family

Fern wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Fern wrote:

They could ask although without any new evidence, where would this leave the PJ ?

The PJ has nothing to do with re-opening the case or not.
If they don't ask, they will never know. And not only have they never formally asked but they also didn't avoid the shelving. They don't seem that interested, do they?

So lets just say the McCanns made a request to the RP to have the case re-opened without there being no new evidence, then what ?

Surely the case would just be in limbo without a lead/new evidence to investigate ?

Fern, they were given a few weeks before the case was shelved in which they could have asked for it to be kept open. They didn't. They have still not asked for it to be reopened, so without asking, they won't know, will they?

I would have thought they'd have followed the advice from their legal team prior to the case being shelved however again, I come back to my previous question, what can be achieved WITHOUT any new evidence ?

How can this case progress regardless of whether the McCanns place a request or not if there is nothing for the PJ to investigate ?

One way the case could progress is for the McCanns and their holiday friends to go to Praia da Luz and take part in a reconstruction. New information could be gained from just that. Could Jane Tanne walk past two people, on the same side of the road, wearing flip-flops, and neither be seen nor heard? If a child were to be carried across the top of the road, in similar lighting conditions, in identical pyjamas to those said to have been worn by Madeleine, what would Jane Tanner see? In my opinion, she wouldn't see very much because those pyjamas had cropped, baggy legs, which would have ridden up over the knees of a child being carried as she described. No need to worry about her seeing colours because the pyjamas would just not look as she described them. She wouldn't have seen very much, if any, of the legs of the jammies.

A way for the case to progress is for the Mccanns and their mates to start telling the TRUTH!

Fern wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Fern wrote:

They could ask although without any new evidence, where would this leave the PJ ?

The PJ has nothing to do with re-opening the case or not.
If they don't ask, they will never know. And not only have they never formally asked but they also didn't avoid the shelving. They don't seem that interested, do they?

So lets just say the McCanns made a request to the RP to have the case re-opened without there being no new evidence, then what ?

Surely the case would just be in limbo without a lead/new evidence to investigate ?

Fern, they were given a few weeks before the case was shelved in which they could have asked for it to be kept open. They didn't. They have still not asked for it to be reopened, so without asking, they won't know, will they?

I would have thought they'd have followed the advice from their legal team prior to the case being shelved however again, I come back to my previous question, what can be achieved WITHOUT any new evidence ?

How can this case progress regardless of whether the McCanns place a request or not if there is nothing for the PJ to investigate ?

Fern, all they need to do is agree to a reconstruction or for Kate McCann to answer the 48 questions that she refused to answer in 2007. That would constitute new evidence. Ask yourself... why are they not rushing to do this eh??

AnnaEsse wrote:

One way the case could progress is for the McCanns and their holiday friends to go to Praia da Luz and take part in a reconstruction. New information could be gained from just that. Could Jane Tanne walk past two people, on the same side of the road, wearing flip-flops, and neither be seen nor heard? If a child were to be carried across the top of the road, in similar lighting conditions, in identical pyjamas to those said to have been worn by Madeleine, what would Jane Tanner see? In my opinion, she wouldn't see very much because those pyjamas had cropped, baggy legs, which would have ridden up over the knees of a child being carried as she described. No need to worry about her seeing colours because the pyjamas would just not look as she described them. She wouldn't have seen very much, if any, of the legs of the jammies.

This should have been a priority for the PJ regardless of the objections raised by Mark Warner etc in my opinion.

Whether any new information would have been gained from this that we don't already know, I'm not sure however I doubt very much it would constitute 'new' evidence.

Personally I feel a reconstruction some 5 years later will reveal nothing new therefore I see little point in the demands for it to take place now. Having read through the Tapas statements numerous times, its evident that there are inconsistancies and no doubt the PJ are well aware of these following the computerised reconstruction although given the amount of people involved, there are bound to be differences in times.

Fern wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Fern wrote:

They could ask although without any new evidence, where would this leave the PJ ?

The PJ has nothing to do with re-opening the case or not.
If they don't ask, they will never know. And not only have they never formally asked but they also didn't avoid the shelving. They don't seem that interested, do they?

So lets just say the McCanns made a request to the RP to have the case re-opened without there being no new evidence, then what ?

Surely the case would just be in limbo without a lead/new evidence to investigate ?

Fern, they were given a few weeks before the case was shelved in which they could have asked for it to be kept open. They didn't. They have still not asked for it to be reopened, so without asking, they won't know, will they?

I would have thought they'd have followed the advice from their legal team prior to the case being shelved however again, I come back to my previous question, what can be achieved WITHOUT any new evidence ?

How can this case progress regardless of whether the McCanns place a request or not if there is nothing for the PJ to investigate ?

Ever heard of a reconstruction and 48 unanswered questions? More than enough to re-open.
I come back to my previous questions too. Would you oppose the shelving of your missing child's case? Would you not ask for it's re-opening? Would you leave your three under four year olds alone?

ShabbyTiger wrote:

Fern, all they need to do is agree to a reconstruction or for Kate McCann to answer the 48 questions that she refused to answer in 2007. That would constitute new evidence. Ask yourself... why are they not rushing to do this eh??

With regards to the questions, Kate simply followed legal advice did she not ? Had she ignored this and answered them anyway then perhaps new evidence may have surfaced or it may not have, we just don't know do we as we don't know what answers Kate would have given.

In my opinion, no 'new' evidence could be gained from a reconstruction now.

Ask yourself, what would a reconstruction highlight that the PJ aren't ALREADY aware of ?

There are discrepancies not only in the statements, but also in Kate's book and also in the interviews they have done, they also changed their statements after meeting at the Rothley Hotel. A few minor discrepancies could be overlooked, but that is not the case as everyone fully knows, we are not talking about a couple of small discrepancies here.

As anyone who has read the PJ files would clearly know, the inconsistencies are not just about
differences in times!

Claudia79 wrote:

Ever heard of a reconstruction and 48 unanswered questions? More than enough to re-open.

I come back to my previous questions too. Would you oppose the shelving of your missing child's case? Would you not ask for it's re-opening? Would you leave your three under four year olds alone?

I have just answered your first comment in response to ShabbyTigers question.

If I am to view this from a personal perspective then of course I would have to reply knowing that I would be 100% innocent. I don't share the same opinion of the McCanns therefore its all rather irrelevant isn't it.

What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace.

quote[What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace]

Who is to say this was the reason for Madeleines disapearance?

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of parents wouldn't do this...so are we to believe 9 very intelligent people...would

matthew wrote:quote[What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace]

Who is to say this was the reason for Madeleines disapearance?

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of parents wouldn't do this...so are we to believe 9 very intelligent people...would

In my opinion the children were left alone Matthew. Each night.

Fern wrote:

matthew wrote:quote[What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace]

Who is to say this was the reason for Madeleines disapearance?

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of parents wouldn't do this...so are we to believe 9 very intelligent people...would

In my opinion the children were left alone Matthew. Each night.

Fair enough...but a different member of the tapas was ill on certain nights so at least some children had a parent on some nights of the week...,albeit sat on the pan with a dicky tummy....

Claudia79 wrote:

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Exactly. They prevented the search from going on when there were more chances of finding her, dead or alive.
The can always ask for it to be re-opened. The PGR confirmed there were no requests from the McCanns (or SY) to re-open it.

They could ask although without any new evidence, where would this leave the PJ ?

The PJ has nothing to do with re-opening the case or not.
If they don't ask, they will never know. And not only have they never formally asked but they also didn't avoid the shelving. They don't seem that interested, do they?

No, they do not seem that interested. From day (night) one, they didn't even look for Madeleine but after five years they still want the rest of the world to look.

matthew wrote:

Fern wrote:

matthew wrote:quote[What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace]

Who is to say this was the reason for Madeleines disapearance?

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of parents wouldn't do this...so are we to believe 9 very intelligent people...would

In my opinion the children were left alone Matthew. Each night.

Fair enough...but a different member of the tapas was ill on certain nights so at least some children had a parent on some nights of the week...,albeit sat on the pan with a dicky tummy....

