"Incompetent and unco-operative Portuguese held up Scotland Yard for a year by refusing to supply forensic evidence" - Sunday Mirror 21 Dec 2014

Khaleesi wrote:

Joss wrote:
And i think if the ongoing investigation into this case was at all serious in finding out what happened to Maddie, they need to haul the McC's & tapas people back in for some real questioning and a reconstruction of events

Amaral hauled the McCanns for some real questioning without the evidence strong enough in his hand. And how did it end? The investigation got shelved. Do you want the SY to repeat the portuguese team mistakes? What for?

It was the U.K.'s interference that got the case shelved. Well the investigation is now being treated as if it happened in the U.K. no?  What about that reconstruction? I think we all know the McC's will never get charged, that was  because of the political interference in the case, and the high level of protection afforded the McC's.
This case is as i have said before a media PR stunt/campaign to clear the McC's & whoever else of anything to do with Maddie's disappearance. But i guess we can dream it might be otherwise.

Joss wrote:
What do you mean "its a violent presumption"?  Who says they are "straight people" that have never had dealings with criminal matters? Sometimes Doctors are called to give evidence in court, so i wouldn't necessarily dismiss them as not having any dealings in legal matters, but of course i have no clue about that when it comes to the individuals in this case. But i do believe they all know after the fact what happened, even if not directly by the McC's, but through their spokesperson/s, perhaps DP & FP? And as to who aided & abetted, that is anyone's guess.
I

'Violent presumption' is a legal term for having strong and valid grounds for assuming a fact. Experience in giving expert or witness evidence in a criminal court of law is a quantum leap from being arrested by the police and going through the court and penal system as a defendant.

 Do you really suppose that the McCanns confided in their spokespersons and lawyers as to what really happened to their daughter and where she was buried, surely not. You can't have it both ways, on another thread you assert that the McCanns are confident their daughter will never be found, well, they'd hardly be confident if all their so called called friends and employees also knew, would they now. I certainly wouldn't be and I doubt whether others would either.

Joss wrote:
It was the U.K.'s interference that got the case shelved.

I was under the assumption that the case was shelved due to lack of evidence and the fact that the McCanns had flown the nest, nothing whatsoever to do with UK interference. Had new evidence implicating the McCanns come to light, the Portuguese authorities could have issued a European Arrest Warrant to have them extradited back to Portugal, that is the reason Gerry engaged the services of a lawyer specialising in extradition matters.

As it has transpired, no further tangible evidence has come to light, hence no extradition warrants being issued, again nothing to do with interference from the UK government, but simply a case of  prove it if you can, which evidently they can't.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
. You state as if you know the facts and reasons of what the tapas friends did,

I obviously don't have first hand knowledge regarding the reasons why the McCann's friends reacted in the manner they did, but its a violent presumption that they sure as hell weren't prepared to be participants in covering up a murder.manslaughter for a couple most of them hardly knew. By the same hypothesis, its a violent presumption that the McCanns wouldn't have been likely to divulge details of a murder/manslaughter to what basically amounted to a bunch of acquiantances, most of whom they barely knew.

 One also has to take into account these are straight people who have never had any experience with criminal matters, not a closely knit group of people who have grown up and gone through the system together. How much serious pressure do you suppose the likes of Jane Tanner would be able to sustain. I wouldn't give her more than 45 mins. in police custody before being ready to pot her own grandmother.

Why did Matt flag up the seeming irony of searching along Cemetery Road with Russell on Thursday evening in one of his rogatories when at that stage the presumption is that Madeleine had been abducted? This 'brain leak' is highly suggestive that Matt, and probably Russell too, imo, knew that Madeleine was already dead at this stage. Or was to die soon. 

Who says they are straight people? There are high levels of corruption in the health service. Fraud, rigged research trials, dodgy pharma deals et al. It's a massively profitable industry and lots of people have got their hands in the cookie jar. Funded by the public via the NHS. 

Some of them were closely knit prior to the holiday. The Paynes and Russell and Jane, for instance. Gerry was close to David Payne. I suspect Jane Tanner stuck her neck on the line to cover up something incriminating about her partner, Russell. She won't pot the Mcs because if she did that the Mcs -or someone in TM - could pot them too.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
It was the U.K.'s interference that got the case shelved.

