BREAKING NEWS ON BBC - Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

chirpyinsect wrote:

Would it cover the lack of anyone outside the circle ever having commented on this child? Neighbours, shop keepers, doctors, midwife, health visitor, priest who baptised her, have not spoken about her.

I've always found that very strange, but she was due to start school and there were reports of the school keeping an empty desk for her, or something.

If she had never existed, I am quite sure that that would have come to light extremely quickly. For example, Kate McCann was a GP and her work colleagues must have been aware how many kids she had etc.. and probably met them.

If people knew the McCanns but had never seen Madeleine, that would have been spotted surely. Plus there was that video of her tripping on the plane steps on the way to Portugal. Or are you suggesting the girl there was somebody else?

Obviously none of us can know (though there are plenty out there who state their assumptions and beliefs as if they were facts!) but I do think it's highly unlikely that Madeleine didn't exist.

But stranger things have happened, I suppose .....

Hellsbells wrote:

at first an attempt would have been made to find concrete evidence before charges were made.
but, failing that, if the cops had been convinced of the solution they would just have got the suspects and potential conspirators in and grilled them until they cracked. Piece of cake in this case because there were 9 of them.
that's why I don't think it's what happened, and - guessing here - that the cops don't either.

If there was no concrete evidence and the T9 knew that, I think it's highly unlikely that one of them would crack.

Why would they?

Plus concrete evidence would surely be needed for any trial to take place.

And the police would have burned their boats if they grilled the T9 without anything to base the grilling on, if you see what I mean.

Oh dear, I must step away from the laptop, I have things to do

Hellsbells wrote:

Even if, say, as some have suggested, that Maddie was the product of some biological experiment (cloning etc) and the government needed to keep it hush hush I still don't think the lid could have been kept on it by involving dozens more people in the cover up.
in any case it would have been done by quietly forgetting it when the story had slipped out of the public interest in 2010, rather than re igniting it and then employing 30 detectives to remind the whole world about it before subsequently whitewashing it.

I completely agree.

You don't carry out a coverup or whitewash by very publicly spending so much time, energy and man/womanpower on it.

You quietly let the thing drop.

Hellsbells wrote:the ramping up of everything has coincided with the return of R Brooks. It's as if the whole saga was an invention of the press in order to sell papers.
if NSY genuinely can't find an abductor, or any evidence of an abduction, after 4 years of reviewing the case, it should convince most people that there wasnt one and that something else happened instead.
what exactly that was is still not obvious to me, but I'm not sure that the forums have got this completely right. The complicity of the media in the story indicates something more obscure.
it is crazy but I am sometimes tempted to go back to the early days and wonder if she ever existed at all. But some (not all) of  the early photos are convincing. Or maybe she really disappeared a long time before the holiday. Something weird or intangible outside our normal experience. Yes I know it sounds barmy but so to me does the idea of a massive inter governmental conspiracy to cover up the death of a little girl.

Is it all about boosting campaigns for missing children? Or a promotion for electronic tagging? Amber alert? Who knows?
there's something about the whole sequence of events, including the previous Christmas and the trip to Donegal that just doesnt add up. And NSY's apparent admission that she probably wasnt abducted (because yes that's effectively what they are saying) makes me yet again want to think well outside the box.

Agree about the return of Ms Brooks. There's definitely been a shifting in the wind since she retook the handlebars. The unfettered comments on the Fund article, the Fund article itself, that article today which to me points out the inadequacies of the PI teams the McCanns chose and the fruitlessness of 'more of the same' as well as scorn for OG (that is an eye-opener). Plus (and know it's not Brooks but it is Murdoch), the reporting of Brunt the other night on Sky News ascertaining that the Portuguese and Uk investigations are seperate and are following different theories.

I too have had doubts - and still do - as to whether she disappeared before the holiday or even existed at all for the same reasons as outlined by chirpy, and then I think but what about the dogs?

Dee Coy wrote: [...]

I too have had doubts - and still do - as to whether she disappeared before the holiday or even existed at all for the same reasons as outlined by chirpy, and then I think but what about the dogs?

***
Indeed Dee Coy: what about the dogs?

nobodythereeither wrote:

PMR wrote:Agree Hells Bells , although I nearly choked on my tea on a comment elsewhere that they had done more to solve the case than OG !

I saw that.

There's an awful lot of bs being spouted in some places, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

I find the lack of some people's ability to use logic (and common sense) really depressing

I think a lot of the problem is most people have little contact with the police and don't really know how they work apart from what they see in the media ,on TV or from drama programmes none of which give an accurate
depiction

I do believe Madeline existed as I know of someone who knows a neighbour of the family

Yes, whatever theory is proposed in my mind has to have a rational explanation for the dogs findings.
No one has proposed one except our Gerry.
He would only need to spend 10 minutes with my dog to realise that there is no way I can make her indicate if there is nothing there. And Eddie and Keela indicated so many times.
I trust the dogs.

nobodythereeither wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Would it cover the lack of anyone outside the circle ever having commented on this child? Neighbours, shop keepers, doctors, midwife, health visitor, priest who baptised her, have not spoken about her.

I've always found that very strange, but she was due to start school and there were reports of the school keeping an empty desk for her, or something.

If she had never existed, I am quite sure that that would have come to light extremely quickly. For example, Kate McCann was a GP and her work colleagues must have been aware how many kids she had etc.. and probably met them.

If people knew the McCanns but had never seen Madeleine, that would have been spotted surely. Plus there was that video of her tripping on the plane steps on the way to Portugal. Or are you suggesting the girl there was somebody else?

Obviously none of us can know (though there are plenty out there who state their assumptions and beliefs as if they were facts!) but I do think it's highly unlikely that Madeleine didn't exist.

But stranger things have happened, I suppose .....

Please note I said that maybe M didn't exist as we know her, not that there wasn't a child in photos etc. And it is perfectly possible the girl we see on the steps is not M. We only see her from the back at that point. On the bus she is oddly still. Could be manipulated.
A different explanation of what I mean perhaps could be that she may not have even been their child. A sort of rent a kid if you like.
The real Madeleine that was born to Kate could have long since been spirited away to a distant relative  ( or even died but not reported as such because the parents had self administered to her) and this child loaned or provided for the hoax has had her features altered  in photos to be unrecognisable to anyone who may have known her.
I fully appreciate some of you will be throwing your hands up in horror at this moment. I throw my own up sometimes too but so many things don't fit the normal theories that the parallel universe stuff surfaces now and again.
Of course I doubt very much the cast of thousands required to carry this out could have been arranged just by the parents. Outside ( or inside) assistance would be required. So was there some huge hoax involving government? Or was it arranged by a small bunch of opportunists who saw a money making machine?  Did that plot go wrong when the child died accidentally setting off an altered plot line? 
No dna in that apartment. Why not? Her dna should have been there naturally which would not throw any suspicion on the parents. After all that is what one would expect to find. Why was there none anywhere? Does that not make anyone wonder who the child was that disappeared?


ETA of course the dogs bring me back to sanity but in the absence of proof, we don't know when a death occurred or who it actually was.

Was the Twins' DNA found in the apartment anywhere?

nobodythereeither wrote:

If there was no concrete evidence and the T9 knew that, I think it's highly unlikely that one of them would crack.

Why would they?

Worth bearing in mind that they are not hardened criminals. They might at times have had good confidence at the lack of concrete "triable" evidence, and how various states of affairs have kept them safe so far, but - for example - it sounds like Matt Oldfield was having some severe emotional issues during the first PJ interviews when his story was seen not to stand up.

If there's the prospect of new evidence coming forth - or better outcomes from existing evidence such as DNA, or new reveals by way of Portugal's revised laws on mobile phone records etc, then the ground beneath their feet might not feel so secure.

Yes I agree, but surely the police would wait until they actually had that evidence to confront them with, not interview them before they had it in the hope that somebody would "crack"?

In truth of course we don't know who's been interviewed - nor under what guise.... witness or suspect.
And also they don't need to "crack" - they can say something that can be proven to be false in the light of new evidence etc of course.

I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Mimi wrote:

canada12 wrote:One other thing has occurred to me, and that's the balance of The Fund. While the McCanns were flush with money, they were litigous and powerful. The balance of the Fund has surely now been reduced by quite a lot, the result being that the McCanns are much less litigous and, by default, much less powerful and much less able to surround themselves by others with power.

It's one thing to investigate a wealthy suspect with an unlimited supply of funds available, to buy the best lawyers and the best defense possible.

It's quite another to investigate a suspect or suspects whose funds are limited, and continue to deplete, thus reducing their "power", however that might be defined.

I think the SY investigation may also have been an exercise in depreciation. As in, waiting for the "powerful" to become less so.

Of course, we`ve just found out that The Chilcot Report is due out next June 2016 after being delayed for about 7 years and dear Tony Bliar is already trying to pre-empt it`s results.  Isn`t this about the same time as the Grange money runs out.  Dearest Tony and Cherie who were on the phone to the Mcs straight after MBM`s disappearance.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/oct/26/uk-national-newspapers-reject-tony-blairs-iraq-war-apology

Seems someone else thinks there may be a common denominator here. I`ll mention no names.

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Do we know the Tapas have never been questioned on the inconsistencies ?

PMR wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Do we know the Tapas have never been questioned on the inconsistencies ?

No, we don't of course. But if they have, I'll bet my bottom dollar the truth will have come out. So unless OG are keeping their cards very close to their chest folowing the announcement the other day I'd guess they haven't been. Yet.

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Thank you, Walt, I thought it was just me! An astounding article, especially considering who wrote it. Very different in tone and content, imo.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Walt wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:
Walt, you seem to be very negative about these latest developments.

Clarence Mitchell told us,"Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that some one got into the apartment and took Madeleine out of the window as their means of escape" can you point to any thing that leads you to believe that OG have been investigating any thing other than this.

Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest. A total of 650 sex offenders have also been considered,

why would OG be investigating this lot if they didn't believe an abduction took place.Why the need to eliminate them if they didn't think they could be involved in some way.

The police can't make assumptions. They can only work on evidence and have to start with an open mind. So every line of enquiry had to be explored and eliminated. If this was a whitewash then 1 of those 650 would have been fitted up rapido.

Those who think its a whitewash do so because OG haven't come up with a solution they desire,I don't think its one,I believe that OG was a bona fide investigation of an abduction.
Let me put it like this,is it really possible that OG by eliminating 710 persons have done so by questioning if its possible that they could have taken a cadaver out of Apartment 5a only to return a few weeks later to return the cadaver,deposit in an hire car only for the hirer not to notice but seemingly have need to air the car out by leaving the tail gate open,of course not,they investigated an abduction as per the remit.
What they are doing now is a completely different.
What they have done inadvertently or otherwise is come up with it seems not one iota to support an abduction.

Dee Coy wrote:

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Thank you, Walt, I thought it was just me! An astounding article, especially considering who wrote it. Very different in tone and content, imo.

There was another piece on the end in the paper,I wish I'd written it down,something along the lines of wanting to look at the police files,if the private investigation takes place.

From the Sun article.

Kate and Gerry McCann have already ringfenced the rest of the cash in the Find Madeleine Fund, around £750,000, to pay for a team of private investigators — believed to be former police officers.

Its clear McCanns had little or no faith in OG,why else sound out a team for a private investigation again.

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Thank you, Walt, I thought it was just me! An astounding article, especially considering who wrote it. Very different in tone and content, imo.

There was another piece on the end in the paper,I wish I'd written it down,something along the lines of wanting to look at the police files,if the private investigation takes place.

Walt, Freedom has posted a link to the full article up thread.

Walt wrote:From the Sun article.

Kate and Gerry McCann have already ringfenced the rest of the cash in the Find Madeleine Fund, around £750,000, to pay for a team of private investigators — believed to be former police officers.

Its clear McCanns had little or no faith in OG,why else sound out a team for a private investigation again.

Could that be Edgar and Co?

I`d be interested to know where they are going to find private detectives who have access to more resources and `supposed` expertise than Scotland Yard. What a joke.

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Thank you, Walt, I thought it was just me! An astounding article, especially considering who wrote it. Very different in tone and content, imo.

There was another piece on the end in the paper,I wish I'd written it down,something along the lines of wanting to look at the police files,if the private investigation takes place.

Really? Is this the paper version? You mean the McCanns are after knowing what the police have, again? This is deja vu, for sure! It's like when the PJ re-opened their investigation againback in October 2013 and the Mcs applied to be assistentes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2476728/From-arguido-assistente-McCanns-apply-prosecutor-status-let-Portuguese-case-files-suspects-face-trial.html

And how they tried to get Leicester police to reveal what they had but were only given 81 pieced of information form over 11000 held:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

costello wrote:

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Walt wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Reading that, I still have the niggling feeling that Murdoch is turning.

I read it at work today and thought how critical of OG they were,little or nothing about the PJ nothing about Amaral.

Thank you, Walt, I thought it was just me! An astounding article, especially considering who wrote it. Very different in tone and content, imo.

There was another piece on the end in the paper,I wish I'd written it down,something along the lines of wanting to look at the police files,if the private investigation takes place.

Walt, Freedom has posted a link to the full article up thread.

I know,but there was a little more.