Re: Met chief vows no let-up in search for Madeleine

by Guest 15.08.14 20:35

Not allowed to, imo, JfM. They have a remit and their job is to stick with it. Each officer will be given a small area to analyse. Each person will have just one piece of the jigsaw to determine it's shape and position in the puzzle. My guess is most pieces won't even belong to the puzzle with the picture we see. The people rattling the box with the 'abductor' on the front are the ones who shouldn't sleep at night.

Those sort of people sleep very soundly indeed, however. It's the nature of that particular beast.

All just in my opinion, as ever.

by Justformaddie 15.08.14 20:46

Dee Coy wrote:Not allowed to, imo, JfM. They have a remit and their job is to stick with it. Each officer will be given a small area to analyse. Each person will have just one piece of the jigsaw to determine it's shape and position in the puzzle. My guess is most pieces won't even belong to the puzzle with the picture we see. The people rattling the box with the 'abductor' on the front are the ones who shouldn't sleep at night.

Those sort of people sleep very soundly indeed, however. It's the nature of that particular beast.

All just in my opinion, as ever.

So sad for the innocent little one Sad

by Newintown 15.08.14 23:55

Justformaddie wrote:For any policeman not to do their job properly and not to get justice for a little girl whose selfish parents decided to put themselves before the most important defenceless little children, is disgusting. These so called parents have already got away with neglect, I don't know what way this will end up or if they've been reinterviewed by OG, but put it this way, if it was you or I and cadaver and blood dogs alerted within our homes and car I seriously doubt we'd be touring the world? Sorry everyone, I'm just so fed up. The least OG can do is explain why they aren't POIs, but they can't, can they?
IMO! sorry again everyone!

Justformaddie

If there was no neglect and the McCanns and Tapas group have made up this story to cover their a*ses, then the police would not want to charge them on the lesser charge of neglect but go for something more substantial when they have proof of what actually happened.

With regard to OG explaining why the McCanns aren't POIs, I very much doubt that the Met are obliged to tell joe public including us on this forum during an ongoing investigation as to the status of anyone they have in their sights, other than to say that they are not POIs. To say anything else would cause havoc.

It is very frustrating not knowing what is actually going on behind the scenes but I can't recall any running commentaries being given day to day on any criminal investigations over the past years, except for the Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris etc cases being leaked to the press.

by Justformaddie 16.08.14 0:16

Newintown wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:For any policeman not to do their job properly and not to get justice for a little girl whose selfish parents decided to put themselves before the most important defenceless little children, is disgusting. These so called parents have already got away with neglect, I don't know what way this will end up or if they've been reinterviewed by OG, but put it this way, if it was you or I and cadaver and blood dogs alerted within our homes and car I seriously doubt we'd be touring the world? Sorry everyone, I'm just so fed up. The least OG can do is explain why they aren't POIs, but they can't, can they?
IMO! sorry again everyone!

Justformaddie

If there was no neglect and the McCanns and Tapas group have made up this story to cover their a*ses, then the police would not want to charge them on the lesser charge of neglect but go for something more substantial when they have proof of what actually happened.

With regard to OG explaining why the McCanns aren't POIs, I very much doubt that the Met are obliged to tell joe public including us on this forum during an ongoing investigation as to the status of anyone they have in their sights, other than to say that they are not POIs. To say anything else would cause havoc.

It is very frustrating not knowing what is actually going on behind the scenes but I can't recall any running commentaries being given day to day on any criminal investigations over the past years, except for the Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris etc cases being leaked to the press.

Hi Newintown, I understand the neglect thing, just hoping they do get proof of what did happen that night, if nothing can be proved, I wonder would they go for neglect at this stage? Hard to read at this point in time they're still no closer to finding out what did happen, although we wouldn't know what progress they've made. Anyways, still hoping they find the truth for maddie, poor wee girl.
IMO

by Brian Griffin 16.08.14 1:30

Newintown wrote:
If there was no neglect and the McCanns and Tapas group have made up this story to cover their a*ses, then the police would not want to charge them on the lesser charge of neglect but go for something more substantial when they have proof of what actually happened.

