Why would this man speak to the family and to the press but not to the police? Did he give a false name, did the family and the press get his name wrong, or was George Burke a different person than George Brooks.Was Amy George's daughter? So she could be Amy Burke or Amy Brooks or Amy Burke Brooks. I wonder if she is still in PdL.
Michael Wright said he bought a large quantity of pizzas in Praia da Luz on Sunday 6th May and spoke to 'George's' daughter who told him what her father had seen.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm
It seems the meals provided by Mark Warner weren't enough;
That every day around 13H00, he heads to no. 4-G (where the family of the missing child is staying) and to no. 4-1 (where 10 people are lodged) to deliver lunch. He repeats this routine at 20H00 to take them dinner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIAGO_BARREIROS.htm
I can't quite work out why the PJ went to Lagos Marina in December 2007 looking for a Pizza Hut, but they did and came away with a photocopy of George Brook's passport.
It was only in April 2008 that they went to the right location; Pizza Real, Rua da Praia, Luz. The manager contacted 'Amy' who had spoken to Wright. Then her mother rang them back, then her father George. This is what he said;
Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm
There's no record of 'George' contacting the PJ in May 2007, so no record of anyone declaring that the sighting 'would not be of interest to the investigation'.
I think the George who contacted the PJ in 2008 was George Burke. George Brooks was not involved in this except by mistake.
There is no doubt according to the dates that the sighting was in the files at the beginning of May 2007.
There is no doubt that it was not followed until the Rebelo investigation made the attempt to do so in December of that year.
No wonder the whole issue is mired in confusion.
Obviously a low priority.IMO:
Have OG got anywhere with it, or have they too given it a low priority ?
Obviously a low priority.
Have OG got anywhere with it, or have they too given it a low priority ?
Was Amy George's daughter? So she could be Amy Burke or Amy Brooks or Amy Burke Brooks. I wonder if she is still in PdL.Not personally as I don't know anyone called Amy.
@SiL do you know this person?
Next report: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496909/I-saw-Madeleine-dragged-marina-says-new-witness.htmlLet's not forget that there is a railway station at that Lagos Port too.
Quote: "'I saw Madeleine being dragged towards the marina,' says new witness
Last updated at 10:11 28 November 2007
A British businessman has come forward and claimed that he saw Madeleine McCann only eight hours after she went missing as she was dragged towards a Portuguese port by a "suspicious-looking" man and woman.
The British expat, George Burke said he saw a girl who looked "remarkably like Madeleine" being dragged along a road leading to Lagos marina at 6am on May 4th.
Although Burke reported the sighting to Portuguese police at the time, it has taken until now for his account to be taken seriously, according to the McCanns' private detectives, Metodo 3.
Scroll down for more...
Madeleine
Mr Burke, who is originally from Liverpool but now lives in Portugal, said he saw the suspicious couple as he drove past the marina early on the morning after Madeleine went missing.
He told the Daily Mirror: "It was very, very dark and it was hard to make out exactly what the couple looked like. But through the gloom I could see a very suspicious-looking man and woman, with a child who fitted Madeleine's description.
"Though there was nobody else on the road, they were hurrying across a road that leads straight to the train station and marina."
Scroll down for more...
marina
The McCanns have said in the past that they believe that their daughter was taken by sea, possibly to Morocco or elsewhere in North Africa.
A source said: "The private investigators are now concentrating on Lagos and the marina.
"What Mr Burke saw could be incredibly valuable.
"He was concerned enough to call the police and they eventually followed up on his information.
"Now the investigators want to talk to Mr Burke. There is a strong chance Madeleine was taken by boat from the marina and is still alive somewhere."" End quote.
Not much to go on.
Let's not forget that there is a railway station at that Lagos Port too.Also that a boat was taken out of Lagos marina before the port gate were closed at IIRC 8pm.
There is no doubt according to the dates that the sighting was in the files at the beginning of May 2007.
There is no doubt that it was not followed until the Rebelo investigation made the attempt to do so in December of that year.
No wonder the whole issue is mired in confusion.
The sighting was reported to Leicestershire Police (not the PJ) on 4th May 2007 by 'family to the McCann's'. When the PJ received the information isn't clear.
So while the 'family to the McCanns' were still in the UK on 4th May they knew about this sighting, knew 'George's' phone number in Portugal and reported it to LP.
How did that happen, I wonder? How did 'George' get in touch with the family and why? All he had to do was speak to the PJ.
The sighting was reported to Leicestershire Police (not the PJ) on 4th May 2007 by 'family to the McCann's'. When the PJ received the information isn't clear.Perhaps he was frightened of contacting the PJ/
So while the 'family to the McCanns' were still in the UK on 4th May they knew about this sighting, knew 'George's' phone number in Portugal and reported it to LP.
How did that happen, I wonder? How did 'George' get in touch with the family and why? All he had to do was speak to the PJ.
Perhaps he was frightened of contacting the PJ/
Robert Murats Mum set up her desk for info, she said, because people might feel more at ease speaking to her than the PJ
What I don't understand is that something about it must have been in the public domain to precipitate Manuel Martins email to the Policia Judicairia dated 8th May 2007.
Snip
I have followed the case in the press as I live in the Algarve. However my attention has been drawn by the news that an English citizen (George Burke) who returned to the village in the morning from Lagos and who says that he saw a couple with a child at about 06.00. Would this person not be suspicious due to being from the village and be returning 7 seven hours after the events? Please excuse my boldness and if I am bringing false accusations due to lack of information, I apologise again but feel that I have to share my preoccupation. I hope this does not make you lose time.
Good luck
Was sending the email prompted by anecdotal evidence? Although the press is mentioned, was it reported at the time? I don't recall seeing anything at the time and now so much 'old stuff' has been removed it is difficult to track what was and wasn't reported.
If you look up the Pizza Hut in Lagos, it has one entrance facing the train station. There is another on the first floor above the marina.
This information comes from Google, and is dated Aug 2009. Personally, I doubt the business relocated between May 2007 and Aug 2009, but I cannot be bothered digging further.
One Pizza hut, one marina, one train station.
Let's not forget that there is a railway station at that Lagos Port too.OK but doesn't your theory have the same problem then too. If Madeleine went to Porta did she get there by boat or rail?
