The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by MayMuse on 09.05.16 17:44

@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)
Not as far as I recall... there was no one else in the "room" until after the cries of  "abduction" (stand to be corrected)

MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Reputation : 1400
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Columbo on 09.05.16 17:45

@MayMuse wrote:
@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.
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.

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?  I was wrong, she just didn't mention whether or not he saw MBM. The length of the claimed visit is also shorter than I recall at 3 to 5 minutes, though that doesn't detract from all the other contradictions.
avatar
Columbo

Posts : 45
Reputation : 72
Join date : 2016-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by MayMuse on 09.05.16 17:49

@Columbo wrote:
@MayMuse wrote:
@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.
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.

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?
DP claimed to have seen KM & all 3 children, dressed in dreamy white. 
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
Reputation : 1400
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Realist on 09.05.16 17:50

@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. big grin

Realist

Posts : 421
Reputation : 179
Join date : 2014-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Columbo on 09.05.16 17:51

You are quick Maymuse - and have an excellent memory. smilie
avatar
Columbo

Posts : 45
Reputation : 72
Join date : 2016-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by MayMuse on 09.05.16 17:58

@Realist 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. big grin
Et toi! @Realist 
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
Reputation : 1400
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Joss on 09.05.16 18:20

@Realist wrote:
@Joss wrote:


       
 BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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.

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.
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?

____________________
avatar
Joss

Posts : 1958
Reputation : 190
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Joss on 09.05.16 18:24

@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.
Not much of one far as i can see. More like obstructing the investigation, IMO.

____________________
avatar
Joss

Posts : 1958
Reputation : 190
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by April28th on 09.05.16 18:35

@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@Joss wrote:


       
 BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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.

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.
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?

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.
avatar
April28th

Posts : 348
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2015-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by NickE on 09.05.16 18:59

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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.
This is actually quite an important question, since this thread is actually discussing Pat Brown's theory.

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.

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1203
Reputation : 411
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 43

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by MayMuse on 09.05.16 19:08

agree 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.” bingo

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
Reputation : 1400
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by pennylane on 09.05.16 19:18

@April28th wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@Joss wrote:


       
 BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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.

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.
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?

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 thumbup  

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. airkiss

pennylane

Posts : 2770
Reputation : 1619
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.05.16 20:15

@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 is a perfectly good question. I have answered it before on the forum, but will try again.

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.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14978
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Verdi on 09.05.16 20:33

@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.
Because she wasn't asked such detail. 

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.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 8995
Reputation : 3957
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by MayMuse on 09.05.16 20:49

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.

____________________
“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.” bingo

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
Reputation : 1400
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by ChippyM on 10.05.16 14:05

@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@Joss wrote:


       
 BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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.

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.
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?

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
Reputation : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by Joss on 10.05.16 15:20

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.

____________________
avatar
Joss

Posts : 1958
Reputation : 190
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by BarryTheHatchet on 10.05.16 22:41

@Joss wrote: BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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"?
avatar
BarryTheHatchet

Posts : 187
Reputation : 256
Join date : 2016-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

Post by NickE on 11.05.16 21:01

@ChippyM wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@Realist wrote:
@Joss wrote:


       
 BBM,  Perhaps Goncalo Amaral has an alternative theory nowadays so many years later and thinking further on Madeleine's case? 
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.

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.
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?

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.
I don´t know how many missing statements there is in the official files but here are some of them.

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.

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1203
Reputation : 411
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 43

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum