Exploring the reasons and motivation behind Portuguese re-opening of the case.

[Estuarine]

I'm about six steps ahead of your attempts to make yourself look intelligent

If you were you would be explaining it to me with glee rather than just making idle boasts.
Out.

[stephen25000]

Are we measuring the success of that investigation on the failure to find evidence of abduction?

What about all of the other possibilities for which nil or insufficient evidence was found?

No conclusions were reached at all.

As we know already, the forensics were inconclusive, no more, no less.

Not a jot was found of abduction.

Likewise there has been not one sign or trail of Madeleine to date.

I don't want to bore you with statistics in the likelihood of Madeleine being found now.

However, what has struck many people is one simple salient point, the reward offered, which at one point ran into millions.

Can you seriously believe that not one person would , to use a modern colloquialism, snitch , on those involved for the reward ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

As we know already, the forensics were inconclusive, no more, no less.

Not a jot was found of abduction.

Likewise there has been not one sign or trail of Madeleine to date.

I don't want to bore you with statistics in the likelihood of Madeleine being found now.

However, what has struck many people is one simple salient point, the rewARD OFFERED, WHICH AT ONE POINT RAN INTO MILLIONS.

can you seriously believe that not one person would , to use a modern colloquialism, snitch , on those involved for the reward ?

Offering a million pound reward is not an indicator of the quality of an investigation.

A better measure of the investigation would have been to see some results.

[jassi]

The reward wasn't offered by the police, so was nothing to do with their investigation.

[icabodcrane]

Are we measuring the success of that investigation on the failure to find evidence of abduction?

What about all of the other possibilities for which nil or insufficient evidence was found?

No conclusions were reached at all.

You say that where  'other possibilities'  are concerned  (  for example parental involvment  ?  ),  no evidence was found

You say that where  'abduction'  is concerned,  there was a  failure  to find evidence

See what you did there  ?

 

[stephen25000]

Offering a million pound reward is not an indicator of the quality of an investigation.

A better measure of the investigation would have been to see some results.

You don't seem to get my point.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the investigation.

I merely pointed out that if Madeleine was abducted, it is inconceivable that only one person would have known what happened, and one thing you can guarantee, MONEY TALKS.

[Eleanor]

You don't seem to get my point.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the investigation.

I merely pointed out that if Madeleine was abducted, it is inconceivable that only one person would have known what happened, and one thing you can guarantee, MONEY TALKS.

So who do you think would have knowledge of the crime while not being involved?  What relationship to the abductor would this person have?

[ferryman]

As we know already, the forensics were inconclusive, no more, no less.

The forensics were worthless.

No more, no less ...

[stephen25000]

So who do you think would have knowledge of the crime while not being involved?  What relationship to the abductor would this person have?

Now if there if there has been an abductor(s), someone would have spilled the beans.

MONEY

[stephen25000]

As we know already, the forensics were inconclusive, no more, no less.

The forensics were worthless.

No more, no less ...

If they are worthless ferryman, why have spent much time 'googling' and attacking Martin Grimes ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You say that where  'other possibilities'  are concerned  (  for example parental involvment  ?  ),  no evidence was found

You say that where  'abduction'  is concerned,  there was a  failure  to find evidence

See what you did there  ?

I was just this minute wondering where you were, icabod. And here you reappear, keeping us all on track!

I obviously did not spell out clearly enough what I was attempting to do!

I'll be less subtle now:

If you read back, you'll see I did not say that there was a failure to find evidence for abduction. I was quoting Stephen.

He commented that  the original investigation was not  a cock-up', it simply found no evidence for abduction.

In reply to him, I was hinting at a logical matter, namely that measuring the quality  of the investigation only  on its failure or otherwise to find evidence to back up the abduction theory would imply that the abduction theory was the main or only one to be considered.

This would be a strange position for Stephen to be taking. (Sorry to talk about you in the third person, Stephen).

Ironically, even though I am a 'believer' in the abduction theory, I was reminding Stephen of the fact that there are many other possibilities on the table.

Surely then a better measure of the investigation would be to look at its record in considering all possible scenarios - not just one - and examining its success in making progress accordingly.

[Eleanor]

Now if there if there has been an abductor(s), someone would have spilled the beans.

MONEY

Anyone involved in the crime in any way would not be allowed to benefit.
Anyone related to the abductor would hardly be likely to snitch.
Anyone not associated with the abductor would not know anything about it.

Collecting a reward is no where near as easy as it sounds.,  And this particular reward involved the return of Madeleine unharmed.

[stephen25000]

Anyone involved in the crime in any way would not be allowed to benefit.
Anyone related to the abductor would hardly be likely to snitch.
Anyone not associated with the abductor would not know anything about it.

Collecting a reward is no where near as easy as it sounds.,  And this particular reward involved the return of Madeleine unharmed.

I don 't believe you are that naive.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You don't seem to get my point.

I wasn't talking about the quality of the investigation.

I merely pointed out that if Madeleine was abducted, it is inconceivable that only one person would have known what happened, and one thing you can guarantee, MONEY TALKS.

I understand that you weren't talking about the quality of the investigation. But I was!

As for the money, I agree. That kind of money would be hard to resist for most people. 

But nonetheless, there could be all sort of reasons why a person on balance would decide not to claim it. There could be all different kinds of reasons for an abduction, and all sorts of different people involved. Too many unknowns.

Therefore we cannot possibly base the case against abduction on the fact that no-one made a claim.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don 't believe you are that naive.

I think it is a little naive to suggest, if I may say, Stephen, that a case can be solved yay or nay simply by putting out a reward.

If that were a viable method, the criminal justice system would save millions!