Could Madeleine have been abducted by boat?

[Robittybob1]

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.

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"?

You can't say that unless there was some contact. 

[G-Unit]

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.

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

[Robittybob1]

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.

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".

[Mr Gray]

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".

This si one of the reasons I dont think we can take the statements as entirely accurate

[G-Unit]

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.

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.

[sadie]

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.

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?

[misty]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4202.jpg

snipped
Sobre os factos em questao....referiu que havia ja sido contactado pela PJ em Maio de 2007 e nessa altura relatou a Policia que cerca das 06H00M da manha do dia 04 de Maio de 2007 viu um casal a passear na Marina de Lagos e o homem levava uma crianca ao colo, tendo-se logo na altura averiguado  aquela  situacao e chegado e verificado que a mesma nao se revisitia de qualquer interesse para a investigacao.
E tudo quanto me cumpre levar ao conhecimento de V. Ex*para os fins tidos por convenientes.
(Ricardo Paiva)

Regarding the facts in question ... he mentioned that he had already been contacted by the PJ in May 2007 and at that time he reported to the police that at around 0600 a.m. on the morning of 04 May 2007 he saw a couple strolling in the Lagos Marina and the man carried a child to his lap, and at that time the situation was ascertained and arrived and verified that the situation was not reviewed of any interest for the investigation.
And all that it is necessary for me to bring to your knowledge for the purposes deemed convenient.
(Ricardo Paiva)

[G-Unit]

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?

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?

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

[Robittybob1]

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.

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

a Briton who runs a company in the Algarve
British tourist George Burke
Supermarket owner George Burke

[Robittybob1]

'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.

a Briton who runs a company in the Algarve
British tourist George Burke
Supermarket owner George Burke

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.

[Robittybob1]

Kazlux - one of the file translators had this to say about George Burke.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/who-s-who-in-the-mccann-case-t17175.html?sid=049376bd8df9b7e0c3477f5afe6fc636

"Brooks (Burke), George A British ex-pat. On his way home to Praia da Luz from Lagos before dawn on May 4, in his headlights he witnessed a couple carrying a child. The couple darted down a side road. Owns a restaurant (Pizza Hut) in Portugal; allegedly questioned by Metodo3"

[Alice Purjorick]

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:
"What do you say to a modern languages graduate when he/she is at work?"
"Big Mac and fries please"

[Robittybob1]

There was a joke in this country that went along the lines:
"What do you say to a modern languages graduate when he/she is at work?"
"Big Mac and fries please"

They should apply with the PJ and become interpreters.

[sadie]

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?

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

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.

...........

Right from the word go, did Amaral decide that The Mccanns had done it?   Did he, or did he not, from day one say that he already knew who had done it ? 

Did he neglect leads that might have proved otherwise ?   

1)  Because there were several sightings up in Porto that were interesting, that no-one ever mentioned other than in a non positive way.   In fact, IIRC, two of them were rubbished.  One sighting statement, from up there, was substantially altered by a new statement that overuled the first, which came straight from the "Horses mouths",  a taxi driver and Police Officer on the spot.

The overruling statement came from Portimao Police who were NOT on the spot and changed the bona fide original statement in 5 ways.


2)  According to Matt James there were well over 20 sightings in Malta (28 sightings IIRC), yet it appears that these were ignored


Did Madeleine in the first place, go by boat part of the way to Porto?  I think she may have done.