19 May Mail on Sunday: 'MADDIE: UK CLEANERS ARE SUSPECTS' + WHO SOOTHED A WEEPING MADDIE the Express

Woofer wrote:Tigger - "The Moyes were a given anyway and the soothing couple seems to have been thrown in by the Moyes?"

Maybe I`ve missed something but I`ve gone over the Express article and I cannot see where it says the Moyes (if its them) are the ones that have come up with the `soothing couple` info.

In that case we have yet another couple/person who's seen something they didn't see fit to divulge for six years? I think the Moyes are overrated (see Moyes topic).

I think the Moyes arrived only on the 3rd. Have read that today on here, somewhere, help?

tigger wrote:

Woofer wrote:Tigger - "The Moyes were a given anyway and the soothing couple seems to have been thrown in by the Moyes?"

Maybe I`ve missed something but I`ve gone over the Express article and I cannot see where it says the Moyes (if its them) are the ones that have come up with the `soothing couple` info.

In that case we have yet another couple/person who's seen something they didn't see fit to divulge for six years? I think the Moyes are overrated (see Moyes topic).

Is it a possibility that those are persons who are in the portion of the files not released and have chosen to remain silent ?

from her interview, to be found on mccannfiles

"we went out on the Wednesday; the day before sh..., errr... Madeleine went missing and we were out for the month of May"

Nina wrote:I think the Moyes arrived only on the 3rd. Have read that today on here, somewhere, help?

***
Yes, indeed, Nina. It was the day they arrived back to Portugal [where they apparently went frequently and for longer periods, like a month]. Having had the experience myself [going from cold and rainy Netherlands to Côte d'Azur for instance], I can imagine that despite the cool weather, they would stay outside, have a drink, look at the view, sniff in the smell of the ocean ... and just wear a fleece ...

Châtelaine wrote:

Nina wrote:I think the Moyes arrived only on the 3rd. Have read that today on here, somewhere, help?

***
Yes, indeed, Nina. It was the day they arrived back to Portugal [where they apparently went frequently and for longer periods, like a month]. Having had the experience myself [going from cold and rainy Netherlands to Côte d'Azur for instance], I can imagine that despite the cool weather, they would stay outside, have a drink, look at the view, sniff in the smell of the ocean ... and just wear a fleece ...

For sure. We do exactly the same. That is what fleeces and shrugs are for

Cristobell wrote:

Not a



I agree to a certain extent. But as this case often takes us into areas of doublethink, I have a theory. The couple story is nonsense of course and would have been flagged long ago if it were significant. However, I think we are not seeing the wood for the trees here.

I have been watching Sky News on and off (little, if any news today), but something I did pick up on yesterday was a reference to the AG waiting for SY to ask them to re-open the case. It was only a brief mention and could easily have been missed. Now, getting to the key point, we all know the mccanns don't really want the case re-opened. If it were, they may be returned to the Arguido status, or, at the very least Kate would have to answer those 48 questions, and a reconstruction may still be on the table. I see no other way that the case can proceed. It was shelved because without the co-operation of the parents and their friends, it couldn't move forward. Their evidence is integral to the investigation, and the PJ would laugh at the idea of working the case around them.

The mccanns have reached that point of no return. Doh! They have asked for the case to be re-opened, they cannot now say they don't want it, or start demanding conditions after all of SY's hard work (and taxpayers £4m). I note they have not yet made a direct appeal to the PJ and wonder why. The pro shills are skirting around this on twitter, they won't answer directly. In many countries it is usual for families of victims to have a say in the way a matter proceeds, therefore a direct appeal from the parents, and the resulting publicity, would, I feel sure, force their hands.

I think TM and Clarence must quite literally, be in a spin. They have to be seen to be wanting that which they fear the most - the re-opening of the case and those darn pesky awkward questions. They hot footed it out of Portugal when they were made arguido, yet their former arguido status well form part of any re-opening deal, and how can they refuse after all this hullaballoo? And of course, true to form. the statements TM have issued this week fully support the work of SY, it would be difficult for them to backtrack and add SY to their list of haters and pitchforkers. I think they have backed themselves into a corner, or possibly they may even have been given a little push in that direction with the idea that the police are looking elsewhere.

