Top cop Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says names of Maddie kidnappers are known

T4two wrote:PJ is looking at the evidence all of which points at the parents and nowhere else. SY is looking for evidence that points elsewhere but cannot find any. By making it up as they go along and spreading rumours through the media SY has placed itself firmly in the Dave Edgar league. Perhaps they have the same remit?

PJ is looking at murder in the apt, but not by the parents, however I don't see the evidence apart from the "jimmied shutters" that anyone else broke in - but didn't the spokesperson for the PJ in Oporto (a woman IIRC) state that that they were not looking at the parents for this? That they rejected that line of thought and were looking at the murder as occurring during the burglary? That would put the parents out.

Odd though isn't it. Because if the only evidence FOR the death in the apt - the cadaver dog's alert - is a reason for the PJ to follow the death in the apt scenario, you can hardly rule McCanns OUT since the same EVR dog alerted to Kate's pants, Bible, and the hire car. Not difficult to put two and two together to get four here.

What is difficult is to put two and two together to get five but they seem willing to try.

mossman wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Chris wrote:So according to the Star the "suspects" dunnit.

Perhaps Hogan Howe should explain why the different lines of enquiry are hampering the investigation. From the reports to date the Portugese have two teams operating, one the SY liaison team and one the Porto investigators with the remit of the Portugal authorities following the reopening. How does what one team is pursuing hamper the other?

This is where the hope lies, Chris! There are not one but two Portuguese teams, and this accounts for all the spinning we have seen.  This, along with the McCanns tanking at Amaral's trial has caused major anxiety within the TM abduction facade.   I believe the PJ reopened the case, and the minute they did so, SY quickly did likewise and began liaising with yet another team to get in the loop, and force the direction away from the McCanns.  It hasn't worked - and the Met are desperately spinning their wheels to account for all the money being spent (imo).   The Home Office bully boys are at it again.  Thus has it been from the get go!

I think SY are in deep sh*t right now.

What can they do ? Withdraw, claiming they have it solved but cannot prosecute ?  That could work, but for the PJ team in Portugal working on a re-opened investigation, which appears to be going in a completely different direction.  If SY withdraw, they hand the baton back to the PJ and have absolutely no control whatsoever about what comes out of the new investigation.  If eventually, the culprits were named by the PJ as being on UK soil, and SY had withdrawn on the basis of non-cooperation by Portugal, well.....ouch.

Do they stay with their own story of burglars ?  They can, but nobody is listening anymore.  So if they continue to do this they look like fools and all the while money is being poured down the drain on a theory nobody, except for the McCanns, wants to listen to.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place now.  What can they do ?  Portugal are not listening, that is for sure.

Jeez, you could almost be forgiven for thinking that the PJ have played a blinder in this and crept up behind Andy and his bunch of merry men whilst they were looking at tractors, burglars and all sorts of things.

Yes the Met have backed themselves into a corner but proper!  

I very much agree the PJ have played a blinder.  History has taught our Portuguese friends that the Home Office/Met are not to be trusted.  Who can forget the outright refusals for basic background information, and the appalling bullying and disrespect shown the PJ; not to mention the shenanigans and destruction of all the evidence by the Birmingham FSS.  

Let's hope the Portuguese authorities have a dynamite lead that will expose this epic McScam once and for all!

kitti wrote:I think the bringing in off the dead body finder was to play out to the world that Madeleine is alive.



They know full well this man can't find bodies with his so called machine and the not finding a body was to prove one thing......she's alive .



I mean, obviously if HE didn't find a body then she must be alive, must she.

I've always found this whole body finder thing really weird. Who would actually know that a man with such a machine actually exists...I certainly wouldn't. I'm well aware that people use psychics but a man with a body finding machine...nope! Then there is the thought that anyone who doesn't know about such a guy, would have to go looking on the internet to see if such a person exists.....basically I don't think it would even cross my mind.

Anyone else feel the same?

Anyone know how many more 'sleeping kids' in PDL have been 'abducted' by 'gypsies, burglars, Mafia and opportunistic paedos', since the people, BHH knows the names of, was announced by him on Feruary 21st 2014?

C'mon! I'm going for at LEAST 2!

And all BHH's 'fault' because he would NOT tell people WHO to look out for, imo.

Angelina wrote:

kitti wrote:I think the bringing in off the dead body finder was to play out to the world that Madeleine is alive.



They know full well this man can't find bodies with his so called machine and the not finding a body was to prove one thing......she's alive .



I mean, obviously if HE didn't find a body then she must be alive, must she.

I've always found this whole body finder thing really weird.    Who would actually know that a man with such a machine actually exists...I certainly wouldn't.   I'm well aware that people use psychics but a man with a body finding machine...nope!    Then there is the thought that anyone who doesn't know about such a guy, would have to go looking on the internet to see if such a person exists.....basically I don't think it would even cross my mind.  

