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

[Kazcutt]

I think that was Peter Smith (Martin's son) who you are referring to Kaz, and speaking to a journo not a policeman ! Unless of course you can provide a link to the phone conversation that you quote ?

No got no link i remember them saying martin didnt say it was gerr he said he was similar looking to gerry
Not sure about phone call now as it was last week .

[BigFatBlonde]

A few people hanging around so much so that people noticed them and took note of their appearance and noted that they were looking explicitly at The Mccanns apartment in the days before a little girl was abducted.

I'd say that was extremely suspicious !  Why do you think that it was not, BFB ?

did they take note? or did they just remember seeing someone once they found out a crime had been committed?

When I was a smoker I used to stand outside of places looking round while I smoked - was I suspicious? Only if something bad happened and I was unlucky enough to be there.

People often hang around not doing much of anything when on holiday and I wouldn't say it was suspicious.

Don't get me wrong - I hope they find out what happened but they just don't seem to have much of anything to go on really.

Still, time will tell and I wish the SY and PJ good fortune.

N

[gilet]

You know very well the consequences if they say anything different. This is once again the most high profile missing child case in the world. Portugal does not want the English press back 

So you cannot fault what I have said other than to suggest a kind of conspiracy of silence in order to discourage journalists from returning to Portugal.

That may well be your opinion of the matter. It most certainly is not mine. I have made my view clear and given reasons why I hold that view.

[gilet]

I am somewhat disappointed (though not actually surprised) that you have not yet responded to this post Anne Guedes, especially as the board information suggests you have been reading here for some considerable time.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2756.msg93919#msg93919

I repeat there are no mistakes within my post and I now go further and ask you to explain why you have made that suggestion.

[AnneGuedes]

Not one of the so-called mistakes you have highlighted is a mistake.

Every one is fact.

Martin Smith waited after seeing the BBC News report on 9th September a whole eleven days before reporting his suspicion by telephone to the LP on 20th September as recorded by the Holmes Indexer at Braunstone Police Station. (Folio 2873)

A worker at the Tapas Restaurant places Gerry McCann at that scene at precisely the time of the disappearance. (Folio 122)

And I repeat there is only one statement from the Smith family which states that Gerry McCann may have been  the man they sighted. If there are others please give links to them so that we can read where that is mentioned as a possibility. If you cannot provide such links to these statements then we will be forced to the conclusion that it is not in fact me making mistakes here.

There were many go between : the Gardai, DC Hughes, Stuart Prior, Bernard Gattney
Mr Smith didn't call DCI Hughes directly.
Page 122, nobody places Mr McCann at the Tapas table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_122.jpg
Mr Smith said his wife agreed with him. She never denied it.

[gilet]

There were many go between : the Gardai, DC Hughes, Stuart Prior, Bernard Gattney
Mr Smith didn't call DCI Hughes directly.
Page 122, nobody places Mr McCann at the Tapas table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_122.jpg
Mr Smith said his wife agreed with him. She never denied it.

Your mistake I believe.

I have never suggested that Mr Smith phoned DC Hughes directly.

What I clearly posted was that he telephoned Leicestershire Police  nine days after having watched the BBC News bulletin which gave him concern and that is absolutely correct.

His call was logged by the Holmes Indexer (standard procedure) and passed by that person within a matter of a few hours to DC Hughes.

DC Hughes then on the same day sent the information to Portimao PJ.

That information was then held by the PJ in Portimao for a full 12 days before Paiva telephoned Smith. I wonder why no contact was made with him for nearly two weeks after his initial contact with LP and why the PJ sat on the information?

Stuart Prior was only involved in that the email from DC Hughes to Portimao was copied to him.

The Gardai (via their Madrid representative, Gattney) only became involved long after the initial phone call and the contact made with Smith by Paiva.

I was absolutely correct in what I posted on this matter.



On the matter of the placing of Gerry McCann at the table I suggest you read the page I referred you to more carefully. There you will find the following.

" Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared."

That clearly places Gerry at the table when his wife left to do the final check and only after she returned from that check did he leave with the other guests.

