Madeleine McCann #4

[cee-bee]

That’s all well and good, and you certainly bring an interesting perspective to this discussion. I take your point about not securing the apartment.

But if we’re not supposed to look at useless stuff like Daily Mail headlines because that makes us small-minded AND we’re also not supposed to look at original source material like the witness statements because we don’t understand it, what’s left? Making kind comments about the McCanns because they might have had a terrible crime committed against them, and talking about whatever latest version of Tannerman is being paraded in front of us this year, doesn’t make for a very satisfying discussion.

I don’t quite understand the point about how witnesses contradicting each other and themselves don’t tell us anything. If witness statements don’t tell us anything, and the dogs don’t tell us anything. what’s the point of any of it? Or is your feeling that there are no definite conclusions to draw from anything, so why bother discussing it?

Or is it the discussion of professional matters by a bunch of interested non-professionals you don’t like? I get it by the way… I used to work in a field everyone thinks they can do with no training, and it sometimes really bugged me.

But it’s the nature of this case and our shared desire for closure (and a sense some of have of being duped in a very significant though difficult-to-articulate way) that people are going to keep on speculating and trying to make things fit, because they feel they need to - whether they know exactly what they’re doing or not.

I don’t think there’s harm in discussing it… but what I find quite… well, unfair. And sad. Is people using the available material as confirming what they already feel about the case, as opposed to use it as probing and querying it. For example, reading a daily Mail headline (which, by their nature, are emotive) and feeling by swayed by it (subconsciously or not), and then looking at source material to confirm those feelings.

people decided on the McCanns guilt out of emotional reaction, it’s a known phenomenon that humans victim blame out of fear. Whatever the reason, and then will look at something such as the witness statements. There are some fairly innocuous inconsistencies and instead of seeing it as such, it points to lies. The McCanns MUST be lying.

I don’t think the witness statements are irrelevant, but the overarching theme is the same - which is the key thing you’re looking for as an investigator. They were all having dinner at about half 8pm (I think), they took turns at checking on the children and at about 10pm they realised Maddie was missing.

small inconsistencies - like time being slightly off, or how far wide open a door was - are rarely sinister. It’s just how human memory works. It would become sinister if the members of the party deviated significantly from their story and did so on multiple occasions. A few changes here and there aren’t a big of a deal usually. They aren’t indicative of guilt. But people assume it is though, because… they don’t have experience of investigations. They don’t know this is the norm. They’ve probably never even had to provide a witness statement and realise actually, it’s quite hard to recall some details, especially during a traumatic incident.

the dogs weren’t introduced to the case to provide answers to the general public or to provide topics for discussion forums. They were introduced as an intel gathering exercise. If they’d generated evidence then we probably wouldn’t be discussing them.. we’d be discussing whatever evidence they led detectives too. And since they didn’t generate evidence, they aren’t really worth talking about. This whole discussion started from me, started because I pointed out a journalist asking Gerry why the dogs indicated, was a stupid question. And the journalist herself has agreed on this - she has said she is embarrassed for having asked that, and she feels misled by the PJ.

If you feel duped.. I don’t think the McCanns are the ones to blame, but I get where you’re coming from.

 

[Tifastrife]

very little to indicate an abuction?

the mother actively claiming an abduction for one? The opened window? The bleeding missing child?



across the U.K, urban police aim to respond to urgent call outs within 15 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas. So over an hour is a long time, especially with something as time critical as a missing child.

if a child went missing near you, wherever you are, an officer would be on the scene within half an hour, maximum.

bobbies on the best, aren’t the same as officers stationed at police stations. Just because you don’t have police with a street presence, doesn’t mean they aren’t active.

Not everywhere in the UK. Living in the Highlands it can take well over an hour. I know from experience (albeit not of abduction but other serious situations lol).

 

[Pulltheotherone]

I hear you CE-bee but I just don’t buy what you are selling.
They are literally up to there neck in lies and half truths

 

[Jen667]

I hear you CE-bee but I just don’t buy what you are selling.
They are literally up to there neck in lies and half truths

They're not though. so much of what is claimed on forums just isn't true.

 

[Pulltheotherone]

We need to agree to disagree then.
that all good !

 

[Hot_Dogs_Or_Toes]

I don’t think there’s harm in discussing it… but what I find quite… well, unfair. And sad. Is people using the available material as confirming what they already feel about the case, as opposed to use it as probing and querying it. For example, reading a daily Mail headline (which, by their nature, are emotive) and feeling by swayed by it (subconsciously or not), and then looking at source material to confirm those feelings.

people decided on the McCanns guilt out of emotional reaction, it’s a known phenomenon that humans victim blame out of fear. Whatever the reason, and then will look at something such as the witness statements. There are some fairly innocuous inconsistencies and instead of seeing it as such, it points to lies. The McCanns MUST be lying.

I don’t think the witness statements are irrelevant, but the overarching theme is the same - which is the key thing you’re looking for as an investigator. They were all having dinner at about half 8pm (I think), they took turns at checking on the children and at about 10pm they realised Maddie was missing.

small inconsistencies - like time being slightly off, or how far wide open a door was - are rarely sinister. It’s just how human memory works. It would become sinister if the members of the party deviated significantly from their story and did so on multiple occasions. A few changes here and there aren’t a big of a deal usually. They aren’t indicative of guilt. But people assume it is though, because… they don’t have experience of investigations. They don’t know this is the norm. They’ve probably never even had to provide a witness statement and realise actually, it’s quite hard to recall some details, especially during a traumatic incident.

the dogs weren’t introduced to the case to provide answers to the general public or to provide topics for discussion forums. They were introduced as an intel gathering exercise. If they’d generated evidence then we probably wouldn’t be discussing them.. we’d be discussing whatever evidence they led detectives too. And since they didn’t generate evidence, they aren’t really worth talking about. This whole discussion started from me, started because I pointed out a journalist asking Gerry why the dogs indicated, was a stupid question. And the journalist herself has agreed on this - she has said she is embarrassed for having asked that, and she feels misled by the PJ.

If you feel duped.. I don’t think the McCanns are the ones to blame, but I get where you’re coming from.

You're a breath of fresh air to this thread cee-bee thank you.

 

[Blurp]

The British police are just as capable of bungling a case as the Portuguese or any other. Frankly, there are certain UK forces, including the Met, that I wouldn't trust further than I could throw, having heard the inside stories.

I worked for a national police agency and did a lot of liaison work with European forces, including secondment; we could learn a lot from them and vice versa.

It's that kind of arrogant tit from the media that hobbled the investigation by implying that the Portuguese police were incompetent.

 

[Lady_H]

I don’t think there’s harm in discussing it… but what I find quite… well, unfair. And sad. Is people using the available material as confirming what they already feel about the case, as opposed to use it as probing and querying it. For example, reading a daily Mail headline (which, by their nature, are emotive) and feeling by swayed by it (subconsciously or not), and then looking at source material to confirm those feelings.

people decided on the McCanns guilt out of emotional reaction, it’s a known phenomenon that humans victim blame out of fear. Whatever the reason, and then will look at something such as the witness statements. There are some fairly innocuous inconsistencies and instead of seeing it as such, it points to lies. The McCanns MUST be lying.

I don’t think the witness statements are irrelevant, but the overarching theme is the same - which is the key thing you’re looking for as an investigator. They were all having dinner at about half 8pm (I think), they took turns at checking on the children and at about 10pm they realised Maddie was missing.

small inconsistencies - like time being slightly off, or how far wide open a door was - are rarely sinister. It’s just how human memory works. It would become sinister if the members of the party deviated significantly from their story and did so on multiple occasions. A few changes here and there aren’t a big of a deal usually. They aren’t indicative of guilt. But people assume it is though, because… they don’t have experience of investigations. They don’t know this is the norm. They’ve probably never even had to provide a witness statement and realise actually, it’s quite hard to recall some details, especially during a traumatic incident.

the dogs weren’t introduced to the case to provide answers to the general public or to provide topics for discussion forums. They were introduced as an intel gathering exercise. If they’d generated evidence then we probably wouldn’t be discussing them.. we’d be discussing whatever evidence they led detectives too. And since they didn’t generate evidence, they aren’t really worth talking about. This whole discussion started from me, started because I pointed out a journalist asking Gerry why the dogs indicated, was a stupid question. And the journalist herself has agreed on this - she has said she is embarrassed for having asked that, and she feels misled by the PJ.

If you feel duped.. I don’t think the McCanns are the ones to blame, but I get where you’re coming from.

people decided on the McCanns guilt out of emotional reaction, it’s a known phenomenon that humans victim blame out of fear. To the best of my knowledge there is only one victim in this case, and nobody is blaming her.

I actually agree entirely with your first paragraph. But don’t you think people have also decided on the McCann’s innocence out of emotional reaction as well? The vast majority of people know this case from the headlines. There’s nothing special or superior about people who believe the McCanns are innocent: they haven’t “probed and queried” their own opinions more than people who think they’re guilty - in fact in my experience, rather less. The original positive public reaction to McCanns, and all those donations, certainly wasn’t based on facts and logical thinking.

Speaking for myself I have found that the more “querying and probing” I’ve done, and the more detail I’ve read about the various different bits of the case, the less emotional I’ve become - and the less inclined to believe the McCanns and the more convinced that something is very wrong indeed with the way Madeleine’s disappearance has been presented to us.

 

[cee-bee]

The British police are just as capable of bungling a case as the Portuguese or any other. Frankly, there are certain UK forces, including the Met, that I wouldn't trust further than I could throw, having heard the inside stories.

I worked for a national police agency and did a lot of liaison work with European forces, including secondment; we could learn a lot from them and vice versa.

It's that kind of arrogant tit from the media that hobbled the investigation by implying that the Portuguese police were incompetent.

ok but… making an argument about the efficacy of British policing is a moot point and a fallacy. The British police could’ve been amazing, or they could’ve been awful. It’s irrelevant either way, because in the early days of the investigation, in the golden hours, the Portuguese police didn’t follow basic police protocols. The British police bodies weren’t there.

the PJ owned up to this. They admitted this. They admitted their reaction was slow. They admitted the initial searches and forensic swabbing was basic and low level.

they misinterpreted a DNA report.

they leaked information to the press that they shouldn’t really have been (aka the DNA report).

none of that has anything to do with the British police bodies, none. They weren’t present in the case at that time. No one is even making an argument that the British police were superior.

I actually agree entirely with your first paragraph. But don’t you think people have also decided on the McCann’s innocence out of emotional reaction as well? The vast majority of people know this case from the headlines. There’s nothing special or superior about people who believe the McCanns are innocent: they haven’t “probed and queried” their own opinions more than people who think they’re guilty - in fact in my experience, rather less. The original positive public reaction to McCanns, and all those donations, certainly wasn’t based on facts and logical thinking.

I didn’t say there was anything superior about people believing they were innocent though.

 

[Blurp]

ok but… making an argument about the efficacy of British policing is a moot point and a fallacy. The British police could’ve been amazing, or they could’ve been awful. It’s irrelevant either way, because in the early days of the investigation, in the golden hours, the Portuguese police didn’t follow basic police protocols. The British police bodies weren’t there.

the PJ owned up to this. They admitted this. They admitted their reaction was slow. They admitted the initial searches and forensic swabbing was basic and low level.

they misinterpreted a DNA report.

they leaked information to the press that they shouldn’t really have been (aka the DNA report).

none of that has anything to do with the British police bodies, none. They weren’t present in the case at that time. No one is even making an argument that the British police were superior.



I didn’t say there was anything superior about people believing they were innocent though.

Really? You certainly seem to be with all your talk about the Great British Police do this and that, and how you know this because you are One Of Them.

I very much doubt that you know any more than any of us who have read all the files and interviews out there.

And, no, cops wouldn't get to a missing child scene within an hour in many parts of the UK. Nice if you live in a heavily populated area though.

 

[cee-bee]

Really? You certainly seem to be with all your talk about the Great British Police do this and that.

did i though? Can you quote me where I said anything along those lines?

and even if I was the biggest fangirl of the British police this nation has ever seen… how relevant would that be anyway? My point still stands. They weren’t involved at that key point in the investigation. Them being good/bad at their jobs has no bear whatsoever on the actions the PJ and GNR undertook (or didn’t undertake) the night maddie went missing. It’s irrelevant.

 

[Lady_H]

did i though? Can you quote me where I said anything along those lines?

and even if I was the biggest fangirl of the British police this nation has ever seen… how relevant would that be anyway? My point still stands. They weren’t involved at that key point in the investigation. Them being good/bad at their jobs has no bear whatsoever on the actions the PJ and GNR undertook (or didn’t undertake) the night maddie went missing. It’s irrelevant.

So to summarise…

Dogs: irrelevant (and apparently not just used to supply discussion forums with stuff to talk about)

Witness statements: slightly relevant but not worth discussing because nobody else could possibly understand them

British police: irrelevant (AND a moot point AND a fallacy)

I see a theme emerging

Should we all just swap recipes?

 

[Blurp]

did i though? Can you quote me where I said anything along those lines?

and even if I was the biggest fangirl of the British police this nation has ever seen… how relevant would that be anyway? My point still stands. They weren’t involved at that key point in the investigation. Them being good/bad at their jobs has no bear whatsoever on the actions the PJ and GNR undertook (or didn’t undertake) the night maddie went missing. It’s irrelevant.

It's your whole attitude. "A rookie knows this" sums it up pretty well after going on about how the UK would do fingerprinting and how the Portuguese didn't.

Mind you, I've never heard a probationer officer or anyone new to the job called a rookie in UK policing, and I've come across quite literally hundreds. US and Canada, yes. Likewise, I doubt that a UK police officer or staff would be suggesting that Gerry McCann got drunk in an interview: "Gerry got pissed". You're very keen to establish yourself as being formerly in law enforcement but really? A superintendent a senior officer? Not even the top of non-command level. Department head, if that. Middle ranking. Maybe I'm just used to dealing with Chief Supers and command level though.

 

[cee-bee]

It's your whole attitude. "A rookie knows this" sums it up pretty well after going on about how the UK would do fingerprinting and how the Portuguese didn't.

Mind you, I've never heard a probationer officer or anyone new to the job called a rookie in UK policing, and I've come across quite literally hundreds. US and Canada, yes. Likewise, I doubt that a UK police officer or staff would be suggesting that Gerry McCann got drunk in an interview: "Gerry got pissed". You're very keen to establish yourself as being formerly in law enforcement but really? A superintendent a senior officer? Not even the top of non-command level. Department head, if that. Middle ranking. Maybe I'm just used to dealing with Chief Supers and command level though.

youre misquoting me though. I said a rookie police officer would know to wear gloves when swabbing. I didn’t make any comparison to U.K. police and it’s a European-wide practice. Police in Portugal do it too.

ive mentioned *once* that I worked formerly in law enforcement because it was relevant to the point I was making, talking about my experience working with sniffer dogs. Once.

I also didn’t suggest Gerry got drunk on an interview…? I said pissed, as in pissed off. Angry, annoyed. Etc.

A superintendent is a pretty senior police level imo The college of policing describethe rank as “Superintendents lead a large and/or complex area of command within forces and across collaborations, strategic alliances and partnerships, carrying responsibility for all activities in their area.”
If you don’t think that’s senior though, fine. What’s your point there? What’s relevant about that? Are you saying I’m lying? Believe what you want then, it’s an Internet forum, it’s perfectly logical to take things with a pinch of salt. I’m not trying to prove my credentials on here though, I’m making points about what is actually evidential and incriminating against the McCanns, and what best practice police work looks like.

So to summarise…

Dogs: irrelevant (and apparently not just used to supply discussion forums with stuff to talk about)

Witness statements: slightly relevant but not worth discussing because nobody else could possibly understand them

British police: irrelevant (AND a moot point AND a fallacy)

I see a theme emerging

Should we all just swap recipes?

yes the theme is: look at facts.

