PM reopens Maddie files

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:

Begging your pardon, I am not actually a McCann scholar so sometimes I get the terminology wrong - however let me re-phrase the question. Does the report from 2007 actually supercede (either legally or generally) the Attorney General's final report that appeared the following year?

I don't think you mean the Attorney General's final report do you?

I think you are referring to the PJ final report?

If so, that is a different ball game altogether.

Ringo wrote:
It's interesting though that Grime stopped by the McCanns car for so long though don't you think? He didnt walk on as he had with the other cars, didn't follow the dog on to the cars that it had run towards - why was that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the car was plastered in posters of Madeleine? Anyway - all now completely irrelevant as no evidence was found.

Ringo wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:

Begging your pardon, I am not actually a McCann scholar so sometimes I get the terminology wrong - however let me re-phrase the question. Does the report from 2007 actually supercede (either legally or generally) the Attorney General's final report that appeared the following year?

I don't think you mean the Attorney General's final report do you?

I think you are referring to the PJ final report?

If so, that is a different ball game altogether.

I am talking about the Attorney General's conclusions based on the final police report.

candyfloss wrote:So he led the dogs until he finally got an alert out of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He also led the dogs into various different apartments and villa's, namely the tapas 7, Robert Murat, and even the new villa the mccanns were in, no alerts at any of them. Only at 5a the original apartment from where Madeleine disappeared. Strange that!!!

So, basically what you are saying Ringo is that Martin Grimes purposely wanted to incriminate the McCanns, if he led them to the car, why on earth would he do that? What difference would it make to him whether the dogs alerted anywhere or nowhere.

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So he led the dogs until he finally got an alert out of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He also led the dogs into various different apartments and villa's, namely the tapas 7, Robert Murat, and even the new villa the mccanns were in, no alerts at any of them. Only at 5a the original apartment from where Madeleine disappeared. Strange that!!!

So, basically what you are saying Ringo is that Martin Grimes purposely wanted to incriminate the McCanns, if he led them to the car, why on earth would he do that? What difference would it make to him whether the dogs alerted anywhere or nowhere.

I am only saying what I saw, and it looked very much to me like Grime allowed bias (wittingly or unwittingly) to influence the dog alerts.

I am not going to comment any further on Grime than that.

It doesn't matter now - no evidence was found. That is really the only thing that matters.

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So he led the dogs until he finally got an alert out of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He also led the dogs into various different apartments and villa's, namely the tapas 7, Robert Murat, and even the new villa the mccanns were in, no alerts at any of them. Only at 5a the original apartment from where Madeleine disappeared. Strange that!!!

So, basically what you are saying Ringo is that Martin Grimes purposely wanted to incriminate the McCanns, if he led them to the car, why on earth would he do that? What difference would it make to him whether the dogs alerted anywhere or nowhere.

I am only saying what I saw, and it looked very much to me like Grime allowed bias (wittingly or unwittingly) to influence the dog alerts.

I am not going to comment any further on Grime than that.

It doesn't matter now - no evidence was found. That is really the only thing that matters.

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
It's interesting though that Grime stopped by the McCanns car for so long though don't you think? He didnt walk on as he had with the other cars, didn't follow the dog on to the cars that it had run towards - why was that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the car was plastered in posters of Madeleine? Anyway - all now completely irrelevant as no evidence was found.

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

Plastered in posters, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] you are so hillarious.

Evidence was found in the car Ringo, corpse bodily fluids with 15 markers matching to Madeleine. Get over it.

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So he led the dogs until he finally got an alert out of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He also led the dogs into various different apartments and villa's, namely the tapas 7, Robert Murat, and even the new villa the mccanns were in, no alerts at any of them. Only at 5a the original apartment from where Madeleine disappeared. Strange that!!!

So, basically what you are saying Ringo is that Martin Grimes purposely wanted to incriminate the McCanns, if he led them to the car, why on earth would he do that? What difference would it make to him whether the dogs alerted anywhere or nowhere.

I am only saying what I saw, and it looked very much to me like Grime allowed bias (wittingly or unwittingly) to influence the dog alerts.

I am not going to comment any further on Grime than that.

It doesn't matter now - no evidence was found. That is really the only thing that matters.

admin wrote:

Ringo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:So he led the dogs until he finally got an alert out of them [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He also led the dogs into various different apartments and villa's, namely the tapas 7, Robert Murat, and even the new villa the mccanns were in, no alerts at any of them. Only at 5a the original apartment from where Madeleine disappeared. Strange that!!!

So, basically what you are saying Ringo is that Martin Grimes purposely wanted to incriminate the McCanns, if he led them to the car, why on earth would he do that? What difference would it make to him whether the dogs alerted anywhere or nowhere.