Could that boat, or any boat have gone to the area off Luz Beach and picked up Madeleine from there? Smithman was heading in that direction.I would imagine that would be tricky at night time.
I would imagine that would be tricky at night time.
dragged or carried? in the above articles there were 10 instances of dragged and 6 instances of carry.Can we have some discussion as to the state of the child? Was it male or female? Was it alive or dead? Was it being carried or dragged?
Not with a small dinghy it wouldn'tIt depends on whether Smithman is carrying a living girl or a dead child. My thoughts today is from reports given by Silvia Batista (who had spent hours observing the McCanns, and hence the PJ are thinking in terms of a dead child. - because "Kate wanted a priest" [Not her exact words].)
It depends on whether Smithman is carrying a living girl or a dead child. My thought s today is from reports given by Silvia Batista (who had spent hour observing the McCanns the PJ are thinking in terms of a dead child. - because Kate wanted a priest.)
Are you thinking take her out into deeper water and drown her or just to dump her? That is possible . What I was meaning was to take a dinghy out to meet a larger boat that would abduct a child to another port very distant from PdL.
Like how would Madeleine get around to the Barcelona Marina by the 6th? You won't get there by dinghy.
What I don't understand is that something about it must have been in the public domain to precipitate Manuel Martins email to the Policia Judicairia dated 8th May 2007.Did you have a link to this email? I can only think "Manuel Martins " is not a witness but a concerned citizen who has heard the news (it was on the Sky Reort on the 5th) and is pointing the finger back at George IMO.
Snip
I have followed the case in the press as I live in the Algarve. However my attention has been drawn by the news that an English citizen (George Burke) who returned to the village in the morning from Lagos and who says that he saw a couple with a child at about 06.00. Would this person not be suspicious due to being from the village and be returning 7 seven hours after the events? Please excuse my boldness and if I am bringing false accusations due to lack of information, I apologise again but feel that I have to share my preoccupation. I hope this does not make you lose time.
Good luck
Was sending the email prompted by anecdotal evidence? Although the press is mentioned, was it reported at the time? I don't recall seeing anything at the time and now so much 'old stuff' has been removed it is difficult to track what was and wasn't reported.
It depends on whether Smithman is carrying a living girl or a dead child. My thoughts today is from reports given by Silvia Batista (who had spent hours observing the McCanns, and hence the PJ are thinking in terms of a dead child. - because "Kate wanted a priest" [Not her exact words].)
Are you thinking the abductor would take her out into deeper water and drown her or just to dump her dead body? That is possible. What I was meaning was to take a dinghy out to meet a larger boat that would abduct a child to another port very distant from PdL would be tricky on a windy night.
Like how would Madeleine get around to the Barcelona Marina by the 6th? You won't get there by dinghy.
No. I do not think that Madeleine is dead.OK so someone has said in the past it was possible to cover that distance. Rather than planning a rendezvous it might have been easier just to go to a marina where boats are securely moored.
It would have been possible to take Madeleine by dinghy to a larger boat and then possibly to Barcelona, or even elsewhere.
A larger boat could have made it to Barcelona in the time. Someone plotted the route aeons ago, and it was possible.
No, I don't have a cite, but this is just my opinion.
Did you have a link to this email? I can only think "Manuel Martins " is not a witness but a concerned citizen who has heard the news (it was on the Sky Reort on the 5th) and is pointing the finger back at George IMO.
OK so someone has said in the past it was possible to cover that distance. Rather than planning a rendezvous it might have been easier just to go to a marina where boats are securely moored.
Transferring kids off a dinghy would be tricky. Would the person have to:
1. take the dinghy ashore after the transfer or
2. just leave the dinghy to drift?
What is the option you choose there? Option 1 or 2?
OK so someone has said in the past it was possible to cover that distance. Rather than planning a rendezvous it might have been easier just to go to a marina where boats are securely moored.
Transferring kids off a dinghy would be tricky. Would the person have to:
1. take the dinghy ashore after the transfer or
2. just leave the dinghy to drift?
What is the option you choose there? Option 1 or 2?
Aren't dinghys tied up to the larger boat?
Option 3. Haul the dinghy back on board.With option 3 are they using the same dinghy as they took with them? Rather than taking a dinghy from the shore.
Sea going vessels of quite limited size do carry dinghies you know.
With option 3 are they using the same dinghy as they took with them? Rather than taking a dinghy from the shore.
They are on the boat with the dinghy. They go ashore in the dinghy to the beach and pick up Madeleine from the abductor. They take Madeleine back to the boat in the dinghy. They pull the dinghy back on board the boat. They sail away or motor away.Do they go fishing instead?
How do you think sailing people do their shopping if there isn't a marina?
Whoops. In my opinion.
Did you have a link to this email? I can only think "Manuel Martins " is not a witness but a concerned citizen who has heard the news (it was on the Sky Reort on the 5th) and is pointing the finger back at George IMO.
Do they go fishing instead?
So they would need to keep in contact using cellphone communications. Either that or anchor up. I have feeling someone would have noticed this larger craft anchoring up.
You can't go fishing for fresh water.You could have made a good crim. They are all possible scenarios. all for the purpose of abducting a living girl.
Cell Phone or Ship to Shore.
It depends on how far off you are and if it's dark. They could lay off and then come in closer once it is dark.
Now then, as for timing. If the man Jane Tanner saw was the abductor/smithman then he could have contacted the boat to say he had got the child and then lurked around those back allies to give them the time they needed to get to the beach to meet him.
You could have made a good crim. They are all possible scenarios. all for the purpose of abducting a living girl.
Elementary, my dear Watson.Or a great detective.
I think that is correct. So the PJ had an e-mail from a concerned citizen and they may or may not have had a statement from LP.OK there were people suggesting that it was Kate and Gerry carrying/dragging their daughter at 6 AM on the 4th near the Lagos Marina, but if it was would they be directing the PJ down there by relating that vision to the PJ?
They had another 'continuation statement' from DC Markley. A friend of a friend of Kate's Aunt and Uncle had a vision that Madeleine was on a boat in Lagos Marina. This person set off to Portugal, visited the Marina and identified and photographed the 'Shearwater' as the boat in her vision.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
OK there were people suggesting that it was Kate and Gerry carrying/dragging their daughter at 6 AM on the 4th near the Lagos Marina, but if it was would they be directing the PJ down there by relating that vision to the PJ?
OK there were people suggesting that it was Kate and Gerry carrying/dragging their daughter at 6 AM on the 4th near the Lagos Marina, but if it was would they be directing the PJ down there by relating that vision to the PJ?
Were there? People have suggested all sorts of things.
All of which are simples if you say them quick like.... 8(0(*That's for boats, arriving from abroad and would not affect boats cruising around the, coast
All boats arriving from abroad must contact either a port or marina office.
In the main, most marinas require you to come ashore with passports, ship's papers and insurance documents (whether you are in the marina or anchored off).
Or risk a nasty encounter with the odd Coast Guard Cutter or two.
http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/Portugal?rc=Formalities
That's for boats, arriving from abroad and would not affect boats cruising around the, coast
And?
continue to the logical conclusion allowing for the fact you cannot tie/anchor up just because you fancy it.
It's not the Pizza place where Amy worked though. That was Pizza Real, Rua da Praia in Luz.Thus far, I am getting two stories.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm
Doesn't have to be the marina ..Could be the beach .
So your logical conclusion is being stuck on a beach ?
Try working it through from alpa to omega then post it in one hit.
Hint:
First work out what the objective is.
Could that boat, or any boat have gone to the area off Luz Beach and picked up Madeleine from there? Smithman was heading in that direction.Exactly, it could have been heading towards a pick up off the little rock beach adjacent and west of the Fortezela.
OK but doesn't your theory have the same problem then too. If Madeleine went to Porta did she get there by boat or rail?Rob, I dont actually think that Madeleine went there; I amjust going along with your theory, in case.
If this George Brooks sighting has anything to do with it a good assumption would be to think they needed a boat or the rail, but not a road vehicle as they likely had one of these to get from PdL to Lagos in the first place.
Rob, I dont actually think that Madeleine went there; I amjust going along with your theory, in case.Sorry that is where I meant Porto not Porta. How does she get to Porto? By road rail or sea?
I think she was taken North towards Porto
Do they go fishing instead?
So they would need to keep in contact using cellphone communications. Either that or anchor up. I have feeling someone would have noticed this larger craft anchoring up.
Thus far, I am getting two stories.I think you have the situation correct - well at this stage.
There is George of Pizza Hut, Lagos, who allegedly witnessed this sighting. The verifiable details stack up - train station, marina. I did not know there was a Pizza Hut in Lagos, but I am not a fan of Pizza Hut.
Then there is the tale of the conversation about this sighting in Pizza Real, in Luz. I have no reason at this point in time to doubt this conversation took place i.e. that the alleged sighting was discussed in a Luz pizza joint, by Amy and a McCann friend.
From there, the Luz convo seems to have flashed to LP, who then faxed it to the PJ, who checked it out (presumably).
This leaves me with 2 queries. The first is how it got flashed to LP so quickly. The other is how George of Burgau got sucked into the quagmire.
Perhaps MW was not yet providing food to the McCann entourage.
Or a great detective.and Ex Royal Navy, I think?
I think that is correct. So the PJ had an e-mail from a concerned citizen and they may or may not have had a statement from LP.Did anyone get to see what 'Shearwater' looked like?
They had another 'continuation statement' from DC Markley. A friend of a friend of Kate's Aunt and Uncle had a vision that Madeleine was on a boat in Lagos Marina. This person set off to Portugal, visited the Marina and identified and photographed the 'Shearwater' as the boat in her vision.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Sorry that is where I meant Porto not Porta. How does she get to Porto? By road rail or sea?I think that she went by boat up to Sines (about 60 miles north, Crow flies, and 90 miles by sea). and arrived just before dawn. Sines is a huge mainly commercial port IIRC.and according to GE in 2007 ish largely empty of boats and shipping.
Did anyone get to see what 'Shearwater' looked like?
Shearwater is the name of a boat manufacturer. The name is often emblazoned on the hull of their boats - see Google images.That is possible but the PJ would be amiss to say the boat's name was Shearwater when that was in reality the make of the boat.
Also that a boat was taken out of Lagos marina before the port gate were closed at IIRC 8pm.
It was moored in the kind of canal which links the Port and Marina to the Ocean. Where ever it was going, it was on "stand by".
Possibly quite innocent but worth noting.
to reach a boat moored outside the marina because the gate was closed, one would HAVE to walk by George Burkes Pizza Hut restaurant. The closest place for the boat to be moored after the restaurant is over 250 metres further on. Presumably a car /van could have been parked in the Marina car park which would add another approx 200 metres dragging a reluctant child. A total of approx. 450 metres .... a long walk in such circumstancesIs that from Google Earth? Boat owners would have access to the marina would they not?
Is that from Google Earth? Boat owners would have access to the marina would they not?I have been there but mostly forgotten now.
That is possible but the PJ would be amiss to say the boat's name was Shearwater when that was in reality the make of the boat.
and Ex Royal Navy, I think?
Eleanor was quite a girl and a half. I will let her tell you about it, (if she wishes, of course)
Also that a boat was taken out of Lagos marina before the port gate were closed at IIRC 8pm.That is 8 PM on the 3rd of May. Is that in the file?
It was moored in the kind of canal which links the Port and Marina to the Ocean. Where ever it was going, it was on "stand by".
Possibly quite innocent but worth noting.
That is 8 PM on the 3rd of May. Is that in the file?I don't know where I got it from now, Rob, but it was talked about in the months after Madeleine vanished. Some in depth boat and Lagos harbour research was done by members of ' The 3 A's ' forum. It is quite possible that i got it from there.
Castles in the air.Careful what you are saying slarti, because other people will remember it.
In My Opinion.
Castles in the air.Castles in the air. - visionary unattainable schemes; daydreams.
In My Opinion.
Also that a boat was taken out of Lagos marina before the port gate were closed at IIRC 8pm.Does that port gate show up on Google Earth?
It was moored in the kind of canal which links the Port and Marina to the Ocean. Where ever it was going, it was on "stand by".
Possibly quite innocent but worth noting.
