Should the McCanns search for Madeleine instead of wasting money on litigation?

[Carana]

I don't believe the McCanns would be able to give any such person the confidence to come forward. Everything they or their Private Investigators learned seemed to end up being  reported in the media.

You think they were responsible for leaks pinpointing individuals to the media? Not as far as I'm aware.

ETA: Neither were they responsible for the files ending up unredacted on the Internet,  AFAIK, unless you know differently.

[G-Unit]

You think they were responsible for leaks pinpointing individuals to the media? Not as far as I'm aware.

ETA: Neither were they responsible for the files ending up unredacted on the Internet,  AFAIK, unless you know differently.

According to Peter Hill the McCann 'side' leaked continuously. I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep things confidential.

The fact of the matter is that there was a news story every day and both sides in this particular case were briefing and leaking all the time, every day; every single day people were being briefed by one side and the other side.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9042803.htm

[John]

In my opinion anyone with credible information who knew that it was credible would have come forward by now.

People with information often come forward many years after an event and after those involved have moved away, ceased to be a threat or have even died.  It seems that the passage of time can be advantageous in certain circumstances.

We keep seeing historical cases in England where new digs are being carried out. The information for these digs can only be coming from informers.

[faithlilly]

According to Peter Hill the McCann 'side' leaked continuously. I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep things confidential.

The fact of the matter is that there was a news story every day and both sides in this particular case were briefing and leaking all the time, every day; every single day people were being briefed by one side and the other side.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9042803.htm

Bolton also said on the 10th anniversary Panorama that someone from the McCann team asked him to dig up anything derogatory on Murat for extra access to them. Dirty business in anyone’s book.

[John]

Does anyone have a suggestion of how Madeleine's parents could realistically search for Madeleine in Portugal?
Did anyone believe that by employing private detectives to look for her, they really were just pretending to look for her, with full knowledge that they had hidden her body?

They need to set up a search centre but this search would be for information.  Somebody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann and where she now is. If the right approach is used there is every reason to believe someone will provide that information anonymously.

[Vertigo Swirl]

People with information often come forward many years after an event and after those involved have moved away, ceased to be a threat or have even died.  It seems that the passage of time can be advantageous in certain circumstances.

We keep seeing historical cases in England where new digs are being carried out. The information for these digs can only be coming from informers.

They’ve been looking for Suzy Lamplugh’s remains for over a week now, on a tip off from a convicted criminal...

[Brietta]

According to Peter Hill the McCann 'side' leaked continuously. I certainly wouldn't trust them to keep things confidential.

The fact of the matter is that there was a news story every day and both sides in this particular case were briefing and leaking all the time, every day; every single day people were being briefed by one side and the other side.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9042803.htm

According to Peter Hill once Kate and Gerry were made arguidos they were bound by the secrecy laws from defending themselves against the leaks from the Portuguese police ...

Snip
Mr Hill: That is a very, very good question.

In this particular case, as I explained to you, the Portuguese police were unable, because of the legal restrictions in Portugal, to make any official comment on the case.
What happened was that they resorted to leaking things to the Portuguese press.
We did our best to check up on these things but of course it was not very easy to do so.

We always put the stories to Mr and Mrs McCann's PR team but most of the time the people they had then, after the McCann's had been named as suspects, did not return our calls.

So this was a more difficult situation than any of us had ever encountered. Yes, there was a clamour for information and we did our best to provide it. Of course we do check as thoroughly as we can. Newspapers operate at very high speed and it is quite true that sometimes it is not possible to check things as thoroughly as you would like.
_______________________________________________________________________

 Q619  Chairman: You said in your apology: "We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted". You will acknowledge that the reason for that suspicion was in large part the activities of your newspaper and other newspapers?

  Mr Hill: No. We were part of that process but the principal reason for that suspicion has to be laid at the door of the Portuguese police.

