Re: Digging to start next week - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

by jeanmonroe 28.05.14 12:45

'digging' to start next week.
--------------------------------

If i were cynical i'd say that it must be pure 'coincidence' that the 'digging' will be ongoing at the same time as the 'conman' programme is broadcast.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 12:51

jeanmonroe wrote:'digging' to start next week.
--------------------------------
If i were cynical i'd say that it must be pure 'coincidence' that the 'digging' will be ongoing at the same time as the 'conman' programme is broadcast.

And does anyone know when the Libel trial is likely to resume ?

by stillsloppingout 28.05.14 12:53

paradigm67 wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
... but why have Operation Grange never once if i recall, mentioned the original dogs findings back in 2007..?

Why should they? This is an ongoing investigation, it hasn't concluded.

What will be interesting is whether or not the press start to mention Eddie and Keela once they see dogs on-site in PDL. SY may have reasons for not mentioning them (whitewash / cunning plan depending on your view) but the press can certainly write about them in a non-libellous way as their use and findings are matters of public record. So far not a single word on them in 3 years. We shall see...

Wonder if they will use these 'better' dogs (as I believe they were reported) in the same areas that Eddie and Keela were used. If so then the outcomes could go one of several ways I suppose. If they dont alert then no doubt a lot of people will then take that as a sign to dismiss the original dogs, even though it was a good few years ago when things were a bit more fresh. If they do alert, will SY take that as a sign that MM did die in the appartment and possibly uphold the bungled burglary scenario or could they use that in the other possible scenario that they are actually investigating K&G?

" Better Dogs " Because these can detect Bulls**t !!!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.05.14 13:12

paradigm67 wrote:
Wonder if they will use these 'better' dogs (as I believe they were reported) in the same areas that Eddie and Keela were used. If so then the outcomes could go one of several ways I suppose. If they dont alert then no doubt a lot of people will then take that as a sign to dismiss the original dogs, even though it was a good few years ago when things were a bit more fresh. If they do alert, will SY take that as a sign that MM did die in the appartment and possibly uphold the bungled burglary scenario or could they use that in the other possible scenario that they are actually investigating K&G?

Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

by ultimaThule 28.05.14 13:14

There is no 'better' dog than Keela; she is recognised as being one of her kind.

As the alerts given by Keela and the late Eddie have been recorded and attested to, there is no need for the services of other EVRD dogs to be utilised in respect of 5A and the Scenic although, of course, they may be called in to assist in any land searches which may take place.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 13:15

Just pulling three bits out of what may turn out to be Tabloid rubbish
[quote]
The three grounds are located near the Praia da Luz resort, in Lagos, where the English child disappeared from, on the 3rd of May of 2007. The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards.
NEAR PdL. NOT IN PdL.
Dogs that specialise in detecting cadaver odour will participate in the searches. The animals come from England and have already been successfully used in the retrieval of other bodies. The radars that will be used to find out if there is an alien object under ground will come from the same country.
Dogs and GPR - see other posts
The search warrants that permit the searches have also been issued already - because these are private grounds.
Search Warrants ?
If that is even close to being "true" it is very revealing.

WIKI
United Kingdom
Search warrants are issued by a local Magistrate and require a Constable to provide evidence to support the warrant application.
In other words a mere suspicion is not enough. You are not allowed to go on a "Fishing expedition".

However, CdM is a red top and should not be believed without independent verification.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 28.05.14 13:21

Very interesting PM, I really hope there is some truth in that article.

by ultimaThule 28.05.14 13:23

If true, it could be significant, PeterMac, and 'private grounds' could be golf courses, cemeteries, and land around barns, as well as the gardens of private residences.

by Woofer 28.05.14 13:29

PeterMac wrote:Just pulling three bits out of what may turn out to be Tabloid rubbish

The three grounds are located near the Praia da Luz resort, in Lagos, where the English child disappeared from, on the 3rd of May of 2007. The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards.
NEAR PdL. NOT IN PdL.
Dogs that specialise in detecting cadaver odour will participate in the searches. The animals come from England and have already been successfully used in the retrieval of other bodies. The radars that will be used to find out if there is an alien object under ground will come from the same country.
Dogs and GPR - see other posts
The search warrants that permit the searches have also been issued already - because these are private grounds.
Search Warrants ?
If that is even close to being "true" it is very revealing.

WIKI
United Kingdom
Search warrants are issued by a local Magistrate and require a Constable to provide evidence to support the warrant application.
In other words a mere suspicion is not enough. You are not allowed to go on a "Fishing expedition".

However, CdM is a red top and should not be believed without independent verification.

Right - taking this redtop piece at face value, there must be strong suspicion and a main warrant - the dig is just to get supportive evidence.

The redtop also states the warrant is for private property - so that would discard the roadways, beaches and common areas - so could it be something like someone`s garden, a private hotel or a golf course?

by missmar1 28.05.14 13:30

It's incredible to read so much nonsense about SY believing burglars entered apartment 5a with the intention to steal belongings but ended up taking a small child only to kill and bury her !

Imo, this is an outrageous suggestion - No matter what the original reason for entering 5a in the first place - if they ended up stealing a child they would be called abductors and NOT burglars in the first place !

It has been documented that nothing else was taken except the Mccann's little girl so imo, no-one can call a child stealer a BURGLAR !

I may be remembering it wrong so someone please correct me if I am, but I seem to remember Gerry Mccann once said that it was like going to the auto bank and finding yourself over the limit when he discovered his child missing.

by Ayniia 28.05.14 13:39

Andrew77R wrote:"The English believe that the little girl was killed during a burglary to the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards"

But, but, but... "nothing of value was missing " -Mccs words. Nevermind the child, YOUR daughter that was in fact missing...
Now seriously, I don't know what to think of this. I guess I'm in a wishful thinking day so I'm reading that thinking: they (SY ) couldn't announce, at least yet, that " "The English believe that the little girl was killed (by someone she knew )in the house and that the body was abandoned near the Ocean Club afterwards" ...
All IMHO. Because ok that burglary thing discounts the dogs alert in the apartment (if we can believe that the odor is instantaneous +that the burglar put the body in the parents closet + the body was close to cuddlecat but not in the bed ) but if you need to discount the dogs alerts in the Scenic and Kate's clothes. But wait,trying to explain the dogs alerts also gives the assertion that the alerts are true. SY can't really believe that us "evil trolls " are going to buy that right?!
As to the digs, again I'm thinking positive, that it means: look we're here press, and they will be doing the real digs somewhere else. I can't imagine that they'll be digging for a body with all the press there to capture the moment...
But then again I'm trying to make sense of things that make no sense at all... oh well...

by bristow 28.05.14 13:40

missmar1 wrote:It's incredible to read so much nonsense about SY believing burglars entered apartment 5a with the intention to steal belongings but ended up taking a small child only to kill and bury her !

Imo, this is an outrageous suggestion - No matter what the original reason for entering 5a in the first place - if they ended up stealing a child they would be called abductors and NOT burglars in the first place !

It has been documented that nothing else was taken except the Mccann's little girl so imo, no-one can call a child stealer a BURGLAR !

I may be remembering it wrong so someone please correct me if I am, but I seem to remember Gerry Mccann once said that it was like going to the auto bank and finding yourself over the limit when he discovered his child missing.

Yes dear Gerry said -

"The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank."

Taken from an interview with Sky News May 2007

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

by Guest 28.05.14 13:56

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

Maybe they're going to dig up 5A?

by jozi 28.05.14 14:17

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Food for thought - what if the locations to be searched are areas that Eddie and Keela searched but found nothing? Obviously, dogs being brought in to search 5a again 7 years on proves nothing. Also, as we all know, dog's don't lie. Eddie and Keela didn't, and neither will these new ones.

Maybe they're going to dig up 5A?

Or Murats garden ?

by missmar1 28.05.14 14:19

Thanks bristow,

What an odd and dispassionate comparison to make when talking about he felt when he found his little girl was missing, No wonder the Mccanns were given a spokesperson - imagine, imo, how much more dispassion and odd comments may have been on show to the world if they had done all their own talking all of the time !

Clarence Mitchel has made a hash of things but at least it could be said his lack of feelings was because it was not his child he was talking about - ( Imo, the same cannot be said for the Mccanns ) Clarence's talking role has helped to limit the mccans uncaring image which imo, the public would have seen through a long time ago had the Mccanns not had his "expertise" because at the very least, Clarence has managed to keep the public on side for a long time.

by CynicAl 28.05.14 14:20

Personal opinion, even if the CdM article is 'close' to the truth, the language used cannot be trusted to be transparent, not even if it came from Andy Redwood personally.

I agree with the comment regards CdM writing articles about the Met in much the same way as the British media write about PortoPlod. There is either an air of exasperation and ridicule, or there is an air of compliance which may result in the use of very careful wording.

You can read a lot into 'burglary.' Not necessarily limited to the idea of a stranger breaking into the property to nick goods... If I were investigating the possibility that the child died in 5A, the parents knew, someone called some 'enablers' in PDL to help, and someone arranged for third parties to enter the premises and remove a package or bundle without asking questions, allowing KM to go back to check that the deed was done before screaming the place down in the most casual manner possible, and I were not to 'tip off' TM that I was about to finger them without new evidence which I was in the process of trying to gather, I might refer to needing search warrants to investigate burglars... If I happen to stumble on other evidence which changes my direction while doing that, then so be it.

So far none of this is bad news for those who are hoping for a genuine investigation. This may just be a diversion for formality's sake, but if it gets SY involved in a necessary process which will result in the necessary prosecution of two people who will only ever remain under SY's domestic jurisdiction, then so be it. Let the games proceed.

I still find it hard to believe that SY would even imagine, let alone get permission, to perform on foreign soil a unilateral coverup at the expense of another country's national pride, police credibility, and in the face of the overwhelming burden of available evidence and against such a heavily subscribed polarisation of public opinion on a global scale... This isn't smalltown UK brushing under the carpet, this is global news. In my opinion there cannot be any outcome of this re-opened investigation which does not, in some way, call the Mc's to account for something - be it murder, or reckless child abandonment, because no amount of whitewash can hold back the inevitable flood of public information and opinion and to keep the Mc's protected is to subscribe to keeping them close to the bosom of the political authorities in the UK, close to the frontlines of the battle against child abduction, close to the fore in the media FOR ALL TIME... and doing so will destroy the reputation of all three, and piss off the public, and terminate any remaining sympathy between the public and those campaigning for missing people. The gruesome twosome are a bad smell that won't go away, and someone, somehow is going to flush them because the gravy train cannot afford to run indefinitely, or we'll be funding their global travel when MBM would have been 14, 20, 30 and so on...

by TozerDerry 28.05.14 14:22

Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

by missmar1 28.05.14 14:37

Hi TozerDerry,

I agree it is a crime - but we label all criminals with a title therefore, imo, for a person to enter a property and take a child but nothing of monetary value, that person would have an abductor label ?

Unless of course SY choose to use the term burglar due to the sensitivity of this case?

by Praiaaa 28.05.14 14:38

TozerDerry wrote:Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

interesting

by Guest 28.05.14 14:50

Praiaaa wrote:
TozerDerry wrote:Burglary is not theft. Burglary is entry to premises with intention to commit a crime within those premises. No theft need be involved.

interesting

England and Wales[[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Main article: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Burglary is defined by section 9 of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which created two variants:^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}

A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}
A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on any person in the building.

by Seek truth 28.05.14 14:55

Oh so madeleine wasn't abducted by an abductor.
She was burgled.
She was abducted by a burglar, if this makes sense.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 14:57

Now imagine the Portuguese Police coming to England and asking for a warrant to enter private premises, by force if necessary, and to dig holes there . . .
You are the Magistrate.
What standard of proof and what amount of evidence and in what form are you going to require before you even start to listen to their lawyer.
Remember that Portugal is a new democracy with a very new Constitution which protects the Rights of its Citizens far more strenuously than do older jurisdictions
The libel trial is a case in point.
WIKI

Article 34
(Inviolability of home and correspondence)
Personal homes and the secrecy of correspondence and other means of private communication shall be inviolable.
Entry into a citizen’s home may only be ordered by the competent judicial authority and then only in such cases and in compliance with such forms as may be laid down by law.
No one shall enter any person’s home at night without his consent, save in situations of flagrante delicto, or with judicial authorisation in cases of especially violent or highly organised crime, including terrorism and trafficking in persons, arms or narcotics, as laid down by law.
The public authorities shall be prohibited from interfering in any way with correspondence, telecommunications or other means of communication, save in such cases as the law may provide for in relation to criminal proceedings.

IF, and ONLY IF, any part of this story is true,
they have got something.

by **PeterMac** 28.05.14 15:01

Seek truth wrote:Oh so madeleine wasn't abducted by an abductor.
She was burgled.
She was abducted by a burglar, if this makes sense.

Or burgled by an abductor
Or buried by an adaptor
Or adopted by a burgher

by Praiaaa 28.05.14 15:03

PeterMac wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Oh so madeleine wasn't abducted by an abductor.
She was burgled.
She was abducted by a burglar, if this makes sense.

Or burgled by an abductor
Or buried by an adaptor
Or adopted by a burgher

by Guest 28.05.14 15:07

PeterMac wrote:If SY are going to need "backhoes" aka JCB diggers, then surely it follows that the "Abductor" must have had the equivalent machinery to dig the hole in the first place.
Am I missing something here ?

by Woofer 28.05.14 15:13

PeterMac wrote:Now imagine the Portuguese Police coming to England and asking for a warrant to enter private premises, by force if necessary, and to dig holes there . . .
You are the Magistrate.
What standard of proof and what amount of evidence and in what form are you going to require before you even start to listen to their lawyer.
Remember that Portugal is a new democracy with a very new Constitution which protects the Rights of its Citizens far more strenuously than do older jurisdictions
The libel trial is a case in point.
WIKI
Article 34
(Inviolability of home and correspondence)
Personal homes and the secrecy of correspondence and other means of private communication shall be inviolable.
Entry into a citizen’s home may only be ordered by the competent judicial authority and then only in such cases and in compliance with such forms as may be laid down by law.
No one shall enter any person’s home at night without his consent, save in situations of flagrante delicto, or with judicial authorisation in cases of especially violent or highly organised crime, including terrorism and trafficking in persons, arms or narcotics, as laid down by law.
The public authorities shall be prohibited from interfering in any way with correspondence, telecommunications or other means of communication, save in such cases as the law may provide for in relation to criminal proceedings.

IF, and ONLY IF, any part of this story is true,
they have got something.

Restraining self from getting too optimistic
pray2

by Angelique 28.05.14 15:15

It's possible to hire pneumatic drills - heavy duty stuff - for drilling through thick stone. So could have been used without raising any flags.

by Cristobell 28.05.14 15:17

Andrew77R wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Police officers work close to dogs all through their service. Drugs, explosives, firearms residues, bodies dead or alive . . .
They know know how good they are.
Medics understand how accurate and detailed are the alerts of a Malignant melanoma dog, a kidney cancer dog, seizure alert dog, diabetic incident dog
and more are being trained to detect lung cancer from a patient's breath.
There are MANY more examples.
Fire and rescue use them, the Army use them, Mountain Rescue use them, Avalanche patrols use them

Only two people in the entire world say they are notoriously unreliable
Co-incidentally the only two who were "fingered" by the alerts.
... but why have Operation Grange never once if i recall, mentioned the original dogs findings back in 2007..?

Operation Grange have diverted suspicion away from the McCanns since the Review and indeed the investigation, began. Imo, due to the huge media interest, they had no alternative. I think they avoided mention of the dogs as they did not want to kick off a media storm that would point the finger towards the McCanns. As we know the dog alerts are hardly a secret, but the public forget and the MSM have done nothing to remind them.

The McCanns will be extremely vulnerable when the story breaks - as yet we do not know what the backlash will be. Many people will be very angry when they discover they have been conned and some of their more obsessive fans are criminally insane. I believe the McCanns are being protected by the authorities - not for whitewash reasons, but for their own safety.

by CynicAl 28.05.14 15:24

PeterMac wrote:Now imagine the Portuguese Police coming to England and asking for a warrant to enter private premises, by force if necessary, and to dig holes there . . .
You are the Magistrate.
What standard of proof and what amount of evidence and in what form are you going to require before you even start to listen to their lawyer.
Remember that Portugal is a new democracy with a very new Constitution which protects the Rights of its Citizens far more strenuously than do older jurisdictions
The libel trial is a case in point.
WIKI
Article 34
(Inviolability of home and correspondence)
Personal homes and the secrecy of correspondence and other means of private communication shall be inviolable.
Entry into a citizen’s home may only be ordered by the competent judicial authority and then only in such cases and in compliance with such forms as may be laid down by law.
No one shall enter any person’s home at night without his consent, save in situations of flagrante delicto, or with judicial authorisation in cases of especially violent or highly organised crime, including terrorism and trafficking in persons, arms or narcotics, as laid down by law.
The public authorities shall be prohibited from interfering in any way with correspondence, telecommunications or other means of communication, save in such cases as the law may provide for in relation to criminal proceedings.

IF, and ONLY IF, any part of this story is true,
they have got something.

That would be my take too.

To move a foreign police force, with the support of foreign diplomats, under the watchful eye of a foreign judiciary, authorised by a foreign government, under the provisions of internationally agreed standards of trans-continental law enforcement and cooperation, and to rouse the assistance of a foreign military agency, and the handling of a foreign press...

Takes more than a psychic's vision and a wannabe British supercop's wet dream of glowing accolades.

I can't speak for the motivations of the small fries of this case, but I do know that in order to move the mountains of administration takes more than a nice smile and a polite tone. And it sure as hell doesn't get acheived by the brash bluster of nationalistic xenophobic bully for Britain politicos sniggering over the thought of sardine munching PortoPlod...

There are scores to be settled, and it sounds like the tempo is, indeed, quickening.

by CynicAl 28.05.14 15:29

Angelique wrote:It's possible to hire pneumatic drills - heavy duty stuff - for drilling through thick stone. So could have been used without raising any flags.

I don't know where you live, but I live in a small town...

It's barely possible to hire a hand drill and go to work without arousing attention. First, most hire places want credit cards or bank cards for payment, since a 'cash payment' for a sudden night's hire of 'heavy duty drilling equipment' would be predictably rewarded with a non-return of the goods in question. Second, unless your tool business specialises in cadaver disposal for criminal gangs, the chance that such a hire would take place so suddenly, in such an area, where such a crime is committed, and you wouldn't tip off plod is pretty slim. Third, I don't know about you, but I can't pull out a power tool in my back garden without the neighbours being at the fence. I don't fancy the chances of a guy in his chinos and a polo shirt wandering over to property that isn't his, and is probably overlooked by public spaces, and hammering away with a pneumatic without arousing the suspicion of the neighbours and someone in the local neighbourhood watch asking 'who are these contractors making all this noise... have they been approved for the works' followed by a council official with a flea in his ear saying 'works? what works?'

It takes more than a while to pull off The Great Escape. And more than a pneumatic drill.