Re: Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

by Guest 22.05.14 23:24

Châtelaine wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?
***
Cannot you READ?
It was SHELVED and some time ago it was REOPENED, and I guess for good reasons.
Good night again.

For the record if a case is CLOSED then it usually means they have a culprit or whoever committed the crime Also for your information phil_Burton the case was re-opened a couple of months ago due to new evidence, and the PJ had actually been working on it some time before Scotland Yard started Operation Grange.

by rainbow-fairy 22.05.14 23:37

phil_burton wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?

At one point, namely through lack of cooperation meaning no further progress could be made, yes it was 'dormant' in a sense.

It is now open again and therefore being investigated by the PJ.

What would be the reason for saying it was if it wasn't???

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.05.14 0:03

SixMillionQuid wrote:
When Mr Redwood said to the public the T9 are of no interest do you believe he was telling the truth? If you believe he was telling a lie then he's openly lied to the public.

You mean like the way the PJ did in late August 2007?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942705.stm

Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

He told the BBC the parents were "victims" who had lost their child and also witnesses in the case.

So, PJ declaring the whole Tapas 9 not suspects.

Also calling the McCanns victims in much the same way as Scotland Yard have.

At this time the cadaver dog searches had already detected cadaverine in 5A, in the hire car, and on Kate McCanns trousers.

Does this it make to clear to you - and everyone else who uses this line - that police forces don't declare their suspects up front?

The above is indisputable fact and on the record.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 0:24

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Is it clear to you yet - and everyone else who uses this line - that police forces don't declare their suspects up front?

I wonder just how clear it is to you, though, WLBTS?

Look at the record of the McCann Team's habit of publicly naming or otherwise identifying suspects, 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries'...

Tannerman
Monsterman/George Harrison man
Endless people claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
Taxi-driver who had Madeleine in the back
Man seen in car in Bosnia
Moroccan peasant woman carrying fair-haired child
Raymond Hewlett
Victoria Beckham-lookalike
Portuguese gypsy gang leader
German paedophile
...and many others

And then consider how many suspects Grange has publicly identifed:

Smithman
4 blond blokes claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
6 men in a white van
3 burglars
man from the Ocean Club who had keys
Smelly bin-man
...and many others.

I will agree with you on this, though, that under normal circumstances, a police force saying that the parents are not under suspicion is by no means proof that they aren't under suspicion.

But this case is wholly different in several important respects, notably:

1. The Prime Minister of the UNited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has declared them innocent

AND

2. The official remit refers to the offence being 'abduction'.

Oh, and...

3. Hamish Campbell of Barry Bulsara/George notoriety was appointed the original investigation co-ordinator for Grange

by Mirage 23.05.14 0:35

Sky News website has a piece on the case.

Two things of note - they are allowing comments for the first time in yonks, including those of sceptics. The other surprise is a box to the right of the page containing a detailed timeline of the case, warts an' all. TB gets a mention! (Not that you're a wart, TB, I hasten to add). smilie

by Guest 23.05.14 2:08

Mirage I cannot believe what I've just read !

I am not changing my mind again,the truth will be revealed imo and justice for Madeleine will soon be served.

by lj 23.05.14 3:10

stillsloppingout wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/madeleine-police-move-to-next-phase
Mr Rowley echoed Kate McCann's calls for restraint in media coverage of the case, and said: "I want to be able to go back to Kate and Gerry at some stage in the future and tell them we've got to the bottom of this, or second best is to go back to them and say we've turned over every stone and we can't get to an answer sometimes."
IMO the words in red tell us precisely where the Met are heading with this series of very public performances.

There will be lots more pictures and photo opportunities.

But nothing at the end of it
More prof if needed that SY are NOT treating the McCann's [ sorry it's Gerry and Kate now ] as suspects.

Exactly

by lj 23.05.14 3:18

angusallan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I've just seen the BBC's news report on Mark Rowley's press conference and statement.

