If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Professional and Featured blogs :: Pat Brown, US Criminal Profiler
Page 5 of 5 • Share
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
@Columbo---"Where both parties do agree is that there was a visit. If it didn't happen at all, there must be a reason for its subsequent creation."
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
whodunit- Posts : 467
Activity : 913
Likes received : 448
Join date : 2015-02-08
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
The "visit" we have to take DP & KM word; although it was not in KM's original statement? ( unable to remember if it was in DP's)
Now why would that be?
IMO, there was no visit.
Now why would that be?
IMO, there was no visit.
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
whodunit wrote:
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
But they already had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker an hour previously. Whether one is of the opinion that she is an honest or dishonest witness is immaterial. Why would the McCanns require further confirmation she was alive at around that time.?
Realist- Posts : 421
Activity : 602
Likes received : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
I wasn't aware that CB visited the apartment that evening? Or do you mean at "high tea"?Realist wrote:whodunit wrote:
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
But they already had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker an hour previously. Whether one is of the opinion that she is an honest or dishonest witness is immaterial. Why would the McCanns require further confirmation she was alive at around that time.?
Why would they require any "confirmation" at all?
To prove & provide an "independent" witness that Madeleine was fit & well on the 3rd
IMHO
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Realist wrote:whodunit wrote:
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
But they already had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker an hour previously. Whether one is of the opinion that she is an honest or dishonest witness is immaterial. Why would the McCanns require further confirmation she was alive at around that time.?
And then we have MO who checked the room during the evening, only he didn't actually "check" anything... let alone see MBM.
Can someone please remind me if anyone else apart from MO claimed - in a written statement - to have even been to Apt 5A during the alleged "regular checks" on 3 May? (Aside from KM and GM)
Columbo- Posts : 50
Activity : 132
Likes received : 74
Join date : 2016-01-28
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Not as far as I recall... there was no one else in the "room" until after the cries of "abduction" (stand to be corrected)Columbo wrote:Realist wrote:whodunit wrote:
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
But they already had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker an hour previously. Whether one is of the opinion that she is an honest or dishonest witness is immaterial. Why would the McCanns require further confirmation she was alive at around that time.?
And then we have MO who checked the room during the evening, only he didn't actually "check" anything... let alone see MBM.
Can someone please remind me if anyone else apart from MO claimed - in a written statement - to have even been to Apt 5A during the alleged "regular checks" on 3 May? (Aside from KM and GM)
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
MayMuse wrote:The "visit" we have to take DP & KM word; although it was not in KM's original statement? ( unable to remember if it was in DP's)whodunit wrote:@Columbo---"Where both parties do agree is that there was a visit. If it didn't happen at all, there must be a reason for its subsequent creation."
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
Now why would that be?
IMO, there was no visit.
So my next question is: if the visit was fabricated, why are the accounts so wildly different? I mean it wouldn't be a complicated thing to make up.
Columbo- Posts : 50
Activity : 132
Likes received : 74
Join date : 2016-01-28
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
DP claimed to have seen KM & all 3 children, dressed in dreamy white.Columbo wrote:MayMuse wrote:The "visit" we have to take DP & KM word; although it was not in KM's original statement? ( unable to remember if it was in DP's)whodunit wrote:@Columbo---"Where both parties do agree is that there was a visit. If it didn't happen at all, there must be a reason for its subsequent creation."
Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
Now why would that be?
IMO, there was no visit.
So my next question is: if the visit was fabricated, why are the accounts so wildly different? I mean it wouldn't be a complicated thing to make up. And, didn't KM actually say that DP *didn't* see MBM - or have I remembered that wrong?
KM made no such claim of DP "seeing" the children, in fact she never mentioned either of the children in her statement for that time.
DP did not even recall Kate dressed in a "towel"... Now that to me is very odd?
Accounts of the "truth" rarely tally when they are a "truth of the lie"
And you need to have an excellent memory :-)
IMO.
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
MayMuse wrote:
I wasn't aware that CB visited the apartment that evening? Or do you mean at "high tea"?
Why would they require any "confirmation" at all?
To prove & provide an "independent" witness that Madeleine was fit & well on the 3rd
IMHO
I didn't state that Cat Baker visited the apt. that evening. What I stated was that they had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker who had seen her an hour previously. Faites attention! MayMuse.