Once again I was absolutely correct.



As for the question of you claiming I made a mistake when I stated that of all the Smith statements only one (the second one of Martin Smith) even suggests that there was a possibility that the sighting was of Gerry McCann I was absolutely correct.

As I expected you have utterly failed to prove that I have made a mistake in that claim because you cannot. There are no other statements which mention Gerry McCann.

That same statement does offer the hearsay comment that Martin Smith's wife agreed with him but that is not what I referred to.


I would appreciate an apology from you as not one of the three mistakes you attributed to me is actually a mistake at all,  but am pretty certain that none will be forthcoming.

[Lyall]

You're happy with a witness who says GM was away from the table for 30 mins between 9.30 and 10(ish), gilet?

[gilet]

You're happy with a witness who says GM was away from the table for 30 mins between 9.30 and 10(ish), gilet?

I am giving the evidence which I stated exists. Whether such evidence is correct or not can only be judged by further questioning of that witness.

The point is that I was not mistaken in what I posted. There is evidence putting Gerry at the table at the appropriate time.

There was no mistake in my post.

[Luz]

Just information from other forums so far.

but links

PJ want to reopen Maddie case.

Portuguese authorities investigate new lead that should lead to the reopening of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Portuguese authorities ponder reopen the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, following the analysis by PJ Port over the past two years.

The investigation will be headed by the PJ in Faro and will, for now, involve the cross-examination of witnesses. The Correio da Manhã understands that the thesis then will be the abduction and there may be steps common to that were requested by the British. (English)

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/pj-quer-reabrir-caso-maddie

http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-pode-reabrir-caso-maddpedophile networksie.html

Please note that I am copying links to press from other forums - I am not copying or quoting the comments from other forums.

Thank you for initiating this thread.

The reopening of the Inquiry is based on possible clues that can revive the abduction hypothesis, especially because lately there seems to be evidence that pedophile networks have been operating in the Algarve.

This strategy is quite logical.
Since he absence or lack of evidence could not be used to provoke the re-opening of the investigation, and as everyone knows, in what concerns the involuntary death and cadaver occultation, there was a blockage not only from the main perpetrators but also from the UK authorities, the only way to get around it was to re-enact the other hypothesis.

And in fact, the reason that was used to request the reopening of the investigation has nothing to do with considering the parents suspects.

However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account.

Which means that all the hypothesis stated by Tavares de Almeida and that were the ones maintained in the Archiving Report will be under investigation again:

»Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.»

In synthesis, all the following will be again under investigation:

1. Negletful homicide
2. Intended homicide
3. Targetted abduction
4. Oportunistic abduction

 

[Lyall]

I am giving the evidence which I stated exists. Whether such evidence is correct or not can only be judged by further questioning of that witness.

The point is that I was not mistaken in what I posted. There is evidence putting Gerry at the table at the appropriate time.

There was no mistake in my post.

Fair enough. That's logical. But I think something about the 10pm sighting mustn't be.

I know everyone's concentrating on it now, for obvious reasons, but just a few weeks ago few were, including it seems the McCanns.

How else can we explain why the efits were not used for so many years?

[gilet]

Fair enough. That's logical. But I think something about the 10pm sighting mustn't be.

I know everyone's concentrating on it now, for obvious reasons, but just a few weeks ago few were, including it seems the McCanns.

How else can we explain why the efits were not used for so many years?

I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.

[AnneGuedes]

Your mistake I believe.

I have never suggested that Mr Smith phoned DC Hughes directly.

What I clearly posted was that he telephoned Leicestershire Police  nine days after having watched the BBC News bulletin which gave him concern and that is absolutely correct.

His call was logged by the Holmes Indexer (standard procedure) and passed by that person within a matter of a few hours to DC Hughes.

DC Hughes then on the same day sent the information to Portimao PJ.

That information was then held by the PJ in Portimao for a full 12 days before Paiva telephoned Smith. I wonder why no contact was made with him for nearly two weeks after his initial contact with LP and why the PJ sat on the information?

