Why didn't the dogs alert to any of Gerry's clothing?

[pegasus]

"The early searches were just a look around,  they were not deep searches" said DCI Nick Scola at the Old Bailey - and they were in possession of the neighbour's report (who was subsequently jailed for 5 months).

In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.

In the earlier PDL case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person must have wandered out or been abducted out of the property was so strong that that the property was only superficially searched.

[pathfinder73]

In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.

In the earlier PDL case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person must have wandered out or been abducted out of the property was so strong that that the property was only superficially searched.

All eye witnesses agree and believe it was Madeleine being carried away towards the beach. Do you start there or think she was hiding in a tiny apartment where the smell would be noticed. There's no cellar or attic with an apartment above.

[ferryman]

All eye witnesses agree and believe it was Madeleine being carried away towards the beach. Do you start there or think she was hiding in a tiny apartment where the smell would be noticed. There's no cellar or attic with an apartment above.

One approach might be to start there, and try to identify the abductor who was carrying Madeleine (at the same time as Kate alerted in the Tapas restaurant that she had discovered Madeleine missing, with Gerry, also, in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert).

A fairly realistic starting-point, I would say ....

[pathfinder73]

One approach might be to start there, and try to identify the abductor who was carrying Madeleine (at the same time as Kate alerted in the Tapas restaurant that she had discovered Madeleine missing, with Gerry, also, in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert).

A fairly realistic starting-point, I would say ....

He won't come forward that's for sure. Of course you start there. It's no surprise SY were searching close to that sighting.

[Brietta]

One approach might be to start there, and try to identify the abductor who was carrying Madeleine (at the same time as Kate alerted in the Tapas restaurant that she had discovered Madeleine missing, with Gerry, also, in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert).

A fairly realistic starting-point, I would say ....

The police might have stood the slightest chance of locating him had they been informed about his existence before a fortnight had passed and attitudes formed.

[pathfinder73]

The police might have stood the slightest chance of locating him had they been informed about his existence before a fortnight had passed and attitudes formed.

Efits were produced in 2008 by McCann investigators and released in 2013 by SY. We got posh spice instead. Go figure.

[ferryman]

Efits were produced in 2008 by McCann investigators and released in 2013 by SY. We got posh spice instead. Go figure.

The first enquiry was shelved in August 2008.

When the efits were produced isn't clear, but definitely after the end of January 2008.

Perhaps just as the shelved enquiry was winding down.

In all events, it was clear that an efit of (potentially) Madeleine's abductor could only, ever, be released against the backdrop of a live and on-going enquiry, and the Met chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them.  Clearly they had been in the possession of the Met for some considerable period before they (the Met) released them.

That's how the British police conduct criminal enquiries.

They long have ....

[misty]

In the UK case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person had walked out of the property was so strong that the property was only superficially searched.

In the earlier PDL case, the illogical assumption by police that the missing person must have wandered out or been abducted out of the property was so strong that that the property was only superficially searched.

In the UK case, the presence of the phone at the house combined with the criminal history of the perp should have merited a thorough search much earlier
In the earlier PdL case the presence of a convicted criminal at the home of the missing child should have merited a much more focussed approach.
Unfortunately for the UK perp, the media were camped on his doorstep, making disposal of the cadaver almost impossible.
In the earlier PdL case, any perp had the good fortune of "no media" on his/her side.

Where was a cadaver concealed in 5a which could have been retrieved at a later stage, unseen by the local police & the army of ever-present media? No cellar, no attic, no outhouses, a sparsely furnished holiday let containing a few kilos of personal possessions required for a week away.

Did the PJ ever conduct a thorough search of 5a?

[G-Unit]

The first enquiry was shelved in August 2008.

When the efits were produced isn't clear, but definitely after the end of January 2008.

Perhaps just as the shelved enquiry was winding down.

In all events, it was clear that an efit of (potentially) Madeleine's abductor could only, ever, be released against the backdrop of a live and on-going enquiry, and the Met chose the moment of the Crimewatch programme to release them.  Clearly they had been in the possession of the Met for some considerable period before they (the Met) released them.

That's how the British police conduct criminal enquiries.

They long have ....

Only to you, ferryman, unless others agree and are keeping it quiet. Parents desperate to locate their missing child would have put the information out there regardless imo.

[jassi]

Only to you, ferryman, unless others agree and are keeping it quiet. Parents desperate to locate their missing child would have put the information out there regardless imo.

Indeed, what is the point of employing detectives to gather evidence and then ignoring it?

[ferryman]

Only to you, ferryman, unless others agree and are keeping it quiet. Parents desperate to locate their missing child would have put the information out there regardless imo.

No.

You can only accuse someone of (potentially) being Madeleine's abductor in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

Otherwise, there is tacit acknowledgement that the person sighted had nothing to do with events of Madeleine's disappearance (as manifest by the absence of a police enquiry to investigate the sighting).

[G-Unit]

No.

You can only accuse someone of (potentially) being Madeleine's abductor in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.

Otherwise, there is tacit acknowledgement that the person sighted had nothing to do with events of Madeleine's disappearance (as manifest by the absence of a police enquiry to investigate the sighting).

Is that your 'common sense' again or do you have something from elsewhere to back it up?

[ferryman]

Is that your 'common sense' again or do you have something from elsewhere to back it up?

Yes, the way English police use efits in criminal enquiries.

They use them to assist criminal enquiries and to aid identifications of persons of interest (whether suspects or vicitims).

If there is no criminal enquiry (and no attempt to identify a person at the centre of a crime, whether a perpetrator or a victim) there is no need of an efit.

That's why Scotland Yard (in possession of the efits for a considerable time before they (Scotland Yard!) released them, chose the moment they did (the Crimewatch programme, for release of the efits).

[pathfinder73]

Posh spice efit was released in 2009 by McCann investigators. Smithman was still in hiding and getting away with it.

"Investigators searching for Madeleine McCann today issued an image of an Australian woman they want to interview in connection with the girl's disappearance.

The suspect — described as a "Victoria Beckham-lookalike" — was spotted in Barcelona just over 72 hours after Madeleine vanished in the Algarve.

The investigators working for Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, believe she was abducted from the family's apartment and possibly smuggled on to a yacht and taken to Spain."

Thursday 6 August 2009

[ferryman]

Posh spice efit was released in 2009 by McCann investigators. Smithman was still in hiding and getting away with it.

"Investigators searching for Madeleine McCann today issued an image of an Australian woman they want to interview in connection with the girl's disappearance.

The suspect — described as a "Victoria Beckham-lookalike" — was spotted in Barcelona just over 72 hours after Madeleine vanished in the Algarve.

The investigators working for Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, believe she was abducted from the family's apartment and possibly smuggled on to a yacht and taken to Spain."

Thursday 6 August 2009

1. Private investigators are not the British police

2. Spain is not Portugal; still less Praia da Luz.

3.  The sighting was not at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted.

4. British police use efits (particularly of people, potentially, seen red-handed in the commission of a crime) to assist live and on-going criminal enquiries.

Does that help?