Realist- Posts : 421
Activity : 602
Likes received : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
You are quick Maymuse - and have an excellent memory.
Columbo- Posts : 50
Activity : 132
Likes received : 74
Join date : 2016-01-28
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Et toi! @RealistRealist wrote:MayMuse wrote:
I wasn't aware that CB visited the apartment that evening? Or do you mean at "high tea"?
Why would they require any "confirmation" at all?
To prove & provide an "independent" witness that Madeleine was fit & well on the 3rd
IMHO
I didn't state that Cat Baker visited the apt. that evening. What I stated was that they had an independent witness in the form of Cat Baker who had seen her an hour previously. Faites attention! MayMuse.
I was asking the question ( I thought maybe I had missed her visit?)
It is my understanding that the PJ were trying to ascertain the "last" sighting of Madeleine other than her parents.
There are discrepancies surrounding "high tea" and statements from CB.
Maybe the McCanns were concerned? For how would they exactly know what anyone "outside" their friends would say?
You have to agree that the "visit" is very odd in their recollection(s)?
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
I think GA being a seasoned investigator of nearly 30 years probably knows a lot more than the public is privy to. Plus he writes books too, so would be pretty clued in to what's what in the McCann case i would think. I'm also not sure if all of the PJ files were actually released to the public either?Realist wrote:I would have thought that Goncala's best shot would have been when he was actually assigned to the case, Joss, when his mind would have been fresh and he had direct access to the evidence and parties involved. With the disclosure of the PJ files and the passing of time, I wouldn't have thought he was in any different position now than to those of us looking in from afar.Joss wrote:BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
Disregarding the media garbage, this case is probably unique in respect to the proletariat being party to more or less, the same evidence that was available to the original investigation. I wouldn't have thought that the British police had much more evidence availed to them than we have, the only difference being, they chose to ignore it.
____________________
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Not much of one far as i can see. More like obstructing the investigation, IMO.Verdi wrote:@Joss wrote: Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
In fairness to Dr. Amaral, he was stymied from the start wasn't he? Extraordinary case by any standards, a three year old child disappearing from a tourist complex in sleepy off-season PdL after only 5 days stay - foreign voices ringing in his colleagues ears; chaos everywhere; shouts of forced entry, paedophile; tramping around the crime scene; at the same time the mass crowd ignoring essential advice given by the GNR/PJ.
No sooner had the GNR/PJ caught there breath and PdL was invaded by ambassadors... lawyers... UK police... representatives of the UK's CEOP... UK family liaison representatives... and to top it all - a dodgy eyed local resident arrives on the scene to act as translator.
Really I ask - what chance did they ever have of conducting an fruitful investigation.
____________________
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Joss wrote:I think GA being a seasoned investigator of nearly 30 years probably knows a lot more than the public is privy to. Plus he writes books too, so would be pretty clued in to what's what in the McCann case i would think. I'm also not sure if all of the PJ files were actually released to the public either?Realist wrote:I would have thought that Goncala's best shot would have been when he was actually assigned to the case, Joss, when his mind would have been fresh and he had direct access to the evidence and parties involved. With the disclosure of the PJ files and the passing of time, I wouldn't have thought he was in any different position now than to those of us looking in from afar.Joss wrote:BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
Disregarding the media garbage, this case is probably unique in respect to the proletariat being party to more or less, the same evidence that was available to the original investigation. I wouldn't have thought that the British police had much more evidence availed to them than we have, the only difference being, they chose to ignore it.
There's a ton of stuff he knows which wasn't released with the PJ files. Sans Gaspar statements and the cremation hypothesis he hasn't gone outside what was available to him at the time - and allowed to be published in the files. You have reems of names, offenders, casual interviews, people who don't need to be associated with the case etc. Also plenty of media which wasn't released.
All of that is known - so I continue to commend Mr. Amaral for not showing his hand outside a courtroom. But saying the knowledge we have is on par with what he knows is not accurate.
I'm anxious to read his new timeline book. Whether he still sticks to the 3rd is critical.
And to preempt that - following the accident on the 3rd hypothesis may not be accurate, but often it's only proving the event (in this case the 'aftermath') happened to a jury that is necessary. So I'm not personally going to be overly critical if he stays on the 3rd.
