Re: British police believe they spoke to her attacker

by MayMuse 28.04.16 18:44

BlueBag wrote:
It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward.

This is outrageous.

More than outrageous and the implication that the PJ have 'blocked the process before!
MR. Gonzalas (the supposed criminologist) has stated that the window was opened from the outside! This is not evidence which was concluded in the files.

Just another 'implanted' story since Amarals win! If the British police have had this info for nearly 3 years, what have they been doing with it...my thoughts they were waiting to see the outcome of the trial... And there you have it in all its glorified 'rubbish'?

by whodunit 28.04.16 18:47

The PJ need to hire a British spokesman to answer some of the crap that gets spewed unchallenged!!

by NickE 28.04.16 19:46

Doug D wrote:‘ It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward.

An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again.

'If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved.'

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

Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes.

A spokesman said: "There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."

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

The End.

But MSM, at least get you’re acts together ffs.

(And of course it’s the fault of the bloody Portuguese. It would be wouldn’t it.
And after they had been working so well together!)

Is SY trying to frame these guys without evidence?

Desperation.

by Guest 28.04.16 19:57

coati mundi wrote:Haven't posted in quite a while, but wanted to say that there is no way any patsy (or patsies) will be presented in a court for trial. That would necessitate the McCanns and the Tapas 7 giving evidence. Any half decent advocate would tear them to pieces on their version of events for that night. If they chose not to appear, then the case would collapse.

The prosecution would have to establish the "facts" of what happened not only that night but also on preceding days. It's not going to happen because if it were done in order to clear the McCanns, those behind it would be well aware that they and their friends would be cross examined "up hill and down dale" as barristers I have worked with used to say.

Not going to happen - it's just spin.

By the way, congratulations to Snr Amaral.

No need for a Patsy is there - even a dead one, much simpler for Operation Grange to shelve the case as unsolved. What have they got to lose - certainly not a reputation, they lost that circa. 2011.

There are those that think the Metropolitan Police, the government or whoever else embroiled in this saga, are going to be forced to eventually confess their sins. I can't agree - since when has any publicly owned entity ever EVER (sorry for shouting) stood by their obligations to serve the public. You know, that awkward lot that pay their wages!

by plebgate 28.04.16 19:58

NickE wrote:
Doug D wrote:‘ It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward.

An officer told the paper: 'It has dogged the investigation all the way through and it's happening again.

'If we can't question the three suspects again the trail goes cold and the case will be shelved.'

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

Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes.

A spokesman said: "There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."

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

The End.

But MSM, at least get you’re acts together ffs.

(And of course it’s the fault of the bloody Portuguese. It would be wouldn’t it.
And after they had been working so well together!)
Is SY trying to frame these guys without evidence?

Desperation.

Ref green highlighting (mine) above

So an officer told them did they? So much for the officers have to sign the Offical Secrets Act.

Now we are expected to believe that officers think that Maddie was abducted because she interupted a burglary.

If that is the case, why haven't her parents been hauled in and questioned as to why they left Maddie and her siblings in such a vulnerable and defenceless position?

PAH

by Guest 28.04.16 20:04

HKP wrote:It looks to me that SY are using these 'burglar fantasies' as a get out clause. They will announce that although they have some evidence it may not stand up to the Portuguese legal system and it would be up to them to bring the actual charges not SY. Abuction nothing to do with any British citizen, job done case closed.

It's always been on the cards hasn't it? From the word go Sloperation Strange was fannying about looking for escaped burglars and surveying the land in quest of errant child molesters.

Predictable as dawn!

by pendragon2007 28.04.16 20:18

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

Is it just me or has someone else already mentioned this in a previous post and I've missed it? "Brit police believe they spoke to her attacker". When exactly did "abduction" theory morph into an "attacker"? Quite apart from the crap contained in the rest of this fabrication, I've never seen or heard any evidence suggesting Madeleine was attacked. I suspect the "Prince of PR" CM had a hand in this as "attacker" would sell more papers and grab more attention. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story sure applies here. Sad thing is CM I think I may be the first to notice - and hopefully the last. Still "attacker" and rest of this played out fairy tale make a great DIVERSION away from the truth. Wonder what we will get for tomorrows bedtime fairy tale????
Don't forget :- THE TRUTH IS STILL OUT THERE (The X Files).

by suzyjohnson 28.04.16 20:35

It'll look well if one, or all, of the three suspected burglars announces, yes we were in the vicinity and guess what we saw ........

by plebgate 29.04.16 0:02

I am very confused - so the police supposedly think that it could have been the burglars.

Is anyone able to tell me why Crimewatch was not shown in Pt. if they think Maddie could have been stolen by the burglars?

