Seven more Portuguese and British Arguidos in the Maddie case

Scapegoat by h.koppdelaney

by Marisa Rodrigues

They know Praia da Luz. They know each other. They made phone calls on the night of the disappearance. Some have a record for petty crimes. Others are former workers from the Ocean Club. Seven Portuguese and British nationals fit in this profile, and are now, for Scotland Yard (SY) the new suspects of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

The group is going to be constituted as arguido [formal suspect] and interrogated by the Judiciary Police (PJ), who are also going to question four witnesses at the request of the British authorities. In the list of the eleven people there is at least one woman.

The proceedings are scheduled for the last week of November, at the PJ's South Directorate in Faro. They appear in the fifth rogatory letter and were authorized by the new prosecutor at the Public Ministry of Portimão, Inês Sequeira, to whom the process was assigned.

These new seven arguidos will join the other four men constituted as arguidos and questioned in July. The British investigation now has eleven suspects.

The Scotland Yard thesis remains unchanged. On May 3, 2007, there was a failed robbery at the apartment 5A where the McCanns left their three children alone to go to dinner. Madeleine, then aged three years old, woke up and was abducted so she wouldn't recognize and accuse the intruders - a crime that may have been committed by one of the arguidos or by several, in association. This was one of the theories followed by the PJ at the time [2007] and eventually dismissed due to the lack of evidence that a burglary had ever taken place at the apartment.

The new phase of the SY investigation comes at a time when the British press reported that Andy Redwood's team was scaled back and now has fewer people working on it.

The English detectives will have to request the permission of the National Directorate of the PJ to be able to follow the inquiries and interrogatories in Faro, as it happened in July.

in Jornal de Notícias, Nov. 10, 2014 (paper edition)

Karen wrote:


Scapegoat by h.koppdelaney

by Marisa Rodrigues

They know Praia da Luz. They know each other. They made phone calls on the night of the disappearance. Some have a record for petty crimes. Others are former workers from the Ocean Club. Seven Portuguese and British nationals fit in this profile, and are now, for Scotland Yard (SY) the new suspects of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

The group is going to be constituted as arguido [formal suspect] and interrogated by the Judiciary Police (PJ), who are also going to question four witnesses at the request of the British authorities. In the list of the eleven people there is at least one woman.

The proceedings are scheduled for the last week of November, at the PJ's South Directorate in Faro. They appear in the fifth rogatory letter and were authorized by the new prosecutor at the Public Ministry of Portimão, Inês Sequeira, to whom the process was assigned.

These new seven arguidos will join the other four men constituted as arguidos and questioned in July. The British investigation now has eleven suspects.

The Scotland Yard thesis remains unchanged. On May 3, 2007, there was a failed robbery at the apartment 5A where the McCanns left their three children alone to go to dinner. Madeleine, then aged three years old, woke up and was abducted so she wouldn't recognize and accuse the intruders - a crime that may have been committed by one of the arguidos or by several, in association. This was one of the theories followed by the PJ at the time [2007] and eventually dismissed due to the lack of evidence that a burglary had ever taken place at the apartment.

The new phase of the SY investigation comes at a time when the British press reported that Andy Redwood's team was scaled back and now has fewer people working on it.

The English detectives will have to request the permission of the National Directorate of the PJ to be able to follow the inquiries and interrogatories in Faro, as it happened in July.

in Jornal de Notícias, Nov. 10, 2014 (paper edition)

Thanks Karen.

More here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828316/Madeleine-McCann-investigators-questioning-Britons-new-official-suspects-girl-s-disappearance-Portugal.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Failed robbery? Can anyone tell me why they would pick this apartment. Children left alone. Didn't the other couples leave their kids unattended? Did the robbers know that the doors would be unlocked and unattended. Most people when they go out lock the doors. I have just got to wonder how long these straws that the Met are clutching at will hold out before they break.

At the end off the day ,SY arent looking for Madeleine, the mccanns aren't looking for Madeleine..SY know Madeleine is dead, the mccanns know Madeleine is dead.



What SY is looking for is...to change history, to change the original PJ theory that Madeleine died in apt 5a on the 3rd may 2007 and the parents won't give up the cadaver.



What SY is rewriting is....Madeleine died in apt 5a after waking up and disturbing a burglar and her body was hidden and as yet, hasn't been found.


Therefore, the perp is still out there and the body off Madeleine and is waiting to be found one day.


Case closed...shelved as a cold case.

They certainly aren't looking for Maddie, they're looking for a "schoolgirl". According to the Mirror, anyway. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-missing-brits-among-4603875

I look forward to Redwoods explanation as to why the burglar(s) turned murderer(s) sat around in apartment 5a with a dead body for a period of time long enough to allow cadaver scent to develop, and why they were not noticed during the very frequent checks by the very responsible adults.

The only alternative explanation he can give is that the dogs, so often relied on by police, were wrong.  However to accept that Madeleine was dead in 5a, surely proves the dogs were right.  So...did the burglars/murderers have a glass of New Zeland wine and watch the footy while making a plan on where to dispose of the body, all the while allowing time for the scent to develop ?  If Redwood says so it must be true.

