British Police said McCanns should be Investigated - Daily Mail 11.02.2010

British Police Said McCanns Should be investigated after Madeleine went missing'

By Vanessa Allen
Last updated at 7:30 AM on 11th February 2010
Comments (14) Add to My Stories Gerry McCann was made a suspect in his daughter Madeleine's disappearance after a British expert said he should be investigated for 'homicide', a Portuguese court heard yesterday.
Criminal profiler Lee Rainbow recommended that police on the Algarve investigate the doctor and his wife Kate because of 'contradictions' in his statement.
The report by Mr Rainbow, of the National Policing Improvement Agency, was sent to Portugal in June 2007, a month after the three-year-old disappeared.
Kate and Gerry McCann outside court in Lisbon yesterday. They are suing Mr Amaral for libel over his allegations that the couple faked Madeleine's death
It was dramatically produced yesterday by lawyers for a disgraced Portuguese detective whose campaign of vilification the McCanns are trying to stop.
The couple want Gonzolo Amaral to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
The detective was sacked from the investigation after he made an outspoken attack on English police, accusing them of failing to investigate the McCanns. He has since retired from the police force.
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
The McCanns want Gonzolo Amaral (pictured yesterday) to be legally barred from accusing them of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
Mr Rainbow, 37, leads a team of five criminal profilers at the NPIA, and specialises in sex crimes and murders.

The Home Office agency, which describes itself as 'part of the police service', aims to improve police use of information, evidence and science and to support operations.
It is understood to have provided Portuguese police with a 'checklist' of how to proceed.
A spokesman said last night: 'In disappearance cases it is common for the NPIA to advise officers to consider the possibility of the involvement of family and close friends.
'This is good practice for investigating cases. The NPIA gave similar generic advice to Portuguese police.'
Mr Rainbow, who has worked on major investigations including the Ipswich prostitute murders and the disappearance of Shannon Matthews, did not say there was any evidence the McCanns were involved.
But his confidential report appears to have been a turning point in the Portuguese investigation.
Madeleine's distraught parents were named as official suspects a few weeks later, despite Portuguese police failing to find any evidence against them.
The report by Mr Rainbow, of the National Policing Improvement Agency, was sent to Portugal in June 2007, a month after three-year-old Madeleine disappeared
Mr and Mrs McCann, both 41, listened intently as Mr Cabrita said Mr Amaral should be allowed to repeat his claims that they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
The 50-year-old ex-detective has alleged in a new book that she died in a 'tragic accident' and her parents faked an abduction.
Lawyers for the McCanns say he is using the book and the court case to take 'revenge' on them for the end of his career.

Mr and Mrs McCann, from Rothley, Leicestershire, are suing Mr Amaral for libel over his allegations and are seeking £1.2million in damages and compensation.
They have won an injunction which bars him from repeating his allegations but he is trying to overturn it, claiming it affects his right to freedom of speech.
The hearing ended yesterday, and the judge will give her verdict next Thursday.
Kate McCann, a former GP, admitted last night that she had found it painful to listen to three days of evidence in the court. But she insisted the couple had been right to take legal action.
She said: 'I think this will truly help the search for Madeleine and that's why we have gone through with it. It hasn't been easy but if it helps, then we will go through anything.'

Interesting article from today's 'Sun'

Cracker blamed McCanns


Published: Today
TENSE Kate McCann holds up a poster of missing daughter Madeleine yesterday - after hearing that a BRITISH Cracker-style criminal profiler had told Portuguese cops that the tot might have been murdered.


Review call ... Gerry McCann


The startling revelation came in a Lisbon court where ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral is trying to overturn a ban on his book about three-year-old Maddie's disappearance from a holiday apartment in 2007.

The court heard that profiler Lee Rainbow told cops a month after Maddie went missing she might be dead - and that her parents Kate and Gerry could be involv

Mr Rainbow, who heads the National Policing Improvement Agency and was involved in the Suffolk Strangler and Shannon Matthews inquiries, said there were "contradictions" in the McCanns' statements and they might be suspects.

Outside court yesterday, heart specialist Gerry said he understood that "all possibilities have to be considered".

But he called for the Maddie case to be reopened, and a panel set up to review all the evidence.

Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely1 wrote:Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely - I think the PJ suspected them from very early on. I don't think anyone had to point out to them to investigate the parents. I think they were investigating them from the outset, as it is always the people who are closest who are under suspiscion, and particularly the last person to see the person alive, but also had to investigate all other theories and scenarios. The report was compiled and sent in June 2007 only a month after Madeleine's disappearance and I think this probably supported the PJ's theory in what they were thinking. It's always good to have other opinions, does no harm, and if it agrees with your theory you presume you are on the right track.