I was under the assumption that the case was shelved due to lack of evidence and the fact that the McCanns had flown the nest, nothing whatsoever to do with UK interference. Had new evidence implicating the McCanns come to light, the Portuguese authorities could have issued a European Arrest Warrant to have them extradited back to Portugal, that is the reason Gerry engaged the services of a lawyer specialising in extradition matters.

As it has transpired, no further tangible evidence has come to light, hence no extradition warrants being issued, again nothing to do with interference from the UK government, but simply a case of  prove it if you can, which evidently they can't.

Oh come on. The UK put pressure on the Portuguese to shelve the case. There would have been high level meetings. There is a stack of evidence that points towards the Mcs playing a role in the disappearance of their daughter.

Realist wrote:

noddy100 wrote:
The others I believe know that the holiday was a bit dodgy in other ways and so don't want it looked at too closely 
but I think they believe she was abducted

They may well have initially believed the McCann's daughter was abducted, but I doubt after analysing all the evidence over the past 7 odd yrs. they are still of that belief. Certainly not Diane Webster, whom if I am correct, was the only person who didn't bother leaving the Tapas bar when Kate McCann hysterically announced the news that her daughter had been 'taken.'

Ha! Pull the other one, it's got bells on it! Diane Webster could possibly be the only one in the Tapas group that was entirely 'in the dark'. Although, no doubt, she started to put two and two together pretty quickly.

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
What do you mean "its a violent presumption"?  Who says they are "straight people" that have never had dealings with criminal matters? Sometimes Doctors are called to give evidence in court, so i wouldn't necessarily dismiss them as not having any dealings in legal matters, but of course i have no clue about that when it comes to the individuals in this case. But i do believe they all know after the fact what happened, even if not directly by the McC's, but through their spokesperson/s, perhaps DP & FP? And as to who aided & abetted, that is anyone's guess.
I

'Violent presumption' is a legal term for having strong and valid grounds for assuming a fact. Experience in giving expert or witness evidence in a criminal court of law is a quantum leap from being arrested by the police and going through the court and penal system as a defendant.

 Do you really suppose that the McCanns confided in their spokespersons and lawyers as to what really happened to their daughter and where she was buried, surely not. You can't have it both ways, on another thread you assert that the McCanns are confident their daughter will never be found, well, they'd hardly be confident if all their so called called friends and employees also knew, would they now. I certainly wouldn't be and I doubt whether others would either.

My take on it is that there were more people in the group that knew what happened to Madeleine than just her parents. I never said any "employees" knew anything. If the McC's and certain people in the group knew the dirt on each other, and helped the McC's cover a crime, its not as if they are going to rat each other out because that would put them at risk of serious legal consequences.
As far as "violent presumption" i have never heard that term used as a legal term. Perhaps it is specific to U.K. legalities.

j.rob wrote:

Realist wrote:

Joss wrote:
It was the U.K.'s interference that got the case shelved.

I was under the assumption that the case was shelved due to lack of evidence and the fact that the McCanns had flown the nest, nothing whatsoever to do with UK interference. Had new evidence implicating the McCanns come to light, the Portuguese authorities could have issued a European Arrest Warrant to have them extradited back to Portugal, that is the reason Gerry engaged the services of a lawyer specialising in extradition matters.

As it has transpired, no further tangible evidence has come to light, hence no extradition warrants being issued, again nothing to do with interference from the UK government, but simply a case of  prove it if you can, which evidently they can't.

Oh come on. The UK put pressure on the Portuguese to shelve the case. There would have been high level meetings. There is a stack of evidence that points towards the Mcs playing a role in the disappearance of their daughter.

Exactly. Goncalo Amaral has also stated about the political interference from the very start of this case. I think most people following the case are aware of it.

j.rob wrote:I find it very significant that the Paynes are appearing to be the only couple of the Tapas 7 that appear to be being whooshed as much as possible. It is also notable that the Paynes, along with the McCanns were the most hysterical that night. My interpretation of the facts that I've seen only.


------


David Payne's behaviour, actions, words are highly suggestive of him having had a direct involvement in what happened to Madeleine that week. His over-embellished statement to police about his alleged visit to the Mc apartment where all three children were dressed in white looking like angels. And so well cared for. And such a happy family.


Far too much over-egging here.

