Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL

russiandoll wrote:message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

If this the case ,I can see sy putting forward an imaginary abducter being the one that took Madeleine.

Just to clarify....I saw a tweet from a major tweeter on Maddie case, simpy that the Met had asked for information from people in the area up to 2 weeks before the McCann holiday. When I asked who had given the tweeter that info, he replied that it was someone he was acquainted with through a friend.
I am not saying that this is truthful, just wanted to report the tweet.

Also another person on twitter posted that her friend's grandparents, who were staying close to the McCann apartment, have been interviewed by the Met.

The problem with twitter is that while you see genuine info there is also the mischief- making contingent.

russiandoll wrote:Just to clarify....I saw a tweet from a major tweeter on Maddie case, simpy that the Met had asked for information from people in the area up to 2 weeks before the McCann holiday. When I asked who had given the tweeter that info, he replied that it was someone he was acquainted with through a friend.
I am not saying that this is truthful, just wanted to report the tweet.

Also another person on twitter posted that her friend's grandparents, who were staying close to the McCann apartment, have been interviewed by the Met.

The problem with twitter is that while you see genuine info there is also the mischief- making contingent.

Hi RD. thanks for the clarification. I honestly doubt very much that the SY have re-interviewed anyone , and if these report were true then I would be seriously concerned about the SY review. If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

yep.

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

Makes sense. But what about Murat? Do peripheral witnesses (for want of a better term) get interviewed first before active witnesses such as Murat?

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

Makes sense. But what about Murat? Do peripheral witnesses (for want of a better term) get interviewed first before active witnesses such as Murat?

Guess he will be placed just before Tapas 7 and Mccanns on the queue.

candyfloss wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

yep.

Portia wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

yep.

PeterMac wrote:

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

Why do you say that Peter?.

I doubt SY has interviewed anyone anyway

Doesn't matter whether or not they'd interviewed anyone.
If they do start interviewing the main suspect is always left to last. All other witnesses have to be interviewed first. It's only logical.

5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of
evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of
evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen
by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and
for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing
[child's] parents.

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms
and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was
requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with
the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to
that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render
their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that
they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified
several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence
inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost
the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted
arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also
disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified. Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages
4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch


My reading of the above (from McCannfiles) is that the reconstruction was offered to the group under the penal code to give them the opportunity to demonstrate that what they said in their statements was in fact the truth. The despatch makes clear the view of the Portuguese PJ and Judiciary that the testimony of the group and the resulting timeline/s were not credible, either in whole or in part. In explicitly stating that the main damage done was to the McCann arguidos, "who lost the possiblity to prove what they have protested....their innocence", it seems IMO that the main purpose of the reconstruction was not for the PJ to prove their case but an opportunity for the arguidos to prove their innocence by demonstrating what they said happened was feasible.

For that reason, it seems highly unlikely that a reconstruction by the group could or would be demanded. They were offered this chance to assist their friends, at that time in the most serious of situations, and help them establish their innocence of involvement in the disappearance of their child, and they declined to take it. From the way this is written, it appears the reconstruction was never mandatory.

As others have said, a forced reconstruction would be pointless. It was only worthwhile if voluntarily done. Whether this refusal would have any ramifications for group from a legal standpoint in any future case I cannot surmise but it is possible that that the lack of co-operation might count against them in some way if ever brought to court and it is also possible that inferences might be drawn about their reasons for refusal to co-operate in such circumstances.

A while back you said

***LATEST NEWS AND UPDATES FROM THE TRIAL HERE*** SEE PAGE 40 FOR NEWS OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THE JUDGMENT
Gutted for Tony .

I always hoped somebody close would speak out , regarding this case but, i have my reason as to why they are being protected but thats for another time .

