Joana Morais - The PJ will conduct the questioning that was requested by the English police - 14/8/2013

lj wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:I'm thinking they cannot come out of this empty handed, no matter what.  They must say something.

If they veer towards abduction theory, that she might be alive, they will have to explain how they arrived at decision, else they would really look incompetent particularly considering elite team was deployed to do a comprehensive special commissioned review and investigation.

If there is no evidence to support abduction, then what exactly happened  ?

In the finished, be what it may be, they will have to explain how they arrived at their conclusion.  Interesting times ahead anyway.

If this investigation is not over before this year is out then I will lose all hope that someone will be prosecuted for this crime.
To me, the Yard should already have solved it and now finalising foolproof evidence to a closure.  
It's only a question of time before closed-end investigation will end or yield desired result, while open-end investigation could drag into eternity to no avail.  

Cost is always a factor in a protracted and prolonged investigation so if this is not done and dealt with within six months, it does not bode well.  All IMO anyway.

And if they veer towards abduction, the successive British governments who refused to get involved during the years of "there is no official investigation, we have to do this on our own" are not going to come out of this very well for doing nothing while a child may have languished at the hands of captors, or worse.

Don't forget that the "workorder" was to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK.

Not "see if an abduction took place", not "an open mind", no: "to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK".

It is not a matter of if they arrive at the conclusion it was an abduction, it is their working platform.

Depressingly, the abduction angle does indeed seem to be their working platform.  However, as Aiyoyo points out, they will at some point have to justify that decision which might present a rather large problem.  The amount of information from the Portuguese investigation released into the public domain means an about face from parental involvement (with domonstrable grounds) to stranger abduction (with nothing concrete) would take some explaining.  That, and the fact that the UK government chose to leave the child in the hands of the perpetrator/s for an obscene length of time before acting amounts to one almighty PR conundrum.

Agree Monty - in a nutshell! I await developments ........

It is very well possible that the Yard's investigation has started already in Algarve and that it is obeying the Portuguese law : silence.  Because I think that in this case it is in the hands of the PJ, doing a favor to the Met police.  They will not tell anything to anyone.
As I believe that the answer will come from there, I believe it will not take much longer for a breakthrough.
I also believe that the news will come from the Yard in Britain, after the corpse is found and after arrests are made.
I hope thay are as much in a hurry as we are.

The abduction angle is clearly the only angle they have openly discussed..

Maybe it is a front, maybe not.

I still believe this circus paid for by the tax payer is to thin the heard of the disbelievers still further whilst gaining access to the unreleased priceless gems in the archives.

Why claim the other lot are in the clear then make idiots of themselves by going back on it.

Pershing36 wrote:The abduction angle is clearly the only angle they have openly discussed..

Maybe it is a front, maybe not.

I still believe this circus paid for by the tax payer is to thin the heard of the disbelievers still further whilst gaining access to the unreleased priceless gems in the archives.

Why claim the other lot are in the clear then make idiots of themselves by going back on it.

It's hard to see the current SY emphasis on abduction as merely a front.  Abduction has been the establishment line from day 1, forced on the public with vigour from all angles.  Jim Gamble, for example, rather than giving impartial advice/support as his CEOP role demaned, jumped in with both feet in support of the parents from the beginning, long before the investigation of them proper was instigated and despite findings which were subject to interpretation, shall we say, has yet to voice the slightest doubt.  This attitude seems to go right across the establishment board and it is difficult to understand why none of the establishment figures who apprently refuse to entertain parental involvement will not allow the public in on the secret.  If there is such certainty that the McCs were not involved, and if there is solid evidence to back up that assertion, then why not LET US KNOW WHY THAT IS.  Surely after 6 years of suspicion and debate it is time to let the public know why none of the T9 are persons of interest.  If they have been ruled out of the equation, why is it not possible to state that as a matter of fact, without any ambiguity?

If the uk government really wanted to do a white wash why not just call it a day after the review?

I can't see any reason to go into a real investigation if you want a white wash

The investigation linking in with the Portuguese must be for real .......or am I stupid

Trainer wrote: [...] The investigation linking in with the Portuguese must be for real .......or am I stupid

***
No, I don't think you are ... I just don't know how much more time it's going to take. And there are days that I hope I will still be alive then ...

Similar to the end of JFK, where Jim Garrison tells his kids to watch out for the release of the 'truth' about JFK's assassination -as he'll be long gone by the time it comes out! Thoinking of telling my kids the same!

@ penfold
Bittersweat joke  

Monty Heck wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:The abduction angle is clearly the only angle they have openly discussed..

Maybe it is a front, maybe not.

I still believe this circus paid for by the tax payer is to thin the heard of the disbelievers still further whilst gaining access to the unreleased priceless gems in the archives.

Why claim the other lot are in the clear then make idiots of themselves by going back on it.

It's hard to see the current SY emphasis on abduction as merely a front.  Abduction has been the establishment line from day 1, forced on the public with vigour from all angles.  Jim Gamble, for example, rather than giving impartial advice/support as his CEOP role demaned, jumped in with both feet in support of the parents from the beginning, long before the investigation of them proper was instigated and despite findings which were subject to interpretation, shall we say, has yet to voice the slightest doubt.  This attitude seems to go right across the establishment board and it is difficult to understand why none of the establishment figures who apprently refuse to entertain parental involvement will not allow the public in on the secret.  If there is such certainty that the McCs were not involved, and if there is solid evidence to back up that assertion, then why not LET US KNOW WHY THAT IS.  Surely after 6 years of suspicion and debate it is time to let the public know why none of the T9 are persons of interest.  If they have been ruled out of the equation, why is it not possible to state that as a matter of fact, without any ambiguity?

The stance taken by people like Jim Gamble is the mystery Monty Heck, and partially accounts imo for the level of scepticism amongst the public. There's so much wrong with the abduction story yet the establishment don't even try to maintain a semblance of impartiality, they actually promote the McCanns as heroes for some strange reason.

In response to a tweet questioning the Scotland Yard review Jim Gamble tweeted:

Jim Gamble ‏@JimGamble_INEQE 30 Jul
@CaroleShooter I wouldn't comment on anything I haven't got a full understanding of while an investigation is ongoing. Thanks.

which is fair enough if he was consistent but in fact it's very different from his comments in Oct 2007. Shortly after the McCanns were made suspects in the disappearance of their child, he gave an interview in which he had no qualms at all about commenting whilst there was an on-going police investigation:

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

The original article is still on the Mirror site 5 Oct 2007
'As the senior police officer in charge of Britain's anti-paedophile operations, Jim understands only too well the toll it exacts on his team. "You are constantly traumatised by the work that you do," he says. "By the fact that adults can be so unbelievably cruel to the youngest, most vulnerable children in our society." And as head of the CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, missing Madeleine McCann is inevitably never far from his mind. "We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London. "They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'." For Gamble, every day is about saving a potential Madeleine from harm. And every day he and his team must plumb the depths of what the human spirit can bear'.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the end, Gamble's mission statement couldn't be simpler: "I just want all kids to be able to grow up in a warm, loving environment."
________________________________________________________________________________

So he wouldn't want 3 kids, all under 4 years old, left in an unlocked, dark apartment, all alone in a foreign country environment with the parents completely out of sight for at least half an hour at a time then!

Unless, of course, the 3 kids belong to his highly praised and 'adored' McCanns!

NOTHING could possibly go wrong following their brilliant parenting 'example', highly endorsed by Jim, could it?

"Still, it could have been worse, we could have lost all 3" said the loving daddy, Gerry McCann.

Trainer wrote:If the uk government really wanted to do a white wash why not just call it a day after the review?

I can't see any reason to go into a real investigation if you want a white wash

The investigation linking in with the Portuguese must be for real .......or am I stupid

Trainer, you are a bright person. of course it is not a white wash and it has never been. the mccanns kept insisting on a review, knowing that the PJ would refuse it, unless there would be new evidence.As the files were shelved, they thought they were safe.  and they continued being a pain in the a... of the British government, annoying Cameron and Theresa May.They had no idea that Brooks was preparing a trap, that would bring them to justice.
Rebekah wanted the 500.000 pounds back, of course. And even much more than 500.000, which will happen.
Don't you ever trust journalists!

The Yard got involved in the case and, in my opnion,most of the Tapas, under a terrible pressure,had no other choice but telling the truth,  during an interview.  That is what Redwood called " new witnesses evidence".
In my opinion, that evidence is pointing to Algarve, where the corpse is hidden. That's why the Met are going there. I suspect in a house near the church, perhaps under the kitchen floor, an usual anglo-sax solution for  murders. If the corpse is there, the PJ must know it.

marconi:
The Yard got involved in the case and, in my opnion,most of the Tapas, under a terrible pressure,had no other choice but telling the truth,  during an interview.  That is what Redwood called " new witnesses evidence".
_________________________________________________________________
A 'hoax'

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice................................maximum sentence...................LIFE imprisonment.
Conspiracy to defraud.' the fund '.( knowing full well the facts about the 'disappearance' BEFORE 'fund' set up).....maximum sentence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10 years imprisonment.
Proceeds of Crime Act....................., houses, cars, money etc, all forfeited to get back the cost of operation £5.5 million.
And that's before they even face the gaunlet of hate they'd ALL face from the public they, and their 'family members' ASKED to donate to a private company they set up.

jeanmonroe,

Do you know what the minimum sentence's for those crimes are?

The people involved in this case seem to be so well connected and so well protected , that it is much more likely that a minimum sentence is all they will ever recieve, even if this case is brought to a Court of Law and a person (or persons), is convicted of something.

Who?What?Where? wrote:jeanmonroe,

Do you know what the minimum sentence's for those crimes are?

The people involved in this case seem to be so well connected and so well protected , that it is much more likely that a minimum sentence is all they will ever recieve, even if this case is brought to a Court of Law and a person (or persons), is convicted of something.

The minimum sentence they, and their ENTIRE families, would receive is that the WHOLE of the UK would hate them, not just the vast majority!

marconi wrote:

Trainer wrote:If the uk government really wanted to do a white wash why not just call it a day after the review?

I can't see any reason to go into a real investigation if you want a white wash

The investigation linking in with the Portuguese must be for real .......or am I stupid

Trainer, you are a bright person. of course it is not a white wash and it has never been. the mccanns kept insisting on a review, knowing that the PJ would refuse it, unless there would be new evidence.As the files were shelved, they thought they were safe.  and they continued being a pain in the a... of the British government, annoying Cameron and Theresa May.They had no idea that Brooks was preparing a trap, that would bring them to justice.
Rebekah wanted the 500.000 pounds back, of course. And even much more than 500.000, which will happen.
Don't you ever trust journalists!

The Yard got involved in the case and, in my opnion,most of the Tapas, under a terrible pressure,had no other choice but telling the truth,  during an interview.  That is what Redwood called " new witnesses evidence".
In my opinion, that evidence is pointing to Algarve, where the corpse is hidden. That's why the Met are going there. I suspect in a house near the church, perhaps under the kitchen floor, an usual anglo-sax solution for  murders. If the corpse is there, the PJ must know it.

I try to ignore you, but it is almost impossible.
So I ask again (just in case a visitor comes by and thinks you're the oracle of this side): can you give some reference, background information or anything that can support your outlandish claims?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Who?What?Where? wrote:jeanmonroe,

Do you know what the minimum sentence's for those crimes are?

The people involved in this case seem to be so well connected and so well protected , that it is much more likely that a minimum sentence is all they will ever recieve, even if this case is brought to a Court of Law and a person (or persons), is convicted of something.

The minimum sentence they, and their ENTIRE families, would receive is that the WHOLE of the UK would hate them, not just the vast majority!

Don't put them in jail, give them community service, preferably with a big sign that state what a harmful parents they are.

With a link to this site of course, so everyone can read up on the damage these 2 have done.

lj wrote:
Don't forget that the "workorder" was to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK.

Not "see if an abduction took place", not "an open mind", no: "to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK".

It is not a matter of if they arrive at the conclusion it was an abduction, it is their working platform.

I beg to differ.

As.....IF, the abduction took place in the UK.......?  Can also mean the Yard would have to apply and observe all the procedures as laid down by MPS for the handling of crime of this nature. Meaning if  an/the abduction took place in the UK how MET would handle it, what procedures MET would have to follow.

Undoubted, they would have to look inwards as well as outwards with an open mind on all scenarios; including one of looking at the last person/s to have seen the child alive, and person who found her missing (in the case her parents).  They would have to be questioned and eliminated or not from the equation.

By virtue of the UK Police Force Manual (procedures or whatever you called it ) of Investigations, the Yard IS obliged to interview the Mccanns & Friends.  Failing to do that would be in total contradiction to their laid-down procedures, in breach of their own internal rules.  

If, ultimately, the Yard were to come up with a conclusion of *Stranger Abduction" without evidence to support this theory, combined this with their non-interview and elimination of her parents and friends would be seen as a travesty of investigation.  It would be extremely difficult for them to argue that their conclusion is valid, nor it is acceptable within legal perimeters, especially when the rules for investigation "as if the *abduction*  took place in the UK" were not applied across the board without exception.

 The Yard will lose all credibility plus will risk facing inquiry for dereliction of their fiduciary duties.

aiyoyo wrote:
I beg to differ.
As.....IF, the abduction took place in the UK.......?  Can also mean the Yard would have to apply and observe all the procedures as laid down by MPS for the handling of crime of this nature. Meaning if  an/the abduction took place in the UK how MET would handle it, what procedures MET would have to follow.

And the opening rule is - If it doubt, think Murder
And the next two are
Watch the family.
Follow the money

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
I beg to differ.
As.....IF, the abduction took place in the UK.......?  Can also mean the Yard would have to apply and observe all the procedures as laid down by MPS for the handling of crime of this nature. Meaning if  an/the abduction took place in the UK how MET would handle it, what procedures MET would have to follow.

And the opening rule is - If it doubt, think Murder
And the next two are
Watch the family.
Follow the money

OK.....if Op Grange should fail to follow this opening rule, they would be in breach isn't it?

So then, an educated guess tells us there wont be any need to interview Mccanns and friends for elimination because Redwood team already cracked what exactly happened to Madeleine and it's only a question of time before the inevitable.

tasprin wrote:

The stance taken by people like Jim Gamble is the mystery Monty Heck, and partially accounts imo for the level of scepticism amongst the public. There's so much wrong with the abduction story yet the establishment don't even try to maintain a semblance of impartiality, they actually promote the McCanns as heroes for some strange reason.

In response to a tweet questioning the Scotland Yard review Jim Gamble tweeted:

Jim Gamble ‏@JimGamble_INEQE 30 Jul
@CaroleShooter I wouldn't comment on anything I haven't got a full understanding of while an investigation is ongoing. Thanks.

which is fair enough if he was consistent but in fact it's very different from his comments in Oct 2007. Shortly after the McCanns were made suspects in the disappearance of their child, he gave an interview in which he had no qualms at all about commenting whilst there was an on-going police investigation:

The original article is still on the Mirror site 5 Oct 2007
'As the senior police officer in charge of Britain's anti-paedophile operations, Jim understands only too well the toll it exacts on his team. "You are constantly traumatised by the work that you do," he says. "By the fact that adults can be so unbelievably cruel to the youngest, most vulnerable children in our society." And as head of the CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre, missing Madeleine McCann is inevitably never far from his mind. "We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London. "They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'." For Gamble, every day is about saving a potential Madeleine from harm. And every day he and his team must plumb the depths of what the human spirit can bear'.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Tasprin.  Quite a contrast between quotes - if you hadn't given the dates I would have guessed that the first had been made early in the arguido situation and the second more recent.  The Oct 2007 quote is quite startling, concerning as it does two people under suspect status during an ongoing investigation in another country.  Even if he dismissed the dogs and forensics, which may have been inconclusive but certainly couldn't be ruled out as belonging to MMcC, how could he possibly dismiss the other investigative findings, such as the unexplained inconsistenices and impossibility of the timeline given by the group?  That the head of a body like CEOP, an apparently hardened investigator of the most vile crimes would apparently gloss over the legitimate and evidence based concerns of the official investigators concerning the parents in favour of publicly voicing his unquestioning support is very difficult to take in, yet there it is, in his own (literally) incredible words.  The question is, is this a mere leap of faith, an instinctive belief that the parents did no wrong or does he base his views on something concrete that we don't know about?  Or, was he simply told to give unquestioning support when at the very least he ought to have remained impartial, in public at least.

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:
Don't forget that the "workorder" was to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK.

Not "see if an abduction took place", not "an open mind", no: "to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK".

It is not a matter of if they arrive at the conclusion it was an abduction, it is their working platform.

I beg to differ.

As.....IF, the abduction took place in the UK.......?  Can also mean the Yard would have to apply and observe all the procedures as laid down by MPS for the handling of crime of this nature. Meaning if  an/the abduction took place in the UK how MET would handle it, what procedures MET would have to follow.

Undoubted, they would have to look inwards as well as outwards with an open mind on all scenarios; including one of looking at the last person/s to have seen the child alive, and person who found her missing (in the case her parents).  They would have to be questioned and eliminated or not from the equation.

By virtue of the UK Police Force Manual (procedures or whatever you called it ) of Investigations, the Yard IS obliged to interview the Mccanns & Friends.  Failing to do that would be in total contradiction to their laid-down procedures, in breach of their own internal rules.  

If, ultimately, the Yard were to come up with a conclusion of *Stranger Abduction" without evidence to support this theory, combined this with their non-interview and elimination of her parents and friends would be seen as a travesty of investigation.  It would be extremely difficult for them to argue that their conclusion is valid, nor it is acceptable within legal perimeters,  especially when the rules for investigation "as if the *abduction*  took place in the UK" were not applied across the board without exception.

 The Yard will lose all credibility plus will risk facing inquiry for dereliction of their fiduciary duties.

I have no time now to find it. It was in the first interview with Andy IIRC, at the start of the review.

The same where they said there would not be any updates or reports to the public. So the "to investigate as if the abduction had taken place in the UK" might be a lie too.

God only knows what their work order is supposed to mean.  

Redwood did say it was a stranger abduction ( that she may be alive or sadly dead), follows by a subsequent statement stating her parents & Hol friends are not POI or suspects, but neither statement gels with top-CPS-officials presence in Portugal.
 His statements are perplexing coming after having said they weren't going to report to the public.
 Something not as reported is happening behind the scene and Redwood isn't telling (just yet).

Could the objective of Redwood's statements to give the Press something to print in the avoidance of unnecessary speculation or premature breaking news causing frenzy of refute activities from certain quarters and their lawyers that will screw things up before they get started ?

I cant see the justification for more money thrown onto something as abstract  and intangible as a faceless stranger.
Somehow despite the proclamations one does not get the feeling the Yard are searching for a swarthy garlic breath vagabond.
The impression seems to be they're after whoever entered the apt to soothe the child or at least working in the direction that Madeleine perp/s was/were known to her.
IMV, the couple must have been known to Madeleine and knew she was alone.
They could't have been abductors and not taken her then - neither were they another lot on dry trial run that's for sure as that would be too freaky ludicrous. If they were samaritan passer-bys hearing a crying child you would think they would have reported the crying incident to the Reception rather than trespassed especially if they'd thought the child was alone.

Only one of two things can happen ultimately.

1.  They announce the arrest of so and so in the UK, and only then would those peripheral characters surrounding them be invited into Police Stations to answer for their role in it.

2.  They produce NEW substantiatable evidence, concurred as plausible by their joint-partner, to support the abduction theory.
A decision not unanimously agreed by both sides would throw up questions of its plausibility and validity. How are the Yard going to announce to the World an unilateral conclusion and hope not to be challenged by the Portuguese ?

More significantly, in that said scenario, there can be no closure for the case, so how is that going to serve the British Authority's hidden agenda, be there one ? In a nutshell, after having coerced or rather persuaded the Portuguese involvement/cooperation in their Review/Investigation it will be impossible to take (or maintain) a white wash position and hope to get away without looking grossly incompetent and without being challenged ?

Is the UK Government going out on a limb to make an arse of themselves over this case ? $64M question.

In the worst case scenario this can result in the same conclusion as previously arrived at by the Portuguese - an impasse. Meaning they knew there was no abduction, Maddie died in the apt, her nearest and closest involved, but not enough for trial. And, that would raise the question how are the Yard and/or Home Office going to announce this ? Another $64M question.

Or they will take a year or so with various 'promising leads' to end up with the mysterious tea stain and a long dead paedo. Job done.

tigger wrote:Or they will take a year or so with various 'promising leads' to end up with the mysterious tea stain and a long dead paedo. Job done.

Could be ! But, what about the cost ?

aiyoyo wrote:

tigger wrote:Or they will take a year or so with various 'promising leads' to end up with the mysterious tea stain and a long dead paedo. Job done.

Could be !  But, what about the cost ?

Think about the costs saved by not having a trial!

tigger wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

tigger wrote:Or they will take a year or so with various 'promising leads' to end up with the mysterious tea stain and a long dead paedo. Job done.

Could be !  But, what about the cost ?

Think about the costs saved by not having a trial!

Cant be more than the costs of continual searching ; and the pain of having to put up with odious Pair nagging everyone to keep a look out !

Can any of you tell me how long does a person gets for prison in case of obstruction of police work,for concealing of a corpse, for fraudulent fund, for accidental or otherwise death, in the UK?

marconi wrote:Can any of you tell me how long does a person gets for prison in case of obstruction of police work,for concealing of a corpse, for fraudulent fund, for accidental or otherwise death, in the UK?

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice................................maximum sentence...................LIFE imprisonment.
Conspiracy to defraud. ie...'the fund '.( knowing full well the facts about the 'disappearance' BEFORE 'fund' set up).....maximum sentence,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10 years imprisonment.
Proceeds of Crime Act....................., houses, cars, money etc, all forfeited to get back the cost of operation £5.5 million.
And that's before they even face the gauntlet of hate they'd ALL face from the public they, and their 'family members' ASKED to donate to a private company they set up.