Theresa May asks permission for Met to start Madeleine McCann inquiry in Portugal

littlepixie wrote:I have followed this case from more or less day one. There is one thing that I have never understood and I wonder if anyone might be able to shed some light on this as it bugs me.

I may have seen only the one version of the Eddie & Keela video where they alert to cadaver and blood (there may be others) but on the video is slapped "The Sun" as in the Sun Newspaper.
It was also the editor of the Sun Rebekah Brookes who lent on (almost threatened) David Cameron to open the review into the case that is ongoing now.

The Sun video of the cadaver and blood dogs is damning as it indicates that a dead body was in the same apartment that the child had disappeared from. I presume that the Sun would have drawn the same conclusion as anyone else after seeing that video, that somebody dead and bleeding had been in there at some stage.

MANY, many stories have been printed in the Sun defending the parents of the child. Some of them way over the top and some of the journalists who work there have gone above and beyond what would be considered normal behaviour in doing so.

Why?

Truth is secondary to selling Papers.  There is a time for everything.  
And the time back then was to avoid being sued, better to sensaltionalise, and what better than to court the couple to give them exclusives and watch their profit soars.

Just wait till the shit hits the fan they will still be around to vilify the mccanns.  They Sun will then naturally already have the exclusive to say the Mccanns fooled them all the while and were adept at it, where all their recorded private meetings and conversations with the mccanns will be pulled out to support headlines, again to sell paper.

To put the pair on the pedestal waiting for the right time to condemn them later for all their vile act of lies and deceit is probably good strategy for profit margin.

In a nutshell, it's what sells best at a particular time is what counts.

Maive wrote:Papers can't print the "real stuff" because they would be pursued.. They can't print anything before arrests, trial, etc..

So imo there is a common agreement amongst the Press to not print stuff from the PJ Files...... for now :)

BUT they are watching.. closely  

Never forget that the Press is heartless, it's all about money, friendship has nothing to do with that   

Maive, you are deadly right.  Besides Carter Ruck around the corner.
There will be revenge of the media, they were gagged for years and years.
The media are more powerful than any politician. They make, they break. 
Murdoch concern made the MCanns and they will be pleased to break them soon.
They are only waiting for their turn
In this life we have to carefully chose our enemies.  Not everyone is suitable to be one.
 
By the way, I am still impressed with Jim Gamble's words on  Panorama Australia, where he advise the police to look around, and try to find the real perpetrator. I have the feeling that Gamble goes beyond Kate.If I am right, who could  the other one  be?  Gerry? Payne?  or am I wrong?  The fact thet Payne was the only one with a monitor and that he was also the only one who didn't check on any child is also suspicious.

How come that Williams Thomas (Daily Star) knows that there is tension between the PJ and the Yard?
None of both police would comment on that.

I don't believe it.

marconi wrote:
Never forget that the Press is heartless, it's all about money, friendship has nothing to do with that

Maive, you are deadly right.  Besides Carter Ruck around the corner.
There will be revenge of the media, they were gagged for years and years.
The media are more powerful than any politician. They make, they break. 
Murdoch concern made the MCanns and they will be pleased to break them soon.
They are only waiting for their turn
In this life we have to carefully chose our enemies.  Not everyone is suitable to be one.
 

HEADLINE  ?

'WE WUZ ROBBED"

HEADLINE:

SUN columnist, Lorraine Kelly :

"EXCLUSIVE"

THEY DIDN'T FOOL ME!

jeanmonroe wrote:HEADLINE:
SUN columnist, Lorraine Kelly :
"EXCLUSIVE"
THEY DIDN'T FOOL ME!

Express, Independent, Star, Mail, Times, i, Mirror, Herald, Scotsman, Sunday - Times, Guardian, Daily record, Sky . . . .

OR US

marconi wrote:How come that [Mark] Williams-Thomas (Daily Star) knows that there is tension between the PJ and the Yard?

None of both police would comment on that.

I don't believe it.

First, re Mark Williams-Thomas.

Point 1 - He knows almost everything there is to know about everything.

