Re: CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

by ultimaThule 20.03.14 22:14

Doug D wrote:Smelly pot-bellied binman

This is the description from the Met Police Press Release:

‘Witnesses describe the man as having dark (as in tanned) skin with short dark unkempt hair. He spoke in English with a foreign accent, his voice was described as slow, or possibly slurred.  He was sometimes bare chested, some describe him as having a pot belly, and three victims said that he had a noticeable odour’.  

That description does not seem to tally with photos of the late Mr Monteiro of Tractorman fame nor, unless my eyes deceive me, does it give any description of the suspect's clothing such as a burgundy/maroon colour top which is not dissimilar to that worn by the Gunners.

Any bets on whether an e-fit of the suspect will be forthcoming?

by Woofer 20.03.14 22:23

loopzdaloop wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`ve just tried to watch Crimewatch again on BBCi player but it keeps saying `media selection request failed`.

Anyway on the details it does say that Binman was said by some witnesses to have a pot belly (which I`m sure Tractorman didn`t).

Just watched him on update...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03yx055/Crimewatch_Update_19_03_2014/

He has the thumbscrews on the mccanns now...
They must be outraged about whats going on!

He almost chuckled to himself when he said that "he has a number of calls that he is very encouraged by

He is taking the michael.

But... Their current working hypothesis is that the death occurred in the appartment.

so.... Mccann's... your time is almost up.

Noticed that the pic of Maddie on the screen behind Andy is the one where she is separated off from the poolside group.

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 22:23

PeterMac wrote:
Has Redwood just repeated what Amaral, Rebelo, the Archiving two, Grime, Leicester and every other professional who has ever looked at this case has said
Namely, to whit, and viz, and for that matter in terms
That Madeleine died in the apartment. ?

NOPE ! He said nothing of that kind.
I did not watch it but gathered from comments here he's still looking for a stranger.

by jozi 20.03.14 22:23

loopzdaloop wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`ve just tried to watch Crimewatch again on BBCi player but it keeps saying `media selection request failed`.

Anyway on the details it does say that Binman was said by some witnesses to have a pot belly (which I`m sure Tractorman didn`t).

Just watched him on update...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03yx055/Crimewatch_Update_19_03_2014/

He has the thumbscrews on the mccanns now...
They must be outraged about whats going on!

He almost chuckled to himself when he said that "he has a number of calls that he is very encouraged by

He is taking the michael.

But... Their current working hypothesis is that the death occurred in the appartment.

so.... Mccann's... your time is almost up.

Blimey !!!

by Doug D 20.03.14 22:30

Adding to Dantezebu’s posting regarding The Guardian’s articles (from McCannfiles)

Version 1, 11.43
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, (I think he is talking about smelly binman here) but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann. (therefore thinking that not abducted)

Version 2, 11.43
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
………….
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. (therefore thinking not alive)

Version 3, 21.03
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007. (same as ‘second’ 11.43)
……………..
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment (italics have been added)
"may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

Reds are my comments.

This does not look like CR or CM influence to me. I think it is Redwood & his team correcting or clarifying what he said off his own back The first article refers to abduction, but then throws doubt on abduction.

The ‘a’ word then drops out of sight in version 2, but introduces the thought of death (not alive), which continues in version 3, with the addition of ‘when she left the apartment’ which clarifies his thinking of when she had not been alive from version 2.

Unless they objected to doubt being thrown on abduction (which has always been the mainstay of their story and got Redwood to change or clarify what he said), surely the suggestion that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, from TM’s viewpoint, must be a far less acceptable scenario.

Is this why Stoneyface lost his frozen image towards the end of his video’d statement, as even he can’t keep on spouting ‘binman’ type nonsense any more without reacting?

by ultimaThule 20.03.14 22:34

Mirage wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PM David Cameron stepping in... ?
I'm truly flabbergasted
It is hard to take in, Châtelaine. When has a PM of the UK openly interfered in a criminal case in this way before and instigated and financed an review/investigation from a special Home Office fund? What precedent is there? And why has this case, amongst hundreds of thousands, commanded the attention of Brown, Blair, and Cameron - three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

The public are due some answers here.

As I see no evidence of 'interference' in a criminal case, I don't see anything untoward in Cameron's offer to "make further representations to the Portuguese government if that would be helpful" to speed the diplomatic processes which are inevitable in criminal cases which involve more than one country and, in view of the mounting costs of Operation Grange, more particularly if such representations facilitate speedy resolution of the ongoing UK and Portuguese investigations,

by russiandoll 20.03.14 22:44

Briefly shown on Sky paper review, front page of Daily Express [ I think, definitely a tabloid]

MADDIE : POLICE INUNDATED WITH CLUES AFTER NEW CRIMEWATCH APPEAL [ or words to that effect].

Redwood said on last night's CW update things were busy, sounds like last time ,with texts, calls and e-mails.

UK viewers asked to cast their minds back...and unless all contact referred to post-2010, the last known incident, then some , many or all casting their minds back almost 4 years.

inundated...I wonder what they were saying to CW this time?

I would imagine a few shopped images of " Smithman" wearing a maroon shirt were included.

by ultimaThule 20.03.14 22:51

Doug D wrote:Adding to Dantezebu’s posting regarding The Guardian’s articles (from McCannfiles)

Version 1, 11.43
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, (I think he is talking about smelly binman here) but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann. (therefore thinking that not abducted)

Version 2, 11.43
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
………….
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. (therefore thinking not alive)

Version 3, 21.03
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007. (same as ‘second’ 11.43)
……………..
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment (italics have been added)
"may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

Reds are my comments.

This does not look like CR or CM influence to me. I think it is Redwood & his team correcting or clarifying what he said off his own back The first article refers to abduction, but then throws doubt on abduction.

The ‘a’ word then drops out of sight in version 2, but introduces the thought of death (not alive), which continues in version 3, with the addition of ‘when she left the apartment’ which clarifies his thinking of when she had not been alive from version 2.

Unless they objected to doubt being thrown on abduction (which has always been the mainstay of their story and got Redwood to change or clarify what he said), surely the suggestion that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, from TM’s viewpoint, must be a far less acceptable scenario.

Is this why Stoneyface lost his frozen image towards the end of his video’d statement, as even he can’t keep on spouting ‘binman’ type nonsense any more without reacting?

On tonight's update of last night's update, AR said "we understand the sensitivity of what we're asking for help with' which, to me, is indication that neither Cameron, May, Grieve, Hogan-Howe or any other 'need to know' person or agency, is in any doubt as to the true facts of the matter and that justice will be served in this case.

by Woofer 20.03.14 22:55

Doug D wrote:Adding to Dantezebu’s posting regarding The Guardian’s articles (from McCannfiles)

Version 1, 11.43
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, (I think he is talking about smelly binman here) but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann. (therefore thinking that not abducted)

So, Version 1 is in quotes so is what Andy actually said.

Version 2, 11.43
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
………….
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. (therefore thinking not alive)

Version 3, 21.03
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007. (same as ‘second’ 11.43)
……………..
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment (italics have been added)
"may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

Reds are my comments.

Blue are my comments. Note that Version 2 and 3 are not what Andy actually said but what the Guardian journalist interpreted him saying.

This does not look like CR or CM influence to me. I think it is Redwood & his team correcting or clarifying what he said off his own back The first article refers to abduction, but then throws doubt on abduction.

The ‘a’ word then drops out of sight in version 2, but introduces the thought of death (not alive), which continues in version 3, with the addition of ‘when she left the apartment’ which clarifies his thinking of when she had not been alive from version 2.

Unless they objected to doubt being thrown on abduction (which has always been the mainstay of their story and got Redwood to change or clarify what he said), surely the suggestion that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, from TM’s viewpoint, must be a far less acceptable scenario.

Is this why Stoneyface lost his frozen image towards the end of his video’d statement, as even he can’t keep on spouting ‘binman’ type nonsense any more without reacting?

by petunia 20.03.14 23:04

Doug d. Bare chested. now then now then were is that pic of wee Gerry running with his other halve bare chested.

by russiandoll 20.03.14 23:10

In a nutshell, re Redwood's words in the Guardian , it seems that Andy

1. doubts that there was an abduction

2. considers that a body, rather than a living child, was removed from the apartment.

Interesting.

A fishing expedition, possibly, last night's CW.

UT : On tonight's update of last night's update, AR said "we understand the sensitivity of what we're asking for help with "

I tend to agree with your comments on the above, but he might have been referring to the sensitive nature of contacting police with details of child molestation [ he would surely be wondering why wait until now?]

What jurisdiction would the UK have if this type of assault had happened abroad?