But, and there always is a but, how does that explain the other alerts in the car and clothing ?  The dogs were wrong in that instance perhaps ?  Nope, that does not work for me.  Time for Redwood to start thinking again.

Those dogs just cannot be explained away.

If they have come to the conclusion that she died in a bungled burglary...will the mccanns be held accountable for neglecting Madeleine enabling the burglars to murder her?

SY can Say that the burglars hid the body and then when the mccanns hired the car, the burglars waited for the mccanns to be asleep, stole the car, retrieved the body , took it to it's final resting place, buried it and sneaked the car back without the mccanns knowing it...

It's just been headline news on itv....you couldn't make this shit up!

kitti wrote:SY can Say that the burglars hid the body and then when the mccanns hired the car, the burglars  waited for the  mccanns to be asleep, stole the car, retrieved the body , took it to it's final resting place, buried it and sneaked the car back without the mccanns knowing it...

   Is that you, DCI Redwood ?  Welcome to the forum.  

If Redwood truly believes this preposterous theory, then he must be intellectually challenged.

I would like to know of just one instance in all of history, that this scenario has ever happened. Just one. I am waiting...

Burglars don't steal dead children and leave the loot you moron!

One thing that both the Portuguese and Met agree on is that Madeleine is dead. So, because her death was a direct result of the McCann's negligence, it is about time to prosecute for neglect leading to death.

mossman wrote:I look forward to Redwoods explanation as to why the burglar(s) turned murderer(s) sat around in apartment 5a with a dead body for a period of time long enough to allow cadaver scent to develop, and why they were not noticed during the very frequent checks by the very responsible adults.

The only alternative explanation he can give is that the dogs, so often relied on by police, were wrong.  However to accept that Madeleine was dead in 5a, surely proves the dogs were right.  So...did the burglars/murderers have a glass of New Zeland wine and watch the footy while making a plan on where to dispose of the body, all the while allowing time for the scent to develop ?  If Redwood says so it must be true.

But, and there always is a but, how does that explain the other alerts in the car and clothing ?  The dogs were wrong in that instance perhaps ?  Nope, that does not work for me.  Time for Redwood to start thinking again.

Those dogs just cannot be explained away.

Agreed.

If cadaver odour takes 1-2 hours to develope then the mccanns were with Madeleine when she died.

Then you have the problem of the hire car and Kate's clothes.

Redwood is just a puppet on a string...waiting for his retirement.

kitti wrote:SY can Say that the burglars hid the body and then when the mccanns hired the car, the burglars  waited for the  mccanns to be asleep, stole the car, retrieved the body , took it to it's final resting place, buried it and sneaked the car back without the mccanns knowing it...

That is so funny. I can visualise it as a black and white silent movie.

I don't believe the police have shoe-size IQ so what does all this say about the government????

Do they think we are all this gullible to believe what the papers tell us? I think they do.

kitti wrote:At the end off the day ,SY arent looking for Madeleine, the mccanns aren't looking for Madeleine..SY know Madeleine is dead, the mccanns know Madeleine is dead.

might want to consider this is what they are working towards. the elimination of every other possibly until they are left with only one conclusion for which they already have indicative evidence.

Marky wrote:

kitti wrote:At the end off the day ,SY arent looking for Madeleine, the mccanns aren't looking for Madeleine..SY know Madeleine is dead, the mccanns know Madeleine is dead.

might want to consider this is what they are working towards. the elimination of every other possibly until they are left with only one conclusion for which they already have indicative evidence.

Marky, I agree with this. This is what I have been thinking and hoping is happening.

chrissie wrote:

Marky wrote:

kitti wrote:At the end off the day ,SY arent looking for Madeleine, the mccanns aren't looking for Madeleine..SY know Madeleine is dead, the mccanns know Madeleine is dead.

might want to consider this is what they are working towards. the elimination of every other possibly until they are left with only one conclusion for which they already have indicative evidence.

Marky, I agree with this.  This is what I have been thinking and hoping is happening.

it seems logical to me but unfortunately these things take time. wonder who the british couple are?

Marky wrote:

chrissie wrote:

Marky wrote:

kitti wrote:At the end off the day ,SY arent looking for Madeleine, the mccanns aren't looking for Madeleine..SY know Madeleine is dead, the mccanns know Madeleine is dead.

might want to consider this is what they are working towards. the elimination of every other possibly until they are left with only one conclusion for which they already have indicative evidence.

Marky, I agree with this.  This is what I have been thinking and hoping is happening.

it seems logical to me but unfortunately these things take time. wonder who the british couple are?

My thoughts exactly and yes, these things do take time. The McCanns must be finding the headline of Maddie Cops to quiz Brit man and woman most unhelpful. SY will be playing cards close to their chest.

That's right, all these "sources" certainly aren't Operation Grange. The police just do not work like that.

Iris wrote:That's right, all these "sources" certainly aren't Operation Grange.  The police just do not work like that.

unlikely they would but the information is coming from somewhere. now, who would have an interest in making a big deal about a routine line of enquiry?