Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

by Liz Eagles 13.12.14 10:45

give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case

If Redwood did lie his target audience was two people, arguably nine - not 6.7 million. If everyone else is inconvenienced by the lie, so what? Peoples' utterances about a whitewash are also premature - the time to complain (very loudly, IMO) is when such a result is announced, not before.

I used to think this way. I used to think trust the police to do their job but having seen such dreadful cover-ups I can no longer think like this. What if we were all to sit around waiting for the next seven years without sticking a pin into those who are supposed to serve Madeleine McCann?

Yes, they are supposed to be serving Madeleine and no-one else. She's the victim.

CrimeWatch was a farce. This wasn't some sort of strategic appeal. It was blatant disinformation to an audience of 6.7 million imo. Someone needs to tell me why Scotland Yard would need to create such a honey trap to their target.

I think it's time to stop making excuses for OG in the hope that they will find out what happened to Madeleine.

Remember that the Hilsborough disaster was a complete cover up and it took 25 years to even get it voiced.

The time to question this investigation is whilst it is ongoing.

by endgame 13.12.14 10:48

aquila wrote:
Montclair wrote:As others have stated the police are not obligated to keep the public or the media up to date on an on going investigation. I know in Portugal, the PJ carry out their investigations in secret, with no press conferences and updates as they do in the UK, and in the end the public is informed of the outcome. The biggest exception to this was the Maddie case, which turned into a circus and hindered the outcome. An example, in Portugal, is that of a teenager who went missing and this disappearance was reported in the newspapers. The next we knew, several months later, was that the PJ was able to find her alive in Spain where, IIRC, she was kept in captivity. The parents stated that they decided not to speak to the press about the case in order to allow the police to do their job and which was successful.

As I remember it was PeterMac who had posted on this subject before. The police do not answer to the press and public, only the CPS. Can you imagine how an investigation could go wrong if all information were made public, giving, for example, the perpetrator the chance to destroy evidence or even to flee to Brazil.
OG seem to see a need to keep the media informed despite the extraordinary measures that were taken within Leics Police with confidentiality agreements to officers active in the investigation. No whistle-blowing there then!

This whole thing leaks like a seive as and when it suits OG.

It's almost a Hollywood production. CrimeWatch was an absolute farce. Andy Redwood in a helicopter was an absolute farce. Now we have Andy Redwood passing on the baton to the new media friendly slant - get a woman in.

I despair.

I agree - and with Sami's comments. The ultimate responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens in an investigation is the police authority conducting it. Crimewatch does not have a life of its own. AR could have halted/ changed anything in that programme. He could also stop leaks if he wanted to. So we have to assume that all of this took place with his explicit or tacit approval including, of course, the photographers that happen to be on hand whenever he appears in Portugal and have no relevance to the investigation whatsoever. What a bizarre way for the police to behave and the only explanation offered is that there is an invisible masterplan which none of us is clever enough to perceive but will be revealed in the end with AR ascending into heaven on a cloud no doubt. I don't dismiss this entirely but in 3 1/2 years there really has been sod all to suggest that this might be the case.

On the question of TB's police lies allegations, IIRC Bernard Hogan Howe in an interview some time ago said that arrests were "imminent" or "likely within the next few weeks" - something like that. Why would he say that as it was transparently not true? Again, is this how police in a proper investigation behave?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 13.12.14 10:57

Tony Bennett wrote:Wall was offered the job of heading the Madeleine McCann investigation. No doubt months ago. The official remit of the investigation is: "To investigate the abduction..." She had two choices:

1. OK, fine, I'll do it

or

2. I'll only do it if you change that highly restrictive remit.

She chose Option 1, otherwise lnown as "The Poisoned Chalice"

Tony, how do you know DCI Wall chose Option 1? How do you know she didn't ask for a change in the 'highly restrictive remit' and that it wasn't granted?

by joyce1938 13.12.14 11:10

It would be greatly unfair for a person to think he was helping police ,as he decided to say it could have ben him with his daughter on that night.So if we could prove that too was made up and pictures shown etc ,to thousends on line , IF ITS A TOTAL FABRICATION . I just don't know , but I would not put it past being done ,in some places with some people ,like we have used HILLSBOROUGH ? who would have thought so many police could be envolved in cover up there? Its really sickening isn't it ? and sometimes we find it hard to take in , and hows about the man that is now supposed to be envolved ? we can all read cant we and realize .some stuff doesn't add up . I had queried the pyjama thing before ,and no one picked it or replied if I recall correctly. joyce1938

by Realist 13.12.14 12:50

ultimaThule wrote:

Given the scale and scope of Operation Grange which became a murder investigation some 18 months ago, should any British national(s) be found to have a case to answer with regard to the demise of Madeleine McCann it is probable that any trial(s) which may ensue will take place in accordance with the law of England/Wales which has jurisidiction in such matters, Realist.

With the current mode of investigation by the Met. Police, I think we can safely assume that there won't be any trial relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann coming to a UK court any time soon.

by jeanmonroe 13.12.14 12:57

joyce1938 wrote:It would be greatly unfair for a person to think he was helping police ,as he decided to say it could have ben him with his daughter on that night.So if we could prove that too was made up and pictures shown etc ,to thousends on line , IF ITS A TOTAL FABRICATION . I just don't know , but I would not put it past being done ,in some places with some people ,like we have used HILLSBOROUGH ? who would have thought so many police could be envolved in cover up there? Its really sickening isn't it ? and sometimes we find it hard to take in , and hows about the man that is now supposed to be envolved ? we can all read cant we and realize .some stuff doesn't add up . I had queried the pyjama thing before ,and no one picked it or replied if I recall correctly. joyce1938

I 'picked' the pyjama thing 'up' Joyce!

At the time!

It was as 'absurd' THEN, (CW October 2013) as it is NOW!

Regarding Hillsborough:

Top rank forgers

>Senior police officers, including the subsequently knighted Sir Norman Bettison, and the solicitor representing South Yorkshire police, supervised the recording of junior police officers’ recollections of events that day. In contrast to the normal procedure of writing up their notes in official police notebooks – which can then be legally requisitioned as evidence in any court case – the police were instructed to write them on loose sheets of paper. Then they were doctored under the vigilant eye of police chiefs.
Later, these top-rank forgers offered the excuse that amendments were made to remove ‘opinion’ about the fans.
That was a cynical, dirty lie: the documents published by the Independent Panel reveal that not a single case of this happened; plenty of vicious ‘opinions’ about fans remained in the amended statements – but in 116 junior officers’ statements, all their original comments critical of the policing that tragic day were removed.
Similar corrupt doctoring of eye-witness statements by ambulance workers were conducted by the chiefs of the ambulance service.

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

Regarding Operation 'Strange'

When Met Commissioner BHH - Commander S Foy - DS Campbell - DCI Redwood said 'JUMP!' the 37 strong Maddie Cops 'team' said 'how high?'

All imo, obviously.

by Khaleesi 13.12.14 13:04

Tony Bennett wrote:

And Khaleesi also thinks that the police should not always tell the truth.

What happens in a typical investigation, where the police need the public's help, is that they will tell the public the truth about certain things, but withhold the truth about other matters within their investigation. And of course I fully support such a strategy. But they do not tell lies.

Can either of you - or anyone else for that matter - give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case?

Jennifer Ramsaran case. Almost to the moment of the arrest the LE kept repeating in media that the Jen's husband was not a person of interest.. That was not the truth as the husband, later arrested for the murder of Jennifer, ws their POI since a day one. I followed a bunch of cases where the police kept their suspicions very well hidden.

David Berkovitz case. The cops lied at the press conference, announcing that the same gun was used in two recent murders. Yes, they suspected it was the same gun, but the tests came inconclusive. So at this time it was a lie as they didn't knew if it really was the same gun.

What we are discussing here is my claim that DCI Andy Redwood has deliberately lied in at least two respects:

1. He said that 'Crecheman' had come forward. I do not believe there is any such man as 'crecheman' who was carrying his daughter in the dark in her pyjamas without a buggy through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.15pm on 3 May 2007

I see it as a soft way of excluding Tanner's statement without outwardly telling that Jane Tanner is a stinking liar. It's not a reasonable thing for the investigators to show their cards before they have a sure case against their suspects.

2. He said that the two e-fits - seemingly of different men - were produced by the Smiths. I do not believe him, even if he has confirmed this in answer to my FOI Act request.

Why it is so difficult for you to believe that two different people described the person seen in two different ways, producing two different e-fits? Especially that when they saw the man, the lightning conditions were quite bad, as it was at night. So what is so strange here?

And if he has lied, he did not do so IMO to try and solve the case but very much the reverse - in order to promote what looks like the emerging Grange theory, namely that Madeleine was murdered by a burglar between 9.15pm and 10.00pm.

Andy and his team managed to devalue Tanner's statement, the one that was the pillar of the McCanns tale from day one (no the Smithman does not support their story, as he does not fit to the timeline, does not resemble the Tannerman and resembles Gerald a tad too much for their taste. If the Smith's tale was so helpful, the McTeam would not supress it and the e-fits for so long).

A true disinfomation exercise performed in front of 6.7 million people

Sometimes a disinformation exercise suits better the investigation, than telling the media the whole truth.

by Woofer 13.12.14 13:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:
Realist wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

Well Woofer, for a start it has lead to many miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people have spent sometimes decades languishing in British gaols.

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?
@ Woofer and @ Khaleesi

What a bizarre couple of posts from Woofer and Khaleesi.

So, Woofer, you see nothing wrong in a police officer lying? Fascinating.

And Khaleesi also thinks that the police should not always tell the truth.

What happens in a typical investigation, where the police need the public's help, is that they will tell the public the truth about certain things, but withhold the truth about other matters within their investigation. And of course I fully support such a strategy. But they do not tell lies.

Can either of you - or anyone else for that matter - give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case?

What we are discussing here is my claim that DCI Andy Redwood has deliberately lied in at least two respects:

1. He said that 'Crecheman' had come forward. I do not believe there is any such man as 'crecheman' who was carrying his daughter in the dark in her pyjamas without a buggy through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.15pm on 3 May 2007

2. He said that the two e-fits - seemingly of different men - were produced by the Smiths. I do not believe him, even if he has confirmed this in answer to my FOI Act request.

If he has lied, he did so to an audience of 6.7 million Britons.

And if he has lied, he did not do so IMO to try and solve the case but very much the reverse - in order to promote what looks like the emerging Grange theory, namely that Madeleine was murdered by a burglar between 9.15pm and 10.00pm.

And if people believe what Redwood said on Crimewatch a year ago, let's recall that the BBC helped him do it by spending over a million pounds over a period of more than six months preparing their programme, which included a highly selective reconstruction, using paid actors, which gave the 6.7 million viewers a wholly distorted view of the actual events of 3 May.

A true disinfomation exercise performed in front of 6.7 million people

Tony - I don`t know if it`s me not expressing myself clearly or you twisting what I`ve said to suit your argument.

What I meant is there is nothing wrong in SY telling the media and public a lie - I did not mean to lie in a court of law. For starters it`s none of the media or the public`s business (or yours for that matter). The public are not privy to their investigative procedure and damn right they`re not - why should you be told every little bit of how they are proceeding - it may be in their plans to give out false information to catch a murderer - they are not going to broadcast it are they?

From what you`re saying, you are expecting them to be totally truthful to you about their investigation - honestly - who do you think you are? If they did this they would never catch any murderers would they - is that what you want?

P.S. Your expertise will be invaluable IF the MET whitewash this case - we will have to wait for the outcome. Then we will be able to criticise them, particularly as they have been sent masses of documents and circumstantial evidence by yourself and Peter.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.14 13:28

espeland wrote:
TB wrote wrote:
give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case
If Redwood did lie his target audience was two people, arguably nine - not 6.7 million.

What on earth makes you think that?

