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

by **PeterMac** 20.05.13 18:11

aiyoyo wrote: Does not make sense at all.

Since when did you think that any of it made sense ? big grin

by Lance De Boils 20.05.13 18:12

Who was Mrs Fenn's "friend in the village" that she telephoned? Anyone know off hand?

by View-from-Ireland 20.05.13 18:22

Châtelaine wrote:Could that be read as: "Why didn't YOU come, when Sean and I cried"?

And the children were left alone again the next night. Did the police go through the McCann bank accounts to see if there were any withdrawals for extraordinary 'cleaning services'?

by aiyoyo 20.05.13 18:24

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote: Does not make sense at all.

Since when did you think that any of it made sense ?

But the MET .......are supposed to make sense of it all...that's the whole point. big grin

by noddy100 20.05.13 18:44

How come all of you can work this out and the mEt can't? Or is it won't

by worriedmum 20.05.13 18:48

BUT

HOW do the papers (and whoever told them about it )come to the conclusion that this couple went in to SOOTHE? Who on earth can know this apart from the couple themselves, and the children? If some-one else KNEW about this as well, why has it only just come to light? Who has been sitting on it and WHY? To whose advantage is it that it is public knowledge NOW?

by sweetex 20.05.13 19:09

Lance De Boils wrote:Who was Mrs Fenn's "friend in the village" that she telephoned? Anyone know off hand?

Edna Glynn - just had a look last night to see out of interest who she called.

Its over here : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Newintown 20.05.13 19:14

worriedmum wrote:BUT

HOW do the papers (and whoever told them about it )come to the conclusion that this couple went in to SOOTHE? Who on earth can know this apart from the couple themselves, and the children? If some-one else KNEW about this as well, why has it only just come to light? Who has been sitting on it and WHY? To whose advantage is it that it is public knowledge NOW?

The Tapas friends who wanted to change their statements perhaps??

by Woofer 20.05.13 19:18

Newintown wrote:
worriedmum wrote:BUT

HOW do the papers (and whoever told them about it )come to the conclusion that this couple went in to SOOTHE? Who on earth can know this apart from the couple themselves, and the children? If some-one else KNEW about this as well, why has it only just come to light? Who has been sitting on it and WHY? To whose advantage is it that it is public knowledge NOW?

The Tapas friends who wanted to change their statements perhaps??

I reckon they won`t want to leak anything to anyone, particularly the Express, as they might have to pay back all the compensation.

by sweetex 20.05.13 19:19

The Tapas friends who wanted to change their statements perhaps??

If the soothers exists, it must have been one of the Tapas couples. It must have been someone known to Maddie - same with the witness who saw them. One of the group if you ask me..... imo

by sami 20.05.13 19:23

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

According to this article it was Mrs Fenn who told the PJ about the soothing couple.

by sweetex 20.05.13 19:37

sami wrote:

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

According to this article it was Mrs Fenn who told the PJ about the soothing couple.

Interesting, first time I've heard of that, and actually read her statement more than once over the past few days. Unless she told them verbally because it is not on her statement....

wow

by Guest 20.05.13 19:38

sami wrote:

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

According to this article it was Mrs Fenn who told the PJ about the soothing couple.

Who trumped up that one?

Mrs Fenn herself never said anything like that, not on verifiable record, that is.

So now we've had poor little Maddie herself claiming to have cried (but she unfortunately is not around to confirm the veracity of this allegation)
And mrs Fenn, who unfortunately is no longer with us either.

Both people concerned are not in a position to rectify pro-McC statements ascribed to them.

How convenient.

by bobbin 20.05.13 19:55

sami wrote:

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

According to this article it was Mrs Fenn who told the PJ about the soothing couple.

Looks like a pinky influenced article, very 'damage-limitation', to me, but whatever, Mrs. Fenn will not have known whether the 'soothing couple' were taking care of Maddie, or photos, or anything else that might hurt her.
How else to explain the blood matching Maddie's and the cadavour odour, than that Madeleine came to awful harm.
It is true that Mrs. Fenn's statement seemed to be taken late, August time? and it has been discussed that she may have made an earlier one retained in the Portuguese files.
The important thing is, Scotland Yard, in 'finding new evidence or lines of further enquiry', are making it justifiable for the case to be 're-opened' by the Portuguese police and the criticism that the phone records had not been 'considered enough in the first investigation' means the phone info will now have to be allowed to be seen and used. Possibly then the PJ will be able to insist on seeing previous bank activity of McCs and tapas, and of course the release of Maddie's medical records.
This is all assuming of course that the MET are actually and sincerely trying to find the truth and aren't just getting their paintbrushes out to start painting the big white wall. Given the corruption and cover ups so far, it could go either way. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 20.05.13 20:01

Quick link to
Mrs Fenn's statement of 20 August 2007

by sonic72 20.05.13 20:05

As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

by Pershing36 20.05.13 20:18

More like £4.5 million pounds to discredit anyone who dares doubt them.

Then just a lovely promotion of the fairly tale ending to put the cherry on top of the cake. The next thing is no doubt a re-launch of the fighting fund to hire people to search for this loving couple and the Mr Muscle squad.

The amzing thing is even the supporters don't believe it, imagine what the PJ are thinking.

by Newintown 20.05.13 20:27

Is this part of the McCann cover up -

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

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 20:34

View-from-Ireland wrote:Over the past 24 hours my instincts have been telling me that this case has moved a step closer to being resolved.

Reading between the lines, the information which is being released is being designed to 'flush out' the Tapas 9. They are backing that group into a corner.

If the 'new evidence' from 9.15pm doesn't result in an interrogation of Jane Tanner, Wilkins and Gerry McCann then we know there is something/somebody being protected as this contradiction simply cannot be ignored if this new information is what the police are banking on.

In the reports we are reading, a lot of ambiguous language is being used and this indicates to me that the police know that persons in the Tapas group had called on Maddie earlier in the week and that something terrible may have happened at that point.

-'British couple'

-'Middle-aged'

-'Soothed Maddie'

-'Known to the McCanns'

It never struck me before that it might not have been the Mccann's that found their daughter dying following an accident. It could have been this 'mystery couple' who attempted resuscitation.

Based upon the interview of Fiona Payne... she had a bit of difficulty saying that aspect of her job

Reply “Okay. Erm, erm, I’m thirty, I’ll work that out actually, I’m thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I’m married to David PAYNE. We have got two children, Scarlet who is the youngest who is, who will two next month and Lily who is four in August. You know, we have a fairly uneventful life really, we are quite, before the third of May, very happy, you know, worked hard, but enjoyed holidays and, you know, always made specific time to take holidays as a family. Erm, we have a very good base of friends in Leicester who we see a lot of, we make a lot of time for. A lot of the people I knew them, who have trained with us and we’ve done house jobs with and, erm, so friends, you know, are a big part of our lives”.
1485 “Uh hu”.
Reply “Erm, I don’t know what else to say”.
1485 “What is it you do for a living?”
Reply “I’m an Anaesthetist, so I, erm, it combines a lot of different skills, we work in obstetrics, on labour ward doing epidurals, doing caesarean sections for women and we work on intensive care unit, in theatres, cover any need for, you know, resuscitation. So, yeah, it’s quite a stressful job and a busy job, erm, I enjoy it”.http://www.mccannfiles.com/id252.html

Perhaps Fiona and David found the body, tried resus - failed...they knew the Mccann's potentially drugged her... they were thus roped into the big cover up?

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 20:41

PeterMac wrote:And of course all the other Tapasniks who were dashing around doing their own half hourly checks had to go right past the McCann's apartment and would have heard the crying on both nights.
Wouldn't they ?
It is three people every half hour, in each direction.
Six passings of 5A, every half hour.
One every 5 minutes . . .

