Re: Madeleine:Two British men declared arguidos and a British couple are witnesess

by stillsloppingout 15.11.14 3:00

Gaggzy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Okay, Praia da Luz. Time to lock-up your burglars and batten the hatches and prepare for the return of those pizza-gobbling, beer-swilling English coppers.

According to this photo, Andy is bringing along Cockney actor, Jason Statham, and former-England football manager, Fabio Capello.

Maybe one of the arguidos is going to be an Italian and Capello is there for translation purposes?

Or for our older viewers Tonight Andy is.... Eamonn Andrews !!

by Bishop Brennan 15.11.14 5:36

Joss wrote:
In reference to 7 out of 11 are going to be declared arguidos??? That's a lot of arguidos leaving only 4 that are not going to be declared arguidos. Wonder how they arrived at those people being suspects in this case?
So are they saying 7 people probably abducted Madeleine? Sounds like B.S. to me

In addition to the 4 arguidos from last time, it's all part of the "Anyone But the McCanns" strategy that appears now to be the narrative. They now know that they can't find an abductor / burglar / child-killer to pin this on (unless he's dead and annoyingly the PJ have scuppered Tractorman) - so AR has no option except to give the firm conclusion that it was "Anyone But the McCanns". They can be British, East European, Portuguese, dark skinned, white ... doesn't matter. So long as the final conclusion is that it wasn't the McCanns.

£10m for that? You must be mad!

by Bishop Brennan 15.11.14 6:26

The most recent Textusa blog is a very useful and well documented summary of all the Arguidos. Not sure if we are permitted to post a link to it, so I will not. The conclusion is interesting too - an alternative interpretation of why so many arguidos.

"Of the 7 suspects, 2 UK nationals both male, and assuming 4 Portuguese and 1 foreign woman (Central/Eastern Europe?)

Of the 4 witnesses, 2 UK nationals, a couple – not related with the 2 Brit suspects, and assuming 2 Portuguese."

This is in addition to the earlier 4 arguidos (of which 3 remain arguidos, Malinka possibly ruled out). So a possible total of 10 arguidos as of today.

by Joss 15.11.14 8:38

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Joss wrote:
In reference to 7 out of 11 are going to be declared arguidos??? That's a lot of arguidos leaving only 4 that are not going to be declared arguidos. Wonder how they arrived at those people being suspects in this case?
So are they saying 7 people probably abducted Madeleine? Sounds like B.S. to me

In addition to the 4 arguidos from last time, it's all part of the "Anyone But the McCanns" strategy that appears now to be the narrative. They now know that they can't find an abductor / burglar / child-killer to pin this on (unless he's dead and annoyingly the PJ have scuppered Tractorman) - so AR has no option except to give the firm conclusion that it was "Anyone But the McCanns". They can be British, East European, Portuguese, dark skinned, white ... doesn't matter. So long as the final conclusion is that it wasn't the McCanns.

£10m for that? You must be mad!

Yes, you are right in what you say, and the McC's we have already been told by the U.K. authorities are not suspects, so there will never be any justice for Madeleine, sad

by NickE 15.11.14 13:19

Snipped from Textusa.

Little is known about Mr Rodrigues but he is part of a group of mostly young people in Luz who contribute to an internet site showing pictures of scenic spots in the area. Fresh faced and youthful he is said to resemble a photofit prepared by an elderly British couple of a man who came to their villa with an older man to collect money for a charity on May 3 2007.

The older man is said to resemble Paulo Ribeiro, 51, another arguido. He lives in Luz and is said to be a schizophrenic.”

by TheTruthWillOut 15.11.14 14:35

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Joss wrote:
In reference to 7 out of 11 are going to be declared arguidos??? That's a lot of arguidos leaving only 4 that are not going to be declared arguidos. Wonder how they arrived at those people being suspects in this case?
So are they saying 7 people probably abducted Madeleine? Sounds like B.S. to me

In addition to the 4 arguidos from last time, it's all part of the "Anyone But the McCanns" strategy that appears now to be the narrative. They now know that they can't find an abductor / burglar / child-killer to pin this on (unless he's dead and annoyingly the PJ have scuppered Tractorman) - so AR has no option except to give the firm conclusion that it was "Anyone But the McCanns". They can be British, East European, Portuguese, dark skinned, white ... doesn't matter. So long as the final conclusion is that it wasn't the McCanns.

