More again!! MIRROR 17/2/14 -Maddie cops hunt no1 suspect's gang

Monty Heck wrote:There would surely be a massive, angry backlash to be faced were this to be the endgame.  Even if the McCs were cleared of suspicion of Ms dissapearance, they would still face criticism for facilitating entry to the perpetrators, by leaving the apartment unlocked at the front and with easy access from the back and without direct line of sight as claimed.  Would money have poured into the fund and would the press have fawned so obliginbly had these facts been known to the public in 2007?

Even though, as KMcC retorted "you don't expect someone to come in and take your child out your/the bed", one can anticipate entry by unauthorised persons and take steps to secure the premises, which they did during the day.  Having demonstrated clear awareness of the need to secure their own valuables and the property of the apartment owner during the day, how will they be able to explain, far less excuse their rash behaviour during the evenings when this information becomes widely known, as it surely will?

And how would that leave them legally, if it were determined that M had disappeared at the hands of other, thanks to their less than adequate parenting and or vigilance?  At the shelving of the case it seemed they were let off that particular hook as an abuction at that time was theoretical, but would that change if it were to be taken as fact, and there is clear evidence that entry was facilitated by the child's parents rather than a standard break in?  Is it not the case that if it is proven that their actions lead to the child coming to harm then there could be legal consequences?  Interesting to know what others think.

Portia wrote: 

Monty Heck wrote:There would surely be a massive, angry backlash to be faced were this to be the endgame.  Even if the McCs were cleared of suspicion of Ms dissapearance, they would still face criticism for facilitating entry to the perpetrators, by leaving the apartment unlocked at the front and with easy access from the back and without direct line of sight as claimed.  Would money have poured into the fund and would the press have fawned so obliginbly had these facts been known to the public in 2007?

Even though, as KMcC retorted "you don't expect someone to come in and take your child out your/the bed", one can anticipate entry by unauthorised persons and take steps to secure the premises, which they did during the day.  Having demonstrated clear awareness of the need to secure their own valuables and the property of the apartment owner during the day, how will they be able to explain, far less excuse their rash behaviour during the evenings when this information becomes widely known, as it surely will?

And how would that leave them legally, if it were determined that M had disappeared at the hands of other, thanks to their less than adequate parenting and or vigilance?  At the shelving of the case it seemed they were let off that particular hook as an abuction at that time was theoretical, but would that change if it were to be taken as fact, and there is clear evidence that entry was facilitated by the child's parents rather than a standard break in?  Is it not the case that if it is proven that their actions lead to the child coming to harm then there could be legal consequences?  Interesting to know what others think.

Tangled Web wrote:Quote - She said: “Two officers phoned me out of the blue and said they were in town and wanted to see me.
“They wouldn’t tell me what it was over the phone but when I reached the cafe where we’d arranged to meet, they told me they were investigating Euclides


Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

Maybe I'm just being cynical.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:Quote - She said: “Two officers phoned me out of the blue and said they were in town and wanted to see me.
“They wouldn’t tell me what it was over the phone but when I reached the cafe where we’d arranged to meet, they told me they were investigating Euclides


Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

Maybe I'm just being cynical.

Aye, hadn't noticed that.  That seems odd.  Like you say, to me that seems the kind of thing journalists would do, not police.

jozi wrote:Didn't Luisa Rodrigues threaten to sue someone after her husbands name was mentioned in connected in the abduction of Maddie. Wonder what happened with that,as she looks very happy to pose for that picture in the Daily Mirror.

Tangled Web wrote:Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

rustyjames wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

This was the first thought I had.  However informal the questions, (and actually they are described as "grilling her"), then they would either be at home or at a police station not in a public place. 

canada12 wrote:Six foot two, eh?

A bit on the tall side, then. Would have had a good deal of trouble clambering through that little window, methinks.

Oh, sorry, yeah. That's what his three pals must have been there for. To do the window clambering. And also to dance around and distract from their friend's height, if anyone happened to see him on the road.

aquila wrote:

SY are not in the driving seat of this case. All this stuff about asking the PJ for help is nonsense imo. The PJ have jurisdiction and it is SY who are assisting the PJ isn't it?

diatribe wrote:

aquila wrote:

SY are not in the driving seat of this case. All this stuff about asking the PJ for help is nonsense imo. The PJ have jurisdiction and it is SY who are assisting the PJ isn't it?

As stated many times previously, the Met. police are toothless in this matter and the current investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is a charade. Due to the uniqueness of the entire police files being made available to the public, members of this forum have as much influence and in some cases are better informed than Scotland Yard detectives who are being paid vast amounts of money to attain absolutely nothing.

I doubt whether the sharpest tools in Scotland Yard's box are even in the same league as some of the criminal minds that look in on this site and who also have the added advantage of not being constrained by political agendas which have nothing whatsover to do with catching the perpetrators. There isn't another police force on this planet who after a few cursory enquiries would continue to treat this as a case of abduction.

The entire spectacle has long since exceeded that of being pythonesque and may well now be entering into the realms of a Whitehall farce. There are a litany of parodies stretching across the internet on this case, but not a single one comes anywhere near close to matching the ludicracy of the real McCoy, or perhaps in this case McCann.

Cristobell wrote:


  Well said Diatribe.

rustyjames wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

This was the first thought I had.  However informal the questions, (and actually they are described as "grilling her"), then they would either be at home or at a police station not in a public place.  Also the article says she didn't know what it was about beforehand so this was before all the media late last year, therefore whoever interviewed her had no idea how she would react.

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

Better LATE than never, i suppose.

diatribe wrote:. . .I do appreciate that most members of this forum find themselves in the same situation as Pythagoras when attempting to prove that the world was indeed round. 

PeterMac wrote:

rustyjames wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:Is this normal procedure when police 'interrogate' somebody? Would police not just turn up at her address? Were they even 'real' police or journalists?

This was the first thought I had.  However informal the questions, (and actually they are described as "grilling her"), then they would either be at home or at a police station not in a public place.  Also the article says she didn't know what it was about beforehand so this was before all the media late last year, therefore whoever interviewed her had no idea how she would react.

And even more bizarrely, the officers did not ask to look into the Hellish Lair in the basement to see if she was still there.
Nor in the attic, nor behind the tool shed in the garden.
No. Just an informal chat over a sardine sandwich at a nearby café
They had her phone number - how ?

This is almost the most stupid piece of McMitchell tripe for well over a week, actually.

Portia wrote:Back in october, when the 'news' about Big Bad EM first hit the Media, missus EM immediately talked to the Portuguese newspapers, sounding:

1. astounded;
2. very, very hurt;
3. white-hot with anger

If she appears to have simmered down now, even providing pics of mr EM and of herself to the British Media, the question could -just could- arise if some money changed hands, and if she's not been made an offer she couldn'r refuse

As in: "Here you are love, your way and your childrens way out of poverty. Just sign here on the dot, and all you want is yours for the asking
And, as for mr. EM, the poor devil; well, he's dead now anyway, and you know he would always have wanted the best for you and the children, innit?"

(Curtains)

diatribe wrote:The only way that the Met. police investigation would make any kind of sense if they weren't in fact investigating the disappearance of the McCann's daughter, but were in fact formulating a case with respect to the fraudulent setting up of a fund which they would have jurisdiction over. Not only that, they would also have direct access to all the relevant information because it was set up in the UK, is a UK registered company and all the relevent documentation would be lodged in the UK.

Because of the fact that any charges relating to the disappearance and fund are dependent upon one another, it would then make sense to liase with the Portugese police who in turn would be dealing with the former investigation whilst leaving the latter to the Met. police. That's the only way I can justify the initiation of the current ongoing investigation by Scotland Yard.