Castles in the air. - visionary unattainable schemes; daydreams.
Well was that written because the identification of the "Shearwater" was based on a vision? But what I noticed was that the person who had the vision was willing to go to the Lagos marina and identify a boat. They put their money where their mouth was. So they must have felt there was a value to that vision.
But what was the chances the "abductors boat" still being in the Marina? Not great in my opinion. So it becomes a matter of identifying all the boat movements accurately.
It was another 2 years before the importance of the Barcelona Marina became important.
Had it been impossible to get from Lagos to Barcelona in 3 days then it would start to crumble.
The Barcelona Marina became important how? Some man told the McCann's detectives about a woman he saw in Barcelona and produced an e-fit. It took him two years to decide to come forward. Dave Edgar released the e-fit during a press conference without making any inquiries at all to verify the story.I can't think of another press conference where the McCanns are more excited by a lead, hence I call it "important".
The story was, in my opinion, part of the 'awareness campaign' rather than a serious sighting.
The Barcelona Marina became important how? Some man told the McCann's detectives about a woman he saw in Barcelona and produced an e-fit. It took him two years to decide to come forward. Dave Edgar released the e-fit during a press conference without making any inquiries at all to verify the story.
The story was, in my opinion, part of the 'awareness campaign' rather than a serious sighting.
(https://www.algarverealestate.com/i/algarve-guide/lagos/pedestrian-bridge-over-the-river-bensafrim.jpg)It doesn't look like a gate does it? Maybe it is a mix up with translation? Both gate and door translate as porte or portas IIRC.
From that photo if the swing bridge was down at night yachts would be prevented from leaving but launches could still go under it with ease.
It doesn't look like a gate does it? Maybe it is a mix up with translation? Both gate and door translate as porte or portas IIRC.
I think everthing except ocean going big ships could get under there, cos (am I right?) even large yachts can fold their mast down, can't they ?
I dont remember seeing that bridge, but it wouldn't be very noticable except when the bridge was lifted .... just another bridge at other times !
If there is anything in this report that a boat was moored on the Ocean side of the erm gate and if this boat was used to carry madeleine, then as far as i can see the only purpose for mooring it there was .... for a quiet, quick get away as needed.
Personally I find it unlikely that Madeleine would be taken there and more or less dragged for a distance on to that boat.
More likely IMO that she would have been picked up via dinghy and transferred aboard a big boat before sailing off to Barcelona, or Sines maybe. Probably picked up from that rocky beach with tunnel, cos Smithman was heading that way at the Smiths sighting
Only my thoughts, other thoughts are perfectly valid. do present them
Riamar (Double click small image to get larger image.)Someone might like to comment here as to whether you think a small boat like the one in the pic is large enough to go around the coast of Portugal and Spain.
MADDIE HUNT FOCUSES ON YACHT
A £3MILLION superyacht has become the latest focus in the two-year hunt for Madeleine McCann.
9 AUG 2009UPDATED03:39, 10 FEB 2013
A £3MILLION superyacht has become the latest focus in the two-year hunt for Madeleine McCann.
It was moored at a Spanish marina three days after Maddie vanished when a woman with an Australian accent asked a man: "Are you here to deliver my new daughter?" The luxury boat - named Willpower - is owned by mega-rich Aussie socialite Rhonda Wyllie.
But the 52-year-old is said to be "devastated" by the news and has vowed to do all she can to help investigators.
There is NO suggestion Rhonda - widow of property tycoon Bill Wyllie - is connected to Maddie's disappearance.
Willpower, which is currently for sale, is a 105ft Sunseeker big enough to sleep six guests and carry four crew.
Last night Rhonda's brother Wayne McGrath said: "I have spoken to my sister and she is absolutely devastated.
"She doesn't know anything about this.
"She does go to Spain - she's been there for the last two or three years. But the only reason she goes is to entertain friends."
Wayne added: "She is happy to co-operate with and help any investigation."
The People has learnt most of the crew who have worked on Willpower in recent years have been Australian.
It's believed investigators want to find out all they can about anyone connected to the yacht to rule them out of the probe.
Records show Willpower was at the Port Olimpic marina in Barcelona when a woman - said to look like Posh Spice Victoria Beckham - approached a British man and asked about the child.
It is believed she had mistaken him for a "courier".
A source close to the worldwide Hunt for Maddie said: "Any information the yacht's owners can give would be very helpful."
Willpower is thought to be in the south of France at present.
Madeleine vanished from a Portuguese apartment in Praia da Luz in May 2007 - just before her fourth birthday.
She was on holiday with mum Kate, dad Gerry and the couple's twins Sean and Amelie, then aged two.
The children were alseep in the flat while their parents dined with friends at a nearby restaurant when Maddie was last seen.
Since then, heart specialist Gerry and GP Kate, of Rothley, Leics, have campaigned tirelessly around the world to find their missing daughter.
A new global appeal was launched in London on Thursday after the possible "Aussie Spice" link came to light.
Kate and Gerry, both 41, have already had more than 600 calls after an E-fit picture of a suspect was released.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There has been an overwhelming response.
"Kate and Gerry are very pleased and grateful to people for making such an effort to help them."
But a woman named as a match for the E-fit claims she has not left Australia for years.
Judith Aron, of Glen Iris, Victoria, said: "I'm 53 years old and I certainly don't look like a Spice Girl.
"I'm totally shocked anybody may have thought I have some connection to the case.
"I have been looking after my sick father and I haven't left the country since 2000."
russell.myers@people.co.uk
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/maddie-hunt-focuses-on-yacht-1669058
Someone might like to comment here as to whether you think a small boat like the one in the pic is large enough to go around the coast of Portugal and Spain.
If you have a good lifeboat service available...
Failing that wear a Kings Lynn whelk fisherman's ganzie. [from when the whelkers were sail boats].Get food when they refuel.
It is a bit grizzly but the heavy ganzie ensured you went straight down in the event of falling overboard.
In a thing that size you'd struggle to have locker space for much food !
On the night in question hypothermia would have been a consideration too.
Some people row across The Atlantic. You don't need a particularly big boat to go to sea
A lot would depend on the experience of the skipper
A lot would depend on the experience of the skipperYou wouldn't want to travel through the night without specialised navigation equipment.
