"We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night" says former Portuguese police chief.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe the website does not but the documents on the website do.

explain how the documents support your claim that the remit was drawn up in May 11...when the review started

[ShiningInLuz]

The logic is quite simple. McCanns are interviewed  several times by experienced detectives, Their stories stand up under scrutiny and SYbelieve...based on the statements and their years of experience that the parents are not involved. That does not take 7 months. That leaves woke and wandered or abduction as the only alternatives.

Do I have any evidence to support this..yes..The statement by SY that the parents are not suspects. Do I have proof no.  What evidence do you have that it hasn't happened none. You are suggesting that SY have spent 12 million pounds on an investigation without carrying out basic police work first. You are suggesting that SY are ignoring any evidence pointing to the parents...both ridiculous assumptions. If this had happened I think their would be  a leak from SY. It is blindingly obvious...the parents are not involved...so what happened to Maddie...abducted or woke and wandered.

The version of logic I was taught to use is much more rigorous than the one you are using.

'The McCanns are interviewed several times by experienced detectives'.  What?  Unless you are talking about the interviews in the PJ Files, which do not rule the McCanns out, you have started off your 'logic' with speculation.

I have made it crystal clear I cannot provide evidence the McCanns were not interviewed. You have repeatedly speculated that they could/might/must have etc. and gone on from there without once providing evidence of such interviews, let alone a process anything like robust enough to be able to conclude the McCanns are out of consideration.

Yet they are, according to the remit.

I could speculate that the remit is political.  That special funding was provided from the government on the basis that the remit would exclude the McCanns.  Since I have not a jot of evidence to support this, I label such an approach as speculation, because it is not based in logic.

I am not assuming OG is ignoring any evidence pointing to the McCanns.  I can see and evaluate the exterior actions of OG.  I can neither see nor evaluate the internal actions or ideas of OG.  Neither can you, so yet again your 'logic' is based on speculation.

Now your 'logic' leaps to the ridiculous.  'It is blindingly obvious ...'  Yet again. no logic, this time a simple, very biased assertion.  You want it to be this way, therefore you assert it to be this way.  It is much like people who wished the Earth to be at the centre of the universe because of their beliefs, and asserted it to be so, without the evidence to support such a theory.

The remit is that the McCanns are excluded.  Neither you nor I know how that remit was arrived at.  I am not interested in your guesswork and speculation.  I am happy to admit I don't know how the remit was derived.  You appear to be unable of admitting you don't know either.

[Alice Purjorick]

explain how the documents support your claim that the remit was drawn up in May 11...when the review started

I gave you the links to the documents and the website so work it out for yourself.
If you disagree that's fine by me you are entitled to your view but because you disagree does not make you right.

[ShiningInLuz]

your suggestion that I don't care about maddie is offensive..please desist from such posts...do you realise that your contention that the McCanns have not been interviewed is pure speculation

How can you make so many mistakes in such a short post?

I listed multiple alternatives for your negative views.  I did so in a single post.  You chose not to reply to that part of my post.

And I stand by my post.  You have, on numerous occasions, opined that a further PI team should be denied the knowledge I have of how Luz works.  You have done this on your personal evaluation of my 'beliefs'.

To date, I have had the opportunity to meet 2 visitors to Luz, both of whom have been aided by my knowledge of how Luz works.

Yet you would deny such assistance to any future McCann-appointed team, thus decreasing the chance of finding out the truth about Madeleine.  I could describe that as offensive, but I choose to describe it as weird.

I have stated more than once that I cannot prove the McCanns have not been interviewed.  I have never stated that the McCanns have not been interviewed.  And I have not speculated that the McCanns have not been interviewed, because I don't know!

Yet here you are saying I contend the McCanns have not been interviewed.  Not only is your logic flawed, but you seem to be very poor on the evidence side as well.

I have contended that no-one has a shred of evidence that the McCanns were first evaluated before being ruled out.  Your response on that contention is speculation after speculation, without providing any evidence of such a process.

[Mr Gray]

The version of logic I was taught to use is much more rigorous than the one you are using.

'The McCanns are interviewed several times by experienced detectives'.  What?  Unless you are talking about the interviews in the PJ Files, which do not rule the McCanns out, you have started off your 'logic' with speculation.

I have made it crystal clear I cannot provide evidence the McCanns were not interviewed. You have repeatedly speculated that they could/might/must have etc. and gone on from there without once providing evidence of such interviews, let alone a process anything like robust enough to be able to conclude the McCanns are out of consideration.

Yet they are, according to the remit.

I could speculate that the remit is political.  That special funding was provided from the government on the basis that the remit would exclude the McCanns.  Since I have not a jot of evidence to support this, I label such an approach as speculation, because it is not based in logic.

I am not assuming OG is ignoring any evidence pointing to the McCanns.  I can see and evaluate the exterior actions of OG.  I can neither see nor evaluate the internal actions or ideas of OG.  Neither can you, so yet again your 'logic' is based on speculation.

Now your 'logic' leaps to the ridiculous.  'It is blindingly obvious ...'  Yet again. no logic, this time a simple, very biased assertion.  You want it to be this way, therefore you assert it to be this way.  It is much like people who wished the Earth to be at the centre of the universe because of their beliefs, and asserted it to be so, without the evidence to support such a theory.

The remit is that the McCanns are excluded.  Neither you nor I know how that remit was arrived at.  I am not interested in your guesswork and speculation.  I am happy to admit I don't know how the remit was derived.  You appear to be unable of admitting you don't know either.

I doubt if you have been taught anything to a better level that I have. Everything I do day in ..day out ...is evidenced based so I have been taught to assess evidence and I see some very poor assessment here.
The McCanns I would think have been interviewed by SY...it would be ridiculous if they have not. The statement they are not suspects supports that is evidence...not proof...some posters here use the words as though they have the same meaning. The idea the guilty McCans are being protected politically is ridiculous unless Gerry is one of those 12 foot reptiles that rule the world...perhaps you suspect that.

I think the remit was written after the McCanns had been interviewed and ruled out...between may and dec2011 as the remit did not appear online until Jan 12 despite what you and alice might think.

Add to that the respect with which the  McCanns have been treated by SY...more evidence...and again i think it is blindingly obvious the McCanns are not considered suspects

[misty]

@Shining
May I suggest you read the section of this document relating to T.I E. which provides a better understanding of how major incidents such as Madeleine's disappearance are looked at by English police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf     Page 21 onwards.
(Thanks to Pegasus for originally finding this).

[pegasus]

@Shining
May I suggest you read the section of this document relating to T.I E. which provides a better understanding of how major incidents such as Madeleine's disappearance are looked at by English police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf     Page 21 onwards.
(Thanks to Pegasus for originally finding this).

I found this journal by researching one of the top Met investigators connected with the PDL case, he is a member of the Homicide Working Group, and this the HWG publication, so one may assume he reads everything in it.

[Mr Gray]

T I E...Trace interview eliminate....so the McCanns would have been interviewed and eliminated...

[Brietta]

I found this journal by researching one of the top Met investigators connected with the PDL case, he is a member of the Homicide Working Group, and this the HWG publication, so one may assume he reads everything in it.

So HOLMES was used to T.I.E ... Trace - Interview - Eliminate changed to Trace - Investigate - Evaluate.  The new terminology making it easier to explain the T.I.E. process in court.
This would have been used to evaluate the individuals who were relevant to the inquiry ... for example, the McCanns and the Tapas 7.

Have I got that right?

[Brietta]

T I E...Trace interview eliminate....so the McCanns would have been interviewed and eliminated...

I think there is an interview in there somewhere, Davel.  If it passes muster to be presented in court it must be a thorough process.

[G-Unit]

@Shining
May I suggest you read the section of this document relating to T.I E. which provides a better understanding of how major incidents such as Madeleine's disappearance are looked at by English police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf     Page 21 onwards.
(Thanks to Pegasus for originally finding this).

It still depends solely on what the Met were investigating. If it was an unexplained disappearance the first people to be interviewed and eliminated would be the last people who saw her alive and well. If they were investigating an abduction that would mean they were starting the process at a later point. It all depends on their starting point.

[ShiningInLuz]

I doubt if you have been taught anything to a better level that I have. Everything I do day in ..day out ...is evidenced based so I have been taught to assess evidence and I see some very poor assessment here.
The McCanns I would think have been interviewed by SY...it would be ridiculous if they have not. The statement they are not suspects supports that is evidence...not proof...some posters here use the words as though they have the same meaning. The idea the guilty McCans are being protected politically is ridiculous unless Gerry is one of those 12 foot reptiles that rule the world...perhaps you suspect that.

I think the remit was written after the McCanns had been interviewed and ruled out...between may and dec2011 as the remit did not appear online until Jan 12 despite what you and alice might think.

Add to that the respect with which the  McCanns have been treated by SY...more evidence...and again i think it is blindingly obvious the McCanns are not considered suspects

I have put your speculation, speculation, speculation in bold.

I ask for evidence.  You choose to speculate, with no evidence in sight.

The remit states the equivalent of the McCanns are not to be considered suspects.  Do we have to go over that time and time again?

[ShiningInLuz]

@Shining
May I suggest you read the section of this document relating to T.I E. which provides a better understanding of how major incidents such as Madeleine's disappearance are looked at by English police.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf     Page 21 onwards.
(Thanks to Pegasus for originally finding this).

Thank you for this.  I am just off to watch The Chase on ITV plus 1 and have some dinner, but I will have a look at the document when I have finished eating.

[Benice]

I have put your speculation, speculation, speculation in bold.

I ask for evidence.  You choose to speculate, with no evidence in sight.

The remit states the equivalent of the McCanns are not to be considered suspects.  Do we have to go over that time and time again?

That being the case then what happens if evidence emerges from the 40,000 docs which points to the guilt of the McCanns?   Do they act on it or do they ignore it?    To do the latter would be corrupt IMO.   So it really makes no difference what the remit was IMO - as SY would have to follow wherever the evidence pointed  because to do otherwise would make a mockery out of the purpose of the the investigation i.e. to find out what happened to Madeleine.

The fact that they have 40,000 pieces of information is interesting.   We know that not all of the info was put in the public domain which is something that puts us at quite a disadvantage to SY and which tends to be forgotten at times.    It could be that a lot of the stuff we debate and disagree about on here is something SY don't have to dwell on because they already have the answers in the information that we don't have.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what percentage has been held back but it doesn't seem to me that we have   anywhere near 40,000 pieces of info.  But that's just my impression - and obviously I could be wrong.

AIMO

[pegasus]

Here's a reconstruction: in the interview room put a sofa against a wall at a window.
Call in the 5 or so people who searched inside the apartment that night
GM, KM, FP, one employee, one GNR. And ask each one individually:
"Please reconstruct how you pulled the sofa away from the wall and looked behind it"
How many would say "ok, this is how I did it" and how many would say "actually I never looked behind there"?