Re: Joana Morais - The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police - 14/8/2013

by plebgate 15.08.13 13:14

All missing children cases should be treated the same imo. Spending millions on one child and not on the other missing children imo goes against their human righst. I have no objecton to taxpayers' money being used to search for Maddie or any other missing child, but how many other childrens' parents have a Fund which has had vast amounts of public money donated to it and yet to our knowledge, they have made no contribution to the cost of the police (in either country) search for their missing child.

Fair play for every child, then maybe the general public would not be asking these sorts of questions.

Also public funds being used need to, at some stage, be accounted for and I believe the gen. public have the right to ask that this is done.

by **tigger** 15.08.13 13:15

jeanmonroe wrote:Can anyone remember when K McCann said it was only 49.3 metres NOT fifty metres to the tapas?
I think it was a time when she went back to PDL with a 'friend' and she also said "you CAN see a persons details crossing the road"

I think it was the Australian interview. 2012?

by aiyoyo 15.08.13 13:36

tigger wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Can anyone remember when K McCann said it was only 49.3 metres NOT fifty metres to the tapas?
I think it was a time when she went back to PDL with a 'friend' and she also said "you CAN see a persons details crossing the road"

I think it was the Australian interview. 2012?

She seems to think taking away 0.7m lessen the severity of her action. Unbelievable!

by jeanmonroe 15.08.13 13:46

tigger wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Can anyone remember when K McCann said it was only 49.3 metres NOT fifty metres to the tapas?
I think it was a time when she went back to PDL with a 'friend' and she also said "you CAN see a persons details crossing the road"

I think it was the Australian interview. 2012?

do you have a 'link'?

by **tigger** 15.08.13 13:59

jeanmonroe wrote:
tigger wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Can anyone remember when K McCann said it was only 49.3 metres NOT fifty metres to the tapas?
I think it was a time when she went back to PDL with a 'friend' and she also said "you CAN see a persons details crossing the road"
I think it was the Australian interview. 2012?
do you have a 'link'?

It will be on mccannfiles.com - I think there's a transcript there as well.

by jeanmonroe 15.08.13 14:02

Ok Thanks.
Got it.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/statement-analysis-mccann-interview-2011.html.
Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres
Interviewer: 50 Meters?
Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...
Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific
KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview. The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM.
Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it. Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.
_______________________________________________________

So the 'direct' line would mean exiting, and leaving unlocked, the patio door, climbing over balcony fence, dropping into garden, leaping over 6 foot bushes and dropping down into the alleyway in front of apartment, climbing over OC 7 foot perimeter wall dropping into the OC , swimming through the pool, good training for a triathlete, climbing out to be near to Tapas restaurant, walking a further few metres to their BOOKED table!

Why not just go out of gate to 5A and walk down to OC entrance and follow path inside to the restaurant!
LOL'

Oh yeah, now i remember, THAT way to the restaurant TABLE would be at least 125 metres!

by lj 15.08.13 14:11

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far.

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence.

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases.
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta: Assange is a waste of time, space and money as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

by lj 15.08.13 14:12

T4two wrote:
tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far.

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence.

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases.
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta: Assange is a waste of time, space and money as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.
In a civilized society the cost of investigating a crime should never ever be a factor in deciding whether that crime should be properly invistigated or not, for the simple reason that if the cost of investigation were to be a factor, those involved in the case of a missing person for example, could adopt a strategy of purposely fomenting 'awareness' to generate lead after lead from around the world and of using the media to spread false information, thus making the cost of investigating and solving the crime prohibitive.

I guess you have an example of this blackmail in mind?

by lj 15.08.13 14:32

It will be very interesting to see how these interviews will be conducted and what rights the people of interest will be given. IIRC in Portugal you cannot refuse to answer questions as a witness, but you can as an arguido. Since the investigation has not been reopened what status will these persons of interest have? Can they refuse to show up at all? Again IIRC the rogatory interviews in the UK were all voluntary. Will that be the case here too?

Portugal's laws are based on the Napoleonic code. As we have seen it has strict rules about how long someone can be investigated and how long a case can stay open, and what is needed to reopen a case. So suppose through these interviews they identify an "abductor" wouldn't his/her lawyer have a field day having all that information being thrown out?

by Casey5 15.08.13 14:34

I remember when the police were digging - and finding bodies- in the Fred West case that the cost of the operation DID come into it.
I believe Gloucestershire police got some financial help but I remember reading that there was a limit on how far and for how long the digging could go on.
At the time I thought that they couldn't just stop searching if they ran out of money but maybe they can.

by Lance De Boils 15.08.13 14:56

A couple of snippets about Dave's holiday in the algarve:

Cameron, who is staying in a friend’s luxury £3,000-a-week villa in the hills of Monchique—a secluded property surrounded by dense vegetation

The Camerons are accompanied by their three children – Nancy, 9, Arthur, 7, and Florence, 2 – and are guarded by more than a dozen security officers from Scotland Yard, providing 24-hour protection, as well as officers from the English and Portuguese secret service.

