UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Eleanor on May 07, 2016, 10:17:02 PM
-
The McCanns will have been Interviewed. And then Investigated if such causes were found. I will not have anything to the contrary, unless someone can produce Proof of otherwise.
30
-
The McCanns will have been Interviewed. And then Investigated if such causes were found. I will not have anything to the contrary, unless someone can produce Proof of otherwise.
We don't need to produce proof, proof is up to those making a claim.
-
We don't need to produce proof, proof is up to those making a claim.
Could amaral provide proof of his claims..it seems not..is it not a sign of total hypocrisy that posters demand proof of even the slightest claim but totally support amaral making defamatory claims against the mcCanns...with not a shred of evidence and total disregard for the evidence that actually exists
-
It is absolutely totally ridiculous to suggest SY has not interviewed the mcCanns..
-
We don't need to produce proof, proof is up to those making a claim.
Pretty basic acceptance of this fact I thought
-
It is absolutely totally ridiculous to suggest SY has not interviewed the mcCanns..
Who suggested it? Nobody. All that happened is that those asserting it did happen were asked go provide evidence, none was given, and it IS a requirement when making a claim to back it up-egiquette and forum rules
-
Who suggested it? Nobody. All that happened is that those asserting it did happen were asked go provide evidence, none was given, and it IS a requirement when making a claim to back it up-egiquette and forum rules
if you accept that the mccanns have been interviewed ...which you obviously do...then you accept it for a reason...think about the reason why you accept it...because it is normal police practice...
-
then we all accept the mcCanns have been interviewed ...fine...that is some progress
No, please do not put words in peoples mouths, just answer the question
-
No, please do not put words in peoples mouths, just answer the question
Sy have interviewed the mccanns ...do you agree
-
if you accept that the mccanns have been interviewed ...which you obviously do...then you accept it for a reason...think about the reason why you accept it...because it is normal police practice...
Your post makes no sense
-
Your post makes no sense
sy have intetviewed the mccanns do you agree
-
sy have intetviewed the mccanns do you agree
Why is it so important? I neither know nor care if they have interviewed the McCanns because the phrase is meaningless. 'Interview'? What type of interview? Friendly chat, written and signed statement, written, signed and videoed statement, statement under caution? You don't know, I don't know and it has nothing to do with the thread.
-
Why is it so important? I neither know nor care if they have interviewed the McCanns because the phrase is meaningless. 'Interview'? What type of interview? Friendly chat, written and signed statement, written, signed and videoed statement, statement under caution? You don't know, I don't know and it has nothing to do with the thread.
it is so important you are unwilling to answer the question...SY will have taken a detailed staetement from the mccanns as to what happened that night
-
it is so important you are unwilling to answer the question...SY will have taken a detailed staetement from the mccanns as to what happened that night
Of course they wii have. Nonsense to suppose otherwise.
-
Of course they wii have. Nonsense to suppose otherwise.
I would love to know how they dealt with the discrepancies in their previous statements.
-
Of course they wii have. Nonsense to suppose otherwise.
IYO of course, but not evidenced
-
The McCanns will have been Interviewed. And then Investigated if such causes were found. I will not have anything to the contrary, unless someone can produce Proof of otherwise.
Of course they will have been interviewed and unless evidence has appeared that absolutely exonerates them, they will have been questioned too.
-
Of course they will have been interviewed and unless evidence has appeared that absolutely exonerates them, they will have been questioned too.
And as usual, Brietta has hit the nail on the head by finding this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/270093/Thirty-British-police-in-new-Madeleine-McCann-hunt
-snip-
The McCanns met members of the London-based squad several times before the Portuguese meeting. A source close to the couple said: “They are relieved. Things are finally being done and Kate and Gerry are being kept informed of every move.” The couple, who have six-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, are convinced it is only a matter of time before they get a significant breakthrough.
Their private investigators, headed by former Detective Inspector David Edgar, have also met the new team.
The family source said: “Kate and Gerry have had several meetings with police reviewing their daughter’s case. They know the officers have a difficult task ahead but they feel positive. They have been told that if something has been missed they will find it. They are relieved that something is finally happening.
-
And as usual, Brietta has hit the nail on the head by finding this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/270093/Thirty-British-police-in-new-Madeleine-McCann-hunt
-snip-
The McCanns met members of the London-based squad several times before the Portuguese meeting. A source close to the couple said: “They are relieved. Things are finally being done and Kate and Gerry are being kept informed of every move.” The couple, who have six-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, are convinced it is only a matter of time before they get a significant breakthrough.
Their private investigators, headed by former Detective Inspector David Edgar, have also met the new team.
The family source said: “Kate and Gerry have had several meetings with police reviewing their daughter’s case. They know the officers have a difficult task ahead but they feel positive. They have been told that if something has been missed they will find it. They are relieved that something is finally happening.
That is nothing to do with being interviewed about a potential crime Sadie. I just hope our boys in blue have questioned them about their involvement in the Correia/Metodo 3 sordid affair which their Fund paid for. I don't think they will ever be able to shake that one off?
Looks like Amaral had that ace up his sleeve after all.
-
Of course they will have been interviewed and unless evidence has appeared that absolutely exonerates them, they will have been questioned too.
Kate wrote a book even though it didn't include crucial details like what time they got back on Tue night but plummy got some stick 8)--))
-
Kate wrote a book even though it didn't include crucial details like what time they got back on Tue night but plummy got some stick 8)--))
As did tweedle dee and tweedle dum and not forgetting the fcuking tosser. All three were Portuguese police officers charged with finding her missing daughter. Charming!
-
As did tweedle dee and tweedle dum and not forgetting the fcuking tosser. All three were Portuguese police officers charged with finding her missing daughter. Charming!
Her new book will be entitled how to fk off an entire police force,country, its public and ones own media or how to be become a kamikaze pilot rofl
-
That is nothing to do with being interviewed about a potential crime Sadie. I just hope our boys in blue have questioned them about their involvement in the Correia/Metodo 3 sordid affair which their Fund paid for. I don't think they will ever be able to shake that one off?
Looks like Amaral had that ace up his sleeve after all.
Of course it is Angelo
Amaral has no ace apart from influential connections. People who make things happen for him
-
Of course it is Angelo
Amaral has no ace apart from influential connections. People who make things happen for him
They were so powerful and influential but couldnt unfreeze hs asstes for years yeah ok
-
They were so powerful and influential but couldnt unfreeze hs asstes for years yeah ok
Oh, were his asstes frozen? Poor guy, that must have been uncomfortable. 8(0(*
-
Oh, were his asstes frozen? Poor guy, that must have been uncomfortable. 8(0(*
He was but isnt anymore, cos three senior judgrs have ruled so hes a ok now
8((()*/
-
it is so important you are unwilling to answer the question...SY will have taken a detailed staetement from the mccanns as to what happened that night
I can't answer the question and neither can you. Posting opinion as fact doesn't make it true no matter how often you post it.
-
I can't answer the question and neither can you. Posting opinion as fact doesn't make it true no matter how often you post it.
I can answer the question...the McCanns will have been interviewed and it is ridiculous to suggest they haven't..
-
The McCanns will have been Interviewed. And then Investigated if such causes were found. I will not have anything to the contrary, unless someone can produce Proof of otherwise.
You are asserting something which you cannot prove, but demanding that anyone who disagrees must provide proof? What action do you plan to take if someone posts something to the contrary without proof? I don't know if the McCanns have been interviewed, investigated or whatever and neither do you.
-
I can answer the question...the McCanns will have been interviewed and it is ridiculous to suggest they haven't..
Try again when you have evidence to support your opinion.
-
You are asserting something which you cannot prove, but demanding that anyone who disagrees must provide proof? What action do you plan to take if someone posts something to the contrary without proof? I don't know if the McCanns have been interviewed, investigated or whatever and neither do you.
This is basic policing. I would have thought that this occurred way back at the outset of Operation Grange. Former DCI Redwood went public and stated that his team had gone back to basics and looked at everything again from the start, there is no reason to believe every member of the so-called tapas 9 haven't been reinterviewed.
-
Try again when you have evidence to support your opinion.
I have supplied evidence....as John says...this is basic policing...it would be ridiculous to suggest it hasn't been done....once again...do you think the McCanns have been interviewed...you cannot answer the question because you would have to say yes
-
Everyone will believe what they wish to believe as regards this matter.
As to 'standard procedure' in these matters, and from the police officers, past and present I know, it would be standard procedure in any case. However, they have told me, and it is rather obvious, not all lines of inquiry are released to the public, for rather obvious reasons.
