A few questions

[brit1981]

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

This means nothing. The fund had lawyers which dealt with the investigators and they included a confidentiality clause. Confidentiality clauses cannot extend to criminal matters so there was nothing to stop oakley giving the reports to the police. The fund actually had to tell him to hand them over to the police. And the report was given to police less than a year later so hardly silenced for years unless he wanted to sell his story to red tops. You have also not quoted the article directly, but taken selected pieces out and not included the correction report.

 

[brit1981]

:banghead:

Wrong !!!

( see previous post for links )

No its not wrong, and selecting quotes from a sensationalist story that later admitted it could be misleading as to the truth does not change that.
Please don't be so aggressive.

 

[brit1981]

FACTS * Lisbon Appeals Court Ruling 19 Oct 2010


" The author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years."

" goes on to show and state that while many parts of the book are in agreement with the case file, the book goes further by using, in a literary form, privileged information, thereby making it more than a mere repository of the procedural case work.

Finally,...... we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation,"

DECISION

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proven "


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm


FACTS ** "Jane Tanner was approached by Bob Small, a Leicestershire police officer, ....

The scenario was set up for Jane to view Robert Murat walking across the top of the road, where she claimed to have seen the man carrying a child. On the way there, she was actually introduced to Robert Murat!"


http://tinyurl.com/otn3bzw

The supreme court ruled that only a libel trial could rule on the truth of the book. These trials could only rule on the right to publish material in this manner, it could by law only act as if it was the truth and then decide the freedom of speech issue. This can be overturned if the book is found libelous as this will be considered as new evidence for the court to consider.

There is nothing in the files or court proceedings to show tanner identified Murat. The only source for that is amaral and unproven stories. So far Murat has only sued the media including Portuguese media that repeated some of amarals claims http://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc...8ae65886ef70827180257b63003d7a75?OpenDocument
Nothing in the final report suggests tanner identified Murat neither do her statements. The type of policeman amaral was is shown quite clearly by his attempts to get tanner to identify Murat whilst sitting in a van just after meeting him. Murat was not informed, no lawyer was present, no similar men were used. Even if she had identified him it would have been worthless since rules were not followed to ensure it was fair.

 

[brit1981]

Get your facts right..amaral was NOT convicted of perjury sigh

Moving ON.....mccanns were. Never ever cleared by anyone...in any offiicial capacity

Yesvamaral was made an aguido the day after madeleine was abducted, and later convicted.

Given the Portuguese attorney general as well as scotland yard have vstated the mccanns are not involved, can you please explain why you don't regard them as having official capacity. And who does have official capacity to clear someone if not the same people who have the responsibility for bringing charges.

 

[brit1981]

No one has ever suggested they murdered her.

7 professionals would most certainly do some fudging and synchronising of notes if they thought they might get charged with neglect. It would mean losing their careers, income, reputation.

What's a little white lie or two when you have other children to feed and raise? Easily justified if everyone genuinely does believe she's been abducted anyway...what's the harm?

Also we have proof of the synchronization. One child's colouring book which was used to create and recreate a "timeline", unasked.

Moo.

If people want to cover up leaving their children, then they don't generally tell the police straight away they left their children.

And at least one parent was with a child so they had nothing to hide in that respect, not that anyone made an attempt to hide it.

And if nothing happened to their children they were not going to be charged let alone prosecuted,and even if they were would not lose their jobs in the UK.

And if something happened to madeleine at dinner. Then how on earth did they come up with a plan in an hour and have it executed during that time.

Covering up a child's death and hiding their body is not a little white lie, even if you don't physically do it yourself. Its one of the worst crimes in existence, and not something you decide to do on the spur of the moment over your dinner.



And any intelligent person in this situation would try to calm people down by getting them to think about what they saw and did that evening and when.

People claim this is a conspiracy by governments to help the mccanns, yet if they had such powerful friends then they could surely get them off neglect charges without hiding a body etc.

 

[brit1981]

I'm unsure where you're reading varying reports. Are you perhaps referring to comments / opinions made by readers? When the report came out that one of Grimes dogs hit on the McCanns vehicle people started to speculate but I've never seen any reporters or journalists confirm they believed she was in the trunk for 22-24 days. If I'm wrong please refer me to the reports you are referring to. Thanks

As for your second question, again based on speculation. Some believe there was a pact but that was just rumour. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the tapas 7 were concerned about possible child neglect charges

Can you provide any evidence that the tapas 7 or any of them were worried about neglect charges. They told the police straight away what their childcare arrangements were, they did not hide it from anyone, and as they used a warner listening service the year before they had no reason to think it was illegal, and it was not illegal.
If people were worried about neglect charges to the extent they would take part in an international conspiracy to hide the death and body of a child, one would think they might also hide the alleged neglect.

 

[brit1981]

[modsnip]

JANE TANNER ROGATORY INTERVIEW


" Okay. And can you just go on to tell me a bit more about that surveillance?”......

" So we then carried on and I met Bob SMALL and Russell wrote down the number plate of the car just in case I was taken away. And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van...."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

NOTE: See previous post(s) regarding rest.

My post was not incorrect, there is nowhere in the files that states tanner identified murat. All it says is that they tried to get her to identify murat, but she did not.

You have only quoted part of the statement. If you read the rest she says she did not recognize the man as murat and that when in the van she did not even recognize the man as the same person she had just spoken to not long before. Nowhere in this does she say she ever identified murat yet your quote and posts gives the opposite impression.

All this shows up is that the pj were quite prepared to conduct an appalling identity parade that would have been thrown out by any decent court.

