Re: WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

by lj 28.10.13 17:01

sami wrote:
Angelique wrote:"A Metropolitan Police official said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue” because they were not investigating the case at the time."

Dereliction of Duty.

It is a moral issue though, no matter how you dress it up.

For now, that is as important as anything else. People who previously could not believe the parents were involved are stunned by this. They too are now questioning their actions. This will ensure more and more people need answers, and believable ones at that.

No more Redwood whooshing away bundleman. The more I look at that photograph he produced of the side view of a man, the more annoyed I get. Was that the best he could do or is it a reflection of his opinion on the intelligence of those who question this ridiculous story ? What an insult.

The McCanns can give every excuse in the book, but they failed their little girl on that holiday and they have failed her every single day since by not making public that information.

It stinks to high heaven. The facts they are looking for excuses like "at that time we were not investigating" shows how much they are still protecting these pathetic parents. Andy "holier than the pope" first explaining how they were the first to have access to all sources of investigation. At that time I already asked: shouldn't that be PJ? Now I understand it better. He was, just like the parents, sitting on this, until he found an opportune moment to bring it with the most impact as his "revelation". What 'n absolute clown. Fortunately he was stupid enough to think he could sound out all bad publicity from the Dr. Amaral trial, giving the defense the best evidence yet that it were the parents who hampered the search, not Dr. Amaral, who from the first moment said the Smith sighting should be investigated further.

Amazing, amazing, not only how amoral this bunch is, but also how stupid. How laughable simple minded, I have no words.

by Beanie 28.10.13 17:01

Thank you rainbow1 and welcome.

I have not read this article before. It would be interesting to know who these locals were, Mrs Fenn perhaps?

Quote:

In a further twist, locals now claim that Madeleine did not always settle well. One evening they allege she ran away into the paths between the apartments, hiding for half an hour when it was time for bed.

by chillyheat 28.10.13 17:06

Sounds like CW was based around what the PI report was going to say once released. Why the emphasis on sleep was raised feels like now that a watering down effect was put in place first, if you understand what Im saying...

by chillyheat 28.10.13 17:08

ChillyHeat wrote:Sounds like CW was based around what the PI report was going to say once released. Why the emphasis on sleep was raised feels like now that a watering down effect was put in place first, if you understand what Im saying...

I mean they were trying a get out clause knowing the file would be released raising the issue of sleep patterns, allowing many to think she may have wandered off, in turn giving the McCanns another cop out....

by rainbow1 28.10.13 17:09

Thanks for the welcome Beanie. Like many I have followed story from the start on the first forums. I remember this mentioned on 3A's.

by SchrodingersBody 28.10.13 17:10

Whilst slagging off the Met Police, and Redwood, it might be remembered that they are working to a different burden of proof to you and I, no amount of dodgy goings on will secure them a resolution, they want evidence. Maximising the effect of the revelation might be their best chance to get evidence, assuming of course they don't expect to recover Madeliene in a breathing state.

by lj 28.10.13 17:14

rainbow1 wrote:
admin wrote:
sallypelt wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There's that "threat to national security" warning again.
Why the mention of national security etc when this case is a child missing . Very odd !

Maybe it is not more than that there have been quite a few "faux pas" on diplomatic and government level. An ambassador who blocks the police from retrieving clothing worn on the day of the disappearance just to name one. Another absolute nono is the PM calling, asking if Dr. Amaral has already been replaced.

It's all about egg on faces, and by now all the enablers start to realize they have not been backing a grieving pair of parents, but a narcissistic couple of sociopaths, who will throw anyone under the bus if it's up to them.

All just my personal opinion of course.

by lj 28.10.13 17:16

possumsall wrote:I'm another new member and very proud to be so.

Been a regular visitor for ages.

welcome!

by possumsall 28.10.13 17:23

SchrodingersBody wrote:Whilst slagging off the Met Police, and Redwood, it might be remembered that they are working to a different burden of proof to you and I, no amount of dodgy goings on will secure them a resolution, they want evidence. Maximising the effect of the revelation might be their best chance to get evidence, assuming of course they don't expect to recover Madeliene in a breathing state.

Don't forget, we are dealing with the UK Metropolitan Police/alongside SY!

I can see why the MET-POLICE issued two different faces. Remember how recently this bunch of "detectives" took 4 (yes, four) search's of a very small house in the UK in which held the corpse of a young child (in the attic).

Boy, how can 10 or so policemen/women overlook a dead body in a 12 X 24 foot attic?

I think I should e-mail SY to remind them to search all evidence more than FOUR times or they may over-look a body.

by ProfMoriarty 28.10.13 17:30

The ST article opens all the old wounds and strangely, it comes from the very detectives they hired themselves. Who would have thought those old reprobates would have followed the orthodox routes and then presented the unpalatable suggestions to their paymasters! Respect yo! Inconsistent McC statements. inconsistent T7 statements. Incredible Tannerman. Woke & wandered back in the frame, with body disposal the central question.
I wouldn't believe a word that comes from the Express or associated media. Nor from SY either - the same cops who claimed after the CW programme that they 'knew the name' of the suspect identified by two callers. SY attempted to pull a fast one on CW and now they have been caught out along with the McCs. Pretending they had come up with the efits! And then issuing TWO of them, claiming they were the same person! Nonsense. Trying to bluff that one of them might be Tannerman, even though they already knew her testimony was suspect and inconsistent. Pretending Smithman was new! Then ignoring the issue of how Mr Smith came to identify Smithman in the first place because it would embarrass the McCs.
The answer to all the 'slurs' can be solved by one answer. Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?

by Ann60 28.10.13 17:33

totally agree with this

by Praiaaa 28.10.13 17:33

ProfMoriarty wrote:Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?

Prof - indeed...

by sallypelt 28.10.13 17:33

possumsall wrote:
SchrodingersBody wrote:Whilst slagging off the Met Police, and Redwood, it might be remembered that they are working to a different burden of proof to you and I, no amount of dodgy goings on will secure them a resolution, they want evidence. Maximising the effect of the revelation might be their best chance to get evidence, assuming of course they don't expect to recover Madeliene in a breathing state.
Don't forget, we are dealing with the UK Metropolitan Police/alongside SY!

I can see why the MET-POLICE issued two different faces. Remember how recently this bunch of "detectives" took 4 (yes, four) search's of a very small house in the UK in which held the corpse of a young child (in the attic).

Boy, how can 10 or so policemen/women overlook a dead body in a 12 X 24 foot attic?

I think I should e-mail SY to remind them to search all evidence more than FOUR times or they may over-look a body.

#

The Met Police IS Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard is just the name for the MET headquarters

by Bobby Peru 28.10.13 17:39

TM OFFER NEW EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ABDUCTION THEORY !!!

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

So that's how they got through the window without leaving a shred of evidence. Simple.

by tegan1973 28.10.13 17:41

Beanie wrote:
kinell wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Better rush to order your tat quickly in case this terrible news is true!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I was wondering if its possible that nothing has changed on this site, with Tannerman still being on there etc etc..... Could it be possible that it may be due to it being part of evidence, so maybe SY has got some sort of warrant or something to have it not to be altered ? Only thing I can think of why nothing has changed....
Isn't Kate McCann due to give a speech about Missing People soon? If that goes ahead and she's able to continue to spout her lies then I will assume nothing has changed in this case.
I wonder how the Missing People charity now feel about their dear ambassador Kate, being that she with held important information in the search for her own child. You couldn't make it up.

Yes have they commented on that?

by rustyjames 28.10.13 17:43

sallypelt wrote:‘If we’d had big-booted Brits or, heaven forbid, Americans, we would have had doors slammed in our faces’ said Clarence Mitchell, spokesperson for the McCann’s at the time. ‘And it’s quite likely that we could have been charged with hindering the investigation as technically it’s illegal in Portugal to undertake a secondary investigation.

So in CMs own words they were hindering the investigation with a secondary investigation, and then hindering it further by not handing over the results of that investigation?

by sallypelt 28.10.13 17:48

sallypelt wrote:
possumsall wrote:
SchrodingersBody wrote:Whilst slagging off the Met Police, and Redwood, it might be remembered that they are working to a different burden of proof to you and I, no amount of dodgy goings on will secure them a resolution, they want evidence. Maximising the effect of the revelation might be their best chance to get evidence, assuming of course they don't expect to recover Madeliene in a breathing state.
Don't forget, we are dealing with the UK Metropolitan Police/alongside SY!

I can see why the MET-POLICE issued two different faces. Remember how recently this bunch of "detectives" took 4 (yes, four) search's of a very small house in the UK in which held the corpse of a young child (in the attic).

Boy, how can 10 or so policemen/women overlook a dead body in a 12 X 24 foot attic?

I think I should e-mail SY to remind them to search all evidence more than FOUR times or they may over-look a body.
#

The Met Police IS Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard is just the name for the MET headquarters

possumsall, I am not being critical of your post, but just putting the record straight about the Metropolitan Police. The MET only covers the Greater London area, and nowhere else. They don't even police the City of London, as that has its own City of London police force.

And as I've already mentioned, the MET is often referred to as "Scotland Yard" but in reality Scotland Yard is just the headquarters.

by Tangledweb 28.10.13 17:50

rustyjames wrote:
sallypelt wrote:‘If we’d had big-booted Brits or, heaven forbid, Americans, we would have had doors slammed in our faces’ said Clarence Mitchell, spokesperson for the McCann’s at the time. ‘And it’s quite likely that we could have been charged with hindering the investigation as technically it’s illegal in Portugal to undertake a secondary investigation.
So in CMs own words they were hindering the investigation with a secondary investigation, and then hindering it further by not handing over the results of that investigation?

Yep
good, eh?

by ProfMoriarty 28.10.13 17:58

You would expect 'fresh eyes' which are supposed to be focusing on recovering a live Madeleine to be turning up items of interest from a whole range of locations - this includes these so-called 'investigations' in Britain and the news of activity in Portugal. But what we actually have, in both cases, is the same relentless focus on the night of May 3rd. On the one hand, it is to reinforce the idea that it was an abduction that took place; on the other, it is because the PJ is still convinced the answers to everything lie in the activities of people at the resort that night. There has been no suggestion at all in these last weeks that the investigation has discovered corroborating evidence for an abduction elsewhere, in some other place. The whole thing remains completely trapped in PDL, on that one night, in that 45min period. The whole SY case on CW was fixated with the idea of abduction - so much so that the risk was taken to bring Smithman out of the darkness the McCs had cast him in. That has now backfired big time. The PR effort to influence the libel case in Portugal by agitating 'as if' there was new evidence to support abduction has only flushed out the most damaging new information since the dogs created such a sensation. The ST Insight Team placing on public record all the very 'slurs' the McCs went to court to suppress. Is this Murdoch's revenge for Leveson? In any case, you could say it is very much 'game on' again - or would be, if there wasn't still the sad figure of Madeleine who was so cruelly let down in the first place.

by Miraflores 28.10.13 18:12

And now the 48 questions have appeared on Mumsnet! It's certainly waking people up. Mind you, I expect that post will get whooshed soon.

by Mirage 28.10.13 18:22

Miraflores wrote:And now the 48 questions have appeared on Mumsnet! It's certainly waking people up. Mind you, I expect that post will get whooshed soon.

Sounds the sort of place where they can quickly go back to sleep again, from what I've heard. Rip Van Winkle eat your heart out.

by margaret 28.10.13 18:23

ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?

Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.

by Mirage 28.10.13 18:24

jeanmonroe wrote:Mirage wrote:

What's this? Some sort of sick joke, BBC? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Do you never learn?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Now then, now then!

Jimmy's 'gone'

Stu's in prison.

Kate's 'available' as the next 'untouchable national treasure' at the Beeb.

Untouchable I can go with. Veering more towards national liability now.

by Sockpuppet 28.10.13 18:27

margaret wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?
Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.

The GNR telephone records show that the police were called at about 10.40pm, which fits with their subsequent arrival at about 11pm. Lots of time there for having discussions, deleting phone records, cleaning up, and writing timelines.

by Miraflores 28.10.13 18:28

Mirage wrote:
Miraflores wrote:And now the 48 questions have appeared on Mumsnet! It's certainly waking people up. Mind you, I expect that post will get whooshed soon.
Sounds the sort of place where they can quickly go back to sleep again, from what I've heard. Rip Van Winkle eat your heart out.

Maybe, but it has caused a few people to question, and not a few to be annoyed: those who contributed to the Fund especially.

by **tigger** 28.10.13 18:29

margaret wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?
Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.

10.40 is the first call logged at the GNR. Gerry didn't phone them, I think it was the staff of OC. He was very busy, his wife said so, both of them were very busy you know.... All on record.

by margaret 28.10.13 18:33

tigger wrote:
margaret wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?
Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.
10.40 is the first call logged at the GNR. Gerry didn't phone them, I think it was the staff of OC. He was very busy, his wife said so, both of them were very busy you know.... All on record.

Thanks to you and sock puppet,why did l think 10.10?
So plenty of time to do all they did....

by Sockpuppet 28.10.13 18:33

tigger wrote:
margaret wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?
Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.
10.40 is the first call logged at the GNR. Gerry didn't phone them, I think it was the staff of OC. He was very busy, his wife said so, both of them were very busy you know.... All on record.

Aye, snap Tigger :)

For people convinced that an abductor had taken their child, that is very tardy indeed. You would want the police out immediately, to block the roads. What you definitely wouldn't do is give the abductor an hour's head-start to get away.

Of course, easily explained if there was no abductor ;-)

by Praiaaa 28.10.13 18:35

10.40.
Plenty of time to get back.

by Sockpuppet 28.10.13 18:35

margaret wrote:
tigger wrote:
margaret wrote:
ProfMoriarty wrote: Where was Mr G McCann at 10pm?
Not back from wherever he was going when Mr.Smith saw him! The police were called at 10.10 when he got back IMO.
10.40 is the first call logged at the GNR. Gerry didn't phone them, I think it was the staff of OC. He was very busy, his wife said so, both of them were very busy you know.... All on record.
Thanks to you and sock puppet,why did l think 10.10?
So plenty of time to do all they did....

This time was in somebody's statement I seem to recall, but I can't remember whose statement. Another attempt to rewrite the real timeline of the events of the evening of 3rd May.

Latest topics