Review Into Madeleine's Disappearance

mariang wrote:But surely on going over the initial statements of the T7 is enough to bring them in for questioning again and again and again?? This has to be where the answers lay. There timeline just doesnt add up. Neither does the abduction theory - we only have JT word for it. Surely this can be gone over again. Reviewing after the initial couple of days should come after - surely? I am no policeman but I would have thought a start at the very beginning is the place to start?
Unless they are properly interviewed in a correct manner how is this going to draw conclusion?

Hi mariang, you are quite right, the key to
solving this mystery is in the T7 statements
and their initial verbal reports to the Pt police.
For example, Tanner reported that 'bundleman'
was 'running off'! Afterwards, this was altered
to 'walking with purpose' or words to that affect.
It was obvious that Tanner could not describe
her culprit if he was legging it carrying a child
with out-stretched arms!
This IMO provided the PJ with a WTF moment
and they knew she was unreliable and dishonest.

Neither can I see why all of this review should cost all of this money? Thank goodness I no longer live in the uk and my taxes are paying it!! Surely it should only take a matter of weeks to go through the initial statements and draw conclusion?????
The whole fiasco absolutely stinks!

mariang wrote:But surely on going over the initial statements of the T7 is enough to bring them in for questioning again and again and again?? This has to be where the answers lay. There timeline just doesnt add up. Neither does the abduction theory - we only have JT word for it. Surely this can be gone over again. Reviewing after the initial couple of days should come after - surely? I am no policeman but I would have thought a start at the very beginning is the place to start?
Unless they are properly interviewed in a correct manner how is this going to draw conclusion?

I agree with you, but and it is a big but, it depends on what the review is supposed to do in the first place. Is its purpose to review the files, the methodolog by which the original investigation was undertaken, look at the evidence that is contained within the files, and then make a recommendation. For example the recommendations might be that the parents should be further questioned, that the only avenue to further explore is their involvement, or indeed that they were not involved and bundleman should further investigated. Is the next step then they recommend the re-opening of the investigation, a decision made between the UK authorities and the Portugese authorities, and then, and only then, do the interviews start.

I am asking if this is the case, not suggesting it is. I am still unclear in my own mind what exactly the review is, but for me interviewing and questioning is investigating and I am fairly sure there is a marked difference between reviewing and investigating.

In actual fact are SY carrying out a similar exercise to what happens here ? Read, review, discuss, draw conclusions, but on a different level with more detailed information ?

Anyone know ?

LJC wrote:That's okay kathybelle, no offence meant.

My point of view when you say they asked David Cameron to do the review, however, will differ. Yes, they asked David Cameron to carry out a review, meaning, I beleive, that they asked him to put the wheels in motion and instruct those capable of carrying out a review, which he did. David Cameron himself is not capable of carrying out a review. What experience has he? What time has he? I doubt, as Prime Minister, he can even fit in a full 8 hours sleep most nights without being disturbed by phone calls. All he can do, as Prime Minister, is either authorise or turn down specific requests and if he grants such requests he would, in turn, instruct another organisation to do the necessary work involved. I thought, at some point in time, that I had read that West Yorkshire Police were going to either re-investigate or do a review, but, following the McCanns request now, Cameron has authorised SY to do this.

We should not expect this to come to a conclusion any time soon I think. Such reviews can take months, years and even more years. Any review is a huge task, and this one especially. Can you imagine the bundle after bundle and box after box of paperwork, all to be read through, perhaps more than once. It is huge, enormous and painstaking. I doubt we will even know its conclusion when it is eventually reached, although would not be surprised if this was not leeked.

As for what would happen if it were one of the other tapas friends whose child went missing, I doubt it would be much different to be honest, depending on their personalities. The McCanns, I think, have nerve in plentiful supply and they are in this for the long haul. I do not think it would have been any different whoever of them had lost their child in terms of the initial police investigation and how the PJ handled it, but whether any of the others would have had the fight in them that the McCanns have, I am not so sure, but saying that, none of them have buckled under up until now, so who knows. I personally do not think there has been any sort of protection, just lack of enough proof up until now for this case to go to Court with. Court cases are very costly, costs can be awarded to the prosecution if they fail to persuade a judge and jury and, in my opinion, better to wait 20 years and get it right than go with what we have to date and see them walk out of Court talking about compensation and selling even more stories to the press. Oh I would hate that. This has got to be as water-tight as it can be or, if not, I would prefer they spend a lifetime with everyone pointing fingers at them still, anything but to see them walk out of Court as free people and immediately start to sue all and sundry again.

