The Sun claims Madeleine McCann was kidnapped during a botched burglary.

[Alfie]

Thank you for admitting it's all just your opinion. It remains to be seen whether your opinions will be proved right or wrong at some point. My opinion is they won't.

Of course it was my opinion, I wasn't admitting anything, it was plain for all to see.

[Alfie]

For deciding at the outset that the parents dunnit?  That happens to be one of the myths on this forum that is contradicted by the evidence.  The PJ Files are replete with them following up other angles.  Murat was not made an arguido just as a diversion to lure the McCanns into a false sense of security.

I won't bother with the rest.

So it's a myth that Amaral was suspicious of the parents from the off then?

[ShiningInLuz]

This thread topic is about a kidnap during a botched burglary.

Stay on-topic please.

[Alfie]

What have the PT authorities got to lose by allowing the Met to have one last stab at solving ths case be re-questioning those they want to re-question?

[G-Unit]

A rumour in The Sun cannot be believed, but if the Portuguese are refusing a request I assume there's a valid reason. If SY wish to interview arguidos we must remember they have the right to remain silent.

[Alfie]

A rumour in The Sun cannot be believed, but if the Portuguese are refusing a request I assume there's a valid reason. If SY wish to interview arguidos we must remember they have the right to remain silent.

And if they exercise that right it doesn't automatically mean they have something to hide rght?

[ShiningInLuz]

What have the PT authorities got to lose by allowing the Met to have one last stab at solving ths case be re-questioning those they want to re-question?

Absolutely nothing assuming -
Such a request has been put in - and -
The relevant authority in Portugal deems it to be legal and supported by sufficient evidence to re-grill the 3 arguidos.

Personally, if I was instructed to appear at Faro (at my time and expense) in the company of my lawyer (at my expense), whilst the media bandied about my arguido status (at my expense), I would not be impressed by the argument that the Met should be allowed one last stab.

It takes a lot more than 'one last stab'.

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely nothing assuming -
Such a request has been put in - and -
The relevant authority in Portugal deems it to be legal and supported by sufficient evidence to re-grill the 3 arguidos.

Personally, if I was instructed to appear at Faro (at my time and expense) in the company of my lawyer (at my expense), whilst the media bandied about my arguido status (at my expense), I would not be impressed by the argument that the Met should be allowed one last stab.

It takes a lot more than 'one last stab'.

If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have produced

[Alfie]

Absolutely nothing assuming -
Such a request has been put in - and -
The relevant authority in Portugal deems it to be legal and supported by sufficient evidence to re-grill the 3 arguidos.

Personally, if I was instructed to appear at Faro (at my time and expense) in the company of my lawyer (at my expense), whilst the media bandied about my arguido status (at my expense), I would not be impressed by the argument that the Met should be allowed one last stab.

It takes a lot more than 'one last stab'.

If the unnmamed officer in the article is correct it would seem to boil down to a matter of opinion regarding the validity of the evidence that the Met has pieced together to lead them to the conclusion that further interviews are necessary.  The Met think they might be on to something that requires further lines of questioning, the PT authorities seem to think otherwise.  If the PT authorities have their way then we will never know if the Met's lead might have been the one that helped solve the case.   IMO this would be a tragedy.

[Alfie]

If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have produced

snap.

[slartibartfast]

If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have produced

Sounds like a preemptive excuse.

[ShiningInLuz]

If SY are not allowed to complete their investigation we will never know what it may have produced

We are not permitted to know if SY investigated any of the T9 before the remit was drawn up, so we will never know.  Unless someone squeals.

We don't know if a request by OG to PT has been put in, and unless someone squeals, we won't.

We have no idea if such a request is either legal, or pertinent.

So your argument, and Alfie's, boils down to -

let's stick them on the rack again, and see if anything pops out.

I'm not impressed.

And if it so happens, one or more were involved in petty burglary, so what?  Does that now stack up to abduction or murder?

[stephen25000]

Sounds like a preemptive excuse.

Then of course the Portuguese have already interviewed the men before and found nothing.

So, if hypothetically they were made arguida, they could do what Kate mccanns did and refuse to answer questions.

[Alice Purjorick]

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434


Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. 

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

•   The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
•   UK Law Enforcement agencies,
•   Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. 

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

[Alfie]

We are not permitted to know if SY investigated any of the T9 before the remit was drawn up, so we will never know.  Unless someone squeals.

We don't know if a request by OG to PT has been put in, and unless someone squeals, we won't.

We have no idea if such a request is either legal, or pertinent.

So your argument, and Alfie's, boils down to -

let's stick them on the rack again, and see if anything pops out.

I'm not impressed.

And if it so happens, one or more were involved in petty burglary, so what?  Does that now stack up to abduction or murder?

No, what it boils down to (if the report is to be believed) is that the Met have a further line of enquiry which runs the risk of never being properly investigated.  If you think that's OK, well then sorry but I'm not impressed.