 

[brit1981]

How nice for her,better than be called"mistaken"by gerald prime suspect"

When shesaid she walked same side of the road as him and saw him with jez wilkins in her statements but she was bullied in them mccanns documentary, shocking

From1.20

Madeleine was here part 4/5 - YouTube

Can you please provide a source for your claim Gerald mccann is the prime suspect.

In the video you linked to it does not show any bullying. Its not shocking that they picked one side of road over the other, they had to choose one.

 

[Cherry]

JMO but I believe that KM is prime suspect and GM was after the fact. Everyone has a right to their opinions and this is mine. I don't really care who has said they are cleared, it's completely a botched investigation at this point. Have KM answer the 32 questions then lets talk. She refused. And GM left KM in PDL during the first few days of this case breaking. Can we say just not right....and this is JMO; based on the facts in this case.

 

[brit1981]

JMO but I believe that KM is prime suspect and GM was after the fact. Everyone has a right to their opinions and this is mine. I don't really care who has said they are cleared, it's completely a botched investigation at this point. Have KM answer the 32 questions then lets talk. She refused. And GM left KM in PDL during the first few days of this case breaking. Can we say just not right....and this is JMO; based on the facts in this case.

Can you provide evidence to support the claim kate mccann is a prime suspect since the attorney general ruled her and gerry mccann out based on evidence according to the final report.

And I don't see how you can say jmo and then say its based on facts.

Can you provide evidence for how many days it took for gerry mccann to leave, why he left etc

 

[SapphireSteel]

​

Can you provide evidence to support the claim kate mccann is a prime suspect since the attorney general ruled her and gerry mccann out based on evidence according to the final report.

And I don't see how you can say jmo and then say its based on facts.

Can you provide evidence for how many days it took for gerry mccann to leave, why he left etc

People are entitled to an opinion.

 

[Salem]

Timeouts will be forthcoming if posters cannot treat each other respectfully. Let go of the emotion, and focus on the facts.

REMEMBER: A difference of opinion is NOT a TOS violation. But, yelling at other members, failing to link factual claims, and being disrespectful are TOS violations. Please reread your post before hitting submit because there will be no further warnings.

Salem

 

[Salem]

Can you provide evidence to support the claim kate mccann is a prime suspect since the attorney general ruled her and gerry mccann out based on evidence according to the final report.

And I don't see how you can say jmo and then say its based on facts.

Can you provide evidence for how many days it took for gerry mccann to leave, why he left etc

The poster clearly stated it was their opinion, so links are not needed. If you disagree, that's fine. Scroll and roll.

Salem

 

[~n/t~]

Can you provide any evidence that the tapas 7 or any of them were worried about neglect charges. They told the police straight away what their childcare arrangements were, they did not hide it from anyone, and as they used a warner listening service the year before they had no reason to think it was illegal, and it was not illegal.
If people were worried about neglect charges to the extent they would take part in an international conspiracy to hide the death and body of a child, one would think they might also hide the alleged neglect.

I can't provide evidence to something that I opined. However, there were reports of possible child neglect charges against the McCanns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rges-leaving-Madeleine-night-disappeared.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...private-prosecution-neglecting-Madeleine.html

My assumption based on the neglect charges is at the time, the focus was on locating Madeleine dead or alive. The neglect charges were secondary. As we know the case was shelved and just recently reopened. We're not privy to all police reports because of privacy laws. The text messages is one example

Mr Bennett was unfortunately unsuccessful to proceed with his court action. Let's hope people got the message anyway. It is NOT ok to leave your children alone whilst you're on holiday. Get a babysitter.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No one can really state definitively what happened that night, not even the PJ which is why the case wss archived.

Therefore we are ALL operating on opinion.

Unless and until there's a trial and conviction, opinion is all any if us have.

No opinion is proven at this stage so no opinion can be completely discredited.

YET.

 

[~n/t~]

No one can really state definitively what happened that night, not even the PJ which is why the case wss archived.

Therefore we are ALL operating on opinion.

Unless and until there's a trial and conviction, opinion is all any if us have.

No opinion is proven at this stage so no opinion can be completely discredited.

YET.

Opinions based on media reports. You are correct. Nobody knows what happened that night. If we did, we wouldn't be here. Madeleine would have been found.

I'm hoping something breaks soon. Still awaiting on how the Portuguese will handle the burglar letter. :sigh:

 

[Salem]

Yesvamaral was made an aguido the day after madeleine was abducted, and later convicted.

Given the Portuguese attorney general as well as scotland yard have vstated the mccanns are not involved, can you please explain why you don't regard them as having official capacity. And who does have official capacity to clear someone if not the same people who have the responsibility for bringing charges.

You need to link this or it will be removed. To date, this has not been confirmed anywhere that I can find. Please link it up.

Thank you,

Salem

 

[SapphireSteel]

Opinions based on media reports. You are correct. Nobody knows what happened that night. If we did, we wouldn't be here. Madeleine would have been found.

I'm hoping something breaks soon. Still awaiting on how the Portuguese will handle the burglar letter. :sigh:

It is going to break.

The information is out there and Operation Grange hopefully has assembled enough to be able to consider charges which IMO is the stage they're at.

Could still be months but it might be days or weeks.

I am aware of the unexplained suspension of the libel trial.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Someone does know what happened that night. The person who did it. I don't believe that was the McCanns or anyone that was with them.

I think that someone took her and it was not them. I think they will find them.

 

[Junebug99]

Please explain how the Tapas 7 would be charged with neglect over Maddie's death. That makes no sense to me. They worried about neglect charges but didn't hesitate to help conceal the death of a child?

Also where was Maddie the 20 plus days until they rented the Renault? If they hid her body why didn't cadaver dogs find her? If she was anywhere near the complex I would have thought the dogs would have found her. The scent of death would have been strong, and would have followed the body. Moo