Regarding the McCanns request for David Cameron to carry out the review, it would be quite clear, that he wouldn't be able to conduct the review, because of his other committments. However David Cameron is the person the McCanns wanted to conduct out the review and when they were told that Scotland Yard, would be assisting the PJ with the review, they said they only partially got what they asked for.

This review would not be taking place at all if the report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida had been accepted by the authorities. The McCanns had already broken the law, when they admitted leaving their children unsupervised each time they went out and if they were to be believed Madeleine disappeared while they were out. The PJ didn't believe that Madeleine was abducted and they looked for proof that she wasn't abducted.

I believe the Portuguese police, would have arrested the McCanns for the offences they had admitted to, if the McCanns hadn't got Gordon Brown involved within one hour of Madeleine's disappearance. Once the McCanns had been arrested, the PJ would have still carried on looking for proof that she wasn't abducted. The the evidence that was found in the McCanns apartment would have been accepted, if the British Government hadn't been involved with this case. I'm not sure if the evidence that was found in the McCanns hire car would have been accepted.

I once read an article where Goncalo Amaral said that the PJ were building a case against the McCanns and they were about to bring a prosecution when they were told by a higher authority, that they couldn't go ahead. I will always believe that the arguido status given to the McCanns was nothing but a paper excercise. The McCanns were never made to adhere to the terms of the arguido status, unlike Robert Murat. Their passports were given back to them. They were told they could go home and they were given a police escort to the Algarve airport. Robert Murat on the other hand, had to stay put.

There was enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns in May 2007 and there still is enough evidence to prosecute the McCanns in 2012, the PJ still have the evidence written in the files the McCanns want, but can't have. It would have taken the homicide detectives, less than a day to determine that fact. Instead they are looking for ways and means to exonerate the McCanns, in my opinion of course.

What is it that made the McCanns immune from prosecution? As soon as the news of Madeleine was announced prominent people as well as celebrities, began to pledge money for a reward, but as soon as there was a threat that they might be prosecuted, Richard Branson, gave a public interview to the media and said that if the McCanns were prosecuted, he would pay for the best lawyers in the land, to defend them. Why? They had already broken the law, each time they left their children unattended, so why shouldn't they have faced prosecution?

Richard Branson had also put £100k into the fund that was set up to find Madeleine and is used by the McCanns and their wider family to aid their finances as well as pay for the McCanns failed law suits.

Madeleine was treated disgracefully by her parents, I know the twins were as well, but Madeleine is central to this case because she is the one who has born the brunt of the McCanns behaviour. Madeleine has also been denied justice, by the ones who were on a mission to make sure the McCanns were not prosecuted.

Why was Ben Needham's mum told "no, no, no," each time she asked for help from the Government, before Madeleine disappeared? When the McCanns were told "yes, yes, yes," each time they made demands. It is only recently that Kerry has been offered help from the Government, but it is only a small amount, compared to the help the McCanns have been given and are continued to be given.

Everytime I read articles about this case and watch the You Tube videos, were Gerry McCann is smirking or laughing, I know that Kate and Gerry McCann, know exactly where Madeleine is and if she is dead or alive. I honestly fear for the safety of Sean and Amalie, while they are in the care of the McCanns.

Kate McCann has already said " I wanted to press a button and we're all gone, it's all finished and we're all together." This is another hint that she knows Madeleine is dead, her husband gave another hint, when he said "We're not responsible for Madeleine's death." Clarence Mitchell said similar when he said "if Madeleine is dead, then she is dead, but not by Kate and Gerry's hands." If Madeleine is dead, what makes Clarence so sure the McCanns didn't kill her? Does he hold the same information that the Priest who is taking what the McCanns told him to his grave, hold?

I know my post is a bit higgledy piggledy, but I'm speaking from the heart.

Great post Kathybelle

marxman wrote:Great post Kathybelle

marxman and thank you. The gist of my post is the McCanns should be behind bars, because there is 100% proof that they have committed a crime against Madeleine, whether she was abducted or not. It is costing us £2m for a review, which in my opinion will not lead to the prosecution of the McCanns, although I will continue to hope that I am wrong.

kathybelle wrote:

marxman wrote:Great post Kathybelle

marxman and thank you. The gist of my post is the McCanns should be behind bars, because there is 100% proof that they have committed a crime against Madeleine, whether she was abducted or not. It is costing us £2m for a review, which in my opinion will not lead to the prosecution of the McCanns, although I will continue to hope that I am wrong.

Greetings Kathybelle I understand your
frustration, and congratulate your stubbornness
to seek justice for Madeleine, especially when it
is so easy to accept the 'beak' from authority
and media. I hope that this review will not be
a beak that squacks the 'official' line and covers
up this scandal, because it will Not go away!
Sometimes, I think that the Mccanns are already
behind bars, bars of their own making, and bars
with no hope of escaping from unless they are
held for account and face the consequences of
their actions and Madeleine's existence and fate
are properly determined. I, like you can all but
hope.

Great post kathy, I hope SY are reading that!

cherry1 wrote:Great post kathy, I hope SY are reading that!

Cherry and thanks for your kind words.

I wish Scotland Yard would read all of our posts, then they will see that we're not prepared to accept any decision lying down, should the conclusion of the review, be in the McCanns favour.

This morning I replied to a poster on You Tube, who wishes that we would all shut up and stop criticising the McCanns when we know nothing about the case. As you can imagine, the poster got both barrels from me, in a polite way of course.

The stroppy McCann supporters I have come across in the past 5yrs, don't seem to care about Madeleine's whereabouts and if she is dead or alive. All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns. I wonder how many of these so called supporters are members of team McCann or if they are just posters looking for a fight.

kathybelle wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Great post kathy, I hope SY are reading that!

Cherry and thanks for your kind words.

I wish Scotland Yard would read all of our posts, then they will see that we're not prepared to accept any decision lying down, should the conclusion of the review, be in the McCanns favour.

This morning I replied to a poster on You Tube, who wishes that we would all shut up and stop criticising the McCanns when we know nothing about the case. As you can imagine, the poster got both barrels from me, in a polite way of course.

The stroppy McCann supporters I have come across in the past 5yrs, don't seem to care about Madeleine's whereabouts and if she is dead or alive. All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns. I wonder how many of these so called supporters are members of team McCann or if they are just posters looking for a fight.

they dont care less about maddie they never have and yet they say we hate her!!!! when all we do is advocate for HER

Some good posts and i agree the mccanns could and should have been banged up years ago and the fact that they havn't been means they wont and the SY 'review' is just a paper exersize to bury it.

Lioned wrote:Some good posts and i agree the mccanns could and should have been banged up years ago and the fact that they havn't been means they wont and the SY 'review' is just a paper exersize to bury it.

My beliefs entirely Lioned.

malena stool wrote:

Lioned wrote:Some good posts and i agree the mccanns could and should have been banged up years ago and the fact that they havn't been means they wont and the SY 'review' is just a paper exersize to bury it.

My beliefs entirely Lioned.

My beliefs too, but I think it disgusting that so much tax payers money is being used simply to keep the Mccanns happy. Will the government do this for other families who have children missing? I very much doubt it.

mara thon wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Lioned wrote:Some good posts and i agree the mccanns could and should have been banged up years ago and the fact that they havn't been means they wont and the SY 'review' is just a paper exersize to bury it.

My beliefs entirely Lioned.

My beliefs too, but I think it disgusting that so much tax payers money is being used simply to keep the Mccanns happy. Will the government do this for other families who have children missing? I very much doubt it.

Marathon

Ben Needhams mum Kerry, who along with her husband, wasn't responsible for Ben's disappearance, asked the Government for help many times, before and after Madeleine disappeared. Each time she asked she was told no.

The McCanns who are 100% responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, made one phone call to Gordon Brown and help was coming thick and fast. Money was thrown at them by the likes of Richard Branson, who made a public statement saying, if the McCanns were charged, he would pay for the best lawyers in the land to defend them.

Although Kerry is getting help now, or so the media say, she must have been gutted to see the McCanns getting the help that she was denied.

kathybelle - This morning I replied to a poster on You Tube, who wishes that we would all shut up and stop criticising the McCanns when we know nothing about the case. As you can imagine, the poster got both barrels from me, in a polite way of course.

The stroppy McCann supporters I have come across in the past 5yrs, don't seem to care about Madeleine's whereabouts and if she is dead or alive. All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns. I wonder how many of these so called supporters are members of team McCann or if they are just posters looking for a fight.


when we know nothing about the case

Some of the Mccann supporters know we have been following this case for many years and it is
because we DO know about the case that we are continuing to try and get some form of justice for Madeleine by doing all we can to bring into public awareness the PJ files and all the information withheld from the British public.

All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns

Sadly that does seem to be the case from what I have seen, Madeleine seems to have been forgotten about them, how will the truth be found out by people not asking questions, by people turning a blind eye to non co-operation, downright lies, distortions, etc., how will truth be found out by trying to intimidate and harrass those who are trying to get the facts of the case into the public domain.

cherry1 wrote:kathybelle - This morning I replied to a poster on You Tube, who wishes that we would all shut up and stop criticising the McCanns when we know nothing about the case. As you can imagine, the poster got both barrels from me, in a polite way of course.

The stroppy McCann supporters I have come across in the past 5yrs, don't seem to care about Madeleine's whereabouts and if she is dead or alive. All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns. I wonder how many of these so called supporters are members of team McCann or if they are just posters looking for a fight.


when we know nothing about the case

Some of the Mccann supporters know we have been following this case for many years and it is
because we DO know about the case that we are continuing to try and get some form of justice for Madeleine by doing all we can to bring into public awareness the PJ files and all the information withheld from the British public.

All they care about are the feelings of the McCanns

Sadly that does seem to be the case from what I have seen, Madeleine seems to have been forgotten about them, how will the truth be found out by people not asking questions, by people turning a blind eye to non co-operation, downright lies, distortions, etc., how will truth be found out by trying to intimidate and harrass those who are trying to get the facts of the case into the public domain.

Well said Cherry. Gerry McCann famously called their critics, nutters and sad individuals. He also said he was taking steps to closed down internet forums, because he didn't want the twins accessing forums and reading the "lies" that we tell about them.

The only reason Gerry doesn't want Sean and Amalie to access the internet forums, is because he knows they will learn the truth of what happened when they were on that so called family holiday.

It must be at least 2yrs ago, since Gerry said he was taking steps to close down internet forums and if he has tried, he has failed. There are more and more internet forums springing up that contain posts from people like ourselves. More and more people are wising up to the fact that the McCanns have played a massive part in Madeleine's disappearance.

I bet the McCanns regret not slinking away, when they had the chance to do so. I don't think they expected the backlash they have received since 2007. I think they expected their critics would get bored and find something else to talk about.

I certainly dont think they expected the backlash, they had the government behind them, celebrities. media etc., and thought the British public would join in with the attacking of the Portuguese Police while continuing to give money to the 'Fund'.

mariang wrote:Neither can I see why all of this review should cost all of this money? Thank goodness I no longer live in the uk and my taxes are paying it!! Surely it should only take a matter of weeks to go through the initial statements and draw conclusion?????
The whole fiasco absolutely stinks!

I think its an appropriate expense of money as the Mccann's have defrauded the public out of so much money for their 'fund',
have lots of seedy links to politicians and media as evidenced by the Leveson enquiry and if they are found to be guilty,
then there are lots of other dark forces at work which the public need to be aware were at work to keep them out of jail.
This is one of the biggest scandals of modern times. It is well worth the money.

What is the alternative? To let them continue appearing on tv every week requesting more money?

I still have faith in Redwood and I think the purpose of the panorama documentary was to let the mccann's know that they were on to them in a subtle way which could also be interpreted as showing that they have exhausted all over possibilities no matter how bizaare as puported by the Mccann's and thus are in a good position to make their final submissions.

Scotland Yard are currently in good stock and there is a change behind the scenes I feel. They got the murderers of Stephen Lawrence recently! They would want to build upon that success!

Loopdaloop wrote:

mariang wrote:Neither can I see why all of this review should cost all of this money? Thank goodness I no longer live in the uk and my taxes are paying it!! Surely it should only take a matter of weeks to go through the initial statements and draw conclusion?????
The whole fiasco absolutely stinks!

I think its an appropriate expense of money as the Mccann's have defrauded the public out of so much money for their 'fund',
have lots of seedy links to politicians and media as evidenced by the Leveson enquiry and if they are found to be guilty,
then there are lots of other dark forces at work which the public need to be aware were at work to keep them out of jail.
This is one of the biggest scandals of modern times. It is well worth the money.

What is the alternative? To let them continue appearing on tv every week requesting more money?

I still have faith in Redwood and I think the purpose of the panorama documentary was to let the mccann's know that they were on to them in a subtle way which could also be interpreted as showing that they have exhausted all over possibilities no matter how bizaare as puported by the Mccann's and thus are in a good position to make their final submissions.

Scotland Yard are currently in good stock and there is a change behind the scenes I feel. They got the murderers of Stephen Lawrence recently! They would want to build upon that success!

Good morning Loopdaloop

Well said. I must admit when I heard Andy Redwood, seeming to concur with the McCanns events of things, I wanted to throttle him. However after thinking about it, I thought maybe Redwood and his team are giving the McCanns enough rope to hang themselves.

If Redwood are doing their job properly, they will want the right result, not one that suits the McCanns and keeps them and their many "helpers" out of jail. I would imagine that by now, they will have read the evidence that brought Goncalo Amaral and Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the conclusion that Madeleine died in the McCanns apartment and the McCanns covered up the cadaver scent.

If they do their job properly and always assuming they're allowed, they should be asking the person in the Portuguese Authority, why this evidence wasn't accepted and the McCanns were told for want of a better word, that they had no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Andy Redwood and his team, should get to the bottom of the issue which is, why Gordon Brown, worked so swiftly to help the McCanns, when at that time Madeleine had only been missing for a very short time and there was a chance she would be found. As far as I am aware, Gordon Brown didn't send a search party over from the UK, to assist the police in their searches for Madeleine. Why not? If Madeleine was abducted, she was the one who was in need of help.

Regarding the help Brown along with Tony Blair, gave the McCanns, he sent the McCanns a spokesperson and ordered the 2 senior Diplomats who were based in the Algarve to assist the McCanns and attend to their every needs. Why? Who were the McCanns that they were offered all this help when other's including Ben Needham's mum and dad, were left to their own devices.

All this showed to me, is that the McCanns, Blair and Brown, were involved in something that would cause a huge scandal, should it come out.

Looking back at the Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies case, the Government of the day was brought down, because of the events that happened between the two women and certain politicians. If it means bringing members of the past Government and the present Government, who have covered up a scandal, then so be it.

If certain politicians, can cover up something that resulted in the disappearance and possibly death of a child, what else have they covered up? Richard Branson, Phillip Green, Brian Kennedy and all the other so called "high profile" people, should hang their heads in shame, because they too have played a part in helping the McCanns, knowing full well that the McCanns are 100% responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine.

Branson and Kennedy, threw money at the McCanns and until a couple of years ago, Kennedy was also paying Clarence Mitchell's salary and he was also and maybe still is, paying the fees of the McCanns lawyers. I don't know if Green is still helping the McCanns, but I did read that Branson and Kenndedy had distanced themselves from the McCanns. I also read that when the fund was almost dry, the McCanns went cap in hand to Brian Kennedy to ask him for more money and he refused. This was only a media report, so it may or may not true.

According to Clarence Mitchell, Gordon Brown never returned the McCanns phone calls, which shows to me that Brown had probably realised too late that he would be in serious trouble should the reason he helped the McCanns, come out.

Again there has got to be a reason why members of the British and Portuguese Government intervened with this case, when according to Goncalo Amaral the PJ wanted to bring charges against the McCanns. We can only hope that the McCanns lose their lawsuit against Dr Amaral and he spills the beans.

I wouldn't be too surprised if the McCanns drop their lawsuit against Dr Amaral, but if they do, Dr Amaral should still spill the beans. He is the only official who seemed to care about what happened to Madeleine.

I once read an article where Goncalo Amaral said that the PJ were building a case against the McCanns and they were about to bring a prosecution when they were told by a higher authority, that they couldn't go ahead. I will always believe that the arguido status given to the McCanns was nothing but a paper excercise."

Kathybelle, I believe the Portugese Prosecutor asked a Judge if there was enough evidence to go to Trial and the Judge replied "show me the body".

The Portugese Court also rejected a request for the mobile phone calls to be used in evidence on the grounds it was "too intrusive".

Was there an understanding between Brown and Socrates ( the then PM of Portugal)?

I don't think the McCanns expected David Cameron personally to investigate, it was a tacky Sun/McCann exploitation of Cameron's loss of his son .
Now we know of the "friendship" between the Brooks and Cameron, it is possible he knew beforehand what was planned .

The "Review" was intended to determine whether the PJ had checked out every possible lead since the McCanns were claiming this was not the case
and not enough had been done and the case closed too early.

There is a difference between a Review and an Investigation but I would think the Tory MP's furious about this expense will want proof that the Review
was necessary by providing evidence that the PJ were negligent and vital clues not investigated. My guess is, even if there were, it's too late to do
anything about it and the case will be closed to stop the Mccanns making any more demands.

kathybelle wrote:

Kate McCann has already said " I wanted to press a button and we're all gone, it's all finished and we're all together." This is another hint that she knows Madeleine is dead, her husband gave another hint, when he said "We're not responsible for Madeleine's death." Clarence Mitchell said similar when he said "if Madeleine is dead, then she is dead, but not by Kate and Gerry's hands." If Madeleine is dead, what makes Clarence so sure the McCanns didn't kill her? Does he hold the same information that the Priest who is taking what the McCanns told him to his grave, hold?

I know my post is a bit higgledy piggledy, but I'm speaking from the heart.

Brilliant post KB, l can't understand why that comment hasn't been picked up on more, it spoke volumes to me.

margaret wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Kate McCann has already said " I wanted to press a button and we're all gone, it's all finished and we're all together." This is another hint that she knows Madeleine is dead, her husband gave another hint, when he said "We're not responsible for Madeleine's death." Clarence Mitchell said similar when he said "if Madeleine is dead, then she is dead, but not by Kate and Gerry's hands." If Madeleine is dead, what makes Clarence so sure the McCanns didn't kill her? Does he hold the same information that the Priest who is taking what the McCanns told him to his grave, hold?

I know my post is a bit higgledy piggledy, but I'm speaking from the heart.

Brilliant post KB, l can't understand why that comment hasn't been picked up on more, it spoke volumes to me.

I remember watching Kate when she said this. It was the one time I have seen something close to true emotion from her.

Panda wrote:I once read an article where Goncalo Amaral said that the PJ were building a case against the McCanns and they were about to bring a prosecution when they were told by a higher authority, that they couldn't go ahead. I will always believe that the arguido status given to the McCanns was nothing but a paper excercise."

Kathybelle, I believe the Portugese Prosecutor asked a Judge if there was enough evidence to go to Trial and the Judge replied "show me the body".

The Portugese Court also rejected a request for the mobile phone calls to be used in evidence on the grounds it was "too intrusive".

Was there an understanding between Brown and Socrates ( the then PM of Portugal)?

I don't think the McCanns expected David Cameron personally to investigate, it was a tacky Sun/McCann exploitation of Cameron's loss of his son .
Now we know of the "friendship" between the Brooks and Cameron, it is possible he knew beforehand what was planned .

The "Review" was intended to determine whether the PJ had checked out every possible lead since the McCanns were claiming this was not the case
and not enough had been done and the case closed too early.

There is a difference between a Review and an Investigation but I would think the Tory MP's furious about this expense will want proof that the Review
was necessary by providing evidence that the PJ were negligent and vital clues not investigated. My guess is, even if there were, it's too late to do
anything about it and the case will be closed to stop the Mccanns making any more demands.

Good morning Panda and good post.

Goncalo Amaral said the McCanns demanded the archiving of the process, when they were still arguidos. If this is true and I have no reason to believe it isn't, the McCanns wish was granted.

Dr Amaral said the McCanns wanted the case to be archived, to protect their image. If this was correct, I believe that protecting their image was only one of the reasons why they wanted the case to be archived. I could be wrong but I believe the McCanns wanting the case to be archived, was because they didn't want the investigation team to find something that would prove the McCanns had played more of a part in Madeleine's disappearance than neglect.

I know evidence including the cadaver scent, was found in the McCanns apartment, clothing, hire car and key fob, but that evidence wasn't accepted. In my opinion the McCanns couldn't risk the PJ finding anything else, so that was the reason they wanted the case archived. I believe that the McCanns knew that the private detectives they were using, would screw the fund, but they didn't care, because it wasn't their money that they were thieving. Let's face it every team of private detectives that the McCanns have used, have done nothing to find Madeleine.

These so called private detectives, might have visited exotic places around the world, but what have they done in Portugal? Dave Edgar, had information which lead him to believe that Madeleine was being held in a lawless lair, 10km outside P.D.L. Did he and his team visit that lawless lair? No they didn't, the passed the lead on to the PJ, even though Edgar knew they were no longer investigating Madeleine's disappearance. Edgar then complained to the media, that the PJ were ignoring his leads. No one thought to ask Edgar why he wasn't following up the leads, after all this is what the fund was paying him to do. The McCanns didn't complain, because it wasn't their money that was paying Edgar and his team. Plus they knew Edgar would have been going on a wild goose chase, if he had visited that lawless lair. Maybe Edgar knew as well.

You may be right, when you say the case could be closed to stop the McCanns making demands and the thought of it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. However all is not lost, because when or if the McCanns lawsuit against Dr Amaral begins, the McCanns may be in for a rude awakening. We know they won the first court case, regarding the banning of Goncalo Amaral's book, but they lost their appeals in the Appeal and Supreme Courts and an allegation they made against Goncalo Amaral, was deemed malicious and thrown out of wherever the allegation was presented.

The McCanns lawyer, Isabel Duarte, had always said she would never return the 7500 copies of Dr Amaral's book, that she had in her possession. She soon changed her mind, when she saw that the Judge who made the order for the books to be returned, meant business, when he said that Duarte and the McCanns, faced a fine and or a possible jail sentence of 5yrs.

The McCanns may have the the powers that be in the UK, eating out of their hand, but I don't think the same thing applies in Portugal. I hope I am right, but I guess we will have to wait until September, to see what happens with the McCanns lawsuit against Dr Amaral.

I don't mean the case will be reopened if the McCanns lose their lawsuit against Goncalo Amaral. I just mean that Goncalo Amaral will spill the beans about what really happened during the time he was leading investigation and what part the British Government played in making sure the McCanns never faced justice.

Morning Kathybelle, I don't think the Mccanns will win the case against Amaral because a) they cannot prove that his book hindered the search for Madeleine. b) They cannot prove that the book affected their health when there are so many photo's of the McCanns out and about, Gerrry was back
at work, Kate working with the Detectives doing "the most important job of my life".c) the Twins were too young to be affected . d) The book has not
been published or sold in the U.K. so the McCanns can't claim libel at Amaral's claim because this was one of the theories in the PJ Final Report.

Since Smethurst went with Gerry to Portugal I assume it was to take Legal action against Amaral. Smethurst is a Corporate Lawyer which probably
explains the faux pas made on the original suit which included Madeleine !!!! This was later removed because Madeleine is still a Ward of Court and
the parents are no longer her legal Guardians so cannot act for her.

Their claim for E1 million is exhorbitant even by U.K. Standards and even if the McCanns win, I cannot see a Portugese Judge agreeing to this sum when
Amaral is out of work.