Is It Possible For A Non Professional Investigator To Solve The Case?

[Mr Gray]

Who would decide ?
One person's berk is another person's super-hero.

That's very apparrant

[G-Unit]

Madeleine's disappearance happened on Portuguese soil and outwith the jurisdiction of UK police.

A cite is required for "a lot of evidence was in the possession of UK police which did not immediately reach the PJ".
Thank you

Madeleine's disappearance was indeed in Portugal, but the UK police insinuated themselves into the investigation and took on the task of gathering information from the returning holidaymakers.

The UK police were given the contact details of 550 people who had been in Luz at the time. There seems to have been no attempt to interview them all.

There seems to have been no attempt to forward the statements of the few who did give information;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GAIL_COOPER.htm

[Vertigo Swirl]

What's a bwek? Is it related to bweksit?

It’s Holly’s hugely amusing new way of spelling book.

[G-Unit]

Has any DNA/forensics been obtained from the bed at the window in the children’s bedroom?

There was a suspected semen sample which became not semen.

The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.

I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with Charlie Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that Charlie Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

I wonder if that boy slept in the bed? He was only a month older than the McCann twins.

[Brietta]

Madeleine's disappearance was indeed in Portugal, but the UK police insinuated themselves into the investigation and took on the task of gathering information from the returning holidaymakers.

The UK police were given the contact details of 550 people who had been in Luz at the time. There seems to have been no attempt to interview them all.

There seems to have been no attempt to forward the statements of the few who did give information;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GAIL_COOPER.htm

You really do make the attempt to muddy the waters by stating your opinion quite firmly as fact.
I found your use of “insinuate” …  : to introduce (someone, such as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means) with regard to the British police illuminating.  According to his book and various other verging on the paranoid expressions of his suspicions, seems to sit exceedingly well with Amaral’s mindset as recorded in his book and noted elsewhere.

Snip
Amaral was suspicious of the motives of the British police officers who arrived in Luz on May 7. He ordered a 'shadow' on the senior British officer in Luz. 'I want to know what they are doing,' he told his subordinate. 'You will escort them day and night.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/a-copper-without-shame-maddies-top-detective-blames-everyone-but-himself-6836324.html




I find the cites you have provided extraordinary:  as explained in one of them by police detective Ivor Messiah to Carol Tranmer the interviews (and that is all of those you have linked to) are as a result of requests from the Portuguese police (Rebelo investigation) to clarify statements already made (Amaral investigation).
The cites therefore do not support your allegation because they could not be asking for clarification regarding documents they did not already have in their possession … therefore you are wrong in alleging that information was not passed on when it patently had been.

Snip
DC1485'The reason for our discussion today, Carole, has to do with the Portuguese investigation regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCANN on Thursday the 3rd of May of 2007. Essentially, the Portuguese police, or the PJ as they are also known, are leading this investigation and have asked us, the Leicestershire police--because the McCANN family are also from Leicestershire--to be the their link in England to the investigation. Do you understand what we have to do'

CT'Mmm, mmm yes.

DC1485'The reason for speaking to you is obviously the same reason we are speaking to the other people who were in Portugal and who know the McCann family. They are all being questioned and their statements recorded on video, as are you. You are not in the minority'everyone's testimony has proceeded in the same way.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'And as I have already mentioned, the reason for this meeting is to produce an interview so that the Portuguese authorities can have all the statements that are needed in order to proceed with the investigation and/or conclude the enquiry. This is their decision and we are merely collaborating with them.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'They only want us to speak with you so as to elaborate questions or to our interview technique. Short of this, they are trying to see if there is any existing piece of information that may surface.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm



The result of this process was a whole raft of rogatory interviews to enable the Portuguese investigation to clarify matters at their end.
I reiterate that the four individuals whose names you used could only have been requested if already known to the Portuguese.
Your following post makes reference to a forensic sample recovered in apartment 5 from an individual with the surname Gordon ... presumably the young son of one of the individuals whose details you allege the British police didn't pass on.  I find that if your post is subterfuge rather than error it is indeed quite disturbing and I note it does seem to happen quite often.
Dates of the first interviews from your links ...

• 16/05/2007 Katherina Gaspar
• 06/05/2007 Paul Gordon
• the 08/05/2007 Carol Tranmer
• 21/05/2007 Gail Cooper

[G-Unit]

You really do make the attempt to muddy the waters by stating your opinion quite firmly as fact.
I found your use of “insinuate” …  : to introduce (someone, such as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means) with regard to the British police illuminating.  According to his book and various other verging on the paranoid expressions of his suspicions, seems to sit exceedingly well with Amaral’s mindset as recorded in his book and noted elsewhere.

