Were there too many leaks in the Madeleine McCann case?

[Alice Purjorick]

The question arises, if the PJ were concentrating on developing a case against  Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends almost immediately ... how much time and energy were they expending on looking for a possible abductor let alone a living recoverable child?

It appears that the answer to that is ... none.  They never looked for Madeleine McCann.

Reads like propaganda.

It is huge exaggeration from the evidence you posted.

It is far more exaggerated than Madeleine's parents themselves have ever said.

A scholarly article without proper citation is evidence?

[Brietta]

That raises another question: if a PJ officer had already said that to the press, then what was that excuse about not doing a reconstruction again? Not wanting them to know that they were suspects? How does that work?

There are so many questions about the conduct of Madeleine's case and the way in which the press was utilised to cement distrust of her parents into the public perception.

We know for sure that hours into Madeleine's disappearance not only were her parents being investigated ...
absolutely right and proper police procedure ... but not to the exclusion of every other avenue for investigation.

Having decided their guilt, what on earth would have been the point of going to the trouble and expense of actually looking for the real perpetrator by staging a reconstitution ... they had their woman and they were going to get their confession ... worked on at least one previous occasion.   

[Lyall]

There are so many questions about the conduct of Madeleine's case and the way in which the press was utilised to cement distrust of her parents into the public perception.

We know for sure that hours into Madeleine's disappearance not only were her parents being investigated ...
absolutely right and proper police procedure ... but not to the exclusion of every other avenue for investigation.

Having decided their guilt, what on earth would have been the point of going to the trouble and expense of actually looking for the real perpetrator by staging a reconstitution ... they had their woman and they were going to get their confession ... worked on at least one previous occasion.   

They had their woman? &%+((£

The woman who had her husband in the room with her during the first interview, who missed the 2nd round of interviews altogether and who wasn't seen again for four months?

That evidence doesn't fit your theory.

[Brietta]

The question arises, if the PJ were concentrating on developing a case against  Madeleine McCann's parents and their friends almost immediately ... how much time and energy were they expending on looking for a possible abductor let alone a living recoverable child?

It appears that the answer to that is ... none.  They never looked for Madeleine McCann.

Reads like propaganda.

It is huge exaggeration from the evidence you posted.

It is far more exaggerated than Madeleine's parents themselves have ever said.

If you are disputing the veracity of the sources I have used in forming my argument please counter with a valid argument backed up by sources of your own perhaps starting with an explanation of what I have exaggerated?

[Brietta]

They had their woman? &%+((£

The woman who had her husband in the room with her during the first interview, who missed the 2nd round of interviews altogether and who wasn't seen again for four months?

That evidence doesn't fit your theory.

Please be kind enough to support your argument with the requisite cites.

[Lyall]

Please be kind enough to support your argument with the requisite cites.

The McCann's book

They are undisputed facts.

[stephen25000]

Sorry Anna I must have missed those words. As far as I can see there is not one direct quote from Mr Sousa in that article.

So intrinsically the article was 'created' by the Telegraph to support the McCann's.

Now do we have any witnessed statements from Portuguese officers to back it up ?

[Brietta]

The McCann's book

Neither of your posts contribute to the substance of the debate. 

I have and will provide information to back up the claim that the case against the Drs McCann has been largely the result of leaks to the Portuguese press emanating from highly placed sources within the PJ, who at one time you would have thought didn't require backhanders, and that there were indeed too many public opinion manipulating leaks ... unless trial by media has replaced the criminal justice system.

The sad thing is that so many of these lies continue to be believed by some even today.

[stephen25000]

Neither of your posts contribute to the substance of the debate. 

I have and will provide information to back up the claim that the case against the Drs McCann has been largely the result of leaks to the Portuguese press emanating from highly placed sources within the PJ, who at one time you would have thought didn't require backhanders, and that there were indeed too many public opinion manipulating leaks ... unless trial by media has replaced the criminal justice system.

The sad thing is that so many of these lies continue to be believed by some even today.

and the leaks and misinformation on behalf of the McCann's ?

Remember the Victoria Beckham 'lookalike' that was under investigation by Edgar and co. ?


Never was looked for. &%+((£

[Lyall]

Neither of your posts contribute to the substance of the debate. 

I have and will provide information to back up the claim that the case against the Drs McCann has been largely the result of leaks to the Portuguese press emanating from highly placed sources within the PJ, who at one time you would have thought didn't require backhanders, and that there were indeed too many public opinion manipulating leaks ... unless trial by media has replaced the criminal justice system.

The sad thing is that so many of these lies continue to be believed by some even today.

That's your opinion and that's fine. But you need to explain why Madeleine's parents themselves, and the rest of her family, don't agree with you.

You seem to be trying to suggest some things that occurred in August and September had their roots in May, when actually their roots were the alerts in early August. That's what Madeleine's parents themselves say.

[Brietta]

That's your opinion and that's fine. But you need to explain why Madeleine's parents themselves, and the rest of her family, don't agree with you.

You seem to be trying to suggest some things that occurred in August and September had their roots in May, when actually their roots were the alerts in early August. That's what Madeleine's parents themselves say.

You may have read my posts but you haven't understood them.

Senior officers started leaking misinformation to the press within hours of Madeleine's disappearance.

The leaks were duly reported in the press using language still used by 'sceptics' today. 

That was the genesis of the campaign directed against Madeleine McCann's family;  I am sorry you do not accept that and nothing I say will make a dent in your armour but with respect you really do not know what the McCann family think ; IMO the libel case they were forced to take out indicates quite a lot.

[Lyall]

You may have read my posts but you haven't understood them.

Senior officers started leaking misinformation to the press within hours of Madeleine's disappearance.

The leaks were duly reported in the press using language still used by 'sceptics' today. 

That was the genesis of the campaign directed against Madeleine McCann's family;  I am sorry you do not accept that and nothing I say will make a dent in your armour but with respect you really do not know what the McCann family think ; IMO the libel case they were forced to take out indicates quite a lot.

You have provided documents written by Joy Cameron-Dow and Tracey, which indicate there was some discussion between journalists and police very early.

Fair enough but then you state "they never looked for Madeleine McCann".

That's a massive leap. Too big a leap for Madeleine's family themselves, but obviously not for you. Yet you have no evidence to support the claim, or at least haven't shown any. Where's the evidence? Joy Cameron-Dow and Tracey don't provide any for your accusation.

[Carana]

Hmmm.

The GNR and associated S & R entities did search for her as best they could, trying to adapt their training and experience to an unusual situation.

The PJ clearly suspected the McCanns / T7, but also followed the "lead" concerning Murat, which led nowhere.

Then... they were stuck. No obvious forensic leads (they didn't have a DNA database anyway), nothing they could actually pin on Murat, no national sex offender register... and so it was no doubt easier to go back to assuming the parents were involved and concentrate on that.

They didn't have a crime investigation manual to assist until sometime in 2009.

Shoe-horning had worked in the Cipriano affair, the only other case of a missing child that the lead investigator with 27 years of experience had worked on, but slippery stairs weren't an option this time.

The propaganda machine was the only weapon (and that was used extensively in the previous case, with effective results in terms of securing a conviction).

To this day, anyone questioning the lack of evidence or the absurd theory in the Cipriano case gets branded as a child-murderer supporter, so the propaganda machine clearly did work.

[Anna]

Please adhere to the topic, being discussed on this thread.

[Carana]

The fact that there were leaks from the PJ on the Madeleine case is all over the Internet, including via hacks providing testimony in the Leveson inquiry.

Similar leaks occurred during the build-up to the Cipriano case.

However, I have no intention of making the mods' job any more difficult than it already is, which is why I supported a separate sub-forum on that case.

I do NOT support child-murderers / abusers. I DO support potential miscarriages of justice, which, perhaps coincidentally, happens to be the title of this forum.

There is a Cipriano sub-forum which I'm sure that you can all find.