UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on October 08, 2018, 10:34:55 AM
-
Decision time has come and gone yet again in the Maddie case. This time though, for what ever reason depending on what red top rubbish one chooses to believe, either SY has not asked for additional funds or the Home Office has refused to commit to any further spending. Whichever way one chooses to look at it however, this marks a significant change in tactics by Scotland Yard which most sceptics will see as an indication that the case has at last been shelved.
By not coming out and saying so, has SY effectively dodged the bullet of public humiliation?
-
Decision time has come and gone yet again in the Maddie case. This time though, for what ever reason depending on what red top rubbish one chooses to believe, either SY has not asked for additional funds or the Home Office has refused to commit to any further spending. Whichever way one chooses to look at it however, this marks a significant change in tactics by Scotland Yard which most sceptics will see as an indication that the case has at last been shelved.
By not coming out and saying so, has SY effectively dodged the bullet of public humiliation?
We don't know yet but I dint see any humiliation for SY... I see humiliation for thr Portuguese investigation
-
We don't know yet but I dint see any humiliation for SY... I see humiliation for thr Portuguese investigation
(&^&
-
Decision time has come and gone yet again in the Maddie case. This time though, for what ever reason depending on what red top rubbish one chooses to believe, either SY has not asked for additional funds or the Home Office has refused to commit to any further spending. Whichever way one chooses to look at it however, this marks a significant change in tactics by Scotland Yard which most sceptics will see as an indication that the case has at last been shelved.
By not coming out and saying so, has SY effectively dodged the bullet of public humiliation?
After nearly £12 million pounds it would be impossible for SY to, as you say, ‘dodge the bullet’ without at least one official press release.
-
(&^&
There was wide-spread criticism of the PJ investigation.... I haven't seen Grange described as botched etc..
There would be no need for SY to be there if the PJ had been competent
-
Decision time has come and gone yet again in the Maddie case. This time though, for what ever reason depending on what red top rubbish one chooses to believe, either SY has not asked for additional funds or the Home Office has refused to commit to any further spending. Whichever way one chooses to look at it however, this marks a significant change in tactics by Scotland Yard which most sceptics will see as an indication that the case has at last been shelved.
By not coming out and saying so, has SY effectively dodged the bullet of public humiliation?
Thinking about it there's been no sign of active investigation by Operation Grange since the workforce was reduced in October 2015, despite claims that they were still following 'lines of enquiry'.
-
Thinking about it there's been no sign of active investigation by Operation Grange since the workforce was reduced in October 2015, despite claims that they were still following 'lines of enquiry'.
And still getting Funding for another two years.
-
And still getting Funding for another two years.
Has there been an announcement of that ?
-
There was wide-spread criticism of the PJ investigation.... I haven't seen Grange described as botched etc..
There would be no need for SY to be there if the PJ had been competent
There was indeed widespread criticism of the PJ investigation. It was begun immediately by the parents and their friends and relatives and taken up and continued by the UK media.
Were you able to read Portuguese, you would have seen Grange being described as botched. The digging and the burglars provoked criticism in Portugal, for example.
-
Has there been an announcement of that ?
2015 to 2017.
-
There was indeed widespread criticism of the PJ investigation. It was begun immediately by the parents and their friends and relatives and taken up and continued by the UK media.
Were you able to read Portuguese, you would have seen Grange being described as botched. The digging and the burglars provoked criticism in Portugal, for example.
Described by whom... That sort of statement needs a cite
-
There was indeed widespread criticism of the PJ investigation. It was begun immediately by the parents and their friends and relatives and taken up and continued by the UK media.
Were you able to read Portuguese, you would have seen Grange being described as botched. The digging and the burglars provoked criticism in Portugal, for example.
It is on record, that the PJ misunderstood the important evidence which sent the down the wrong track
-
2015 to 2017.
Ah I see now you meant those years.
-
There was wide-spread criticism of the PJ investigation.... I haven't seen Grange described as botched etc..
There would be no need for SY to be there if the PJ had been competent
There would be no need for SY to be there if the PJ had been competent
Maybe they would have been if the mccs had been fully cooperative....
post in my opinion....
-
If they had fully cooperated the case would have probably been handled differently...
Then there would have been no need for SY........
who have not been very successful.....have they....
-
I'm talking about the PJs failure to understand the evidence
Not necessarily, they might well be vindicated yet imo.
-
If they had fully cooperated the case would have probably been handled differently...
Then there would have been no need for SY........
who have not been very successful.....have they....
I totally agree with you Tina, the McCann's behaviour was never consistent with what they claimed.
-
I totally agree with you Tina, the McCann's behaviour was never consistent with what they claimed.
And I disagree.... It's, all mere opinion
-
Not necessarily, they might well be vindicated yet imo.
All the evidence used to make them arguido was not confirmed.... That is a fact
-
There was indeed widespread criticism of the PJ investigation. It was begun immediately by the parents and their friends and relatives and taken up and continued by the UK media.
Were you able to read Portuguese, you would have seen Grange being described as botched. The digging and the burglars provoked criticism in Portugal, for example.
So a baseless claim with nothing to back it up.... Amaral was, removed by the Portuguese... Remember
-
So a baseless claim with nothing to back it up.... Amaral was, removed by the Portuguese... Remember
How can we forget....
Only by a silly comment though.....nothing to do with how he was handling the case.......
Oh apart from influential people in the UK wanting him removed....
-
How can we forget....
Only by a silly comment though.....nothing to do with how he was handling the case.......
Oh apart from influential people in the UK wanting him removed....
This thread appears to be about SY, please keep on topic.
-
Decision time has come and gone yet again in the Maddie case. This time though, for what ever reason depending on what red top rubbish one chooses to believe, either SY has not asked for additional funds or the Home Office has refused to commit to any further spending. Whichever way one chooses to look at it however, this marks a significant change in tactics by Scotland Yard which most sceptics will see as an indication that the case has at last been shelved.
By not coming out and saying so, has SY effectively dodged the bullet of public humiliation?
As I see it as the investigation stage is completed. What happens next is anyone's guess but
tt is not within the remit of The MPS to decide what happens next.[I don't just mean in this case.]
-
As I see it as the investigation stage is completed. What happens next is anyone's guess but
tt is not within the remit of The MPS to decide what happens next.[I don't just mean in this case.]
I personally think that the Scotland Yard has been a total waste of money if they haven't formally interviewed the McCanns and their friends. I did have hope in the early stages that they would be able to find out the truth but no more.
I do believe though that Scotland Yard or the Home Office should give information publicly on where they are leaving the case.
Is there any evidence against anyone they have looked during the investigation at or are they totally stumped. I believe the latter as the investigation was hampered from the start.
-
I personally think that the Scotland Yard has been a total waste of money if they haven't formally interviewed the McCanns and their friends. I did have hope in the early stages that they would be able to find out the truth but no more.
I do believe though that Scotland Yard or the Home Office should give information publicly on where they are leaving the case.
Is there any evidence against anyone they have looked during the investigation at or are they totally stumped. I believe the latter as the investigation was hampered from the start.
I see you have now changed your claim to "formally interviewed"........I dont see it would make a lot of difference whether they were interviewed or formally interviewed...and I dont see Grange as a waste of money....i think its such a shame it was necessary
-
I see you have now changed your claim to "formally interviewed"........I dont see it would make a lot of difference whether they were interviewed or formally interviewed...and I dont see Grange as a waste of money....i think its such a shame it was necessary
OK Scotland Yard haven't interviewed the McCanns nor their tapas friends. Happy Davel?
I used formally interviewed to remove any doubt that that they had not been questioned by the Yard.
-
OK Scotland Yard haven't interviewed the McCanns nor their tapas friends. Happy Davel?
I used formally interviewed to remove any doubt that that they had not been questioned by the Yard.
i disagree ...i would say its certain SY have interviewed the mccanns..
How do you know they have not been questioned as witnesses.. You dont
-
i disagree ...i would say its certain SY have interviewed the mccanns
Do you have evidence of this Davel? We have been through this before and I showed you evidence that they haven't
-
Do you have evidence of this Davel? We have been through this before and I showed you evidence that they haven't
You have shown cites that they have not been interviewed under caution... As suspects or formally interviewed. You haven't been able to provide a cite to show they haven't been interviewed
-
As I see it as the investigation stage is completed. What happens next is anyone's guess but
tt is not within the remit of The MPS to decide what happens next.[I don't just mean in this case.]
Most of the people who thought the Met should help and who set it up are gone. Cameron, Sir Paul Stephenson, Foy, Campbell, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Sir Mark Rowley. Only one person is left; Theresa May. Would announcing the demise of Operation Grange affect her, I wonder?
-
You have shown cites that they have not been interviewed under caution... As suspects or formally interviewed. You haven't been able to provide a cite to show they haven't been interviewed
THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann and their “Tapas Seven” holiday pals have never been quizzed as witnesses by Scotland Yard into her disappearance.
The £12million six and a half year police probe into Maddie’s feared kidnap, which is hunting “a person of significance”, has not once asked Kate and Gerry, their friends and other key witnesses, for their account on the night the youngster vanished.
One of my previous cites Davel.
-
Most of the people who thought the Met should help and who set it up are gone. Cameron, Sir Paul Stephenson, Foy, Campbell, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Sir Mark Rowley. Only one person is left; Theresa May. Would announcing the demise of Operation Grange affect her, I wonder?
In what way do you think it might affect her?
-
THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann and their “Tapas Seven” holiday pals have never been quizzed as witnesses by Scotland Yard into her disappearance.
The £12million six and a half year police probe into Maddie’s feared kidnap, which is hunting “a person of significance”, has not once asked Kate and Gerry, their friends and other key witnesses, for their account on the night the youngster vanished.
One of my previous cites Davel.
No source... We would need the whole article
-
No source... We would need the whole article
As I mentioned I did share the link last time and hoped you might be actually able to find it yourself.
Here is the link
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
-
Most of the people who thought the Met should help and who set it up are gone. Cameron, Sir Paul Stephenson, Foy, Campbell, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Sir Mark Rowley. Only one person is left; Theresa May. Would announcing the demise of Operation Grange affect her, I wonder?
I don't think May was overly enthusiastic about OG in the first place, so it being terminated during her tenure of office is likely to go unnoticed by her. She has far greater problems to concern her.
-
THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann and their “Tapas Seven” holiday pals have never been quizzed as witnesses by Scotland Yard into her disappearance.
The £12million six and a half year police probe into Maddie’s feared kidnap, which is hunting “a person of significance”, has not once asked Kate and Gerry, their friends and other key witnesses, for their account on the night the youngster vanished.
One of my previous cites Davel.
Where did this come from.
-
As I mentioned I did share the link last time and hoped you might be actually able to find it yourself.
Here is the link
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
The article is from the sun which most realise us unreliable..
It also used, the words formally interviewed in the, article..
The Sun... As most realise is notoriously unreliable.... And in this article can't decide whether bits formally interviewed or interviewed as witnesses
-
As I mentioned I did share the link last time and hoped you might be actually able to find it yourself.
Here is the link
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
I notice there is no comment from the Met either confirming or denying the allegation, nor any information regarding its source.
-
As I mentioned I did share the link last time and hoped you might be actually able to find it yourself.
Here is the link
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
Where do you think the Sun got it's information from
-
For those of us who can see a little further than the Suns stories... There is only one source for this story which is Sutton... And he talks of being interviewed under caution... It's clear the Sun has made, the rest up
-
I notice there is no comment from the Met either confirming or denying the allegation, nor any information regarding its source.
I think they did mention something about not giving a running commentary, quite some time ago.
-
I notice there is no comment from the Met either confirming or denying the allegation, nor any information regarding its source.
Did you expect the Met to confirm or deny this Vertigo Swirl?
Davel a formal interview doesn't necessarily mean as a suspect.
Police interviews
The police may need to conduct a formal interview to record your account on DVD. This recording can then be played in court so that you don’t have to tell your story again. All police forces have specially trained officers that can conduct these interviews but their experience of autism will vary. They can work with you to plan your interview so that it is as stress-free as possible. The aim is to make you comfortable with the officer and the situation so that you can talk freely.
I have shared a link where Mark Rowley and Clarence Mitchell said there was no need to interview them. I will find it again for you.
-
For those of us who can see a little further than the Suns stories... There is only one source for this story which is Sutton... And he talks of being interviewed under caution... It's clear the Sun has made, the rest up
As you know davel that isn't the only source of the story. IMO the story came from an interview with Mark Rowley.
-
Did you expect the Met to confirm or deny this Vertigo Swirl?
Davel a formal interview doesn't necessarily mean as a suspect.
Police interviews
The police may need to conduct a formal interview to record your account on DVD. This recording can then be played in court so that you don’t have to tell your story again. All police forces have specially trained officers that can conduct these interviews but their experience of autism will vary. They can work with you to plan your interview so that it is as stress-free as possible. The aim is to make you comfortable with the officer and the situation so that you can talk freely.
I have shared a link where Mark Rowley and Clarence Mitchell said there was no need to interview them. I will find it again for you.
You did not supply a link with Rowley saying that there was no need to interview them... You thought you did but then changed it to... That's what he meant
-
As you know davel that isn't the only source of the story. IMO the story came from an interview with Mark Rowley.
No it didn't... You think it does based on what you think Rowley meant... Rather than what he said
-
Iirc OG 's remit was to review wasn't it , not to interview the McCanns .
Isn't this the reason they're saying they havn't?
-
Iirc OG 's remit was to review wasn't it , not to interview the McCanns .
Isn't this the reason they're saying they havn't?
They haven't said anything
-
For those of us who can see a little further than the Suns stories... There is only one source for this story which is Sutton... And he talks of being interviewed under caution... It's clear the Sun has made, the rest up
Precisely.
-
As you know davel that isn't the only source of the story. IMO the story came from an interview with Mark Rowley.
Your Opinion is not proof I'm afraid.
-
Thank you for all picking apart my posts whilst I was busy.
Here is Mark Rowley
MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction.
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. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
-
Thank you for all picking apart my posts whilst I was busy.
Here is Mark Rowley
MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction.
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. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf
You have posted this before... Rowley does not say the McCann's were not reinterviewed.... You now answer.. He didn't say it but that's what he meant
-
You have posted this before... Rowley does not say the McCann's were not reinterviewed.... You now answer.. He didn't say it but that's what he meant
I may say this Davel
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward.
Of course they covered old ground when they reinterviewed Robert Murat and it was all over the news at the time.
Remember there is a quote from Clarence Mitchell too Davel. Do you need me to share this too?
Perhaps you can find me a quote where Rowley or someone else says the McCanns WERE interviewed by Scotland Yard.
-
I may say this Davel
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward.
Of course they covered old ground when they reinterviewed Robert Murat and it was all over the news at the time.
Remember there is a quote from Clarence Mitchell too Davel. Do you need me to share this too?
Perhaps you can find me a quote where Rowley or someone else says the McCanns WERE interviewed by Scotland Yard.
You already have shared the quote by Clarence... And like Rowley he doesn't support what you have, said....you have posted all this before
-
Have Clarence's anyway Davel
Might not a British interviewer of the McCanns and their friends have picked up on something not spotted by the Portuguese?
Speaking shortly before the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, Mr Rowley explained: "We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with, and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that that was a line of investigation."
According to a friend of the McCanns, "it would have been hugely insulting to Kate and Gerry if their original statements had been questioned. There was no need to say anything more because everything had been said".
Whatever you say they weren't questioned by the police, too many people (including "a friend") say otherwise IMO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11940518
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/649059/Madeleine-McCann-parents-friend-new-police-investigation
I am not saying interview them as suspects. I am saying interview them at all Davel. Or do you have a cite for to show me I am wrong.
-
Have Clarence's anyway Davel
Might not a British interviewer of the McCanns and their friends have picked up on something not spotted by the Portuguese?
Speaking shortly before the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, Mr Rowley explained: "We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with, and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that that was a line of investigation."
According to a friend of the McCanns, "it would have been hugely insulting to Kate and Gerry if their original statements had been questioned. There was no need to say anything more because everything had been said".
Whatever you say they weren't questioned by the police, too many people (including "a friend") say otherwise IMO
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11940518
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/649059/Madeleine-McCann-parents-friend-new-police-investigation
I am not saying interview them as suspects. I am saying interview them at all Davel. Or do you have a cite for to show me I am wrong.
Kate said in her book that the original statements are full of mistakes.... So that particular claim is false..
Can't you see all these stories are embellishments of Sutton's statement
-
Kate said in her book that the original statements are full of mistakes.... So that particular claim is false..
Can't you see all these stories are embellishments of suttobs statement
No I can see what Sutton and the media were responding to....Rowley's statement followed by Clarence Mitchell "a friend". The original statements may or may not be full of mistakes but haven't the Met spent over a year translating them all and going through these "mistake" laden files themselves? Did you tell Scotland Yard that the PJ files were no use Davel?
-
No I can see what Sutton and the media were responding to....Rowley's statement followed by Clarence Mitchell "a friend". The original statements may or may not be full of mistakes but haven't the Met spent over a year translating them all and going through these "mistake" laden files themselves? Did you tell Scotland Yard that the PJ files were no use Davel?
Kate said their statements had errors so they would not be offended at having them questioned
-
Kate said their statements had errors so they would not be offended at having them questioned
Perhaps someone should have told "a friend" then Davel. He seems explicit that they have not be interviewed by Scotland Yard. - unless you can say otherwise (with a cite) of course.
-
Perhaps someone should have told "a friend" then Davel. He seems explicit that they have not be interviewed by Scotland Yard. - unless you can say otherwise (with a cite) of course.
No he doesn't.. He's explicit that they would be off ended if their account was questioned... We don't know in what context or even if that statement was, actually made...
-
No he doesn't.. He's explicit that they would be off ended if their account was questioned... We don't know in what context or even if that statement was, actually made...
Davel read again
According to a friend of the McCanns, "it would have been hugely insulting to Kate and Gerry if their original statements had been questioned. There was no need to say anything more because everything had been said".
Tell me again what isn't clear to you about "original statements". It's crystal clear to me.
-
Davel read again
According to a friend of the McCanns, "it would have been hugely insulting to Kate and Gerry if their original statements had been questioned. There was no need to say anything more because everything had been said".
Tell me again what isn't clear to you about "original statements". It's crystal clear to me.
It's crystal clear but is the quote in the New Zealand Herald correct... Did a family friend give the paper the quote...it isn't reported anywhere else.. So the family friend only gave a direct wuote to a NZ newspaper... Do you really believe that... Then we have Kate saying the accounts were not accurate
Don't believe everything the papers tell you
-
It's crystal clear but is the quote in the New Zealand Herald correct... Did a family friend give the paper the quote...it isn't reported anywhere else.. So the family friend only gave a direct wuote to a NZ newspaper... Do you really believe that... Then we have Kate saying the accounts were not accurate
Don't believe everything the papers tell you
How about the Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048349/The-TWO-vital-Maddie-questions.html
-
How about the Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048349/The-TWO-vital-Maddie-questions.html
Some police critics of Operation Grange point to what they see as its ‘original sin’ — the failure of the Met’s team to re-interview Gerry and Kate..
The mail is simply misquoting Sutton
-
Some police critics of Operation Grange point to what they see as its ‘original sin’ — the failure of the Met’s team to re-interview Gerry and Kate..
The mail is simply misquoting Sutton
One word, NO!
I haven't mentioned Colin Sutton YOU have mentioned him time and again. I have mentioned Mark Rowley and "a friend" Clarence Mitchell.
-
One word, NO!
I haven't mentioned Colin Sutton YOU have mentioned him time and again. I have mentioned Mark Rowley and "a friend" Clarence Mitchell.
Rowley never said the McCann's had not been reinterviewed... Neither did mitchell
-
Rowley never said the McCann's had not been reinterviewed... Neither did mitchell
You believe that if you want Davel.
-
The McCanns appear to have had a close relationship with he Sun which may reinforce the validity of any McCann stories.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/526062/madeleine-by-her-mum/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/526062/madeleine-by-her-mum/)
-
You believe that if you want Davel.