-
Everyone will believe what they wish to believe as regards this matter.
As to 'standard procedure' in these matters, and from the police officers, past and present I know, it would be standard procedure in any case. However, they have told me, and it is rather obvious, not all lines of inquiry are released to the public, for rather obvious reasons.
so it is standard police practice and therefore would have been done but there is no reason that the public would have been told...spot on for once
-
This is basic policing. I would have thought that this occurred way back at the outset of Operation Grange. Former DCI Redwood went public and stated that his team had gone back to basics and looked at everything again from the start, there is no reason to believe every member of the so-called tapas 9 haven't been reinterviewed.
Agreed, John. The idea that the Met have interviewed hundreds of people and not the people at the heart of the investigation is something I find absurd.
Some of the conspiracy-inclined latch onto the fact that the remit for the review or the investigation contained the word "abduction" and therefore interpret the exercise as being some kind of expensive and inexplicable whitewash.
-
so it is standard police practice and therefore would have been done but there is no reason that the public would have been told...spot on for once
It is also very apparent, that it has not been determined how and by whom Madeleine (unless she walked herself) was removed from the apartment as the crime remains unknown.
Inconsistencies remain in the stories /accounts of events. If there is a timeline for abduction, there is also a timeline for other scenarios as well.
The bottom line remains, the crime is unknown and the investigation will be shelved shortly, as I have long predicted, with nothing pertaining to help solve the case having been found, and that has not changed since the original PJ investigation.
-
so is there anyone who actually still thinks the McCanns have not been interviewed
-
Can you tell me dave what crime occurred, and with evidence to back up your belief.
-
Agreed, John. The idea that the Met have interviewed hundreds of people and not the people at the heart of the investigation is something I find absurd.
Some of the conspiracy-inclined latch onto the fact that the remit for the review or the investigation contained the word "abduction" and therefore interpret the exercise as being some kind of expensive and inexplicable whitewash.
Agreed. And yet no-one can come up with a credible reason why our government would order a whitewash regarding a couple of previously unknown doctors living an ordinary normal family life until tragedy struck.
What did the government have to gain or lose which was so important that it would make them arrange a whitewash?
-
Can you tell me dave what crime occurred, and with evidence to back up your belief.
yes ....Maddie was almost certainly abducted and have a look at the thread where I discussed the evidence to support this. As i have repeatedly said if the parents are not suspects...abduction is a near certainty
-
8@??)(
This is basic policing. I would have thought that this occurred way back at the outset of Operation Grange. Former DCI Redwood went public and stated that his team had gone back to basics and looked at everything again from the start, there is no reason to believe every member of the so-called tapas 9 haven't been reinterviewed.
What can you tell us, if anything, about remits John? The remit cast doubt on whether OG went back to the actual beginning with a completely open mind.
-
yes ....Maddie was almost certainly abducted and have a look at the thread where I discussed the evidence to support this. As i have repeatedly said if the parents are not suspects...abduction is a near certainty
I have looked at that thread, and there is nothing there that cannot be explained by other scenarios.
Just note what I said earlier, police do not reveal lines of inquiry.
-
8@??)(
What can you tell us, if anything, about remits John? The remit cast doubt on whether OG went back to the actual beginning with a completely open mind.
Precisely.
If the remit has already been decided, it is certainly neither an open or fair investigation.
-
8@??)(
What can you tell us, if anything, about remits John? The remit cast doubt on whether OG went back to the actual beginning with a completely open mind.
we would have to know when the remit was drawn up......was it drawn up after the McCanns had been interviewed?
Does anyone have any evidence as to when it was drawn up. It first surfaced in jan12...7 months after the review started
-
Precisely.
If the remit has already been decided, it is certainly neither an open or fair investigation.
The doubts about the investigation exist because of the remit. No conspiracy theorists wrote that remit, the police wrote and released it themselves. Therefore any doubts were caused by them, no-one else.
-
The doubts about the investigation exist because of the remit. No conspiracy theorists wrote that remit, the police wrote and released it themselves. Therefore any doubts were caused by them, no-one else.
you are avoiding the question...when was the remit written...and what evidence was it based on
-
The doubts about the investigation exist because of the remit. No conspiracy theorists wrote that remit, the police wrote and released it themselves. Therefore any doubts were caused by them, no-one else.
That G-Unit states the situation precisely.
To that of course, we have over 9 years and not any trace of Madeleine, let alone evidence of how she disappeared.
The complete absence of evidence is the hallmark of this case.
-
That G-Unit states the situation precisely.
To that of course, we have over 9 years and not any trace of Madeleine, let alone evidence of how she disappeared.
The complete absence of evidence is the hallmark of this case.
the hallmark of many missing person cases ...thats what makes solving them so difficult
-
the hallmark of many missing person cases ...thats what makes solving them so difficult
It therefore does not remove the possibility of accidental death.
The lack of any evidence of abduction was demonstrably obvious with the original PJ investigation and nothing has changed into the 10 th year of this case.
-
Crime remains unknown.
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment remains unknown.
On that basis alone, you do not remove potential suspects from an investigation.
Indeed, both police forces have merely investigated the circumstances of her disappearance. Neither force have defined what crime has occurred .
-
yes ....Maddie was almost certainly abducted and have a look at the thread where I discussed the evidence to support this. As i have repeatedly said if the parents are not suspects...abduction is a near certainty
But not from the apartment. There is just as much chance she wandered off and was either lifted or met with an accident.
-
8@??)(
What can you tell us, if anything, about remits John? The remit cast doubt on whether OG went back to the actual beginning with a completely open mind.
Every case is different, remits inevitably vary.
-
That G-Unit states the situation precisely.
To that of course, we have over 9 years and not any trace of Madeleine, let alone evidence of how she disappeared.
The complete absence of evidence is the hallmark of this case.
That's for sure, one minute she was there and the next she was gone yet nobody apparently saw anything???
-
But not from the apartment. There is just as much chance she wandered off and was either lifted or met with an accident.
I can't see SY making any headway after nine long years. For whatever reason Kate McCann didn't want to answer questions back then and that was the time for answers, not now!
-
I can't see SY making any headway after nine long years. For whatever reason Kate McCann didn't want to answer questions back then and that was the time for answers, not now!
I wonder if SY ever asked her similar questions? It would seem reasonable if you were starting from the beginning.
-
Kate covered all this in her book - fingerprints now covered by looking out the window (not mentioned in her 2007 statements). It's not unusual to me that she started writing her book after she had thoroughly researched the official police files. They didn't need them at the start when they were reviewing. They will be seriously questioned when the time is right.
-
Every case is different, remits inevitably vary.
Once a remit is issued I assume that defines who is going to do what. In the case of the OG remit the who were; the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. The what was; a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. So far very clear.
Then they add this; It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK). I can think of no reason to add that unless it was to restrict the area of investigation.
REMIT
the area that a person or group of people in authority has responsibility for or control over:
e.g. The remit of this official inquiry is to investigate the reasons for the accident.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/remit_1
-
Once a remit is issued I assume that defines who is going to do what. In the case of the OG remit the who were; the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. The what was; a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. So far very clear.
Then they add this; It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK). I can think of no reason to add that unless it was to restrict the area of investigation.
REMIT
the area that a person or group of people in authority has responsibility for or control over:
e.g. The remit of this official inquiry is to investigate the reasons for the accident.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/remit_1
I suppose we will never know who added that all important little bit.
-
Once a remit is issued I assume that defines who is going to do what. In the case of the OG remit the who were; the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. The what was; a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. So far very clear.
Then they add this; It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK). I can think of no reason to add that unless it was to restrict the area of investigation.
REMIT
the area that a person or group of people in authority has responsibility for or control over:
e.g. The remit of this official inquiry is to investigate the reasons for the accident.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/remit_1
Are you suggesting that if evidence came to light that it was not abduction that it would be ignored.
It has already been suggested by SY that Maddie may not have left the apartment alive...that proves the investigation is not limited to abduction
-
you are avoiding the question...when was the remit written...and what evidence was it based on
What purpose do you believe the remit serves?
-
What purpose do you believe the remit serves?
what can it serve...it cannot possibly limit the investigation
-
the hallmark of many missing person cases ...thats what makes solving them so difficult
Particularly if the person has been abducted by a person who is a stranger to them and their family and if it is opportunistic.
Sometimes the only evidence of abduction is if it is witnessed, either by seeing someone being pulled into a vehicle or someone being carried away ... but an eye witness to such an event is highly unusual. The crime can sometimes be caught on CCTV.