Ultimately, for those seeking the truth, the worse case scenario would be that the Portuguese will leave the case closed without comment. The thinking public will understand that Portugal has no appetite for indulging these people with more of their own taxpayers money. If that is the case, this story could die a death and become yesterday's news. SY did as they were asked, but ultimately it is down to the Portuguese. The mccanns can resume their victim roles and their fundraising as no police force will be looking for Madeleine.

It will be interesting to see how the Portuguese respond. I don't believe they will dismiss the findings of SY with no comment, simply out of respect from police force to another, but if the re-opening is conditional on the parents and their friends co-operating, they will be in a very sticky position indeed.

[right]
Great post!

I think the case is going to be reopened soon based on the findings of SY.

Long shot, but the Mccanns have to go to Portugal soon for the Amaral trial, if the case is reopened before then they could easily be arrested when they arrive.

No need for their fancy extradition lawyers then! Plus, if his were to happen the fund would be frozen so no chance of assisting in the tapas 7 escaping justice.

As l said, long shot, but it would certainly be a quick end to the 6 years farce it's already been.

Imagine the fear certain people are facing. At the very least today they have been shown up as neglectful parents not knowing who was comforting their child (since they have never mentioned this important fact we can be assured they didn't know it!) SY have shut them up good and proper.

Susan Moyes tells her interviewer that she and her husband arrived the day before Maddie went missing [ arrived Wed 2nd May]

Seeing as it was Kate who said whoever had taken Madeleine she would be giving them her tuppence worth, imagine how Madeleine would react if two strangers tried to comfort her!

Agree, this could have been cooked up between Scotland Yard [SY] and the Sunday Express. I doubt the Express would risk it otherwise. SY held back from releasing any info on the anniversary, probably to avoid accusations of being hand in glove with the McCanns (as they were last year) but this story emerges just two weeks later and it certainly smacks of some sort of collusion. Perhaps SY are regurgitating any old rubbish via the media, and twisting themselves in knots, in their efforts to exonerate the McCanns because they’re under pressure from politicians to nail this before the libel trial rears its ugly head. Quote from the Mail; ‘However [SY] officers face having to break down Portuguese resistance to re-opening the inquiry’ Really? Break down Portuguese resistance? Why, when all that is needed to re-open the case is the tapas 9s cooperation. The Mail makes SY sound like bully boys trying to force the Portuguese into reopening the case, but only on SY terms. If the ‘new evidence’ is nonsense and the tapas 9 are exempt from further investigation, who would benefit from reopening? The only thing that gives a glimmer of hope is Martin Brunt’s ‘Murder’ tweet, though that's been referred to as a mistake on his part. Apparently he got confused because of the April and Tia cases, but I don’t believe for a moment that an experienced crime reporter like Brunt would make such a mistake, especially concerning this case.


I hope I’m wrong but perhaps, as I said, SY’s instructions come from on high. Anyone who questions anything these days is automatically referred to as a conspiracy nut (or as David Cameron would say ‘a swivel-eyed loonie’) but politicians do interfere, and things are covered up, particularly if there’s a possibility that anything of a scandalous nature threatens to reflect on them. Cameron’s recent interview regarding child abuse is testimony to that. Cameron clearly tried to label the Elm Guest House scandal (involving politicians abuse of young children in the care system) as a ‘gay witch hunt', and there is yet to be a single arrest in that long running investigation.


Sky commentator and SY Ex-Commander John O’Connor, came out this week in support of the McCanns but O’Connor, from past experience, is well aware that politicians interfere in sensitive cases. In 1997 he wrote of his anger at the Met for arresting Dawn Alford (the Mirror reporter who exposed Jack Straw’s son, William Straw, for drug dealing activities). O’Connor claimed the reporter was arrested due to pressure from the government. There is no reason to believe that this kind of political interference is not happening now.


The article is from December 1997, O’Connor, now aged 70, retired from the Met in 1992 and is a talking head for the media:


The Mirror. December 1997
Senior police officers reacted with shock and dismay yesterday to the arrest of Mirror reporter Dawn Alford. Comments describing their own force's actions ranged from "inept" to "gutless". Former Scotland Yard Commander John O’Connor said: "What I find horrifying is it looks to me to be a vengeful and spiteful act against The Mirror. It looks to me as if the politicians have leaned on Scotland Yard to act this way. I have no doubt the officers who arrested Dawn Alford were pressured to do so by the top brass. If the Government are trying to run the police by interfering with their impartiality it is a very grave matter. Dawn Alford should be congratulated not arrested. She was working for the public good by exposing drug dealers“.

Are we talking about rather cold just in the evenings? If it was during the day too, it's even more apparent that the so-called last photo at the poolside in blazing sunshine - with Gerry in particular looking as if he was in a sauna - was not taken on 3rd May 2007.

russiandoll wrote:Susan Moyes tells her interviewer that she and her husband arrived the day before Maddie went missing [ arrived Wed 2nd May]

***
My post crossed yours. I was replying from memory. Can we agree on " they just got there" , without checking the files ... ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] as it seems immaterial [to me] and I don't feel like checking on it.

[fine by me chatelaine !]


re Kate's ref to personS having taken Maddie.
This was corroborated by Charlotte Pennington and a waiter, wasn't it ? The refs to THEY ?

Woofer wrote:

sweetex wrote:Thanks Russiandoll!

I could have missed it, but my question is

Did this Moyes women did an actual statement with the police. I saw the transcript for the radio interview, but is there a police statement? Maybe she has mentioned the couple in her police statement?

The Express didn`t actually say that it was the couple they spoke to (assuming its the Moyes) who said the police were looking for a couple who went into the apartment to comfort Maddie.

The Express started the piece by saying that the police were looking for a couple who comforted Maddie but they don`t give their source. The info about the `Moyes` is added later on in the piece but has nothing to do with the couple that the police are looking for. It didn`t come from the `Moyes` (that`s if it is them).

I concede you are correct, Woofer.

I assumed that Moyes had spoken about the couple.

It does not actually say so in the article.

They way the piece is put together suggests that possibility, but no more.

It still appears, then that we have this:

1. Anonymous couple on the balcony = Moyes

2. Unidentified couple who soothed Madeleine - no-one else has ever previously referred to this alleged happening

3. Someone who is supposedly aware of the couple who supposedly soothed Madeleine - who is it? - could be the Moyes who are aware, could be someone else.

If the 'soothing couple' do exist, it is truly amazing that after 6 years we have never heard of them and Scotland Yard can't find the couple.

It does raise the question as to whether the 'soothing couple' really exist.

Moreover, suppose Scotland Yard really wanted to find the 'soothing couple'.

Would they have chosen this kack-handed way of doing so??

russiandoll wrote:[fine by me chatelaine !]


re Kate's ref to personS having taken Maddie.
This was corroborated by Charlotte Pennington and a waiter, wasn't it ? The refs to THEY ?

Also Yvonne Martin statement....


She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child, as she was visibly upset with the situation. During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

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

I am coming round to the idea that the 'soothers' told the mccanns and they didn't tell anyone about it bar the tapas. The 2rd couple who gave the info about the middle ages soothers mat be closer to home and finally saw the light

noddy100 wrote:I am coming round to the idea that the 'soothers' told the mccanns and they didn't tell anyone about it bar the tapas. The 2rd couple who gave the info about the middle ages soothers mat be closer to home and finally saw the light

But you needed a key to get into the apartment so it wasn't just anyone.

I still think SY have twisted the info a bit, that the person/people who went into 5a MADE Maddie cry -and SY are making it known they know about the visit.

This comes the day after someone from SY said 'people may have has misguided loyalties and may wish to think again'

Someone also said when the Mccanns said recently 'we feel SY are getting closer to the truth' that this could have been a message to certain people. After this crazy weekend l think that may be true....

I had to go read up a bit about where they were at what times during those few days. Specially with regards to the "weeping/crying"

This is quite a good summary to refresh your minds.

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


1st - Tuesday the children cried. - Fenn reported this.

2nd - Wednesday the children cried. - Both McCanns admitted this.

On Tuesday evening Mark Warner staff were despatched to Chaplins to find the McCanns and bring them back to comfort their crying children. Chaplins is the bar where the quizzmistress was employed, the one who later had 'the bargain of trust with Kate' and who is a bit like Tanner in that she can appear in places where she wasn't seen by anyone else at all.

On Wednesday night the McCanns are supposed to have had a 'row' about Gerry being inattentive to her. This must have been a very private row as it was not overheard either at the apartment or anywhere else. Kate says Gerry went back to the apartment on his own at about 11:50PM with Kate following on a short while later.

That night the McCanns slept in seperate beds. In her book Kate insists she was at 'the bar' on Wednesday evening with both the Tapas guys and Gerry, but she fails to identify which 'bar' it was they all attended:

"As the couple and their holiday friends were enjoying a drink at the bar, at 11.50pm, Mr McCann ‘abruptly announced’ that he was tired and (went) off to bed."

And with regards the timing of Kate's arrival at the aparment - only some minutes later - ties in with the time the crying had stopped the evening before according to Mrs Fenns statement.

There's bit more about the evening routine for the McCanns here from Kate's 'Book of the Truth':

"It was here [combing through the (police) files] I found the receptionist’s note in the Ocean Club staff message book explaining that we wanted to book the Tapas restaurant for the rest ot that week because we were leaving our children alone in our apartments".

As to when this note was supposed to have been written is unknown. It is not altogether an impossibility the note may have been written even after the 3rd of May. This might seem strange but logic says this must be so.

The McCanns are on record as saying they thought they might not get into the Ocean Club Tapas bar on the night of the 3rd night, and they also said they were thinking about going to dine at the Millenium restaurant, another OC restaurant up the road. For this alternative venue to make any sense the reservation note couldn't have been written or have been in existence at any time prior to the 3rd of May.

margaret wrote:

noddy100 wrote:I am coming round to the idea that the 'soothers' told the mccanns and they didn't tell anyone about it bar the tapas. The 2rd couple who gave the info about the middle ages soothers mat be closer to home and finally saw the light

But you needed a key to get into the apartment so it wasn't just anyone.

I still think SY have twisted the info a bit, that the person/people who went into 5a MADE Maddie cry -and SY are making it known they know about the visit.

This comes the day after someone from SY said 'people may have has misguided loyalties and may wish to think again'

Someone also said when the Mccanns said recently 'we feel SY are getting closer to the truth' that this could have been a message to certain people. After this crazy weekend l think that may be true....

Margaret, I totally agree. SY is giving out just enough innuendos to make some people feel the heat. And as for a "cover up" from SY, I just can't see it. SY have caught much bigger fish than the McCann's, despite all the money that McCann's have spent on trying to escape justice, and SY is under the spotlight on this case.

and let's not forget Mr. A. is watching plus the others they are suing in Portugal. They will question anything and everything they might think is a load of dung from the SY review.

They have too much at stake not to.

MJC wrote:

Woofer wrote:

sweetex wrote:Thanks Russiandoll!

I could have missed it, but my question is

Did this Moyes women did an actual statement with the police. I saw the transcript for the radio interview, but is there a police statement? Maybe she has mentioned the couple in her police statement?

The Express didn`t actually say that it was the couple they spoke to (assuming its the Moyes) who said the police were looking for a couple who went into the apartment to comfort Maddie.