Are you ready to share your reasons as to what they're protected?[/quote]


IMO
Initially The press were as in the dark re this case , reporters and snappers were on one or two month shifts, as they could not leave PDL because it was a big story [ a lot due to Gerry and the genius PR machine he put in place ]. Each news title desperate to get the exclusive .[ there were no story's coming ,the child had gone and nobody saw anything , the media were bored to tears ] When the tide briefly turned and they were made aguido's and being questioned , the papers changed there tune they were ready to pounce, some did and it cost them millions .

They gained wealth from the fund ' and courted heads of the national press ,the nationals not wanting to be sued again by the massive legal arsenal at there disposal, all toed the line [ some of those big wigs are now facing charges re phone hacking, dishonesty etc , Brooks to name one ] and again fought each other for that exclusive story [ Notice NOW though, the exclusives are equally divided between ALL the red tops and the / Express to keep them all happy . this saturation coverage all in a good light , gave then celebrity status . TV appearances etc . plus gave them there famous 'Friends " .

Both past and present PM'S who appear to back them , probably have been badly advised .
But there is no doubt pressure was put on them both .

It is very very simlar to the Knox case in the US .

Above average intelligence stepfather, hard faced Mother , put a PR machine in place , then raised funds , then the classic playing them nasty Italians / British versus our poor American Daughter , did press and TV , lobbied there congressmen etc ... exactly the same plan with roughly the same result .


But now After ALL the press have done , and they will still all keep putting there stories out ,as we have seen today and yesterday Mirror , now Record { keep them ALL happy ] The Hacked off group , have really annoyed the TOP brass in the media .

So its no great conspiracy , its exactly like in the film Natural born killers, You can be a celebrity for absolutely anything these days , in the film they took it to its extreme the celebs were mass killers .

I just hope Mrs Murat's book is serialised ,and the Ameral case is given some media attention .

So in conclusion they have built a Massive powerful brand [ they are like a Mafia family ] that people high and low are genuinely scared of, and dare not challenge ,plus the additional fear of being financially ruined by there extensive legal team .

Its fear of them and fear of ruin that is why they are still where they are . NONE OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THAT FUND . Money is power .

I think you may be absolutely right there:

Money is power .

and a couple of other things may be too ...

I don't know if I'm being daft as a brush here and missing something, but a few posters have said there toud be no point to a forced reconstruction - I can't see it. If nothing else, the following would happen:

1)IF T9 followed their statements, as PeterMac has already demonstrated, the abduction IS NOT POSSIBLE.

2)IF however (as some posters have alluded to) the T9 deliberately tried to scupper the recon, this would involve a deviation from their statements. This would be noted as extra evidence possibly to re-open case?

How could either scenario not be of value?
Excuse me if I've been dense, that'll be lack of sleep and new baby!

rainbow-fairy wrote:I don't know if I'm being daft as a brush here and missing something, but a few posters have said there toud be no point to a forced reconstruction - I can't see it. If nothing else, the following would happen:

1)IF T9 followed their statements, as PeterMac has already demonstrated, the abduction IS NOT POSSIBLE.

2)IF however (as some posters have alluded to) the T9 deliberately tried to scupper the recon, this would involve a deviation from their statements. This would be noted as extra evidence possibly to re-open case?

How could either scenario not be of value?
Excuse me if I've been dense, that'll be lack of sleep and new baby!

Does not sound daft to me; another possibility is that they refuse ...I know they have done that before but this time the 'tax payer' has an expensive interest ,,, refusal would be a very bad move ...

kitchen wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:I don't know if I'm being daft as a brush here and missing something, but a few posters have said there toud be no point to a forced reconstruction - I can't see it. If nothing else, the following would happen:

1)IF T9 followed their statements, as PeterMac has already demonstrated, the abduction IS NOT POSSIBLE.

2)IF however (as some posters have alluded to) the T9 deliberately tried to scupper the recon, this would involve a deviation from their statements. This would be noted as extra evidence possibly to re-open case?

How could either scenario not be of value?
Excuse me if I've been dense, that'll be lack of sleep and new baby!

