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: stephen25000 on February 12, 2015, 07:14:13 PM
-
Open question.
I await the answers.
64
-
Open question.
I await the answers.
Says it all really.
-
Says it all really.
Are you kidding Starti ???? He's found the McCanns absolutely innocent of anything criminal, ever !!! Isn't that enough ?????
What did you expect ????
-
On his watch no one was charged and no information was put into the public domain with respect to the fate of Madeleine McCann.
DCI Redwood did however grease "Tannerman The Abductor" and put Smithman in the frame as a person of interest to be identified.
-
DCI Redwood and Team uncovered a number of leads that were ignored by Inspector Amaral and Team.
-
DCI Redwood and Team uncovered a number of leads that were ignored by Inspector Amaral and Team.
I think discounted is more accurate than ignored and as it stands they appear to have discounted correctly.
-
I think discounted is more accurate than ignored and as it stands they appear to have discounted correctly.
This we do not know.
-
I think discounted is more accurate than ignored and as it stands they appear to have discounted correctly.
As it stands the investigation is back to square one.
As expected .
-
Which part of 'SY will not be giving a running commentary on this case' is so difficut to understand?
-
Which part of 'SY will not be giving a running commentary on this case' is so difficut to understand?
Which part of 'finding nothing' don't you understand ?
-
Which part of 'finding nothing' don't you understand ?
When did DCI Redwood announce to the public that 'nothing has been found' as a result of their ongoing investigations?
-
When did DCI Redwood announce to the public that 'nothing has been found' as a result of their ongoing investigations?
Are you really that naive ?
I judge by the results. 8(0(*
-
Are you really that naive ?
I judge by the results. 8(0(*
So IOW you can't back up your claim.
How can you make any judgement at all- on information known to SY - but which the public are not privy to?
To reiterate:- SY have stated they are not going to keep the public updated re their findings.
Therefore it is not possible for the public to come to any conclusions regarding their findings/achievements at this stage -as we don't know what they are.
Therefore this thread is pointless IMO.
-
So IOW you can't back up your claim.
How can you make any judgement at all- on information known to SY - but which the public are not privy to?
To reiterate:- SY have stated they are not going to keep the public updated re their findings.
Therefore it is not possible for the public to come to any conclusions regarding their findings/achievements at this stage -as we don't know what they are.
Therefore this thread is pointless IMO.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or merely trying to divert attention.
SY have leaked.
The PJ have leaked.
The investigation has got nowhere.
Time you got a grip............
-
Are you being deliberately obtuse or merely trying to divert attention.
SY have leaked.
The PJ have leaked.
The investigation has got nowhere.
Time you got a grip............
No need to be rude.
Unless you are privy to SY and the PJ's 'deliberations' you can have no idea that 'nothing has been found' and 'the case has got nowhere'.
No-one knows what has or has not been achieved - because we are not being kept informed. Speculation and wishful thinking doesn't count.
The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY - is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case. i.e. the McCanns and their friends. The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.
Quite a massive achievement by both police forces IMO - as it is a total reversal of the original decision by the original investigators.
-
No need to be rude.
Unless you are privy to SY and the PJ's 'deliberations' you can have no idea that 'nothing has been found' and 'the case has got nowhere'.
No-one knows what has or has not been achieved - because we are not being kept informed. Speculation and wishful thinking doesn't count.
The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY - is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case. i.e. the McCanns and their friends. The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.
Quite a massive achievement by both police forces IMO - as it is a total reversal of the original decision by the original investigators.
How can you eliminate people from an inquiry, when they don't know how Madeleine disappeared ?
So a massive achievement, HARDLY.
-
How can you eliminate people from an inquiry, when they don't know how Madeleine disappeared ?
So a massive achievement, HARDLY.
LOL I keep forgetting that you know better than both SY and the PJ.
No point in any further discussion while you continue to believe that IMO.
-
LOL I keep forgetting that you know better than both SY and the PJ.
No point in any further discussion while you continue to believe that IMO.
They have nothing.
No trace of what happened to Madeleine.
If you believe otherwise, then you are living a fantasy.
-
How can you eliminate people from an inquiry, when they don't know how Madeleine disappeared ?
So a massive achievement, HARDLY.
Indeed and a problem shared by the initial investigation was that they didn't know how Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Unfortunately the senior officers working on her case addressed the problem by deciding in the early hours of her disappearance that her parents were responsible in some way with the assistance of their friends.
With her parents in the frame no-one at the heart of the investigation was interested in looking for the actual perpetrator of the crime committed against Madeleine McCann.
The new investigation by the PJ and SY have picked up the cold trail left by the initial investigators and have had to address the information ignored by them because it did not lead to Madeleine's parents.
The phone pings are one example and the crèche records another.
If this investigation does not lead to some answers about what may have happened to Madeleine McCann ... it won't be for the want of trying ... if the same could have been said of the 2007 investigation perhaps we might not be where we are today.
-
Indeed and a problem shared by the initial investigation was that they didn't know how Madeleine McCann had disappeared.
Unfortunately the senior officers working on her case addressed the problem by deciding in the early hours of her disappearance that her parents were responsible in some way with the assistance of their friends.
With her parents in the frame no-one at the heart of the investigation was interested in looking for the actual perpetrator of the crime committed against Madeleine McCann.
The new investigation by the PJ and SY have picked up the cold trail left by the initial investigators and have had to address the information ignored by them because it did not lead to Madeleine's parents.
The phone pings are one example and the crèche records another.
If this investigation does not lead to some answers about what may have happened to Madeleine McCann ... it won't be for the want of trying ... if the same could have been said of the 2007 investigation perhaps we might not be where we are today.
So without any real evidence, to decide early on that the McCanns should be investigated was wrong but to decide early on the Madeleine was abducted was right.
-
What has he achieved?
Hmm.. One thing he brought to the publics attention was the massively embarrassing e-fits which team McCann sought to keep hidden from public scrutiny for over five years. 8@??)(
He has also spent a shitload of taxpayers money and has sod all to show for it. Nil ponts. @)(++(*
-
So without any real evidence, to decide early on that the McCanns should be investigated was wrong but to decide early on the Madeleine was abducted was right.
They knew nothing about dogs and misinterpreted the information given.
They nothing about DNA analysis and misinterpreted the information given.
They knew nothing about looking for missing children and misinterpreted the information given.
**snip
The Home Office agency, which describes itself as 'part of the police service', aims to improve police use of information, evidence and science and to support operations.
It is understood to have provided Portuguese police with a 'checklist' of how to proceed.
A spokesman said last night: 'In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends.
'This is good practice for investigating cases. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to Portuguese police.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz3RepuElrk
They were given the "generic advice" from the Home Office when it became obvious that they were floundering without a clue about conducting a missing child inquiry ... quite obviously ... they did not have a clue.
But they couldn't even follow the simple guidelines properly.
-
What has he achieved?
Hmm.. One thing he brought to the publics attention was the massively embarrassing e-fits which team McCann sought to keep hidden from public scrutiny for over five years. 8@??)(
He has also spent a shitload of taxpayers money and has sod all to show for it. Nil ponts. @)(++(*
Count the Portuguese and British police into that equation ... maybe someday we will find out why they all 'sat' on them.
-
What has he achieved?
Hmm.. One thing he brought to the publics attention was the massively embarrassing e-fits which team McCann sought to keep hidden from public scrutiny for over five years. 8@??)(
He has also spent a shitload of taxpayers money and has sod all to show for it. Nil ponts. @)(++(*
he has publically declared that the McCanns are not suspects...that's the main reason there is so much hostility towards him from some on here
-
he has publically declared that the McCanns are not suspects...that's the main reason there is so much hostility towards him from some on here
Wrong Dave.
He found zip, and £10,000,000 of taxpayers money is down the drain, which should have been spent on cases where there was a chance of apprehending the criminals.
-
What has Redwood achieved in this case ?
-
What has Redwood achieved in this case ?
If he had achieved anything worthwhile you can bet you're bottom dollar the public would have heard about it before he retired. Maybe he will head the new McCann investigative team when it is formed.
-
If he had achieved anything worthwhile you can bet you're bottom dollar the public would have heard about it before he retired. Maybe he will head the new McCann investigative team when it is formed.
Now there's a thought.
-
If he had achieved anything worthwhile you can bet you're bottom dollar the public would have heard about it before he retired. Maybe he will head the new McCann investigative team when it is formed.
hes too professional to comment at this stage...perhaps you think he would have written abook about an ongoing investigation
-
hes too professional to comment at this stage...perhaps you think he would have written abook about an ongoing investigation
That thought did cross my mind Dave. 8)-)))
-
If he had achieved anything worthwhile you can bet you're bottom dollar the public would have heard about it before he retired. Maybe he will head the new McCann investigative team when it is formed.
Exactly Angelo.
Will he paid for from the 'fund' I wonder, if he does ? &%+((£
Very little would surprise me any more in this case.
-
1) He (Andy) has ruled out 43 'anomalies' in and around Luz. (Only another 10,000+ to go).
2) SY has learned it is hard to dig a small hole, let alone a grave, by hand in the Algarve. To be strictly accurate, they know that for Luz, but trust me, it applies to the Algarve. I have tried elsewhere (holes, not graves).
3) SY has discovered that the Brazilian restaurant just east of Luz near Val Verde campsite does a lunchtime buffet that is inexpensive, filling, very tasty and which I can highly recommend. (Source for SY is my partner who was coming out as SY piled in. Source for inexpensive, filling, tasty is equally my partner. Lunch is around 7€ for all you can eat, you get Brazilian flavours, and should you visit Luz, mark it down as one of your 'must nosh' places. And no, I have no connection to the restaurant whatsoever.)
This must be worth 9 million, surely?
-
1) He (Andy) has ruled out 43 'anomalies' in and around Luz. (Only another 10,000+ to go).
2) SY has learned it is hard to dig a small hole, let alone a grave, by hand in the Algarve. To be strictly accurate, they know that for Luz, but trust me, it applies to the Algarve. I have tried elsewhere (holes, not graves).
3) SY has discovered that the Brazilian restaurant just east of Luz near Val Verde campsite does a lunchtime buffet that is inexpensive, filling, very tasty and which I can highly recommend. (Source for SY is my partner who was coming out as SY piled in. Source for inexpensive, filling, tasty is equally my partner. Lunch is around 7€ for all you can eat, you get Brazilian flavours, and should you visit Luz, mark it down as one of your 'must nosh' places. And no, I have no connection to the restaurant whatsoever.)
This must be worth 9 million, surely?
LOL, well DOH anyone with half a brain would know the terrain in the area was rock and barren lol...you would need a digger to make a hole to bury a body......
Perhaps you can tell me, at the time she went missing in the papers it said there were road works going on etc, and around near the church is that true?
As to the buffet sounds lovely if i ever go to PDL i will make sure i go there lol.
I think personally all this is just a waste of tax payers money. They need to go and close some of the cold cases in this country.
I dont think the child will ever be found, or the case will come to a conclusion.....
-
Redwood couldn't have seen the end in sight. They haven't achieved much except to question and eliminate possible suspects. The spot they searched was strange because Smithman was going in the opposite direction. It would be interesting to know why that location was chosen to be searched. An eye witness? There is nothing in the files about it.
-
Is SY still pushing the burglar theory, or is it to be quietly forgotten now that they have done their questioning?
And what happened to the mobile phone calls that were going to give the answer? - all quiet on that,as well.
-
The question posed in the title of this thread is impossible to answer at this stage. We do not know what, if anything Redwood has personally achieved as we don't know precisely what Op Grange has uncovered to date. It's easy to slag off his efforts but is it from a position of knowledge or ignorance?
-
Oh most certainly ignorance. Since Ms Wall entered stage left, there hasn't been a peep out of them.
-
The question posed in the title of this thread is impossible to answer at this stage. We do not know what, if anything Redwood has personally achieved as we don't know precisely what Op Grange has uncovered to date. It's easy to slag off his efforts but is it from a position of knowledge or ignorance?
Why was that wasteland spot searched when Smithman was seen going in the opposite direction? That seems a strange choice to me. If you were going to search in one area for a possible body location it has to be on top of the cliffs from Rocha Negra to the golf course. I thought mobile tracking on the night should give them a good idea if anybody was in that area of PDL.
"A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra – the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to the Rocha Negra but nobody remembered ever having noticed any vehicle that far up in the daytime, let alone at night. This immediately conjured visions of Madeleine being disposed of somewhere on the overhanging cliff. I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dismissive. It would have been one of the GNR men checking the area, he said." (Madeleine)
-
The question posed in the title of this thread is impossible to answer at this stage. We do not know what, if anything Redwood has personally achieved as we don't know precisely what Op Grange has uncovered to date. It's easy to slag off his efforts but is it from a position of knowledge or ignorance?
A fair point Alfred, but this thread has been sanctioned and therefore, the body of title is for discussion, by all members who wish to participate.
-
Why was that wasteland spot searched when Smithman was seen going in the opposite direction? That seems a strange choice to me. If you were going to search in one area for a possible body location it has to be on top of the cliffs from Rocha Negra to the golf course. I thought mobile tracking on the night should give them a good idea if anybody was in that area of PDL.
"A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra – the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to the Rocha Negra but nobody remembered ever having noticed any vehicle that far up in the daytime, let alone at night. This immediately conjured visions of Madeleine being disposed of somewhere on the overhanging cliff. I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dismissive. It would have been one of the GNR men checking the area, he said." (Madeleine)
I have no idea, and nor do you.
-
what has Redwood achieved is the question...we don't know is the answewr
-
On the other hand, we know what he hasn't achieved - any trace of Madeleine or an abductor.
