Why is there talk of the review being wound down

This seems a bit strange to me. Why are they stopping the review not even half way through. It's really odd. I wonder if they don't like the way it's going. Or not being able to really investigate certain avenues. Or maybe there was going to be a real damnation of the Portuguese police procedures. Which could be more difficult in the view of the recent tragic events regarding missing Tia. I think it's a bit strange that now is the time chosen. And the usual well thinking about closing it. Why do we need to be warned in advance. Why not either close it or not. Why does it all have to be written about in newspapers.

Should it be wound down, I think the reaction of the Macs will be interesting.
In theory they should scream from the rooftops.
But will they ?

duncanmac wrote:Should it be wound down, I think the reaction of the Macs will be interesting.
In theory they should scream from the rooftops.
But will they ?

It could be their 'get out of jail free' card. Kate is ambassador, she can emote about lost children as much as she likes and stay in the limelight that way. Gerry is being 'phased out', not appearing in interviews, very low profile lately.
Ever since the book was published Gerry has been fading from view, just surfacing for the interviews and sit hand in hand with the wife. Telling the same lies, the same excuses.

They will try and use the winding down to gather more money for the Fund (although that should be very healthy) in which the 'multi million' pound deal with Transworld hasn't surfaced yet.
In their place and with their outlook on life, I'd know exactly where I'd put the bulk of my money - where no one but me can access it.

To my way of thinking MaryB there is possibly two likely reasons for the review to be wound down.

1. Finances really are tight. (Although if evidence under review points to the likelihood of this mystery being cleared up once and for all, should finance be a stumbling block?).

2. There has been an abundance of damning evidence found which directly implicates the parents as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. (This might not be the outcome expected nor wanted by the review).

malena stool wrote:To my way of thinking MaryB there is possibly two likely reasons for the review to be wound down.

1. Finances really are tight. (Although if evidence under review points to the likelihood of this mystery being cleared up once and for all, should finance be a stumbling block?).

2. There has been an abundance of damning evidence found which directly implicates the parents as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. (This might not be the outcome expected nor wanted by the review).

If this review is destined to be pulled, I may suggest
that it is a combination of both your reasons, and that
it might reach a point where the NSY provide the rightful
autorities in Portugal the dynamic and means to take
this case to a proper and just conclusion once and for all.
GA's 'day in court' is almost here, and IMO, this will provide
an opportunity for the PJ to proffer alternative reasoning and
factual data which will impact and splinter the ongoing NSY
review. The integrity and future of NSY is at stake so they
may want to ditch this poisoned chalice.

malena stool wrote:To my way of thinking MaryB there is possibly two likely reasons for the review to be wound down.

1. Finances really are tight. (Although if evidence under review points to the likelihood of this mystery being cleared up once and for all, should finance be a stumbling block?).

2. There has been an abundance of damning evidence found which directly implicates the parents as being responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. (This might not be the outcome expected nor wanted by the review).

The third option (and most likely one IMO) is that there still isn't enough evidence to charge at this stage.

sy wont be telling us uk public whats going on and that includes the mcanns -- as much as they would like us to think that they are kept in touch with sy -- bullshit -- what are they going to say oh we havent found anything that leads us to believe madeleine was abducted -- when is the ga case ? all awaits for after that imo

That's a really good point about finding a vital piece of evidence. SY should pass it on to the Portuguese police and let them follow it up. I must say I don't think anybody foresaw the review just being halted half way through like this. But it's better than a whitewash. Or ploughing more and more money in and at the end saying inconclusive. And anybody could have said that without spending millions. Well I think it's significant that Kate didn't answer questions. Surely the police know that. What kind of witness says no comment to 40 questions. Well we all know the answer to that particular question.

cass wrote:sy wont be telling us uk public whats going on and that includes the mcanns -- as much as they would like us to think that they are kept in touch with sy -- bullshit -- what are they going to say oh we havent found anything that leads us to believe madeleine was abducted -- when is the ga case ? all awaits for after that imo

12th September, 2 weeks today!!!

I hate to put a dampener on things, but 12 Sep is the scheduled date and (as happened before) it is common for further postponements or delays to be sought at the behest of either side.

That said, no such Application has come to our notice, so I do very much hope that we have lift-off.

I thought the Chief said there was enough money left to last until Christmas and asked Cameron Mitchell if it was his

intention to make any more money available. This suggests that there has nothing been found so far to warrant the

Portugese Police reopening the case. The fact that this request was made public is to put the PM on the spot. If he says,

""Yes, I will make another million available" there will be a backbench revolt and public outcry. If he says "No, from your

Report it appears the Portugese Police will not re-open the case". The suspicion still lies with the McCanns, especially

if Amaral wins the case.

I thought it was strange that Panaroma programme when the head policeman came on and said Madeleine had been abducted. I know some folk didin't think he said that but that's what I understood he said. I wondered how he could have come to such a conclusion so early on. I wonder if that has changed at all. Why don't they consider wandered off. And there was a lot of roadworks and things around I've read. It's at least as likely as an abductor.

It was only one of the things he said. Taken as a whole, it was bland, contradictory and uninformative >>>> which met the brief, but wasn't terribly well executed.

No point in spillling the beans and spooking the Suspects.

The End Is Nigh wrote:It was only one of the things he said. Taken as a whole, it was bland, contradictory and uninformative >>>> which met the brief, but wasn't terribly well executed.

No point in spillling the beans and spooking the Suspects.

I would like to believe that but here are a few examples of what Redwood said on the Morning interview (where he had no business to me imo):
Quote:
Redwood: I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind.
[...]

Redwood: Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger, and so from that - she’s… and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive.

unquote

- and why on earth is it a huge privilege for the Met?

tigger wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:It was only one of the things he said. Taken as a whole, it was bland, contradictory and uninformative >>>> which met the brief, but wasn't terribly well executed.

No point in spillling the beans and spooking the Suspects.

I would like to believe that but here are a few examples of what Redwood said on the Morning interview (where he had no business to me imo):
Quote:
Redwood: I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind.
[...]

Redwood: Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger, and so from that - she’s… and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive.

unquote

- and why on earth is it a huge privilege for the Met?

A'forensic analysis of the timeline'?????? what utter Bs!!! and yes why a huge privilege????? And what evidence is there that a stranger took her???? I cannot believe that this came out of a senior police officers mouth - it makes a mockery of the law. I cannot think of one case in the world where a child has disappeared at this age by a stranger and has turned up later alive and well. With no credible forensic evidence of an intruder and no credible evidence of a sighting of Madeleine - how can he say all of this?????

"- and why on earth is it a huge privilege for the Met? ."

Agree - when AR spoke those words, it made me cringe and immediately Uriah Heap came to mind - as if to grovel and show complete humility to the wonderful McCanns. He came across as if he`d been programmed. He didn`t come across as a street-wise, broad thinking investigator.

Quote:
Redwood: I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind.
Unquote.

It doesn't sound a completely open one, Mr. Redwood... It sounds as if you've been well and thoroughly briefed on the expected outcome... In my opinion anyway.

When are they going to come out, the met, and say the dogs were wrong...but they won't will they, howmcan they when they know they were right .

mariang wrote: A'forensic analysis of the timeline'?????? what utter Bs!!! and yes why a huge privilege????? And what evidence is there that a stranger took her???? I cannot believe that this came out of a senior police officers mouth - it makes a mockery of the law. I cannot think of one case in the world where a child has disappeared at this age by a stranger and has turned up later alive and well. With no credible forensic evidence of an intruder and no credible evidence of a sighting of Madeleine - how can he say all of this?????

Yes I agree that this is ridiculous. I can however remember one very rare case of a four-year-old boy who was abducted by a stranger in 1990 and found alive after 8 weeks.

http://chris-ukorg.org/2012/07/19/christopher-williams-hoddesdonhemel-hempstead/

This report from 2007 is the only mention of the case that I can find; it was well publicised at the time though.

Oldartform wrote:
"- and why on earth is it a huge privilege for the Met? ."

Agree - when AR spoke those words, it made me cringe and immediately Uriah Heap came to mind - as if to grovel and show complete humility to the wonderful McCanns. He came across as if he`d been programmed. He didn`t come across as a street-wise, broad thinking investigator.

Yes Oldartform.....I couldn't believe it when he said there were 195 possilbe leads!!!!! If the intention was to deliberately prove how efficient the SY have been and suggest Madeleine could be alive, it backfired as soon as the next "sighting" was released.

I get the feeling the Chief's request to Cameron was a direct result of his opinion that the SY should not waste any more time but of course he cannot dictate to a PM so couched his words in a way that puts Cameron on the spot.

I wonder if the McCanns will dare comment again on the ineptitude of the Portugese Police.!!

Agreed malena. I've never heard such a load of twaddle since I watched Educating Archie, the ventriloquist's dummy.

How can it be a privilege to work on a possible murder/disposing of a body/ neglect investigation?

He's in a highly paid job and that's all he can come up with. Are their no sharper pencils in the box?

Of course the Govt controls the Home Office who control the Police so we will get garbage out.

To say Madeleine is either dead or alive after spending/wasting millions is taking the P.

If the UK had left the PJ to do their job they wouldn't have dug this big hole but the UK had to hide something pretty big. Was it paedos in politics or was it bigger. Could it be the complex @ Bella Vista is in some way connected with all of this? It hasn't been mentioned or checked out as far as I know. I need some more proof on that score. The 3A's certainly got closed down soon after the topic was discussed.

@Old Art form

UUM...what's Bella Vista ???

Bella Vista is a villa complex / golf course owned by people with connections and DG materials supplied by people who have been mentioned in this McCann affair. It's not far from PdL.

I had a couple of pix but can only find one atm but I'm not sure whether to show it. It looks genuine to me. It would ramp up the need to keep the lid on everything as it shows something the Govt doesn't want to be discussed.

hiya whatsupdoc can you please tell me what DG materials are, if youre not sure to show pics, then dont.

tanszi wrote:hiya whatsupdoc can you please tell me what DG materials are, if youre not sure to show pics, then dont.

Double Glazing.