Tuesday, July 15, 2014

On The Strength of The Evidence


 Unedited

 On the strength of the evidence. Firstly, let me make plain my own misnomer. Evidence, there isn't any.

So just what was it that took Scotland Yard's finest, this team of super-sleuths, orf to the sunny climes of Portugal to cause mayhem and consternation at the beginning of the holiday season?

The answer to that, is almost too embarrassing to say; almost, but I shall try to overcome that. After all, it's not my embarrassment we are talking about, but rather that of the metropolitan police and as such, this England. For surely, aren't Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team of the Met's finest, our representatives abroad?

One would think, that after watching this danse macabre, or should that be dansa macabra, whatever? One would think, that after watching for seven long years, the visitation of the McCanns on this world, a fellow might have lost the capacity for embarrassment, even that which should be felt by others. But embarrassment in certain quarters, much like policing 101, is a tad thin on the ground, if in fact, it exists at all?

So just what was the reason that took DCI Redwood and his team to Portugal, and just what was the reason that, at the behest of Scotland Yard, the Portuguese police declared four local men arguido?*

DNA and mobile phone logs, by all accounts. Sounds reasonable you may well think? You may well think that, but at this point in the narrative, is where I normally suggest that you "sit down and strap in." Borrowing the phrase, as is my wont, from the late lamented, Bill Hicks.  But let us to the DNA.

 . . . where hairs whose DNA was similar to hairs previously found in the 5A apartment (to Maddie's hairs)

 I beg your pardon?

whose DNA “was similar

Similar, as in 98% percent similar, the same percentage of DNA that we share with chimpanzees, that kind of similar? Or fifteen out of nineteen aliases** similar? The same fifteen out of nineteen aliases of Madeleine's DNA that were found in the trunk of the McCann's hire car, that kind of similar?


Similar! Do stop.


And then we have the phone logs, and it is of these that I truly despair.

 Not for one moment am I doubting the veracity or accuracy of said logs, not in the least I'm not. But the phone logs nonetheless of four Luz residents, please note. One a smackhead, one a beggar who would have been sixteen at the time in question, one a bus/taxi driver who worked at the resort, who:

. . . . had the “opportunity” to select the houses to be robbed

No kidding Sherlock; along with the butcher the baker and the candlestick maker? And lastly, Sergey Malinka, previously cleared of involvement by the PJ.

So is it this most unlikely bunch of suspects that gives me a problem? Under normal circumstances, I might have employed the immortal words of one, John McEnroe, but the choice of suspects pales in the light of other things. So what then is giving me so much trouble?

This:

Four phone records between José Silva and Ricardo Rodrigues, made at the day of the crime, are under suspicion: the phone call made at 17:26 which coincides with the time that Maddie left the crèche; a text message at 21:25 when two members of the McCann's group went to check the children; another at 21:38, when Jane Tanner left the Tapas bar and the last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance.

So what's the problem? I shall tell you.

The head of this farce investigation, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard, is using a timeline, written by Gerry McCann and his seven little liars, to corroborate the phone pings of our four unfortunates.

 Let me repeat that. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard, is using a timeline, written by Gerry McCann to corroborate a theory that Redwood could only have pulled out of his arse.

Gerry McCann couldn't even tell the truth as to which door he used to enter the apartment that evening; and Redwood is using McCann's own timeline to endorse his theory! Will you fucking stop!

~

*Arguido: A person of interest when applied to McCanns. A suspect when applied to anybody else. Source UK media. 

** Fifteen out of nineteen aliases gets you arrested in the UK. Thirteen in the US.

~ ~


Phone calls and hairs frame 4 suspects
Sergey Malinka an arguido because he had a sofa with hairs whose DNA "was similar" to Maddie's

The driver of the resort, José Carlos da Silva, transported the tourists to the Ocean Club apartments in Praia da Luz. He had the “opportunity” to select the houses to be robbed - [robberies] which “tripled” at the time. And, in the three weeks before Maddie's disappearance, on May 3 2007, “two break-ins took place in the same apartment block” - in which the entrance was made “through the windows”.

This circumstance allied to the fact that José, 38 years old, made four phone calls on May 3 that were considered as suspicious, were the reasons why he was constituted as an arguido yesterday at the Judiciary Police (PJ) headquarters, at the request of the Scotland Yard in their letter rogatory to which the CM had access to.

One of the other arguidos is Sergey Malinka, a Russian that had already been constituted as an arguido [sic, he wasn't constituted as an arguido but was considered as a possible suspect to the PJ investigation at the time and cleared of all suspicions later on] by the PJ in 2007. [Malinka] Who had a sofa - that he tried to dispose of and which was later retrieved by the PJ and was subject to forensic analyses - where hairs whose DNA “was similar to hairs previously found in the 5A apartment (to Maddie's hairs) and to those that were retrieved from Robert Murat's bed”.(see secondary news piece)

Another suspect is Ricardo Rodrigues, a beggar, 18 years old: [sic, actually he was 16 years old in 2007 and he is now merely unemployed and is 23 years old] he received phone calls from José (see box). Finally, the other suspect is Paulo Ribeiro, addicted to heroin and a schizophrenic: he is said to have a “strange behaviour” and what connects him to Rodrigues is a suspicious phone call at 12:08 of May 2, 2007.


Four phone records under suspicion
Four phone records between José Silva and Ricardo Rodrigues, made at the day of the crime, are under suspicion: the phone call made at 17:26 which coincides with the time that Maddie left the crèche; a text message at 21:25 when two members of the McCann's group went to check the children; another at 21:38, when Jane Tanner left the Tapas bar and the last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance.

Full article and translation by courtesy of the indefatigable Joana Morais

13 comments:

Barry Bucket said...

I've no doubt that Redwood thinks those few calls are way, way more important than those between the McCanns and persons unknown which were deleted from their phones.

And obviously more important than all those phone calls to family, friends and media whores to spread the news of the smashed, jemmied, forced shutters, opened window, and whooshing curtains.

OK, OK, the shutters weren't damaged, and the window only had Kate's fingerprints on it, and the curtain was firmly wedged betwixt bed and wall, but we're talking panicked parents, right?

Give them their due, they did eventually call the police.

Not only called them, but had their nice timeline ready to prove that it was nothing to do with them , no-sirreebob.

In fact, the timeline was so good, they wrote it twice.

Now that's dedication for you.

Anonymous said...


The article written could not express my sentiments any better.

The case beggars belief, innocent people.. actually let me re-phrase that ....KNOWN innocent people - are been deliberately smeared for the charade to continue.

Its a Circus....of horrors

Roll up roll up

Mojo

Himself said...

Barry Bucket

The deleted phone logs.

http://bit.ly/1cjTPsQ

Himself said...

Mojo, as you say.

Anonymous said...

http://pjga.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-message-from-goncalo-amaral_21.html

Anonymous said...

http://on.fb.me/1vzygkp

Himself said...

Ah so! Good morning Maren.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzyepfrfWkE

Himself said...

I don't know what to make of it, or what I'm supposed to make of it?

What's your take on it Chuck?

Anonymous said...

Me neither H, but what about the comments. It defies belief that they didn't expect such comments. What's their game? Chuck

Lillybet Miles said...

It's been a long time since I personally read anything from you H because I thought you had stopped writing on the McCann case. Having followed a link that you left on another site recently I now realise you are still in the hot seat. Good to see you are continuing to right the wrongs xx

Lillybet Miles said...

By the way, if a hint was ever needed:

In a wedding photo when is a Goth not a Goth? When the perceived image is twin set and pearls ;)

H, it would be nice to be back in contact with you again. Send me an email x

Himself said...

Almost Gothic?