Why was it shown in UK and Germany only?

Truly confused here.

by suzyjohnson 29.04.16 0:19

plebgate wrote:I am very confused - so the police supposedly think that it could have been the burglars.

Three named burglars the police think might have taken Madeleine just before 10 pm.

And by coincidence, one man seen carrying a child who resembled Madeleine at just before 10 pm (who has never been identified)

So, where are the photographs of the suspects to compare to efits drawn up by the Smith family?

by Mirage 29.04.16 0:27

Perhaps Alison Saunders will make a statement and clear up why she was over in Lisbon June 2013. There were some leads OG wanted to follow up and so the review turned into an investigation (I use the latter word very loosely).

Didn't Burglar Bill and Burglar Betty have a baby son? He would have been a teenager by 2007. Perhaps the Met are really onto something after all.
spin

by jeanmonroe 29.04.16 1:59

Is SY trying to frame these guys without evidence?

Desperation.
-----------------------------

Was South Yorkshire Police trying to frame the Liverpool supporters without evidence?

Desperation!

by Bishop Brennan 29.04.16 3:41

BlueBag wrote:
It's claimed they have been identified as suspects by British police, but officers are being blocked from accessing them by Portuguese cops who say no new evidence has been brought forward.

This is outrageous.

To slur another police force to try and cover the rank incompetence and ineptitude of the MET's efforts is as outrageous as it is predictable. SY and the MSM are now in full "face-saving" mode. They appear to have settled on the preposterous 3 burglars story from 2014 as their whitewash of choice. Now they link it to a smearing of Amaral (more still to come) and overt criticism of the unhelpful PJ and we have the whitened end to this 4 year saga.

At least Amaral retained his reputation and his money. That was an intended part of the whitewash (that he lose all), but luckily the Appeal Courts have in two instances proved themselves honest and above the UK meddling that has been part of this case from the start. We can only hope that the Supreme Court also remains out of their reach and that Amaral can then continue his life in some kind of peace.

by NickE 29.04.16 7:04

@Adiren_M
The "burglars" that OG interrogated last year had been questioned in 2007, and discarded because they had alibis...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by skyrocket 29.04.16 8:27

Here's a post from Joana Morais from July 2014, regarding the 3 (plus Malinka):

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

The comments in 2014 mirror what has been concluded here.

Can't find photos - there's one circulating of Tiago da Silva (maintenance at the OC) which has been mis-labelled as Jose Carlos da Silva in places. Re-iterates the importance of extreme caution when posting photos as this man (Tiago) does have a passing resemblance to Smithman but was questioned as a WITNESS.

Interesting to note that in 2007, one of the 3 men now being touted as the most likely culprits, Ricardo Rodrigues, was only 16 years old.

I know this isn't being taken seriously but noting the above comment re: the recent circulation of sightings of 3 persons entering the church, and discussion of cremated bodies etc, does anyone think that there might actually be some planning in all of this information being on the table at the same time? If anything were ever to turn up regarding the cremation/remains, who is the finger pointing at now? Perfect solution to OG wind up - 3 suspects with no money to defend themselves against wild accusations; not enough (or no) evidence to charge them with anything to do with MBM's disappearance; possible reason why the body has never been found; case closed........

by MayMuse 29.04.16 9:43

skyrocket wrote:Here's a post from Joana Morais from July 2014, regarding the 3 (plus Malinka):

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

The comments in 2014 mirror what has been concluded here.

Can't find photos - there's one circulating of Tiago da Silva (maintenance at the OC) which has been mis-labelled as Jose Carlos da Silva in places. Re-iterates the importance of extreme caution when posting photos as this man (Tiago) does have a passing resemblance to Smithman but was questioned as a WITNESS.

Interesting to note that in 2007, one of the 3 men now being touted as the most likely culprits, Ricardo Rodrigues, was only 16 years old.

I know this isn't being taken seriously but noting the above comment re: the recent circulation of sightings of 3 persons entering the church, and discussion of cremated bodies etc, does anyone think that there might actually be some planning in all of this information being on the table at the same time? If anything were ever to turn up regarding the cremation/remains, who is the finger pointing at now? Perfect solution to OG wind up - 3 suspects with no money to defend themselves against wild accusations; not enough (or no) evidence to charge them with anything to do with MBM's disappearance; possible reason why the body has never been found; case closed........

Snippet>>>>> Unknown reporter [Voice Over] - Hairs found on Sergey Malinka's sofa had a very similar DNA with Madeleine McCann’s. This is the main argument that Scotland Yard has presented to the Public Ministry in order to constitute as arguido the man born in Russia but living for many years in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve.

