Brits launch Maddie probe

candyfloss wrote:Strange we have just had the Hewlett news? Now this. Looks like it is cut and dried.

justagrannynow 1 wrote:The News of the World article makes one wonder what would be the point of an investigation? Jim Gamble seems to have got the whole thing sewn up. The McCanns are innocent and Madeleine is still missing due to the incompetent Portuguese police.

Could this be yet another attempt to reinforce the abduction scenario in the mind of the public, prior to an official investigation?

Cherry wrote:I thought it was on the advice of the British Police that they were made suspects in the first place?

candyfloss wrote:

This time police will review all the leads using technology and standards expected in a homicide or kidnap case in the UK.
using technology.......expected in a 'homicide' jumps up at me


Mr Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, found a basic failure to collate information and join up links that should have been made.

Is this failure to collate info referring to evidence against the mccanns rather than sightings?

Telephone records were not properly analysed, missing early opportunities for leads.

IF this refers to the T9, more crucially the mccanns' phone records, rather than calls received about sightings, then the focus is on mccanns, and not abductor!

And Kate and Gerry McCann were named as Arguidos, or formal suspects, by Portuguese police - something that the review says would not have happened if the probe had been carried out in the UK.
Does 'the review' body here refers to West York? If so, than does this mean that the verdict of that secret review is saying that mccanns would have been taken into custody, had UK been the prime investigators.
Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. His findings have now been formally submitted to the Home Office with recommendations to re-investigate.

Aren't they de-arguidoed now, home and dry. Why the need to recommend a re-investigate into that? If the main objective of this re-investigate is to find the abductor, why go over banal old grounds, over such stupid thing as scrutinising why mccanns were made arguidoes - is that going to find Maddie? I think this recommendation may not be what people think - it might be to re-investigate the mccanns, using released info and what was held by LP.

The damning review has now set the Association of Chief Police Officers the difficult task of trying to decide who takes on the mammoth task. It is already predicted to be "an extremely costly" investigation that, even if done properly, will probably never be solved.

Here, again the 'review' is mentioned? West York Review?
"Extremely costing"- why budget that kind of money on a case without a shred of evidence to support the abduction theory? Again, I think the mccanns will be the understudy,and not the abductor. Since when the treasury's purse has that kind of money to chase a phantom abductor for the mccanns? What makes Madeleine priorty over the rest of the missing children/people in UK?

Damning: Jim Gamble
A source said: "It is something that has to be reviewed. It is only right that the McCanns are given the satisfaction that everything that could be done has been done. It now comes down to who is up to the job."

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson is expected to announce that the new probe will NOT be carried out by Leicestershire police, the McCanns' local force. The review has highlighted failures within their handling of the case and ruled them out of the review.

If whitewash is in the pipeline, why criticised the LP's failure at all?

Instead ACPO are now asking around their top cops to see who could take on the very difficult and complex investigation.
The source added: "It will be extremely costly and sadly is unlikely to result in a positive outcome.

"As much as we would all like this to end with good news for the McCanns, the fact is there have been a lot of missed opportunities and no-one will ever be able to reclaim the time and evidence lost."

Unlikely to result in positive outcome for who? Why is it imperative to result in positive outcome for the mccanns? How can any review remain objective, if already a pre-determined outcome is expected for one party? Unless, they are fearing 'not positive' for the probing authority, as in not enough to prosecute the mccanns, or to solve the mystery of Madeleinie, which will have come full circle to beget same verdict as the Portugal public prosecutor.


Two thousand pages of evidence released earlier claimed Portuguese detectives failed to follow up leads.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson ordered officials to examine the "feasibility" of British detectives having a fresh look at all the evidence back in March.
This bit is deliberately ambiguous (sp) - on one hand it's saying leads not followed up, on the other hand its saying 'evidence' needs to be relooked at.
It's not saying leads need to be re-looked at, because leads cannot be contrued as evidence imo, at most it can be regarded as info.

Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, met Mr Johnson to plead for help in their search for their daughter who vanished aged three from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

GOT a story for the News of the World? Email newsdesk@notw.co.uk or call 020 7782 1001