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

by NickE 05.07.14 21:59

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Correct me if I am wrong....but can I just state........

This investigation was suddenly halted and shelved ?

K & G began suing the GA for stating he believed MBM died in 5A because they believed his comment inhibits people searching?

Now re-opened by the met who have the same idea that MBM is dead (possibly by an intruder in 5A). So how come K& G are not suing the met for that statement too?

This forum and others (convinced the parents are responsible) have been going for many years, The files are public.

SO ....How come 'educated people' in 2 police forces according to the statements and files of fact, can not come to the conclusion that the many of the public have come to?

If 'we' can work out the parents should be arrested and made to answer then why are SY not doing just that?

(sorry if this has been asked before)

I just am so damn exasperated that there seems to such a cover up.

When are the Met going to LISTEN TO joe public and subpoena the tapas 9 ?

There is no room for mistakes here,they need waterproof evidence or an admission to get a case that could lead to a conviction.
SY works with the McCann's in the beginning, when the theory is completed, they move on to the next.
I think SY's tactics may be that,when they approach the end,someone in the UK realize it´s game over and starts talking.

by missbeetle 05.07.14 22:07

My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.

by HelenMeg 05.07.14 22:10

missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.

But the blood was located in floor tiles behind sofa and on walls in 5A. It seems likely to me that death occurred where blood located. Hence clean up.
I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex

by View-from-Ireland 05.07.14 22:21

missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.

That's interesting, i haven't heard this one before. I think it is much more probably it all happened in 5A myself. Would there not be witnesses to anything untoward happening outside or do you think an accident happened outside that night when it was dark? If so, how would you fit this in with the 10pm alert, possible to be that organised?

by HelenMeg 05.07.14 22:23

The parents cried abduction saying their girl had been taken.
There is no evidence of abduction.
The parents stories of abduction scenario are conflicting.Too many inconsistencies.
So the parents (and friends )need to face further in depth questioning .

When will this happen or has it already happened.

by Guest 05.07.14 22:25

NickE wrote:
Dont Make Me Laff wrote:Correct me if I am wrong....but can I just state........

This investigation was suddenly halted and shelved ?

K & G began suing the GA for stating he believed MBM died in 5A because they believed his comment inhibits people searching?

Now re-opened by the met who have the same idea that MBM is dead (possibly by an intruder in 5A). So how come K& G are not suing the met for that statement too?

This forum and others (convinced the parents are responsible) have been going for many years, The files are public.

SO ....How come 'educated people' in 2 police forces according to the statements and files of fact, can not come to the conclusion that the many of the public have come to?

If 'we' can work out the parents should be arrested and made to answer then why are SY not doing just that?

(sorry if this has been asked before)

I just am so damn exasperated that there seems to such a cover up.

When are the Met going to LISTEN TO joe public and subpoena the tapas 9 ?
There is no room for mistakes here,they need waterproof evidence or an admission to get a case that could lead to a conviction.
SY works with the McCann's in the beginning, when the theory is completed, they move on to the next.
I think SY's tactics may be that,when they approach the end,someone in the UK realize it´s game over and starts talking.

I must say that I don't know what or why SY are doing whatever they are doing. This is a Portuguese investigation. It happened on Portuguese soil.
You write what I think DMML.
SY were doing an 'review' which has become an investigation, but why? I just don't understand.
I had faith in the Portuguese. I have faith in Dr Amaral.
Is it true that the SY review was begun just to force the PJ to reopen their own investigation ?
The only difference I can see is that the British msm is keener to report on an SY investigation - the PJ play their cards close to their chests (how
it should be IMO) - does this make a difference? Certainly it can't to whatever happened.
Can all this just be to influence the British public? How pathetic that seems, yet sometimes I wonder... this is of course, only my opinion.

by HelenMeg 05.07.14 22:27

British MSM are keen to report on SY investigation because they wish to sell papers - for no other reason - they need stories / drama not silence

by noddy100 05.07.14 23:02

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681763/875-yards-Maddie-disappeared-abandoned-police-failed-search.html. And more

by missbeetle 05.07.14 23:12

View-from-Ireland wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.

That's interesting, i haven't heard this one before. I think it is much more probably it all happened in 5A myself. Would there not be witnesses to anything untoward happening outside or do you think an accident happened outside that night when it was dark? If so, how would you fit this in with the 10pm alert, possible to be that organised?

I go with the death at an earlier date, but when and where and how, I don't know.

by TheTruthWillOut 05.07.14 23:18

noddy100 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681763/875-yards-Maddie-disappeared-abandoned-police-failed-search.html. And more

Another day and another article that either deliberately ignores or is completely ignorant of the Mark Harrison/Portuguese police search in July/August 2007.

by SchrodingersBody 05.07.14 23:22

HelenMeg wrote:The parents cried abduction saying their girl had been taken.
There is no evidence of abduction.
The parents stories of abduction scenario are conflicting.Too many inconsistencies.
So the parents (and friends )need to face further in depth questioning .

When will this happen or has it already happened.

As Petermac says, only ask questions you know the answers to, not that you can guess the answers to, but that you know the answers.
What therefore is the point of bringing them in. Maybe this SY stuff is about finding some answers or at least giving the impression they already know the answers when they eventually do bring them in.

Otherwise all they need to do is follow Kates lead and answer no comment to anything and everything.... and nothing changes.

by lj 05.07.14 23:41

noddy100 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681763/875-yards-Maddie-disappeared-abandoned-police-failed-search.html. And more

Oh good, the gypsies are back.

by jeanmonroe 06.07.14 1:23

Strange thing, i find, is that if all these 'brilliant, elite, ex MET, ~~detectives~~ erm 'commentators' (and there is an awful lot of them) all got together down the pub, they'd have this case 'solved' within say, 6 seconds!

I think the clue is in, EX Met 'detectives' winkwink

Obviously the DCI Redwood's 'elite' Met 'team' who 'searched' in Portugal, with dogs, in June, and who have been studiously slaving away on this investigation for over 3 years also 'missed' the 'well'!

The fact, they had to walk pass and indeed walked passed it (the well) to get to their 'second' search 'locations', in June, seems to have been 'missed' by the EX Met super detective, who wrote the article..

It is only those 'damn foreign police' that don't know where to look, not their buddies at the MET!

I don't know why all these super brained EX elite MET officers aren't put in charge of OG, TODAY!

'Redwood is Deadwood' could be their 'motto'

by End 06.07.14 1:59

missbeetle wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.

That's interesting, i haven't heard this one before. I think it is much more probably it all happened in 5A myself. Would there not be witnesses to anything untoward happening outside or do you think an accident happened outside that night when it was dark? If so, how would you fit this in with the 10pm alert, possible to be that organised?

I go with the death at an earlier date, but when and where and how, I don't know.

I also think an earlier date, in 5a with time for a serious fumigation afterwards (hense no Maddie DNA) IMO it was due to something so gruesome that they couldn't present the body. If she had died from an accident there is no resaon why they would have to hide anything, even if she had fell off the sofa and lay all night before she was found. Most people sleep for 8 hours and don't get up checking on their kids every hour. I don't think for one minute they ever left their kids alone.

by Issy 06.07.14 2:32

HelenMeg wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.
But the blood was located in floor tiles behind sofa and on walls in 5A. It seems likely to me that death occurred where blood located. Hence clean up.
I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex

What if something happened outside, then she was taken inside and attempt made to resuscitate her, resulting in blood? Pure speculation, of course, and probably unlikely, but I suppose every possibility should be considered. All IMO, of course.

by End 06.07.14 2:37

Issy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.
But the blood was located in floor tiles behind sofa and on walls in 5A. It seems likely to me that death occurred where blood located. Hence clean up.
I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex
What if something happened outside, then she was taken inside and attempt made to resuscitate her, resulting in blood? Pure speculation, of course, and probably unlikely, but I suppose every possibility should be considered. All IMO, of course.

But why cover it up?

by Issy 06.07.14 2:46

End wrote:
Issy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.
But the blood was located in floor tiles behind sofa and on walls in 5A. It seems likely to me that death occurred where blood located. Hence clean up.
I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex
What if something happened outside, then she was taken inside and attempt made to resuscitate her, resulting in blood? Pure speculation, of course, and probably unlikely, but I suppose every possibility should be considered. All IMO, of course.

But why cover it up?

I meant if something happened because she left the apartment by herself while her parents were at the Tapas bar. According to Fiona Payne's rogatory interview, Kate floated the idea that Madeleine could get out and come looking for them if she woke up, hence the door left unlocked. But if Madeleine actually did that and then met with an accident, it would have grave consequences for them. This is all pure speculation as I said, but I'm just following a train of thought from what Kate said to Fiona, and the logical conclusion is that Madeleine could have got out, otherwise why say that at all? Another possibility if she got out is of course that she could have been snatched by someone, but that wouldn't explain the dog alerts. All IMO.

by PurpleLilly 06.07.14 3:08

Issy wrote:
End wrote:
Issy wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
missbeetle wrote:My thinking is died elsewhere, stored in 5a.
But the blood was located in floor tiles behind sofa and on walls in 5A. It seems likely to me that death occurred where blood located. Hence clean up.
I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex
What if something happened outside, then she was taken inside and attempt made to resuscitate her, resulting in blood? Pure speculation, of course, and probably unlikely, but I suppose every possibility should be considered. All IMO, of course.

But why cover it up?
I meant if something happened because she left the apartment by herself while her parents were at the Tapas bar. According to Fiona Payne's rogatory interview, Kate floated the idea that Madeleine could get out and come looking for them if she woke up, hence the door left unlocked. But if Madeleine actually did that and then met with an accident, it would have grave consequences for them. This is all pure speculation as I said, but I'm just following a train of thought from what Kate said to Fiona, and the logical conclusion is that Madeleine could have got out, otherwise why say that at all? Another possibility if she got out is of course that she could have been snatched by someone, but that wouldn't explain the dog alerts. All IMO.

If people had asked Kate whether Madeleine could have walked out herself, she may have felt that it was a 'normal' or 'logical' possibility and so mentioned it perhaps.

It sounds like the streets were quite busy late at night. If Madeleine had got out and hurt, i would think there would be a witness out there. Otherwise why not call for help and say you were with her when it happened (or it happened in the apartment). You couldn't if the injury was incompatable with that (i.e. drowning in swimming pool or something). I wonder if the pool areas had cameras. Will search for that info tomorrow, too difficult from my phone :)
all jmo.

by Praiaaa 06.07.14 7:22

HelenMeg wrote:

I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex

Completely agree. It amazes me that people take GM at his own evaluation - ie a person of importance big grin

and assume a conspiracy more like a Dan Brown thriller.
IMO was simple and banal, an accident, maybe resulting from MM drowsiness from a non-commercially available sedative and the cover-up was to protect their reputations/careers. Maybe there has been incidents in the past which had attracted the attention of Social Service (the empty dossier) or in the case of the Paynes, some rumours or accusations even if unfounded that they did not want to come to light.
GM strikes me as a spoiled youngest child, bully, control-freak (hence wide legs sitting position) pulled himself out of a poor background, wannabe middle-class. The thing snowballed, people actually took GM at his own valuation.
This was an out-of-season cheapo Mark Warner-lite - no way was this a high-up Bilderberg type meeting with shadowy T10/T11 etc. This was a group of cash-strapped parents, taking granny along, wanting the middle-class lifestyle they aspired to, but as cheaply as possible, hence the blagging a discount for baby-listening serve that MW never said was available.
As to the MW PR people flown in - of course they were going to protect their brand - any suspicion that the nannies may not have known how many children were in their care would have put off all those who like to park their kids in the crèches, which is the major MW selling point.
IMO the pink 'un saw a bandwagon and future cash-cow - his book will make a lot of money when the truth comes out. Of course he won't have asked TM to explain the anomalies - why would he? If they don't tell him, he can claim innocence.
And very much doubt all those early backers or politicians asked them either - were probably just caught up in the hype, not interested in detail. Emperors New Clothes.
All IMO of course.

by waiting for justice 06.07.14 7:49

Praiaaa wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:

I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex

Completely agree. It amazes me that people take GM at his own evaluation - ie a person of importance and assume a conspiracy more like a Dan Brown thriller.
IMO was simple and banal, an accident, maybe resulting from MM drowsiness from a non-commercially available sedative and the cover-up was to protect their reputations/careers. Maybe there has been incidents in the past which had attracted the attention of Social Service (the empty dossier) or in the case of the Paynes, some rumours or accusations even if unfounded that they did not want to come to light.
GM strikes me as a spoiled youngest child, bully, control-freak (hence wide legs sitting position) pulled himself out of a poor background, wannabe middle-class. The thing snowballed, people actually took GM at his own valuation.
This was an out-of-season cheapo Mark Warner-lite - no way was this a high-up Bilderberg type meeting with shadowy T10/T11 etc. This was a group of cash-strapped parents, taking granny along, wanting the middle-class lifestyle they aspired to, but as cheaply as possible, hence the blagging a discount for baby-listening serve that MW never said was available.
As to the MW PR people flown in - of course they were going to protect their brand - any suspicion that the nannies may not have known how many children were in their care would have put off all those who like to park their kids in the crèches, which is the major MW selling point.
IMO the pink 'un saw a bandwagon and future cash-cow - his book will make a lot of money when the truth comes out. Of course he won't have asked TM to explain the anomalies - why would he? If they don't tell him, he can claim innocence.
And very much doubt all those early backers or politicians asked them either - were probably just caught up in the hype, not interested in detail. Emperors New Clothes.
All IMO of course.

I also believe in this theory. IMO it was the deliberate confusion caused afterwards that threw the scent off
the line of enquiry that could've been taken. I think what happened after and since just got out of hand and the
group were hardly able to go back on their word so it spiralled.
I think the M's are so far up their own arses that by virtue of the fact they've lost a child regardless of in what circumstances they believe they're entitled to all the glory and fame it has brought them.

I still think the public are being drip fed snippets to change the perception of the believers as many probably aren't ready to accept the truth.
I think over the years SY and other forces have done an amazing job at uncovering crime relating to close family members and although slow, I am holding on to belief that this case will be no different.

by Baldrick 06.07.14 7:59

waiting for justice wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:

I think the story was simple - it was the confusion created afterwards that made this so complex

Completely agree. It amazes me that people take GM at his own evaluation - ie a person of importance and assume a conspiracy more like a Dan Brown thriller.
IMO was simple and banal, an accident, maybe resulting from MM drowsiness from a non-commercially available sedative and the cover-up was to protect their reputations/careers. Maybe there has been incidents in the past which had attracted the attention of Social Service (the empty dossier) or in the case of the Paynes, some rumours or accusations even if unfounded that they did not want to come to light.
GM strikes me as a spoiled youngest child, bully, control-freak (hence wide legs sitting position) pulled himself out of a poor background, wannabe middle-class. The thing snowballed, people actually took GM at his own valuation.
This was an out-of-season cheapo Mark Warner-lite - no way was this a high-up Bilderberg type meeting with shadowy T10/T11 etc. This was a group of cash-strapped parents, taking granny along, wanting the middle-class lifestyle they aspired to, but as cheaply as possible, hence the blagging a discount for baby-listening serve that MW never said was available.
As to the MW PR people flown in - of course they were going to protect their brand - any suspicion that the nannies may not have known how many children were in their care would have put off all those who like to park their kids in the crèches, which is the major MW selling point.
IMO the pink 'un saw a bandwagon and future cash-cow - his book will make a lot of money when the truth comes out. Of course he won't have asked TM to explain the anomalies - why would he? If they don't tell him, he can claim innocence.
And very much doubt all those early backers or politicians asked them either - were probably just caught up in the hype, not interested in detail. Emperors New Clothes.
All IMO of course.

by **PeterMac** 06.07.14 8:13

It is always simple and banal.
Which is why story tellers are able to make money out of making things complex and exciting. And ridiculous !

I have tried reading a PD James, but had to steel myself to go back to it after the first three pages, as I had been given the book as a present.
Unutterable tosh, and not even entertaining. The characters and the scenario might as well have been out of Harry Potter. I kept waiting for an elf or a dragon
I loved Conan Doyle, but finished the oeuvre aged 12, when ones powers of imagination at probably at their height, and before reality hits.

So yes, stick with the simple and banal. Accident, arrogance and stupidity is enough to explain everything.

by **PeterMac** 06.07.14 9:24

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/did-you-murder-madeleine-did-you-hide.html

Arguidos were confronted with direct questions about the crime and all of them refuted it
by Marisa Rodrigues

"Did you murder Madeleine? Did you hide her body? Did you assault the apartment?".
These were some of the questions put to the four men constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] at the behest of the Scotland Yard. They have all agreed to answer them to refute their involvement in the child's disappearance.

The police interrogations did not result in arrests nor in information that would allow to support the English thesis that the girl was killed for allegedly having surprised burglars in the apartment where the parents left her alone with her twin siblings to go out and dine with friends. The same happened with the inquiries to the 11 witnesses that went on yesterday at the Judiciary Police(PJ) headquarters in Faro.

So SY now has 15 sheets of paper with the word "NO" written down multiple times down the left hand side.
Good work, Sir.

But what it DOES reveal is that Grange is pursuing
Death in the apartment - √
Concealment of the body - √

Was any one of them asked
"Did you take Madeleine and sell her in Barcelona to an Australian woman ?
"Did you take Madeleine and are you keeping in a Hellish Lair just outside this village ?
"Did you take Madeleine and sell her as the new "Chosen one" to a family in Morrocco ?"

And if not, why not ?

by joyce1938 06.07.14 9:42

regarding the post saying that the streets seemed busy that night ,it has been said that infact so early in season ,the evenings are very quiet,hardly anyone around in the area,so maybe not a lot of people to say too much .The timeline seems it cant be relied upon ,not even amongst the staff I felt ,so maybe timeline has been good waty to keep us all busy when infact may be not what we think it is ?did anyone really check at all ?joyce1938

by plebgate 06.07.14 9:44

PeterMac wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/07/did-you-murder-madeleine-did-you-hide.html

Arguidos were confronted with direct questions about the crime and all of them refuted it
by Marisa Rodrigues

"Did you murder Madeleine? Did you hide her body? Did you assault the apartment?".
These were some of the questions put to the four men constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] at the behest of the Scotland Yard. They have all agreed to answer them to refute their involvement in the child's disappearance.

The police interrogations did not result in arrests nor in information that would allow to support the English thesis that the girl was killed for allegedly having surprised burglars in the apartment where the parents left her alone with her twin siblings to go out and dine with friends. The same happened with the inquiries to the 11 witnesses that went on yesterday at the Judiciary Police(PJ) headquarters in Faro.

So SY now has 15 sheets of paper with the word "NO" written down multiple times down the left hand side.
Good work, Sir.

But what it DOES reveal is that Grange is pursuing
Death in the apartment - √
Concealment of the body - √

Was any one of them asked
"Did you take Madeleine and sell her in Barcelona to an Australian woman ?
"Did you take Madeleine and are you keeping in a Hellish Lair just outside this village ?
"Did you take Madeleine and sell her as the new "Chosen one" to a family in Morrocco ?"

And if not, why not ?

No doubt Rocky's new solicitor will make Madam Judge aware of this.