Anyone else feel the same?

Absolutely. You have to wonder how / where the McCanns heard about him.

Mark Harrison's report is worth reading again on the subject. I think he held Eddie and Keela in slightly higher esteem.  


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html

Hmm.... so Mark Harrison has touted the idea of Maddie's "murder" as early as August 2007.
When are the McCanns going to sue HIM for "harming the search"?

Iris wrote:Hmm.... so Mark Harrison has touted the idea of Maddie's "murder" as early as August 2007.  
When are the McCanns going to sue HIM for "harming the search"?

I wish the McCanns would stop comparing: trawling the internet, jogging, playing tennis and refusing to answer police questions with searching....

Once you know the rules of the game - the object being to win - whatever your top down management says that is - clear McCanns, make PJ look bad or both - or of course do a great job and find this kid - or what happened to her - then the game is afoot. Each "side"-  if there are sides - will do what they need to do to get to the win. If SY has the scope of solving this in a way friendly to McCanns - that would obviously be in a way unfriendly to the original investigation by the PJ which wasted too much time chasing them and now it's too late to find the "real criminals" as OJ Simpson would have it.

Defeating the PJ, if they are opponents, would be one thing to do if PJ are ONLY looking at McCanns or T9 as the criminals. If they have another line it's like chess - men on one part of the board keep pieces on that side hemmed in so your main attack can go ahead.

If Sy has only one line of play and PJ has two then they are at risk - if you were playing chess, that is a big risk for SY if their "win" is to exonerate suspects who actually are guilty and there is evidence pointing to that, they had better play to win and against a double pronged attack where PJ is drawing them off - to one side - around burglars etc while moving in on their queen.

I don't like to play any game with blinders on - and if SY is not looking at the whole board they will run into trouble when they get flanked.

Most investigations probably have to play the whole board as the lawyers are looking for angles, but they don't typically as I understand it have an opponent who is another police force. That complicates things.

PJ have had the UK establishment and possibly SY as an opponent for a while, and may be better at this than SY especially if SY thinks the only opponent is a single line of investigation. PJ may not have access to all the intell SY has including reports delivered by McCanns own investigators like Exton.

What a pickle.

Obviously Sir BHH doesn't feel these known names pose a risk of repeating the crime & leaving no evidence of abduction...he mentioned murder-or sadly taken? not sadly murdered?

matthew wrote:Obviously Sir BHH doesn't feel these known names pose a risk of repeating the crime & leaving no evidence of abduction...he mentioned murder-or sadly taken? not sadly murdered?

Both outcomes seem sad to me.

I guess this is another one for Dr martin to parse but I'd say that if murder is just a blunt fact and taken is sad, then the sadly points to an accident rather than a kidnapping.

A kidnapping - because MM could be alive - would arguably be less sad than a murder.

For someone to be "sadly taken" seems more like an accident - oops - she was taken from us, sadly.

Freudian slip?

Dr Martin Roberts did pick up on BHH

Sadly or, Sadly

Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
20 February 2014

SADLY OR, SADLY

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has spoken, for the benefit of a bewildered public attempting to make sense of the status quo regarding the parallel Portuguese and UK investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann:

"Obviously the Portuguese police have got a line of inquiry which is different to the Metropolitan Police's but we're working together to try and resolve that."

Obviously, Sir Bernard.

In the sense that the Portuguese 'prime suspect' (deceased) is a world away from being any kind of a match to DCI Redwood's favoured e-fits, then Portugal and 'The Yard' do indeed appear to be pursuing different lines of inquiry. There is, however, a disturbing ring of inevitability to the phrase 'obviously', almost as though it would apply regardless. Surely not. Is it even remotely possible that two investigative agencies with a shared purpose would differ quite so markedly in their approaches to the common problem? They are, after all, equipped with an identical context in which to set their endeavours.

We know of course that the approach taken by the Metropolitan Police has been to regress to 'point zero', DCI Redwood having said as much. And that in itself could provoke, shall we say, a difference of opinion – obviously.

But do go on Sir Bernard.

"We're trying our best to keep the family informed and I think in the middle of all this, quite often their torment gets lost. Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

May we please clarify this observation just a little? (There are one or two redundant 'ors')

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

An interesting question that. Juxtaposed as they are, the child thief and the murderer are clearly not viewed as one and the same. And with only one 'sadly' to go around, kidnap comes across as the more regrettable outcome. If, sadly, Madeleine has been murdered, might not the murderer have been a thief also? A hapless petty criminal, who lashed out simply to silence the shrill alarm of a startled child (always supposing that their intention was to steal something other than an infant)? If such were the case, the fugitive would no doubt have left the body behind, having set off with neither kidnap nor body snatching in mind. Like Jon Benet Ramsay's supposed assailant, he would most likely have bolted empty handed (save for the valuables he came for of course, yet such was his haste he forgot those also).

