SY ANNOUNCEMENT 2pm 4/7/13

sallypelt wrote:Some of the BS coming from the Daily Mail:

Investigators refused to discuss details of forensic evidence, but said they have no information to suggest the little girl has been murdered. Why not say "dead"?  No one has said that she was MURDERED.

candyfloss wrote:Met police statement here.


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

AndyB wrote:@SallyPelt
"Redwood said none of the individuals was connected to Madeleine's family or friends who were with her parents on holiday at the time."
It came from the Met not the media

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

AndyB wrote:@SallyPelt
"Redwood said none of the individuals was connected to Madeleine's family or friends who were with her parents on holiday at the time."
It came from the Met not the media

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

candyfloss wrote:Met police statement here.


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

bristow wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Met police statement here.


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

 They do not say that the McCann's aren't suspects.

russiandoll wrote:I am ignoring media saying ruled in/out, they are actually naming one of the suspects. SY have not released any names in their statement, I have just read it.
 If Maddie truly is a live findable child based on things in police files the public have not seen, that is wonderful news.
 
 There is not one use of the word " abduction " in anything from SY.
  
They are being circumspect with their language in this major announcement. A senior former murder detective on BBC news had advised that people don't get overly involved with semantics. In the absence of clear proof of death police have to consider that Maddie may be alive. There have been media saying they are assuming that Maddie is alive or believe that she is. Redwood sensibly spoke about a possibility, all that he can say because no one knows what became of her.    
  
 I hope that the SY do a good job and get to the truth of what happened. If the parents are truly not involved, so be it. I will have been barking up the wrong tree since reading the book and the files, thinking there was a selfish, misguided  covering up of an accident.
 If there is any kind of cover up, then I will be disgusted.

 All I want is for what happened to Maddie to be established beyond reasonable doubt based on what is reliable evidence.
 Who does not want to hear that she is alive? I would rather be wrong than be proved right in my belief that she is not.
 At this moment, my belief remains the same. Logic leads me not to believe the group's accounts of events on that holiday.
 I await more information  about the SY investigation with interest. Lets hope that they do right by this little girl.

candyfloss wrote:Met police statement here.


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

nomendelta wrote:I don't understand how anyone here can put a positive spin on it.

Redwood says there is "no evidence" to suggest Maddie is dead...that then leads to encouraging us all to be vigilant and keep on looking for Maddie.

This is not a "well she might be, she might not" statement - we all know about the dogs, the blood and the cadaverine. For Redwood to state categorically that there is no proof that she is dead means that everything connected with the dogs has been discounted.

This looks more and more like a whitewash to me.

It is very unusual though - even though it's been 6 years since the abduction surely if there was any belief she was alive they'd be getting on with searching those 38 persons of interest?

If this had been a more current abduction there's no way police would be making announcements like that - they'd be vague and getting on with tracking her down.

I have no idea where this is all headed but I really doubt it's about getting the real culprits.

nomendelta wrote:I don't understand how anyone here can put a positive spin on it.

Redwood says there is "no evidence" to suggest Maddie is dead...that then leads to encouraging us all to be vigilant and keep on looking for Maddie.
This is not a "well she might be, she might not" statement - we all know about the dogs, the blood and the cadaverine. For Redwood to state categorically that there is no proof that she is dead means that everything connected with the dogs has been discounted.

This looks more and more like a whitewash to me.

It is very unusual though - even though it's been 6 years since the abduction surely if there was any belief she was alive they'd be getting on with searching those 38 persons of interest?

If this had been a more current abduction there's no way police would be making announcements like that - they'd be vague and getting on with tracking her down.

I have no idea where this is all headed but I really doubt it's about getting the real culprits.

Cristobell wrote:The problem with Redwood's statement is, that if she is still alive, he has just tipped off the 38 persons of interest that Scotland Yard are on to them.  

Curious too, that the statement from the McCanns omit the hope that she is alive.  Their statement, merely hopes that the abductor is brought to justice.

Redwood is quite a good spokesman, he never blinks, even when, as a seasoned homicide detective, he tells us that the child who has been missing for 6 years may still be alive.

cockerspaniel wrote:

nomendelta wrote:I don't understand how anyone here can put a positive spin on it.

Redwood says there is "no evidence" to suggest Maddie is dead...that then leads to encouraging us all to be vigilant and keep on looking for Maddie.

This is not a "well she might be, she might not" statement - we all know about the dogs, the blood and the cadaverine. For Redwood to state categorically that there is no proof that she is dead means that everything connected with the dogs has been discounted.

This looks more and more like a whitewash to me.

It is very unusual though - even though it's been 6 years since the abduction surely if there was any belief she was alive they'd be getting on with searching those 38 persons of interest?

If this had been a more current abduction there's no way police would be making announcements like that - they'd be vague and getting on with tracking her down.

I have no idea where this is all headed but I really doubt it's about getting the real culprits.

 sorry, but i have to concur with the above, well put nomendelta

Officers, under Operation Grange, have formally requested the Crown Prosecution Service submit an International Letter of Request to the Portuguese Authorities seeking assistance in obtaining evidence relating to lines of enquiry they wish to pursue. This has been done with the full support of the UK Government.

If it is still in active investigatory phase:
How come the CPS is actively involved  in submitting LOR to Portuguese authorities (presumably Portuguese counterpart)?
How did MPS arrive at 38 POI if files/info were denied to them by Portuguese?
If files were not denied to MPS, then what could CPS LOR be possibly asking for?
 Note that the CPS LOR asked not for file/info but for "evidence" .....they wish to pursue.....ODD!  And this is done with full support of UK Govt?  
So why aren't the UK government submitting the LOR...why the CPS?  Usually CPS can only mean one thing ie prosecution.


 

The MPS has requested, in accordance with accepted Mutual Assistance practice, that a small number of UK officers are present in Portugal whilst the enquiries are undertaken.

Why the need to have UK officers present in Portugal (to do what) when case is moved to UK?

The MPS will be as open as our operational priorities allow but in the context of this complex operating environment we appeal for media restraint. /b]
[b]There is a real risk that a lack of restraint could serve to seriously undermine our ability to progress.
 This paragraph says a lot; and it ain't just about 38 people of interest that the press are cautioned restraint.
 Take this paragraph in context with press report that Mccanns are given liaison officer again.....I think there is more than meet the eyes.
Personally, I dont see the logic in CPS getting themselves actively involved just over 38 people of interest waiting to be eliminated.

russiandoll wrote:p.s .  Jim Gamble on BBC at 5.10 p.m.

   Please SY be truthful to your statement, similar to the one made 2 years ago...be determined to find out what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

ShuBob wrote:

Cristobell wrote:The problem with Redwood's statement is, that if she is still alive, he has just tipped off the 38 persons of interest that Scotland Yard are on to them.  

Curious too, that the statement from the McCanns omit the hope that she is alive.  Their statement, merely hopes that the abductor is brought to justice.

Redwood is quite a good spokesman, he never blinks, even when, as a seasoned homicide detective, he tells us that the child who has been missing for 6 years may still be alive.

I think that's the point. His very statement suggests to right-thinking people he's not working from the position Maddie is alive.

Hobs wrote:DCI Redwood said: "There is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead.

"On that basis I genuinely believe there is a possibility she is still alive. And so I would like to ask the public to continue to look for her."


Read his actual words, not what you think he meant.

His statement is actually weak.

he does not tell us there is no proof Madeleine is dead only that there is NO CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE proof.
Additional words, known as qualifiers, weaken a statement.
Here we see not one but 2 qualifiers further weakening the statement.
Clear and definitive proof of death would be a body, you can't get clearer or more definitive than that.
A body is what we don't have.

He doesn't tell us there is NO proof Madeleine is dead, he cannot say that, given the reactions of the two dogs and the forensic evidence  found in the apartment and hire car.
That evidence exists and has been recorded, it is circumstantial evidence of death.
Circumstantial evidence, although not as strong as actual evidence (a body, witnesses to the crime, being caught in the act etc) it however, can be enough to get a conviction if there is enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the person accused.


