The Met Police and Madeline Mccann

[Saint-scooby]

Ffs.............................................................

[CB Fry]

Taken with all the gravitas traditionally accorded to an anonymous coward. (That's zero, btw).

 

Blimey. A conspiro-fu ckwit who yesterday called me a fat **** doesn't respec' me.

 

Whatever shall I do.

[Special K]

More remote diagnosis, Tim?

 

I have to say, it's amusing being called fake by someone who hides behind anonymity, baffling to be called insincere when my sincerity over my tax affairs has cost me left-wing brownie points, and downright hypocritical to be accused of lacking empathy from yourself.

 

You're a coward, Tim. You don't have the courage to put your identity behind your words, so any contempt you may hold me in is meaningless. What the f**k do I care about what an anonymous coward thinks?

 

Well you obviously do otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time posting up the kind of drivel that you do in response. I suspect it's for a wee bit of self-justification, which incidentally, is a constant theme (refer to posting photo's of you up to prove you lived in Scouseland. I mean FFS! Bell-end status confirmed!). It appears that more posters think you're a c**t than don't. Surely that tells you something?

[pap]

Well you obviously do otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time posting up the kind of drivel that you do in response. I suspect it's for a wee bit of self-justification, which incidentally, is a constant theme (refer to posting photo's of you up to prove you lived in Scouseland. I mean FFS! Bell-end status confirmed!). It appears that more posters think you're a c**t than don't. Surely that tells you something?

 

The coward Tim's conduct on this thread speaks volumes. When we were all still discussing Madeleine McCann, he was broadly in the doubt camp. As soon as the usual suspects roll in, he's suddenly on the attack, throwing in his lot with the regular band of reactionaries that seem to subsist off my content. Now this may just be the product of a council estate upbringing talking, plus the obvious and well-photographed years I've spent in Liverpool, but the locals have a good work to describe people like the coward Tim - sh!thouse.

 

He's stalked my posts before, but this one is particularly good as he has managed to do himself up in the context of one thread. That's impressive work by the coward Tim. On your last point, I get on with enough people on here, and as I've said before, it's the same four or five posters who cling to my arse like turds who I get the most grief from. You'll have to forgive me if I take the time to wipe them off every once in a while.

 

As for yourself, Special K - I seem to remember brushing you off with a "Specious, K" quip. I'm not even phased by the low level insults you're dealing out here. Bell-end is a particularly good footy insult, but I've been called worse. I'll happily cop to most of it. I can be an arsehole when I want to be; I'm very aware of that fact and do my best to mitigate against it. The big difference between myself and the coward Tim is a level of self-awareness. I'm not sure that the coward Tim even realises he's capable of being an arsehole - but he can be. If you need the evidence, look no further than this thread.

[Spudders]

Can you guys really think of no scenarions without Pap's input? You should watch more TV! I can think of loads of scenarions! Here is one just off the top of my head!

 

THE MADDIE NEVER LEFT ENGLAND + TAPAS CANABALISM SCENARION

 

Maddie never left England yo! They killed her at home + buried in back garden. Then they made a Maddie doll from sausages and took that on holiday to Portugal. No-one is noticing this deception. Then they ate the sausage Maddie at Tapas bar, thus disposing of all evidences.

 

*Like*

 

Sorry to get in the way of the bickering, and I know that generally humour isn't allowed in the serious Lounge area, but Bearsey, this is great theory.

[hypochondriac]

The coward Tim's conduct on this thread speaks volumes. When we were all still discussing Madeleine McCann, he was broadly in the doubt camp. As soon as the usual suspects roll in, he's suddenly on the attack, throwing in his lot with the regular band of reactionaries that seem to subsist off my content. Now this may just be the product of a council estate upbringing talking, plus the obvious and well-photographed years I've spent in Liverpool, but the locals have a good work to describe people like the coward Tim - sh!thouse.

 

He's stalked my posts before, but this one is particularly good as he has managed to do himself up in the context of one thread. That's impressive work by the coward Tim. On your last point, I get on with enough people on here, and as I've said before, it's the same four or five posters who cling to my arse like turds who I get the most grief from. You'll have to forgive me if I take the time to wipe them off every once in a while.

