Could Madeleine have been abducted by boat?

[G-Unit]

This could account for it.  I take it that Paiva is not a Coordinating Inspector so he is under orders.  He could have been told to revisit the the George Burke Brooks case.  He covers the inaction by saying "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".
I can't see how the informant becomes so up with the case that he could say about the sighting he made "It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation".

Paiva had no need to cover up any inaction by the PJ. The reason is plain to see; there's no evidence that Burke ever told them about his sighting.

[Brietta]

Paiva had no need to cover up any inaction by the PJ. The reason is plain to see; there's no evidence that Burke ever told them about his sighting.

There may have been phone records to verify his call ... which may still have been in existence when Operation Grange started tying up loose ends.

[jassi]

What makes you think this is a loose end ?

[G-Unit]

There may have been phone records to verify his call ... which may still have been in existence when Operation Grange started tying up loose ends.

If he had called they would have known his name and phone number.

[Robittybob1]

Paiva had no need to cover up any inaction by the PJ. The reason is plain to see; there's no evidence that Burke ever told them about his sighting.

When were all the newspaper articles?  Would not the PJ do their own enquiries if they were not informed but it was an all the papers and on Sky News.  OK it possible they missed it.  But I don't believe that one bit.  Did they choose to ignore it?

[Robittybob1]

If he had called they would have known his name and phone number.

Records can get lost.

[G-Unit]

When were all the newspaper articles?  Would not the PJ do their own enquiries if they were not informed but it was an all the papers and on Sky News.  OK it possible they missed it.  But I don't believe that one bit.  Did they choose to ignore it?

I don't know if the police in any country follow leads from their own media, let alone chasing up stories in the foreign MSM. They probably take the same view as Rowley; most of them are nonsense.

[G-Unit]

Records can get lost.

But there's no evidence that they did, so why suggest it? It's far more likely imo that they weren't contacted.

[Robittybob1]

But there's no evidence that they did, so why suggest it? It's far more likely imo that they weren't contacted.

What sort of evidence is there when records get lost?  Things like claims of contact but no record of it.  Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning.  Two possible indicators to me.

[jassi]

What sort of evidence is there when records get lost?  Things like claims of contact but no record of it.  Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning.  Two possible indicators to me.

How much reliance can you put on the claims ?

[Robittybob1]

How much reliance can you put on the claims ?

I'm not saying "records were lost", but that "records can get lost".

[G-Unit]

What sort of evidence is there when records get lost?  Things like claims of contact but no record of it.  Claims that the situation was deemed unrelated to the case but no file notes about who it was that morning.  Two possible indicators to me.

There's no evidence that Burke contacted the PJ. There's evidence that he contacted 'the family' and the media. Many of those who spoke to the media claimed that the PJ ignored them. None of those who did give evidence to the PJ had any problem at all; the PJ acted and their evidence was recorded.

It seems to have been a continual theme in this case; that the PJ ignored leads. It makes me wonder if there was some kind of campaign aimed at discrediting them.

[jassi]

I must say this whole story sounds a bit dubious to me, almost like a set-up to support an abduction.

[Robittybob1]

There's no evidence that Burke contacted the PJ. There's evidence that he contacted 'the family' and the media. Many of those who spoke to the media claimed that the PJ ignored them. None of those who did give evidence to the PJ had any problem at all; the PJ acted and their evidence was recorded.

It seems to have been a continual theme in this case; that the PJ ignored leads. It makes me wonder if there was some kind of campaign aimed at discrediting them.

You would have to consider what came first, the PJ ignoring leads or the campaign discrediting them.  If it became aware they were ignoring leads, especially if they were suggested by the British liaison officers.

[slartibartfast]

You would have to consider what came first, the PJ ignoring leads or the campaign discrediting them.  If it became aware they were ignoring leads, especially if they were suggested by the British liaison officers.

I think “ignoring” is a pejorative term employed to denigrate the PJ. The reviewed all the leads and filed the most far fetched. SY appear to have spent the last few years investigating those far fetched leads. IMO