Has Scotland Yard dodged a bullet in the Maddie case?

[slartibartfast]

No, Davel didn't say that.  A question mark does not absolve the remark.

A question mark indicates a question.

[Mr Gray]

Doesn't make sense does it,then to continue and spend upward of £12 million in not being able to investigate.

Perhaps they expected more cooperation from the Portuguese.... Forcing them to wait6 months for an ILOR before being able to ask a question doesn't sound very co-operative to me and makes me question whether the Portuguese wanted SY to be successful

[Mr Gray]

A question mark indicates a question.

And it's, already been established that a question can be giading

[Mr Gray]

And it's, already been established that a question can be goading

[slartibartfast]

And it's, already been established that a question can be giading

They are frequently used in forum discussions to try and better understand another posters statements and position.

[Eleanor]

A question mark indicates a question.

Not necessarily.

Davel did not say what the question implies.  So what was the point of this "Question?"

[Mr Gray]

They are frequently used in forum discussions to try and better understand another posters statements and position.

They can be used for a variety of reasons

[slartibartfast]

Not necessarily.

Davel did not say what the question implies.  So what was the point of this "Question?"

“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”

Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.

[Eleanor]

“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”

Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.

Not in my opinion.  Nothing simple about it, and impossible to answer without Libelling The Portuguese Police.

[Brietta]

......The HO decided it was important enough to spend 12 mill...I wonder who decided it wasnt important enough for  a JIT....probably portugal

I think you may be correct that there was resistance by one of the parties to setting up a JIT... certainly there was no problem regarding English and French cooperation in the Alps murder of British citizens ...
Snip
Surrey Police said it was continuing to provide support to the French investigation as part of the joint investigation team (JIT) established following the deaths.

It said officers had worked closely with the French authorities to progress a number of lines of enquiry in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-41150373



It certainly appears that there was interest in England that Madeleine's case might benefit in the same way.  So in my opinion if a JIT didn't happen it was because one of the authorities didn't want it to happen and I believe lack of one added more time to an investigation which had been ignored for too many years already.

In my opinion the resultant hold ups could only have had a detrimental effect as far as Madeleine was concerned.



Snip
On Wednesday, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "One thing we'd like to see in the future is a joint investigation team which comes under the European community. It is a possibility legally, and we're working together at a political level and at a police and judicial level to see how we can construct that.

"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one. But it's important that we work together on what is clearly a common problem.

"It's a formal arrangement, it allows officers from each country to work in the other country, it gives them powers associated with that, and it's an efficient way of doing it.

"If you're not careful, you end up doing things on an ad-hoc basis, and for us it would be better to have that type of arrangement. So that's what we're trying to get agreement between the two governments and the two police services."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met

[G-Unit]

Perhaps they expected more cooperation from the Portuguese.... Forcing them to wait6 months for an ILOR before being able to ask a question doesn't sound very co-operative to me and makes me question whether the Portuguese wanted SY to be successful

First of all, the case came under Portuguese jurisdiction. Scotland Yard had absolutely no right to investigate it and Portugal would have been within it's rights to tell them to do one. The fact that they didn't is extremely tolerant of them in my opinion. They even handed over all their files on the case; something I very much doubt Scotland Yard would have done if the positions had been reversed. They also fulfilled requests in ILOR's, using yet more of their resources in this wild goose chase. They allowed Scotland Yard to damage Luz's tourist trade once more with their digging. 

Operation Grange were hampered by their remit and their own arrogant belief that their 'expertise' was superior to that of the Policia Judiciaria. They made a big mistake in my opinion and I think it's disgraceful to try and suggest anything else.

[Brietta]

“So you are attesting that the Portuguese police are deliberately trying to scupper Scotland Yard's enquiry just to save face?”

Is a simple question to Davel in light of his posts in this thread.

Do you know why there was no JIT despite Scotland Yard wanting one?


Also, is there the slightest chance we might progress this and other threads without the constant sniping at and parsing of Davel's posts?
In my opinion it is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment which I'm sure it can't be ... but I for one am finding it all so predictable, tiresome and distracting that as a moderator I think it should cease forthwith.
Don't you?

[xtina]

I think you may be correct that there was resistance by one of the parties to setting up a JIT... certainly there was no problem regarding English and French cooperation in the Alps murder of British citizens ...
Snip
Surrey Police said it was continuing to provide support to the French investigation as part of the joint investigation team (JIT) established following the deaths.

It said officers had worked closely with the French authorities to progress a number of lines of enquiry in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-41150373



It certainly appears that there was interest in England that Madeleine's case might benefit in the same way.  So in my opinion if a JIT didn't happen it was because one of the authorities didn't want it to happen and I believe lack of one added more time to an investigation which had been ignored for too many years already.

In my opinion the resultant hold ups could only have had a detrimental effect as far as Madeleine was concerned.



Snip
On Wednesday, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "One thing we'd like to see in the future is a joint investigation team which comes under the European community. It is a possibility legally, and we're working together at a political level and at a police and judicial level to see how we can construct that.

"There are two separate inquiries with a different focus – we've got one particular set of lines of inquiry and they have a different one. But it's important that we work together on what is clearly a common problem.

"It's a formal arrangement, it allows officers from each country to work in the other country, it gives them powers associated with that, and it's an efficient way of doing it.

"If you're not careful, you end up doing things on an ad-hoc basis, and for us it would be better to have that type of arrangement. So that's what we're trying to get agreement between the two governments and the two police services."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/madeleine-mccann-inquiry-police-work-together-met

After all that ....it still boils down to your opinion.....

Whereas if the mccs had cooperated fully in the first place...

probably SY wouldn't have had to get involved...

They left them ....they had the case shelved...

seems like they call all the shots...

[G-Unit]

Do you know why there was no JIT despite Scotland Yard wanting one?


Also, is there the slightest chance we might progress this and other threads without the constant sniping at and parsing of Davel's posts?
In my opinion it is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment which I'm sure it can't be ... but I for one am finding it all so predictable, tiresome and distracting that as a moderator I think it should cease forthwith.
Don't you?

If Scotland Yard needed a JIT to progress their enquiries it would have been a good idea to get one in place before they started. They seem to have started then realised (too late) that they couldn't do what they wanted to do in Portugal.

If a member submits posts which a number of other members reply to it can look like 'a campaign' but it just means more than one person disagrees, imo. I have been in that position myself, with multiple replies being made to my posts.

[Brietta]

If Scotland Yard needed a JIT to progress their enquiries it would have been a good idea to get one in place before they started. They seem to have started then realised (too late) that they couldn't do what they wanted to do in Portugal.

If a member submits posts which a number of other members reply to it can look like 'a campaign' but it just means more than one person disagrees, imo. I have been in that position myself, with multiple replies being made to my posts.

If I was bothered I would ask you to explain how Scotland Yard could get a JIT "before they started"?  But I'm really not bothered.