Snip
Amaral was suspicious of the motives of the British police officers who arrived in Luz on May 7. He ordered a 'shadow' on the senior British officer in Luz. 'I want to know what they are doing,' he told his subordinate. 'You will escort them day and night.'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/a-copper-without-shame-maddies-top-detective-blames-everyone-but-himself-6836324.html




I find the cites you have provided extraordinary:  as explained in one of them by police detective Ivor Messiah to Carol Tranmer the interviews (and that is all of those you have linked to) are as a result of requests from the Portuguese police (Rebelo investigation) to clarify statements already made (Amaral investigation).
The cites therefore do not support your allegation because they could not be asking for clarification regarding documents they did not already have in their possession … therefore you are wrong in alleging that information was not passed on when it patently had been.

Snip
DC1485'The reason for our discussion today, Carole, has to do with the Portuguese investigation regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCANN on Thursday the 3rd of May of 2007. Essentially, the Portuguese police, or the PJ as they are also known, are leading this investigation and have asked us, the Leicestershire police--because the McCANN family are also from Leicestershire--to be the their link in England to the investigation. Do you understand what we have to do'

CT'Mmm, mmm yes.

DC1485'The reason for speaking to you is obviously the same reason we are speaking to the other people who were in Portugal and who know the McCann family. They are all being questioned and their statements recorded on video, as are you. You are not in the minority'everyone's testimony has proceeded in the same way.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'And as I have already mentioned, the reason for this meeting is to produce an interview so that the Portuguese authorities can have all the statements that are needed in order to proceed with the investigation and/or conclude the enquiry. This is their decision and we are merely collaborating with them.

CT'Mmm, mmm.

DC1485'They only want us to speak with you so as to elaborate questions or to our interview technique. Short of this, they are trying to see if there is any existing piece of information that may surface.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm



The result of this process was a whole raft of rogatory interviews to enable the Portuguese investigation to clarify matters at their end.
I reiterate that the four individuals whose names you used could only have been requested if already known to the Portuguese.
Your following post makes reference to a forensic sample recovered in apartment 5 from an individual with the surname Gordon ... presumably the young son of one of the individuals whose details you allege the British police didn't pass on.  I find that if your post is subterfuge rather than error it is indeed quite disturbing and I note it does seem to happen quite often.
Dates of the first interviews from your links ...

• 16/05/2007 Katherina Gaspar
• 06/05/2007 Paul Gordon
• the 08/05/2007 Carol Tranmer
• 21/05/2007 Gail Cooper

Paul Gordon was included in the rogatory requests because he was a previous occupant of 5A. The questions suggest the PJ didn't know he had seen a charity collector. That suggests they hadn't received his first statement, as does the fact that it was included with his rogatory interview. The PJ didn't ask for his son to give a DNA sample.

VII - Interview to the adult users of the apartment (G5A) from which MADELEINE MCCANN went missing, who stayed there before 28th April (the date on which the MCCANNs arrived there). They should be subject to a buccal swab and hair sample collection (only the below UNDERLINED individuals :

* The FAWKES family, namely SIMON ANDREW , CLAIRE LOUISE AND daughter RUXX ELXXXXXXX, 62 EvXXXXXX LaXX, WOXXXXXXX, BEXXXXXXX, RGXX 4XX, UK.

* CARLOS DAMBROSIO and JUNE HUGHES, 53x MoXXXXXX DRXXX, Glasgow, GXX 1XX, UK.

* The GORDON family, namely PAUL ANTHONY, SALEIGH LOUISE and two children - CHXXXXX HAXXXXXX and JAXXXXX ISXXXX - 2 DaXXXXXXX, WIXXXXX, Hants, PXXX 6XX, UK.

The aforementioned persons should be asked the following questions :

* Did any incident happen during your stay at the apartment, i.e. was anyone injured or did anyone die ?

* Did you ever suffer theft or did any of your belongings disappear from the apartment ?

* Did you ever detect the presence of anyone strange inside or around your apartment ?

[Brietta]

Paul Gordon was included in the rogatory requests because he was a previous occupant of 5A. The questions suggest the PJ didn't know he had seen a charity collector. That suggests they hadn't received his first statement, as does the fact that it was included with his rogatory interview. The PJ didn't ask for his son to give a DNA sample.