And look like bloody idiots in the public eye for years on end while anyone with an Internet connection and a brain debates the thing on sites like this? I doubt it! Look at that woman in Australia whose baby was taken by a dingo. The police went for her straight away, even though it turned out to be true! Look at other cases in the UK - the police go for the parents and family, yet in this case, the parents seem untouchable. No, something else is going on here. On the evidence we are all blatantly aware of (the differing and changing stories; the experts' hunches that the abduction scene was a fabrication; the signaling by the dogs - yes, Gerry, those damned clever, inconvenient and amazingly unreliable mutts who have never made a mistake; the infamous 48 questions and the e-fits hidden for 5 years for no apparent reason) the couple McCann should be hauled in for rigorous questioning. Yet...nothing. All in my opinion, of course. Allegedly, and all that.

by Okeydokey 16.08.14 2:43

It just makes me feel sad for those well meaning people who think the Met are undertaking a serious police investigation.

by The Rooster 16.08.14 10:34

The Express and Hogan Howe what an oxymoron. A noticeable absence. But what more could we really expect.

by Woofer 16.08.14 11:00

Dee Coy wrote:Not allowed to, imo, JfM. They have a remit and their job is to stick with it. Each officer will be given a small area to analyse. Each person will have just one piece of the jigsaw to determine it's shape and position in the puzzle. My guess is most pieces won't even belong to the puzzle with the picture we see. The people rattling the box with the 'abductor' on the front are the ones who shouldn't sleep at night.

Those sort of people sleep very soundly indeed, however. It's the nature of that particular beast.

All just in my opinion, as ever.

Not knowing anything about police investigations, I wonder if this is actually the case (my bold above).
Because that`s almost saying they`re not allowed to question, which surely is what detecting is all about.

by SixMillionQuid 16.08.14 12:07

Woofer wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Not allowed to, imo, JfM. They have a remit and their job is to stick with it. Each officer will be given a small area to analyse. Each person will have just one piece of the jigsaw to determine it's shape and position in the puzzle. My guess is most pieces won't even belong to the puzzle with the picture we see. The people rattling the box with the 'abductor' on the front are the ones who shouldn't sleep at night.

Those sort of people sleep very soundly indeed, however. It's the nature of that particular beast.

All just in my opinion, as ever.

Not knowing anything about police investigations, I wonder if this is actually the case (my bold above).
Because that`s almost saying they`re not allowed to question, which surely is what detecting is all about.

They can question but if they go their boss about their findings will the boss be sympathetic? They could get stabbed in the back. If they go to the press, they could get stabbed in the back. If they go on Twitter about their findings watch that Twitter account disappear faster than the speed of light, then stabbed in the back and sued for compensation. Not saying its impossible but there could be risk where you could end up like Snr Amaral.

by Brian Griffin 16.08.14 15:08

Quoted from above: "Not saying its impossible but there could be risk where you could end up like Snr Amaral."

My thoughts exactly. I'd say it is a very real risk, and certainly a deterrent for any cop considering going beyond his or her brief. Much better simply to do what you are told, look in only the direction you are told, collect your paycheque and stay safe, especially in this economy! And I don't blame anyone for doing so, given the situation. Allegedly. In my opinion. Etc.

by joyce1938 16.08.14 17:50

I believe there has to be evidence that is needed and not just ideas of what could have happened ,would not go to court without pretty good evidence ,might just be thrown out and where would that leave the case no case to answer /? that just might be the problem . joyce1938

by XTC 16.08.14 23:56

joyce1938 wrote:I believe there has to be evidence that is needed and not just ideas of what could have happened ,would not go to court without pretty good evidence ,might just be thrown out and where would that leave the case no case to answer /? that just might be the problem . joyce1938

joyce1938

I agree comletely.

