Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[G-Unit]

There certainly appears to have been sufficient evidence available both to the PJ and SY to enable the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case.


**snip

Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading what has been called Operation Grange, said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses." 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230



Without that hard evidence there is no doubt Madeleine McCann's case would have been reassigned to the dustbin of the archives where it had rested since 2008  and where it would have remained without her parents' much despised and actively resisted and obstructed campaign on her behalf.

The reopening of the case answers the question of the thread title.

According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.

The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.

We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.

I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mr Gray]

According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.

The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.

We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.

I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.

it seems it was a little too tricky for amaral to work out.....Maddie may still be alive...that's a fact

[John]

If the collection and analysis of evidence is flawed, it's unlikely that there would be much.

To put it another way, what evidence would you expect to find of an abduction?

[G-Unit]

it seems it was a little too tricky for amaral to work out.....Maddie may still be alive...that's a fact

And living underground in Praia da Luz?

[Angelo222]

To put it another way, what evidence would you expect to find of an abduction?

As I pointed out previously, the irony is that Redwood has all but destroyed the one and only bit of proof which could in any way point to abduction when he dismissed the Tanner sighting as irrelevant.

He then proceeds to dig up parts of PdL so no prizes for guessing what SY believe.

[stephen25000]

it seems it was a little too tricky for amaral to work out.....Maddie may still be alive...that's a fact

May be alive ?

Where is that exactly ?

In Edgar's chosen location ?

Personally, I live in the real world, not a fantasy land with a piece of string..............................

[Carana]

According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.

The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.

We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.

I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you may have got a comma in the wrong place concerning 300,500 documents. ;)

Although on a broader topic, CEOP did a scoping exercise on child trafficking in 2007 - it clearly concerns research, analysis and recommendations for further action.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CF8QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.londonscb.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2Fresources%2Fcpp%2FCEOP%2520report.pdf&ei=5sgnVYePK8HYO4DfgdAO&usg=AFQjCNFhQMDNfHGvza7SpkA9hgWFU5L6HQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZWU

If that scoping exercise was in roughly the same format but on the scale of an individual case, then it may well have outlined the facts, difficulties and tensions faced by everyone, and recommendations for further action. I find it likely that it may also have included general information about the sexual assaults (actual or attempted) of other children, the situation of known and unknown sexual offenders, etc, There is no way of knowing as it hasn't been made public.

It would seem to be in the logical flow that there were investigative opportunities to consider if a police force was able to review the scoping exercise and consider the facts in greater detail and the practicalities: e.g.,. what had been thoroughly investigated and what hadn't and how to amass the information from various sources into a single database. At some point, there must have been sufficient red flags to justify opening a UK investigation.

Somewhere along the line, the PT authorities organised their own review, no doubt in consultation with, but independently of, the UK and eventually reopened their own investigation.

Personally, I very much doubt that either investigation concerns just Madeleine...

[Carana]

To put it another way, what evidence would you expect to find of an abduction?

I started an unfortunately unpopular thread on that very same topic, if you remember. ;)

[G-Unit]

I think you may have got a comma in the wrong place concerning 300,500 documents. ;)

Although on a broader topic, CEOP did a scoping exercise on child trafficking in 2007 - it clearly concerns research, analysis and recommendations for further action.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CF8QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.londonscb.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2Fresources%2Fcpp%2FCEOP%2520report.pdf&ei=5sgnVYePK8HYO4DfgdAO&usg=AFQjCNFhQMDNfHGvza7SpkA9hgWFU5L6HQ&bvm=bv.90491159,d.ZWU

If that scoping exercise was in roughly the same format but on the scale of an individual case, then it may well have outlined the facts, difficulties and tensions faced by everyone, and recommendations for further action. I find it likely that it may also have included general information about the sexual assaults (actual or attempted) of other children, the situation of known and unknown sexual offenders, etc, There is no way of knowing as it hasn't been made public.

It would seem to be in the logical flow that there were investigative opportunities to consider if a police force was able to review the scoping exercise and consider the facts in greater detail and the practicalities: e.g.,. what had been thoroughly investigated and what hadn't and how to amass the information from various sources into a single database. At some point, there must have been sufficient red flags to justify opening a UK investigation.

Somewhere along the line, the PT authorities organised their own review, no doubt in consultation with, but independently of, the UK and eventually reopened their own investigation.

Personally, I very much doubt that either investigation concerns just Madeleine...

Maths not my strong point ha ha             30,500 documents

[Brietta]

According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.

The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.

We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.

I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.

What is it about ... new evidence ... and ... new witnesses which you fail to understand?

[Brietta]

To put it another way, what evidence would you expect to find of an abduction?

Quite often there is none, but for the absence of the person.

[Carana]

Quite often there is none, but for the absence of the person.

The abduction of the Serbian child is their parents' nightmare but an investigator's dream case: witnesses, CCTV, vehicle description, rapid deployment...

That's unfortunately not always the case.

[Alice Purjorick]

Idling my time away looking at the McCann files I randomly selected some comments regarding the "investigation".
Forgetting the PJ for a moment who are brilliant or a bunch of incompetent p***heads depending upon which side of the divide one sits, we have four agencies.
Metodo 3 "Today we sensationally reveal the renowned Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency believe the four-year-old was targeted after a tip-off from INSIDE their Portuguese holiday complex.
The highly-respected Spanish detective agency Metodo 3 have NEVER FAILED to find a missing person they've hunted—They will then send their international network of agents to trace the exact movements of their prime suspects .
AIG He [ Dave Edgar] still feels Maddie was snatched by a man spotted by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner, one of the so-called 'Tapas Seven' who dined with them the night Maddie went missing. Their theory, revealed in a Channel 4 documentary a week after the second anniversary of her disappearance on May 3, is that someone was watching the McCanns' apartment in Praia da Luz for up to a week before Madeleine disappeared.
Oakley International Kate and Gerry McCann have hired a team of crack U.S detectives to lead the hunt for their missing daughter Madeleine, it has emerged. The unnamed US firm is said to have been offered a £500,000 six-month contract by the Find Madeleine Fun to help spearhead the search. A friend of the McCanns said: 'The hunt for Madeleine is becoming more and more international and it was felt that a truly international firm was now needed to lead the inquiry.
"These really are the big boys. They are absolutely the best, but they are extremely secretive and cloak-and-dagger about what they do.
The Metropolitan Police Service
Everyone knows "The Yard". They fragged Edgar's prime suspect.

So eight years on, four of the best teams of detectives money can buy working on the case (if one believes the scuttlebutt) and what do we have? No credible sighting and no clue what misfortune may have befallen an unfortunate little girl?.

[G-Unit]

Quite often there is none, but for the absence of the person.

As cases of stranger abduction from a home are incredibly rare, could you say where you got the information allowing you to say 'quite often'?

[Mr Gray]

And living underground in Praia da Luz?

do you disagree Maddie may still be alive?