Investigator ensures that Maddie's body in the backyard of Murat

monkey mind wrote:

uppatoffee wrote:Just seen that Eben Black has worked for Murdoch's NOTW. Is he for real?

He may be for real though in all honesty we cannot be sure.....

*Eben* is an acronym for "Extra-terrestrial Biological ENtity, and whilst many people claim to have seen one, even been abducted by one, they haven't actually landed in front of the houses of parliament as yet.
So who can say if he is for real??
Some serious investigators believe the mysterious 'men in black' to be extra-terrestrials....
Eben Black
Hmmm

Clouseau wrote:I believe 103% in the dogs.

A corpse was in the back of that hire car so are we expected to believe that the child was relocated there 20 odd days later with the whole worlds media looking on



i dont think so

Clouseau wrote:I believe 103% in the dogs.

A corpse was in the back of that hire car so are we expected to believe that the child was relocated there 20 odd days later with the whole worlds media looking on

i dont think so

Gillyspot wrote:The McCanns have sort of commented

"The McCanns, who have stated that they believe their daughter could still be alive, have refused to comment on Mr Birch's findings"

Who gave that statement of no "comment" that is an interesting thought. Clearly not PR man Mitchell - Doesn't say "family friend" "close to McCanns" - simply "The McCanns".

russiandoll wrote: Nonsense or not, and I can't understand why this guy is on record saying these things.... it is your case Portugal, please investigate this unless you are convinced beyond doubt it is a scam. If there is any possibility of human remains in this location then there is possibly a family needing to grieve and a person who needs to be retrieved with dignity and respect and whose remains need to be laid to rest.
Please take this seriously Portuguese authorities. Unless you are certain Mr Birch cannot possibly have undertaken this search or if you accept that he has, that his theory is wrong, investigate his claims.

PeterMac wrote:I am not sure about "Breaking into a garden" being such a heinous crime.
It would be civil trespass in the UK, actionable only on proof of damage. Only if there were physical damage to the gate, for example, might a criminal offence be committed.

Incidentally entering the house itself, in English law, is only "burglary" if done with intent to steal, commit damage, rape or GBH 'therein'.
Otherwise it is just civil trespass.

So simply going into a garden and having a look round and then leaving does not go very high on the scale. There is also an implied right to enter the garden to visit the house, for example to speak to the occupant, deliver papers, and so on. And privacy seems to have gone by the board with maps.google and google earth. I have just focussed down on Casa Liliana to see what was going on, but the image is some years old.

tigger wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:The McCanns have sort of commented

"The McCanns, who have stated that they believe their daughter could still be alive, have refused to comment on Mr Birch's findings"

Who gave that statement of no "comment" that is an interesting thought. Clearly not PR man Mitchell - Doesn't say "family friend" "close to McCanns" - simply "The McCanns".

They've deviated from the script: 'There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm etc. ' But it may just be that it's not a quote but a general statement from the journalist. Still, I take the word 'could' as an encouraging sign.
Have they commented on the Horrocks article? Because that's old hat anyway - about a year old? So it's the silly season and various things are trotted out.
Two South Africans now who are spending time and money on MMcC. Is this a growth industry in SA?
Danny Krugel is priceless with his hairbrush full of Madeleine's hair (just what the PJ had been looking for - dash it!) and his magic machine. Now someone who can do a GPR survey without anyone noticing, not easy.

PeterMac wrote:I am not sure about "Breaking into a garden" being such a heinous crime.
It would be civil trespass in the UK, actionable only on proof of damage. Only if there were physical damage to the gate, for example, might a criminal offence be committed.

Incidentally entering the house itself, in English law, is only "burglary" if done with intent to steal, commit damage, rape or GBH 'therein'.
Otherwise it is just civil trespass.

So simply going into a garden and having a look round and then leaving does not go very high on the scale. There is also an implied right to enter the garden to visit the house, for example to speak to the occupant, deliver papers, and so on. And privacy seems to have gone by the board with maps.google and google earth. I have just focussed down on Casa Liliana to see what was going on, but the image is some years old.

