Copied from Twitter

by scrants 06.07.13 1:27

[url=http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Everyone Else/pages-23/British-police-say-Madeleine-McCann-is-still-alive-to-make-themselves-feel-better-or-something-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side-2013-07-05.html#.UddjwrG9KSM]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/pages-23/British-police-say-Madeleine-McCann-is-still-alive-to-make-themselves-feel-better-or-something-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side-2013-07-05.html#.UddjwrG9KSM[/url]

by marconi 06.07.13 2:55

plebgate wrote:in view of what Mr. Lee Rainbow said about the inconsistency in statement of Maddi'es father, how can the investigation team not re-interview them?

How can detectives investigate a crime if they do not interview the people who reported it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Plebgate, you are on a hurry.

The Yard is at the moment of investigation, just started and they are suddenly
very far.

Tapas 9 wil be the last ones, of course, because the Yard needs all of the information before they interrogate them.

They were present that night, they are the most important ones.

Among all of the 38 people, there is no one who was present that night, I presume.

by Karen Pinto 06.07.13 6:34

http://www.algarveresident.com/0-53825/algarve/met-police-launches-full-investigation-into-madeleine-case

by Seek truth 06.07.13 7:20

Karen Pinto wrote:http://www.algarveresident.com/0-53825/algarve/met-police-launches-full-investigation-into-madeleine-case

"Although the Yard cannot put right mistakes made during the initial inquiry, when the Portuguese were accused of failing to seal off the area where Madeleine had been staying and gather all available forensic evidence, the new team has had access to all the files. "

Wrong, It was sealed off. I clearly remember seeing it on the papers!

and the files say they found no other fingerprints. It was checked.
So what exactly is missing? If there was no intruder?

In her book she's tries to blame them so many times without reason, she gives so much detail about other rubbish in her book, but fails to talk about what is important.
She mentions people had walked in and out for 3 hours before, she shouldn't have let her friends in and out then.

Anyway do police seal off my home straight away if I say my child has gone missing?
Who was it that said it was normal?

by plebgate 06.07.13 8:08

If anybody is ever charged, the parents and crew will have to give evidence under oath re. their statements. They reported the crime so will be the "star" witnesses.

Interesting, very interesting.

by Cheshire Cat 06.07.13 8:33

Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler Tweeted this yesterday:

If it is true SY views the Smith sighting as credible, then they should be focusing on the #McCann s and #JaneTanner. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-couple-could-hold-the-key-to-solving-madeleine-mccann-case-29396720.hontml …

Rico Sorda the Jersey Blogger, and someone who I have great respect for also Tweeted "Scotland Yard should look at the evidence staring them in the face". Rico knows a few things about cover-ups and white-wash.

The important thing to draw from the events of the last week : don't be complacent.

Some folks believe this is a white-wash, others continue to have faith in the Met. OK - but we must keep on asking questions and looking at the genuine evidence that has been placed in the public domain.

by Seek truth 06.07.13 8:44

Mail online 5 July, saying portuguese ridicule SY.
It has ridiculous comments. They havent read their interviews etc!
Holiday makers are not going to portugal because police don't care, sarcastic

Better for portugal! maybe people like these, who know nothing, SHOULD stay away from portugal, enjoying the sun!

byebye

by Cristobell 06.07.13 8:55

plebgate wrote:If anybody is ever charged, the parents and crew will have to give evidence under oath re. their statements. They reported the crime so will be the "star" witnesses.

Interesting, very interesting.

Agree Plebgate. When I despair that this case will be a whitewash, I think about the trial. Whatever Scotland Yard say about 38 people of interest, arrests imminent, etc, the facts of the case remain the same and any faux explanation of an 'abduction' will have to stand up in Court.

by Pershing36 06.07.13 9:44

Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:If anybody is ever charged, the parents and crew will have to give evidence under oath re. their statements. They reported the crime so will be the "star" witnesses.

Interesting, very interesting.

