CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

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?

Dee Coy wrote:

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?

I reckon the flurry of frantic and numerous phone calls that came to light around and just after the time of the 'disappearance' between up to, my guess is, 9 people is definitely one of the lines of enquiry the PJ are following and the Yard want to scupper, um, ask them to share.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Therefore we have:

1, Monteiro, 'tanned'

and

2. 'smelly bin man': (per DCI Redwood) 'dark, brown, tanned'.

Not much to choose, then.

If it's the same man, Redwood has misled us.

If it's two diifferent men, then Portugal had two similar child-molestors entering holiday apartments between 2004 and 2010.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Therefore we have:

1, Monteiro, 'tanned'

and

2. 'smelly bin man': (per DCI Redwood) 'dark, brown, tanned'.

Not much to choose, then.

If it's the same man, Redwood has misled us.

If it's two diifferent men, then Portugal had two similar child-molestors entering holiday apartments between 2004 and 2010.

Wait a minute - when did Euclid Monteiro go from being an addict and burglar to a child molestor?

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.

Mirage wrote:

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.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Therefore we have:

1, Monteiro, 'tanned'

and

2. 'smelly bin man': (per DCI Redwood) 'dark, brown, tanned'.

Not much to choose, then.

If it's the same man, Redwood has misled us.

If it's two diifferent men, then Portugal had two similar child-molestors entering holiday apartments between 2004 and 2010.

Wait a minute - when did Euclid Monteiro go from being an addict and burglar to a child molestor?

jozi wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Therefore we have:

1, Monteiro, 'tanned'

and

2. 'smelly bin man': (per DCI Redwood) 'dark, brown, tanned'.

Not much to choose, then.

If it's the same man, Redwood has misled us.

If it's two diifferent men, then Portugal had two similar child-molestors entering holiday apartments between 2004 and 2010.

Wait a minute - when did Euclid Monteiro go from being an addict and burglar to a child molestor?

And why child molester?  Are they admitting to something that did happen here ?

canada12 wrote:Presumably there's some DNA retrievable somehow from this latest suspect, if he's dead? Was he cremated or buried? If he was buried, he could be exhumed and a DNA sample taken, and compared to DNA samples which (presumably) were retrieved from 5A. Also, if he was a known criminal at the time, wouldn't his fingerprints be on record? I would assume if he'd been in 5A he'd have left something behind - everyone leaves something behind - fingerprints, DNA, etc. If there is no DNA or fingerprint match - and you have to think that 5A was very thoroughly checked for all kinds of things - then we 'd have to assume he would be eliminated from enquiries.

Tony Bennett wrote:

jozi wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Therefore we have:

1, Monteiro, 'tanned'

and

2. 'smelly bin man': (per DCI Redwood) 'dark, brown, tanned'.

Not much to choose, then.

If it's the same man, Redwood has misled us.

If it's two diifferent men, then Portugal had two similar child-molestors entering holiday apartments between 2004 and 2010.

Wait a minute - when did Euclid Monteiro go from being an addict and burglar to a child molestor?

And why child molester?  Are they admitting to something that did happen here ?

russiandoll's post yesterday at 11.33pm quotes THREE British newspapers basically all saying that 'smelly bin man' (child molestor) is the same as Euclid Monteiro (burglar and drug addict).

These three papers based their reports on information from the Portuguese police.

Of course, the Portuguese police could be wrong...

aiyoyo wrote:

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.

canada12 wrote:I still don't understand the leap of logic involved in stating that this stinky guy who wandered into the bedrooms of children much older than Madeleine, at a time of night much later than when Madeleine was reported missing, and who never abducted anyone, is likely the same guy who "abducted" Madeleine. This guy's MO bears absolutely nothing in common with anything to do with the Madeleine case.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Then I'm querying your logic.  Shouldn't it be:

- If it's the same man Redwood has misled us.

- If it's two different men, then there is Stinkman the child molestor, and Euclides Monteiro the addict and burglar.

plebgate wrote:

canada12 wrote:I still don't understand the leap of logic involved in stating that this stinky guy who wandered into the bedrooms of children much older than Madeleine, at a time of night much later than when Madeleine was reported missing, and who never abducted anyone, is likely the same guy who "abducted" Madeleine. This guy's MO bears absolutely nothing in common with anything to do with the Madeleine case.

There is no logic to it, especially as he left no DNA.

dantezebu wrote:

He is a certainly a mysterious character.
Does anyone know what DP did before medical school?
He qualified in 1994, which by my calculations made him 28 at the time ( he was 41 in 2007). About 4-5 years later than if he had gone directly after school.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

He is a certainly a mysterious character.
Does anyone know what DP did before medical school?
He qualified in 1994, which by my calculations made him 28 at the time ( he was 41 in 2007). About 4-5 years later than if he had gone directly after school.

I know it might appear from the text that he was referring to Payne here, but I don't think he was the "mysterious character". We know who he is, for a start! I think Payne's alleged predelictions (which I'm not convinced of myself, BTW) was more meant to be indicative of the kind of circles they moved in.

Doug D wrote:Recapping on the Guardian reports, for which there has been no retraction, apology or denial as far as I can see:
 
The Guardian, Wednesday 19 March 2014 18.13 GMT
Sandra Laville
 
Madeleine McCann: a breakthrough that could be devastating
Identifying a series of attacks has proved the key to similar cases. But it could mean an end to hopes that Madeleine is alive
                                   
‘…………. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive’.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family

21.03 James Meikle
 
‘Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment" may not follow with all our thinking" on the case’.
 
So if even the possibility that ‘Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive’ is now being entertained by Redwood, has he not effectively accepted that this does completely for all the T9 checking stories, by pushing a death timeline back to before 8.30 (10.00 less 90 minutes needed for cadaver odour to develop) which is of course about the time the Mc’s left 5a?