Please tell me one thing: the Crimewatch reconstruction - do you think that was a scrupulously fair, accurate representation of what happened on 3 May? - and did it include the changes of story, the contradictions, the dubious claimed 'sightings' and so on? Would the 6.7 million viewers think they were getting the truth? And you maintain that that entire broadcast was just to target two, maybe nine people?

If everyone else is inconvenienced by the lie, so what?

'Inconvenienced', espeland? Do you not mean: 'grossly misled'?

Peoples' utterances about a whitewash are also premature - the time to complain (very loudly, IMO) is when such a result is announced, not before.

IMO the time to complain is when you have evidence that the whole thing is an expensive charade. IMO we have that in spades already

@ ShuBob

You wrote: "Also, I find it grossly distasteful the manner in which DCI Wall has been spoken of by some. Yet they're up in arms when so-called 'pros' use derogatory words against forum members. Give the woman a chance if you are a true justice-seeker.

REPLY: We all want those who perpetrated the awful crime of responsibility for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and duly punished for one of the most notorious crimes of the century.

The person put in overall charge of Operation Grange was Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, a man whose greatest claim to fame was bungling, whether by accident or design, the investigation into the killing of Jill Dando. He prosecuted an innocent man and sent him to jail for years. This man put Redwood in charge of the day-to-day running of Grange. We have endured three years of the most bizarre investigation imaginable, with much-publicised hype about 'drawing things back to zero', 'revelation moments' trumpeted in press and media trailers (and on a programme watched by 6.7 million people), and always making sure there are plenty of photographers around to send pictures back to the British mainstream media. Not to mention dozens of clearly-authorised leaks about innumerable suspects and 'persons of interest'.

Into his shoes steps an officer who has accepted (as far as we know) the original given remit which is 'to investigate Madeleine's abduction', then we find out that she speaks about conscioulsy painting her nails to impress - and has given a long interview to Vogue -what has this to do with serious policing?

And we are not allowed to comment, ShuBob?

We must 'give her a chance' if we are 'true justice-seekers'?

Like you, you mean?

by Realist 13.12.14 13:56

Khaleesi wrote:

Sometimes a disinformation exercise suits better the investigation, than telling the media the whole truth.

Unfortunately, you appear to be neglecting the fact that the Crimewatch programme, which incidentally cost circa £750,000 to produce, was purportedly constructed to elicit information from members of the public who may have been in the Praira Du Luz area at the time of the McCann's daughter's disappearance and not a disinformation exercise for the benefit of the media.

One doesn't need to waste three quarters of a £million of taxpayer's money to leak misinformation to the media, a ten pence phone call or text message will suffice, although in a cover up operation, it may be considered worth spending the aforementioned amount to convince the proletariat of the subject matter's innocence.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.14 14:05

Woofer wrote:
Tony - I don`t know if it's me not expressing myself clearly

No it's not.

or you twisting what I`ve said to suit your argument.

Not that either.

What I meant is there is nothing wrong in SY telling the media and public a lie

We disagree 100% on that

- I did not mean to lie in a court of law.

And neither did I suggest that .

For starters it's none of the media or the public's business (or yours for that matter).

The McCanns made this whole matter the business of the media and every single person on this planet from the early hours of Friday 4 May 2007. 'LOOK FOR HER', they positively screamed to us all from Day One.

The public are not privy to their investigative procedure and damn right they're not - why should you be told every little bit of how they are proceeding - it may be in their plans to give out false information to catch a murderer - they are not going to broadcast it are they?

The public are 'not privy to their investigative procedure'? Where do you get that from, Woofer? No other investigation in world history has blared out to the world what it is doing all the time to the media. Have you perhaps missed:

* age-progressed sketch of Madeleine aged 9
* highly publicised regular trips to Portugal to visit PJ officers
* publicised trip of the nation's two top CPS officers to Portugal
* endless news reports of how the PJ are co-operating, or not, as the case may be
* innumerable references and statistics about: numbers of documents examined, numbers of persons of interest, numbers of suspects. numbers of suspects interviewed, numbers of rogatory letters sent, numbers of mobile 'phone records to interrogate, numbers of sex offenders to be checked
* leak after leak after leak about dead burglars, alive burglars, prowling sex offenders, smelly bin men, soothing couples, Portuguese men here, British men there, people in the laundry, people with keys, people in white van etc. etc.
* rides in Alouette Mark III top Portuguese military helicopters
* ground searches, viewed by the world's camera crews, men with pick-axes, spades, telescopes, polythene bags, vans - Redwood with his blue folder solemnly looking on
* the hour-long Crimewatch programme...