The McCann's immediate reaction was to demand the closure of roads, borders, ports and airports. As early as July 2007, however, it was to the shore of PdL to what had become 'her' rocks where Kate went when she wanted to feel close to her daughter.Would you call that evidence?
You wouldn't want to travel through the night without specialised navigation equipment.
The McCann's immediate reaction was to demand the closure of roads, borders, ports and airports. As early as July 2007, however, it was to the shore of PdL to what had become 'her' rocks where Kate went when she wanted to feel close to her daughter.'Demand' ? Where did they demand?
The McCann's immediate reaction was to demand the closure of roads, borders, ports and airports. As early as July 2007, however, it was to the shore of PdL to what had become 'her' rocks where Kate went when she wanted to feel close to her daughter.I have been there and understand where Kate was coming from.
I've travelled at night on a34 ft sailing yacht.. With lights and charts... It's part of basic sailingOn the type of boat I chose as a lookalike to the images of the "Shearwater", I didn't see any lights on the boat. OK correction there are port and starboard lights and a white light on the cabin. Not good enough for travelling IMO.
On the type of boat I chose as a lookalike to the images of the "Shearwater", I didn't see any lights on the boat. OK correction there are port and starboard lights and a white light on the cabin. Not good enough for travelling IMO.
What do you think people do with these boats? Muck about in Ponds? Or sit around in Marinas?To race around at 20 knots at night would need special equipment. Travelling in the daytime in calm to moderate weather should not have been a problem.
They have to be sea going to get to foreign Marinas in the first place.
What do you think people do with these boats? Muck about in Ponds? Or sit around in Marinas?
They have to be sea going to get to foreign Marinas in the first place.
Absolutely and every one is checked by customs or the port authorities on arrival and departure.There are many small marinas along the coast there won't be customs at each of those.
There are many small marinas along the coast there won't be customs at each of those.
Just nipping up the coast a bit. And then do a runner.The records weren't comprehensive, that is for sure.
Where it says "I spoke to Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me photographs of a man who has been on the boat. This is not the man the woman had in her vision." do you think Kate went with these persons to the Marina? Or did Kate hand to the police photos that the people, who followed up on the vision, gave to Kate?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
Absolutely and every one is checked by customs or the port authorities on arrival and departure.
No-one says, but Kate may be referring to this vision in her book. Her Aunt was very religious so it's possible that the Lagos incident was related to prayer;I have had experience of visions following prayer and they can be very confusing. If there was a mention of the marina's name was it said in a sentence or was it in writing e.g.vision of a sign post? I could imagine the vision being in Portuguese and the English speaking person having no way of remembering it, but may have remembered the aspect of the Marina and the shape of the boat. I would be most impressed of a vision that said "Shearwater" and "Marina da Lagos" especially if that person had not studied a map of the Algarve or had never been there before.
There were a couple of ‘visionary’ experiences in particular I took very seriously. One of them had come through prayer which, at the time, gave it even greater credibility in my eyes. I begged the police to look into these. They were very sceptical, to put it mildly. [madeleine]
It is all strictly regulated by maritime law...................................except at 37.0909° N, 8.7591° W.You can write a law like that quite easily and I agree it gives good advice but how is it going to be enforced?
where International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea seemingly has never been heard of and even if it has it does not apply (&^&
Chapter V – Safety of navigation
This chapter requires governments to ensure that all vessels are sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view. It places requirements on all vessels regarding voyage and passage planning, expecting a careful assessment of any proposed voyages by all who put to sea. Every mariner must take account of all potential dangers to navigation, weather forecasts, tidal predictions, the competence of the crew, and all other relevant factors. It also adds an obligation for all vessels' masters to offer assistance to those in distress and controls the use of lifesaving signals with specific requirements regarding danger and distress messages. It is different from the other chapters, which apply to certain classes of commercial shipping, in that these requirements apply to all vessels and their crews, including yachts and private craft, on all voyages and trips including local ones.
[/b]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
"4201 to 4202-Service information re: Wright's suspect statement George Brooks
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
16-Processos Volume 16 Pages 4201 to 4202
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4201
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4202
SERVICE INFORMATION
To: Paulo Rebelo
From: Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
Date: 2008/04/24
Re: Various Activities Regarding the Investigation NUIPC 201/07.0GALGS
Regarding the content of the attached email from British Authorities, with particular focus with respect to the statement by Michael Terrence Wright, in the international letter of request which is being implemented by the Leicestershire Police, on the 6th of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, a pizza kitchen worker, of British nationality and originally from Liverpool, commented to that witness that her father, George, had seen a man carrying a child, in the early hours of May 4th of 2007. He does not know if George contacted the authorities about this. This testimony was recorded by Inspector Joao Carlos and myself as follows:
--Yesterday, after heading toward Praia da Luz late, we located the pizzeria shop (PIZZA REAL) mentioned by that witness. It is situated in a kiosk on Rua da Praia. Even though it was closed at the time, we obtained the telephone number ********* of said pizzeria which is open from 18H00. This same night, we contacted the manager, C*******, using that telephone number and she immediately identified the employee as Amy. She told us that Amy was no longer in Portugal and that she had returned to the U.K. She was requested to contact Amy and ask her to contact this police force.
--Today, at 11.37, the signatory received a telephone call from *******, from a woman who identified herself as J***, mother of Amy, and who told me that as soon as possible, George, her husband, and Amy's father, would contact us. Around 17H16, we were contacted by George, Amy's father, from telephone no. *********. Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation.
Signed,
Ricardo Paiva"
Robitty, could you put at least a short sentence before your cut&paste so we know what point they are illuminating.OK I copied and pasted that document as it was about the sighting of a man and woman with a girl on the morning of the 4th. I know we had discussed this in this thread but I want to double check if we had already mentioned this file.
You can write a law like that quite easily and I agree it gives good advice but how is it going to be enforced?
I don't like you using the terms "your narrow minded view". That felt personal. If you fix it up I'll let the post remain otherwise it will go.I said what I meant and vice versa.
So was smithman taking MBM to a boat?He could have been taking her to someone who had a boat.
He could have been taking her to someone who had a boat.
