Do The McCanns Trust Operation Grange to Do the Job ?

[Redblossom]

Thanks, I have no idea why in the 21st century a police force might not have or use a sketch artist, anyway the secrecy of justice argument is weak, as it doesnt stop applyng if one moves countries while a case is open

When the Lead Co-Ordinator Goncalo Amaral states that there were weaknesses in fingerprinting and it is normal for a small Police Station to be like this and not have specialist investigators to deal with a case like child abduction, it does rather make you believe Jane Tanner's version of events, that they didn't have the proper equipment to issue a proper e-fit.

you didnt reply to my post fully, never mind, what does your user name stand for btw

[TTSOFAFM]

what does your user name stand for btw

I tell you what, research it and I will tell you if you are hot or cold.

[faithlilly]

Icabod, they said they would like to interview Verran, presumably to follow up on a previous interview they themselves had conducted.  What is bizarre about that?

And what do they think they can find out from him that SY can't ? Besides what are they going to do with any information they can glean from him, that's if, of course, he agrees to speak to them. They have no legal right to question Verran and I would think SY won't be too pleased that the McCanns are attempting to question a possible suspect.

[Redblossom]

what does your user name stand for btw

I tell you what, research it and I will tell you if you are hot or cold.

Pass

[Benice]

Icabod, they said they would like to interview Verran, presumably to follow up on a previous interview they themselves had conducted.  What is bizarre about that?

And what do they think they can find out from him that SY can't ? Besides what are they going to do with any information they can glean from him, that's if, of course, he agrees to speak to them. They have no legal right to question Verran and I would think SY won't be too pleased that the McCanns are attempting to question a possible suspect.

Unless things have changed and I've missed something - the McCanns haven't said they want to speak to him.  It's A. Source who has made that uncorroberated claim.     IOW either hearsay, or completely untrue.   I favour the latter.

[TTSOFAFM]

Icabod, they said they would like to interview Verran, presumably to follow up on a previous interview they themselves had conducted.  What is bizarre about that?

And what do they think they can find out from him that SY can't ? Besides what are they going to do with any information they can glean from him, that's if, of course, he agrees to speak to them. They have no legal right to question Verran and I would think SY won't be too pleased that the McCanns are attempting to question a possible suspect.

Unless things have changed and I've missed something - the McCanns haven't said they want to speak to him.  It's A. Source who has made that uncorroberated claim.     IOW either hearsay, or completely untrue.   I favour the latter.

You are correct Benice.  The source never mentioned speaking to Verran at all.  The only people who they were speaking to were the Police and discussing with them why Verran had never said this to them when they spoke to him.

The part of the article that states that the McCanns' Investigators want to speak to Verran, is what the journalist wrote and it is not corroborated by the quote given by the source.

[faithlilly]

Icabod, they said they would like to interview Verran, presumably to follow up on a previous interview they themselves had conducted.  What is bizarre about that?

And what do they think they can find out from him that SY can't ? Besides what are they going to do with any information they can glean from him, that's if, of course, he agrees to speak to them. They have no legal right to question Verran and I would think SY won't be too pleased that the McCanns are attempting to question a possible suspect.

Unless things have changed and I've missed something - the McCanns haven't said they want to speak to him.  It's A. Source who has made that uncorroberated claim.     IOW either hearsay, or completely untrue.   I favour the latter.

You are correct Benice.  The source never mentioned speaking to Verran at all.  The only people who they were speaking to were the Police and discussing with them why Verran had never said this to them when they spoke to him.

The part of the article that states that the McCanns' Investigators want to speak to Verran, is what the journalist wrote and it is not corroborated by the quote given by the source.

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

[TTSOFAFM]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

[faithlilly]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

[Benice]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

So who is this source?    Let's face it it's not even important enough information for a newspaper to pay
A. Source for it.     ''A source close to...''  is an old ploy used by newspapers to bulk out an article to make it more interesting.    I thought everyone knew that.    Why would Clarence Mitchell need to pretend to be A. Source?    Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

     

[gilet]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

So who is this source?    Let's face it it's not even important enough information for a newspaper to pay
A. Source for it.     ''A source close to...''  is an old ploy used by newspapers to bulk out an article to make it more interesting.    I thought everyone knew that.    Why would Clarence Mitchell need to pretend to be A. Source?    Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

     

Correct Benice.

There is only supposition on the part of Faithlilly that Mitchell is the source. And it is not a supposition which stands up to much scrutiny.

When Faithlilly explains why on this occasion Mitchell should choose (unlike on the many, many other occasions when he has been named) to remain anonymous then perhaps it might be worth considering.

[Benice]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

So who is this source?    Let's face it it's not even important enough information for a newspaper to pay
A. Source for it.     ''A source close to...''  is an old ploy used by newspapers to bulk out an article to make it more interesting.    I thought everyone knew that.    Why would Clarence Mitchell need to pretend to be A. Source?    Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

     

Correct Benice.

There is only supposition on the part of Faithlilly that Mitchell is the source. And it is not a supposition which stands up to much scrutiny.

When Faithlilly explains why on this occasion Mitchell should choose (unlike on the many, many other occasions when he has been named) to remain anonymous then perhaps it might be worth considering.

Well it was hardly earth shattering information was it  - so why the need to hide his identity?  It's all nonsense IMO and just another example of the 'sceptics' picking up on ANYTHING  to use as a stick to beat the McCanns with.

[icabodcrane]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

So who is this source?    Let's face it it's not even important enough information for a newspaper to pay
A. Source for it.     ''A source close to...''  is an old ploy used by newspapers to bulk out an article to make it more interesting.    I thought everyone knew that.    Why would Clarence Mitchell need to pretend to be A. Source?    Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

     

Correct Benice.

There is only supposition on the part of Faithlilly that Mitchell is the source. And it is not a supposition which stands up to much scrutiny.

When Faithlilly explains why on this occasion Mitchell should choose (unlike on the many, many other occasions when he has been named) to remain anonymous then perhaps it might be worth considering.

I think Faithlilly is probably correct,  and the  'source close to the McCann'  is Clarence Michelll

I agree with her that, post Leveson,  it is highly unlikely that a newspaper would attribute a quote to a McCann source unless it were so

There is something about the familiar use of  'us'  and 'we'  that has Michell's stamp about it too

[TTSOFAFM]

From the article :

‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.

A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.

If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.

‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’

What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.

This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.

What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.

What am I rattling on about?  I am just correcting your supposition.  You state categorically that the source says they want to speak to Mr Verran. You are incorrect.  The source does NOT say they wish to speak to Mr Verran.  The source says they will be discussing this with the Police.

Admittedly the article does say Sources close to the McCanns say the family also want to speak to Mr Verran about his whereabouts at the time Madeleine was snatched from the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in 2007. but once you read what the source actually says, then you realise the paper has taken the source out of context.

As I said the direct quote from the source, relates to previous interviews with Mr Verran and is spoken in the past tense.

[Puffin]

Deleted.