-
On the other hand, we know what he hasn't achieved - any trace of Madeleine or an abductor.
You know that for certain do you?
-
Of course not - Does anyone know anything for certain?
If evidence of Madeleine's whereabouts, dead or alive, had been found, I think we would probably have heard about it.
-
Of course not - Does anyone know anything for certain?
If evidence of Madeleine's whereabouts, dead or alive, had been found, I think we would probably have heard about it.
so we don't know what redwood has found to date...that's certain
-
Of course not - Does anyone know anything for certain?
If evidence of Madeleine's whereabouts, dead or alive, had been found, I think we would probably have heard about it.
So we don't know it, contrary to what you stated earlier. I believe Redwood said we wouldn't be privy to a running commentary on what they had or hadn't discovered, that we DO know, anything else is so much speculation.
-
what has Redwood achieved is the question...we don't know is the answewr
Actually there is a question or to .......
Did he find Madeleine ?
To which the answer is clearly NO
Did he find how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
An unequivocal NO as well.
Has the whole investigation produced anything of substance ? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
Actually there is a question or to .......
Did he find Madeleine ?
To which the answer is clearly NO
Did he find how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment ?
An unequivocal NO as well.
Has the whole investigation produced anything of substance ? &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
we don't know what progress Redwood has made
-
we don't know what progress Redwood has made
You judge by results.
There aren't any in this case, as you well know.
There is one word to describe that, it's called FAILURE.
-
You judge by results.
There aren't any in this case, as you well know.
There is one word to describe that, it's called FAILURE.
the result comes at full time...it's only half time at the moment...
-
You judge by results.
There aren't any in this case, as you well know.
There is one word to describe that, it's called FAILURE.
There's one word to describe what you are doing - PRE-JUDGING. You may be right, you may be wrong, we don't know yet.
-
the result comes at full time...it's only half time at the moment...
NOPE.
It's £10,000,000 and counting from the taxpayer.
The money could be far better spent elsewhere, where police numbers are diminishing and not all crimes are dealt with.
-
NOPE.
It's £10,000,000 and counting from the taxpayer.
The money could be far better spent elsewhere, where police numbers are diminishing and not all crimes are dealt with.
If they find out what happened to Madeleine will it have been money well spent in your view?
-
There's one word to describe what you are doing - PRE-JUDGING. You may be right, you may be wrong, we don't know yet.
That Alfred is your opinion, not mine.
It's rather like saying in this case, how long is a piece of string, into the continued funding this case.
The trail has gone cold, and barring a confession, nothing is likely to change.
-
If they find out what happened to Madeleine will it have been money well spent in your view?
and if they don't...........
-
So you are trying to excuse money spent on a case where the trail has gone cold and there's no sign of an end to the spending.
Is that correct ?
-
So we don't know it, contrary to what you stated earlier. I believe Redwood said we wouldn't be privy to a running commentary on what they had or hadn't discovered, that we DO know, anything else is so much speculation.
I do think if they were making progress there would have been an indication of such in a press release. It wouldn't be a running commentary.
-
and if they don't...........
would you care to answer my question first?
-
So you are trying to excuse money spent on a case where the trail has gone cold and there's no sign of an end to the spending.
Is that correct ?
As you know perfectly well I am absolutely delighted that real "Justice For Madeleine" is at long last being officially sought ... unlike some very sad people I will be beside myself with joy if she is recovered ... I will be saddened if her remains are discovered but at least her family will have some closure.
Now instead of asking questions which tend to make one assume you are a particularly mean minded individual ... think instead about a real way to make the monetary savings your heart so desires when it comes to missing children ... a new F/B campaign about the evils of dropping sixty million pounds worth of cleaning expense on the streets should fit the bill.
If you are any good at it the money you will save the Councils will make the ten spent on Madeleine's case over the past five years very small beer indeed.
Why are there people who are so desperate that this little girl is never found and her parents never find out her fate?
-
That Alfred is your opinion, not mine.
It's rather like saying in this case, how long is a piece of string, into the continued funding this case.
The trail has gone cold, and barring a confession, nothing is likely to change.
You have already decided the investigation is a failure before it's even been completed. Isn't it fair to say that all missing people cases could be judged a failure right up until the moment when the wherabouts of the missing person has been dscovered?
-
I find it fascinating to observe those who back the abduction scenario 100%, without a shred of credible evidence, forensic or otherwise to back it, believe people like me don't want the case solved.
That is far from the truth.
However, I do question a one sided investigation, where no other scenarios are examined.
and the basic question still applies..........
How long will this investigation to be allowed to continue with NO RESULTS. &%+((£
-
Posters are reminded to stay within the bounds of the opening post/thread title. TY
-
I find it fascinating to observe those who back the abduction scenario 100%, without a shred of credible evidence, forensic or otherwise to back it, believe people like me don't want the case solved.
That is far from the truth.
However, I do question a one sided investigation, where no other scenarios are examined.
and the basic question still applies..........
How long will this investigation to be allowed to continue with NO RESULTS. &%+((£
If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?
-
If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?
You answer my question first, then i'll answer yours.
-
If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?
As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment. Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.
Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.
-
As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment. Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.
Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.
I think one may follow on from the other whichever in whichever order that may be.
However, finding Madeleine would be my priority.
-
You answer my question first, then i'll answer yours.
which question?
-
As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment. Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.
Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.
That does not answer the question I posed to Stephen. In any case this is not about the McCanns' priorities but the Met's.
-
No need to be rude.
Unless you are privy to SY and the PJ's 'deliberations' you can have no idea that 'nothing has been found' and 'the case has got nowhere'.
No-one knows what has or has not been achieved - because we are not being kept informed. Speculation and wishful thinking doesn't count.
The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY - is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case. i.e. the McCanns and their friends. The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.
Quite a massive achievement by both police forces IMO - as it is a total reversal of the original decision by the original investigators.
So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?
Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?
If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?
-
So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?
Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?
If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?
of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change...however it seems SY is looking at the crime as a stranger abduction
-
of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change...however it seems SY is looking at the crime as a stranger abduction
So you're accepting it is possible? That's good and a major turning point in the discussion of those immortal words.
If the McCann's were suspects do you think the Yard would announce it or leave the previous statement in place until such time as sufficiently strong evidence was found to warrant questioning?
-
So you're accepting it is possible? That's good and a major turning point in the discussion of those immortal words.
If the McCann's were suspects do you think the Yard would announce it or leave the previous statement in place until such time as sufficiently strong evidence was found to warrant questioning?
Don't get too excited...it is no turning point...my views have not changed...possible does not mean probable...it is theoretically possible that amaral himself is responsible...though not probable
-
Don't get too excited...it is no turning point...my views have not changed...possible does not mean probable...it is theoretically possible that amaral himself is responsible...though not probable
Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.
You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.
That's saying that at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.
Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.
-
Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.
You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.
That's saying at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.
Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.
You are imagining things..where are the facts to support you accusations...you don't have any...you should try and read and understand posts more accurately...you have failed to do so
-
Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.
You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.
That's saying that at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.
Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.
let me spell it out nice and simply for you...based on the existing evidence the McCanns are not suspects
-
Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.
You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.
That's saying that at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.
Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.
So you don't think Redwood was forced to say that the McCanns weren't suspects, like some people on here believe?
-
You are imagining things..where are the facts to support you accusations...you don't have any...you should try and read and understand posts more accurately...you have failed to do so
Really it was in the first post I quoted from Benice:
The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY - is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case. i.e. the McCanns and their friends. The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.
Dreary me I see Dave hasn't changed!
-
So you don't think Redwood was forced to say that the McCanns weren't suspects, like some people on here believe?
I have no idea either way but that wasn't the point I was making and you know it.
-
let me spell it out nice and simply for you...based on the existing evidence the McCanns are not suspects
That is a rash statement to make unless you have inside track on what Wall of the Yard is up to.
As she has been remarkably quiet since just before DCI Redwood stood down you either are privy to Nicola Wall's lines of inquiry or you are guessing. I wonder which it is.
-
let me spell it out nice and simply for you...based on the existing evidence the McCanns are not suspects
If SY aren't providing a running commentary, As pointed out by Benice, how do you know what evidence they have?
-
That is a rash statement to make unless you have inside track on what Wall of the Yard is up to.
As she has been remarkably quiet since just before DCI Redwood stood down you either are privy to Nicola Walls lines of inquiry or you guessing. I wonder which it is.
it is far from a rash statement...it is a well considered statement...on par with "I don't think Maddie was abducted by aliens"...
-
Really it was in the first post I quoted from Benice:
The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY - is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case. i.e. the McCanns and their friends. The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.
Dreary me I see Dave hasn't changed!
SY have specifically ruled out the Mccanns
-
What evidence do we have regarding the Met's opinion of the McCanns' innocence or otherwise? Well we do have the statement made by Andy Redwood as shown in my signature below, and that evidence tends to strongly suggest that the Met don't regard the McCanns as suspects. And on the other hand we have - NOTHING AT ALL, which to the "sceptic" seems to suggest that the Met may well consider the McCanns as suspects. It's quite hilarious, really.
-
SY have specifically ruled out the Mccanns
Sigh. Read the posts again and my original one in response to Benice and your reply.
Are you stuck on a loop?
-
Sigh. Read the posts again and my original one in response to Benice and your reply.
Are you stuck on a loop?
no I am not...Mccanns have been declared not suspects by SY...Fact..what part of that do you not understand
-
What evidence do we have regarding the Met's opinion of the McCanns' innocence or otherwise? Well we do have the statement made by Andy Redwood as shown in my signature below, and that evidence tends to strongly suggest that the Met don't regard the McCanns as suspects. And on the other hand we have - NOTHING AT ALL, which to the "sceptic" seems to suggest that the Met may well consider the McCanns as suspects. It's quite hilarious, really.
Nope that won't do Alfred.
You are deliberately missing the point.
Benice stated that the one achievement of the yard was the declaration that the McCann's werent suspects or persons of interest (made right at the start of the investigation).
But then it was also stated that by Benice that the yard won't be giving a running commentary.
I therefore asked the question that given the yards lack of running commentary how do we know for certain that that statement made many months ago has not changed?
The only reasonable answer is there is absolutely no guarantee that that statement still stands within the investigation.
Why can't you accept that basic concept?
-
no I am not...Mccanns have been declared not suspects by SY...Fact..what part of that do you not understand
Read my first contribution to this thread and your reply and either switch the loop off or come back to the point you were at in our earlier exchanges.
-
Read my first contribution to this thread and your reply and either switch the loop off or come back to the point you were at in our earlier exchanges.
AS I don't think you have the ability to understand the point I will do neither...The McCanns are not suspects according to SY...obviously if new evidence comes to light that situation would change...but there aint no new information and SY are not investigating them
-
One thing DCI Andy Redwood achieved in doing his duty is that a whole pot of vitriol has been stirred up against him ... so he very obviously got something right ...
We will know that DCI Nicola Wall is getting somewhere when she gets more of the same treatment ... maybe even her very own thread here.
-
AS I don't think you have the ability to understand the point I will do neither...The McCanns are not suspects according to SY...obviously if new evidence comes to light that situation would change...but there aint no new information and SY are not investigating them
How do you know there isn't new information?
How do you know they aren't being investigated?
How do you know they are still not considered suspects?
If as Benice and the yard have stated they aren't providing a running commentary?
The paucity of your argument and steadfastness in clinging to the McCann supporter mantra delivered by redwood is really quite revealing.
-
One thing DCI Andy Redwood achieved in doing his duty is that a whole pot of vitriol has been stirred up against him ... so he very obviously got something right ...
We will know that DCI Nicola Wall is getting somewhere when she gets more of the same treatment ... maybe even her very own thread here.
I hope you weren't referring to me or my posts in that? I have no vitriol against the man and will be withholding judgement on him until I see the full extent of his work on the case.
-
How do you know there isn't new information?
How do you know they aren't being investigated?
How do you know they are still not considered suspects?
If as Benice and the yard have stated they aren't providing a running commentary?
The paucity of your argument and steadfastness in clinging to the McCann supporter mantra delivered by redwood is really quite revealing.
How do you know there isn't new information?
How do you know they aren't being investigated?
How do you know they are still not considered suspects?
google celestial teapot...that's how I know your arguments are ridiculously waek
-
How do you know there isn't new information?
How do you know they aren't being investigated?
How do you know they are still not considered suspects?
google celestial teapot...that's how I know your arguments are ridiculously waek
So you don't know? Glad we've unequivocallly established that.
Yet you expect to convince people that becuase redwood said it months ago it remains the same now and forever more despite you knowing the square root of nothing relating to the evidence accumulated by the Yard since that statement was made.
Suggest you should google straw man.
-
Double post
-
So you don't know? Glad we've unequivocallly established that.
Yet you expect to convince people that becuase redwood said it months ago it remains the same now and forever more despite you knowing the square root of nothing relating to the evidence accumulated by the Yard since that statement was made.
Suggest you should google straw man.
I don't have to convince anyone....you will find more people supporting the earth is flat than believe your ridiculous beliefs
-
I hope you weren't referring to me or my posts in that? I have no vitriol against the man and will be withholding judgement on him until I see the full extent of his work on the case.
I am delighted to hear that ... and it would possibly be a good piece of advice to others to allow the investigation to run it's full course before determining the measure of a man or a woman's input based on nothing more than personal bias.
These people are doing a job ... why that should set them up for often pejorative scrutiny as a result, should really give cause for concern.
-
I don't have to convince anyone....you will find more people supporting the earth is flat than believe your ridiculous beliefs
No if you're going to rebut what I have said all you need to do is provide evidence and logic.