Agree Plebgate. When I despair that this case will be a whitewash, I think about the trial. Whatever Scotland Yard say about 38 people of interest, arrests imminent, etc, the facts of the case remain the same and any faux explanation of an 'abduction' will have to stand up in Court.

I think about this and think what is this all about?

Don't want to sound tinfoil hat or conspiracy nut but something is bothering me. All of this, the cleaners, the soothing couple, the 38 new persons of interest and arrests imminent in a few weeks. This is all happening just in time for the big Portugal trial.

Lets just say they arrest and manage to charge somebody before it starts. Would that not put a big shadow of doubt over Amaral and his original findings.

It is not just going to be embarrassing for TM if they lose that trial, the way the home office and British Police behaved at the time will surely come into criticism.

by Lance De Boils 06.07.13 9:58

Maybe they're trying to smoke them out. This could be just the Met's tactics. The guilty parties must surely be panicking. They don't know who these "38 people of interest are" and they don't know if they're on the list. They don't know what NEW evidence the Met have and they don't know who's said what.
Who's not sleeping at night?
Who's lights are still on at 3 or 4 in the morning?

by Guest 06.07.13 10:09

Pershing36 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:If anybody is ever charged, the parents and crew will have to give evidence under oath re. their statements. They reported the crime so will be the "star" witnesses.

Interesting, very interesting.

Agree Plebgate. When I despair that this case will be a whitewash, I think about the trial. Whatever Scotland Yard say about 38 people of interest, arrests imminent, etc, the facts of the case remain the same and any faux explanation of an 'abduction' will have to stand up in Court.

I think about this and think what is this all about?

Don't want to sound tinfoil hat or conspiracy nut but something is bothering me. All of this, the cleaners, the soothing couple, the 38 new persons of interest and arrests imminent in a few weeks. This is all happening just in time for the big Portugal trial.

Lets just say they arrest and manage to charge somebody before it starts. Would that not put a big shadow of doubt over Amaral and his original findings.

It is not just going to be embarrassing for TM if they lose that trial, the way the home office and British Police behaved at the time will surely come into criticism.

On the other hand, that trial is in Portugal, and so far - according to the Joana Morais' blog - the Portuguese have stated that no request for mutual judiciary assistance has been received from the UK. So it would seem that, whatever Scotland Yard are doing, the Portuguese regard it as having nothing to do with them. So if this really was an attempt to undermine a Portuguese trial, I'd imagine, if anything, it could have the opposite effect.

by Pershing36 06.07.13 10:17

Unless one or more of the 12 British are back in the UK now. Then it really doesn't matter what the PJ think or do.

by Cheshire Cat 06.07.13 10:35

Pershing36 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
plebgate wrote:If anybody is ever charged, the parents and crew will have to give evidence under oath re. their statements. They reported the crime so will be the "star" witnesses.

Interesting, very interesting.

Agree Plebgate. When I despair that this case will be a whitewash, I think about the trial. Whatever Scotland Yard say about 38 people of interest, arrests imminent, etc, the facts of the case remain the same and any faux explanation of an 'abduction' will have to stand up in Court.

I think about this and think what is this all about?

Don't want to sound tinfoil hat or conspiracy nut but something is bothering me. All of this, the cleaners, the soothing couple, the 38 new persons of interest and arrests imminent in a few weeks. This is all happening just in time for the big Portugal trial.

Lets just say they arrest and manage to charge somebody before it starts. Would that not put a big shadow of doubt over Amaral and his original findings.

It is not just going to be embarrassing for TM if they lose that trial, the way the home office and British Police behaved at the time will surely come into criticism.

Amaral would be wise to look at the miscarriage of justice in the Jill Dando case and the track record of SY in other controversial cases.

by sheila.edwards 07.07.13 0:49

any trial would have to include all know facts etc, surely and eg lee rainbow recommendations and all witnesses in ongoing investigation IMO

by Me 07.07.13 10:37

Media reports suggest that the Smiths sighting has credibility and is an area that the Yard want to reinvestigate.

Ok, all good so far. However when Mr Smith (presumably) repeats that he is 60%-80% certain he saw Gerry McCann as the man holding the child what will Cider Andy and the rest of the Op Grange crew then do given Andy has stated that the McCann's are not suspects?

Will he say "Sorry Smithy old boy we have ruled them out, please come up with someone else instead", or will he say "well thanks for this but as we have decided they aren't suspects we will end this interview right here and now and disregard everything you have said".

Or will he, like any good investigator should, deduce that if a statement and witness is credible, take the investigation and its findings and base his suspects on the evidence he receives and uncovers as his investigation moves forward?

I would like to think that once he has interviewed the Smith's then perhaps the Mccann's may move onto his "persons of interest" or "suspect" list.

That is the one thing that has bothered me about his comments. How can you categorically rule any suspects out (particularly the ones who were the last people to see the child alive) when his own investigation has just started and the review of already gathered evidence is, from memory, only two thirds complete?

Unless of course, what he actually meant, but did not say, is that the McCann's weren't persons of itnerest or suspects AT THE MOMENT, which is a completely different statement to ruling them out altogether for ever.

by Guest 07.07.13 11:06

Scotland Yard investigated in St. Gallen for the Maddie case
Mis à jour le 07.07.2013

British police wanted to check if there was a link between the kidnapping and murder of the little Ylenia in 2007 in the canton and the disappearance of Maddie in Portugal.

Scotland Yard, who continued his research in the Madeleine McCann case, conducted a survey in St. Gallen. British police wanted to check if there was a link between the kidnapping and murder of the little Ylenia in 2007 in the canton and the disappearance of Maddie in Portugal.

The St. Gallen police confirmed Sunday Information "NZZ am Sonntag". But research has finally given nothing: no link could be established between the two cases, which was communicated to the British, according to Hanspeter Krüsi, spokesman for the police.
Disappeared in July 2007
Ylenia, aged 5, had been removed in July 2007 Appenzell before being killed in a forest near Oberbüren in the canton of St. Gallen. The murderer, a Swiss pensioner living in Spain, had committed suicide on the same day with a bullet in the head.
Little Madeleine, age 4, had meanwhile disappeared in May 2007 from the apartment in Praia da Luz in southern Portugal, where the McCann family was vacationing. Her parents are convinced she was kidnapped.
The Portuguese authorities have closed the investigation in 2008. But Scotland Yard resumed the search in 2011. British police announced last week working on "serious new tracks." Investigators are interested in 38 people living in several European countries.
Created: 07.07.2013, 11:21

http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/scotland-yard-enquete-stgall-affaire-maddie/story/31625403

Google translation

So no link then to this person that committed suicide, not quite what reported here.

deborah butler ‏@IWILLNOTGOAWAY 12m

Swiss police told SY no link between von Aesch & disappearance Madeleine #McCann http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/scotland-yard-enquete-stgall-affaire-maddie/story/31625403 …

so y £10 million wasted on old hat?

by **PeterMac** 07.07.13 11:17

How very sad. That presumedly brings the number of suspects down to 37.
And Scotland Yard knew about it all along.
But then the Swiss Police are just Kirschwasser swilling and holey cheese munchers, aren't they.
So perhaps a quick trip to St Gallen is on the books

by sallypelt 07.07.13 11:21

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
What does that mean?

"To me, this is all about logic. If you start with everything you can think of, and then eliminate those that are impossible, you are well on your way to a solution.

That’s the first stage of solving any mystery, whether it’s a murder mystery in a book (or TV, or movie, or…) or something you expected to work, but didn’t. You have to eliminate all the things that it couldn’t possibly be, or you will have too many distractions.

Once we clear out all the distractions, we can focus on what remains. Sometimes what is left is easy to believe, other times it can seem highly improbable. However, with the impossible eliminated, what remains are the only possible solutions. And one of them must be the truth".
Hence, this is how the law works, so don't lose heart. Just remember how muddied the waters have become over the Madeleine mystery. Intentionally caused, in my opinion, hence the fund to employ private detectives, to create a very tangled web We are on the right track.

by Me 07.07.13 11:25

sallypelt wrote:When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
What does that mean?