Point 2 - Except that he never tells us why he left the police force (Surrey) after only serving for a few years as a humble Detective Constable.

Point 3 - He is on TV so regularly commenting on sexual abuse that he is close to becoming the nation's expert on the subject, just as Ray Wyre was.

Point 4 - Ray Wyre [deceased] wasn't the whiter-than-white character selflessly trying to help sex offenders that he cracked himself up to be.

Point 5 - Williams-Thomas has clearly been chosen by the Met Police to receive selective leaks about the progress of the Savile investigations, details of celebs being arrested etc.  IMO this is an unhealthy and possibly corrupt relationship.

But enough about MWT.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Now to turn to the subject of this much-vaunted, much-heralded new phase of co-operation between the British police and the Portuguese police.

Here are the two official quotes from Portugal that I have seen so far (if there are others, please would someone post them up):

1. A Portuguese government spokesman told AFP:  “"We confirm we have received a request for judiciary assistance from the British authorities... which has been accepted. The judicial authorities or the British police cannot act alone on Portuguese soil. They can only assist the Portuguese authorities in carrying out their request."

2. The Portuguese Attorney-General’s Office said: “There is currently no timetable for when and how we will proceed. The British authorities cannot carry out interviews or make inquiries in Portugal without being accompanied by public prosecutors”.


What the British press and even some on this forum seem to have forgotten is that this will not be a co-operation between the British Police and the Portuguese Police but a co-operation (if indeed there is going to be any) between the Brtish Police and the Portuguese Judicial Authorities, i.e. the Portuguese Attormey-General.

In Britain, the police investigate crimes.

In Portugal, the judicial authorities commission the police to investigate crimes.

Therein lies a huge difference.

This is how I expect things to go:

AR = Andy Redwood
PAG = Portuguese Attorney-General
C = Clerk in PAG's office

Tel call AR to PAG

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG?
C No, he's attending a conference, he'll be back next week

Next week Tel call AR to PAG

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG?
C No, he's busy.
AR Can I leave a message?
C OK
AR Tell him I need to interview 4 Portuguese suspects, er, I mean persons of interest, ASAP
C I'll tell him

Following week

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG? He hasn't returned my messages
C I'll see if he's available
PAG What is it?
AR Well, um, I need to talk to 4 Portuguese citizens whom we suspect, er, whom we think may know something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
PAG Who are they?
AR:  AB, CD, EF, GH.
PAG Where do they live?
AR  Er, we think we know where EF lives, but maybe your police offricers could help us find the other three?
PAG Are you prepared to pay for our time in tracing these people?
AR I'll get back to you on that
PAG And you realise that if you want to talk to any of these people, I'll need your reasons in writing
AR OK
PAG And that one of my senior staff will need to accompany your officers on every visit?
AR Yes, I'm aware of that
PAG And is your government going to pay for my officers' time in doing this?
AR Er, well, I'll get back to you on that one as well
PAG And when translators are required for these interviews, who will be funding that?
AR Can you help us with that?
PAG No - look, I'm pretty busy right now, just confirm in wirting that you'll meet all our expenses within 7 days of submitting a claim and then I'll ring you back
AR Er...
Sound of dialling tone ............................


++++++++++++++++++++++

Is Mark Williams-Thomas right about there being 'tension' between the British Police and the Portuguese Judicial Authorities?

I think it's highly likely.

Even MWT can be right sometimes.

Looks a bit like pay-back-time, after Home Office [Jacqui Smith] stalled the rogatory interviews in 2007 ...

Holy saints, I just read Jornal de Noticias on McCann Files. I just can't believe it. I thought that the Yard was coming up with something new, new witnesses, new evidences and now it appears to be old stuf, worthless.
 
I agree with the PJ.  Irritating, very irritating.
Never mind, let the McCanns live freely,  I don't care anymore.
 
Millions to arrive nowhere!!!!!!!!!!
 
I pray this will not be solved and that the McCanns will continue being a pain in the British government's ass.