I am only saying what I saw, and it looked very much to me like Grime allowed bias (wittingly or unwittingly) to influence the dog alerts.

I am not going to comment any further on Grime than that.

It doesn't matter now - no evidence was found. That is really the only thing that matters.

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


What are these markers?

Ringo wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
It's interesting though that Grime stopped by the McCanns car for so long though don't you think? He didnt walk on as he had with the other cars, didn't follow the dog on to the cars that it had run towards - why was that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the car was plastered in posters of Madeleine? Anyway - all now completely irrelevant as no evidence was found.

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

Plastered in posters, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] you are so hillarious.

Evidence was found in the car Ringo, corpse bodily fluids with 15 markers matching to Madeleine. Get over it.

This is all very neatly diverting away from the question I posed to you some pages back which is why would the McCanns have been lobbying hard for a full and independent review of the case if they were guilty. Perhaps you could let me have your opinion on that subject first before we go any further?

Ringo wrote:
This is all very neatly diverting away from the question I posed to you some pages back which is why would the McCanns have been lobbying hard for a full and independent review of the case if they were guilty. Perhaps you could let me have your opinion on that subject first before we go any further?

"Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney-General, told police to halt the investigation into of Madeleine’s disappearance.

A statement released by his office confirmed that it had decided to “close the file on the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation”.

candyfloss wrote:

Ringo wrote:
This is all very neatly diverting away from the question I posed to you some pages back which is why would the McCanns have been lobbying hard for a full and independent review of the case if they were guilty. Perhaps you could let me have your opinion on that subject first before we go any further?

Well considering you started this whole thing about the dogs with this...............

[quote Ringo]
Ask yourself - who is it who claimed the dogs had 100% success rate? Could it be that it was their owner, the man who makes £££ from hiring them in criminal investigations like this one? Please do not fall for the spin about these dogs. All your instincts are right, apart from the stumbling block about the dogs. They are not infallible. They were clearly led and directed in the investigation. Their alerts amount to nothing at all without corroborating evidence - even their owner at least admits this!.

Ringo wrote:

Dougall wrote:

Ringo wrote: the dogs were clearly led and directed to alert to the car and the soft toy as anyone can see from watching the videos - it was all a complete shambles.

Then you can apply the same logic to state that they were "clearly led" to many other areas where they DIDN'T alert! When I saw the video I saw the handler focussing the dogs' attention on many different spots, they alerted when they detected something, not because the handler wanted them to!

You didn't see the dogs whizz by the first few cars as the handler strolled past them, and then as he stopped by the McCanns car and the dog whized past that one, he called it back - several times - until finally he got an alert out of it? WE must've been watching different videos then.

Ringo wrote:You'll forgive me I'm sure if I don't answer all the questions that you are all hitting me with especially the ones with the mocking emoticons.

Just to remind you

"Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney-General, told police to halt the investigation into of Madeleine’s disappearance.

A statement released by his office confirmed that it had decided to “close the file on the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation”.

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

Now, if someone could explain why the McCanns have been so desperate to have this case reviewed by the police if they were guilty - just one plausible, rational explanation would be great.

While you're at it, perhaps you could also strengthen your explanation with examples where criminals that got off scot-free have then lobbied similarly hard in the media and to the government for their criminal activities to be re-investigated by the police?

Ringo wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ringo wrote:
It's interesting though that Grime stopped by the McCanns car for so long though don't you think? He didnt walk on as he had with the other cars, didn't follow the dog on to the cars that it had run towards - why was that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the car was plastered in posters of Madeleine? Anyway - all now completely irrelevant as no evidence was found.

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

Plastered in posters, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] you are so hillarious.

Evidence was found in the car Ringo, corpse bodily fluids with 15 markers matching to Madeleine. Get over it.

This is all very neatly diverting away from the question I posed to you some pages back which is why would the McCanns have been lobbying hard for a full and independent review of the case if they were guilty. Perhaps you could let me have your opinion on that subject first before we go any further?

This is all very neatly diverting away from the question I posed to you some pages back which is why would the McCanns have been lobbying hard for a full and independent review of the case if they were guilty. Perhaps you could let me have your opinion on that subject first before we go any further?

Ringo wrote:

Redgoblin wrote:Hi this is my first post to the forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to butt in, as some of you were talking about the dogs - I wanted to stay within the topic of this thread.

Despite the heartfelt pleas of GM and KM by having their own team investigate "some" of the files. Surely the PJ must have some evidence about the couple /group which they would obviously not want to share with the McCann's, I suppose that evidence could be incriminating and they wouldn't hand that information to private detectives - I assume it would be available to Scotland Yard.

