Was there serious police failings

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

LJC wrote:

platinum wrote:I believe that the refusal to do a reconstruction in the first few weeks was down to the PJ. They said it would disrupt holidaymakers holidays and that they would need to close the airspace and there were too many journalists so they decided not to do a reconstruction.

I think it was the worst mistake in the whole case that the PJ decided not to do that reconstruction early on when memories were fresh.

Need to close airspace?

That and not wanting to upset holidaymakers were two of the reasons given.

@Platinum

I think that Amaral himself has stated that the resources available in relation to the import of the events were probably unsatisfactory.

So, given that, and the implicit failings in the early part of the investigation, do you think that materially affects the reality of what happened or simply jeopardised the prospect of getting to the truth?

Clearly it jeopardised the getting to the truth as that hasn't happened. It doesn't affect what happened on the night though.

Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

LJC wrote:

Need to close airspace?

That and not wanting to upset holidaymakers were two of the reasons given.

@Platinum

I think that Amaral himself has stated that the resources available in relation to the import of the events were probably unsatisfactory.

So, given that, and the implicit failings in the early part of the investigation, do you think that materially affects the reality of what happened or simply jeopardised the prospect of getting to the truth?

Clearly it jeopardised the getting to the truth as that hasn't happened. It doesn't affect what happened on the night though.

Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

Oh now we have to believe that Goncalo Amaral even got that wrong do we? He was pretty clear that the night was May 3rd. Are you really saying that the PJ was that incompetent?

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

That and not wanting to upset holidaymakers were two of the reasons given.

@Platinum

I think that Amaral himself has stated that the resources available in relation to the import of the events were probably unsatisfactory.

So, given that, and the implicit failings in the early part of the investigation, do you think that materially affects the reality of what happened or simply jeopardised the prospect of getting to the truth?

Clearly it jeopardised the getting to the truth as that hasn't happened. It doesn't affect what happened on the night though.

Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

Oh now we have to believe that Goncalo Amaral even got that wrong do we? He was pretty clear that the night was May 3rd. Are you really saying that the PJ was that incompetent?

I believe Gonçalo has repeatedly said that he was stating what was in the files, i.e., that there was an independent witness who said they had seen Madeleine on May 3rd at 5.30pm. I don't think anyone has said that he got it wrong. His own opinion may vary from what is in the files, but he appears to be sticking to the findings of the investigation.

I don't think that anybody's opinion, right or wrong (or to whatever degree) about the efficacy of the early part of the investigation affects in any way what actually happened or in any way exonerates the guilty party or parties.

Even if the PJ were resourced to the hilt and were the most professional and blameless cops in the whole world ever, they stood no chance whatsoever of doing more than putting a couple of minor dents into this complex and far-reaching case.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

@Platinum

I think that Amaral himself has stated that the resources available in relation to the import of the events were probably unsatisfactory.

So, given that, and the implicit failings in the early part of the investigation, do you think that materially affects the reality of what happened or simply jeopardised the prospect of getting to the truth?

Clearly it jeopardised the getting to the truth as that hasn't happened. It doesn't affect what happened on the night though.

Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

Oh now we have to believe that Goncalo Amaral even got that wrong do we? He was pretty clear that the night was May 3rd. Are you really saying that the PJ was that incompetent?

I believe Gonçalo has repeatedly said that he was stating what was in the files, i.e., that there was an independent witness who said they had seen Madeleine on May 3rd at 5.30pm. I don't think anyone has said that he got it wrong. His own opinion may vary from what is in the files, but he appears to be sticking to the findings of the investigation.

On that one point he might be sticking to the findings. But when did they find a fridge?

On the same point though are you really saying that the PJ never found out when Madeleine McCann went missing? Why did they refuse to do a reconstruction right at the beginning then if they hadn't even got round to establishing the most basic of all the facts?

The End Is Nigh wrote:I don't think that anybody's opinion, right or wrong (or to whatever degree) about the efficacy of the early part of the investigation affects in any way what actually happened or in any way exonerates the guilty party or parties.

Even if the PJ were resourced to the hilt and were the most professional and blameless cops in the whole world ever, they stood no chance whatsoever of doing more than putting a couple of minor dents into this complex and far-reaching case.

And what actually makes this case so much more complex and far-reaching than others? A child is missing. Her whereabouts need to be discovered. Dead, abducted, wandered. Three options. Why did they stand no chance? Do cops never stand a chance?