With him, there are 3 other men, now also arguidos at the request of the English police: José Carlos Silva, Ocean Club driver in March [Sic, May] 2007, when Maddie disappeared from the resort; Pedro [sic, Paulo] Ribeiro, who the English classify as a drug-addict and schizophrenic and also Ricardo Rodrigues, a young man who at the time was close to Pedro [sic, Paulo] Ribeiro.

These three men made a series of phone calls regarded as suspicious on the night of March [sic, May] 3 2007, when Maddie disappeared.

Scotland Yard believes the three planned a burglary to the apartment and when surprised by the little girl, they murdered her and took away her body.

The arguidos were all questioned on Monday [sic, on Tuesday] at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro. This Tuesday [sic, this Wednesday] the questionings will continue, now of the 8 witnesses [sic, 11] requested by the Scotland Yard.

The English brought with them again to the Algarve the sniffer dogs specialised in detecting cadavers. The idea is for the animals to inspect the cars owned by the four arguidos back in 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] So since 2014 SY focused on these 3 arguidos (and Malinka) through questioning regarding 'suspicious, phone calls, believe that the 3 murdered Madeleine because she surprised them during a 'robbery' of 5a ( nothing of value was taken?) and brought in the 'unreliable dogs' again to inspect their vehicles for cadaver!?

They can't have it both ways, why use the dogs again when they have totally dismissed the results on the McCanns car as non evidential!? And ignore the 'suspicious' activity of phone calls (deleted) by others?

It does point to 'seeds' being planted in readiness for the recent 'reportings' IMO

Planning on the table re church... Yes ( I've said something similar on another post the other day)
Perhaps all masterminded by the 'drug induced schizophrenic' eh!?!?!?

Faith in justice & truth has slowly disappeared down the 'pan'!

by Guest 29.04.16 9:52

Hairs found on Sergey Malinka's sofa had a very similar DNA with Madeleine McCann’s.

Meaningless.

It was maternal DNA and 1 in 10 people in Europe share the same profile.

As previously discussed on this forum.

by MayMuse 29.04.16 10:02

BlueBag wrote:
Hairs found on Sergey Malinka's sofa had a very similar DNA with Madeleine McCann’s.

Meaningless.

It was maternal DNA and 1 in 10 people in Europe share the same profile.

As previously discussed on this forum.

Exactly but it was Sy's 'main' argument?

by MayMuse 29.04.16 11:16

MRNOODLES wrote:Weird innit, burglars they've known about for 9 years. Who haven't been nicked for burgling for 9 years. Plus burglars, who didn't nick anything anyway, just kidnap a child and make her vanish without a trace. Well I say without a trace, they did leave the smell of a fish supper all over the belongings of their victim's family.

Their line is that they not only kidnapped Madeleine, they 'murdered' her and even brought in those 'unreliable' dogs (2014) to detect cadaver? Yet still think she is alive and findable?

No DNA, no evidence, no witness? No "window of opportunity' for this drug addict 'schizophrenic' & his 'accomplices' ...it's like a soap opera winkwink

by **Nina** 29.04.16 12:37

Bishop Brennan wrote:Looks like the next part of the whitewash / closedown is under way.

Led, unsurprisingly, by the Star which has declared: "BRIT police are convinced they know what happened to Madeleine McCann – and believe they spoke to her attacker."

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

It's the same tired and entirely unbelievable story about the 3 burglars who were disturbed by the fierce 3-year-old with perfect recall. The drug addict, the driver and the boy. It has all the hallmarks of a planted story by team McCann in that it is simply a rehash of earlier theories and no news at all. Presumably part of the ongoing joint effort between TM, SY and the MSM to leave the public (and the public record) with the perception of "anyone but the McCanns"

.

Attacker? So she was attacked? What evidence was there of this?

by jeanmonroe 29.04.16 14:10

Modus Operandi of SY/MET 'operations'

"Find and identify the local 'nutter/druggie/schitzo' and 'it wuz 'im wot dunnit, innit"

Who needs ''evidence/proof''?

MET police officers....'don't LIE'!

(Well, except in the Andrew Mitchell 'case')

DCS HC and Barry G 'case'

DCS HC 'SIO' Madeleine case, 'IO' DCI AR's 'boss'

DCI AR 'identifies' 3 'suspects', including the 'local schitzo'....'wot dun THE 'abduction''

('the apple never falls far from the tree')

The MET could always get a European Arrest Warrant and bring 'the Portuguese 3' to UK and 'charge them'. if they are so 'cocksure' of 'their' erm...'guilt'.

