So why did Madeleine McCann Detectives Ask So Few Questions?

Excellent article by Dr Martin Roberts


YACHT WOMAN - A STORY GONE OVERBOARD

Unexpectedly, as if from the depths of the Black Lagoon, the McCann case has acquired both a new witness and a new (female) suspect. Opening yesterday's press conference, Clarence Mitchell intoned: "The investigators or I will not be revealing any detail of what was said to the witness by the woman." Less than 24 hours later and the press are chorusing exactly what was said to the witness by the woman; well almost anyway.

During a conversation which 'lead investigator' Dave Edgar described as lasting "two or three minutes" (as long as it takes to boil an egg) the woman is said to have asked the same question three times. That explains, perhaps, why The Sun and The Daily Mirror quote her as asking: "Have you got her? Have you got the child?" whereas The Daily Express rendition is: "Are you here to deliver my new daughter?" Or were there two independent 'leaks' to the press perhaps?

This sharply dressed lady is clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed if it took her a full three minutes to recognise a case of mistaken identity. But maybe it was good old British bravado that sustained her interest in a married, middle-aged, wannabe playboy. A source close to the investigation in Portugal told the Daily Express, apparently: "The new witness is a senior bank manager. He was in Barcelona for his brother's stag do. He was not drinking because he was keeping an eye on his brother." The source might have done well to share this detail with Dave Edgar who, when asked about the same individual at the press conference, said: "The witness had been drinking. He wasn't drunk." Clearly, an interval of two years and the intrusion of 'personal reasons' stimulated selective amnesia in this instance.

Turning to the seemingly mischievous female (an antipodean speaker of Castillian and/or Catalan - or 'Strine' even), it is worth paging back 24 hrs to yesterday's press conference, and the following exchange which took place shortly before its conclusion.

Q: "How does this match what... what happened in Portugal...? You suspect that she arrived in Barcelona by yacht. How does this match what could have happened in Praia da Luz?"

DE: "All I say is, it... it's something we looked at. It's possible to get there by yacht. It's, errm... a busy port, Barcelona, it, errr... you know, there's yachts there from all over the world. There's cruise ships land there, there's ferry ships land there so it... it's entirely possible." (that she arrived by yacht).

Q: "And how does this match... the previous e-fits that you had of the man that was seen by Jane Tanner in Praia da Luz? Do these two stories match at all?"

DE: "Well, obviously, the Jane Tanner sighting, she's... her perception was it was a man and this... this is a woman. We obviously haven't... Jane Tanner could have been wrong - it could have been a woman, errm... so we've got an open mind on that."

Now let's just hold it there.

Dave Edgar having already discussed the feasibility of travelling to Barcelona by yacht from Portugal, the assembled press are now being invited to entertain two potentially related notions: 1. The woman possibly arrived in Barcelona by yacht. 2. She might have been the individual seemingly spotted by Jane Tanner on the night of May 3rd. Bringing the two together implies that she might have travelled to Barcelona, by yacht, from Portugal - with Madeleine.

Again, this is very much a 'pre-press' moment, and Dave Edgar has repeatedly refused so far to divulge the substance of the conversation between witness and suspect (for suspect this lady must be). But he knows what it is, surely? He knows that she thrice asked the man whether he had come to deliver her new daughter. Why on earth should she ask such a question if she had brought Maddie to Barcelona herself?

Small wonder then that Clarence Mitchell should step in to undo the anomaly:

CM: "We're not suggesting today that it's one and the same person by any means. I mean the circumstances in Portugal have their own set of circumstances round them and this is, errr... it may be connected, it may not be."

DE: "Yes, yes. That's right."

Keeping their options open, notice. But if there is a connection to be made in the manner suggested, then the interpretation placed upon the conversation, as subsequently revealed, is completely illogical. Yet no more so than the introduction of the 'yacht' hypothesis in the first place. An earlier commentary here (All At Sea) points up just how unlikely it is for this woman and/or Madeleine to have journeyed by sea from Portugal to Barcelona within 72 hours - not impossible, just highly improbable. Yet the Daily Express find themselves engulfed in the swell:

'Less than 1,000 miles as the crow flies, the journey from the Algarve to Barcelona is easily achieved in less than 36 hours by sea in a high-powered cruiser or less than 14 hours by car. Mr Edgar said: "Madeleine most definitely could have got from the area to Barcelona by yacht."

'The Portuguese source said: "Boats have been recorded leaving Albufeira and arriving in Barcelona one day later."'