VII - Interview to the adult users of the apartment (G5A) from which MADELEINE MCCANN went missing, who stayed there before 28th April (the date on which the MCCANNs arrived there). They should be subject to a buccal swab and hair sample collection (only the below UNDERLINED individuals :

* The FAWKES family, namely SIMON ANDREW , CLAIRE LOUISE AND daughter RUXX ELXXXXXXX, 62 EvXXXXXX LaXX, WOXXXXXXX, BEXXXXXXX, RGXX 4XX, UK.

* CARLOS DAMBROSIO and JUNE HUGHES, 53x MoXXXXXX DRXXX, Glasgow, GXX 1XX, UK.

* The GORDON family, namely PAUL ANTHONY, SALEIGH LOUISE and two children - CHXXXXX HAXXXXXX and JAXXXXX ISXXXX - 2 DaXXXXXXX, WIXXXXX, Hants, PXXX 6XX, UK.

The aforementioned persons should be asked the following questions :

* Did any incident happen during your stay at the apartment, i.e. was anyone injured or did anyone die ?

* Did you ever suffer theft or did any of your belongings disappear from the apartment ?

* Did you ever detect the presence of anyone strange inside or around your apartment ?

If the PJ didn't request a DNA sample from the child how on earth was it possible to eliminate the stain he left behind on the bed cover as his which allowed it to be eliminated as being of interest to the enquiry.
I rather get the impression that you are labouring under the misapprehension that the files uploaded to the internet are all the files that were available.

In thinking that I believe that you are really misguided. 

We know there was a bit of consternation when the British police discovered the intention to release confidential witness statements from an unsolved case to interested parties in accordance with Portuguese law and in the main managed to prevent this happening meaning that statements made remained confidential.
Which may lead non professional investigators to presume that the Brits were in dereliction of their duty when in effect they were ensuring the probity of the case for the future.
I cringe when I read here and elsewhere on the internet what has been made of Carol Tranmer's confidentiality as one of the statements which unfortunately has slipped through the net.

That is a prime example of why non professional investigators who think they know it all but who actually know nothing will never in my opinion have a clue about how to conduct any case let alone Madeleine's let alone bring one even close to being solved.

[G-Unit]

If the PJ didn't request a DNA sample from the child how on earth was it possible to eliminate the stain he left behind on the bed cover as his which allowed it to be eliminated as being of interest to the enquiry.
I rather get the impression that you are labouring under the misapprehension that the files uploaded to the internet are all the files that were available.

In thinking that I believe that you are really misguided. 

We know there was a bit of consternation when the British police discovered the intention to release confidential witness statements from an unsolved case to interested parties in accordance with Portuguese law and in the main managed to prevent this happening meaning that statements made remained confidential.
Which may lead non professional investigators to presume that the Brits were in dereliction of their duty when in effect they were ensuring the probity of the case for the future.
I cringe when I read here and elsewhere on the internet what has been made of Carol Tranmer's confidentiality as one of the statements which unfortunately has slipped through the net.

That is a prime example of why non professional investigators who think they know it all but who actually know nothing will never in my opinion have a clue about how to conduct any case let alone Madeleine's let alone bring one even close to being solved.

The FSS had the Gordon child's DNA because they matched it to the stain on the bedspread under the window in the front bedroom and to samples 9A & B found on the wall behind the couch in the Living Room.

They reached those conclusions before 22nd May 2008, when they replied to their rogatory questions. Paul Gordon supplied his rog. statement on 24th April. The PJ asked for a DNA sample from him, but not his son.

Lawyers acting for the UK police requested certain information was withdrawn from the PJ files. Whether that included freely given witness statements or not it doesn't say.

A. Material relating to condemned and suspected sex offenders
B. Intelligence Reports
C. Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
D. Communication between Police Forces
E. Orientation of the NPIA
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

[Brietta]

The FSS had the Gordon child's DNA because they matched it to the stain on the bedspread under the window in the front bedroom and to samples 9A & B found on the wall behind the couch in the Living Room.

They reached those conclusions before 22nd May 2008, when they replied to their rogatory questions. Paul Gordon supplied his rog. statement on 24th April. The PJ asked for a DNA sample from him, but not his son.

Lawyers acting for the UK police requested certain information was withdrawn from the PJ files. Whether that included freely given witness statements or not it doesn't say.

A. Material relating to condemned and suspected sex offenders
B. Intelligence Reports
C. Crimestoppers (Crime Combating Unit)
D. Communication between Police Forces
E. Orientation of the NPIA
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

You post as if the FSS had a database of every British child.  They do not.  To make a match they had to have parental permission to swab the child’s cheek to gather cells. 
The resulting match had its very own identification code which is recorded in the files. (bar code 51156964) https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Paulo Rebelo signed the order requesting the collection of DNA samples from previous holidaymakers who had stayed in apartment 5A.  Bearing in mind the Samples had been collected by the Portuguese forensic team in the first instance after Madeleine’s disappearance that is quite a gap.

