Re: Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT

by Who?What?Where? 10.07.13 1:39

undefined wrote:

If he bungles this "exceptionally" high profile case that has been given "exceptional" budget , then he will end up like Lord Leveson facing an inquiry committee as well as full fury of the paying public. And, he will rue the day he accepts the role of head-in-charge.
He can expect to kiss his career goodbye if the end result is back to square one.
If there is no arrest, at the very least, after his promise of "solving the case" then head will roll and it will be his.

I think it depend's how high up the pyramid he has climbed. If he is high enough, then he may be protected. In the UK today, incompetence or corruption is no barrier to great wealth. Just look at the banking system. " The public fury", is meaningless. Does anyone really believe that a banker who recieves a multi million pound "Golden Goodbye", cares what any of his victim's think about him or how "furious" the public are?. LOL. He could not care less. Job done, money in the bank. The general public, currently, have no power at all, over corruption at the highest level.

by suzyjohnson 10.07.13 1:52

JeanMonroe, Good point about JT, ROB watching the twins whilst the window was open, you could be right there.

-----------------------------------

AndyB: 'I don't think Grange was set up to determine what happened though was it? I thought it was set up to find new lines of enquiry to help the Portuguese police prove that she was abducted, something that it appears to be continuing to do now that its a full-blown investigation'

I think I can see what AndyB means here, that he thinks SY are overriding the PJ and just investigating what they choose to investigate.

by marconi 10.07.13 2:49

Redwood's words about the people of interest was a warnig to the ones that still didn't come forward.
They can better be approached by the Yard as eventual witnesses than being consedered suspects.

They are warned . If one or two of Tapas 7 keep their mouth, it will be Obvious that hey are involved in the death.

by lj 10.07.13 2:58

Gee, it must be my english, because what I heard was him telling they are NOT persons of interest, quite emphatically and repeatedly.

by aiyoyo 10.07.13 5:33

Not Person of Interest now does not mean cannot be suspect later. It's a question of right stage right time.

When working inwards out it is quite normal not to alert suspect unnecessarily..
More so when working outwards in on a complex, sensitive, and extremely high profile case involving people armed with PR and lawyers.
The Police would be wise to tread very gingerly if they're not to foil their progress by premature actions.

I believe the Police's imperative to interview and eliminate the 38 people of interest has nothing to do with tracing a flat man. AMHO of course.

by AndyB 10.07.13 5:56

jeanmonroe wrote:
AndyB wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
In reality aren't we all here to try to help and find out what happened to Madeleine and that we would be delighted if she were found.
The very same stated aim of Operation Grange has said it wants.
I don't think Grange was set up to determine what happened though was it? I thought it was set up to find new lines of enquiry to help the Portuguese police prove that she was abducted, something that it appears to be continuing to do now that its a full-blown investigation

Little bit odd observation AndyB.

The Portuguese have already given their considered opinion on what they think happened tp Madeleine.
The Portuguese don't need any help from SY to 'prove' Madeleine was abducted.
Their stated position is that she was NOT.
Have you read their conclusions and why they shelved, not closed, their files in this case?

Very odd thing to say AndyB.
If your real name is AndyR then i could see why you'd want people to accept the McCanns 'abduction' THEORY.
As that it all it is and ONLY said so by the 2 parents of a 'missing' child who, if you are AndyR, your boss BHH helped raise money for!
You'd have to explain where the tax payers millions have actually gone!
Operation Grange set up to help the poor incompetent Portuguese Police to prove Madeleine was abducted?
I don't think so.
However, maybe you, if you are AndyR, have just commited a very large freudian slip and told us the REAL purpose of Operation Grange.
Thanks for that.

Very, VERY ODD thing to say AndyB or AndyR!

ODD!

I think at the end you might have been just starting to understand the point that I was trying to make. I wasn't questioning the integrity or outcome of the original PJ investigation. I was challenging your assumption, shared by many on here, that the purpose of Grange is to determine what happened to Madeleine. I don't believe that it is. It's stated aims are (in part) "to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter." (Link)

There are two key points to note: The assumption that it was an abduction and the phrase "assist the Portuguese authorities". Given the corruption in the Met and the very clear statements from Grange that the Tapas 9 are not even persons of interest, let alone suspects, I stand by my view that the purpose of Grange is to help the Portuguese police prove that Madeleine was abducted.

As to why they are not interested in doing what we all would like them to do - establish exactly what did happen - I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if it all lead back to News International (and possibly the "worse to come" that Rebekah Brooks talked about at the close of the New of the World)

by russiandoll 10.07.13 9:08

Just catching up with posts from last night/early morning, interested in exchange of opinions between jeanmonroe and AndyB .