Tony Bennett wrote:

marconi wrote:How come that [Mark] Williams-Thomas (Daily Star) knows that there is tension between the PJ and the Yard?

None of both police would comment on that.

I don't believe it.

First, re Mark Williams-Thomas.

Point 1 - He knows almost everything there is to know about everything.

Point 2 - Except that he never tells us why he left the police force (Surrey) after only serving for a few years as a humble Detective Constable.

Point 3 - He is on TV so regularly commenting on sexual abuse that he is close to becoming the nation's expert on the subject, just as Ray Wyre was.

Point 4 - Ray Wyre [deceased] wasn't the whiter-than-white character selflessly trying to help sex offenders that he cracked himself up to be.

Point 5 - Williams-Thomas has clearly been chosen by the Met Police to receive selective leaks about the progress of the Savile investigations, details of celebs being arrested etc.  IMO this is an unhealthy and possibly corrupt relationship.

But enough about MWT.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Now to turn to the subject of this much-vaunted, much-heralded new phase of co-operation between the British police and the Portuguese police.

Here are the two official quotes from Portugal that I have seen so far (if there are others, please would someone post them up):

1. A Portuguese government spokesman told AFP:  “"We confirm we have received a request for judiciary assistance from the British authorities... which has been accepted. The judicial authorities or the British police cannot act alone on Portuguese soil. They can only assist the Portuguese authorities in carrying out their request."

2. The Portuguese Attorney-General’s Office said: “There is currently no timetable for when and how we will proceed. The British authorities cannot carry out interviews or make inquiries in Portugal without being accompanied by public prosecutors”.


What the British press and even some on this forum seem to have forgotten is that this will not be a co-operation between the British Police and the Portuguese Police but a co-operation (if indeed there is going to be any) between the Brtish Police and the Portuguese Judicial Authorities, i.e. the Portuguese Attormey-General.

In Britain, the police investigate crimes.

In Portugal, the judicial authorities commission the police to investigate crimes.

Therein lies a huge difference.

This is how I expect things to go:

AR = Andy Redwood
PAG = Portuguese Attorney-General
C = Clerk in PAG's office

Tel call AR to PAG

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG?
C No, he's attending a conference, he'll be back next week

Next week Tel call AR to PAG

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG?
C No, he's busy.
AR Can I leave a message?
C OK
AR Tell him I need to interview 4 Portuguese suspects, er, I mean persons of interest, ASAP
C I'll tell him

Following week

C Hallo
AR It's DCI Redwood here, Met Police. Can I speak to PAG? He hasn't returned my messages
C I'll see if he's available
PAG What is it?
AR Well, um, I need to talk to 4 Portuguese citizens whom we suspect, er, whom we think may know something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
PAG Who are they?
AR:  AB, CD, EF, GH.
PAG Where do they live?
AR  Er, we think we know where EF lives, but maybe your police offricers could help us find the other three?
PAG Are you prepared to pay for our time in tracing these people?
AR I'll get back to you on that
PAG And you realise that if you want to talk to any of these people, I'll need your reasons in writing
AR OK
PAG And that one of my senior staff will need to accompany your officers on every visit?
AR Yes, I'm aware of that
PAG And is your government going to pay for my officers' time in doing this?
AR Er, well, I'll get back to you on that one as well
PAG And when translators are required for these interviews, who will be funding that?
AR Can you help us with that?
PAG No - look, I'm pretty busy right now, just confirm in wirting that you'll meet all our expenses within 7 days of submitting a claim and then I'll ring you back
AR Er...
Sound of dialling tone ............................


++++++++++++++++++++++

Is Mark Williams-Thomas right about there being 'tension' between the British Police and the Portuguese Judicial Authorities?

I think it's highly likely.

Even MWT can be right sometimes.

Good afternoon Mr Bennett,

Spot on. Hilarious.

Like an unsuspecting Dinosaur sinking into a mudpit.

These Portuguese are no fools, and therein lies the problem - since May 3rd 2007

It is my firm believe that on the British side it is all set up to be unacceptable for the Portuguese. Can you imagine Andy Pandy calling that Mr G McCann suddenly remembers that he saw a man scurrying away when he was talking with what's his name. BTW I have no doubt the other 38 leads are from the same quality. Now can you please investigate that lead, thoroughly, until we say we're convinced it leads to nothing.

Yes of course we will submit your expenses. We do that very throroughly by hand, on paper, ask Mr Bennet how well that works.

The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that. They knew the moment they started looking through the police files their was no abductor, not in the classical sense at least. This way they have an excuse for their time wasted, nonsense interviews, money thrown down the drain, and the pathetic parents stay out of range.

Against all odds [here] I remain confident that both SY and PJ will try and hopefully solve the case.

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who? the Mccanns? Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal? Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who?  the Mccanns?  Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?  Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.  

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

In which case, why stop looking then for an indeterminate length of time whilst a highly publicised review is going on? 
Over two years during which time Maddie - according to the 'crack team' of detectives they laid off when the review started - she was most likely in a hellish liar.

But that could wait - so far I've seen nothing that even looks like a genuine investigation from SY.

Châtelaine wrote:Against all odds [here] I remain confident that both SY and PJ will try and hopefully solve the case.

Haven't the PJ, in their mind, already 'solved' the case?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Against all odds [here] I remain confident that both SY and PJ will try and hopefully solve the case.

Haven't the PJ, in their mind, already 'solved' the case?

Theoretically yes, but the madcouple are not pleased with the PJ's findings, and are digging a bigger hole for themselves.
Or should I say hoisted by their own petard.

tigger wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who?  the Mccanns?  Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?  Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.  

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

In which case, why stop looking then for an indeterminate length of time whilst a highly publicised review is going on? 
Over two years during which time Maddie - according to the 'crack team' of detectives they laid off when the review started - she was most likely in a hellish liar.

But that could wait - so far I've seen nothing that even looks like a genuine investigation from SY.

Oh, it's genuine alright!
Except they prefer to test out the PJ's conclusion by their own methodology which they termed new thinking, new theory, new methods, new whatever, which is a lot of tosh if that's what they are doing to satisfy themselves that the PJ got it right all along. Beat round the bush way to come to a consensus with the Portuguese. There must be a rationale behind this working method from retrospect and one wonders what might their objective be.
You have to question how they managed to narrow down the 195 fresh leads into 38 POI. What happened to the rest?
If POI does not mean Suspect, then you have to wonder whether they do have *suspect* in mind, and whether they are just cleverly playing with their words.

2 suspects would be ample. 38 would be madness.

It would be interesting to watch AR chaperoned by PJ while he goes about his interrogation task.

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who?  the Mccanns?  Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?  Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.  

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?

As if that not happened before in this case. To name a few of those "incidents": an ambassador who interferes in a police investigation so the main suspects (although not officially at that time) can wash all clothes worn on the day of the crime.

Protection from and help against the PJ investigation.

Being briefed beyond what's normal. Given information, being warned about surveillance.

Having put political pressure on the judiciary.

Having the main subjects being whisked out of Portugal.

And if you doubt that this is all a "row worthy" remember that any request for further information, even through the FOIA is being answered with: we can't give that, matter of national security, would irreparable damage ties with Portugal.

The white wash has been going on since the clothing wash on May 5th, 2007.

tigger wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who?  the Mccanns?  Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?  Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.  

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

In which case, why stop looking then for an indeterminate length of time whilst a highly publicised review is going on? 
Over two years during which time Maddie - according to the 'crack team' of detectives they laid off when the review started - she was most likely in a hellish liar.

But that could wait - so far I've seen nothing that even looks like a genuine investigation from SY.

 I haven't either. For me the only genuine investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann involving a British police force was the one by the Portuguese assisted by Leicestershire Constabulary which seems to have been an excellent demonstration of two forces working together - at least as far as the people on the ground were concerned; if only the same could have been said for whatever was going on back at HQ perhaps the case could have been solved there and then. Be that as it may, to quote the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” That is the status quo against which any assertion by Redwood of the Yard that the parents are not suspects or even persons of interest must be judged. I bet there are a few people at Leicestershire Constabulary watching the Yard's progress or lack of it, very carefully indeed.