"To me, this is all about logic. If you start with everything you can think of, and then eliminate those that are impossible, you are well on your way to a solution.

That’s the first stage of solving any mystery, whether it’s a murder mystery in a book (or TV, or movie, or…) or something you expected to work, but didn’t. You have to eliminate all the things that it couldn’t possibly be, or you will have too many distractions.

Once we clear out all the distractions, we can focus on what remains. Sometimes what is left is easy to believe, other times it can seem highly improbable. However, with the impossible eliminated, what remains are the only possible solutions. And one of them must be the truth".
Hence, this is how the law works, so don't lose heart. Just remember how muddied the waters have become over the Madeleine mystery. Intentionally caused, in my opinion, hence the fund to employ private detectives, to create a very tangled web We are on the right track.

Until such time as the Yard brings clear evidence that someone else "did it", i am working on the assumption that they are removing all other possibilities before focusing on the Tapas mob.

It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.

by **PeterMac** 07.07.13 11:36

Me wrote:
It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.

The PJ did work from the family outwards, and came to the conclusions they did.
Only the intervention of several other factors has forced Grange to do it the other way round, since they know that no one inside the immediate group is suddenly going to start telling the truth.
They didn't when they were still maintaining that a young child's life was at risk, so they are unlikely to now.

by sallypelt 07.07.13 11:37

Me wrote:
sallypelt wrote:When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
What does that mean?

"To me, this is all about logic. If you start with everything you can think of, and then eliminate those that are impossible, you are well on your way to a solution.

That’s the first stage of solving any mystery, whether it’s a murder mystery in a book (or TV, or movie, or…) or something you expected to work, but didn’t. You have to eliminate all the things that it couldn’t possibly be, or you will have too many distractions.

Once we clear out all the distractions, we can focus on what remains. Sometimes what is left is easy to believe, other times it can seem highly improbable. However, with the impossible eliminated, what remains are the only possible solutions. And one of them must be the truth".
Hence, this is how the law works, so don't lose heart. Just remember how muddied the waters have become over the Madeleine mystery. Intentionally caused, in my opinion, hence the fund to employ private detectives, to create a very tangled web We are on the right track.

Until such time as the Yard brings clear evidence that someone else "did it", i am working on the assumption that they are removing all other possibilities before focusing on the Tapas mob.

It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.

The problems SY has, is, there have been "private investigators" who have presented information as to what happened to Madeleine McCann. SY can't ignore this information, even if they think is absolute tosh, so it has to be investigated to be eliminated. This is why they are looking at ALL the evidence. Remember what SY is working with; The Portuguese information, the UK police information, AND the PRIVATE DETECTIVES' information. So, until they show the world that what the private detectives "found" is utter garbage, we will have to sit tight and just wait.

by Me 07.07.13 11:47

PeterMac wrote:
Me wrote:
It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.
The PJ did work from the family outwards, and came to the conclusions they did.
Only the intervention of several other factors has forced Grange to do it the other way round, since they know that no one inside the immediate group is suddenly going to start telling the truth.
They didn't when they were still maintaining that a young child's life was at risk, so they are unlikely to now.

Agreed, and that was kind of my point. The Yard can't run the investigation the same way the PJ did for fear of the same kind of media treatment the PJ received. However that doesn't change the fact that in any "normal" case the family and friends would be looked at first.

Also once these random paedo leads have been exhausted they will still have the same problem, that is getting someone within the group to talk. I suppose they could be working on the basis that when (if) they do bring them in and show them that all their PI "leads" are worthless it will increase the pressure on one within the group to talk.

I still maintain though that a seasoned SY interrogator, sorry investigator, in a room with Jane Tanner could help move this case forward far faster.

