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

by canada12 03.07.14 16:10

FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

Completely agree with you, FrankS.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 03.07.14 16:15

FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

I totally agree - as I mentioned before, if the press have an absence of information and need to write a story, they are perfectly happy to let their 'sources' fill them out. Either that or just 'borrow' from other publications and 'embellish'. It's all rubbish.

Only a short while ago, lots of members here were outraged because Redwood was 'framing Euclides Montiero'. Well, that was what the press were claiming at the time.

by TheTruthWillOut 03.07.14 16:18

FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

This is what I like to think/believe......My worry is that some of the people that have done the most research on the case are calling whitewash. Totally understandable cynicism, but still a deflating possibility.

by NickE 03.07.14 16:22

Burglary my a*s
Ask a question to 100 burglars,I promise you that 99 will answer,that they break IN through the window and going OUT through the door.

by NickE 03.07.14 16:30

SY putting up "Wanted": Gerry McC .....erm.... Smithman!

Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed - Page 35 BroIioICIAAYUjc

by Pershing36 03.07.14 16:35

canada12 wrote:Perhaps "burglars" is a handy catch-all word SY is using in place of another word which would alert the suspects that they're onto them.

Remember Watergate.
They were called "burglars" too. But they were much much more than that.

I think you could be spot on.

I think we should forget about burglars at the moment. They have no evidence left to do with burglary.

What I think they are mainly looking for is who was in contact and disposal of the body, regardless of how they came into contact with it. I suppose they have to have a theory of motive so burglary is as good as any.

I think that they either think these suspects or other some how came to conceal and dispose of the body. So then they are two possibilities, they were responsible for the death and then disposed of her or they were called upon to dispose of the body for someone else (no speculation at this point).

Obviously concealment is very serious so they will probably keep quiet. However if it can be proved they are far more likely to spill the beans to avoid a much more serious charge of murder.

This could be exactly what SY or the PJ are hedging their bets on. If they can get them to spill the beans it will either uncover an unknown attacker or give them the reason to return to people who were eliminated earlier.

I just cannot see anyone buying this burglary theory in the long run.

by TheTruthWillOut 03.07.14 16:35

roy rovers wrote:Could Malinka have torched his own car to hide evidence?

Possible, but what was the date of it being burnt out? Before or after the request by Grime/Harrison for the cars to be checked in late July 2007?

Also a 'family members' car is the one being searched now, right? Not Malika's own car. Surely the PJ wouldn't allow that without a good reason?

Although I've read somewhere (probably here) that the dogs can detect the scent of death in a burnt out car anyway. The Audi with the word 'Fala' is probably Coke cans now.

by HelenMeg 03.07.14 16:38

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

This is what I like to think/believe......My worry is that some of the people that have done the most research on the case are calling whitewash. Totally understandable cynicism, but still a deflating possibility.

7 years ago, PJ were merrily investigating the case and there was huge political interference from UK. Case interrupted and shelved.

Those in favour of a non-whitewash argue it was shelved through lack of evidence but I dont see how anyone can deny there was interference from high levels (Diplomat / PR spokesman). Interference means someone needing protection.

7 years on - what has changed? We have a new and opposing political party who for some reason ordered a review of the case. The case HAS to be put to bed somehow - it cannot be allowed to carry on for another 7 years. Someone is directing AR and the remit of the SY investigation.

Either they have to find sufficient evidence after 7 years to charge parents and associates (cannot be easy) and run the risk of whoever was initially being protected to be exposed (that could be 1 individual or more).
Or they have to find a way of re-archiving the case.
Or they have to find someone else to blame.

PJ meanwhile are still investigating the case. Do we know if there are two completely separate cases or is there evidence they are working together?

by lj 03.07.14 16:44

Cristobell wrote:'a convicted burglar and a young beggar' have supposedly carried out the crime of the century and kept it secret for 7 years?

They had big help, Cristobell: the psychiatric patient.

by Cristobell 03.07.14 16:53

lj wrote:
Cristobell wrote:'a convicted burglar and a young beggar' have supposedly carried out the crime of the century and kept it secret for 7 years?

They had big help, Cristobell: the psychiatric patient.

Sounds about right smilie

by TheTruthWillOut 03.07.14 16:55

HelenMeg wrote:7 years ago, PJ were merrily investigating the case and there was huge political interference from UK. Case interrupted and shelved.

Those in favour of a non-whitewash argue it was shelved through lack of evidence but I dont see how anyone can deny there was interference from high levels (Diplomat / PR spokesman). Interference means someone needing protection.

7 years on - what has changed? We have a new and opposing political party who for some reason ordered a review of the case. The case HAS to be put to bed somehow - it cannot be allowed to carry on for another 7 years. Someone is directing AR and the remit of the SY investigation.

Either they have to find sufficient evidence after 7 years to charge parents and associates (cannot be easy) and run the risk of whoever was initially being protected to be exposed (that could be 1 individual or more).
Or they have to find a way of re-archiving the case.
Or they have to find someone else to blame.

PJ meanwhile are still investigating the case. Do we know if there are two completely separate cases or is there evidence they are working together?

I absolutely don't deny there was interference of all kinds Helen.

I just don't think they would conduct one of, if not the biggest whitewashes of all time so publicly. They could have/would have gone about it a lot more discretely IMO.

Even if it is a whitewash though, at this political time there is just no way it will go away (Savile, Hillsborough, the Met themselves etc, etc..) All they would be doing is adding to the corruption workload.

by SchrodingersBody 03.07.14 16:58

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

This is what I like to think/believe......My worry is that some of the people that have done the most research on the case are calling whitewash. Totally understandable cynicism, but still a deflating possibility.

Lets face it most people on here believe that the parents are involved. In the absence of action against them, screaming whitewash allows for some sort of release to the pent up frustration that the perpetrators are swanning about spending other peoples money on hotels and mortgages, and there not being anything anybody can do about it.

There's no doubt there are signs that could indicate a whitewash out there, but there are also signs that suggest not. You pays your money and takes your choice, unless of course the high court have limited your choices.

by Themis 03.07.14 17:09

Not sure what it adds but the definition of burglary is a little more than most people might think (i.e. more than entering a property to steal);

(1) A person is guilty of burglary if—
(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

by endgame 03.07.14 17:13

I see we're back in the greatest whitewash ever or the most cunning game of bluff since cunning was invented debate. In my view there are at least two other options

1. Andy Redwood is an incompetent buffoon, out of his depth and caught up in the "glamour" and media exposure of the case, thrashing around to no particular purpose.

2. AR genuinely believes that the McCanns are innocent.

These two could of course be linked.

I'm sure there are other options and nuances that could be explored as well. By polarising the debate into whitewash/ bluff I think it tends to stop people looking at what is actually happening because after a while all you do is look for evidence to support whatever position you have decided to take.

by ShuBob 03.07.14 17:17

With SY's emphasis on sniffer dogs surely they are putting the spotlight back on the parents given the positive alerts in 2007? No way are they going to push that under the carpet- so to speak- without explanation IMO.

by SchrodingersBody 03.07.14 17:20

Or 3) They are genuinely trying between both police forces to resolve the case, but as has been stated, they know if they haul the parents in, they will change the landscape beyond recognition. that change may possibly deny any chance they have of getting a conviction.

by Guest 03.07.14 17:23

HelenMeg wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
FrankS wrote:Will repeat.

This Burglar stuff is all nonsense. A red herring. A much needed distraction etc.

It helps them to have a 'story' out there while they get on with what they are doing. Which is solving this crime IMO.

They cannot and won't let on that they are onto the parents or the rest of the tapas at this stage.

The abduction story is guff.

The burglar story is guff.

Press make guff up to sell newspapers.

SY have said nothing. PJ have said nothing.

This is what I like to think/believe......My worry is that some of the people that have done the most research on the case are calling whitewash. Totally understandable cynicism, but still a deflating possibility.
7 years ago, PJ were merrily investigating the case and there was huge political interference from UK. Case interrupted and shelved.

Those in favour of a non-whitewash argue it was shelved through lack of evidence but I dont see how anyone can deny there was interference from high levels (Diplomat / PR spokesman). Interference means someone needing protection.

7 years on - what has changed? We have a new and opposing political party who for some reason ordered a review of the case. The case HAS to be put to bed somehow - it cannot be allowed to carry on for another 7 years. Someone is directing AR and the remit of the SY investigation.

Either they have to find sufficient evidence after 7 years to charge parents and associates (cannot be easy) and run the risk of whoever was initially being protected to be exposed (that could be 1 individual or more).
Or they have to find a way of re-archiving the case.
Or they have to find someone else to blame.

PJ meanwhile are still investigating the case. Do we know if there are two completely separate cases or is there evidence they are working together?

Excellent post FrankS clapping

@ HelenMeg,

Your question 7 years on - what has changed?

The internet.

There's simply too much information available online. People from opposite sides of the planet can discuss this case and see the original files. We know the latest news from twitter even before it's on tv.

Any attempt at whitewash will be temporary and ultimately unsuccessful - anyone here planning to give up if the case is re-archived or they find a patsy? Anyone? I won't - I don't believe that it's a whitewash but I'm sure as hell not going to slink away if I'm wrong.

Perhaps this snowballing of information is why so many scandals are appearing now, at the same time, because the powers that be simply cannot stop the truth from coming out anymore.

by Themis 03.07.14 17:32

The car of a relative of Sergey Malinka, one of the arguidos in the English police investigation, was inspected yesterday by sniffer dogs. The inspection took place at the Judiciary Police premises in Portimão, and it was done to verify if the car had been used to carry the body of Madeleine McCann. JN knows that nothing relevant was found. The owner is one of the 11 witnesses indicated by Scotland Yard and has already given statements at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro, yesterday.

in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, page 13, July 3, 2014

by missmar1 03.07.14 17:35

ShuBob wrote:With SY's emphasis on sniffer dogs surely they are putting the spotlight back on the parents given the positive alerts in 2007? No way are they going to push that under the carpet- so to speak- without explanation IMO.

Good point ShuBob, by using the dogs SY is showing the police have faith in the ability of these trained animals....it seems the Mccann's may be the only ones who think they are unreliable !

by TheTruthWillOut 03.07.14 17:38

Themis wrote:The car of a relative of Sergey Malinka, one of the arguidos in the English police investigation, was inspected yesterday by sniffer dogs. The inspection took place at the Judiciary Police premises in Portimão, and it was done to verify if the car had been used to carry the body of Madeleine McCann. JN knows that nothing relevant was found. The owner is one of the 11 witnesses indicated by Scotland Yard and has already given statements at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro, yesterday.

in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, page 13, July 3, 2014

Wouldn't it be interesting if they could track the Renault Scenic down and re-test that car with these Welsh dogs..........Maybe they already have.

by **PeterMac** 03.07.14 17:40

The final sentence of the Mail article is frankly Ludicrous. It is gibberish, and the Mail is surely publishing it to demonstrate the total nonsense of what we are being told.

Scotland Yard are working on the theory burglars killed Madeleine during a bungled break-in while her parents ate tapas nearby with friends - and then buried her body on waste ground in the resort.

The only thing we draw from that it that Scotland Yard are working on no such thing.
They know know there was no break-in
They know know there were no burglars ( plural)
They know know there was no killing of Madeleine
They know know there was no subsequent burial on waste ground

Even the most rabid pro-child-abandoment acolyte cannot seriously argue that the sentence reflects any sort of reality at all.

by canada12 03.07.14 17:44

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Themis wrote:The car of a relative of Sergey Malinka, one of the arguidos in the English police investigation, was inspected yesterday by sniffer dogs. The inspection took place at the Judiciary Police premises in Portimão, and it was done to verify if the car had been used to carry the body of Madeleine McCann. JN knows that nothing relevant was found. The owner is one of the 11 witnesses indicated by Scotland Yard and has already given statements at the Judiciary Police headquarters in Faro, yesterday.

in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition, page 13, July 3, 2014

Wouldn't it be interesting if they could track the Renault Scenic down and re-test that car with these Welsh dogs..........Maybe they already have.

Maybe they already have, and are comparing the results of the dogs' inspections of other cars linked to the case. If all of the other cars linked to the case come back with a negative response, and the Renault Scenic comes back with a positive response... there's your conclusion.

by jeanmonroe 03.07.14 17:46

NickE wrote:SY putting up "Wanted": Gerry McC .....erm.... Smithman!

WHEN was this?

Because, and i might be wrong, NOBODY 'saw' the FACES of 'suspect/s' the Met seem to be posting on the wall.

They are MADE up 'faces'

Pity they didn't MAKE UP a 'face' that resembles Tony Bliar!

WTF are the 'elite' MET doing?

Putting up FALSE posters of 'faces' that have been generated by a computer/e-fit 'artist'.

Wouldn't like to be a chap who vaguely 'resembles' one of the PRETEND 'faces' the Met are plastering all over PDL would you?

Still, a 'collar's' a 'collar' innit?

Don't matter who's 'collar' it is that gets felt!

Not to mention it might even be illegal to ask people to look for someone to match/fit the 'face' you've MADE UP!

by Truthandjustice 03.07.14 17:47

I really hope you are right PM because I am frankly appalled at the prospect of another innocent man's life being ruined by being named a suspect. I cannot believe the ease with which the tapas crew and tanner in particular pointed the finger with certainty at completely different and since eliminated 'suspects'.

by Varriott 03.07.14 17:47

SchrodingersBody wrote:Or 3) They are genuinely trying between both police forces to resolve the case, but as has been stated, they know if they haul the parents in, they will change the landscape beyond recognition. that change may possibly deny any chance they have of getting a conviction.

Or 4) Regardless of what AR personally believes, he has been instructed to invesgigate all possible leads.