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

by stillsloppingout 23.05.14 12:10

ChippyM wrote:
canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.

Artefacts . The toothbrush clothing underwear etc would have been spirited away sharpish . They were hardly going to dispose of a body with all her items with it . A lone item would arouse no suspicion but several items together Bingo It could be something as small as lone toothbrush that has been unearthed by say a dog, that has located a spot of interest .

Just think they could be undone by a toothbrush !! .

by ChippyM 23.05.14 12:20

stillsloppingout wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.
Artefacts . The toothbrush clothing underwear etc would have been spirited away sharpish . They were hardly going to dispose of a body with all her items with it . A lone item would arouse no suspicion but several items together Bingo It could be something as small as lone toothbrush that has been unearthed by say a dog, that has located a spot of interest .

Just think they could be undone by a toothbrush !! .

Yes objects and artefacts...or maybe a site where something was done or a body was placed on a temporary basis.

With Gerry being a doctor and demonstrating such a calculating, cold and cocksure nature, I have imagined all kinds of scenarios of a body being very thoroughly disposed of. All these scenarios would involve equipment that again would have to be disposed of.

by Guest 23.05.14 12:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
As for the Scenic, surely that's very easy.

Redwood: "The McCanns didn't hire it until 25 May. Therefore Eddie and Keela, if they really DID alert to cadaverine and body fluids, then that must have occurred when someone else drove this car BEFORE 25 May'.

Perhaps you should be in charge of the whitewash Tony.

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 11 4290_l

by nobodythereeither 23.05.14 12:21

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence.

And you know this - how, exactly?

by Bishop Brennan 23.05.14 12:29

notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

I'm afraid not. It's not that SY are saying that the dogs are wrong or unreliable. They are simply pretending that they don't exist. It's exactly the same as pretending that there is zero suspicion over the McCann parents.

However, someone else convicted or accused of a crime against their child cannot say "oh but SY thought Kate and Gerry were innocent, so I must be too". And in just the same way, a person convicted arrested partly because of dogs cannot claim "oh but they didn't use them in PDL, you can't use them on me". It just doesn't work that way.

by notlongnow 23.05.14 12:33

Bishop Brennan wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

I'm afraid not. It's not that SY are saying that the dogs are wrong or unreliable. They are simply pretending that they don't exist. It's exactly the same as pretending that there is zero suspicion over the McCann parents.

However, someone else convicted or accused of a crime against their child cannot say "oh but SY thought Kate and Gerry were innocent, so I must be too". And in just the same way, a person convicted arrested partly because of dogs cannot claim "oh but they didn't use them in PDL, you can't use them on me". It just doesn't work that way.

Surely if they totally dismiss the dogs findings in this case i don't see how sy can use them in future cases.
They can't pick and choose when they believe the dogs.

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 12:42

If a 'body' of an almost 4 years old child were to be 'unearthed' in PDL that can only be 'extremely unhelpful and hurtful' for the McCanns.

Because it could not be proven, beyond contestation, that it was not 'placed/interned' there by possibly the McCanns or somebody they 'knew'.

IF a 'body' were discovered and accurately dated to early May 2007, guess WHO was in PDL, at THAT time?

A 'body' would most definitely not clear the McCanns of possible 'involvement'

(assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said ''while one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance''.)

Was the 'time' of death of a possible 'body' 3rd May 2007 BEFORE or AFTER 10pm?

If BEFORE, how long before?

If AFTER, how long after?

(Gerry McCann went out again with his friend DP at 4:00AM, 4th May 2007.)

When 'everyone had gone home and we were totally alone' as KM 'recalls'.

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 12:49

Surely if they totally dismiss the dogs findings in this case i don't see how sy can use them in future cases.
They can't pick and choose when they believe the dogs.
----------------------------------------

Well, they certainly IGNORED the dog 'alerts' early on in the Tia Sharp case, didn't they?

Took them DAYS before the second dog 'alert' and surprise, surprise, they found wee Tia!

And this was the most disgusting thing, a policewoman said SHE had gone into the house, DAYS later, and 'smelt' something 'odd' and went into loft.

And 'claimed' the credit for 'finding' Tia!

by Tangled Web 23.05.14 13:00

Bishop Brennan wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

I'm afraid not. It's not that SY are saying that the dogs are wrong or unreliable. They are simply pretending that they don't exist. It's exactly the same as pretending that there is zero suspicion over the McCann parents.

However, someone else convicted or accused of a crime against their child cannot say "oh but SY thought Kate and Gerry were innocent, so I must be too". And in just the same way, a person convicted arrested partly because of dogs cannot claim "oh but they didn't use them in PDL, you can't use them on me". It just doesn't work that way.

If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

by Cristobell 23.05.14 13:02

ChippyM wrote:
canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.

Imo, Gerry is reckless - a huge risk taker. Asking for a review was a huge risk, for example, and it has almost certainly not given Gerry and Kate the result they were looking for. The Fund has been dormant these past 3 years, the fundraising has stopped, other than the paypal donation buttons which remain on the OFM, but I suspect they get little use.

We have seen many examples of Gerry enjoying 'the game' - in a couple of interviews he was barely able to suppress his laughter. I think his 'Find the body' challenge is another example of his cocky 'you can't catch me' attitude. The McCanns had a couple of very good years where they appeared untouchable and the search experts brought into PDL, had failed. There is really no point in digging unless the investigators have specific information, and in 2007, they didn't.

by The Rooster 23.05.14 13:10

I like your thought processes Tangled Web. I don't think the police are ignoring the dogs. They are the fulcrum upon which the whole case direction pivots. Deadwood, Spiregrain, Throd and Splint may be getting flack from many on this site but they aren't stupid by any means. Remembering that McCann has his own agenda and method of operation and is equally as tricky as a bag of monkeys, the police will need to be more clever than he.

He's not beyond scoring an own goal!

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 13:14

The Rooster wrote:...they aren't stupid by any means.

Neither were Hitler or Stalin

by Bishop Brennan 23.05.14 13:16

Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in". You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply: "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".

No need to mention the dogs. And that's why they haven't.

The only tiny, teeny glimmer of hope that flickers away is the knowledge that the INSTANT that they mention Eddie and Keela, then the entire world knows that the McCanns are guilty. As such, if there is even one lone copper checking that angle, then nothing would be said until they knew for sure that they had something to back up the dogs. Is the dig part of that? I'd love to believe it, but for now I can't.

Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!

by ChippyM 23.05.14 13:23

Cristobell wrote:
..... wrote:Imo, Gerry is reckless - a huge risk taker. Asking for a review was a huge risk, for example, and it has almost certainly not given Gerry and Kate the result they were looking for. The Fund has been dormant these past 3 years, the fundraising has stopped, other than the paypal donation buttons which remain on the OFM, but I suspect they get little use.

We have seen many examples of Gerry enjoying 'the game' - in a couple of interviews he was barely able to suppress his laughter. I think his 'Find the body' challenge is another example of his cocky 'you can't catch me' attitude. The McCanns had a couple of very good years where they appeared untouchable and the search experts brought into PDL, had failed. There is really no point in digging unless the investigators have specific information, and in 2007, they didn't.

You could be right there Cristobell. It would fit with a narcissist's way of thinking, ie. I'm so much cleverer than you all and you can't possibly catch me. So I imagine he may have done things very thoroughly and cleverly but it's the cocksure, narcissistic attitude that could be his downfall and he may have been just gone a little bit too far due to his enjoyment of playing this game. The digging has got to be based on something I agree, or why would the PJ agree to it?

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 13:26

Bishop Brennan

"Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!"
-------------------------------------

FGS don't invite Auntie Phil............................i'm 'starving'! laughat

by Tangled Web 23.05.14 13:33

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in". You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply: "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".

No need to mention the dogs. And that's why they haven't.

The only tiny, teeny glimmer of hope that flickers away is the knowledge that the INSTANT that they mention Eddie and Keela, then the entire world knows that the McCanns are guilty. As such, if there is even one lone copper checking that angle, then nothing would be said until they knew for sure that they had something to back up the dogs. Is the dig part of that? I'd love to believe it, but for now I can't.

Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!

Now that would be the best tasting pie we'd ever had!!

I completely understand the scepticism in light of the level of corruption we have seen and I'm not 100% on the 'non-whitewash' side myself. However, if this IS supposed to be a whitewash, I think that SY are making a total hash of it!!! All they seem to be doing is turning the public against the McCann's (people resent the amount of resources, money etc. being spent on this one child), showing E-fits that look like GM and the countless, ridiculous news articles (allowing comments) are directing the general public to the PJ files!!!

I suppose we just have to sit tight but I'm starting to get a numb bottom sad

by Bishop Brennan 23.05.14 13:37

jeanmonroe wrote:Bishop Brennan

"Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!"
-------------------------------------

FGS don't invite Auntie Phil............................i'm 'starving'!

Just hope she doesn't read this forum....!

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 11 Auntie11

by Cristobell 23.05.14 13:41

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in". You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply: "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".

No need to mention the dogs. And that's why they haven't.

The only tiny, teeny glimmer of hope that flickers away is the knowledge that the INSTANT that they mention Eddie and Keela, then the entire world knows that the McCanns are guilty. As such, if there is even one lone copper checking that angle, then nothing would be said until they knew for sure that they had something to back up the dogs. Is the dig part of that? I'd love to believe it, but for now I can't.

Nothing would make me happier if I were wrong, and I'd gladly bake a giant Humble Pie to share around the forum!

Those darn dogs!

The only two witnesses in this whole affair, that we can say with 100% certainty don't lie' No amount of whitewash will blot out that film clip on the www showing the best sniffer dogs in the world alerting to blood and death in the apartment of the McCanns. The McCanns have the sheer brass front to tell the world the dogs alerts mean nothing, but it is an argument they can never win and it has probably been the driving force behind all the REAL investigations.

DCI Redwood has suggested the idea that Madeleine was not alive when she left the apartment and the proposed digs are in the vicinity of 5A. How anyone can interpret that as stranger abduction is astounding. Particularly those who know all the facts of the case. The 'facts' being the statements given by the parents and the witnesses on the night. The parents have never changed their story, so there is no room for manoeuvre. Gerry saw Madeleine alive and well at 9.10 and Kate raised the alarm at 10.00pm.

This is without question the most highly publicised missing child case in the world. It is also the most controversial and the most closely observed. Taking a few steps back and looking at the bigger picture, with election year coming up, a purge on corruption by this government would be a real vote winner. Supporting the cover up of a 3 year old's disappearance (the true facts of which could emerge at any time), and effectively insulting a fellow member of the EU would be political suicide.

by Cristobell 23.05.14 13:45

ChippyM wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
..... wrote:Imo, Gerry is reckless - a huge risk taker. Asking for a review was a huge risk, for example, and it has almost certainly not given Gerry and Kate the result they were looking for. The Fund has been dormant these past 3 years, the fundraising has stopped, other than the paypal donation buttons which remain on the OFM, but I suspect they get little use.

We have seen many examples of Gerry enjoying 'the game' - in a couple of interviews he was barely able to suppress his laughter. I think his 'Find the body' challenge is another example of his cocky 'you can't catch me' attitude. The McCanns had a couple of very good years where they appeared untouchable and the search experts brought into PDL, had failed. There is really no point in digging unless the investigators have specific information, and in 2007, they didn't.

You could be right there Cristobell. It would fit with a narcissist's way of thinking, ie. I'm so much cleverer than you all and you can't possibly catch me. So I imagine he may have done things very thoroughly and cleverly but it's the cocksure, narcissistic attitude that could be his downfall and he may have been just gone a little bit too far due to his enjoyment of playing this game. The digging has got to be based on something I agree, or why would the PJ agree to it?

His behaviour ticks quite a few boxes on the psychopath scale. Anyone who took this seriously would have crumbled by now.

by ChippyM 23.05.14 13:46

Tangled Web wrote:
........ I completely understand the scepticism in light of the level of corruption we have seen and I'm not 100% on the 'non-whitewash' side myself. However, if this IS supposed to be a whitewash, I think that SY are making a total hash of it!!! All they seem to be doing is turning the public against the McCann's (people resent the amount of resources, money etc. being spent on this one child), showing E-fits that look like GM and the countless, ridiculous news articles (allowing comments) are directing the general public to the PJ files!!!

I suppose we just have to sit tight but I'm starting to get a numb bottom

It's been 2 weeks now since the helicopter ride. If we take it as legitimate and not just for show, what kind and scale of operation must they be preparing? The latest announcement means it must begin soon anyway.

by della70 23.05.14 13:50

According to The Sun is days away .http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5644494/Maddie-arrests-days-away-in-huge-cop-search-in-Portugal.html

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 13:54

Bishop Brennan wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
If SY are pretending to ignore the dogs then how will they explain why they think "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" (or words to that effect from AR) and what was the indication that she may be dead, resulting in the digs for a body?

They've never been challenged on why they made that (very under-reported) quote. But I can imagine AR deadpanning that "it is just one possibility - that she may or may not have left the apartment alive. We are ruling nothing out and nothing in". You know, the usual cr@p that he spouts.

As for the digs - again, nobody has asked the question, and again you can imagine the stone-wall reply: "This is a standard part of our investigation so that we can rule out certain possibilities that were not fully checked at the time of the original enquiry".

OWN UP.

Are you DCI Redwood's script-writer?

Were you behind:

'drawing everything back to zero'

'may be alive or, sadly, dead'

'revelation moment', and

'may not follow with all our thinking'?

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 13:54

ChippyM wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
........ I completely understand the scepticism in light of the level of corruption we have seen and I'm not 100% on the 'non-whitewash' side myself. However, if this IS supposed to be a whitewash, I think that SY are making a total hash of it!!! All they seem to be doing is turning the public against the McCann's (people resent the amount of resources, money etc. being spent on this one child), showing E-fits that look like GM and the countless, ridiculous news articles (allowing comments) are directing the general public to the PJ files!!!

I suppose we just have to sit tight but I'm starting to get a numb bottom

It's been 2 weeks now since the helicopter ride. If we take it as legitimate and not just for show, what kind and scale of operation must they be preparing? The latest announcement means it must begin soon anyway.

Meanwhile the 'unharmed and alive' Madeleine sits twiddling her thumbs in her hellish lair 10km's from PDL.

Where she's been for over 7 years, while her parents 'do the rounds' of the TV studios in the UK!

by ultimaThule 23.05.14 13:58

jeanmonroe wrote:Surely if they totally dismiss the dogs findings in this case i don't see how sy can use them in future cases.
They can't pick and choose when they believe the dogs.
----------------------------------------

Well, they certainly IGNORED the dog 'alerts' early on in the Tia Sharp case, didn't they?

Took them DAYS before the second dog 'alert' and surprise, surprise, they found wee Tia!

And this was the most disgusting thing, a policewoman said SHE had gone into the house, DAYS later, and 'smelt' something 'odd' and went into loft.

And 'claimed' the credit for 'finding' Tia!

If the Met had had to pay to bring in EVRD dogs of the calibre of Eddie & Keela I very much doubt they would have ignored their alerts, jeanmonroe, but instead a selection of their ~~lardarse~~ finest, who were unwilling to climb into the loft ~~in case they got wedged in the hatch~~ for fear of it being unsafe, sat eating and drinking with Tia's killer for more than a week while the Met's police dogs barked at the ceiling and officer in charge Commander Neil Bashu grandstanded to the assembled MSM outside the house.

With reference to your statement "And this was the most disgusting thing, a policewoman said SHE had gone into the house, DAYS later, and 'smelt' something 'odd' and went into loft" ftr, nine days after Tia had been reported missing, a police officer 'detected' (I use the word lightly) an unpleasant odour in the house which had been remarked on the day before and Met police dogs were brought in again before the loft was searched.

The Tia Sharp case beggars belief. What were the hordes of uniforms, plainclothes, and family liaison officers who parked their bums on her grandmother's sofa while Tia's body lay above their heads saying to the dogs that barked at the ceiling? "Down, boy/girl, here, have a biscuit... ta very much Mr Hazell, I'll have another cuppa and have you got another can of air freshener handy"?

The manner in which the disappearance of this poor child was investigated is an absolute disgrace; back in 1975 the DSI who was responsible for investigating the kidnapping of 17 year old Lesley Whittle found himself demoted to beat bobby and imo Basu, together with his equally incompetent subordinates, should be directing traffic under the strict supervision of an experienced officer who's up to the task.

Fallen arches are known to be an occupational hazard for police officers and it seems to me that the standard of policing throughout the UK has fallen lower than their feet.

by ChippyM 23.05.14 14:01

jeanmonroe wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
........ wrote:t's been 2 weeks now since the helicopter ride. If we take it as legitimate and not just for show, what kind and scale of operation must they be preparing? The latest announcement means it must begin soon anyway.

Meanwhile the 'unharmed and alive' Madeleine sits twiddling her thumbs in her hellish lair 10km's from PDL.

Where she's been for over 7 years, while her parents 'do the rounds' of the TV studios in the UK!

Well they did (allegedley) have a creepy little Birthday party in her absence, so that's something.