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

[Mr Gray]

The whole argument stems from the question of whether the parents have been cleared/exonerated/declared innocent/call it what you like....some people insist this is a fact, it most certainly is not

no it doesn't ...the whole argument is have SY interviewed the mccanns

[G-Unit]

Those reports were almost 2 million pounds into the review.

Virtually the first thing that they would have done, before all that money was spent, was to interview the Mccanns.  They were the key witnesses ... and also had earlier been suspects.  They would have wanted to elimenate them from their enquiries

Standard procedure

We seem to have just one direct quote, albeit from an unnamed source. February 2012;

A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html

[Brietta]

Please cease posting goading and abusive posts ... thank you.

[Mr Gray]

We seem to have just one direct quote, albeit from an unnamed source. February 2012;

A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html

what is the point in posting a quote from an unnamed source...it only shows the weakness of your information

[G-Unit]

you are letting bias cloud your judgement

What bias? Either OG started with an unexplained disappearance or they started with an abduction. The remit issued by them has raised doubts as to where they started. Everything else stems logically from that.

[Mr Gray]

What bias? Either OG started with an unexplained disappearance or they started with an abduction. The remit issued by them has raised doubts as to where they started. Everything else stems logically from that.

it should not matter where they started from...if they investigate abduction...and discover parental involvement,,,,do they ignore it,,.... I say no

[mercury]

what is the point in posting a quote from an unnamed source...it only shows the weakness of your information

at least its information as opposed to NONE (as per your position)

[Brietta]

I wonder if at this stage members might consider trying for some On Topic posts ... along the lines of ... "We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night" says former Portuguese police chief.  Thank you.

[Mr Gray]

at least its information as opposed to NONE (as per your position)

if it is from an un named source it is not information ...try again

[mercury]

no it doesn't ...the whole argument is have SY interviewed the mccanns

In that case you can stop posting that SY have obviously interviewed the mccanns (unproven)and declared them not suspects(irrelevant as the circumstances relate in no way to innocence or exoneration)

[Mr Gray]

Of course they would but no professional reinvents the wheel
The whole point of the last x pages is that there is no evidence (found yet) in the public domain that SY have interviewed the Mccanns...they may have had a couple courteous friendly chats, then again, in the absence of any evidence, no one can state any interviewing has taken place

I would say we can accept the interview has taken place....as per standard practce

[Mr Gray]

In that case you can stop posting that SY have obviously interviewed the mccanns (unproven)and declared them not suspects(irrelevant as the circumstances relate in no way to innocence or exoneration)

i will not stop  Sy will have  reinterviewed the mccanns

[mercury]

I would say we can accept the interview has taken place....as per standard practce

You are free to say what you like, it still remains an opinion, therefore, in your own words, worthless

[mercury]

i will not stop  Sy will have  reinterviewed the mccanns

You wll therefore be wilfully breaking forum rules, posting opinion, in your own words, as fact. Facts need cites and evidence. There is none here. Enjoy arguing the toss.

[G-Unit]

Aw, come on Gunit !

You dont really believe that SY would have failed to interview and question The Mccanns, do you?

You are stretching you credibility beyond reason there.  You are quite a clever guy, not a thicko like some on the forums.

Which is precisely why, Sadie, I don't accept appeals to 'common sense' and references to 'standard procedure'. More is required. If people don't have more they should admit it's merely their opinion.

Similarly I don't accept that OG ever verified the timeline created by the Tapas group, because it can't be done at this stage. When they spoke of 'forensically analysing' it they were analysing something which they first needed to establish was factual. Amaral is correct in saying it should be reconstructed, but I don't see how that's possible now.