They are putting 'Smithman' at the very heart of their news story, thus:

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

Thursday 3 May 2007: Timeline

20:30 Kate and Gerry McCann leave their apartment to have dinner at a Tapas bar
21:05 Gerry McCann checks on Madeleine and her siblings
22:00 A man is seen carrying a child wearing pyjamas heading towards the ocean
22:00 Kate McCann raises the alarm that Madeleine has gone missing

Yet, never mind all the many other doubts about the validity of the Smiths' claimed sighting, DCI Redwood on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013 very deliberately led the viewing public to believe that members of this 'Irish family' were capable of producing two e-fits (both of different men, so it seems), despite the fact that all the three Smiths who gave statements to the PJ said they didn't see his face properly because it was dark, his face was hidden, we only saw him for a second or two, etc. etc.

How is it that some, even on this forum, can swallow such balderdash - hook, line and sinker?
Fleffer what,s your wider agenda here?

Oh shut up, that chapter was closed and personal attacks are not permitted.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.05.14 3:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Look at the record of the McCann Team's habit of publicly naming or otherwise identifying suspects, 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries'...

Tannerman
Monsterman/George Harrison man
Endless people claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
Taxi-driver who had Madeleine in the back
Man seen in car in Bosnia
Moroccan peasant woman carrying fair-haired child
Raymond Hewlett
Victoria Beckham-lookalike
Portuguese gypsy gang leader
German paedophile
...and many others

Did you add the above to beef up your list? As you rightly point out, these come from Team McCann, not Scotland Yard.

Scotland Yard have even eliminated one of the above, Team McCann's main suspect.

Tony Bennett wrote:
And then consider how many suspects Grange has publicly identifed:

Smithman
4 blond blokes claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
6 men in a white van
3 burglars
man from the Ocean Club who had keys
Smelly bin-man
...and many others.

I'm sure if there were 'many others' you would have listed them,

Tony Bennett wrote:
I will agree with you on this, though, that under normal circumstances, a police force saying that the parents are not under suspicion is by no means proof that they aren't under suspicion.

But this case is wholly different in several important respects, notably:

1. The Prime Minister of the UNited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has declared them innocent

AND

2. The official remit refers to the offence being 'abduction'.

The official remit of the review, and it is now an investigation.

by nglfi 23.05.14 8:00

Interestingly, the entry on the find madeleine page about Scotland Yard looking into the 'football stadium' sighting has now been whooshed! All that remains is a thank you but it's not madeleine. Interesting! Perhaps thry realised how stupid it sounded. Or perhaps they realised they shouldn't actually lie and say SY are investigating something they aren't.

by Atomic Peanut 23.05.14 8:07

phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.

But in that case there were certain individuals within the police who were trying to protect themselves following their roles in the H disaster.

For all the suggestions that a whitewash is going on, nobody on here has ever managed to satisfactorily explain what involvement the British police might have had with M's disappearance that could possibly lead to a similar situation.

by AndyB 23.05.14 8:24

Atomic Peanut wrote:
phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.
But in that case there were certain individuals within the police who were trying to protect themselves following their roles in the H disaster.

For all the suggestions that a whitewash is going on, nobody on here has ever managed to satisfactorily explain what involvement the British police might have had with M's disappearance that could possibly lead to a similar situation.

There were also several individuals within the police that were not directly involved at Hillsborough but who also took part in the cover up. There is a culture of cover-up and secrecy within the police generally but within the corrupt Met in particular. Do you not think that its at least possible that the Met are involved in a cover-up of something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, perhaps not the disappearance itself, not because they were directly involved in it but because that is what they are under orders to do?

Incidentally you are quite wrong to say that no-one on here has satisfactorily explained what the involvement is. Unfortunately such discussions quickly lead to libel and therefore get deleted. They usually involve the P word

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 8:26

Atomic Peanut wrote:
phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.
But in that case there were certain individuals within the police who were trying to protect themselves following their roles in the H disaster.

For all the suggestions that a whitewash is going on, nobody on here has ever managed to satisfactorily explain what involvement the British police might have had with M's disappearance that could possibly lead to a similar situation.

phil_burton is right to cite Hillsborough, but perhaps Jimmy Savile is a better analogy.

In that case, we have no evidence that police were doing anything illegal, or receivng sexual favours themeslves (though that has applied in some child sexual abuse scandals e.g. in Dunblane, North Wales and, more recently, South Wales).

But we do have evidence that a considerable number of police officers colluded in several police forces with Savile and his coterie to keep him free from prosecution.

There is another parallel in this case. Savile used to have weekly coffee mornings in Leeds at which several police officers would attend. Instead of preventing and detecting crime, these officers - with the full-hearted consent of their Chief Constable - were fawning on Savile, like anxious courtiers, and thus failing to deal with his serial abuse of hundreds of children

by Atomic Peanut 23.05.14 8:38

AndyB wrote:There were also several individuals within the police that were not directly involved at Hillsborough but who also took part in the cover up.

They were protecting their colleagues - how does the same thing apply in the case of MM?

Do you not think that its at least possible that the Met are involved in a cover-up of something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, perhaps not the disappearance itself, not because they were directly involved in it but because that is what they are under orders to do?

There has been no indication that this is the case, just unproven theories. Btw NSY isn't under the thumb of the government, eg Plebgate.

Incidentally you are quite wrong to say that no-one on here has satisfactorily explained what the involvement is.

It's all theories, no evidence, no proof, nothing.

(my replies in blue)

And yes I agree with TB that Savile would be a closer analogy, but there is nothing to link the British police with the disappearance of MM or any of the circumstances that may be connected with it.

by SchrodingersBody 23.05.14 8:53

Tony Bennett

PeterMac wrote:http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/madeleine-police-move-to-next-phase
Mr Rowley echoed Kate McCann's calls for restraint in media coverage of the case, and said: "I want to be able to go back to Kate and Gerry at some stage in the future and tell them we've got to the bottom of this, or second best is to go back to them and say we've turned over every stone and we can't get to an answer sometimes."
IMO the words in red tell us precisely where the Met are heading with this series of very public performances.

There will be lots more pictures and photo opportunities.

But nothing at the end of it

The bit of the quote in black without the ending, could be interpreted as an ominous warning, with the red just making it sound a bit fluffier. It's like anything that comes out since grange started, ambiguous, and it can be interpreted however one so chooses. Even the remit of grange is interpreted howsoever suits an individuals agenda. Quite regularly we see people saying that they are investigating the "abduction" as it would be in britain, and take that to mean the Met are in collusion and only considering abduction. It could mean they are tasked with whitewashing the whole mess, or it could quite simply mean they are investigating the crime that was repoorted as they would any other crime in Britain. If you report a burglary, they don't turn up to investigate an assault. They take it at face value, and investigate the "burglary" as was reported. Also in britain, we don't exonorate certain people before the investigation begins, and we would name suspects to try and locate them for further questions. It can be done when they think it will help move the investigation on, but normally it's not going to add anything to the investigation, more detract if you go around naming suspects and warning them they are suspects when you know where they are already.I think it's safe to say a certain couple consider themselves suspects whatever the police say, especially given the efforts they've gone to trying to convince people they aren't.

Whichever way this pans out, there is enough evidence for the "cover-up" people to point to, post conclusion, and say look I told you so, it was obvious this was going to happen. Equally there are interpretations the other way for "slowly slowly catchee monkey" people to point to if they end up serving life sentences.

I think this is what makes it fascinating, the ambiguity and the fact there is enough evidence for a layman, if not a court to convict them of something, even though we don't know what. That and the fact they are still free and in our faces with their various versions of it wasn't me, it was him, or him, or him over there, or them, or her , or them, anybody but us.

by Justformaddie 23.05.14 8:58

Like I said IMO all O G have to do is show the public the proof that they have that the tapas9 are completely innocent in this (maybe they don't have it then?)
smug

by AndyB 23.05.14 9:00

Atomic Peanut wrote:there is nothing to link the British police with the disappearance of MM or any of the circumstances that may be connected with it.

We are simply speculating that there might be and that, if there is a link, it might explain the extraordinary way that her disappearance has been handled by the powers that be. I have no proof of any of it but absence of proof is not proof of absence as you appear to be claiming. In light of Hillsborough, Savile, the lies told about the killing of Charles De Menezes and a myriad other cases, why are you so insistent that there cannot be a cover up of some description going on in the Madeleine McCann case? Do you not at least consider it a possibility?

Try reading this to see the extremes that the powers that be, including the police, will go to to whitewash things and the subject matter that is being covered-up. Then read the Gasper statement.
http://macurstatement.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/review-statement-of-andrea-davison-1.html?spref=tw

by missbeetle 23.05.14 9:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.
But in that case there were certain individuals within the police who were trying to protect themselves following their roles in the H disaster.

For all the suggestions that a whitewash is going on, nobody on here has ever managed to satisfactorily explain what involvement the British police might have had with M's disappearance that could possibly lead to a similar situation.
phil_burton is right to cite Hillsborough, but perhaps Jimmy Savile is a better analogy.

In that case, we have no evidence that police were doing anything illegal, or receivng sexual favours themeslves (though that has applied in some child sexual abuse scandals e.g. in Dunblane, North Wales and, more recently, South Wales).

But we do have evidence that a considerable number of police officers colluded in several police forces with Savile and his coterie to keep him free from prosecution.

There is another parallel in this case. Savile used to have weekly coffee mornings in Leeds at which several police officers would attend. Instead of preventing and detecting crime, these officers - with the full-hearted consent of their Chief Constable - were fawning on Savile, like anxious courtiers, and thus failing to deal with his serial abuse of hundreds of children

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 9 <a href=

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 9 Capturejsleeds_zps3c6387b7

" />

by **PeterMac** 23.05.14 9:07

Justformaddie wrote:Like I said IMO all O G have to do is show the public the proof that they have that the tapas9 are completely innocent in this (maybe they don't have it then?)

I think the Tapas 9 rather stuffed any idea of anyone declaring them all entirely innocent, by their initial lies about shutters, curtains, points of entry, changing the time line, and almost everything else they did and said.
None of what they did, and did not, and said or did not say proves them to be Guilty of course, but it does rule out Entirely Innocent

by Justformaddie 23.05.14 9:12

That said, then y is O G not sorting that out first, then they can move forward the right way? IMO

by **PeterMac** 23.05.14 9:14

by Justformaddie 23.05.14 9:17

Poor guy looks like he wants to go home to his mummy laughat

All too much maybe and IMO

by Atomic Peanut 23.05.14 9:24

AndyB wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:there is nothing to link the British police with the disappearance of MM or any of the circumstances that may be connected with it.
We are simply speculating that there might be and that, if there is a link, it might explain the extraordinary way that her disappearance has been handled by the powers that be. Do you not at least consider it a possibility?

Yes a cover-up is possible, I am aware that such things occur, but I prefer to work on the basis that there isn't a cover-up until someone can provide proof that there is a plausible reason for one in this case. IMO it takes time to gather evidence for a court case, particularly when 7 years have been allowed to lapse. It doesn't make sense that NSY would have taken such an active role in revitalising a shelved case just to close it again via a cover-up.

by canada12 23.05.14 9:37

And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.

by AndyB 23.05.14 9:43

Atomic Peanut wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:there is nothing to link the British police with the disappearance of MM or any of the circumstances that may be connected with it.
We are simply speculating that there might be and that, if there is a link, it might explain the extraordinary way that her disappearance has been handled by the powers that be. Do you not at least consider it a possibility?
Yes a cover-up is possible, I am aware that such things occur, but I prefer to work on the basis that there isn't a cover-up until someone can provide proof that there is a plausible reason for one in this case. IMO it takes time to gather evidence for a court case, particularly when 7 years have been allowed to lapse. It doesn't make sense that NSY would have taken such an active role in revitalising a shelved case just to close it again via a cover-up.

I agree and time may well prove you right but I find it very difficult to have any faith in anything that SY does given their history. For me they have lost the right to the benefit of the doubt a long time ago and anything they do should be regarded with suspicion until they can prove themselves to be honest and beyond reproach. They could make a good start by arresting, or at least questioning, the former Conservative cabinet member for all the allegations that have been made about him, but they don't http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5262/rapist-ex-cabinet-minister-named-in-tom-watson-s-dpp-letter