Which raises the question - Why would the McCann's seek this out if they knew it might lead to their own arrests?

a) Either they are completely innocent and have nothing to lose.

Is the correct answer!

lj wrote:Ringo, ringo how naive of you to think when the McCanns say review they want a reopening. They don't want a reopening, they just want to get their fingers of what information they never got. And if anything is being "independently" reviewed they want it be done by the same idiots that screwed the investigation up the last time, and screwing up is a euphemism, cover up is probably more like the truth. Yes I mean "call me Stu" Prior and that certain forensic lab that made "mistake" on "mistake". Or do you really think that judging hair was not blond enough was just a very stupid mistake? I don't believe in all kind of complicated conspiracies, the McCanns are to much of nobodies for that. I do believe that many and important people fell for their sob story and later had difficulties trying to retract that because they did not want to look stupid.

If you know anything about dogs trained to search you will know they will not alarm if it isn't there. You can lead for example a drugs dog a hundred times in a car if it a has no drugs he won't alarm. On the other side if a dog is trained to find something and you cannot colaborate that with evidence fit for human understanding, you can bet it is because your methods are faulty. Good examples of that are the cancer search dogs that have alarmed on cases where no cancer was found until much later.

So yes Ring, we want a reopening, with independent Brits involved and no diplomatic interference.

Oh and yes, with parents and friends who cooperate.

But that will be only in dreams.

Stella wrote:
OK, let me nip this one in the bud right now.

The McCann's can lobby for anything they want. They claim to want a review, a review of what exactly? Not the investigation into them, that's for sure and that's the difference. They do not want the Portuguese investigation reopened

David Cameron is not claiming to be reopening the investigation, only the Portuguese Prosecutors can do that. What the PM said was:

"I have asked the Home Secretary to look into what more the Government could do to help Madeleine. She will be writing to you today, setting out new action involving the Metropolitan Police Service which we hope will help boost efforts in the search for Madeleine. I sincerely hope this fresh approach will provide the investigation with the new momentum that it needs".

It is not saying that the original investigation is being reopened.

It is not saying that the Metropolitan Police will be allowed to see the witheld part of the files either.

It is not even saying they have been assured by the Portuguese Prosecutors that they will ever be allowed to see the witheld part.

The McCann's and their PR team can request all they want, but until new evidence is brought to the attention of the Portuguese Prosecutor in Portugal, the case will never be opened.

tcat wrote:

Ringo wrote:

Redgoblin wrote:Hi this is my first post to the forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry to butt in, as some of you were talking about the dogs - I wanted to stay within the topic of this thread.

Despite the heartfelt pleas of GM and KM by having their own team investigate "some" of the files. Surely the PJ must have some evidence about the couple /group which they would obviously not want to share with the McCann's, I suppose that evidence could be incriminating and they wouldn't hand that information to private detectives - I assume it would be available to Scotland Yard.

Which raises the question - Why would the McCann's seek this out if they knew it might lead to their own arrests?

a) Either they are completely innocent and have nothing to lose.

Is the correct answer!

You can't possibly know that for certain. Nobody can, just as nobody can say for certain the opposite. You're showing you don't have an open mind by making categorical statements like this when discussing case, and if you don't have an open mind then you're a propagandist?Hi everybody, interesting forum!

Ringo wrote:Yes all that may well be true, but it still doesn't answer the question - why would the Mccanns if guilty continue to badger the Home Secretary (three different ones!) and two PMs to assist them in finding their daughter?

tcat wrote:[quote="Ringo]Yes all that may well be true, but it still doesn't answer the question - why would the Mccanns if guilty continue to badger the Home Secretary (three different ones!) and two PMs to assist them in finding their daughter?

Maybe it would appear suspicious to their family or friends or legal teams and financial backers if they didn't?

Ringo wrote:

Yes all that may well be true, but it still doesn't answer the question - why would the Mccanns if guilty continue to badger the Home Secretary (three different ones!) and two PMs to assist them in finding their daughter? Where is the advantage to them if they are guilty versus getting on with their lives supposedly secure in the knowledge that they have got away with "the crime of the century"?

tcat wrote:

Ringo wrote:Yes all that may well be true, but it still doesn't answer the question - why would the Mccanns if guilty continue to badger the Home Secretary (three different ones!) and two PMs to assist them in finding their daughter?

Maybe it would appear suspicious to their family or friends or legal teams and financial backers if they didn't?

Ringo wrote:
There are poeple on this forum who are 100% certain that Madeleine is dead.