You missed all this, did you, Woofer?

why should you be told every little bit of how they are proceeding -

You completely misunderstand me - I am sure it is not meant. I do not think we should be told anything by the police, actually, except and unless the public can help in any meaningful way with the search for the truth. It's the over-the-top way that Grange has dished out information and leaks at regular intervals that IMO raises the very strong suspicion that this is not the wholehearted search for the truth that it's cracked up to be but simply an exercise in public perception...spoke and mirrors...and sheer disinformation

it may be in their plans to give out false information to catch a murderer -

Up the thread I issued a challenge to anyone who could give me a concrete example of when any police force has lied in order to catch a criminal. Now's your chance Woofer

they are not going to broadcast it are they?

I would expect the police to inform us of something in an investigation only when it materially helps their investigation. Can you not see Woofer that Crimewatch was about public perception - and had not one whit to do with catching the perpetrator(s)?

From what you're saying, you are expecting them to be totally truthful to you about their investigation -

Answered in my last point

honestly - who do you think you are?

I might very well put the very same question to you Woofer. You made up the idea that I expected them to be 'totally truthful about their investigation'. Don't make false accusations. Just to put it on record - I do NOT expect the police to give a running commentary, but when they do speak, they should not lie. And they lied in effect by co-operating with the BBC in presenting a highly misleading reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007. Not to mention IMO their fabrication of 'Crecheman' and their attempt to pass the two e-fits as drawn up by the Smiths

If they did this they would never catch any murderers would they - is that what you want?

An unworthy question and not worthy of an answer.

P.S. Your expertise will be invaluable IF the MET whitewash this case - we will have to wait for the outcome. Then we will be able to criticise them, particularly as they have been sent masses of documents and circumstantial evidence by yourself and Peter.

Is this, then, the 'Woofer doctrine': "No matter how long an investigation goes on, no matter whether it has the wrong remit, no matter how much it costs, no matter how ridiculous it looks, no matter how often it seems to fly in the face of the facts, no matter if it grossly misleads the public, and lies time and again, we must be silent and never criticise it'?

by Khaleesi 13.12.14 14:12

Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

Sometimes a disinformation exercise suits better the investigation, than telling the media the whole truth.

Unfortunately, you appear to be neglecting the fact that the Crimewatch programme, which incidentally cost circa £750,000 to produce, was purportedly constructed to elicit information from members of the public who may have been in the Praira Du Luz area at the time of the McCann's daughter's disappearance and not a disinformation exercise for the benefit of the media.

How the alleged Tannerman - crechedad dezinformation affected eliciting the informations? By pointing out that the public should not pay the attention to Tanner's fake sighting anymore? Please...

by DurhamGuy1967 13.12.14 14:15

The press are eager to report on the case, there is a lot of public interest. However, mention one thing in the main stream press that might imply that Gerry and / or Kate are implicated and you will be sewed.

All reporting is therefore biased, or at the least, written in a cleaver manor as not to leave the possibility for libel action. eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

Especially after recent high profile trials in South Africa I find it hard to believe there will ever be a criminal conviction for the disappearance of Madeleine.

It all makes the eventual outcome of the libel trial VERY significant.

by Realist 13.12.14 14:22

Khaleesi wrote:

How the alleged Tannerman - crechedad dezinformation affected eliciting the informations? By pointing out that the public should not pay the attention to Tanner's fake sighting anymore? Please...

Indeed the good inspector did point out to the viewing public that they should no longer pay any attention to Tanner's fake sighting, a classic case of stating the obvious in my considered opinion. Unfortunately, he then proceeded to point them in the direction of equally spurious and fictitious characters.

by Khaleesi 13.12.14 14:31

Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

How the alleged Tannerman - crechedad dezinformation affected eliciting the informations? By pointing out that the public should not pay the attention to Tanner's fake sighting anymore? Please...

Indeed the good inspector did point out to the viewing public that they should no longer pay any attention to Tanner's fake sighting, a classic case of stating the obvious in my considered opinion.

In your opinion, indeed. The people who haven't been following this sad case (that would be like the most of the public) were unaware that the Tanner sighting is a rubbish. Now they are.

by PMR 13.12.14 14:41

Do people think that Nicola Wall rang Vogue and said ' Hey interview me I paint my nails' she will have been told she is doing the interview and that's that
TBH she could wear more make up than CoCo the clown and have foot long nails it won't alter her skills as a detective

by Realist 13.12.14 15:01

Khaleesi wrote:
Realist wrote:

In your opinion, indeed. The people who haven't been following this sad case (that would be like the most of the public) were unaware that the Tanner sighting is a rubbish. Now they are.

Well, I hadn't been following the case at the time, but I did vaguely remember that the investigating Portuguese police had dismissed the claims of Jane Tanner's sighting as being spurious from the incept. In any event, what could the Crimewatch programme have possibly attained by being broadcast in the UK where only a minute fraction of the pop. have ever been to Praira Du Luz, let alone been there when the McCanns daughter disappeared. George Bush probably had a better idea of where Iraq was than the majority of British people had of the location of Praira Du Luz.

Surely, if the programme had a scintilla of serious intent, it would have been broadcast with sub titles in Portugal where the event is alleged to have transpired. This programme had one agenda and one agenda alone, which was of course to convince the British public of the McCann's innocence.

by Guest 13.12.14 15:08

Yes, Realist, I agree. It's a scandal that the BBC was involved in this way, and continues with its coverage of the case.

by Woofer 13.12.14 15:15

@ Tony - thank you for your replies. I can see in part where you are coming from with regard to your list of events - yes it seems as if they are whitewashing - and yes an awful lot of money spent.

But your statement " I do NOT expect the police to give a running commentary, but when they do speak, they should not lie." ............ is where we part company - I think it`s OK for them to lie if that`s what`s necessary to catch a murderer and they do not have to justify it.

As it happens I still think it`s more likely a whitewash but your tone I find harsh and rather superior particularly when referring to DCI Wall - you were unnecessarily derogatory about her.

As I said your expertise will be needed IF and when the MET`s conclusions are published (if they ever are).

by ChippyM 13.12.14 15:34

endgame wrote:...........I agree - and with Sami's comments. The ultimate responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens in an investigation is the police authority conducting it. Crimewatch does not have a life of its own. AR could have halted/ changed anything in that programme. He could also stop leaks if he wanted to. So we have to assume that all of this took place with his explicit or tacit approval including, of course, the photographers that happen to be on hand whenever he appears in Portugal and have no relevance to the investigation whatsoever. What a bizarre way for the police to behave and the only explanation offered is that there is an invisible masterplan which none of us is clever enough to perceive but will be revealed in the end with AR ascending into heaven on a cloud no doubt. I don't dismiss this entirely but in 3 1/2 years there really has been sod all to suggest that this might be the case.

On the question of TB's police lies allegations, IIRC Bernard Hogan Howe in an interview some time ago said that arrests were "imminent" or "likely within the next few weeks" - something like that. Why would he say that as it was transparently not true? Again, is this how police in a proper investigation behave?

Is it this you are thinking of ?

"Radio Five host Nicky Campbell, 52, asked: “And you have lines of inquiry, you have suspects, you have names?’’
Sir Bernard, 56, replied: “That’s right.’’ Asked if detectives had “spoken to those people” the Met chief said: “I’m not going to go any further.’’

The headline that went with this was "

[size=48]Top cop Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says names of Maddie kidnappers are known[/size]

POLICE believe they know the names of Madeleine McCann’s kidnappers. "

So yet again the police give a tiny bit of non-commital info, the suspects could be anyone and it's spun into 'kidnappers known'..implying that the police are definitely looking for kidnappers. All BHH actually confirmed is that they have lines of enquiry and suspects ....would be strange if a police enquiry didn't!
This is the reason I am not resigned to thinking it must be a whitewash. SY have said very little with regards to what they may or may not be doing yet every little snippet of info has been sensationalised by the press or twisted very possibly by McCann PR. Therefore I don't see how we can say SY are definitely lying.

by woodforthetrees 13.12.14 15:45

IMO all the different stories in the media about the long list of suspects are purely the result of policeman selling random snippets of equally random info in exchange for a nice bung.

With regard to crèche man, I personally now believe that is a red herring, designed to take the focus off the 9.15 sighting.

I also now believe that the Smithman sighting was a false sighting to help clear Murat.

However, the problem now faced (IMO) is this....regardless of who 'took' Madeleine (deceased) from the apartment (mystery abductor or stunned parent), the timeline needs to be later.

There has to have been time for cadaver scent to develop, the scene to be cleaned and the body moved..it completely blows the 'checking the kids' timetable out of the water not only for the McCanns but for the entire tapas group.

So, putting Madeleines demise aside for a moment, proving the kids (in their entirety) were not being checked for say 3-5hrs, that puts the entire tapas group in prison in Portugal for neglect and all the kids in care.

To a group of masons, this cannot happen, hence the push to the later timeline which supports the 'scrapbook timetable'.

IMO they are still looking for Tannerman, whilst unpicking the rest of the story that was made up afterwards.

The rest is just media waffle to sell papers and fill the force members back pockets and keep the fund topped up.

by Liz Eagles 13.12.14 19:44

There's a lot of mixed opinion as to the importance of the outcome of this libel trial.

SY popping up in Portugal around the time when the trial is in session is more than coincidence imo.

There's an assumption that a judgment will be made in ~~February~~ which has now turned into March (I wouldn't hold my breath on that one either. This trial is so old it's growing a beard).

I'm interested in the importance of the outcome of the libel trial and what impact it will have on the McCanns' claim of abduction, the right to some sort of freedom of speech - and should the judgment go either way for/against the McCanns their subsequent media campaign/profile in the UK. It's for those reasons that I believe the outcome of the trial is of great importance.

Apologies - I'm not wording this very well. I hope someone gets my drift.

by waiting for justice 13.12.14 20:01

aquila wrote:There's a lot of mixed opinion as to the importance of the outcome of this libel trial.

SY popping up in Portugal around the time when the trial is in session is more than coincidence imo.

There's an assumption that a judgment will be made in ~~February~~ which has now turned into March (I wouldn't hold my breath on that one either. This trial is so old it's growing a beard).

I'm interested in the importance of the outcome of the libel trial and what impact it will have on the McCanns' claim of abduction, the right to some sort of freedom of speech - and should the judgment go either way for/against the McCanns their subsequent media campaign/profile in the UK. It's for those reasons that I believe the outcome of the trial is of great importance.

Apologies - I'm not wording this very well. I hope someone gets my drift.

I catch it completely. It will be very interesting to see how the outcome affects all of those factors.

by Woofer 13.12.14 20:34

Will Goncalo be able to get his book published in the UK if the McCanns lose the damages trial?

Or will the McCanns start the whole ruddy process over again in the UK if he does?

by Liz Eagles 13.12.14 20:49

Woofer wrote:Will Goncalo be able to get his book published in the UK if the McCanns lose the damages trial?

Or will the McCanns start the whole ruddy process over again in the UK?

I'm not sure that's the point Woofer and this will be a sharp intake of breath to people on the forum - I'm not happy that Goncalo allegedly made so much money from a book he wrote. I've been sooo afraid of saying this.

I'm behind GA for writing a book that told the truth of the investigation. 100% behind him.

I'm behind GA for being totally annihilated by the UK press, the PJ, the McCanns and fighting back. 100% behind him.

What I'm not behind GA for is a large amount of money earned from a book. This is what's biting him on the bum in a courtroom imo.

I have nothing but respect for GA to write and have published his opinions. The point I'm trying to make (so very badly) is that had GA not been taken to task by the McCanns, he'd have made an awful lot of money out of it.

Oh dear, this is another 'I'll fetch me coat' post. I'm hovering over the 'send' button.

by Guest 13.12.14 20:56

Aquila, you are entitled to your opinion.

by margaret 13.12.14 20:58

I would agree with you Aquila but Mr.Amaral vas vilified almost from the word go, so I don't blame him one bit for putting his side across and speak up for Madeleine.

Do we know how much he really made? After taxes and anything else, then his accounts have been frozen, his marriage failed was it really worth it?

Still, having said that I think he deserves every penny, I'd like to see him announce an English version will be available too for those who don't know it's on the Internet free, just to piss certain people off. It would certainly be a best seller, unlike Summers book who sold out his credibility so he didn't get sued. laughat

by aiyoyo 13.12.14 21:09

aquila wrote:
Woofer wrote:Will Goncalo be able to get his book published in the UK if the McCanns lose the damages trial?

Or will the McCanns start the whole ruddy process over again in the UK?
I'm not sure that's the point Woofer and this will be a sharp intake of breath to people on the forum - I'm not happy that Goncalo allegedly made so much money from a book he wrote. I've been sooo afraid of saying this.

I'm behind GA for writing a book that told the truth of the investigation. 100% behind him.

I'm behind GA for being totally annihilated by the UK press, the PJ, the McCanns and fighting back. 100% behind him.

What I'm not behind GA for is a large amount of money earned from a book. This is what's biting him on the bum in a courtroom imo.

I have nothing but respect for GA to write and have published his opinions. The point I'm trying to make (so very badly) is that had GA not been taken to task by the McCanns, he'd have made an awful lot of money out of it.

Oh dear, this is another 'I'll fetch me coat' post. I'm hovering over the 'send' button.

Dare I venture you've missed the more pertinent point.
He didn't write it to make money. It just so happened to sell well, so be it.
He did not make nearly half as much as what the McCanns intent to take him to the cleaner for.
Amara is a victim of the McCanns, and writing the book is a mean to getting the injustice done to him addressed, and also be a voice for Madeleine.

No one other than the McCanns is guilty of commodifying Madeleine.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.14 21:10

aquila wrote:
Woofer wrote:Will Goncalo be able to get his book published in the UK if the McCanns lose the damages trial?

Or will the McCanns start the whole ruddy process over again in the UK?
I'm not sure that's the point Woofer and this will be a sharp intake of breath to people on the forum - I'm not happy that Goncalo allegedly made so much money from a book he wrote. I've been sooo afraid of saying this.

I'm behind GA for writing a book that told the truth of the investigation. 100% behind him.

I'm behind GA for being totally annihilated by the UK press, the PJ, the McCanns and fighting back. 100% behind him.

What I'm not behind GA for is a large amount of money earned from a book. This is what's biting him on the bum in a courtroom imo.

I have nothing but respect for GA to write and have published his opinions. The point I'm trying to make (so very badly) is that had GA not been taken to task by the McCanns, he'd have made an awful lot of money out of it.

But all that has to be balanced against the fact that in writing the book...

1. He sacrificed his career

2. He lost the right to a police salary for the rest of his career - I think he had another 7 years (?) to go before he could retire on his police pension, and

3. His final police pension (when he finally gets it) will be worth 25% or more less than it would otherwise have been.

ALSO

4. Had the McCanns obtained an injunction when the book was pubished (July 2008), he wouldn't have made any money - instead the McCanns waited until September 2009 to get the injunction, by which time the book had sold 220,000 copies in Portugal and had sold tens of thousands more copies in nince other European countries where his book had been translated. Why did they wait? I think any fair Portuguese judxge would he bound to take that into account

and

5. His gains from selling the book have been frozen and he has had to shell out probably a six-figure sum in solicitors' costs.

The other great shame is that if Goncalo Amaral's book is ever published in England, it will be seriously out-of-date - so much more is known now as a result of the combined efforts of various compliers, researchers and translators of Madeleine McCann-related information