I don't get the reluctance to consider the logic of the situation ... if you return to your home and someone has come in and left without leaving a trace and there is a space where your television used to be ... it doesn't take you too long to work out what has happened.
-
what can it serve...it cannot possibly limit the investigation
Why include it if it serves no purpose?
-
Why include it if it serves no purpose?
Who said it serves no purpose
What purpose do you think it serves
-
Who said it serves no purpose
What purpose do you think it serves
You said it cannot limit the investigation.
-
You said it cannot limit the investigation.
It cannot
-
It cannot
So why say it.
-
So why say it.
Say what
Could you be a little more clear
-
Say what
Could you be a little more clear
Read Slarti's post and answer the question.
It is clear cut.
-
what can it serve...it cannot possibly limit the investigation
I asked you "What purpose do you believe the remit serves?"
You then ask "what can it serve?" indicating you have no idea what is serves.
On that basis you can hardly pontificate about it.
So let us try again:
What purpose do you believe the remit serves?
You must have some notion of its purpose surely?
-
Read Slarti's post and answer the question.
It is clear cut.
So what is the ..it ...that Slartibartfast is referring to
The post is ambiguous
Your behaviour is becoming strange
Remember you are not in a position to give anyone orders
-
So what is the ..it ...that Slartibartfast is referring to
The post is ambiguous
Hardly.
-
Hardly.
So what is the it
-
Who said it serves no purpose
What purpose do you think it serves
OK, so we'll agree it's there for a purpose. I think it tells us what OG is going to do; it's going to review and investigate the abduction.
Now, tell me what you think it's purpose might be.
-
So what is the it
It's fairly easy, .I'm surprised you can't follow a simple conversation,
-
OK, so we'll agree it's there for a purpose. I think it tells us what OG is going to do; it's going to review and investigate the abduction.
Now, tell me what you think it's purpose might be.
* Jumps up and down waving hands in the air shouting I know I know...*
So as per thread question "the McCanns being interviewed" SY said they were going over ALL the paper work regarding the case, which they had available to them, to see if anything was missed, or if the investigation by the PJ was botched in some way. We understand they were only looking at the abduction from the apartment scenario- given by the parents/family and friends. Which, in my opinion is a disgrace.
On the other hand, if they were given information, or found out something in the course of the 'investigation' which incriminated the parents, and or friends, then I doubt very much if they would tell the parents they were investigating their involvement as an alternative scenario to the 'stranger abduction' from the apartment via a jemmied shutter and open window. by gum.
The interview? would this be under caution like a real proper one, or just a nod to the fact - erm did you ,erm ,like you know, um answer all the timeline questions, you know err , well , its like, I mean, um did you, because was it like th truth you were telling? pretty please answer...
-
It's fairly easy, .I'm surprised you can't follow a simple conversation,
I'm surprised you don't realise it's ambiguous
-
* Jumps up and down waving hands in the air shouting I know I know...*
So as per thread question "the McCanns being interviewed" SY said they were going over ALL the paper work regarding the case, which they had available to them, to see if anything was missed, or if the investigation by the PJ was botched in some way. We understand they were only looking at the abduction from the apartment scenario- given by the parents/family and friends. Which, in my opinion is a disgrace.
On the other hand, if they were given information, or found out something in the course of the 'investigation' which incriminated the parents, and or friends, then I doubt very much if they would tell the parents they were investigating their involvement as an alternative scenario to the 'stranger abduction' from the apartment via a jemmied shutter and open window. by gum.
The interview? would this be under caution like a real proper one, or just a nod to the fact - erm did you ,erm ,like you know, um answer all the timeline questions, you know err , well , its like, I mean, um did you, because was it like th truth you were telling? pretty please answer...
'Interviewed' in this context is such a vague term it's meaningless really. It covers a whole range of possibilities from an informal chat to an interview under caution. That's why the remit is of interest. If it's telling us that OG were only interested in an abduction then any interviews were likely to have been been related to that subject.
If evidence emerged which led OG outside the limits of their remit I assume they would have to present that to their superiors and seek permission to operate outside the remit or to have it changed.
-
'Interviewed' in this context is such a vague term it's meaningless really. It covers a whole range of possibilities from an informal chat to an interview under caution. That's why the remit is of interest. If it's telling us that OG were only interested in an abduction then any interviews were likely to have been been related to that subject.
If evidence emerged which led OG outside the limits of their remit I assume they would have to present that to their superiors and seek permission to operate outside the remit or to have it changed.
Yes G I agree. And we haven't been told if the remit has been changed NOR I suspect we would. We would also find out if any tapas 9 were interviewed under caution.
-
'Interviewed' in this context is such a vague term it's meaningless really. It covers a whole range of possibilities from an informal chat to an interview under caution. That's why the remit is of interest. If it's telling us that OG were only interested in an abduction then any interviews were likely to have been been related to that subject.
If evidence emerged which led OG outside the limits of their remit I assume they would have to present that to their superiors and seek permission to operate outside the remit or to have it changed.
I dont believe SY are limited to the remit...that would be absurd...if evidence points anywhere they will follow it...they have alraedy said maddie may have died in the apartment which shows they are considering other scenarios
-
Not sure if they will have been interviewed in the sense of...grilled..as the last people to see the missing child should be.
I expect they have been spoken to about stuff.
I do not hold the view of some that they have ever been interviewed and ruled out as suspects or anything...as I don't believe SY have ever looked at them from that angle. Abduction seems to be just accepted without question in regards to this case, which is bizarre.
-
Not sure if they will have been interviewed in the sense of...grilled..as the last people to see the missing child should be.
I expect they have been spoken to about stuff.
I do not hold the view of some that they have ever been interviewed and ruled out as suspects or anything...as I don't believe SY have ever looked at them from that angle. Abduction seems to be just accepted without question in regards to this case, which is bizarre.
Yes C that seems to be the case however, I am sure they are not all 'yes men', if something wasn't right I'm sure people would stand up and be counted, like those who contributed to Amarals fund, and the people who felt money was being used unwisely. It will come out that money was indeed wasted.
-
I dont believe SY are limited to the remit...that would be absurd...if evidence points anywhere they will follow it...they have alraedy said maddie may have died in the apartment which shows they are considering other scenarios
I believe OG are limited to the remit. If not, why have one?
-
Yes C that seems to be the case however, I am sure they are not all 'yes men', if something wasn't right I'm sure people would stand up and be counted, like those who contributed to Amarals fund, and the people who felt money was being used unwisely. It will come out that money was indeed wasted.
I've noticed that people are coming out of the woodwork about Hillsborough. Too little too late.
-
I believe OG are limited to the remit. If not, why have one?
you tell me...how important is the remit...is it something that can be torn up......officers simply could not ignore the evidence if it pointed elsewhere
-
REMIT
the task or area of activity officially assigned to an individual or organization.
"the committee was becoming caught up in issues that did not fall within its remit"
synonyms: area of responsibility, area of activity, sphere, orbit, scope, ambit, province, territory, realm, department, turf; brief, instructions, orders; informalbailiwick
"his remit includes administering the consumer credit licensing system"
Pretty much ambiguous/flexible here, ergo just a piece of paper preciing general and any activities?
-
REMIT
the task or area of activity officially assigned to an individual or organization.
"the committee was becoming caught up in issues that did not fall within its remit"
synonyms: area of responsibility, area of activity, sphere, orbit, scope, ambit, province, territory, realm, department, turf; brief, instructions, orders; informalbailiwick
"his remit includes administering the consumer credit licensing system"
Pretty much ambiguous/flexible here, ergo just a piece of paper preciing general and any activities?
very flexible ...a piece of paper that could be torn up and thrown in the bin if the situation changed...thank you
-
I've noticed that people are coming out of the woodwork about Hillsborough. Too little too late.
Indeed G one of the most vile cases of police coverups. 'the slaughter of the innocents'. A lot of police work which was questionable is now being brought to the forefront. Thank goodness. Public servants are now being challenged by the many online campaigning groups, which put the newspapers to shame.
-
very flexible ...a piece of paper that could be torn up and thrown in the bin if the situation changed...thank you
Yes, I agree the remit is unclear and ambiguous which begs the question why it was issued..oh hang on, to cover all angles, including a non abduction, which is evidence that abduction is NOT believed by the superiors in the Met
-
you tell me...how important is the remit...is it something that can be torn up......officers simply could not ignore the evidence if it pointed elsewhere
First of all, officers are not free to dash off in any direction they wish. There's a hierarchy. Within that are fairly senior officers who assess the evidence and decide what to do next.
If they want to investigate something which exceeds their remit they are not going to do that without the agreement and express permission of those higher up the food chain. After all, if they're wrong, someone is going to carry the can.
If permission is not granted that's the end of it, unless they're brave enough to desert their careers and turn whistle-blower. They would need to be very sure they're right to do that, and until they investigate whatever it is they can't be sure. Mostly they accept the decision of those above them and get on with their jobs, I imagine.
-
First of all, officers are not free to dash off in any direction they wish. There's a hierarchy. Within that are fairly senior officers who assess the evidence and decide what to do next.
If they want to investigate something which exceeds their remit they are not going to do that without the agreement and express permission of those higher up the food chain. After all, if they're wrong, someone is going to carry the can.
If permission is not granted that's the end of it, unless they're brave enough to desert their careers and turn whistle-blower. They would need to be very sure they're right to do that, and until they investigate whatever it is they can't be sure. Mostly they accept the decision of those above them and get on with their jobs, I imagine.
Gotta say, even when I got to close to the top of the food chain, this is roughly how it worked.
-
Gotta say, even when I got to close to the top of the food chain, this is roughly how it worked.
It's how most organisations work. The higher you climb the more you know and the more decisions you are allowed to make. In this case Cameron asked May for action to 'help the family'. May asked the Met. The Met agreed. May is funding the investigation and she is a member of government with Cameron as head man. If the investigation moved in a direction which didn't 'help the family', for example, those funding it would be interested in knowing.
-
I dont believe SY are limited to the remit...that would be absurd...if evidence points anywhere they will follow it...they have alraedy said maddie may have died in the apartment which shows they are considering other scenarios
I agree. IMO It doesn't matter what the remit was - if evidence was found amongst those 40,000 docs which pointed to another scenario rather than abduction then that would have to be followed up. To deliberately ignore such evidence would mean we have a corrupt team of officers who were conducting a whitewash - not an investigation.
IMO SY's statement that Madeleine may have died in the apartment was as a result of the info SY received about the sexual predator who attacked several UK children in their own bedrooms. The parents of those children will undoubtedly have been interviewed - although that has never been revealed to the public.
The fact that SY have said they will not be giving a running commentary on the investigation seems to have been forgotten by some people.
-
I agree. IMO It doesn't matter what the remit was - if evidence was found amongst those 40,000 docs which pointed to another scenario rather than abduction then that would have to be followed up. To deliberately ignore such evidence would mean we have a corrupt team of officers who were conducting a whitewash - not an investigation.
IMO SY's statement that Madeleine may have died in the apartment was as a result of the info SY received about the sexual predator who attacked several UK children in their own bedrooms. The parents of those children will undoubtedly have been interviewed - although that has never been revealed to the public.
The fact that SY have said they will not be giving a running commentary on the investigation seems to have been forgotten by some people.
You seem to have forgotten that SY have reached a dead end.
-
You seem to have forgotten that SY have reached a dead end.
I don't know that to be fact.
However it is a fact that they have been able to rule out the McCanns and their friends as suspects or persons of interest. Since then there has not been even a hint that things have changed. The fact that all the people who have been interviewed in Portugal have no connection to the McCanns is confirmation of that IMO.
-
I don't know that to be fact.
However it is a fact that they have been able to rule out the McCanns and their friends as suspects or persons of interest. Since then there has not been even a hint that things have changed. The fact that all the people who have been interviewed in Portugal have no connection to the McCanns is confirmation of that IMO.
How can anyone relevant to the case be ruled out as the crime remains unknown ?
-
I agree. IMO It doesn't matter what the remit was - if evidence was found amongst those 40,000 docs which pointed to another scenario rather than abduction then that would have to be followed up. To deliberately ignore such evidence would mean we have a corrupt team of officers who were conducting a whitewash - not an investigation.
IMO SY's statement that Madeleine may have died in the apartment was as a result of the info SY received about the sexual predator who attacked several UK children in their own bedrooms. The parents of those children will undoubtedly have been interviewed - although that has never been revealed to the public.
The fact that SY have said they will not be giving a running commentary on the investigation seems to have been forgotten by some people.
No it doesn't. Depending on the hierarchical structure it's possible that one person can decide on the direction taken by the investigators.
-
No it doesn't. Depending on the hierarchical structure it's possible that one person can decide on the direction taken by the investigators.
And the police are very hierarchical. Any officer who wants any sort of future will not go against the boss - and that goes all the way up the tree.
The only 'rogue' officers are likely to be dishonest ones
-
And the police are very hierarchical. Any officer who wants any sort of future will not go against the boss - and that goes all the way up the tree.
The only 'rogue' officers are likely to be dishonest ones
The key to getting on anywhere:
Don't bypass the boss.
Pass good news upwards
Cover up bad news by "bubbling" your mates.
?{)(**
-
No it doesn't. Depending on the hierarchical structure it's possible that one person can decide on the direction taken by the investigators.
FGS G - we are talking about Detectives here - not robots who can only do what they are programmed to do.
The idea that professional policeman would be directed to deliberately ignore major evidence - because it didn't fit in with 'a remit' is ridiculous IMO. That is the opposite of what they are trained to do. You might as well employ any old members of the public to go through the evidence - if the expertise of professional policemen is not allowed to be utilised.
Sorry but that's several bridges too far for me.
IMO
-
so can we trust police to tell thev truth
-
FGS G - we are talking about Detectives here - not robots who can only do what they are programmed to do.
The idea that professional policeman would be directed to deliberately ignore major evidence - because it didn't fit in with 'a remit' is ridiculous IMO. That is the opposite of what they are trained to do. You might as well employ any old members of the public to go through the evidence - if the expertise of professional policemen is not allowed to be utilised.
Sorry but that's several bridges too far for me.
IMO
I think your knowledge of how hierarchical organisations work is fairly unrealistic, as is your understanding of how investigations are conducted.
Just consider the LP rogatory interviews of the T7 for a moment and imagine they were part of a UK investigation. The officers conducting the interviews would pass them on. Job done. Someone higher than them would analyse and assess them, possibly write a report and pass it on. Job done. Someone higher than them would decide if the report was significant and if further action was necessary, and so on and so on.
All these officers may be professional and committed, but not all of them would have the power to decide how the investigation progressed. It's those who can see the whole picture who make the decisions. Those lower down can't see the whole picture so they can't judge which evidence is significant and which isn't.
.
-
I think your knowledge of how hierarchical organisations work is fairly unrealistic, as is your understanding of how investigations are conducted.
Just consider the LP rogatory interviews of the T7 for a moment and imagine they were part of a UK investigation. The officers conducting the interviews would pass them on. Job done. Someone higher than them would analyse and assess them, possibly write a report and pass it on. Job done. Someone higher than them would decide if the report was significant and if further action was necessary, and so on and so on.
All these officers may be professional and committed, but not all of them would have the power to decide how the investigation progressed. It's those who can see the whole picture who make the decisions. Those lower down can't see the whole picture so they can't judge which evidence is significant and which isn't.
.
i think your assumption of how the police work is totally wrong..they certainly would not solve any cases if they operated as you think they do.
-
In the UK a Major Investigation Team has 50 staff, police and civilian, lead by a Detective Chief Inspector.
'tis he/she who will decide how the show is run with his/her reports carrying out the tasks he/she assigns as appropriate and reporting back as required. The DCI will report upwards to a D.Spt as required.
It would be unusual if the remit were not worked out before kick off. The remit like a contract is a live entity.
What will not happen is that up to 50 bods will be out of control lobbing out pseudopodia here and there like so many amoebae.
-
In the UK a Major Investigation Team has 50 staff, police and civilian, lead by a Detective Chief Inspector.
'tis he/she who will decide how the show is run with his/her reports carrying out the tasks he/she assigns as appropriate and reporting back as required. The DCI will report upwards to a D.Spt as required.
It would be unusual if the remit were not worked out before kick off. The remit like a contract is a live entity.
What will not happen is that up to 50 bods will be out of control lobbing out pseudopodia here and there like so many amoebae.
so who carries out the interview...I would suggest it is a detective who reports to the lead...they have a discussion and go from there. It is not the chain of people who do not talk to each other as gunit is suggesting
-
so who carries out the interview...I would suggest it is a detective who reports to the lead...they have a discussion and go from there. It is not the chain of people who do not talk to each other as gunit is suggesting
How would you know what procedure is followed ?
-
How would you know what procedure is followed ?
because I have been personally involved in a police investigation...more than one
-
because I have been personally involved in a police investigation...more than one
Are you going to support that claim? Or are we supposed simply to accept it?
We are being asked to accept that the McCanns were interviewed, with, to date, one newspaper article which is unclear about whether there were discussions or whether there was a formal interview. And we have a remit phrased to limit the investigation to abduction.
Now we have speculation about internal reporting on what is probably the largest case ever to go through HOLMES.
And close to a vacuum when it comes to hard evidence.
-
because I have been personally involved in a police investigation...more than one
Without a cite, that is meaningless.
-
Are you going to support that claim? Or are we supposed simply to accept it?
We are being asked to accept that the McCanns were interviewed, with, to date, one newspaper article which is unclear about whether there were discussions or whether there was a formal interview. And we have a remit phrased to limit the investigation to abduction.
Now we have speculation about internal reporting on what is probably the largest case ever to go through HOLMES.
And close to a vacuum when it comes to hard evidence.
If you still do not accept the McCanns have been interviewed you will find you are in a small minority. John..an ex policeman and forum owner suggests taht an interview would be a matter of course
If you have a problem with speculation then you may need to think whether you should be taking part in any discussions...the forum is full of speculation
-
so who carries out the interview...I would suggest it is a detective who reports to the lead...they have a discussion and go from there. It is not the chain of people who do not talk to each other as gunit is suggesting
The SIO runs the investigation. They decide everything and their team follows their directions. The SIO has lots of advice to call on if required and they report upwards. Some interesting info here, particularly about the weight given to different kinds of evidence;
A clear understanding of the reliability of the material will enable investigators to determine the weight they should give to it in the evaluation. The following may assist investigators to determine the appropriate weight a piece of material should be given:
• Material that can be corroborated by an independent source of material will have high reliability;
• Material that can only be corroborated by a person such as a spouse or other relative will have less reliability;
• Material that cannot be corroborated and conflicts with other material gathered in the investigation, will have less reliability;
• Material indicating other factors which may cast doubt on reliability of the material.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/core-investigative-doctrine.pdf
-
If you still do not accept the McCanns have been interviewed you will find you are in a small minority. John..an ex policeman and forum owner suggests taht an interview would be a matter of course
If you have a problem with speculation then you may need to think whether you should be taking part in any discussions...the forum is full of speculation
What do you mean by 'interviewed'?
-
The SIO runs the investigation. They decide everything and their team follows their directions. The SIO has lots of advice to call on if required and they report upwards. Some interesting info here, particularly about the weight given to different kinds of evidence;
A clear understanding of the reliability of the material will enable investigators to determine the weight they should give to it in the evaluation. The following may assist investigators to determine the appropriate weight a piece of material should be given:
• Material that can be corroborated by an independent source of material will have high reliability;
• Material that can only be corroborated by a person such as a spouse or other relative will have less reliability;
• Material that cannot be corroborated and conflicts with other material gathered in the investigation, will have less reliability;
• Material indicating other factors which may cast doubt on reliability of the material.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/core-investigative-doctrine.pdf
so...the statement by Ben Needhams grandmother...what reliability will that have. These guidelines seem to be a general guide which may change depending on other factors
-
If you still do not accept the McCanns have been interviewed you will find you are in a small minority. John..an ex policeman and forum owner suggests taht an interview would be a matter of course
If you have a problem with speculation then you may need to think whether you should be taking part in any discussions...the forum is full of speculation
I take from your response that you are unwilling to support your claim and/or how your experience compares with OG.
So, no evidence re interviews. No evidence re setting of the remit. No evidence re your claim.
Just so the guests reading this thread know the score.
-
I take from your response that you are unwilling to support your claim and/or how your experience compares with OG.
So, no evidence re interviews. No evidence re setting of the remit. No evidence re your claim.
Just so the guests reading this thread know the score.
Redwood himself was in Portugal. Can we assume he sat in on the interviews or do you need a photograph.
-
I take from your response that you are unwilling to support your claim and/or how your experience compares with OG.
So, no evidence re interviews. No evidence re setting of the remit. No evidence re your claim.
Just so the guests reading this thread know the score.
Remember you made a claim that Heri had not ruled out the Mccanns...do you have any evidence to support that when his blog states that madeleine was abducted....you do not
-
Remember you made a claim that Heri had not ruled out the Mccanns...do you have any evidence to support that when his blog states that madeleine was abducted....you do not
His blog states abduction as if a fact.
IT ISN'T.
-
His blog states abduction as if a fact.
IT ISN'T.
so why is sil claiming he hasn't ruled out the mccanns...
-
I believe she said that Heriberto considered other options, but when did he do that exactly ?
I have only read some of his blog, so does anyone know how many cases he has helped solved in aiding the police ?
-
so who carries out the interview...I would suggest it is a detective who reports to the lead...they have a discussion and go from there. It is not the chain of people who do not talk to each other as gunit is suggesting
1 Why?
2 G-Unit did not suggest an interview was carried out by a chain of people who do not communicate .
Just consider:
The Met uses SAP.
The Met is a Theory X organisation.
Armed with those two pieces of knowledge and an appreciation of how each works you should be able to fathom how the organisation operates.
-
I believe she said that Heriberto considered other options, but when did he do that exactly ?
I have only read some of his blog, so does anyone know how many cases he has helped solved in aiding the police ?
no she said Heri had not rules out the McCanns...which is untrue
-
PLEASE NOTE
ALL abusive posts ... including mild amusement at the expense of another member will be erased.
Please remember to be polite to each other. Thank you
-
Redwood himself was in Portugal. Can we assume he sat in on the interviews or do you need a photograph.
Redwood being Portugal has to nothing to do with further interviews of the McCanns, the establishment of the remit of OG, or your claim re the inside workings of OG and your police experience.
Just so our guests are clear on this, as you do not seem to be.
-
Redwood being Portugal has to nothing to do with further interviews of the McCanns, the establishment of the remit of OG, or your claim re the inside workings of OG and your police experience.
Just so our guests are clear on this, as you do not seem to be.
Redwood being in portugal has a lot to do with how the police work...you seem to be trying very hard simply to score points
what our gusts will be clear on is that the anti mccann lies seen on other forums is not allowed here
-
so why is sil claiming he hasn't ruled out the mccanns...
During our discussions, he made it clear that his approach is open minded. He read the files. Then, he constructed a theorem and re-read the files, improved the theorem, re-read the files etc.
And although he has refined his theorem multiple times, he is not promoting it as the only option, or one that his ´honour´ depends on.
He would quite happily accept a different outcome, subject to a degree of confidence in it.
I discussed with him one alternative he had not considered, which happens to be at odds with his theory, and he recommended that I bring it to the attention of OG.
So, fresh insight, not in line with theory, and he was very interested.
He is neither for or against the McCanns. He wants justice for Madeleine, which is quite different.
Please do not take complex ideas and boil them down into 'sceptic' and supporter, when there are other options.
Any evidence re McCann interviews? Or how/when the OG remit was constructed? Or how your experience of police procedures compares to those used on the UKs largest police investigation in modern times?
-
During our discussions, he made it clear that his approach is open minded. He read the files. Then, he constructed a theorem and re-read the files, improved the theorem, re-read the files etc.
And although he has refined his theorem multiple times, he is not promoting it as the only option, or one that his ´honour´ depends on.
He would quite happily accept a different outcome, subject to a degree of confidence in it.
I discussed with him one alternative he had not considered, which happens to be at odds with his theory, and he recommended that I bring it to the attention of OG.
So, fresh insight, not in line with theory, and he was very interested.
He is neither for or against the McCanns. He wants justice for Madeleine, which is quite different.
Please do not take complex ideas and boil them down into 'sceptic' and supporter, when there are other options.
Any evidence re McCann interviews? Or how/when the OG remit was constructed? Or how your experience of police procedures compares to those used on the UKs largest police investigation in modern times?
#
So when did he say he had not ruled out the McCanns...as you have claimed...you now appear to be back tracking.
-
During our discussions, he made it clear that his approach is open minded. He read the files. Then, he constructed a theorem and re-read the files, improved the theorem, re-read the files etc.
And although he has refined his theorem multiple times, he is not promoting it as the only option, or one that his ´honour´ depends on.
He would quite happily accept a different outcome, subject to a degree of confidence in it.
I discussed with him one alternative he had not considered, which happens to be at odds with his theory, and he recommended that I bring it to the attention of OG.
So, fresh insight, not in line with theory, and he was very interested.
He is neither for or against the McCanns. He wants justice for Madeleine, which is quite different.
Please do not take complex ideas and boil them down into 'sceptic' and supporter, when there are other options.
Any evidence re McCann interviews? Or how/when the OG remit was constructed? Or how your experience of police procedures compares to those used on the UKs largest police investigation in modern times?
we only have your word for that...and on the basis of the fact you have said he has not ruled out the mccanns I don't have confidence you understood what he said properly
-
Redwood being in portugal has a lot to do with how the police work...you seem to be trying very hard simply to score points
what our gusts will be clear on is that the anti mccann lies seen on other forums is not allowed here
Repeat. Redwood being to Portugal has to nothing to do with further interviews of the McCanns, the establishment of the remit of OG, or your claim re the inside workings of OG and your police experience.
The topic is about further interviews of the McCanns, and whether that shaped the OG remit.
Do you have any evidence to support the view you have repeated time and time again? Or is it possible you could simply state it is your opinion, in order that our guests are clear on this?
Clarify that it is merely your opinion, and I'm done. I don't have issues with anyone's opinion, labelled as such.
-
Repeat. Redwood being to Portugal has to nothing to do with further interviews of the McCanns, the establishment of the remit of OG, or your claim re the inside workings of OG and your police experience.
The topic is about further interviews of the McCanns, and whether that shaped the OG remit.
Do you have any evidence to support the view you have repeated time and time again? Or is it possible you could simply state it is your opinion, in order that our guests are clear on this?
Clarify that it is merely your opinion, and I'm done. I don't have issues with anyone's opinion, labelled as such.
repeat repaet repeat.....redwoods presence in Portugal was made in response to a post about chains of command...do you not read the posts...check again...
the topic is ...The McCanns will have been interviewed by Operation Grange...and most on the forum seem to believe they have
-
we only have your word for that...and on the basis of the fact you have said he has not ruled out the mccanns I don't have confidence you understood what he said properly
I am going to recommend, once and once only, that you don't take that route.
I have published that which you put in red twice in open forum, and Heri has the opportunity to agree that it happened, or not. And as you claim you have PMd him, and as his web-site has his contact details, you have got methods of getting in touch if this is of interest to you.
You are in a thread about whether the McCanns have been interviewed or not. You have offered no evidence of this whatsoever.
-
I am going to recommend, once and once only, that you don't take that route.
I have published that which you put in red twice in open forum, and Heri has the opportunity to agree that it happened, or not. And as you claim you have PMd him, and as his web-site has his contact details, you have got methods of getting in touch if this is of interest to you.
You are in a thread about whether the McCanns have been interviewed or not. You have offered no evidence of this whatsoever.
I have already pmd Heri and he has replied to me as you know...he does not consider the parents to be involved..
I have offered evidence that the mccanns have been interviewed..are you sure you do not mean proof
-
I have already pmd Heri and he has replied to me as you know...he does not consider the parents to be involved..
I have offered evidence that the mccanns have been interviewed..are you sure you do not mean proof
Involved in what exactly? I would like to hear from Heriberto as to what evidence he has used to make the determination.
They were certainly involved in other things going on in Portugal in 2007 after the disappearance, so I again wonder if Heriberto has any views on that.
-
I have already pmd Heri and he has replied to me as you know...he does not consider the parents to be involved..
I have offered evidence that the mccanns have been interviewed..are you sure you do not mean proof
You have offered your opinion that they should have been. In this particular instance, I am in agreement.
You have offered not an iota of evidence to support your opinion.
Now you have your opportunity. If you provide the evidence you claim you posted, all you have to do is point at your post, and I'm left without a leg to stand on.
So your evidence is ................. drum-roll .................. anticipation ............
-
No need for goading. Thank You.
-
Involved in what exactly?
I would add to that, why are Heriberto's theories of any relevance to the solving of this case ?
What is his track record ?
-
1 Why?
2 G-Unit did not suggest an interview was carried out by a chain of people who do not communicate .
Just consider:
The Met uses SAP.
The Met is a Theory X organisation.
Armed with those two pieces of knowledge and an appreciation of how each works you should be able to fathom how the organisation operates.
I've used SAP extensively in a Theory Y organisation which was pleasant. Then again, Theory X is traditional in uniformed disciplined organisations; Armed Forces and similar organisations like Police and Fire Brigade.
-
You have offered your opinion that they should have been. In this particular instance, I am in agreement.
You have offered not an iota of evidence to support your opinion.
Now you have your opportunity. If you provide the evidence you claim you posted, all you have to do is point at your post, and I'm left without a leg to stand on.
So your evidence is ................. drum-roll .................. anticipation ............
you have resorted to goading...so you haven't got a leg to stand on. I posted a definition of evidence and the evidence that supported my claim. I have posted the evidence 3 to 4 times...whereas you have posted no evidence that Heri has not ruled out the mccanns when the opposite is true
-
you have resorted to goading...you haven't got a leg to stand on. I posted a definition of evidence and the evidence taht suppoted my claim. I have posted the evidence 3 to 4 times...whereas you have posted no evidence that Heri has not ruled out the mccanns when the opposite is true
What relevance has Heriberto to this case dave ?
...other than giving his opinions.
I have already asked about his track record in criminal cases, I don't believe there is an answer yet.
.
-
You have offered your opinion that they should have been. In this particular instance, I am in agreement.
You have offered not an iota of evidence to support your opinion.
Now you have your opportunity. If you provide the evidence you claim you posted, all you have to do is point at your post, and I'm left without a leg to stand on.
So your evidence is ................. drum-roll .................. anticipation ............
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
-
I know it is hot outside today but please keep cool guys!
-
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
Evidence/support for possiblity never the fact, so perhaps you can stop claimng it as fact, as it isnt evidenced as such,there
-
Evidence/support for possiblity never the fact, so perhaps you can stop claimng it as fact, there
the word used was evidence... I had been accused of not supplying one iota of evidence...I have supplied the definition and the evidence ...sil has failed to reply because she does not have a leg to stand on
-
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
I've got a chair. In fact I get to pick from several chairs. We have many.
Kindly produce your evidence.
Your opinion is fine, as your opinion.
Here's my opinion. I would not support your opinion in a criminal court, due to the lack of evidence. I would not support your opinion in a civil court, due to the lack of evidence.
Evidence?
-
I suggest people on here do some background reading as regards Heriberto Janosch González.
An 'interesting background' to say the least.
-
the word used was evidence...I have supplied the definition and the evidence ...sil has failed to reply because she does not have a leg to stand on
Evidence for what? That the last people to see a missing person are police interviewed? No evidence or definitions of words required for this basic. But it is not an evidenced FACT in this case at this time and in the circumstances. IM sure SIL has two very strong legs.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?gs_ivs=1&q=what+cases+has+Harry+berto+Yankovic+worksop#q=what+cases+has+Heriberto+Janosch+Gonz%C3%A1lez+worked+on
-
Here's a little taster as regards his previous 'work'.
http://fotocat.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/20080807-en.html
-
Here's a little taster as regards his previous 'work'.
http://fotocat.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/20080807-en.html
Davel you gonna stop ridiculing ufo nvestigations now that the poster who totally agrres with you and you with him is involved in something you berate richard hall for?
Lol
-
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
What an interesting proposition.
-
What an interesting proposition.
Perhaps he should split the infinitive a la Star Trek.
-
I've got a chair. In fact I get to pick from several chairs. We have many.
Kindly produce your evidence.
Your opinion is fine, as your opinion.
Here's my opinion. I would not support your opinion in a criminal court, due to the lack of evidence. I would not support your opinion in a civil court, due to the lack of evidence.
Evidence?
I have produced my evidence...
-
I have produced my evidence...
I've got a chair.
Evidence? Or none?
-
I've got a chair.
Evidence? Or none?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word evidence..are you confusing it with proof.....I have quoted a definition of evidence and the evidence that supports my contention
-
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word evidence..are you confusing it with proof.....I have quoted a definition of evidence and the evidence that supports my contention
Would that be the mysterious non-appearing evidence you continually refer to? I'm still waiting.
-
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
If OG began by investigating a disappearance they would immediately focus on the last people to see Madeleine. If they began at a later stage; 'the abduction' the starting point could have been different. It all depends on how the remit was interpreted.
If OG began with 'the abduction' then the parents and their friends would obviously not be suspects or persons of interest.
Your first 'reason' is based upon your opinion that OG followed 'standard police practice', but you have no evidence that they did so. Your second 'reason' is based upon your opinion why DCI Redwood made a certain statement. You have no evidence as to why he said it though.
-
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
If OG began by investigating a disappearance they would immediately focus on the last people to see Madeleine. If they began at a later stage; 'the abduction' the starting point could have been different. It all depends on how the remit was interpreted.
If OG began with 'the abduction' then the parents and their friends would obviously not be suspects or persons of interest.
Your first 'reason' is based upon your opinion that OG followed 'standard police practice', but you have no evidence that they did so. Your second 'reason' is based upon your opinion why DCI Redwood made a certain statement. You have no evidence as to why he said it though.
are you saying my statements do not satisfy the definition of evidence...they do
-
Evidence for what? That the last people to see a missing person are police interviewed? No evidence or definitions of words required for this basic. But it is not an evidenced FACT in this case at this time and in the circumstances. IM sure SIL has two very strong legs.
Bump
Your opinions are not evidenced facts, therefore just opinions.
There is no evidence that SY HAVE interviewed the mccanns
-
Bump
Your opinions are not evidenced facts, therefore just opinions.
There is no evidence that SY HAVE interviewed the mccanns
there is evidence..but you don't understand what evidence is
-
A number of people on this thread, myself included, have said that by standard practice, or good procedure, it is that the McCanns should have been re-interviewed by OG back near the start.
What we have is incredibly weak evidence that they have. On a 0 to 10 scale, it does not manage to muster a one.
-
are you saying my statements do not satisfy the definition of evidence...they do
Only if you're right about OG investigating a disappearance rather than an abduction.
-
I am afraid dave, people don't believe you.
shows how poor their reasoning is
-
I think the way moderating works, this will probably get deleted sooner rather than later, which I consider to be somewhat of a shame.
A number of people on this thread, myself included, have said that by standard practice, or good procedure, it is that the McCanns should have been re-interviewed by OG back near the start.
What we have is incredibly weak evidence that they have. On a 0 to 10 scale, it does not manage to muster a one.
My chairs are fine. My legs are fine. My eyes are fine. My credibility is doing OK, IMO.
Do you have evidence or is it your opinion?
so you admit there is evidence...weak but evidence...so tell me... what evidence are you referring to apart from the evidence i have posted
-
Think about it, if later someone puts in this FOI request
"Did OG interview GM?"
OG would look very silly if they reply "actually no we didn't".
-
so you admit there is evidence...weak but evidence...so tell me... what evidence are you referring to apart from the evidence i have posted
Given that you have not posted any evidence, it's not my task to scratch back through the whole thread.
Do you have any evidence?
-
Think about it, if later someone puts in this FOI request
"Did OG interview GM?"
OG would look very silly if they reply "actually no we didn't".
First you have to get them to answer, no mean feat in itself. Secondly it depends what the questioner means by 'interview' and what the Met mean by 'interview'. A face to face meeting can be described as an interview.
-
Does anyone imagine that the multi million pound OG investigation did not bother to formally interview the last person to see the child?
-
it has gone on because I insisted there was evidence...sil has just admitted there is evidence
It has gone on because you insist its a fact when it is NOT as far as we know, try stay to facts its a forum rule
-
Given that you have not posted any evidence, it's not my task to scratch back through the whole thread.
Do you have any evidence?
you have just admitted there is evidence..and I have posted evidence
-
Folks, cut the insults.
This is not directed to any particular person, or to any particular side.
Just keep the comments clean.
Thank you.
-
Does anyone imagine that the multi million pound OG investigation did not bother to formally interview the last person to see the child?
No but that has never been the point here, and it may also be true that they havent
-
Does anyone imagine that the multi million pound OG investigation did not bother to interview the last person to see the child?
Does anyone in reality believe that a bona fide police investigation would not examine all logical possibilities thoroughly, and actually openly admit it.
You never know, perhaps the McCann's have been interviewed under caution. 8(0(*
-
Given that you have not posted any evidence, it's not my task to scratch back through the whole thread.
Do you have any evidence?
this is what YOU posted..
What we have is incredibly weak evidence that they have.
you have admitted there is evidence that they have
-
Here's a little taster as regards his previous 'work'.
http://fotocat.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/20080807-en.html
A man of many interests, it seems.
-
Is it possible that the current PJ investigation may have submitted a rogatory letter to interview a person(s) in the UK?
-
A man of many interests, it seems.
Indeed.
Anyone found other cases he has worked on ?
-
Any further Off Topic Posts will be deleted.
-
this is what YOU posted..
What we have is incredibly weak evidence that they have.
you have admitted there is evidence that they have
Evidence based on opinion. Hmmm.........
-
No but that has never been the point here, and it may also be true that they havent
Before OG could interview a UK citizen in the UK, would they need to first recieve a rogatory letter from the PJ?
-
Is it possible that the current PJ investigation may have submitted a rogatory letter to interview a person(s) in the UK?
why would they need to
-
this is what YOU posted..
What we have is incredibly weak evidence that they have.
you have admitted there is evidence that they have
Key phrase. Incredibly weak.
I have no issue with the poster who brought this incredibly weak evidence to this thread. It is to date, the 'best' we have got, even though it would not pass muster in a criminal or civil court.
So a simple question to you. Is that your evidence?
I ask for a reason. I seem to be getting a reputation already in Portelas when I haven't even managed to buy the house, let alone move in.
Based on incredibly weak evidence, our new neighbour is of the opinion that the McCanns should be charged with anything from child neglect up. And that, based on incredibly weak evidence, is consistently the view of the folks out here.
Should I string up the McCanns on the basis of this incredibly weak evidence? Or should I ask for something convincing?
You ran out of opportunities to provide evidence pages back. The forum rules prevent me from expressing my opinion about your tactics.
Same issue as always - evidence?
-
Key phrase. Incredibly weak.
I have no issue with the poster who brought this incredibly weak evidence to this thread. It is to date, the 'best' we have got, even though it would not pass muster in a criminal or civil court.
So a simple question to you. Is that your evidence?
I ask for a reason. I seem to be getting a reputation already in Portelas when I haven't even managed to buy the house, let alone move in.
Based on incredibly weak evidence, our new neighbour is of the opinion that the McCanns should be charged with anything from child neglect up. And that, based on incredibly weak evidence, is consistently the view of the folks out here.
Should I string up the McCanns on the basis of this incredibly weak evidence? Or should I ask for something convincing?
You ran out of opportunities to provide evidence pages back. The forum rules prevent me from expressing my opinion about your tactics.
Same issue as always - evidence?
what poster are you talking about...you seem to be getting terribly confused... I have provided evidence....you have agreed there is weak evidence...as for your neighbours...evidence is not proof...as I have said many times
-
*&*%£
Before OG could interview a UK citizen in the UK, would they need to first recieve a rogatory letter from the PJ?
What an interesting thought. The answer is no. The Portuguese can restrict what OG do in Portugal and the UK can restrict what the PJ do in the UK but both are free to investigate their own citizens as they see fit.
-
*&*%£
What an interesting thought. The answer is no. The Portuguese can restrict what OG do in Portugal and the UK can restrict what the PJ do in the UK but both are free to investigate their own citizens as they see fit.
Yes you are probably right GUnit.
But here is another interesting question:
How likely is it out of ten that the current active PJ investigation (a new team based in a new city) might wish to interview the last witness to see the child, and the first witness to discover the child missing?
-
Yes you are probably right GUnit.
But here is another interesting question:
How likely is it out of ten that the current active PJ investigation (a new team based in a new city) might wish to interview the last witness to see the child, and the first witness to discover the child missing?
Have the portuguese interviewed anyone...my view...my opinion is that there is no portuguese investigation
-
Yes you are probably right GUnit.
But here is another interesting question:
How likely is it out of ten that the current active PJ investigation (a new team based in a new city) might wish to interview the last witness to see the child, and the first witness to discover the child missing?
If they had specific questions for or about anyone in the UK they would send ILR's as the PJ did before.
-
If they had specific questions for or about anyone in the UK they would send ILR's as the PJ did before.
I wonder how many ILRs have been sent by the current PJ investigation to the UK, and whom they request questioning of.
-
you have said i have offered not one iota of evidence.....
Reply #416 on: May 06, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »
QuoteModify
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
First reason...when someone goes missing it is standard police practice to interview the last person to see the missing person...in fact I doubt if there is a case in the UK where this was not done
Second reason.....statement from the lead officer that the McCanns are not suspects...what reason would he have for saying this...
as I said...not proof...but evidence
You need a chair
At least that means we can finally agree that the dog alerts are evidence.
-
I wonder how many ILRs have been sent by the current PJ investigation to the UK, and whom they request questioning of.
