Abduction

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm not terribly sure which part of my post has offended you; I did not raise the present situation in Luz ... you did; I did not raise the issue of bank accounts etc ... you did; I did not drop money donated to Madeleine's fund into the mix ... you did.

There were arguidos named and questioned by the Policia Judiciaria in 2014 in relation to Madeleine's disappearance ... that is a fact.
That was hardly anything to do with me so why on earth you have gone of on one on that is beyond mysterious to me.

Allegedly Scotland yard were not allowed to search their dwellings nor allegedly were Scotland Yard allowed to see their bank accounts.
Have I got that wrong ... or is that exactly what the cite I have provided says?

You leap to the defence of three men involved in criminal activities who the police wished to question as suspects in a missing child case ... that is fine by me if that is what you wish to be seen doing.

Snip
The Portuguese Attorney General has received a formal International Letter of Request from British detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

It is thought officers from the Met want to locate and question three burglars who were operating in Praia da Luz after mobile records revealed they had made an unusually high number of phone calls to each other shortly after the little girl disappeared.

Joana Marques Vidal confirmed the letter, which was sent on 10 January had been passed to a Portuguese court for consideration, ITV reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/24/madeleine-mccann-news-three-burglars-face-questioning-portuguese-authorities-met-request_n_4657584.html

Please be my guest and report away ... I certainly am agog to discover what you find "crass in the extreme" about my post to precipitate your reaction.

Most of your post was offensive, as is most of this one.

Assuming OG requested bank details, and house searches, (and allegedly DNA), then Portuguese authorities seemingly deemed these requests to be of insufficient merit to authorise them.

If you have evidence these 3 men were operating in a burglary ring, produce it.

If you have evidence these 3 men made abnormally high numbers of calls to each other before/after Madeleine disappeared, produce it.

The men were made arguidos, but current best information is they are no longer of interest.

Quite why you think it is OK to imply that 3 readily identifiable individuals abducted Madeleine for money, when there is no evidence to support it, is beyond the pale.

Any implication that the McCanns dunnit, without any supporting evidence, would disappear faster than a bolt of lightning.

There is nothing to suggest this trio benefited from Madeleine's disappearance.  If you think there is, then kindly stop alleging and start producing some evidence thereof.

I have deliberately avoided talking to the trio, on the basis that AFAIK they are still bound by judicial secrecy laws.  If the case gets archived, talking to them is on my to-do list.  I'm intrigued as to what evidence was put to them that OG thought might implicate them.

[Robittybob1]

Most of your post was offensive, as is most of this one.

Assuming OG requested bank details, and house searches, (and allegedly DNA), then Portuguese authorities seemingly deemed these requests to be of insufficient merit to authorise them.

If you have evidence these 3 men were operating in a burglary ring, produce it.

If you have evidence these 3 men made abnormally high numbers of calls to each other before/after Madeleine disappeared, produce it.

The men were made arguidos, but current best information is they are no longer of interest.

Quite why you think it is OK to imply that 3 readily identifiable individuals abducted Madeleine for money, when there is no evidence to support it, is beyond the pale.

Any implication that the McCanns dunnit, without any supporting evidence, would disappear faster than a bolt of lightning.

There is nothing to suggest this trio benefited from Madeleine's disappearance.  If you think there is, then kindly stop alleging and start producing some evidence thereof.

I have deliberately avoided talking to the trio, on the basis that AFAIK they are still bound by judicial secrecy laws.  If the case gets archived, talking to them is on my to-do list.  I'm intrigued as to what evidence was put to them that OG thought might implicate them.

You would have to admit that a burglary gone wrong is a possible scenario either in the abduction or just the waking of Madeleine.   If there was evidence of phones calls around that time and from the reports Heriberto Janosch had done that analysis and OG must have agreed. OK it isn't that much evidence but why make them arguidos if they are not willing to examine them fully?