I for one would be delighted to be proved wrong and to learn that the cover-up I suspect had not happened, although there is nothing pleasing about learning that a child had been abducted. I would have to then accept flaws in the original investigation and that the new team working alongside Grange had uncovered new evidence, also that the strangest of coincidences had occurred: that the original translations of witness statements had ALL been compromised in the same way, ALL misunderstood/ mistranslated by a variety of interpreters with the end result that it appeared ALL apart it seems from Dianne Webster were lying . That is the stumbling block for me. Far too coincidental to a point it is not plausible. So, if there had been an abduction as claimed, why would they lie? It could only be to conceal something else going on at the same time which they felt was more important than finding the child and racking my brains, I can't think what that could be.
I also find it difficult to accept that a professional police force would try to fit up the parents. This lame theory falls down for me the minute you read the files and realise that the parents never allowed the process to continue until the point at which they could be eliminated. I think a UK force would have had no other option but to keep them in the frame, had the same happened on UK soil.

Redwood stated clearly even though it appeared from the edit that he was asked only about the McCanns, that the parents and their holiday friends were not persons of interest or suspects. He did not need to mention the others, but he did.
I wonder why?
Imo we are not in possession of what the police in UK and Portugal have so cannot claim to be aware of all the facts. While I do not accept the abduction account for many reasons, I have to admit that I could be wrong and others right.
I think everyone here would be delighted to be wrong. I would rather be wrong and hear that there was maybe some hope of finding Maddie alive than be right and learn that she was dead.
The pair and their friends are an obnoxious/ strange bunch of people. I would not invite any of them to dinner let alone spend a week with them and I am certain that I am not the type they would befriend.
That does not make them complicit in a crime.
It is circumstantial evidence which does the above as far as I can tell, and while some parts of that evidence are weaker than others, when it is taken in its entirety, that circumstantial evidence is enough for me to say to them all
" J'accuse! "

by suzyjohnson 10.07.13 11:12

jeanmonroe wrote:
The twins were never in danger of anything after the 'scene' was set because there was always a tapas 'member' up at the apartment block every minute from 9:35 til 10pm.

jeanmonroe, Your comments in this regard have made me think of something else.

Just supposing, Kate was telling the truth, she had gone to the apartment at 10pm and found the window and shutters open as described, and that that was completely unexpected.

She had been at the restaurant for the previous hour, presumably she knew that,
1) ROB had accompanied MO to check all the children at 9.30pm
2) MO had returned alone with the news that ROB's daughter was ill
3) That they joked that JT had to go to relieve ROB
4) That ROB's meal had to be sent back to keep warm
5) That ROB arrived back for his meal at 9.50pm
6) That JT was at her apartment looking after her daughter

KM must have known there was someone at the next door but one (two?) apartment from 9.30pm onwards
The apartment front doors are on the same side as the open window, facing the car park
You might expect that KM would look out into the street to see if MM was outside.
Having found a wide open window, and her daughter missing, wouldn't you think KM would have knocked on their door before going back to the Tapas?
To ask did you hear / see anything?
Or, please would you mind the twins while I tell GM?
Or even, have you got your phone with you?

by Casey5 10.07.13 11:31

suzyjohnson wrote:
The apartment front doors are on the same side as the open window, facing the car park
You might expect that KM would look out into the street to see if MM was outside.
Having found a wide open window, and her daughter missing, wouldn't you think KM would have knocked on their door before going back to the Tapas?
To ask did you hear / see anything?
Or, please would you mind the twins while I tell GM?
Or even, have you got your phone with you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would think that would be the normal reaction, even to scream so Jane would hear and come running.
But then Gerry, on hearing that his 3 year old daughter had disappeared, first went outside and tested the window - why would anyone do that, it has no relevance?
The normal reaction would be to go and look for the missing child, at once.

Kate said that nobody had written a book on how parents of "abducted children" should behave but, as a group, they all behaved in an abnormal way even going to bed whilst strangers were still out searching. wtf !!!!!
They all phoned too much and searched too little imo.
Poor Madeleine.

by Maive 10.07.13 11:40

AndyB wrote:
Maive wrote:
Some knowledgeable people on here have been in contact with some insiders from the Team. It appears that the MET is interested by some testimonies from people close to the "fund". Why the MET would be interested about that kind of information, if they are not looking at the Team?
Which team do you mean; Grange or TM? I find it hard to believe that either would be saying anything much outside their group. Having said that, if Madeleine is indeed dead, and the parents were either involved in her death or concealing her body, then its possible that the MET are considering some sort of fraud charge.

If we see it, people who have been around them are also able to see it.

The MET, the Press and the Team are playing big games, it's obvious. The MET's insistance (in public) to look everywhere BUT the Team is "too much", thus highly suspicious.. I mean come on, everybody would have understood that the Tapas needed to be re-interviewed, it was no big deal as they are main witnesses..

From their perspective, the Team 's strategy was good at first but they should have stayed flexible, in order to adapt to the situation.. They have chosen to stay high profile (in order to cash in), so they have dug their own graves.

In order to withewash something, one needs to stay low profile... not shooting everywhere and grab public attention on you.. The more people are aware, the more they question the case..

by jeanmonroe 10.07.13 12:42

AndyB:
"as if the abduction occurred in the UK"

WHAT 'abduction' would that be Andy?
Has ANYONE, especially the McCanns and all their friends, produced a scintila of real evidence that a real 'abduction' HAS, in FACT, taken place?
Let alone THE 'abduction'?
Would that be the 'abduction' that has only ever been said to have taken place by the parents of a 'missing' child?

by Angelique 10.07.13 13:06

I think what AndyB is saying is that this WILL BE the result (as stated in the remit) and Redwood will pass his "so called" evidence onto whomever showing that it was an abduction and that GA and PJ team were wrong. This is why they are not interested in G or K or the rest of that Tapas - they are to be exonerated/cleared/cleaned/whitewashed/whatever.

by suzyjohnson 10.07.13 14:09

On the other hand, there would be a media storm if SY declared the Tapas group as suspects, in the future this may mean they could claim they did not get a fair trial.

Also, there could potentially be some very angry people around if the McCanns (or others) were suspects.

I don't know if SY will eventually want to question them all, but I don't think they would declare any of them as suspects before they had to.

by Maive 10.07.13 14:49

Can you imagine the money to cash in by the Press pending a trial, or charges? IMO the Press had all interests to push for a reopening of the case.. if you see what I mean.. They are like hyenas, waiting for the "bloody money"..

Are we SO sure that the Team were not hacked..?

by Nina 10.07.13 14:57

Just as an aside re shutters at night.
The shutters are white, set against a white wall. if they are raised at night as in not closed then the window curtains/light/ from within the room is visible from the outside against the white of the building.
The other night hubby and I returned home very late and our shutters hadn't been dropped so as we approached we could see the white wall and the closed curtains which are cream but even though so pale I could tell that hubby had forgotten to close the blind. We also have the iron grills for extra security as don't have near neighbours so no one could have got in other than saw through the grills but in our situation a possibility. Needless to say heads did roll, yes

by jeanmonroe 10.07.13 15:26

Angelique wrote:I think what AndyB is saying is that this WILL BE the result (as stated in the remit) and Redwood will pass his "so called" evidence onto whomever showing that it was an abduction and that GA and PJ team were wrong. This is why they are not interested in G or K or the rest of that Tapas - they are to be exonerated/cleared/cleaned/whitewashed/whatever.

How will Andy Pandy be able to PROVE it was an 'abduction' to anyone?
He only has the feckless parents word.
What possible real 'evidence' could he produce to support his 'abduction' THEORY, because without irrefutable evidence that would be all it is.
We know he has seen the 'evidence' of the McS so called PI's because he has told us.
Now why would he believe a single word from them?
One is a convicted fraudster, members of another team of McS PI's (Metoado 3) are ARRESTED with all sorts of accusations against them, another McCann 'team' Alpha Investigations Group, didn't even EXIST.
If Andy Pandy is going to quote these peoples 'evidence' as proof that Madeleine was 'abducted' then God help him!
And somehow, i don't know how, he will have to say that his entire team, and anyone that worked on the review/investigation at any time, all believe the same as him.

by Pershing36 10.07.13 15:51

I must admit I am truly baffled to what is going on now.

However the press promised some arrests in the next few weeks.

I wonder if this is true is it still on the cards?

by worriedmum 10.07.13 17:23

But realistically, how on earth could they predict this?

by **tigger** 10.07.13 17:27

Since this topic has well and truly derailed (I did it too!), I'll put this here. Shows how in May 08 they were manipulating the PJ.

Afraid of being constituted arguidos 24horas

McCann friends refused to return to Portugal

Text Carlos Tomás
29/05/2008 (Thanks to 'Li' snd Joana Morais for translation)

The other two couples that left their children in the Ocean Club were afraid by the fact that the Portuguese law now provides a penalty up to 10 years in jail for those that abandon minors

Two couples refused to return to Portugal to cooperate with the PJ in the reenactment of the 3rd of May 2007. Amongst the motives for the refusal, 24horas discovered that it was the fact that Jane Tanner, Russel O'Brien, Rachel and Matthew Oldfield were afraid of being constituted as arguidos.