It was also stated in the mccannfiles from what i posted yesterday about a some of the tapas crew, that they perhaps mistook D.Payne for R. Murat after they tried to finger Murat for abducting Maddie. So what does that mean, that D. Payne was the abductor?

“Political Influence demands an Inquiry”

Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the investigation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz, on the night of May 3, 2007, is not surprised with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] sent by the US ambassador in Portugal, Alfred Hoffman Jr, to Washington.

by Paulo Marcelino / J.F. / R.R. with agencies

In that letter, of September 28, 2007, the diplomat reported on a conversation with his UK counterpart, Alexander W. Ellis, in which the latter said that the “British police had obtained evidence against the McCann couple”. The former coordinator of the Judiciary Police admits that he felt “political pressures during the investigation” and is now asking for the creation of a commission of inquiry in the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], alleging that political interference in a criminal investigation undermines the Rule of Law.
“There was political influence as to the direction of the investigation and in the process archival,” said Gonçalo Amaral to the CM. The former coordinator of the investigation - removed from it at its final stage - further adds: “Before the passivity, and almost complicity of the government [Portuguese] still in office, it is imperative, within the Portuguese Republic Assembly, the creation of a commission of inquiry, in order to investigate the influences and political manoeuvring which have led to the discontinuation of the investigation and to the process archival. At stake is the Rule of Law.”
As to the disclosure that it would have been the British police to have gathered evidence against the couple, Gerry and Kate McCann (the missing girl's parents), Amaral is peremptory: “They didn't gather any evidence”. The former coordinator acknowledges the good cooperation of the English police officers sent to the Algarve at the time, but adds that “whomever was in England had other ideas.”
And he gives examples: “The English police even held back the statement made by Katherine Gaspar [read [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]] about a potential paedophile [David Payne] in the group at holidays in Luz”. And he recalls that David ended up being questioned in England without the PJ's inspectors presence. It should also be remembered that the credit information requested by the Police never received a reply. And Amaral also says that “there are strong suspicions” that the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] were manipulated. And that they were well known at the date of the cable. The laboratory [in]conclusions devaluated the evidence that were found in the apartment and in the couple's car by the British dogs, specialized in sniffing blood and cadaver odour.
by Eduardo Dâmaso

What is the worth of the WikiLeaks disclosure on the Maddie case? It is truly worthy. Firstly, in the foreground, it shows that British police was convinced of the credibility of the evidence that involved the parents in the disappearance. And then, that the matter was the subject of conversation, at State level, between the English and the US diplomacies.

That is, for some reasons which persist to be yet clarified and that may be related to some work by Gerry McCann to the British government, the issue had a clear political dimension. It was a dossier managed with all the political cautions, as it is understood by the reference of “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” that the matter demanded from the British.

Today, one can also realize that it was none the credibility of the information provided by the U.S. to the request of the investigation regarding the images collected by an U.S. satellite positioned to the south of Portugal and North Africa. At the time, the Americans confirmed the positioning of the satellite, but said that on the night of the disappearance it was directed to Africa, and therefore, it could not have seen a man carrying a child, which latter was said by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to be Maddie's father.

If the McCanns truly wished to reopen the case, now it would be a good time. But is it that really their convenience, in face of the facts? It doesn't seem to be...
in Correio da Manhã [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Makes one wonder what on earth were the United States to do with the Madeleine McCann case? Who contacted who in that scenario?

Joss wrote:[color:c242=000000]Doubt was cast on the evidence of several key witnesses in the Madeleine McCann disappearance last night.



[color:c242=000000]Those who said they saw suspect Robert Murat outside the family's holiday apartment on the night she vanished may have named the wrong man, it was revealed.


[color:c242=000000]Detectives believe the witnesses who said they saw the British expat could have confused him with a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann, David Payne, who was out searching for the missing three-year-old.

[color:c242=000000]If true, the claim could force police into a rethink of their eight-month investigation.

David Payne/Robert Murat - Could witnesses have confused these two?
	[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [color:c242=000000]David Payne (left) and Robert Murat [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [color:c242=000000]Robert Murat (left) and David Payne

I always thought it was David Payne. There is no way anyone could really 100 percent recognise someone after 10pm, it was dark and the street lighting there was poor anyway. If you see someone of same/similar height, hair colouring and glasses they could be anyone. I have a street light outside my house, we have a long driveway you could put 5 cars down it. If someone stood UNDER that street light in the dark I would struggle to recognise them, and have done so when I heard my husbands van been broken into which was on the road, all I could see was a smallish person wearing dark clothes......