£10m for that? You must be mad!

I'm still glass half full ATM. I find it interesting that the BBC haven't (afaik) reported at all on these upcoming interviews but are running this story: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't tell yet if the reason the BBC are on blackout in the McCann case is for good or bad reasons, but surely they wouldn't be running the article above which now has allegations of a possible homicide as well as abuse by very powerful people if it was for bad reasons; i.e: a cover up?

Wouldn't make sense for the BBC to partake in a cover up for one, but report on the other if both feature "very powerful people" that need protecting!?

by ChippyM 15.11.14 18:08

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
Joss wrote:
In reference to 7 out of 11 are going to be declared arguidos??? That's a lot of arguidos leaving only 4 that are not going to be declared arguidos. Wonder how they arrived at those people being suspects in this case?
So are they saying 7 people probably abducted Madeleine? Sounds like B.S. to me

In addition to the 4 arguidos from last time, it's all part of the "Anyone But the McCanns" strategy that appears now to be the narrative. They now know that they can't find an abductor / burglar / child-killer to pin this on (unless he's dead and annoyingly the PJ have scuppered Tractorman) - so AR has no option except to give the firm conclusion that it was "Anyone But the McCanns". They can be British, East European, Portuguese, dark skinned, white ... doesn't matter. So long as the final conclusion is that it wasn't the McCanns.

£10m for that? You must be mad!

I'm still glass half full ATM. I find it interesting that the BBC haven't (afaik) reported at all on these upcoming interviews but are running this story: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't tell yet if the reason the BBC are on blackout in the McCann case is for good or bad reasons, but surely they wouldn't be running the article above which now has allegations of a possible homicide as well as abuse by very powerful people if it was for bad reasons; i.e: a cover up?

Wouldn't make sense for the BBC to partake in a cover up for one, but report on the other if both feature "very powerful people" that need protecting!?

Unless this tactic from Lord McAlpine's book is to be used which worked so well with Steve Messham. Then it doesn't matter about anything potential the BBC report now.

"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion."

They may use that on this latest witness, and reveal that he is unreliable or has made some kind of error which can then be used to discredit all further accusations. Either that or they will name and shame more dead abusers and claim that the abuse stopped with them....or maybe bodies found by sniffer dogs will just be bits of coconut shell like in Jersey.

I am usually glass half full with Op. Grange too but why so many people made arguido, what's the tactic there, how many people could it possibly take to abduct and dispose of one small child? .... if the info from these 'sources' is to be believed of course.

by missbeetle 16.11.14 4:47

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by canada12 16.11.14 4:53

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It seems to me that rather than being a suspect, the gardener could be a useful witness. He said he didn't see anything unusual that night. Which also translates into, he didn't see an abductor. What else might he have seen - or not seen - and at what times? Gerry talking to Jez Wilkins? Jane Tanner flipflopping down the road?

by Carrry On Doctor 16.11.14 5:27

Hmmm.....

More pink spin here perhaps, although the bit that did interest me was (large pinch of salt etc) was the British woman having been questioned by OG, which suggests that this took place in the UK.

It has been suggested elsewhere that JT is strangely quiet, particularly since OG 'vindicated' her by confirming that bundleman was real after all.

We shall see.

IMO.

by ChippyM 16.11.14 14:29

The gardener was interviewed in 2007, I wonder who else it would be useful to re-interview in this case!?

If this bit is true "he told the original Portuguese probe he had been at a bar in the McCanns' resort and left at 7pm to have a shower, before returning at 9.30pm and staying for two hours.'' Then he would have to be a witness, because according to the McCanns, they were doing their 'checks' all though this time period....even if he lied and police think he went into 5A it still means the McCann's schedule is a lie.