 

[Blurp]

youre misquoting me though. I said a rookie police officer would know to wear gloves when swabbing. I didn’t make any comparison to U.K. police and it’s a European-wide practice. Police in Portugal do it too.

ive mentioned *once* that I worked formerly in law enforcement because it was relevant to the point I was making, talking about my experience working with sniffer dogs. Once.

I also didn’t suggest Gerry got drunk on an interview…? I said pissed, as in pissed off. Angry, annoyed. Etc.

A superintendent is a pretty senior police level imo The college of policing describethe rank as “Superintendents lead a large and/or complex area of command within forces and across collaborations, strategic alliances and partnerships, carrying responsibility for all activities in their area.”
If you don’t think that’s senior though, fine. What’s your point there? What’s relevant about that? Are you saying I’m lying? Believe what you want then, it’s an Internet forum, it’s perfectly logical to take things with a pinch of salt. I’m not trying to prove my credentials on here though, I’m making points about what is actually evidential and incriminating against the McCanns, and what best practice police work looks like.



yes the theme is: look at facts.

You don't need to quote encyclopaedias at me; I'm well aware of what a superintendent does. When you work for a group of people at chief constable level, then superintendents are just the guys at the coffee break.

I'm just saying that it's odd to use terms generally used in US and Canadian policing and not here. We don't have rookies; we have probationers. Likewise, in the UK pissed means drunk; one needs the full 'pissed off' to convey annoyed. Pissed on its own for annoyed is a North American term.

To use a military term, I'm suspicious of a Walt.

 

[cee-bee]

You don't need to quote encyclopaedias at me; I'm well aware of what a superintendent does. When you work for a group of people at chief constable level, then superintendents are just the guys at the coffee break.

I'm just saying that it's odd to use terms generally used in US and Canadian policing and not here. We don't have rookies; we have probationers. Likewise, in the UK pissed means drunk; one needs the full 'pissed off' to convey annoyed. Pissed on its own for annoyed is a North American term.

To use a military term, I'm suspicious of a Walt.

Since we’ve descended to new lows of pedantry it seems, I actually quoted a role description from the college of policing, not an encyclopaedia. My point being, it’s reasonable and justified to call a superintendent “senior” because they actually hold a lot of responsibility over how investigations and teams are led. Maybe you don’t agree with that, but that’s kind of beside the point isn’t it?

You’re questioning if it’s a senior role (for reasons unknown to me, since it doesn’t really have much to do with this discussion) so I back up my take with a quote from the college of policing who I would say have a good idea of what police ranks entail. And the level of responsibility a superintendent has, is actually enshrined in law (PACE 84). So regardless of what your personal experience is, the fact that legally a superintendent is required to sign off and justify certain policing authorities, this suggests a higher level of responsibility. so… do you think you can maybe move on from this point? since it doesn't bring much to the conversation about maddie anyay?

Im not calling Gerry “pissed” or calling someone a “rookie” from a policing perspective? Those are just figures of speech that I used. Maybe that is North American but… so? So what? They aren’t incorrect? They conveyed correctly, what I meant to say. So what if (according to you) that isn’t common policing vernacular? What’s your actual point here? I’m struggling to understand what it is.

it seems to be that you’re taking umbridge at the factual information im referring to alongside my interpretation of some aspects of it, and instead of discussing what I actually said/wrote or offering a different interpretation - you’re trying to pick apart me, personally. That’s just how it’s coming across to me.

like I said before, fine if you don’t believe me. I don’t care about that, be suspicious. But look at what I’m saying and writing and … go after that? Pick apart what I’m saying with factual information that contradicts it? I’m not trying to convince anyone on this thread of my credentials, like I said before.

 

[Blurp]

Since we’ve descended to new lows of pedantry it seems, I actually quoted a role description from the college of policing, not an encyclopaedia. My point being, it’s reasonable and justified to call a superintendent “senior” because they actually hold a lot of responsibility over how investigations and teams are led. Maybe you don’t agree with that, but that’s kind of beside the point isn’t it?

You’re questioning if it’s a senior role (for reasons unknown to me, since it doesn’t really have much to do with this discussion) so I back up my take with a quote from the college of policing who I would say have a good idea of what police ranks entail. And the level of responsibility a superintendent has, is actually enshrined in law (PACE 84). So regardless of what your personal experience is, the fact that legally a superintendent is required to sign off and justify certain policing authorities, this suggests a higher level of responsibility. so… do you think you can maybe move on from this point? since it doesn't bring much to the conversation about maddie anyay?

Im not calling Gerry “pissed” or calling someone a “rookie” from a policing perspective? Those are just figures of speech that I used. Maybe that is North American but… so? So what? They aren’t incorrect? They conveyed correctly, what I meant to say. So what if (according to you) that isn’t common policing vernacular? What’s your actual point here? I’m struggling to understand what it is.

it seems to be that you’re taking umbridge at the factual information im referring to alongside my interpretation of some aspects of it, and instead of discussing what I actually said/wrote or offering a different interpretation - you’re trying to pick apart me, personally. That’s just how it’s coming across to me.

In any hierarchy, each person takes more responsibility as they move up it. Obviously, given my previous employment, I have a good understanding of what police officer roles are, given that I've had to explain the nuances of our policing to foreign officers. Whether Wiki or the English college of policing, it's still something I know well. Your point?

I'm simply pointing out discrepancies between your use of language and who you purport to be, given that you use phrases such as "your professional opinion". You seem very keen to support the McCanns and certainly over keen to prove the Portuguese police at fault. Are English police failings too close to home for you?

While mistakes were certainly made, you seem to have a definite agenda hence my looking to see any evidence that you actually are who you say you are, given that you are laying on your purported experience and knowledge pretty thickly. You say pedantry, I say detail. You should know, what with having been in law enforcement and all, how important details and correct terms are.

Are you done talking down to us all from the mount of your knowledge so we can get back to Madeleine (never known as Maddie according to her parents)?

 

[Superdude]

I've been devoting a LOT of time to reading the case files. Witness statements, procedural evidence, follow-ups by UK police. It's fascinating.

It also seems that

1) the Portuguese police did a very poor job, initially
2) all the 'Tapas 7' felt an element of guilt at the childcare arrangements (unsurprising)
3) Gerry's personality doesn't lend itself to gaining sympathy
4) many of the wilder theories can be discounted by looking at the evidence
5) David Payne's interviews are rambling but that doesn't indicate any wrongdoing
6) Yvonne Martin acted in an astonishing fashion. She had no authority to question the McCanns or anyone else, and clearly she bore a grudge in not being allowed to get involved. Nasty sounding woman!
7) I hope further work was done in recovering mobile phone evidence. There's a few unanswered questions there.

 

[cee-bee]

In any hierarchy, each person takes more responsibility as they move up it. Obviously, given my previous employment, I have a good understanding of what police officer roles are, given that I've had to explain the nuances of our policing to foreign officers. Whether Wiki or the English college of policing, it's still something I know well. Your point?

I'm simply pointing out discrepancies between your use of language and who you purport to be, given that you use phrases such as "your professional opinion". You seem very keen to support the McCanns and certainly over keen to prove the Portuguese police at fault. Are English police failings too close to home for you?

While mistakes were certainly made, you seem to have a definite agenda hence my looking to see any evidence that you actually are who you say you are, given that you are laying on your purported experience and knowledge pretty thickly.

No you’re trying to discredit me, personally, because you don’t like what I’m saying. I could be a police officer with decades in the job (I’m not) and it wouldn’t matter if I didn’t use police lingo, because police slang would be inappropriate for this forum… because most people in the U.K. and using this forum arent police officers themselves. So why would I use slang that most readers won’t be familiar with?

bloody hell, so ive gone from a “Walt” faking it online, to a police officer linked to Leicestershire police/The met who investigated the case. What a journey I’ve had this morning!

 

[Moderator]

Gentle reminder to agree to disagree and move on / ignore rather than derail into arguments. Otherwise an argument can disrupt the thread for everyone and it's a difficult balancing act for mods. Thanks