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

Kate’s notebooks – McCanns and friends against Anglo-Portuguese

Madeleine McCann’s mother engaged in collecting indicia that would lead to the accusation of the Anglo-Portuguese [man] over the little girl’s disappearance

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Kate McCann bet everything into blaming Robert Murat over the disappearance of her daughter, and it was with that purpose in mind and with the help of friends that she engaged in collecting evidence and in convincing the Polícia Judiciária of the Anglo-Portuguese [man’s] involvement.

On the day that Murat is made an arguido, already after friends of the McCanns referred his presence in the surroundings of the apartment on the evening of the disappearance of Madeleine to the authorities, Kate registered in her notes that she had become “very hopeful, excited about this”.
Three weeks later, Kate, who met frequently with the PJ during the investigation, writes that “Robert Murat continues to be the main suspect”. “For good reason”, she adds, lamenting that there is not “strong evidence”.
When three of the friends are called to the PJ to repeat their statements following contradictions about the presence of Murat at the Ocean Club, on the 11th of July, Kate tries to excuse her friends with the fact that they were questioned in the presence of the Anglo-Portuguese [man]: “What happened was that they were questioned in the room, sitting beside Murat and his lawyer. He apparently said that they were lying, which made them quite angry. They started thinking that he was certainly involved. What his he hiding???”

In her notes dated July 18, almost two months after Maddie’s disappearance and at a time when there are starting to appear indicia against the McCanns, Kate sounds disheartened and reinforces the accusations against Murat: “I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat’s situation. I’m sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can’t”. Nine days later, Madeleine’s mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends “the whole” information to the PJ. “I’m certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream”, she writes on the 27th of July.


Jane Tanner guaranteed that Murat carried Maddie
Jane Tanner, one of the Englishwomen that accompanied the McCanns on their holidays in Praia da Luz, guaranteed after the first few hours upon the disappearance that she saw a man carrying a child walking towards Casa Liliana (where Murat lived). Later on – and also facing the suspicions that befell the Anglo-Portuguese [man] - Jane said she was almost certain that the man she had visualized for a few seconds only was in fact Robert Murat.

The witness’ statement was considered to be credible during the first hours and strengthened the suspicions that befell the Anglo-Portuguese [man]. Robert Murat ended up being the target of a search on the 14th of May and was heard at the PJ on that same morning, denying any involvement in the child’s disappearance. The lack of indicia ended up determining his release.
source: Correio da Manhã 29.07.08, paper edition




So K.McC would of liked to kill Mr. Murat but couldn't. And it turns out he was innocent of any involvement with Maddie's disappearance. Nice!

So perhaps Murat's only crime is being unfortunate enough to look like David Payne?

@jrob. Don't forget the blue bag was back in the McCanns' wardrode when the police took photos there between 1 and 4 am the next morning.

j.rob wrote:It was also stated in the mccannfiles from what i posted yesterday about a some of the tapas crew, that they perhaps mistook D.Payne for R. Murat after they tried to finger Murat for abducting Maddie. So what does that mean, that D. Payne was the abductor?


-----


I suspect that David Payne played a role in, at the least, helping to dispose of the body. However I also suspect, based on the evidence of the Gasper statements and other red flags, that he played another role that may have gone back to long before that fateful holiday. 


His alleged 6.30pm visit to the Mc apartment is highly suspicious. It places him squarely as the last person apart from the parents to see Madeleine that evening. His over-embellished account of how happy and well-cared for all the children looked is also a giant red flag. It is highly suggestive that at least one of the children most certainly was neither of those things. 


Kate, imo, pretty much told us what happened in one of the very early media interviews. Madeleine woke up one night and was inconsolable. Kate regrets that she didn't take the time to find out exactly why Madeleine woke up, and what had happened to make her so upset. She tells us that in the media interview.


Both Kate and Gerry then realize how incriminating this was and attempt to sanitize the episode by claiming that Madeleine asked them at breakfast one morning why they didn't come when Sean and she woke up and cried the night before. This is typical of the Mc modus operandi. They spin versions of events in an attempt to downplay them and sanitize them.


