Re: Scotland Yard in Porto because of Maddie

by monkey mind 22.01.13 16:22

PeterMac wrote:See above.
Community Affairs = meetings with politicians
Personnel = Meetings with other senior officers, and with community leaders.

All meetings at that level involve biscuits. That is how you judge how important a meeting actually is.

by Bob Southgate 22.01.13 17:39

aiyoyo wrote:
, so now he just licks the politicians' boots, and exercises his mouth muscles to serve the public!

I couldn't have put it better myself!!! Priceless!!! Scotland Yard in Porto because of Maddie - Page 3 110921

by **Hobs** 22.01.13 18:03

As we know witnesses to a crime are compelled to tell the truth and answer all questions, if they don't they can be charged and face jail time.

Arguido status allows the sbject to have certain legal protection including being able to lie and to refuse to answer any questions without risk of penalty.

The gruesomes were made arguios to anable to do what they didwhich is lie and refuse to answer questions.

The subject can either request arguidoship or can have it placed upon them by the authorities.

My guess is, should they be hauled kicking and screaming back to Portugal to answer any questions and/or do reconstructions, the moment they say no comment or refuse to co-operate then they get landed with arguido status again and more than likely their chums as well.

Their lawyer will either demand the status to cover their clients butt and to prevent them ending up in jail for being fibbers or the PJ will slap it on themfor the same thing.

This will not help their image of caring parents desperate to have the case reopened as they have been bleating to the sheeples.

Even the terminally dim will have to stop and think why are the parents who claimed to be desperate for the case to be reopened refusing to answer quesions and help the police?

Innocent parents as we have seen from decades of experience act a certain way, guilty parents will always act a certain way and the two are radically different.

Innocent parents physically search, fully co-operate, answer all questions, do reconstructions, take polygraphs and practically camp outside the station demanding news and thinking if they have missed some tiny bit of info which could help find their child.

They do not immediately hire defence layers and pr spokesmen, they do not refuse to co-operate, they do not sit at home hiding, they do not look happy now they are less one child, travel the world at others expense in order to get funds. They give strong reliable statements even if it means revealing family issues such as messy divorce, debt or criminal history, ther priority is finding their missing family member

Guilty parents lawyer up immediately, never search, hire spin doctors, hide away, give scripted answers and refuse to answer anything off script, refuse to co-operate with police, refuse polys or polygraph shop, pick and choose appeals and apperances and charge for photos etc, usually create some kind of fund to get income. No strong reliable denials, concealing unfavorable family history and minimising any crimes/drug use. blames everyone and their goldfish for their own failings. Will threaten to sue or sue anyone who doesn't buy their story.

All so predictable and tiresome and very familiar.

There are a lot of similarities between the ramseys and the gruesomes in their behavior regarding their dead childrither being found or reported as missing

by monkey mind 22.01.13 20:44

Anyone in contact with Joana Morais?

Do we know who let the cat out of the bag tipped off SOL re the article? There’s nothing in the translation on her site to indicate but the following puzzles me....

“The British authorities expect that eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team, allow for the process to be formally reopened by the Attorney General's Office.”

Unless that is a translation error how can the newspaper know what the British authorities expect – in other words what they are thinking - unless they had spoken to them, and if they had, why not quote them directly – unless of course they were trying to avoid revealing that their informant was not the Portuguese but the British authorities themselves? If that’s true I find myself thinking ....here we go again..

And does that sentence not also imply their expectations are based on info they themselves are to deliver to the PJ? Again it’s difficult to read it otherwise. Would be nice to have that translation of that one sentence double checked.

If it's correct it doesn’t fill me with the greatest of optimism in relation to the reasoning behind a reopening if it happens. I’d like to have deep faith in the Met but I’m afraid all this indisputable political interference through three PMs doesn’t allow me to.

And Carlos Anjos has already told us earlier this month what he believes the reason is behind the drive to reopen the investigation.
“and there's another situation, too; the fact that they are in a certain way suspects of something that might have happened, so they want forcefully to open or reopen the process in order to demonstrate that the child is alive, that Maddie is alive. I'm convinced that if the process will ever be reopened we'll never hear of the McCanns again, but this is just my opinion...”