Well, 'as the crow flies' is hardly a useful measure of nautical distance (in excess of 700 nautical miles in this case) and to cover the relevant distance in 24 hours would require cruising at a sustained 30 knots plus. One wonders whether the 'high-powered cruiser' referred to in the article is a Royal Navy vessel. To inform the debate however, here are some relevant observations from an anonymous but knowledgeable UK source:

"There is no sailing yacht under half a million that could possibly work at a speed of 13 knots. Averaging 6 knots would need a very fast yacht too. Winds are not particularly strong in that area, unless you are lucky. Often, the wind is good, but it's on the nose.

"Motor yachts are very thirsty and require frequent stops for diesel.

"If you really mean sailing, that is 700 nautical miles, then the only place you get the sort of wind that gives you continuous sailing like that (to average 10 knots) is in the open ocean, e.g. the North Atlantic, the Indian Ocean. The Mediterranean is notoriously fickle with light and variable breezes."

As suggested elsewhere therefore, the sheer cost of the proposed adventure is well beyond the means of any jay-walking paedophile.

Now that the Tabloids have 'gone to press', one might reasonably adopt the point of view that the woman arrived by yacht from somewhere other than the Iberian peninsular, and that Madeleine travelled independently by road. The problem with this entire farrago however, is that this is not the scenario set out categorically by Messrs. Mitchell and Edgar at the press conference beforehand. And if they don't know what to believe, how are the press and the public to make any sense of it all? There again, maybe that's the point.

Best of Peter Rhodes column, 14 August 2009

Best of Peter Rhodes column Express and Star

Peter Rhodes
14 August 2009

YOU can tell the silly season has begun - there is a "development" in the Madeleine McCann story. More than two years after the little girl vanished in Portugal, a report emerges of a mysterious woman who, three days after the 2007 abduction, asked a tourist in Barcelona (700 miles away) : "Are you here to deliver my new daughter?" As you do.

The "stunned tourist" kept quiet about this conversation for so long "for personal reasons". As you do.

It's just another Maddie fairytale. Take a huge pinch of salt with it. As you do.

________________________________________________

Another good snippet from Peter Rhodes

Cameron: Will he give every missing-child the 'McCann' touch ?

http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/2011/05/18/will-every-missing-child-inquiry-get-the-downing-street-treatment/

Will every missing-child inquiry get the Downing Street treatment?

Wednesday 18th May 2011, 6:00AM BST.

At the request of David Cameron, Scotland Yard is to review the case of Madeleine McCann, writes Peter Rhodes.

The PM may come to regret it.

In all probability the Yard will find nothing. No body, no abducted child – just more years of anxiety and blame.

Blame is tacky, corrosive stuff. In this terrible case, some blame has stuck to the Portuguese police and some to the McCanns.

Now that David Cameron has tried to do something, some folk will inevitably blame him for not doing enough.

And once he has called for a review in this case, how can he deny other cases? Will every missing-child inquiry get the Downing Street treatment?

It is a golden rule of politics not to get involved with hopeless causes.
When David Cameron, father and family man, decided to intervene in the Madeleine McCann case, he was thinking with his heart, not his head.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/cameron-will-he-give-every-missing.html


Sounds like a sensible chap who hasn't been taken in by them.

Could be the McCanns are aware of the public reaction to Cameron's agreement to a Review, costing £3.5 million while the McCanns continue to make money and Kate is threatening us with a new Bewk to make yet more money for themselves. They don't need an Investigator and I suspect Edgar has
joined the ranks of the unemployed.

This latest pathetic attempt to stimulate interest in Madeleine just makes them look ridiculous.

I can't figure this out so maybe someone can for me.


The picture off this women...where'd did they get it from and the baffling question .....how come there actually WAS a women.



So....it's the chicken and egg thing....was it coincidence that there WAS a women who looked exactly like this...was it coincidence or....did the women come first and THEN the efit?

I bet Vicky won't be happy, been brought into this mess......yet again!!



Obviously this story is the best they had, for them to regurgitate it right at this time.

Pat in PT, Tony's hearing, Amaral case coming up and.......Scotland Yard review!!!

To quote GM at a press conference in Brussells some years ago, "This is all old stuff and incredibly boring". This is the first time I find myself in agreement with that creep. It reminds me of Pink floyd's "Wish you were here," you know, the bit where it says, "We're like two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl year after year, going over the same old ground ... etc.
Where are the frontpage headlines on this one? Where's the press conference? A bit on Facebook and that's all? Personally I fink someone is 'avin a larf.

i would haul this lot in for questioning...for starters
[/quote]


I have always wondered why is O'Brien missing from this photograph ? Were we ever told ?

Someone has to operate the shutter. (Unless it has been jemmied, obviously!)

thank you ! i didn't realise this was a team mccann publication, i should have known, there is always someone missing from their photos.

mossman wrote:thank you ! i didn't realise this was a team mccann publication, i should have known, there is always someone missing from their photos.

Aye, Maddie. Poor wee soul. She's missing from just about everything else nowadays as well. None of this charade is about her anymore.