Madeleine McCann case to be re-opened in Portugal as an abduction scenario.

[stephen25000]

The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.

The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.

The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.

It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.

There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........

[Benita]

The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.

The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.

The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.

It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.

There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........

you know better than SY do you ?

[Montclair]

As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:

"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."

The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.

Interesting times!

[stephen25000]

Well to use that old adage, 'the proof is in the pudding'.

Just remind me of how long SY has had on this investigation and exactly what breakthrough of any meaning they have found ?

[stephen25000]

As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:

"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."

The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.

Interesting times!

Indeed!

Thanks Montclair.

[gilet]

The sighting of the child was by Mr. Smith, and the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann himself.

You have made two very bad errors in that one sentence.
The sighting was not "by Mr. Smith". The sigting was by the entire Smith family and there are a number of separate statements in the files which prove that.
The second error is your claim that "the adult carrying her, he believed was mccann (sic) himself." You are wrong. What he claimed was that he believed it was a possibility.
There is no excuse really for your making such crucial errors with regard to this aspect of the case because this has been explained clearly many times here and elsewhere.

The mccanns and associates made a mess of the crime scene before the local police arrived.

The McCanns (sic) and their friends did what any normal parents and friends would do in the event of a child disappearing. They searched the apartment thoroughly before then involving the police. I am sorry you cannot understand this but it is normal.

And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.

The dogs indications have not been disproved, the forensics were inconclusive.

Correct. The dog alerts were not backed up by any forensics. They were never corroborated. That is one factor which led the AG to point out that there is absolutely no evidence of any crime by the McCanns.

It does not mean therefore something did not happen to Madeleine in the apartment.

Till anyone provides any evidence at all that something happened to Madeleine within the actual apartment then it is sheer speculation. I prefer evidence and facts.

There has not been ONE lead that has led anywhere so far, and all the 'new' leads are old ones revisited........

Perhaps you have some kind of rosy notion that police work is simple and resolution comes easily (as on TV) whereas the truth is that it doesn't and lead after lead have to be followed up painstakingly one after the other to eventually eliminate each one and narrow the investigative focus.

There is only one reason that these old leads are now being revisited and that is because the PJ failed completely to investigate these leads thoroughly in the first case. The proof of that is the fact that the PJ had all the relevant details to hand which would have allowed them to rule out the Tanner sighting within hours of her statement being made had they bothered to use those details and interview the 8 parents from the night creche who were all almost certainly still in PDL for 48 hours after the disappearance and whose addresses at home were anyway available to the PJ.

[gilet]

As stated in Correio da Manhã this morning:

"O resultado destas novas diligências é um incógnita. A situação deverá agradar aos pais de Maddie, mas a verdade é que, a qualquer momento, poderá voltar também a ser equacionada a hipótese de ter sido um crime cometido por negligência, voltando a ser apontadas as baterias contra os pais da criança."

The result of these new diligences is an INCOGNITO. The situation should please the parents of Maddie, but the truth is that, at any moment, the hypothesis of a crime committed due to negligence could be considered, with the guns pointed back at the parents of the child.

Interesting times!

The fact that one of the most senior lawyers/prosecutors in Portugal at the time in the archival report outlined in great detail why the question of legal action relating to abandonment/neglect was not appropriate in this case might be seen by most readers here as more authoritative than a report in newspaper.

I know who I would believe.

[Redblossom]

And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.

***

Where did you read that then Gilet??

[stephen25000]

I am well aware of the Smiths in general.

Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.

Cigarettes and dog hair ???

Searching I understand, but they claimed abduction !

Forensics inconclusive.

So you cannot discount an accident to Madeleine in the apartment.

[jassi]

The fact that one of the most senior lawyers/prosecutors in Portugal at the time in the archival report outlined in great detail why the question of legal action relating to abandonment/neglect was not appropriate in this case might be seen by most readers here as more authoritative than a report in newspaper.

I know who I would believe.

Times change and we need to move on from what was said some 5 years ago and listen to what the Judiciary are saying now.

[Angelo222]

Four facts known to us point to an abduction. They are

1. the disappearance of the child

in conjunction with

2. the fact that both the UK investigations and the PJ investigations have found no evidence of the involvement of the McCanns in that disappearance

followed up by

3, the fact that we know that the experts now of the PJ and SY in both instances are looking into abduction as a priority.

and

4. the known fact that there exists an unexplained sighting of a person carrying a child at a time which would suggest a very possible connection with the disappearance.

These four facts are not conclusive but they are nevertheless facts.

As with Jassi, I am content with these four facts for the moment and I await the further outcome of current investigations.

Is that the best you can come up with??

1. The disappearance of a child is hardly evidence of an abduction.

2. SY and the PJ have no evidence of parental involvement and no evidence that they weren't involved.

3. SY and the PJ looking into an abduction as a 'priority' is both funny and sad.  Six years on and this is the best they have?  Hardly evidence is it.

4. The unexplained sighting could very well be yet another Tannerman.  Again hardly evidence of anything.

[gilet]

And you are conveniently forgetting that two of the specific disturbances identified in the crime scene were done by the local police. Cigarette ash and dog hairs both from the GNR were significant problems for the crime scene investigators.

***

Where did you read that then Gilet??

The reference to the dog hairs is in the files in the Specialist Examination Report 200707060-CR/L.

The reference to the cigarette ash was widely reported in the media in late 2007.

[jassi]

Opening the case again does give a fresh opportunity to 'probe' existing witnesses further.

[gilet]

I am well aware of the Smiths in general.

Mr. Smith believed he saw mccann.

No he did not. He believed it was a possibility. No matter how many times you repeat that claim it will never become true because it is not what he said. And you are hiding the fact that no other member of the Smith family who gave a statement about the same incident made any statement agreeing with his belief in this possibility.

Cigarettes and dog hair ???

Yes the former widely reported and the latter specifically recorded in the files.
Searching I understand, but they claimed abduction !

Forensics inconclusive.

Correct. The forensics do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead, let alone that she died in the apartment.

So you cannot discount an accident to Madeleine in the apartment.

I don't discount anything. But I do rely on evidence not speculation as you are clearly doing.

[Redblossom]

The reference to the dog hairs is in the files in the Specialist Examination Report 200707060-CR/L.

The reference to the cigarette ash was widely reported in the media in late 2007.

I didnt ask about the dog hairs as that info is in the files

Regarding the fag ash alledgedly dropped all over the place by GNR officers  - reported in the media wont cut it Im afraid for you to state it as a fact and that it caused significant problems for forensics...I prefer to read the police files than the Sun for facts