Why did the McCanns reject Henri Exton's expertise ?

[slartibartfast]

It failed to state that the efits had been in the possession of both UK and Portuguese police for some years.

It also failed to mention that the moon was made of green cheese.

[ferryman]

It also failed to mention that the moon was made of green cheese.

I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be funny?

[icabodcrane]

Of course the McCanns have not been exonerated. 

In order to be exonerated, it would first be necessary for them to be in a position from which exoneration is possible. 

As far as I know, the McCanns have not been arrested, charged or convicted of anything at all.  It is therefore not possible for them to be exonerated.

Now - that was easy, wasn't it. 

 

Well,  firstly,  the fact that the McCanns have never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime presents  a fallacy of presumption ...  it presumes that,  ergo,  the McCanns  must   be innocent and there is no other option to consider 

In fact,  we know,  there are many guilty people who have never been 'arrested, charged, or convicted'  for the crimes they commited

Additionally,   the McCanns  are  in a position where exoneration is necessary   ....   the investigation into the disappearance of their child was shelved with the possibility that she died as a result of neglectful homicide being left on the table by the Portuguese Prosecutor

[ferryman]

Well,  firstly,  the fact that the McCanns have never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime presents  a fallacy of presumption ...  it presumes that,  ergo,  the McCanns  must   be innocent and there is no other option to consider 

Absence of charges (or arrest) combined with examination of the facts of the investigation establish the innocence of the McCanns.

[ferryman]

I take it your assumption is based on the times article being correct? In that case perhaps we should be discussing SY's incompetence in requesting items that were already in their possession?

That is the pulled article which was pulled because it was wrong.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not sure whether that is supposed to be funny?

You made an unsubstantiated statement about something that wasn't in the article being the reason why the article had been taken off the online ST, so did I. Work it out.

[ferryman]

You made an unsubstantiated statement about something that wasn't in the article being the reason why the article had been taken off the online ST, so did I. Work it out.

My statement was truthful

Your statement was a failed attempt to be funny

[jassi]

Well,  firstly,  the fact that the McCanns have never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime presents  a fallacy of presumption ...  it presumes that,  ergo,  the McCanns  must   be innocent and there is no other option to consider 

Absence of charges (or arrest) combined with examination of the facts of the investigation establish the innocence of the McCanns.

I don't see that it does any such thing. It is a subjective decision that you have made - others may not.

[Albertini]

That is the pulled article which was pulled because it was wrong.

Continuing to spout something as fact when you have been asked and spectacularly failed to provide evidence of your assertion.

So either provide the evidence or drop the claim it was pulled "because it was wrong" if you wish to retain any credibility on this forum.

[ferryman]

I don't see that it does any such thing. It is a subjective decision that you have made - others may not.

The discrediting of the dogs

Analysis of telephone traffic found blameless

Establishing that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

What more do you want?

[ferryman]

Continuing to spout something as fact when you have been asked and spectacularly failed to provide evidence of your assertion.

So either provide the evidence or drop the claim it was pulled "because it was wrong" if you wish to retain any credibility on this forum.

You appear to be, yes

I'm sure you have your reasons

It's your usual form

[jassi]

The discrediting of the dogs

Analysis of telephone traffic found blameless

Establishing that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

What more do you want?

More than you, obviously. I don't accept any of your reasons quoted  as being proven.

[ferryman]

In what way was the ST article wrong and in what way does the times article prove this?

The original article was wrong because it failed to state that the efits were in the possession of both Portuguese and British police for several years before the crimewatch programme.

So the efits if they were "suppressed" at all, were suppressed by the British and Portuguese police.

More particularly by the Portuguese police, I would say, as the lead force in the investigation. 

[ferryman]

More than you, obviously. I don't accept any of your reasons quoted  as being proven.

You think Joao Carlos might have lied when he wrote in his final PJ report that Gerry was in the tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting?

You think Grime's disregard of principles of cross-contamination in the way he deployed the dogs didn't invalidate their work?

You think PJ Inspector Dias might have fouled up in his analysis of mobile telephone communication traffic, which he assessed as blameless?

[Albertini]

You appear to be, yes

I'm sure you have your reasons

It's your usual form

Cripes! That's the forum equivalent of the playground "i know you are you said you are but what am i?".

Utterly cringeworthy.

Once again you have stated something as a fact regarding the ST article but have failed to provide any evidence to back up your assertion.

I'm sure you don't need me to remind you that's one of the forum rules.