The most interesting bit of the article from today's DM about the questioning of the ex-pat (sy big grin

) gardener.

'The McCann's spokesman was unavailable for comment today'

by ChippyM 16.11.14 14:40

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Hmmm.....

More pink spin here perhaps, although the bit that did interest me was (large pinch of salt etc) was the British woman having been questioned by OG, which suggests that this took place in the UK.

It has been suggested elsewhere that JT is strangely quiet, particularly since OG 'vindicated' her by confirming that bundleman was real after all.

We shall see.

IMO.

Yes that bit is interesting, Op Grange interviewing a woman in the UK. The article states that some of the people worked together and may have exchanged phone calls on the night, the woman could be one of the Tapas group or perhaps the aerobics instructor who was invited to sit at the table....or one of the nannies?

by TheTruthWillOut 16.11.14 14:53

Sorry but it says right in the article the Met police will not comment on the investigation which trashes the rest of the article IMO. The press are absolutely desperate for info and aren't getting it.

The old school hack having a inside (police) source are generally long gone and especially so in this specific case IMO.

*Back to twiddling thumbs* yawn

by ChippyM 16.11.14 15:03

I believe this is the British Gardeners statement;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Witness Name: George William James
Occupation: Gardener
Nationality: British

As he does not understand Portuguese, he is accompanied by interpreter, Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat.

Because he is asked, George James states that her has been in Portugal for about seven years and that before this lived with his ex-companion, ******, in Praia da Luz.

That he separated from his companion in December of 2006, date upon which he began to reside in his actual address, and where he lives alone, and is not involved in any relationship.

That he has no children, and that the person with which he maintains his closest relationship, is still his ex-companion who resides in what used to be their home .

Clarifies that he worked in the garden centre in Almadena (PlantScape), Lagos, according to what he remembers, between the years 2000 and 2002.

From this point, he was self-emplyed, exercising his functions as gardener in various residences, principally in Praia da Luz.

In relation to the Ocean Club, he does work for this tourist complex as a gardener, receiving
monthly an official invoice. He has worked there for about two years.

He does not care for all the gardens of the Ocean Club, but only for the gardens in block 4 and only the green zone which is found near the exterior or the zone close to the street. He does not look after for the pool-side gardens.

Equally he cleans the steps of this block, and cleans the windows in the stair area. He does not work inside the apartments.

Having been asked, states that he knows the apartment from where Madeleine went missing, but that he never entered that apartment.

He works for the Ocean Club, every week on Wednesdays and always on this day, and that he has never gone to the Ocean Club other than on this day with the exception of the last day of the month when he heads to the principal reception of the OC, which is opened 24 hours and is situated on Rua Direita in Praia da Luz.

That he normally works in the Ocean Club, from 14H00, for about 01H30 to 02H00, and leaves there about 15H30, 16H00.

He goes to work using his ex-companion's car, which is a Citroen C15, white in colour, and for which he does not remember the license plate.

He always parks in the area of block 4, and when it is possible, he parks next to the apartment from where the girl went missing, for no particular reason other than habit.

States that the last time he was in the Ocean Club was on Wednesday, before the child went missing or on the 02/05/07.

States that on Thursday, the 3rd of May, 2007, he was working in a garden in, Praia da Luz, for private clients, until 12H00 and after that ate some sandwiches and had a drink next to the ocean. He made the food himself.

On this day around 14H00, he went to another garden situated in Praia da Luz. He left there around 16H00.

After this he headed to Espiche, to the Rainbow (Arco 'is) Bar, and left there around 19H00.

After this he went home to take a shower and had dinner. He left again to return to the Rainbow Bar around 21H30 and stayed there until about 23H30.

At the bar he contacted a British individual whose name is ***** who he knows has a mobile-home and was parked in the Espiche camping site and who left on Monday, 7/05/2007.

States that he is known in the bar.