And recent visitors [to the Algarve] have included David and Victoria Beckham, Claudia Schiffer, Cristiano Ronaldo, José Mourinho, Hugh Grant, George Benson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Wayne Rooney, Alan Shearer , Ernie Els, Colin Montgomery, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg and various members of the European royal families.

http://amovate.com/index.php/2013/08/4535/

by **tigger** 15.08.13 15:20

jeanmonroe wrote:Ok Thanks.
Got it.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/statement-analysis-mccann-interview-2011.html.
Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres
Interviewer: 50 Meters?
Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...
Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific
KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview. The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM.
Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it. Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.
_______________________________________________________

So the 'direct' line would mean exiting, and leaving unlocked, the patio door, climbing over balcony fence, dropping into garden, leaping over 6 foot bushes and dropping down into the alleyway in front of apartment, climbing over OC 7 foot perimeter wall dropping into the OC , swimming through the pool, good training for a triathlete, climbing out to be near to Tapas restaurant, walking a further few metres to their BOOKED table!

Why not just go out of gate to 5A and walk down to OC entrance and follow path inside to the restaurant!
LOL'

Oh yeah, now i remember, THAT way to the restaurant TABLE would be at least 125 metres!

Ah, but Gerry's just proved what a tremendous triathlete he is! All that practice years ago!

Proximity was very close .... in English that might mean it wasn't far? It was quite or very close to (a place). Gerry loves his official sounding words but does not appear to know what they mean, such as 'purport' and in this case 'proximity' a qualifying term, not a person, object or location.

by loopzdaloop 15.08.13 18:17

tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far.

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence.

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases.
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta: Assange is a waste of time, space and money as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.

Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question:
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made?

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation?

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to.

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like.

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

by Praiaaa 15.08.13 18:26

loopzdaloop wrote:
I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like.

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

Indeed - well said

by aiyoyo 15.08.13 21:13

Whether the money spent is worthy of the cause is too premature to say.

Expenditure is just THAT if there's no return.

The worth or otherwise of this cost depends ultimately on the outcome of this investigation.

If, in the finished, it leads to the arrest of Madeleine's perpetrators and the successful prosecution of them, then it would be well worth every penny.

If, it turns out just to be the biggest show in history of a phony investigation, then all hell will break loose.

by Guest 15.08.13 21:24

loopzdaloop wrote:
tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far.

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence.

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases.
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta: Assange is a waste of time, space and money as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.
Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question:
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made?

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation?

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to.

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like.

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

by Who?What?Where? 16.08.13 0:47

I think that Marconi made a very good point about Interpol.

I assume that it was set up to allow police officer's to track down criminal's, whichever country they tried to flee to, when under suspicion of a crime.

Why all this rigmarole and delay in the McCann case and the, increasingly, obvious expense of it?

Now, look at the leveson enquiry.

The press, correctly IMO, said that all of the necessary safeguard's were in place, in law, to control them and that they could be held to account in a Court of Law, if they were suspected of breaking the law..

Why the need for the leveson enquiry and the obvious expense of it?

It was reported in the press recently, that cameron was shocked about an affair, that could de-rail the government's agenda.

What exactly is the government's agenda? Why does cameron not just allow the press to tell the truth, when the law's are already in place to punish them , if they do not do that?

Is he afraid of something, just like blair and brown, before him, were? Do you think any of them want the real truth to come out, or is it possible that they are just defending their own, very lucrative, position's?

Cameron has not funded the review of the Mccann investigation out of his own pocket. He put the burden upon other people. The taxpayer's.

Plenty of, "other people", donated money to the "Madeleine fund" out of their own pocket, after they had paid tax on it. Those people deserve to be told the real truth, IMHO.
Just tell them the real truth dave. What, on earth, have you got to be afraid of?

by **tigger** 16.08.13 7:42

loopzdaloop wrote:
tigger wrote:The cost is a factor in view of the absolute rubbish spouted by SY so far.

This elite team coming hard on the heels of the 'soothing couple' and various other pantomime characters is not inspiring confidence.