Next, notice how weak his statement is in regard to Madeleine being possibly alive.
Again a strong statement would be i know Madeleine is alive, or i believe Madeleine is alive.

I believe leaves it open for others to believe otherwise, this can be though knowledge or from evidence.
He weakens it with the qualifier GENUINELY which although it sounds like a strong statement is rather weakened by it.
Can he fake believe she is alive?

The evidence indicates a death in the apartment, the record of the dogs is such that it would be unusual for them to give a false positive in the mccann apartment and not in any other apartment and only to their car and not any other car, and to cuddlecat and items of clothing and not to toys or clothing from other people.
The evidence is such that the mccanns were forced to explain away what was found rather than the fact the dogs were wrong (when gerry tried by using a murder case in America it backfired spectacularly when the killer admitted the dogs had been right all along)

If there was no evidence why did the mccanns come up with explanations for why evidence was found rather than the expected there is no evidence.

And at the start of a sentence indicates missing information, the AND comes right after telling us there is a possibility she is alive, so what is he not telling us?
Looking at what he said in regard to proof of death and belief in life.
He knows.

Would is future conditional.
Expected, if he believed Madeleine was alive, is I WANT the public to keep looking for her.
He cannot ask that since he knows (given the evidence,the behavior of the parents and tapas 7, the statistics etc) that Madeleine is long dead.
He would like us to look for a live Madeleine, now, what does he WANT us to do in reality?

SO is used to explain why something was said/done.

Châtelaine wrote:

Hobs wrote:DCI Redwood said: "There is no clear, definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead.

"On that basis I genuinely believe there is a possibility she is still alive. And so I would like to ask the public to continue to look for her."


Read his actual words, not what you think he meant.

His statement is actually weak.

he does not tell us there is no proof Madeleine is dead only that there is NO CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE proof.
Additional words, known as qualifiers, weaken a statement.
Here we see not one but 2 qualifiers further weakening the statement.
Clear and definitive proof of death would be a body, you can't get clearer or more definitive than that.
A body is what we don't have.

He doesn't tell us there is NO proof Madeleine is dead, he cannot say that, given the reactions of the two dogs and the forensic evidence  found in the apartment and hire car.
That evidence exists and has been recorded, it is circumstantial evidence of death.
Circumstantial evidence, although not as strong as actual evidence (a body, witnesses to the crime, being caught in the act etc) it however, can be enough to get a conviction if there is enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the person accused.


Next, notice how weak his statement is in regard to Madeleine being possibly alive.
Again a strong statement would be i know Madeleine is alive, or i believe Madeleine is alive.

I believe leaves it open for others to believe otherwise, this can be though knowledge or from evidence.
He weakens it with the qualifier GENUINELY which although it sounds like a strong statement is rather weakened by it.
Can he fake believe she is alive?

The evidence indicates a death in the apartment, the record of the dogs is such that it would be unusual for them to give a false positive in the mccann apartment and not in any other apartment and only to their car and not any other car, and to cuddlecat and items of clothing and not to toys or clothing from other people.
The evidence is such that the mccanns were forced to explain away what was found rather than the fact the dogs were wrong (when gerry tried by using a murder case in America it backfired spectacularly when the killer admitted the dogs had been right all along)

If there was no evidence why did the mccanns come up with explanations for why evidence was found rather than the expected there is no evidence.

And at the start of a sentence indicates missing information, the AND comes right after telling us there is a possibility she is alive, so what is he not telling us?
Looking at what he said in regard to proof of death and belief in life.
He knows.

Would is future conditional.
Expected, if he believed Madeleine was alive, is I WANT the public to keep looking for her.
He cannot ask that since he knows (given the evidence,the behavior of the parents and tapas 7, the statistics etc) that Madeleine is long dead.
He would like us to look for a live Madeleine, now, what does he WANT us to do in reality?

SO is used to explain why something was said/done.

***
Hobs, I haven't finished catching up with all of the pages in this thread [was to the vet on an emergency], but you have very clearly phrased, what I was thinking after reading the statement and hearing Redwood. Bravo!