The Portuguese Police Files – Real Crime or Dodgy Dossier?

by MissBlueSky 23.04.14 16:33

Hi everyone,

I have a theory which leaves many uncertainties, and I am stuck on the first on my list.

The uncertainty is whether or not the Portuguese Police Files are genuine or part of the media manipulation. As you can see, I'm at the very early stage of questioning the source.

Please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other.

Thanks.

by Guest 23.04.14 17:08

I don't know HOW many PJ casefile CDs were distributed to "interested parties". I do know, though, that they're available on various websites in original Portuguese and English PDF, with transcripts and translations. Would you seriously consider that this manifold of comparable publications [bar some minor details between translations] would be Media manipulation, in other words: forgery????

by Guest 23.04.14 18:37

The media has always sought to show the McCanns in the best possible light - after they were shown the error of their early ways of course.

They certainly wouldn't have produced anything like the official police files which only went to emphasise what a load of old tosh the McCanns were sprouting.

by Seek truth 23.04.14 18:43

So are you saying you only figured things out from the police files?
What about their tv interviews, their actual words!

Why aren't they made to give us all a real explanation?
It is taxpayers money!

by kimHager 23.04.14 18:48

I know we certainly have gone over many of the "faces " of the mccanns namely Gerry's but also their words which almost always condemn them, the bewk aka kates truth book,as well as articles,statements etc. on this forum which IMO makes it more informative than many and most other places

by Cristobell 23.04.14 18:58

MissBlueSky wrote:Hi everyone,

I have a theory which leaves many uncertainties, and I am stuck on the first on my list.

The uncertainty is whether or not the Portuguese Police Files are genuine or part of the media manipulation. As you can see, I'm at the very early stage of questioning the source.

Please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other.

Thanks.

The files are real MBS, and I don't think the McCanns expected them to be published, and worse still, translated into English, by justice seeking Portuguese speakers. They claim the Fund paid £100k to have the files translated They were horrified when they came out, which is strange, because surely among all their legal advisors, one must have known that it is the practice in Portugal for the police to publish their findings.

by mariola 23.04.14 19:07

MissBlueSky wrote:Hi everyone,

I have a theory which leaves many uncertainties, and I am stuck on the first on my list.

The uncertainty is whether or not the Portuguese Police Files are genuine or part of the media manipulation. As you can see, I'm at the very early stage of questioning the source.

Please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other.

Thanks.

DELETED
Doesn't matter what your opinion is, please do not make personal remarks about other members......this is breaking one of the forum rules. Problems then contact admin or mods...thanks.

by MissBlueSky 24.04.14 17:43

Hi again,

Thank you for your replies. I will quickly reply to some and share my own thoughts.

Châtelaine wrote: “Would you seriously consider that this manifold of comparable publications [bar some minor details between translations] would be Media manipulation, in other words: forgery????”

Not necessarily forgery but more a media story from beginning to end. That is what I’m considering, as I suppose most people here have considered at some point before coming to their conclusion. To be clear: I do not believe the publications are part of the media manipulation, I am simply asking, What if? - to initiate debate in the debate section, and to learn from other researchers what aided their conclusion. Let me put it this way: in my opinion, if the Portuguese police files and the Portuguese police are indeed genuine, then they are the only things in this case that are. I am simply wondering where to draw the line between fact and fiction, if a line can be drawn at all.

My certainty that one side is lying (the MCCANNS and the media) does not lead to a certainty that the other side is not, if indeed there are sides. I have, after all, heard everything about this story – including the conflict between police forces and the very public MCCANN vs AMARAL court case - through the media. I would not have even known about AMARAL's book had it not been banned.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote: “The media has always sought to show the McCanns in the best possible light - after they were shown the error of their early ways of course.

“They certainly wouldn't have produced anything like the official police files which only went to emphasise what a load of old tosh the McCanns were sprouting.”

Excellent points raised, thank you.

