Former McCann PI "Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper?"

[Mr Gray]

G-unit is correct Rob, the Supreme Court had to address the claim by the McCanns and did so. A veritable own goal in any language. The SC merely confirmed what many have stated for nearly ten years and that it that the Archiving Report cleared nobody. At the time the investigation had hit a brick wall, the Attorney General had no option but to archive the investigation due to a lack of evidence. He did state that it could be reopened at any time for as long as the case remained unsolved.

I'm fairly sure the SC said the archiving report was not evidence of innocence which it clearly is

[ferryman]

Members should not post opinion as fact.  Please keep the following in mind when commenting.

* It is unknown what happened to Madeleine McCann.
* Abduction and every other scenario are unproven.
* It is unknown what SY think.

The Operation Grange remit is known.

It has been published.

[ShiningInLuz]

Will you stop accusing me of misquoting the Archiving Report?  It's there in black and white!  The archiving report which mentions the McCanns lack of knowledge of the outlying terrain ONLY DOES SO WITH REFERENCE TO BODY DISPOSAL.  Why else would it be mentioned in the report?  Why are you being so deliberately provocative? 

I am being factually accurate.

My assertion was that the archiving report in this context is inaccurate, as shown by Matthew's statement.  If you don't like factual accuracy, you might wish to consider whether this forum is the place for you.

Feel free to report this part of the thread.  Nothing you can do alters the facts in the files.  That you do not like such facts is not my issue.

[John]

"The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine."

The key words in that paragraph are "seems to result" and not resulted.  I'm sure that distinction isn't lost on anyone.

[stephen25000]

The Operation Grange remit is known.

It has been published.

Madeleine's fate is unknown, except to the person (s) who removed her from the apartment, assuming of course she didn't walk out.

[John]

I'm fairly sure the SC said the archiving report was not evidence of innocence which it clearly is

Clearly you don't understand Portuguese Law.

[Mr Gray]

I am being factually accurate.

My assertion was that the archiving report in this context is inaccurate, as shown by Matthew's statement.  If you don't like factual accuracy, you might wish to consider whether this forum is the place for you.

Feel free to report this part of the thread.  Nothing you can do alters the facts in the files.  That you do not like such facts is not my issue.

You claimed Alf raised the question of the disposal of the body when in fact you raised it when you quoted the archiving report
That was factually inaccurate

[stephen25000]

The key words in that paragraph are "seems to result" and not resulted.  I'm sure that distinction isn't lost on anyone.

Indeed John.

The meaning is crystal clear.

So why do some deliberately try to twist that to their own end and imply something different ?

[John]

The Operation Grange remit is known.

It has been published.

A remit changes with the evidence.  To repeat, it is unknown what SY's current thinking on the case is as they haven't bothered to provide it.

[Mr Gray]

Clearly you don't understand Portuguese Law.

Point out where I am wrong then

[ShiningInLuz]

The only person known to have gone jogging with Kate is Matthew.  Did other friends jog with Kate?

I happen to know the route is narrow, does not have a pedestrian-only area, is busy, and a (large) bus service runs on it.  Assuming Kate and Gerry entered via that route on 28 May, Kate would have had access to all of that information, or its equivalent.  And if not, a question arises as to how Kate or Matthew found out about it.

A few days after Madeleine went missing, Kate and Gerry went jogging past the villa Clement Freud had owned and up to the top of the hill.  There is no explanation as to how this route was found.  But it is a much safer route than the M537.

I have seen plenty of cyclists on the M537, typically with a fluorescent top for visibility.  I cannot recall seeing a jogger.

[Mr Gray]

A remit changes with the evidence.  To repeat, it is unknown what SY's current thinking on the case is as they haven't bothered to provide it.

You are absolutely right and sil should take note
The McCanns are NOT off limits due to the remit
That would be factually innaccurate

[ShiningInLuz]

You are absolutely right and sil should take note
The McCanns are NOT off limits due to the remit
That would be factually innaccurate

The remit is worded in a manner to put them off-limits.

I dare say this may become problematical for some supporters if OG closes without finding evidence to support the notion of an abduction, but we will need to see what the outcome is before getting into debate about what it means.

[G-Unit]

Didn't they claim the archiving report was evidence of innocence and the SC disagreed
There's a big diference between the two

I think they used both arguments, but neither stood up legally.

[Brietta]

We do not know she was a kidnap victim.

Perhaps, as you have stated to me and others,  it is best not to post opinion as fact

That is as maybe ... but if you would kindly note ... your opinion on that matter is not really up for discussion on this thread which is quite unambiguous in it's wording.

"Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper"

Dave Edgar is of the opinion that Madeleine may have confided in someone ... I suggest that Madeleine and her kidnapper may be surrounded by those who are already 'in the know' and who have a vested interest in omerta.

In the absence of any indication confirming the speculation of some that Madeleine is dead ... consideration must be given to what might have happened to her and where she may be ... particularly if she is 'hidden in plain sight' aided and abetted by Amaral's theory and its adherents.