Re: Digging to start next week - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

by Bishop Brennan 28.05.14 12:04

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
... but why have Operation Grange never once if i recall, mentioned the original dogs findings back in 2007..?

Why should they? This is an ongoing investigation, it hasn't concluded.

What will be interesting is whether or not the press start to mention Eddie and Keela once they see dogs on-site in PDL. SY may have reasons for not mentioning them (whitewash / cunning plan depending on your view) but the press can certainly write about them in a non-libellous way as their use and findings are matters of public record. So far not a single word on them in 3 years. We shall see...

by HelenMeg 28.05.14 12:15

MarleneP wrote:Am I correct in assuming that the British police believes Madeleine died in the apartment.
That would be quite something, right?
Why is there still a fund?

The fund must now be used to purchase JCB's and spades

by worriedmum 28.05.14 12:20

stillsloppingout wrote:
tiny wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:"The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards"

Not a good sign for the Whitewash believers..

I thought it was a good sign for the whitewashers believers,because we know a burglary never happened.
So a burglar enters the apartment has a rummage , leaves no DNA fingerprints , finds nothing of value , ' i know ill take a child , before that ill kill her , and sit with her body for 45 mins , whilst in the same room as two small babies, hopefully nobody comes in to check . Then ill carry the corpse through the town in the dark and dispose of her , so well that it has never been detected for seven years !!!!
BRILLIANT of course why didn't we all think of this .

Spot on, Stillsloppingout! clapping1

by paradigm67 28.05.14 12:21

Bishop Brennan wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
... but why have Operation Grange never once if i recall, mentioned the original dogs findings back in 2007..?

Why should they? This is an ongoing investigation, it hasn't concluded.

What will be interesting is whether or not the press start to mention Eddie and Keela once they see dogs on-site in PDL. SY may have reasons for not mentioning them (whitewash / cunning plan depending on your view) but the press can certainly write about them in a non-libellous way as their use and findings are matters of public record. So far not a single word on them in 3 years. We shall see...

Wonder if they will use these 'better' dogs (as I believe they were reported) in the same areas that Eddie and Keela were used. If so then the outcomes could go one of several ways I suppose. If they dont alert then no doubt a lot of people will then take that as a sign to dismiss the original dogs, even though it was a good few years ago when things were a bit more fresh. If they do alert, will SY take that as a sign that MM did die in the appartment and possibly uphold the bungled burglary scenario or could they use that in the other possible scenario that they are actually investigating K&G?

by cass7 28.05.14 12:23

ok 7 years is a long time and many things have been whooshed , and there will have been many cases since 2007 where the dogs have been right , it is what they find after the dogs indicate , with dna advances too , whatever is found i really hope that another country is watching on for fair play nothing added nothing missing , also i forget too much but 15 out of 19 markers , was that in 5a , or and the car

by jeanmonroe 28.05.14 12:45

'digging' to start next week.
--------------------------------

If i were cynical i'd say that it must be pure 'coincidence' that the 'digging' will be ongoing at the same time as the 'conman' programme is broadcast.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 12:51

jeanmonroe wrote:'digging' to start next week.
--------------------------------
If i were cynical i'd say that it must be pure 'coincidence' that the 'digging' will be ongoing at the same time as the 'conman' programme is broadcast.

And does anyone know when the Libel trial is likely to resume ?

by stillsloppingout 28.05.14 12:53

paradigm67 wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
... but why have Operation Grange never once if i recall, mentioned the original dogs findings back in 2007..?

Why should they? This is an ongoing investigation, it hasn't concluded.

What will be interesting is whether or not the press start to mention Eddie and Keela once they see dogs on-site in PDL. SY may have reasons for not mentioning them (whitewash / cunning plan depending on your view) but the press can certainly write about them in a non-libellous way as their use and findings are matters of public record. So far not a single word on them in 3 years. We shall see...

Wonder if they will use these 'better' dogs (as I believe they were reported) in the same areas that Eddie and Keela were used. If so then the outcomes could go one of several ways I suppose. If they dont alert then no doubt a lot of people will then take that as a sign to dismiss the original dogs, even though it was a good few years ago when things were a bit more fresh. If they do alert, will SY take that as a sign that MM did die in the appartment and possibly uphold the bungled burglary scenario or could they use that in the other possible scenario that they are actually investigating K&G?

" Better Dogs " Because these can detect Bulls**t !!!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.05.14 13:12

paradigm67 wrote:
Wonder if they will use these 'better' dogs (as I believe they were reported) in the same areas that Eddie and Keela were used. If so then the outcomes could go one of several ways I suppose. If they dont alert then no doubt a lot of people will then take that as a sign to dismiss the original dogs, even though it was a good few years ago when things were a bit more fresh. If they do alert, will SY take that as a sign that MM did die in the appartment and possibly uphold the bungled burglary scenario or could they use that in the other possible scenario that they are actually investigating K&G?

Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

by ultimaThule 28.05.14 13:14

There is no 'better' dog than Keela; she is recognised as being one of her kind.

As the alerts given by Keela and the late Eddie have been recorded and attested to, there is no need for the services of other EVRD dogs to be utilised in respect of 5A and the Scenic although, of course, they may be called in to assist in any land searches which may take place.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 13:15

Just pulling three bits out of what may turn out to be Tabloid rubbish
[quote]
The three grounds are located near the Praia da Luz resort, in Lagos, where the English child disappeared from, on the 3rd of May of 2007. The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards.
NEAR PdL. NOT IN PdL.
Dogs that specialise in detecting cadaver odour will participate in the searches. The animals come from England and have already been successfully used in the retrieval of other bodies. The radars that will be used to find out if there is an alien object under ground will come from the same country.
Dogs and GPR - see other posts
The search warrants that permit the searches have also been issued already - because these are private grounds.
Search Warrants ?
If that is even close to being "true" it is very revealing.

WIKI
United Kingdom
Search warrants are issued by a local Magistrate and require a Constable to provide evidence to support the warrant application.
In other words a mere suspicion is not enough. You are not allowed to go on a "Fishing expedition".

However, CdM is a red top and should not be believed without independent verification.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.05.14 13:21

Very interesting PM, I really hope there is some truth in that article.

by ultimaThule 28.05.14 13:23

If true, it could be significant, PeterMac, and 'private grounds' could be golf courses, cemeteries, and land around barns, as well as the gardens of private residences.

by Woofer 28.05.14 13:29

PeterMac wrote:Just pulling three bits out of what may turn out to be Tabloid rubbish

The three grounds are located near the Praia da Luz resort, in Lagos, where the English child disappeared from, on the 3rd of May of 2007. The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards.
NEAR PdL. NOT IN PdL.
Dogs that specialise in detecting cadaver odour will participate in the searches. The animals come from England and have already been successfully used in the retrieval of other bodies. The radars that will be used to find out if there is an alien object under ground will come from the same country.
Dogs and GPR - see other posts
The search warrants that permit the searches have also been issued already - because these are private grounds.
Search Warrants ?
If that is even close to being "true" it is very revealing.

WIKI
United Kingdom
Search warrants are issued by a local Magistrate and require a Constable to provide evidence to support the warrant application.
In other words a mere suspicion is not enough. You are not allowed to go on a "Fishing expedition".

However, CdM is a red top and should not be believed without independent verification.

Right - taking this redtop piece at face value, there must be strong suspicion and a main warrant - the dig is just to get supportive evidence.

The redtop also states the warrant is for private property - so that would discard the roadways, beaches and common areas - so could it be something like someone`s garden, a private hotel or a golf course?

by missmar1 28.05.14 13:30

It's incredible to read so much nonsense about SY believing burglars entered apartment 5a with the intention to steal belongings but ended up taking a small child only to kill and bury her !

Imo, this is an outrageous suggestion - No matter what the original reason for entering 5a in the first place - if they ended up stealing a child they would be called abductors and NOT burglars in the first place !

It has been documented that nothing else was taken except the Mccann's little girl so imo, no-one can call a child stealer a BURGLAR !

I may be remembering it wrong so someone please correct me if I am, but I seem to remember Gerry Mccann once said that it was like going to the auto bank and finding yourself over the limit when he discovered his child missing.

by Ayniia 28.05.14 13:39

Andrew77R wrote:"The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards"

But, but, but... "nothing of value was missing " -Mccs words. Nevermind the child, YOUR daughter that was in fact missing...
Now seriously, I don't know what to think of this. I guess I'm in a wishful thinking day so I'm reading that thinking: they (SY ) couldn't announce, at least yet, that " "The English believe that the little girl was killed (by someone she knew )in the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards" ...
All IMHO. Because ok that burglary thing discounts the dogs alert in the apartment (if we can believe that the odor is instantaneous +that the burglar put the body in the parents closet + the body was close to cuddlecat but not in the bed ) but if you need to discount the dogs alerts in the Scenic and Kate's clothes. But wait,trying to explain the dogs alerts also gives the assertion that the alerts are true. SY can't really believe that us "evil trolls " are going to buy that right?!
As to the digs, again I'm thinking positive, that it means: look we're here press, and they will be doing the real digs somewhere else. I can't imagine that they'll be digging for a body with all the press there to capture the moment...
But then again I'm trying to make sense of things that make no sense at all... oh well...

by bristow 28.05.14 13:40

missmar1 wrote:It's incredible to read so much nonsense about SY believing burglars entered apartment 5a with the intention to steal belongings but ended up taking a small child only to kill and bury her !

Imo, this is an outrageous suggestion - No matter what the original reason for entering 5a in the first place - if they ended up stealing a child they would be called abductors and NOT burglars in the first place !

It has been documented that nothing else was taken except the Mccann's little girl so imo, no-one can call a child stealer a BURGLAR !

I may be remembering it wrong so someone please correct me if I am, but I seem to remember Gerry Mccann once said that it was like going to the auto bank and finding yourself over the limit when he discovered his child missing.

Yes dear Gerry said -

"The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank."

Taken from an interview with Sky News May 2007

http://news.sky.com/story/515170/read-what-the-mccanns-told-sky-news

by Guest 28.05.14 13:56

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

Maybe they're going to dig up 5A?

by jozi 28.05.14 14:17

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

Maybe they're going to dig up 5A?

Or Murats garden ?

by missmar1 28.05.14 14:19

Thanks bristow,

What an odd and dispassionate comparison to make when talking about he felt when he found his little girl was missing, No wonder the Mccanns were given a spokesperson - imagine, imo, how much more dispassion and odd comments may have been on show to the world if they had done all their own talking all of the time !

Clarence Mitchel has made a hash of things but at least it could be said his lack of feelings was because it was not his child he was talking about - ( Imo, the same cannot be said for the Mccanns ) Clarence's talking role has helped to limit the mccans uncaring image which imo, the public would have seen through a long time ago had the Mccanns not had his "expertise" because at the very least, Clarence has managed to keep the public on side for a long time.

by CynicAl 28.05.14 14:20

Personal opinion, even if the CdM article is 'close' to the truth, the language used cannot be trusted to be transparent, not even if it came from Andy Redwood personally.

I agree with the comment regards CdM writing articles about the Met in much the same way as the British media write about PortoPlod. There is either an air of exasperation and ridicule, or there is an air of compliance which may result in the use of very careful wording.

You can read a lot into 'burglary.' Not necessarily limited to the idea of a stranger breaking into the property to nick goods... If I were investigating the possibility that the child died in 5A, the parents knew, someone called some 'enablers' in PDL to help, and someone arranged for third parties to enter the premises and remove a package or bundle without asking questions, allowing KM to go back to check that the deed was done before screaming the place down in the most casual manner possible, and I were not to 'tip off' TM that I was about to finger them without new evidence which I was in the process of trying to gather, I might refer to needing search warrants to investigate burglars... If I happen to stumble on other evidence which changes my direction while doing that, then so be it.

So far none of this is bad news for those who are hoping for a genuine investigation. This may just be a diversion for formality's sake, but if it gets SY involved in a necessary process which will result in the necessary prosecution of two people who will only ever remain under SY's domestic jurisdiction, then so be it. Let the games proceed.

I still find it hard to believe that SY would even imagine, let alone get permission, to perform on foreign soil a unilateral coverup at the expense of another country's national pride, police credibility, and in the face of the overwhelming burden of available evidence and against such a heavily subscribed polarisation of public opinion on a global scale... This isn't smalltown UK brushing under the carpet, this is global news. In my opinion there cannot be any outcome of this re-opened investigation which does not, in some way, call the Mc's to account for something - be it murder, or reckless child abandonment, because no amount of whitewash can hold back the inevitable flood of public information and opinion and to keep the Mc's protected is to subscribe to keeping them close to the bosom of the political authorities in the UK, close to the frontlines of the battle against child abduction, close to the fore in the media FOR ALL TIME... and doing so will destroy the reputation of all three, and piss off the public, and terminate any remaining sympathy between the public and those campaigning for missing people. The gruesome twosome are a bad smell that won't go away, and someone, somehow is going to flush them because the gravy train cannot afford to run indefinitely, or we'll be funding their global travel when MBM would have been 14, 20, 30 and so on...

by TozerDerry 28.05.14 14:22

Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

by missmar1 28.05.14 14:37

Hi TozerDerry,

I agree it is a crime - but we label all criminals with a title therefore, imo, for a person to enter a property and take a child but nothing of monetary value, that person would have an abductor label ?

Unless of course SY choose to use the term burglar due to the sensitivity of this case?

by Praiaaa 28.05.14 14:38

TozerDerry wrote:Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

interesting

by Guest 28.05.14 14:50

Praiaaa wrote:
TozerDerry wrote:Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

interesting

England and Wales[edit]
Main article: Burglary in English law
Burglary is defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which created two variants:^[17]

A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.^{[Note 2]}
A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.

Log in for more topics