Re: Daily Mirror front page 13/01/2014

by Aoife 13.01.14 11:56

So now we have a definite ID of the CPS being the source for the contents of he letter:

"A letter has been sent to Portuguese authorities requesting help with the UK police probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25710744

If the BBC give a source, then this must be honest.

It looks increasingly like there has been a formal briefing.

by Aoife 13.01.14 11:59

jeanmonroe wrote:We do NOT burn down SY or anywhere else for that matter!
--------------------------------------------------------------

They have no power to do his though

Have no powers,You sure on this?

Yes. The only power available would be contempt and this currently requires an arrest with intent to charge for an offence under English law.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I believe a 'D notice' is available at any time, to the Yard!

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

"However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting IN A GAG ORDER ON THE PRESS from publishing any deatails of the investigation"

So they can STOP the 'pink one', IF they WANTED to!

"D" notices are purely advisory and cannot be enforced in law.

by noddy100 13.01.14 11:59

There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

by tasprin 13.01.14 12:00

Found them!!

Daily Mirror front page 13/01/2014 - Page 5 105684587-burglars-with-stockings-on-their-heads-gettyimages

by jeanmonroe 13.01.14 12:02

noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

There were a lot of T9 phones operating in and around the OC area, that night.

by noddy100 13.01.14 12:05

jeanmonroe wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

There were a lot of T9 phones operating in and around the OC area, that night.

Yes but if the same phones were operating in and around properties that were burgled maybe they saw something or someone at the right time to fit with the timeline?

by Hopespringseternal 13.01.14 12:11

noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out? tease

by jeanmonroe 13.01.14 12:12

noddy100 wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

There were a lot of T9 phones operating in and around the OC area, that night.
Yes but if the same phones were operating in and around properties that were burgled maybe they saw something or someone at the right time to fit with the timeline?

And what 'timeline' would that be?

The sworn timelines the T9 produced, including Tannerman/stranger carrying child, on all three of them OR the new timelines the BBC and the Met have spent over 2 years and £7.5 million to come up with dismissing Tannerman completely?

Where's 'sniffer' Brunty when you need him?

by noddy100 13.01.14 12:13

Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?

Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

by roy rovers 13.01.14 12:37

CPS - must be in England then.

by Aoife 13.01.14 12:38

noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.

by noddy100 13.01.14 12:43

Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.

It was on the paper review on This Morning today
Paul Ross made a point of clarifying that they are not suspected abductors more witnesses

by Mirage 13.01.14 12:45

Pity the McCanns can't be arrested for begging.

It's ironic that the MET have a page on their website telling everyone the legal requirements for charity collections. Yeah, I know Leaving No Stone Unturned is a Limited company but what other limited company does anyone know of that begs the public for money whilst selling obsolete tat with a MET logo attached to their nice little earner? A limited Company begging for money?? Barely believable.
Here's the blurb on FM site:

"Us" and "we" refers to Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited, a not-for-profit company, aka Madeleine's Fund, which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.
------------------------------

a not-for-profit company - what does the average person class more than £400 k lying around in an account from selling and begging as but profit? Regardless of the legal technicalities of the fund status, why should this pair be soliciting donations when they are in surplus to the tune of nearly half a million. The immorality of it is breathtaking. And the MET do nothing.

support her family - Why? Why do they need financial support? A consultant cardiologist begging for money? Does nobody ever ask the blindingly obvious questions but us here? And the MET do nothing except enforce begging laws in the boroughs.

bring her abductors to justice - an oxymoron. In any case two police forces are investigating. That is not the job of parents under ANY circumstances. And the MET say nothing.

charitable experience. Irrelevant and misleading to the wider public, couched as it is in their mission statement. This is not a charity. It is a limited company. Charitable experience may be coincidental and helpful personally but should not be promoted under the terms.

This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund. - Directors who meet 5 times a year, two of whom are the parents and one an uncle who have the ability to avail the family of unspecified financial support. But then they did cover themselves with the "should enable". And the MET do nothing.

by Aoife 13.01.14 12:47

noddy100 wrote:
Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.
It was on the paper review on This Morning today
Paul Ross made a point of clarifying that they are not suspected abductors more witnesses

So what would be his source for that contention? What would he know that is not in the current press and other media coverage?

by Cristobell 13.01.14 12:52

Perhaps the 3, are witnesses who contacted SY or the PJ following the televised reconstructions. People who may have identified 'Smithman'?

by Aoife 13.01.14 12:56

Cristobell wrote:Perhaps the 3, are witnesses who contacted SY or the PJ following the televised reconstructions. People who may have identified 'Smithman'?

Would the MET need permission to discuss the case with such willing interviewees?

by Mirage 13.01.14 13:02

Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.
It was on the paper review on This Morning today
Paul Ross made a point of clarifying that they are not suspected abductors more witnesses

So what would be his source for that contention? What would he know that is not in the current press and other media coverage?

