If those were the clothes Gerry wore when alledgedly he was seen by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter, then why didn't Eddie alert to them?
Knowing that he had been seen by a number of people who could describe him, would he have kept any of the clothing - let alone be photographed wearing them?
Sorry doesn't work for me.
But i though you didn't believe in the reliability of the dogs? Or are you saying you believe in their reliability for not identifying Gerry's clothes but don't believe in them for alerting on Kate's, because that is then cherry picking evidence to support a pre conceived theory.
Do we know if these clothes were in the gym when the dogs were brought in? Do you accept it's possible they weren't?
Please don't get the false impression that i have all the answers to solve this case, i don't and at this stage no one has.
The investigation done by the PJ was incomplete so we can only speculate based on evidence of an incomplete investigation and there are many loose ends which don't add up.
The point that i am making is that all the clothes that were identified Gerry owned, and that one witness who saw this person said the man he saw he was certain with 60-80% certainty was Gerry.
My personal belief is that it is beyond the relams of coincidence and requires further investigation.
What i am not saying is that on the basis of the incomplete investigation it should be automatically and categorically ruled out without further investigation, which appears to be your position.
That's dangerous and in the real world would be described as bad policing.
I am open to all possibilities, i have no pre conceived bias as to the Mccanns guilt or innocence and simply want to understand the evidence gathered so far fully in order to develop as clear a picture as possible of what happened.
