No abduction? So what if the e-fits were suppressed for 5 years ?

[Lyall]

So SY are sending the public on a wild goose chase? And wasting their own valuable time following up on the feedback?

Possibly, but they will always hope the huge publicity around a Crimewatch turns something up, even if it isn't directly related to what they actually talk about on the show.

But what would everyone have thought if after more than two years of review and investigation they do a Crimewatch and have nothing to show? Grange have superiors to answer to, like everybody else.

[Wonderfulspam]

No, but I am sure there is communication, and that in general the McCAnns are kept in the loop.

They are being accused of manipulating both the investigation and the media on the one hand....if this is true they must be privy to a great deal of inside information. Can't have it both ways!

I've never accused them of manipulating this investigation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Possibly, but they will always hope the huge publicity around a Crimewatch turns something up, even if it isn't directly related to what they actually talk about on the show.

But what would everyone have thought if after more than two years of review and investigation they do a Crimewatch and have nothing to show? Grange have superiors to answer to, like everybody else.

Grange ultimately have the British Taxpayer to answer to, and generating false leads for the sake of looking good in the short term is an incredibly expensive move. Sooner or later, Cameron or whoever it will be will close the purse and that will mark the end of the investigation. That will be the day of reckoning for SY.

If the McCann's don't appear to care about the veracity of the information being put out, only that it should generate media attention - there's no such thing as bad publicity, supposedly - then why have they invested enormous amounts suing people in the courts?

[Cariad]

No, but I am sure there is communication, and that in general the McCAnns are kept in the loop.

They are being accused of manipulating both the investigation and the media on the one hand....if this is true they must be privy to a great deal of inside information. Can't have it both ways!

I doubt they're kept in the loop as much as they'd like, or as much as they think for that matter.

Unless SY have come up with some evidence that totally exonerates them of any involvement whatsoever, I assume they'll be treated as suspects, what ever they tell us.

[Lyall]

Grange ultimately have the British Taxpayer to answer to, and generating false leads for the sake of looking good in the short term is an incredibly expensive move. Sooner or later, Cameron or whoever it will be will close the purse and that will mark the end of the investigation. That will be the day of reckoning for SY.

If the McCann's don't appear to care about the veracity of the information being put out, only that it should generate media attention - there's no such thing as bad publicity, supposedly - then why have they invested enormous amounts suing people in the courts?

It's not a false lead though is it. The 10pm sighting and the e-fits do appear to be genuinely from the Smith family, but for reason or reasons unknown nobody seemed too excited by this information before Crimewatch. It's not false but apparently not considered very important - until October 14th.

Have the McCanns spent large amounts? The Fund may have, we don't know. But it's not their own money is it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Grange ultimately have the British Taxpayer to answer to, and generating false leads for the sake of looking good in the short term is an incredibly expensive move. Sooner or later, Cameron or whoever it will be will close the purse and that will mark the end of the investigation. That will be the day of reckoning for SY.

If the McCann's don't appear to care about the veracity of the information being put out, only that it should generate media attention - there's no such thing as bad publicity, supposedly - then why have they invested enormous amounts suing people in the courts?

then why have they invested enormous amounts suing people in the courts?

It's obvious isn't it, they have pursued Amaral & essentially the PJ's findings.
Do you think the bit's about collusion, concealment of a cadaver, simulation of abduction and child neglect are good for publicity & public support.

Why do you think they tried to gag Amaral?

[Sherlock Holmes]

then why have they invested enormous amounts suing people in the courts?

It's obvious isn't it, they have pursued Amaral & essentially the PJ's findings.
Do you think the bit's about collusion, concealment of a cadaver, simulation of abduction and child neglect are good for publicity & public support.

Why do you think they tried to gag Amaral?

I'm not saying I wouldn't have wanted to gag Amaral.

Only that it seems to be a contradiction to be claiming on the one hand that they are in control of their own destiny when it comes to steering the investigation and the media campaign (which on any analysis are incredibly closely linked), yet maintain at the same time that the don't have much choice but to follow along with what SY are doing, despite the fact that it is a bit of an embarrassment (to put it mildly).

[Lyall]

I'm not saying I wouldn't have wanted to gag Amaral.

Only that it seems to be a contradiction to be claiming on the one hand that they are in control of their own destiny when it comes to steering the investigation and the media campaign (which on any analysis are incredibly closely linked), yet maintain at the same time that the don't have much choice but to follow along with what SY are doing, despite the fact that it is a bit of an embarrassment (to put it mildly).

They may not have much choice but to follow what the T7 are doing, Mr Holmes. Whatever that is. If JT agrees with what the police say what can the McCanns do about it?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I doubt they're kept in the loop as much as they'd like, or as much as they think for that matter.

Unless SY have come up with some evidence that totally exonerates them of any involvement whatsoever, I assume they'll be treated as suspects, what ever they tell us.

I agree, Cariad. SY can be as circumspect as they like behind closed doors.

But we are not discussing what SY think - we are discussing what the McCAnns think, and what their motivations are.

[Wonderfulspam]

I'm not saying I wouldn't have wanted to gag Amaral.

Only that it seems to be a contradiction to be claiming on the one hand that they are in control of their own destiny when it comes to steering the investigation and the media campaign (which on any analysis are incredibly closely linked), yet maintain at the same time that the don't have much choice but to follow along with what SY are doing, despite the fact that it is a bit of an embarrassment (to put it mildly).

steering the investigation


I haven't claimed they have steered this investigation. 
Media maybe yes but not 'this' investigation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They may not have much choice but to follow what the T7 are doing, Mr Holmes. Whatever that is. If JT agrees with what the police say what can the McCanns do about it?

I don't follow you, Lyall..

Can you elaborate?

[icabodcrane]

I'm not saying I wouldn't have wanted to gag Amaral.

Only that it seems to be a contradiction to be claiming on the one hand that they are in control of their own destiny when it comes to steering the investigation and the media campaign (which on any analysis are incredibly closely linked), yet maintain at the same time that the don't have much choice but to follow along with what SY are doing, despite the fact that it is a bit of an embarrassment (to put it mildly).

Trying  to control events,  and  being  in control of them are two very different things

It might be said that the McCanns  'tried'  to contol events  (  by determindly presenting a narrative that had Tannerman in the  abductor lead-role  ) 

It appears,  though,  that they have falied,  and are no longer in a position to narrate the story

[Lyall]

I don't follow you, Lyall..

Can you elaborate?

You wrote:

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.

That's JT's decision, not the willingness of the McCanns. They can't cling to the 9.15 sighting if JT has accepted she probably did see 'Innocentman'.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You wrote:

Their willingness to accept the sudden and dramatic change in the focus of the investigation completely counters the assertion that they are clinging to the bundleman theory simply to prove points.

That's JT's decision, not the willingness of the McCanns. They can't cling to the 9.15 sighting if JT has accepted she probably did see 'Innocentman'.

I see what you mean, Lyall.

It would be interesting to know, as a matter of interest, exactly what Jane said on the matter.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Trying  to control events,  and  being  in control of them are two very different things

It might be said that the McCanns  'tried'  to contol events  (  by determindly presenting a narrative that had Tannerman in the  abductor lead-role  ) 

It appears,  though,  that they have falied,  and are no longer in a position to narrate the story

Sensible as ever, icabod.

The McCanns are obviously going to have far less sway with SY and the PJ at the helm than they had when they were employing their own private detectives. (Even though the latter were complete wild cards).