I'm hoping Pat Brown is being sarcastic here :)

by bristow 13.06.14 20:59

Thank you Scotland Yard

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/thank-you-scotland-yard.html

by End 13.06.14 21:48

I would be interested in someones opinion on the Met's latest statement.

I can't find it now, but when I read it, I got the impression that they were implying they were working on various lines of enquiries. One that she was possibly dead and the fact they didn't find her remains during the dig, meant that there other line (abduction) wasn't entirely ruled out.

I think it was all carefully worded to suit TM agenda for the Libel Trial.

After reading it, I for the first time have begun to feel that it is a whitewash indeed.

by Guest 13.06.14 22:02

"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

I read the SY statement as saying "just one hypothesis is she was killed and buried locally, (and another that she was killed and buried further afield.)"
Probably I am wrong.
But I hope further afield is where they will be directing their next searches. Because I don't think many on here thought she would be found locally anyway. If AR had listened to PM or PB, he could have saved himself a lot of time, money and embarrassment.

by End 13.06.14 22:16

dantezebu wrote:"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

I read the SY statement as saying "just one hypothesis is she was killed and buried locally, (and another that she was killed and buried further afield.)"
Probably I am wrong.
But I hope further afield is where they will be directing their next searches. Because I don't think many on here thought she would be found locally anyway. If AR had listened to PM or PB, he could have saved himself a lot of time, money and embarrassment.

Thanks for that. Lets hope your right!

by Woofer 13.06.14 22:16

dantezebu wrote:"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

I read the SY statement as saying "just one hypothesis is she was killed and buried locally, (and another that she was killed and buried further afield.)"
Probably I am wrong.
But I hope further afield is where they will be directing their next searches. Because I don't think many on here thought she would be found locally anyway. If AR had listened to PM or PB, he could have saved himself a lot of time, money and embarrassment.

At the beginning of the review (or was it when it became an investigation, can`t remember) Andy Redwood stated quite clearly that they were working from two perspectives 1) that Maddie is alive and 2) that she is dead. I understood that to mean they had split the team into two parts, one investigating a living Maddie and the other a dead Maddie.

This latest statement says to me that they have worked the `dead Maddie` hypothesis to eliminate every lead which was finalised with the dig and now they will do the same with the `live Maddie` hypothesis.

by End 13.06.14 22:20

Woofer wrote:
dantezebu wrote:"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

I read the SY statement as saying "just one hypothesis is she was killed and buried locally, (and another that she was killed and buried further afield.)"
Probably I am wrong.
But I hope further afield is where they will be directing their next searches. Because I don't think many on here thought she would be found locally anyway. If AR had listened to PM or PB, he could have saved himself a lot of time, money and embarrassment.

At the beginning of the review (or was it when it became an investigation, can`t remember) Andy Redwood stated quite clearly that they were working from two perspectives 1) that Maddie is alive and 2) that she is dead. I understood that to mean they had split the team into two parts, one investigating a living Maddie and the other a dead Maddie.

This latest statement says to me that they have worked the `dead Maddie` hypothesis to eliminate every lead which was finalised with the dig and now they will do the same with the `live Maddie` hypothesis.

Well then, just perfect for the Mc's

by petunia 13.06.14 22:24

I don't know what to think of Pat anymore,i used to like her posts a few years back but now?

by Woofer 13.06.14 22:38

petunia wrote:I don't know what to think of Pat anymore,i used to like her posts a few years back but now?

Like a lot of us, I think she`s despairing of the seeming lack of justice and its turned to pessimism.

by canada12 13.06.14 22:45

This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally.

My take on this is that there are two parts to the one hypothesis:

1. She was killed and
2. She was buried locally.

There are other hypotheses which are still being considered, including:
1. She was killed and
2. She was not buried locally.

by kimHager 13.06.14 22:57

I think if you scroll down to the comments it shows that pat is still on Maddy's side and apparently don't believe the mccanns now any more than 7 yrz ago

by View-from-Ireland 13.06.14 23:13

canada12 wrote:This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally.

My take on this is that there are two parts to the one hypothesis:

1. She was killed and
2. She was buried locally.

There are other hypotheses which are still being considered, including:
1. She was killed and
2. She was not buried locally.

That was also my take on it.

by End 13.06.14 23:27

But yet do we know what the other lines of enquiry are .... it really does leave it open to interpretation.

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 0:08

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur11/page10.htm

This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally
---------------------------------------------------------
"one hypothesis that she (Madeleine) was killed and buried locally" (say UK Met Police)

Would this be BEFORE or AFTER GA wrote a book based on the official PJ 'files and investigation'?

On the UK Metropolitan Police official 'site' in black and white.

Aren't the McCanns suing GA for stating that Madeleine 'died' and her body was secreted away?

There's GA's 'defence' right there!

Backed up, imo, by the UK Met Police.

They will have to sue the Met, for putting forward, into the public domain, an hypothesis that Madeleine was killed and buried locally.

Thus 'hampering, hindering and jeopardising' the 'search' for a 'live' Madeleine

by End 14.06.14 0:20

Yes. But SY are not tying themselves to the ONE hypothesis. It would seem they have other lines of enquiry

eta: They can argue, that thats their job, to look at all avenues

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 0:43

Perhaps the next hypothesis to be investigated, by OG will be 'WAS Madeleine actually abducted'?

After all NOBODY saw Madeleine being 'abducted' did they?

NOBODY saw anyone 'jemmying and smashing' the shutter of the kids room, did they?

Or opening the window.

Jane Tanner did NOT see Madeleine being 'abducted' according to DCI Redwood of OG.

The Smiths did NOT actually SEE Madeleine being 'abducted' did they?

All they saw was, supposedly, a man carrying a child, wearing long sleeved pyjamas, which contradicts the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' as described and displayed, (very SHORT sleeves) by her own parents.

The 'abduction' of Madeleine is ONLY, repeat ONLY, the McCann couple's own 'thesis', and say so, isn't it?

by kimHager 14.06.14 0:58

Yes jeanmonroe its there thesis and absolutely based on bull if she was abducted where's proof or evidence of abduction. They didnt care about GA its that million dollars IMO the funds running out if Maddy is dead. Just my opinion.

by jeanmonroe 14.06.14 1:25

'snipped'

"As parents of a missing child, we have always wanted all reasonable lines of inquiry to be followed and it is gratifying to know that a substantial amount of work will take place over the coming months with the close co-operation of the British and Portuguese authorities".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27813554

Amazing how cool these parents and their spokesman are with their 'over the coming months'. I would have thought they'd be living one day at a time, given their child is still missing, not thinking in terms of 'months'. There again, Gerry was already planning 100 days ahead within hours of Madeleine's 'abduction'.
--------------------------------------------------
"it is gratifying to know that a substantial amount of work will take place over the coming MONTHS.

what

Hmm. Absolutely no URGENCY there then to rescue Madeleine from her hellish lair!

If you're reading this, Madeleine, just another 3/4/5/6 more MONTHS till mummy and daddy, and the elite 38 solely dedicated MET Maddie Cops, get around to 'rescuing' you. Sit tight. But mummy and daddy will 'move mountains' to get to Lisbon, NEXT WEEK, to try to get loadsa money for themselves. It's a pity that they won't be able to get to PDL, to actually search for you, but, you know, they are busy, busy, busy suing anyone who dares to not believe them.

by kimHager 14.06.14 2:43

its funny how they want to follow up every REASONABLE sighting....but has any been followed up on..what is reasonable to two ppl who have a missing child? I believe if my child had really been abducted i would follow up any lead because ITS MY CHILD! Its a person who they claim is alive but its like they dont care to get her back..OR there is no REASON she would be ABLE to be ßighted..she is dead and imo they know this. high5

they arent fooling anyone but a fool

by Silver Shuffle 14.06.14 7:02

I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong sad

by aiyoyo 14.06.14 7:19

Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong

It is exactly that line that I believe she was being sarcastic.
She would never have done that to GA, unless she meant it in sarcasm to have a dig at the McCanns.

by Silver Shuffle 14.06.14 7:21

aiyoyo wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong

It is exactly that line that I believe she was being sarcastic.
She would never have done that to GA, unless she meant it in sarcasm to have a dig at the McCanns.

So hope you're right...

by aiyoyo 14.06.14 7:25

Silver Shuffle wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong

It is exactly that line that I believe she was being sarcastic.
She would never have done that to GA, unless she meant it in sarcasm to have a dig at the McCanns.

So hope you're right...

I don't do twitter but read that she was surprised people missed her sarcasm.

by Silver Shuffle 14.06.14 7:41

aiyoyo wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong

It is exactly that line that I believe she was being sarcastic.
She would never have done that to GA, unless she meant it in sarcasm to have a dig at the McCanns.

So hope you're right...

I don't do twitter but read that she was surprised people missed her sarcasm.

by Truthandjustice 14.06.14 8:17

Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong

Take heart. This is a Portuguese court of law we are talking about, not a spat played out in the spin fest that is msm. The MCs have no case which is why they tried to settle out of court and delay till September (all refused). This bluster planned for Monday will not affect the FACTS that have been presented in court one jot.

by aiyoyo 14.06.14 9:49

Truthandjustice wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:I believe Pat is just being realistic... all timed to perfection... God Help GA ...hope I'm wrong
Take heart. This is a Portuguese court of law we are talking about, not a spat played out in the spin fest that is msm. The MCs have no case which is why they tried to settle out of court and delay till September (all refused). This bluster planned for Monday will not affect the FACTS that have been presented in court one jot.

Exactly!
Thus their desperation to damage control, but as you said, the bluster won't work one jot.