Son of one of the Maddie Detectives is charged with Illegal Gambling Ring

http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/kingston/10957893.Betting_cheat_accused_who__stitched_device_in_shorts__is_son_of_senior_Met_detective/

To be fair, the Dad can't be held entirely responsible for what the 22-year-old son does now.... but mud still sticks.

Thanks Iris.

Waiting now to see if any of the nationals pick this one up and run with it.
And the angle they take if they do.

This local rag was pushing the Madeleine connection for whatever reason ...

I am wondering if it is to discredit SY. Why, I don't know.... but it looks like part of a smear campaign to me.

Didn't have to wait long - the dear old Daily Fail never disappoints ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544611/Briton-22-accused-tennis-betting-scam-Australian-Open-son-murder-detective-working-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

almostgothic wrote:Didn't have to wait long - the dear old Daily Fail never disappoints ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544611/Briton-22-accused-tennis-betting-scam-Australian-Open-son-murder-detective-working-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

They probably bloody got it off of here in the first place. It wouldn't surprise me. They managed to unearth Hairy Bert "I-want-to-kiss-Maddie-on-the-lips" Janosch off of Twitter without even checking him out. They just print any old rubbish they lift off Twitter and Internet forums. It saves them having to actually train and pay REAL journalists.

what am I missing? what the heck has what this person does got to do with what his father does in the Met? jeez, scraping bottom of barrel, and who released the information.

OT Hi Jo, could you check your gmail account please. Ta.

tanszi wrote:what am I missing?  what the heck has what this person does got to do with what his father does in the Met?  jeez, scraping bottom of barrel, and who released the information.

Tanzi that is exactly what I would have written, if you were allowed to put comments, which you're not.

Is this 22-year-old lad accused of abducting or arranging the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? No.

Is this 22-year-old one of the "burglars"? No.

Is he even one of the "persons of interest"? No.

Does he have any link at all to the Madeleine McCann case? No.

Apart from the very tenuous link that his old man just so happens to be working on it? No.

So WHY are there pictures of Shortbread Tin Madeleine all over an article about a wee 22-year-old scroat who's been running an illegal gambling scam in Australia?

This is a new low, even for the Wail. In fact it could be compromising the investigation, by casting discredit on the officers working for it. Whatever will the Tortoise say?

Well, and doesn't HE look like the hardened criminal?

This has absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine but I guess they thought it would make a better STORY.

Funny the timing - they soundly snub SY on their website about not really being sure the person they found was the same one Jane saw - second guessing the country's highest police force and the one charged with spending £10M of other people's money on their case - and then the news about the dodgy personal lives of the officers.

I feel like we're going to be needing some popcorn pretty soon, to read these papers.

Why are the good men and women (they've GOT to be good, they're costing us £10m!) of Scotland Yard suddenly being discredited and smeared?

What have they found out?  That needs to be denied and rubbished at all costs?

A bit like Martin Grime and his dogs, and the good men and women of the PJ?

Here's what I don't understand.

If you tell the police NOT TO LOOK at the parents, and they are the ones who did it, what possible good result will you ever get?

You will NEVER catch the bad guy, you will NEVER find the child or her body.

You will at best spend a ton of money making yourselves look stupid/corrupt - at worst, frame someone who had nothing to do with it.

It seems like there's no win in a situation like that - the police have to be allowed to do their job, looking where the case may take them and if the parents are "offended" -screw them! Too bad.

You can't tell the police to start not by looking at the eye witnesses, the most likely perp to harm their daughter, the person/people who saw her last, that lied about checking and refused to cooperate - don't start THERE just assume that is all as it should be nothing to see move along - and start getting NASA to fork over military satellite footage.

It seems like that is what they have been told to do and I don't see how it could come to any useful conclusion - you can't even take what the parents said as TRUTH because they have changed their stories and they don't always make sense or correspond to other eye witness accounts (Mrs Fenn, amongst others).

widowan
Here's what I don't understand.

"If you tell the police NOT TO LOOK at the parents"
-------------------------------------------------

IF this is true, and it does seem extrodinary that the last people to have seen her have seemed to not have been re-interviewed.

It begs the one BIG question.

WHO would have TOLD the police NOT to 'look at' the last group of people that have admitted to have seen her 'alive'?

DP, FP and McS.

Just read this story in the Daily Mail. I agree the father can't be held responsible for the son's alleged crime. I do think though that some people in the general public will notice that the father is described as a "murder" detective investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Metropolitan Police murder detective investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann


Maybe this is what the Reporter is drawing attention to, why would SY have Murder Detectives investigating ?

interested wrote:Just read this story in the Daily Mail.  I agree the father can't be held responsible for the son's alleged crime.  I do think though that some people in the general public will  notice  that the father is described as a "murder" detective investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Someone on twitter made a comment..... 'perhaps he can get his son off the hook, just like he's doing for the McCanns'....(or words to that effect)....

widowan wrote:Here's what I don't understand.

If you tell the police NOT TO LOOK at the parents, and they are the ones who did it, what possible good result will you ever get?

You will NEVER catch the bad guy, you will NEVER find the child or her body.

You will at best spend a ton of money making yourselves look stupid/corrupt - at worst, frame someone who had nothing to do with it.

It seems like there's no win in a situation like that - the police have to be allowed to do their job, looking where the case may take them and if the parents are "offended" -screw them! Too bad.

You can't tell the police to start not by looking at the eye witnesses, the most likely perp to harm their daughter, the person/people who saw her last, that lied about checking and refused to cooperate - don't start THERE just assume that is all as it should be nothing to see move along - and start getting NASA to fork over military satellite footage.

It seems like that is what they have been told to do and I don't see how it could come to any useful conclusion - you can't even take what the parents said as TRUTH because they have changed their stories and they don't always make sense or correspond to other eye witness accounts (Mrs Fenn, amongst others).

Well said, I agree 100% with you   

pennylane wrote:

interested wrote:Just read this story in the Daily Mail.  I agree the father can't be held responsible for the son's alleged crime.  I do think though that some people in the general public will  notice  that the father is described as a "murder" detective investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Someone on twitter made a comment..... 'perhaps he can get his son off the hook, just like he's doing for the McCanns'....(or words to that effect)....

I hope he acts quicker than Operation Grange, otherwise this young man will be 107 years old before he is officially "cleared".

Would the McCanns argue if the SY father cannot be held responsible for his son's crime, then the McCann's statement ''Why would that be our fault" is also true.

If that's the way the case is going, we can all pack up and go home.

malena stool wrote:Would the McCanns argue if the SY father cannot be held responsible for his son's crime, then the McCann's statement ''Why would that be our fault" is also true.

If that's the way the case is going, we can all pack up and go home.

As far as parental responsibility is concerned there is a huge difference between a grown man and a child of 3. This business involving the Met tec's son in Australia has no bearing whatsoever on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or the SY investigation except for the tenuous link through the Met detective in the SY team. IMO this attempt to cash in by sensationalizing anything which could remotely have anything to do with Madeleine is a good example of how desperate the UK's dead-tree press has become in the face of dwindling sales. "Maddy murder detective..." a headline deliberately selected to provoke. No reason for us to go home.

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:Would the McCanns argue if the SY father cannot be held responsible for his son's crime, then the McCann's statement ''Why would that be our fault" is also true.

If that's the way the case is going, we can all pack up and go home.

As far as parental responsibility is concerned there is a huge difference between a grown man and a child of 3. This business involving the Met tec's son in Australia has no bearing whatsoever on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or the SY investigation except for the tenuous link through the Met detective in the SY team. IMO this attempt to cash in by sensationalizing anything which could remotely have anything to do with Madeleine is a good example of how desperate the UK's dead-tree press has become  in the face of dwindling sales. "Maddy murder detective..." a headline deliberately selected to provoke. No reason for us to go home.    

  

I wouldn't put it past the McCanns to try it though.

dutchclogs wrote:

widowan wrote:Here's what I don't understand.

If you tell the police NOT TO LOOK at the parents, and they are the ones who did it, what possible good result will you ever get?

You will NEVER catch the bad guy, you will NEVER find the child or her body.

You will at best spend a ton of money making yourselves look stupid/corrupt - at worst, frame someone who had nothing to do with it.

It seems like there's no win in a situation like that - the police have to be allowed to do their job, looking where the case may take them and if the parents are "offended" -screw them! Too bad.

You can't tell the police to start not by looking at the eye witnesses, the most likely perp to harm their daughter, the person/people who saw her last, that lied about checking and refused to cooperate - don't start THERE just assume that is all as it should be nothing to see move along - and start getting NASA to fork over military satellite footage.

It seems like that is what they have been told to do and I don't see how it could come to any useful conclusion - you can't even take what the parents said as TRUTH because they have changed their stories and they don't always make sense or correspond to other eye witness accounts (Mrs Fenn, amongst others).

Well said, I agree 100% with you   

Thanks Dutchclogs. I am just reviewing another case that happened when I was a kid, the Jeffrey MacDonald green beret murders (his wife and 2 girls) and one of the things struck me - his (MacDonald's) attorney, who was a very powerful and well known defense attorney in the US, told the investigation "if you are not looking for the real killers but are focused on my client we will not cooperate" - I guess that is what a good defense attorney does.

We don't have visibility into the conversations between mcCanns and their lawyers and the Met but I am wondering if something similar happened -they put pressure on via Cameron to "review" the investigation = find holes in the PJ investigation, more people who should have been suspects - but the McCann attorneys simply tell them that if the investigation is going in the "wrong" direction his clients simply will not cooperate.

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:Would the McCanns argue if the SY father cannot be held responsible for his son's crime, then the McCann's statement ''Why would that be our fault" is also true.

If that's the way the case is going, we can all pack up and go home.

As far as parental responsibility is concerned there is a huge difference between a grown man and a child of 3. This business involving the Met tec's son in Australia has no bearing whatsoever on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or the SY investigation except for the tenuous link through the Met detective in the SY team. IMO this attempt to cash in by sensationalizing anything which could remotely have anything to do with Madeleine is a good example of how desperate the UK's dead-tree press has become  in the face of dwindling sales. "Maddy murder detective..." a headline deliberately selected to provoke. No reason for us to go home.    

The madness of it is that you don't know if it's just the press being their usual idiotic selves trying to put maddie's face on everything they possibly can or if this is something cooked up in the great Campaign - the detectives son seemed to have had some equipment the normal person would not have although I'm sure his dad wasn't involved - or hope he wasn't - in the illegal betting, I think this COULD BE the Campaign showing its little claws - we are ready to rubbish you individually as well as your whole investigation - quid pro quo for the Tanner sighting being explained away, or something else they didn't like.

I think the press stories and quotes from people who have an opinion but no idea of Portuguese system of justice nor any fairness will be in high fettle once Amaral loses the libel trial. It will be all how horrible the PJ is, Amaral of course, the Portuguese system in general, the judge presiding over this case etc. While SY may be cowed that this would happen to THEM it might also backfire and have someone stand up and say this is BS - we aren't being allowed to follow where this leads us because the media is interfering and McCanns failing to cooperate - same stuff, different day!