I recall, though, that it was the MCCANNs themselves who released the controversial photographs of MADELEINE in make-up and holding an ice-cream, which MARK WILLIAMS-THOMAS then deemed “inappropriate”. Why would they stoke the fire of the public’s imagination and media spokespeople against themselves?

From The Sun article by VERONICA LORRAINE, entitled First pictures of Madeleine’s bed, 5^th August 2008: “The dossier also contained a photocopy of missing Maddie's passport — and it can be seen that, by a grim coincidence, it expired yesterday [on the day the that dossier was released].”

By “grim coincidence” or by sensational journalism? The passport expiring also makes the reader think that perhaps MADELEINE herself has expired, which is the “controversial” and temporarily banned conclusion that AMARAL came to in The Truth of the Lie.

Finally, Mariola’s deleted comment is titled “dodgy poster”, meaning me? I would have preferred to have seen the comment. This is my sixth post. Four posts can be found in the New Members Please Put Your Questions On This Thread thread, and the fifth started this thread. I do not know what I have done to be called “dodgy”.

Is the question that I ask contentious, even here? I thought this forum was the place to question everything. It even has a hoax section.

by **tigger** 24.04.14 20:05

How exactly is the huge body of PJ files ( many of which can be corroborated by e.g some of the people who've sighted Maddie in various countries to name but one instance ) organised by the media?

I take it that you mean that the files are in fact created by the media.

But: the media aren't using the information in the files at all. in fact I'd think that some 99% of the population of The UK has never heard about these files so that would be rather a failure in terms of media manipulation.

Well done for coming up with a brand-new 'back to basics' theory - as to the theory you've developed must be independent of anything that's in the files or indeed the media.

I think you might find your theory on TM's website in that case, completely free from PJ files and media-run stories.

nah

by Gillyspot 24.04.14 20:26

The police files are genuine IMO

Question has (had) to be why the McCanns needed their lawyers to read them before their private investigators.

Lawyers for the McCanns, both 40, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were given access to the documents last week.

They are studying the papers for fresh leads that the couple's private detectives could follow up.

In the words of Clarence Mitchell

"One of the great frustrations for Kate and Gerry, through all this, was that they just didn't get any information from the Portuguese of any real note at all.

"Now there is a chance to analyse this, and if there's anything that needs priority action in terms of finding Madeleine.

"Such as was this area searched or not? Was there another sighting in a certain place, or not?

"All of that will be moved on quickly. But Kate and Gerry themselves are not fully aware of the mass of detail yet, they're waiting for the lawyers to tell them in due course."

by Gillyspot 24.04.14 20:36

& from a McCann statement following the files release

"Events this week have yet again been incomprehensible and particularly upsetting.

On Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor in Portugal released a large number of documents (relating to the investigation to find our daughter Madeleine) to the British Media, following their request for access. Disclosing such information publicly greatly jeopardises the search for Madeleine and puts witnesses and innocent members of the general public at risk (as well as causing them great anxiety). Release and publication of information in this manner also potentially compromises future investigations. It is difficult to see how anyone benefits from this week's actions.

It is imperative that the Authorities take responsibility for sensitive and confidential information. We, together with the general public, need assurances that this will not be allowed to happen again. Equally, we need absolute assurances that all credible information and leads will be investigated.

We also urge each individual working for the media to consider their own personal responsibility - to put commercial interests aside occasionally and to bear in mind the potential consequences of their actions, especially when people's lives and well-being are at risk.

Our own investigators have acted professionally and with complete integrity. We are eager to encourage anybody who has any information which may relate to Madeleine's abduction to contact our investigation team directly by phone or via the P.O box address given on the website. Information may be given anonymously via each route.

We are incredibly grateful to all those who continue to support us in our search for Madeleine. During weeks such as these, it is invaluable to know that we are not facing this difficult journey alone"

by ultimaThule 24.04.14 21:15

MissBlueSky wrote:Hi everyone,

I have a theory which leaves many uncertainties, and I am stuck on the first on my list.

The uncertainty is whether or not the Portuguese Police Files are genuine or part of the media manipulation. As you can see, I'm at the very early stage of questioning the source.

Please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other.

Thanks.

A theory which 'leaves many uncertainties' is not a theory; it is merely conjecture based on lack of knowledge. If you are 'stuck on the first on my list' I would suggest you tear your list up and get stuck into the wealth of information which is available on this site and on mccannfiles.com before forumulating any theory or creating any more new threads.

There is no 'uncertainty' as to whether or not the PJ files are genuine. Furthermore, they have been accepted in Portuguese courts of law as being an authentic record of the investigation into the disappearance of 3 year old Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia de Luz in May 2007.

In asking members to "please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other" my concern is that you are effectively conducting a straw poll and, as the results could be used to strengthen any perceived weakness in various accounts given by those individuals who were witness to events on the evening of 3 May 2007, it seems to me you are best advised to undertake your own research to ascertain what convinces you either way as this will ensure you have no need to ask others to reveal what convinced them.
'

by plebgate 24.04.14 21:24

Also, they took a pensioner through the British courts and at no time was it stated by their legal reps. that the pensioner had based his views/opinions on incorrect, media manipulated files afaik.

by Watching 24.04.14 21:30

ultimaThule wrote:
MissBlueSky wrote:Hi everyone,

I have a theory which leaves many uncertainties, and I am stuck on the first on my list.

The uncertainty is whether or not the Portuguese Police Files are genuine or part of the media manipulation. As you can see, I'm at the very early stage of questioning the source.

Please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other.

Thanks.
A theory which 'leaves many uncertainties' is not a theory; it is merely conjecture based on lack of knowledge. If you are 'stuck on the first on my list' I would suggest you tear your list up and get stuck into the wealth of information which is available on this site and on mccannfiles.com before forumulating any theory or creating any more new threads.

There is no 'uncertainty' as to whether or not the PJ files are genuine. Furthermore, they have been accepted in Portuguese courts of law as being an authentic record of the investigation into the disappearance of 3 year old Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia de Luz in May 2007.

In asking members to "please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other" my concern is that you are effectively conducting a straw poll and, as the results could be used to strengthen any perceived weakness in various accounts given by those individuals who were witness to events on the evening of 3 May 2007, it seems to me you are best advised to undertake your own research to ascertain what convinces you either way as this will ensure you have no need to ask others to reveal what convinced them.
'

Miss BlueSky
Afraid the clouds are going to be rolling in, darken your day...I agree absolutely with UT...to lodge your comment when stuck on your 'first?' Say no more!

by Guest 24.04.14 21:42

Agree.

by Guest 24.04.14 21:51

DELETED. Chatelaine behave!!

IMO, of course big grin

by MissBlueSky 25.04.14 16:09

Hi,

Thank you for your comments. From reading them, it is apparent that my position has been misunderstood by some, which I see as a failure on my part since the reactions are based on what I have written.

Tigger wrote: “But: the media aren't using the information in the files at all. in fact I'd think that some 99% of the population of The UK has never heard about these files so that would be rather a failure in terms of media manipulation.”

Hi Tigger. I made that point in my second post in the “New Members...” thread:

“I am grateful to communicate with every one who has taken the time to study this case. By comparison, if I asked the same question where I live locally - about wondering if it is common procedure for the Portuguese police to put their unsolved case files online – chances are that most people wouldn’t even know the MCCANN files were online, never mind the procedure, common or otherwise.”

Tigger continued: “Well done for coming up with a brand-new 'back to basics' theory - as to the theory you've developed must be independent of anything that's in the files or indeed the media.”

My theory is based on not believing the media. Is that really brand-new? Not believing the media doesn’t mean I am not familiar with it; it is over-familiarity that makes me reticent to believe anything they say, especially regarding this heavily-marketed, bizarre case.

Tigger: “I think you might find your theory on TM's website in that case, completely free from PJ files and media-run stories.”

Questioning the veracity of the police files does not make me side with the MCCANNS, or anyone. I have already written that I am certain they are lying. Whether the Portuguese are “in on it” is an uncertainty (for me). I simply wanted to explore the idea here with you all seeing that questioning the source is the first thing on my list.

ultimaThule wrote: “A theory which 'leaves many uncertainties' is not a theory; it is merely conjecture based on lack of knowledge.”

“A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.” ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

This is my intent. I do concede I have a lack of knowledge regarding the thread topic. This is what motivated me to ask the question.

ultimaThule continues: “If you are 'stuck on the first on my list' I would suggest you tear your list up and get stuck into the wealth of information which is available on this site and on mccannfiles.com before forumulating any theory or creating any more new threads.”

I have read most of the witness statements, read AMARAL’s The Truth of the Lie, seen the documentary, read the free ebook available from this forum, watched Crimewatch, Panorama and the MCCANN interviews online, and lurked here and elsewhere for several months. It is only recently that I decided to don my dusty deerstalker and investigate this from the beginning (questioning sources), probably inspired by the analytical posts here and the Crimewatch show of October 2013. This is the first new thread I've created (my seventh post overall), and it's suggested that I don't create any more?

ultimaThule: “In asking members to "please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other" my concern is that you are effectively conducting a straw poll and, as the results could be used to strengthen any perceived weakness in various accounts given by those individuals who were witness to events on the evening of 3 May 2007”

My gosh, it must be the way I write! It was never my intention to concern anyone. I’m further confused by the witness statements comment. People questioning the truthfulness of them here is what drew me to join. Forgive me if I misunderstand.

ultimaThule: “it seems to me you are best advised to undertake your own research to ascertain what convinces you either way as this will ensure you have no need to ask others to reveal what convinced them.”

I have undertaken my own research. How else could I have a theory (or “conjecture”)? I am attempting to test hypotheses with the aid of those who have also undertaken their own research.

Regarding the emboldened part of the quote, I thought that’s what this forum was for.

I truly wasn’t expecting to cause such a stir.

by mariola 25.04.14 21:38

MissBlueSky wrote:Hi,

Thank you for your comments. From reading them, it is apparent that my position has been misunderstood by some, which I see as a failure on my part since the reactions are based on what I have written.

Tigger wrote: “But: the media aren't using the information in the files at all. in fact I'd think that some 99% of the population of The UK has never heard about these files so that would be rather a failure in terms of media manipulation.”

Hi Tigger. I made that point in my second post in the “New Members...” thread:

“I am grateful to communicate with every one who has taken the time to study this case. By comparison, if I asked the same question where I live locally - about wondering if it is common procedure for the Portuguese police to put their unsolved case files online – chances are that most people wouldn’t even know the MCCANN files were online, never mind the procedure, common or otherwise.”

Tigger continued: “Well done for coming up with a brand-new 'back to basics' theory - as to the theory you've developed must be independent of anything that's in the files or indeed the media.”

My theory is based on not believing the media. Is that really brand-new? Not believing the media doesn’t mean I am not familiar with it; it is over-familiarity that makes me reticent to believe anything they say, especially regarding this heavily-marketed, bizarre case.

Tigger: “I think you might find your theory on TM's website in that case, completely free from PJ files and media-run stories.”

Questioning the veracity of the police files does not make me side with the MCCANNS, or anyone. I have already written that I am certain they are lying. Whether the Portuguese are “in on it” is an uncertainty (for me). I simply wanted to explore the idea here with you all seeing that questioning the source is the first thing on my list.

ultimaThule wrote: “A theory which 'leaves many uncertainties' is not a theory; it is merely conjecture based on lack of knowledge.”

“A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.” ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

This is my intent. I do concede I have a lack of knowledge regarding the thread topic. This is what motivated me to ask the question.

ultimaThule continues: “If you are 'stuck on the first on my list' I would suggest you tear your list up and get stuck into the wealth of information which is available on this site and on mccannfiles.com before forumulating any theory or creating any more new threads.”

I have read most of the witness statements, read AMARAL’s The Truth of the Lie, seen the documentary, read the free ebook available from this forum, watched Crimewatch, Panorama and the MCCANN interviews online, and lurked here and elsewhere for several months. It is only recently that I decided to don my dusty deerstalker and investigate this from the beginning (questioning sources), probably inspired by the analytical posts here and the Crimewatch show of October 2013. This is the first new thread I've created (my seventh post overall), and it's suggested that I don't create any more?

ultimaThule: “In asking members to "please use this thread to say what convinced you, one way or the other" my concern is that you are effectively conducting a straw poll and, as the results could be used to strengthen any perceived weakness in various accounts given by those individuals who were witness to events on the evening of 3 May 2007”

My gosh, it must be the way I write! It was never my intention to concern anyone. I’m further confused by the witness statements comment. People questioning the truthfulness of them here is what drew me to join. Forgive me if I misunderstand.

ultimaThule: “it seems to me you are best advised to undertake your own research to ascertain what convinces you either way as this will ensure you have no need to ask others to reveal what convinced them.”

I have undertaken my own research. How else could I have a theory (or “conjecture”)? I am attempting to test hypotheses with the aid of those who have also undertaken their own research.

Regarding the emboldened part of the quote, I thought that’s what this forum was for.

I truly wasn’t expecting to cause such a stir.

You are either redwoods mum,trying to help her boy or kate,s lawyer trying to build a defence.Travis says big hello to all loyal mccann slayers.Keep up the great work.

by **tigger** 26.04.14 12:33

From the post above:
Tigger continued: “Well done for coming up with a brand-new 'back to basics' theory - as to the theory you've developed must be independent of anything that's in the files or indeed the media.”

My theory is based on not believing the media. Is that really brand-new? Not believing the media doesn’t mean I am not familiar with it; it is over-familiarity that makes me reticent to believe anything they say, especially regarding this heavily-marketed, bizarre case.

Tigger: “I think you might find your theory on TM's website in that case, completely free from PJ files and media-run stories.”

Questioning the veracity of the police files does not make me side with the MCCANNS, or anyone. I have already written that I am certain they are lying. Whether the Portuguese are “in on it” is an uncertainty (for me). I simply wanted to explore the idea here with you all seeing that questioning the source is the first thing on my list.
Unquote

Well, all I can suggest is that you seem to be left with the psychic element of the investigation.
Iirc there were some 500 unexplored leads there so that should keep you going for a while. winkwink

by Okeydokey 26.04.14 13:18

This "theory" doesn't really warrant any serious discussion but, on the other hand, it is important to demonstrate this isn't a website for nutty conspiracy theories.

I can only assume the writer has no understanding of just how much material is in the published files (which are of course not all teh files) and just how much work would be required to manufacture them. As for them being a media concoction, I am not actually aware the files' existence has ever been acknowledged in the UK. I have always wondered whether there is some sort of injunction preventing their use in the UK media.

by Doug D 26.04.14 14:18

I think CM’s threat to cut from his contacts list any papers that stepped out of line with his wishes and spoutings, would have been a powerful enough incentive for the editors, looking after their own backs as much as anything, to toe his line.

Google translation:
‘Days later, Clarence Mitchell opted for another strategy. Combined with British journalists that those never persecute the McCanns. In exchange, the spokesman of the couple provided fortuitous encounters and if journalists fail to compromise, exclude them from your phonebook contacts. All accepted. When in March the CdM attempted to address the McCanns without going through Clarence Mitchell, was caught by police. The couple ordered the Portuguese journalists were banned from approaching the house and the neighbors have been advised not to speak’.

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

I believe we are looking at a far wider picture than just the ‘insignificant’ McCann case in the scheme of things, and an editor who gets his paper excluded from briefings etc and has difficulty in reporting a fairly wide spectrum of ‘breaking’ UK political (and other?) news is not going to fare well with the papers owners.