Is that what AR meant when he told viewers not to take it for granted that even if they had reported an incident to the foreign police, the Met would necessarily know about it? The police abroad would get in touch with a local UK force, not the Met? Or maybe no force, if only the country where the offence was committed had jurisdiction? He did not clarify his point, which made it ambiguous. Was he criticising the PJ here, or not ?

by Guest 20.03.14 23:28

Doug D wrote:Adding to Dantezebu’s posting regarding The Guardian’s articles (from McCannfiles)

Version 1, 11.43
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, (I think he is talking about smelly binman here) but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann. (therefore thinking that not abducted)

Version 2, 11.43
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
………….
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. (therefore thinking not alive)

Version 3, 21.03
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007. (same as ‘second’ 11.43)
……………..
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment (italics have been added)
"may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

Reds are my comments.

This does not look like CR or CM influence to me. I think it is Redwood & his team correcting or clarifying what he said off his own back The first article refers to abduction, but then throws doubt on abduction.

The ‘a’ word then drops out of sight in version 2, but introduces the thought of death (not alive), which continues in version 3, with the addition of ‘when she left the apartment’ which clarifies his thinking of when she had not been alive from version 2.

Unless they objected to doubt being thrown on abduction (which has always been the mainstay of their story and got Redwood to change or clarify what he said), surely the suggestion that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, from TM’s viewpoint, must be a far less acceptable scenario.

Is this why Stoneyface lost his frozen image towards the end of his video’d statement, as even he can’t keep on spouting ‘binman’ type nonsense any more without reacting?

Thanks for summarising the Guardian's reporting of Redwood's thoughts regarding death in the apartment, Doug.

Just to reiterate, though, for those asking for clarification on where this was reported and those who regretted not seeing CW therefore missing the bombshell (don't worry, you didn't, and the 'bombshell' was more of a wet fart which Redwood appears to have wafted away):

At NO POINT did Redwood make ANY reference to the possibility of Madeleine being dead in the apartment on the telly yesterday. Not on the news, Crimewatch OR the Met's own statement with him on video. The ONLY mention appears to have been at a private press conference, from which only the Guardian has so far chosen to quote these words and even they (as Doug summarises) have changed their official interpretation twice.

Sorry all, but to me the 'dead in the apartment' message is one which Redwood hasn't emphasized at all, and, to me at least, he would appear to have regretted alluding to it at all. Let's see if he mentions it anywhere again, as he surely would if truly attempting to drip-feed the truth into the nation's consciousness.

Redwood is still working to his instructions, I believe, to not find evidence against the McCanns. His grip on the shirtstrings of the PJ was yanked from him with GA's interview, in my opinion, and this last-minute hijacking of the CW programme was the result of that. Certainly, I've never before seen him being so disparaging about the Portuguese. I feel his sole aim of bonding with them to infiltrate their investigation has taken a sharp knock or has failed. New drastic measures to stop the PJ are needed...

.... Hold on! Who's that entering stage right? Why, it's David Cameron!

All my own opinion.

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 23:31

ultimaThule wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PM David Cameron stepping in... ?
I'm truly flabbergasted
It is hard to take in, Châtelaine. When has a PM of the UK openly interfered in a criminal case in this way before and instigated and financed an review/investigation from a special Home Office fund? What precedent is there? And why has this case, amongst hundreds of thousands, commanded the attention of Brown, Blair, and Cameron - three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

The public are due some answers here.
As I see no evidence of 'interference' in a criminal case, I don't see anything untoward in Cameron's offer to "make further representations to the Portuguese government if that would be helpful" to speed the diplomatic processes which are inevitable in criminal cases which involve more than one country and, in view of the mounting costs of Operation Grange, more particularly if such representations facilitate speedy resolution of the ongoing UK and Portuguese investigations,

Helpful to whom where the Portuguese are concerned ? Helpful for self serving purpose is not going to be taken kindly by the Portuguese.

Politician should never interfere with Police works, what more one that is tangled up with foreign police and foreign judiciary.
One simply cannot dictate to another country how they should or at what speed they should cater to your demands on a case where expediency is not a matter between life and death. It's called unnecessary nosing into police investigation and sticking your nose into another country's judiciary and that is unacceptable by any standards.

The process will be what it will be depending on whether the hundreds of requests made by UK within the 3 ILOR are reasonable or justifiable or not, or within legal do-able limits or not. Baseless requests that have no justifications wasting Portuguese time and resources should be within their right to refuse to comply.
At the end of the day, Portugal system is completely different from that of UK and that has to be respected.

Needless to say Cameron would not take kindly to another judiciary applying political pressure on his cabinet and/or judiciary to speed up just to suit their budget and purpose.

