Wandering Off Topic

[faithlilly]

I thought it was Rachael who informed Jane that MM was missing.

Jane 4th May
When she was in the apartment, at about 22.00- 22.15 she heard Kate and Fiona shouting and saying that Madeleine had disappeared.

10th May
Later she heard voices of KH and FP who were in the corridor in front of the bedroom windows and who called, desperately, for Madeleine. When she saw her it was KH herself who told the deponent that Madeleine had disappeared, not clarifying in what circumstances, continuing her search. The deponent stayed in her apartment because her daughter, El, was asleep and the smallest, Ev, was still awake and complaining.

Tanner’s rogatory interview.


4078    “And what happened after that?”
Reply    “Erm, I think that’s when I went back to the roadside, I sort of looked out of the roadside door.  I think I heard some shouting, erm, so I actually went to sort of put my head out the roadside door.  And I think it was Rachael that I saw first because she had run back I think to check that Grace was obviously okay.  And then I think Rachael said, you know, she told me what had, you know she said ‘Oh Madeleine’s gone’ or, you know, something along those lines.  And that’s, it was almost straightaway as she said that I sort of had that, this person sort of came into my head at that”.

[Vertigo Swirl]

She hadn't budged before then. She sat there from 8.30 until 10.
Nothing to argue about really, but I'm sure you will.

She left the table at 10pm to check on her kids as you have stated therefore it is entirely inaccurate to say she stayed put at the table all evening.  The end.

[Carana]

The fact remains that he was allowed to continue. Is it necessary to understand why?

I'm a curious soul. lol

What's the rationale behind police officers being suspended pending investigations into alleged misconduct where that's routine practice?

[barrier]

The long and short of it,no matter how much dirt is tried to be slung at Anmaral,neither of the present day investigations have managed to prove him wrong,maybe that's what irks.

[G-Unit]

Tanner’s rogatory interview.


4078    “And what happened after that?”
Reply    “Erm, I think that’s when I went back to the roadside, I sort of looked out of the roadside door.  I think I heard some shouting, erm, so I actually went to sort of put my head out the roadside door.  And I think it was Rachael that I saw first because she had run back I think to check that Grace was obviously okay.  And then I think Rachael said, you know, she told me what had, you know she said ‘Oh Madeleine’s gone’ or, you know, something along those lines.  And that’s, it was almost straightaway as she said that I sort of had that, this person sort of came into my head at that”.

So at first Kate told her, then it changes to Rachael. Why would Jane immediately think that the man she saw had taken MM? Most people imo would think she'd got out; hence the searching. Rachael has the answer;

Kate and Fi were standing by the window, like on the outside of the apartment and no, Kate, I think Kate had said you know, somebodys taken her, cos the shutter was up and the window was open, erm yeah, I think it was then that we kind of realised that she'd been taken, erm as, you know, as opposed to just kind of wandering out of her bed and just wondering where people were, erm and then, and I remember then going to talk to Jane and Matt went off and that, I went to talk to Jane and said you know, that Madeleine had disappeared and the window was open and the shutter was up, erm and then Jane said to me that when she'd come back to do her check, erm she'd seen somebody carrying a child,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

[Admin]

The long and short of it,no matter how much dirt is tried to be slung at Anmaral,neither of the present day investigations have managed to prove him wrong,maybe that's what irks.

The reality is that Amaral has not been proven right or wrong and the highest Court in Portugal has decreed that the McCanns have not been cleared.  The perfect stalemate position.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The long and short of it,no matter how much dirt is tried to be slung at Anmaral,neither of the present day investigations have managed to prove him wrong,maybe that's what irks.

THe fact that both investigations have categorically stated that the McCanns are not suspects tends to prove him wrong.  Of course you won't accept that, and neither I doubt will he.

[barrier]

THe fact that both investigations have categorically stated that the McCanns are not suspects tends to prove him wrong.  Of course you won't accept that, and neither I doubt will he.