You have not shown otherwise imo
-
You have not shown otherwise imo
I think I have. That is where the media stories and probably Colin Sutton's comments came from. You chose not to believe it, for your own reasons it seems.
The question could be, why are you bothered whether the McCanns and tapas friends were interviewed by Scotland Yard or not?
-
I think I have. That is where the media stories and probably Colin Sutton's comments came from. You chose not to believe it, for your own reasons it seems.
The question could be, why are you bothered whether the McCanns and tapas friends were interviewed by Scotland Yard or not?
I'm not particularly bothered and you are, wrong to think I am... This is a discussion forum... We discuss things. Nothing said here is of any real importance
-
I'm not particularly bothered and you are, wrong to think I am... This is a discussion forum... We discuss things. Nothing said here is of any real importance
Of course you are right Davel. although it would appear that you forget that fact sometimes IMO
-
Of course you are right Davel. although it would appear that you forget that fact sometimes IMO
Of course I'm right..... And you are wrong again.. Imo
-
Okay. Cut the insults. Thank You.
-
Unless they manage to find a believable solution Operation Grange's motives, aims and achievements will eventually have to be independently investigated and evaluated in my opinion.
-
Unless they manage to find a believable solution Operation Grange's motives, aims and achievements will eventually have to be independently investigated and evaluated in my opinion.
I think we at least deserve some sort if explanation... Once the investigation is finished
-
I think we at least deserve some sort if explanation... Once the investigation is finished
Questions :
1) Is the investigation finished ?
2) Has the investigation been passed on to another section of SY becaiuse it cuts across investigations into, maybe, other crimes?
3) Is it at the next stage ? Prosecution maybe ?
Personally I prefer that no information is given out. Sometimes we have to trust long established Blue ribbon organisations, in this case to preserve what SY has found
-
Questions :
1) Is the investigation finished ?
2) Has the investigation been passed on to another section of SY becaiuse it cuts across investigations into, maybe, other crimes?
3) Is it at the next stage ? Prosecution maybe ?
Personally I prefer that no information is given out. Sometimes we have to trust long established Blue ribbon organisations, in this case to preserve what SY has found
That is of course ....if they have found anything....
-
Questions :
1) Is the investigation finished ?
2) Has the investigation been passed on to another section of SY becaiuse it cuts across investigations into, maybe, other crimes?
3) Is it at the next stage ? Prosecution maybe ?
Personally I prefer that no information is given out. Sometimes we have to trust long established Blue ribbon organisations, in this case to preserve what SY has found
What Blue Ribbon organisations?
-
That is of course ....if they have found anything....
They have found things alright.
They have theiir teeth into something and are reluctant to let go.
All strength to them, I say
-
They have found things alright.
They have theiir teeth into something and are reluctant to let go.
All strength to them, I say
Do you have a cite for that Sadie?
-
They have found things alright.
They have theiir teeth into something and are reluctant to let go.
All strength to them, I say
No that is only your opinion ....
you don't know anything more than anyone else.....
-
They have found things alright.
They have theiir teeth into something and are reluctant to let go.
All strength to them, I say
I actually think you might be right and they are on to something
-
I actually think you might be right and they are on to something
Well if you know that....you should also know what it is ....
-
No that is only your opinion ....
you don't know anything more than anyone else.....
Oh Really ?
Well let's put it like this:
They seem to be working along the lines of the massive theory I sent them. It took me 4 years intensive work, often thru the day and then the night until dawn, in order to gather previously unknown info and make a jigsaw that fits .... an almost complete jigsaw.
Anyway, we will have to wait and see.
Please excuse me , have another hospital appointment. &^&*%
-
Oh Really ?
Well let's put it like this:
They seem to be working along the lines of the massive theory I sent them. It took me 4 years intensive work, often thru the day and then the night until dawn, in order to gather previously unknown info and make a jigsaw that fits .... an almost complete jigsaw.
Anyway, we will have to wait and see.
Please excuse me , have another hospital appointment. &^&*%
OH my.......now who is digging a hole...
Hope your hospital appointment goes ok....... &^&*%..sadie
-
OH my.......now who is digging a hole...
Hope your hospital appointment goes ok....... &^&*%..sadie
Thank you for your good wishes. Nothing dire.
-
Thank you for your good wishes. Nothing dire.
I too am glad it was nothing serious sadie
Do you have the cite for this yet?
They have found things alright.
They have theiir teeth into something and are reluctant to let go.
All strength to them, I say
-
Thank you for your good wishes. Nothing dire.
je vous en prie sadie
-
je vous en prie sadie
Such an elegant expression, don't you think. And the sum total of my knowledge of Classical French.
-
Such an elegant expression, don't you think. And the sum total of my knowledge of Classical French.
hors sujet 8((()*/
-
hors sujet 8((()*/
Sorry, I don't know that one.
Whoops. Off Topic again.
-
Sorry, I don't know that one.
Whoops. Off Topic again.
no problem.....you can always delete your post....and this one....
-
no problem.....you can always delete your post....and this one....
What? While we are being nice to each other? This is Gold Dust. Let's have more of it.
-
What? While we are being nice to each other? This is Gold Dust. Let's have more of it.
I am a nice person.....IRL....im sure you are too
-
Questions :
1) Is the investigation finished ?
2) Has the investigation been passed on to another section of SY becaiuse it cuts across investigations into, maybe, other crimes?
3) Is it at the next stage ? Prosecution maybe ?
Personally I prefer that no information is given out. Sometimes we have to trust long established Blue ribbon organisations, in this case to preserve what SY has found
I would say no to all those. SY have achieved nothing, have nowhere left to go and have no plans to prosecute anyone in the Madeleine case.
-
I would say no to all those. SY have achieved nothing, have nowhere left to go and have no plans to prosecute anyone in the Madeleine case.
You may be right... I think they may not have had the help they needed from the Portuguese for obvious reasons
-
You may be right... I think they may not have had the help they needed from the Portuguese for obvious reasons
And what "obvious reasons" would they be Davel? They are not "obvious" to me.
-
And what "obvious reasons" would they be Davel? They are not "obvious" to me.
Because how humiliating would it be for Portugal if SY solved the case
-
You may be right... I think they may not have had the help they needed from the Portuguese for obvious reasons
Are the Portuguese to blame for global warming, the rise of terrorism, and Brexit too? One could be forgiven for thinking so. @)(++(*
Scotland Yard accepted this case knowing full well how the system worked. If they end up with egg on their faces it's their own fault and no-one else's.
-
Are the Portuguese to blame for global warming, the rise of terrorism, and Brexit too? One could be forgiven for thinking so. @)(++(*
Scotland Yard accepted this case knowing full well how the system worked. If they end up with egg on their faces it's their own fault and no-one else's.
Why will they have egg on their faces? Most people are grown up enough to realise that the police are not miracle workers and that some cases simply cannot be solved despite the police's best efforts.
-
Because how humiliating would it be for Portugal if SY solved the case
It may be that, between them, the 2 forces have solved the crime but not yet located Madeleine. However, I can foresee major difficulties in getting any evidence/proof acquired by UK police accepted in a Portuguese criminal trial, bearing in mind how Cristovao got the recent case against him overturned on appeal as all evidence was gathered by the "wrong" jurisdiction.
-
Why will they have egg on their faces? Most people are grown up enough to realise that the police are not miracle workers and that some cases simply cannot be solved despite the police's best efforts.
I said 'if'.
-
It may be that, between them, the 2 forces have solved the crime but not yet located Madeleine. However, I can foresee major difficulties in getting any evidence/proof acquired by UK police accepted in a Portuguese criminal trial, bearing in mind how Cristovao got the recent case against him overturned on appeal as all evidence was gathered by the "wrong" jurisdiction.
Or they have located Madeleine but can't recover her due to the Laws of a particular Country concerning Minors and the treatment there of.
-
Are the Portuguese to blame for global warming, the rise of terrorism, and Brexit too? One could be forgiven for thinking so. @)(++(*
Scotland Yard accepted this case knowing full well how the system worked. If they end up with egg on their faces it's their own fault and no-one else's.
I don't think there, will be any egg on SYs face... Perhaps they were expecting the Portuguese to co-operate and launch a JIT
-
Because how humiliating would it be for Portugal if SY solved the case
Why would it be humiliating for the Portuguese.
Don't you think they would simply be glad that the case was solved. Not that I think Scotland Yard will solve the case these days.
So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?
-
Or they have located Madeleine but can't recover her due to the Laws of a particular Country concerning Minors and the treatment there of.
I'd really like to think they have located her alive but I didn't get that impression from Gerry's "Pearl" radio broadcast.
-
Why would it be humiliating for the Portuguese.
Don't you think they would simply be glad that the case was solved. Not that I think Scotland Yard will solve the case these days.
So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?
Non cooperation would be how I would describe it... For obvious reasons... Why no joint investigation
-
Why would it be humiliating for the Portuguese.
Don't you think they would simply be glad that the case was solved. Not that I think Scotland Yard will solve the case these days.
So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?
No, Davel didn't say that. A question mark does not absolve the remark.
-
Non cooperation would be how I would describe it... For obvious reasons... Why no joint investigation
Was there a JIT in the Ben Needham case?
-
Was there a JIT in the Ben Needham case?
May not have needed one.... Did the UK police interview any suspects in the needham....case
-
I said 'if'.
And will they have egg on their faces if they are unable to solve the case?
-
Non cooperation would be how I would describe it... For obvious reasons... Why no joint investigation
Do you have any evidence of the PJ not co-operating with Scotland Yard and WHY should they do a joint investigation when the alleged crime happened in their country.
Could you see the UK police agreeing to that Davel?
-
Why will they have egg on their faces? Most people are grown up enough to realise that the police are not miracle workers and that some cases simply cannot be solved despite the police's best efforts.
supose so .....you can't find something that can never be found ....IMO
most people also know ....SY have added nothing .......
It took them 7 years to get were the PJ were in 1....IMO
-
supose so .....you can't find something that can never be found ....IMO
most people also know ....SY have added nothing .......
It took them 7 years to get were the PJ were in 1....IMO
Would that be no evidence of abductor? If so I agree.
-
Non cooperation would be how I would describe it... For obvious reasons... Why no joint investigation
If you mean why no JIT, probably because as a criminal case it is not important enough, despite all the noise.
"A joint investigation team (JIT) is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between competent authorities - both judicial (judges, prosecutors, investigative judges) and law enforcement - of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States".
-
No, Davel didn't say that. A question mark does not absolve the remark.
Davel said this
You may be right... I think they may not have had the help they needed from the Portuguese for obvious reasons
And ths
Because how humiliating would it be for Portugal if SY solved the case
I stand by what I said.
-
Davel said this
You may be right... I think they may not have had the help they needed from the Portuguese for obvious reasons
And ths
Because how humiliating would it be for Portugal if SY solved the case
I stand by what I said.
I dont particularly care
-
If you mean why no JIT, probably because as a criminal case it is not important enough, despite all the noise.
"A joint investigation team (JIT) is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between competent authorities - both judicial (judges, prosecutors, investigative judges) and law enforcement - of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States".
......The HO decided it was important enough to spend 12 mill...I wonder who decided it wasnt important enough for a JIT....probably portugal
-
......The HO decided it was important enough to spend 12 mill...I wonder who decided it wasnt important enough for a JIT....probably portugal
Eurojust I would imagine or Europol. They rule the roost over such things.
-
Eurojust I would imagine or Europol. They rule the roost over such things.
I would have thought each individual country would have to agree...
The terms in accordance with which a JIT operates vary from case to case, but they are based on the model JIT agreement as appended to Council Resolution (2017/C 18/01). This resolution “encourages the competent authorities of the Member States that wish to set up a Joint Investigation Team with the competent authorities from other Member States, in accordance with the terms of the Framework Decision and the Convention, or from non-EU States, on the basis of the relevant international instruments, to use, where appropriate, the Model Agreement […] in order to agree upon the modalities for the joint investigation team”.
looks like Im correct...no will...no way
-
I would have thought each individual country would have to agree...
The terms in accordance with which a JIT operates vary from case to case, but they are based on the model JIT agreement as appended to Council Resolution (2017/C 18/01). This resolution “encourages the competent authorities of the Member States that wish to set up a Joint Investigation Team with the competent authorities from other Member States, in accordance with the terms of the Framework Decision and the Convention, or from non-EU States, on the basis of the relevant international instruments, to use, where appropriate, the Model Agreement […] in order to agree upon the modalities for the joint investigation team”.
looks like Im correct...no will...no way
Do you know of any examples where the UK has allowed another EU member state JIT status within our own country, particularly if the crime was wholly within the UK, Davel? I can't find any.
-
I would have thought each individual country would have to agree...
The terms in accordance with which a JIT operates vary from case to case, but they are based on the model JIT agreement as appended to Council Resolution (2017/C 18/01). This resolution “encourages the competent authorities of the Member States that wish to set up a Joint Investigation Team with the competent authorities from other Member States, in accordance with the terms of the Framework Decision and the Convention, or from non-EU States, on the basis of the relevant international instruments, to use, where appropriate, the Model Agreement […] in order to agree upon the modalities for the joint investigation team”.
looks like Im correct...no will...no way
2017 is how many years too late?
-
Do you know of any examples where the UK has allowed another EU member state JIT status within our own country, particularly if the crime was wholly within the UK, Davel? I can't find any.
are there any examples where its been requested....Im fairly sure SY officers have travelled to other countries
Obviously JIT status would be very helpful to SYs investigation... But is the PJ resentful
-
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/joint-investigations-team-manual-2011.pdf
-
are there any examples where its been requested....Im fairly sure SY officers have travelled to other countries
Obviously JIT status would be very helpful to SYs investigation... But is the PJ resentful
What makes you think that SY would have lead the JIT had one been set up?
Why did not SY ask for one?
-
What makes you think that SY would have lead the JIT had one been set up?
Why did not SY ask for one?
A JIT is a contract for cooperation ....meaning no Ilors necessary.......we dont know if one was asked for or if the portuguese refused....it would seem sensible from the point of view of SY
-
A JIT is a contract for cooperation ....meaning no Ilors necessary.......we dont know if one was asked for or if the portuguese refused....it would seem sensible from the point of view of SY
Except the leaders of the JIT would be the Portuguese.
"The team is set up inthe Member State in which investigations are expected to be predominantly
carried out".
"Article 13 of the 2000 MLA Convention provides that: "... the leader of the team shall be a
representative of the competent authority participating in criminal investigations from the Member
State in which the team operates".
-
Except the leaders of the JIT would be the Portuguese.
"The team is set up inthe Member State in which investigations are expected to be predominantly
carried out".
"Article 13 of the 2000 MLA Convention provides that: "... the leader of the team shall be a
representative of the competent authority participating in criminal investigations from the Member
State in which the team operates".
Of course.....but no need for Ilors......the question is did the portuguese or SY want it
-
Except the leaders of the JIT would be the Portuguese.
"The team is set up inthe Member State in which investigations are expected to be predominantly
carried out".
"Article 13 of the 2000 MLA Convention provides that: "... the leader of the team shall be a
representative of the competent authority participating in criminal investigations from the Member
State in which the team operates".
IMO a JIT would have been detrimental to what SY were trying to achieve. There certainly would have been difficulty without an ILOR for re-questioning people who had already been "ruled out" by the original PJ team. It would also have provided the opportunity for further leaks, with each side blaming the other.
-
IMO a JIT would have been detrimental to what SY were trying to achieve. There certainly would have been difficulty without an ILOR for re-questioning people who had already been "ruled out" by the original PJ team. It would also have provided the opportunity for further leaks, with each side blaming the other.
I couldn't agree more. With the Portuguese in the lead they could have requested SY to do all sorts of things they would rather not have.
-
I couldn't agree more. With the Portuguese in the lead they could have requested SY to do all sorts of things they would rather not have.
tHen dont blame SY for apparent lack of progress when they have no ability to investiagte
-
tHen dont blame SY for apparent lack of progress when they have no ability to investiagte
What were the arguido interviews in July 2014? And the witness interviews in Dec 2014?
&^^&*
-
What were the arguido interviews in July 2014? And the witness interviews in Dec 2014?
&^^&*
a list of questions ...submited 6 months previously with no opprtunity to follow up...without anothe ILor
-
What were the arguido interviews in July 2014? And the witness interviews in Dec 2014?
&^^&*
Who took the dogs into Praia Da Luz too?
-
Who took the dogs into Praia Da Luz too?
and.....the dogs were offered and the PJ accepted...problem was the PJ thought they were 100% accurate
-
and.....the dogs were offered and the PJ accepted...problem was the PJ thought they were 100% accurate
I wasn't talking about those dogs Davel but the ones that Scotland Yard took to Praia Da Luz.
-
I wasn't talking about those dogs Davel but the ones that Scotland Yard took to Praia Da Luz.
so having spent 12 mill the total of investigation is a searh with dogs and a couple of interviews...is taht an investigation in your eyes
-
so having spent 12 mill the total of investigation is a searh with dogs and a couple of interviews...is taht an investigation in your eyes
No but it is an investigation and being partially carried out in Portugal despite what you seem to claim. If you read Mark Rowley's statement it appears they have looked at a lot of people and clearly done some research on them. I am not sharing Mark Rowley's interview again. I have done it twice already.
-
No but it is an investigation and being partially carried out in Portugal despite what you seem to claim. If you read Mark Rowley's statement it appears they have looked at a lot of people and clearly done some research on them. I am not sharing Mark Rowley's interview again. I have done it twice already.
You have quoted it but dont seem to undersatnd it...SY have done a lot of research but is limited re the investiagation as they cannot mount aproper investigation in portugal
-
You ahve quoted it but dont seem to undersatnd it...SY ahve done a lot of research but is limiter re the investiagation as they cannot mount aproper investigation in portugal
I see you have changed your wording Davel. Now it is "a proper investigation"
-
I see you have changed your wording Davel. Now it is "a proper investigation"
have another look
-
have another look
You said
"Their restriction has been they cannot investigate in Portugal"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10243.msg494105#msg494105
-
You said
"Their restriction has been they cannot investigate in Portugal"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10243.msg494105#msg494105
And I would say most on the forum agree with me..
-
And I would say most on the forum agree with me..
And I would say most on the forum would agree when I said you had changed your wording.
I don't agree with you regarding Scotland Yard's investigation. If it was that hard why would they spend £11+ million and keep asking for the funding to be reviewed.
-
And I would say most on the forum would agree when I said you had changed your wording.
I don't agree with you regarding Scotland Yard's investigation. If it was that hard why would they spend £11+ million and keep asking for the funding to be reviewed.
Are you sure you have not read some of the trashy 'online detectives' stories/theories put out by some, which the OG were asked to 'investigate' I mean some come straight from people who have forensic medical conditions. Pure fantasists.
Police time wasters.
-
tHen dont blame SY for apparent lack of progress when they have no ability to investiagte
Where did I do that?
-
You ahve quoted it but dont seem to undersatnd it...SY ahve done a lot of research but is limited re the investiagation as they cannot mount an investigation in portugal
Why did SY take on a case knowing they couldn't investigate it?
-
Why did SY take on a case knowing they couldn't investigate it?
Because they were offered a pot of gold to do so ?
Not just any old pot of gold, but one that was regularly refilled.
Which Commissioner of Police could resist?
-
Why did SY take on a case knowing they couldn't investigate it?
Doesn't make sense does it,then to continue and spend upward of £12 million in not being able to investigate.
-
Why did SY take on a case knowing they couldn't investigate it?
I think the big claim was- the PJ were doing nothing and refused to investiate every nano piece of evidence, do a globe trot looking for their Madeleine...
SY were sent in to REVIEW the case. go over it to see what was missed... well... what can I say. they reviewed found nothing.
-
No, Davel didn't say that. A question mark does not absolve the remark.
A question mark indicates a question.
-
Doesn't make sense does it,then to continue and spend upward of £12 million in not being able to investigate.
Perhaps they expected more cooperation from the Portuguese.... Forcing them to wait6 months for an ILOR before being able to ask a question doesn't sound very co-operative to me and makes me question whether the Portuguese wanted SY to be successful
-
A question mark indicates a question.