If Madeleine was murdered by a panicking thief, what happened to her body after he fled the scene? Or if, on the spur of the moment, he decided to remove his victim, perhaps with a view to 'bluffing out' a blackmail attempt (although nothing of the kind has ever been hinted), then it cannot have been Madeleine's frail remains that left their mark for Martin Grime's EVR dog to zero in on. They would not have been there long enough to have done so.

It looks as if the options here are murderer or thief, not thief and murderer. So who besides a thief might have murdered poor Madeleine McCann, Sir Bernard?

"We've generally got to work together. We can't police Portugal, they can't do everything over here; we must work together. So, we're insist... you know, we really can work in genuine partnership on this."

O.k. Sir Bernard. We get it. You wish to insist that the Portuguese follow the Met's lead. That's it isn't it? Could it be, perchance, that the difference between the two investigations resides in the fact that the Portuguese are pursuing a murder inquiry, whereas the Met. have adopted the 'stolen' approach? A discrepancy of that order might also explain perhaps, for the benefit of those who notice such things, why the Portuguese would see themselves as having to 'do everything over here', whilst the Met., as we know from the recent spate of letter writing, cannot police Portugal.

If the Policia Judiciaria were genuinely keen to 'collar' a trio of burglars for having 'stolen' Madeleine McCann (be they Portuguese, Romany, Cap Verde, German, Scandinavian, Moroccan – the list of candidate nationalities is a lengthy one), then it's difficult to see why they should want to do anything 'over here' at all. Unless of course the perpetrators were already numbered among the UK immigrant statistics for the past seven years.

After reading again, i think the word sadly is belatedly attributed to the murder theory

Okay so sadly taken wasn't the quote.

Not sure why he has to throw in sadly at all, like we are unaware of how we should feel.

yes - it is sad when a child is murdered, taken - or neglected by her parents.

"Sadly" must be the buzz word amongst SY detectives. Redwood used it also during his first interview, the now infamous "alive or sadly dead comment".

So alive or sadly dead has changed to murdered or sadly lost due to somebody else stealing them.

Alive or dead v murdered (dead) or lost by stealing (alive)

Was BHH trying to quote from the originally prepared alive or sadly dead statement and got his lines mixed up ?

Or sadly, are we right back where we started............

If anything I think we are a lot further back than when we started.  If that makes any sense.  But nothing about this case makes any sense.

The only people likely to serve justice on the mccanns will be the twins.And thats unlikely as i would imagine Maddies shrine has cult status in that house.

The British police have no intention of pursuing the mccanns and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous they will look if they go and arrest the very smell thats been up their noses for seven years now.

Lioned wrote:The only people likely to serve justice on the mccanns will be the twins.And thats unlikely as i would imagine Maddies shrine has cult status in that house.

The British police have no intention of pursuing the mccanns and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous they will look if they go and arrest the very smell thats been up their noses for seven years now.

Sadly that's how it looks. Indeed the British police are finding out just how difficult it is to not solve a crime, especially when there is so much indicative evidence and the police force of another country involved. This is why they look increasingly stupid - just like Edgar and Mitchell did with their phoney 'police' press conferences. If the Portuguese do not solve this on their own it looks increasingly like a stalemate in which Scotland Yard shelve their 'investigation' and blame it on the lack of Portuguese support. The outcome of the libel trial will show the direction this is likely to take. IMO there is good reason to suspect that the tactics have been to delay the trial long enough to allow the yard time to pressure the Portuguese into opening new lines of inquiry involving the 'search' for an abductor.

mossman wrote:"Sadly" must be the buzz word amongst SY detectives. Redwood used it also during his first interview, the now infamous "alive or sadly dead comment".

So alive or sadly dead has changed to murdered or sadly lost due to somebody else stealing them.  

Alive or dead     v      murdered (dead)  or lost by stealing (alive)

Was BHH trying to quote from the originally prepared alive or sadly dead statement and got his lines mixed up ?  

Or sadly, are we right back where we started............

The age progressed picture of Madeleine was sadly missing on the crimewatch in UK, Holland & Germany...any plans for a new one? Is this a clue on how Redwood felt the 50/50 had progressed since his quite unbelievable comment after reviewing the case for 12 months?
On the crimewatch UK update, Redwood thanked the public for their help, no new appeals for any more info whilst asking for calm...the Times broke with how the vital e-fit, according to Redwood, had been suppressed from the public for over 5 years

The British establishment aren't very good at whitewashes are they?

I wonder what exactly was the point of the Crimewatch programme.  As they certainly didn't want to hear what is for many people obviously staring them in the face.

MaryB wrote:I wonder what exactly was the point of the Crimewatch programme.  As they certainly didn't want to hear what is for many people obviously staring them in the face.

They asked if 'smithman' could come forward & eliminate himself out of their inquiries as their number 1 suspect, seen heading towards the ocean...the e-fit the McCanns hid from the world...wonder if he could say, he never seen the crimewatch appeal?   

Presumably Smithman isn't the three burglars morphed into one.  But I suppose he might be one of the burglars and the other two might be those two men seen arguing in the street.  I wonder if they are any nearer to finding out exactly who Smithman was or likely to be.

MaryB wrote:I wonder what exactly was the point of the Crimewatch programme.  As they certainly didn't want to hear what is for many people obviously staring them in the face.

The point of the crimewatch programme was to try and sanitise the mccann version of events.

matthew wrote:

mossman wrote:"Sadly" must be the buzz word amongst SY detectives. Redwood used it also during his first interview, the now infamous "alive or sadly dead comment".

So alive or sadly dead has changed to murdered or sadly lost due to somebody else stealing them.  

Alive or dead     v      murdered (dead)  or lost by stealing (alive)

Was BHH trying to quote from the originally prepared alive or sadly dead statement and got his lines mixed up ?  

Or sadly, are we right back where we started............

The age progressed picture of Madeleine was sadly missing on the crimewatch in UK, Holland & Germany...any plans for a new one? Is this a clue on how Redwood felt the 50/50 had progressed since his quite unbelievable comment after reviewing the case for 12 months?
On the crimewatch UK update, Redwood thanked the public for their help, no new appeals for any more info whilst asking for calm...the Times broke with how the vital e-fit, according to Redwood, had been suppressed from the public for over 5 years

The British establishment aren't very good at whitewashes are they?

Or at climbing down, especially where Johnny Foreigner is concerned - which at the end of the day is what I think this whole miserable pantomime is all about. Pathetic IMO

"We're trying our best to keep the family informed and I think in the middle of all this, quite often their torment gets lost. Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

What a ridiculous statement. "We're trying our best to keep the family informed: = We're not telling them everything.

"Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

"Someone else stealing THEM" Sorry, bit I'm lost here.

maebee wrote:
"We're trying our best to keep the family informed and I think in the middle of all this, quite often their torment gets lost. Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

What a ridiculous statement. "We're trying our best to keep the family informed: = We're not telling them everything.

"Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

"Someone else stealing THEM" Sorry, bit I'm lost here.

Aren't we all maebee  

I wrote to Theresa May a few weeks ago about the high cost of this investigation which is going nowwhere especially when the money could have been used to much better effect. I received a reply from her Assistant 'as you will appreciate , the Home Secretary is extremely busy , but your comments have been noted'

T4two wrote:

matthew wrote:

mossman wrote:"Sadly" must be the buzz word amongst SY detectives. Redwood used it also during his first interview, the now infamous "alive or sadly dead comment".

So alive or sadly dead has changed to murdered or sadly lost due to somebody else stealing them.  

Alive or dead     v      murdered (dead)  or lost by stealing (alive)

Was BHH trying to quote from the originally prepared alive or sadly dead statement and got his lines mixed up ?  

Or sadly, are we right back where we started............

The age progressed picture of Madeleine was sadly missing on the crimewatch in UK, Holland & Germany...any plans for a new one? Is this a clue on how Redwood felt the 50/50 had progressed since his quite unbelievable comment after reviewing the case for 12 months?
On the crimewatch UK update, Redwood thanked the public for their help, no new appeals for any more info whilst asking for calm...the Times broke with how the vital e-fit, according to Redwood, had been suppressed from the public for over 5 years

The British establishment aren't very good at whitewashes are they?

Or at climbing down, especially where Johnny Foreigner is concerned - which at the end of the day is what I think this whole miserable pantomime is all about. Pathetic IMO

The British establishment if it is involved at all has done a very good job at the whitewash up to now I would say. None of us is familiar enough with the reach of social media and the global community to stuff things under the rug as we could have done before twitter and facebook and the ability for readers to comment on stories online.

The British establishment - whatever that is - Government, SY, Home office, state controlledmedia abetted by Carter Ruck and libel laws - has to struggle with the fact that anything that goes online - and that includes anything in the media as well as PJ reports - is now open and visible to the world and you might as well stand on a stage with a megaphone and shout it out, there are no secrets. Makes it much harder to white wash but easier to spin - they have done a good job at the things they tried to spin and white wash, you can't argue that the media monitor did not earn his pay given that the Internet opens a Pandora's box where as before the box was SHUT.

The presence of people like Pat Brown who have visibility and speak about cases and profiling also make this like herding cats.

not to say I think they should do this job but to the extent they are doing it they've kept heads above water, at least with the 70% of the population that does not rely on social media or online content. The big job is shutting the box and re trapping the horses now they are out of the barn - to mix a metaphor.