From the group of nine people that dined in the Tapas Bar in the night of the disappearance, apart from Maddie's parents these were the couples who also had children. And also left the children alone in the apartments of the Ocean Club - which according to the article 138º of the Penal Code, constitutes a crime of exposure or abandonment that can be punishable with ten years in jail.

"They made several demands, from a private Jet to a five star hotel. Their last request was not to be constituted arguidos, whilst the McCanns demanded exactly the opposite. According to our law that is impossible to guarantee", explained a judicial responsible connected to the process to 24horas.

According to the witness statements collected by the PJ at the Tapas Bar, only Russel O'Brien and Gerry McCann left the restaurant between 19h00 and 22h00, the period that the authorities believe the child went missing.

"The refusal of the friends to return to Portugal is unbelievable. Only three said they would come", David Payne, Dianne Webster and Fiona, said the same source.

Notice that the depositions of Fiona Payne and her husband are considered to be fundamental to elaborate the Public Ministry's accusation which is almost concluded.
Speaking about Madeleine

unquote

So Oldfield would have a problem with his check at 9.30 for a start.

by Liz Eagles 10.07.13 17:42

Snipped from findmadeleine.com updates section Jan 2010 update

"The proposed reconstruction: The suggestion of a reconstruction of our movements and other key witnesses at the crime scene and/or surrounding area in the early days following Madeleine's abduction was declined by the PJ as 'not usual' for Portugal. When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not convinced of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend."

ETA. Who were the other key witnesses who weren't invited to attend?

by AndyB 10.07.13 17:54

jeanmonroe wrote:
Angelique wrote:I think what AndyB is saying is that this WILL BE the result (as stated in the remit) and Redwood will pass his "so called" evidence onto whomever showing that it was an abduction and that GA and PJ team were wrong. This is why they are not interested in G or K or the rest of that Tapas - they are to be exonerated/cleared/cleaned/whitewashed/whatever.

How will Andy Pandy be able to PROVE it was an 'abduction' to anyone?
He only has the feckless parents word.

The same way the police "prove" that other innocent people are guilty. Do you really believe Barry George was guilty, to quote a recent example? The police don't always gather all the evidence then make a reasoned analysis of what happened. Sometimes (usually?) they decide what happened then build a case to support their belief, ignoring evidence that doesn't suit them (such as evidence of the dogs) . In this case I am suggesting that they've been told the outcome from the start - it was an abduction - so they're building a case to allow the CPS to prosecute an abductor. They aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth and the truth is not what they've been tasked with

jeanmonroe wrote:What possible real 'evidence' could he produce to support his 'abduction' THEORY, because without irrefutable evidence that would be all it is.

Not irrefutable evidence just enough to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt. A jury that almost certainly already "knows" to a man it was an abduction thanks to the press

jeanmonroe wrote:We know he has seen the 'evidence' of the McS so called PI's because he has told us.
Now why would he believe a single word from them?

He doesn't need to believe them. He just needs to cherry-pick the bits of their evidence that supports the abduction hypothesis then lose/destroy the rest

jeanmonroe wrote:One is a convicted fraudster, members of another team of McS PI's (Metoado 3) are ARRESTED with all sorts of accusations against them, another McCann 'team' Alpha Investigations Group, didn't even EXIST.

And your point is?

jeanmonroe wrote:If Andy Pandy is going to quote these peoples 'evidence' as proof that Madeleine was 'abducted' then God help him!

Why on earth would he need God's help? He already has the help of the government and the CPS as well as a team of 37 like-minded coppers focussing on delivering what they've been tasked to deliver - "proof" of an abuction to help the Portuguese prosecute

jeanmonroe wrote:And somehow, i don't know how, he will have to say that his entire team, and anyone that worked on the review/investigation at any time, all believe the same as him.

It doesn't matter what he or they believe. They will keep their personal opinions to themselves and get on with delivering what they've been tasked to deliver - an abduction

by Guest 10.07.13 18:46

AndyB wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Angelique wrote:I think what AndyB is saying is that this WILL BE the result (as stated in the remit) and Redwood will pass his "so called" evidence onto whomever showing that it was an abduction and that GA and PJ team were wrong. This is why they are not interested in G or K or the rest of that Tapas - they are to be exonerated/cleared/cleaned/whitewashed/whatever.