They were the people who named Mr and Mrs McCann as the suspects and repeatedly questioned them for many, many hours and they were the people who leaked all the information about them.

Yes, we were reporting what happened. The alternative would have been for the British press not to report anything. Do you think that would have been a possibility, when the rest of the world was reporting on this case, for the British press to say nothing? It is not practical.
We are all talking here in hindsight and hindsight is a marvellous thing but the fact of the matter is that at the time these reports and these leaks were happening on a daily basis and that is the truth.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9042803.htm

[G-Unit]

According to Peter Hill once Kate and Gerry were made arguidos they were bound by the secrecy laws from defending themselves against the leaks from the Portuguese police ...

Snip
Mr Hill: That is a very, very good question.

In this particular case, as I explained to you, the Portuguese police were unable, because of the legal restrictions in Portugal, to make any official comment on the case.
What happened was that they resorted to leaking things to the Portuguese press.
We did our best to check up on these things but of course it was not very easy to do so.

We always put the stories to Mr and Mrs McCann's PR team but most of the time the people they had then, after the McCann's had been named as suspects, did not return our calls.

So this was a more difficult situation than any of us had ever encountered. Yes, there was a clamour for information and we did our best to provide it. Of course we do check as thoroughly as we can. Newspapers operate at very high speed and it is quite true that sometimes it is not possible to check things as thoroughly as you would like.
_______________________________________________________________________

 Q619  Chairman: You said in your apology: "We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted". You will acknowledge that the reason for that suspicion was in large part the activities of your newspaper and other newspapers?

  Mr Hill: No. We were part of that process but the principal reason for that suspicion has to be laid at the door of the Portuguese police.

They were the people who named Mr and Mrs McCann as the suspects and repeatedly questioned them for many, many hours and they were the people who leaked all the information about them.

Yes, we were reporting what happened. The alternative would have been for the British press not to report anything. Do you think that would have been a possibility, when the rest of the world was reporting on this case, for the British press to say nothing? It is not practical.
We are all talking here in hindsight and hindsight is a marvellous thing but the fact of the matter is that at the time these reports and these leaks were happening on a daily basis and that is the truth.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/9042803.htm

I can't find where Peter Hill mentions the McCanns being hampered by the secrecy law after being made arguidos. They were bound by the duty of secrecy from the beginning of the investigation, as were the PJ and all the witnesses.

What Hill does say is that the McCanns PR Team stopped responding when the Express told them what they intended to print. He mentions that this happened after they were made arguidos. By
implication, therefore their PR Team had responded previously.

Up until they fled Portugal Justine McGuiness was their media liaison person. On their return to the UK Clarence Mitchell took over. According to him he did respond, but they printed the stories anyway.

[barrier]

People with information often come forward many years after an event and after those involved have moved away, ceased to be a threat or have even died.  It seems that the passage of time can be advantageous in certain circumstances.

We keep seeing historical cases in England where new digs are being carried out. The information for these digs can only be coming from informers.

But the information is very often flawed it seems.

[Robittybob1]

But the information is very often flawed it seems.

But at other times it is just what is needed.

[barrier]

But at other times it is just what is needed.

I can't think this is to be the case of  any thing recent case in the uk.

[barrier]

They’ve been looking for Suzy Lamplugh’s remains for over a week now, on a tip off from a convicted criminal...

A case of he said, they said then.

[Robittybob1]

I can't think this is to be the case of  any thing recent case in the uk.

How would a member of the public know what is happening behind the scenes?

[barrier]

How would a member of the public know what is happening behind the scenes?

Why should we, but where in recent cases has it been revealed remains have been found? getting off topic here.

[Robittybob1]

Why should we, but where in recent cases has it been revealed remains have been found? getting off topic here.

I was mostly agreeing with John's comment "People with information often come forward many years after an event and after those involved have moved away, ceased to be a threat or have even died.  It seems that the passage of time can be advantageous in certain circumstances."

Not so much about the digging bit.  - Which could also be true.