The Express started the piece by saying that the police were looking for a couple who comforted Maddie but they don`t give their source. The info about the `Moyes` is added later on in the piece but has nothing to do with the couple that the police are looking for. It didn`t come from the `Moyes` (that`s if it is them).

I concede you are correct, Woofer.

I assumed that Moyes had spoken about the couple.

It does not actually say so in the article.

They way the piece is put together suggests that possibility, but no more.

It still appears, then that we have this:

1. Anonymous couple on the balcony = Moyes

2. Unidentified couple who soothed Madeleine - no-one else has ever previously referred to this alleged happening

3. Someone who is supposedly aware of the couple who supposedly soothed Madeleine - who is it? - could be the Moyes who are aware, could be someone else.

If the 'soothing couple' do exist, it is truly amazing that after 6 years we have never heard of them and Scotland Yard can't find the couple.

It does raise the question as to whether the 'soothing couple' really exist.

Moreover, suppose Scotland Yard really wanted to find the 'soothing couple'.

Would they have chosen this kack-handed way of doing so??

Yes, the whole piece was artfully put together making it seem as though it was the Moyes, but after carefully checking, it seems it doesn`t have to be them.

And yes, one would think that this supposed `soothing couple` together with the witnesses who saw them, would have been high priority witnesses. Maybe they were and their statements form part of the unreleased files. But in that case, SY would have seen the files, know who they were and found them. If they do exist, I doubt they entered to soothe, even if the witnesses who saw them enter thought so.

Just thinking out loud....

Say the Portuguese Police decide to re-open the case. Can you imagine the affect of the media descending on PDL at holiday time? This is a cash strapped country and the people are struggling to make a living. Tourism is relied heavily upon for income. What would Portuguese people think of the sheer cost of running this investigation and the affect of the world media crawling all over PDL?

a couple going into comfort child would be new evidence wouldent it so assume case will be reopened to find her.unless not facts and just more no news news.doubt if any info. of value came from all the doggy private investigators that were hired ? with references. if all the money spent so far got that info. at lease they doing something. Portugal may have to take hit of the massive bill now and there suffering recession to which could be a factor. the family fund should be used if needed id say

aquila wrote:Just thinking out loud....

Say the Portuguese Police decide to re-open the case. Can you imagine the affect of the media descending on PDL at holiday time? This is a cash strapped country and the people are struggling to make a living. Tourism is relied heavily upon for income. What would Portuguese people think of the sheer cost of running this investigation and the affect of the world media crawling all over PDL?

They may see it as an opportunity to revive their tourist industry

Although Martin Brunt has suggested the `persons of interest` are not British, but if they are British, SY is able to investigate and bring charges against British citizens who commit a crime abroad. If the suspects are British, the case could be brought by the British. I have quoted the reference for this before, but I`m too tired to look for it now.

Woofer wrote:Although Martin Brunt has suggested the `persons of interest` are not British, but if they are British, SY is able to investigate and bring charges against British citizens who commit a crime abroad. If the suspects are British, the case could be brought by the British. I have quoted the reference for this before, but I`m too tired to look for it now.

Didn't Brunt say "they were foreign"? And if he is in Portugal, could he have meant they aren't from Portugal?

Just a thought!

Just seena tweet saying case re opened 2 days ago?

sallypelt wrote:

Woofer wrote:Although Martin Brunt has suggested the `persons of interest` are not British, but if they are British, SY is able to investigate and bring charges against British citizens who commit a crime abroad. If the suspects are British, the case could be brought by the British. I have quoted the reference for this before, but I`m too tired to look for it now.

Didn't Brunt say "they were foreign"? And if he is in Portugal, could he have meant they aren't from Portugal?

Just a thought!

We live in hope !

noddy100 wrote:Just seena tweet saying case re opened 2 days ago?

Can you say who by Noddy?

noddy100 wrote:Just seena tweet saying case re opened 2 days ago?

Interesting, let's hope Brunty has seen it and can confirm or anyone else who is in Portugal.