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely - I think the PJ suspected them from very early on. I don't think anyone had to point out to them to investigate the parents. I think they were investigating them from the outset, as it is always the people who are closest who are under suspiscion, and particularly the last person to see the person alive, but also had to investigate all other theories and scenarios. The report was compiled and sent in June 2007 only a month after Madeleine's disappearance and I think this probably supported the PJ's theory in what they were thinking. It's always good to have other opinions, does no harm, and if it agrees with your theory you presume you are on the right track.

But it's standard procedure - and obviously we can't read the report, so it might not be as simplistic as it sounds - but I'm not seeing how someone suggesting the parents might have killed her (obvious point) is going to make Amarals book any less subject to being banned.

The report is a confidential police document, and I'm unsure how or why Amaral would have access to hand it to the court. It almost seems like this trial has turned away from the book issue and on to discussing the why's and wherefore's of a pretty basic police investigation.

The parents should obviously have been treated as suspects from the moment the police arrived at the scene. They should have been fully investigated. Which they were. How does this link to whether Amaral's thesis has a right to be sold?

This confuses me.


ETA. It would also tend to suggest that the 'pressure' from UK not to investigate the parents actually translates in to suggestion from UK that they should have investigated the parents.

vaguely1 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely - I think the PJ suspected them from very early on. I don't think anyone had to point out to them to investigate the parents. I think they were investigating them from the outset, as it is always the people who are closest who are under suspiscion, and particularly the last person to see the person alive, but also had to investigate all other theories and scenarios. The report was compiled and sent in June 2007 only a month after Madeleine's disappearance and I think this probably supported the PJ's theory in what they were thinking. It's always good to have other opinions, does no harm, and if it agrees with your theory you presume you are on the right track.

But it's standard procedure - and obviously we can't read the report, so it might not be as simplistic as it sounds - but I'm not seeing how someone suggesting the parents might have killed her (obvious point) is going to make Amarals book any less subject to being banned.

The report is a confidential police document, and I'm unsure how or why Amaral would have access to hand it to the court. It almost seems like this trial has turned away from the book issue and on to discussing the why's and wherefore's of a pretty basic police investigation.

The parents should obviously have been treated as suspects from the moment the police arrived at the scene. They should have been fully investigated. Which they were. How does this link to whether Amaral's thesis has a right to be sold?

This confuses me.

I think the witnesses were there to point out that Mr Amaral's theory was not libelous and that he has only repeated what was in the case files, and he has every right to do that under freedom of speech. The parents weren't fully investigated because as soon as they were made arguidos they fled Portugal. It was then of course a whole different ball game. Things changed - Mr Amaral was taken off the case, none of the tapas lot would come back for a reconstruction and the case had to be shelved. How can you continue investigating if the main people involved don't want to co-operate. Not to mention our Police force or Government who wouldn't send medical records, card details, and only a one-sided A4 page of notes re McCanns.

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely - I think the PJ suspected them from very early on. I don't think anyone had to point out to them to investigate the parents. I think they were investigating them from the outset, as it is always the people who are closest who are under suspiscion, and particularly the last person to see the person alive, but also had to investigate all other theories and scenarios. The report was compiled and sent in June 2007 only a month after Madeleine's disappearance and I think this probably supported the PJ's theory in what they were thinking. It's always good to have other opinions, does no harm, and if it agrees with your theory you presume you are on the right track.

But it's standard procedure - and obviously we can't read the report, so it might not be as simplistic as it sounds - but I'm not seeing how someone suggesting the parents might have killed her (obvious point) is going to make Amarals book any less subject to being banned.

The report is a confidential police document, and I'm unsure how or why Amaral would have access to hand it to the court. It almost seems like this trial has turned away from the book issue and on to discussing the why's and wherefore's of a pretty basic police investigation.

The parents should obviously have been treated as suspects from the moment the police arrived at the scene. They should have been fully investigated. Which they were. How does this link to whether Amaral's thesis has a right to be sold?

This confuses me.

I think the witnesses were there to point out that Mr Amaral's theory was not libelous and that he has only repeated what was in the case files, and he has every right to do that under freedom of speech. The parents weren't fully investigated because as soon as they were made arguidos they fled Portugal. It was then of course a whole different ball game. Things changed - Mr Amaral was taken off the case, none of the tapas lot would come back for a reconstruction and the case had to be shelved. How can you continue investigating if the main people involved don't want to co-operate. Not to mention our Police force or Government who wouldn't send medical records, card details, and only a one-sided A4 page of notes re McCanns.

