Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[Robittybob1]

He failed to give a straight answer to just about every question he was asked, shifty doesn't even begin to cover it.  Must be the judicial secrecy training kicking in.

There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head.  It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.

[Benice]

Pedro do Carmo was asked by Panorama if they were still suspects and he wouldn't give a straight answer, what does that tell you?

Could it be 'political'  i.e.  he didn't want to publicly contradict his own country's SC judges?

[Alice Purjorick]

There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head.  It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.

If one is a policeman and one is asked "are x,y & z suspects in your enquiry?", there is only one possible answer one can give regardless of its veracity, and that is No!

[Robittybob1]

If one is a policeman and one is asked "are x,y & z suspects in your enquiry?", there is only one possible answer one can give regardless of its veracity, and that is No!

No that could be a lie, the usual expression I found was "I can't confirm or deny that".

[Alfie]

There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head.  It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.

Isn't he the same bloke who said "The McCanns are not suspects.  Period"?  Their names all look and sound the same to me (RACIST!!!!)

[Robittybob1]

Isn't he the same bloke who said "The McCanns are not suspects.  Period"?  Their names all look and sound the same to me (RACIST!!!!)

I heard him say that too but he carried on and said something along the lines of "but that doesn't mean we have stopped looking for clues".   He said this rather quietly so you might have missed it.

[Brietta]

"The apartment was let out twice in the next  weeks before it was sealed off for  a full forensic examination". 
That is astounding.

I believe it was let out more often than that.  I think it was Carana who did the research and posted on the forum the names of at least four families who stayed there after the McCanns.
I think at least one of which were relations of the owner, so maybe no formal let there but definitely occupation.

If forensic evidence was ruined as a result of people being in the apartment during the initial search for Madeleine ... how much more so after forensic searches had been completed (anyone had to deep clean after that fingerprint powder has been splashed around?) ... and the occupancy throughout the weeks afterwords.

[jassi]

I believe it was let out more often than that.  I think it was Carana who did the research and posted on the forum the names of at least four families who stayed there after the McCanns.
I think at least one of which were relations of the owner, so maybe no formal let there but definitely occupation.

If forensic evidence was ruined as a result of people being in the apartment during the initial search for Madeleine ... how much more so after forensic searches had been completed (anyone had to deep clean after that fingerprint powder has been splashed around?) ... and the occupancy throughout the weeks afterwords.

Interesting point.
Following a crime, how long would  it be reasonable for  an owner have to wait before regaining access to their property?
Normally a forensic team would be in, do it's stuff and be out again within a relatively short time, so re-letting a holiday property a couple of weeks later wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Benice]

Jane Tanner's sketch appears at 30:25 onward.

I think Martin Brunt's point about the Crecheman going in the long way around (wrong direction) is very important.  The little bit of uncertainty in Redwoods announcement just got considerably larger.

Collin Sutton is one who is not convinced by Redwood's explanation.  Bravo!

IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.

We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction.  Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?

It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction.    What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.   

AIMHO

[Robittybob1]

IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.

We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction.  Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?

It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction.    What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.   

AIMHO

Knowing the general attitude they would be willing to sacrifice Jane Tanner's recollection.  Maybe she was that confused he was walking in the opposite direction to what she said.  She didn't see Jez didn't see Gerry, she didn't see Crecheman walking from left to right.  She got the pyjamas wrong and the girl had a blanket, wrong again.

I'm not agreeing with this but I could imagine Jane being the one to be downplayed.

[G-Unit]

IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.

We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction.  Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?

It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction.    What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.   

AIMHO

Your faith in SY is admirable, as is their unconcern about looking stupid.

[Robittybob1]

IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us. .....

AIMHO

  If he did he didn't let on.

[Mr Gray]

Your faith in SY is admirable, as is their unconcern about looking stupid.

Your post does seem more than a little biased
SY are far from stupid

[Robittybob1]

Your post does seem more than a little biased
SY are far from stupid

It seems Colin Sutton thought one person in SY was a little stupid regarding Crecheman.  That is how I interpreted his comments.

[G-Unit]

It seems Colin Sutton thought one person in SY was a little stupid regarding Crecheman.  That is how I interpreted his comments.

Colin Sutton has totally embarrassed the Metropolitan Police. He has revealed that the investigation was restricted before it even started.