Blonk: 1. "The strictly limited remit, i.e. only to investigate an abduction. This was pretty clear from Day One, but was later clarified by the Met. In answer to those on the thread who suggest that asking Freedom of Information Act questions on the case is a waste of money, may I pointed out that the precise remit was only dragged out of the Met after three FoI Act questions, one by myself."
The McCanns met with whoever the Home Secretary was back in 2008/ 2009 to try to get an official review of the evidence. Nothing much appears to have happened for a year. They then met with Alan Johnson, who agreed to commission a scoping exercise, which was completed in March 2010.
Why on earth some people believe the McCanns would have persisted had they been involved is a mystery to me. The case had been archived and they could have just kept quiet.
A logical starting point would have been to examine the evidence from both perspectives. As part of clearing the ground under their feet, if there had been further areas of investigation that should have been conducted concerning the McCanns, they would have been highlighted as part of that exercise.
By the time it was finally agreed to conduct a thorough review, in the absence of any evidence of significance to the contrary, abduction was the most likely scenario.
For instance, we do know that a forensic timeline was conducted at some point. On the one hand that could pinpoint the short periods of time in which an abductor could have taken her, but in doing so would have raised a red flag if there hadn't been any feasible moments in which this could have happened. There may have also been further investigations or interviews that have not been made public.
The Portuguese also conducted their own review of the evidence and also stated that the McCanns weren't suspects. They could easily have waffled the usual "we are continuing to examine all lines of enquiry".
Are you suggesting that the Portuguese review and investigation are a sham as well?
