I haven't been spending so much time on here but happy to support my statement that you are posting your opinion as fact...I will look back now and provide the evidence
Albertini wrote...
"The point you are conveniently missing or dismissing is that the investigation was incomplete . It was curtailed at the point of the PJ wanting to test the veracity of the witnesses oral statements and was stopped by those very witnesses, which in itself is hugely suggestive.
Had the group taken part and been unable to explain the discrepancies more evidence could have been uncovered as a consequence.
I'm not and have never said they are guilty. I'm saying the original investigation needed to be completed and that they need to answer questions and be tested as to the veracity of their original statements.
I'm saying they should be treated as suspects as the last people and only witnesses to the event and being the people, I believe, are statistically more likely to have been involved than a stranger, up to and until clear definitive and independently corroborated evidence comes to light which backs up their version of events. Which is not just to be applied to the McCann's but any other person in any other crime investigated by the police and a cornerstone of investigation good practice.
This is not about a witch hunt against the MCCann's, it's about them being treated and investigated in the same way anyone else would be in a similar situation. It's about witnesses not being able to corrupt and frustrate official investigations into a small child's disappearance for their own unknown motives.
I'm sure that is the position of most McCann sceptics.
That does not mean however we cannot come up with our own hypotheses based on the evidence we have before us.
In relation to the SY announcement made months ago it's starting to get tedious. Let's be clear given the reopening of the case
Andy Redwood had no choice but to say they were not suspects even if this was not true. He could not say anything else.
For him to say they were suspects when his investigation was just starting would have been both unprofessional and prejudicial to any future court case. How many investigations start by naming suspects? SY have to build their own case against their suspects from their own evidence gathered not by reviewing another country's police force and saying " well the PJ didn't gain enough evidence to take to a court so let's announce to the world the McCann's are suspects based on that same evidence".
To announce that would have increased the media interest in the case making it incredibly difficult for the investigation to function.
Let's also be clear we have not seen any files on the SY investigation or the PJ re-investigation so we cannot make assumptions until we see evidence brought to a court or released files. We have no evidence whatsoever of any relevant witnesses being reinterviewed either.
We have media briefings to the effect of the McCann's not being suspects which could or could not be true, and which also could be revised later as the investigation progresses.
The media stated direction of the investigation does not necessarily encompass all the Yard's thinking and it is entirely possible that the investigation is looking at multiple theories and suspects. In fact didn't Recwood admit as much in his recent statement about Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive?
Certainly the yard will need at some point to resolve the issues in the statements if they want to bring a third party suspect to court. A defence lawyer could say for example, "how did my client get into the apartment when Rachel Oldfield said in her statement the shutter was down on the patio window."
In order to convict an abductor these issues will need to be ironed out before they go to court.
So I think the more nuanced approach is to keep ones powder dry about Redwood's proclamation until such time as a suspect is brought before a court. "
Statement in red is your opinion not fact...point proved