 

As for yourself, Special K - I seem to remember brushing you off with a "Specious, K" quip. I'm not even phased by the low level insults you're dealing out here. Bell-end is a particularly good footy insult, but I've been called worse. I'll happily cop to most of it. I can be an arsehole when I want to be; I'm very aware of that fact and do my best to mitigate against it. The big difference between myself and the coward Tim is a level of self-awareness. I'm not sure that the coward Tim even realises he's capable of being an arsehole - but he can be. If you need the evidence, look no further than this thread.

 

Is everyone who doesn't what their name and personal details all over a public Internet forum a coward? And with regards to you getting along with enough people, who did you have in mind? Who is actually more inclined to believe the conspiracy theory of the Boston bomb or London attacks? The silent majority?

Edited 22 October, 2013 by hypochondriac

[pap]

Is everyone who doesn't what their name and personal details all over a public Internet forum a coward?

 

Nope, just those that use their anonymity as a shield when attacking others. Largely so the comments they make are never attributed to their real-life identities.

[aintforever]

Pap, why don't you just post your theory of how you think the McCanns pulled it off? The more you throw insults around the more it looks like you can't think of one.

 

Just ONE plausible theory, I am genuinely interested in how they could have done it.

[pap]

Pap, why don't you just post your theory of how you think the McCanns pulled it off? The more you throw insults around the more it looks like you can't think of one.

 

Just ONE plausible theory, I am genuinely interested in how they could have done it.

 

As I've said before, there are others who've put far more work into this topic than I. If your interest is so absolute, I'd suggest you head off there.

[hypochondriac]

Pap, why don't you just post your theory of how you think the McCanns pulled it off? The more you throw insults around the more it looks like you can't think of one.

 

Just ONE plausible theory, I am genuinely interested in how they could have done it.

 

He won't. He has learnt from his past mistakes that people who asked that don't REALLY want to know they just want to dismiss it so he knows better now. He won't make the mistake of posting theories up any more.

[hypochondriac]

As I've said before, there are others who've put far more work into this topic than I. If your interest is so absolute, I'd suggest you head off there.

 

If you look at things from someone else's perspective surely you can see that that seems like a big cop out.

[pap]

If you look at things from someone else's perspective surely you can see that that seems like a big cop out.

 

Whose perspective? aintforever's? Why does he need me to explain things that he can find out for himself? Is he a child? Am I the only person in the universe that can give him an opinion?

 

Same crap. Different thread.

[Bearsy]

Why does he need me to explain things that he can find out for himself? Is he a child? Am I the only person in the universe that can give him an opinion?

 

We're all v.suspicious bout why you want to pin this on the McCann's. We're starting to think you're involved. Or at very least you Know Something.

[buctootim]

The coward Tim's conduct on this thread speaks volumes. When we were all still discussing Madeleine McCann, he was broadly in the doubt camp. As soon as the usual suspects roll in, he's suddenly on the attack, throwing in his lot with the regular band of reactionaries that seem to subsist off my content. Now this may just be the product of a council estate upbringing talking, plus the obvious and well-photographed years I've spent in Liverpool, but the locals have a good work to describe people like the coward Tim - sh!thouse.

 

He's stalked my posts before, but this one is particularly good as he has managed to do himself up in the context of one thread. That's impressive work by the coward Tim. On your last point, I get on with enough people on here, and as I've said before, it's the same four or five posters who cling to my arse like turds who I get the most grief from. You'll have to forgive me if I take the time to wipe them off every once in a while.

 

As for yourself, Special K - I seem to remember brushing you off with a "Specious, K" quip. I'm not even phased by the low level insults you're dealing out here. Bell-end is a particularly good footy insult, but I've been called worse. I'll happily cop to most of it. I can be an arsehole when I want to be; I'm very aware of that fact and do my best to mitigate against it. The big difference between myself and the coward Tim is a level of self-awareness. I'm not sure that the coward Tim even realises he's capable of being an arsehole - but he can be. If you need the evidence, look no further than this thread.

 

Me, me ,me, persecution, no reason, its all conspiracy against me. How unfair conspiracies can be eh Pap? Coward Tim is a new one though, devastating. What do I need to do to be brave Pap? do tell. Maybe from the safety of football forum tell the maimed and dead and their families that they are all liars bought and paid for by the state?

[aintforever]

As I've said before, there are others who've put far more work into this topic than I. If your interest is so absolute, I'd suggest you head off there.

 

LOL, we can all read the evidence that is online, what is YOUR theory based on this evidence?

[pap]

Me, me ,me, persecution, no reason, its all conspiracy against me. How unfair conspiracies can be eh Pap? Coward Tim is a new one though, devastating. What do I need to do to be brave Pap? do tell. Maybe from the safety of football forum tell the maimed and dead and their families that they are all liars bought and paid for by the state?

 

Your volte-face on this thread was legendary, coward Tim.

 

Do you at least realise you're capable of being an arsehole? It'd put a lot of minds to rest.

[hypochondriac]

Whose perspective? aintforever's? Why does he need me to explain things that he can find out for himself? Is he a child? Am I the only person in the universe that can give him an opinion?

 

Same crap. Different thread.

 

It's because you pipe up dismissing the police investigation and calling it too narrow and then when asked for proof or a more likely scenario you run away.

[hypochondriac]

Me, me ,me, persecution, no reason, its all conspiracy against me. How unfair conspiracies can be eh Pap? Coward Tim is a new one though, devastating. What do I need to do to be brave Pap? do tell. Maybe from the safety of football forum tell the maimed and dead and their families that they are all liars bought and paid for by the state?

 

Apparently you aren't allowed to bring that up anymore because pap decided to leave it.

[buctootim]

Shades of grey isn't your thing I know, but even so I'm surprised by the depth of your difficulty.

 

1.I have no idea what happened to Madeleine McCann, but suspect the parents aren't telling the whole truth.

2. You're an internet saddo conspiracist who is unable to follow the logic of different situation + different facts = different conclusion.

 

ergo, no volte face, just more egg for Pap.

[badgerx16]

Can't we just invoke Godwin's Law and fast forward to the Nazis' involvement ?

[buctootim]

Apparently you aren't allowed to bring that up anymore because pap decided to leave it.

 

Ironic isn't it? Our own wannabe Winston Smith wants to airbrush his history. Doublethink.

[pap]

It's because you pipe up dismissing the police investigation and calling it too narrow and then when asked for proof or a more likely scenario you run away.

 

I'm not sure whether you are aware of the particulars of this case, but there were in fact, two investigations.

 

One was conducted in Portugal, was based on physical evidence and the wild inconsistencies in varying accounts, implicated the McCanns as suspects, and came to an end under political pressure.

 

The other was conducted here, dismissed all of the PJ's findings, and assumed abduction from the very start despite their being no credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that would suggest that this was the case.

[buctootim]

Can't we just invoke Godwin's Law and fast forward to the Nazis' involvement ?

 

WW2 was a false flag operation set up by elements of the CIA. Hitler is alive and well and living in Eastbourne.

[pap]

Ironic isn't it? Our own wannabe Winston Smith wants to airbrush his history. Doublethink.

 

I've no intention of airbrushing my history. It's all still there, and will be around for as long as SaintsWeb exists. Longer, probs. Given the upset that my theorising caused, I thought it'd be wise to take that sh!t elsewhere.

 

Still, keep bringing it up when you've f**k all else to say, coward Tim (assuming the bigger boys have your back, of course).

[buctootim]

I've no intention of airbrushing my history. It's all still there, and will be around for as long as SaintsWeb exists. Longer, probs. Given the upset that my theorising caused, I thought it'd be wise to take that sh!t elsewhere.

 

Still, keep bringing it up when you've f**k all else to say, coward Tim (assuming the bigger boys have your back, of course).

 

Ooh, you appear to have avoided the question again. Im sure its an oversight. What do I need to do to be brave like you Pap?

[pap]

Shades of grey isn't your thing I know, but even so I'm surprised by the depth of your difficulty.

 

1.I have no idea what happened to Madeleine McCann, but suspect the parents aren't telling the whole truth.

2. You're an internet saddo conspiracist who is unable to follow the logic of different situation + different facts = different conclusion.

 

ergo, no volte face, just more egg for Pap.

 

In that case, you need to provide a theory, right now.

 

It's standard operating procedure for anyone with doubts, y'know.

[hypochondriac]

I'm not sure whether you are aware of the particulars of this case, but there were in fact, two investigations.

 

One was conducted in Portugal, was based on physical evidence and the wild inconsistencies in varying accounts, implicated the McCanns as suspects, and came to an end under political pressure.

 

The other was conducted here, dismissed all of the PJ's findings, and assumed abduction from the very start despite their being no credible evidence, physical or otherwise, that would suggest that this was the case.

 

OK so correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying you consider the Portugal investigation more credible and is the most likely explanation of what happened?

[hypochondriac]

Ooh, you appear to have avoided the question again. Im sure its an oversight. What do I need to do to be brave like you Pap?

 

Post your picture, name and personal details then according to pap you aren't a coward and you can say pretty much what you want.

[Barry Sanchez]

Pap can you post your windswept picture of you in Edge Hill again? Thats a belter.

[buctootim]

In that case, you need to provide a theory, right now.

 

It's standard operating procedure for anyone with doubts, y'know.

 

Try and follow the words.

 

1. You are being asked for a theory because according to you the Moon landings / Boston bomb / Lee Rigby murder / McCann abduction never happened.

 

2. I'm not being asked for a theory because I say I don't know why Maddie disappeared.

 

Does that help?

Edited 22 October, 2013 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

Pap can you post your windswept picture of you in Edge Hill again? Thats a belter.

 

The only one I ever saw was some blood keep with overly long hair on Twitter. I wasn't particularly interested.

[buctootim]

Post your picture, name and personal details then according to pap you aren't a coward and you can say pretty much what you want.

 

I know weird isn't it. Particularly so since Ive posted up my name, occupation and live in a small village as a opposed to brave crusader 'Pap' from Liverpool.

[hypochondriac]

I know weird isn't it. Particularly so since Ive posted up my name, occupation and live in a small village as a opposed to brave crusader 'Pap' from Liverpool.

 

Fact is Tim you shouldn't have to. The forum gives you the option of anonymity for a reason and the only possible reason for wanting to know someone else's identity on here is to either do something unpleasant to them in real life or because of some weird curiosity and need to know. It's a favourite topic of pap's just because he isn't bothered about it don't let him bully you into revealing something you don't want to. The pertinent question is to know why pap is so keen to know who you really are.

[pap]

OK so correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying you consider the Portugal investigation more credible and is the most likely explanation of what happened?

 

I'd say I find the Portuguese investigation more credible.

 

The scope of the investigation was broader than the UK investigation, and it was based in part on physical evidence collected at the scene, including DNA and dog evidence.

 

The main evidence for the UK case, which takes the abduction theory as read, initially rested on the account of Jane Tanner, now thoroughly discounted. The recent reconstruction is largely based off sightings by the Smith family, who have claimed before that the person they think they saw was Gerry McCann. Unsurprising perhaps, that one of the e-fits vaguely resembles him.

 

The only thing that supports abduction are the witness statements. There was no physical evidence at the apartment complex to suggest an abductor was there.

 

Weighing the evidence up, I find the conclusions of the PJ more credible than the British OB. Yes, I saw the way they were portrayed as keystone cops, but the scope of their investigation was wider and they had stronger evidence to support their assertions.

Edited 22 October, 2013 by pap

[hypochondriac]

I'd say I find the Portuguese investigation more credible.

 

The scope of the investigation was broader than the UK investigation, and it was based in part on physical evidence collected at the scene, including DNA and dog evidence.

 

The main evidence for the UK case, which takes the abduction theory as read, initially rested on the account of Jane Tanner, now thoroughly discounted. The recent reconstruction is largely based off sightings by the Smith family, who have claimed before that the person they think they saw was Gerry McCann. Unsurprising perhaps, that one of the e-fits vaguely resembles him.