And it's, already been established that a question can be giading
-
And it's, already been established that a question can be goading
-
And it's, already been established that a question can be giading
They are frequently used in forum discussions to try and better understand another posters statements and position.
-
A question mark indicates a question.
Not necessarily.
Davel did not say what the question implies. So what was the point of this "Question?"
-
They are frequently used in forum discussions to try and better understand another posters statements and position.
They can be used for a variety of reasons
-
Not necessarily.
Davel did not say what the question implies. So what was the point of this "Question?"
“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”
Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.
-
“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”
Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.
Not in my opinion. Nothing simple about it, and impossible to answer without Libelling The Portuguese Police.
-
......The HO decided it was important enough to spend 12 mill...I wonder who decided it wasnt important enough for a JIT....probably portugal
I think you may be correct that there was resistance by one of the parties to setting up a JIT... certainly there was no problem regarding English and French cooperation in the Alps murder of British citizens ...
Snip
Surrey Police said it was continuing to provide support to the French investigation as part of the joint investigation team (JIT) established following the deaths.
It said officers had worked closely with the French authorities to progress a number of lines of enquiry in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-41150373
It certainly appears that there was interest in England that Madeleine's case might benefit in the same way. So in my opinion if a JIT didn't happen it was because one of the authorities didn't want it to happen and I believe lack of one added more time to an investigation which had been ignored for too many years already.
In my opinion the resultant hold ups could only have had a detrimental effect as far as Madeleine was concerned.
Snip
On Wednesday, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "One thing we'd like to see in the future is a joint investigation team which comes under the European community. It is a possibility legally, and we're working together at a political level and at a police and judicial level to see how we can construct that.
"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one. But it's important that we work together on what is clearly a common problem.
"It's a formal arrangement, it allows officers from each country to work in the other country, it gives them powers associated with that, and it's an efficient way of doing it.
"If you're not careful, you end up doing things on an ad-hoc basis, and for us it would be better to have that type of arrangement. So that's what we're trying to get agreement between the two governments and the two police services."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met
-
Perhaps they expected more cooperation from the Portuguese.... Forcing them to wait6 months for an ILOR before being able to ask a question doesn't sound very co-operative to me and makes me question whether the Portuguese wanted SY to be successful
First of all, the case came under Portuguese jurisdiction. Scotland Yard had absolutely no right to investigate it and Portugal would have been within it's rights to tell them to do one. The fact that they didn't is extremely tolerant of them in my opinion. They even handed over all their files on the case; something I very much doubt Scotland Yard would have done if the positions had been reversed. They also fulfilled requests in ILOR's, using yet more of their resources in this wild goose chase. They allowed Scotland Yard to damage Luz's tourist trade once more with their digging.
Operation Grange were hampered by their remit and their own arrogant belief that their 'expertise' was superior to that of the Policia Judiciaria. They made a big mistake in my opinion and I think it's disgraceful to try and suggest anything else.
-
“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”
Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.
Do you know why there was no JIT despite Scotland Yard wanting one?
Also, is there the slightest chance we might progress this and other threads without the constant sniping at and parsing of Davel's posts?
In my opinion it is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment which I'm sure it can't be ... but I for one am finding it all so predictable, tiresome and distracting that as a moderator I think it should cease forthwith.
Don't you?
-
I think you may be correct that there was resistance by one of the parties to setting up a JIT... certainly there was no problem regarding English and French cooperation in the Alps murder of British citizens ...
Snip
Surrey Police said it was continuing to provide support to the French investigation as part of the joint investigation team (JIT) established following the deaths.
It said officers had worked closely with the French authorities to progress a number of lines of enquiry in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-41150373
It certainly appears that there was interest in England that Madeleine's case might benefit in the same way. So in my opinion if a JIT didn't happen it was because one of the authorities didn't want it to happen and I believe lack of one added more time to an investigation which had been ignored for too many years already.
In my opinion the resultant hold ups could only have had a detrimental effect as far as Madeleine was concerned.
Snip
On Wednesday, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "One thing we'd like to see in the future is a joint investigation team which comes under the European community. It is a possibility legally, and we're working together at a political level and at a police and judicial level to see how we can construct that.
"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one. But it's important that we work together on what is clearly a common problem.
"It's a formal arrangement, it allows officers from each country to work in the other country, it gives them powers associated with that, and it's an efficient way of doing it.
"If you're not careful, you end up doing things on an ad-hoc basis, and for us it would be better to have that type of arrangement. So that's what we're trying to get agreement between the two governments and the two police services."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met
After all that ....it still boils down to your opinion.....
Whereas if the mccs had cooperated fully in the first place...
probably SY wouldn't have had to get involved...
They left them ....they had the case shelved...
seems like they call all the shots...
-
Do you know why there was no JIT despite Scotland Yard wanting one?
Also, is there the slightest chance we might progress this and other threads without the constant sniping at and parsing of Davel's posts?
In my opinion it is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment which I'm sure it can't be ... but I for one am finding it all so predictable, tiresome and distracting that as a moderator I think it should cease forthwith.
Don't you?
If Scotland Yard needed a JIT to progress their enquiries it would have been a good idea to get one in place before they started. They seem to have started then realised (too late) that they couldn't do what they wanted to do in Portugal.
If a member submits posts which a number of other members reply to it can look like 'a campaign' but it just means more than one person disagrees, imo. I have been in that position myself, with multiple replies being made to my posts.
-
If Scotland Yard needed a JIT to progress their enquiries it would have been a good idea to get one in place before they started. They seem to have started then realised (too late) that they couldn't do what they wanted to do in Portugal.
If a member submits posts which a number of other members reply to it can look like 'a campaign' but it just means more than one person disagrees, imo. I have been in that position myself, with multiple replies being made to my posts.
If I was bothered I would ask you to explain how Scotland Yard could get a JIT "before they started"? But I'm really not bothered.
-
“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”
Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.
I don't think the PJ are, actively trying to scupper the SY investigation but I think they are doing the bare minimum to assist SY... I seem to remember resentment initially at the presence of the UK police
-
I don't think the PJ are, actively trying to scupper the SY investigation but I think they are doing the bare minimum to assist SY... I seem to remember resentment initially at the presence of the UK police
I think you are right that initially there may have been a bit of friction if press reports from the time are to be believed.
But in my opinion one of the benefits of the present investigations although not joint ones has been the obvious breakdown of barriers between the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard.
As a result it is my opinion that should any sort of international cooperation of any kind be required between Portugal and England or any other national policing agency in the future it will benefit from a better joint understanding of each others' working arrangements.
-
Less likely to happen if UK withdraws from the European justice system post Brexit. IMO
-
Less likely to happen if UK withdraws from the European justice system post Brexit. IMO
Good comment not really for discussion on this thread ... but certainly something which should have been given a lot more consideration than it was ... the Irish border being another 😢
-
I think you are right that initially there may have been a bit of friction if press reports from the time are to be believed.
But in my opinion one of the benefits of the present investigations although not joint ones has been the obvious breakdown of barriers between the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard.
As a result it is my opinion that should any sort of international cooperation of any kind be required between Portugal and England or any other national policing agency in the future it will benefit from a better joint understanding of each others' working arrangements.
The Policia Judiciarua had experience of working with other countries before the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Glen Pounder was well known to Amaral from his work in the area of drug trafficking.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LISBON1388_a.html
It was to Pounder that Amaral turned in the beginning;
It is urgent to know who this couple is, as well as their friends, what do they do, what problems do they have in the UK, have they ever mistreated their children, has a neighbour, family, friend or anyone else noted any inappropriate behaviour? What is their profession? Full time? Has anyone suffered depression? Is the marriage relationship healthy? Are they involved in any serious litigation? Does anyone hold a grudge against them? Why?...
These questions were delivered to the UK-Portuguese police liaison [on 4 May] who GA has worked with for years, Glen Power, asking him to forward the request, which the team considered "essential to the investigation" and waited for the response.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id121.htm
As far as I know none of these questions were answered. Perhaps Pounder was too busy investigating boats seen in visions?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
-
The Policia Judiciarua had experience of working with other countries before the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Glen Pounder was well known to Amaral from his work in the area of drug trafficking.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LISBON1388_a.html
It was to Pounder that Amaral turned in the beginning;
It is urgent to know who this couple is, as well as their friends, what do they do, what problems do they have in the UK, have they ever mistreated their children, has a neighbour, family, friend or anyone else noted any inappropriate behaviour? What is their profession? Full time? Has anyone suffered depression? Is the marriage relationship healthy? Are they involved in any serious litigation? Does anyone hold a grudge against them? Why?...
These questions were delivered to the UK-Portuguese police liaison [on 4 May] who GA has worked with for years, Glen Power, asking him to forward the request, which the team considered "essential to the investigation" and waited for the response.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id121.htm
As far as I know none of these questions were answered. Perhaps Pounder was too busy investigating boats seen in visions?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Wouldnt you have thought ....these questions were vital to being answered ...
especially in a missing child case...
-
I think you are right that initially there may have been a bit of friction if press reports from the time are to be believed.
But in my opinion one of the benefits of the present investigations although not joint ones has been the obvious breakdown of barriers between the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard.
As a result it is my opinion that should any sort of international cooperation of any kind be required between Portugal and England or any other national policing agency in the future it will benefit from a better joint understanding of each others' working arrangements.
"On 29 May 2000, the EU Council of Ministers adopted the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (2000 MLA Convention)
The objective of this Convention is to encourage and modernise cooperation between judicial and law enforcement authorities within the European Union as well as in Norway and Iceland by supplementing provisions in existing legal instruments and facilitating their application".
Seems like someone beat you to the punch by a few years.
If in your opinion it hasn't happened then we have a choice of two alternatives.
The whole of the Eurojust/MLA convention has been wasting its time for eighteen years or your opinion /judgement is wanting.
Faites vos jeux.
-
The Policia Judiciarua had experience of working with other countries before the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Glen Pounder was well known to Amaral from his work in the area of drug trafficking.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07LISBON1388_a.html
It was to Pounder that Amaral turned in the beginning;
It is urgent to know who this couple is, as well as their friends, what do they do, what problems do they have in the UK, have they ever mistreated their children, has a neighbour, family, friend or anyone else noted any inappropriate behaviour? What is their profession? Full time? Has anyone suffered depression? Is the marriage relationship healthy? Are they involved in any serious litigation? Does anyone hold a grudge against them? Why?...
These questions were delivered to the UK-Portuguese police liaison [on 4 May] who GA has worked with for years, Glen Power, asking him to forward the request, which the team considered "essential to the investigation" and waited for the response.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id121.htm
As far as I know none of these questions were answered. Perhaps Pounder was too busy investigating boats seen in visions?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Or perhaps they were answerred
-
You have quoted it but dont seem to undersatnd it...SY have done a lot of research but is limited re the investiagation as they cannot mount a proper investigation in portugal
Certainly they can, all it requires is boots on the ground. The cannot go out formally questioning people on their own but there are many things they can do just like Redwood did. ILOR's are a waste of time basically, nothing can beat having a crew out there liaising with the PJ on the ground.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ordinary Portuguese cops would do all they could to assist SY but sitting in an office in London was never going to be enough. It was just a sham imo.
-
Certainly they can, all it requires is boots on the ground. The cannot go out formally questioning people on their own but there are many things they can do just like Redwood did. ILOR's are a waste of time basically, nothing can beat having a crew out there liaising with the PJ on the ground.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ordinary Portuguese cops would do all they could to assist SY but sitting in an office in London was never going to be enough. It was just a sham imo.
You don't seem to understand the basics.... SY can't turn up in Portugal and question people
-
Certainly they can, all it requires is boots on the ground. The cannot go out formally questioning people on their own but there are many things they can do just like Redwood did. ILOR's are a waste of time basically, nothing can beat having a crew out there liaising with the PJ on the ground.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ordinary Portuguese cops would do all they could to assist SY but sitting in an office in London was never going to be enough. It was just a sham imo.
The Council of The European Union manual on JIT's does not share your view.
"Indeed, a JIT can quite properly be formed with members from two or more
Member States when nobody works outside their own Member State". [Section 5 page EN8]
Also
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/#cps
the bits on the ILO and CPS are particularly interesting.
The MLA system hs been going for 18 years. The EU has 28 member states. Remove the McCann case from the equation then how much bother has there been between member states in criminal cross border cases?
I don't know but does anyone else?
-
The Council of The European Union manual on JIT's does not share your view.
"Indeed, a JIT can quite properly be formed with members from two or more
Member States when nobody works outside their own Member State". [Section 5 page EN8]
Also
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/#cps
the bits on the ILO and CPS are particularly interesting.
The MLA system hs been going for 18 years. The EU has 28 member states. Remove the McCann case from the equation then how much bother has there been between member states in criminal cross border cases?
I don't know but does anyone else?
Sitting in an office in London certainly can be considered as partaking in a JIT but it is ineffective. Undertaking an investigation by proxy is a total waste of time and resources. SY obviously have no real leads otherwise they would have been back to Portugal to follow them up.
As for the thread theme, SY have sidestepped the question very nicely for now.
-
Ms Dick can probably claim that they have no more resources to devote to this, but the case remains open, so they cannot release any details.
-
Not in my opinion. Nothing simple about it, and impossible to answer without Libelling The Portuguese Police.
You can’t libel the police.
-
Do you know why there was no JIT despite Scotland Yard wanting one?
Also, is there the slightest chance we might progress this and other threads without the constant sniping at and parsing of Davel's posts?
In my opinion it is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment which I'm sure it can't be ... but I for one am finding it all so predictable, tiresome and distracting that as a moderator I think it should cease forthwith.
Don't you?
What has a JIT got to do with anything. Davel was asked a question which for some unknown reason 2 “senior” moderators feel they have to protect him from. Again it is a simple yes/no question.
-
What has a JIT got to do with anything. Davel was asked a question which for some unknown reason 2 “senior” moderators feel they have to protect him from. Again it is a simple yes/no question.
What JIT is?
A joint investigation team is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between competent authorities – both judicial (judges, prosecutors, investigative judges…) and law enforcement – of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/joint-investigation-teams
In my opinion had a JIT been in operation when Scotland Yard opened a case on Madeleine and the Judicial Police revisited theirs a lot of time and effort could well have been saved with two teams working differently but together.
I think it could only have been beneficial for the investigation and ultimately for Madeleine ... surprised only that you felt it necessary to ask the question.
-
If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.
They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.
Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.
-
If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.
They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.
Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.
Also they have been able to make people suspects and question them on Portuguese soil as well as search in Praia Da Luz.
IMO they have had the assistance they need to do their work but their main hindrance was not the Portuguese, if indeed there was any, it was their reliance on the existing files without further questioning of those closest to the case.
-
If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.
They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.
Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.
I doubt they will publically blame the portuguese....but I think many realise taht is the true state of affairs
-
Also they have been able to make people suspects and question them on Portuguese soil as well as search in Praia Da Luz.
IMO they have had the assistance they need to do their work but their main hindrance was not the Portuguese, if indeed there was any, it was their reliance on the existing files without further questioning of those closest to the case.
it was their reliance on the existing files without further questioning of those closest to the case.
This is where it was doomed to fail ...there only objective to prove the mccs innocent...
an impossible task in my opinion...
although this has been said before about Sutton....IMO even the Portuguese think SY a joke....
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
some of what the money was spent on....and a bit of bullying to confess it seems....
r Anjos, who accused Gerry and Kate McCann of hampering the abduction investigation in 2007, said: 'This burglary theory is absurd. Not even a wallet disappeared, nothing else disappeared. A child disappeared.'
Carlos Anjos, who accused Gerry and Kate McCann of hampering the abduction investigation in 2007, said: 'This burglary theory is absurd.
It came as the four men questioned over her disappearance in 2014 and still living in Praia Da Luz were told last week they have no case to answer.
One of them, Paulo Ribeiro, told the BBC's Panorama: 'I thought it was incredible. I knew of nothing when the police arrived at my door with a piece of paper that had a drawing on it, saying it bore a likeness to me and that someone had said I was involved and that I looked like the person who had kidnapped Maddie. I don't know who that person was.'
There are not believed to be any others with 'arguido' status - the Portuguese term for a formal suspect in a crime.
Pedro do Carma, deputy director of the Policia Judiciaria, told Panorama these men should not have been made suspects.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4468750/11m-probe-Madeleine-McCann-s-disappearance-slammed.html
-
I doubt they will publically blame the portuguese....but I think many realise taht is the true state of affairs
I'm absolutely sure they won't blame the Portuguese because the Portuguese aren't to blame. The only people who think blaming the Portuguese is feasible are those who are unable to admit that the Met got it wrong.
-
I'm absolutely sure they won't blame the Portuguese because the Portuguese aren't to blame. The only people who think blaming the Portuguese is feasible are those who are unable to admit that the Met got it wrong.
All your opinion... Nothing more
-
Is there any proof that anyone warned Colin Sutton?
-
Is there any proof that anyone warned Colin Sutton?
What sort of proof would you like.or to put it another way, what sort of proof would you accept?
-
What sort of proof would you like?
Who was it that warned him, please.
-
I'm absolutely sure they won't blame the Portuguese because the Portuguese aren't to blame. The only people who think blaming the Portuguese is feasible are those who are unable to admit that the Met got it wrong.
What did the MET get wrong
-
All your opinion... Nothing more
Well, we seem to agree that the Met won't publicly try to lay the blame for their failures on the Portuguese. We differ in that you seem to think the Portuguese failed to cooperate as fully as they could have. Do you have evidence to support your suspicions or is it just another smear attempt?
-
Well, we seem to agree that the Met won't publicly try to lay the blame for their failures on the Portuguese. We differ in that you seem to think the Portuguese failed to cooperate as fully as they could have. Do you have evidence to support your suspicions or is it just another smear attempt?
The very fact that SY wanted JIT... And didn't get one
-
What did the MET get wrong
Getting involved.
-
Getting involved.
So that's all... Again simply your opinion..
They were, asked to bring their expertise... IMO they weren't allowed to use it..
-
If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.
They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.
Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.
One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.
In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.
For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.
Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.
This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm
Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...
But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.
In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.
-
Who was it that warned him, please.
I would hardly think he would go on sky news ...etc etc etc ..do you..
especially with the gagging ...procedure on this case....
-
The very fact that SY wanted JIT... And didn't get one
A JIT is set up in cross-border cases when each State involved agrees that one is needed, not because one State 'wanted' one. According to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe;
the force was seeking agreement for the team from the UK and Portuguese governments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25124643
I don't know why it wasn't agreed. If you do, please provide your evidence.
-
One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.
In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.
For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.
Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.
This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm
Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...
But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.
In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.
IIRC...wasnt the mccs complaining about the PJ and SY....early on in the case...
IMO when the finger was pointing at them...from both sides.....
then bingo ....SY 2013.... treat the mccs as innocent......
aww then the mccs were so grateful to SY
-
A JIT is set up in cross-border cases when each State involved agrees that one is needed, not because one State 'wanted' one. According to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe;
the force was seeking agreement for the team from the UK and Portuguese governments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25124643
I don't know why it wasn't agreed. If you do, please provide your evidence.
What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one .imo
-
What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one .imo
As it says “each state”, either country could have vetoed.
-
As it says “each state”, either country could have vetoed.
But we know as a fact SY wanted it
-
If the Met ever have to answer questions about this case I don't think they'll get away with blaming the lack if a JIT or the fact that they couldn't investigate in Portugal for their lack of results.
They knew (or certainly should have known) that the case wasn't theirs, that they were unlikely to get a JIT, and that they weren't allowed to investigate in Portugal before they embarked on the exercise.
Given those restrictions they will need to explain why they believed that they would be able to overcome them and solve the case.
When did the Met say they believed they could solve the case..... Im fairly sure they never said that
-
What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one .imo
So you are assuming the Portuguese didn't want one? You have no evidence for your assumption?
-
So you are assuming the Portuguese didn't want one? You have no evidence for your assumption?