Political pressure may sometimes be relevant in cases of different context, but not in this case context.

by russiandoll 20.03.14 23:33

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/20/madeleine-mcann-suspect-died-in-2009

Madeleine McCann suspect 'died in 2009'
Revelation by source close to investigators comes day after new appeal for information on British girl's disappearance in Portugal

Brendan de Beer in Praia da Luz and James Meikle
theguardian.com, Thursday 20 March 2014 22.35 GMT

A suspect in Madeleine McCann case who may have sexually assaulted five British girls in the Algarve up to 10 years ago died in 2009, according to a source close to Portuguese investigators into the disappearance of the three year-old.

The source also said there had been another so far unpublicised incident in which another British girl on holiday with her parents was sexually abused, although he did not go into when this came to light nor where or when it took place.

The revelations came the day after the Metropolitan police in Britain appealed for information on a total of 12 incidents in which an intruder entered holiday accommodation in three resort areas including one where Madeleine, then three, went missing in May 2007. Four of these cases, between 2004 and 2006, involved assaults on girls aged seven to 10 and one involved two children, according to Scotland Yard, although police in both countries have looked at incidents up to 2010, three years after Madeleine vanished.

** Daily Star front page " Maddie sex fiend is dead"

and this

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4040048.ece

Police in Portugal said yesterday they know the identity of the serial sex attacker who British police fear may have killed Madeleine McCann.
Scotland Yard says it is seeking information about a man who sneaked into bedrooms to assault young girls holidaying with their families on the Algarve on at least 12 occasions.
But Portuguese detectives say that man was likely to have been Euclides Monteiro, a convicted burglar and drug addict who they regard as the chief suspect in the Madeleine case.

remainder is sourced back to the Guardian report posted above

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 23:37

Dee Coy wrote:
Thanks for summarising the Guardian's reporting of Redwood's thoughts regarding death in the apartment, Doug.

Just to reiterate, though, for those asking for clarification on where this was reported and those who regretted not seeing CW therefore missing the bombshell (don't worry, you didn't, and the 'bombshell' was more of a wet fart which Redwood appears to have wafted away):

At NO POINT did Redwood make ANY reference to the possibility of Madeleine being dead in the apartment on the telly yesterday. Not on the news, Crimewatch OR the Met's own statement with him on video. The ONLY mention appears to have been at a private press conference, from which only the Guardian has so far chosen to quote these words and even they (as Doug summarises) have changed their official interpretation twice.

Sorry all, but to me the 'dead in the apartment' message is one which Redwood hasn't emphasized at all, and, to me at least, he would appear to have regretted alluding to it at all. Let's see if he mentions it anywhere again, as he surely would if truly attempting to drip-feed the truth into the nation's consciousness.

Redwood is still working to his instructions, I believe, to not find evidence against the McCanns. His grip on the shirtstrings of the PJ was yanked from him with GA's interview, in my opinion, and this last-minute hijacking of the CW programme was the result of that. Certainly, I've never before seen him being so disparaging about the Portuguese. I feel his sole aim of bonding with them to infiltrate their investigation has taken a sharp knock or has failed. New drastic measures to stop the PJ are needed...

.... Hold on! Who's that entering stage right? Why, it's David Cameron!

All my own opinion.

I agree, only in the bit that Cameron entering the arena is sea bass fishy. There shouldn't be a need for that in a case of this nature and context.

by Mirage 20.03.14 23:38

ultimaThule wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PM David Cameron stepping in... ?
I'm truly flabbergasted
It is hard to take in, Châtelaine. When has a PM of the UK openly interfered in a criminal case in this way before and instigated and financed an review/investigation from a special Home Office fund? What precedent is there? And why has this case, amongst hundreds of thousands, commanded the attention of Brown, Blair, and Cameron - three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

The public are due some answers here.
As I see no evidence of 'interference' in a criminal case, I don't see anything untoward in Cameron's offer to "make further representations to the Portuguese government if that would be helpful" to speed the diplomatic processes which are inevitable in criminal cases which involve more than one country and, in view of the mounting costs of Operation Grange, more particularly if such representations facilitate speedy resolution of the ongoing UK and Portuguese investigations,

Sorry UT but I must disagree with you on this.

Cameron has no place in any of this because he stood in the House of Commons and referred to the McCanns as victims (of the press). That is a partisan view and one expressed within the walls of the most potent symbol of our democracy. It is a partisan view expressed for the consumption of the nation as it was broadcast live. It is a partisan view expressed by the Prime Minister of the nation, the person at the pinnacle of the august hierarchy he is addressing: a person invested with the might and pomp of our legislature and holder of the highest office in the land. He is the figurehead looked to in times of crisis and war for clear-headed judgement. Yet he expressed a calculatedly partisan view in the full knowledge that, by dint of that prestigious position, his opinion could carry far-reaching weight, both here and abroad.

