At last! Scotland Yard look on as PJ interview 4 suspects in Maddie case.

[slartibartfast]

Yes I would actually, if there were grounds for suspicion. Are you saying this is not allowed by law?

Exactly, if there were grounds for suspicion agreed by a judge. Fishing expeditions are not allowed.

[VIXTE]

So the next time a serious crime happens near you would you expect the police to be able to search any property nearby and take DNA samples from anyone local? In the UK defiantly a no no.

Oh c'mon there are cases where the police took DNA from whole towns!
Both in the UK and France..if I remember correctly..and in Germany too when a boy on bike went missing.

[Alfred R Jones]

Exactly, if there were grounds for suspicion agreed by a judge. Fishing expeditions are not allowed.

Err...did you miss my link above?

[Alfred R Jones]

In any case if there were no grounds for suspicion these 4 individuals would not be arguidos!

[slartibartfast]

Err...did you miss my link above?

The Leicestershire Constabulary and the FSS then undertook an investigation in which 5,000 local men were asked to volunteer blood or saliva samples. This took six months, and no matches were found.

Note the key word. SY wanted PT to authorise searches and DNA sampling. It didn't ask those involved to cooperate.

[VIXTE]

One thing is: If they are asking fir a DNA they have a sample to compare it with! Otherwise, why would they ask for a sample???

And if they do have it then it would be natural to  have arguidos samples!

[slartibartfast]

One thing is: If they are asking fir a DNA they have a sample to compare it with! Otherwise, why would they ask for a sample???

And if they do have it then it would be natural to  have arguidos samples!

I don't see your point, I would expect the arguidos to have given samples, SY wanted samples from other locals?

[Alfred R Jones]

Note the key word. SY wanted PT to authorise searches and DNA sampling. It didn't ask those involved to cooperate.

Well perhaps they should ask nicely then.  In any case these men are arguidos, there are grounds to suspect them, the police has asked them hundreds of questions including did you kill Madeleine McCann.  If the police have grounds to suspect them then they should be allowed to take a DNA sample and search their homes - in my opinion. 

[slartibartfast]

That's always a good indicator for police... Ask for a DNA swab to help the investigation.  90% of people will help out straight away... 9.9% might be wary.  And the odd 0.1% will refuse.  This doesn't imply guilt but raises questions.

In these cases, it can always be cross-referenced by sneakily getting DNA from members of the family closely related to the person... even if that can't be used in court.

Anyone who refuses to cooperate raises questions.

[Gadfly]

Well perhaps they should ask nicely then.  In any case these men are arguidos, there are grounds to suspect them, the police has asked them hundreds of questions including did you kill Madeleine McCann.  If the police have grounds to suspect them then they should be allowed to take a DNA sample and search their homes - in my opinion.

These requests are being done as nicely as possible.  Those at the top of the investigation are skilled politicians.  They work well with the leading Portuguese.  This is evident by the progress -the digs, questioning, searching of cars.

All the rest is mid-level PJ sounding off and a former Home Secretary of Portugal having a moan about Portuguese sovereignty to get his name in the newspaper.

If requests are refused, it will be because they'll have been told to come back when they can provide corroborating evidence.. (which in itself, they will often receive some kind of warrant to go and find...).

I repeat, the FO have a good working relationship with Portugal and SY are savvy enough to do it the way the PT authorities want it done -- even if that takes forever. 

[Gadfly]

Anyone who refuses to cooperate raises questions.

Yes - namely 'why isn't this person cooperating?'

a) Political beliefs?
b) Experience with police before / antagonistic relationship resulting in a refusal to cooperate?
c) Wary about being linked to a different event / crime?
d) Frightened about being linked to the actual crime under investigation?

[slartibartfast]

Yes - namely 'why isn't this person cooperating?'

a) Political beliefs?
b) Experience with police before / antagonistic relationship resulting in a refusal to cooperate?
c) Wary about being linked to a different event / crime?
d) Frightened about being linked to the actual crime under investigation?

I assume d) includes being involved?

[Gadfly]

d) Involved in one aspect potentially.  But yes, involved.

[pegasus]

I think the big unbelievable thing about Heriberto's theory, is his remarkable assumption that the child, being awoken by the loud shutter noise (which he so accurately demonstrates in his video of the correct 3-stage opening method) would go towards the window, I find that to be exactly the wrong direction.

[sadie]

I think the big unbelievable thing about Heriberto's theory, is his remarkable assumption that the child, being awoken by the loud shutter noise (which he so accurately demonstrates in his video of the correct 3-stage opening method) would go towards the window, I find that to be exactly the wrong direction.

If a member of staff, anyone especially female who Madeleine knew, was there and offering her sweeties or the like. 

The right enducement by the right person ... and she would soon be there.



Heris theory is possible, but I prefer the entered by the front door scenario.

I especially like it since so many on here have tried to shout it down with no reason.  That has raised a double red flag in my mind.