Wandering Off Topic

[faithlilly]

Smith didn't say he saw Gerry.   Gerry was sat at the table at 10'clock   Kate came running in and said 'Madeleine's gone Gerry'.    So unless she was talking to a cardboard cut out of Gerry he was there.

I was watching a programme last night where five witnesses said a young man was the perpetrator of a shooting. The young man was imprisoned. Strange thing was the young man didn’t do it.

Moral of the tale....when you have several witnesses who say the same thing it’s hard to prove that they are wrong. Sometimes, however, they are.

That’s what the AG faced.

[Brietta]

Still only suspicions, though - however certain they may or may not be.
Not enough to arrest to take to court - as yet.

I think you are wrong on all points.  I think they have evidence and I don't think they are in any rush about charging him or making making an arrest for the simple reason they don't have to.

I'm not quite sure how many European Arrest Warrants have been served against his name ~ I think it may be five ~ so there may be quite a long haul ahead for the Germans when the evidence required to substantiate all of these requests is taken into consideration.

[Brietta]

I don't know but it seems a high ranking officer knew something about it before it was actually set up; he knew there were going to be restrictions on it's scope.

I am incredulous that it is assumed Scotland Yard embarked on investigating Madeleine's case without checking out the evidence.  In my opinion that is the stuff of fantasy.

[Eleanor]

I think you are wrong on all points.  I think they have evidence and I don't think they are in any rush about charging him or making making an arrest for the simple reason they don't have to.

I'm not quite sure how many European Arrest Warrants have been served against his name ~ I think it may be five ~ so there may be quite a long haul ahead for the Germans when the evidence required to substantiate all of these requests is taken into consideration.

We know that Brueckner is locked up for the next five years at least, so if there are any repeated offences in the offing then he could stay locked up for a very long time indeed.

[Brietta]

If something happened and was covered up there was a motive regardless of the time.

You really do sail very close to the wind with your constant slurs against the McCanns.  My opinion

[Eleanor]

You really do sail very close to the wind with your constant slurs against the McCanns.  My opinion

Mine too.

[Brietta]

The other explanation was that its a Portuguese investigation and they decide who and who cannot be questioned in Portugal. The officer didn't mention the McCanns to Sutton

I believe that at the time in question there was quite a bit of friction regarding letters of request.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It was the picture of Gerry carrying one of the children down the aircraft steps which persuaded him of who it was they had encountered the night Maddie disappeared. He must have been darn sure to phone the police about such a serious matter.

No, he wasnt "darn sure", he was "60-80% sure" which is the same as "20-40% unsure".  And it was months after the event too.

[Brietta]

Haven't they already cast a convenient blind eye to criminality?

I think Bennett might have tried that one already.  Did it hold water then?  anymore than it holds water now. 

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and you are referring to Amaral's criminality?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was watching a programme last night where five witnesses said a young man was the perpetrator of a shooting. The young man was imprisoned. Strange thing was the young man didn’t do it.

Moral of the tale....when you have several witnesses who say the same thing it’s hard to prove that they are wrong. Sometimes, however, they are.

That’s what the AG faced.

So if only two people say "it was Gerry" does that mean they are less likely to be wrong?  The irony of your post is quite astounding btw.  As if seven friends of Gerry would all be mistaken about his whereabouts at the time the alarm was raised.  Were they all completely pissed as farts?

[G-Unit]

What a rude post.  I am perfectly able understand everything you have written thank you.
You seem to be saying that even if Operation Grange HAD stumbled across evidence that pointed strongly at the parents they would avert their gaze from it.  In other words that they would be complicit in the cover up.  Is this a correct interpretation of your view?

I think it would depend entirely on those higher up the chain of command which evidence was deemed useful and worth pursuing. Those people would probably be DCI's or above; the same rank as Colin Sutton, Andy Redwood and Nicola Wall. If, as Sutton has claimed, Op Grange was restricted in scope, a DCI would know and keep the investigation on the track laid down for it. They wouldn't, in my opinion, go off at a tangent without the knowledge of and permission from their superiors.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think it would depend entirely on those higher up the chain of command which evidence was deemed useful and worth pursuing. Those people would probably be DCI's or above; the same rank as Colin Sutton, Andy Redwood and Nicola Wall. If, as Sutton has claimed, Op Grange was restricted in scope, a DCI would know and keep the investigation on the track laid down for it. They wouldn't, in my opinion, go off at a tangent without the knowledge of and permission from their superiors.

I didn't realise the police were trained to turn a blind eye to compelling evidence that pointed in a different direction to that which they have been told to pursue by their superiors.  How astounding and how corrupt. 

[Eleanor]

I didn't realise the police were trained to turn a blind eye to compelling evidence that pointed in a different direction to that which they have been told to pursue by their superiors.  How astounding and how corrupt.

It couldn't and wouldn't happen, certainly not in this case.  The whole idea is ridiculous.

[G-Unit]

I am incredulous that it is assumed Scotland Yard embarked on investigating Madeleine's case without checking out the evidence.  In my opinion that is the stuff of fantasy.

According to their remit they embarked on investigating Madeleine's abduction. According to Colin Sutton, who doesn't strike me as a fantasist;

I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs.  That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded.  To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense.  Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html

[Brietta]

Well yes he did and so much so he went to the police about it. And even days later he was sure enough for him and the missus to make statements about it.

Do you think he is a fool or what?

ETA. The cardboard cutout must have been carrying the child then.

I don't think Mr Smith is a fool.  Nor do I think Mr McCluskey is a fool either.  But I do believe that both were mistaken when they added to the statements they gave to the police, bearing in mind the saturation news coverage given to images of Madeleine's parents carrying the twins.