SY ANNOUNCEMENT 2pm 4/7/13

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!

Newintown 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.

By saying that he is again encouraging people to put more money into the "McCann family support fund", sorry, I meant the "Finding Madeleine" Fund. What the hell is going on with him, has he gone completely mad?

With regard to the dogs, how can he completely ignore them, is he saying in that statement they are completely unreliable.  Has G McCann been brain washing him?

Kepharel wrote:Just heard on news that neither the McCanns nor their friends are among the 12 uk cvitizens they are interested in

Kepharel wrote:Just heard on news that neither the McCanns nor their friends are among the 12 uk cvitizens they are interested in

aiyoyo wrote:Seriously, can anyone see the Portuguese agreeing to co-operate ie help MPS to whitewash?

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!
ETA changing font size and colour of "He knows" by my hand ...

MRNOODLES wrote:Hi all first post.

First off, IMO I don't see this turning into a whitewash as it stands.  At first I felt a little deflated when this news broke because I did feel eh?.  However after giving it a little thought. I'm of the thinking, the SY press statements are the usual things said at the beginning of investigations. Therefore it looks to me SY are going to look at the case as though it's 'just happened' as it were.  So it follows they have to tie up all loose ends by gathering any other statements which may not have been taken in the first instance for whatever reason. Until that task is completed there's no way SY will make any comments on who they think the  suspects may or may not be . Or even what the actual crime has  occurred for that matter.   Hence the vague maybe dead or alive wordings in the police media statement.
Once all statements are in, they will at that point start looking at evidence, suspects forensics etc etc.  And haul in who they think has been telling porkies, for further questioning etc.

I should imagine this could drag on for months yet if they're going over everything.  But as long as we all get the right result...And have a watertight case. Unless of course somebody feels the heat sooner and spills their guts first.

MRNOODLES wrote:Hi all first post.

First off, IMO I don't see this turning into a whitewash as it stands.  At first I felt a little deflated when this news broke because I did feel eh?.  However after giving it a little thought. I'm of the thinking, the SY press statements are the usual things said at the beginning of investigations. Therefore it looks to me SY are going to look at the case as though it's 'just happened' as it were.  So it follows they have to tie up all loose ends by gathering any other statements which may not have been taken in the first instance for whatever reason. Until that task is completed there's no way SY will make any comments on who they think the  suspects may or may not be . Or even what the actual crime has  occurred for that matter.   Hence the vague maybe dead or alive wordings in the police media statement.
Once all statements are in, they will at that point start looking at evidence, suspects forensics etc etc.  And haul in who they think has been telling porkies, for further questioning etc.

I should imagine this could drag on for months yet if they're going over everything.  But as long as we all get the right result...And have a watertight case. Unless of course somebody feels the heat sooner and spills their guts first.

aiyoyo wrote:One has to ask what the CPS hope to get when they submit the International Letter of Request for "evidence" from Portuguese to help their line of inquiry.If the Portuguese should deny CPS their request (just like the UK authorities denied Portuguese' request for credit cards and medical records), what are the Review Team/CPS going to do?   Surely MPS would become a joke if they were to close the review after having prolonged it only to announce Portuguese denied them access to evidence, so end of the road!

Just ask yourself why the Portuguese should or would oblige the CPS or the UK Government just to satisfy MET whitewash (if that is the objective)?

In preparation for today’s announcement, senior officers from Operation Grange made 16 visits to Portugal in order to ensure that any potential difficulties were ironed out.
If a British suspect is ever charged with abduction or murder in the case, the law allows them to be tried at the Old Bailey in London, even if the alleged crime took place overseas.

Pershing36 wrote:ITV news 

Andy Redwood has made a statement and confirmed the Parents have been totally eliminated from the investigation.
Either they are innocent or it is a whitewash.  I can say no more but they gained top story on the ITV news.  

I can't believe there is going to be a Colombo style twist.

It is over as far as this investigation in my mind.  Can't see how anything else would come of it now.

bristow wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:Hi all first post.

First off, IMO I don't see this turning into a whitewash as it stands.  At first I felt a little deflated when this news broke because I did feel eh?.  However after giving it a little thought. I'm of the thinking, the SY press statements are the usual things said at the beginning of investigations. Therefore it looks to me SY are going to look at the case as though it's 'just happened' as it were.  So it follows they have to tie up all loose ends by gathering any other statements which may not have been taken in the first instance for whatever reason. Until that task is completed there's no way SY will make any comments on who they think the  suspects may or may not be . Or even what the actual crime has  occurred for that matter.   Hence the vague maybe dead or alive wordings in the police media statement.
Once all statements are in, they will at that point start looking at evidence, suspects forensics etc etc.  And haul in who they think has been telling porkies, for further questioning etc.

I should imagine this could drag on for months yet if they're going over everything.  But as long as we all get the right result...And have a watertight case. Unless of course somebody feels the heat sooner and spills their guts first.

 Good post but if SY are looking at the case as if it had just happened I would have thought they would 'look' at the family first, isn't that what they do in the disappearance of somebody?