A Missing Element

There's one element that's missing here. In my experience, police forces generally tend to be a tight-knit group, they support each other in the face of criticism. Even in the case of wrong-doing, they are loathe to abandon one of their own, they act like a brotherhood, adopt a siege mentality and close ranks. Whatever you may think about the validity of this attitude, it is at least understandable given the nature of their work.

So what do the PJ think about this 'review'? By PJ I do not mean the politicos at the top that play their power games in boardrooms, but the rank and file, the men and women who are face to face with the dark realities of life on a daily basis. Any half-competent investigator will realise very quickly that something is seriously wrong with the McCann narrative. To take just two examples, the inability of the tapas group to account for their movements just a few hours after the fact. The beauty of the truth is its simplicity - I went there, I did this, I saw that. If you take a jigsaw puzzle apart all the pieces will fit perfectly back together again. If a group of people cannot provide a coherent timeline, where all their movements and activities fit together as neatly as they would have done had it happened as told, can only mean one thing. Some, or all, of them are not telling the truth.

Then there is the 'broken shutter'. When, what in missing children cases is a main suspect - a parent, lies about the crime scene you do not have to be Hercule Poirot to know in which direction to start looking. 'The shutter is broken!". 'No it's not'. Really, that simple.

So the PJ would know, the 'detectives' on 'the review' would know. Ignore the distractions, diversions and 'clarrifications', just look at the core. The core is rotten, the truth is missing.

However, against this background what have we seen? A respected senior PJ officer was humiliated and driven out of the force. The British press ran a vicious campaign of denigration and scorn about the 'bumbling, incompetent, lazy' even 'sleazy' Portuguese police. And now we have had the farce of a political misdirection campaign funded by the British taxpayer to, essentially, criticise the PJ. "195 leads" that by implication the PJ were too lazy or incompetent to follow up.

I understand that even such facile manipulation as the 'review' does hold a certain constituency in its thrall, some people can indeed be fooled all of the time. But what of the PJ? There must be a deep and seething resentment at this almost ritualistic international humiliation. So why haven't we heard from them? Where are the 'sources within the PJ' defending their institutional integrity? Is the Portuguese media as tightly controlled as the British?

This is something I do not understand about this case. Why has the PJ, unofficially and at the rank and file level, remained mute?

Because nothing is as it seems in this case. IMO SY will have advised the PJ that they are announcing these 'leads'. The importance of the 'leads' is not that they will actually lead anywhere but that it will be possible to show when the day of judgement arrives that every possible lead was followed and that none of them led anywhere. The noose is tightening. As it tightens TM are working harder to promote their version of events but the public's level of belief in their version is dropping.

roy rovers wrote:Because nothing is as it seems in this case. IMO SY will have advised the PJ that they are announcing these 'leads'. The importance of the 'leads' is not that they will actually lead anywhere but that it will be possible to show when the day of judgement arrives that every possible lead was followed and that none of them led anywhere. The noose is tightening. As it tightens TM are working harder to promote their version of events but the public's level of belief in their version is dropping.

I keep telling myself this but (always a but!) The McCanns latest round of interviews/press conferences showed them looking as comfortable and confident has I have ever seen them.

I really do hope there is method in SY's madness............

roy rovers wrote:Because nothing is as it seems in this case. IMO SY will have advised the PJ that they are announcing these 'leads'. The importance of the 'leads' is not that they will actually lead anywhere but that it will be possible to show when the day of judgement arrives that every possible lead was followed and that none of them led anywhere. The noose is tightening. As it tightens TM are working harder to promote their version of events but the public's level of belief in their version is dropping.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

roy rovers wrote:Because nothing is as it seems in this case. IMO SY will have advised the PJ that they are announcing these 'leads'. The importance of the 'leads' is not that they will actually lead anywhere but that it will be possible to show when the day of judgement arrives that every possible lead was followed and that none of them led anywhere. The noose is tightening. As it tightens TM are working harder to promote their version of events but the public's level of belief in their version is dropping.

I keep telling myself this but (always a but!) The McCanns latest round of interviews/press conferences showed them looking as comfortable and confident has I have ever seen them.