Does not sound daft to me; another possibility is that they refuse ...I know they have done that before but this time the 'tax payer' has an expensive interest ,,, refusal would be a very bad move ...

D'oh kitchen, as I wrote post I had three 'possibilities' in my head! the refusal was the third!
Its called sleep deprivation.....

Seriously though, that would be VERY bad PR. How Pinky could spin that is beyond me...

rainbow-fairy wrote:I don't know if I'm being daft as a brush here and missing something, but a few posters have said there toud be no point to a forced reconstruction - I can't see it. If nothing else, the following would happen:

1)IF T9 followed their statements, as PeterMac has already demonstrated, the abduction IS NOT POSSIBLE.

2)IF however (as some posters have alluded to) the T9 deliberately tried to scupper the recon, this would involve a deviation from their statements. This would be noted as extra evidence possibly to re-open case?

How could either scenario not be of value?
Excuse me if I've been dense, that'll be lack of sleep and new baby!

Agreed ..... and congratulations on new baby. My son and his partner have a new baby too, so I`m remembering just how tiring it is.

Sorry for the stupid question here - bit late to the party. But how were they able to successfully sue the (Ex)press in the first place? What were the grounds?

stillsloppingout wrote:

A while back you said

***LATEST NEWS AND UPDATES FROM THE TRIAL HERE*** SEE PAGE 40 FOR NEWS OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THE JUDGMENT
Gutted for Tony .

I always hoped somebody close would speak out , regarding this case but, i have my reason as to why they are being protected but thats for another time .

Are you ready to share your reasons as to what they're protected?

IMO
Initially The press were as in the dark re this case , reporters and snappers were on one or two month shifts, as they could not leave PDL because it was a big story [ a lot due to Gerry and the genius PR machine he put in place ]. Each news title desperate to get the exclusive .[ there were no story's coming ,the child had gone and nobody saw anything , the media were bored to tears ] When the tide briefly turned and they were made aguido's and being questioned , the papers changed there tune they were ready to pounce, some did and it cost them millions .

They gained wealth from the fund ' and courted heads of the national press ,the nationals not wanting to be sued again by the massive legal arsenal at there disposal, all toed the line [ some of those big wigs are now facing charges re phone hacking, dishonesty etc , Brooks to name one ] and again fought each other for that exclusive story [ Notice NOW though, the exclusives are equally divided between ALL the red tops and the / Express to keep them all happy . this saturation coverage all in a good light , gave then celebrity status . TV appearances etc . plus gave them there famous 'Friends " .

Both past and present PM'S who appear to back them , probably have been badly advised .
But there is no doubt pressure was put on them both .

It is very very simlar to the Knox case in the US .

Above average intelligence stepfather, hard faced Mother , put a PR machine in place , then raised funds , then the classic playing them nasty Italians / British versus our poor American Daughter , did press and TV , lobbied there congressmen etc ... exactly the same plan with roughly the same result .


But now After ALL the press have done , and they will still all keep putting there stories out ,as we have seen today and yesterday Mirror , now Record { keep them ALL happy ] The Hacked off group , have really annoyed the TOP brass in the media .

So its no great conspiracy , its exactly like in the film Natural born killers, You can be a celebrity for absolutely anything these days , in the film they took it to its extreme the celebs were mass killers .

I just hope Mrs Murat's book is serialised ,and the Ameral case is given some media attention .

So in conclusion they have built a Massive powerful brand [ they are like a Mafia family ] that people high and low are genuinely scared of, and dare not challenge ,plus the additional fear of being financially ruined by there extensive legal team .

Its fear of them and fear of ruin that is why they are still where they are . NONE OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT THAT FUND . Money is power .