Why this publicity? So they are seen to be doing something for the money and time which could be better spent on other cases.
You may add to these costs those incurred for the brief performance on behalf of Kerry Needham. Which imo was purely to make it look like routine procedure for all children missing abroad.

Eta: Assange is a waste of time, space and money as well - this smug creature will have to sort it out for himself.
Publicity? what publicity? by who?

First question:
How many public statements have Scotland Yard made?

Second question:
Why should you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary in a criminal investigation?

If you, I or the man next door receive a running commentary, that also means that anyone potentially responsible for the crime will know exactly what the police are up to.

If these people responsible are also slippery, have the most expensive lawyers available on the planet and the ability to retrofit any explanation out of thin air to counter evidence then if they knew what to expect in interviews, there would be no point in the interview.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous expectation that anyone should know what is happening in a criminal investigation. With a perspective I share with T4Two money should not be a factor in investigating crime otherwise the people with the money and the power (which are the minority in society) could get away with anything they like.

Scotland Yard have been watertight in their investigation otherwise the Mccann's would be lording over this that and the other? In dealing with people like the Mccann's they need to rule out every other possibly explanation for what happened. That will take time.

In previous posts re SY I've stated quite clearly why I have no faith in this investigation.

Up to April 2012 I had an open mind.
Then we had the DCI Redwood appearing in short order in:
A Panorama documentary
On two separate morning shows

Stating that Maddie could be alive
That they cooperated closely with the parents
That the age advanced image was made with their active help
That they had 195 leads

We've just had a repeat of this performance in April and May and an apparently cavalier treatment of the PJ in releasing information which the PJ were apparently not aware of.

I've said before that SY in particular Redwood had no business stating anything at all in an ongoing case.

LdL: it's the very fact of SY's having gone public that's made me lose faith.

I don't want a running commentary, I want them to do their job in total silence. To say nothing at all. It's too late for that now.

by Angelique 16.08.13 10:56

tigger

Thumbs up smiley.

Totally agree - the very fact that Redwood has appeared out of the thicket says it all.

by T4two 16.08.13 11:16

Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

by marconi 16.08.13 11:46

T4two wrote:Since the appointment of politically correct chief constables modern policing appears to be obsessed with public relations and all that goes with it. One can easily gain a completely wrong impression of how an investigation is proceeding when the only information available is the PR bilge being spouted by the police spokesman (or should I say spokesperson?) and speculation in the media. I recall the case of the young woman Jo Yeats who disappeared immediately before Christmas a year or so ago. At that time the spokesman for the police seemed more concerned about giving the public statistics on how many tons of rubbish the police had sifted through looking for a missing pizza, than solving the case itself. In fact together with the media they became so obsessed by that pizza that I dispaired of them ever solving the case at all, until suddenly they arrested the perpetrator on the basis of forensic evidence - nothing to do with the missing pizza whatsoever. Therefore as far as Scotland Yard are concerned I am not so perturbed about Redwood's TV appearances or the information/speculation in the media - they probably have very little to do with what is actually going on.

Wonderful! It makes me think of the First Golf War, when Saddam Houssain and the whole world expected the american invasion coming from te sea, everything was pointing to that, and it came from Irak itself, American troops were already there.
Although as far as I know, there are no American troops in Rothley at the moment but who knows.

by Praiaaa 16.08.13 11:48

When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?

by Woofer 16.08.13 11:55

Praiaaa wrote:When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?

Only if they are going to be questioned - perhaps they`re not !

by littlepixie 16.08.13 12:05

Going back to cost, there are missing people/bodies and parts of bodies all over the place still not found. Parts of Catherine Gowings' body was never found. April Jones body was never found, Keith Bennetts' body was never found, a landlord from a local pub who is believed to have fallen in the river at Conwy Harbour is still not found. A young boy murdered in Reddish Vale Stockport had only some body parts found, the rest of him remains missing.

The Police will spend an initial amount on a search but eventually that search has to be called off. I should imagine that only if new evidence comes to light will a search resume.

Cost does come into it. It always has.

by lj 17.08.13 2:52

Woofer wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:When the case was schelved, the arguido status was lifted.
If the case is re-opened, surely the arguido status should be reinstated?
Only if they are going to be questioned - perhaps they`re not !

Nothing has been said about the case being reopened. Some British newspapers talk about that, but as far as the PJ goes nobody mentioned reopening. That makes it so interesting as far as the legal powers are concerned.

Joana Morais - The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police - 14/8/2013