Wandering Off Topic

[Brietta]

Should certain evidence not be discussed then? Why do you think the PJ asked those questions?

One thing certain sure is that the questions were nothing at all to do with the task of doing the day job of looking for and finding Madeleine McCann and what may have become of her.

That boat had sailed months before that according to Amaral/

You are holding a shining light up against the evidence that the 'investigators' seriously hadn't a clue about what they were doing.

They were asking the wrong questions of the wrong people.

Which was proved by the FACT that not one shred of the evidence used to make them persons of interest was substantiated when opened to scrutiny.

But you know all this already.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you really believe that the Met examined all the files before the remit was written?

Detective chief inspector Andy Redwood told BBC's Panorama programme that he and his 35-strong team will begin analysing nearly 40,000 documents in what he says is the best opportunity for finding the child, who disappeared on 3 May 2007, just before her fourth birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/24/madeleine-mccann-andy-redwood

Panorama: Madeleine - The Last Hope? BBC One, Wednesday 25 April 2012 at 7.30pm

Do you really believe that the High Ups told them to investigate an abduction and that despite all the so-called evidence to the contrary in the files that they would subsequently have discovered (and that you have based your own conclusions on), that they carried on with a complete sham investigation at a cost of millions of pounds for many years?  Is that REALLY what you believe????  It certainly seems to be your belief, and based on what evidence exactly? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Should certain evidence not be discussed then? Why do you think the PJ asked those questions?

Because they had read Kate's diary and chose to read more into it than was actually meant in the first place I would imagine.  But questions asked by the police are not evidence in of themselves are they? 

[G-Unit]

Because they had read Kate's diary and chose to read more into it than was actually meant in the first place I would imagine.  But questions asked by the police are not evidence in of themselves are they?

So did Kate write in her diary that she had considered giving Madeliene to another family member to raise? Difficult to misunderstand that.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So did Kate write in her diary that she had considered giving Madeliene to another family member to raise? Difficult to misunderstand that.

I very much doubt she wrote that exactly, but she may have written something that some plonker of a Portuguese policeman misinterpreted as that eg: "I'm so knackered with looking after all three kids I've asked mum to have Madeleine for a bit and she's agreed".   I suppose you find it far more believable that Kate wanted to palm Madeleine off on someone else permanently.... 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Does anyone seriously think that if Kate McCann had written in her diary that she had wanted to give Madeleine away that it would not have found its way into the international newspress as a great big massively damagine headlines, ones that could be proven as true as well, as it would have all been there, in Kate's own hand?  Not to mention being picked over by Amaral in his book?

c'mon people use your noodles.

[Brietta]

So did Kate write in her diary that she had considered giving Madeliene to another family member to raise? Difficult to misunderstand that.

She did write this ~ "  ... as she addresses her daughter: 'My sweetheart, my darling, my love, my companion. I love you more than anything.

'I'm going to dream that I'm lying by your side – moments I'll always cherish and I long to have again.'"

Only a sick mind could read your interpretation into a mother's distress and only sick minds could release leaks to that effect to the press breaking the law in the process as well as showing total moral bankruptcy in the process.

[Mr Gray]

So did Kate write in her diary that she had considered giving Madeliene to another family member to raise? Difficult to misunderstand that.

So did she write it or are you speculating it's true

[faithlilly]

Birds of a feather?

Do you no long believe in innocent until proven guilty? The article says ‘accused’ not convicted.

[faithlilly]

There are often signs of a dysfunctional family too, which were never found in the McCann family. Although some of the questions asked of Kate McCann by the PJ confused me.

"Asked whether or not it is true that the twins have difficulty sleeping, that they are restless and that that causes her uneasiness, she did not respond.

40 --- Asked whether or not it is true that at certain times she felt desperate [driven to despair; angered; exasperated] by the attitude of the children and that that left her much disquiet [unease], she did not respond.

41 --- Asked whether or not it is true that in England she was thinking to deliver MADELEINE into the custody [guardianship] of a family member, she did not respond."

Those questions could be interpreted as suggesting that the PJ suspected that the picture of a united happy family which had been painted by the couple might not have been the full story. In fact they suggest that the PJ had reason to think that it wasn't. Where did they get the idea that Kate would have considered relinquishing custody of her eldest daughter, I wonder?

I seem to remember that a family member spoke to the authorities about the couple then was annoyed that the information was used by the police. I have often wondered if the information given relates to the questions above?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I seem to remember that a family member spoke to the authorities about the couple then was annoyed that the information was used by the police. I have often wondered if the information given relates to the questions above?

Is there a record of this conversation any where in the files?

[faithlilly]

Birds of a feather?

I wonder how many investigation outcomes should be questioned because of these officers?

Sky:

'Thousands' of corrupt officers may be in police after vetting failures, watchdog warns

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wonder how many investigation outcomes should be questioned because of these officers?

Sky:

'Thousands' of corrupt officers may be in police after vetting failures, watchdog warns

Another one who clearly thinks there’s corruption, cover up and conspiracy involved in Operation Grange.  One of you, one day, is going to come up with a rational and plausible explanation as to why this should be the case but until then I won’t hold my breath…

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you no long believe in innocent until proven guilty? The article says ‘accused’ not convicted.

You appear to be unaware that Almeida was convicted of torture.

[Eleanor]

Do you no long believe in innocent until proven guilty? The article says ‘accused’ not convicted.

Amaral was convicted.