I'm scratching my head as to why the latest PJ r's managed to reopen the investigation?

I suspect the re-opening as a political act rather than an emergence of " new crebible evidence "

Unofficially I read that the PJ think that this reason for the removal/ disappearance was the resuly of a one off act and that the person responsible has gone back to the UK.

Officially the PJ are said to be working with SY.

The latest reports suggest that the PJ and SY should join forces as it were to push the investigation further forward.

If I were the PJ I would not touch this with a bargepole.

My reasoning is very simple which is: If DI Redwood and the Yard have ruled out that the so called Tapas 9 are out of the frame then the
only reason why SY would be interested in what the PJ know is to find out what the PJ know.

Because SY have not abided by the Judicial Secrecy of the PJ then it will be a fruitless union.

SY will as usual run to the media with tales of derring do for the attention of the British Public and say this is how hard we are working and the PJ will have to keep schtumm.

It's a no win for the PJ I think.

Fair enough there are many who think that SY are eliminating suspects bit by bit and will eventually end up where Mr Amaral and his team ended up. It's a possibilty for me but no more than that.

The Smiths saw somebody carrying a child I think and one of them thinks it was GM. In all honesty I remain to be convinced that this man was GM. If the ' unofficial ' reports from within the PJ are true the PJ are more than hinting as to what they think.

Yet as you rightly say without new credible extra evidence the investigation is in stasis.

If ( contrary to some people's beliefs ) the McCanns take on the Murdoch Empire then the game won't necessarily be up but the British end of support may take an irreperable dent.

I think Textusa ( if you have read it?) has it the wrong way round.

You do not bite the hand that feeds you. Murdoch is smarting and probably smarting for a fight post Levenson.

Cameron and others are about to learn this I think before the next election.

Politic s is a dirty business. Ask the Portuguese.

Opinion all of it of course.

by nglfi 17.08.14 4:51

I'll admit I don't know anything about investigations of this scale, but I do know people in the police force and standard procedure in normal investigations is to have a briefing meeting each morning/start of shift, where progress in all aspects of the case is discussed. It's not up to each individual to decide who might be responsible for the crime, but since everyone is aware of what everyone else is doing, it soon becomes obvious where the evidence is taking the process. AFAIK people are free to express their opinion and there are no secrets, but people are given tasks and they have to report to everyone at each briefing what they are doing (albeit briefly). The person in charge is then responsible for collating the information and deciding who might be charged. If some completely random patsy gets charged who has nothing to do with it, any member of staff can complain to the IPCC or internally about it. Also, people are picked to be on these serious and high profile teams randomly, the procedure was changed recently, so it's not like AR could pick cronies. That said, as I said at the beginning I don't know if high profile cases work any differently, but this is standard procedure.

by nglfi 17.08.14 5:17

Also don't forget that people are working in the same office, working together every day and they are allowed to talk to each other. I'm sure they will build up a pretty clear picture of who may be responsible for the crime. If the procedure has been genuinely changed to randomly select people, and I mean to the point where selections can't be manipulated, then I don't really see how a whitewash is possible. It would take 37 randomly selected people to all want to do a whitewash. Either that or they are threatened with the official secrets act on the first day, which I'm not saying isn't possible. There may be higher forces at work here. All I know is the procedure has changed recently, in the past the lead investigator used to be able to select who they wanted. How much of a genuine change it is or whether these people are got at as soon as they enter the investigation, I don't know.

by canada12 17.08.14 6:37

Well, now that the precedent has been set, perhaps when the McCanns go to Portugal next month for the decision in their case against Dr Amaral, the BBC will have full coverage of Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard's massive surprise swoop on Rothley Manor in a 5-hour hunt for evidence concerning Madeleine's disappearance.

by Guest 17.08.14 7:15

Dear canada12

I hate to curb your enthousiasm.