How will Andy Pandy be able to PROVE it was an 'abduction' to anyone?
He only has the feckless parents word.
The same way the police "prove" that other innocent people are guilty. Do you really believe Barry George was guilty, to quote a recent example? The police don't always gather all the evidence then make a reasoned analysis of what happened. Sometimes (usually?) they decide what happened then build a case to support their belief, ignoring evidence that doesn't suit them (such as evidence of the dogs) . In this case I am suggesting that they've been told the outcome from the start - it was an abduction - so they're building a case to allow the CPS to prosecute an abductor. They aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth and the truth is not what they've been tasked with
jeanmonroe wrote:What possible real 'evidence' could he produce to support his 'abduction' THEORY, because without irrefutable evidence that would be all it is.
Not irrefutable evidence just enough to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt. A jury that almost certainly already "knows" to a man it was an abduction thanks to the press
jeanmonroe wrote:We know he has seen the 'evidence' of the McS so called PI's because he has told us.
Now why would he believe a single word from them?
He doesn't need to believe them. He just needs to cherry-pick the bits of their evidence that supports the abduction hypothesis then lose/destroy the rest
jeanmonroe wrote:One is a convicted fraudster, members of another team of McS PI's (Metoado 3) are ARRESTED with all sorts of accusations against them, another McCann 'team' Alpha Investigations Group, didn't even EXIST.
And your point is?
jeanmonroe wrote:If Andy Pandy is going to quote these peoples 'evidence' as proof that Madeleine was 'abducted' then God help him!
Why on earth would he need God's help? He already has the help of the government and the CPS as well as a team of 37 like-minded coppers focussing on delivering what they've been tasked to deliver - "proof" of an abuction to help the Portuguese prosecute
jeanmonroe wrote:And somehow, i don't know how, he will have to say that his entire team, and anyone that worked on the review/investigation at any time, all believe the same as him.
It doesn't matter what he or they believe. They will keep their personal opinions to themselves and get on with delivering what they've been tasked to deliver - an abduction

AndyB, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct - and the police are deliberately ignoring viable leads that take them in the direction of wrong-doing by McCanns. Surely any subsequent prosecution would also need a very willing patsy, as any innocent person 'fingered' for this crime will have several barn-door sized targets to aim at to discredit the police's abduction hypothesis at a trial. The witness testimony of Portuguese and British police officers, Martin Grime, and the Smith family (just for starters) might put a spanner in the works of a less-than-watertight abduction case. So I'd have thought that the police DO need to dispel the doubts raised by these and other witnesses if they want an abduction charge to stick.

by lufc50337 10.07.13 19:18

aquila wrote:Snipped from findmadeleine.com updates section Jan 2010 update

"The proposed reconstruction: The suggestion of a reconstruction of our movements and other key witnesses at the crime scene and/or surrounding area in the early days following Madeleine's abduction was declined by the PJ as 'not usual' for Portugal. When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not convinced of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend."

ETA. Who were the other key witnesses who weren't invited to attend?

That sounds like a veiled threat to me

A few things they have said along the way I have tooked at that way

I do think other people were there who wish to remain anonymous and although probably nothing to do with what happened to M the bad publicity and the fact that they have covered up their presence for 6 years is the reason this is dragging on, SY IMO have been told to find a solution. I.e. keep certain people out of it but stop the McCanns, mainly KM as she will not shut up.

I was reading some of the Rogatory interviews earlier and DW said they had 2 mini buses from Leicester to the airport and FP said 1 which makes me think more people went from Leicester.

by Guest 10.07.13 20:03

The video posted early on [2007] of the McCanns and Paynes on the bus, allegedly from the airport to Praia da Luz did NOT look like a minibus and was definitely NOT full. For whatever it's worth ... You must forgive me, I am still in shock [or rather raving mad] that the "Official Find Madeleine Site has posted a 2' extract of their mockumentary, asking "Have you seen this man?" and then giving the number of their own "investigation"-line ... Whilst there's a SY review since two years and NOW an investigation going on.

by Maive 10.07.13 20:06

Châtelaine wrote:The video posted early on [2007] of the McCanns and Paynes on the bus, allegedly from the airport to Praia da Luz did NOT look like a minibus and was definitely NOT full. For whatever it's worth ... You must forgive me, I am still in shock [or rather raving mad] that the "Official Find Madeleine Site has posted a 2' extract of their mockumentary, asking "Have you seen this man?" and then giving the number of their own "investigation"-line ... Whilst there's a SY review since two years and NOW an investigation going on.

Very interesting!! Why not the MET-line??

laughat