Source? A big fat nothing. He is jumping on the bandwagon because he's a mouth almighty like the rest of them and thinks he's in with the in-crowd - you know Kenwright, Redknapp, Kelly, the Prime Minister etc. I look forward to the day when they are all revealed as having done Madeleine the gravest disservice of all by forgetting all about her and fawning over her negligent parents.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.01.14 13:07

Aoife wrote:
So what would be his source for that contention? What would he know that is not in the current press and other media coverage?

Sounds to me like This Morning were just playing it safe, in the absence of any facts apart from the statement about the letter of request.

What I do find surprising though is that it is being mentioned at all.

by Guest 13.01.14 13:16

Cristobell wrote:Perhaps the 3, are witnesses who contacted SY or the PJ following the televised reconstructions. People who may have identified 'Smithman'?

According to the Daily Mirror, two people rang in with the same name!

Seen the article in the flesh in all its horror now. Accompanied by, what seemed to me anyway, an even more enhanced version of the "fake" Everton shirt photo.

by noddy100 13.01.14 13:21

Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.
It was on the paper review on This Morning today
Paul Ross made a point of clarifying that they are not suspected abductors more witnesses

So what would be his source for that contention? What would he know that is not in the current press and other media coverage?

I have no idea I never usually watch that show so don't know anything about their sources.

by mysterion 13.01.14 13:35

Love to believe that PJ have sown it up and have eye witnesses to what really happened. It is possible that the eye witnesses are burglars who were snooping around PDL before, during and after 3 May 2007. An observation I have made is that after cctv, local criminals may notice the most of what is going on in a particular area. It`s how they make money.

Could it be SY need to interview the witnesses before returning to the UK to make arrests followed by extradition to Portugal. Everything will need to be legally watertight.

by marconi 13.01.14 13:35

If the authorities are not commenting the details of the letter, how come that the media know them?
I don't believe in the existence of those 3 burglars.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.01.14 13:36

marconi wrote:If the authorities are not commenting the details of the letter, how come that the media know them?
I don't believe in the existence of those 3 suspects.

That'll be that infamous "source close to the McCanns".

by columbostogeys 13.01.14 13:39

noddy100 wrote:
Aoife wrote:
noddy100 wrote:
Hopespringseternal wrote:
noddy100 wrote:There is every chance a burglar operating in the OC area may have seen something that night if their phones place them there but they are too scared to reveal themselves.
Acc to TM the police are giving them the chance to talk without arrest??

I really hope this is the truth and that SY have suddenly seen the light about all the nonsense spun to them by 'others' re timelines and kriss-crossing witnesses. I'd love to see these 'burglars' come forth with a statement that blows all the lies out of the water; some little detail which proves that they MUST have seen what happened and who perpetrated it. Mind you, if that were to happen then they'd probably be pilloried by TMc as lying to save themselves from burglary charges and having set up a deal. Wonder what the chances are of the 3 blackmailing 'others' because they know what happened with finances being transferred by third parties? That, of course is pure speculation on my part, but given the nonsense we've been spun so far who's to say how it'll play out?
Me too. Whoever the 3 burglars are it was very clear from the paper review I saw that they were not being looked at in terms of abductors at all.

Which paper review was that. As far as I can see, the CPS and/o the MET have confirmed that a second letter has been sent but have not briefed (on the record anyway) about the contents by either confirming or denying intention to do anything. This means that the content is unknown unless there has been off the record contact. We are not privy to any such off the record briefing in any definite manner either to confirm or deny intention to arrest and question.
It was on the paper review on This Morning today
Paul Ross made a point of clarifying that they are not suspected abductors more witnesses

EXACTLY I watched it too, and what he said actually made a bit of sense.

IF there is a small gang of burglars working around PDL for the last 7 years, perhaps in 2007 they may have seen something that could be useful to the police, but too scared to come forward and tell them for fear of being arrested. So they are talking about bringing people in on a PJ caution and asking them the questions. I suppose you can say its some sort of amnesty.

NOTHING to do with them being the abductors. The rest of it all has just been made up to sell the newspaper. I mean this is not going to sell a newspaper is it, but headlines like SCOTLAND YARD ABOUT TO ARREST 3 MEN IN MADDY CASE is.....

Jeez its on every forum now and people just keep talking about it, when really it should have no interest and is never going to find the child anyway.

by Cristobell 13.01.14 13:40

Aoife wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Perhaps the 3, are witnesses who contacted SY or the PJ following the televised reconstructions. People who may have identified 'Smithman'?

Would the MET need permission to discuss the case with such willing interviewees?

I really don't know Aoife, but the Crimewatch update did not include appeals for more witnesses, which suggests they have what wanted and are probably working their way through the information that came in. We were told the CW program brought in over 3000 phonecalls and that several people have given the same name for Smithman.

Log in for more topics