The evidence is
SYwanted one
There isn't one
That's, more evidence than you have for Portugal being amenable to one
-
The evidence is
SYwanted one
There isn't one
That's, more evidence than you have for Portugal being amenable to one
I have never said that Portugal was amenable to a JIT because I don't know what their opinion was and neither do you. There are many possible reasons why it didn't happen and no evidence that it was because the Portuguese rejected it.
-
I have never said that Portugal was amenable to a JIT because I don't know what their opinion was and neither do you. There are many possible reasons why it didn't happen and no evidence that it was because the Portuguese rejected it.
Give us some reasons you believe may be possible
-
One thing I do not foresee is the Met being called upon to answer any questions on the competence of their investigation having been in constant dialogue to update the Home Office of their progress throughout.
In my opinion you have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes in England and Portugal and your negative opinion is exactly that ... your opinion ... and in my opinion one which is based on little or no substance which makes it ill informed.
For example when things were still a bit 'leaky' in Portugal it became known that there was already cooperation between the police of both nations on Madeleine's case ... and had been going on remarkably for over a year before Amaral broke the news.
Proving that sometimes 'justice does work in secrecy' if I've got the phrase quite right.
Snip
On 1st March 2012, Gonçalo Amaral reveals, in an interview with Portuguese magazine 'O Crime', that Scotland Yard has been working with an investigative [Judiciary Police] team from Oporto.
This is picked up just over a week later by Jornal de Notícias, who declare that the case is going to be reopened. However, this is swiftly denied by the National Deputy Director of the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, who guarantees that there is no new evidence regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to prompt the reopening of the case. However, he does reveal that the PJ team of investigators from Oporto was established one year previously and has been working in collaboration with the British police
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm
Therefore your supposition that Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria went into their separate but cooperative investigation is exactly that ... your supposition ... as the evidence contradicts that the PJ woke up suddenly in 2013 and realised SY had gained a march on them as they had already been marching alongside each other on Madeleine's case for years.
In fact one could almost say they were in cahoots and the people who were entitled to know that were already in the know although you and I had somehow slipped out of the loop ...
But at the end of the day ... I don't think there will be many pejorative questions asked of the Met although I do think internal evaluations will take place on cooperative working and the benefits thereof.
In my opinion it should worry you that you think that either police authority went into Madeleine's case without performing the due diligence which was very obviously the hallmark of this investigation.
What makes you think that the only body the police have to answer to is Home Office?
The Oporto team was set up first. Pedro do Carmo;
PC - "The constitution of this task team came from the National Directorate of the Judiciary Police, independently and actually preceded the creation of the Metropolitan Police team."........
"The British authorities have set up a team to review the investigation. They have been to Portugal and agreed to collaborate with the PJ.
"We are doing the same. The Porto team is very experienced in these cases."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id409.htm
-
What JIT is?
A joint investigation team is an international cooperation tool based on an agreement between competent authorities – both judicial (judges, prosecutors, investigative judges…) and law enforcement – of two or more States, established for a limited duration and for a specific purpose, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/joint-investigation-teams
In my opinion had a JIT been in operation when Scotland Yard opened a case on Madeleine and the Judicial Police revisited theirs a lot of time and effort could well have been saved with two teams working differently but together.
I think it could only have been beneficial for the investigation and ultimately for Madeleine ... surprised only that you felt it necessary to ask the question.
A JIT in this instance would have been set up, in association with Eurojust and Europol, in Portugal with the lead being taken by the Portuguese Judiciary. The last word on the case having been the archiving document. Had the OG remit been as narrowly focused as has been suggested by some in this forum then OG would have been guilty of prejudging an investigation before it started bringing into question their usefulness. I would imagine were that the case the Portuguese Judiciary, with some justification, would have complained to Eurojust and Europol.
I do not however see O.G being so daft considering the College of Policing has published a manual dealing with European Investigations as have The Council of The European Union.
-
Give us some reasons you believe may be possible
I think I asked for your evidence first, which seems to amount to;
snip/
"What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one .imo"
I don't call that evidence, I call it speculation.
Either or both sides could have decided that there was nothing to be gained from setting up a JIT.
-
The evidence is
SYwanted one
There isn't one
That's, more evidence than you have for Portugal being amenable to one
That is not evidence Davel. You should have put an IMO on your post.
-
I think I asked for your evidence first, which seems to amount to;
snip/
"What we know is SY wanted one.... But one wasn't put in place.... So what does that evidence suggest... Only that the Portuguese didn't want one .imo"
I don't call that evidence, I call it speculation.
Either or both sides could have decided that there was nothing to be gained from setting up a JIT.
A JIT is only worthwhile if there is anything to investigate. Clearly the Portuguese have their own opinion as to what happened to the child and SY have theirs. It is no secret what SY's real agenda is in this case and clearly the Portuguese won't be party to it.
-
That is not evidence Davel. You should have put an IMO on your post.
You don't sem to understand what evidence is
-
A JIT is only worthwhile if there is anything to investigate. Clearly the Portuguese have their own opinion as to what happened to the child and SY have theirs. It is no secret what SY's real agenda is in this case and clearly the Portuguese won't be party to it.
The Portuguese have said there is no evidence against the mccanns... Perhaps you would like to share the real agenda if SY... I think that's just your imagination
-
The Portuguese have said there is no evidence against the mccanns... Perhaps you would like to share the real agenda if SY... I think that's just your imagination
Have said. Yes , but time’s moved on and no one knows what they might have at this moment in time ?
-
IIRC...wasnt the mccs complaining about the PJ and SY....early on in the case...
IMO when the finger was pointing at them...from both sides.....
then bingo ....SY 2013.... treat the mccs as innocent......
aww then the mccs were so grateful to SY
All in your opinion which in my opinion is disastrously biased and ill informed.
-
All in your opinion which in my opinion is disastrously biased and ill informed.
says yous ....thats all...
unless you can prove any different......instead of OYO....
-
A JIT is only worthwhile if there is anything to investigate. Clearly the Portuguese have their own opinion as to what happened to the child and SY have theirs. It is no secret what SY's real agenda is in this case and clearly the Portuguese won't be party to it.
Exactly,Pedro Do carmo in reply to a question "do you accept the girl was abducted","we don't know was his reply", ,meanwhile OG have said they'll investigate as if the abduction happened in the uk,all on tape or in black and white,never the twain shall meet and its only just dawning on some.
-
Exactly,Pedro Do carmo in reply to a question "do you accept the girl was abducted","we don't know was his reply", ,meanwhile OG have said they'll investigate as if the abduction happened in the uk,all on tape or in black and white,never the twain shall meet and its only just dawning on some.
abduction is SYs working hypothesis...they dont know for sure ...the position of SY and the PJ is exactly the same...some of us realised this some time ago
-
Exactly,Pedro Do carmo in reply to a question "do you accept the girl was abducted","we don't know was his reply", ,meanwhile OG have said they'll investigate as if the abduction happened in the uk,all on tape or in black and white,never the twain shall meet and its only just dawning on some.
So the PJ accept that Madeleine may have been abducted.
-
abduction is SYs working hypothesis...they dont know for sure ...the position of SY and the PJ is exactly the same...some of us realised this some time ago
What do you mean by the position being the same? When did that happen?
"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met
-
What do you mean by the position being the same? When did that happen?
"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met
both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated
-
But we know as a fact SY wanted it
SY isn’t the U.K.
-
says yous ....thats all...
unless you can prove any different......instead of OYO....
If you read your post again you will see where it might be considered a contradiction in terms.
-
So the PJ accept that Madeleine may have been abducted.
His words were " we don't know what happened,and have to be prepared for different scenarios".
-
both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated
Pedro do Carmo said;
the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
Does that mean 'the parents are not being investigated'? It does not.
-
Pedro do Carmo said;
the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
Does that mean 'the parents are not being investigated'? It does not.
What does it mean then?
-
What does it mean then?
That the parents are not suspects, of course. What did you think it means?
-
Pedro do Carmo said;
the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
Does that mean 'the parents are not being investigated'? It does not.
Of course it does
-
That the parents are not suspects, of course. What did you think it means?
Exactly that and IMO police don’t spend time investigating people who are not suspects.
-
Of course it does
Has Do Carmo said 'We are not investigating the parents?' Not as far as I know.
-
Has Do Carmo said 'We are not investigating the parents?' Not as far as I know.
If he is investigating the parents how is he doing that exactly? Googling them?
-
Has Do Carmo said 'We are not investigating the parents?' Not as far as I know.
Wouldn't make any difference to sceptics if he had would it.... You would find an excuse not to believe anything he said
-
Exactly that and IMO police don’t spend time investigating people who are not suspects.
The Portuguese police have publicly made the very same statement in the past when they were definitely investigating the McCanns. I cannot understand, therefore, why you think they wouldn't do the same again.
31st August 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-top-cop-inisists-mccanns-are-victims-not-suspects-6609911.html
-
The Portuguese police have publicly made the very same statement in the past when they were definitely investigating the McCanns. I cannot understand, therefore, why you think they wouldn't do the same again.
31st August 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-top-cop-inisists-mccanns-are-victims-not-suspects-6609911.html
This has been explained before... They weren't suspects until the PJ misunderstood the evidence... Can't see that happening again
-
This has been explained before... They weren't suspects until the PJ misunderstood the evidence... Can't see that happening again
They were definitely suspects on 31st August when the PJ said they weren't.
-
The Portuguese police have publicly made the very same statement in the past when they were definitely investigating the McCanns. I cannot understand, therefore, why you think they wouldn't do the same again.
31st August 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-top-cop-inisists-mccanns-are-victims-not-suspects-6609911.html
They’ve already investigated the arse out of them, how do you suppose they are investigating them again? Do tell.
-
They were definitely suspects on 31st August when the PJ said they weren't.
because amaral et al didnt understand the evidence..cant see that happening again
-
The Portuguese police have publicly made the very same statement in the past when they were definitely investigating the McCanns. I cannot understand, therefore, why you think they wouldn't do the same again.
31st August 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa confirmed today that Gerry and Kate McCann are not under suspicion for their daughter's vanishing on 3 May and described them as "victims".
"The McCanns are not suspects. They are victims and witnesses," he said.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/madeleine-top-cop-inisists-mccanns-are-victims-not-suspects-6609911.html
#
The PJ wont do it again beccause they wont make the silly mistake twice
-
#
The PJ wont do it again beccause they wont make the silly mistake twice
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
I cant really see them getting things so wrong a second time
-
I cant really see them getting things so wrong a second time
No, I'm sure they'll have all their i's dotted and t's crossed if they act against anyone in future. They seem to have made that clear to Operation Grange too.
-
No, I'm sure they'll have all their i's dotted and t's crossed if they act against anyone in future. They seem to have made that clear to Operation Grange too.
They simply need some proper evidence... What have they made clear to Grange.. And when
-
They simply need some proper evidence... What have they made clear to Grange.. And when
That they must dot the i's and cross the t's. Read Rowley's 10th anniversary interview.
-
That they must dot the i's and cross the t's. Read Rowley's 10th anniversary interview.
What efforts have the PJ taken to do this in building a case against the McCanns do you think? They’ve had years to investigate them further so what have they actually done?
-
That they must dot the i's and cross the t's. Read Rowley's 10th anniversary interview.
You have said before that your reasoning is based on evidence...do what evidence is there that the McCann's are being investigated
-
What efforts have the PJ taken to do this in building a case against the McCanns do you think? They’ve had years to investigate them further so what have they actually done?
How would I know? Unlike some, I don't claim to know what they're doing (or not doing).
-
How would I know? Unlike some, I don't claim to know what they're doing (or not doing).
Is there evidence of anyone actually "doing".
-
You have said before that your reasoning is based on evidence...do what evidence is there that the McCann's are being investigated
Despite your claim, there's no evidence that the NcCanns are not being investigated and no evidence that they are.
-
Despite your claim, there's no evidence that the NcCanns are not being investigated and no evidence that they are.
Of course there is...you are in total denial
The statements by SY and the PJ are evidence
The lack of activity is evidence
And no evidence they are being investigated
-
Of course there is...you are in total denial
The statements by SY and the PJ are evidence
The lack of activity is evidence
And no evidence they are being investigated
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
Don't ask me for a cite - do your own simple Google check.
-
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
Don't ask me for a cite - do your own simple Google check.
W ithout a cite your post is worthless...as you are in Portugal a simple Google check may well give different results to that in the UK
No cite...so no evidence of any activity in Porto
-
Of course there is...you are in total denial
The statements by SY and the PJ are evidence
The lack of activity is evidence
And no evidence they are being investigated
Those are your conclusions based on your interpretations of what you have heard and seen. It doesn't mean you're right.
-
Those are your conclusions based on your interpretations of what you have heard and seen. It doesn't mean you're right.
I said there was evidence...there is..I'm right
You said there wasn't....you are wrong
-
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
Don't ask me for a cite - do your own simple Google check.
feel free to prove me wrong with a cite
-
I said there was evidence...there is..I'm right
You said there wasn't....you are wrong
What I said was that the evidence didn't support your conclusions.
-
What I said was that the evidence didn't support your conclusions.
You said there was no evidence...the post is still there...that makes you wrong again...post ,248
-
You said there was no evidence...the post is still there...that makes you wrong again...post ,248
Would you care to reproduce the complete post rather than just the bit you chose?
You said police don't investigate those who they say aren't suspects and you were wrong. 8**8:/:
-
Despite your claim, there's no evidence that the NcCanns are not being investigated and no evidence that they are.
No evidence
-
Would you care to reproduce the complete post rather than just the bit you chose?
You said police don't investigate those who they say aren't suspects and you were wrong. 8**8:/:
Could you reproduce the whole post...as you requested I do
-
You said there was no evidence...the post is still there...that makes you wrong again...post ,248
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive....
GA regretted ever sending them to the Birmingham lab
Stuart Prior... did say the results of the test in England.... arrests would have been made.....
Is that why SY chose to skip all the bits that could implicate the mccs...
So started with the abduction as if everything pointed to that ...which it didn't....
it amazes me how pj are continually slagged of as not investigating properly...
yet praised that they did not class the mccs as suspects...
There is so much going on in this case....
the only thing clear it seems is the mccs have to be innocent at all costs....
maddie is left and justice for her.... way back in 2007...just as she was left that fateful night....
my post is in my opinion....
Interesting read imo
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html
-
No evidence
Do you have evidence showing what the police are doing? I think not.
-
Do you have evidence showing what the police are doing? I think not.
Ive quoted it
-
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive....
GA regretted ever sending them to the Birmingham lab
Stuart Prior... did say the results of the test in England.... arrests would have been made.....
Is that why SY chose to skip all the bits that could implicate the mccs...
So started with the abduction as if everything pointed to that ...which it didn't....
it amazes me how pj are continually slagged of as not investigating properly...
yet praised that they did not class the mccs as suspects...
There is so much going on in this case....
the only thing clear it seems is the mccs have to be innocent at all costs....
maddie is left and justice for her.... way back in 2007...just as she was left that fateful night....
my post is in my opinion....
Interesting read imo
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html
What is the evidence Prior made that statement....only amaral......amaral who claimed the dogs had helped solve 200 case searches....amaras claims are full of errors as is easily proved. He misunderstood the dna so he has to blame someone else
-
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive....
GA regretted ever sending them to the Birmingham lab
Stuart Prior... did say the results of the test in England.... arrests would have been made.....
Is that why SY chose to skip all the bits that could implicate the mccs...
So started with the abduction as if everything pointed to that ...which it didn't....
it amazes me how pj are continually slagged of as not investigating properly...
yet praised that they did not class the mccs as suspects...
There is so much going on in this case....
the only thing clear it seems is the mccs have to be innocent at all costs....
maddie is left and justice for her.... way back in 2007...just as she was left that fateful night....
my post is in my opinion....
Interesting read imo
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html
the dna results are not confusing..they are very clear and conclusive
-
W ithout a cite your post is worthless...as you are in Portugal a simple Google check may well give different results to that in the UK
No cite...so no evidence of any activity in Porto
I use google.co.uk
Please don't insinuate that I am lying.
If you are too lazy to do a tiny bit of simple research, so be it, your views are worthless.
-
I use google.co.uk
Please don't insinuate that I am lying.
If you are too lazy to do a tiny bit of simple research, so be it, your views are worthless.
I am telling you that you are clearly wrong...there has been no sign of any action from porto and a simple google search does not show any...you can settle this easily by citing your result...the fact is you cannot as you are mistaken
-
I use google.co.uk
Please don't insinuate that I am lying.
If you are too lazy to do a tiny bit of simple research, so be it, your views are worthless.
I believe some posters constant refrain that others do not understand the evidence but that they of course do, should be against forum rules. At the very least it is irritating and clearly wrong.
-
What is the evidence Prior made that statement....only amaral......amaral who claimed the dogs had helped solve 200 case searches....amaras claims are full of errors as is easily proved. He misunderstood the dna so he has to blame someone else
Oh lol,.... he is not the only one whos claims are full of errors...
At least,... in my opinion,.... he stuck to the one conclusion he made..
Not like some who changed the story to fit...
also, ...blame everyone but themselves.....
-
I believe some posters constant refrain that others do not understand the evidence but that they of course do, should be against forum rules. At the very least it is irritating and clearly wrong.
why when its opinion based on fact.....xtina claimed Prior made a statement ....which I dont believe he did...and there is little evidence to support it....she claims the DNA evidence is not conclusive and confusing when it is quite simple to understand...sil claims there is action in porto..as afact..but refuses to provide a cite...all my criticisms are justified
-
Oh lol,.... he is not the only one whos claims are full of errors...
At least,... in my opinion,.... he stuck to the one conclusion he made..
Not like some who changed the story to fit...
also, ...blame everyone but themselves.....
you posted..
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive..
what are you confused about....I could expalin it to you....
-
I use google.co.uk
Please don't insinuate that I am lying.
If you are too lazy to do a tiny bit of simple research, so be it, your views are worthless.
Im fairly positive you are mistaken and your claim is worthless...and thats why you cannot provide a cite
-
Ive quoted it
And it didn't suggest what you thought it did. The evidence from 2007 demonstrated the mistake in your reasoning.
-
I am telling you that you are clearly wrong...there has been no sign of any action from porto and a simple google search does not show any...you can settle this easily by citing your result...the fact is you cannot as you are mistaken
I put the link into my database shortly before posting.
I have no intention of citing this result.
I am neither mistaken nor lying.
You are asserting there is no evidence of activity - without proof.
I am asserting that I have found evidence of activity - without proof.
You either trust me or you don't.
-
And it didn't suggest what you thought it did. The evidence from 2007 demonstrated the mistake in your reasoning.
now you are quoting opinion....you said there was no evidence...you are wrong......It does support my reasoning...imo...the situation in 2007 was completely different as I have expalined to you
-
I put the link into my database shortly before posting.
I have no intention of citing this result.
I am neither mistaken nor lying.
You are asserting there is no evidence of activity - without proof.
I am asserting that I have found evidence of activity - without proof.
You either trust me or you don't.
if you have no intention of providing a cite your claim is worthless....I think you are mistaken. The fact that you have not provided a cite which could easily prove me wrong shows you cannot.
-
if you have no intention of providing a cite your claim is worthless....I think you are mistaken. The fact that you have not provided a cite which could easily prove me wrong shows you cannot.
I choose not to provide a cite at this time because the Porto effort may make a nice article for my blog.
Now back to you. Do you have a cite for no evidence of activity?
Since you don't have supporting evidence for an assertion I know to be wrong, perhaps you should just move on.
-
I choose not to provide a cite at this time because the Porto effort may make a nice article for my blog.
Now back to you. Do you have a cite for no evidence of activity?
Since you don't have supporting evidence for an assertion I know to be wrong, perhaps you should just move on.
the very fact that there have been no reports of any action...for several years I believe...is evidence of no action.
-
the very fact that there have been no reports of any action...for several years I believe...is evidence of no action.
The trouble is I've got reported evidence of action.
Do the forum a favour. Move on.
-
The trouble is I've got reported evidence of action.