That is some really good maths.
It proves that they were lying RE: The checks as otherwise they would have heard crying.
We have two independent witnesses that did hear crying, the crying therefore happened.
I still query whether Maddie ever said 'why didn't you come for us' or whatever the words were to that effect.

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 20:51

sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

by Newintown 20.05.13 20:52

loopzdaloop wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:Over the past 24 hours my instincts have been telling me that this case has moved a step closer to being resolved.

Reading between the lines, the information which is being released is being designed to 'flush out' the Tapas 9. They are backing that group into a corner.

If the 'new evidence' from 9.15pm doesn't result in an interrogation of Jane Tanner, Wilkins and Gerry McCann then we know there is something/somebody being protected as this contradiction simply cannot be ignored if this new information is what the police are banking on.

In the reports we are reading, a lot of ambiguous language is being used and this indicates to me that the police know that persons in the Tapas group had called on Maddie earlier in the week and that something terrible may have happened at that point.

-'British couple'

-'Middle-aged'

-'Soothed Maddie'

-'Known to the McCanns'

It never struck me before that it might not have been the Mccann's that found their daughter dying following an accident. It could have been this 'mystery couple' who attempted resuscitation.

Based upon the interview of Fiona Payne... she had a bit of difficulty saying that aspect of her job

Reply “Okay. Erm, erm, I’m thirty, I’ll work that out actually, I’m thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I’m married to David PAYNE. We have got two children, Scarlet who is the youngest who is, who will two next month and Lily who is four in August. You know, we have a fairly uneventful life really, we are quite, before the third of May, very happy, you know, worked hard, but enjoyed holidays and, you know, always made specific time to take holidays as a family. Erm, we have a very good base of friends in Leicester who we see a lot of, we make a lot of time for. A lot of the people I knew them, who have trained with us and we’ve done house jobs with and, erm, so friends, you know, are a big part of our lives”.
1485 “Uh hu”.
Reply “Erm, I don’t know what else to say”.
1485 “What is it you do for a living?”
Reply “I’m an Anaesthetist, so I, erm, it combines a lot of different skills, we work in obstetrics, on labour ward doing epidurals, doing caesarean sections for women and we work on intensive care unit, in theatres, cover any need for, you know, resuscitation. So, yeah, it’s quite a stressful job and a busy job, erm, I enjoy it”.http://www.mccannfiles.com/id252.html

Perhaps Fiona and David found the body, tried resus - failed...they knew the Mccann's potentially drugged her... they were thus roped into the big cover up?

I did say something similar on the website earlier this afternoon but it was having difficulties I don't know if it got posted. I was thinking also that it must have been someone who Madeleine knew who went into the apartment who comforted her, if it was strangers she would have been terrifiied. It must have been someone who knew the doors weren't locked, if it were complete strangers walking by hearing a child crying I doubt if they would have just walked into an apartment. I would have knocked on all the neighbours doors, if no response I would have called the police, I can't imagine any strangers walking into an apartment, you would never know what you may encounter.

by Guest 20.05.13 21:02

loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective. [...]

***
Exactly. One has to realise that these detectives would have to be paid anyway, be it on this case or on another ...

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 21:36

loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 21:48

Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 21:57

loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

by plebgate 20.05.13 22:01

I would also like to have a detailed account of exactly how the taxpayers' money has been spent and nothing has come of it thus far.

The detectives would be getting paid anyway, yes I agree but how many have been back and forth to Portugal, what accommodation and how much did it cost, how much have they claimed on expenses etc. etc. If they had been working on a case in Britain none of these additional expenses would have been incurred.

To spend this much over 2 years and at the end of if be told that Maddie could be alive, that there are x number of persons of interest and that the police were incredulous(something like that) to learn that a couple had gone into soothe Maddie is unbelievable imo.

How long will the SY review last and what will the final total be, who knows, but we should be told.

by plebgate 20.05.13 22:04

and what happened to the urgent explanation that kitten heels May was reportedly going to give a few weeks back?

The whole of this seems to be a pile of dung and serious explanations need to be given to the British taxpayer. IMO they are taking the proverbial big time.

by loopzdaloop 20.05.13 22:05

Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

I don't believe I wrote that 195 leads equated to 20 suspects.
As you are aware last year Scotland Yard stated that it had 195 new leads.
It is clear that Scotland Yard has worked its way through all these leads as it is now confident to change the terminology to report that, depending on where you read:

Scotland Yard identify 20 new suspects in hunt for Madeleine McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

SCOTLAND YARD has identified 12 new people of interest as part of its review into the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

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

Madeleine McCann hope as Scotland Yard identify ‘handful’ of suspects
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Either way, what this evidences is a lot of hard work and a decline in the attentions of Scotland Yard over a wider area, leaving them with more resources to focus on a smaller amount of people.

May I also remind you, that 'leads', 'suspects' or 'people of interest' are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, you are engaged in pedantry of the highest order.

by Peneda Geres 20.05.13 22:15

loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:
sonic72 wrote:As a taxpayer, I would like to know exactly how the 4.5 million has been spent...

Why does it take a team of police 2 years and £4.5 million to come up with just a few persons of interest?

When will they actually interview all these people, we need some kind of deadline to know when all those people will be eliminated. They all will be eliminated from the inquiry because none of these so called 'persons of interest' will be charged with anything, we all know this.

Then what? Spend another £4.5 million of our money on more pathetic reviews.

These are either the most incompetent police, or they are part of a cover up, because we all know who should be re-arrested and re-interviewed.

They need to eliminate these persons of interest immediately before they waste any more of our money.

Actually, 4.5million appears to be very cost-effective. You need to put this into perspective.
Its cost 4.2 Million to guard Julian Assange (of wikileaks fame) by just standing outside an embassy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As a taxpayer myself, I consider my payments insurance should anything terrible happen... like a crime of the century such as this one. If such a crime of the century occurs, I would want appropriate resources delegated to solving the crime. This is what Scotland Yard considers appropriate to solve this mystery, so there be it.
All this talk about 'cost' is just distraction. At the end of the day there is either a highly sophisticated 'pedo gang', or there has been a cover up of proportions like we have never seen before. Either way it is money well spent.

I would like to see how long it would take yourself or anyone else sort out the Mccann spaghetti considering all the disinformation that has been spread over everything.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also, that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects, not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job well done!

May I remind you, leads and suspects are two different things.

You only may if you have a point behind the 'reminder' that you might like to expand upon, otherwise I might call you a pedant.

I'm not being pedantic, I am merely pointing out 195 leads does not equate to 20 or whatever suspects: 20 suspects may give "X" amount of leads.

I don't believe I wrote that 195 leads equated to 20 suspects.
As you are aware last year Scotland Yard stated that it had 195 new leads.
It is clear that Scotland Yard has worked its way through all these leads as it is now confident to change the terminology to report that, depending on where you read:

Scotland Yard identify 20 new suspects in hunt for Madeleine McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

SCOTLAND YARD has identified 12 new people of interest as part of its review into the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

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

Madeleine McCann hope as Scotland Yard identify ‘handful’ of suspects
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Either way, what this evidences is a lot of hard work and a decline in the attentions of Scotland Yard over a wider area, leaving them with more resources to focus on a smaller amount of people.

May I also remind you, that 'leads', 'suspects' or 'people of interest' are not mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, you are engaged in pedantry of the highest order.

The way you write 'just a few people of interest' is ridiculous also,
that is the aim of an investigation to narrow down the list of suspects,
not expand them and from 195 down to this number is definitely a job
well done!

Call me pedantic if you wish, i would call you non prehensile.

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