That was interesting George Burke Brooks was being discussed on another forum albeit a few days earlierhttp://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm (McCann family relative by marriage?
Some good references to cross check to see if any new information surfaces. I feel I have covered these.
If Yvonne Martin is quoted correctly it would be odd to think Kate knew the day after that a couple had abducted Madeleine. Could George have gone straight around to the McCanns and told them of his sighting that morning?
PS: If it was on Sky News on the 5th would the McCanns have been informed prior to that? You would think so and the LP or the PJ as well. [I'm finding writing this incredible that it was considered not relevant by the PJ immediately, yet a year later they try and look into it again.]
" George Burke???
Post by **** on Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:33 pm
Yvonne Martin reported an interesting comment made by Kate McCann on the morning of 4th May;/
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
On the following day (5th) Sky news, the Mail and the Sun carried a report by a certain George Burke saying he had seen a couple with a child heading for the Marina in Lagos at 6am on 4th.
In November 2007 the story re-emerged because, apparently, Metodo 3 had decided to look at it.
In August 2008 it hit the headlines again, but his name is now George Brooks as in the PJ Files, but is it the same man?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id399.htm
Is it a coincidence that Kate mentioned a couple and then this man's story appeared? There was also the 'vision' about Lagos Marina by someone connected to Kate.
The man was supposed to live in Burgau. What interests me is that most of the people in the area can be found using google. I can find no record of a George Burke or a George Brooks however. Has anyone else ever checked him out?"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm (McCann family relative by marriage?they call that George Brooks statement but where are his words. I don't get it really.
snipped
"As for additional information I would like to add that on Sunday, 6 May I went to the pizzaria in PdL and bought a large quantity of pizzas. I was attended by a girl from Liverpool. I explained to her my relationship to the McCanns and she told me that her father 'George' had seen a man carrying a child in his arms in the early morning of 4 May in the resort. I asked her if her father had spoken about this to the Portuguese authorities. I don't know if the information was ever investigated."
See George Burke Brooks Statement (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm)
they call that George Brooks statement but where are his words. I don't get it really.
Just correspondence.Was George Brooks ever spoken to? I'll have to go back to the start of this thread and see what the story was.
The sighting was reported to Leicestershire Police (not the PJ) on 4th May 2007 by 'family to the McCann's'. When the PJ received the information isn't clear.Am I understanding this correctly now. George makes a sighting at around 6 AM he rings the LP in England and the LP contact Gerry and Kate's family in the UK and the family tells Kate and Gerry in PdL????? Then Yvonne turns up and Kate says to her she can't understand why a couple would abduct her daughter. That just about makes sense.
So while the 'family to the McCanns' were still in the UK on 4th May they knew about this sighting, knew 'George's' phone number in Portugal and reported it to LP.
How did that happen, I wonder? How did 'George' get in touch with the family and why? All he had to do was speak to the PJ.
Am I understanding this correctly now. George makes a sighting at around 6 AM he rings the LP in England and the LP contact Gerry and Kate's family in the UK and the family tells Kate and Gerry in PdL????? Then Yvonne turns up and Kate says to her she can't understand why a couple would abduct her daughter. That just about makes sense.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter. "
I find this difficult to believe.A lot of detail we don't know. Did George Burke Brooks get involved or hear about the disappearance the evening before? His daughter or any other person could have rung him and told him about it. Was there contact information issued along with the news item on the morning of the 4th. Maybe he rang Sky News first and they put him onto the LP. Somehow Sky News knew about it on the 5th.
What time was this call made?
Why would anyone ring the LP when they weren't even involved at that point ? The logic would be to contact the police on the ground in PDL.
Am I understanding this correctly now. George makes a sighting at around 6 AM he rings the LP in England and the LP contact Gerry and Kate's family in the UK and the family tells Kate and Gerry in PdL????? Then Yvonne turns up and Kate says to her she can't understand why a couple would abduct her daughter. That just about makes sense.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter. "
Why would LP contact any of the McCann family at that point?
They had no official role at that time and Madeleine might have turned up at any moment.
Surely any contact they made would be to Portuguese police, or possibly the Foreign Office.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htmYes and who is making that statement is it George's recollection or Ricardo Paiva telling us what the PJ determined?
16-Processos Volume 16 Pages 4201 to 4202
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4201
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4202
SERVICE INFORMATION
To: Paulo Rebelo
From: Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
Date: 2008/04/24
--Today, at 11.37, the signatory received a telephone call from *******, from a woman who identified herself as J***, mother of Amy, and who told me that as soon as possible, George, her husband, and Amy's father, would contact us. Around 17H16, we were contacted by George, Amy's father, from telephone no. *********. Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation.
Signed,
Ricardo Paiva
In bold - the most important statement on the document. Why was it "not of interest" to the investigation?
Yes and who is making that statement is it George's recollection or Ricardo Paiva telling us what the PJ determined?
I read some phrase like Operation Headquarters.
It says he contacted the OH in May 2007. Who or what is that?
I read some phrase like Operation Headquarters.
or it could be a spelling error HO - head office. e,g, Scotland Yard. HO.
I have looked at the original;No evidence other than it is written in the file!
referiu que havia sido contactado pela Policia Judiciaria em Maio de 2007
that he had been contacted by the Policia Judiciaria in May 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm
It seems Burke is saying the PJ contacted him in May 2007 and that's when he reported his sighting.
There's no evidence that the PJ spoke to him in May 2007.
No evidence other than it is written in the file!
Let me understand this you have discovered a translation error?
It is hearsay, Paiva is repeating what Burke told him. There's no other record that it happened. In my opinion it's unlikely that the PJ contacted him in May 2007; they couldn't find him in December 2007.contacted just means something as simple as a phone call, and to mobile number that means he could be anywhere but they still contacted him.
I do seem to have found an error, yes.
contacted just means something as simple as a phone call, and to mobile number that means he could be anywhere but they still contacted him.
Paiva would not have written in his report "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation." That isn't George saying that but the PJ officer IMO.
Who do you think thought that: "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation"?
So they phoned him, didn't record what was said, didn't take a statement and then threw the number in the bin? Unlikely, imo. In thse early days they responded to reports much more fully than that.Burke makes pizzas not statements like that! When would a pizza man use the term "aforementioned"?