 The voice of reason.  The reports of the liaison officers reflect the cooperation  from the PJ at the time.  

(Where you bin, boy?) 

T4two wrote:

tigger wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
The whole exercise is set up to fail in a way they can blame Portugal for that.

By who?  the Mccanns?  Nothing new there then.

By the Police? And risk bringing the country into a row with Portugal?  Personally I dont think that will happen.

Would the Home Office dare criticise the Portugal Authorities; and render themselves stupid?
No one points a gun at Theresa May to force her to continue the funding of the Review.
The decision must have been aken with good reason.  

To white wash you don't need a valid reason, no reason would be valid anyway.

In which case, why stop looking then for an indeterminate length of time whilst a highly publicised review is going on? 
Over two years during which time Maddie - according to the 'crack team' of detectives they laid off when the review started - she was most likely in a hellish liar.

But that could wait - so far I've seen nothing that even looks like a genuine investigation from SY.

 I haven't either. For me the only genuine investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann involving a British police force was the one by the Portuguese assisted by Leicestershire Constabulary which seems to have been an excellent demonstration of two forces working together - at least as far as the people on the ground were concerned; if only the same could have been said for whatever was going on back at HQ perhaps the case could have been solved there and then. Be that as it may, to quote the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” That is the status quo against which any assertion by Redwood of the Yard that the parents are not suspects or even persons of interest must be judged. I bet there are a few people at Leicestershire Constabulary watching the Yard's progress or lack of it, very carefully indeed.

Thanks T42 I had forgotten about that one. So this great police force is not only pooh-poohing the PJ but also their colleagues from Leicestershire . All with a pompous air of arrogance that their quality of work is so much better than what the PJ in cooperation with their British counterparts did in 2007-2008.

IF Deadwood comes out with "yeah, no, yeah so i don't know"

I'm sure there will be a now 'retired' proper cop from the Leicestershire Police force who 'worked on the investigation' to put him right!

I think the reason that a lot of members feel that the whitewash scenario is negative is because it leaves us all nowhere.  All of the years of finding information, trawling through the files and taking a lot of flack for being of the opinion that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearance, is totally in vain, and I don't think anyone wants to think that.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if SY would like us all to be quiet, not so they can produce a whitewash, but more so because I think there have been many posters who have got a good handle on the case and are probably very close to the truth, if not nailing it totally and of course the problem with that is that we keep alerting the McCanns (because we know they read these forums) to the large gaping holes in their stories, which they then attempt to correct.  How many times has someone made a comment about something the Mc's have said or done, only for them to appear in the media in some form or another to counter what has been said.  Therefore, when there are a group of intelligent (or so I like to think lol)  people second guessing every move of the investigation, it could be quite concerning for the police that we could actually be helping the main suspects to build their defence.  Sorry, I'm not phrasing that particularly well (not so intelligent as this time of night lol) but I suppose I am wondering if Redwood's statements are as much about hoping that we will all go..."what the tapas lot are not suspects...this is going to be a whitewash" and hopefully we'll all just give up!  No chance of that though.

However, I really don't believe it is a cover up or whitewash or it would all have been done and dusted now and the Mc's would have disappeared from view and we would hear nothing else about them.  They haven't gone away though, because they are still desperate to prove to anyone who will listen that they're innocent of everything..they wouldn't need to do that if they were being protected and the met would simply have said at the review stage, that there was nothing left to investigate, that Madeleine had been abducted by person(s) unknown and sadly they will be unlikely to find out what happened to her..End of story/

So, no, I still have faith that this will be a proper investigation and that there will be a satisfactory outcome.

susible wrote:I think the reason that a lot of members feel that the whitewash scenario is negative is because it leaves us all nowhere.  All of the years of finding information, trawling through the files and taking a lot of flack for being of the opinion that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearance, is totally in vain, and I don't think anyone wants to think that.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if SY would like us all to be quiet, not so they can produce a whitewash, but more so because I think there have been many posters who have got a good handle on the case and are probably very close to the truth, if not nailing it totally and of course the problem with that is that we keep alerting the McCanns (because we know they read these forums) to the large gaping holes in their stories, which they then attempt to correct.  How many times has someone made a comment about something the Mc's have said or done, only for them to appear in the media in some form or another to counter what has been said.  Therefore, when there are a group of intelligent (or so I like to think lol)  people second guessing every move of the investigation, it could be quite concerning for the police that we could actually be helping the main suspects to build their defence.  Sorry, I'm not phrasing that particularly well (not so intelligent as this time of night lol) but I suppose I am wondering if Redwood's statements are as much about hoping that we will all go..."what the tapas lot are not suspects...this is going to be a whitewash" and hopefully we'll all just give up!  No chance of that though.

However, I really don't believe it is a cover up or whitewash or it would all have been done and dusted now and the Mc's would have disappeared from view and we would hear nothing else about them.  They haven't gone away though, because they are still desperate to prove to anyone who will listen that they're innocent of everything..they wouldn't need to do that if they were being protected and the met would simply have said at the review stage, that there was nothing left to investigate, that Madeleine had been abducted by person(s) unknown and sadly they will be unlikely to find out what happened to her..End of story/

So, no, I still have faith that this will be a proper investigation and that there will be a satisfactory outcome.

 thank you for your positive words. we all need them.   my opinion is your opinion.

the police will never tell us what is going on

and I believe in a good outcome.

Very well said Susible.  I agree why prolong a whitewash, it only complicates things.

Thank you for the last three positive posts - sometimes I find the whole situation so overwhelming with all the speculation and opinion, it helps to keep a balance in my mind when I read them!  I am just an armchair "Miss Marple" but I feel so strongly that justice must prevail for Madeleine. 

Of course the whole agreement was made far  before Theresa sent her letter to Portugal.
I even believe  it was  already ready in May, who  knows in April.
The Yard is always many steps before us and they have to be.
I also believe that the McCanns knew already about the investigation at the begin of May.
That would explain a terrible photo of both, especially of Gerry's, on a paper, at a public place, I think praying.
And it would explain Kate's disappearance too.

Which one of you could tell me where to find that photo?  Was it on a paper from Rothley?

Pictures are here Marconi
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Châtelaine wrote:Pictures are here Marconi
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 Thank you, Châtelaine (you must have a beautiful home).
Again a new article on McCann Files, very hopeful, about the response Portugal gave to Theresa May.
We are all happy, to beginning with the McCanns who insisted on the review and even on the investigation, than  Rebekah Brooks, who did everything to help them in that issue, followed by Cameron and Theresa May and now by Justice in Portugal.
And don't forget the media and internet, hungry of news, waiting for the moment that Madeleine will be found alive and well.

Kate and Gerry have always been lucky, especially now!  Blessed guys!

The Yard's investigation in Portugal is not smoke and mirrors. There must be something somewhere.    Wasting more  time and money, no!

I believe somebody will denounce the perpetrator and point the grave, something already known by the PJ.
They are all under a terrible pressure. And they regret, and they regret to having helped the McCanns.
 Thank you, dear Lord!

Very hopefull ???? 

from; the latest news:

According to what DN found, the PJ has not yet received the letter of request and only after knowing what the British police wish to clarify can they establish the means that will be necessary to support the detectives of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). According to the MPS "it was requested that a small number of British investigators would be present in Portugal to follow these inquiries." According to sources that are monitoring the case, this request has not yet been formalized to the National Directorate of the PJ, but it can happen anytime.

Seems a lot still has to happen before even this investigation can start.

And for the life of me I cannot understand why some think that, if you don't believe the SY investigation is a very crafty game to fool and catch the McCanns, you don't want justice for Madeleine. Being sceptical is not only everyone's right, it is justified after all the red herrings, hot air balloons etc etc that were launched since this all happened.

So Marconi, when do you think this big revelation will take place?