The McCann's could always go to Portugal, armed with OG's irrefutable 'evidence', and ask the PJ to formally 'arrest' and 'charge' the Portuguese '3'.

Will they, won't they?

My money is on........ 'WON'T'!

by skyrocket 29.04.16 22:12

A bungled burglary - exactly how is that supposed to have panned out? The paedophile abductor was at least a recognisable scenario, the burglary gone wrong leading to abduction is not.

Several of the Mc party state that there is no way Madeleine would have gone voluntarily with a stranger 'without screaming or protesting' as Fiona puts it.
If MBM didn't wake up, then presumably she wouldn't have been taken - what would have been the point? These 3 guys appear from past records to be petty criminals at worst; and anyway, paedophilia as the motive for the abduction has been taken off the table.
If she woke up, and didn't scream, why would she have been taken - again, no point. She was hardly going to be able to give a reliable description. He would have left quickly.
If she woke up and screamed the place down, the twins would presumably have woken also and joined in (disregarding any sedation). Any burglar would have most likely legged it at speed, as per Mrs Fenn's supposed visit, and an astute elderly woman witness would be far more of a threat, yet she didn't suffer any form of attack in her reported 'bungled burglary'.
If MBM had woken up and started to protest and was silenced (unpleasant even considering it, and unlikely MO of a burglar) before the twins awoke as well - why would she be taken? Did the burglar decide he would be less likely to be caught if he took the limp child with him? Walking through the streets of Luz, where there was a chance he would be spotted or even recognised? Heading where? Home? To meet his accomplices? Then what? Or, would he leave quickly, into the shadows and walk away, carrying nothing?

No forensics (reported at least - and had there been, presumably the culprit would have been jumped on immediately).
No signs of a struggle.

Why are a few phone calls considered to be more relevant than the results of a pair of cadaver dogs with a proven track record in criminal cases in the UK and the States?

by suzyjohnson 30.04.16 11:51

skyrocket wrote:Did the burglar decide he would be less likely to be caught if he took the limp child with him? Walking through the streets of Luz, where there was a chance he would be spotted or even recognised? Heading where? Home? To meet his accomplices? Then what? Or, would he leave quickly, into the shadows and walk away, carrying nothing?

No forensics (reported at least - and had there been, presumably the culprit would have been jumped on immediately).
No signs of a struggle.

Yes. exactly.

by skyrocket 30.04.16 13:03

Let's take this a bit further:

So, no planned abduction - it was Bungle the burglar.

So, no drugging of the children.

So, no break in through the bedroom window - the patio door was unlocked and we know petty thieves, are on the whole, opportunists. One door locked, try the next. If we are to believe what we are being fed about their MO, then this gang of 3 hapless amigos weren't too worried about encountering anyone inside - no planning then, just quick on their feet.

So quick on their feet that Bungle dodges all the stated comings and goings; not to mention Jez Wilkins' night time wanderings, or the Carpenters leaving the Tapas, or the OC bar manager arriving by car and parking outside the Tapas reception at 9.40pm.

Now in 5A, at some time between 9.15pm and 9.55pm, again conveniently dodging both GM's and MO's checks, according to statements of visits, Bungle subdues a child without waking 2 more children, without leaving any forensic trace or signs of a struggle anywhere in the apartment, and without the aid of drugs (he's a burglar). At some point before or after this, just for the hell of it, he pushes 2 cots out of the way or squeezes past and opens the curtains, the blinds and the window, and then closes the curtains again, before pushing the cots back into their original position, if required.

Bungle then opens the lounge patio doors, transfers MBM outside, again leaving no forensics, closes the doors and carries MBM down a flight of steps, not forgetting to close the top gate. He nonchalantly struggles to close the bottom gate carrying an almost 4 year old child and the ambles off down or up or across the road, or along the passageway below the apartments without encountering a soul, until possibly the Smiths. And don't forget, he's done all this in his bestest beige cargo trousers - ideal for hiding in the shadows.

by pennylane 30.04.16 13:13

I tend to believe there ARE 3 burglars that Operation Grange are interested in as this slots in with OG's past dodgy parading of suspects, and grand maneuvers coinciding with news regarding Goncalo Amaral.

by Guest 30.04.16 13:19

Of course not, it's utter nonsense and an insult to one's intelligence. A moments detente..

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

by pennylane 30.04.16 13:26

Good one!

by Guest 30.04.16 23:18

B...b...burglar - that's 3 x burglar smilie

! The oldies are are always the best.

On a more serious note - if Ms Healy thought the PJ, the investigative force busting a gut to find her missing little daughter, to be f****** t*****'s, what the heck must she think of Operation Grange who are busting a gut not to find her missing little daughter?

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

Latest topics