Madeleine Bombshell - police net closes in on just one man who is key to the mystery

Fantastic finds, thanks Candy and Andrew.

So AdirenM thinks this waiter is 'the one person of interest' and also seems to believe OG seek to subdue.

If they are working with the PJ and OG is genuine then they will have access to the testimonies. But why the mystery? These statements have been known about all along?

If OG is rogue, then I would imagine they'd seek this witness to persuade him of the error of his ways. AdirenM also believes the £85k is to prolong OG as the Portuguese investigation remains live. She believes they are ignorant of Portuguese intentions so are keeping OG alive to mitigate.

If this is indeed the one they're looking for, which may not, of course, be the case.

With respect this Aidren chap is just speculating (as we all do).

He won't be privy to inside info from OG or PJ.

It's just guesswork (as we all do again).

True, Andrew. But interesting speculation.

Nicked from twitter. A bit more info on that tosspot, Graham Hill:

https://theconversation.com/profiles/graham-hill-148110

Interesting.... He was a plod with that Mark Williams-Thomas clown at Surrey Police and left there in 2007 to co-found CEOP with the Gamble.

The 3 musketeers all ignore the evidence but parrot out a script. Now why the hell is that?

I posted the same link yesterday. It would be interesting if he and MWT knew each other in the Surrey police.

Freedom wrote:I posted the same link yesterday. It would be interesting if he and MWT knew each other in the Surrey police.

Of course they did. Intimately as well I reckon.

Couple of posts deleted. Please no accusations of any kind here, these people like us are allowed their opinions, and we should discuss and respect that, and not comment on their personal situations etc.

Iam surprised CF...these are not random people,they (MWT,Hill,CEOP as mentioned by Andrew and for that matter Jim Gamble)all were ex serving police men who certainly appear to have knowledge of one another if not intimate knowledge of one another? Police in Portugal have been criticised about talking about the case particularly ones with inside knowledge......yet one of these ex officers has inside knowledge and imo they leave themselves open to scrutiny! There are threads on JG here....people speak of many more contentious issues than whether they are simply mercenaries or something more sinister!?

Bampots wrote:Iam surprised CF...these are not random people,they (MWT,Hill,CEOP as mentioned by Andrew and for that matter Jim Gamble)all were ex serving police men who certainly appear to have knowledge of one another if not intimate knowledge of one another? Police in Portugal have been criticised about talking about the case particularly ones with inside knowledge......yet one of these ex officers has inside knowledge and imo they leave themselves open to scrutiny! There are threads on JG here....people speak of many more contentious issues than whether they are simply mercenaries or something more sinister!?

I am talking of accusations of cash and Madeleine. We have no idea how well off anyone is, and we cannot state as fact something personal of which we know nothing!

You are most probably righ then CF.......personally I think money is the last thing on their minds!!

Will have to agree with Bampots on this one. Surprised those comments were deleted. Nothing that's not in the public domain and these people with their own self-serving agendas need to be exposed.

People connected have done very well out of the 'disappearance' of a 3 year old little girl. That's a fact and not an accusation.

Money makes the world go round. Another fact.

IMO of course. Etc etc.

Nicked from twitter:

https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/cmtv-debate-on-operation-granges-new.html

CMTV debate on Operation Grange's “new suspect”
by Joana Morais 2 hrs ago

Short debate on Operation Grange's “new suspect”. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV, presented by Sara Carrilho, where criminal and current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and Rui Pereira, former Minister of Internal Affairs.

Sara Carrilho - Scotland Yard is searching for a former Ocean Club worker, the tourist resort in Praia da Luz from where Madeleine McCann disappeared in May 2007. The British authorities wish to question this man who they believe may provide for new leads concerning the disappearance.

News segment (unknown voice over) - After nine years there's a new suspect in the Maddie McCann case. This time, the line of enquiry of the British authorities pursues a former employee of the Ocean Club, the resort in Praia da luz, in the Algarve, where the English family were holidaying when Maddie disappeared in 2007. Scotland Yard wants to question again the former worker who may be of Portuguese nationality and hasn't yet been located. However, this man had already been questioned by the Judiciary Police (PJ) in 2007, this, because the man in question took part in a burglary in the ocean Club at the lunch time, on the same day that Madeleine disappeared. Even though this man is not being investigated as the abductor he may provide new leads concerning this case. The investigation that would have ended in April will be extended until September. The Sun tabloid advanced that for the investigation of the British authorities to continue a new fund of 96 thousand euros was granted. This new lead is considered to be the last opportunity in the investigation to find Maddie McCann, an investigation of the British authorities that has been ongoing for the past nine years (Op. Grange started in 2011), whose costs have surpassed 14 million euros.

Sara Carrilho - Carlos Anjos, this may be the last opportunity to do something in this investigation opened by the English authorities. Yet this man, this former worker the British police are seeking now had already been questioned in 2007.