I think you are going to have to accept that there is a tremendous amount of information out there which about which you simply know nothing.

[G-Unit]

You post as if the FSS had a database of every British child.  They do not.  To make a match they had to have parental permission to swab the child’s cheek to gather cells. 
The resulting match had its very own identification code which is recorded in the files. (bar code 51156964) https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Paulo Rebelo signed the order requesting the collection of DNA samples from previous holidaymakers who had stayed in apartment 5A.  Bearing in mind the Samples had been collected by the Portuguese forensic team in the first instance after Madeleine’s disappearance that is quite a gap.

I think you are going to have to accept that there is a tremendous amount of information out there which about which you simply know nothing.

There is indeed a tremendous amount of information about which I know nothing; it's in the hands of the UK police. It probably includes details of why and when DNA was collected from the Gordon child-something which the PJ didn't request or authorise.

[Robittybob1]

There is indeed a tremendous amount of information about which I know nothing; it's in the hands of the UK police. It probably includes details of why and when DNA was collected from the Gordon child-something which the PJ didn't request or authorise.

[/b]
What makes you think that?

[G-Unit]

[/b]
What makes you think that?

Post #875 tells which people the PJ wanted DNA collected from, and it didn't include the Gordon children. It was just the father they wanted DNA from.

[Robittybob1]

Post #875 tells which people the PJ wanted DNA collected from, and it didn't include the Gordon children. It was just the father they wanted DNA from.

Well there could be follow-up requests for Mr Gordon's DNA would be a partial match to the sample.  This would suggest the need to test the kids as well.

[Holly Goodhead]

How many Portuguese do you think are, aware of it....aren't you being a bit of a big girls blouse... Should I now refer to the coordinator as anaral... All this faux outrage is a bit childish afaiac... Has your suspect been arrested yet or are the met still gathering evidence

How many Portuguese are aware of what?  On the assumption you are referring to KM's comments re Tweedeldee and Tweedledum I guess anyone who read her best-selling b..k.  But such comments were not restricted to GNR/PJ.

I personally would not object to anyone here referring to GA in unflattering terms and/or making a wordplay on his name but if rules have been put in place to prevent such then its not really up for debate. 

I've explained previously as far as I'm concerned, as a mod and poster, gentle P taking of non-members providing it doesn't break forum rules is all to play for; gentle p taking of members is off limits as it would inevitably escalate.

You make disparaging comments about those who read The Sun and watch Loose Women which some might find offensive especially if they read The Sun and watch Loose Women.  Where does all this subjectivity start and end?  I would suggest its the reason that we have laws of the land which are objective and clearly defined as to what is and isn't acceptable. 

I agree all the faux outrage about petty irrelevant comments is childish and the stuff of primary school playgrounds. 

Since arriving here, and no doubt my mere presence has outraged some, I've been criticised for referring to the main protagonists by their initials.  Someone even went as far as suggesting it was disrespectful to MM.  I made a light-hearted comment about KM/GM, as a Liverpudlian and Glaswegian, preferring sausage and chips over the tapas dishes of chorizio and patatas bravas which didn't go down well in some quarters.  Now its my reference to KM's b..k.  I rather think some here would like me gone.  And yet a former investigating official is allowed, by law, to publish a book about the McCanns on the basis they killed their daughter and covered it up with a little help from their friends. 

I don't get emotionally involved with the cases I look at or the protagonists.  I've already said on the basis of KM's b..k I find her difficult to warm to but that makes no difference to the fact that I believe her testimony to be entirely reliable and I think the idea she administered sedatives to her children and/or accidentally killed MM and then attempted to cover it up is utterly absurd. 

[Brietta]

Post #875 tells which people the PJ wanted DNA collected from, and it didn't include the Gordon children. It was just the father they wanted DNA from.

I once had a stereo unit which would intercept police radio messages to play audio from the unit broadcasting.  Not only annoying when interrupting the programme being listened to but frustrating in that only one side of the police conversation could be heard and understood.

I think that is very much the trap you fall into when skimming through the PJ files available to us on the internet.

You are hearing one side of a story taken out of context and focusing all your reliance on it if it suits your purposes, quite forgetting there are many other inputs of which you cannot be aware.

The FSS didn't act on their own initiative; the check on the child's DNA was requested by someone; and you don't have sufficient information to speculate either on whose DNA may or may not have been requested, by whom or when, but the report was sent to the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal which might provide a clue.