It is patent that you are knocking the early part of the investigation, and that's tired old ground, but please may I ask what you think is the likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance? This, yet again, seems to be getting lost in the "blame game".

I can't help but wonder why those who are concerned with Justice keep getting side-tracked by stuff that is hard to disagree with but doesn't actually help get to the truth.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I don't think that anybody's opinion, right or wrong (or to whatever degree) about the efficacy of the early part of the investigation affects in any way what actually happened or in any way exonerates the guilty party or parties.

Even if the PJ were resourced to the hilt and were the most professional and blameless cops in the whole world ever, they stood no chance whatsoever of doing more than putting a couple of minor dents into this complex and far-reaching case.

And what actually makes this case so much more complex and far-reaching than others? A child is missing. Her whereabouts need to be discovered. Dead, abducted, wandered. Three options. Why did they stand no chance? Do cops never stand a chance?

Three options? Dead could result from either of the other two. Wandered and met with an accident. Abducted and murdered. Dead? Murdered? What?

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I don't think that anybody's opinion, right or wrong (or to whatever degree) about the efficacy of the early part of the investigation affects in any way what actually happened or in any way exonerates the guilty party or parties.

Even if the PJ were resourced to the hilt and were the most professional and blameless cops in the whole world ever, they stood no chance whatsoever of doing more than putting a couple of minor dents into this complex and far-reaching case.

And what actually makes this case so much more complex and far-reaching than others? A child is missing. Her whereabouts need to be discovered. Dead, abducted, wandered. Three options. Why did they stand no chance? Do cops never stand a chance?

I think that if you read more widely you'll find that many, many, utterly independent sources agree that the case we apparently see in front of us - the unexplained disappearance of a wholly innocent young girl - is not necessarily the be all and end all. Far from it.

Many of us here and elsewhere have done our own research of our own volition and that option is open to all.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:I don't think that anybody's opinion, right or wrong (or to whatever degree) about the efficacy of the early part of the investigation affects in any way what actually happened or in any way exonerates the guilty party or parties.

Even if the PJ were resourced to the hilt and were the most professional and blameless cops in the whole world ever, they stood no chance whatsoever of doing more than putting a couple of minor dents into this complex and far-reaching case.

And what actually makes this case so much more complex and far-reaching than others? A child is missing. Her whereabouts need to be discovered. Dead, abducted, wandered. Three options. Why did they stand no chance? Do cops never stand a chance?

I think that if you read more widely you'll find that many, many, utterly independent sources agree that the case we apparently see in front of us - the unexplained disappearance of a wholly innocent young girl - is not necessarily the be all and end all. Far from it.

Many of us here and elsewhere have done our own research of our own volition and that option is open to all.

I prefer to remain with the facts not some mysterious conspiracy theories. Even though I suspect there were glaring errors in the PJ actions I don't dismiss their findings completely. They were on the spot and learnt a great deal more than any of the online sleuths and independent pundits who often have never even been to PDL or spoken to a single witness.

My own view is that the child could have been dead on May 3rd, could have wandered and later died or been taken away or could have been abducted and could have died later or could still be alive. Nothing convinces me of any of the options.

If you are implying I haven't done my own research you are very wide of the mark. I have been reading the files since they were first published and translated and have read Amarals book and K McCanns book.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

platinum wrote:

Clearly it jeopardised the getting to the truth as that hasn't happened. It doesn't affect what happened on the night though.

Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

Oh now we have to believe that Goncalo Amaral even got that wrong do we? He was pretty clear that the night was May 3rd. Are you really saying that the PJ was that incompetent?

I believe Gonçalo has repeatedly said that he was stating what was in the files, i.e., that there was an independent witness who said they had seen Madeleine on May 3rd at 5.30pm. I don't think anyone has said that he got it wrong. His own opinion may vary from what is in the files, but he appears to be sticking to the findings of the investigation.

On that one point he might be sticking to the findings. But when did they find a fridge?

On the same point though are you really saying that the PJ never found out when Madeleine McCann went missing? Why did they refuse to do a reconstruction right at the beginning then if they hadn't even got round to establishing the most basic of all the facts?

Gerry himself admits he went out and changed the freezer in the rented villa. It was somebody else's freezer, it belonged to the owner of the villa, but it needs to be verified whether the owner agreed to Gerry changing the freezer and why?