Carlos Anjos - What new lead, opportunity? We are 10 million citizens, they have plenty of suspects to find here in Portugal, this is only just one more. I'm not even going to say that this is playing with the investigation, it's just shocking. At the time the police identified a series of people, over two dozen, to establish why they were there and this man was one of them. People that didn't have to be in there, that weren't from that area, or didn't live there and this was done using various techniques, there was a wide-sweeping search of cell phones of people that were in that area, everything was tried, then the police arrived to those individuals. This man worked at the Ocean Club, it is said (referring the news segment) that it's not known whether he is Portuguese or not, actually he is Portuguese, and it is not true either that he has vanished, he might not have a fixed address because he might be without a home, given the miserable life that he has. This man committed a crime of burglary in the morning, close to noon, at a time the child was in the beach with the mother, and the father. The disappearance takes place in the night, when the parents were, excuse my expression, soaking at the table, emptying bottles of wine. So, they want to connect a man who burgled a handful of things from a bedroom, a theft of opportunity since the tourists had left the door unlocked, if not mistaken German tourists, when they were all in the beach - any one of us was lucky to not have been there that day, in the Ocean Club, otherwise Scotland Yard would easily, just because we had red socks or something equally absurd, constitute us as arguidos and make us suspects of the death. This investigation is a tragedy, is a bottomless bag (endless supply), and it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy that we don't know what happened to Maddie, but above all is the careless way they say they have a new suspect. But what new suspect? The man as already been heard, he has already explained...

Sara Carrilho - What is certain is that vast amounts of money are given to this investigation.

Carlos Anjos - ... Worse than that, it is already known where he was at the time of the crime. That is, even though he committed the burglary, he was eliminated because at that time - this is something that I don't understand, I don't understand this investigation, it has nothing to do with a criminal investigation, but what should be considered is the time frame. The last time Maddie McCann was seen alive was at 17:30, that's the hour she leaves the children's playground area and returns home with her mother, from then on she never appears. Later the alert is given by the mother upon returning to the apartment, where she doesn't find the child, roughly about 10:30 at night, 22:30. So, the time period in which the crime occurs, what happened exactly we don't know but whatever happened took place between 17:30 and 22:30, the events took place during this time frame of five hours. At that time the man was somewhere else, actually far away from there. They cannot justify, that just because the man committed a crime of burglary at noon and since they don't have anyone else the guy of the noon robbery will do, this is wanting to place the suspect at the crime scene, this is wanting to forcefully place the blame. I just don't understand this investigation... What is certain is that this is a horn of plenty, where several millions have already been spent, this latest 96.000 euros will no doubt allow for another team of brilliant investigators to be lodged at a 5 star hotel because there's money to pay for that, and when this man is discarded... The PJ investigation spoke of three dead men, and all those were investigated, so there are no more dead men left to be accused as suspects because those would be the ideal suspects since they cannot defend themselves. Now, this man will surely give the same explanations he gave in the process (case files), that are already there in fact. Curiously, up to today, Scotland Yard was unable to identify a single suspect that hadn't been already identified by the PJ, they look at the process and likely say, we've already spoken with this one, next one, and so on. From the perspective of a criminal investigation this reveals an extreme ineptitude, even intellectually. The crime that man committed was at noon, the other was at night time, it doesn't matter, anything goes. This is playing, more than with the investigation, with people's feelings.

Sara Carrilho - Professor Rui Pereira, we are getting closer to the 10th anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, and there is no credible lead. This suspect committed a crime of burglary during the morning but nothing links him directly to the disappearance.

Rui Pereira - Well, this is completely out of step with reality. If I believed in conspirational theories I would say that this is the reaction of the English authorities to Gonçalo Amaral's aquittal. It's a curious way to approach this situation but nothing else really explains that a new lead was followed now, when is in fact an old lead, where the indicia are incompatible with the practice of a crime committed against the child. In reality there is an assumption that is vexatious for us, that is a sort of insinuation, or presumptuousness, that our police authorities are incompetent, that our criminal police bodies don't know how to investigate this case and so on. Well, that is not in question, what is in question in this case, and we always have to return to the beginning, are: parents that were not sufficiently diligent with securing their children, toddlers practically, parents that left them to their own fate, who could have been eventually persecuted for the crime of exposure and abandonment (neglect) and weren't.



ongoing

Broadcast by CMTV, Rua Segura Se.17 EP.52, March 15, 2017

Just wondering if the Portuguese will allow an ILOR as this person has already been questioned. They have refused them before.

canada12 wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I agree, Andrew.
IMO they've spent all this time and money to EXCLUDE any other possibility ...

The classic...Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And since the McCanns have painted themselves into a corner - they entertain only one theory - that she was abducted - then if Smithman is the only lead which is left, after all other possibilities have been examined and eliminated - the McCanns must, by their own admission, accept the possibility that Smithman is the 'abductor'. And if they don't, what does that say about their claim of abduction? Here's a solid lead, Mr. and Mrs. McCann. What are your objections? And why?

We KNOW that Smithman is important because Kate, in her book, is insistent that Smithman and Tannerman must be the same person. This is despite a 45 minute gap between the sightings and despite the fact that, imo, they do not look alike. I know TB insists they look similar but the early sketch of Tannerman showed a swarthy-looking man of Mediterranean appearance with very dark hair that reaches the collar. Smithman looks nothing like this. His hair is much lighter and is cropped.

If Smithman wasn't important then Kate could simply have accepted Smithman as a separate sighting to Tannerman. Which is what police thought. The FACT that Kate will not entertain that Smithman could be a different person to Tannerman is proof as far as I am concerned that Smithman is so important that Kate refuses to accept that he exists. He must be Tannerman. She even writes in her book that she doesn't see why she should have to explain the times between the sightings, or words to that effect.

The paper said there has been an international search to find the person.

Has someone done a runner then? It wouldn't be the first time...

OG will announce they found the man but unfortunately he died. End of case.

Mimi wrote:OG will announce they found the man but unfortunately he died. End of case.

Well yes, but they could have done that years ago. Unless you think they've only just identified a suitable patsy.

They're just discussing what's being touted about in the English newspapers.

And it comes from Tracey K.

Operation Grange have not said anything and neither have the PJ. So both these chaps won't be in the loop to what's actually happening.

They're just confirming what we already knew - and that its a non-story.

IMO etc.

froggy wrote:

Mimi wrote:OG will announce they found the man but unfortunately he died. End of case.

Well yes, but they could have done that years ago. Unless you think they've only just identified a suitable patsy.

True froggy. I don`t know.

The mystery to me these days is not so much what happened to Maddie, but why so much tax payers` money has been spent on this couple and why they are so special - that is the mystery. I`ve even wondered if it`s really tax payers` money or whether someone is funding this `special` pot.

Andrew wrote:They're just discussing what's being touted about in the English newspapers.

And it comes from Tracey K.

Operation Grange have not said anything and neither have the PJ. So both these chaps won't be in the loop to what's actually happening.

They're just confirming what we already knew - and that its a non-story.

IMO etc.

Yes, agreed it is a manufactured lie by TK.

Mimi wrote:That Dr. Graham Hill still continues to be damning of the Portuguese police and stands up for the McCanns. He always has done, yet has got lots of things wrong and neglected a lot of facts.  I think he fancies himself as another Mark Williams Thomas :-

Be interesting to find out a bit more about Dr Graham Hill. Given that the TM version of events is so flimsy, why is he standing up for the McCanns? Why publicly support a couple whose version of events has been ripped to shreds by so many, not least the Portuguese police?

Andrew wrote:Thanks for posting that @ Mimi. I'll have a watch of it later on.


Dr Graham Hill
Offenders who Occupy Positions of Trust

Graham is a Consultant Criminologist, former senior police officer and experienced SIO.  He was the founding Head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre’s Behavioural Analysis Unit (BAU) and has been an advisor, behavioural analyst or SIO on some of the UK’s most notorious child abuse/murder investigations.  His research interests include the behaviour of male and female child sex offenders, interviewing child sex offenders and non-familial child abduction/murder. His work focuses on how research can inform and enhance investigative practice.

Dr Hill will provide an insight into offending behaviour and how predators use their positions of trust to facilitate their sexual abuse of children. He will reflect on the tactics they employ and will explain the importance of considering the 6 steps to understanding child sex offenders. Graham will place this theory in context by using videos of interviews conducted with convicted predators.

https://ineqe.com/glimpse/


.... Jim Gamble's best pal. Say no more.

How interesting, thanks Andrew! CEOP were up to their necks in all this.

And what about that 100 second phone call that David Payne made to the police on the night after Madeleine went missing? Which he then couldn't remember anything about?

Agreed about CEOP - there is no way any legitimate organization would risk declaring suspects innocent or guilty so early on. Big red flag there.

Mimi wrote:Agreed about CEOP - there is no way any legitimate organization would risk declaring suspects innocent or guilty so early on.  Big red flag there.  

I agree too about CEOP. So what possible reason could an organisation set up to look into ONLINE crimes related to children have to do with a supposed physical abduction? There was no online exploitation that we have been made aware of in this case so why were they involved?
Innocent explanation could be they were looking for people who may have been chattering about a child such as Madeleine. Perhaps talking about snatching a particular type of child or one in a particular environment. ( I don't believe this but thought I'd consider it for balance)
OR There was a honey trap set up to lure someone and it went horribly wrong.
OR The whole thing was a hoax (Wayback fiasco)
OR Fill in the blanks.