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

[Haskins]

No doubt about that.

Hmm not so sure. We don't even know that Smithman was carrying Maddie. He could be a false lead. We just don't know unfortunately.

[imustpointout]

I hope some people who posted on this topic since it was started at 09:52:58 PM yesterday look back and look at their comments.

[AnneGuedes]

Hmm not so sure. We don't even know that Smithman was carrying Maddie. He could be a false lead. We just don't know unfortunately.

I bet Smithman walked with Madeleine pressed against his shoulder. Who was he ? An Amish paedophile ?

[Haskins]

I bet Smithman walked with Madeleine pressed against his shoulder. Who was he ? An Amish paedophile ?

I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.

[jassi]

I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.

If that were the case, then there is no sighting of an abductor - that we aware of. However, there were several people in the Smith party, so unlikely that they all got it wrong.

[Redblossom]

I do not know. He could have been, or maybe he had other motives, or maybe he was an innocent third party. He could even have been a figment of the Smith's imagination for all we know, although I would say that is unlikely. But we can't be totally sure that the Smith's didn't confuse their days, for example.

Yes, tend to  agree with you there!! As  for confusing days I doubt it very much....they were specific about one of thrm flying back the next morning, then we have their restaraunt and  bar receipts unless they ate and each night at the same time in same place.....

[DCI]

If that were the case, then there is no sighting of an abductor - that we aware of. However, there were several people in the Smith party, so unlikely that they all got it wrong.

all got it wrong?

Nine in the party, only 3 statements.

[jassi]

all got it wrong?

Nine in the party, only 3 statements.

I'm sure they would have  conferred to check something as basic as that.

[Haskins]

I'm sure they would have  conferred to check something as basic as that.

If they did confer then that maybe devalues the evidence. One of them could have persuaded the others, for example, that they saw something they didn't. 

This seems the only decent lead available so the police have to run with it but witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in many circumstances and so that's why I'm urging caution.

[gilet]

Of course, I said no different....but you cannot on that basis become mystic meg all of a sudden can you?and decree anything.....you are not party to information, the investigation or anything else.....
 

I have no desire to be known as a soothsayer. I leave that to others.
I am simply re-iterating the news and commenting on the facts presented there.

[gilet]

AFAIK, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if the McCanns had asked for the case not be shelved in 2008, it would have gone to the "fase de instrução" which is another phase of the investigation and they could have asked to be "assistentes" at that time. I believe that the McCanns want to be "assistentes" so that can have access to the investigation files. They are afraid much more than anyone thinks.

It is intriguing that a  person who had to openly ask on this forum whether the McCanns would become arguidos should the case be re-opened is now regaling us with legal opinion and speculation based on that opinion and expecting us to take it seriously.

[gilet]

Oh so a police officer says she made a statement but thats not good enough for you? like who are you? And where did the officer say she MAY have made a statement?? What crap is this?
 

he must be dodgy/lying/mistaken too.....another one to add to your desperate little list

Get over it as they say

There is no actual evidence of any statement having been made. When such appears I will look at it. 

I am not accusing the man of lying at all. I am stating that his claim is not backed up by any evidence.

[BigFatBlonde]

It is intriguing that a  person who had to openly ask on this forum whether the McCanns would become arguidos should the case be re-opened is now regaling us with legal opinion and speculation based on that opinion and expecting us to take it seriously.

I thought it was a reasonable question tbh.

Of course, on this forum one has to be correct 100% of the time or anything else you say will be ridiculed by the pedants ...

N

[gilet]

Where is  this  'on the record'  quote from the PJ   ? 

As far as I  can see the only quotes regarding  the McCanns exclusion from the re-opened investigation comes directly from their lawyer,  Rogerio Alves 

I do not think  the PJ  have said anything,  either on,  or off,  the record  ...  have they  ?

I apologise. I should not have said "on the record".

But it would be foolish to think that the lawyer has lied on TV about this. It would rebound very quickly on him were he doing so.

It would also be extremely foolish to forget that Gerry and Kate were involved in the latter part of the meeting at which Scotland Yard and the PJ discussed the re-opening of the case.  Hardly the action of either police force if there was suspicion regarding the parents' involvement. Do you know of cases which are discussed by the police in that way with suspects? Really?

[Redblossom]

There is no actual evidence of any statement having been made. When such appears I will look at it. 

I am not accusing the man of lying at all. I am stating that his claim is not backed up by any evidence.

keep digging.......you may come out the other side sometime.....and you will come face to face with a police officers statement and a husbands statements of facts......