When asked, he does not remember having seen any strange situation. He does not know anyone from the family of the missing girl and has never seen them.

And nothing more was said'"

He said he was at a bar in Espiche called the Rainbow bar and that the people there know him, so it would have been easy to verify whether he was there or not wouldn't it? I suppose they are more interested in the time he was alone from 7- 9.30 and the phone call he made. Or did he see something earlier in the day when he was working or on the beach having his lunch?

I also noticed the use of the word 'companion' in the statement, why not just say 'girlfriend', is this a translation issue or did the man have a same sex partner but wanted to be discrete about it?

Also interesting to note Robert Murat doing the translation!

by Lance De Boils 16.11.14 16:57

His ex-partner was female.

by **PeterMac** 16.11.14 17:06

He was Traced Interviewed and Eliminated in 2007.
He had an alibi, which placed him several miles from the locus

NEXT ! ! !

by ChippyM 16.11.14 19:13

So a load of McSpin then.

He does say he was reinterviewed though so what was he asked about?

I wonder if he saw something whilst gardening or cleaning windows either on the day of the supposed abduction or earlier?

by sallypelt 16.11.14 19:16

ChippyM wrote:So a load of McSpin then.

He does say he was reinterviewed though so what was he asked about?

I wonder if he saw something whilst gardening or cleaning windows either on the day of the supposed abduction or earlier?

I believe that he was seen leaving the police station in Portugal earlier in the week. This is why he's all over the newspapers. As for what he was asked, no one knows

by ChippyM 16.11.14 19:55

sallypelt wrote:
ChippyM wrote:So a load of McSpin then.

He does say he was reinterviewed though so what was he asked about?

I wonder if he saw something whilst gardening or cleaning windows either on the day of the supposed abduction or earlier?

I believe that he was seen leaving the police station in Portugal earlier in the week. This is why he's all over the newspapers. As for what he was asked, no one knows

I realise no-one know, just wondering and thinking out loud really. If he truly had a comfirmed alibi in 2007, that could leave him as being a witness to something.

by Brian Griffin 16.11.14 20:25

The police will never be able to close this investigation down, even if they do find someone plausible to pin it on. The McCanns will just say they believe Madeleine is still alive and the authorities will just have to cooperate and spin along with the great McCann Nexus and continue 'looking'.

In my opinion.

by aiyoyo 16.11.14 21:41

PeterMac wrote:He was Traced Interviewed and Eliminated in 2007.
He had an alibi, which placed him several miles from the locus

NEXT ! ! !

There the pertinent question has to be : why is he of interest to the OG to re-interview again?

That he normally works in the Ocean Club, from 14H00, for about 01H30 to 02H00, and leaves there about 15H30, 16H00.

He goes to work using his ex-companion's car, which is a Citroen C15, white in colour, and for which he does not remember the license plate.

He always parks in the area of block 4, and when it is possible, he parks next to the apartment from where the girl went missing, for no particular reason other than habit.

States that the last time he was in the Ocean Club was on Wednesday, before the child went missing or on the 02/05/07.

States that on Thursday, the 3rd of May, 2007, he was working in a garden in, Praia da Luz, for private clients, until 12H00 and after that ate some sandwiches and had a drink next to the ocean. He made the food himself.

On this day around 14H00, he went to another garden situated in Praia da Luz. He left there around 16H00.

From his previous statement, he was in the vicinity of ocean club on 2nd and 3rd May.
Parked his car outside of 5A out of habit on every Wednesday when he works at the Ocean Club. On the 3rd May, althougt he wasnt working on Ocean he was parked next to Ocean Club between 12-2pm having his lunch possibly in his car.

That leaves open questions that OG needs to close.
On the 3rd, he said he was next to Ocean - as in where exactly?
Was he by chance parked outside 5A as per his usual habit when he had his lunch between 12 noon to 2pm?

