The case of Madeleine McCann

[handymanz]

CB was and continues to be treated as a suspect despite the fact there's nothing linking him to MM.

The McCanns were treated as witnesses and suspects.

CAT was treated as a witness based on her own interjection.  CT has never been treated as a witness or a suspect despite:

- his proximity to MM on the Sun and Thu
- the fact he probably learned from PF that the children were being left, night after night, in the unlocked holiday apartment.

I would like to know on what basis these people were not considered witnesses/suspects?

How do we know that Operation Grainge et al, haven't already done some sort of background checks on the Tranmers, and decided they had no need to question them, or have a case to answer for.

[snow66!]

How do we know that Operation Grainge et al, haven't already done some sort of background checks on the Tranmers, and decided they had no need to question them, or have a case to answer for.

Good point, handyman!

[Cambridgecutie]

How do we know that Operation Grainge et al, haven't already done some sort of background checks on the Tranmers, and decided they had no need to question them, or have a case to answer for.

Well we know CT had not been interviewed by any law enforcement agency at the time the PJ put the McCann files in the public domain which I believe was around Sep 2008?

The point being no one should automatically slip off the radar due to age, class etc, etc.  Even PF, who was in her 80's at the time, should have been immediately seen as a witness/suspect due to proximity alone.  And yet we know she was not even interviewed as a witness until Aug '07.  Had CAT not interjected herself, law enforcement would not even have known about the Tranmers until Aug' 07.  These were 3 people that were around MM constantly during the week hol.  I can see no reason whatsoever why the 3 of them were not seized upon on 3rd May '07?   

The Tranmers may simply have fallen off the radar due to operating under a 'cloak of respectability' much the same way many paedophiles do within the church etc.

Even if OG has carried out background checks on the Tranmers how does this exclude them?  It might just mean they have previous and have evaded detection or they don't have previous. 

[Cambridgecutie]

How do we know that Operation Grainge et al, haven't already done some sort of background checks on the Tranmers, and decided they had no need to question them, or have a case to answer for.

The adoptive parents in the following, one of whom is a school teacher, must have undergone significant background checks to be approved as adopters and yet today the pair were found guilty of murdering and sexually abusing their adopted young son:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgld0vywpmo

[Steve_uk]

The adoptive parents in the following, one of whom is a school teacher, must have undergone significant background checks to be approved as adopters and yet today the pair were found guilty of murdering and sexually abusing their adopted young son:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgld0vywpmo

He got into the school environment as a technician, later qualifying as a teacher. Out of his depth in so many ways.  A diabolical case. https://youtu.be/P2rBxr_K1Yk

[handymanz]

The adoptive parents in the following, one of whom is a school teacher, must have undergone significant background checks to be approved as adopters and yet today the pair were found guilty of murdering and sexually abusing their adopted young son:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgld0vywpmo

So, what exactly are you trying to say. Even if there were background checks made on the Tranmers, any paedophile activity could have been missed.

[Cambridgecutie]

So, what exactly are you trying to say. Even if there were background checks made on the Tranmers, any paedophile activity could have been missed.

Missed is a possibility as with Ian Hunter/Soham murders.  Another possibility is one or both had previous but it remained undetected.  Or one or both did not have previous; all criminals have to start somewhere.  Whether the motive was to raise as own, sexual or some other reason it might just be that if one or both were that way inclined the opportunity that presented ie unsupervised children in an unlocked holiday apartment was too great to pass off.   

[Steve_uk]

The Cuddle Cat mystery: https://youtu.be/Q6hkx1eujLI

[Steve_uk]

So, what exactly are you trying to say. Even if there were background checks made on the Tranmers, any paedophile activity could have been missed.

They were probably ruled out due to their Royal connection: https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/madeleine-mccann-the-emerging-key-witness-who-is-a-friend-of-the-queens/

..just as the British Establishment backed the McCanns due to their upper middle class status.

[snow66!]

The Cuddle Cat mystery: https://youtu.be/Q6hkx1eujLI

Thanks, Steve! Cuddle cat being washed eh!
Another black mark against the Mechanics!

[handymanz]

They were probably ruled out due to their Royal connection: https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/madeleine-mccann-the-emerging-key-witness-who-is-a-friend-of-the-queens/

..just as the British Establishment backed the McCanns due to their upper middle class status.

Obviously, this text below is incorrect. The Sun trying to give as much weight as possible to Carole Tranmer's story, especially if it can incite a case against a convicted child killer.

British tourist Carole Tranmer, who was staying in the flat above where Madeleine was staying

[snow66!]

The Cuddle Cat mystery: https://youtu.be/Q6hkx1eujLI

What are the implications arising from cuddle cat being washed, Steve?
Does this imply that the toy was washed and dried before the police arrived on the scene that night?

[Steve_uk]

What are the implications arising from cuddle cat being washed, Steve?
Does this imply that the toy was washed and dried before the police arrived on the scene that night?

Good evening snow66! I suppose that the narrative Kate spun about Madeleine having gone to bed holding Cuddle Cat in her hands is thrown into doubt when there's none of the little girl's DNA on the toy. Kate's story was she left her daughter in bed with Cuddle Cat, but when she returned on one of the checks Cuddle Cat was on a ledge out of reach of the three-year old. Yet there was no DNA of an abductor found.

Kate could have washed the toy quite innocently and inadvertently, either absent-mindedly as something to do, as she may well have been in shock, or more sinisterly to try to destroy evidence.  When Eddie the cadaver dog was brought in on 31 July he alerted to Cuddle Cat, so make of that what you will.

[snow66!]

Good evening snow66! I suppose that the narrative Kate spun about Madeleine having gone to bed holding Cuddle Cat in her hands is thrown into doubt when there's none of the little girl's DNA on the toy. Kate's story was she left her daughter in bed with Cuddle Cat, but when she returned on one of the checks Cuddle Cat was on a ledge out of reach of the three-year old. Yet there was no DNA of an abductor found.

Kate could have washed the toy quite innocently and inadvertently, either absent-mindedly as something to do, as she may well have been in shock, or more sinisterly to try to destroy evidence.  When Eddie the cadaver dog was brought in on 31 July he alerted to Cuddle Cat, so make of that what you will.

Cant remember when the police arrived, sometime after 11.00 I believe, so a good hour or so for Kate to wash and 'dry' cuddle cat, Steve? Would this really be a priority. even in a state of shock?
Obviously the implication being made is that Maddie died much earlier that day and some of her blood/vomit or other bodily fluid in connection with her death got onto cuddle cat, hence the need to wash the toy before it was seized as evidence?