Do the forum a favour. Move on.
you claim you have ....no cite no credibility.....
do the forum a favour and abide by the rules...claims without cites have no credibility
-
now you are quoting opinion....you said there was no evidence...you are wrong......It does support my reasoning...imo...the situation in 2007 was completely different as I have expalined to you
This discussion began when you said in Post #221;
"both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated"
You have failed to produce and evidence to uphold that statement, so why not admit it?
-
This discussion began when you said in Post #221;
"both have made it clear the parents are not being investigated"
You have failed to produce and evidence to uphold that statement, so why not admit it?
the statements made by both police forces which I have quoted are evidence of them not being investiagted
-
you posted..
I think the DNA results are very confusing and can't be taken as absolutely conclusive..
what are you confused about....I could expalin it to you....
This is one of the things....as I read it ...it points to being maddie's DNA....
Thank you for the offer of explaining it... 8((()*/
but will decline your offer .... as it won't change my mind...
to 2616 Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile
TRANSLATED BY ALBYM
10-Processo 10 - 2615 to 2616
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2615
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2616
Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ
on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA
profile
This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared
in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this
police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.
This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence
recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the
boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.
In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also
found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.
With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed
DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann.
In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified
DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.
Portimao, 11 September 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos
-
This is one of the things....as I read it ...it points to being maddie's DNA....
Thank you for the offer of explaining it... 8((()*/
but will decline your offer .... as it won't change my mind...
to 2616 Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA profile
TRANSLATED BY ALBYM
10-Processo 10 - 2615 to 2616
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2615
10VOLUME_Xa_Page_2616
Letter dated 11 September regarding FSS report received by PJ
on on 4 September from Leicester Police, citing 15/19 matches of Madeleine DNA
profile
This serves to add [to the case file] a laboratory examination report prepared
in England, written in English and translated into Portuguese, delivered to this
police force on 4 September 2007 by English police officer Stuart Prior.
This laboratory report tells about the examinations made of two trace evidence
recoveries, one behind the living room sofa in apartment 5A and the other in the
boot area of the vehicle used by the McCann family, hired [by them] from the end of May this year.
In some of these recoveries (samples) DNA was found whose components are also
found in the profile of Madeleine McCann.
With respect to the trace evidence recovered behind the sofa all the confirmed
DNA components coincide with corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann.
In the sample collected in the boot area of the vehicle, 15 of the identified
DNA components coincide with the corresponding components in the DNA profile of
Madeleine McCann, this of [having] 19 components.
Portimao, 11 September 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos
it does not point to it being Maddies DNA...you have admitted you dont understand it and therefore your conclusions are based on your inability to understand......i understand it..its quite clear...my conclusions are based on an understanding of the evidence
you havent provided a link yo your cite bt it looks like you have picked out sentences from the report to make a case that does not exist in the report as a whole
-
it does not point to it being Maddies DNA...you have admitted you dont understand it and therefore your conclusions are based on your inability to understand......i understand it..its quite clear...my conclusions are based on an understanding of the evidence
you havent provided a link yo your cite bt it looks like you have picked out sentences from the report to make a case that does not exist in the report as a whole
Unless you start explaining your understanding of the evidence it is just a contradiction of another posters view and may well be seen as not adding anything to the discussion.
-
Unless you start explaining your understanding of the evidence it is just a contradiction of another posters view and may well be seen as not adding anything to the discussion.
I have explained it many times and am happy to do it again....xtina claimed the result was confusing which it is not ...it is perfectly clear and understandable...she wa sthe one who raised it...will my explanation be off topic
-
The DNA evidence...
a sample was found that contained 15 of maddie markers....If this sample was of good quality...not lcn dna...a nd from one person...and found at a site where none of her family had been....that would be astrong indication that the dna had come from maddie.
The sample in question was made up of dna from 3 to 5 people and 15 markers were found that corresponded to maddie. The problem is other people including complete strangers but particularly her family will share some of these markers....so the question is did the 15 markers found come from maddie or from others...the question is impossible to answer
-
it does not point to it being Maddies DNA...you have admitted you dont understand it and therefore your conclusions are based on your inability to understand......i understand it..its quite clear...my conclusions are based on an understanding of the evidence
you havent provided a link yo your cite bt it looks like you have picked out sentences from the report to make a case that does not exist in the report as a whole
No, it was not that at all ....
just a simple mistake of forgetting to put the link....
i would have thought though..... you would have known where it was....
seeing you understand everything....
whatever you say though...
I believe along with the dogs there was proof of dna...imo
just it all got changed to suit ...like everything else ...that is my opinion..
Like why was there no DNA in apartment IIRC...
why did gmcc have to go home to collect it ...can you really say it was genuinely DNA of maddie IMO...
My thought maybe ott but still my opinion
There was this as well.............. the same link
.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -
When was the DNA deposited -
How was the DNA deposited -
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
Was a crime committed -
These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance
kind regards
John
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
-
No, it was not that at all ....
just a simple mistake of forgetting to put the link....
i would have thought though..... you would have known where it was....
seeing you understand everything....
whatever you say though...
I believe along with the dogs there was proof of dna...imo
just it all got changed to suit ...like everything else ...that is my opinion..
Like why was there no DNA in apartment IIRC...
why did gmcc have to go home to collect it ...can you really say it was genuinely DNA of maddie IMO...
My thought maybe ott but still my opinion
There was this as well.............. the same link
.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation
What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -
When was the DNA deposited -
How was the DNA deposited -
What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
Was a crime committed -
These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance
kind regards
John
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
you are taking sentences out and not quoting the report in its entirety...you should read my explanation.
the dna cane from 3 tto 5 people and therefore it was impossible to confirm a match...it really is quite clear...and thats why I dont believe amarals claim as to what Prior said...just as there are other false claims in his book.
what you believe is up to you but the evidence shows no confirmation of maddies dna presence...and that is a fact
-
you are taking sentences out and not quoting the report in its entirety...you should read my explanation.
the dna cane from 3 tto 5 people and therefore it was impossible to confirm a match...it really is quite clear...and thats why I dont believe amarals claim as to what Prior said...just as there are other false claims in his book.
what you believe is up to you but the evidence shows no confirmation of maddies dna presence...and that is a fact
No, I am not talking sentences out ....its there for all to read...they are paragraphs,... not sentences....
IMO you are using that as an excuse...
you asked what I didn't understand I showed you that's all
so IMO you are using this as another excuse....
Have you ever seen Stuart Prior deny what GA wrote ....he had every opportunity in the libel case....
It may be a fact to you ....but that doesn't make it one ....only if you want it to be...
I think...you can take it either way ....in what you believe happened ....
but it's not 100% conclusive IMO....that you make it out to be....
-
No, I am not talking sentences out ....its there for all to read...they are paragraphs,... not sentences....
IMO you are using that as an excuse...
you asked what I didn't understand I showed you that's all
so IMO you are using this as another excuse....
Have you ever seen Stuart Prior deny what GA wrote ....he had every opportunity in the libel case....
It may be a fact to you ....but that doesn't make it one ....only if you want it to be...
I think...you can take it either way ....in what you believe happened ....
but it's not 100% conclusive IMO....that you make it out to be....
It's 100% inconclusive......that's not what I say it's what the report says....no one is arrested on 100% inconclusive evidence which suggests Prior never said any such thing
-
The deposition of John Robert Lowe dated 18th July 2008 said:
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm.
-
The deposition of John Robert Lowe dated 18th July 2008 said:
Conclusion
In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm.
That's what I have said and explained why... Amaral and sceptics seem to think the report somehow confirms Maddie's DNA...it doesn't
-
That's what I have said and explained why... Amaral and sceptics seem to think the report somehow confirms Maddie's DNA...it doesn't
Wasn't it rather that he said 15 out of 19 markers would be enough in their country ?
-
Wasn't it rather that he said 15 out of 19 markers would be enough in their country ?
Not if it was a mixture of 3 to 5 people including Maddie's family....amaral didn't seem to understand this
-
the statements made by both police forces which I have quoted are evidence of them not being investiagted
Here were are back at the beginning. Your argument was that do Carmo's words ('the parents are not suspects') are evidence of something completely different ('we aren't investigating the parents).
The one statement is unrelated to the other, so at best you're just guessing about his meaning.
-
Here were are back at the beginning. Your argument was that do Carmo's words ('the parents are not suspects') are evidence of something completely different ('we aren't investigating the parents).
The one statement is unrelated to the other, so at best you're just guessing about his meaning.
If they are not suspects it's suggests they are not being investigated...that's logic not guesswork....f you think they are then you are guessing
-
If they are not suspects it's suggests they are not being investigated...that's logic not guesswork....f you think they are then you are guessing
So evidence transforms into suggests?
-
So evidence transforms into suggests?
The definition of evidence is something that suggests or indicates something is true
The fact that both police forces have made statements... suggests...indicates...supports ..the fact that the McCann's are not being investigated
-
why when its opinion based on fact.....xtina claimed Prior made a statement ....which I dont believe he did...and there is little evidence to support it....she claims the DNA evidence is not conclusive and confusing when it is quite simple to understand...sil claims there is action in porto..as afact..but refuses to provide a cite...all my criticisms are justified
https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20180721/45995129047/diez-anos-del-carpetazo-luso-al-caso-maddie-un-misterio-que-sigue-abierto.html
*snipped*
"Meanwhile, in Portugal they advance in silence and without pressure; Nobody wants another controversy like that of Gonçalo Amaral, the commissar who ended up in a judicial conflict with the McCann couple for accusing them of hiding his daughter's body after he died by accident, something never proven."
-
If they are not suspects it's suggests they are not being investigated...that's logic not guesswork....f you think they are then you are guessing
Would one expect either the PJ or SY to announce who if anyone is a suspect to satisfy the keyboard warriors.
-
Would one expect either the PJ or SY to announce who if anyone is a suspect to satisfy the keyboard warriors.
I wouldn't expect them to say anything .....but they have...and their answers are evidence but not proof that the McCanns are not under investigation
-
I wouldn't expect them to say anything .....but they have...and their answers are evidence but not proof that the McCanns are not under investigation
When was the last time anyone from OG said anything ?
Rowley conducted an interview last year but that has since disappeared as has anything relating to OG on the Met’s website.
-
When was the last time anyone from OG said anything ?
Rowley conducted an interview last year but that has since disappeared as has anything relating to OG on the Met’s website.
If they said something last week you would say it was out of date
-
If they said something last week you would say it was out of date
But they haven’t, have they ?
Not even an update on the 10th anniversary when you would have thought that it would be seen by the widest audience. In fact absolutely nothing since Redwood left. Very odd considering it is an ongoing investigation.
-
But they haven’t, have they ?
Not even an update on the 10th anniversary when you would have thought that it would be seen by the widest audience. In fact absolutely nothing since Redwood left. Very odd considering it is an ongoing investigation.
Maybe everyone has been struck dumb by Redwood's representational skills.
-
1)That's what I have said and explained why... (2)Amaral and sceptics seem to think the report somehow confirms Maddie's DNA...it doesn't
1) Show us where then. Do you deny posting this: "the dna results are not confusing..they are very clear and conclusive" Reply #264 on: Today at 10:09:26 AM in case it slipped your memory. John Lowe said they were inconclusive. The two comments would seem to be at variance.
2) I think you are mistaken.
-
1) Show us where then. Do you deny posting this: "the dna results are not confusing..they are very clear and conclusive" Reply #264 on: Today at 10:09:26 AM in case it slipped your memory. John Lowe said they were inconclusive. The two comments would seem to be at variance.
2) I think you are mistaken.
Alice you don't understand the DNA results were conclusively inconclusive. @)(++(*
-
1) Show us where then. Do you deny posting this: "the dna results are not confusing..they are very clear and conclusive" Reply #264 on: Today at 10:09:26 AM in case it slipped your memory. John Lowe said they were inconclusive. The two comments would seem to be at variance.
2) I think you are mistaken.
Lowe was replying to a question...do the results show the presence of Maddie's DNA...the answer to that is that the results are inconclusive to that specific question...
The DNA results do not confirm the presence of Maddie's DNA...in that respect they are conclusive
I am certainly not mistaken..a glass can be half full and half empty at the same time...no contradiction
-
Alice you don't understand the DNA results were conclusively inconclusive. @)(++(*
Why don't you explain in what way they are?
-
The definition of evidence is something that suggests or indicates something is true
The fact that both police forces have made statements... suggests...indicates...supports ..the fact that the McCann's are not being investigated
What do Carmo said suggests, indicates and supports that the parents are not suspects. Period. Anything else is your OPINION.
Your OPINION may be wrong, just as the McCanns discovered following a similar announcement in August 2007;
Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are "heartened" by an assurance from Portuguese police that they are not being considered suspects in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560117/McCanns-heartened-not-to-be-suspects.html
-
Lowe was replying to a question...do the results show the presence of Maddie's DNA...the answer to that is that the results are inconclusive to that specific question...
The DNA results do not confirm the presence of Maddie's DNA...in that respect they are conclusive
I am certainly not mistaken..a glass can be half full and half empty at the same time...no contradiction
The DNA could be from Madeleine so stop spreading myths. They were working from an incomplete DNA result!
"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
Those are your conclusions based on your interpretations of what you have heard and seen. It doesn't mean you're right.
He’s right there is evidence.
-
What do Carmo said suggests, indicates and supports that the parents are not suspects. Period. Anything else is your OPINION.
Your OPINION may be wrong, just as the McCanns discovered following a similar announcement in August 2007;
Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are "heartened" by an assurance from Portuguese police that they are not being considered suspects in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560117/McCanns-heartened-not-to-be-suspects.html
At what point will you accept that the McCanns are not police suspects in their child’s disappearance, if ever?
-
I put the link into my database shortly before posting.
I have no intention of citing this result.
I am neither mistaken nor lying.
You are asserting there is no evidence of activity - without proof.
I am asserting that I have found evidence of activity - without proof.
You either trust me or you don't.
I googled, nothing came up for this year. I look forward to reading your blog where it will all be revealed.
-
What do Carmo said suggests, indicates and supports that the parents are not suspects. Period. Anything else is your OPINION.
Your OPINION may be wrong, just as the McCanns discovered following a similar announcement in August 2007;
Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are "heartened" by an assurance from Portuguese police that they are not being considered suspects in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560117/McCanns-heartened-not-to-be-suspects.html
Yet we know from Kate’s own book that by the time this article was published they knew that they were suspects.
-
I googled, nothing came up for this year. I look forward to reading your blog where it will all be revealed.
What came up for previous years?
-
Lowe was replying to a question...do the results show the presence of Maddie's DNA...the answer to that is that the results are inconclusive to that specific question...
The DNA results do not confirm the presence of Maddie's DNA...in that respect they are conclusive
I am certainly not mistaken..a glass can be half full and half empty at the same time...no contradiction
Wrong on all counts. Especially the first one. The statement I posted was from John Lowe's deposition/report as expert witness not in answer to any question. You seem to be posting something different.
A glass is always full; only the mixture of the fluid within varies.
-
Wrong on all counts. Especially the first one. The statement I posted was from John Lowe's deposition/report as expert witness not in answer to any question. You seem to be posting something different.
A glass is always full; only the mixture of the fluid within varies.
If you read the statement it was in answer to a question....but perhaps you didn't notice
Everything I have said is 100% correct.
-
The DNA could be from Madeleine so stop spreading myths. They were working from an incomplete DNA result!
"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
I'm not spreading any myths...the DNA is not confirmed as Maddie's as amaral and others here believe..the results were quite conclusive on that point
-
Wrong on all counts. Especially the first one. The statement I posted was from John Lowe's deposition/report as expert witness not in answer to any question. You seem to be posting something different.
A glass is always full; only the mixture of the fluid within varies.
From Lowe's statement
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
Would you like to reconsider your claim that the response was not in response to a question...to reach the correct conclusion you need an eye for detail which I have and others lack .imo
-
I'm not spreading any myths...the DNA is not confirmed as Maddie's as amaral and others here believe..the results were quite conclusive on that point
It is NOT conclusive that it wasn't Madeleine's DNA - you said it is conclusive! All of her components were still present in an INCOMPLETE result.
-
It is NOT conclusive that it wasn't Madeleine's DNA - you said it is conclusive! All of her components were still present in an INCOMPLETE result.
You need to read my posts again...it is conclusive that the DNA is not confirmed as Maddie's..that is a fact
-
What came up for previous years?
What year should I be lookng for?
-
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
Don't ask me for a cite - do your own simple Google check.
Evidence of activity is in the present tense..you are now furiously back pedalling
-
What do Carmo said suggests, indicates and supports that the parents are not suspects. Period. Anything else is your OPINION.
Your OPINION may be wrong, just as the McCanns discovered following a similar announcement in August 2007;
Kate and Gerry McCann have said they are "heartened" by an assurance from Portuguese police that they are not being considered suspects in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560117/McCanns-heartened-not-to-be-suspects.html
My opinion may be wrong...but the evidence suggests the McCann's are not suspects...there is no evidence against them and they are not being investigated...there is no evidence that they are being investigated
-
At what point will you accept that the McCanns are not police suspects in their child’s disappearance, if ever?
I have never denied what do Carmo said; the parents are not suspects. I have merely denied that that's 'police speak' which really means 'we are not investigating the McCanns' as Davel claimed.
-
I have never denied what do Carmo said; the parents are not suspects. I have merely denied that that's 'police speak' which really means 'we are not investigating the McCanns' as Davel claimed.
If they are not suspects why would they be investigated
-
My opinion may be wrong...but the evidence suggests the McCann's are not suspects...there is no evidence against them and they are not being investigated...there is no evidence that they are being investigated
Rowley’s ‘ not suspects’ interview pulled from the internet. All mention of OG pulled from the Met’s website. Things are certainly moving.
-
What year should I be lookng for?
Whichever year or years your search turned up.
To repeat. What came up for previous years?
-
Whichever year or years your search turned up.
To repeat. What came up for previous years?
There are no reports for activity in Porto for s long long time..your claim is totally baseless
-
Whichever year or years your search turned up.
To repeat. What came up for previous years?
There is no real evidence the pj have investigated anything...on this point I tend to agree with Bennett..
Every indication we have had over the past six years is that the PJ and the judicial authorities in Portugal merely 're-opened' their investigation as a technical procedure to satisfy the British authorities.
In other words, IMO it is a 'hollow', 'shell', so-called investigation with no real work at all being done - all the signs we have ever had from Portugal point this way
-
From Lowe's statement
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
Would you like to reconsider your claim that the response was not in response to a question...to reach the correct conclusion you need an eye for detail which I have and others lack .imo
Those words do not appear in John Lowe's deposition.
Tell us the page number and para number.
-
Those words do not appear in John Lowe's deposition.
Tell us the page number and para number.
From: Lowe, Mr J R [mailto:John.Lowe@fss.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart.prior@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Op Task - In Confidence
Stuart
Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why - ...
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles
-
There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment...and there is no evidence Maddie was ever in the hire car...could someone inform amaral of the true facts..him being the lead detective it might be useful
-
There is no evidence Maddie died in the apartment...and there is no evidence Maddie was ever in the hire car...could someone inform amaral of the true facts..him being the lead detective it might be useful
I thought it was Luis Neves.
-
There is no real evidence the pj have investigated anything...on this point I tend to agree with Bennett..
Every indication we have had over the past six years is that the PJ and the judicial authorities in Portugal merely 're-opened' their investigation as a technical procedure to satisfy the British authorities.
In other words, IMO it is a 'hollow', 'shell', so-called investigation with no real work at all being done - all the signs we have ever had from Portugal point this way
I would agree with you, the Portuguese have probably greater priorities.
-
My opinion may be wrong...but the evidence suggests the McCann's are not suspects...there is no evidence against them and they are not being investigated...there is no evidence that they are being investigated
The evidence doesn't 'suggest' that the McCanns are not suspects; do Carmo has stated it as a fact.
As to your opinion, from that one fact you have assumed a) there is no evidence against them and b) they are not being investigated.
I agree there's no evidence that they are being investigated, but neither is there any that they aren't.
-
The evidence doesn't 'suggest' that the McCanns are not suspects; do Carmo has stated it as a fact.
As to your opinion, from that one fact you have assumed a) there is no evidence against them and b) they are not being investigated.
