Madeleine McCann police on trail of five British holiday flat owners - but they are refusing to cooperate

tigger wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

Dutchgirl wrote:Here we go again!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-trail-five-3434162

So Clarence is now trying to be a "source close to" Scotland Yard now?

" A spokesman for Mark Warner, who own the Ocean Club, would only say: “It has been our policy not to comment on the Madeleine McCann case for a quite a few years now.”  - note use of the word "they" not "we".

And you could laugh (if you didn't want to cry

"Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for the McCanns, said: “Kate and Gerry will not comment on any operational detail concerning Grange. It is purely a matter for Scotland Yard to pursue.”

Oh & well done to Mark Warner

" A spokesman for Mark Warner, who own the Ocean Club, would only say: “It has been our policy not to comment on the Madeleine McCann case for a quite a few years now.”

O come on Gillyspot, I'm sure that Clarence is very close to SY  - say no more than ten feet or so from the main entrance.  

noddy100 wrote:This is such tripe
Imagine of you owned an apartment there
No matter what you thought of the McCanns if the police approached you asking to see bookings for that week
what possible motive could you have for saying no
Why is Mitchell spinning this?
Its not even about portuguese citizens its about Brits

PeterMac wrote:

What Mitchell has now disclosed is that in the past year SY have spend another Million pounds, have visited Portugal at least 8 times,
and have managed to increase the number of apartments about which they know nothing from 4 to 5
They know LESS this year than they did last year.
Is this cretin serious ?

diatribe wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

What Mitchell has now disclosed is that in the past year SY have spend another Million pounds, have visited Portugal at least 8 times,
and have managed to increase the number of apartments about which they know nothing from 4 to 5
They know LESS this year than they did last year.
Is this cretin serious ?

I take it you wouldn't want him representing your interests if the 'rubber heel' mob ever belatedly catch up with you, Peter. 

noddy100 wrote:
This is why I don't believe a word any of them say because IF this was a genuine abduction/missing child case the parents would be up in arms at how ridiculous the whole thing is

PeterMac wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:@ j.rob: She always has to add "frankly", when she makes a stupid remark or right-out lies, doesn't she?

The other one she uses is "To be honest . . .", or "if I'm honest"
which is a big red Flag to any police officer.

russiandoll wrote:I note that police appear to have left behind gypsies, tramps and thieves and are now zooming in on HOLIDAY FLATS and very soon will move from OWNERS to RENTERS OF A FEW APARTMENTS IN PARTICULAR.


   

PeterMac wrote:

noddy100 wrote:
This is why I don't believe a word any of them say because IF this was a genuine abduction/missing child case the parents would be up in arms at how ridiculous the whole thing is

Quite.
They would be barricading Downing Street, and demonstrating outside the Palace of Westminster and the Home Office DEMANDING that the enquiry be conducted properly and expeditiously, so that their daughter does not have to suffer another minute in her "Hellish Lair".   Finding a missing and alive little girl trumps all considerations of 'treading on eggshells", diplomatic niceties and the rest.
But they aren't.
So it isn't.
What we believe we do know is that Operation Grange is not leaking anything.  Which is remarkable in itself, but seems to be true.
Even those of us with "contacts", friends and ex-colleagues cannot get anywhere near.
Which in turn means that everything you are reading is pure Mitchell-speak

Hobs wrote:
Cher has been cleared of any involvement at the moment though that may change depending on which wig and outfit she wears next

Redwood, "the last poolside photo is genuine".

diatribe wrote:

plebgate wrote:
Maybe diatribe, but at some point they will be questioned whether here or Portugal.    IF any arrest is ever made, the persons discovering/ reporting the crime will be reinterviewed.  Certainly if it goes to court they will be questioned by defence/prosecution.

If being the operative word, Pleb. but even in the event of anyone being arrested and reinterviewed, they would undoubtably revert to their arguido rights to refuse to answer any questions. The same would apply in any subsequent criminal proceedings, whereby as accused persons, they could not be forced to give evidence, thereby evading answering any questions.

I cannot see how they would ever refuse to go back to Portugal to answer questions, which as the Pt. police pointed out, could well help in the investigation into their missing child,  when they returned willingly to attend a civil court case.

I cannot foresee any scenario where they would willingly return to Portugal to answer police questioning, particularly in the vein that they would know that far from helping in the quest to find their missing daughter, the motive would only be to incriminate them in the disappearance of the aforementioned. The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is that in the former, the questioning would be limited to their alleged suffering incurred as a result of Goncalo's actions, whereas in the latter, they would be questioned  on matters relating to the actual disappearance of their daughter.

Ladyinred wrote:A breaking news item on BBC News 24 a few minutes ago about the search for MBM.  I will post a link when it appears on BBC website.