Stuart Prior was only involved in that the email from DC Hughes to Portimao was copied to him.

The Gardai (via their Madrid representative, Gattney) only became involved long after the initial phone call and the contact made with Smith by Paiva.

I was absolutely correct in what I posted on this matter.



On the matter of the placing of Gerry McCann at the table I suggest you read the page I referred you to more carefully. There you will find the following.

" Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared."

That clearly places Gerry at the table when his wife left to do the final check and only after she returned from that check did he leave with the other guests.

Once again I was absolutely correct.



As for the question of you claiming I made a mistake when I stated that of all the Smith statements only one (the second one of Martin Smith) even suggests that there was a possibility that the sighting was of Gerry McCann I was absolutely correct.

As I expected you have utterly failed to prove that I have made a mistake in that claim because you cannot. There are no other statements which mention Gerry McCann.

That same statement does offer the hearsay comment that Martin Smith's wife agreed with him but that is not what I referred to.


I would appreciate an apology from you as not one of the three mistakes you attributed to me is actually a mistake at all,  but am pretty certain that none will be forthcoming.

You're misleading people, Gilet, and all you demonstrate is pure bad faith : you suggest Mr Smith was alone thinking he had crossed Mr McCann, whilst he said his wife agreed with him. Can't you understand why she didn't want to state ? It's just a question of finesse.
Then you pretend a waiter saw Mr McCann at the Tapas table when his wife alerted, but you omit saying that the same waiter saw the same man, possibly Mr McCann, coming back after being away for half an hour (i.e having time to cross the Smith family), a fact that neither Mr McCann nor none of his acquaintances reported.

[AnneGuedes]

I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.

You're pushing on an open door, it always was the most likely, for the PJ and for any objective mind (not for the McCanns for obvious reasons).

[gilet]

Thank you for initiating this thread.

The reopening of the Inquiry is based on possible clues that can revive the abduction hypothesis, especially because lately there seems to be evidence that pedophile networks have been operating in the Algarve.

This strategy is quite logical.
Since he absence or lack of evidence could not be used to provoke the re-opening of the investigation, and as everyone knows, in what concerns the involuntary death and cadaver occultation, there was a blockage not only from the main perpetrators but also from the UK authorities, the only way to get around it was to re-enact the other hypothesis.

And in fact, the reason that was used to request the reopening of the investigation has nothing to do with considering the parents suspects.

However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account.

Which means that all the hypothesis stated by Tavares de Almeida and that were the ones maintained in the Archiving Report will be under investigation again:

»Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.»

In synthesis, all the following will be again under investigation:

1. Negletful homicide
2. Intended homicide
3. Targetted abduction
4. Oportunistic abduction

I would like to know why you believe the following which you posted. Which part of the Codigo Penal states that this is so? And even what the purpose for such might be?

"However, when a case is reopened, all the evidence, all the hypothesis that were opened before the archival will be taken into account."

My reason for asking is that you have completely neglected one important factor.

This re-opening of the inquiry does not sit in isolation.

It comes after a thorough review done by the PJ team in Oporto where they have sifted for a very long time the evidence from the past.

It is on the basis, not of generality, but on the specific findings of this review team about flaws in the initial inquiry and further leads which were not followed up about potential abductors that the PG has agreed to the re-opening of the case.

What earthly reason would there be to then undertake a repeat of the initial 2007/8 inquiry where, I remind you, the summation stated that no evidence of any crime had been found against the McCanns and of the Oporto Review where the only substantial leads were found to relate to potential abductors?

Do you not realise how illogical your claim that everything which has already been looked at thoroughly twice and dismissed, should once again be allowed to cloud the genuine leads which the case has to work with?

[Lyall]

I think the explanation given by SY is pretty good at least for starters. That the focus has shifted because now that proper police work has been done and the other potential abductor eliminated this one becomes the most likely.

Several times the McCanns indicated the 9.15 and 10pm men might be one and the same, and there was no efit for 9.15 man, so why not use the ones they did have?

It's puzzling.