It's a case of what he, the gardener, saw on those two days (2nd and 3rd) that is of interest to Redwood. It may be a case of OG needing him to recall in greater detail by posing him certain set of questions so that they can tie up loose ends.

by Montclair 16.11.14 22:29

IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

by NickE 16.11.14 22:38

PeterMac wrote:He was Traced Interviewed and Eliminated in 2007.
He had an alibi, which placed him several miles from the locus

NEXT ! ! !

NEXT.......Hairy Germans in Speedo´s.

by aiyoyo 16.11.14 23:13

Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ. The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering. All IMO.

by Guest 17.11.14 0:12

aiyoyo wrote:
Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ. The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering. All IMO.

How can anyone be prosecuted for a crime committed in another country?

by aiyoyo 17.11.14 1:22

WMD wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ. The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering. All IMO.
How can anyone be prosecuted for a crime committed in another country?

Right. But this is an exceptional case where everything pertaining to it is unprecedented...so you never say never.........

After all there isn't another case where the MET Police is actively leading the review/ investigation of a crime commited in a foreign jurisdiction....unprecedented by any standard......hence......

So long as both sides share common goal, I don't care in which of the two countries they are put in the dock. Just saying don't be surprised if the unprecedented should happen.

by roy rovers 17.11.14 2:12

aiyoyo wrote:
Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ. The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering. All IMO.

To eliminate them and see if they have anything to add that they have heard when a little bit of pressure is applied IMHO.

by Joss 17.11.14 4:50

I am wondering about these people that are being called "suspects/arguidos". That is implying that they are saying they have evidence for involvement of someone disappearing a child in Portugal, otherwise why would they call them suspects? They can't just do that on a whim can they, as that is a pretty strong accusation to make. Normally in cases i have followed when the police name a POI, (person of interest) or suspect it usually follows someone gets charged with the crime.

²sus·pect

noun \ˈsəs-ˌpekt\
: a person who is believed to be possibly guilty of committing a crime
: a thing that is thought of as a possible cause of something bad

Full Definition of SUSPECT

: one that is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]; especially : a person suspected of a crime
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Examples of SUSPECT

[list="content collapsed-list"]
[*]One suspect has been arrested.
[*]She is a possible suspect in connection with the kidnapping.
[*]The prime suspect for the food poisoning is the potato salad.
[/list]

by aiyoyo 17.11.14 10:28

roy rovers wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Montclair wrote:IMHO, SY is interviewing these people in order to eliminate them from their own inquiry, even though they had already been eliminated by PJ. It could be that SY want to prosecute in the UK and with the adversarial system in the British courts, they must not give the accused any possibility of raising reasonable doubt with other possible suspects.

I would go with that, that SY want to prosecute in UK. It would be a whole lot less complicating on proviso the Portuguese can be receptive to this.

Some, if not all, of the people the MET Police want to interview were already covered and eliminated by the PJ. The interest to re-interview them may be to go more in depth to find out what they saw or heard vs the PJ preliminary round of interviews aimed at elimination rather than info gathering. All IMO.

To eliminate them and see if they have anything to add that they have heard when a little bit of pressure is applied IMHO.

Ask them pre-determined leading questions..........

by aiyoyo 17.11.14 11:04

Joss wrote:I am wondering about these people that are being called "suspects/arguidos". That is implying that they are saying they have evidence for involvement of someone disappearing a child in Portugal, otherwise why would they call them suspects? They can't just do that on a whim can they, as that is a pretty strong accusation to make.

Arguido has the right to remain silent (notorious example St. Kate refusal to answer the 48 Q). I believe it has got to do how (or if) their answer or silence can or cannot be used against them in a Court of law.

Equivalent to UK "right to remain silent" - to protect a person during criminal proceedings from self incriminating answer coerced out of them under pressure/duress in the absence of legal representation and/or to protect them from adverse consequence of remaining silent.

It's privilege against "self incrimination" in a nutshell.

As to how the OG determines which person to be interviewed should be given or not given the arguido status is a mystery. It must be evidence-based as a basis one would think.

Madeleine:Two British men declared arguidos and a British couple are witnesess