As far as the PJ sticking to the files, their collective thinking did include an agreement on certain theories which were worthy of further investigation and, I am guessing, these suspicions went into the files. If police never suspected anything, if police never had a strong inkling about something not sitting right in their minds, then police the world over would flounder. Of course suspicions do not amount to evidence and sometimes their suspicions are proved wrong, but it is okay for the police to voice opinions and to put forward theories and it is okay for the police to try, as far as possible, to investigate some of their own theories, if only to discount them at a later date.

LJC wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:


Yes.

And exactly what night are you referring to?

You see, the particular night in question is also debatable. Highly debatable.

This is the key reason why certain prominent bloggers have announced a change of tack.

Oh now we have to believe that Goncalo Amaral even got that wrong do we? He was pretty clear that the night was May 3rd. Are you really saying that the PJ was that incompetent?

I believe Gonçalo has repeatedly said that he was stating what was in the files, i.e., that there was an independent witness who said they had seen Madeleine on May 3rd at 5.30pm. I don't think anyone has said that he got it wrong. His own opinion may vary from what is in the files, but he appears to be sticking to the findings of the investigation.

On that one point he might be sticking to the findings. But when did they find a fridge?

On the same point though are you really saying that the PJ never found out when Madeleine McCann went missing? Why did they refuse to do a reconstruction right at the beginning then if they hadn't even got round to establishing the most basic of all the facts?

Gerry himself admits he went out and changed the freezer in the rented villa. It was somebody else's freezer, it belonged to the owner of the villa, but it needs to be verified whether the owner agreed to Gerry changing the freezer and why?

As far as the PJ sticking to the files, their collective thinking did include an agreement on certain theories which were worthy of further investigation and, I am guessing, these suspicions went into the files. If police never suspected anything, if police never had a strong inkling about something not sitting right in their minds, then police the world over would flounder. Of course suspicions do not amount to evidence and sometimes their suspicions are proved wrong, but it is okay for the police to voice opinions and to put forward theories and it is okay for the police to try, as far as possible, to investigate some of their own theories, if only to discount them at a later date.

But there is nothing in what Gerry says or in the files or anywhere else that backs up Goncalo Amarals claims about the use of the fridge to hide a corpse. Admitting having a fridge is not the same as admitting you hid a corpse in it is it?

As for guessing what is in the files. I prefer to actually read them and find out for myself. Guesses are rarely accurate.

Hi platinum,i highly doubt that gerry removed the fridge for any reason other than it was broke,i thought there were bodily fluids in the boot of the scenic & since madeleine had been missing for so long(from the alarm raised to the hire of the car) that is why the investigation came to the conclusion, that a body had been frozen/stored in refridgeration? no?

matthew wrote:Hi platinum,i highly doubt that gerry removed the fridge for any reason other than it was broke,i thought there were bodily fluids in the boot of the scenic & since madeleine had been missing for so long(from the alarm raised to the hire of the car) that is why the investigation came to the conclusion, that a body had been frozen/stored in refridgeration? no?

Only no body fluids were found in the boot of the car were they? Not absolutely sure about that but have it in mind that there is nothing in the actual files to back it up.

I would be grateful if someone could point me to references from the files to body fluids having been found in the car. I know a little of Gerry's blood was on the keyfob but other fluids I mean. The only references I can find are from Goncalo Amaral not from the files.

LJC wrote:

Gerry himself admits he went out and changed the freezer in the rented villa. It was somebody else's freezer, it belonged to the owner of the villa, but it needs to be verified whether the owner agreed to Gerry changing the freezer and why?

I thought the Villa was owned and run as part of a complex in which case why would Gerry be changing the Freezer? why you be bothered about this whilst you were on holiday? is it not something that you would get a staff member from the complex to do?

Also: they ate out every night, what on earth would they need a freezer for? they could live with just a fridge surely ?!

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi platinum,i highly doubt that gerry removed the fridge for any reason other than it was broke,i thought there were bodily fluids in the boot of the scenic & since madeleine had been missing for so long(from the alarm raised to the hire of the car) that is why the investigation came to the conclusion, that a body had been frozen/stored in refridgeration? no?

Only no body fluids were found in the boot of the car were they? Not absolutely sure about that but have it in mind that there is nothing in the actual files to back it up.

I would be grateful if someone could point me to references from the files to body fluids having been found in the car. I know a little of Gerry's blood was on the keyfob but other fluids I mean. The only references I can find are from Goncalo Amaral not from the files.

