GRANGE UPDATE - AC Mark Rowley reflects on the tenth anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann plus Martin Brunt on Sky

I thought it might be useful to refer back town at Professor Canter said in the Dispatches documentary, October 2007:

Prof David Canter applied his experience to come up with more refined possibilities about likely abductors.
 
'A mother who is very disturbed and trying to abduct a child to replace her own dead baby wouldn't have gone for Madeleine. She would have gone for one of the twins who, being that much younger, could have been absorbed into her family.'
 
Moreover, he feels that four years old is an odd age for any child victim to be abducted - too young to be of interest to most paedophiles, too old to be trafficked or stolen as a baby-substitute.
 
But then if Madeleine did not wander off, and was not abducted, that leaves only the third possible scenario: that her parents were involved in her disappearance.

unreorganised wrote:

AndyB wrote:The only reason for a small glimmer of hope for me today is the complete lack of TM gloating about the interview on the McCann hashtag. That strikes me as being as odd as the tone of the tenth anniversary message on the official site

I don't read Cristobell's blog as a rule but for some reason did yesterday, and I noted that jackass inhabitant of the comments section is still in full swing.

Indeed but the usual suspects are missing from twitter, and its them that I consider to be TM rather than the Ziggy character who comes across to me as liking an argument rather than having an agenda

Madeleine McCann and the media



  COMMENT


The most reported and discussed missing person case ever recorded is still not only a highly contentious mystery, but also a personal tragedy that has been turned into a public farce by elements of the media.
In the entirely predictable press frenzy surrounding the imminent 10th anniversary of the disappearance, much of the coverage, particularly in the British tabloids, has been absurd. But it should not be dismissed lightly.
Unable to come up with “news” on the case, the tabloids have been rehashing the same old speculation and guesswork.
“Could Madeleine McCann have been snatched by a lone paedo or simply wandered off?....”
“Abducted by slave traders and sold to a rich family, says ex-Met detective..”
“New hope after decade-long search....”
“Experts say Madeleine McCann’s body is almost impossible to find ”.
And then there was the much-touted Australian TV show that promised “a major breakthrough in the case”.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mirror took a slightly different tack with a story headlined, “What REALLY happened the night Madeleine McCann disappeared as nanny breaks her 10-year silence”.
The story did not explain what “really” happened, nor did it name the nanny or why she had remained silent for so long.
It quoted her as considering the McCanns to be “the picture perfect family” and repeated the usual British criticism of the Portuguese police.
More surprisingly, she claimed that the resort from which Madeleine vanished was considered so unsafe that nannies were given rape alarms (whistles) and advised, “don’t go anywhere by yourself, ever”.
There was nothing to suggest the Mirror had tried to question or check this or any of the nanny’s other assertions, but, in Praia da Luz, they were viewed with derision. It was seen as yet another attempt to brand Praia da Luz as a den of iniquity, which it is not and never has been.
The official police files on the case contain nothing about rape whistles or alarms. None of the signed statements by child-care workers mentioned anything about suspicious goings-on or Luz being “unsafe”.
The manager of the Ocean Club where the McCanns were staying said in a police statement in 2007 that he had “no knowledge of any untoward situation involving Ocean Club users or in the village itself, other than some damage and minor thefts”.
The Mirror story was also a reminder that real journalism has to a large extent been replaced by ‘churnalism’, which disregards traditional standards of original news gathering based on impartiality and fact-checking for accuracy and honesty.
The nanny’s story was quickly recycled virtually verbatim on the Internet by other tabloids. Even the broadsheet Daily Telegraph fell into line as did news services in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Trial by the media has had a huge influence on public perceptions about guilt or innocence in this case. Most of the mainstream media reports state as if it were a fact that Madeleine was “abducted”. Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn’t. There is no certainty either about the other main theory, that her parents covered up an accidental death in the apartment.
Until solid evidence is found and the culprits are brought to justice, the public fascination with this case will continue to fuel and be fuelled by the media’s determination to churn out stories whose accuracy and agenda may sometimes be open to doubt.
The current avalanche of stories inevitably evokes the previous admission by Lord Bell, founder and former chairman of the Bell Pottinger public relations group, to columnist and author Owen Jones, that “the McCanns paid me £50,000 in fees to keep them on the front page of every single newspaper for a year, which we did”.
Nevertheless, “Maddie” helps circulation figures and makes money. Money, along with misinformation, has always played far too big a part in this case which, let’s remember, is about the tragic loss of a child.









Posted by Len Port at 6:05 PM

http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/madeleine-mccann-and-media.html

Good article by Len, but I think that should be £500,00 paid to Bell Pottinger in fees to be kept on front pages not £50,000.


See here...

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t681-bell-s-clanger-mccanns-paid-500000-fees-to-be-kept-on-front-pages

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 10m10 minutes ago


How can OG have a "critical lead" when they admit there is not evidence of an abduction? It's more like a stab in the dark. #McCann





PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 9m9 minutes ago




The parents WERE dealt with in the original invesigation. They were found to be the top suspects.#mccann

I've been reading GM's blogs and this is what he had to say August 11 2007, less than a month before he and Kate were made arguidos:

There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.


I added the apostrophe because GM doesn't seem to like them.

The best opportunity to get the McCanns into a court if they are guilty - where they could talk themselves into even deeper trouble - lies with GA. Where is he?

In The Truth of the Lie Goncalo Amaral wrote:Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected.

Talking about a burglary gone wrong AC Mark Rowley wrote:it was a sensible hypothesis, it’s still not entirely ruled out

So not so much agreement with PT there then. Or is he saying that the current PT investigation, like the Met appear to do, disagrees with Amarals conclusions?

Also, Rowley isn't prepared to investigate the parents because "the involvement of the parents [...] was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese and "we don’t cover the same ground" yet he is prepared to investigate a burglary gone wrong despite the original investigation covering it and him telling us that you don't "do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive"

Mimi wrote:If SY are going to end up saying it was a burglary gone wrong, remember what Eileen McCann said :-

"Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”

The burglars would have to carry a rag soaked in chloroform to subdue anyone that wakes up during a burglary - are they going to tell us that this is what burglars do ?

And that's not possible because Chloroform is a volatile liquid, so it loses its effectiveness very rapidly when it comes in contact with oxygen.

What's_up_doc? wrote:I've been reading GM's blogs and this is what he had to say August 11 2007, less than a month before he and Kate were made arguidos:

There was a statement from the Portuguese police today regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.


I added the apostrophe because GM doesn't seem to like them.

Gosh, I remember that, and wondering how on earth they could not be suspects.

I still believe that OG is a whitewash, but it does prove that police press statements are not always going to reflect the reality of the investigation.

This press statement is certainly not what TM would have wanted, they would have preferred a clear statement that it was a stranger abduction.

niklasericson wrote:

Mimi wrote:If SY are going to end up saying it was a burglary gone wrong, remember what Eileen McCann said :-

"Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”

The burglars would have to carry a rag soaked in chloroform to subdue anyone that wakes up during a burglary - are they going to tell us that this is what burglars do ?

And that's not possible because Chloroform is a volatile liquid, so it loses its effectiveness very rapidly when it comes in contact with oxygen.

Not to mention the fact that the closest person to the rag would be the abductor, who would be breathing in the fumes.

Chloroform is not feasible, it has a strong smell that lingers, it is very short acting, and anyone who has been chloroformed will be very sick when they come round.

Tannerman would have had an interesting pattern on the front of his dark jacket, maybe even down his light trousers.

niklasericson wrote:

Mimi wrote:If SY are going to end up saying it was a burglary gone wrong, remember what Eileen McCann said :-

"Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”

The burglars would have to carry a rag soaked in chloroform to subdue anyone that wakes up during a burglary - are they going to tell us that this is what burglars do ?

And that's not possible because Chloroform is a volatile liquid, so it loses its effectiveness very rapidly when it comes in contact with oxygen.

I didn`t know that Niklas. So they would have to carry a rag and a bottle of it, so it wasn`t exposed to the air for too long.  I know it was used as an anaesthetic at one time.  Difficult to come by these days though. Ether is another one. My Dad used ether to put our cat to sleep - dripped it slowly over gauze.
http://sleep.lovetoknow.com/Chloroform_for_Sleep

Mimi wrote:

niklasericson wrote:

Mimi wrote:If SY are going to end up saying it was a burglary gone wrong, remember what Eileen McCann said :-

"Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”

The burglars would have to carry a rag soaked in chloroform to subdue anyone that wakes up during a burglary - are they going to tell us that this is what burglars do ?

And that's not possible because Chloroform is a volatile liquid, so it loses its effectiveness very rapidly when it comes in contact with oxygen.

I didn`t know that Niklas. So they would have to carry a rag and a bottle of it, so it wasn`t exposed to the air for too long.  I know it was used as an anaesthetic at one time.  Difficult to come by these days though. Ether is another one.
http://sleep.lovetoknow.com/Chloroform_for_Sleep

Chloroform (or trichloromethane) is easily available from any scientific equipment supplier. Ether is equally easy to source. Laughing gas can also be bought as people use it for making squirty cream.

I suspect your average burglar is unlikely to know that though, and, quite frankly, all three would not be suitable for the alleged purpose.

To sedate the children would require an anaesthetic mask and two gas cylinders (not feasible); tablets (which take at least 20 minutes to start working) ;injections into the muscle which take up to 20 minutes (which, in my experience, cause a lot of noise when applied to a two or three year old). Injection into the vein is quick, but still gives time for screams, and veins are not easy to find on young children as they have a lot of fat under their skin so the veins are hidden.

I think that if the children were sedated then we can assume there was no burglar!

Belgravia Police Station

I can only assume that the sole reason for the embargo was to give the OFM statement its full day in the sun. Ergo - coordinated in advance.

unreorganised wrote:I can only assume that the sole reason for the embargo was to give the OFM statement its full day in the sun. Ergo - coordinated in advance.

Which it would have had, if only the pesky Yorkshire Post had played the game

mumof6 wrote:

Mimi wrote:

niklasericson wrote:

Mimi wrote:If SY are going to end up saying it was a burglary gone wrong, remember what Eileen McCann said :-

"Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”

The burglars would have to carry a rag soaked in chloroform to subdue anyone that wakes up during a burglary - are they going to tell us that this is what burglars do ?

And that's not possible because Chloroform is a volatile liquid, so it loses its effectiveness very rapidly when it comes in contact with oxygen.

I didn`t know that Niklas. So they would have to carry a rag and a bottle of it, so it wasn`t exposed to the air for too long.  I know it was used as an anaesthetic at one time.  Difficult to come by these days though. Ether is another one.
http://sleep.lovetoknow.com/Chloroform_for_Sleep

Chloroform (or trichloromethane) is easily available from any scientific equipment supplier. Ether is equally easy to source. Laughing gas can also be bought as people use it for making squirty cream.

I suspect your average burglar is unlikely to know that though, and, quite frankly, all three would not be suitable for the alleged purpose.

To sedate the children would require an anaesthetic mask and two gas cylinders (not feasible); tablets (which take at least 20 minutes to start working) ;injections into the muscle which take up to 20 minutes (which, in my experience, cause a lot of noise when applied to a two or three year old). Injection into the vein is quick, but still gives time for screams, and veins are not easy to find on young children as they have a lot of fat under their skin so the veins are hidden.  

I think that if the children were sedated then we can assume there was no burglar!

Yes.
And Ether is extremely flammable and may form explosive vapour/air mixtures and the vapour can be easy ignited by the static electricity which can be build when ether is being poured from one vessel into another.
And it's extremley dangerous to the skin.
Would a burglar mess around with this kind of stuffs in a dark room?
Off course not.

AndyB wrote:

In The Truth of the Lie Goncalo Amaral wrote:Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected.

Talking about a burglary gone wrong AC Mark Rowley wrote:it was a sensible hypothesis, it’s still not entirely ruled out

So not so much agreement with PT there then. Or is he saying that the current PT investigation, like the Met appear to do, disagrees with Amarals conclusions?

Also, Rowley isn't prepared to investigate the parents because "the involvement of the parents [...] was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese and "we don’t cover the same ground" yet he is prepared to investigate a burglary gone wrong despite the original investigation covering it and him telling us that you don't "do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive"

The phrase 'not entirely ruled out' sounds to me like an admission that even if it was a sensible line of enquiry, there's not a lot of mileage left in it but they haven't exhausted it yet. If I was either Gerry or Kate, I would be very worried indeed by weak assertions like that. If as he says, there is a spirit of collaboration, then I don't see this as anything sinister ( not yet anyway) because that might be what they have agreed as a course of action. I think the point of agreement with Amaral is all hypotheses have to be fully investigated and hopefully eliminated, leaving just one which can be developed with increased confidence. If they don't do this and they attempt prosecution on circumstantial evidence, it would fail at the first hurdle again. So I would say being methodical, eliminating bogus hypotheses and seeing what you are left with is the right thing to do and leads right back to were the PJ left off, IMO. What would worry me is if they started to develop any of these bogus hypotheses with bogeyman and bungling burglars - but they didn't do that, choosing instead to keep cards close to chest. I might be setting myself up for a fall here but at the moment, I'm fairly optimistic.

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB ·


had big problems with Blogger, so I apologize for the blog being so difficult to read. #MarkRowly #farce #mccann

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 1h1 hour ago  

Being a suspect or a defendant does not mean you are proven guilty. Being convicted does. #McCann




PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 1h1 hour ago  
 

Labeling someone a suspect does not mean accusing them of guilt. Arresting them and making them a defendant does. #McCann





PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 1h1 hour ago  
 
There is nothing wrong with being suspicious of someone. Suspicion does not equal saying someone is guilty. #McCann

Cristobell Author‏ @RosalindaHu · 4m4 minutes ago


SOMETHINGS CHANGED
CRISTOBELL UNBOUND http://cristobell.blogspot.com
#mccann

candyfloss wrote:Cristobell Author‏ @RosalindaHu · 4m4 minutes ago  
 

SOMETHINGS CHANGED
CRISTOBELL UNBOUND http://cristobell.blogspot.com
#mccann

 

Well, that makes good reading for all those full of dismay last night.

Pat is, of course, so right here :-

"Mark Rowley: So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann."

"Pat Brown: Your mission is to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann? That is exactly OPPOSITE of any proper mandate for conducting any criminal investigation. You are to only have allegiance to truth and justice. Besides, unless the parents of a missing child have been eliminated by way of solid evidence, they remain suspects and you cannot be working on their behalf.

You are so right Pat - it`s as if the Police are just working for the chief suspects

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html

mumof6 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:This is simply.................. well I can't say!


What really happened to Maddie McCann? And no, her parents didn't do it:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/missing-decade-what-really-happened-10298176

I would love to know how they are literally paying for their mistake.

Given that they have ended up financially better off due to having mislaid their daughter, having millions of pounds at their disposal, and any spending on finding her has come out of the fund?

I am also amazed that they think that any body, anywhere in the world, would just fill in a trench in the road and not look inside it first. Sounds a great way of burying the odd colleague or two.

What on earth have they got the picture of eliminated Tannerman on there for, doh!!

Mimi wrote:Pat is, of course, so right here :-

"Mark Rowley: So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann."

"Pat Brown: Your mission is to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann? That is exactly OPPOSITE of any proper mandate for conducting any criminal investigation. You are to only have allegiance to truth and justice. Besides, unless the parents of a missing child have been eliminated by way of solid evidence, they remain suspects and you cannot be working on their behalf.

You are so right Pat - it`s as if the Police are just working for the chief suspects

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html

I disagree.

Mark Rowley's quote here is exactly what I would have expected him to say at this stage of the investigation.

The police have not yet arrested or charged Kate and Gerry so they are outwardly treated with the presumption of innocence. It seems to be standard police procedure in the UK - they did the same with the Philpotts treating the couple with the courtesy due to bereaved parents while steadily building a case against them and Tracie Andrews was a victim until suddenly she wasn't.

In addition, this is a high profile case. The police don't want to encourage vigilantes taking things into their own hands, not to mention Kate's state of mind and previous threats to "push a button", so there will be no finger pointing in that direction until the last moment.

IMO