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I am not sure about "Breaking into a garden" being such a heinous crime.
It would be civil trespass in the UK, actionable only on proof of damage. Only if there were physical damage to the gate, for example, might a criminal offence be committed.

Incidentally entering the house itself, in English law, is only "burglary" if done with intent to steal, commit damage, rape or GBH 'therein'.
Otherwise it is just civil trespass.

So simply going into a garden and having a look round and then leaving does not go very high on the scale. There is also an implied right to enter the garden to visit the house, for example to speak to the occupant, deliver papers, and so on. And privacy seems to have gone by the board with maps.google and google earth. I have just focussed down on Casa Liliana to see what was going on, but the image is some years old.

PeterMac, does that mean that anyone can walk into anyone else's garden after ensuring they are out, take in equipment, do whatever it is they want as long as they haven't damaged anything and it is only a CIVIL trespass? The police can't do that on a property, they'd need a damned good reason and most likely either the permission of the owner or a warrant surely? Does this mean a civilian such as SB has more rights than police? I'm astounded.

ShuBob wrote:I think it's worth noting that this guy (or someone like him also from SA) has been saying the same thing for over a year if what the mods here are saying is true and I have no reason to doubt them. The PJ as well as the McCanns and Murat have probably also been aware of this for some time. How do we know the PJ haven't already investigated and ruled it out? It may not make sense but I won't be surprised if it's the McCanns who are behind the story hitting the press now if only to drag Murat's name back in the picture.

ShuBob wrote:I think it's worth noting that this guy (or someone like him also from SA) has been saying the same thing for over a year if what the mods here are saying is true and I have no reason to doubt them. The PJ as well as the McCanns and Murat have probably also been aware of this for some time. How do we know the PJ haven't already investigated and ruled it out? It may not make sense but I won't be surprised if it's the McCanns who are behind the story hitting the press now if only to drag Murat's name back in the picture.

littlepixie wrote:That is true Petermac, when I reported a man for sneaking into my garden and tapping on my daughters bedroom windows at night, the local Police told me there was nothing they could do as it was civil trespass.

I was fuming as he was 36 and she was 12 but that is another story!!

monkey mind wrote:

aquila wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I am not sure about "Breaking into a garden" being such a heinous crime.
It would be civil trespass in the UK, actionable only on proof of damage. Only if there were physical damage to the gate, for example, might a criminal offence be committed.

Incidentally entering the house itself, in English law, is only "burglary" if done with intent to steal, commit damage, rape or GBH 'therein'.
Otherwise it is just civil trespass.

So simply going into a garden and having a look round and then leaving does not go very high on the scale. There is also an implied right to enter the garden to visit the house, for example to speak to the occupant, deliver papers, and so on. And privacy seems to have gone by the board with maps.google and google earth. I have just focussed down on Casa Liliana to see what was going on, but the image is some years old.

PeterMac, does that mean that anyone can walk into anyone else's garden after ensuring they are out, take in equipment, do whatever it is they want as long as they haven't damaged anything and it is only a CIVIL trespass? The police can't do that on a property, they'd need a damned good reason and most likely either the permission of the owner or a warrant surely? Does this mean a civilian such as SB has more rights than police? I'm astounded.

Obviously the law in Portugal may well be different but if this had taken place in England then PeterMac is correct. It all centres around what the person is there for, what they do, what they are carrying, or what their intent is as Peter explained in regards to burglary. Or there could be an intent to commit a sexual offence covered under the Sexual Offences act, or if they were inpossession of a firearm that too would constitute a criminal offence. If you can prove they were there for an “unlawful purpose” then S4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 may apply, but is trying to uncover evidence of a crime an unlawful purpose? I would say not. There’s also Criminal Trespass which off the top of my head doesn’t apply here. So yes, I agree with Peter, no big deal, civil matter only though with the influence the McCann’s have this may result in the Caddish and Below the Belt Behaviour Act 2013.
Police are governed by a different set of laws and criteria entirely any breach of which will have consequences ranging from inadmissibility of evidence in a Court of Law to civil or criminal charges.

Meagain wrote:If I have understood correctly, this guy doesn't think it's Robert Murat that buried "the body" that he says he has identified as being buried in the garden.

What made him think that Robert Murat's garden was worth a snoop around then?

The garden had been checked previously and had been found to be fine so what made him think it was worth a re-visit with all his snoopery gear and my second question echoes a fair few posters - how did he snoop about undetected by two massive guard dogs?

Having said that, let's hope the garden is dug up promptly to hopefully show this guy to be a waffling attention seeker.

K.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

ShuBob wrote:I think it's worth noting that this guy (or someone like him also from SA) has been saying the same thing for over a year if what the mods here are saying is true and I have no reason to doubt them. The PJ as well as the McCanns and Murat have probably also been aware of this for some time. How do we know the PJ haven't already investigated and ruled it out? It may not make sense but I won't be surprised if it's the McCanns who are behind the story hitting the press now if only to drag Murat's name back in the picture.

That is my thinking as well. Pat Brown didn't get this publicity when she did her work and search earlier this year!

tcat wrote:Hi Rob. Yep I think everyone knows that - there have been numerous cases in which bodies have revealed little or no forensic evidence. Nobody is under any illusions I think.

Martin Grime stated in his rogatory interview that "cross-contamination is immediate" following death, but everybody knows this area is full of controversy and this has been shown in US courtrooms recently.

What are your thoughts on the case and cadaver dogs?

sweetex wrote:Some new detail: Unfortunately translated.

http://www.abc.es/20120706/internacional/abci-scottland-yard-madeleine-pistas-201207061831.html

The evidence presented yesterday by the South African businessman Stephen Birch suggest that the body might be buried in the garden of the local neighbor Missing the small girl.

The British police were yesterday gathered to analyze the evidence presented by the South African businessman Stephen Birch, who claims to know where the body of Madeleine McCann. The Portuguese newspaper "Correio da Manha" which was the first to reveal the news, confirmed in its Monday edition that Scotland Yard is very hopeful with the new tracks that emerged around the Maddie case. The aforementioned employer ensures that the body is buried in the small garden of Robert Murat, the British citizen who lives next to the Ocean Club, local Missing Maddie. For its part, the Attorney General of the Republic (PRG) Lusa has reacted to new developments to report that the process will be reopened only "if there are new facts, credible and relevant and not mere hypotheses or speculation." If the Judicial Police (PJ) of the neighboring country wants to perform some due diligence needs require opening the case to prosecutors, who filed the process in July 2008.

Five years after the disappearance of little Madeleine has become clear that the case continues to arouse great interest among the public that came in detail any new developments. While waiting to know whether the data provided by Birch allow a retrial, we discover more details of the work done by this businessman obsessed with solving the mystery.

After four times invade the garden of Robert Murat with his machine geo radar (always at dawn, when he was not the owner) Birch has concluded that the body is buried two feet deep. Ensure that the ground was excavated "from 21:00 to 21:20 am on May 3 and Madeleine was buried between 22:05 and 22:15." This employer does not accuse without proof Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry McCann, but speaks of a suspicious figure, that of a British businessman who is the acronym GSA, who said he surfed with the father of Madeleine. Robert Murat also believes is foreign to the burial of the body of Madeleine.

It also now know what the reaction of Murat himself, who after being considered a suspect in 2007 prosecuted for libel in the English press to receive compensation for damage to its image and person a total of 750 thousand euros a year later. He works at home and married a citizen Luso-British. For now Robert Murat says that the claims of South African entrepreneur "are crazy and stupid."

Pershing36 wrote:There is something peculiar about all this and I can't put my finger on it.

Stephen Birch is obviously not a poor man, by the sounds of it quite the contrary. He has admitted breaking and entry which I can not support and have to agree with the pro's that sneaking round and old ladies garden is not acceptable. He seems to have put himself in a position of being charged with breaking and entry and knowing who everything has gone in the past he will probably be sued.

I gather he was not blinding search the grounds with this equipment, so he must have been working on intelligence. I wonder what line of investigation led him to believe that there is a body there.

He is either very sure about this or rather foolish because the press and supporters will give him hell.