In the Lisbon damages case there is still
one session to go, closing arguments of
all parties.

Judgement is expected at an even later date.

Kindest regards
parapono

by canada12 17.08.14 7:22

parapono wrote:Dear canada12

I hate to curb your enthousiasm.

In the Lisbon damages case there is still
one session to go, closing arguments of
all parties.

Judgement is expected at an even later date.

Kindest regards
parapono

Thanks for that. I honestly thought there was going to be some sort of decision in early September. Apologies for not paying closer attention :-)

by Guest 17.08.14 7:43

Don't apologise please empathy

by Liz Eagles 17.08.14 11:52

SY's last trip to Portugal (just prior to the Damages Trial) was left on a cliffhanger with interest in a disused well.

If SY turn up with a fanfare in September (just prior to the final hearing of the Lisbon Trial) to explore this area of interest, any faint glimmer of hope I have that there will be justice for Madeleine will die.

It's only my opinion as usual.

by Guest 17.08.14 12:01

SY will be be back as you say in September, under the pretext that it is the end of the tourist season.

by missmar1 17.08.14 12:32

aquila wrote:SY's last trip to Portugal (just prior to the Damages Trial) was left on a cliffhanger with interest in a disused well.

If SY turn up with a fanfare in September (just prior to the final hearing of the Lisbon Trial) to explore this area of interest, any faint glimmer of hope I have that there will be justice for Madeleine will die.

It's only my opinion as usual.

I have to say I agree with you aqulla, imo, it would be too much of a coincidence for SY to arrive with all the fanfare just prior to the final hearing - I do believe the truth of what happened to the Mccann's little girl will come out one day but it may not be for many years.....

I just hope Mr Amaral wins this libel trial because at the very least, his victory will give him his life back and also stop the Mccann's in their tracks to get the million they wanted and carry on ruining the life of the very same man who, imo, tried to do his job which was to get to the truth of what happened to their daughter. All my opinion as usual.

by plebgate 17.08.14 12:52

aquila wrote:SY's last trip to Portugal (just prior to the Damages Trial) was left on a cliffhanger with interest in a disused well.

If SY turn up with a fanfare in September (just prior to the final hearing of the Lisbon Trial) to explore this area of interest, any faint glimmer of hope I have that there will be justice for Madeleine will die.

It's only my opinion as usual.

That is my own opinion too.

by missmar1 17.08.14 13:37

missmar1 wrote:
aquila wrote:SY's last trip to Portugal (just prior to the Damages Trial) was left on a cliffhanger with interest in a disused well.

If SY turn up with a fanfare in September (just prior to the final hearing of the Lisbon Trial) to explore this area of interest, any faint glimmer of hope I have that there will be justice for Madeleine will die.

It's only my opinion as usual.

I have to say I agree with you aquila, imo, it would be too much of a coincidence for SY to arrive with all the fanfare just prior to the final hearing - I do believe the truth of what happened to the Mccann's little girl will come out one day but it may not be for many years.....

I just hope Mr Amaral wins this libel trial because at the very least, his victory will give him his life back and also stop the Mccann's in their tracks to get the million they wanted and to stop them carry on ruining the life of the very same man who, imo, tried to do his job which was to get to the truth of what happened to their daughter. All my opinion as usual.
Eta correct typing error and add words

by End 17.08.14 14:35

Is it possible that there is a connection with this report and the breaking UK news the previous day .... given the connections with PDL?

by Guest 18.08.14 8:20

Doug D wrote:Out of interest, this 'statement' does not appear on the Met Police's Press Release site.

That is interesting Doug D, when I first read the story in the Daily Express I searched other online newspapers for the statement and found nothing, has far as I know no mention on Sky/bbc/itv news, if there had been I'm sure a member would have said.

Why would the statement only appear in the Express? Why I wonder wasn't it read out on any of the news channels or printed by other newspapers?

Log in for more topics