So should it transpire that SY state they have evidence to indicate she is alive then I call B/S, quite simply because if Eddie and Keela are to be believed......there can’t be any. Simple.

And as one of the comments on Joanas blog said “No cop worth his salt would ever ignore the work of those dogs in this case.”

No, free from interference, they would not.

by aiyoyo 23.01.13 4:54

monkey mind wrote:
“The British authorities expect that eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team, allow for the process to be formally reopened by the Attorney General's Office.”

Maybe the MET are hoping the PJ will use their data for the re-opening. God only knows what that could be!

An educated deduction says it cant have been data relating to abduction.
No authority, British or Portuguese, would be stupid to re-open a process to chase the unknown. It has to be something narrowed down with a possibility of prosecution to justify it. And it can mean only one thing.

by Karen Pinto 23.01.13 8:21

ARTICLE IN THE SUN NEWSPAPER (TODAY)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4758570/Missing-Madeleine-McCann-cops-fly-out-to-Portugal-for-fourth-time-in-recent-months.html

by **tigger** 23.01.13 9:48

aiyoyo wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
“The British authorities expect that eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team, allow for the process to be formally reopened by the Attorney General's Office.”
Maybe the MET are hoping the PJ will use their data for the re-opening. God only knows what that could be!

An educated deduction says it cant have been data relating to abduction.
No authority, British or Portuguese, would be stupid to re-open a process to chase the unknown. It has to be something narrowed down with a possibility of prosecution to justify it. And it can mean only one thing.

I think you're right. The only other explanation is that the McCanns finally got enough money together for that stamp.

by Woofer 23.01.13 10:47

A possible re-opening seems to hinge on the "eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team"

Have they applied for data that was refused before?

Walter Scott · by david_uk 23.01.13 10:56

Woofer wrote:A possible re-opening seems to hinge on the "eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team"

Have they applied for data that was refused before?

Tapas Credit card statements? Mccanns and family medical records?.

Walter Scott · by david_uk 23.01.13 11:09

Karen Pinto wrote:
ARTICLE IN THE SUN NEWSPAPER (TODAY)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4758570/Missing-Madeleine-McCann-cops-fly-out-to-Portugal-for-fourth-time-in-recent-months.html

It would appear that the comments section has been removed along with the few comments that had already been published?

by monkey mind 23.01.13 11:51

aiyoyo wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
“The British authorities expect that eventual new data to be collected by the special PJ team, allow for the process to be formally reopened by the Attorney General's Office.”
Maybe the MET are hoping the PJ will use their data for the re-opening. God only knows what that could be!

An educated deduction says it cant have been data relating to abduction.

Eddie and Keela make that quite clear. It cant be, it shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean to say it isn't.

No authority, British or Portuguese, would be stupid to re-open a process to chase the unknown.

Agreed, no authority free to exercise logic and free from political interference. There has been evidence of political interference, plenty of it and plenty of reason for it to continue. Gordon Brown has serious questions to anser about his visits to Leics Police and more importantly the FSS who it seems subsequently destroyed evidence despite forensic techniques being developed in leaps and bounds. I doubt he would want to do that in court or others of his ilk would want him to. One reason among many.

It has to be something narrowed down with a possibility of prosecution to justify it. And it can mean only one thing.

It seems to me from the above sentence in the press SY are to deliver something which they consider to be evidence which will be collected by th PJ. It further seems that British authorities have spoken to the press about this, leaked it in effect, the above sentence indicates that. That could be construed as an attemt to once again exert pressure.

