Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?

[sadie]

...and I thought we only had one Sherlock in here...

Well I know i could be wrong C.Ed, but there are clues if you are sensitive enough !   LOL !

Yes, I agree, just one Sherlock ....

[sadie]

Do you and C.Edwards include me in that? If so, you should know that I am firmly on the fence and comfortable there. I stand by principles and experience gained investigating some appalling miscarriages of justice, so I tend to defend principles I hold sacrosanct. I am neither a pro nor sceptic in the sense you mean, but I require evidence, evidence and more evidence.

It is only the bullying of the Mccanns and the fact that I cannot see any evidence whatsoever that they did anything or could have done anything, that makes me a pro

I also think I have worked out who did it. (masaterminded it)

I want Justice.  I will also defend the bullied against the "put the boot in brigade"

[ferryman]

Reconstructions/reconstitutions (call them what you will) with the aim of attempting to estblish truth/guilt or innocence of those involved by use of a replicated sequence of events (with the best will in the world) just cannot work.

I've used the example before and I'll use it again. 

The shooting of Jean-Paul de Menezes at London Underground Stockwell Station.

By erroneous eye-witness accounts, Mr Demenezes was wearing a knee-length, heavy-weight coat with leads trailing underneath, pole-volted barriers, dashed onto a train, was pinned to the floor and shot bullets to the head.

The only accurate bit was the last.  He was wearing a light-weight denim jacked, made an orderly and leisurely entrance to the platform, stopped to buy a paper, boarded the train in an orthodox manner, was pounced on, pinned to the floor and shot dead.

We know that because of examination of CCTV footage of events as they occurred.

What price a reonstruction/reconstitution of revealing the truth?

[Jazzy]

theres no defence for leaving  3 children under 4 alone NONE

Carlymichelle, is that the only point you want to make? Ever? You are quite right, there is no defence against your point, young children deserve their parents. However, they don't deserve to disappear, and neither do their parents deserve the torture they have had to endure.

You posted that you were left alone and cried and screamed. Would you want your parents treated the same way the Mccanns are had the worst happened to you?

[C.Edwards]

What price a reonstruction/reconstitution of revealing the truth?

Well, call me an old softie but where the principle protagonists are involved, fairly high, I would say.  Sadly for de Menezes this wasn't possible and there was CCTV footage anyway.

If the investigating force say they want the entire thing reconstituted, who the hell are the McCanns, their friends or the blinkered mass of their supporters to say it'll serve no purpose?

[sadie]

Well, call me an old softie but where the principle protagonists are involved, fairly high, I would say.  Sadly for de Menezes this wasn't possible and there was CCTV footage anyway.

If the investigating force say they want the entire thing reconstituted, who the hell are the McCanns, their friends or the blinkered mass of their supporters to say it'll serve no purpose?

Well I wouldn't call you a softie.

I would call you a hard nosed callow person

[drummer]

 

[C.Edwards]

Well I wouldn't call you a softie.

I would call you a hard nosed callow person

Hmm. "Inexperienced and immature..."  is that truly what you wanted to convey there, Sadie? Hard nosed?  Damn right.

[sadie]

Hmm. "Inexperienced and immature..."  is that truly what you wanted to convey there, Sadie? Hard nosed?  Damn right.

The immature part fits .  Your reasoning is immature IMO

Callow = lacking experience of life.

If you behave as you do then you exhibit a lack of experiene of the tragedies that befall people and how it affects them.

I have personally experienced such tragedy but I have also spent years Counselling people ... and I understand how lifes tradegies affect people.  Also how bullying affects people.  Thousands of people each year seriuosly affected by the thoughtless and cruel words of hard- nosed others.  Many committing suicide because of it.

Of course it is relevant Red.  Pull the other one.

Just cos Sepe comes in from a different angle to you, doesn't make his contribution irrelevant

[stephen25000]

You continually take a statist view- common among the right wing and ill educated.

The correct question is

"Who do the PJ think they are trying to force people to do something against their will and over which they have no power."

Just because they are police they have no more powers than they have been given in law. They cannot insist on further powers just to assist their case.

Irrelevant.

All that was required was the mccanns and associates to get off their collective derrieres and help the investigation, as was promised, and never delivered.

[stephen25000]

Quite a fascist remark. State triumphs over individual rights.

If you are happy with that, fine!

Fascist remark ?

Now that is a truly childish comment. These people promised to help do a reconstruction.

They haven't.

[stephen25000]

Fascism is a political that values the State above the individual. People in fascist states must do what they are told. People in Rule of Law states have rights above the government- even the government must obey the law.

It seems you would chooses statism or fascism over the Rule of Law and Liberty.

Your choice.

Utter rubbish.

You are not resounding to the salient point.

Hardly unusual. 

[C.Edwards]

You continually take a statist view- common among the right wing and ill educated.

The correct question is

"Who do the PJ think they are trying to force people to do something against their will and over which they have no power."

Just because they are police they have no more powers than they have been given in law. They cannot insist on further powers just to assist their case.

Yeah, it's completely obvious to all that I'm a thick Nazi Debunker, just come out with it and say it, why don't you?

Cite your evidence that my view is one typically held by the thickos on the right wing please. Otherwise it's just your worthless opinion again, by your own rules, right?

The question was as I put it. If the investigating force ask persons directly involved/of interest to do something to assist the investigation then who are those people - who are "cooperating fully" remember - to question the reasons?

[stephen25000]

You still do not understand the rule of law.

Boring debunker, very  boring.

[C.Edwards]

You still do not understand the rule of law.

And yet another swerve.  I understand now why I stopped responding to you before.  You truly are unable to answer any sensible point put to you, aren't you?  Instead you rely on dropping in little irrelevancies laced with what you think are cleverly hidden insults and then skip on to the next point without ever addressing the issues.  I'm pretty sure it won't be long before you're dealt with again. In the meantime, talk to the hand.