I really do hope there is method in SY's madness............

roy rovers

I so want to believe that this is really what SY are about - I have to say the McCanns do look confident that they are still "untouchable" and the circus will continue onwards. Sometimes I almost laugh that their capers have lasted so long - how do the press just swallow it without reacting is beyond me!

Sorry as much as I would LOVE SY to be playing this game we have to ask ourselves why exactly? Why issue the latest age-progression photo in time for the paperback of the bewk? Why waste MORE police time (as that's what will happen with the photo) with more false leads? Why feed the monster? Do you think, if at this stage SY seriously were pursuing the line that TM knew exactly what happened and knew exactly why the dogs traced blood and cadaver scent, that it would sit well in the future? Think about how complicated that makes the fund issue and SY are encouraging people to add to it! I've never heard of SY encouraging people to help others break the law - which is what the result of adding to a fraudulent fund would amount to - whilst they work behind the scenes.

I am utterly convinced the objective of the review AND this current spate of "leads" is to find the most plausible story that fits as many of the facts but exonerates the parents completely. I don't think there's any game simply because there's no need for one. SY could just have said "no comment" or "we hope very much that our review will provide a solution and work is continuing". End of. They didn't and played right into TM's hands.

Agree with you last paragraph, Nomendelta. A solution which absolves the parents but closes the damn case down. Didn't work so far.

What if SY don't want to give too much away to the McCanns and they appear to be 'on their side' so when the opportunity comes, SY can use the element of surprise. I still believe SY are getting rid of the deadwood and working with the PJ towards re-questioning the McCanns and their Tapas friends. Does anybody seriously believe that the Police go round telling the whole World facts about serious cases? They do keep a few cards close to their chest!

sammyc wrote:What if SY don't want to give too much away to the McCanns and they appear to be 'on their side' so when the opportunity comes, SY can use the element of surprise. I still believe SY are getting rid of the deadwood and working with the PJ towards re-questioning the McCanns and their Tapas friends. Does anybody seriously believe that the Police go round telling the whole World facts about serious cases? They do keep a few cards close to their chest!

For a start would the McCanns lawyers really fall for that trick? And would SY really waste time trying it when they could do the same by working in secret like they promised they would?

Something fishy is going on for sure. I just can't decide what!

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

sammyc wrote:What if SY don't want to give too much away to the McCanns and they appear to be 'on their side' so when the opportunity comes, SY can use the element of surprise. I still believe SY are getting rid of the deadwood and working with the PJ towards re-questioning the McCanns and their Tapas friends. Does anybody seriously believe that the Police go round telling the whole World facts about serious cases? They do keep a few cards close to their chest!

For a start would the McCanns lawyers really fall for that trick? And would SY really waste time trying it when they could do the same by working in secret like they promised they would?

Something fishy is going on for sure. I just can't decide what!

Neither can I, something is for sure. SY will be well aware of these old stories re the taxi sighting and the Spanish one, etc., they also probably know they have been looked into. Considering he (AR) said he was not giving away what the leads were, then suddenly they appear in all the papers, someone is either leaking info from SY or it is all spin. I think and I may be wrong that one of them came from Isabel Duarte, not wholly sure, but I think I read that. Why say he is not giving information on leads, then suddenly have them being drip fed to us daily.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?"
Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four.

And how uncannily apt are the following sentences, which we have tended to omit.

As I pointed out on another thread IMO the Crown Prosecution Service have told SY that the evidence is not currently strong enough to bring a successful prosecution. SY are waiting for a break (which could come when they reinterview the T9 or carry out a reconstruction) and in the meantime closing down the outstanding leads to eliminate the 'wriggle room' they offer.

Peter Mac

How did he get in the room?

Did he come up through the floorboards? Wouldn't work for the Abductor in this case though because the floors were tiled.

roy rovers wrote:Peter Mac
How did he get in the room?

How did he get in ?
Where did he hide ?
How did he get out ?

And to quote again "When, then, did he come ?"

PeterMac wrote:

roy rovers wrote:Peter Mac
How did he get in the room?

How did he get in ?
Where did he hide ?
How did he get out ?

And to quote again "When, then, did he come ?"

