Re: Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:22

TheTruthWillOut wrote:All very interesting Tony, but Murat had already lied once so surely the PJ would have paid a visit to the Golf Club and checked for records, internal CCTV...something at least.

You haven't answered why they would need to, since the 'phone pings placed him there anyway (as I clearly said above)

But again I ask, what does all this have to do with Madeleine?

May I respectfully suggest that if you think about all this a little more, and do a little more reading on the forum about Robert Murat, an answer may come to you in due course

by joel27 02.07.14 20:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
joel27 wrote:
MWT did finally break J Saville and Jonathan King in to the wider public arena I would give him some credence.
@ joel27 - Who chose him to do so?

Tony your guess is as good as mine I could guess and I could guess why, but this is going off topic. Lets agree its likely that he has heard something be it true or not. What he means in the comment and who it refers too is a better guessing game on the thread.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:29

Châtelaine wrote:
joel27 wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:FYI Andrew Redwood was NOT involved in the Jill Dando case.
Nope did not say he was but you might want to look at his boss

I know. And his boss at the time was his boss. We're talking about Andrew Redwood here ...

@ Chatelaine Looking at joel27's post, to be fair he referred to 'The Dando history'.

Which was a clear refernce to Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, who:

* wrongly prosecuted Barry Bulsara/George

* tried to get a conviction based on a speck of firearms reside found - or put - in a coat pocket

* failed to find who actually killed Jill Dando, and

* was then put in charge of the Operation Grange enquiry ordered by the Chief Executive Officer of News International, Rebekah Brooks

by Guest 02.07.14 20:35

Deleted your post Chatelaine, as you are attacking a member and not the post.

by Cristobell 02.07.14 20:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Jim Gamble stated the parents would not have been named suspects if the 'abduction' had occurred in the UK. Really?

At first reading, it would appear they have been and are following JG's recommendations...
@ Cristobell @ tasprin @ everyone on here

Why do you think the government chose Jim Gamble to write this 'scoping exercise'?

Rather than, say...

* Top crimianl profiler Lee Rainbow

or

* Mark Harrison?

I suppose it depends who chose who Tony? Jim Gamble may have contacted Downing Street immediately offering his assistance, and CEOP has the word 'Child' in it. I doubt there was very much time to go through the CVs of police experts it was an emergency situation, it may be that Jacqui Smith wanted to be seen doing something for the grief stricken pair and CEOP fit the bill - although like yourself, I don't know how, as it clearly had nothing to do with child exploitation and online protection. I sometimes wonder if they brought Mallnka in to bump up the danger of online pornography, claiming he watched very dubious online porn. He wasn't even made an arguido in 2007, and he has no links whatsoever with the McCanns.

by TheTruthWillOut 02.07.14 20:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:All very interesting Tony, but Murat had already lied once so surely the PJ would have paid a visit to the Golf Club and checked for records, internal CCTV...something at least.

You haven't answered why they would need to, since the 'phone pings placed him there anyway (as I clearly said above)

But again I ask, what does all this have to do with Madeleine?

May I respectfully suggest that if you think about all this a little more, and do a little more reading on the forum about Robert Murat, an answer may come to you in due course

Because he had previously lied for one. What police officer wouldn't check out his story? Ask the golf club staff what he was doing/who he met? Things along those lines.

I mean phone pings placed him there? No. His phone, yes! Not necessarily him! thumbsup

Call me thick Tony but I really don't think an answer will come to me if I read every word written about him. Can't you just say!? big grin

I genuinely can't fathom what Murat having meetings on May 1st-3rd has to do with a little girl going missing.......after said meetings at that!

by Newintown 02.07.14 20:50

Deleted

I was just thinking that a few minutes ago -

that the forum might as well be closed down as TB seems to have the answer to everything and anything anyone says is wrong according to TB, so I don't know why we're all here trying to find justice for Madeleine McCann when TB has all the answers and can tell the PJ and SY where they're going wrong.

Why are we here admin, candyfloss, TB when none of our posts seem to mean anything when TB has the answer to anything and everything? Are we all wasting our time????????

by Guest 02.07.14 21:00

Why are you asking me why we are here Newintown? It is up to each person here to put forth their opinions and if they disagree with Tony to say so. Isn't that the idea of a discussion forum. Tony can be wrong just the same as anyone else, so he can be challenged if you disagree.............I hope Tony agrees with that, and discussion can be calm and polite.

by Guest 02.07.14 21:07

Châtelaine wrote:Deleted your post Chatelaine, as you are attacking a member and not the post.

***
Last words: allow me to say, that I was attacking the posts of a member.

by canada12 02.07.14 21:08

I often disagree with many of the things Tony says. But this is a forum for the discussion of ideas. It's not a forum where whatever we say and whatever opinions and conclusions we arrive at are going to be applied to the case by the authorities. They may make a point of monitoring our opinions, but they're hardly going to arrive at their conclusions based on what we're saying here. So whatever we say here is really only about our opinions. I can see where people might be frustrated that their opinions are challenged or that their understanding of the case is fundamentally different from others' understanding of the case. But we are free to discard or ignore or accept as we feel fit. So I'll be here to continue to discuss, even if my ideas are dismissed or disagreed with or fall on deaf ears. It's all really just a place to exchange our thoughts. Not the G7 summit or a court of law.

by Cristobell 02.07.14 21:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:All very interesting Tony, but Murat had already lied once so surely the PJ would have paid a visit to the Golf Club and checked for records, internal CCTV...something at least.

You haven't answered why they would need to, since the 'phone pings placed him there anyway (as I clearly said above)

But again I ask, what does all this have to do with Madeleine?

May I respectfully suggest that if you think about all this a little more, and do a little more reading on the forum about Robert Murat, an answer may come to you in due course

I'm with TheTruthWillOut Tony, I cannot see any connection with Murat, Malinka and Madeleine. Murat might have been a bit of a wheeler and dealer, but there is a huge leap between that and concealment of a child's body and Malinka is a computer geek who completely co-operated with the police.

Murat was vigorously interrogated, he had his life wrecked and was accused of the most heinous crime known to man, do you not think under those circumstances, he would have thought, 'hang on, I'm not taking the rap for all this'. Child murder is the worst offence you can go to prison for, no-one would volunteer for that.

How do you think Murat and Malinka were involved Tony, and what was their motive?

by Guest 02.07.14 21:17

Châtelaine wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Deleted your post Chatelaine, as you are attacking a member and not the post.

***
Last words: allow me to say, that I was attacking the posts of a member.

Ok, then stand up for your opinions and argue your side, just leaving is not the answer.

by endgame 02.07.14 21:19

Newintown wrote:Deleted

I was just thinking that a few minutes ago -

that the forum might as well be closed down as TB seems to have the answer to everything and anything anyone says is wrong according to TB, so I don't know why we're all here trying to find justice for Madeleine McCann when TB has all the answers and can tell the PJ and SY where they're going wrong.

Why are we here admin, candyfloss, TB when none of our posts seem to mean anything when TB has the answer to anything and everything? Are we all wasting our time????????

Presumably your posts mean something to you Newintown, which, at the end of the day is all that matters.

by ShuBob 02.07.14 21:20

Cristobell @ 9:15, I agree with your post in its entirety.

by Guest 02.07.14 21:21

candyfloss wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Deleted your post Chatelaine, as you are attacking a member and not the post.

***
Last words: allow me to say, that I was attacking the posts of a member.

Ok, then stand up for your opinions and argue your side, just leaving is not the answer.

"Re Pat Brown: A lot of people have an agenda. And unless you really know them, you cannot judge as to WHY they're doing or saying things"
Will the poster that wrote this yesterday please reconsider leaving.

by Newintown 02.07.14 21:22

candyfloss wrote:Why are you asking me why we are here Newintown? It is up to each person here to put forth their opinions and if they disagree with Tony to say so. Isn't that the idea of a discussion forum. Tony can be wrong just the same as anyone else, so he can be challenged if you disagree.............I hope Tony agrees with that, and discussion can be calm and polite.

You've completely missed my point, not surprisingly.

Which is the whole point of my objection, that Tony doesn't think he's wrong and he's completely closing down any discussion by other forum members, he can't be challenged as he is "right" and he's completely stifling debate.

I really don't care any more, I'll read the forum, and the other forum members' posts if they can get a word in edgeways if TB isn't shooting them down in flames.

by Guest 02.07.14 21:23

Cristobell wrote:So in sights at the moment, are Sergi Malenka, a 50 year old with mental disabilities, a man who was 16 at the time and friendly with the disabled guy, and an Ocean Club driver.

Sadly prisons are filled with mentally disabled people, they are probably the easiest group to pin a crime on and no doubt the ever helpful Jane Tanner will recognise him as the man she saw, and a few of the tapas will probably recall seeing him hanging around.

Imo, it is unbelievably wicked of the police to join in with the McCanns and their friends in pointing the finger at innocent people, especially considering the police know (or should know) exactly who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. What will become of those men named arguidoes? Will they be publically vilified? Will they be physically attacked? Just how far will Scotland Yard go to steer suspicion away from the parents? It now seems to include endangering lives.

Cristobell, this appears to be an alarming u-turn on your usual optimism and faith in SY, or am I misreading what you say?

What's changed your mind? I usually indulge myself in your positivity as an antidote to my whitewash conviction, so find this stance a bit depressing! eek

by missbeetle 02.07.14 21:28

It's my understanding that Sergey Malinka also had a flat at the Lagos marina - I will have a scratch around and see what I can find.

by Guest 02.07.14 21:28

Agree deecoy I've got that impression all day Cristobell,hang in there!

by ShuBob 02.07.14 21:29

Newintown wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why are you asking me why we are here Newintown? It is up to each person here to put forth their opinions and if they disagree with Tony to say so. Isn't that the idea of a discussion forum. Tony can be wrong just the same as anyone else, so he can be challenged if you disagree.............I hope Tony agrees with that, and discussion can be calm and polite.

You've completely missed my point, not surprisingly.

Which is the whole point of my objection, that Tony doesn't think he's wrong and he's completely closing down any discussion by other forum members, he can't be challenged as he is "right" and he's completely stifling debate.

I really don't care any more, I'll read the forum, and the other forum members' posts if they can get a word in edgeways if TB isn't shooting them down in flames.

You may benefit from simply ignoring his posts.

by Cristobell 02.07.14 21:45

Dee Coy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:So in sights at the moment, are Sergi Malenka, a 50 year old with mental disabilities, a man who was 16 at the time and friendly with the disabled guy, and an Ocean Club driver.

Sadly prisons are filled with mentally disabled people, they are probably the easiest group to pin a crime on and no doubt the ever helpful Jane Tanner will recognise him as the man she saw, and a few of the tapas will probably recall seeing him hanging around.

Imo, it is unbelievably wicked of the police to join in with the McCanns and their friends in pointing the finger at innocent people, especially considering the police know (or should know) exactly who was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. What will become of those men named arguidoes? Will they be publically vilified? Will they be physically attacked? Just how far will Scotland Yard go to steer suspicion away from the parents? It now seems to include endangering lives.

Cristobell, this appears to be an alarming u-turn on your usual optimism and faith in SY, or am I misreading what you say?

What's changed your mind? I usually indulge myself in your positivity as an antidote to my whitewash conviction, so find this stance a bit depressing!

Such are the twists and turns in this case, I am not sure anything would surprise me.

I had taken umbrage at the way in which those poor souls were being photographed and named as suspects in Madeleine's disappearance. Both Murat and Malinka's lives were ruined, and the mentally disabled man in particular, may be subject to attack in the street. I think it was horrendous bad judgment to carry out these interviews so publicly as the damage to these men and their reputations may be permanent.

But back on an optimistic note, I think it is all part of a building a watertight case. Looking at Kate's book, it seems to me that they are eliminating everyone she mentioned, including Smellyman (the bedhopper) and of course Tannerman. I think Malinka has been brought in, because he could pass for Smithman, and needs to be ruled out

All of these 'leads' could be used as a possible defence if the case were ever to come to trial. The McCanns' have always defended themselves with leads that hadn't been followed up by the Portuguese police. I would imagine SY are ticking boxes should the subject be raised in a court room. It might account for yesterday's indiscretion, they were seen to be interviewing witnesses/suspects in PDL.

by canada12 02.07.14 21:52

Cristobell wrote:

But back on an optimistic note, I think it is all part of a building a watertight case. Looking at Kate's book, it seems to me that they are eliminating everyone she mentioned, including Smellyman (the bedhopper) and of course Tannerman. I think Malinka has been brought in, because he could pass for Smithman, and needs to be ruled out

All of these 'leads' could be used as a possible defence if the case were ever to come to trial. The McCanns' have always defended themselves with leads that hadn't been followed up by the Portuguese police. I would imagine SY are ticking boxes should the subject be raised in a court room. It might account for yesterday's indiscretion, they were seen to be interviewing witnesses/suspects in PDL.

Excellent point, Cristobell. Lots of truth there. As PM says (or words to that effect), Kate's bewk is Exhibit #1.

by Varriott 02.07.14 21:55

canada12 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

But back on an optimistic note, I think it is all part of a building a watertight case. Looking at Kate's book, it seems to me that they are eliminating everyone she mentioned, including Smellyman (the bedhopper) and of course Tannerman. I think Malinka has been brought in, because he could pass for Smithman, and needs to be ruled out

All of these 'leads' could be used as a possible defence if the case were ever to come to trial. The McCanns' have always defended themselves with leads that hadn't been followed up by the Portuguese police. I would imagine SY are ticking boxes should the subject be raised in a court room. It might account for yesterday's indiscretion, they were seen to be interviewing witnesses/suspects in PDL.

Excellent point, Cristobell. Lots of truth there. As PM says (or words to that effect), Kate's bewk is Exhibit #1.

Agree that these are optimistic thoughts. On the flip side, it also indicates that any evidence against the McCanns must not be very good. If they had good positive evidence, they wouldn't need to be ruling out alternative theories. In my opinion, the case remains circumstantial and may not stand up in court.

by worriedmum 02.07.14 22:02

I do think that a formal interview conducted in English by experienced British police officers would potentially pick up more nuances and obfuscations than an interview conducted by someone with English as a second language, if the interviewee were English too. Less wriggle room.....

by canada12 02.07.14 22:04

Varriott wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

But back on an optimistic note, I think it is all part of a building a watertight case. Looking at Kate's book, it seems to me that they are eliminating everyone she mentioned, including Smellyman (the bedhopper) and of course Tannerman. I think Malinka has been brought in, because he could pass for Smithman, and needs to be ruled out

All of these 'leads' could be used as a possible defence if the case were ever to come to trial. The McCanns' have always defended themselves with leads that hadn't been followed up by the Portuguese police. I would imagine SY are ticking boxes should the subject be raised in a court room. It might account for yesterday's indiscretion, they were seen to be interviewing witnesses/suspects in PDL.

Excellent point, Cristobell. Lots of truth there. As PM says (or words to that effect), Kate's bewk is Exhibit #1.

Agree that these are optimistic thoughts. On the flip side, it also indicates that any evidence against the McCanns must not be very good. If they had good positive evidence, they wouldn't need to be ruling out alternative theories. In my opinion, the case remains circumstantial and may not stand up in court.

The case against the McCanns has been compromised from the very beginning, IMO by the McCanns themselves. IMO they've done their very best to obfuscate and confuse whatever they can, with the results you're seeing now. SY and the PJ are working through the obfuscation and confusion, and looking for evidence to support the case. This may include hearsay evidence, first hand witness accounts, physical evidence, and DNA. All standard to support a wrongful death case where there may not be a body. IMO.