I want to have faith in the Met I really do but history in this case yells through a megaphone to exercise caution. I hope I am wrong I genuinely do. To date I have seen no evidence the enquiry has been reopened only words that intimate the Met are hopeful it will be. I can only pray that the PJ stand firm as they have done and do not cave in to wild goose chases as some in Pt clearly believe that to be the purpose of Grange. At this stage I tend to side with those views in Portugal. HOpe we are all wrong.....

by ShuBob 23.01.13 11:55

Well, if the case is re-opened to pursue the abduction theory, they'll have to explain why Eddie and/or Keela were wrong in this case but right in every other case including the very recent Prout, Pilley and Lane cases.

by Cristobell 23.01.13 12:07

I cannot see the PJ re-opening the case unless there is a good chance of a conviction. They are not likely to waste anymore time, money and resources on chasing hoax sightings around the globe. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of girls who look like the age enhanced photo, the words needle and haystack come to mind.

by monkey mind 23.01.13 12:21

ShuBob wrote:Well, if the case is re-opened to pursue the abduction theory, they'll have to explain why Eddie and/or Keela were wrong in this case but right in every other case including the very recent Prout, Pilley and Lane cases.

Yes, in an ideal world you’d think. The PJ have already made their stance clear in that regard so if it does happen abduction wise, the decision was made by a higher authority, and that isn’t good at all and Eddie and Keela will simply be skimmed over.

We are likely to get some sort of official indication soon which can only go one of three ways:-

1. Reopened and PJ pursuing new leads in Spain, Holland, Germany, North Africa or Nashville bloody Tennessee. This can only mean one thing and imho from a justice standpoint would be a travesty. Remember, quite simply, if you work on the basis she is alive then categorically you cannot suspect the McCanns.

2. Reopened as a result of new leads no further info provided. Much more encouraging though doesn’t exclude 1 above. The key here will be the CM spin machine, doubt they will be able to contain themselves for long if that info has come from the Met and indicates she may be alive and well with a loving family. Equally their lack of spin will reveal much.

3. PJ see no new evidence and refuse to reopen the case. I think if this happens it really does tell us without question the slippery path the Met would be going down and the purpose of Grange. But it does still leave the door open for true justice on the Portuguese end which is the only one that matters.

by monkey mind 23.01.13 12:27

Cristobell wrote:I cannot see the PJ re-opening the case unless there is a good chance of a conviction. They are not likely to waste anymore time, money and resources on chasing hoax sightings around the globe. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of girls who look like the age enhanced photo, the words needle and haystack come to mind.

Agree 100%. So if it is reopened on the basis she may still be alive thenlogically the decision would not have been taken by the PJ but driven by a higher authority and imho the purpose of the exercise wouldn’t be to find her would it? Again I refer to the comment on JM’s blog “no policeman worth his salt would ignore Eddie and Keelas evidence. They would not.

by ShuBob 23.01.13 12:59

Monkey Mind, do you think the likes of Amaral and his colleagues who worked on the case will stay silent if their work is dismissed and the abduction theory pursued exclusively instead? Also, what will be the implication for Martin Grime especially given what Kate wrote about him in her book?

by Cristobell 23.01.13 13:13

ShuBob wrote:Monkey Mind, do you think the likes of Amaral and his colleagues who worked on the case will stay silent if their work is dismissed and the abduction theory pursued exclusively instead? Also, what will be the implication for Martin Grime especially given what Kate wrote about him in her book?

I think the only way in which GA would remain silent, is dependent upon the suspended libel case. If the agreement reached does not include a gagging order, then the mccanns have lost.

by ShuBob 23.01.13 13:18

Cristobell, what about his colleagues who may have been silent thus far but may feel the need to "clear their names"? Also, the likes of Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento?

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

by **PeterMac** 23.01.13 13:25

Good point. The same one to be made when people claim that Grange will be a cover-up. There are too many people involved. And there a lot of cops who are notoriously leaky, especially then they have retired.

by monkey mind 23.01.13 13:37

Any victory by Amaral or his colleagues for that matter in a libel trial would be based on facts known at the time and their words expressed accordingly and as such need have no bearing on a criminal investigation reopened on the basis of **new evidence**. That would only influence future libels one supposes. In practical terms the direction of any such enquiry will follow precisely that guided by the person in charge regardless of what the subordinates think. I stress, so far the PJ have acted with unquestionable honour in relation to this but for that to change the powers that be need only appoint the right person to head the investigation, everything else will then follow however reluctantly. It all comes down to the integrity of the peson in charge.

As yet there has been no official information to my knowledg but when there is personally I'll be looking for what I outlined earlier.

by monkey mind 23.01.13 13:51

PeterMac wrote:Good point. The same one to be made when people claim that Grange will be a cover-up. There are too many people involved. And there a lot of cops who are notoriously leaky, especially then they have retired.

Peter, I’m not saying Grange WILL be a cover up, simply there are some in Portugal that believe that SY are trying to influence them to reopen on the basis that she is still alive and that will preclude them from investigating the McCanns. I’m saying I certainly don’t dismiss that possibility.

Are you saying the SIO is not instrumental in the direction an enquiry will take? Most SiOs are very capable people, will be guided by evidence and opinions of their subordinates and the right outcome is reached, but just as easily a bull headed one can lead you down a blind alley, one void of integrity worse.

There are a lot of bodies working on Grange, but if the original announcement is to be believed they were all due pensions so as not to deplete regular manpower. Nice work if you can get it!

by Cristobell 23.01.13 14:03

ShuBob wrote:Cristobell, what about his colleagues who may have been silent thus far but may feel the need to "clear their names"? Also, the likes of Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento?

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think that is why the result of this libel trial is so important, it will have a knock on effect on all their present cases and any future ones.

by monkey mind 23.01.13 15:17

SY officers have been over to Pt on numerous occasions. Whilst officers involved in the Pt end remain tight lipped they will certainly have a feel for the direction in which Grange is heading.

They may not be quite so tight lipped with colleagues. Someone like Carlos Anjos who was president of the National Union of Investigators would, if anyone would, have some sort of inkling if his own PJ officers were uncomfortable with what appeared to be coming from Grange.

Maybe tis just my reading between the lines but this interview only three weeks ago doesn’t fill me with optimism.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6238-carlos-anjos-talks-about-mccanns-christmas-message?highlight=carlos+anjos

Of course, if the PJ themselves have found some compelling evidence worthy of reopening the case which they present to SY, well then SY would just have to go along with that and the McCann's would have the enquiry officially reopened though perhaps not on the terms they would favour. Just my opinion.

by **HiDeHo** 23.01.13 16:49

Thanks for the refernce to that video Monkey Mind

I have been adding the translation to the video and was searching for the transcript last night.

I have most of it completed but Carlos Anjos talks so quickly and there is a portion without 'keywords' to easily match with the transcript to enable me to put the text in the correct place...Quite a challenge!

by Inspectorfrost 23.01.13 21:07

ShuBob wrote:Well, if the case is re-opened to pursue the abduction theory, they'll have to explain why Eddie and/or Keela were wrong in this case but right in every other case including the very recent Prout, Pilley and Lane cases.

And all the ones before! And no doubt after.

by Inspectorfrost 23.01.13 21:44

Inspectorfrost wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Well, if the case is re-opened to pursue the abduction theory, they'll have to explain why Eddie and/or Keela were wrong in this case but right in every other case including the very recent Prout, Pilley and Lane cases.

And all the ones before! And no doubt after.

Damn. I was editing this but by the time I hit send it was too late. gerry Mccannhad prattle on as much as he wants in tv interviews saying these dogs are 75% wrong as he can blatantly lie on national television that it was HIM that asked these dogs to be brought in which is an oxymoron at best, and his wife can do the novel penship libelling policemen and rubbishing dogs, it doesnt change a single thing. This would be great to watch in a court.

by aiyoyo 24.01.13 1:53

jmo it will never be opened on abduction theory, no matter what!

If they are closing in on the perp and about to net him, all they need is special court order (breaking from protocol) to go for him and then reopening procedure can come later.
It is not feasible and would be absolutely stupid to spend time, money and resources opening a case to go round in circles over a hypothesis without leg to stand on. Leaks investigation had been done and dusted, end of story.
Unless new evidence relating to abduction will conclusively lead to an imminent arrest, there is absolutely no justification for opening on that basis whatsoever. And if there will be an imminent arrest, as said earlier, a special court order would suffice for the purpose and the rest can come later.

No matter SY's objective, prime primacy over the case lies with the Portuguese.
Provided SY's review conclusion is in accord with the PJ's, there will be no subsequent action on it.
OP Grange will just end up a total and sinful waste of time and money.

Jmo again, reopening will have to be about getting the main players involved in reconstruction and the rest, nothing short of this will justifies the reopening.

by **HiDeHo** 24.01.13 4:56

If I may, I would like to add my thoughts on the review...

Firstly, someone pointed out to me at 4.08 he shakes his head when he say about the possibility that she is alive....

Madeleine: How Metropolitan Police are Involved - DCI Andy Redwood - April 24th 2012

He quotes the TWO areas that they focused on...one that she is alive and one that she is not. That to me, tells me (along with the 'remit' that says as if the abduction was in UK) they look at the possibility of an abduction. Maybe they looked at it with NONE of the witness statements about checking etc...and came to the conclusion there may have been time for the abductor to enter and leave the apartment wth madeleine (etc etc.)

He did NOT mention (as I recall, the possibility that the dogs were correct and she may be dead.

I was watching some of the Leveson Inquiry, and apparently, since the Millie Dowler issue the press have noticed a marked difference in what information they can get from SY...'like pulling teeth' was used to describe how SY keep everything close to their chest.

This helps me understand WHY they were so easy to suggest she MAY be alive. The info is no threat to them to release!

I have personally chatted with three detectives in Operation Grange and I am very confident that they take all information and look at it as we hope. The info is checked out first for credibility and only if it 'passes' is it sent to the 'Intelligence'. He confirmed that the info I passed on was passed on to 'Intelligence'. (It wasn't necessarily in the McCann's favour)

Lets keep in mind this is a 'murder team' and the likelihood of us knowing what they have discovered is virtually zero.

They choose to remain 'under the radar' for a reason.....I would suspect if they were trying to whitewaash they would do a lot more than the one 'obligatory' (for McCann supporters) press conference. They would be updating to lighten the blow...I don't know...but I really do feel its above board and though they dont have the ability to reopen the case they can 'agree' or 'enlighten' Portugal. (even though the PJ dont need it)

I trust Joana...who, by the way, has also made it very clear that it was the McCanns who wanted to settle and this was said by Hernani Carvalho on Julia today (Wednesday) also...but so far we havent seen the video for me to add the translation.

by margaret 24.01.13 9:47

I am still hopeful, if it was going to be a whitewash it would have been done by now. We know how two Portuguese investigations ended up (Mr.Amarals and Mr.Ribeiros?) and if Portugal wanted a whitewash that would have been done by now too. We know what Portugal wants and if they didn't agree with SY they wouldn't still be meeting.

We've also never found out what hacking went on with them, and l'm sure it did.... the biggest story for some years.... it's simply unthinkable they were left alone. That info is with SY too IMO.

It's possible that SY have also obtained mobile phone transcripts, health records and bank statements of those concerned which the Portuguese were denied.

Then we have the latest developments with Mr.Amarals court case, people are scared and rightly so.

by monkey mind 24.01.13 12:58

It’s good to be hopeful.

I am hopeful.

That doesn’t mean to say I don’t consider all possibilities.

Portugal don’t want a whitewash.

SY would not want a whitewash.

That does not mean to say there would not be one.

And if there was one it wouldn’t be done in a couple of months.

To be plausible it would necessarily have to be the product of a lengthy ‘investigation’.

Who would deny this case has involved powerful forces reaching to the very top of both governments?

It is those forces that MAY want a cover up or more specifically, those on our side of the channel.

There are clearely things about Grange that don’t sit right with officers or ex officers in Portugal. And at this moment in time don’t sit that well with me.

The enquiry hasn’t been officially reopened. We should get some kind of indication as to why SY were there ie, the nature of the info they brought to the table over the coming days, either officially or by some sort of *slip*.

That will tell us much for I feel sure pressure will be brought for Grange to be wound down soon. They may even, probably do know the time frame already. I’d guess the 2 yr mark, could easily be wrong.

Latest topics