Saturday: Nobody sick, children ate with then.
Sunday: Matthew Oldfield sick.
Monday: Nobody admits to being sick.
Tuesday: Russell O'Brien (or his child) sick.
Wednesday: Rachel Oldfield sick.
Thursday: Ruseel and Jane allegedly back and forth all night for a sick child.

Thats correct as you can see above, although I'm unsure where you're heading with this Matthew ?

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Ever heard of a reconstruction and 48 unanswered questions? More than enough to re-open.

I come back to my previous questions too. Would you oppose the shelving of your missing child's case? Would you not ask for it's re-opening? Would you leave your three under four year olds alone?

I have just answered your first comment in response to ShabbyTigers question.

If I am to view this from a personal perspective then of course I would have to reply knowing that I would be 100% innocent. I don't share the same opinion of the McCanns therefore its all rather irrelevant isn't it.

What I would say though is that I NEVER leave my children out of my sight let alone leave them alone.

There is no excuse that I will accept from anyone that will ever justify the actions of the Tapas group as a whole for leaving those children alone. It was an absolute disgrace.

Your opinions and personal feelings are yours and you are entitled to them. But that is not what we are discussing. As far as I know you didn't go on holiday with 3 children, returned with only 2 and blamed everyone except yourself. That said, you have the parents of a missing child claiming all they want is for the case to be re-opened yet they failed to formally ask for that (if they did and it was refused they could finally say they had tried) not to mention that they refused to stop the shelving in the first place. I don't care if they were advised or not. What I haven't seen is an explanation why the parents of a missing child who have nothing whatsoever to do with her disappearance refuse to do the basics to allow the investigation to continue. I have read hundreds of excuses for their behaviour but I haven't read a convincing one why this is. Can you help me?

interested wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Exactly. They prevented the search from going on when there were more chances of finding her, dead or alive.
The can always ask for it to be re-opened. The PGR confirmed there were no requests from the McCanns (or SY) to re-open it.

They could ask although without any new evidence, where would this leave the PJ ?

The PJ has nothing to do with re-opening the case or not.
If they don't ask, they will never know. And not only have they never formally asked but they also didn't avoid the shelving. They don't seem that interested, do they?

No, they do not seem that interested. From day (night) one, they didn't even look for Madeleine but after five years they still want the rest of the world to look.

I'm waiting for them to come here and knock on the PGR's door instead of having legal meetings to discuss who and how to sue.

cherry1 wrote:There are discrepancies not only in the statements, but also in Kate's book and also in the interviews they have done, they also changed their statements after meeting at the Rothley Hotel. A few minor discrepancies could be overlooked, but that is not the case as everyone fully knows, we are not talking about a couple of small discrepancies here.

You are so right cherry.

The discrepancies are legion and glaringly obvious. Any detective investigating what happened to Madeleine McCann who ignores the endless red flags and multiple changes in Kate and Gerry McCanns version of events, has to have a very dubious agenda indeed!

Claudia79 wrote:

Your opinions and personal feelings are yours and you are entitled to them. But that is not what we are discussing. As far as I know you didn't go on holiday with 3 children, returned with only 2 and blamed everyone except yourself. That said, you have the parents of a missing child claiming all they want is for the case to be re-opened yet they failed to formally ask for that (if they did and it was refused they could finally say they had tried) not to mention that they refused to stop the shelving in the first place. I don't care if they were advised or not. What I haven't seen is an explanation why the parents of a missing child who have nothing whatsoever to do with her disappearance refuse to do the basics to allow the investigation to continue. I have read hundreds of excuses for their behaviour but I haven't read a convincing one why this is. Can you help me?

Yet isn't thats all we can do with the information we have, give an opinion ?

I have no idea what has been going on behind closed doors and what requests have been put to their legal team in order to discover the likelyhood of any such requests with regards to reopeing the case have of succeeding however apart from GAs comment (price of stamp) I have yet to encounter ANY mention that only a letter is required, from any other source.

My understanding is that the case will only be reopened if NEW fresh evidence emerges.

And thats it, no letter from the McCanns, nothing.

pennylane wrote:

cherry1 wrote:There are discrepancies not only in the statements, but also in Kate's book and also in the interviews they have done, they also changed their statements after meeting at the Rothley Hotel. A few minor discrepancies could be overlooked, but that is not the case as everyone fully knows, we are not talking about a couple of small discrepancies here.

You are so right cherry.

The discrepancies are legion and glaringly obvious. Any detective investigating what happened to Madeleine McCann who ignores the endless red flags and multiple changes in Kate and Gerry McCanns version of events, has to have a very dubious agenda indeed!

couldnt agree more, I think anyone who is ignoring the endless red flags and multiple changes in their version of events, does have a very dubious agenda indeed!!

Fern wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Your opinions and personal feelings are yours and you are entitled to them. But that is not what we are discussing. As far as I know you didn't go on holiday with 3 children, returned with only 2 and blamed everyone except yourself. That said, you have the parents of a missing child claiming all they want is for the case to be re-opened yet they failed to formally ask for that (if they did and it was refused they could finally say they had tried) not to mention that they refused to stop the shelving in the first place. I don't care if they were advised or not. What I haven't seen is an explanation why the parents of a missing child who have nothing whatsoever to do with her disappearance refuse to do the basics to allow the investigation to continue. I have read hundreds of excuses for their behaviour but I haven't read a convincing one why this is. Can you help me?

Yet isn't thats all we can do with the information we have, give an opinion ?

I have no idea what has been going on behind closed doors and what requests have been put to their legal team in order to discover the likelyhood of any such requests with regards to reopeing the case have of succeeding however apart from GAs comment (price of stamp) I have yet to encounter ANY mention that only a letter is required, from any other source.

My understanding is that the case will only be reopened if NEW fresh evidence emerges.

And thats it, no letter from the McCanns, nothing.

Can you understand why they haven't tried? What would they lose if they asked (apart from the risk of actually having it re-opened)? Couldn't they finally say (and this time truthfully) that they asked for it to be re-opened but it was refused by the Portuguese authorities? And if it was your missing child, would you oppose the shelving or would you take advantage of the law and keep the investigation going?

what i dont get is all the bleating about we re the only ones looking et etc., and this has happened because the McCs allowed the case to close. they did not want it to remain open, all they had to do then was ask. now with the assistance of Robert Murdoch, the Sun and a letter to the Prime Minister, he replied as a parent, they have had assembled for them a review currently costing 2m,37 people from DCI's down to civilian operatives (not that i think they are any less important), that have come up with the startling conclusion that Madeleine is either alive or dead, a battalion of media journos, making xenophobic comments about and bashing the PJ to give succour to the McCs, ex Home Secretarys who should remember they are retired, and who publicly said that political interference should now be the method of persuasion, and all because they now want it re-opened. Or do they, it seems this is what DCI andy redwood wants, because he wants it doesnt mean the McCs want it. All they have asked for is a review. they want to use the UK NSY, the establishment, to come to a decision; they already have there was an abduction, to bash the PJ over the head with, and use it to try to slaughter Goncalo Amaral in their libel trial. jimo

Hi everyone. I posted the other day about a clip that I had seen on a Spanish morning show. Cannot find the exact video as yet as there are so many. All in Spanish of course but shots that I have never seen before.
So just key in Madeleine McCann in the top right hand search and there are many videos, with as I say shots never seen before in the uk. I am still going through them. Will make no more comments just yet.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.rtve.es/television/la-manana-de-la-1/&ei=glidT_SDGMrD0QXCvfHnDg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD4Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DEsta%2BManana%2BLa1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D607%26prmd%3Dimvns

There is another but need to go back for that.

Not 'the' one I am looking for but go to page 3, the third one down, a short video but on the page you load it from on the left hand side is a list entitled videos relacionadas, go and watch the top one with the car head lights, it is a long video, 11.53 minutes and at 1.28

I do remember reading they brought their bathing suits. (Just had a horrible thought - PM..). I also think they went on a family holiday to Turkey, not long after that. I'll try to find where I'd read it.

tigger wrote:I do remember reading they brought their bathing suits. (Just had a horrible thought - PM..). I also think they went on a family holiday to Turkey, not long after that. I'll try to find where I'd read it.

I THINK IT WAS AUNTY PHIL WHO WENT TO TURKEY ON THE AEGEAN SEA(EPHESUS AREA?)