice:Red - The 80% was his body which she agreed was a good resemblance.  The 20% which she could not comment on was his face, because she never saw it.   Therefore the picture bore an 80% resemblance to the man she saw.

Benice: Well from an amateurs point of view - I think if I was shown a picture of a man and could only comment on it from the neck down (apart from the hair) - I would calculate the picture was 80% correct.   The fact that the face is the most important part wouldn't enter my head



...edited to include Benice's posts re body part % allocation.

[Victoria]

It is hard to believe that has been done. First of all thee would be too much to do and more importantly it would any prosecution impossible. If everything is available to the public domain any interrogation of suspects later would be hopelessly compromised. Any confession could be challenged on the basis that it does not contain any detail only the perpetrator would know. Any policeman allowing that to happen or lawyer for that matter should be drummed out of her/his job. It would be a disgrace. I have never heard of any inquiry where this was allowed to happen and quite frankly it should not be allowed unless it is so obviously unsolvable with prosecution such as Jack the Ripper.

The only positive is that is makes disclosure a lot easier!

[AnneGuedes]

Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.

I hope not.

[Victoria]

Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?

If there was it was not a discussion I was involved in.

[AnneGuedes]

Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?

Yes, that was Benice's argument to which some opposed that the most expressive part of the human being is the face.