I agree there's no evidence that they are being investigated, but neither is there any that they aren't.
Of course Pedro Do Carmo did also say this which I find interesting.
As PJ deputy head Pedro do Carmo told the BBC this week: “We have never had any case like this, either before or since”.
His response to the question, “do you think in your heart it will ever be solved” was telling nonetheless. He said: “If it depended on my heart, the case would already be solved. But it doesn’t depend on my heart. It depends, very much, on our minds”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/just-had-enough-ten-years-praia-da-luz-remembers-night-madeleine/
-
Rowley’s ‘ not suspects’ interview pulled from the internet. All mention of OG pulled from the Met’s website. Things are certainly moving.
Moving where?
-
Whichever year or years your search turned up.
To repeat. What came up for previous years?
Did you mean this, from five years ago?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439464/Portuguese-police-held-their-own-Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction
-
Of course Pedro Do Carmo did also say this which I find interesting.
As PJ deputy head Pedro do Carmo told the BBC this week: “We have never had any case like this, either before or since”.
His response to the question, “do you think in your heart it will ever be solved” was telling nonetheless. He said: “If it depended on my heart, the case would already be solved. But it doesn’t depend on my heart. It depends, very much, on our minds”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/03/just-had-enough-ten-years-praia-da-luz-remembers-night-madeleine/
This quote was debunked yesterday by the actual verbatim report of what he said.
-
The evidence doesn't 'suggest' that the McCanns are not suspects; do Carmo has stated it as a fact.
As to your opinion, from that one fact you have assumed a) there is no evidence against them and b) they are not being investigated.
I agree there's no evidence that they are being investigated, but neither is there any that they aren't.
At what point, if ever, will you accept that the McCanns are not being investigated? What would the police have to say or do to convince you, is there anything at all that would?
-
At what point, if ever, will you accept that the McCanns are not being investigated? What would the police have to say or do to convince you, is there anything at all that would?
I’ll be you were convinced in 2007 too when we were told the parents weren’t suspects.
-
I’ll be you were convinced in 2007 too when we were told the parents weren’t suspects.
Certainly not, it was blatantly obvious fairly early on that the McCanns were under suspicion, from about day 1 if I recall correctly.
“JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends. Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias: "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.”
-
Certainly not, it was blatantly obvious fairly early on that the McCanns were under suspicion, from about day 1 if I recall correctly.
So the only difference between then and now is that the police of both countries have managed to stop the leaks.
-
So the only difference between then and now is that the police of both countries have managed to stop the leaks.
Have they? How did we know the names of all the most recent arguidos then?
-
Did you mean this, from five years ago?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439464/Portuguese-police-held-their-own-Madeleine-McCann-reconstruction
I presume you know what your search found.
-
Have they? How did we know the names of all the most recent arguidos then?
How do we know that they are the most recent if they have stopped the leaks ?
-
I presume you know what your search found.
Yes, and this was the most relevant and recent, is it the one you were referring to or not?
-
How do we know that they are the most recent if they have stopped the leaks ?
Oh, right so they only managed to stop the leaks at a time convenient for you and your beliefs, I see... Do you actually believe there are secret arguidos in this case then?
-
Oh, right so they only managed to stop the leaks at a time convenient for you and your beliefs, I see... Do you actually believe there are secret arguidos in this case then?
No I don’t but what I do believe is that if we can be told in 2007 that the parents were not suspects even when they were it is possible that the same thing is happening now.
The parents silenced. Rowley’s ‘not suspects’ interview removed from the Met’s website as well as all other information related to OG. You have to admit it doesn’t look good.
-
No I don’t but what I do believe is that if we can be told in 2007 that the parents were not suspects even when they were it is possible that the same thing is happening now.
The parents silenced. Rowley’s ‘not suspects’ interview removed from the Met’s website as well as all other information related to OG. You have to admit it doesn’t look good.
@)(++(* Bless you. Meet you back here in a year’s time and see if you’re still this hopeful. 8(0(*
-
@)(++(* Bless you. Meet you back here in a year’s time and see if you’re still this hopeful. 8(0(*
If only you were as hopeful that the child had been found instead of the parents absolved.
-
No I don’t but what I do believe is that if we can be told in 2007 that the parents were not suspects even when they were it is possible that the same thing is happening now.
The parents silenced. Rowley’s ‘not suspects’ interview removed from the Met’s website as well as all other information related to OG. You have to admit it doesn’t look good.
No it just doesn't look good at all. SY were sent in to 'review' you know,look over all the statements and 'evidence' gathered. They reviewed and then found there to be no evidence of an abductor. Yes, they followed a few leads, up garden paths and the like.
What they didn't do was... They didn't critizise the PJ with the way they handled the investigation, well how the hell could they they came up with an empty cup themselves OR did they come to the same conclusion as the pj?
If the parents were suspects there is nothing anyone can do without evidence. I do believe MBM will reveal herself and what happened to her in some way some day. Washed up, uncovered, someone talks...
-
Yes, and this was the most relevant and recent, is it the one you were referring to or not?
Given that I said I would not provide a cite, why do you ask?
-
Given that I said I would not provide a cite, why do you ask?
Because he has nothing else to contribute ?
-
If only you were as hopeful that the child had been found instead of the parents absolved.
That is the most accurate observation regarding this whole thread- every thread is about defending the parents even when their behaviour is noted as being inconsistant as parents whos daughter was abducted by 'paedophiles' according to the parents.
.
-
At what point, if ever, will you accept that the McCanns are not being investigated? What would the police have to say or do to convince you, is there anything at all that would?
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the police are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
-
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the police are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
A belief based on evidence
-
A belief based on evidence
No it isn't.
-
@)(++(* Bless you. Meet you back here in a year’s time and see if you’re still this hopeful. 8(0(*
What! an annual review to disagree,mind it won't be solved by then maybe shelved though.imo and all that jazz.
-
No it isn't.
That's your opinion...imo the evidence is overwhelming
You are posting your opinion as fact...it isnt
-
Given that I said I would not provide a cite, why do you ask?
I would say it's more you cannot provide a cite
-
Given that I said I would not provide a cite, why do you ask?
How utterly bizarre IMO.
-
If only you were as hopeful that the child had been found instead of the parents absolved.
I would simply like to see the case solved.... wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the parents were guilty....I just don't see it as a reasonable possibility
-
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the police are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
What is a fact then, if every fact can at some point in the future be revised? It is a fact that the police have said the McCanns are not suspects, it is a fact that there is no evidence at all to show that the McCanns are under investigation, quite the contrary, there is evidence that the police decided specifically NOT to reinvestigate them. When one reviews the evidence one is allowed to draw conclusions without necessarily having the full facts at their disposal. There is far more evidence pointing to the fact that the McCanns AREN’T being investigated than evidence pointing to the fact that they are. And that’s a fact!
-
Because he has nothing else to contribute ?
Insulting. I have asked for evidence of PJ activity in investigating the case. We have been informed that a simple google research will reveal all and I was simply asking for confirmation. You may think it’s OK to insist something is a fact and then refuse to back it up sith a cite, but I believe that is against forum rules.
-
That is the most accurate observation regarding this whole thread- every thread is about defending the parents even when their behaviour is noted as being inconsistant as parents whos daughter was abducted by 'paedophiles' according to the parents.
.
Utter hogwash, IMO.
-
What is a fact then, if every fact can at some point in the future be revised? It is a fact that the police have said the McCanns are not suspects, it is a fact that there is no evidence at all to show that the McCanns are under investigation, quite the contrary, there is evidence that the police decided specifically NOT to reinvestigate them. When one reviews the evidence one is allowed to draw conclusions without necessarily having the full facts at their disposal. There is far more evidence pointing to the fact that the McCanns AREN’T being investigated than evidence pointing to the fact that they are. And that’s a fact!
I don't see any evidence of the parents being investigated but plenty of them not
-
I would simply like to see the case solved.... wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the parents were guilty....I just don't see it as a reasonable possibility
Come on Dave,you wouldn't liked to be proved wrong.
No doubt some no nort will see that as a slight.
-
No it isn't.
What evidence is there that the McCanns are currently under investigation?
-
@)(++(*
What is a fact then, if every fact can at some point in the future be revised? It is a fact that the police have said the McCanns are not suspects, it is a fact that there is no evidence at all to show that the McCanns are under investigation, quite the contrary, there is evidence that the police decided specifically NOT to reinvestigate them. When one reviews the evidence one is allowed to draw conclusions without necessarily having the full facts at their disposal. There is far more evidence pointing to the fact that the McCanns AREN’T being investigated than evidence pointing to the fact that they are. And that’s a fact!
Post this evidence then.
-
Come on Dave,you wouldn't liked to be proved wrong.
No doubt some no nort will see that as a slight.
I have no problem with being proved wrong...I'm simply going with where the evidence points at the moment
-
@)(++(*
Post this evidence then.
It has all been posted many times but you don't accept it
-
@)(++(*
Post this evidence then.
What are you on about? Are you actually asking for cites that have been given a million times before?
-
It has all been posted many times but you don't accept it
Weird isn’t it!
-
What are you on about? Are you actually asking for cites that have been given a million times before?
I have seen no cites showing what the PJ are doing or thinking. All I have seen is do Carmo's statement.
-
I have seen no cites showing what the PJ are doing or thinking. All I have seen is do Carmo's statement.
And those statements are evidence....the apparent inaction of the PJ is also evidence
-
I have seen no cites showing what the PJ are doing or thinking. All I have seen is do Carmo's statement.
You have changed “police” to “PJ” now, I see. Yes De Carmo’s statement is certainly one of the pieces of evidence. What’s your view of Colon Sutton? Is he a liar?
'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
-
And those statements are evidence....the apparent inaction of the PJ is also evidence
So you see the apparent inaction of the PJ as evidence of not looking at the McCann's as suspect's, does that mean your thinking is they are only interested in the McCann's then? PJ that is.
-
So you see the apparent inaction of the PJ as evidence of not looking at the McCann's as suspect's, does that mean your thinking is they are only interested in the McCann's then? PJ that is.
My thinking is they don’t give a shit about the case one way or the other.
-
So you see the apparent inaction of the PJ as evidence of not looking at the McCann's as suspect's, does that mean your thinking is they are only interested in the McCann's then? PJ that is.
I don't think the pj are doing anything....and others agree with me
-
I would say it's more you cannot provide a cite
I let you have the last say on our exchange, some time back, for the sake of peace and quiet.
Now it seems you feel the need for a second last say. It's wrong, but there's nothing new in that.
(&^&
-
I don't think the pj are doing anything....and others agree with me
Funnily enough I said this some time ago and was ridiculed for it,wonder who that was.
-
I let you have the last say on our exchange, some time back, for the sake of peace and quiet.
Now it seems you feel the need for a second last say. It's wrong, but there's nothing new in that.
(&^&
I think you have no credibility as a source of information.
-
I let you have the last say on our exchange, some time back, for the sake of peace and quiet.
Now it seems you feel the need for a second last say. It's wrong, but there's nothing new in that.
(&^&
If you state something as a fact you have to provide a cite, otherwise it’s just your opinion. Therefore in your opinion the PJ are busy beavering away investigating the case. The end.
-
My thinking is they don’t give a shit about the case one way or the other.
The only reason imo that sy give a shit is because some one has to justify £millions on no result.
-
Funnily enough I said this some time ago and was ridiculed for it,wonder who that was.
It certainly wasn't me
-
You have changed “police” to “PJ” now, I see. Yes De Carmo’s statement is certainly one of the pieces of evidence. What’s your view of Colon Sutton? Is he a liar?
'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
All my posts on the subject were referring to the PJ.
-
The only reason imo that sy give a shit is because some one has to justify £millions on no result.
Strange logic. It’s clear by the amount of money spent that a serious investigation has been taking part for the last few years, we don’t know how much the Portuguese government has thrown at the case over the same number of years, I wonder why not.
-
All my posts on the subject were referring to the PJ.
@)(++(*. This is what we call “goal post shifting”.
-
If you state something as a fact you have to provide a cite, otherwise it’s just your opinion. Therefore in your opinion the PJ are busy beavering away investigating the case. The end.
At no time did I claim this.
(&^&
-
Strange logic. It’s clear by the amount of money spent that a serious investigation has been taking part for the last few years, we don’t know how much the Portuguese government has thrown at the case over the same number of years, I wonder why not.
Maybe they feel they don't have a need.
-
All my posts on the subject were referring to the PJ.
So when I wrote
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on October 13, 2018, 11:27:26 PM
At what point, if ever, will you accept that the McCanns are not being investigated? What would the police have to say or do to convince you, is there anything at all that would?
Your reply below should have been
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the PJ are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
Not what you actually wrote which was
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the police are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
-
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
Don't ask me for a cite - do your own simple Google check.
So what is this evidence of activity....present tense
There is none and you have been caught out
-
Maybe they feel they don't have a need.
Exactly, no need to investigate, cba.
-
At no time did I claim this.
(&^&
You claimed there is evidence of PJ activity, you refuse to provide a cite, therefore in your opinion this is an active PJ investigation. That’s it.
-
At no time did I claim this.
(&^&
You now don't seem to remember what you claimed
-
Exactly, no need to investigate, cba.
Or nothing new to investigate that wasn't done first time around.
-
And those statements are evidence....the apparent inaction of the PJ is also evidence
Apparent?
You might as well say 'I don't know if the PJ have acted or not, but I'm going to assume they haven't because I've not seen any evidence that they have. I'm then going to use my assumption as evidence that they're not investigating the McCanns'.
-
So when I wrote
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on October 13, 2018, 11:27:26 PM
At what point, if ever, will you accept that the McCanns are not being investigated? What would the police have to say or do to convince you, is there anything at all that would?
Your reply below should have been
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the PJ are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
Not what you actually wrote which was
At what point, if ever, will you understand what I say? I don't know what the police are investigating and neither do you. You are peddling a belief, not a fact.
I was discussing the PJ, whether you were aware of it or not. I believe Operation Grange are investigating an abduction 'as if it occurred in the UK' and have been doing so for years. They may have deleted all the evidence from their website, but it still exists elsewhere.
-
So what is this evidence of activity....present tense
There is none and you have been caught out
'Evidence of activity' has no verb in it, so there is no tense.
As in 'Thousands of years ago this volcano was extremely active. But for the last millennium there has been no evidence of activity."
That's a past tense wrapper around a tense-free phrase.
Time to move on?
-
Apparent?
You might as well say 'I don't know if the PJ have acted or not, but I'm going to assume they haven't because I've not seen any evidence that they have. I'm then going to use my assumption as evidence that they're not investigating the McCanns'.
All your opinion again. It's not an assumption that no one has evidence of action by the pj...it's a fact....you really are struggling
-
'Evidence of activity' has no verb in it, so there is no tense.
As in 'Thousands of years ago this volcano was extremely active. But for the last millennium there has been no evidence of activity."
That's a past tense wrapper around a tense-free phrase.
Time to move on?
You said there is evidence of activity..
Is...is a verb and is present tense
You are digging yourself into a deeper hole...you have been caught out
This is what you posted....notice the word ..is... present tense
I have just run a simple Google check on the Porto team and there is evidence of activity.
-
I was discussing the PJ, whether you were aware of it or not. I believe Operation Grange are investigating an abduction 'as if it occurred in the UK' and have been doing so for years. They may have deleted all the evidence from their website, but it still exists elsewhere.
Well I was discussing “the police”, and when would you accept that they aren’t investigating the McCanns. It appears we have made some progress as you seem to be accepting that the active part of the investigation (ie the Met) are NOT investigating the McCanns. Now, what evidence is there that the PJ are investigating them instead? Nothing.
-
You have changed “police” to “PJ” now, I see. Yes De Carmo’s statement is certainly one of the pieces of evidence. What’s your view of Colon Sutton? Is he a liar?
'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
As one who purports to support Madeleine why would you want the investigation not to at least look at the parents even if it was to eliminate them ?
-
As one who purports to support Madeleine why would you want the investigation not to at least look at the parents even if it was to eliminate them ?
I'm more than happy for SY to look at the McCanns and believe bthey have
-
As one who purports to support Madeleine why would you want the investigation not to at least look at the parents even if it was to eliminate them ?
8((()*/
-
As one who purports to support Madeleine why would you want the investigation not to at least look at the parents even if it was to eliminate them ?
The McCanns have been thoroughly investigated already - by the PJ who found no evidence against them. Do you think the PJ didn’t do a good enough job the first time round? What else is there to investigate as far as the parents are concerned? Put yourself in charge of Op Grange and tell me what specific actions you would have taken to eliminate the McCanns?
-
I'm more than happy for SY to look at the McCanns and believe bthey have
So you disbelieve what Rowley said about the PJ dealing with the parents guilt in the Portuguese investigation ?
-
The McCanns have been thoroughly investigated already - by the PJ who found no evidence against them. Do you think the PJ didn’t do a good enough job the first time round? What else is there to investigate as far as the parents are concerned? Put yourself in charge of Op Grange and tell me what specific actions you would have taken to eliminate the McCanns?
I think it has been made clear by the SC that the archiving report didn’t clear the parents.
-
All your opinion again. It's not an assumption that no one has evidence of action by the pj...it's a fact....you really are struggling
I'm struggling? You've got your own assumption in the wrong place!
There's no evidence that the PJ are acting. FACT
Therefore they are not acting. ASSUMPTION.
-
So you disbelieve what Rowley said about the PJ dealing with the parents guilt in the Portuguese investigation ?
No...I believe SY have looked at all the evidence and are happy with it...I believe they have interviewed the parents re what happened and found nothing suspicious
-
The McCanns have been thoroughly investigated already - by the PJ who found no evidence against them. Do you think the PJ didn’t do a good enough job the first time round? What else is there to investigate as far as the parents are concerned? Put yourself in charge of Op Grange and tell me what specific actions you would have taken to eliminate the McCanns?
How would you know whether the response was correct or otherwise.
Are you a policeman or of allied trade?
-
I think it has been made clear by the SC that the archiving report didn’t clear the parents.
Neither have the Needham family been cleared...it's a pointless .. point
-
I'm struggling? You've got your own assumption in the wrong place!
There's no evidence that the PJ are acting. FACT
Therefore they are not acting. ASSUMPTION.
There is no evidence the pj are acting... conclusion based on the available evidence
-
No...I believe SY have looked at all the evidence and are happy with it...I believe they have interviewed the parents re what happened and found nothing suspicious
But that’s not what a Rowley said. Are you second guessing him?
-
But that’s not what a Rowley said. Are you second guessing him?
Apart from whether the McCann's have been interviewed it is what he said.....and I would be very surprised if the McCann's have not been reinterviewed as witnesses
-
Apart from whether the McCann's have been interviewed it is what he said.....and I would be very surprised if the McCann's have not been reintervirwed as witnesses
But, apart from your incredulity, you have no evidence to believe that they have been interviewed, have you ?
-
But, apart from your incredulity, you have no evidence to believe that they have been interviewed, have you ?
The evidence is what is normal police practice....and also that Sutton was at pains to point out...not that they hadn't been reinterviewed...but they hadn't been reinterviewed under caution...why would he make that distinction
-
There is no evidence the pj are acting... conclusion based on the available evidence
Assumption; 'therefore they really aren't acting.
-
No...I believe SY have looked at all the evidence and are happy with it...I believe they have interviewed the parents re what happened and found nothing suspicious
I believe SY have looked at all the evidence and are happy with it
It depends on what they looked at......
certainly not evidence of an abduction...there wasn't any...
How can it be justified....to look at only the abduction side of it....
is there any wonder they have found nothing.....imo
-
The evidence is what is normal police practice....and also that Sutton was at pains to point out...not that they hadn't been reinterviewed...but they hadn't been reinterviewed under caution...why would he make that distinction
The link is the Sun but the information is from the Times.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4588686/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-tapas-seven-never-quizzed-british-police/
-
I think it has been made clear by the SC that the archiving report didn’t clear the parents.
You didn’t address the points in my post. In any case if the McCanns weren’t cleared why did de Carmo emphatically state they weren’t suspects? Why wasn’t there outrage at this statment in Portugal? Why wasn’t he sacked for dismissing the McCanns as suspects?