The libel trial in Portugal, as well as the ‘settled out of courts’ over here just add to his hold over them and he can also curry favour with the extra sales brought about by his frequent 'non-stories'.

Media such as Private Eye, who are probably not on the ‘guest list’ in any event, I imagine would have had their collars felt by the likes of CR and I would like to think are holding fire until Amaral and the files are effectively vindicated.

However, as with ‘The Little Dutch Boy’, hopefully, one crack is all that is needed.

by diatribe 26.04.14 14:52

Okeydokey wrote:This "theory" doesn't really warrant any serious discussion but, on the other hand, it is important to demonstrate this isn't a website for nutty conspiracy theories.

I can only assume the writer has no understanding of just how much material is in the published files (which are of course not all teh files) and just how much work would be required to manufacture them. As for them being a media concoction, I am not actually aware the files' existence has ever been acknowledged in the UK. I have always wondered whether there is some sort of injunction preventing their use in the UK media.

I'm not sure at this stage if it is fair to castigate MissBlueSky's postings, I, rightly or wrongly formed the impression that she was not questioning the authenticity of the PJ files, but rather looking for confirmation of their authenticity.

I agree with Tigger's assertion that a large proportion of the UK public are unaware of these files, not that that's any great yardstick, by the same token, there's an equally large proportion who are unaware that having over £1000 in cash on their person renders it liable to confiscation under the 2002 POCA(Proceeds of Crime Act)

Prior to last yr. I had no knowledge of this case apart from a vague memory of it back in 2007, let alone knowing of the existence of any files. The publication of such files by the British police would be unprecedented. I just happened to come across one of the McCann videos on Youtube and remembered thinking at the time that their daughter had probably disappeared earlier than was being reported. My interest developed from that chance viewing of the Youtube clip.

Admittedly, I am not a good cross section example of the public due to the fact that I don't read newspapers and rarely, if ever watch news propaganda broadcasts. I'd made up my mind at an early age that I really wasn't that interested in the Queen having a cold, or that she was visiting Balmoral for the weekend.This view was reinforced at a subsequent stage of my life when noticing that news reports of events that I had either witnessed or been a party to bore no resemblance whatsoever to what had actually transpired.

by diatribe 26.04.14 15:49

Seek truth wrote:

Why aren't they made to give us all a real explanation?
It is taxpayers money!

There was another chappie who shared this philosophy, Seek truth, he had a funny moustache and was a tad reminiscent of a nasty Charlie Chaplin. I think his name was Adolf Hitler.

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

by MissBlueSky 28.04.14 16:01

Thank you, diatribe, for getting where I was coming from. thumbup

Mariola wrote: “You are either redwoods mum,trying to help her boy or kate,s lawyer trying to build a defence.Travis says big hello to all loyal mccann slayers.Keep up the great work.”

Don’t geddit.

Okeydokey wrote: “This ‘theory’ doesn't really warrant any serious discussion but, on the other hand, it is important to demonstrate this isn't a website for nutty conspiracy theories.”

A theory not shared but already concluded to be a “nutty conspiracy [theory]” that “doesn't really warrant any serious discussion” and is not welcome on this website.

You have only heard hypotheses (uncertainties) that stem from a theory that I don’t believe, but that I was testing to see how it stands, one way or the other, in the Debate Section – for purporting theories.

Tigger wrote: “Well, all I can suggest is that you seem to be left with the psychic element of the investigation.
Iirc there were some 500 unexplored leads there so that should keep you going for while. winkwink

”

I just knew you were gonna say that. winkwink

Questioning sources has placed me in airy-fairyland.

Well, this thread went well. splat

by Seek truth 28.04.14 18:24

diatribe wrote:
Seek truth wrote:

Why aren't they made to give us all a real explanation?
It is taxpayers money!

There was another chappie who shared this philosophy, Seek truth, he had a funny moustache and was a tad reminiscent of a nasty Charlie Chaplin. I think his name was Adolf Hitler.

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