[jassi]

You would have to admit that a burglary gone wrong is a possible scenario either in the abduction or just the waking of Madeleine.   If there was evidence of phones calls around that time and from the reports Heriberto Janosch had done that analysis and OG must have agreed. OK it isn't that much evidence but why make them arguidos if they are not willing to examine them fully?

It most certainly isn't and they appear to be no longer of any interest to OG.

[ShiningInLuz]

You would have to admit that a burglary gone wrong is a possible scenario either in the abduction or just the waking of Madeleine.   If there was evidence of phones calls around that time and from the reports Heriberto Janosch had done that analysis and OG must have agreed. OK it isn't that much evidence but why make them arguidos if they are not willing to examine them fully?

I have no problem with Heri.  I have had the pleasure of meeting him face-to-face and I would be happy to do so again.

The sequence of events as I understand it is as follows.

Heri developed his potential burglary gone wrong scenario.  Heri communicated this to OG.  Heri outlined his theory here, without naming names.  OG made 3 men living in Luz arguidos.

I have no idea whether OG was acting on Heri's communication, or whether they got to much the same place under their own steam.  I am not privy to the internal workings of OG.  I only get to see the external activities they undertake.  Plus FOIs.

From memory, Heri documented 4 communications between the trio on 2 May and 3 May 2007.  On 3 May 2007, 3 communications could possibly be tied to movements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7.  I happen to know that these 4 communications can be tied to something much more mundane.  Obviously, I cannot prove which alternative is correct, or whether there is a 3rd explanation.

So what I know is 3 men residing in Luz contacted each other by phone. 4 times in 2 days.

If that is what it amounts to, then forensic scrutiny of their bank accounts and search warrants for their homes is laughable.

I have no problem with them being made arguidos, though I am very curious as to why this passed Portuguese approval. Thus far, it sounds like much ado about nothing.

Slarti has published a link showing that access to the McCann accounts was denied by UK authorities, seemingly because it was not proportionate.   That sounds fair to me.

Suggesting that the Portuguese should have dragged this trio over the coals sounds like cobblers.

[Brietta]

I have no problem with Heri.  I have had the pleasure of meeting him face-to-face and I would be happy to do so again.

The sequence of events as I understand it is as follows.

Heri developed his potential burglary gone wrong scenario.  Heri communicated this to OG.  Heri outlined his theory here, without naming names.  OG made 3 men living in Luz arguidos.

I have no idea whether OG was acting on Heri's communication, or whether they got to much the same place under their own steam.  I am not privy to the internal workings of OG.  I only get to see the external activities they undertake.  Plus FOIs.

From memory, Heri documented 4 communications between the trio on 2 May and 3 May 2007.  On 3 May 2007, 3 communications could possibly be tied to movements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7.  I happen to know that these 4 communications can be tied to something much more mundane.  Obviously, I cannot prove which alternative is correct, or whether there is a 3rd explanation.

So what I know is 3 men residing in Luz contacted each other by phone. 4 times in 2 days.

If that is what it amounts to, then forensic scrutiny of their bank accounts and search warrants for their homes is laughable.

I have no problem with them being made arguidos, though I am very curious as to why this passed Portuguese approval. Thus far, it sounds like much ado about nothing.

Slarti has published a link showing that access to the McCann accounts was denied by UK authorities, seemingly because it was not proportionate.   That sounds fair to me.

Suggesting that the Portuguese should have dragged this trio over the coals sounds like cobblers.

In my opinion you have absolutely no objection whatsoever to Madeleine McCann's disappearance being investigated just so long as it does not concern involving local Portuguese residents allegedly domicile in the locale at the time.
Bit unrealistic I think, but there you are.

The old adage about investigating those closest to a missing child is superseded by casting the net wider when these have been eliminated from the inquiry.