This thread, one of my favourites entitled 'more about dna from an expert' will show you that according to USA and British law the fluids found in the boot could be said to be Madelaine Mccann's with a high probability mathematically, furthermore the order of error is 1 for 1 billion so in the eyes of the investigation It is almost impossible it was anyone otherwise.

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t12417-more-about-dna-from-an-expert

@platinum:

Couldn't agree with you more about facts vs. conspiracy.

Fortunately, most of us - including yourself, otherwise we wouldn't have your input - concern ourselves with seeking inconsistencies, impossibilities, probabilities and likelihoods from the paucity of facts we have and at the same timer we wonder why on earth nobody has been charged on the bais of the rather more extensive evidence the PJ will have. One of the factors is that it is "insufficient", which does not mean that what there is is pointing anywhere else but in one direction. In the UK, this is often indicated by "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with our enquiries". Over in Portugal, it seems more a case of "show me the body".

Some do go further and generate wild and vehemently expressed conspiracy, but then one does not have to set any sore by it.

You yourself said in an earlier post about something being a fact then qualified it by "I think", and that sums it all up very nicely indeed.

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi platinum,i highly doubt that gerry removed the fridge for any reason other than it was broke,i thought there were bodily fluids in the boot of the scenic & since madeleine had been missing for so long(from the alarm raised to the hire of the car) that is why the investigation came to the conclusion, that a body had been frozen/stored in refridgeration? no?

Only no body fluids were found in the boot of the car were they? Not absolutely sure about that but have it in mind that there is nothing in the actual files to back it up.

I would be grateful if someone could point me to references from the files to body fluids having been found in the car. I know a little of Gerry's blood was on the keyfob but other fluids I mean. The only references I can find are from Goncalo Amaral not from the files.

This thread, one of my favourites entitled 'more about dna from an expert' will show you that according to USA and British law the fluids found in the boot could be said to be Madelaine Mccann's with a high probability mathematically, furthermore the order of error is 1 for 1 billion so in the eyes of the investigation It is almost impossible it was anyone otherwise.

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t12417-more-about-dna-from-an-expert

I have looked at that thread and don't see any references in it to precise parts of the PJ files where I can check what is said.
I am not interested in references to newspaper reports. They are worthless as they have so often been shown to be based on nothing but rumour.

Still waiting for any reference from the actual files to "bodily fluids" other than the blood on the keyfob being found in the car. It may be that I have simply missed it but I have looked and as I say the only actual direct quotes I can find are from Goncalo Amaral but nothing from the files.

The End Is Nigh wrote:@platinum:

Couldn't agree with you more about facts vs. conspiracy.

Fortunately, most of us - including yourself, otherwise we wouldn't have your input - concern ourselves with seeking inconsistencies, impossibilities, probabilities and likelihoods from the paucity of facts we have and at the same timer we wonder why on earth nobody has been charged on the bais of the rather more extensive evidence the PJ will have. One of the factors is that it is "insufficient", which does not mean that what there is is pointing anywhere else but in one direction. In the UK, this is often indicated by "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with our enquiries". Over in Portugal, it seems more a case of "show me the body".

Some do go further and generate wild and vehemently expressed conspiracy, but then one does not have to set any sore by it.

You yourself said in an earlier post about something being a fact then qualified it by "I think", and that sums it all up very nicely indeed.

You forget that I later went on to give full details of the fact I was thinking about. So, yes it sums it up. I only want facts, not conspiracies or rumours in the papers.

I do find it amazing that so many people believe that the PJ were completely unable to even determine when Madeleine went missing. Do people really believe that the PJ are so poor at their jobs?

I don't really understand your point about nobody being charged and the PJ having extensive evidence we haven't seen. We aren't really important. The Prosecutor was clear that there was no indication of any crime by the McCanns or Murat. He didn't say there was insufficient indication. And what makes you say there is rather more extensive evidence that the PJ will have? Don't you think the Prosecutor took everything into account when he archived the case and said

"it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."

Do you think he just ignored some of the other extensive evidence you claim the PJ must have? Besides the known stuff the Leicester Police asked them to withold do you actually know of any proof there is anything else?

I am not one of those who think the PJ are useless, just human.

Not sure why, if you want to deal in facts alone, you are engaging in debate about things you consider to have little linkage to fact?

And I do not agree we are unimportant: the Law and the Authorities that enforce it, are there to serve us the people. It isn't a "them and us" thing - we are the "Establishment" (Horrid word, I know) and if so many people are concerned about aspects of the Madeleine McCann case (If, indeed, it really is all about that poor unfortunate) including the outcome, the inconsistencies, the possibilities, probabilities, likelihoods, impossibilities and many other factors then it is incumbent upon us to keep the matter very much at the forefront and to lobby in whatever way we can to ensure Justice.

But it isn't compulsory.

The End Is Nigh wrote:I am not one of those who think the PJ are useless, just human.

Not sure why, if you want to deal in facts alone, you are engaging in debate about things you consider to have little linkage to fact?

And I do not agree we are unimportant: the Law and the Authorities that enforce it, are there to serve us the people. It isn't a "them and us" thing - we are the "Establishment" (Horrid word, I know) and if so many people are concerned about aspects of the Madeleine McCann case (If, indeed, it really is all about that poor unfortunate) including the outcome, the inconsistencies, the possibilities, probabilities, likelihoods, impossibilities and many other factors then it is incumbent upon us to keep the matter very much at the forefront and to lobby in whatever way we can to ensure Justice.

But it isn't compulsory.

I am not engaging in debate about things I consider have little linkage to face. I am just pointing out that others are.

Yes I agree we should keep the matter at the forefront but the fact is that we don't have access as the Prosecutor had to everything and cannot do the job of the police or prosecutors for them. It was their decision not to do a reconstruction when it was most useful for example. That is not as you claimed earlier me knocking the early part of the investigation. Its a statement of fact.

I am still wondering why you claim there is more extensive evidence in the hands of the PJ? And why you think there was insufficient evidence when the Prosecutor is clear there was "no indication" at all of any crime by the McCanns or Murat and nothing to show what happened.

The PJ wanted to do the reconstruction one year to the day, so that the weather conditions, lighting etc would be as close as possible to the original. Only the McCann's "friends" were too busy shopping, having their hair done and playing golf to go back and participate. Now if that had been my friends, I would have been dragging them back by the hair, whether it was freshly coiffeured or not.

Iris wrote:The PJ wanted to do the reconstruction one year to the day, so that the weather conditions, lighting etc would be as close as possible to the original. Only the McCann's "friends" were too busy shopping, having their hair done and playing golf to go back and participate. Now if that had been my friends, I would have been dragging them back by the hair, whether it was freshly coiffeured or not.

You seem to forget that Goncalo Amaral tells us that they PJ themselves decided not to do a reconstruction when it mattered most of all. Just after the disappearance. They didn't want to spoil people's holidays and didn't want to close air space were reasons given.

As for the later reconstruction a year later then if you had tried to drag people by the hair you would have got yourself arrested in this country. There is no way you can force people to go abroad. The friends followed the legal advice from lawyers and UK police not to go back. Most people would do what their lawyers and the UK police advise them. I know I would take legal advice very seriously. Perhaps you would just ignore it.

platinum wrote:

Iris wrote:The PJ wanted to do the reconstruction one year to the day, so that the weather conditions, lighting etc would be as close as possible to the original. Only the McCann's "friends" were too busy shopping, having their hair done and playing golf to go back and participate. Now if that had been my friends, I would have been dragging them back by the hair, whether it was freshly coiffeured or not.

You seem to forget that Goncalo Amaral tells us that they PJ themselves decided not to do a reconstruction when it mattered most of all. Just after the disappearance. They didn't want to spoil people's holidays and didn't want to close air space were reasons given.

As for the later reconstruction a year later then if you had tried to drag people by the hair you would have got yourself arrested in this country. There is no way you can force people to go abroad. The friends followed the legal advice from lawyers and UK police not to go back. Most people would do what their lawyers and the UK police advise them. I know I would take legal advice very seriously. Perhaps you would just ignore it.

Just like publicising my daughter's eye defect, against advice, as a good marketing ploy. Ghouls.

ETA I have not forgotton ANYTHING, and you can suppose about me whatever you like, doesn't make it true. I suppose you'll be trying to contact me to offer me "legal advice" now.

Iris wrote:

Just like publicising my daughter's eye defect, against advice, as a good marketing ploy. Ghouls.

Are you aware who publicised the eye defect first? Or do you still think it was the McCanns?

The "Ghouls" seem to have been the PJ under Amaral who publicised the eye defect just one day after she went missing. I think you will find that was before the McCanns did so.