He didn't exist! *Slaps wrist*

How did he not leave a single shred of DNA?....mind you nor did Maddie and gerry had to go back to the UK to get some

No DNA, no fingerprints, no marks on the bed below the window, no marks on the floor, no waking of any of the three children, no marks on the shutters, no marks on the window ledge, no marks in the cupboard behind the door, no marks on the front door.......

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

roy rovers

As I pointed out on another thread IMO the Crown Prosecution Service have told SY that the evidence is not currently strong enough to bring a successful prosecution. SY are waiting for a break (which could come when they reinterview the T9 or carry out a reconstruction) and in the meantime closing down the outstanding leads to eliminate the 'wriggle room' they offer.

I agree roy rovers. Or as another poster summed it up as like the PJ and SY are playing a game of chess and waiting for the wrong TM move. Let's not forget, everybody, that both Police Forces can wait for an eternity whilst the McCanns and friends have to go through their entire life with this hanging over them. That's a sentence in itself.

PeterMac wrote:No DNA, no fingerprints, no marks on the bed below the window, no marks on the floor, no waking of any of the three children, no marks on the shutters, no marks on the window ledge, no marks in the cupboard behind the door, no marks on the front door.......

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

So SY ignore all these facts and instead are following up (and bashing the PJ) on some nut who phones up with his last nights dream!!

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.....This country is so so STUPID

[quote="jd"]

PeterMac wrote:No DNA, no fingerprints, no marks on the bed below the window, no marks on the floor, no waking of any of the three children, no marks on the shutters, no marks on the window ledge, no marks in the cupboard behind the door, no marks on the front door.......
So SY ignore all these facts and instead are following up (and bashing the PJ) some nut who phones up with his last nights dream!!
Don't know whether to laugh or cry.....This country is so so STUPID

Not sure. They may be doing it to demonstrate to the world that every avenue of enquiry has been exhausted, before going right back to the beginning.

Despite A R's stream of consciousness words on Daybreak when he was thrown by a straight question about believing that Maddie IS alive and after answering yes, had to answer only with possibilities because there is no evidence to suggest that she is alive, I note the following:

While presenters and interviewers have mentioned a date, AR has never specified a date or time. He has never said that his team believes Maddie was taken between 9-10 pm, 3 May 2007. He simply stated that he believed Madeleine was taken from her apartment in a criminal act by a stranger. No mention of apartment 5a OC. There is a possibility that she was alive when removed. There is a possibility that she is still alive. All stated in different interviews.

He appealed for information, with regard to period 28th April- 3rd May 2007.

So what we have in essence is that he is interested in any information relating to these 6 days.
That Madeleine was removed from an apartment by a person/ persons unknown or only slightly known to her.
That when removed she was possibly dead.
That if alive when removed, that might no longer be the case.

For what it is worth and I am aware I have still got to read some more, I believe strongly on the basis of my research so far that Maddie McCann arrived at her holiday home and did not set foot outside that place, that she was dead soon after arrival 28th/29th April and that her body was disposed of well before the alarm was raised.

[quote="PeterMac"]

jd wrote:

PeterMac wrote:No DNA, no fingerprints, no marks on the bed below the window, no marks on the floor, no waking of any of the three children, no marks on the shutters, no marks on the window ledge, no marks in the cupboard behind the door, no marks on the front door.......
So SY ignore all these facts and instead are following up (and bashing the PJ) some nut who phones up with his last nights dream!!
Don't know whether to laugh or cry.....This country is so so STUPID

Not sure. They may be doing it to demonstrate to the world that every avenue of enquiry has been exhausted, before going right back to the beginning.

I sincerely hope you are right PM (logic dictates that you must be), otherwise this country will be marked forever as a total laughing stock

He has never said that his team believes Maddie was taken between 9-10 pm, 3 May 2007

Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I read somewhere last week that the time frame AR was looking at was between 5pm and 10pm. I remember this because this puts all the T9 statements out of sync

jd wrote:

He has never said that his team believes Maddie was taken between 9-10 pm, 3 May 2007

Correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I read somewhere last week that the time frame AR was looking at was between 5pm and 10pm. I remember this because this puts all the T9 statements out of sync

not sure , will have to listen again.....all I know is that I never heard him refer to the tapas timeline despite stating there had been "a forensic analysis of the timeline"