That could be very interesting. OG requesting interviews with Portuguese 'burglars' and the PJ requesting interviews with..................
So each side may have clues as to the other's 'lines of inquiry'.
-
If the McCanns were not interviewed, prior to the scoping excercise being allowed, it was not for the want of the opportunity to do so.
I cannot see two two Home Secretaries risking their political credibility by acceding to progressing it unless they were very sure of their ground. The only way to take that precaution would be if the police recommended it and the only surety the police could have to do so would be after checking the McCanns out ... to do that would require they were interviewed. imo
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
** **
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said:
"The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
** **
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
-
At least that means we can finally agree that the dog alerts are evidence.
Dog alerts are not evidence. They are intelligence.
The evidence comes from humans investigating and determining what the alert might indicate. That takes evidence gathering and forensic investigation.
-
Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
-----
Yes, we know all about mr mendick and how he considered dead from cancer pj detectives who were an obstruction to be a positive thing
quote
further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve.
unquote
And exactly wtf was he anyway to spout dead pj are a good thing and in kates words what a tosser
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post97436.html#p97436
-
Dog alerts are not evidence. They are intelligence.
The evidence comes from humans investigating and determining what the alert might indicate. That takes evidence gathering and forensic investigation.
According to Davel...
Evidence....
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true: according to the cambridge dictionary..
-
According to Davel...
The alerts are NOT evidence because Harrison stated clearly no inference could be drawn from them. I'm surprised you still do not understand that
-
If the McCanns were not interviewed, prior to the scoping excercise being allowed, it was not for the want of the opportunity to do so.
I cannot see two two Home Secretaries risking their political credibility by acceding to progressing it unless they were very sure of their ground. The only way to take that precaution would be if the police recommended it and the only surety the police could have to do so would be after checking the McCanns out ... to do that would require they were interviewed. imo
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
** **
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said:
"The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
** **
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
I can see no reason to assume that the McCanns were 'checked out' before the scoping exercise was commissioned. The impression I get is that the Home Office were lobbied relentlessly by the McCanns to carry out a review. Although they seemed generally sympathetic, as did the Met, the scoping exercise was their answer, and they didn't act after they received it.
Kate tells us in her book;
A year after our request for a review of Madeleine's case, Alan Johnson, the second home secretary we had met, commissioned CEOP to undertake a ‘scoping’ exercise – basically to establish whether they felt a review may be of benefit. Their report has been with the Home Office since March 2010
We have since met the current home secretary, Theresa May, and written to her several times. Currently we do not know whether we are any further forward, or whether the British government has even raised the suggestion of a review with the Portuguese authorities
Madeleine Page 383
Kate also tells us why they wanted a review;
Our own search, however, has significant limitations. Crucially, we do not have access to all of the information that has come in to the inquiry. The Portuguese authorities possess a great deal of material that was not included in the police file released into the public domain. The British police, too, hold information we do not have. The more data we can acquire, the more complete the picture will be and the stronger our chances of finding our daughter. If a review is declined, or indeed if no decision is ever made, we will be left with no alternative but to seek disclosure of all information possessed by the authorities relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.
Madeleine Page 384
They had tried to get the information from Leicestershire Police previously, of course, and were sent away with a flea in their ear;
‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’
Madeleine Page 331
I wonder why they thought it might work if they tried again?
-
The alerts are NOT evidence because Harrison stated clearly no inference could be drawn from them. I'm surprised you still do not understand that
Cite?
-
Cite?
do you not believe me....I have provided the cite before
-
.J. POLICE FILES: MARK HARRISON NATIONAL SEARCH ADVISER
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The training of a VRD provides an alert response using Ivan Pavlov's theory of ..... Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 10/05/16..
its in there as you can see
ions. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence
-
Wasn't he intercepted at the airport.
-
The alerts are NOT evidence because Harrison stated clearly no inference could be drawn from them. I'm surprised you still do not understand that
I'm not surprised you want it both ways.
-
I'm not surprised you want it both ways.
and i'm not surprised you still do not understand what evidence is
-
Would someone care to remind us, where other than with articles connected to the mccanns, did the dogs indicate ?
-
and i'm not surprised you still do not understand what evidence is
I was using your definition.
-
I was using your definition.
have you read what harrisom said
-
have you read what harrisom said
What has that got to do with your definition of evidence?
-
What has that got to do with your definition of evidence?
you believe what you want..it is not my definition..it is the cambridge dictionary...if you want to think the alerts are evidence go ahead
-
you believe what you want..it is not my definition..it is the cambridge dictionary...if you want to think the alerts are evidence go ahead
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
-
.J. POLICE FILES: MARK HARRISON NATIONAL SEARCH ADVISER
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The training of a VRD provides an alert response using Ivan Pavlov's theory of ..... Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 10/05/16..
its in there as you can see
ions. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence
It might help to compare two things; the dog alerts and Jane Tanner's sighting. In both cases evidence of what happened exists; the reports and statements in the files.
Contained within that evidence are clues suggesting what may have happened to Madeleine. The fact that the dogs alerted suggested that Madeleine may have died in the apartment. The fact that Jane saw a man carrying a child suggested that Madeleine was perhaps being abducted by that man.
OG think they found the man seen by Jane, so she probably didn't see Madeleine being abducted. Her clue can probably be disregarded.
Nothing has been found to confirm or dismiss the suggestion of death, so the dog alerts remain clues.
-
TOPIC. PLEASE.
-
Murat's Vehicles.
All vehicles Murat has had access to have been forensically examined to recover any surface trace evidence however they may all benefit from a full search by the EVRD and CSI dogs. They may be able to detect whether a dead body has been transported in one of the vehicles for intelligence purposes or detect human blood deposits that can be recovered and examined in a laboratory for Madeleine McCann's blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
An interesting find PF.
You should have it instated in the So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us? thread.
-
An interesting find PF.
You should have it instated in the So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us? thread.
Thanks AP.
-
sy have interviewed the mccanns do you agree
Could they have said "no comment" on 48 times 2 occasions?
-
It might help to compare two things; the dog alerts and Jane Tanner's sighting. In both cases evidence of what happened exists; the reports and statements in the files.
Contained within that evidence are clues suggesting what may have happened to Madeleine. The fact that the dogs alerted suggested that Madeleine may have died in the apartment. The fact that Jane saw a man carrying a child suggested that Madeleine was perhaps being abducted by that man.
OG think they found the man seen by Jane, so she probably didn't see Madeleine being abducted. Her clue can probably be disregarded.
Nothing has been found to confirm or dismiss the suggestion of death, so the dog alerts remain clues.
I read that the other way round to you.
If NOTHING has been found, then they are NOT clues.
NO clues ... NOTHING.
-
It might help to compare two things; the dog alerts and Jane Tanner's sighting. In both cases evidence of what happened exists; the reports and statements in the files.
Contained within that evidence are clues suggesting what may have happened to Madeleine. The fact that the dogs alerted suggested that Madeleine may have died in the apartment. The fact that Jane saw a man carrying a child suggested that Madeleine was perhaps being abducted by that man.
OG think they found the man seen by Jane, so she probably didn't see Madeleine being abducted. Her clue can probably be disregarded.
Nothing has been found to confirm or dismiss the suggestion of death, so the dog alerts remain clues.
clues that tell us what exactly?
-
I read that the other way round to you.
If NOTHING has been found, then they are NOT clues.
NO clues ... NOTHING.
If the dogs alert to the past presence of a cadaver and no cadaver is found there might be a clue there Sadie that someone has shifted the cadaver. That is the clue it gave me.
-
If the dogs alert to the past presence of a cadaver and no cadaver is found there might be a clue there Sadie that someone has shifted the cadaver. That is the clue it gave me.
The clue it is giving me is that we are way off topic yet again. We are spoilt for choice as far as dog threads go and the clue to what we should be discussing is in the thread title.
Let's stick to that please.
-
The clue it is giving me is that we are way off topic yet again. We are spoilt for choice as far as dog threads go and the clue to what we should be discussing is in the thread title.
Let's stick to that please.
I did make a comment on the topic earlier but got no responses "Could they have said "no comment" on 48 times 2 occasions?"
I find it hard to discuss a topic such as this because we have no way of knowing the answer, short of asking the McCanns. Who seem to be rather hard to contact yet they say they get lots of letter so there must be a method of sending them mail.
-
clues that tell us what exactly?
The important clue was: Jane Tanners sighting which was assertained my many that she was witnessing an abduction- no Tannerman = no clue= no abduction. 8**8:/: