If you had read more carefully you would have realised that I have never said that they have publicly come out and trashed the thesis of Amaral. However I have made it very clear that by implication they most certainly have done so. The fact that both review teams have indicated that there is no suspicion of the McCanns is evidence of that. Without suspicion of them, Amaral's thesis simply does not hold water.
You claim that Hogan Howe stated that the PJ did a good job in the initial investigation. He did no such thing and I challenge you to find any quotation from him that expresses that. What he did say was that all investigations are beset by problems and the McCann investigation was no different.
I am glad you now accept they have not trashed Amaral's thesis. That then invalidates the premise of your thread because what you are saying, to use your own words is:
"However I have made it very clear that by implication they most certainly have done so"
So you are prepared to read between the lines of what SY actually said about the abduction scenario and not what the Yard actually said BUT you are not prepared to do the same in relation to their comments about the parents not being suspects. You are taking that comment solely at face value and as the gospel truth. Why's that? Because it suits your agenda to do so.
You are also using supposition to determine what SY are saying. Let's remember what you have said about supposition in this very same thread:
Your deduction/supposition is simply that. One non-professional's take on the matter.
So your thread premise is based solely on your non professional take on the matter and not on fact.
Glad we both agree on that.
In relation to Hogan Howe he defended the PJ investigation. He was given an opportunity to say that it was junk but did not take it.
I repeat there is no statement from SY which states that the initial investigation was a 'good job'.
There are, on record, media published articles carrying this title:
Met boss defends McCann case police
There is no trashing of it or its thesis and no objection by Hogan Howe to his words being presented by the media in this fashion, as a defence of the PJ investigation.
And I am prepared to listen to the public statements and accept them. Unlike some I retain some trust in the Police.
No you don't because as i have pointed out in relation to the trashing of Amaral's thesis, you read between the lines of their statements as and when it suits your agenda.
You seem to forget that the other suspects, Murat and the McCanns. Don't you think the elimination of these suspects may have taken priority?
Don't you think the Yard could be exhausting the abduction scenario in order to then refocus attention on the other suspects, particularly the McCann's?
That's highly relevant in this case given the previous investigation and the media pressure it suffered as a result of suspecting the parents.
Don't you think it is at all possible that a decision could have been taken along the lines of that the abduction line should be pursued first, to get the family's co-operation to then allow the yard to get a reconstruction performed in order to generate new evidence in which to look at the case again?
After all if they were to pursue a line against the parents now they would need some way of generating more evidence. Simply coming out and stating they were suspects would bring the lawyers in faster than you can say "let's use the fund again to hire Pinochet's extradition lawyers" and the whole process would grind to a halt.
The only way to get the parents co-operation to help generate the evidence is to go down the abduction route now. Hence, according to some reports now, the group are prepared to take part in the reconstruction.
Would that have happened if they were made suspects now?
Let us also be clear there is no evidence that they have been eliminated
forever from the enquiry. To jump on "they're not suspects" bandwagon as you and every other McCann supporter has at this stage and to take it as a definitive statement set in stone for the full duration of the investigation is naive to the point of ignorance.
Perhaps you missed the reports on Crimewatch, for example, and in the media over the last few days. But Smithman is not the sole lead on abduction. There were other individuals reported as being suspects or persons of interest, there was reference to a paedophile ring which could encompass some of them and now we are told that the Oporto team are pursuing other separate abduction leads.
No i watched it intently and it is clear the importance of the Smith sighting. That is the central lead regarding abduction.
Whilst one of the Smiths made a suggestion that the man who he saw was possibly Gerry McCann and one described trousers that bore a similarity to some Gerry possessed you are making a massive and incorrect leap to state that the only lead depends on one witness who identified Gerry McCann. First of all he did no such thing, He claimed it was a possibility on the basis that both Gerry and the man carried children over their shoulders in a similar way. Secondly none of the other witnesses gave any statement to suggest the potential abductor was Gerry McCann. Your leap is not a valid one at all.
I stated precisely what Martin Smith stated and the percentage given. See, you're doing it again. Trying to twist the facts to suit your agenda. Martin Smith had no reason to give that second statement. None whatsoever.
His comments are his, not yours and the fact he was prepared to put his head on the chopping block in that manner must mean he felt compelled given what he saw.
In relation to the other witnesses just because they did not give the same statement as Mr Smith does that invalidate his testimony. After all Mr Smith could have looked at the person longer than the others, or taken more notice of him.
You simply cannot try and brush his evidence under the carpet. You talk of evidence yet are keen to sweep away bits of evidence you don't like in order to maintain your pre conceived beliefs. That isn't the way one should look at evidence.
A giant leap? Really? A 60-80% identification from one witness and a description of the same kind of unusual trousers we know Gerry had? You think that's a giant leap? Hardly. it is common sense to think that this is worthy of further investigation as it is a large coincidence.
The giant leap actually comes in your outright refusal to countenance the coincidences here and accept they merit further investigation. After all coincidence is the messenger sent by the truth.
