Are the statements accurate? Control Risk verses PJ.

[Mr Gray]

The parents were suspects. The rest of the T9 were witnesses. That is clearly not the point. A criminal investigation follows due legal process. Neither witnesses nor suspects gets to dictate who records their statements and who leads a criminal investigation.

They were witness statements.. Not suspects/arguido statements

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

This thread clearly shows the problem with the Mitchell inspired pro-McCANN lobby. To spend time monitoring forums and arguing against anything that just might point towards parental responsibility means they lose touch with reason and start suggesting the most far fetched nonsense to defend an entrenched position. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone suggest that suspects and witnesses can get to decide who records statements and who leads a Police investigation.

[faithlilly]

1.  This report was based upon a timeline analysis (the result of statements made to the PJ and to Control Risk by 5 elements of the T9, by the client support service staff from Mark Warner and from other statements, a text having been compiled for an English analyst) and various chronogrammes of communications elaborated and presented to the British police who were in Portugal in cooperation with the PJ.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm



then there is kates book  where she advises never to sign a statement in a foreign language

Why were only five of the friend’s statements used ?

Oh and you must have missed this question Davel.


Are the statements taken by Control Risks (we will gloss over the fact that the whole group were breaking judicial secrecy) substantially different, and more importantly, more accurate than those taken by the PJ ?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

They were witness statements.. Not suspects/arguido statements

As I said that is not the point. Though there is documented evidence that officers in the PJ and the British Police suspected there may have been parental involvement. The fact is neither witnesses nor suspects get to decide who takes their statements and who leads the criminal investigation.

[Mr Gray]

As I said that is not the point. Though there is documented evidence that officers in the PJ and the British Police suspected there may have been parental involvement. The fact is neither witnesses nor suspects get to decide who takes their statements and who leads the criminal investigation.

You think what you like... And so will I... It's of no real importance is it

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You think what you like... And so will I... It's of no real importance is it

It’s not a question of what I think. It’s a question of due legal process. You don’t get to choose which bits to follow!! Whatever next? Maybe those accused could be allowed to hand pick their own jury!!

[Robittybob1]

They were witnesses... Not suspects

Every witness is a potential suspect.

[Mr Gray]

It’s not a question of what I think. It’s a question of due legal process. You don’t get to choose which bits to follow!! Whatever next? Maybe those accused could be allowed to hand pick their own jury!!

I understand  the defence does have a say in jury selection... I see nothing wrong with the mccanns giving the PJ more information... Nothing at all

[Mr Gray]

Every witness is a potential suspect.

I'm making the point these, are witness statements..
Could you explain what is, wrong with the mccanns offering revised statements to the PJ...perfectly legal

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I understand  the defence does have a say in jury selection... I see nothing wrong with the mccanns giving the PJ more information... Nothing at all

“Ludicrous”!!!

The private investigation was never set up to help the PJ with their criminal investigation.

[jassi]

“Ludicrous”!!!

The private investigation was never set up to help the PJ with their criminal investigation.

Deary me no, what a silly idea.

[Mr Gray]

“Ludicrous”!!!

The private investigation was never set up to help the PJ with their criminal investigation.

In your opinion

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

In your opinion

Find me one PJ source who asked for help from Control Risk or who thanked them for this allegedhelp.
There was a deliberate attempt to discredit an on-going criminal investigation into a missing child.

[Mr Gray]

Find me one PJ source who asked for help from Control Risk or who thanked them for this allegedhelp.
There was a deliberate attempt to discredit an on-going criminal investigation into a missing child.

The cite provided Re the brigade of information  shows the PJ used the provided statements to help draw up the timeline..
I would say the mccanns provided the new statements to help the investigation

[Robittybob1]

I'm making the point these, are witness statements..
Could you explain what is, wrong with the mccanns offering revised statements to the PJ...perfectly legal

Perfectly legal for the perpetrator to change his statement too.  If anything it attracted PJ attention to the group.