No I can't Anne, but common sense dictates that interviewing the McCanns and their friends in person, face to face, would be the first thing the policeman in charge of the case and other senior members of the team would want to do. Can you think of any reason why he would want to avoid doing that? What benefit to the case would there be in NOT personally interviewing people who you need to satisfy yourself are credible witnesses? I'm also sure SY will have interviewed the FLO's and the trauma counsellors as well - and for the same reason.
I agree with you, Benice, that it was the first thing SY was expected to do.
Seizing the case where the AG report had left it.
But I don't think they did. I think that if they had done this, DCI Redwood had affirmed "the group was re-interviewed and we can say that they played no part in Madeleine's abduction". Or, better, "in Madeleine's disappearance".
The public didn't need more. The McCann had played no part, fine. Let's clear our minds.
I know what you'll object.
You'll say that SCI RW couldn't be as affirmative as that, because he has no authority on the case, he then had to be vague, allowing people like you, though, to read between lines. That's true. But do you think the British public would remember that ?