My hope is that all these leads are chased down, proven to be worthless and then the Tapas mob are all brought in seperately but at the same time and one is played off against another until the truth starts coming out.

by Me 07.07.13 11:53

And, to add, whilst the point has been made that if someone is brought in and charged with the abduction, then a good defence lawyer could drive a coach and horses through the inaccuracies and lies of the Tapas group's statements to provide more than reasonable doubt, perhaps the investigation now of these PI leads is being done to prevent the same happening if any of the Tapas mob are ever hauled into a court.

That is to investigate and eliminate the reasonable doubt the Tapas lot could use as a defence in a court case involving any of them.

by sallypelt 07.07.13 12:00

Me wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Me wrote:
It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.
The PJ did work from the family outwards, and came to the conclusions they did.
Only the intervention of several other factors has forced Grange to do it the other way round, since they know that no one inside the immediate group is suddenly going to start telling the truth.
They didn't when they were still maintaining that a young child's life was at risk, so they are unlikely to now.

Agreed, and that was kind of my point. The Yard can't run the investigation the same way the PJ did for fear of the same kind of media treatment the PJ received. However that doesn't change the fact that in any "normal" case the family and friends would be looked at first.

Also once these random paedo leads have been exhausted they will still have the same problem, that is getting someone within the group to talk. I suppose they could be working on the basis that when (if) they do bring them in and show them that all their PI "leads" are worthless it will increase the pressure on one within the group to talk.

I still maintain though that a seasoned SY interrogator, sorry investigator, in a room with Jane Tanner could help move this case forward far faster.

My hope is that all these leads are chased down, proven to be worthless and then the Tapas mob are all brought in seperately but at the same time and one is played off against another until the truth starts coming out.

No one needs to talk. Once all the possibilities AND the impossibilities have been eliminated, then they can go after those responsible, whoever THEY are.
Just imagine if, as so many on here are saying, the T9 were brought to court. As we know, they have lied through their teeth, BUT, without eliminating the "sightings" and the private detective information, for example, the case would collapse. Even though the T9 have lied, with other evidence brought in to disrupt the trail - and it would brought in - the whole case would be an absolute waste of time.

I will repeat again, this case is HUGE. Almost from the start, the TEAM put the wheels of confusion and deception into motion. We know that this case has crossed many borders, hence SY's claim they are "working in a few countries". This case isn't simply a case of "they did it, just arrest them". It could take years for this to come to court, but I am cautiously confident that by giving SY the support and space to carry out their complicated work, justice WILL be served

by aiyoyo 07.07.13 12:10

PeterMac wrote:
Me wrote:
It would seem contrary to normal investigations of this kind, where you work from the family first and then outwards, but given the high profile nature of this case it may have been decided that is the best tactic at the beginning of the Yard's investigation to work from the outwards in.
The PJ did work from the family outwards, and came to the conclusions they did.
Only the intervention of several other factors has forced Grange to do it the other way round, since they know that no one inside the immediate group is suddenly going to start telling the truth.
They didn't when they were still maintaining that a young child's life was at risk, so they are unlikely to now.

Quite.
It's only logical that if working from inwards to outwards got no where, then the process has to be reversed.

The MET did not say that the 38 "people of interest" (not abductors and not suspects) would lead to bringing home a "live' Maddie, despite the claim she may well be alive.

They didn't say in any shape or form that they're closer to netting Maddie snatcher, rescuing Maddie, and bringing her home.
They could have said that - but they didn't - they said they are getting to the bottom of "what happened to her"!

The word "snatcher" "abductor" "paedo" etc. hasnt been used by the Police and Press since Op Grange been on the job.
So if Maddie is ALIVE, who has her? No one has mentioned anything about bringing her home!

Seemingly the Police had narrowed 195 fresh leads down to 38, now 37....so, they are closer to what when you think about it?

I'll nick one of the sentences appearing earlier "once we clear all the distractions, we can focus on what remains" .
I think this is a valid question "when the 38 distractions are cleared, what remains to be focused on?

Isn't is obvious?