UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann

[Heriberto Janosch]

Hmm. "Suspect" is quite a loaded term.

I haven't been able to find where the Met actually stated that they were "suspects".

A Guardian article concerning the original 38 people they wanted to interview modified its headline:


"• This article was amended on 5 July 2013. The headline on the original described the 38 "persons of interest" as suspects; they are potential suspects."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/04/madeleine-mccann-police-target-38-suspects

As far as I'm aware, a "person of interest" is someone the police want to interview in more depth to clarify any grey areas that appear as a potential red flag. Following the interviews, they may want to keep them on the back burner for a time while they check out the results of the new interview. I don't see anything odd in that from their perspective, although I can imagine that it must be daunting for the person in question to have that cloud hanging over them until the police have come to their conclusions.

What term did Pedro do Carmo actually use? "Suspeitos"? If so, it's apparently as loaded in Portuguese as it is in English.

I can see two issues: the media's misuse of the term "suspects" (the tabloids are the usual culprits, but in the article above even the Guardian prior to rectification), and the difference in legislation between the two countries.

Unless the PT legislation has changed yet again, the last time I looked arguido status sets the clock in motion with a specific time frame within which the investigation needs to be concluded (barring an argument for exceptional circumstances, which adds a layer of bureaucratic hassle).

And, again the last time I checked, there was no specific legislation concerning the arguido status timeframe in the event of a foreign investigation equivalent to questioning "under caution".

My conclusion - for the moment - is that the PJ would have been quite happy to conduct those interviews under the umbrella of the Met investigation as it doesn't set the time ball rolling from their side and enables them to keep their own investigation open.

I have cited Rowley and do Carmo verbatim.

[John]

THE MADELEINE MCCANN'S ABDUCTION: THE TRUE MYSTERY

Scotland Yard Operation Grange officially said in April 2017 that "n 2013 the team identified four individuals [including José Carlos and Ricardo] they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária, and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation" (Mark Rowley).

Portuguese Polícia Judiciária officially said in May 2017: "We never saw or looked at those people [José Carlos and Ricardo] as suspects of the crime" (Pedro do Carmo).

This is the true mystery in Madeleine McCann's abduction: why two police forces have such a different view on the same subject? Why the Portuguese police never considered them suspects? Why the British police keep them as suspects for more than three years, investing a lot of money in their investigation? How can it be explained? Can the Portuguese and British police ever explain it? They should explain it.

http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2017/05/the-madeleine-mccanns-abduction-true.html

The title of the thread appears to explain it rather nicely.  The Portuguese I fear are quite content to let sleeping dogs lie while SY are effectively winding down having exhausted over £11 million and found nothing.  Same result in the end.

[Mr Gray]

The title of the thread appears to explain it rather nicely.

could you tell us when the uk police were found guilty of tunnel vision..sounds like opinion presented as fact...correction...it IS opinion presented as fact

[Carana]

@ Brietta

"Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them."

The interviewer doesn't appear to understand PT legislation.

[ferryman]

@ Brietta

"Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them."

The interviewer doesn't appear to understand PT legislation.

Yes.  By Portuguese law (at least back then; it may have changed since) those within the orbit of a criminal investigation are either suspects or informal witnesses.

Incriminating questions may not be asked of informal witnesses; the arguido status (alone) allows a more probing/accusing line of questioning.

[Heriberto Janosch]

The title of the thread appears to explain it rather nicely.  The Portuguese I fear are quite content to let sleeping dogs lie while SY are effectively winding down having exhausted over £11 million and found nothing.  Same result in the end.

And more questions: Why do not José Carlos and Ricardo want to talk about the case? When will the Portuguese police and British police close the investigation, and give broad explanations about the case? What did they? How did they proceed? How did they discard all the followed clues?  And so on ...

[ShiningInLuz]

...

The beginning of Madeleine's case was around ten pm on the third of May 2007 against a backdrop of a side of Luz the visitors seldom see.  It is risible in my opinion to suggest the Scotland Yard investigation didn't go back there and check out the case from the beginning.

...

It is risible, IMO, to suggest SY went back to Luz to check out the case from the beginning.  There is nothing to support this proposition.

[Carana]

The title of the thread appears to explain it rather nicely.  The Portuguese I fear are quite content to let sleeping dogs lie while SY are effectively winding down having exhausted over £11 million and found nothing.  Same result in the end.

Hmmm. For the moment I disagree for reasons I mentioned above.

I have no doubt that the PJ would dearly love to solve the case (and the annexe cases of child assault, plus other cases of missing people), but they don't appear to have had the means that the Met had.

Even though the case appears to be no further ahead, at least information is apparently now on a database that can be cross-referenced in the event of any new information, wherever that may lead.

[Carana]

I have cited Rowley and do Carmo verbatim.

Which words did they use?

[Heriberto Janosch]

Which words did they use?

Scotland Yard Operation Grange officially said in April 2017 that "in 2013 the team identified four individuals [including José Carlos and Ricardo] they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária, and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation" (Mark Rowley).

Portuguese Polícia Judiciária officially said in May 2017: "We never saw or looked at those people [José Carlos and Ricardo] as suspects of the crime" (Pedro do Carmo).

[barrier]

And more questions: Why do not José Carlos and Ricardo want to talk about the case? When will the Portuguese police and British police close the investigation, and give broad explanations about the case? What did they? How did they proceed? How did they discard all the followed clues?  And so on ...

Are they under any obligation to do so,now if the PJ were to archive and release files again that would be a different matter.

[ferryman]

It is risible, IMO, to suggest SY went back to Luz to check out the case from the beginning.  There is nothing to support this proposition.

The checked the case files from the beginning and satisfied themselves that no one close to Madeleine had any case to answer.
Then they began a fresh! investigative phase.  Where that leads or has led, we won't really have a proper grasp on until the investigation is formally shelved, and perhaps not even then.

[Carana]

Scotland Yard Operation Grange officially said in April 2017 that "in 2013 the team identified four individuals [including José Carlos and Ricardo] they declared to be suspects in the case. This led to interviews at a police station in Faro facilitated by the local Policia Judiciária, and the search of a large area of wasteland which is close to Madeleine's apartment in Praia Da Luz. The enquiries did not find any evidence to further implicate the individuals in the disappearance and so they are no longer subject of further investigation" (Mark Rowley).

Portuguese Polícia Judiciária officially said in May 2017: "We never saw or looked at those people [José Carlos and Ricardo] as suspects of the crime" (Pedro do Carmo).

ETA: my question relates to the context and the terms used. Simple curiosity.

Yes, I saw that, Heri, but what are the original links? Are they from press reports or video extracts?

[ShiningInLuz]

They checked the case files from the beginning and satisfied themselves that no one close to Madeleine had any case to answer.
Then they began a fresh! investigative phase.  Where that leads or has led, we won't really have a proper grasp on until the investigation is formally shelved, and perhaps not even then.

Along with no evidence of a visit to Luz, there is no evidence of such a check prior to the remit being drawn up.

If you have any evidence of such a check, kindly cite it.

[Carana]

Along with no evidence of a visit to Luz, there is no evidence of such a check prior to the remit being drawn up.

If you have any evidence of such a check, kindly cite it.

Which remit do you mean? The review or the investigation?