[/quote]

So, from what you`ve said, it doesn`t appear they are actually being protected at all - it`s merely fear of the powerful brand they`ve developed. But surely there are ways round this similar to what the Express have just done. Also hints can be dropped by the press without them being libellous. Another way would be to give more credence to GA and TB and to report more on this, but the press don`t do this. The press couldn`t be sued merely because they wrote positive pieces about GA or TB.

Well nothing will change my opinion until I see results.

Every piece of information, every headline, all this rubbish being spoken about is not looking like SY will turn in to a Columbo detective conclusion with a twist.

There is not a single thing reported, tweeted or being observed that would remotely suggest that the T9 or McCann's situation will change.

IF anyone has anything that has been reported, tweeted, suggested then I may think differently. This whole thread seems to rest on hope.

Pershing36 wrote:Well nothing will change my opinion until I see results.

Every piece of information, every headline, all this rubbish being spoken about is not looking like SY will turn in to a Columbo detective conclusion with a twist.

There is not a single thing reported, tweeted or being observed that would remotely suggest that the T9 or McCann's situation will change.

IF anyone has anything that has been reported, tweeted, suggested then I may think differently. This whole thread seems to rest on hope.

100% agree!

There is a chance that something will bubble up that knocks them off their perch. I'm sure GA knows much more than he has said, and now Robert Murat has re-emerged too. I think the Mc's have been protected by the Home Office, but that doesn't mean they aren't still vulnerable.

pennylane wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Well nothing will change my opinion until I see results.

Every piece of information, every headline, all this rubbish being spoken about is not looking like SY will turn in to a Columbo detective conclusion with a twist.

There is not a single thing reported, tweeted or being observed that would remotely suggest that the T9 or McCann's situation will change.

IF anyone has anything that has been reported, tweeted, suggested then I may think differently. This whole thread seems to rest on hope.

100% agree!

There is a chance that something will bubble up that knocks them off their perch. I'm sure GA knows much more than he has said, and now Robert Murat has re-emerged too. I think the Mc's have been protected by the Home Office thus far, but that doesn't mean they aren't still vulnerable.

pennylane that doesn't make sense. If the HO were protecting, then surely they would have stopped the McCanns letter to the paper, after all RB was very close to Cameron. Secondly, why would they undertake the review in the first place, with all the publicity it has generated, it set a precedent, it could well lead to many more of these costing millions, and rightly so, everyone should have access if the McCanns have. That doesn't look like protection to me.

candyfloss wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Well nothing will change my opinion until I see results.

Every piece of information, every headline, all this rubbish being spoken about is not looking like SY will turn in to a Columbo detective conclusion with a twist.

There is not a single thing reported, tweeted or being observed that would remotely suggest that the T9 or McCann's situation will change.

IF anyone has anything that has been reported, tweeted, suggested then I may think differently. This whole thread seems to rest on hope.

100% agree!

There is a chance that something will bubble up that knocks them off their perch. I'm sure GA knows much more than he has said, and now Robert Murat has re-emerged too. I think the Mc's have been protected by the Home Office thus far, but that doesn't mean they aren't still vulnerable.

pennylane that doesn't make sense. If the HO were protecting, then surely they would have stopped the McCanns letter to the paper, after all RB was very close to Cameron. Secondly, why would they undertake the review in the first place, with all the publicity it has generated, it set a precedent, it could well lead to many more of these costing millions, and rightly so, everyone should have access if the McCanns have. That doesn't look like protection to me.

Hi Candyfloss, it is very perplexing I agree, but why do you think the Home Office delayed and then refused all background information on the parents of a missing 3 year old child?

There's so much that doesn't make sense, whichever angle you come from, and I do think there is a large piece of the puzzle missing. But regarding the open letter and the review, perhaps the Mc's were given an assurance that the parameters of the review would only entertain a stranger abduction, giving them added kudos before Goncalo Amaral is given a platform to say his piece. Or perhaps there's some other reason we do not know about, because it's clear we do not know the whole story.

The Home office certainly gave the PJ the run around, only to give them absolutely nothing after endless delays. I find this astonishing, and it smacks of perverting justice (imo). All this in spite of the none cooperation of the McCanns, the Gaspar statements, and the blood and cadaver dog alerts.... and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the initial FSS results were accurate!

I feel Operation Grange are painstakingly seeking a phantom abductor, and ignoring the elephant in the room. Let's see what Andy Redwood and his Team come up with. I'll eat my hat if it's anything other than 'an opportunistic abductor,' ignoring all the red flags leaping out from the McCanns version of events, the Smiths statements, Jane Tanner's dodgy sighting, etc etc etc.

Woofer wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:I don't know if I'm being daft as a brush here and missing something, but a few posters have said there would be no point to a forced reconstruction - I can't see it. If nothing else, the following would happen:

1)IF T9 followed their statements, as PeterMac has already demonstrated, the abduction IS NOT POSSIBLE.

2)IF however (as some posters have alluded to) the T9 deliberately tried to scupper the recon, this would involve a deviation from their statements. This would be noted as extra evidence possibly to re-open case?

How could either scenario not be of value?
Excuse me if I've been dense, that'll be lack of sleep and new baby!

Agreed ..... and congratulations on new baby. My son and his partner have a new baby too, so I`m remembering just how tiring it is.

Thank you Woofer, glad I made some sense even if tired
Thank you for the good wishes and congratulations to you on the birth of your grandchild too

Robert Murat is calling for them all to go back too.

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/bring-them-all-back-to-portugal.html

whmon wrote:Robert Murat is calling for them all to go back too.

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/bring-them-all-back-to-portugal.html

Yes, that's the first post of this thread whmon, look at the newspaper front page, under the headline.

Sorry about that Candyfloss. Do check out the rest of the blog in the link though.

Before it gets whooshed

'Tapas Seven demanded private jet and 5-star hotels to return to Portugal for Maddie reconstruction,' Portuguese police claim

Last updated at 22:27 11 April 2008



A planned reconstruction of the night Madeleine McCann vanished has been hampered by extravagant demands by the McCanns' friends, police are said to have claimed yesterday.

Portuguese officers have asked Kate and Gerry McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven to return to the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz for a re-enactment of the events of May 3 last year.

The couple are considering the request, but police allegedly said their friends demanded private jet travel and five-star hotel accommodation.

A source is said to have told the Portuguese tabloid newspaper 24 Horas: 'The demands they make to return are impossible to entertain.

'One of the couples demanded a private jet to travel with their children to the Algarve. Another demanded they be put up in a five-star hotel.

'The demands they all made demonstrate a clear strategy by lawyers. The only thing missing from the list was a request that we send them to the Moon on skates.'

The McCanns, their seven friends, their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, his predecessor and two other holiday friends were all asked to return for the reconstruction, the newspaper reported.

The Tapas Seven are university friends Matthew Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, David and Fiona Payne, plus Mr Oldfield's wife Rachael, Mr O'Brien's partner Jane Tanner and Mrs Payne's mother Dianne Webster.

All have been re-interviewed by British police this week - at the request of their Portuguese counterparts - about their accounts of the night of May 3.

Portuguese police were said to be suspicious about a series of alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in their witness statements.

Senior police chief Guilhermino Encarnacao confirmed that some of the witnesses - who also included a man who played tennis against Mr McCann and TV producer Jeremy Wilkins, who saw Mr McCann on the might of May 3 - had imposed certain conditions on their return to Portugal.

But he told 24 Horas: 'The reconstruction is important but it's not crucial to the investigations.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558982/Tapas-Seven-demanded-private-jet-5-star-hotels-return-Portugal-Maddie-reconstruction-Portuguese-police-claim.html#ixzz2SpeUcABo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Lest we forget: they do not have to prove anything.

It is the Judiciary that had to charge them.

Untill proven otherwise in a Court of Law, they are innoncent.

That's how the system works; the democratic system.