-
How would you know whether the response was correct or otherwise.
Are you a policeman or of allied trade?
Further bizarre logic. Inwasn’t going to judge whether or not the response was the correct one, just interested in what avenues of investigation were left to investigate re: the McCanns, and how the Portuguese would carry out these investigations. It’s called a discussion, not a court of law.
-
I believe SY have looked at all the evidence and are happy with it
It depends on what they looked at......
certainly not evidence of an abduction...there wasn't any...
How can it be justified....to look at only the abduction side of it....
is there any wonder they have found nothing.....imo
I disagree...there is evidence of abduction
-
This quote was debunked yesterday by the actual verbatim report of what he said.
I have done a search on here and I can't find the debunking post. Could you kindly point it out to me please?
-
I have done a search on here and I can't find the debunking post. Could you kindly point it out to me please?
have alook in faiths posts...she quoted the exact words from the video...they are not what you posted
-
You didn’t address the points in my post. In any case if the McCanns weren’t cleared why did de Carmo emphatically state they weren’t suspects? Why wasn’t there outrage at this statment in Portugal? Why wasn’t he sacked for dismissing the McCanns as suspects?
I believe Olegario de Sousa was quite emphatic too when declaring the parents were not suspects back in 2007. Was there outrage then ? Was he dismissed for claiming the parents were not suspects when later it was obvious they had been ?
-
I have done a search on here and I can't find the debunking post. Could you kindly point it out to me please?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10257.msg494576#msg494576
-
I believe Olegario de Sousa was quite emphatic too when declaring the parents were not suspects back in 2007. Was there outrage then ? Was he dismissed for claiming the parents were not suspects when later it was obvious they had been ?
Different times, the police leaking to the media made it very clear he was being disingenuous, not only that but it was only a matter of days between his statement and making the McCanns arguidos. Bringing the dogs in to search their rented apartment was a bit of a giveaway wasn’t it? Since then, the archiving report confirmed that there was no evidence against the McCanns, years have elapsed and the Met have also made it clear that the McCanns are not under investigation. You can cling to the belief that they are, without a single shred of evidence to support your beliefs apart from something said in 2007 by a policeman no longer involved in the investigation, because literally that is all you’ve got. It’s very weak evidence.
-
Different times, the police leaking to the media made it very clear he was being disingenuous, not only that but it was only a matter of days between his statement and making the McCanns arguidos. Bringing the dogs in to search their rented apartment was a bit of a giveaway wasn’t it? Since then, the archiving report confirmed that there was no evidence against the McCanns, years have elapsed and the Met have also made it clear that the McCanns are not under investigation. You can cling to the belief that they are, without a single shred of evidence to support your beliefs apart from something said in 2007 by a policeman no longer involved in the investigation, because literally that is all you’ve got. It’s very weak evidence.
And the parents claiming that they were ‘heartened’ that they were not being considered suspects. Was that disingenuous too ?
-
And the parents claiming that they were ‘heartened’ that they were not being considered suspects. Was that disingenuous too ?
What would you say in response to the question? “We don’t believe the copper, he’s lying”?
-
Different times, the police leaking to the media made it very clear he was being disingenuous, not only that but it was only a matter of days between his statement and making the McCanns arguidos. Bringing the dogs in to search their rented apartment was a bit of a giveaway wasn’t it? Since then, the archiving report confirmed that there was no evidence against the McCanns, years have elapsed and the Met have also made it clear that the McCanns are not under investigation. You can cling to the belief that they are, without a single shred of evidence to support your beliefs apart from something said in 2007 by a policeman no longer involved in the investigation, because literally that is all you’ve got. It’s very weak evidence.
The dogs were taken to Murat's villa too, so the deployment of the dogs wasn't a giveaway of anything except a search for evidence.
Bear in mind that all those who have been involved in the case and have made public statements are now gone. We don't know who is involved in the UK or in Portugal as no announcements have been made.
-
What would you say in response to the question? “We don’t believe the copper, he’s lying”?
How about no comment ?
-
The dogs were taken to Murat's villa too, so the deployment of the dogs wasn't a giveaway of anything except a search for evidence.
Bear in mind that all those who have been involved in the case and have made public statements are now gone. We don't know who is involved in the UK or in Portugal as no announcements have been made.
In case you have forgotten Murat was an arguido at the time of the dog searches, the McCanns weren’t. What possible evidence could the dogs have been looking for in the McCanns’ hire car and rented property, if the McCanns were not under suspicion at that time?
-
How about no comment ?
How about it? Maybe the McCanns actually were naively and foolishly heartened by the lying PJ’s reassuring words. What effing idiots they were!
-
In case you have forgotten Murat was an arguido at the time of the dog searches, the McCanns weren’t. What possible evidence could the dogs have been looking for in the McCanns’ hire car and rented property, if the McCanns were not under suspicion at that time?
I think that putting the dogs into 5A was intended as a screening exercise. The dogs weren't expected to alert in 5A in my opinion. The search warrants for the McCann's hire car and their villa were requested after the alerts in 5A and because of them.
-
I think that putting the dogs into 5A was intended as a screening exercise. The dogs weren't expected to alert in 5A in my opinion. The search warrants for the McCann's hire car and their villa were requested after the alerts in 5A and because of them.
Do you think the McCanns and the general public might have had an inkling that the police had them in their sights as suspects by then?
-
I think that putting the dogs into 5A was intended as a screening exercise. The dogs weren't expected to alert in 5A in my opinion. The search warrants for the McCann's hire car and their villa were requested after the alerts in 5A and because of them.
assumption...you need to read what Harrison said before the dogs went in to 5a
-
You have changed “police” to “PJ” now, I see. Yes De Carmo’s statement is certainly one of the pieces of evidence. What’s your view of Colon Sutton? Is he a liar?
'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
Maybe SY's job was to eliminate all other possibilities first before working on the last lead with the PJ.
-
Maybe SY's job was to eliminate all other possibilities first before working on the last lead with the PJ.
That's a ridiculous assumption on your part IMO. It would be a complete waste of time and resources for any police force to start investigating the least likely suspects to clear the way to working up to the most likely suspects.
-
That's a ridiculous assumption on your part IMO. It would be a complete waste of time and resources for any police force to start investigating the least likely suspects to clear the way to working up to the most likely suspects.
Well the three amigos fitted that quite well.
-
Well the three amigos fitted that quite well.
I don't understand your comment sorry. Do you think most police investigations start at the outside, with the least likely suspects investigated first, whilst they leisurely work their way towards the main suspect, over a number of years? Does that strike you as a good way to conduct an investigation?
-
How about it? Maybe the McCanns actually were naively and foolishly heartened by the lying PJ’s reassuring words. What effing idiots they were!
But on the 8th of August, according to Kate’s book, they were made aware that they were suspects. The article that contains the ‘heartened’ comment is dated the 12th. So they certainly weren’t ‘reassured’ by the PJ’s words because from Kate’s own mouth they knew they were suspects.
-
But on the 8th of August, according to Kate’s book, they were made aware that they were suspects. The article that contains the ‘heartened’ comment is dated the 12th. So they certainly weren’t ‘reassured’ by the PJ’s words because from Kate’s own mouth they knew they were suspects.
As this is apparently so important to you, though rather off topic, why don't you post the original article in a new thread and we can discuss this vital bit of apparently contradictory evidence in minute detail?
-
As this is apparently so important to you, though rather off topic, why don't you post the original article in a new thread and we can discuss this vital bit of apparently contradictory evidence in minute detail?
No need. What it all boils down to is the PJ spokesperson claimed the parents were not suspects, even though they were. The parents claimed that they were ‘heartened’ by the claim that they were not suspects, even though they knew they were. However you believe that they may have been ‘naive’ for believing the PJ, even though they didn’t, and that’s why they they said that they were ‘heartened’.
Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in your reading of the present situation, does it ?
-
That's a ridiculous assumption on your part IMO. It would be a complete waste of time and resources for any police force to start investigating the least likely suspects to clear the way to working up to the most likely suspects.
Ridiculous would be If they were hoping to find an abductor! The penny would have dropped by now!
-
No need. What it all boils down to is the PJ spokesperson claimed the parents were not suspects, even though they were. The parents claimed that they were ‘heartened’ by the claim that they were not suspects, even though they knew they were. However you believe that they may have been ‘naive’ for believing the PJ, even though they didn’t, and that’s why they they said that they were ‘heartened’.
Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in your reading of the present situation, does it ?
LOL, why not go the whole hog and write 'tick tock' while you're at it? How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times?
-
Ridiculous would be If they were hoping to find an abductor! The penny would have dropped by now!
That's a lame response to my post. You carry on believing that the police operate by spending years and millions of pounds investigating non-suspects to clear the ground for the main act if it makes you happy.
-
They were looking for evidence of a body in Luz so it is clear what they actually think happened!
-
I don't understand your comment sorry. Do you think most police investigations start at the outside, with the least likely suspects investigated first, whilst they leisurely work their way towards the main suspect, over a number of years? Does that strike you as a good way to conduct an investigation?
What strikes you as being the best way to conduct an investigation then?
-
LOL, why not go the whole hog and write 'tick tock' while you're at it? How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times?
Have I ever said that they are about to be arrested.
-
I don't understand your comment sorry. Do you think most police investigations start at the outside, with the least likely suspects investigated first, whilst they leisurely work their way towards the main suspect, over a number of years? Does that strike you as a good way to conduct an investigation?
I don't think an argument can be made for any hurry up.
-
What strikes you as being the best way to conduct an investigation then?
Not starting with the least likely suspects, leaving your most likely suspect til last after you've eliminated all the ones you don't think dunnit.
-
Have I ever said that they are about to be arrested.
What do you think current events are telling us then? Why should it be "worrying times" in your view? Worrying for who and why?
-
They were looking for evidence of a body in Luz so it is clear what they actually think happened!
If they were looking for a body in Luz then there is no reason to suppose an abductor would not have hidden her body in Luz, unless you can explain why not?
-
I don't think an argument can be made for any hurry up.
So let me get this straight. You think it's possible that the police believe the McCanns are guilty, but have spent years and millions of pounds investigating others until they decide to get round to turning their attentions on their main suspects, do you?
-
So let me get this straight. You think it's possible that the police believe the McCanns are guilty, but have spent years and millions of pounds investigating others until they decide to get round to turning their attentions on their main suspects, do you?
This will be post 1981 I have made and as far as I can recall I've never blamed anyone for the disappearance, so where are you coming from? its clear from the time and scaling down on manpower SY aren't in any hurry.
-
This will be post 1981 I have made and as far as I can recall I've never blamed anyone for the disappearance, so where are you coming from? its clear from the time and scaling down on manpower SY aren't in any hurry.
I didn't say in my post that you blamed anyone for the disappearance so where are YOU coming from?
-
This will be post 1981 I have made and as far as I can recall I've never blamed anyone for the disappearance, so where are you coming from? its clear from the time and scaling down on manpower SY aren't in any hurry.
They quite likely know where Madeleine is already. In My Opinion.
-
They quite likely know where Madeleine is already. In My Opinion.
Oh! I agree,probably not thinking of the same place though.
-
Oh! I agree,probably not thinking of the same place though.
If they thought they knew where her body was buried somewhere they would have dug it up by now.
-
If they thought they knew where her body was buried somewhere they would have dug it up by now.
So that's obvious .they don't know where her body is....to dig it up...
Think myself maddie or her body no longer exist....
IMO disposed of where she will never be found ....
Was it a myth when gmcc said find the body prove we killed her.....
If it was IMO it wasn't far from the truth .....
-
So that's obvious .they don't know where her body is....to dig it up...
Think myself maddie or her body no longer exist....
IMO disposed of where she will never be found ....
Was it a myth when gmcc said find the body prove we killed her.....
If it was IMO it wasn't far from the truth .....
And The McCanns accomplished all of this in the space of four hours. Gosh. The must indeed be brilliant.
-
have alook in faiths posts...she quoted the exact words from the video...they are not what you posted
But further in the program we have this Davel
do you think in your heart it will be solved?
0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been
0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends
0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds.
https://subsaga.com/bbc/news/panorama/madeleine-mccann-10-years-on.html
Perhaps you should apologise to the Portugal Resident Davel.
-
What do you think current events are telling us then? Why should it be "worrying times" in your view? Worrying for who and why?
Did I say they were about to be arrested....ever ? I straight yes or no will do.
-
But further in the program we have this Davel
do you think in your heart it will be solved?
0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been
0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends
0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds.
https://subsaga.com/bbc/news/panorama/madeleine-mccann-10-years-on.html
Perhaps you should apologise to the Portugal Resident Davel.
do you think in your heart it will be solved? 0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been 0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends 0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds. 0:56:40 0:56:45
There's never been a case like Madeleine McCann. 0:56:49 0:56:52
It was a huge amount of money, I just look at the human factor. 0:56:55 0:56:59
The human factor is there's still a little girl missing 0:56:59 0:57:03
and we don't know why. 0:57:03 0:57:06
We don't know what happened. 0:57:06 0:57:08
This week, Madeleine's parents said, even after ten years, 0:57:08 0:57:11
they haven't given up hope. 0:57:11 0:57:16
No parent is going to give up on their child unless they know 0:57:16 0:57:19
for certain their child is dead. 0:57:19 0:57:25
We just don't have any evidence, so we've got to... 0:57:25 0:57:27
My hope of Madeleine being out there is no less 0:57:27 0:57:29
than it was almost 10 years ago. 0:57:29 0:57:34
I mean, apart from those first 48 hours, nothing actually has changed. 0:57:34 0:57:39
I mean, the most difficult thing has been, how will we find her, 0:57:39 0:57:42
you know, because you are relying on the police doing 0:57:42 0:57:44
everything they can. 0:57:44 0:57:46
And you are relying on somebody with information coming forward. 0:57:46 0:57:52
Are we going to post it today? 0:57:52 0:57:54
No. 0:57:54 0:57:55
We are. 0:57:55 0:57:57
It isn't a letter. 0:57:57 0:58:04
Ten years, two theories, but so far no solution. 0:58:08 0:58:13
The truth about what happened here, what happened to Madeleine McCann, 0:58:13 0:58:17
seems as far away as ever. 0:58:17 0:58:24
https://subsaga.com/bbc/news/panorama/madeleine-mccann-10-years-on.html
I'm lost. What is the argument about, again?
-
There has been a discussion where Davel and others said the Portuguese Resident were incorrect (to be polite) in their article where Pedro Do Carmo was quoted as saying this:
do you think in your heart it will be solved? 0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been 0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends 0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds.
He did. That is all.
-
Did I say they were about to be arrested....ever ? I straight yes or no will do.
"What do you think current events are telling us then? Why should it be "worrying times" in your view? Worrying for who and why?"
___________________________________________________________
I don't see anything about 'arrest' in the post to which you are replying (above) ... are you replying to a different post by mistake?
-
There has been a discussion where Davel and others said the Portuguese Resident were incorrect (to be polite) in their article where Pedro Do Carmo was quoted as saying this:
do you think in your heart it will be solved? 0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been 0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends 0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds.
He did. That is all.
Indeed I have followed the discussion that far. But has his quote been selectively foreshortened to use his actual words but to distort the meaning thereof?
-
Indeed I have followed the discussion that far. But has his quote been selectively foreshortened to use his actual words but to distort the meaning thereof?
I have not seen the Panorama program Brietta but that link doesn't say who is actually saying the words. Much of what is in your quote will be Bilton speaking.
Perhaps someone can clarify what was said by whom apart from the quote in the Portugal Resident which is clearly Pedro Do Carma.
-
There has been a discussion where Davel and others said the Portuguese Resident were incorrect (to be polite) in their article where Pedro Do Carmo was quoted as saying this:
do you think in your heart it will be solved? 0:56:29 0:56:35
If it depended on my heart, the case would have already been 0:56:35 0:56:38
solved but it doesn't depend on my heart, it depends 0:56:38 0:56:40
very much on our minds.
He did. That is all.
it was faith who suppllied the quote that didnt include those words ...read back and check
-
it was faith who suppllied the quote that didnt include those words ...read back and check
I didn't say you quoted it Davel I said you argued that the PR was incorrect and not to be trusted as they ascribed that quote to Pedro Do Carmo. Perhaps you should read back and check. An apology would be most gratefully accepted too Davel.
-
I didn't say you quoted it Davel I said you argued that the PR was incorrect and not to be trusted as they ascribed that quote to Pedro Do Carmo. Perhaps you should read back and check. An apology would be most gratefully accepted too Davel.
the PR are not to be trusted......they are palinly anti mccann...the quote is of no importance anyway
-
the PR are not to be trusted......they are palinly anti mccann...the quote is of no importance anyway
So now you are wrong the quote is of no importance....ahem.
-
So now you are wrong the quote is of no importance....ahem.
in what way is the post of any importance
-
in what way is the post of any importance
The quote not "post" was certainly of importance to you when you chose to use it as a stick to bash the PR. Now you are wrong then it is not of importance. That says more about you than it does about what Pedro Do Carmo said.
-
Did I say they were about to be arrested....ever ? I straight yes or no will do.
Did I say you said they were about to be arrested...ever? A straight yes or no will do.
-
And The McCanns accomplished all of this in the space of four hours. Gosh. The must indeed be brilliant.
Could be desperate times need desperate measures ...not brilliant at all .....
think the brilliant one would have to be the abductor...
-
Could be desperate times need desperate measures ...not brilliant at all .....
think the brilliant one would have to be the abductor...
Funny they haven't been caught then.
-
Not starting with the least likely suspects, leaving your most likely suspect til last after you've eliminated all the ones you don't think dunnit.
So folk know what not to do but appear not know what to do? That's as helpful as toothache.
But then it was ever thus that one could down any labour exchange and find a ruck of folk who knew 99 ways to stop a job but were clueless on how to start one and finish it.
-
So folk know what not to do but appear not know what to do? That's as helpful as toothache.
But then it was ever thus that one could down any labour exchange and find a ruck of folk who knew 99 ways to stop a job but were clueless on how to start one and finish it.
I didn’t set out to advise anyone on how a police investigation should be conducted, only to point out the complete stupidity of the premise “perhaps the PJ are eliminating eveyome else before starting on the McCanns”. If you think I was wrong to make this assertion then here’s your opportunity to explain why.
-
I didn’t set out to advise anyone on how a police investigation should be conducted, only to point out the complete stupidity of the premise “perhaps the PJ are eliminating eveyome else before starting on the McCanns”. If you think I was wrong to make this assertion then here’s your opportunity to explain why.
Oh no old stick it's your show and thread, you said to me earlier this is a discussion forum however you seem incapable/unwilling of offering any constructive discussion preferring a litany of questions, accusing people of being stupid and coming up with sniggering playground sneers.
If you know sweet
-
I didn’t set out to advise anyone on how a police investigation should be conducted, only to point out the complete stupidity of the premise “perhaps the PJ are eliminating eveyome else before starting on the McCanns”. If you think I was wrong to make this assertion then here’s your opportunity to explain why.
I don't think it's rocket science...you gather evidence.....and investigate based on that evidence. The idea that if you can't find a perpetrator it has to be the parents obviously doesn't make sense...
-
Funny they haven't been caught then.
Who the mccs.....
-
Oh no old stick it's your show and thread, you said to me earlier this is a discussion forum however you seem incapable/unwilling of offering any constructive discussion preferring a litany of questions, accusing people of being stupid and coming up with sniggering playground sneers.
If you know sweet
Gosh, it’s like you’re describing yourself exactly. I think this is call projection.
-
Did I say you said they were about to be arrested...ever? A straight yes or no will do.
‘How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested?’
Erm that would be a yes.
-
‘How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested?’
Erm that would be a yes.
Erm no, it was a question, asking you about your beliefs. A simple “never” would have sufficed, if that were true. Nowehere in that sentence do I claim you said that the McCanns are about to be arrested. It’s really not that hard to understand is it?
-
Erm no, it was a question, asking you about your beliefs. A simple “never” would have sufficed, if that were true. Nowehere in that sentence do I claim you said that the McCanns are about to be arrested. It’s really not that hard to understand is it?
My, my VS you’re not merely changing the goalposts but relocating to another park entirely.
Anyone who bothered to read the exchange knew exactly what you meant. Please try to let what is left of your dignity remain by saying nothing.
-
My, my VS you’re not merely changing the goalposts but relocating to another park entirely.
Anyone who bothered to read the exchange knew exactly what you meant. Please try to let what is left of your dignity remain by saying nothing.
Only those who understand the written word will know that I did not accuse you of stating that the McCanns are about to be arrested. Dignity intact, goalposts unmoved.
-
Only those who understand the written word will know that I did not accuse you of stating that the McCanns are about to be arrested. Dignity intact, goalposts unmoved.
Of course not VS
One of your posts to Faithlilly
LOL, why not go the whole hog and write 'tick tock' while you're at it? How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10244.msg495334#msg495334
Dignity shot to pieces IMO
-
Of course not VS
One of your posts to Faithlilly
LOL, why not go the whole hog and write 'tick tock' while you're at it? How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10244.msg495334#msg495334
Dignity shot to pieces IMO
No Accusation was made.
-
Of course not VS
One of your posts to Faithlilly
LOL, why not go the whole hog and write 'tick tock' while you're at it? How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10244.msg495334#msg495334
Dignity shot to pieces IMO
As I said, only those who understand the written word will see that I did not accuse Faithlilly of stating that the McCanns are about to be arrested. I don’t know why this nothing point has been blown out of all proportion. I’m prepared to accept that at no time since 3rd May 2007 has Faithlilly ever believed that the McCanns were about to be arrested, even in September 2007 when even I believed it looked possible. Furthermore, I am prepared to accept that when Faithlilly refers to “worrying times” a propos this case, she is not in any way implying that she believes the Met are circling in on the McCanns and that their days as free agents are numbered. We will simply have to privately guess at her meaning as she refuses to explain her comment. There, dignity utterly intact!
-
As I said, only those who understand the written word will see that I did not accuse Faithlilly of stating that the McCanns are about to be arrested. I don’t know why this nothing point has been blown out of all proportion. I’m prepared to accept that at no time since 3rd May 2007 has Faithlilly ever believed that the McCanns were about to be arrested, even in September 2007 when even I believed it looked possible. Furthermore, I am prepared to accept that when Faithlilly refers to “worrying times” a propos this case, she is not in any way implying that she believes the Met are circling in on the McCanns and that their days as free agents are numbered. We will simply have to privately guess at her meaning as she refuses to explain her comment. There, dignity utterly intact!
@)(++(*.....you are funny at times
-
No Accusation was made.
In your opinion Eleanor.
How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times.
I disagree. Vertigo Swirl perhaps your understanding of the English language isn't so good.
-
In your opinion Eleanor.
How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times.
I disagree. Vertigo Swirl perhaps your understanding of the English language isn't so good.
Vertigo Swirl did not accuse Faithlily of stating that The McCanns are about to be arrested.
-
Vertigo Swirl did not accuse Faithlily of stating that The McCanns are about to be arrested.
It was difficult to take it in any other way.
-
It was difficult to take it in any other way.
"Believing" and "Saying" are two very different things. This is quite a simple understanding of The English Language.
-
"Believing" and "Saying" are two very different things. This is quite a simple understanding of The English Language.
I’m sorry Eleanor I’m afraid you’ve put your money on the wrong horse this time. I do admire your loyalty though, though not VS whose dishonesty has forced you to defend him.
-
"Believing" and "Saying" are two very different things. This is quite a simple understanding of The English Language.
What?
"How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times. "
Was Verti saying that Faithlily was believing that the McCanns were about to be arrested, but not saying it?
That's about as convoluted an interpretation as one can get.
-
What?
"How many times have you been here, believing that things were not looking good for the McCanns and they were about to be arrested? Literally how many times. "
Was Verti saying that Faithlily was believing that the McCanns were about to be arrested, but not saying it?
That's about as convoluted an interpretation as one can get.
And if it wasn't 'said' or stated how does VS know?
-
And if it wasn't 'said' or stated how does VS know?
Faith implied it
-
Faith implied it
Oh, I see, 'implications'. Like inferences or interpretations they express the opinion of the reader, not the poster in my opinion.
-
Faith implied it
what a nonsensical comment imo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFxWkUkUsQA
8(>((
-
Faith implied it
"Faith implied it" while Verti didn't state it, but Faith allegedly believed it?
We are well into flying pig territory.
(&^&
-
Okay. That's enough of this one. Thank You.
-
"Faith implied it" while Verti didn't state it, but Faith allegedly believed it?
We are well into flying pig territory.
(&^&
How often are us supporters told what we are supposed to believe...quite a lot....
-
I shall be deleting any further reference to this argument.
-
How often are us supporters told what we are supposed to believe...quite a lot....
I think that would be the mccs IMO
who tell us what we are supposed to believe.....
-
Gosh, what a shit storm about nothing. I apologise unreservedly for asking the question of Faithlilly. I accept she has NEVER said the McCanns are about to arrested, furthermore I accept she has NEVER believed such a thing were ever likely. I accept that when she says “Worrying Times” a propos the developments she has noticed on various websites (removal of articles and the like) it just means she is worried about the times. I agree, the times are worrying. I am particularly worried about a no deal scenario and global warming., and also about how much I have upset some of my fellow posters on this forum.
Mea mucho culpa.
8)><(
-
@)(++(*.....you are funny at times
Only at times? 8(>((
-
Gosh, what a shit storm about nothing. I apologise unreservedly for asking the question of Faithlilly. I accept she has NEVER said the McCanns are about to arrested, furthermore I accept she has NEVER believed such a thing were ever likely. I accept that when she says “Worrying Times” a propos the developments she has noticed on various websites (removal of articles and the like) it just means she is worried about the times. I agree, the times are worrying. I am particularly worried about a no deal scenario and global warming., and also about how much I have upset some of my fellow posters on this forum.
Mea mucho culpa.
8)><(
A fulsome and very contrite apology.
8((()*/
I made a similar apology over much ado about nothing..
Keeps some happy.
-
I think that would be the mccs IMO
who tell us what we are supposed to believe.....
Guess that's working with NSY...........so far.
-
Guess that's working with NSY...........so far.
Only so far......so do you have your fingers crossed...
SY doesn't change there mind....
because they haven't got very far have they....
believing ....what the mccs want us to believe IMO
-
Only so far......so do you have your fingers crossed...
SY doesn't change there mind....
because they haven't got very far have they....
believing ....what the mccs want us to believe IMO
I assume you believe what ga wants you and others to believe in his book.
I've no idea of how far Scotland Yard have progressed in their investigation.
-
I assume you believe what ga wants you and others to believe in his book.
I've no idea of how far Scotland Yard have progressed in their investigation.
I assume you believe what ga wants you and others to believe in his book.
You assumed wrong....
I came to what I believe ....all by my self....
I don't agree with everything GA wrote...
For one I believe maddie was disposed of that day/night....imo
IMO...SY are not only dodgig bullet...
but also not investigating what happened that night....imo
-
I assume you believe what ga wants you and others to believe in his book.
You assumed wrong....
I came to what I believe ....all by my self....
I don't agree with everything GA wrote...
For one I believe maddie was disposed of that day/night....imo
IMO...SY are not only dodgig bullet...
but also not investigating what happened that night....imo
So why do you assume that I and other supporters believe the parents of Madeleine are not involved in her disappearance, not because we arrived at that decision by ourselves, but rather because we believe "what the MCCs want us to believe"
-
So why do you assume that I and other supporters believe the parents of Madeleine are not involved in her disappearance, not because we arrived at that decision by ourselves, but rather because we believe "what the MCCs want us to believe"
So why do you assume that I and other supporters believe the parents
Look....you have assumed wrong again....
You asked me if it was GA book that influenced me...
I told you it wasn't ....
OK, you came to your own conclusion all by your self....
-
So why do you assume that I and other supporters believe the parents of Madeleine are not involved in her disappearance, not because we arrived at that decision by ourselves, but rather because we believe "what the MCCs want us to believe"
If you believe the abduction story you're believing what the McCanns want you to believe. It's their story and the only 'evidence' supporting it has been provided by them. The only 'evidence' ruling out woke and wandered was provided by them. It was their lawyers who found 'evidence' aimed at discrediting Grime's dogs.
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence before them and rejected the McCanns abduction story. He gave his opinion about what happened in his book. Others looked at the evidence and also rejected the abduction story. That doesn't mean they accepted Amaral's theory, however.
-
If you believe the abduction story you're believing what the McCanns want you to believe. It's their story and the only 'evidence' supporting it has been provided by them. The only 'evidence' ruling out woke and wandered was provided by them. It was their lawyers who found 'evidence' aimed at discrediting Grime's dogs.
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence before them and rejected the McCanns abduction story. He gave his opinion about what happened in his book. Others looked at the evidence and also rejected the abduction story. That doesn't mean they accepted Amaral's theory, however.
No one has tried to discredit the dogs....they've just told the truth.... amaral says the dogs have solved 200 cases...he says Eddie found a body under a slab of concrete at Jersey..he says the dogs have never been wrong...the pj files say the dogs alerted to cadaver odour...it's all rubbish...bout time you realised
There are no real grounds to reject the abduction theory
-
If you believe the abduction story you're believing what the McCanns want you to believe. It's their story and the only 'evidence' supporting it has been provided by them. The only 'evidence' ruling out woke and wandered was provided by them. It was their lawyers who found 'evidence' aimed at discrediting Grime's dogs.
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence before them and rejected the McCanns abduction story. He gave his opinion about what happened in his book. Others looked at the evidence and also rejected the abduction story. That doesn't mean they accepted Amaral's theory, however.
Then we have...amarals words..
e. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
It's absolute rubbish...his theory is not based on evidence...it's based on lies
Then we have...
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 case
More rubbish
-
The topic is ... Has Scotland Yard dodged a bullet in the Maddie case?
Please confine discussion to that. Thank you all.
-
No one has tried to discredit the dogs....they've just told the truth.... amaral says the dogs have solved 200 cases...he says Eddie found a body under a slab of concrete at Jersey..he says the dogs have never been wrong...the pj files say the dogs alerted to cadaver odour...it's all rubbish...bout time you realised
There are no real grounds to reject the abduction theory
There is nothing to support the abducted from the apartment theory but abducted from the street outside is another matter.
-
If you believe the abduction story you're believing what the McCanns want you to believe. It's their story and the only 'evidence' supporting it has been provided by them. The only 'evidence' ruling out woke and wandered was provided by them. It was their lawyers who found 'evidence' aimed at discrediting Grime's dogs.
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence before them and rejected the McCanns abduction story. He gave his opinion about what happened in his book. Others looked at the evidence and also rejected the abduction story. That doesn't mean they accepted Amaral's theory, however.
However you must accept that others have looked at the arguments against abduction and found those arguments lacking.
You reduce the reasons why folk and at present NSY accept that abduction was possible to " believing what the McCanns want you to believe"
Rather insulting in my opinion.
-
If you believe the abduction story you're believing what the McCanns want you to believe. It's their story and the only 'evidence' supporting it has been provided by them. The only 'evidence' ruling out woke and wandered was provided by them. It was their lawyers who found 'evidence' aimed at discrediting Grime's dogs.
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence before them and rejected the McCanns abduction story. He gave his opinion about what happened in his book. Others looked at the evidence and also rejected the abduction story. That doesn't mean they accepted Amaral's theory, however.
Abduction is the only logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance IMO. That’s why I subscribe to it, not because the McCanns made me believe it. I am not a stupid brainless sheep much as it might please you to think otherwise.
-
There is nothing to support the abducted from the apartment theory but abducted from the street outside is another matter.
Madeleine's case was reopened in Portugal because significant new evidence was found after a two year very hush hush police operation had been conducted which reports at the time claimed had reached the conclusion that Madeleine had been taken "in a pre-planned abduction".
Snip
Detectives in Porto, who have been conducting a review of the Madeleine McCann case for the past two years, are believed to have made the request for the investigation to be reopened so colleagues in the Algarve can formally interview potential key witnesses they have approached informally during trips to southern Portugal.
They are understood to be focussing on the theory that Madeleine, aged three when she disappeared in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007, was kidnapped in a pre-planned abduction.
Correio da Manha, a Portuguese newspaper, has reported officers have been looking at the possibility that a foreign paedophile gang took Madeleine.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said she was unable to comment on the new lines of inquiry.
He said: "I do not know what they are and how significant they are and even if I did I couldn't comment because of the secrecy order.
"However it is clear from the statement we have released that the decision to reopen the Madeleine McCann investigation has been based on new elements that indicate it's a justifiable action."
Portugal's police officially closed their first inquiry into the case in 2008, after wrongly naming her parents as suspects.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
-
Madeleine's case was reopened in Portugal because significant new evidence was found after a two year very hush hush police operation had been conducted which reports at the time claimed had reached the conclusion that Madeleine had been taken "in a pre-planned abduction".
Snip
Detectives in Porto, who have been conducting a review of the Madeleine McCann case for the past two years, are believed to have made the request for the investigation to be reopened so colleagues in the Algarve can formally interview potential key witnesses they have approached informally during trips to southern Portugal.
They are understood to be focussing on the theory that Madeleine, aged three when she disappeared in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007, was kidnapped in a pre-planned abduction.
Correio da Manha, a Portuguese newspaper, has reported officers have been looking at the possibility that a foreign paedophile gang took Madeleine.
A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said she was unable to comment on the new lines of inquiry.
He said: "I do not know what they are and how significant they are and even if I did I couldn't comment because of the secrecy order.
"However it is clear from the statement we have released that the decision to reopen the Madeleine McCann investigation has been based on new elements that indicate it's a justifiable action."
Portugal's police officially closed their first inquiry into the case in 2008, after wrongly naming her parents as suspects.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
This is the actual quote from the Attorney General’s office.
‘A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said she was unable to comment on the new lines of inquiry.
He said: "I do not know what they are and how significant they are and even if I did I couldn't comment because of the secrecy order.
"However it is clear from the statement we have released that the decision to reopen the Madeleine McCann investigation has been based on new elements that indicate it's a justifiable action."
The quote says absolutely nothing about a pre-planned abduction. In fact it says that they are not able to comment on new lines of enquiry.
-
There is nothing to support the abducted from the apartment theory but abducted from the street outside is another matter.
So what is there to support the abducted from the street outside. Can you elaborate please John
-
This is the actual quote from the Attorney General’s office.
‘A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said she was unable to comment on the new lines of inquiry.
He said: "I do not know what they are and how significant they are and even if I did I couldn't comment because of the secrecy order.
"However it is clear from the statement we have released that the decision to reopen the Madeleine McCann investigation has been based on new elements that indicate it's a justifiable action."
The quote says absolutely nothing about a pre-planned abduction. In fact it says that they are not able to comment on new lines of enquiry.
Snip
The request of the PJ was the result of more than two years of reanalysis of the process carried out by a team from PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, by July 2008.
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfills the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
PJ's source made it clear to PÚBLICO that the request for the reopening of the proceedings is the result of the work of the Oporto team and not of elements collected by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie .
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
-
So what is there to support the abducted from the street outside. Can you elaborate please John
Here's what I think.
1. No sign of break in.
2. Tracker dogs tracking to the car park opposite the secondary reception.
-
Here's what I think.
1. No sign of break in.
2. Tracker dogs tracking to the car park opposite the secondary reception.
What signs of a break in would you expect to see in an unlocked apartment?
-
What signs of a break in would you expect to see in an unlocked apartment?
With the front door being so secluded I think most intruders would target the front door rather than the very visible patio door side of the building.
The front door was "locked from the outside and needed a key to close behind, so unless the intruder went in and ot the patio door, it didn't happen. Unless the intruder had a key. Using a key is the ultimate of course for a "no break in crime".
-
Then we have...amarals words..
e. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
It's absolute rubbish...his theory is not based on evidence...it's based on lies
Then we have...
27.23 – The dogs’ reaction is revealing. These dogs have never failed in over 200 case
More rubbish
Dogs don't lie.......
As for his theory ...based on lies ...you are right there...
that is why he called it the truth of the lie.....
He believed ....and still does....there was no abduction....
the book is still there ....for all to read...
not dumped in a rubbish bin..........
-
With the front door being so secluded I think most intruders would target the front door rather than the very visible patio door side of the building.
The front door was "locked from the outside and needed a key to close behind, so unless the intruder went in and ot the patio door, it didn't happen. Unless the intruder had a key. Using a key is the ultimate of course for a "no break in crime".
Celis' father reported the girl missing after finding she was not in her bedroom. Christopher Matthew Clements, 36, was charged Saturday in Tuscon, Arizona.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-charged-killing-2-arizona-girls-who-went-missing-n909906
Isabel Celis was allegedly removed from her home by person/s unknown. It will be interesting to find out how the man facing charges for her murder gained access to her.
Was it through her bedroom window ... or had he acquired a key?
-
Snip
The request of the PJ was the result of more than two years of reanalysis of the process carried out by a team from PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, by July 2008.
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfills the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
PJ's source made it clear to PÚBLICO that the request for the reopening of the proceedings is the result of the work of the Oporto team and not of elements collected by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie .
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Again where does it say anything about a ‘pre planned abduction ‘ ?
-
With the front door being so secluded I think most intruders would target the front door rather than the very visible patio door side of the building.
The front door was "locked from the outside and needed a key to close behind, so unless the intruder went in and ot the patio door, it didn't happen. Unless the intruder had a key. Using a key is the ultimate of course for a "no break in crime".
I think most intruders would use the path of least resistance, as provided by an unlocked door, but hey, what do I know?
-
Dogs don't lie.......
As for his theory ...based on lies ...you are right there...
that is why he called it the truth of the lie.....
He believed ....and still does....there was no abduction....
the book is still there ....for all to read...
not dumped in a rubbish bin..........
A dog will bark at what it has been trained to bark for, with Eddie it was pig and blood. A cadaver dog will also bark if there is a scent of blood that was on an article that had been taken away.
Amaral took the bark of dogs as confirmation Madeleine died, he also took the DNA results as confirmation that Madeleine had died. Wrong conclusion. IMO
-
I think most intruders would use the path of least resistance, as provided by an unlocked door, but hey, what do I know?
Well if they don't have tools with them they might. How would they know the door was unlocked?
-
Well if they don't have tools with them they might. How would they know the door was unlocked?
Observation.
-
There is nothing to support the abducted from the apartment theory but abducted from the street outside is another matter.
Yet if you recall her parents said she wouldn’t go outside contradicting completely” we left a door open so Madeleine could come and find us if she woke again “?
-
I don't consider such nonsense! Left a door open for a 3 years old to come find us - Total Bollox! The door was open so the abductor could get inside. Just rewind to the first check on the night. A door had moved but Maddy was still there the last witness said! *%87 Next check the same door had moved again - that leads to an abductor moving doors between checks *%87 Important time here to investigate 9pm 3 May 2007.
"At this point, Kate told her that her daughter had disappeared 13 hours ago. It was about 10 in the morning."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
-
I don't consider such nonsense! Left a door open for a 3 years old to come find us - Total Bollox! The door was open so the abductor could get inside. Just rewind to the first check on the night. A door had moved but Maddy was still there the last witness said! *%87 Next check the same door had moved again - that leads to an abductor moving doors between checks *%87 Important time here to investigate 9pm 3 May 2007.
"At this point, Kate told her that her daughter had disappeared 13 hours ago. It was about 10 in the morning."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
Rude.
-
I don't consider such nonsense! Left a door open for a 3 years old to come find us - Total Bollox! The door was open so the abductor could get inside. Just rewind to the first check on the night. A door had moved but Maddy was still there the last witness said! *%87 Next check the same door had moved again - that leads to an abductor moving doors between checks *%87 Important time here to investigate 9pm 3 May 2007.
"At this point, Kate told her that her daughter had disappeared 13 hours ago. It was about 10 in the morning."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
I’m sure the information above is not lost on OG.