Its still to be detremined what crime as been commited,so no proof he is wrong,I doubt you'll accept that.

[Carana]

Until he is convicted there must be a presumption of innocence so why is the date of the conviction unimportant?

Oh boy am I going to enjoy this!

lol Alice,

Yes, of course, there is a legal presumption of innocence in most civilised countries right up until the final appeal fails, which - in PT -  can take a decade or more.

My impression is that it's quite a complicated issue.

- First of all, there were two investigations: one was the external criminal one, and the other was the internal one by the PJ watchdog. Both are subject to a lengthy appeal process (cf the Cristovão saga).

- A different layer is whether the person under investigation should be allowed to continue on the same type of case, pending the outcome.

To take that into a different context: would it be appropriate for a broker accused of embezzlement to continue managing clients' portfolios? The company itself has a vested interest in finding out what the hell happened.

- A further layer concerns public perception: if the press discovered that a brokerage company found it normal that someone under a cloud of suspicion was still allowed to handle enormous wealth and hadn't taken appropriate measures, the company's name would be worth next to nothing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Its still to be detremined what crime as been commited,so no proof he is wrong,I doubt you'll accept that.

He will never be proved right of that I have absolutely no doubt. 

[barrier]

He will never be proved right of that I have absolutely no doubt.

The only way he'll be proved wrong is for a miracle to happen imo.
As recently as April 2017 SY couldn't  confirm if Madeleine was dead or alive.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The only way he'll be proved wrong is for a miracle to happen imo.
As recently as April 2017 SY couldn't  confirm if Madeleine was dead or alive.

Likewise re: being proved correct. 

[G-Unit]

I'm a curious soul. lol

What's the rationale behind police officers being suspended pending investigations into alleged misconduct where that's routine practice?

I don't have a clue about Portugal. I know there is legislation concerning police conduct both for England and Wales and Scotland.

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2632/contents/made

The Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014
http://www.scotland.police.uk/assets/pdf/151934/184779/police-service-of-scotland-conduct-regulations-sop

[Robittybob1]

So at first Kate told her, then it changes to Rachael. Why would Jane immediately think that the man she saw had taken MM? Most people imo would think she'd got out; hence the searching. Rachael has the answer;

Kate and Fi were standing by the window, like on the outside of the apartment and no, Kate, I think Kate had said you know, somebodys taken her, cos the shutter was up and the window was open, erm yeah, I think it was then that we kind of realised that she'd been taken, erm as, you know, as opposed to just kind of wandering out of her bed and just wondering where people were, erm and then, and I remember then going to talk to Jane and Matt went off and that, I went to talk to Jane and said you know, that Madeleine had disappeared and the window was open and the shutter was up, erm and then Jane said to me that when she'd come back to do her check, erm she'd seen somebody carrying a child,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

"So at first Kate told her, then it changes to Rachael."  Wrong IMO - Nowhere does she say Rachael told her first.

[Carana]

Its still to be detremined what crime as been commited,so no proof he is wrong,I doubt you'll accept that.

Never say never, but for the moment I disagree.

The two investigations were opened / reopened based on an assessment of facts, and opportunities to further explore what happened to this little girl and who (if anyone), was criminally responsible for an - as yet - undetermined potential criime.

So far, ok.

Both jurisdictions stated that the parents weren't suspects. Although that could always change, so far it hasn't.

I find it absurd to imagine that both police forces had ignored any of a list of criminally liable possibilities involving the parents prior to stating that they weren't suspects.

Since when would two independent police investigations in two countries be (re)launched to concentrate on proving or disproving a theory of one particular officer (and his entourage) who coordinated the investigation for its first 5 months?

There are always going to be supporters of the "thwarted hero" amongst conspiracy theorists whatever the
subject. Although conspiracies do exist, IMO there are far more theorists than actual ones. Conveniently, it feeds into the current populist zeitgeist narrative of David v Goliath, or whatever represents a particular archetype.