So, to my mind, given that they repeatedly talked about this allegedly trivial episode, it is highly significant. One can only speculate (unfortunately) on what (or who) might have woken up Madeleine and upset her so deeply. I suspect that after this episode, things took a dramatic turn. Madeleine was inconsolable. The Mcs and Tapas panicked. A course of action was decided upon.


It is dark, very dark. They all have blood on their hands, imo, and should be brought to justice.


And I agree that Robert Murat does look exceptionally similar to David Payne The hair is different and their physiques are not the same but facially they are very similar. Perhaps this is why Murat was made the patsy, to get DP off the hook.


I suspect that David Payne's 6.30pm visit to the Mc apartment which just so happened - conveniently - to coincide with the male tennis social on Thursday evening may have involved a large sports bag of the sort that might be able to hide a small body  contain several tennis racquets. As, according to his account, all the Mc children were looking like angels dressed in white at 6.30pm that evening, I suspect that one was already an angel and two others were in a very deep assisted sleep verging on a coma. In the normal course of events at 6.30pm in the evening three children under four are in full drive time and extremely demanding.


So I wonder where David Payne took the large tennis bag at around 6.30pm? (Assuming is was then that the body/Madeleine was taken away. It could, of course, have been earlier in the week in which case I presume it would still have been around the time of one of the Tapas male's tennis sessions). 


This is where I am suspicious about Jez Wilkins wandering around the O.C resort with his pram that evening. I wonder if the pram was large enough to conceal a sports bag containing a small body push a four year old around in? By what means did the sports bag, assuming it might have been used to conceal a small body, get removed from the O.C resort without attracting suspicion? None of the Tapas 9 had hired a car that week, or so they claimed. So IF the sports bag was used to transport a small body from an O.C apartment that week to somewhere else in the resort, say, somewhere near a tennis court or somewhere where someone could carry the sports bag to without attracting suspicion (the toilets near the tapas restaurant, maybe?) Then what was the mode of transport after that?


What really sickens me about all this is how flippant TM have been - or at least certain elements of TM. Such as Jane Tanner in that stupid 'reconstruction' mockumentary for Channel 4. The simply appalling 'Madeleine was Here' series which was just so incriminating.


What idiots they are, imo. To have appeared on camera telling such obvious lies and even sniggering about it like naughty school children. Disgusting. 


All opinions only.

I think the fact that D. Payne & K. McC had very conflicting stories of D. Payne being at the McC apartment and for what duration of time he was there, supposedly because he was asked to check on K.McC by Gerry, is highly suspicious. One of them is lying, so i guess take your pick, unless they were both lying about him being there, and for what reason they would do that i have no idea? It's all very odd.
I don't know what type of pram J.W. had, but nothing is out of the realm of possibility IMO. Maybe it was Maddie in the pram? Did anyone get a good look at the child in the pram apart from Gerry?

One of the inconsistencies has to do with the time of the visit that was done by a friend to the McCann couple. David Payne would have met Gerry at 6.30 p.m., and only afterwards went to see Kate. Until today, it is not known how long the visit took: According to Gerry, Payne was at the location for over half an hour; according to Kate, the visit lasted little over 30 seconds.

Gonçalo Amaral – This is a figure that, I use to say, that is enigmatic, and who was not well investigated. Not a lot is known about this person.

Voiceover – A mysterious man with a profile that is linked to indications of inadequate behaviours towards children. He even used to bathe the daughters of the friends that he spent holidays with.

To CMTV, Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores, former Judiciary Police inspectors, state that this is one of the gaps in the process.

Moita Flores – It is strange, in a group of friends, that one friend bathes the other friends’ children. And that all of this is natural, and nobody questions this from the investigation’s point of view.
Gonçalo Amaral – What weight did it have in the disappearance, if it had any weight at all, and what was going on there with that individual. One is this one, the 30 minutes or the 30 seconds, what he went there to do. The other one is the fact that he always cared to bathe the other people’s daughters.

Voiceover – There is even a concrete episode, which took place on the island of Mallorca, in 2005. David Payne, in the company of Gerry McCann, would have been seen making obscene gestures, while referring to Maddie.

Gonçalo Amaral – Then there is the other moment, that of the obscene gestures he made, in Spain, in Mallorca, where there is a denunciation in May 2007, ten days after the disappearance, by another doctor, who was also on holidays, who knows him and tells the English police about said obscene gestures in the presence of the father.

Voiceover – For Eduardo Dâmaso, joint editor at Correio da Manhã, these indications should have been explored.

Eduardo Dâmaso – All of those indications are much stronger to explore, that enigma that is installed within that group, than the thesis of the abductor. The feeling that I have is –

Voiceover – Some statements by Gerry McCann are also contradictory. To the police, Maddie’s father told different versions about the way that he entered the Ocean Club apartment at 9 p.m. In a first statement, Gerry said he had entered through the front door; later, he changed the statement and said he had entered through the back window. Despite everything, the key was inside the apartment.
For the former Judiciary Police inspector Carlos Anjos, the change in the depositions is an attempt by Gerry to adjust to the facts.
Carlos Anjos – I think he has no certainty whatsoever. That is the big problem. And hence the difficulty, the contradictions they had, all of the contradictions they had, which were verbalized when they gave statements, even the changing of depositions… We at the police use to say that when the depositions start to be changed, it’s an attempt by the witness to adjust the deposition to the fact.

Voiceover – Another inconsistency has to do with the visit of another friend of the couple to the Ocean Club apartment. Matthew Oldfield entered the room, looked to where Maddie and her siblings were. Later on, he said he wasn’t sure whether or not the little girl was in the apartment.

Eduardo Dâmaso – We return to another aspect which, from my point of view, proves that all the indications that exist, which point towards an enigma that is installed within that group, is much stronger than what exists about the possibility of an abduction.

Voiceover – Another question that remains unanswered is the place where Gerry was at 10 p.m. Two Tapas Bar employees said that Gerry was not at the restaurant. According to Gonçalo Amaral, there are only three moments that the authorities are able to locate in time. This is not one of them.

Gonçalo Amaral – As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m., the time of the payment at the restaurant by the Irish family, which is at 9.22 or 9.27 p.m., and the time of the phone call to GNR, which is at 10.47 p.m. From there on, nothing is certain.
from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joss wrote:
Gonçalo Amaral – As far as accurate times are concerned, there are only three: The time at which they pick up Maddie from the crèche, which is at 5.30 p.m . . .

That is where I believe Dr Amaral made his big mistake.
The McCanns say that the children were taken to the Tapas for tea - not that they picked them up from the creches.
And then all that stuff about Madeleine being so exhausted she could not even walk . . . what sort of children's nanny would allow that to happen.

Joss wrote:
I think the fact that D. Payne & K. McC had very conflicting stories of D. Payne being at the McC apartment and for what duration of time he was there, supposedly because he was asked to check on K.McC by Gerry, is highly suspicious. One of them is lying, so i guess take your pick, unless they were both lying about him being there, and for what reason they would do that i have no idea? It's all very odd.

Of course they are both lying. They needed a witness to confirm that Maddie was still alive that afternoon, so they invented the story about Payne dropping by. They just forgot about these pesky details...

Khaleesi wrote:

Joss wrote:
I think the fact that D. Payne & K. McC had very conflicting stories of D. Payne being at the McC apartment and for what duration of time he was there, supposedly because he was asked to check on K.McC by Gerry, is highly suspicious. One of them is lying, so i guess take your pick, unless they were both lying about him being there, and for what reason they would do that i have no idea? It's all very odd.

Of course they are both lying. They needed a witness to confirm that Maddie was still alive that afternoon, so they invented the story about Payne dropping by. They just forgot about these pesky details...

I would think if two people are going to collaborate in a lie together about such a serious issue that they would of at least have got their details of times etc. straight?
But maybe i give them more credit than they deserve in that regard, assuming they are at all intelligent.

Joss wrote:I would think if two people are going to collaborate in a lie together about such a serious issue that they would of at least have got their details of times etc. straight?
But maybe i give them more credit than they deserve in that regard, assuming they are at all intelligent.

That's for sure, they are not as intelligent as they think they are.

j.rob wrote:

Oh come on. The UK put pressure on the Portuguese to shelve the case. There would have been high level meetings. There is a stack of evidence that points towards the Mcs playing a role in the disappearance of their daughter.

I think you're confusing evidence with suspicion, there is certainly a stack of suspicion that points towards the McCanns playing a role in the disappearance of their daughter, but there isn't one scintilla of tangible evidence which would be admissable in either a British or Portuguese criminal court of law, that's the reason they've never been charged, not because of any political interference from the UK gov.

If the Portuguese authorities could produce tangible evidence implicating the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter and instigated extradition proceedings, the british gov. would be obligated to comply because they are mandatorily required to do so under European law. To refuse to do so would have serious implications such as other European states refusing to grant extradition requests for people suspected of committing crimes in the UK. who have seeked sanctuary in  European states.

The bottom line regarding the lack of prosecution of the McCanns is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with interference from the UK gov. but everything to do with the Portuguese authorities failure to produce tangible evidence which constitutes a prima facia case against them.

PeterMac wrote:

That is where I believe Dr Amaral made his big mistake.
The McCanns say that the children were taken to the Tapas for tea - not that they picked them up from the creches.
And then all that stuff about Madeleine being so exhausted she could not even walk . . .  what sort of children's nanny would allow that to happen.

This is where the McCanns and their advocates have got their facts correct, the PJ did bungle the investigation, but not in the way they are purporting. The PJ bungled the investigation by not treating the McCanns as prime suspects from the inception  and taking as gospel witness statements from the likes of Catriona Baker. Also, Goncalo Amaral appears to accept the 'last picture' as being authentic which others including yourself have raised serious doubts over.

Of course many other mistakes were made and the aforementioned are merely a couple of instances. Another of Goncalo's theories which doesn't add up is that he appears to be of the belief that Madeleine met with a fatal accident whilst the McCanns weren't present, but that doesn't  constitute motive for disposing of her body and concocting a phoney kidnapping story. Yet again, we come back to the inevitable conclusion that one simply doesn't turn an accidental death into a murder/kidnapping case.

Joss wrote:
My take on it is that there were more people in the group that knew what happened to Madeleine than just her parents. I never said any "employees" knew anything. If the McC's and certain people in the group knew the dirt on each other, and helped the McC's cover a crime, its not as if they are going to rat each other out because that would put them at risk of serious legal consequences.
As far as "violent presumption" i have never heard that term used as a legal term. Perhaps it is specific to U.K. legalities.

You did actually state that the McCann's employees were aware of the true facts by asserting that had their Tapas acquaintances not been aware of what actually transpired at the time, they would have been informed over the yrs. by their various spokespeople, advisors et al.

In a serious case such as murder where at least 7 others were involved, or had information as to the facts, it would be the first time in history that at least one of them in peril of their liberty didn't turn state's evidence to save themself. I include in that cases where hardened criminals are involved which includes the Krays, Richardsons, Micky Mcavoy et cie and American crime families, most notably the Gotti case. You may or may not have read the Valechi Papers. No greater love hath man than to lay down the life of his friend to save himself. Since the early 1970's days of Bertie Smalls, so called hardened criminals have been queuing up to to do deals with the Crown, even more so in the good ole US of A.

I think that the terminology, 'violent presumption' might be more of an americanism than English.

GA did raise concern over the mark/bruise on Madeleine's arm in the tennis photo though, he'd asked the nannies about it and none noticed it, so he thinks that happened after the crèche and before she vanished, but wasn't the tennis pic taken on the Tuesday or Wednesday?
IMO

Blue Butterfly wrote:GA did raise concern over the mark/bruise on Madeleine's arm in the tennis photo though, he'd asked the nannies about it and none noticed it, so he thinks that happened after the crèche and before she vanished, but wasn't the tennis pic taken on the Tuesday or Wednesday?
IMO

I think the pic. was alleged to have been taken on the afternoon of the day she was purported to have disappeared, Blue Butterfly, but you'd need to confirm this with other members who are more familiar with this aspect.

Realist wrote:

Blue Butterfly wrote:GA did raise concern over the mark/bruise on Madeleine's arm in the tennis photo though, he'd asked the nannies about it and none noticed it, so he thinks that happened after the crèche and before she vanished, but wasn't the tennis pic taken on the Tuesday or Wednesday?
IMO

I think the pic. was alleged to have been taken on the afternoon of the day she was purported to have disappeared, Blue Butterfly, but you'd need to confirm this with other members who are more familiar with this aspect.

So confusing Realist, even the tapas9 don't seem to know what day it was!