I'm still waiting.
It's really quite simple and let me boil it down in its simplest terms just for you.
If the Yard are not providing a running commentary on the progress of the investigation how can you state with absolute certainty that the pronouncement made by redwood many months ago at the start of the investigation still stands now and will stand for the rest of time given we are not being told what evidence has been uncovered since redwoods statment was made?
-
What evidence do we have regarding the Met's opinion of the McCanns' innocence or otherwise? Well we do have the statement made by Andy Redwood as shown in my signature below, and that evidence tends to strongly suggest that the Met don't regard the McCanns as suspects. And on the other hand we have - NOTHING AT ALL, which to the "sceptic" seems to suggest that the Met may well consider the McCanns as suspects. It's quite hilarious, really.
You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?
The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all, exonerate all of them?
It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.
I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't and couldn't be released to the public.
Can you?
-
You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?
The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all, exonerate all of them?
It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.
I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't and couldn't be released to the public.
Can you?
Why would it be NSY job to publish information to placate some on line freaks ... when you know, I know and they (SY) know ... it would do no such thing.
In what way would doing so help the main focus of this case ... Madeleine McCann.
-
SY have specifically ruled out the Mccanns
How can you rule potential suspects out of a case, when the nature of the crime has not been established ?
A belief in abduction does not make it real, it puts it on a par with David Icke's 'beliefs'.
-
How can you rule potential suspects out of a case, when the nature of the crime has not been established ?
A belief in abduction does not make it real, it puts it on a par with David Icke's 'beliefs'.
so in your world shape shifting lizards are real...that explains a lot
-
Why would it be NSY job to publish information to placate some on line freaks ... when you know, I know and they (SY) know ... it would do no such thing.
In what way would doing so help the main focus of this case ... Madeleine McCann.
'on line freaks'
The forums on which they post with their hatred are well known. 8)-))) %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
so in your world shape shifting lizards are real...that explains a lot
No dave I didn't say that.
However, it would greatly explain much of your behaviour. 8)--)) @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Why would it be NSY job to publish information to placate some on line freaks ... when you know, I know and they (SY) know ... it would do no such thing.
In what way would doing so help the main focus of this case ... Madeleine McCann.
Because the last OFFICIAL word on the investigation, the archiving report,stated that the group wouldn't help the investigation move forward by refusing to participate in the reconstruction and that the McCann's had as a result failed to demonstrate their innocence.
Why would the Yard leave the group exposed to that condemnation if they had clear exoneration evidence?
Hell they could have given it to Clarence to release, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to spin that.
Finally it would have been jolly helpful to have that information in Durates back pocket over in Lisbon recently, wouldn't it?
I wonder why it wasn't produced in the trial? Surely that would have made their case against Amaral watertight?
-
As a brief reminder to the mccann followers.
There is no concrete evidence of anything and it is not known except by those responsible who removed her body from the apartment, and that's not counting the theory, she walked out herself.
So how can the mccanns and associates have been eliminated from their inquires ?
It is on a par with a certain other case, as we have seen.
-
As a brief reminder to the mccann followers.
There is no concrete evidence of anything and it is not known except by those responsible who removed her body from the apartment, and that's not counting the theory, she walked out herself.
So how can the mccanns and associates have been eliminated from their inquires ?
It is on a par with a certain other case, as we have seen.
SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact
-
SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact
How can you ignore potential suspects in a crime, when the crime has yet to be established as to what happened /
Unless of course SY are lying, or they have been told to eliminate them from their inquiries. &%+((£
-
How can you ignore potential suspects in a crime, when the crime has yet to be established as to what happened /
Unless of course SY are lying, or they have been told to eliminate them from their inquiries. &%+((£
so you think SY might be lying...and deliberately releasing false information
-
Nope that won't do Alfred.
You are deliberately missing the point.
Benice stated that the one achievement of the yard was the declaration that the McCann's werent suspects or persons of interest (made right at the start of the investigation).
But then it was also stated that by Benice that the yard won't be giving a running commentary.
I therefore asked the question that given the yards lack of running commentary how do we know for certain that that statement made many months ago has not changed?
The only reasonable answer is there is absolutely no guarantee that that statement still stands within the investigation.
Why can't you accept that basic concept?
Where in my post did you find evidence that I don't accept that basic concept? I do however think that it is important to base assumptions on evidence and in this case there is plenty to back up the belief that the McCanns are not currently under investigation (note also recent arguidos questioned, none of whom were from the Tapas 9) and precisely ZILCH evidence to suggest that the Met has changed its mind and is now investigating any of the Tapas 9. Why do you find it so hard to accept that basic concept?
-
Because the last OFFICIAL word on the investigation, the archiving report,stated that the group wouldn't help the investigation move forward by refusing to participate in the reconstruction and that the McCann's had as a result failed to demonstrate their innocence.
Why would the Yard leave the group exposed to that condemnation if they had clear exoneration evidence?
Hell they could have given it to Clarence to release, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to spin that.
Finally it would have been jolly helpful to have that information in Durates back pocket over in Lisbon recently, wouldn't it?
I wonder why it wasn't produced in the trial? Surely that would have made their case against Amaral watertight?
SY are well aware of the torrent of online abuse the McCanns suffer at the keyboard tapping fingers of vicious doubter trolls who attack these innocent parents of an abducted child, yet, what have they done about it?
A simple, 'the McCanns are completey innocent we have evidence to prove as much, so leave 'em alone', would be a start.
But they haven't said that.
-
You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?
The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all, exonerate all of them?
It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.
I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't and couldn't be released to the public.
Can you?
Yes, the Met does not exist to supply information to warring groups on the internet, it's a bit above that. Hope that helps.
-
So, if the Met once again reiterated that the McCanns were not suspects, how long would that pronouncement be valid for "sceptics"? More or less than the time it takes you to spin it into something that means the complete opposite is the answer!
-
so you think SY might be lying...and deliberately releasing false information
..or dave, they were told to eliminate them from their inquiries.
REMEMBER dave, the nature of Madeleine's disappearance has not been determined, no matter how much you would like to procrastinate.
P.S. dave, do you really think the police always tell the truth. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
SY are well aware of the torrent of online abuse the McCanns suffer at the keyboard tapping fingers of vicious doubter trolls who attack these innocent parents of an abducted child, yet, what have they done about it?
A simple, 'the McCanns are completey innocent we have evidence to prove as much, so leave 'em alone', would be a start.
But they haven't said that.
as Stephen has very kindly pointed out even if SY made this statement posters would claim they were lying...thank you stephen
-
as Stephen has very kindly pointed out even if SY made this statement posters would claim they were lying...thank you stephen
You should be a politician dave.
You are economical with the truth and frequently mis-quote.
Try reading what I said again.
Now dave, do the police always tell the truth ?
YES or NO will suffice.
-
You should be a politician dave.
You are economical with the truth and frequently mis-quote.
Try reading what I said again.
Now dave, do the police always tell the truth ?
YES or NO will suffice.
so what you are saying is that even if SY made a statement every day...said they had evidence to prove the mccanns innocent...they could just be lying.....
-
so what you are saying is that even if SY made a statement every day...said they had evidence to prove the mccanns innocent...they could just be lying.....
They have had every opportunity to say why they are not investigating the mccanns or their associates.
They have failed to do so.
Meanwhile , we can engage in more 'banter' later dave.
8)--))
-
So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?
Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?
If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?
No - I do not accept it is possible that the McCanns will ever be suspected of being involved in their daughter's removal from 5A.
This is my explanation as requested:-
If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.
Then you would have to prove that their 7 friends are either all mentally deranged or as thick as two planks that they would happily make themselves accomplices to an horrendous crime as if it was no big deal whatsoever for them to become involved.
Then you would have to prove that every single expert in their field who have actually met/observed/spent time with the McCanns which include police officers, FLO's, trauma counsellors, psychologists to name but a few - are all incompetent/completely wrong. Especially the Detectives in this case who do have ALL the professionally translated files at their disposal - and the ability to interview people as and when they wish.
Then having proved that none of the above know what they are talking about you would then have to convince me that with only SOME of the available information - ( mainly from files translated by amateurs), people with NO expertise, who have never met or spoken to the McCanns, know more about them and the details of this case than the professionals.
Then you would need to explain why everything the McCanns have done in the last 7 years is the exact opposite of what guilty people would do. No guilty person would press so strongly to have a case re-opened and meticulously examined - including having themselves examined by SY if they knew they were the guilty parties . It would also need to be explained why their 7 accomplices would sit back and allow the McCanns to put all of them in the horrific position of 'waiting for a knock on the door' every day of their lives - especially knowing that they had the option of simply keeping their heads down and waiting for it all to die away naturally.
IMO nothing which can happen in the meantime can change any of the above. In the light of that - coupled with the fact that I am not a conspiracy theorist - I do not believe the McCanns or their friends will ever be made suspects in this case.
-
Because the last OFFICIAL word on the investigation, the archiving report,stated that the group wouldn't help the investigation move forward by refusing to participate in the reconstruction and that the McCann's had as a result failed to demonstrate their innocence.
Why would the Yard leave the group exposed to that condemnation if they had clear exoneration evidence?
Hell they could have given it to Clarence to release, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to spin that.
Finally it would have been jolly helpful to have that information in Durates back pocket over in Lisbon recently, wouldn't it?
I wonder why it wasn't produced in the trial? Surely that would have made their case against Amaral watertight?
I have no idea who or what Durates is ... so you will have to enlighten me on that one.
-
You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?
The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all, exonerate all of them?
It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.
I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't and couldn't be released to the public.
Can you?
Exonerated?
I used that word, once, and Jean-Pierre (on this board!) corrected me.
To be exonerated, you first have to be charged and tried in court.
The McCanns have never been charged ....
-
No - I do not accept it is possible that the McCanns will ever be suspected of being involved in their daughter's removal from 5A.
This is my explanation as requested:-
If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.
Then you would have to prove that their 7 friends are either all mentally deranged or as thick as two planks that they would happily make themselves accomplices to an horrendous crime as if it was no big deal whatsoever for them to become involved.
Then you would have to prove that every single expert in their field who have actually met/observed/spent time with the McCanns which include police officers, FLO's, trauma counsellors, psychologists to name but a few - are all incompetent/completely wrong. Especially the Detectives in this case who do have ALL the professionally translated files at their disposal - and the ability to interview people as and when they wish.
Then having proved that none of the above know what they are talking about you would then have to convince me that with only SOME of the available information - ( mainly from files translated by amateurs), people with NO expertise, who have never met or spoken to the McCanns, know more about them and the details of this case than the professionals.
Then you would need to explain why everything the McCanns have done in the last 7 years is the exact opposite of what guilty people would do. No guilty person would press so strongly to have a case re-opened and meticulously examined - including having themselves examined by SY if they knew they were the guilty parties . It would also need to be explained why their 7 accomplices would sit back and allow the McCanns to put all of them in the horrific position of 'waiting for a knock on the door' every day of their lives - especially knowing that they had the option of simply keeping their heads down and waiting for it all to die away naturally.
IMO nothing which can happen in the meantime can change any of the above. In the light of that - coupled with the fact that I am not a conspiracy theorist - I do not believe the McCanns or their friends will ever be made suspects in this case.
It's worth remembering a few things. The police officers who spent most time with the McCanns, those from the PJ including their Portuguese FLO Pavia, thought it was possible that they were guilty. As to the trauma counsellor, who was not a qualified psychologist and in fact the McCanns as far as we know have never called on the services of a qualified psychologist, he wouldn't have been too hard to dupe, I myself have seen it done and besides the McCanns had suffered the trauma of their child's accidental death so would naturally be displaying much the same behaviour as they would have done if she'd been abducted.
-
It's worth remembering a few things. The police officers who spent most time with the McCanns, those from the PJ including their Portuguese FLO Pavia, thought it was possible that they were guilty. As to the trauma counsellor, who was not a qualified psychologist and in fact the McCanns as far as we know have never called on the services of a qualified psychologist, he wouldn't have been too hard to dupe, I myself have seen it done and besides the McCanns had suffered the trauma of their child's accidental death so would naturally be displaying much the same behaviour as they would have done if she'd been abducted.
It's worth remembering one thing.
Some people spout fiction (interspersed with the odd factually accurate statement).
-
It's worth remembering one thing.
Some people spout fiction (interspersed with the odd factually accurate statement).
Excellent article on the therapist/client relationship and it taints objective analysis.
http://www.psychiatristexpertwitness.com/articles/the-therapist-as-expert-witness
The Therapist as Expert Witness? The Dual Agency Conflict
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Tel. 415.461.4845
Contact us
Curriculum Vitae
By Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Reasons the Treating Psychotherapist Should Not Be the Expert Witness
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist (“the treater”) has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore “knows” the plaintiff better. The treater often agrees with this reasoning.
I believe a number of fallacies exist in this conclusion:
If the patient is conniving, then the therapist is being duped into undertaking a sham therapy.
If the patient believes the therapist is going to be his expert witness, then consciously or unconsciously the patient will withhold information detrimental to his case and over-emphasize facts favorable to it.
Therapists undertake therapy with the implicit understanding that the relationship is private and privileged under almost all circumstances. This enables the patient to divulge embarrassing or damaging information which he wouldn’t want revealed. After the fact, how can the patient give an informed consent when he doesn’t know what personal information will be divulged.
Once the therapist is perceived as an advocate, I believe the therapist’s impartiality and non-judgmental attitude is replaced with the perception of approval and advocacy. A therapeutic boundary is crossed. Therapy is damaged. Being an expert witness for one’s patient does not further the therapy. The Hippocratic Oath “above all do not harm” is disregarded.
Setting these reasons to the side, is the assumption true that a comprehensive structured forensic psychiatric exam including a review of all records, relevant depositions, expert reports and psychological testing less reliable than a psychotherapy which is defined by the patient’s transference, unstructured free association, therapeutic process, and non-judgmental therapeutic attitude of the therapist where the therapeutic task is to help the patient understand emotional conflicts and resolve them. It is not far-fetched to imagine the therapist-expert developing opinions during discovery which might be damaging to the therapeutic process. He can’t withdraw because doing so damages the therapy, he shouldn’t lie because that damages his therapeutic impartiality, and he becomes the patient’s advocate in the patient’s mind which also introduces a non-therapeutic parameter into the therapy. The therapist is now a dual agent (dual agency) and cannot serve the single purpose of treating a patient.
Psychotherapy does not involve weighing all of the clinical facts and rendering a medical-legal opinion with a reasonable medical probability. It doesn’t involve being an impartial evaluator who has no vested interest in the outcome of the case. Psychotherapy isn’t about assuming a skeptical mind set in order to weigh the plaintiff’s statements with other facts and reconcile the conflicted information within the context of the lawsuit. Undertaking a real, impartial forensic psychiatry evaluation is not therapeutic. The content of therapy is part of the basis of an expert opinion but there is much more to the evaluative process which is beyond the scope of therapy. Once the therapist crosses the line to expert, he can’t go back. The bell cannot be unrung.
This article has previously appeared on the TASA (Technical Advisory Group for Attorneys) website and HGExperts.com as “When Therapists Aren’t Experts.”
-
Exonerated?
I used that word, once, and Jean-Pierre (on this board!) corrected me.
To be exonerated, you first have to be charged and tried in court.
The McCanns have never been charged ....
Rock solid evidence would exonerate them from suspicion and eliminate them from the enquiry forever.
You're trying the semantic argument without going near the core points.
I knew that would come from at least one supporter of the group.
-
So, if the Met once again reiterated that the McCanns were not suspects, how long would that pronouncement be valid for "sceptics"? More or less than the time it takes you to spin it into something that means the complete opposite is the answer!
It would technically be valid right up to that point in the investigation, wouldn't it?
For example they may not be considered suspects today on the evidence uncovered, but then let's say one of the group confessed the following day.
Do you think the Yard would then turn round and refuse to accept the confession just because they had said the day before they weren't suspects?
Do you at least accept this basic principle?
-
SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact
But you yourself have said in this very thread:
of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change
So what information from the last 15-18 months of the investigation (since that statement was made by Redwood) do you have that that hasn't happened.
Or is it simply your opinion?
-
Excellent article on the therapist/client relationship and it taints objective analysis.
http://www.psychiatristexpertwitness.com/articles/the-therapist-as-expert-witness
The Therapist as Expert Witness? The Dual Agency Conflict
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Tel. 415.461.4845
Contact us
Curriculum Vitae
By Stephen M. Raffle, M.D.
Reasons the Treating Psychotherapist Should Not Be the Expert Witness
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist (“the treater”) has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore “knows” the plaintiff better. The treater often agrees with this reasoning.
I believe a number of fallacies exist in this conclusion:
If the patient is conniving, then the therapist is being duped into undertaking a sham therapy.
If the patient believes the therapist is going to be his expert witness, then consciously or unconsciously the patient will withhold information detrimental to his case and over-emphasize facts favorable to it.
Therapists undertake therapy with the implicit understanding that the relationship is private and privileged under almost all circumstances. This enables the patient to divulge embarrassing or damaging information which he wouldn’t want revealed. After the fact, how can the patient give an informed consent when he doesn’t know what personal information will be divulged.
Once the therapist is perceived as an advocate, I believe the therapist’s impartiality and non-judgmental attitude is replaced with the perception of approval and advocacy. A therapeutic boundary is crossed. Therapy is damaged. Being an expert witness for one’s patient does not further the therapy. The Hippocratic Oath “above all do not harm” is disregarded.
Setting these reasons to the side, is the assumption true that a comprehensive structured forensic psychiatric exam including a review of all records, relevant depositions, expert reports and psychological testing less reliable than a psychotherapy which is defined by the patient’s transference, unstructured free association, therapeutic process, and non-judgmental therapeutic attitude of the therapist where the therapeutic task is to help the patient understand emotional conflicts and resolve them. It is not far-fetched to imagine the therapist-expert developing opinions during discovery which might be damaging to the therapeutic process. He can’t withdraw because doing so damages the therapy, he shouldn’t lie because that damages his therapeutic impartiality, and he becomes the patient’s advocate in the patient’s mind which also introduces a non-therapeutic parameter into the therapy. The therapist is now a dual agent (dual agency) and cannot serve the single purpose of treating a patient.
Psychotherapy does not involve weighing all of the clinical facts and rendering a medical-legal opinion with a reasonable medical probability. It doesn’t involve being an impartial evaluator who has no vested interest in the outcome of the case. Psychotherapy isn’t about assuming a skeptical mind set in order to weigh the plaintiff’s statements with other facts and reconcile the conflicted information within the context of the lawsuit. Undertaking a real, impartial forensic psychiatry evaluation is not therapeutic. The content of therapy is part of the basis of an expert opinion but there is much more to the evaluative process which is beyond the scope of therapy. Once the therapist crosses the line to expert, he can’t go back. The bell cannot be unrung.
This article has previously appeared on the TASA (Technical Advisory Group for Attorneys) website and HGExperts.com as “When Therapists Aren’t Experts.”
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged ...
In Madeleine's disappearance, emotional distress is not alleged.
It is a fact deriving from their daughter's abduction and (possible!) death ...
-
But you yourself have said in this very thread:
So what information from the last 15-18 months of the investigation (since that statement was made by Redwood) do you have that that hasn't happened.
Or is it simply your opinion?
Clutching at straws on the part of those hoping for an outcome favourable to Amaral ...
-
It would technically be valid right up to that point in the investigation, wouldn't it?
For example they may not be considered suspects today on the evidence uncovered, but then let's say one of the group confessed the following day.
Do you think the Yard would then turn round and refuse to accept the confession just because they had said the day before they weren't suspects?
Do you at least accept this basic principle?
In the highly unlikely event, I think the first thing they would do would be to check the evidence; voluntarily making a false confession is a well known syndrome and I doubt if there is a murder inquiry or a high profile case that doesn't have an instance.
For example the recent knife attack in Portugal when the attacker allegedly claimed to have killed Madeleine McCann, wonder if he repeated it to the police and if it was checked out?
-
In the highly unlikely event, I think the first thing they would do would be to check the evidence; voluntarily making a false confession is a well known syndrome and I doubt if there is a murder inquiry or a high profile case that doesn't have an instance.
For example the recent knife attack in Portugal when the attacker allegedly claimed to have killed Madeleine McCann, wonder if he repeated it to the police and if it was checked out?
Yes and if they then checked the evidence uncovered as a result of the confession and it checked out. Then what? Do you think they then could never be made suspects?
A simple yes or no is all that's needed.
-
Yes and if they then checked the evidence uncovered as a result of the confession and it checked out. Then what? Do you think they then could never be made suspects?
A simple yes or no is all that's needed.
Please do not dictate my response ... in the wake of a belief in Freedom of Speech ... that is my prerogative and ultimately if it is allowed to stand or not the prerogative of the mods.
The amazing thing about this conversation is the myopia which dictates that people, who have been investigated and scrutinised for nearly eight years without any evidence being forthcoming against them, are hoped to be involved in the crime against Madeleine McCann.
This, despite the fact that there are at present arguidos in the case.
There is nothing that DCI Redwood could possibly have said ... there is nothing that he could have done ... which would have shaken that block of wilful ignorance.
In any event I think it safe to assume that the original SY announcement stands ... if not, we would have seen charges being laid here and if not here they would have been constituted arguidos in Portugal.
Since that obviously hasn't happened, the rest of the world will continue wondering what the outcome will be regarding the information obtained from those interviewed as part of the new investigation in Portugal as witnesses and arguidos ... leaving a few others to their fond time warp fantasies.
I think the PJ and SY are determined to conclude Madeleine's case if at all possible ... and to do so they are relying on actualities and evidence ... not myth and innuendo.
-
We appear to be wandering off topic. Please adhere to the topic of the thread. Thank you
-
None of us know what has been achieved or, who and what, they may now be investigating….it’s a matter of …. it could be, anything and anybody, with no exclusions.
So of all the possible things to discuss, we are talking about the McCanns again. Why?
If they are thought to be suspects or not, as the case may be, we will hear about it soon enough.
Mr Redwood, appears to have been very thorough in his searches, digs, interviews, phone trails, forensic checks, police file scanning and the many other jobs entailed in the investigation.
It doesn’t matter how good someone is at their job. They can only achieve what is possible to achieve and no more.
It makes one, no less capable of being successful in the task undertaken, if the job at hand, proves impossible to give the results, one hoped for.
He is no more a miracle worker, than you or I, after all.
-
Before i answer i will say i have no idea what happened, i really am still on fence regardless of what people might think...i sway from one way to the other.
The one thing why would anyone need to prove they Psychopaths?
Psychopath.
a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as Amaral and [ censored word]ocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
IF they accidentally harmed their daughter or one of them did, why would it make them a Psychopath?
I would say if someone killed a child say because they were being naughty, and perhaps hit them too hard, and the child died and showed these injuries....what would you do....If you were trained to deal with these types of emergencies you wouldnt panic and perhaps self preservation would kick in.
I personally dont think ANY of the others were involved if it did happen. I think they unwittingly became involved.....
As to the experts that doesnt wash as the police thought they were implicit and so did other EXPERTS ..... and its easy to fool people especially if you are a professional and used to dealing with other people....
I can explain about the last 7 years, if you just dont bother to keep on looking surely it feeds the fodder for the ones who think they are guilty, but if you keep going then you are showing everyone you must be innocent.
How often do you see Ben Needhams mum on the T.V...or going on about Ben being missing, she hardly ever did......
I think anyway it will never be resolved, and this case will stay the same for ever even when the twins have their own children.....i dont think we will ever know what happened.
Sadly...anyway thought i would just put my twopenneth in....
P.S I dont think Redwood or SY have acheived anything...
I removed your emboldened bit to make it clear what I was on about 8(>((
I have long inclined to that view myself.
-
Friggin post Nazi.
If your going to delete responses then you should be deleting the posts they respond to. In fairness.
But you're not fair, because you have an agenda.
If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.
The old 'they would have to be psychopaths' yarn.
Sherlock used to say that, & Gilletta said the same just the other day, funnily enough.
Lee Rainbow didn't think so.
I am neither a Nazi nor do I have an agenda. I have asked nicely for you all to get back on topic...Not too difficult to understand.
Now can we please get back on the Topic of the thread.
-
Although I find you the fairer of the mods who are supportive of the McCanns I think you are being slightly disingenuous to claim you do not delete according to your beliefs.
Just a few moments ago a post in which I called Brietta a 'rampant hypocrite' was deleted even though the post was 'on topic' yet a post by sadie in which she all but called me a liar has remained in place for over 12 hours. Is that fair ?
Please don't misunderstand me. I really don't give a tinker's cuss what people on this board think of me, my opinion or indeed what they post but please don't pay lip service to moderating fairness when it is clear to all who read here that there is nothing fair about the way both yourself and Eleanor moderate.
I have only been on line a short time, Faith and have not examined all posts yet, but you are all aware of the rules of posting insults.
I try to be as fair as one can be and I do realise that we do not know who is responsible for Maddie's disappearance.
I try to research all options, but just like the rest of you there are still uncertainties in my mind, also. I do not delete because of the side of fence you are on, but from the rules. I am sorry that I can not please everyone.
-
And now.........................................Topic and yes I will be deleting some posts
-
Plus let's look at what redwood himself has said he's achieved:
DCI Redwood (4.7.2013): “Well, as we have worked carefully over the last sort of two years, through that review process, we have now processed some 30,000 documents”.
DCI Redwood (three months later, 4.10.2103): “The total number of documents we have to go through is 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”
So in a 3 month period he's managed to process then unprocess nearly 8400 documents.
Which is why I don't take everything he says at full face value.
-
Plus let's look at what redwood himself has said he's achieved:
DCI Redwood (4.7.2013): “Well, as we have worked carefully over the last sort of two years, through that review process, we have now processed some 30,000 documents”.
DCI Redwood (three months later, 4.10.2103): “The total number of documents we have to go through is 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”
So in a 3 month period he's managed to process then unprocess nearly 8400 documents.
Which is why I don't take everything he says at full face value.
LOL, so you think he was lying about the number of documents processed now do you?
-
LOL, so you think he was lying about the number of documents processed now do you?
Lol no I'm just repeating what he himself said.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
-
Plus let's look at what redwood himself has said he's achieved:
DCI Redwood (4.7.2013): “Well, as we have worked carefully over the last sort of two years, through that review process, we have now processed some 30,000 documents”.
DCI Redwood (three months later, 4.10.2103): “The total number of documents we have to go through is 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”
So in a 3 month period he's managed to process then unprocess nearly 8400 documents.
Which is why I don't take everything he says at full face value.
So they started with ?????? in 2011
They processed 30,000 over 2 years by 4.10.2013
which left ?????
Then a new statement
They had left ????? from above
3 months later
They still had left to process, 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”
So the original figure was 69,148?
Please correct me if I have misunderstood your post, which I very possibly have.
Don't forget there were new documents coming in for processing also
-
Not very clear, is he?
My interpretation is that the first time he didn't really have a clue about the true number, hence his use of 'some 30,000'.
The second time, he has checked and been told 39,614 in total, with 21,614 processed.
-
Not very clear, is he?
My interpretation is that the first time he didn't really have a clue about the true number, hence his use of 'some 30,000'.
The second time, he has checked and been told 39,614 in total, with 21,614 processed.
Yes of course, jassi
but that was three months later and with a lot more manpower they could have processed that 21,000 from what they had left from two years previously processed which would have been 39,614..... I think.
-
Rock solid evidence would exonerate them from suspicion and eliminate them from the enquiry forever.
You're trying the semantic argument without going near the core points.
I knew that would come from at least one supporter of the group.
it appears to me that they are not under suspicion and they have been eliminated from the enquiry
-
I think there is something perverse about the inability to understand that time has moved on.
It is not going to go full circle and return to 2007 just so that the investigative mistakes made then can be repeated in 2015.
I have no idea how far down the road the PJ and SY investigation has managed to go ... but one thing I am certain of is that had the scoping exercise turned up any evidence linking the Drs McCann and/or their friends to Madeleine McCann's disappearance ... they would not now be investigating people in Portugal as a 'smokescreen' ... when they could very, very easily have made arrests in Britain.
Very simple to make arrangements with the Portuguese authorities to have prosecutions here ... or to arrange extradition to Portugal to have prosecutions there.
To think otherwise defies logic.
If it gives you and others some hope, fine by me ... no skin off my nose as the saying goes.
However while you are hoping for that denouement ... don't forget the little girl at the centre of this, and hold out some hope for her too.
-
So let's see, what has he achieved for his £10m? Sweet FA!!
-
So let's see, what has he achieved for his £10m? Sweet FA!!
Please could you direct me to the conclusions of this investigation - you seem to know them already.
-
O mods I beseech thee; leave this link up for at least 12 hours. Ref the number of documents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wncTgMi3pWc
-
Please could you direct me to the conclusions of this investigation - you seem to know them already.
Well for a start have SY identified what crime took place?
The answer of course is NO.
Now a connection to the production of alcohol might be called for.
-
Please could you direct me to the conclusions of this investigation - you seem to know them already.
Simple, there are none! No conclusions, no Maddie, no collar, nothing except for a big fat taxpayers bill for £10m which even Redwood won't be around to justify!! That is unless the Public Accounts Committee deem an inquiry appropriate?
-
Well for a start have SY identified what crime took place?
The answer of course is NO.
Now a connection to the production of alcohol might be called for.
The answer is of course NO, is it Stephen? How do you figure that out? The Met have stated that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, as yet we don't know exactly what they have based this conclusion on, but this seems to be the direction their investigation has been following for the last few years. As for your comment on alcohol I have no idea what you are on about.
-
Simple, there are none! No conclusions, no Maddie, no collar, nothing!!
So the investigation is over then is it, and the Met have announced it has uncovered nothing, is that your understanding?
-
So the investigation is over then is it, and the Met have announced it has uncovered nothing, is that your understanding?
As far as Redwood is concerned...yes.
If the Met had anything of substance it would have been leaked ages ago.
-
As far as Redwood is concerned...yes.
If the Met had anything of substance it would have been leaked ages ago.
Redwood is not the investigation, the investigation is not over. To say it has achieved nothing because he has retired is nonsense. As for your second sentence anything of substance that has arisen as a result of this investigation has been announced officially such as the intention to question new arguidos and to conduct searches in PdL. Now, is it your view that the Met should never have bothered getting involved in the first place, or what?
-
Redwood is not the investigation, the investigation is not over. To say it has achieved nothing because he has retired is nonsense. As for your second sentence anything of substance that has arisen as a result of this investigation has been announced officially such as the intention to question new arguidos and to conduct searches in PdL. Now, is it your view that the Met should never have bothered getting involved in the first place, or what?
Read the title Alfie, what has REDWOOD achieved.
SY's efforts have been seen to be too little, too late. They have submitted several lors without anything happening, even the Portuguese see it as a waste of time. There is no abductor, there never was!
-
Read the title Alfie, what has REDWOOD achieved.
SY's efforts have been seen to be too little, too late. They have submitted several lors without anything happening, even the Portuguese see it as a waste of time. There is no abductor, there never was!
We don't know what Redwood has achieved specifically - we do know however that under his watch a huge amount of data gathering and re-examining of all the evidence has been undertaken and many new leads followed up, and dormant leads re-visited. When commencing any investigation there is no guarantee at the outset that all the time, money and effort put into the investigation is going to result in a case being solved, so what would you have the Met do - not have bothered in the first place because it was never going to be an easy case to solve?
-
There is proof that the Met are investigating a stranger abduction, whether you like it or not.
-
There is proof that the Met are investigating a stranger abduction, whether you like it or not.
and they have found NOTHING.
Whether you like it or not.
So get real.
-
and they have NOTHING.
Whether you like it or not.
So get real.
We don't know what they have - please calm down.
-
We don't know what they have - please calm down.
I'm quite calm.
You are clearly worked up.
Never mind. @)(++(*
and you are clearly quite happy to waste tax payers money, when the police are cutting numbers and thereby reducing the chance of solving crimes that have a chance of finding the criminals involved.
Then of course we know why.
-
I'm quite calm.
You are clearly worked up.
Never mind. @)(++(*
and you are clearly quite happy to waste tax payers money, when the police are cutting numbers and thereby reducing the chance of solving crimes that have a chance of finding the criminals involved.
Then of course we know why.
Which brings me back to a question that you are singularly unable to answer - how much money should be spent on each missing person case?
-
Have any of the professional Googlers on here worked out how many Brits have gone missing abroad or are banged up on trumped up charges then checked to see how much cash and effort has been expended on their behalf? It might be an eye opener.
As for The Met they are/were being funded straight out a PM controlled fund. So they will not be too worried about budget and the job has a defined end point which may not be achievable.
" Twas on a Monday morning when the gas man came to call......"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyeMFSzPgGc
Apart from Ben, have you found another instance of a three year old British child who has vanished without trace while abroad? Custody battles excepted.
This is probably the last chance Madeleine McCann has of being returned to her family if she is still alive.
If she is not, it may be the last chance her family have for closure in the event of what happened to her being discovered.
I wonder what it is that motivates the apparent spite and malice which objectors to all searches for Madeleine McCann have expressed over the years?
the "fraudulent fund" received almost as much objection as the public money being used to finance the work of SY in the search for a British child who is missing abroad.
The absolute denigration of DCI Andy Redwood and the current investigation just another example. Is the lesson to criminals to be if a British child is snatched while on holiday anywhere in the world they have 100% chance of getting off with it because the Brits won't bother to finance a search?
Wonder how you would feel if the next child to go missing was a member of your immediate family?
What exactly was it that Madeleine McCann did to be subjected to such blatant prejudice?
-
Apart from Ben, have you found another instance of a three year old British child who has vanished without trace while abroad? Custody battles excepted.
This is probably the last chance Madeleine McCann has of being returned to her family if she is still alive.
If she is not, it may be the last chance her family have for closure in the event of what happened to her being discovered.
I wonder what it is that motivates the apparent spite and malice which objectors to all searches for Madeleine McCann have expressed over the years?
the "fraudulent fund" received almost as much objection as the public money being used to finance the work of SY in the search for a British child who is missing abroad.
The absolute denigration of DCI Andy Redwood and the current investigation just another example. Is the lesson to criminals to be if a British child is snatched while on holiday anywhere in the world they have 100% chance of getting off with it because the Brits won't bother to finance a search?
Wonder how you would feel if the next child to go missing was a member of your immediate family?
What exactly was it that Madeleine McCann did to be subjected to such blatant prejudice?
uising maddie to pull on the heartstrings of your cause are you brietta simple case is maddie wouldnt be missing without gerry and kates actions and thats what has made the world less symathetic to the mcanns it was a 100% preventable and maddie paid the price
-
uising maddie to pull on the heartstrings of your cause are you brietta simple case is maddie wouldnt be missing without gerry and kates actions and thats what has made the world less symathetic to the mcanns it was a 100% preventable and maddie paid the price
Madeleine McCann is a missing British child ... I am cognisant of that fact ... there are those apparently blinded by a hatred they have nursed for nearly eight years against people they really know nothing about ... who tend to totally ignore Madeleine McCann in their advocacy of the abuse of her human rights.
-
Which brings me back to a question that you are singularly unable to answer - how much money should be spent on each missing person case?
Would you like to tell me how much money has now been spent by the Portuguese and the UK taxpayer on behalf of two 'parents', who left their children by themselves and unprotected ?
Whose fault is this whole case ?
Don't say an abductor, unless you have proof one ever existed, which of course you don't.
-
Madeleine McCann is a missing British child ... I am cognisant of that fact ... there are those apparently blinded by a hatred they have nursed for nearly eight years against people they really know nothing about ... who tend to totally ignore Madeleine McCann in their advocacy of the abuse of her human rights.
Rollocks, as per usual , the old hatred 'ploy' comes out yet again.very tiresome.
As to human rights, she had the right to be protected by her guardians.
and we know what they were doing on those 5 nights, DON'T WE.
-
Rollocks, as per usual , the old hatred 'ploy' comes out yet again.very tiresome.
As to human rights, she had the right to be protected by her guardians.
and we know what they were doing on those 5 nights, DON'T WE.
i dont mean any disrepect to maddie but why is she more special then other british missing kids? dont they deserve 9 millon pounds spent on them too?? and they dont get it
-
i dont mean any disrepect to maddie but why is she more special then other british missing kids? dont they deserve 9 millon pounds spent on them too?? and they dont get it
I think its a case of he who shouts the loudest gets the most attention.
-
i dont mean any disrepect to maddie but why is she more special then other british missing kids? dont they deserve 9 millon pounds spent on them too?? and they dont get it
Well Carlymichelle, it is a fact that certain mccann supporters have placed her on a pedestal , and this refers to the 'second comers' as they have come to be referred to.
Others only care for the mccanns.
-
Well Carlymichelle, it is a fact that certain mccann supporters have placed her on a pedestal , and this refers to the 'second comers' as they have come to be referred to.
Others only care for the mccanns.
would they have cared about the mcanns if they were welfare parents ?i highly doubt it its a class issue
-
Would you like to tell me how much money has now been spent by the Portuguese and the UK taxpayer on behalf of two 'parents', who left their children by themselves and unprotected ?
Whose fault is this whole case ?
Don't say an abductor, unless you have proof one ever existed, which of course you don't.
I don't know the exact amount Stephen - millions and millions though. How much SHOULD have been spent in your view, if any at all? Perhaps if a parent loses a child then it's their own bloody fault and the police shouldn't get involved at all, that would save some money wouldn't it?
-
I think its a case of he who shouts the loudest gets the most attention.
Yeah, shame on the McCanns for shouting so loud that their missing kid got all the attention. They should have just kept quiet like all the other mums and dads of missing kids, that would have been much more effective.
-
I don't know the exact amount Stephen - millions and millions though. How much SHOULD have been spent in your view, if any at all? Perhaps if a parent loses a child then it's their own bloody fault and the police shouldn't get involved at all, that would save some money wouldn't it?
and what about other crimes Alfred ???
Murder, rape, burglary, etc.
Limited resources of the Police.
Do you place special relevance on Madeleine's disappearance, above other crimes ?
-
I don't know the exact amount Stephen - millions and millions though. How much SHOULD have been spent in your view, if any at all? Perhaps if a parent loses a child then it's their own bloody fault and the police shouldn't get involved at all, that would save some money wouldn't it?
Wouldn't bother me however much they spend, if they were doing it transparently. But that's not how our police work.
-
and what about other crimes Alfred ???
Murder, rape, burglary, etc.
Limited resources of the Police.
Do you place special relevance on Madeleine's disappearance, above other crimes ?
No I don't though I do believe a priority should be placed on investigating crimes involving children over, for example burglary. Now, how much should we spend per missing child in your view? Pleasse note I have answered all your questions and you keep on avoiding this one.
-
Wouldn't bother me however much they spend, if they were doing it transparently. But that's not how our police work.
They've told us how much they've spent on Op Grange to date, we know how much has been spent on flights to Portugal etc what more do you want to know?
-
I will be deleting Off Topic Posts shortly
-
They've told us how much they've spent on Op Grange to date, we know how much has been spent on flights to Portugal etc what more do you want to know?
I've no right to know anything. I don't mean that - I mean our police aren't transparent even to authorities or Parliament. We discussed the Dando case for a few days and that's a great example of police never having to explain themselves. The Daniel Morgan investigations are further examples.
-
No I don't though I do believe a priority should be placed on investigating crimes involving children over, for example burglary. Now, how much should we spend per missing child in your view? Pleasse note I have answered all your questions and you keep on avoiding this one.
No you haven't answered all my questions.
Now how much have the Portuguese spent on this case ?
and more pertinently, how long should this waste of money continue with no results ?
-
No you haven't answered all my questions.
Now how much have the Portuguese spent on this case ?
and more pertinently, how long should this waste of money continue with no results ?
1) I don't know how much the Portuguese have spent so I am unable to answer that, very sorry.
2) I don't think it is a waste of money and I think it should continue until all avenues have been thoroughly investigated and a resolution (or a dead end) reached.
3) Have I answered all your questions now?
4) How much should be spent on missing children investigations - can you please answer my question Stephen?
-
What has how much The Portuguese spent got to do with what DCI Redwood achieved?
-
I've no right to know anything. I don't mean that - I mean our police aren't transparent even to authorities or Parliament. We discussed the Dando case for a few days and that's a great example of police never having to explain themselves. The Daniel Morgan investigations are further examples.
That's not strictly true is it? What about the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? That led to big cultural changes within the police force throughout the country, ref: McPherson Report.
-
1) I don't know how much the Portuguese have spent so I am unable to answer that, very sorry.
2) I don't think it is a waste of money and I think it should continue until all avenues have been thoroughly investigated and a resolution (or a dead end) reached.
3) Have I answered all your questions now?
4) How much should be spent on missing children investigations - can you please answer my question Stephen?
It has reached a dead end.
The trail is cold.
Nothing has been found.
Now if you are prepared to spend £10,000,000 plus on all missing children/people, it would bankrupt the economy.
Don't you agree ?
and this case is going nowhere.
Time to pull the plug Alfred, isn't it ?
Or are you prepared for lack of funds that some crimes do't get investigated, which is precisely the case right now ?
-
That's not strictly true is it? What about the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry? That led to big cultural changes within the police force throughout the country, ref: McPherson Report.
Very much a lone example there Alfred, in a particularly controversial and high-profile case. It only happened after years of lobbying, including by national newspapers.
Subsequently in other cases things are just as murky as ever, with the Metropolitan police just as reluctant to cooperate.
-
One has to wonder why Ms Wall took this on - does she think she can do better?
Is she on a snake or a ladder?
-
It has reached a dead end.
According to you, but I don't accept that you know for certain what is going on with Op Grange
The trail is cold.
As above
Nothing has been found.
As above
Now if you are prepared to spend £10,000,000 plus on all missing children/people, it would bankrupt the economy.
How much would you be prepared to spend per missing person then? Please tell us what figure would be acceptable to you, one that won'tbankrupt the economy - this isn't the first time I've asked you btw.
Don't you agree ?
No I don't agree with you, on any of the above points.
and this case is going nowhere.
That is your opinion.
Time to pull the plug Alfred, isn't it ?
I don't know Stephen, I don't know what stage Op Grange are at, and if they have more leads that need following up.
Or are you prepared for lack of funds that some crimes do't get investigated, which is precisely the case right now ?
Is there evidence that the Madeleine McCann investigation is directly preventing other crimes from being properly investigated? If so, let's look at the evidence for this here.
-
Very much a lone example there Alfred, in a particularly controversial and high-profile case. It only happened after years of lobbying, including by national newspapers.
Subsequently in other cases things are just as murky as ever, with the Metropolitan police just as reluctant to cooperate.
Then there was Plebgate. The police didn't come out of that too well IIRC. There was the De Menezes shooting which could have been covered up but wasn't. I don't think the Met (or any police force) are angels but I think there is some transparency, maybe not as much as there could be, but certainly not as bad as some police forces worldwide.
-
It has reached a dead end.
The trail is cold.
Nothing has been found.
Now if you are prepared to spend £10,000,000 plus on all missing children/people, it would bankrupt the economy.
Don't you agree ?
and this case is going nowhere.
Time to pull the plug Alfred, isn't it ?
Or are you prepared for lack of funds that some crimes do't get investigated, which is precisely the case right now ?
Missing Children.......not teenage runaways and parental disputes....apart from these the number of missing children is tiny...probably less than one per year...
compared to other wasted govt money...Assange.....Afghanistan...Iraq....asylum seeker legal fees...this 10 mill is a drop in the ocean...
-
According to you, but I don't accept that you know for certain what is going on with Op Grange
As above
As above
How much would you be prepared to spend per missing person then? Please tell us what figure would be acceptable to you, one that won'tbankrupt the economy - this isn't the first time I've asked you btw.
No I don't agree with you, on any of the above points.
That is your opinion.
I don't know Stephen, I don't know what stage Op Grange are at, and if they have more leads that need following up.
Is there evidence that the Madeleine McCann investigation is directly preventing other crimes from being properly investigated? If so, let's look at the evidence for this here.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of the points , bar one.
We've been through the rest before and we are never going to agree.
The fact remains, police forces are cutting their numbers.
They do not have the resources to investigate all crimes. FACT.
They give priority to those they think they might solve.
Reports are made on others, with an incident number.
Now, if you don't believe me, ask the Police .
I HAVE.
and lastly, this is not the only circumstance where public money is wasted.
There are numerous other examples.
-
Then there was Plebgate. The police didn't come out of that too well IIRC. There was the De Menezes shooting which could have been covered up but wasn't. I don't think the Met (or any police force) are angels but I think there is some transparency, maybe not as much as there could be, but certainly not as bad as some police forces worldwide.
Jan 2015:
Met police hindered inquiry into private eye’s death, says victim’s brother
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/05/metropolitan-police-daniel-morgan-murder-inquiry-obstruct-claims (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/05/metropolitan-police-daniel-morgan-murder-inquiry-obstruct-claims)
Labour MP Tom Watson said: “It is extraordinary that a case involving police corruption has taken nearly two years to yield even a single document. Even for the Met it is a remarkable state of affairs. They are clearly refusing to cooperate with an inquiry that is in the public interest and has the authority of the home secretary.”
-
I'm not going to bother with the rest of the points , bar one.
We've been through the rest before and we are never going to agree.
The fact remains, police forces are cutting their numbers.
They do not have the resources to investigate all crimes. FACT.
They give priority to those they think they might solve.
Reports are made on others, with an incident number.
Now, if you don't believe me, ask the Police .
I HAVE.
and lastly, this is not the only circumstance where public money is wasted.
There are numerous other examples.
Imagine your child vanishes off the face of the earth. How much time, money and resources would you expect the police to devote to finding your missing child? Let's say a million pounds. That might fund a search for a couple of weeks. Say the police had uncovered some substantial leads but the million pounds had all been spent. Then what? Substitute one million with ten million, or any amount of your choosing. Can you answer this question Stephen? No you can't. Why not? Because in your heart you know this is not about money.
-
As I understand this 10 mill has not come out of the police budget but is extra funding
-
Imagine your child vanishes off the face of the earth. How much time, money and resources would you expect the police to devote to finding your missing child? Let's say a million pounds. That might fund a search for a couple of weeks. Say the police had uncovered some substantial leads but the million pounds had all been spent. Then what? Substitute one million with ten million, or any amount of your choosing. Can you answer this question Stephen? No you can't. Why not? Because in your heart you know this is not about money.
You do not know what happened to Madeleine, DO YOU.
Why don't you accept the mccanns abdicated their responsibility in taking care of their children ?
Not Amaral, not the PJ, just the mccanns.
AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE.
and are you prepared to spend £10,000,000 on every missing person/child in this country ?
-
You do not know what happened to Madeleine, DO YOU.
Why don't you accept the mccanns abdicated their responsibility in taking care of their children ?
Not Amaral, not the PJ, just the mccanns.
AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE.
and are you prepared to spend £10,000,000 on every missing person/child in this country ?
@)(++(* As I said, you can't answer my question about how much is the right amount to spend on looking for your missing child. I would be prepared for the police to spend whatever it took to find your child Stephen, I wouldn't mind a bit, and if anyone came along and said "it's Stephen's fault that Arthur / Martha is missing and too much money has been spent looking for him / her" I would disagree with them too. BTW, I don't think it's necessary to spend £10m to try and find every missing person, but I do think there are some missing people who have been sadly neglected by the authorities - but that's not the McCanns' fault.
-
As I understand this 10 mill has not come out of the police budget but is extra funding
You are quite right. I did post that earlier but the post seems to have suffered at the hands of the aberrant eraser.
Probably because of its irreverence.
-
How much money Scotland Yard are spending is entirely irrelevant. This was a British child who disappeared in a foreign country, the investigation of which was handled very badly.
DCI Redwood and Team then found a number of leads that had not been adequately investigated. This motivated The PJ to reopen The Investigation at their end. Or are we contesting these facts?
May it never be said that the disappearance of a British child on foreign soil should ever be ignored.
And if we really want to talk about money, how much do you think it costs to pursue any investigation? What exactly does any of these investigations achieve?
For me it is simple enough. No matter who is responsible for the disappearance of that child then it has to be followed.
Or will it only be worth it if The McCanns are responsible?
-
How much money Scotland Yard are spending is entirely irrelevant. This was a British child who disappeared in a foreign country, the investigation of which was handled very badly.
DCI Redwood and Team then found a number of leads that had not been adequately investigated. This motivated The PJ to reopen The Investigation at their end. Or are we contesting these facts?
May it never be said that the disappearance of a British child on foreign soil should ever be ignored.
And if we really want to talk about money, how much do you think it costs to pursue any investigation? What exactly does any of these investigations achieve?
For me it is simple enough. No matter who is responsible for the disappearance of that child then it has to be followed.
Or will it only be worth it if The McCanns are responsible?
If the "Sceptics" really believed the Met were chasing the McCanns then I suspect money would be no object at all. But, those complaining of the money being spent have obviously at least cottoned on to the fact that the Met aren't chasing the McCanns at all hence their faux-distress at the amount of"taxpayers money" being spent. The "poor taxpayer" has taken the place of the little kiddies and old age pensioners that the "sceptics" used to be so concerned about, you know the ones that McCanns forced into parting with their pocket money and pensions for the Fund.
-
If the "Sceptics" really believed the Met were chasing the McCanns then I suspect money would be no object at all. But, those complaining of the money being spent have obviously at least cottoned on to the fact that the Met aren't chasing the McCanns at all hence their faux-distress at the amount of"taxpayers money" being spent. The "poor taxpayer" has taken the place of the little kiddies and old age pensioners that the "sceptics" used to be so concerned about, you know the ones that McCanns forced into parting with their pocket money and pensions for the Fund.
Oh, come on, Love. The Sceptics would be over the moon and cheering on Scotland Yard if they thought that Scotland Yard were after The Mccanns. Chuck in another 10 Million Pounds. Who would care about that then?
-
How much money Scotland Yard are spending is entirely irrelevant. This was a British child who disappeared in a foreign country, the investigation of which was handled very badly.
DCI Redwood and Team then found a number of leads that had not been adequately investigated. This motivated The PJ to reopen The Investigation at their end. Or are we contesting these facts?
May it never be said that the disappearance of a British child on foreign soil should ever be ignored.
And if we really want to talk about money, how much do you think it costs to pursue any investigation? What exactly does any of these investigations achieve?
For me it is simple enough. No matter who is responsible for the disappearance of that child then it has to be followed.
Or will it only be worth it if The McCanns are responsible?
So Eleanor, if you were in control of the treasury purse strings, would you sanction £10,000,00 on every missing person in the UK ?
-
So Eleanor, if you were in control of the treasurey purse strings, would you sanction £10,000,00 on every missing person in the UK ?
Most Missing Child Cases in The UK are adequately investigated, and mostly brought to some sort of conclusion. They are not dealt with by a bunch of corrupt cowboys.
So your question is spurious as usual.
Oh, sorry. Yes I would sanction 10,000,000 Pounds if I thought it was necessary. But then I would, wouldn't I.
-
Most Missing Child Cases in The UK are adequately investigated, and mostly brought to some sort of conclusion. They are not dealt with by a bunch of corrupt cowboys.
So your question is spurious as usual.
Oh, sorry. Yes I would sanction 10,000,000 Pounds if I thought it was necessary. But then I would, wouldn't I.
The question is 'spurious' merely because you don't like it.
'Most Missing Child Cases in The UK are adequately investigated'
How would you know that ???
So Eleanor, would you care to guess how many missing people there are in the UK ?
and how many of them are deserving of £10,000,000 ???
I was also referring to all missing people in the UK, not just children
-
The question is 'spurious' merely because you don't like it.
'Most Missing Child Cases in The UK are adequately investigated'
How would you know that ???
So Eleanor, would you care to guess how many missing people there are in the UK ?
and how many of them are deserving of £10,000,000 ???
I was also referring to all missing people in the UK, not just children
What has Redwood achieved, Stephen?
-
What has Redwood achieved, Stephen?
As far as I am concerned.
NOTHING.
-
The question is 'spurious' merely because you don't like it.
'Most Missing Child Cases in The UK are adequately investigated'
How would you know that ???
So Eleanor, would you care to guess how many missing people there are in the UK ?
and how many of them are deserving of £10,000,000 ???
I was also referring to all missing people in the UK, not just children
Could you tell us how many stranger abductions there were last year
-
Could you tell us how many stranger abductions there were last year
Please enlighten us Dave with the evidence of abduction in this case Dave.
and Dave, I was referring to missing people.
-
Please enlighten us Dave with the evidence of abduction in this case Dave.
and Dave, I was referring to missing people.
Do you have such a poor memory...I started a thread on it and discussed at length
-
Okay. Stop now. Back On Topic.
-
It's been a bad week for those with involvement in both Operations Grange and Oxborough, Mark Williams-Thomas has been exposing both Hamish Campbell and Alison Saunders (current DPP, who prosecuted Barry George) in the Mirror.
Jill Dando secret files revealed: Murder defence team never saw key profiles
Top lawyer calls for inquiry
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428)
It's never too late for justice.
-
It's been a bad week for those with involvement in both Operations Grange and Oxborough, Mark Williams-Thomas has been exposing both Hamish Campbell and Alison Saunders (current DPP, who prosecuted Barry George) in the Mirror.
Jill Dando secret files revealed: Murder defence team never saw key profiles
Top lawyer calls for inquiry
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428)
It's never too late for justice.
Funny you should say that as it is also the sentiment expressed regarding a cold case murder which took place ten years ago
**
One police insider said: "Whoever committed this horrendous killing - and kept it a secret for 10 years - must remember there is no expiry date on justice."
That "there is no expiry date on Justice" is something worth remembering when discussing Madeleine McCann.
Also worth bearing in mind is the following from the same article as it applies to this case, cases in general, but in particular Madeleine McCann's case.
**
"There is a risk of prejudicing fresh prosecutions by commenting further on individual cases or providing details on how a particular case is being dealt with.
"It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this time."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/cold-case-hopes-of-solving-mystery-of-emma-caldwells-death.122087774
-
It's been a bad week for those with involvement in both Operations Grange and Oxborough, Mark Williams-Thomas has been exposing both Hamish Campbell and Alison Saunders (current DPP, who prosecuted Barry George) in the Mirror.
Jill Dando secret files revealed: Murder defence team never saw key profiles
Top lawyer calls for inquiry
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dando-secret-files-revealed-5437428)
It's never too late for justice.
Never to late for justice in the UK fortunately....Montclair told us that he has never heard of a successful challenge resulting in a miscarriage of justice in Portugal...what does that tell us. In the Uk however people are free to challenge and may be successful...there are a further two points....
Barry George has not been declared innocent ...in his appeal although the judge quashed the verdict because of disputed forensic he stated that even without this George may still have been found guilty. George has already served a prison sentence for a sex crime.
Secondly...every professional makes mistakes. if a mistake WAS made here it would be grossly unfair to use this against an individual without looking at all the cases the individual has been involved in
-
Never to late for justice in the UK fortunately....Montclair told us that he has never heard of a successful challenge resulting in a miscarriage of justice in Portugal...what does that tell us. In the Uk however people are free to challenge and may be successful...there are a further two points....
Barry George has not been declared innocent ...in his appeal although the judge quashed the verdict because of disputed forensic he stated that even without this George may still have been found guilty. George has already served a prison sentence for a sex crime.
Secondly...every professional makes mistakes. if a mistake WAS made here it would be grossly unfair to use this against an individual without looking at all the cases the individual has been involved in
Problem is a whole series of 'mistakes' were made in George's prosecution.
Definitely wasn't English justice's finest hour.
And "declared innocent" or not Barry would have got his compensation but for the Labour government changing the law.
Prior convictions were not admissible at the time of this first trial. But the government also changed that law in time for the second trial.
Do you support those changes?
-
Problem is a whole series of 'mistakes' were made in George's prosecution.
Definitely wasn't English justice's finest hour.
And "declared innocent" or not Barry would have got his compensation but for the Labour government changing the law.
Prior convictions were not admissible at the time of this first trial. But the government also changed that law in time for the second trial.
Do you support those changes?
As far as I am concerned Uk justice is one of the fairest in the world...what do you think of montclairs admission that there are NO miscarriages of justice in portugal
-
As far as I am concerned Uk justice is one of the fairest in the world...what do you think of montclairs admission that there are NO miscarriages of justice in portugal
What was the context of that statement? I didn't see the discussion.
UK justice will be a lot fairer when Barry gets his compo (which he will eventually).
-
There are no miscarriages of justice in Portugal according to Montclair..no context that's it....I'm sure Montclair will confirm
-
There are no miscarriages of justice in Portugal according to Montclair..no context that's it....I'm sure Montclair will confirm
Hmm there must have been context. But I must admit I'm no expert on Portugal's justice system.
Ours is far from perfect, davel. There may be a procedure in cases where wrongful conviction is claimed, but it takes way too long. Plus in Barry's case it wasn't only that two appeals were needed (two are needed in most cases I believe) but they even tried to convict him again after the second was successful (and kept him in prison for another 8 1/2 months). These are areas where our system goes badly wrong.
-
Hmm there must have been context. But I must admit I'm no expert on Portugal's justice system.
Ours is far from perfect, davel. There may be a procedure in cases where wrongful conviction is claimed, but it takes way too long. Plus in Barry's case it wasn't only that two appeals were needed (two are needed in most cases I believe) but they even tried to convict him again after the second was successful (and kept him in prison for another 8 1/2 months). These are areas where our system goes badly wrong.
simple question to Montclair..are there any miscarriages of justice in Portugal...answer no...that was the context.. I couldn't believe it either...
George may be innocent...but again do not portray him as some innocent..he has a history of sexual assault against women and has served a prison sentence
-
simple question to Montclair..are there any miscarriages of justice in Portugal...answer no...that was the context.. I couldn't believe it either...
George may be innocent...but again do not portray him as some innocent..he has a history of sexual assault against women and has served a prison sentence
Alison Saunders definitely wants you on her juries. Prior convictions were previously excluded for a reason.
Anyway check out tomorrow's Mirror. Williams-Thomas is going to tell us who was really guilty.
(... maybe)
-
Bang on time ?>)()<
Jill Dando's murderer revealed: Crime Watch kill was ordered by Mr Big
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440)
&%+((£ Reading...
-
Please could we not wander OFF TOPIC.
-
Bang on time ?>)()<
Jill Dando's murderer revealed: Crime Watch kill was ordered by Mr Big
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440)
&%+((£ Reading...
so if it's in the Mirror..it must be true...how gullible you are
-
Bang on time ?>)()<
Jill Dando's murderer revealed: Crime Watch kill was ordered by Mr Big
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jill-dandos-murderer-revealed-crime-5443440)
&%+((£ Reading...
What are MWT's thoughts regarding the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's disappearance?
-
What are MWT's thoughts regarding the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's disappearance?
A few years back he was in the 'woke and wandered' camp now no idea.
-
so if it's in the Mirror..it must be true...how gullible you are
Nah, but it's cool that someone has taken the trouble to look at the case again.
-
A few years back he was in the 'woke and wandered' camp now no idea.
I asked for his thoughts on the McCanns' likely involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
-
What has Redwood achieved in the McCann case ?
Fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" and said Smithman was a person of interest who needed to be identified.
Looked through lots of files and had the Portuguese interview a few folk none of whom has been arrested on any charge to do with the case.
-
Nah, but it's cool that someone has taken the trouble to look at the case again.
He's pushing for the Dando case to be re-opened, that would obviously mean squeezing the poor taxpayer for more cash - I trust no self-respecting "sceptic" who complains about the cost of Op Grange will be in favour of yet more cash been thrown at trying to find out what happened to Jill, and possibly finally exonerating George.
-
He's pushing for the Dando case to be re-opened, that would obviously mean squeezing the poor taxpayer for more cash - I trust no self-respecting "sceptic" who complains about the cost of Op Grange will be in favour of yet more cash been thrown at trying to find out what happened to Jill, and possibly finally exonerating George.
I think the police federation chap's comments were perhaps not so much motivated by wishing to end it completely, but from wondering what it is those detectives can be doing while they're waiting for international legal formalities to be completed. I can understand anyone who wonders about that, and that would include me. The federation representative I think only meant that it's difficult to see why all those detectives are exclusive to just one investigation. I don't think I ever said it should be ended myself, but people who do perhaps wouldn't if they felt all of the possibilities had been or were being looked at.
Barry doesn't need exoneration to get his compensation. He just needs the politicians to stop interfering.
-
This Thread is not about Barry George.
-
What has Redwood achieved in the McCann case ?
Fragged "Tannerman The Abductor" and said Smithman was a person of interest who needed to be identified.
Looked through lots of files and had the Portuguese interview a few folk none of whom has been arrested on any charge to do with the case.
I think his greatest achievement was escaping from it lol. Talk about a poisoned chalice!
-
I think his greatest achievement was escaping from it lol. Talk about a poisoned chalice!
Indeed.
Did he think he could solve it when he took the case on, or did he see it as a cosy run-up to retirement, I wonder.
Whichever, he came out of it with his pension intact and a reasonable retirement to look forward to.
-
Indeed.
Did he think he could solve it when he took the case on, or did he see it as a cosy run-up to retirement, I wonder.
Whichever, he came out of it with his pension intact and a reasonable retirement to look forward to.
If Op Grange is stopped, he could maybe get a nice little job looking for Madeleine; there's a spare million to get through apparently.
-
If Op Grange is stopped, he could maybe get a nice little job looking for Madeleine; there's a spare million to get through apparently.
IMO if the present investigation does not find out what happened to Madeleine McCann a 'spare million' as you so succinctly put it isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I get the distinct impression that is exactly how some people would prefer it ... particularly those who had involvement.
-
IMO if the present investigation does not find out what happened to Madeleine McCann a 'spare million' as you so succinctly put it isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
I get the distinct impression that is exactly how some people would prefer it ... particularly those who had involvement.
Ah yes, and who are they? Sadie's untouchables? Redwood's burglars? Will we ever know?
-
I think his greatest achievement was escaping from it lol. Talk about a poisoned chalice!
Hahahahaha. this made me laugh out loud G!
Unlike them bad ,evil, nasty, and probably known to have a poor dress sense, SCEPTICS, I do believe Redwoodd did achieve a lot. In all that investigating, reviewing (proper term) let's face it it was a mamouth task,
He never took the opertunity to state that catagorically, without a doubt, after looking at all the evidence 'including sadie's) the McCanns and Tapas are absolved of any crime. Totally and completely innocent in Maddies disappearance.
I do also believe they 'know' who did what, but cannot find enough physical evidence to charge anyone.
It was good of those MSM reporters to inform us at the beginning that arrests were imminent...
DCI Wall is very quiet...
-
This Thread isn't going Off Topic either.
What has Redwood achieved in The McCann Case?
-
This Thread isn't going Off Topic either.
What has Redwood achieved in The McCann Case?
Sorry Elle... He achieved a bigger waist line, a pension and a better knowledge about the dissappearance of little Maddie.
apologies for typos and spellos.
-
Sorry Elle... He achieved a bigger waist line, a pension and a better knowledge about the dissappearance of little Maddie.
apologies for typos and spellos.
Well done, Miss Taken. And thank you. You could be right.
Personally, I think he achieved a better understanding of missed opportunities.
-
... I do believe Redwood did achieve a lot. In all that investigating, reviewing (proper term) let's face it it was a mamouth task,
He never took the opertunity to state that catagorically, without a doubt, after looking at all the evidence 'including sadie's) the McCanns and Tapas are absolved of any crime. Totally and completely innocent in Maddies disappearance.
I do also believe they 'know' who did what, but cannot find enough physical evidence to charge anyone.
...
I'd be interested to know why you think they know who did it? Forgetting the mid 2014 dig in Luz, which may no longer be relevant, what do we know Mr Redwood actually did?
Interviewed (allegedly) 4 arguidos (now allegedly 3 arguidos), plus 7 witnesses including the pig farmer and John and Donna Hill. That looks to me like a general trawl through a wide range of mainly unconnected persons of interest.
Since Tannerman was going in the wrong direction, I am not convinced by the 'solution' proposed by SY there either.
-
I'd be interested to know why you think they know who did it? Forgetting the mid 2014 dig in Luz, which may no longer be relevant, what do we know Mr Redwood actually did?
Interviewed (allegedly) 4 arguidos (now allegedly 3 arguidos), plus 7 witnesses including the pig farmer and John and Donna Hill. That looks to me like a general trawl through a wide range of mainly unconnected persons of interest.
Since Tannerman was going in the wrong direction, I am not convinced by the 'solution' proposed by SY there either.
And Tannerman's child's pyjamas (which he still had six years later) looked nothing like those described by Jane Tanner. Poor Jane. 8(8-))
-
And Tannerman's child's pyjamas (which he still had six years later) looked nothing like those described by Jane Tanner. Poor Jane. 8(8-))
Yes, very odd that. Who keeps kids old pyjamas 6 years? I wouldn't keep them 6 months, once grown out of. Would anyone?
-
Yes, very odd that. Who keeps kids old pyjamas 6 years? I wouldn't keep them 6 months, once grown out of. Would anyone?
Would you even remember what they wore that night anyway? That story stinks IMO.
-
And Tannerman's child's pyjamas (which he still had six years later) looked nothing like those described by Jane Tanner. Poor Jane. 8(8-))
Are you sure?
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2339995.ece/alternates/s615b/Missing-Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Pink blanket and bottoms match except for the turn ups but Jane mentions those turn-ups in her rog.
"I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up."
You can see the turn-ups. "turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour."
(http://i.imgur.com/iXQBvGG.jpg?1)
-
Would you even remember what they wore that night anyway? That story stinks IMO.
SY must know what they are doing. They are, after all, the police force par excellence.
-
SY must know what they are doing. They are, after all, the police force par excellence.
Oh yes, I forgot that &%&£(+
-
Ah yes, and who are they? Sadie's untouchables? Redwood's burglars? Will we ever know?
Hopefully SY and the PJ may be able to gather enough evidence to lay charges ... I think that is normal procedure for police investigations.
-
SY must know what they are doing. They are, after all, the police force par excellence.
SY is the force that dug up the mound in Luz in mid-2014. It is probable that one Godfrey Barrington Norton was parked on the mound that night. Norton looks nothing like the Smithman efits or the description in the Smith statements. However, when reviewing GBN as a potential abductor, I concluded that SY was probably unaware that GBN was on the mound and that there was some other reason for it being of interest.
Full details re GBN on my blog. I think the mound was an own-goal by SY, and that is why I wanted to move on to what else occurred in Redwood's time, to attempt to unravel where he got to before he parked his feet up last Xmas.
-
I suppose the answer is that we just don't know.
None of these hundreds of so called leads appear to have come to anything, the mobile traffic seems to have disappeared and the 4 arguidos are no more, if what was posted recently about the time limit having expired.
There might be much activity, we are just not party to it.
-
I suppose the answer is that we just don't know.
None of these hundreds of so called leads appear to have come to anything, the mobile traffic seems to have disappeared and the 4 arguidos are no more, if what was posted recently about the time limit having expired.
There might be much activity, we are just not party to it.
When did the time-limit expire? Did I miss something?
-
SY is the force that dug up the mound in Luz in mid-2014. It is probable that one Godfrey Barrington Norton was parked on the mound that night. Norton looks nothing like the Smithman efits or the description in the Smith statements. However, when reviewing GBN as a potential abductor, I concluded that SY was probably unaware that GBN was on the mound and that there was some other reason for it being of interest.
Full details re GBN on my blog. I think the mound was an own-goal by SY, and that is why I wanted to move on to what else occurred in Redwood's time, to attempt to unravel where he got to before he parked his feet up last Xmas.
Casting my mind back to events at the time ... Stop the McCann Circus graffiti et al on road signs and walls ... I think SY took what they could of the little that was on offer and did it. That included digging on the mound.
Given the furore their arrival at the start of the tourist season caused, I hardly think they will reprise the timing of that venture, which suggests to me they have enough to be getting on with.
Whether that is a result of their digs or whether a result of the interviews we may be told in the fullness of time.
No-one is going to be talking in the middle of an active investigation ~ cold case or not ~ and my impression is that the leak at the Portuguese end has been sealed ~ maybe they are using a cross cut shredder instead of a waste bin these days.
Funnily enough I give the present PJ investigators credit for knowing what they are doing with the evidence available to them. I give the same respect to the SY investigators.
-
When did the time-limit expire? Did I miss something?
Not sure, but there were some posts on here, maybe last week, about the 8 months time period being up.
Perhaps the deadline is close approaching, rather than arrived.
-
Casting my mind back to events at the time ... Stop the McCann Circus graffiti et al on road signs and walls ... I think SY took what they could of the little that was on offer and did it. That included digging on the mound.
.........
The Circus graffiti appeared after SY had gone. The 'parents killed Maddie' graffiti was the last day of the dig. The 'Madeleine poster drenched in paint' at the eastern side of Luz, was, I believe, when Gerry returned to Luz around a year after Madeleine disappeared.
As to what was on offer in Luz. SY has never, to my knowledge, visited the area for a general scout around 5A, around the Smithman sighting area, or, well, to be honest, anything other than when they dug in mid 2014.
Should the residents be pissed off with this? YES! SY is playing armchair detective. Why oh why not visit the crime scene?
The graffiti, whether posted by someone from Luz or otherwise, is a blow underneath the belt. It is a foul, whoever did it. It is great media, while it advances the case not one iota.
Andy's legacy out here is just before the digs started. That is when the UK media was rampant about areas to be dug in Luz. How did they find out about that? And before the residents of Luz knew anything about it?
Then there was the great scene. Andy flying over Luz in a helicopter. A helicopter is where one learns nothing about what the situation is like on the ground. But the cherry on the cake was the Sky News helicopter chasing him. What? How did Sky News learn that Andy was going to be surveying Luz from a helicopter and get their own helicopter up into the air at the same time?
Now I hope that Nicola Wall does better. I am sure that from London she has lots of leads to pursue in the case. Whether she gets her heels on the ground here, or whether she prefers to look like the mid 2014 farce is up to her. But personally, I would love to see a small delegation of SY detectives on the ground here. It would be even better if they engaged with the locals. There are many open opportunities to progress the McCann case here.
Is she smart enough? Or in 3 years are we going to see a new DCI in charge of the case when Nicola retires?
-
The Circus graffiti appeared after SY had gone. The 'parents killed Maddie' graffiti was the last day of the dig. The 'Madeleine poster drenched in paint' at the eastern side of Luz, was, I believe, when Gerry returned to Luz around a year after Madeleine disappeared.
As to what was on offer in Luz. SY has never, to my knowledge, visited the area for a general scout around 5A, around the Smithman sighting area, or, well, to be honest, anything other than when they dug in mid 2014.
Should the residents be pissed off with this? YES! SY is playing armchair detective. Why oh why not visit the crime scene?
The graffiti, whether posted by someone from Luz or otherwise, is a blow underneath the belt. It is a foul, whoever did it. It is great media, while it advances the case not one iota.
Andy's legacy out here is just before the digs started. That is when the UK media was rampant about areas to be dug in Luz. How did they find out about that? And before the residents of Luz knew anything about it?
Then there was the great scene. Andy flying over Luz in a helicopter. A helicopter is where one learns nothing about what the situation is like on the ground. But the cherry on the cake was the Sky News helicopter chasing him. What? How did Sky News learn that Andy was going to be surveying Luz from a helicopter and get their own helicopter up into the air at the same time?
Now I hope that Nicola Wall does better. I am sure that from London she has lots of leads to pursue in the case. Whether she gets her heels on the ground here, or whether she prefers to look like the mid 2014 farce is up to her. But personally, I would love to see a small delegation of SY detectives on the ground here. It would be even better if they engaged with the locals. There are many open opportunities to progress the McCann case here.
Is she smart enough? Or in 3 years are we going to see a new DCI in charge of the case when Nicola retires?
But, but, she can't retire - she is the bestest detective ever, guaranteed never to fail. Vogue said so, or something of that ilk ?{)(**
-
Are you sure?
(http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2339995.ece/alternates/s615b/Missing-Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Pink blanket and bottoms match except for the turn ups but Jane mentions those turn-ups in her rog.
"I could really think was, erm, a turn-up of some description. And I don’t know whether this made it into my statement, but there was, and this is the thing that convinces me it was her, there was, erm, sort of the pyjamas were, there was some sort of, I thought it was a turn-up."
You can see the turn-ups. "turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour."
(http://i.imgur.com/iXQBvGG.jpg?1)
Strange how the pink on white pyjamas in the larger photo suddenly change to pink on blue in the lower photo.
Suddenly, Voila, they match Crechmans long saved pyjamas.
Magick
-
Strange how the pink on white pyjamas in the larger photo suddenly change to pink on blue in the lower photo.
Suddenly, Voila, they match Crechmans long saved pyjamas.
Magick
Indeed. Tanner suggested although she didn't see the child's face she believed it was a girl because of the pink pyjamas. So what are we to think when they turn out to be blue ?
-
Indeed. Tanner suggested although she didn't see the child's face she believed it was a girl because of the pink pyjamas. So what are we to think when they turn out to be blue ?
Pink on white, not pink on blue. + frills, not horrid orange turn ups.
I think there is plenty of hope for Tannerman still being in the equation
-
Pink on white, not pink on blue. + frills, not horrid orange turn ups.
I think there is plenty of hope for Tannerman still being in the equation
Are SY wrongs then sadie to eliminate him and couldn't that also be true of the McCanns ?
-
Pink on white, not pink on blue. + frills, not horrid orange turn ups.
I think there is plenty of hope for Tannerman still being in the equation
She couldn't remember the colour of the turn ups but it was different to the rest just like in the photo.
4078 “And when you noticed the detail was it in any colour?”
Reply “I don’t, I didn’t know, I thought there was sort of a pink flowery bit on, bit on it, but, no, I mean, the actual frill itself or turn-up, as I thought it was, I couldn’t think of the colour, but I thought there was pink sort of flowery and sort of like liney bits on the bottom, so”.
4078 “And, overall, what colour would you say the pyjama bottoms were?”
Reply “Erm, I can’t, I can’t remember, I mean, I, I can’t remember, well I can’t remember now, but I think they were sort of whitey but with this, with this pattern on, but then some pink. That’s, that’s what I thought at the time. It’s harder because now I know what the pyjamas were so I can’t”.
(http://i.imgur.com/iXQBvGG.jpg?1)
(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. (4 May 2007)
-
Are SY wrongs then sadie to eliminate him and couldn't that also be true of the McCanns ?
SY dont have to tell us why.
The Mccanns are as innocent as the driven snow. Soz Faith but you have got it wrong about Kate and Gerry.
-
SY dont have to tell us why.
The Mccanns are as innocent as the driven snow. Soz Faith but you have got it wrong about Kate and Gerry.
Now that sadie is a classic.
Unbelievable, but reflects your awareness of the real world.
-
SY dont have to tell us why.
The Mccanns are as innocent as the driven snow. Soz Faith but you have got it wrong about Kate and Gerry.
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
-
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
That was not a general statement it was said in the context of the McCann's request for information.
They were still arguidos then - so even if the asst. chief constable was sure they were innocent - he would not have said or done anything to disrespect the PJ's decision to make them arguidos. It would have caused a diplomatic incident IMO.
However, I do think the McCanns were naieve to expect the release of information to them while they were still Arguidos. IMO It was obvious the PJ would object and the Leic. police would have to respect their views - as the PJ did have primacy of the case.
IMO the statement was given with the Arguido status in mind.
-
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Does anyone know how this officer's career has progressed since that unhelpful statement ?
-
Now that sadie is a classic.
Unbelievable, but reflects your awareness of the real world.
Please attack the post if you disagree with the content. Please do not attack the poster.
-
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Funny thing is the opinion of Portugal's Attorney General never really gets discussed much; perhaps that's because it was unequivocal.
-
Funny thing is the opinion of Portugal's Attorney General never really gets discussed much; perhaps that's because it was unequivocal.
In what context was it said? Does it form part of the official documentation?
Put it up for us in full then we can have a learned discussion. It might make a change.
-
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
I assume that quote from Kate's book would be acceptable as a signature. 8)--))
-
I assume that quote from Kate's book would be acceptable as a signature. 8)--))
Only if the poster wished to illustrate ignorance of current events.
-
When someone disappears the last people to see them are automatically suspected and have to be eliminated. The McCanns have not been eliminated. They may be innocent.
The assistant chief constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: (in Kate’s words...page 316 of her book): “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
If you remember, they were still arguidos at that point.
-
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8880893.ece/alternates/w460/mccann-efitv4.jpg)(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/08/07/va1237514794430/Kidnapped-four-year-old-Madeleine-McCann-is-seen-in-6185107.jpg)
DCI Andy Redwood said the sighting was crucial. ‘This could be the man that took Madeleine.’
"He did not hold the child in a comfortable position." (Martin Smith)
"The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run." (Aoife Smith)
"She had blonde hair, of medium shade, not very light. Her skin was white, typically British. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep, having closed eyelids." (Peter Smith)
"She was sleeping deeply." (Peter Smth)
"Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep." (Martin Smith)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ReFw2Rrh4ag/T_B-CmRYTJI/AAAAAAAABx8/vRt8HKV9C4Y/s300/keelaandeddie.jpg)
Eddie and Keela, found the body of pensioner Attracta Harron in a shallow grave and found her blood in a burnt out car, five months after her murder.
-
If you remember, they were still arguidos at that point.
I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.
-
I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.
It makes sense that if that once the mccanns are eliminated the only option is abduction
-
Are SY wrongs then sadie to eliminate him and couldn't that also be true of the McCanns ?
SY have not totally eliminated Tannerman..if you listen carefully to what Redwood said
-
I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.
This investigation is the Disappearance of MM not the Abduction. They have to eliminate all abduction possibilities first before arriving at the truth. Once you eliminate all other possibilities you are left with one. They won't make the same mistakes as last time by jumping the gun.
They need to ID Smithman that's why he was the focus of the CW programme. He took Maddy and he knows where!
-
[quote removed]
And shall we add the decision of the appeal court judges who overturned the banning of Amaral's book :
"
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."
-
SY have not totally eliminated Tannerman..if you listen carefully to what Redwood said
That's true which only goes to show that this chappie who came forward cannot fit with the scene as snugly as some believe. Redwood never did explain why he was going in the wrong direction for someone who was supposed to have been returning from the night crèche and as for carrying a scantily clad child on a cold May evening...that's another piece which just doesn't fit too well.
-
Please do not introduce comments into this thread referring to the Brenda Leyland case.
-
That's true which only goes to show that this chappie who came forward cannot fit with the scene as snugly as some believe. Redwood never did explain why he was going in the wrong direction for someone who was supposed to have been returning from the night crèche and as for carrying a scantily clad child on a cold May evening...that's another piece which just doesn't fit too well.
You have to wonder why Redwood eliminated him when so little fits.
-
You have to wonder why Redwood eliminated him when so little fits.
Because they suspect who did it but need to prove it.
-
Because they know who did it but need to prove it.
Suspect would be a better word
-
Suspect would be a better word
Correct thanks 8((()*/
-
Because they suspect who did it but need to prove it.
Give that man a coconut !
-
I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.
You are cherry picking again; Colin Sutton has promoted many opinions on many occasions in a sort of pick and mix fashion. You seem to have picked the flavour that suits you best 😁
-
You are cherry picking again; Colin Sutton has promoted many opinions on many occasions in a sort of pick and mix fashion. You seem to have picked the flavour that suits you best 😁
When I wrote my post above, Colin Sutton's opinions had not yet been expressed.
-
When I wrote my post above, Colin Sutton's opinions had not yet been expressed.
T'wouldn't have made one whit of difference though would it 😁 - since despite knowledge of the quixotic meanderings of the retired detective's literary history you posted today ~ "Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out."
Textusa did the homework - so we didn't have to, but your very entrenched opinions are not subject to alteration particularly if one mentions the "CW" word "coconut shell" 😖
-
T'wouldn't have made one whit of difference though would it 😁 - since despite knowledge of the quixotic meanderings of the retired detective's literary history you posted today ~ "Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out."
Textusa did the homework - so we didn't have to, but your very entrenched opinions are not subject to alteration particularly if one mentions the "CW" word "coconut shell" 😖
I don't fully understand what your post is trying to establish.
I mentioned my opinion that Operation Grange's investigation was set up purely to investigate stranger abduction, as demonstrated by their remit.
You suggested that the source of my opinion was Colin Sutton.
I pointed out that it wasn't, I held that opinion before Sutton spoke about the case.
Do you dispute that?