Let us not forget the PM has form where interfering is concerned. He was recently slapped down by a judge for declaring himself 'Team Nigella'. By the same token he has unambiguously declared himself 'Team McCann'. And if that is not interfering with a criminal case I will go to the bottom of the class.

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 23:44

Mirage wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PM David Cameron stepping in... ?
I'm truly flabbergasted
It is hard to take in, Châtelaine. When has a PM of the UK openly interfered in a criminal case in this way before and instigated and financed an review/investigation from a special Home Office fund? What precedent is there? And why has this case, amongst hundreds of thousands, commanded the attention of Brown, Blair, and Cameron - three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

The public are due some answers here.
As I see no evidence of 'interference' in a criminal case, I don't see anything untoward in Cameron's offer to "make further representations to the Portuguese government if that would be helpful" to speed the diplomatic processes which are inevitable in criminal cases which involve more than one country and, in view of the mounting costs of Operation Grange, more particularly if such representations facilitate speedy resolution of the ongoing UK and Portuguese investigations,
Sorry UT but I must disagree with you on this.

Cameron has no place in any of this because he stood in the House of Commons and referred to the McCanns as victims (of the press). That is a partisan view and one expressed within the walls of the most potent symbol of our democracy. It is a partisan view expressed for the consumption of the nation as it was broadcast live. It is a partisan view expressed by the Prime Minister of the nation, the person at the pinnacle of the august hierarchy he is addressing: a person invested with the might and pomp of our legislature and holder of the highest office in the land. He is the figurehead looked to in times of crisis and war for clear-headed judgement. Yet he expressed a calculatedly partisan view in the full knowledge that, by dint of that prestigious position, his opinion could carry far-reaching weight, both here and abroad.

Let us not forget the PM has form where interfering is concerned. He was recently slapped down by a judge for declaring himself 'Team Nigella'. By the same token he has unambiguously declared himself 'Team McCann'. And if that is not interfering with a criminal case I will go to the bottom of the class.

Exactly! It raises question why he singled out the Mccanns case over the rest of the missing children/people to accord special treatment to.

by Okeydokey 20.03.14 23:56

Mirage wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PM David Cameron stepping in... ?
I'm truly flabbergasted
It is hard to take in, Châtelaine. When has a PM of the UK openly interfered in a criminal case in this way before and instigated and financed an review/investigation from a special Home Office fund? What precedent is there? And why has this case, amongst hundreds of thousands, commanded the attention of Brown, Blair, and Cameron - three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

The public are due some answers here.
As I see no evidence of 'interference' in a criminal case, I don't see anything untoward in Cameron's offer to "make further representations to the Portuguese government if that would be helpful" to speed the diplomatic processes which are inevitable in criminal cases which involve more than one country and, in view of the mounting costs of Operation Grange, more particularly if such representations facilitate speedy resolution of the ongoing UK and Portuguese investigations,
Sorry UT but I must disagree with you on this.

Cameron has no place in any of this because he stood in the House of Commons and referred to the McCanns as victims (of the press). That is a partisan view and one expressed within the walls of the most potent symbol of our democracy. It is a partisan view expressed for the consumption of the nation as it was broadcast live. It is a partisan view expressed by the Prime Minister of the nation, the person at the pinnacle of the august hierarchy he is addressing: a person invested with the might and pomp of our legislature and holder of the highest office in the land. He is the figurehead looked to in times of crisis and war for clear-headed judgement. Yet he expressed a calculatedly partisan view in the full knowledge that, by dint of that prestigious position, his opinion could carry far-reaching weight, both here and abroad.

Let us not forget the PM has form where interfering is concerned. He was recently slapped down by a judge for declaring himself 'Team Nigella'. By the same token he has unambiguously declared himself 'Team McCann'. And if that is not interfering with a criminal case I will go to the bottom of the class.

Absolutely Mirage. The PM was partisan, spouting the Team McCann propagandal.

by russiandoll 20.03.14 23:56

with thanks to [email=Johanna@unterdenteppichgekehrt]Johanna@unterdenteppichgekehrt[/email] blog

Britain's Finest

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/videos/video/14109980/1

Scotland Yard speaks of new data that has been collected by the English investigation. But the Judiciary Police has another version.

The thesis that points towards a suspect of alleged sexual attacks against British children in the Algarve is nothing but the investigation line that was defined by the PJ team in Oporto, which reviewed the entire process.

A source at the Judiciary Police asserts that this was the line that was the basis for the reopening of the inquiry, in October last year.

This means that what has just been announced in England is part of the Portuguese process, which is under judicial secrecy. A secret that had been well kept until now and that was breached, which may weaken the trust between both police forces.

This information was given by the PJ itself to the British police and to the McCann couple, during a meeting at the Judiciary Police’s National Directory, in Lisbon.

There is an agreement between both police forces: they regularly meet in Portugal. They exchange information about the development of the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The PJ has always kept silent about what happens during these meetings that take place behind closed doors. A stance that is being kept: Officially, the National Directory does not comment Scotland Yard’s statement.

Thank you Astro for the translation

by Guest 21.03.14 0:00

What's to ponder? Cameron is part of the Establishment and will play his part to protect whatever it is they've been protecting all this time.

I've mentioned a few times that I believe the only reason the Met investigation limps on is becuase the PJ are doing it properly - they desperately wanted a partnership to get in there, see what was what and 'sort out' the direction the Portuguese are taking. I think this was scuppered this week and the remit given to the Met by those with an agenda has floundered.

Hence what happened yesterday and now Cameron's great left one shooting out to stop the PJ's door slamming shut.

by aiyoyo 21.03.14 0:01

Doug D wrote:Smelly pot-bellied binman

‘Witnesses describe the man as having dark (as in tanned) skin with short dark unkempt hair. He spoke in English with a foreign accent, his voice was described as slow, or possibly slurred.  He was sometimes bare chested, some describe him as having a pot belly, and three victims said that he had a noticeable odour’.  

Three witnesses, not just one, but none of them gave a description of the man's face ? You'd think that's the very basic info Police seek when taking statements.

by Mirage 21.03.14 0:15

I never imagined for one moment the good cop, bad cop scenario was going on. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the PJ are as pissed off as hell with SY - and have been for some time. I reckon the PJ ran an honesty test to see if SY could keep it zipped. Now all the leaks make sense.

What a shock it must be to discover this time round the PJ are clued up to the pitfalls of working with the Brits.

by Guest 21.03.14 0:26

Mirage wrote:I never imagined for one moment the good cop, bad cop scenario was going on. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the PJ are as pissed off as hell with SY - and have been for some time. I reckon the PJ ran an honesty test to see if SY could keep it zipped. Now all the leaks make sense.

What a shock it must be to discover this time round the PJ are clued up to the pitfalls of working with the Brits.

Wouldn't be surprised at this, SmellyTractor man being the marked £20 note that caught the thief and a massive Red Herring. So what line are the PJ really taking and how close are they to unleash firstly the interview from GA and now this panic-attack from the British? Hmmm...

by sallypelt 21.03.14 0:32

Dee Coy wrote:
Mirage wrote:I never imagined for one moment the good cop, bad cop scenario was going on. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the PJ are as pissed off as hell with SY - and have been for some time. I reckon the PJ ran an honesty test to see if SY could keep it zipped. Now all the leaks make sense.

What a shock it must be to discover this time round the PJ are clued up to the pitfalls of working with the Brits.

Wouldn't be surprised at this, SmellyTractor man being the marked £20 note that caught the thief and a massive Red Herring. So what line are the PJ really taking and how close are they to unleash firstly the interview from GA and now this panic-attack from the British? Hmmm...

Whatever happened to the mobile phone data?

by Mirage 21.03.14 0:35

sallypelt wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
Mirage wrote:I never imagined for one moment the good cop, bad cop scenario was going on. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the PJ are as pissed off as hell with SY - and have been for some time. I reckon the PJ ran an honesty test to see if SY could keep it zipped. Now all the leaks make sense.

What a shock it must be to discover this time round the PJ are clued up to the pitfalls of working with the Brits.

Wouldn't be surprised at this, SmellyTractor man being the marked £20 note that caught the thief and a massive Red Herring. So what line are the PJ really taking and how close are they to unleash firstly the interview from GA and now this panic-attack from the British? Hmmm...

Whatever happened to the mobile phone data?

Exactly. Smacks of a right old panic to me. SY and Cameron seem to have taken leave of their senses.

ETA I met Craig Revel-Horwood not long ago and together we did an, 'It's a dis-ahster dahling. A dis-ahster'
That's what I think of the national disgrace that is unfolding before our disbelieving eyes.

Log in for more topics