 

The only thing that supports abduction are the witness statements. There was no physical evidence at the apartment complex to suggest an abductor was there.

 

Weighing the evidence up, I find the conclusions of the PJ more credible than the British OB. Yes, I saw the way they were portrayed as keystone cops, but the scope of their investigation was wider and they had stronger evidence to support their assertions.

 

How do you know that they took the abduction theory as read.

[pap]

How do you know that they took the abduction theory as read.

 

I doubt very much they'd be getting the likes of Sir Richard Branson and HRH The Prince of Wales to release statements in support of the McCanns if they were treating them as suspects.

[hypochondriac]

I doubt very much they'd be getting the likes of Sir Richard Branson and HRH The Prince of Wales to release statements in support of the McCanns if they were treating them as suspects.

 

But how do you know that from the start of the investigation they took the abduction theory as read.

[pap]

But how do you know that from the start of the investigation they took the abduction theory as read.

 

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. If you have the heir to the throne releasing statements in support of the McCanns, don't you think that suggests that the result is a foregone conclusion?

[holepuncture]

Eight pages in and this is where you have all ended up, well done.

 

Those getting sucked into this nonsense should really know better.

 

If you all step back for a minute and consider the content of this thread, im sure you will be as disgusted as I am.

[Verbal]

But how do you know that from the start of the investigation they took the abduction theory as read.

 

He doesn't, he's just adopting the Icke-alike default of assuming that the deep state predetermines all this. In his weird world, if some royal supports someone, that is communicated to co-conspirators in the Met and acted upon unquestioningly. If Branson does it, ditto - because now Branson is a member of the deep state.

 

The same logic dictates that the expenses scandal never happened, the Profumo affair was pure fiction, and Jonathan Aitken was never jailed.

 

In reality, as opposed to this self-aggrandising fantasy, the Portuguese police pursued at one point exactly the same theories about an abduction as did the British police. They also named the McCanns, but dropped them, explicitly, for lack of evidence in 2008. Similarly, the current UK police investigation is pursuing the pre-planned abduction as one line of inquiry - based, as they say, on "one reading of the evidence".

 

So not black and white. Many, many shades of grey, as is so often the case. However, ambiguity and contradiction are simply not allowed in conspiro-world. If the Portuguese drop the line favoured by the foaming-at-the-mouth-misfits, then it MUST be because of political pressure from the Deep State. If the British police publicise another angle, then our little enthusiast - behaving like a Walter Mitty, imagining himself at the centre of all the action - declares with the certainty of an insider that he knows the "scope of the Portuguese investigation was wider". He knows no such thing, and claiming that he does is nothing less than a lie.

[Bearsy]

He doesn't, he's just adopting the Icke-alike default of assuming that the deep state predetermines all this. In his weird world, if some royal supports someone, that is communicated to co-conspirators in the Met and acted upon unquestioningly. If Branson does it, ditto - because now Branson is a member of the deep state.

 

The same logic dictates that the expenses scandal never happened, the Profumo affair was pure fiction, and Jonathan Aitken was never jailed.

 

In reality, as opposed to this self-aggrandising fantasy, the Portuguese police pursued at one point exactly the same theories about an abduction as did the British police. They also named the McCanns, but dropped them, explicitly, for lack of evidence in 2008. Similarly, the current UK police investigation is pursuing the pre-planned abduction as one line of inquiry - based, as they say, on "one reading of the evidence".

 

So not black and white. Many, many shades of grey, as is so often the case. However, ambiguity and contradiction are simply not allowed in conspiro-world. If the Portuguese drop the line favoured by the foaming-at-the-mouth-misfits, then it MUST be because of political pressure from the Deep State. If the British police publicise another angle, then our little enthusiast - behaving like a Walter Mitty, imagining himself at the centre of all the action - declares with the certainty of an insider that he knows the "scope of the Portuguese investigation was wider". He knows no such thing, and claiming that he does is nothing less than a lie.

 

Pap is one of my top 5 posters + I support all his conspiracies, but that is v.well constructed post. The bit where pap is imagining himself epicentre of media storm made me lols.

[pap]

He doesn't, he's just adopting the Icke-alike default of assuming that the deep state predetermines all this. In his weird world, if some royal supports someone, that is communicated to co-conspirators in the Met and acted upon unquestioningly. If Branson does it, ditto - because now Branson is a member of the deep state.

 

The same logic dictates that the expenses scandal never happened, the Profumo affair was pure fiction, and Jonathan Aitken was never jailed.

 

In reality, as opposed to this self-aggrandising fantasy, the Portuguese police pursued at one point exactly the same theories about an abduction as did the British police. They also named the McCanns, but dropped them, explicitly, for lack of evidence in 2008. Similarly, the current UK police investigation is pursuing the pre-planned abduction as one line of inquiry - based, as they say, on "one reading of the evidence".

 

So not black and white. Many, many shades of grey, as is so often the case. However, ambiguity and contradiction are simply not allowed in conspiro-world. If the Portuguese drop the line favoured by the foaming-at-the-mouth-misfits, then it MUST be because of political pressure from the Deep State. If the British police publicise another angle, then our little enthusiast - behaving like a Walter Mitty, imagining himself at the centre of all the action - declares with the certainty of an insider that he knows the "scope of the Portuguese investigation was wider". He knows no such thing, and claiming that he does is nothing less than a lie.

 

On the contrary, my good man - ambiguity and contradiction are at the heart of most issues.

 

One explanation has physical evidence to support it and enough inconsistencies in witness statements to suggest a degree of collusion amongst the Tapas crowd.

 

The accepted explanation has no physical evidence to back it up, and for several years was entirely predicated on the account of one woman, Jane Tanner, who actually saw another father returning his child from the creche.

 

There was no physical sign of a break-in (despite initial reports that the shutters had been jemmied), no physical evidence to suggest that anyone but the McCanns and their friends ever entered the apartment. A cadaver dog reacted positively, despite the fact that there had been no recorded deaths in the apartment in question. It also reacted to a car, hired fifteen days after the incident is supposed to have taken place. DNA evidence was collected, some of which matched 10 out of the 19 required markers, another which matched 15 of the required markers. The latter would have been enough to bring charges had the events played out in the UK.

 

Kate McCann, with a solicitor present, failed to answer 48 of the 49 questions posed to her by the PJ - when many of those questions could have helped immeasurably in the search for a missing child.

 

As has been said, by myself and others, this case is very odd. I don't have black and white answers, but I do have some serious misgivings about the way that the case has been handled, particularly after it was transferred to the UK.

Edited 22 October, 2013 by pap

[Viking Warrior]

Trying to get the thread back on track, I wonder how much impression the Panorama programme had on Joe Public . over 300 emails phone calls and in the space of a couple of days we find that a couple of romany families have two girls who are both blond haired and white.

 

The second one is interesting because all the main media outlets in the UK are emphasing the fact that the one in Ireland is about 7 years of age, How old is the missing maddie?

 

I seem to recollect that a couple of years ago another family had a young blond girl somewhere that resembled Maddie. Turned out to be totally wrong.

 

So will we see an a concerted attack on the travelling folk of the world now and if any one is habouring Maddie , do you think they will dye her blonde hair just in case she gets recognised.

 

A lot of innocent folk will get shafted by the likes of bbc programmes.

 

I might add the saida Hiili looks a dodgy character on Panorama last night.

 

Panorama are also researching a panorama special exclusive proving that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill kennedy afterall .

[Window Cleaner]

Trying to get the thread back on track, I wonder how much impression the Panorama programme had on Joe Public . over 300 emails phone calls and in the space of a couple of days we find that a couple of romany families have two girls who are both blond haired and white.

 

The second one is interesting because all the main media outlets in the UK are emphasing the fact that the one in Ireland is about 7 years of age, How old is the missing maddie?

 

I seem to recollect that a couple of years ago another family had a young blond girl somewhere that resembled Maddie. Turned out to be totally wrong.

 

So will we see an a concerted attack on the travelling folk of the world now and if any one is habouring Maddie , do you think they will dye her blonde hair just in case she gets recognised.

 

A lot of innocent folk will get shafted by the likes of bbc programmes.

 

I might add the saida Hiili looks a dodgy character on Panorama last night.

 

Panorama are also researching a panorama special exclusive proving that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill kennedy afterall .

 

Unsurprisingly, he's been dead these past 15 months. Expect you mean Zaid though.

[pap]

How do you know that they took the abduction theory as read.

 

Take a look at this article.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/metropolitan-police-commissioner-defends-portuguese-police-handling-of-madeleine-mcca.1382524843

 

The chief of the Met seems pretty clear on the scope of the investigation.

 

Key quote:-

 

There is a poor family there who've got the torture of not knowing whether their daughter is alive or not.

[hypochondriac]

Take a look at this article.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/metropolitan-police-commissioner-defends-portuguese-police-handling-of-madeleine-mcca.1382524843

 

The chief of the Met seems pretty clear on the scope of the investigation.

 

Key quote:-

 

Yes it seems that now the police are working on the assumption that the abduction theory is the most likely, but how do you know this was the case at the start of their investigation? How do you not know that their investigations led them to this scenario as the most likely one? I'm not a police officer but surely when taking on a case like this, getting to the bottom of what happened would involve looking at the case from the beginning without preconceived ideas and looking at the most likely scenario (I've seen it in countless reconstructions and the book mind hunter talks about it as the most important aspect of detective work at any rate). To my inexperienced eye, that seems like the most obvious job of police work.

 

If right at the start they immediately focused on the abduction theory and dismissed everything else then that would be ridiculously incompetent and you would have to question why they are in the job they are in.

[pap]

Yes it seems that now the police are working on the assumption that the abduction theory is the most likely, but how do you know this was the case at the start of their investigation? How do you not know that their investigations led them to this scenario as the most likely one? I'm not a police officer but surely when taking on a case like this, getting to the bottom of what happened would involve looking at the case from the beginning without preconceived ideas and looking at the most likely scenario (I've seen it in countless reconstructions and the book mind hunter talks about it as the most important aspect of detective work at any rate). To my inexperienced eye, that seems like the most obvious job of police work.

 

If right at the start they immediately focused on the abduction theory and dismissed everything else then that would be ridiculously incompetent and you would have to question why they are in the job they are in.

 

Publicly, Operation Grange always assumed abduction. Only discovered this today, but check this link out:-

 

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434

 

Linked is a document entitled "Remit of investigation" - word format.

 

This paragraph here makes it pretty clear that abduction is the only thing in the investigation's remit:-

 

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

[Verbal]

If right at the start they immediately focused on the abduction theory and dismissed everything else then that would be ridiculously incompetent and you would have to question why they are in the job they are in.

 

And they clearly didn't do that. Selective quoting of a parenthesised clause by our little enthusiast can't disguise the following key sentence (quoted with their italics and bold highlighted):

 

This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

[Scummer]

Publicly, Operation Grange always assumed abduction. Only discovered this today, but check this link out:-

 

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434

 

Linked is a document entitled "Remit of investigation" - word format.

 

This paragraph here makes it pretty clear that abduction is the only thing in the investigation's remit:-

 

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

 

I'm not sure that the use of the word abduction precludes this also being a murder. The fact that there is no body means that an abduction of some sort has taken place. That may take the form of a kidnapping, a kidnapping followed by murder, or a murder followed by the disposal of a body.

[pap]

And they clearly didn't do that. Selective quoting of a parenthesised clause by our little enthusiast can't disguise the following key sentence (quoted with their italics and bold highlighted):

 

Blimey. You waste one of your 3 a day on that?

 

Selective quoting. That'd be fair enough if I'd not provided the link to both the site and the document.

 

It'd also be fair enough if you grasped the part you quoted.

 

Whatever. I think it is pretty clear from the text that the Met has treated this as an abduction from day one. The remit says so, the Met chief is quoted as saying so. Unless this is a very nifty piece of media rope-a-doping, I think we can assume that an abduction is what is being investigated.