Guest- Guest
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Tony Bennett wrote:This is actually quite an important question, since this thread is actually discussing Pat Brown's theory.Joss wrote:I am not really familiar with PB's theory on what she thinks happened to MBM?...Btw, do you know where the theory of PB's about that could be found, if you could post a link please, would be interested to read it. TIA.
I think I can summarise it from what excerpts I've seen from her book, and from other places where she has written about her theory.
These are the key elements:
1. Madeleine was alive all week until after 6pm on Thursday 3 May 2007
NO
2. They were leaving the children all evening in a locked room
I don´t think they left their children alone at all that week.
3. Madeleine was at a high tea between 4.45pm and 6.00pm on 3 May as per the evidence of the McCanns and Catriona Baker
I don´t think it´s a coincidence that Baker was the last "independent" witness who saw Madeleine, I think there is even a strong possibility that Baker have some knowledge about what happened.
5. They all panicked and dreamt up the abduction hoax that evening
The "abduction" was planned through the week and staged on evening May 3rd
6. They got rid of the body that evening
Something was going on at Monday, 30 April
7. 'Smithman' was a genuine sighting but she can't be sure if it was Gerry McCann or perhaps someone else carrying Madeleine, and
I have a strong feeling that Smith knew Murat more than he told the Police.
8. She basically supports the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral in his book about what really happened to Madeleine.
All respect for Mr Amaral,but today I think he knows that something else was going on and he knows very well that a case with a missing girl or an accident don´t include Special branch, MI5 and a National security case.
Sorry Pat.
____________________
Goncalo Amaral: "Then there's the window we found Kate's finger prints.
She said she had never touched that window and the cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it on the previous day....it doesn't add up"
NickE- Posts : 1405
Activity : 2152
Likes received : 499
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 49
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
in totality.
____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”
Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
April28th wrote:Joss wrote:I think GA being a seasoned investigator of nearly 30 years probably knows a lot more than the public is privy to. Plus he writes books too, so would be pretty clued in to what's what in the McCann case i would think. I'm also not sure if all of the PJ files were actually released to the public either?Realist wrote:I would have thought that Goncala's best shot would have been when he was actually assigned to the case, Joss, when his mind would have been fresh and he had direct access to the evidence and parties involved. With the disclosure of the PJ files and the passing of time, I wouldn't have thought he was in any different position now than to those of us looking in from afar.Joss wrote:BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
Disregarding the media garbage, this case is probably unique in respect to the proletariat being party to more or less, the same evidence that was available to the original investigation. I wouldn't have thought that the British police had much more evidence availed to them than we have, the only difference being, they chose to ignore it.
There's a ton of stuff he knows which wasn't released with the PJ files. Sans Gaspar statements and the cremation hypothesis he hasn't gone outside what was available to him at the time - and allowed to be published in the files. You have reems of names, offenders, casual interviews, people who don't need to be associated with the case etc. Also plenty of media which wasn't released.
All of that is known - so I continue to commend Mr. Amaral for not showing his hand outside a courtroom. But saying the knowledge we have is on par with what he knows is not accurate.
I'm anxious to read his new timeline book. Whether he still sticks to the 3rd is critical.
And to preempt that - following the accident on the 3rd hypothesis may not be accurate, but often it's only proving the event (in this case the 'aftermath') happened to a jury that is necessary. So I'm not personally going to be overly critical if he stays on the 3rd.
I totally agree with your thoughtful post, April
I think Goncalo Amaral is privy to more information than he has divulged, I also believe he may reveal more in the coming months with his new book, and also via his own translation of The Truth of The Lie. This is not to diminish in any way the wonderful job those hard working people who have kindly translated the book in the past have done, in order that we may all have the privilege of reading it.
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
This is a perfectly good question. I have answered it before on the forum, but will try again.Columbo wrote:So my next question is: if the visit [between Payne and Kate McCann] was fabricated, why are the accounts so wildly different? I mean it wouldn't be a complicated thing to make up.
This happens time and time again in cover-ups I've investigated - the murder of Stuart Lubbock being a prime example of people making up an alibi, or some other false story about an event, only for the two parties involved to come unstuck when the police probe the detail.
An example:
Andy and Babs want to prove that their child Carol was seen alive at 11am on 25 December.
They take advice from an expert in telling lies, Dave. Andy and Babs have a close friend, Ena.
Dave says "Look, Babs and Eric will tell the police that Ena came over to see Babs that morning and saw Carol alive".
Babs: "What time shall we say Ena came over?"
Dave: "Say between 11 and 11.30".
Babs: "What reason shall I give for Ena coming over?"
Dave: "Say it was to help you get Christmas dinner ready. I'll go and brief Ena".
They all agree to this plan.
When the police ask whatever happened to Carol, Babs and Ena say, in separate interviews, that Babs came over 'between 11 and 11.30am' and that Ena saw Carol alive. Asked why she came over, Babs and Ena give slightly different answers.
So far no real problem.
But then the police go into detail.
Did you go into the house?
How long were you there for?
What did you do there?
What was Carol doing?
What was Babs doing?
What was she wearing?
And so on.
And when the answers start diverging very sharply, the police will naturally smell a big rat.
Which is no doubt part of the reason why Goncalo Amaral rejected the evidence of David Payne and Kate McCann that David Payne had seen Madeleine alive at 6.30pm to 7pm that evening. He said that David Payne was 'not an independent witness' (whereas he said that Catriona Baker was an independent witness, though there is now real doubt about that).
Also, where two witnesses say they met at a certain time, yet their detailed evidence about what transpired at that meeting is wholly contradictory (as it is in the case of the alleged Payne visit), one simply cannot assume that a visit took place at all. As was said up the thread, they could simply have made up the whole thing up.
********************
@ whodunit hit the nail on head much more concisely than I have:
---
@Columbo---"Where both parties do agree is that there was a visit. If it didn't happen at all, there must be a reason for its subsequent creation."
whodunit: Somebody had to 'see' MBM on the night besides the McCanns.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Because she wasn't asked such detail.MayMuse wrote:The "visit" we have to take DP & KM word; although it was not in KM's original statement? ( unable to remember if it was in DP's)
Now why would that be?
IMO, there was no visit.
Initially she was but a witness reporting the disappearance of her child - not a suspect or person of interest. The GNR's immediate response to the emergency call was that the child had most likely simply wandered off - quite understandable in my opinion. The witness interviews conducted by the PJ were not a recorded verbatim transcript.
Deleted - off topic - Mod.
Guest- Guest
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
I do find it odd that this information was not offered. If your child had gone "missing" (whether a witness, suspect, person of interest or not) you would give as much detail as you could to help the investigation, wouldn't you?
Deleted - off topic - Mod.
Deleted - off topic - Mod.
____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”
Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Joss wrote:I think GA being a seasoned investigator of nearly 30 years probably knows a lot more than the public is privy to. Plus he writes books too, so would be pretty clued in to what's what in the McCann case i would think. I'm also not sure if all of the PJ files were actually released to the public either?Realist wrote:I would have thought that Goncala's best shot would have been when he was actually assigned to the case, Joss, when his mind would have been fresh and he had direct access to the evidence and parties involved. With the disclosure of the PJ files and the passing of time, I wouldn't have thought he was in any different position now than to those of us looking in from afar.Joss wrote:BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
Disregarding the media garbage, this case is probably unique in respect to the proletariat being party to more or less, the same evidence that was available to the original investigation. I wouldn't have thought that the British police had much more evidence availed to them than we have, the only difference being, they chose to ignore it.
Files were definitely held back. There is an index on Mccann Files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
The main categories held back were,
"Category A
relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).
- Category B
relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
- Category C
relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward."
There are also thought to be statements missing from holiday makers and staff. I have read in various reports there were thought to be 20 - 30,000 pages but roughly 11,000 were released. I don't know how accurate the 20,000 is but if true that's alot of other statements Amaral might be privy to and possible anonymous sightings of goings on and suspects.
ChippyM- Posts : 1334
Activity : 1817
Likes received : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Thanks for posting up that info. ChippyM. I do vaguely remember reading about it ages ago, but couldn't remember where i had read it.
____________________
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
Or maybe he's always had a "different" theory, that's been so outrageous that he's been afraid to make it public. Having seen the reaction that his current "theory" has produced, I wouldn't blame him. And did he not say, some time ago, "there are things that I haven't said yet"?Joss wrote: BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
BarryTheHatchet- Posts : 187
Activity : 443
Likes received : 256
Join date : 2016-05-08
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
I don´t know how many missing statements there is in the official files but here are some of them.ChippyM wrote:Joss wrote:I think GA being a seasoned investigator of nearly 30 years probably knows a lot more than the public is privy to. Plus he writes books too, so would be pretty clued in to what's what in the McCann case i would think. I'm also not sure if all of the PJ files were actually released to the public either?Realist wrote:I would have thought that Goncala's best shot would have been when he was actually assigned to the case, Joss, when his mind would have been fresh and he had direct access to the evidence and parties involved. With the disclosure of the PJ files and the passing of time, I wouldn't have thought he was in any different position now than to those of us looking in from afar.Joss wrote:BBM, Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case?
Disregarding the media garbage, this case is probably unique in respect to the proletariat being party to more or less, the same evidence that was available to the original investigation. I wouldn't have thought that the British police had much more evidence availed to them than we have, the only difference being, they chose to ignore it.
Files were definitely held back. There is an index on Mccann Files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
The main categories held back were,
"Category A
relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).
- Category B
relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
- Category C
relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward."
There are also thought to be statements missing from holiday makers and staff. I have read in various reports there were thought to be 20 - 30,000 pages but roughly 11,000 were released. I don't know how accurate the 20,000 is but if true that's alot of other statements Amaral might be privy to and possible anonymous sightings of goings on and suspects.
7. Page 45 (PJ Ref VI) Interview of (Amanda) Ruth LOWES - She was interviewed on 6th May 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
8. Page 45 (PJ Ref VI) Interview John Gray PATERSON - He was interviewed on 29th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
9. Page 45 (PJ Ref VI) Interview Dr. George Jeremy THOMPSON - He was interviewed on 29th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
10. Page 45 (PJ Ref VI) Interview Simon John HALDER - He was interviewed on 30th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
11. Page 45 (PJ Ref VI) Interview (Duncan Raymond) Raymond Duncan SMITH - He was interviewed on 30th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
12. Page 45 (PJ Ref VII) Interview Simon Andrew FAWKES - He was interviewed on 22nd April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
13. Page 46 (PJ Ref VII) Interview Claire Louise FAWKES - She was interviewed on 22nd April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
A small album of photographs has also been included from a CD she presented to the interviewing Officers. A scanned copy has been retained within the Leicestershire Incident Room.
15. Page 46 (PJ Ref VII) Interview Carlo DAMBROSIO ( Carlo Francesco D'AMBROSIO ) - He was interviewed on 29th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
16. Page 46 (PJ Ref VII) Interview June HUGHES - She was interviewed on 29th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
17. Page 46 (PJ Ref VII) Interview Paul Anthony GORDON - He was interviewed on 24th April 2008 and two statements obtained, please see enclosed copies.
18. Page 46 (PJ Ref VII) Interview of Saleigh Louise GORDON - She was interviewed on 24th April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
24. Page 52 (PJ Ref XI) Interview Jeronimo Tomas Rodrigues SALCEDAS who was a Tapas Restaurant employee who was working on evening duty on 3rd May 2007. - He was interviewed on 23rd April 2008 and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
25. Page 53 (PJ Ref XII) Identify babysitters to the McCann's children - These were identified as being Janet KENNEDY and Sharon LEWIN both of who have been interviewed and are subject to separate entries on this report.
26. Page 53 (PJ Ref XII) Identify nursery staff to the McCann family - They were identified as Sharon LEWIN and Hayley PLUMMER, both have been interviewed and statements obtained. (See separate entries on this report)
19. Page 23. Interview of Peter Neal PATTERSON - he was interviewed on 8th May 2008, and a statement obtained, please see enclosed copy.
____________________
Goncalo Amaral: "Then there's the window we found Kate's finger prints.
She said she had never touched that window and the cleaning lady assured that she had cleaned it on the previous day....it doesn't add up"
NickE- Posts : 1405
Activity : 2152
Likes received : 499
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 49
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics
» Scotland Yard freemason cops cover up deaths of innocent citizens
» MF's evidence to the Scotland Yard Review Team
» FoI Act Questions to Met re Scotland Yard Review Team
» Is Scotland Yard fit to carry out Madeleine McCann Review?
» Pat Brown: The Scotland Yard Review and Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case
» MF's evidence to the Scotland Yard Review Team
» FoI Act Questions to Met re Scotland Yard Review Team
» Is Scotland Yard fit to carry out Madeleine McCann Review?
» Pat Brown: The Scotland Yard Review and Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Professional and Featured blogs :: Pat Brown, US Criminal Profiler
Page 5 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum