A few questions

[Clutchbag]

Regardless of the clarification of some details, the fact that the Times article was published at all; in the current climate with the unassailable position the McCanns enjoy in the mainstream press; with that tone, emphasis and the conclusions the reader was clearly invited to draw, is extremely telling.

isnt it just....totally

 

[Supernovae]

Downplayed is perhaps fairer than suppressed.

 

[~n/t~]

Regardless of the clarification of some details, the fact that the Times article was published at all; in the current climate with the unassailable position the McCanns enjoy in the mainstream press; with that tone, emphasis and the conclusions the reader was clearly invited to draw, is extremely telling.

That is what is most frustrating about this case. For almost 7 years we followed the case based on MSM reports both English and Portuguese. We are now being told that many of these media outlets got it wrong or we the readers misinterpreted what was being published. I think any intelligent person can draw their own conclusions. When they published all those sightings, we were all so hopeful albeit skeptical that Madeleine would be in Saudi Arabia for example but yet when something is printed that puts the McCanns in a not so good position, we're supposed to ignore these same publishers.

 

[Clutchbag]

Downplayed is perhaps fairer than suppressed.

No downplaying is mentioning something but attachng little importance, these efits were never ever released by the mccanns ergo suppressed IMO...a sightng of a 3-4 yr old blond girl in pyjamas on the night nearby carried by a man by several witnesses was not publicised either much for years whilst other ridiculous sightngs were. And with big fanfare! witnesses of figures weeks before with no child..just because they gave someone the creeps or some woman in barcelona that apparently was asking abut a new daughter and which the witness waited two yrs to come forward.....figure that one out by any kind of logic

Must go for the night, catch up tomorrow

 

[Supernovae]

A couple of things strike me as odd on that site. The first bullet point on the front page states "there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed." Even with an understandable degree of wishful thinking, it's a bizarre statement of a girl who went missing without trace six and a half years ago, aged three.

Also the fact that they're still appealing for sightings "of madeleine," with detailed instructions of how to report such a sighting. Surely they must realise that after this length of time these sightings will only be of generic nine-ish year old blonde girls (despite Madeleine at the time turning to a more mousy hair colour), and will at best be fruitless or at worst actively disruptive of the investigation.

 

[Junebug99]

If they did supress the photos I understand why. Many thought it looked like GM, releasing the photos would fuel more accusation and speculation about M's being involved, thus hampering the investigation. They called that one right. Many people were sure it was GM, and it clearly wasn't. Moo

 

[~n/t~]

the e fits on the find madeleine website are just part of a collection of motley crew of "suspects" or "persons of interest", not differentiated or detailed in any way at all vis a vis where they were seen, by whom, when etc..considering SY made such a massive deal of them in Crimewatch a couple months ago you would think they would have a dedicted age or the barest details at least!

Nuff said...still being suppressed to a degree ....

Well the latest one we know was from the Smiths even though they look like 2 different men to me. The man carrying the child was the one described by Jane Tanner which as we know now has been found and questioned and he admitted it was his own child and not Madeleine but yet he still appears on the website. Why? I have no clue.

Some of the others are described at this link.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id239.html

 

[Supernovae]

"If they did supress the photos I understand why. Many thought it looked like GM, releasing the photos would fuel more accusation and speculation about M's being involved, thus hampering the investigation. They called that one right. Many people were sure it was GM, and it clearly wasn't. Moo"

Really?? You think that fear of what people on the internet would be saying would reasonably justify withholding what could have been images of the abductor?

 

[nursebeeme]

Hello sleuthers!

I just have a few questions I hoped someone here might be able to answer...

I seem to remember reading somewhere the McCann's and friends made a timeline of their night on the back of some paper before they called the police, is that true? I can't seem to find where I read it anymore!

I also wondered about the police questions, when they asked 'Is it true you considered giving Madeleine's custody to a relative in England?', why did they ask that? Did they have any information about this/proof or was this just speculation?

here is the opening post. unless you have something to to address the opening post (links with what you post as facts) do not post comments here. Thank you.

 

[~n/t~]

If they did supress the photos I understand why. Many thought it looked like GM, releasing the photos would fuel more accusation and speculation about M's being involved, thus hampering the investigation. They called that one right. Many people were sure it was GM, and it clearly wasn't. Moo

It actually might have helped the investigation even he did look like GM. 7 years later, who the heck knows where this guy is. (If he even exists).

 

[~n/t~]

here is the opening post. unless you have something to to address the opening post (links with what you post as facts) do not post comments here. Thank you.

Hi nurse. Will the general discussion thread be reopened? TIA

 

[~n/t~]

here is the opening post. unless you have something to to address the opening post (links with what you post as facts) do not post comments here. Thank you.

I think the post was replied to and the poster appeared to be ok with it :dunno:

 

[Junebug99]

"If they did supress the photos I understand why. Many thought it looked like GM, releasing the photos would fuel more accusation and speculation about M's being involved, thus hampering the investigation. They called that one right. Many people were sure it was GM, and it clearly wasn't. Moo"

Really?? You think that fear of what people on the internet would be saying would reasonably justify withholding what could have been images of the abductor?

If it hindered more than helped I might. The M's felt Tanner's sighting was more reliable. Come to find out they both told the truth and it wasn't GM after all. Poor Tanner, her named has been trashed, accused of help covering up the murder of a child. That is prime example of how wrong a person can be about someone based souly on rumors, hearsay and "gut feelings". I hope Tanner can at least breath a sigh of relief that she didn't witness the abduction.

 

[Junebug99]

Sorry but that link is another opinion.

The PJ Archive File spells out the shenanigans and refusal to cooperate, which is why the case was archived in the first place. The PJ could not move forward with the investigation as no one would answer any questions.

This woman's descriptions of Kate as calm and beautiful and Gerry as proud and confident clash jarringly with the "sweaty" and "twitchy" Murat who she clearly implicated.

Also written in December 2007, way back when Murat had been labelled Probably a Child Molester by the British Media.

It's the opinion of a witness, not someone watching from the bleachers. Way more reliable than Amaral. So if a witness doesn't describe things the way you would it makes them less credible? They had no reason to lie. I imagine she went into detail like she did to get her point across, she is adamant they are innocent.

 

[SapphireSteel]

here is the opening post. unless you have something to to address the opening post (links with what you post as facts) do not post comments here. Thank you.

Please allow one of the threads I submitted.

The one I tried to post yesterday was simply a discussion of the second rogatory letter from the CPS.

This is an important new development IMO.

 

[Junebug99]

Another question, how could Maddie be in the trunk of a car rented 22-24 days (I've read varying reports) after her disappearance? Where were they hiding her?

One more, I have ask this question many times no one has given me an answer, do you know 7 people that would cover up the murder of a child? What are the odds that 7 professionals would risk their own families and careers to cover something as horrifying as this. I would say slim to none. Moo

 

[Little Jedi]

As for Murat,that comes from amaral, a convicted criminal whose conviction is for perjury ( http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/102810/McCann-detective-guilty-of-perjury ).

Why are you linking to a 4 year old article in the British Press ??

'Published: Fri, May 22, 2009'

She lied !!

She's been found guilty of lying !!

Leonor Cipriano sentenced for lying about torture by Portuguese (PJ) police officers

April 2, 2013


www.zimbio.com/Politica+-+Portugal/...r+Cipriano+sentenced+lying+torture+Portuguese


"Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates,....

"His defence, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him."

www.mccannfiles.com/id248.html‎

 

[Little Jedi]

Please can you provide a link to support your claim of a mountain of unexplained evidence. The final report goes through the initial reasons for aguido status and the reasons for this being removed which included there being no indications the mccann committed any crime, an alibi etc nothing in it supports the idea there is a mountain of evidence against the mccanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Can you please link to the evidence of your claim tanner identified Murat. The final report above goes through the reasons for Murat's aguido status and it mentions nothing about this, neither do any of tanners statements ( which can be found on same site). You have made this claim before, and did not provide a link when asked then.

You have also claimed the mccanns suppressed the e.fits. can you provide a source for this. The Sunday times were the source of claims the e.fits had been suppressed, but they published a follow-up article which said that the mccanns had not suppressed them and that they had been given to the police straight away in Portugal and upon the review beginning in the uk. If the police decided these should not be released then thats up to them, they may well have had good reason. Its not possible to link to the times as it is subscription only online. But the police deciding to not release them until recently is not the same as the mccanns supressing them and there is no evidence of this.

You obviously haven't read the 'Actual Sunday Times' article !!


Madeleine e-fits were hidden away for five years

" One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough....."

" The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends......"

" Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said:

“A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund....

[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it......"

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3906190.ece

 

[Little Jedi]

This is from a blog by an amaral supporter, she turned up at court clutching flowers and his book ( http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/view/1084-3 ). I have been unable to find anything to support her claim tanner was facing criminal or civil charges from murat.

Robert Murat to sue 4 of the Tapas friends of the McCanns

"... is the identification by Miss Jane Tanner of Mr Robert Murat as Madeleine McCann’s “abductor”. She picked him out in a surveillance exercise on Sunday 13th May 2007 and persisted in her allegation against him and did not withdraw it until her interviews with the Leicestershire Police in April 2008. "

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/iPQA0eZZFe-/Robert+Murat+sue+4+Tapas+friends+McCanns

 

[SapphireSteel]

It's the opinion of a witness, not someone watching from the bleachers. Way more reliable than Amaral. So if a witness doesn't describe things the way you would it makes them less credible? They had no reason to lie. I imagine she went into detail like she did to get her point across, she is adamant they are innocent.

Can you please show me where in this case Amaral has been found "unreliable?"

Amaral was merely the figurehead of the Portugese investigation. He is not the only one who has worked this case. He has followed the evidence and copped he blame although he merely cog in a machine.

Wikileaks revealed that it was the British who first "developed evidence" against the McCann's, who then brought across a British Police owned pair of scent dogs, who were being handled by PC Martin Grime.

We still don't know what that original evidence was BTW...:seeya: