Nicola Wall...

And this was all in the first 8 months....

Ive had a good mooch about and came across this....

http://msngroup.aimoo.com/madeleinemccann/quotes.msnw-action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=163&LastModified=4675660034800528338.htm

Its astonishing how this case is still ongoing....
Unreal how this is dragging on....

Rant Over

The apartment was locked. Then it became unlocked.
The apartment was secure. The weak points were on the farside.
The shutters were smashed. Then they weren’t.
Madeleine’s bed was between the twins 2 cots. Then it wasn't.

The toy CuddleCat was in left in a 'high place'. Then it wasn't.
Kate 'knew not to touch anything in the crime scene’. Then she did.
The Gorrods searched all night. Then they didn't.
Renwick was on holiday with the McCanns. Then she wasn't.

The McCanns had been to Portugal before. Then they hadn't.
The McCanns dinned at the Paraiso. Then they didn't.
Madeleine isn't called 'Maddie'. Then she was.
Madeleine isn't called 'Margaret'. Then she was.

Gerry McCann went into the apartment. Then he didn’t.
Webster doesn’t remember. Then she can.
O’Brien made a bed. Then he didn’t.
Tanner left the table. Then she didn’t.

The McCanns booked two tables in the Tapas Bar. Then they didn’t.
Oldfield saw Madeleine asleep. Then he didn’t.
Father Pacheco handed over the church keys at 4AM. Then he didn’t.
Then he did. Now he won’t talk about it anymore.

Sue Healy didn’t know Robert Murat. Then she did.
Norah Paul was Madeleine’s grandmother. Then she wasn’t.
Nora McCann was Madeleine’s aunt. Then she wasn’t.
Nora Paul said 'they could have covered it up'.

Brian Healy said they ‘hadn’t had too much to drink’. Then they had.
Najova Chekaya was 'working that night'. Then she wasn’t.
Kate McCann cries. Then she doesn't.
Kate McCann will take a lie test. Then she won’t.

Madeleine had wandered off. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine walked to the beach. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine fell asleep under a bush. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine McCann hadn’t been abducted. Then she had.

Madeleine was abducted INTO the Mark Warner complex. Then she wasn’t.
Madeleine left by the bedroom window. Then she hadn’t.
The door was lying open. Then it wasn’t.
Mitchell 'knew how the abductor left the apartment'. Now he doesn’t.

Madeleine hadn’t been drugged. Then she had.
Madeleine had been drugged. Then she hadn’t.
The twins had been drugged. Then they hadn’t.
The twins hadn’t been drugged. Now they have.

Campbell tipped off the police. Then she didn’t.
Murat wasn’t at home that evening. Then he was.
Carpenter the cleaner dinned with the McCanns. Then he hadn’t.
Edmonds the millionaire dinned with the McCanns. Then he hadn’t.

Madeleine visited Murat’s villa. Then she hadn’t.
Murat translated witness statements. Then he hadn’t.
Jenny Murat wasn’t looking for tax cheats. Then she was.
A private plane left Portimao on May 3rd 2007. Then it didn’t.

Madeleine McCann is ‘like a student overdraft’. She isn’t.
Madeleine McCann is like ‘there’s no money in your bank account’. She isn’t.
Madeleine McCann is ‘that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you know you’ve got no money’.
Only Madeleine McCann isn’t. She really isn’t.

c&p from elsewhere...But it sums it up

@ Bubblewrapped

Where exactly did you find this IMO partly incoherent list of "facts"?

ETA no offense meant, but I do take offense at the title of your OP.
Fifty Shades of Grey is such a BS, that I didn't even take the time to read it.
Applying such "joke" to a weathered DCI is not done, I would think.
Unless you have good reason, in which case I invite you to explain.

I also cannot understand why people keep assuming to know what Nicola Wall is doing (or not for that matter)...the police never give a running commentary and nor should they

Susible
None of us "know" what NW is doing. And for me, the signal is, that we're not supposed to know, until such time that there's a "solution" [read" chances of a conviction"]. I am totally at peace with that ...

I have deleted part of the title.

Bubblewrapped, Nicola Wall is doing the sensible thing and doing her job......... and saying nothing. Which is how it should be.

Admin wrote:I have deleted part of the title.  

Bubblewrapped, Nicola Wall is doing the sensible thing and doing her job......... and saying nothing.  Which is how it should be.

Apologies to the forum for the title being OTT.

Has OG told us the Macs are not suspects or persons of interest?

Yes they have.

Has OG told us in cooperation with the BBC that the last photo of M was taken at 2.30pm on Thursday 3rd May?

Yes they have

Has OG told us that Jane Tanner is the most accurate eye witness in the history of crime but unfortunately she saw an innocent creche' man?

Yes they have

OG are investigating the abduction as if it happened in the UK but it didn't, did it!

OG has given us a running commentary, only its complete bollocks and they now hope we will all forget about it.

It cant be bollocks JJ.....
Even Prince Charles got a tip off.....

What a merry-go-round and round and round...........

JJ wrote:Has OG told us the Macs are not suspects or persons of interest?

Yes they have.

Has OG told us in cooperation with the BBC that the last photo of M was taken at 2.30pm on Thursday 3rd May?

Yes they have

Has OG told us that Jane Tanner is the most accurate eye witness in the history of crime but unfortunately she saw an innocent creche' man?

Yes they have

OG are investigating the abduction as if it happened in the UK but it didn't, did it!

OG has given us a running commentary, only its complete bollocks and they now hope we will all forget about it.

Firstly NO police force would tell the public if anyone was a suspect. NO police force.... can you imagine the media frenzy that would ensue. The only time would be if that person was armed and dangerous. Even when they have a suspect rarely do they even release a name, it is the press that delves and finds out these things. It is not proper to name anyone as a suspect until they are arrested, and it is not up to the police to give a running commentary.

As to the other things re Jane Tanner and the last photo, I am sure OG know what they are doing, they have far more info than we will ever have, so I will wait and see what the outcome will be

I haven't seen a running commentary from them either, just a couple of crimemwatch programmes and press conferences, that you would expect and the media want it, after all an awful of public money is being spent and questions asked, so they have to sometimes give into the pressure and put out some sort of statements etc.

Surely you don't expect them to tell you what they are really doing?

This is where I get stumped....Surely its obvious many would have phoned CW and gave the same name. Even from folks that don't frequent forums on this matter....So what was the point of putting the photo on there
I posted before that CW asks participants to be in the studio 6 hours before screening....Perhaps there never was a "revelation" in relation to getting the McCanns all jumpy as some could think.

Bubblewrapped wrote:This is where I get stumped....Surely its obvious many would have phoned CW and gave the same name. Even from folks that don't frequent forums on this matter....So what was the point of putting the photo on there
I posted before that CW asks participants to be in the studio 6 hours before screening....Perhaps there never was a "revelation" in relation to getting the McCanns all jumpy as some could think.

I have posted before a link to how CW and police work together on certain tough cases and it seems they know before they start what they will, or expect, to get before it is aired.

So in some cases it isn't really about getting information/clues from the public but more a sting operation. Phone taps, certain people being watched to see how they react to specific things etc..

Whether CW '13 was one of these cases is yet to be seen.

Firstly NO police force would tell the public if anyone was a suspect.  NO police force.... can you imagine the media frenzy that would ensue.  The only time would be if that person was armed and dangerous.  Even when they have a suspect rarely do they even release a name, it is the press that delves and finds out these things.  It is not proper to name anyone as a suspect until they are arrested, and it is not up to the police to give a running commentary.

As to the other things re Jane Tanner and the last photo, I am sure OG know what they are doing, they have far more info than we will ever have, so I will wait and see what the outcome will be

 I haven't seen a running commentary from them either, just a couple of crimemwatch programmes and press conferences, that you would expect and the media want it, after all an awful  of public money is being spent and questions asked, so they have to sometimes give into the pressure and put out some sort of statements etc.  

Surely you don't expect them to tell you what they are really doing?[/quote]

OG has told us they are NOT suspects not that they are, there is a major difference.

Could you tell me how you are sure OG know what they are doing.  This would imply you have inside info.

I would not expect any Crimewatch programme to be based on lies, why should we?

candyfloss wrote:
Firstly NO police force would tell the public if anyone was a suspect.  NO police force.... can you imagine the media frenzy that would ensue.  The only time would be if that person was armed and dangerous.  Even when they have a suspect rarely do they even release a name, it is the press that delves and finds out these things.  It is not proper to name anyone as a suspect until they are arrested, and it is not up to the police to give a running commentary.

As to the other things re Jane Tanner and the last photo, I am sure OG know what they are doing, they have far more info than we will ever have, so I will wait and see what the outcome will be

 I haven't seen a running commentary from them either, just a couple of crimemwatch programmes and press conferences, that you would expect and the media want it, after all an awful  of public money is being spent and questions asked, so they have to sometimes give into the pressure and put out some sort of statements etc.  

Surely you don't expect them to tell you what they are really doing?[/quote]

JJ wrote
OG has told us they are NOT suspects not that they are, there is a major difference.

Could you tell me how you are sure OG know what they are doing.  This would imply you have inside info.

I would not expect any Crimewatch programme to be based on lies, why should we?

[/quote]

What do you expect JJ,  if the head of the investigation whatever it may be was asked the question if someone is a suspect,  they cannot answer yes and they cannot say nothing otherwise that implies yes, therefore what are you left with?    Saying I can't comment immediately sends out the wrong signal.  So I say again, it has to be NO.  How many times do police say that anyway and then go on to arrest people.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Bubblewrapped wrote:This is where I get stumped....Surely its obvious many would have phoned CW and gave the same name. Even from folks that don't frequent forums on this matter....So what was the point of putting the photo on there
I posted before that CW asks participants to be in the studio 6 hours before screening....Perhaps there never was a "revelation" in relation to getting the McCanns all jumpy as some could think.

I have posted before a link to how CW and police work together on certain tough cases and it seems they know before they start what they will, or expect, to get before it is aired.

So in some cases it isn't really about getting information/clues from the public but more a sting operation. Phone taps, certain people being watched to see how they react to specific things etc..

Whether CW '13 was one of these cases is yet to be seen.

Ty TTWO, I couldn't remember who posted the information.

No problem, Bubblewrapped. Here is the link for anyone else that would like a read: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_4.2.pdf

I keep getting a timed out request....Grr!!!

If, say it was a sting op. Do you think the BBC would get pre knowledge of Op Granges intentions ?
Asking for just opinions not factual

Bubblewrapped wrote:If, say it was a sting op. Do you think the BBC would get pre knowledge of Op Granges intentions ?
Asking for just opinions not factual

The least number of people that would know that the better.

I would of thought..

Andrew wrote:

Bubblewrapped wrote:If, say it was a sting op. Do you think the BBC would get pre knowledge of Op Granges intentions ?
Asking for just opinions not factual

The least number of people that would know that the better.

I would of thought..

I mean on the show, CW....Before it was aired. Would the BBC of had to be informed if it could be a sting op. Just wondering, because if so then what gives the BBC the right to know over the public.

Yes. It states so in the case studies in the link above.

All questions are agreed in advance and rehearsed several times

Now that is a "Revelation"

Ty for the link again TTWO.

Strangely Ironic we had Nick Ross tell us after every episode, not to have nightmares. Then went on to say he would be happy to view child porn pics to see what all the fuss of them was about....
Then in resort we had a very important witness, who happened to have a partner that was involved with CW, but told her partner she would be too scared to be left alone if he went out and searched....Not that he was needed.

I don't know...
The whole case is so complicated, and strange.


I'm just glad I can comfortably tell the BBC to go off in the general direction of feck, when they keep asking the occupier to buy a TV licence.


Sorry if it appears this is off topic....I don't think it is

Yes this case has been hard to follow at all times . Not a lot made sense really, and still few folk even bother about it now ,if not interested and kept up to date ,the interest would wane I think . Its still a mystery it seems .poor child just gone ,and to look on her face and really remember ,no one knows what happened to her ,is so sad ..just my thoughts , there have been so many questions over the years ,and so few answers we can be certain of as truth,a bit like a maze you have a job to leave . hope one day truth will come ,till then we just push on and hopefully not fall out with others over it . joyce1938

Beautiful post Joyce, you have put into words exactly what I have always said.. The last 8 years have caused many revelations and rifts, but I know that we do all stand together in terms of finally getting the truth about what happened to this, small, defenceless child and I would hope that this mission can ultimately help many more small, defenceless children from coming to serious harm or to at least determine their fate and ensure that all children will have justice