Saturday, May 28, 2011

Met Police will carry out a review of Madeleine McCann Case but why prior to this were the Portuguese authorities not onboard?













Dear All

Through the Holyrood election and in the English local Council elections the Tories ran with a slogan which simply said ‘commonsense’.

Everything was commonsense this and commonsense that.

When David Cameron said that Met Police were going to review the Madeleine McCann and throw £3.5 million at it, I thought that was strange.

It is strange because for all the talk of a review, no one is using the pertinent word in this case; re-open.

And unless it is re-opened, with the co-operation of the Portuguese Judiciary Police (PJ), it is meaningless.

When Cameron popped up and made the announcement, I would have thought that prior to this, that there was already some kind of agreement in place between the British and Portuguese authorities.

And it turns out there isn’t!

This has lead to the Portuguese stating:

“the English need authorization from the Portuguese authorities to investigate in our country, because they do not have competence to act in Portugal”.

So, out of jurisdiction and no co-operation lined up, this isn’t a serious investigation because right from the start it is flawed.

Some high-ranking officers of the British police have equally criticised this decision, arguing that the money that is to be spent is more necessary for other cases.

Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police states:

"It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters."

To pull 30 frontline detectives offline and spend million pounds when the necessary prior work to ensure a proper investigation can be done is a complete farce.

This all came about after Kate and Gerry McCann, sent a letter to David Cameron, in which they asked for a review of the case.

'Dear Prime Minister,

As a devoted father and family man, you know the importance of children. Our beloved eldest child, Madeleine, was abducted from Praia da Luz, Portugal, four years ago. Since then, we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return.

Today we are asking you - and the British and Portuguese governments - to help find Madeleine and bring her back to her loving family.

We live in hope that Madeleine will be found alive and returned to us. One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor.

To this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities - which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes.

It is not right that a young vulnerable British citizen has essentially been given up on. This remains an unsolved case of a missing child. Children are our most precious gift.

Please don't give up on Madeleine.

Kate & Gerry McCann'

And with that Cameron was sucked into the McCann Circus along with 30 detectives and £3.5 million pounds.

Such a move makes Cameron a hostage to fortune when the next high profile case comes along and he turns it down.

Contrary to the general feelings within the PJ, Pedro do Carmo, joint national director at the Judiciary Police, cited by “I” newspaper, states that the PJ is available to cooperate in this case, and committed to finding out the “credible, consistent and relevant factors that may contribute to clarify what happened to Madeleine McCann”.

In that case, issues surround her parents as arguidos will come up again.

According to members of the PJ, the review of the Madeleine McCann case questions the professionalism of their officers, who did everything that was possible to solve the child’s disappearance.

Sources recall that, despite them having good criminal investigation labs, a political decision was made to have the tests carried out in English labs.

The source said:

“We let the English do everything that they want.”

Because of various political influences which was due to the missing child’s parents’ social and political status.

That means Gordon Brown and the Labour Government who looking for a feel good factor to boost Brown’s popularity became a problem in the investigation.

The Judiciary Police had already been warned that the Scotland Yard had the intention to analyse the case again.

This does not mean, however, that the criminal process, which is under the Public Ministry’s tutelage, will be reopened.

This process may be picked up again if new evidence that contribute to the investigation’s development are discovered.

Another problem is that some of the officers that are involved in the investigation into the disappearance of Maddie McCann, four years ago in Praia da Luz, are close to retirement or about to present a voluntary leave.

And this will cause the Met Police no end of trouble because the documents are nearly all in Portuguese and it would be better that these people were available.

It is no surprise that the McCann’s four years down the line and with a book to promote have written publicly to David Cameron.

They are quite good at manipulating the media; however at anything during the time when the case was archived they could have asked the Portuguese authorities to re-open it.

They didn’t and still haven’t because they can’t control or direct a re-opened investigation.

And still there is no justice for Madeleine McCann, just considerable number of questions which remain unanswered.

Kate McCann is alleged to have said “the kidnapper” who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children.

If she thought they were drugged, why didn’t she taken them to hospital on the night Madeleine disappeared to get checked?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for human Rights at Glasgow University

7 comments:

lj said...

Thank you for bringing up the McCanns case again. Although most of us become slightly enauseated by hearing that name, some things have become more interesting lately. Partly because of the book Kate wrote. Don't buy it is my advice. If you would buy it to help "the Fund" know that it is very unclear which actual part of the money goes to the fund, and what part of the fund really is used for searching for Madeleine iso the legal follies of the conning couple. Gerry has made it all very transparent and now not even a forensic accountant would be able to see the forest through the trees.

Gerry has a way of doing that. Remember how in the beginning Madeleine's coloboma was so prominent in all their campaign, the posters, descriptions, the LOOK logo?

Thanks to weissnicht at themaddiecasefiles:

[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIfTleZSgSi44-UeCxcdWeSGkykuSngy4-K-7oCyySeK5YaYfQFA[/img]
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNQtbzZc7RdP05yohM-Hylf6C_FVKPTmLagh-LLtwKkZ-ZfRsh http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHkc-U6ScYzOBaAgLEEmRRJrykaB5lEJrtsnQIgH4eiPLO2_mb http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3Og80zguqiwskf43HSZdP62I3aHFBj2--zqGHZr6c7qxdvRc



They even tried to get google to use it in their oo-s from the logo. Wikipedia still has the - fasified uh doctored- photo of Madeleine as example. They thought it was so important they made it the focus of their campaign against the advice of the PJ, who thought it would put Madeleine in jeopardy since you cannot change that. Well that coloboma became very transparent too, as a matter of fact it disappeared. . What disappeared would you say? You don't outgrow a coloboma and even the Lancet, one of the oldest and welrepected medical journals, placed a call for assistence on behalf of the parents: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60823-X/fulltext#

CONT

lj said...

CONT

But listen to what Kate and Gerry now say about the coloboma in recent interview with Piers Morgan:
thanks to weissnicht on themaddiecasefiles.com
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post189908.html?hilit=coloboma#p189908

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

Any doctor would/should know the difference, but then these 2 seem to have skipped quite a few classes in medical school. Really if they can't tell/don't know the difference they should go and get their tuition back.

We know now because of the couple's backtracking that likely there was no coloboma. That does not only mean they falsified a diagnosis, doctored photos and had the world think she had a coloboma, all, and here I quote Gerry- because it was a good marketing ploy, it also means that, had her daughter been alive and found she could be misidentified. There is not a doctor in the world who sees these photos and logos and thinks "oh, it's just a fleck". No real doctor would mistake a fleck for a coloboma. So any doctor would have said: "oh this can be Madeleine because she has no coloboma.

Why?
We do know they like to keep their fund fat, but why don't they want their daughter to recognized? That answer might very well lay in Britain. Maybe that's where the Met should start their review.

lj said...

Of course in my last post it should be "oh this canNOT be Madeleine because she has no coloboma"

Anonymous said...

Martin Grime, dog handler of British sniffer dogs, Keela and Eddie, never did say that Eddie, the cadaver dog, was always right. He said that, in operation, Eddie had never once alerted falsely to the cadaver scent of a dead, wild, animal or food stuffs. That became corrupted on-line, to never been wrong or (even in a PJ report, written mid-way through the case) to, 100% accurate. If Eddie, in fact, ever had an unblemished record (impossible to prove or disprove) he certainly lost it in Praia da Luz.

When the British press revealed that Kate had washed cuddle-cat, there was on-line outrage. Kate was accused of having washed away forensic evidence crucial to the investigation. Beyond dispute, when Madeleine vanished, her toy was left, lying on the bed. But then Kate is a medical doctor, not a police woman or forensic scientist.

Portugal has a perfectly good forensic laboratory, used in the Madeleine investigation, but its forensic report says nothing about the toy. That was the first missed opportunity by the PJ to take the toy for forensic examination. The second was following the British forensic sweep with the sniffer dogs. In the villa the McCanns rented after vacating the holiday apartment, clothes and the toy were canine-inspected. Both dogs tested the area to check for scents before the inspections and there was none. On Eddie’s first encounter with Cuddle-cat, he sniffed it, picked it up and played with it. But he didn’t bark (his official signal of a scent). Then the toy was hidden in a cupboard and Eddie barked. That was an error, but whether of omission (not barking when he should have) or commission (barking when he shouldn’t have) we can only guess.

From Martin Grime’s rogatory interview, we perhaps get a glimpse of the view of Amaral’s successor, Paulo Rebelo, of the dogs’ performance in Praia da Luz.

“Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog”

From Grime’s predictably indignant response, we learn something else startling:

The dogs were not taught any ‘tricks’. The cadaver dog, Eddie, reacted to the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

Grime recommended that the toy be tested.

John Lowe, from the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, wrote a long and detailed report of all tests carried out on items or artefacts forwarded to the forensic laboratory, including the ignition card of the McCanns’ Renault hire car and cuttings from the flower bed. But with John Lowe’s report, as with the report from the Portuguese forensic laboratory, there is no mention of cuddle-cat. It was never forwarded to Birmingham. Grime’s instruction was ignored.

Why? In the meanwhile, if the PJ saw no reason to suppose that the toy might hold vital forensic clues, why should Kate have thought any different? And how (and why!) did the PJ come to the conclusions they did?

Anonymous said...

Meant to congratulate your command of Portuguese George!

Anonymous said...

Hi Geoarge - check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPbzw1kfB7Q&NR=1

chandra said...

This was beautiful and very thought-provoking.

Sample Authorization Letter