So what actual searching was there?

[slartibartfast]

It avoids any mistakes being made and it leaves no room for inadvertent or deliberate misunderstanding.  In my opinion it is also a matter of courtesy.

Words or phrases taken out of context can cause mayhem ... I think we would agree on that.

It proves frequently the case in this case.

[Brietta]

Under the law yes but in the court of public opinion many hold alternative views. 

Someone made a comment the other day asserting that a jury find a defendant innocent.  That is in fact not the case.  A jury can only find someone guilty or not guilty, weird exceptions being Scotland of course with its additional not proven nonsense.  A not guilty verdict is not a sign of absolute innocence in my book, merely an indication that insufficient evidence was produced to support a guilty verdict under the law.

Another good example would be the failed prosecutions of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando. Following his retrial he was found not guilty but denied compensation because he had failed to prove his absolute innocence.

You might say the law is a bit of an ass and I would agree!

www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm

In my opinion there is nothing "bit of" about it ... complete and utter is my take on a lot of it ... but without it there is only mayhem.

Which is why "the court of public opinion" doesn't rate highly in my regard ... far too easily manipulated.

[Brietta]

Trouble is that much of what holds sway in (many quarters, not all,) of public opinion is based on outdated and disproved press reports and -- strictly selective -- reading of (certain portions of) the files (such as the Ameida interim report, superseded by the PJ final report for an excellent reason).

That's what I was trying to say, Ferryman.  You've put it very succinctly indeed.

[ferryman]

You could say that about both camps.  Problem is that most people and very possibly the parents themselves don't yet know the entire truth of what occurred.

What is known for a fact is that the Portuguese Attorney General stated in his archiving report that the parents missed an opportunity to prove their innocence because of the refusal by their friends to take part in a reconstitution of events.

Disputed translation rather than proven fact, I would say.

I can't really suppose that the Portuguese prosecutors would go with the fascist doctrine of having to prove innocence, and certainly that doesn't ring true with the tenor of the rest of their report.

Demonstrate, maybe ....

[Alfred R Jones]

I believe the interview was broadcast live on all the news channels including Sky and the BBC. Of course if you can provide evidence otherwise I'd be quite willing to change my view. As to those guidelines, are you really trying to suggest that SY in one of the highest profile investigations in the last 40 years involving a couple who have already made threats to sue another police force if they found they had not played by the book, would stray from accepted guidelines and if so why ?

It was you making the claim that the Met would have been breaking the law to name a suspect prior to arrest and charging, so all I'm asking you for is which particular law they would be breaking.  Can you provide it?  Can you also provide a link to the simultaneous live broadcasts on Sky and the BBC of Andy Redwood's interview - did such an event really merit across the board media live coverage?!

[Alfred R Jones]

There is no requirement for any poster to quote everything another poster posts, especially if there are bits that are of no interest as far as the response is concerned.

I was sanctioned for doing so when I first joined the forum, after someone reported me.

[Alfred R Jones]

Here is the link to the interview in which Andy Redwood uttered the famous words about the McCanns not being persons of interest.  It looks very much to me like a video released by the Met for use by news networks, and not a live press conference.  There is clearly only one person asking the questions (who we can't see or hear), no flash photography or questions being shouted out from different journos as you usually get in a live TV press conference.  If anyone can provide evidence that I am wrong, be my guest, but until then I stand by my assertion that Redwood was in full control of the info being divulged, was not put on the spot or asked any awkward questions that neccessitated an on-the-spot denial that the parents were in the frame.  In fact quite the opposite if you listen to his responses in their entirety.  It is clear from every answer he gives that the parents are not suspects.

http://youtu.be/OPexCA0jiHI

[slartibartfast]

I was sanctioned for doing so when I first joined the forum, after someone reported me.

With the verbiage posted on here, trimming quotes is useful in keeping things to the point.

[Alfred R Jones]

With the verbiage posted on here, trimming quotes is useful in keeping things to the point.

Apparently not, when I received a warning for doing just that.

[slartibartfast]

Apparently not, when I received a warning for doing just that.

Well don't let it worry you, times change.

[Alfred R Jones]

Well don't let it worry you, times change.

I'm not worried about it, just pointing it out.  I shall now remove the unneccessary verbiage from others' posts when quoting them, thanks for the authority to do so as this was hitherto frowned upon but now I have your blessing I shall start doing it again.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not worried about it, just pointing it out.  I shall now remove the unneccessary verbiage from others' posts when quoting them, thanks for the authority to do so as this was hitherto frowned upon but now I have your blessing I shall start doing it again.

No problem, just don't change the meaning of the post.

[Alfred R Jones]

No problem, just don't change.

You mean like this?

[slartibartfast]

You mean like this?

Very droll.

[Alice Purjorick]

Here is the link to the interview in which Andy Redwood uttered the famous words about the McCanns not being persons of interest.  It looks very much to me like a video released by the Met for use by news networks, and not a live press conference.  There is clearly only one person asking the questions (who we can't see or hear), no flash photography or questions being shouted out from different journos as you usually get in a live TV press conference.  If anyone can provide evidence that I am wrong, be my guest, but until then I stand by my assertion that Redwood was in full control of the info being divulged, was not put on the spot or asked any awkward questions that neccessitated an on-the-spot denial that the parents were in the frame.  In fact quite the opposite if you listen to his responses in their entirety.  It is clear from every answer he gives that the parents are not suspects.

http://youtu.be/OPexCA0jiHI

It is great shame we do not know what the questions were. They appear to have been edited out.