I don't understand how the police could send anymore. How much information do the police hold on people without criminal records? I'm surprised they managed to fill an A4 sheet to be honest.

vaguely, do you know for certain they don't have criminal records. I'm not saying they have but who are we to know.

candyfloss wrote:vaguely, do you know for certain they don't have criminal records. I'm not saying they have but who are we to know.

I have a feeling that that would show up a GMC fitness to practice hearing....not certain.

My assumption only though that they don't.

vaguely1 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Does nobody else find it worrying that someone had to actually point out to the Portuguese police that they should investigate the parents?

It seems bizarre.

vaguely - I think the PJ suspected them from very early on. I don't think anyone had to point out to them to investigate the parents. I think they were investigating them from the outset, as it is always the people who are closest who are under suspiscion, and particularly the last person to see the person alive, but also had to investigate all other theories and scenarios. The report was compiled and sent in June 2007 only a month after Madeleine's disappearance and I think this probably supported the PJ's theory in what they were thinking. It's always good to have other opinions, does no harm, and if it agrees with your theory you presume you are on the right track.

But it's standard procedure - and obviously we can't read the report, so it might not be as simplistic as it sounds - but I'm not seeing how someone suggesting the parents might have killed her (obvious point) is going to make Amarals book any less subject to being banned.

The report is a confidential police document, and I'm unsure how or why Amaral would have access to hand it to the court. It almost seems like this trial has turned away from the book issue and on to discussing the why's and wherefore's of a pretty basic police investigation.

The parents should obviously have been treated as suspects from the moment the police arrived at the scene. They should have been fully investigated. Which they were. How does this link to whether Amaral's thesis has a right to be sold?

This confuses me.


ETA. It would also tend to suggest that the 'pressure' from UK not to investigate the parents actually translates in to suggestion from UK that they should have investigated the parents.

The suggestion that the parents killed her has been pounced on and viewed with horror by many pros on this and other forums and posters have been belittled and insulted as a result when it's now very clear that this possibility was on the table by British and not just Portugese police from the off. Which leads me yet again to ask why do certain people react with such intense anger when the parents involvement is discussed? Mccann was the last one to see her alive as has been pointed out and there is no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted. Indeed, the dogs, no matter what the Mccanns may spin are highly unlikely to make so many mistakes at once. As to whether the pressure of not investigating the parents is actually to investigate the parents, it seems to me that there was a split: British Police were suspicious of the Mccanns and wanted them investigated but orders from their superiors ( probably with government backing) were 'lay off'.
Even if the injunction is upheld and i think it will be a travesty if so, the information is now out there and the Mccanns can do sod all about it. It isn't difficult to weigh it all up and come to the obvious conclusion and the media have at last started to report the facts and not wallow in sickening spin.

As more emerges, as it most certainly will, I think that some of the tapas 7 will be seriously considering their positions in all of this. They are surely able to see that they will all be in it up to their necks, the longer this goes on. Even now, it is not too late for one, if not all of them, to put a stop to this and do the decent thing for everyone's sake. The tapas 7 must realize that this is not going to go away and can only get worse - if they are worried about public perception of them now, they should think how angry people will be if it were to come out later on that they know what has happened but have chosen to stay silent.
They are not stupid, they know the tide is turning - I believe that at least one of the tapas group will have the courage and decency to break ranks and do the right thing for all concerned.

Autumn wrote:As more emerges, as it most certainly will, I think that some of the tapas 7 will be seriously considering their positions in all of this. They are surely able to see that they will all be in it up to their necks, the longer this goes on. Even now, it is not too late for one, if not all of them, to put a stop to this and do the decent thing for everyone's sake. The tapas 7 must realize that this is not going to go away and can only get worse - if they are worried about public perception of them now, they should think how angry people will be if it were to come out later on that they know what has happened but have chosen to stay silent.
They are not stupid, they know the tide is turning - I believe that at least one of the tapas group will have the courage and decency to break ranks and do the right thing for all concerned.

Autumn, I sincerely hope so. I have a feeling it will be Jane Tanner.

I think you will find it is normal procedure to investigate the families of a missing person, especially one where there is no trace of a person. So why the big hoo ha? Is it because it is showing the PJ to be totally incompetent and were out of their depth?

whoknowsthetruth wrote:I think you will find it is normal procedure to investigate the families of a missing person, especially one where there is no trace of a person. So why the big hoo ha? Is it because it is showing the PJ to be totally incompetent and were out of their depth?

Hi
I would agree that they were out of their depth but I wouldn't be agreeing with scorn in my comment.

In fairness to them this was a British family which may have made them feel less confident going about their investigations. It might have felt a huge big deal initially placing the mum and dad under the microscope simply because of their nationality and language barriers.

I am guessing that child abduction wasn't something they would have dealt with on a daily basis either so they may have not been familiar in following appropriate procedures for those circumstances. Maybe I am being too generous to them and having tried to rationalise in my own head why the police behaved as they did, Iwould hope that they had learnt a massive lesson and would know right away how to handle a similar situation should it occur again in their neck of the woods.

Take care

[quote="Kololi"]

whoknowsthetruth wrote:I think you will find it is normal procedure to investigate the families of a missing person, especially one where there is no trace of a person. So why the big hoo ha? Is it because it is showing the PJ to be totally incompetent and were out of their depth?

Hi
I would agree that they were out of their depth but I wouldn't be agreeing with scorn in my comment.

In fairness to them this was a British family which may have made them feel less confident going about their investigations. It might have felt a huge big deal initially placing the mum and dad under the microscope simply because of their nationality and language barriers.

I am guessing that child abduction wasn't something they would have dealt with on a daily basis either so they may have not been familiar in following appropriate procedures for those circumstances. Maybe I am being too generous to them and having tried to rationalise in my own head why the police behaved as they did, Iwould hope that they had learnt a massive lesson and would know right away how to handle a similar situation should it occur again in their neck of the woods.

Any scorn should be reserved for a couple that left their children alone, night after night, for hours. They state they lost their child to an abductor because they weren't there at the time to protect her and then have the audacity to blame the PJ for not finding her! If she had have been abducted, whos fault would it have been? Theirs! How dare they blame the portugese police for her continuing 'disappearance' when it's their fault that she disappeared in the first place. All the money and man hours spent on trying to find a child that had been left helpless and vulnerable alone and the parents have the nerve to blame a police force that did it's best. No wonder this pair are so disliked by the Portugese public.

Marigold, we have heard it all before. The McCanns should not have left the kids. Simple. Would a nanny service had worked, doubt it.

Yes we have heard it all before and no we shouldn't forget it.

Remembering that a small child was stolen from her bed, if that is what happened, because she was left alone and defenseless is not a crime nor a sin. Remembering it does not hinder the search for Madeleine.

Remembering it might help other mums and dads tempted to do the same thing to make their minds up that it isn't worth the risk.

In the events of that night whatever they were, it is actually the first and one of only two facts that anybody, regardless of what they believe happened to Madeleine, can be sure of so it is the place to start.

I really do wonder if all those who attempt to push the fact of the children being left alone to one side would still feel that it was just a silly little mistake that good old Kate and Ger have paid a heavy price for if those three children had burnt to death in that apartment whilst alone. What price did Madeleine pay for that teensy weensy little mistake?

Take care

Kololi,

I'm not sure that people do try to push it to one side. I think that it's a brick wall that people hit.....it can't be altered, and all that happened, happened after the decision to leave her alone - I think that for some people it's a focus, and for others it's a regrettable fact.

It can't be changed or altered no matter how many times it's discussed - It horrified me when I heard it, but two and a half years later....with no sign of Madeleine, it still seems to be the primary focus in some people's minds.

That's fine....but for other people it isn't. To be accused of supporting child neglect because I don't rant about it is disturbing, to say the least.

Kololi, i am not pushing it to one side at all. They should not have been left alone.FULL STOP. The service Warners provided was a check service, that involved a Nanny listening at the door. Would that have been acceptable if the McCanns used this sevice and Madeleine still disappeared in the same circumstances.

Hi Vaguely
I don't actually think anybody who posts here would support child neglect to be honest but it does bug the living daylights out of me when sometimes the children being left alone seems to be trivialised.

I understand that we are x number of years and many theories down the road and I respect your take on this said to me in a previous post and I actually agree with you to a degree.

I stand by my statement though because I believe that remembering how this abductor, if he existed, managed to steal a child is more likely to help prevent it happening again in the future to another child than brushing it under the carpet so it is never spoken about again.

Anyway you must have guessed that Whoknowsthetruth's post would have got my knickers in a knot for me and me on my high horse.

Take care

@whoknowsthetruth
Then we would discuss/quarrel about

1. the baby listening service and
   
2. stupid parents using it
   
3. still suspecting the parents, because baby listening service doesn't check if the children are actually in their bed(s)
   
4. if she actually was abducted, it would have been discovered much later
   
5. if the man Tanner saw was an abductor, she wouldn't have seen him

Anything I've missed?

Hi Whoknowsthetruth
No - this young girl has now shown the world that listening at doors whether done by mums and dads or nannies employed by the holiday resort is not acceptable when considering the safety of a child.

Sorry if I was a tadge grumpy.

Take care

Would anyone suspect a couple on the dole from a run down council estate if this same thing happened to them? Doubt it. Some are jealous of peoples status

Kololi wrote:Hi Whoknowsthetruth
No - this young girl has now shown the world that listening at doors whether done by mums and dads or nannies employed by the holiday resort is not acceptable when considering the safety of a child.

Sorry if I was a tadge grumpy.

Take care

I didn't think you were grumpy.

whoknowsthetruth wrote:Would anyone suspect a couple on the dole from a run down council estate if this same thing happened to them? Doubt it. Some are jealous of peoples status

you obviously have a steam coming out of ears fetish.

hehe

I am curious - where does being jealous of somebody's status fit into what we are chatting about?

I am probably having a brunnette moment as I am not getting the connection at all and yep I would feel the parents on a council estate doing the same thing were equally stupid and neglectful.

Take care

Autumn wrote:As more emerges, as it most certainly will, I think that some of the tapas 7 will be seriously considering their positions in all of this. They are surely able to see that they will all be in it up to their necks, the longer this goes on. Even now, it is not too late for one, if not all of them, to put a stop to this and do the decent thing for everyone's sake. The tapas 7 must realize that this is not going to go away and can only get worse - if they are worried about public perception of them now, they should think how angry people will be if it were to come out later on that they know what has happened but have chosen to stay silent.
They are not stupid, they know the tide is turning - I believe that at least one of the tapas group will have the courage and decency to break ranks and do the right thing for all concerned.

Ah yes, the Tide is Turning, Tick Tock, the Tapas are Breaking, the McCanns are BReaking, Kate is Breaking, Tick Tock. This Refrain has Been Repeated Again and Again for Three Years. The Tapas Have been Publicliy Vilified by the Likes of You as Pedophiles and Pedophile Defenders, and You think They'll Crack Now and Give you the Satisfication?
The Headlines in the British Press Say Amaral said Fuck the McCanns and that His Buddy Had a File He's Been Dumping Maddie sightings in. This is Probably the Highest Esteem the McCanns Have been in in the Public Eye since hte FIrst days of the Abduction.

Kololi wrote:Yes we have heard it all before and no we shouldn't forget it.

Remembering that a small child was stolen from her bed, if that is what happened, because she was left alone and defenseless is not a crime nor a sin. Remembering it does not hinder the search for Madeleine.

Remembering it might help other mums and dads tempted to do the same thing to make their minds up that it isn't worth the risk.

In the events of that night whatever they were, it is actually the first and one of only two facts that anybody, regardless of what they believe happened to Madeleine, can be sure of so it is the place to start.

I really do wonder if all those who attempt to push the fact of the children being left alone to one side would still feel that it was just a silly little mistake that good old Kate and Ger have paid a heavy price for if those three children had burnt to death in that apartment whilst alone. What price did Madeleine pay for that teensy weensy little mistake?

Take care

It's NEVER been PUSHED TO THE SIDE that the Children were left ALONE EVER.
People Disagree as to How Much Fault that Leaves the Parents With IF SHE WAS ABDUCTED.
Some Think as Victims of a crime, they Made a Mistake, Left her Vulnerable BUT WHO EXPECTS A CHILD TO BE TAKEN FROM A BED?
Now we ALL do And never Would Leave a Child.
But The McCanns Didn't Have the Benefit of the McCanns.
Everyone who has Ever heard about this Case, Pro-Anti-Whatver, Would Not NOW lEave the child Alone in a Bed.

I tell you what has definitely been pushed to one side....the fact that someone walked in that apartment and stole a child!

What is the greater crime here? kidanpping or leaving your child while you dine 60 yards away (while checking regularly)...? neither is correct but i ask again, which is the biggest sin?

What if that abductor is caught and confesses he took Madeleine and it had nothing to do with the parents? should the law let him/her/them walk free?

And to all those poster who accuse the McCanns of horrid things like paedophilia and hiding their child because of an accident. What would you say then? would you retract all your allegations and try to put things right? is there any way you can make it right?

Lets try turning that around. What would you say if it is proven that the McCanns have beein involved in their daughter's disappearance and have been fully aware of what happened to her since May 2007?

Just out of interest, Bunny, have you been hiding under one of Gerry's unturned stones for the last 2 years? Give me just one fact that backs up your ridiculous statement - 'someone walked into that apartment and stole a child'. Get real.