I think it's Burke saying "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation."
I know that the UK police were aware of his sighting and they had a phone number for him. It seems to be a supermarket. When the UK police passed the information to the PJ I don't know.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A1_5/apenso5_vol_1_Page3.jpg
Burke makes pizzas not statements like that! When would a pizza man use the term "aforementioned"?
"Here is the pizza you aforementioned in your order"
So you are saying Burke so in contact with the investigation that he knows when his reported sighting was considered "not be of interest to the investigation".
Burke makes pizzas not statements like that! When would a pizza man use the term "aforementioned"?
"Here is the pizza you aforementioned in your order"
So you are saying Burke so in contact with the investigation that he knows when his reported sighting was considered "not be of interest to the investigation".
Burke had nothing to do with Pizzas. His daughter worked for Pizza Real in PdL. Please remember that Portuguese isn't English, things are expressed differently.IYO only
When they finally got hold of Burke he said it had been dealt with at the time. He never rang the PJ and he never made a statement imo. Instead he spoke to the newspapers and the 'family'. A very elusive and unreliable witness in my opinion.
IYO only
What makes you claim that he never contacted the PJ ?
What makes you think he was an elusive and unreliable witness?
He very quickly came back after the Police had contacted his wife .... just a matter of hours on the same day.
Are you trying to protect the PJ at Burke-Brookes expence?
Burke had nothing to do with Pizzas. His daughter worked for Pizza Real in PdL. Please remember that Portuguese isn't English, things are expressed differently.You say "Burke had nothing to do with Pizzas." but at the beginning of the page on George Burke it says "There is a male who owns a pizza hut in the resort called George originally from Liverpool. He states that on Friday morning at 5.55 AM on Friday 4th May 2007 he saw a couple acting suspiciously carrying a child near to the marina.
When they finally got hold of Burke he said it had been dealt with at the time. He never rang the PJ and he never made a statement imo. Instead he spoke to the newspapers and the 'family'. A very elusive and unreliable witness in my opinion.
You say "Burke had nothing to do with Pizzas." but at the beginning of the page on George Burke it says "There is a male who owns a pizza hut in the resort called George originally from Liverpool. He states that on Friday morning at 5.55 AM on Friday 4th May 2007 he saw a couple acting suspiciously carrying a child near to the marina.
He can be contacted on the following number: ***
The pizza hut is near to a place called Amy Dukes.
The police have not yet spoken to this male."
You say "His daughter worked for Pizza Real in PdL." I agree with that, but I have the impression father and daughter worked in separate facilities.
'In the resort'. Why would they say that if it was in Lagos? The telephone number given seems to be a supermarket. Bear in mind this information didn't come from Burke, it came from 'the family'. Where and what is Amy Dukes? He spoke to the press, but seems to have told them all something different.Did the PJ go to the Marina and make inquiries? Did they follow it up? It was on Sky TV the next day so they can't say they didn't know about it.
a Briton who runs a company in the Algarve
British tourist George Burke
Supermarket owner George Burke
Burke makes pizzas not statements like that! When would a pizza man use the term "aforementioned"?
"Here is the pizza you aforementioned in your order"
So you are saying Burke so in contact with the investigation that he knows when his reported sighting was considered "not be of interest to the investigation".
There was a joke in this country that went along the lines:They should apply with the PJ and become interpreters.
"What do you say to a modern languages graduate when he/she is at work?"
"Big Mac and fries please"
No, I have looked at the evidence and I can think of no reason why the PJ wouldn't interview this man if he had contacted them on 4th May. Why would they not, when they were following all leads?Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the PJ cherry picked which leads and sightings to follow. I know they were very busy, but this one could have been very pertinent.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SEX_OFFENDERS_INFORMATION.htm#p1p134
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LANCE_PURSER.htm
'In the resort'. Why would they say that if it was in Lagos? The telephone number given seems to be a supermarket. Bear in mind this information didn't come from Burke, it came from 'the family'. Where and what is Amy Dukes? He spoke to the press, but seems to have told them all something different.Where did those 3 options come from?
a Briton who runs a company in the Algarve
British tourist George Burke
Supermarket owner George Burke
-snip=
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/LagosMarinaGeorgeBrooks.jpg.w560h425.jpg)
There was a Pizza Hut at the Marina da Lagos was this where expat George worked/owned/ran company?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id399.htm
"1) George Brooks, an ex-pat from Liverpool, claims to have seen a suspicious couple carrying a child, near Lagos marina, 7/8 hours after Madeleine had been reported missing. For reasons unknown, in all early media reports he is referred to as 'George Burke'. Despite the claims of many of these reports, it appears that Mr Brooks never made an official statement to the Portuguese police."
Was this because it was associated with the information from the family? "2) Meanwhile, a friend of Kate McCann's aunt and uncle has a friend that claims to have had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the marina in Lagos..."
Here is a report with a little more detail "07 May 2007
Last night an expatriate British businessman described how he saw a couple carrying a young child eight hours after Madeleine went missing.
George Burke, originally from Liverpool, was driving home at 6am on Friday after dropping his son at a station when the man and woman were caught in his headlights and immediately scurried out of sight. He said he thought nothing more about the incident until he heard about Madeleine's disappearance, after which he contacted police.
- Daily Mail"
Was his only connection to the Lagos marina the fact that he dropped his son off at the railway station?
Did the PJ go to the Marina and make inquiries? Did they follow it up? It was on Sky TV the next day so they can't say they didn't know about it.
If Burke had contacted them they would have interviewed him in my opinion. Do Portuguese police watch Sky in case there's a lead on there? I very much doubt it. Even if they did they probably hold the same opinion as Rowley about newspaper stories.George says he was told by the PJ not to report it to the news media so I take that to mean it did report it. If they didn't follow it up, that is their problem.
George says he was told by the PJ not to report it to the news media so I take that to mean it did report it. If they didn't follow it up, that is their problem.
He was the first to claim in the media that the police had ignored his evidence, but he wouldn't be the last. Many of those who made this claim had one thing in common; there is no evidence that they ever contacted the police.we never know we might be able to contact him and clear it up.
Looking in the files we can see that the police diligently followed up some very tenuous leads, which suggests to me that they would not have ignored this sighting had they been informed.
The British police were informed by 'family', seemingly on 4th May. The family weren't in Portugal, so how did they get the information?
Was this man Burke or Brooks? He couldn't be both.
It would have been interesting if the PJ had asked this man to come and see them when they finally tracked him down, with his passport. They couldn't confirm his identity on the telephone.
we never know we might be able to contact him and clear it up.
My opinion is that taking an interest in the case is acceptable, interfering with witnesses isn't.Call it what you want. Clearing up the misunderstandings.
we never know we might be able to contact him and clear it up.I can see no harm in this, so long as it is done very sensitively, backing off immediately if he bridles in any way.
Call it what you want. Clearing up the misunderstandings.
I can see no harm in this, so long as it is done very sensitively, backing off immediately if he bridles in any way.
It needs someone who is very diplomatic in their approach ... and who knows, he might have been instructed not to talk to anyone.
Thinking about it, I am 50/50 about approaching him
One wonders what your attitude would be if its suggested getting in touch with the McCanns to clear something up?
I can see no harm in this, so long as it is done very sensitively, backing off immediately if he bridles in any way.The biggest problem will be getting a lead as to where he is. The PJ couldn't work it out 11 years ago, and I have my doubts now. We don't even know his proper name.
It needs someone who is very diplomatic in their approach ... and who knows, he might have been instructed not to talk to anyone.
Thinking about it, I am 50/50 about approaching him
The biggest problem will be getting a lead as to where he is. The PJ couldn't work it out 11 years ago, and I have my doubts now. We don't even know his proper name.
Perhaps a nom de plume, or "The man that never was"Len Port seems to be a man of talent would he still be around - if anyone knows it would be Len.
Len Port seems to be a man of talent would he still be around - if anyone knows it would be Len.
Did you miss this page?I had seen his image but not the whole photo of the passport. 27 November 1945, 8 years plus, not a good age for guys especially if he had eaten too many pizzas.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A1_5/apenso5_vol_1_Page6.jpg
Did you miss this page?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A1_5/apenso5_vol_1_Page6.jpg
That is George Brooks. The man who spoke to the press was George Burke. Are they two different men or the same man giving a false name?Did the PJ actually speak to him, before they discounted his sighting?
Did the PJ actually speak to him, before they discounted his sighting?
I don't know what you mean.'Did the PJ speak to the person who made the sighting at the marina at 6:00 AM? Regardless of his name.
'Did the PJ speak to the person who made the sighting at the marina at 6:00 AM? Regardless of his name.
A man identifying himself as George, Amy's father, rang them on 24/04/2008.A year later! OK
Where does Amy fit into the story?As I understand it George lived in Burgau and he had two teenage kids. Amy was his daughter, and the son (unknown). It was endevouring getting the son onto the train at the marina that was the reason he went to the Marina da Lagos. It was on the way home from doing that that he saw the couple with the child.
SnipThis could account for it. I take it that Paiva is not a Coordinating Inspector so he is under orders. He could have been told to revisit the George Burke Brooks case. He covers the inaction by saying "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".
I still dispute the claim the George said the following: "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".
http://www.burgauuncovered.com/
You are saying that Paiva added that sentence, but it doesn't make sense. If Paiva knew that the sighting had been ruled out in May 2007, why bother looking for Burke in April 2008?
This could account for it. I take it that Paiva is not a Coordinating Inspector so he is under orders. He could have been told to revisit the the George Burke Brooks case. He covers the inaction by saying "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".
I can't see how the informant becomes so up with the case that he could say about the sighting he made "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".
Paiva had no need to cover up any inaction by the PJ. The reason is plain to see; there's no evidence that Burke ever told them about his sighting.
There may have been phone records to verify his call ... which may still have been in existence when Operation Grange started tying up loose ends.
Paiva had no need to cover up any inaction by the PJ. The reason is plain to see; there's no evidence that Burke ever told them about his sighting.When were all the newspaper articles? Would not the PJ do their own enquiries if they were not informed but it was an all the papers and on Sky News. OK it possible they missed it. But I don't believe that one bit. Did they choose to ignore it?
If he had called they would have known his name and phone number.Records can get lost.
When were all the newspaper articles? Would not the PJ do their own enquiries if they were not informed but it was an all the papers and on Sky News. OK it possible they missed it. But I don't believe that one bit. Did they choose to ignore it?
Records can get lost.
But there's no evidence that they did, so why suggest it? It's far more likely imo that they weren't contacted.What sort of evidence is there when records get lost? Things like claims of contact but no record of it. Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning. Two possible indicators to me.
What sort of evidence is there when records get lost? Things like claims of contact but no record of it. Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning. Two possible indicators to me.
How much reliance can you put on the claims ?I'm not saying "records were lost", but that "records can get lost".
What sort of evidence is there when records get lost? Things like claims of contact but no record of it. Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning. Two possible indicators to me.
There's no evidence that Burke contacted the PJ. There's evidence that he contacted 'the family' and the media. Many of those who spoke to the media claimed that the PJ ignored them. None of those who did give evidence to the PJ had any problem at all; the PJ acted and their evidence was recorded.You would have to consider what came first, the PJ ignoring leads or the campaign discrediting them. If it became aware they were ignoring leads, especially if they were suggested by the British liaison officers.
It seems to have been a continual theme in this case; that the PJ ignored leads. It makes me wonder if there was some kind of campaign aimed at discrediting them.
You would have to consider what came first, the PJ ignoring leads or the campaign discrediting them. If it became aware they were ignoring leads, especially if they were suggested by the British liaison officers.
I think “ignoring” is a pejorative term employed to denigrate the PJ. The reviewed all the leads and filed the most far fetched. SY appear to have spent the last few years investigating those far fetched leads. IMOI don't know that is why I have made it a separate thread.
We may have located George Brooks!
Well done. Now find George Burke.Find one find them both.
Well done. Now find George Burke.
His daughter Amy's surname is Burke, hence the confusion.
Are you suggesting that George Brooks told the press his name was George Burke because that was his daughter's surname?
I'm suggesting that the press got it wrong.
His daughter Amy's surname is Burke, hence the confusion.That is one of many possibilities.