Author Topic: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)  (Read 395539 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5670 on: November 08, 2019, 07:31:37 PM »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Robittybob1

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5671 on: November 08, 2019, 07:34:05 PM »
I give up.  8(8-))
That is not like you to give up. 
Get back to the topic, and be careful about sniping.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 07:37:38 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline barrier

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5672 on: November 08, 2019, 07:42:24 PM »
As Andy Redwood quite rightly pointed out, neither the McCanns nor their friends are suspects in their daughter’s disappearance (which has all the hallmarks of a stranger abduction).


You never know that maybe the very reason its where its at.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5673 on: November 08, 2019, 07:47:34 PM »

You never know that maybe the very reason its where its at.
What does that mean??
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline pathfinder73

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5674 on: November 08, 2019, 08:51:23 PM »
What does that mean??

That they have got nowhere. Where is this stranger they have found? Nowhere Man please listen..........
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5675 on: November 08, 2019, 08:55:18 PM »
That they have got nowhere. Where is this stranger they have found? Nowhere Man please listen..........
I wasn’t asking you, I was asking the person who wrote the post, are you he?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline jassi

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5676 on: November 08, 2019, 09:22:14 PM »
You don't get to pick and choose who answers. You should know that by now
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5677 on: November 08, 2019, 11:28:08 PM »
You don't get to pick and choose who answers. You should know that by now
I’m well aware of that, anyone can answer my posts but likewise I am allowed to say that their replies are of no interest to me, you should know that by now. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Lace

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5678 on: November 09, 2019, 10:05:16 AM »

You never know that maybe the very reason its where its at.

We don't know 'where it's at'  do we?   They are not giving a running commentary.    The fact they have been given yet more money,  to me,  shows they are following a lead.

Offline The General

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5679 on: November 11, 2019, 09:01:35 AM »
We don't know 'where it's at'  do we?   They are not giving a running commentary.    The fact they have been given yet more money,  to me,  shows they are following a lead.
Let's assume that this 'lead', this one remaining lead is as obscure, compelling, elusive and fugacious as possible. What could it possibly be? An elusive person of interest? DNA or other forensic material that is awaiting new, or emerging technology to analyse or unravel, or some other reason for a forensic delay, such as attempting to gain a sample or match? Waiting for a person of interest to make a mistake? Waiting for 'just cause' to execute a warrant? Scouring a large land mass for remnants of evidence, something painstaking and meticulous that requires a team of specialists, like sifting through big data? But the numbers don't support any of those hypotheses, apart from one. £300k for another year seems like a large sum of money, but in policing terms it's actually not much at all. According to fullfact.org a police officer on the lowest pay point would cost £28,600 in London and £25,400 across the rest of England and Wales, including their pay, tax and pensions contributions. After four years’ service, that will usually rise to £35,500 and £32,300 respectively. Let's assume £35k per operative for the year, which is £140,000 for 4 officers. But this is just the standard salary rate - internally they will be assigned a cost code and the 'charge out rate' is often way higher inter-departmentally. Factor in a part-time DI or DCI, then the budget is all but spent - https://www.metfriendly.org.uk/services/police-finance-information/police-pay/ - level 1 inspector = £52,722 + £2,373 / 2 = £27,547. So it would appear just simple bums on seats equates to most of the £300k - without factoring in resources, internal and external - cars and fuel, printing, civvy admin, welfare, assistance with IT / analysis, etc, etc - all of which is internally charegable.
What tactic could the investigators be deploying that took so long and required a further injection of funding? What convinced the Home Office that this was worth the continued and costly pursuit?
Let's crunch the possibilities. What are the strings to their bow - all of them? Pursuing an elusive person - how elusive would you need to be? Lord Lucan elusive - you have eye witness accounts of your quarry and are actively pursuing them, like hunting for Martin Bormann in remote backwaters in Argentina. Problem is, there's been no appeal for information - the public is not being asked to get involved. You don't want your target to go further underground, but you need more eyes and ears - it's a trade off. Besides the money isn't there to chase a phantom around the globe.
Waiting for forensics technology to catch up? Well haven't NSY been offered cutting edge, new analysis of existing data by Dr Mark Perlin, depending on who you believe. The refusal / non-response should not be construed as 'not required' however, as this may also be fraught with legal difficulties, or the samples may not even exist, even if Dr Perlin's credentials and techniques can be verified.
How about digging great swathes of Portugal up? The press would be on to that and the resources are mis-matched - it's not happening.
Detailed data analysis - again, those resources attract costs and they are finite - there's a queue and priorities, such as heatmapping knife crime, etc.
What else? Surveillance. What does surveillance cost if you've already paid for the core team of bums on seats? Not much more. It's business as usual, isn't it?
And that, if anything, over and above simply keeping the lights on and the phones answered, seems most plausible. £5k a week is nothing. A routine murder enquiry will burn that in a day (assume 10 officers / support at Met rates as per the cite above).
Listening to covert surveillance equipment in a cupboard in London on shifts is just about business as usual. It's costly and time consuming, probably just costly and time consuming to require further, ongoing, indefinite support, but the 'target' would have to be pretty compelling i.e. there's other evidence, but not enough to convince a wary Home Office and a circumspect and nervous CPS.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline barrier

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5680 on: November 11, 2019, 09:06:07 AM »
We don't know 'where it's at'  do we?   They are not giving a running commentary.    The fact they have been given yet more money,  to me,  shows they are following a lead.

Or it could be money allocated should it be needed.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5681 on: November 11, 2019, 09:14:39 AM »
Let's assume that this 'lead', this one remaining lead is as obscure, compelling, elusive and fugacious as possible. What could it possibly be? An elusive person of interest? DNA or other forensic material that is awaiting new, or emerging technology to analyse or unravel, or some other reason for a forensic delay, such as attempting to gain a sample or match? Waiting for a person of interest to make a mistake? Waiting for 'just cause' to execute a warrant? Scouring a large land mass for remnants of evidence, something painstaking and meticulous that requires a team of specialists, like sifting through big data? But the numbers don't support any of those hypotheses, apart from one. £300k for another year seems like a large sum of money, but in policing terms it's actually not much at all. According to fullfact.org a police officer on the lowest pay point would cost £28,600 in London and £25,400 across the rest of England and Wales, including their pay, tax and pensions contributions. After four years’ service, that will usually rise to £35,500 and £32,300 respectively. Let's assume £35k per operative for the year, which is £140,000 for 4 officers. But this is just the standard salary rate - internally they will be assigned a cost code and the 'charge out rate' is often way higher inter-departmentally. Factor in a part-time DI or DCI, then the budget is all but spent - https://www.metfriendly.org.uk/services/police-finance-information/police-pay/ - level 1 inspector = £52,722 + £2,373 / 2 = £27,547. So it would appear just simple bums on seats equates to most of the £300k - without factoring in resources, internal and external - cars and fuel, printing, civvy admin, welfare, assistance with IT / analysis, etc, etc - all of which is internally charegable.
What tactic could the investigators be deploying that took so long and required a further injection of funding? What convinced the Home Office that this was worth the continued and costly pursuit?
Let's crunch the possibilities. What are the strings to their bow - all of them? Pursuing an elusive person - how elusive would you need to be? Lord Lucan elusive - you have eye witness accounts of your quarry and are actively pursuing them, like hunting for Martin Bormann in remote backwaters in Argentina. Problem is, there's been no appeal for information - the public is not being asked to get involved. You don't want your target to go further underground, but you need more eyes and ears - it's a trade off. Besides the money isn't there to chase a phantom around the globe.
Waiting for forensics technology to catch up? Well haven't NSY been offered cutting edge, new analysis of existing data by Dr Mark Perlin, depending on who you believe. The refusal / non-response should not be construed as 'not required' however, as this may also be fraught with legal difficulties, or the samples may not even exist, even if Dr Perlin's credentials and techniques can be verified.
How about digging great swathes of Portugal up? The press would be on to that and the resources are mis-matched - it's not happening.
Detailed data analysis - again, those resources attract costs and they are finite - there's a queue and priorities, such as heatmapping knife crime, etc.
What else? Surveillance. What does surveillance cost if you've already paid for the core team of bums on seats? Not much more. It's business as usual, isn't it?
And that, if anything, over and above simply keeping the lights on and the phones answered, seems most plausible. £5k a week is nothing. A routine murder enquiry will burn that in a day (assume 10 officers / support at Met rates as per the cite above).
Listening to covert surveillance equipment in a cupboard in London on shifts is just about business as usual. It's costly and time consuming, probably just costly and time consuming to require further, ongoing, indefinite support, but the 'target' would have to be pretty compelling i.e. there's other evidence, but not enough to convince a wary Home Office and a circumspect and nervous CPS.
Do you think there are four undercover cops trailing the McCanns all day every day waiting for them to let slip they know where the body is then?   
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Anthro

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5682 on: November 11, 2019, 09:28:37 AM »
If, hypothetically, an individual’s DNA has only been captured for the first time one year ago on an European database and that person is currently awaiting trial for murder (to start on 20 November), but s/he is now also positively linked to Madeleine’s disappearance - would Operation Grange be allowed to continue pursuing such an individual or must his/her current trial first be dealt with?

Offline barrier

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5683 on: November 11, 2019, 09:31:11 AM »
If, hypothetically, an individual’s DNA has only been captured for the first time one year ago on an European database and that person is currently awaiting trial for murder (to start on 20 November), but s/he is now also positively linked to Madeleine’s disappearance - would Operation Grange be allowed to continue pursuing such an individual or must his/her current trial first be dealt with?

Its a PJ case it would be up to them.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: General discussion about the latest news (not search related)
« Reply #5684 on: November 11, 2019, 09:46:17 AM »
If, hypothetically, an individual’s DNA has only been captured for the first time one year ago on an European database and that person is currently awaiting trial for murder (to start on 20 November), but s/he is now also positively linked to Madeleine’s disappearance - would Operation Grange be allowed to continue pursuing such an individual or must his/her current trial first be dealt with?

One potential fly in the ointment is how Portugal accesses cases involving DNA.

One is not permitted to trawl through a given case DNA unless one has probable cause.

I.e. OG would need to have a case solid enough to implicate an individual in MBM's disappearance (solid enough to pass the scrutiny of Portuguese judiciary) BEFORE they could say let's check the MBM case DNA against said bod.

The Portuguese approach was developed because authorities were worried that big brother might be watching you.
What's up, old man?