As far as constituting individuals as arguidos goes ... that can now only be approved if evidence is produced in support ... the evidence was produced ... it was sufficient for the Portuguese authorities ... perhaps??
But we really don't know ... bearing in mind those interviewed may have requested the status for themselves and had permission granted.

[pathfinder73]

I'm not terribly sure which part of my post has offended you; I did not raise the present situation in Luz ... you did; I did not raise the issue of bank accounts etc ... you did; I did not drop money donated to Madeleine's fund into the mix ... you did.

There were arguidos named and questioned by the Policia Judiciaria in 2014 in relation to Madeleine's disappearance ... that is a fact.
That was hardly anything to do with me so why on earth you have gone of on one on that is beyond mysterious to me.

Allegedly Scotland yard were not allowed to search their dwellings nor allegedly were Scotland Yard allowed to see their bank accounts.
Have I got that wrong ... or is that exactly what the cite I have provided says?

You leap to the defence of three men involved in criminal activities who the police wished to question as suspects in a missing child case ... that is fine by me if that is what you wish to be seen doing.

Snip
The Portuguese Attorney General has received a formal International Letter of Request from British detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

It is thought officers from the Met want to locate and question three burglars who were operating in Praia da Luz after mobile records revealed they had made an unusually high number of phone calls to each other shortly after the little girl disappeared.

Joana Marques Vidal confirmed the letter, which was sent on 10 January had been passed to a Portuguese court for consideration, ITV reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/24/madeleine-mccann-news-three-burglars-face-questioning-portuguese-authorities-met-request_n_4657584.html

Please be my guest and report away ... I certainly am agog to discover what you find "crass in the extreme" about my post to precipitate your reaction.

They were arguidos that answered all questions and were cleared. If you don't then face the consequences.

[ShiningInLuz]

In my opinion you have absolutely no objection whatsoever to Madeleine McCann's disappearance being investigated just so long as it does not concern involving local Portuguese residents allegedly domicile in the locale at the time.
Bit unrealistic I think, but there you are.

The old adage about investigating those closest to a missing child is superseded by casting the net wider when these have been eliminated from the inquiry.

As far as constituting individuals as arguidos goes ... that can now only be approved if evidence is produced in support ... the evidence was produced ... it was sufficient for the Portuguese authorities ... perhaps??
But we really don't know ... bearing in mind those interviewed may have requested the status for themselves and had permission granted.

I am not interested in debating your opinion of me.

I have no qualms in finding - the local Portuguese guilty - the local ex-pats guilty - the McCanns guilty - one or more of the T7 guilty - or finding Smellyman.

I have problems with ludicrous ideas like 'seal Luz off', 200kph on the EN125, and house searches where there is insufficient evidence.

Bin them!

[Mr Gray]

I am not interested in debating your opinion of me.

I have no qualms in finding - the local Portuguese guilty - the local ex-pats guilty - the McCanns guilty - one or more of the T7 guilty - or finding Smellyman.

I have problems with ludicrous ideas like 'seal Luz off', 200kph on the EN125, and house searches where there is insufficient evidence.

Bin them!

they might be ludicrous to you but perhaps some of the things you have said on here are ludicrous to others.....

as   for the link by slarti it showed tht the pj were asked for further clarification re the request for the mccanns financial records.....but the pj failed to respond...blame where its due

[Brietta]

They were arguidos that answered all questions and were cleared. If you don't then face the consequences.

You really do not know that ... unless you have a cite to back it up?

[Brietta]

I am not interested in debating your opinion of me.

I have no qualms in finding - the local Portuguese guilty - the local ex-pats guilty - the McCanns guilty - one or more of the T7 guilty - or finding Smellyman.

I have problems with ludicrous ideas like 'seal Luz off', 200kph on the EN125, and house searches where there is insufficient evidence.

Bin them!

Bin them indeed since apparently no-one else has an interest ... you appear to be the only one to have raised these issues.

[Robittybob1]

I am not interested in debating your opinion of me.

I have no qualms in finding - the local Portuguese guilty - the local ex-pats guilty - the McCanns guilty - one or more of the T7 guilty - or finding Smellyman.

I have problems with ludicrous ideas like 'seal Luz off', 200kph on the EN125, and house searches where there is insufficient evidence.

Bin them!

Look at how the investigation turned onto Robert Murat and the amount of investigation he received.  Do you ever wonder about the same happening to you?  From memory you weren't in PdL in May 2007 is that right?
You might say "I have no qualms in finding - the local Portuguese guilty - the local ex-pats guilty - the McCanns guilty - one or more of the T7 guilty - or finding Smellyman" but I can't imagine anyone really being chuffed at the idea of becoming an arguido.

[slartibartfast]

they might be ludicrous to you but perhaps some of the things you have said on here are ludicrous to others.....

as   for the link by slarti it showed tht the pj were asked for further clarification re the request for the mccanns financial records.....but the pj failed to respond...blame where its due

As the link said, the PT had clarified why they wanted the information and the UK asked for further clarification. It would appear that SY didn’t manage to clarify their request enough to get it fulfilled by the PT.

[Alice Purjorick]

Somewhat over-elaborate, but there are interesting points to contemplate.

If Madeleine was snatched as part of a contract, how did the purchaser connect to the snatchers and specify the details of the child to be snatched?  (I don't mean 'by phone'.  If one want a child snatched, one has to know child-snatchers, and explain one is willing to exchange a child for cash.  How does one find some child-snatchers?)

The bank accounts angle also interests me.  Thus far, I cannot see anyone who got wealthy when Madeleine disappeared, though money flowed into the Find Madeleine coffers, and various people got large sums from the media.  What I am not seeing is someone getting wealthy from the direct activity of child snatching.  There is no cash trail, as far as I can see.

You would appear to be the only one wishing to explore the beginning and some peripheral details which are of relevance.
I can understand your view of "over elaborate" when compared with the paucity of detail and joining of non existent dots in some theories which appear to have currency. If it was a planned snatch as some suggest then the "how" is somewhat relevant would you not say ?..... then logically extend the "how".
I would prefer more people were shooting holes in my text. ............

[Mr Gray]

As the link said, the PT had clarified why they wanted the information and the UK asked for further clarification. It would appear that SY didn’t manage to clarify their request enough to get it fulfilled by the PT.

Francs Kennah, a senior official at the 'UK Central Authority', clarifies that after pondering over the coercive measures, the cabinet does not see a motive to concede the requested authorisation, considering that the request is not justified and seems disproportionate. The British authorities solicit a new clarification from Portugal, but it is not sent and the process is archived a little over a month later.

So point out where it states that the PJ sent clarification...it doesnt

[slartibartfast]

Francs Kennah, a senior official at the 'UK Central Authority', clarifies that after pondering over the coercive measures, the cabinet does not see a motive to concede the requested authorisation, considering that the request is not justified and seems disproportionate. The British authorities solicit a new clarification from Portugal, but it is not sent and the process is archived a little over a month later.

If the PJ could not be bothered to clarify the request what did they expect

Initially, the authorities requested a clarification from the Portuguese Public Ministry, which better explained the reasons for the request: to identify if there was an unknown motive behind Maddie's disappearance and if eventually there was an individual or individuals who might be responsible for her disappearance.

The English authorities did not accept the clarification from Portugal, and in their reply letter, sent on the 16th of June, they manifest their concern with the motives that led the Portuguese authorities to request information about bank operations over a period of six months, from Maddie's father's Mastercard credit card. The period covered by the request started on the 1st of April, approximately six weeks before the child's disappearance.

Despite the official explanation from the Portuguese authorities, the English police also considered an unofficial explanation that was offered by the investigative team that traveled to England. At that point in time, the Leicestershire police was told that Gerry McCann had been seen drawing money from an automatic cash machine and talking on the phone.