Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[brit1981]

The final police reprot said there was nothing to suggest either the mccans or Murat were in anyway involved in madeleine's disapearence. So it is not true that the final report concluded the mccanns covered up her death. At no point did the report say that it was belived they did it.

the libel trial has not been held yet so there has been no judgement on whether what he said was libelous or not, and it is up to the courts to decide if libel occurred or not.

There were also never actually suspects, but aguidos which is not as strong, more akin to the american person of interest.

 

[Clutchbag]

The final police reprot said there was nothing to suggest either the mccans or Murat were in anyway involved in madeleine's disapearence. So it is not true that the final report concluded the mccanns covered up her death. At no point did the report say that it was belived they did it.

the libel trial has not been held yet so there has been no judgement on whether what he said was libelous or not, and it is up to the courts to decide if libel occurred or not.

There were also never actually suspects, but aguidos which is not as strong, more akin to the american person of interest.

please reread my post, I never said the final judicial report said they had covered up the death of their kid. it said it had not been ruled out but because of lack of evidence their argued status was lifted and case shelved, it can be reopened any time pending new solid evidence

In a nutshell the mccanns are still persons of interest

 

[brit1981]

No it does not say the idea that the mccanns covered up the death had not been rule so out. But it does say there was no evidence against the mccanns or murat of any wrong doing so their aguido status was dropped. The mccanns have campaigned ot get the case reopened and so far have been successful in getting both the british and portuguese police to review the case.

they are not considered persons of interest by anyone working on the case. Scotland yard have stated in interviews that after working on the case for a year they belived that madeleine had been taken by a stranger in a criminal act.

 

[Donjeta]

If the parents of a missing child aren't considered persons of interest by anyone working on the case it's not a happy day for missing children.

Someone should keep an open mind on all the lines of inquiry until the case has been solved. The parents and other people who were the last to see the child should always be persos of interest until the case has been solved if they can't be ruled out.

 

[fabgod]

No it does not say the idea that the mccanns covered up the death had not been rule so out. But it does say there was no evidence against the mccanns or murat of any wrong doing so their aguido status was dropped. The mccanns have campaigned ot get the case reopened and so far have been successful in getting both the british and portuguese police to review the case.

they are not considered persons of interest by anyone working on the case. Scotland yard have stated in interviews that after working on the case for a year they belived that madeleine had been taken by a stranger in a criminal act.

Could you post some proof of your claims please from the PJ reports
and also the UK police, because from the statements I have seen in an ongoing review, there has been no one ruled out officially and no conclusions reached.
In fact, Bernard Hogan-Howe, chief commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has stated publicly
"We are still reviewing all of the material. It is a significant amount of money and we have several employees attached in this case", he said, noting that "there will be a time when the government will have to make a decision" - that is, whether or not it wants to continue with the operation."

It would be interesting to see some clear proof of your claims.

 

[brit1981]

I have posted them several times. But go to the PJ files and look in the final report, it says that there was no evidence against any of the three.

Also andy redwood has stated that scotland yard believe it was a criminal act by a stranger - we discussed this in another thread and there were links to it there. So if scotland yard believe it was a stranger that rules out anyone who was not a stranger to madeleine.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Andy Redwood never said any such thing.

Please post where he states the McCanns are ruled out as suspects?

Here is the mind bendingly meaningless quote he is responsible for -

DCI Andy Redwood said: “From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do. We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead.

If this is the best that your top investigation force can come up with, it is a serious concern.

Clearly, she's either alive, or she's dead. Talk about stating the obvious.

http://content.met.police.uk/News/D...nn-is-still-alive/1400008147005/1257246745756



The investigative review commenced in May 2011 under the leadership of the then commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson. A murder team within the Homicide and Serious Crime Command was tasked to conduct the review and is led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood acting to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell and Commander Simon Foy.

Two things -

This review has been ongoing for nearly 18 months now with NO RESULTS and

The fact that a MURDER TEAM is doing the investigating pretty well tells me what we all suspect - Madeleine died that night, in Apartment 5a.

Andy Redwood is just a talking head who has said pretty much NOTHING, and sucked up a lot of media time saying it.

 

[Donjeta]

I have posted them several times. But go to the PJ files and look in the final report, it says that there was no evidence against any of the three.

Also andy redwood has stated that scotland yard believe it was a criminal act by a stranger - we discussed this in another thread and there were links to it there. So if scotland yard believe it was a stranger that rules out anyone who was not a stranger to madeleine.

"There is no evidence against" still does not mean "ruled out". Ruled out means that there is evidence that the person could not have done it or that the case has been solved and it was somebody else.

"There is no evidence against" may mean either that the person didn't do it, or that they did and have got away with it. There are lots of crimes in which there is no evidence against anybody in particular but somebody did it anyway, so clearly it can't mean that everybody was ruled out just by virtue of having no evidence against them.

I think we have discussed this before.

Scotland Yard believing it was a stranger does not rule out anyone who was not a stranger to Madeleine before Scotland Yard can prove that it was a stranger.

 

[SapphireSteel]

"There is no evidence against" still does not mean "ruled out". Ruled out means that there is evidence that the person could not have done it or that the case has been solved and it was somebody else.

"There is no evidence against" may mean either that the person didn't do it, or that they did and have got away with it. There are lots of crimes in which there is no evidence against anybody in particular but somebody did it anyway, so clearly it can't mean that everybody was ruled out just by virtue of having no evidence against them.

I think we have discussed this before.

Scotland Yard believing it was a stranger does not rule out anyone who was not a stranger to Madeleine before Scotland Yard can prove that it was a stranger.

I have yet to see a workable link where the rocket scientist known as Andy Redmond states there is "no evidence against" the McCanns.

All I can find is him stating, with utmost seriousness, is that in his belief, Madeleine is either "alive" or "dead".

:banghead:

 

[Donjeta]

I have yet to see a workable link where the rocket scientist known as Andy Redmond states there is "no evidence against" the McCanns.

All I can find is him stating, with utmost seriousness, is that in his belief, Madeleine is either "alive" or "dead".

:banghead:

I agree with you about the alive or dead quote (what other options are there?)

It was the attorney general who said there was no evidence.

Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction, and lifted all conditions imposed on them.

A year and two months after Madeleine, then three, disappeared, detectives have failed to establish a credible theory about what happened.

He said the investigation could be re-opened if new evidence came to light, but only if it was "new, serious and relevant".

But he also says that they have no credible theory about what happened so it sounds like they have found no evidence of anything much...

Finding no evidence may mean
a) these people are innocent and we've found proof of it but we're too ornery to say so
b) the police still think they might have done it but the attorney's office has seen nothing they could take to court and make stick
c) the investigation was botched and there is no evidence of anything much.

I wonder how they got from "no credible theory" to "it was surely a stranger".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ann-officially-cleared-of-arguido-status.html

The article does state that the parents have been cleared of any involvement but it does not appear to be a direct quote. He is quoted as saying there is no evidence against the McCanns and that there is no credible theory which means there is no evidence against anybody and it's wide open out there.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I agree with you about the alive or dead quote (what other options are there?)

It was the attorney general who said there was no evidence.



But he also says that they have no credible theory about what happened so it sounds like they have found no evidence of anything much...

Finding no evidence may mean
a) these people are innocent and we've found proof of it but we're too ornery to say so
b) the police still think they might have done it but the attorney's office has seen nothing they could take to court and make stick
c) the investigation was botched and there is no evidence of anything much.

I wonder how they got from "no credible theory" to "it was surely a stranger".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ann-officially-cleared-of-arguido-status.html

The article does state that the parents have been cleared of any involvement but it does not appear to be a direct quote. He is quoted as saying there is no evidence against the McCanns and that there is no credible theory which means there is no evidence against anybody and it's wide open out there.

Unfortunately the British Media is culpable here, to no small degree.

If it is not a direct quote, it is an opinion, reached by...you guessed it...the media.

Despite howls to the contrary, it is a fact that Team McCann has shamelessly manipulated the media from Day One, regardless of the effect it may have had on the investigation, indeed, on recovering Madeleine alive.

Police were strongly against Gerry publicising Madeleine's coloboma for example, as they felt it could put her life at risk.

Gerry and the media plowed ahead regardless.

Murat was essentially burnt at the stake by the media, in the early days.

Lets ask who called the British media in the first place? A member of Team McCann, less than TWO HOURS after Madeleine vanished.

The Media literally knew before the police did...because the McCanns planned it that way, regardless of the potential risks to their daughter's safety.

 

[brit1981]

Actually it is a direct quote, Andy redwood was interviewed on television and can be quite plainly seen and heard saying that Scotland yard believe madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

The british media heard the story from the foreign office according to the media. Do you have any actually evidence this was planned by the mccanns, because if you do would it not be a good idea to contact scotland yard or the PJ with your evidence?

 

[Donjeta]

Actually it is a direct quote, Andy redwood was interviewed on television and can be quite plainly seen and heard saying that Scotland yard believe madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.

Not what I was talking about.

The telegraph statement about the McCanns being cleared of all involvement is not presented as a direct quote from the attorney general in Portugal.

Now, I am not disputing that Andy Redwood has said a number of things but him saying what he believes does not make the aforementioned sentence a direct quote from the attorney general.

Recent interviews with Andy Redwood in April 2012 can hardly be the source for an article that came out in 2008.
Madeleine McCann - DAYBREAK Interview DCI Andy Redwood April 27 2012 - YouTube

 

[brit1981]

ah ok, we have been talking at crossed purposes I was refering to scotland yard.
But the Portuguse attorney general did say there was no evidence against all three. I think it is significant that three people were aguidos at the same time when there was no suggestion that murat and the mccanns were "in it" together. To be honest unless we know the names and alibis of every single person within an hour's drive we, the general public, have no way of declaring that anyone was or was not involved.

 

[Donjeta]

ah ok, we have been talking at crossed purposes I was refering to scotland yard.
But the Portuguse attorney general did say there was no evidence against all three. I think it is significant that three people were aguidos at the same time when there was no suggestion that murat and the mccanns were "in it" together. To be honest unless we know the names and alibis of every single person within an hour's drive we, the general public, have no way of declaring that anyone was or was not involved.

It goes back to there is no credible theory. There is a general lack of evidence, they can't make anything stick. So, Madeleine may be alive or dead, somewhat like the Schroedinger's cat.

 

[brit1981]

When he was saying she is alive or dead, he was saying thats how they started the investigation i.e obviously keeping an open mind. But he says later that they have found credible evidence that she could be alive.
But I do think that when scotland yard saying after investigating for over a year that they believe it was a criminal act by a stranger that is pretty clear they have discounted the parents. In the UK it is normal that the closest relatives are looked at and discounted first (assuming they can be discounted). We also use family liason officers who as well as helping the family are there to keep an eye on them and their behaviour. the british police sent FLos to the mccanns almost straight away in Portugal so they will have their reports too.

 

[Donjeta]

When he was saying she is alive or dead, he was saying thats how they started the investigation i.e obviously keeping an open mind. But he says later that they have found credible evidence that she could be alive.
But I do think that when scotland yard saying after investigating for over a year that they believe it was a criminal act by a stranger that is pretty clear they have discounted the parents. In the UK it is normal that the closest relatives are looked at and discounted first (assuming they can be discounted). We also use family liason officers who as well as helping the family are there to keep an eye on them and their behaviour. the british police sent FLos to the mccanns almost straight away in Portugal so they will have their reports too.

Do you actually have a link for him saying that they have found credible evidence that she could be alive? because he does not say so in the above interview.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4781-dci-redwood-on-daybreak-video-added

Dan Lobb:

Do you believe she is still alive?

Redwood:

Yes I do.

He states his personal belief, not saying anything about evidence, credible or otherwise.

Dan Lobb:


Why?

Redwood:

I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind.
We were untouched by anything that’s gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she’s not...and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she’s alive

All this means that they have not found definitive evidence that she is dead, not that there is credible evidence that she is alive. As long as they haven't got that it is possible that she is alive. As long as they haven't got the other it is possible that she is dead.

Kate Garraway:

So what are the things that make you think that…because I think you know we’re all clinging to the hope, aren’t we?

Dan Lobb:

Yeah. I mean it’s kind of hard evidence but there is still going to be hope - as long as she’s not found dead

Redwood:

Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger, and so from that - she’s… and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive

In essence all he's saying here is that it's possible that Madeleine was taken out of the apartment alive, and as long as they haven't found her body it's possible that she is still alive as some missing people have been found alive. '

Nothing whatsover about finding any credible evidence that she is alive. He says it's a possibility.

All the evidence he mentions here is the evidence that it's a criminal act and it would be a criminal act either way, I think, unless Madeleine decided to wander off on her own. Even if he's right and she was taken by a stranger this in itself is not credible evidence that she is alive since there are other cases around the world where many toddlers taken by strangers have wound up dead.

 

[fabgod]

The thing I find odd about this defence of everything (in certain areas), that questions the McCanns is the blind faith.
It seems odd in my opinion to try to discredit the work of the Dogs, when there obviously is a lot of faith in the work they do worldwide and they have been proven right time and time again.
It also seems strange to not look at the Portuguese Police and wonder why they would be being accused of handling "an abduction" case so badly, even though, all along the UK police were assisting the PJ who even recommended bringing the dogs in!

It is almost as if there is a need to defend the McCanns from something that they are not charged with and shout down any reasonable questions that don't completely buy an abduction theory that is tenuous at the very best.

Other sites have been closed down, this Madeleine section included for a period, maybe there is a train of thought that this would be a success in the eyes of some.

There is no proof of death, no proof of Murder but equally, no proof of abduction,
the whole point is that most are here is to discuss thoughts and look at the evidence that is available to us and constructively discuss it, leading us to our own conclusions. None of the posters on here as far as I have ever read have made a statement saying the MCCanns had Murdered Madeleine.

If we are put into a position where we are being told what is right and what is wrong and that point is unfounded, just repeated over and over like a mantra, we are all intelligent enough to see that maybe, we need to look further and deeper in order to understand what really happened to Madeleine.
The more something is forced, the more likely it is to break
all in my opinion!

 

[brit1981]

I think it is the other way around. Thos that have decided the guilt of the mccanns are going by blind faith, and do not like their "facts" to be questioned. The dogs have not been proven right time and time again (jersey anyone) for instance and it is fair enough to point out gaping holes in the evidence. the people who stick to it being the mccanns seem to have to stick to odd fabrications, claiming the mccanns could have broken the law and got charity status for their fund, stating there is evidence they sedated their children, that jane tanner changed their story, that the dna in the car was madeleine's etc These things are not true and easily disproved by looking throughthe files, why not just rely on actual facts rtaher than internet rumour. The sedative claim is just an internet rumour for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up yet people keeping harping on about it.

 

[fabgod]

I think it is the other way around. Thos that have decided the guilt of the mccanns are going by blind faith, and do not like their "facts" to be questioned. The dogs have not been proven right time and time again (jersey anyone) for instance and it is fair enough to point out gaping holes in the evidence. the people who stick to it being the mccanns seem to have to stick to odd fabrications, claiming the mccanns could have broken the law and got charity status for their fund, stating there is evidence they sedated their children, that jane tanner changed their story, that the dna in the car was madeleine's etc These things are not true and easily disproved by looking throughthe files, why not just rely on actual facts rtaher than internet rumour. The sedative claim is just an internet rumour for instance, there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up yet people keeping harping on about it.

The quotes above seem to be a little unfounded if I may say.
RE the dogs and the comment (Jersey anyone?) is that proven anywhere at all?
If I may say, Jersey and its allegations of abuse and who knows what ever else is still the subject of legal dealings.
Am I to believe that the comment in someway rubbishes the statements of people who claim to have been victims at the hands of abusers?

Really, Is that the only avenue left in which to attempt to discredit the dogs, because for one unproven as yet case, there are many, many cases that can be forwarded as proof of success.

Odd fabrications?
I dont understand that personally.
Fact is Jane Tanners statements changed over the course of those statements, this has been evidenced on several occasions, here and elsewhere

The DNA subject is a complex one, the facts are that the dogs involved, alerted in areas that were subsequently tested and found to contain material.
The dogs did there job without question.
The tests came back as being insufficient to point in a decisive direction (at this time) but the most interesting part of this is that the dogs alerted only in locations that the McCanns had been and that is why they are of such interest.

The dogs did not alert to any other areas which is of obvious concern.

Blind Faith, "The dogs are no use, the dogs get it wrong, there was no DNA that had even a possibility of being linked to Madeleine, the statements havent changed, an abductor with not one minute piece of evidence to support the theory, The investigating Police force believing the parents involvement enough to make the Arguidos and on and on.

The more desperate, the more to hide!

here on Websleuths we don't have to be told what to believe, we can make our own minds up from the facts!