Consider this scenario - Would a guilty person keep their case alive for many years?

[Brietta]

Thank goodness for that, Brietta  I was getting a bit anxious for a moment.

If it is just a hypothetical discussion, in which case the shackles come off.

I think it was Alfie's original intention to correlate one with t'other (he'll correct that assumption if I'm wrong, I'm sure).
John has vetoed taking that tack ... now I think that is actually a positive move as we can have a thread minus recrimination if we can work outside the box and view the problem from an entirely different angle which is totally hypothetical.

I think it must still have a relevance to the original case but without mention of it; I disagree that the discussion being hypothetical should necessarily mean the shackles coming off; particularly if the subject of the hypothetical situation is oneself.
Don't know about you, I tend to be very forgiving of myself.

I think the thread could become insightful ... any takers?

[Brietta]

We are unusually security conscious, having been the first people in our town to have introduced 'Neighbourhood Watch'.  This was many decades ago.

I go along with Brietta on this one.  I would have expected the shutters to be security devices, yet they weren't.


Alice, I agree with your comments about additional uses for the shutters but first and foremost in my mind would have been that they were security devices.  It would never have occurred to me to check for padlocks etc

It is the different attitudes to everyday things which interest me, Sadie.

I don't think that you and I are by any means the only Northerners who assumed that once the shutters were down ... that was it ... security!

I think the assumption is perfectly illustrated by the commonly held belief accompanied by insistence that the shutters absolutely could not be raised from the outside. We now know that to be false.  Probably as most Southerners already did for the simple reason shutters were a part of their daily lives for generations.

I believe that modern times have necessitated that the security aspect is now given more attention.

[G-Unit]

Back on topic, the only reason guilty people would call for a review would be either they were absolutely sure that no evidence of their involvement could be found or they were absolutely sure they would not be investigated..

[Alice Purjorick]

We are unusually security conscious, having been the first people in our town to have introduced 'Neighbourhood Watch'.  This was many decades ago.

I go along with Brietta on this one.  I would have expected the shutters to be security devices, yet they weren't.


Alice, I agree with your comments about additional uses for the shutters but first and foremost in my mind would have been that they were security devices.  It would never have occurred to me to check for padlocks etc

Amazing.

[Alfie]

It could be for;

To find out what mistakes were made, what lessons have been learned and what information has not yet been collated.

If something like the above was the motivation then those calling for the review would clearly hold the opinion that mistakes were made, there were lessons to be learned and there was uncollated information.

So the desired outcome was for the review to find and highlight the 'mistakes' that were allegedly made, to demonstrate what lessons should be learned and to gather all information in one place.

Finding and highlighting 'mistakes' would officially discredit the original investigation and the direction it took. The people asking for the review may have had reason to believe that their own police force would indeed find the original investigation substandard. Discrediting the original investigation would also discredit it's findings.

Lessons to be learned might include a Europe-wide system such as the US Amber Alert one and perhaps more cross-jurisdiction investigations, which occur in relation to some crimes but not child disappearances. That would would change the fact that the country where the disappearance occurs have primacy.

Gathering all the information together could be very useful in the event that the case remained unsolved. The people concerned could be planning an unprecedented legal bid for the release of the information in such cases, rather than it just gathering dust in an archive. Interested parties could then examine it and use it themselves.

If mistakes had been made in the initial investigation into *your*crimes, those mistakes would have been the failure to find sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against *you*.  So why on earth would *you* want these mistakes to be identified and highlighted?  *You* would also be pre-supposing that the outcome of the review would be critical of the initial investigation - how could *you* know that would be the finding of the review prior to the review even taking place?  Wouldn't there be a very real risk to *you* that a re-appraisal of all the information held by the best police force in the country would come to the opposite conclusion and even uncover something that had been overlooked which would put *you* very much back in the frame?  It seems like a ludicrously high risk strategy and a highly far-fetched one to me.  In fact *you* would have to be quite mad to consider it IMO, when the alternative strategy of going to ground and keeping a low profile whatever would be so much easier and less stressful.

[Alfie]

Back on topic, the only reason guilty people would call for a review would be either they were absolutely sure that no evidence of their involvement could be found or they were absolutely sure they would not be investigated..

How could *you* be absolutely sure of either outcome in advance of asking for the review to take place?  Are we veering back into conspiracy theory land here...?

[Benice]

Back on topic, the only reason guilty people would call for a review would be either they were absolutely sure that no evidence of their involvement could be found or they were absolutely sure they would not be investigated..

If guilty people were so supremely confident that they were already' home and dry' without a review  - and could never be found out -   why even bother to ask for one?    That makes no sense.

What did they have to personally gain by a review if they knew no 'perpetrator' existed and so could never be found?  What is the advantage to them in that outcome.

There's only one credible reason IMO why anyone would continually press for a review - and that is if they knew they were innocent and they hoped that the guilty party, who was still out there, could still be tracked down.

Anything else is way too far fetched for me.

AIMHO

[Alice Purjorick]

It is the different attitudes to everyday things which interest me, Sadie.

I don't think that you and I are by any means the only Northerners who assumed that once the shutters were down ... that was it ... security!

I think the assumption is perfectly illustrated by the commonly held belief accompanied by insistence that the shutters absolutely could not be raised from the outside. We now know that to be false.  Probably as most Southerners already did for the simple reason shutters were a part of their daily lives for generations.

I believe that modern times have necessitated that the security aspect is now given more attention.

I believe that assumption is more likely to stem from ignorance of how roller shutters/blinds and their tensioning devices work rather than at what latitude one lived.

[Alfie]

If guilty people were so supremely confident that they were already' home and dry' without a review  - and could never be found out -   why even bother to ask for one?    That makes no sense.

What did they have to personally gain by a review if they knew no 'perpetrator' existed and so could never be found?  What is the advantage to them in that outcome.

There's only one credible reason IMO why anyone would continually press for a review - and that is if they knew they were innocent and they hoped that the guilty party, who was still out there, could still be tracked down.

Anything else is way too far fetched for me.

AIMHO

Yes, well that too of course - lol. 

[Alfie]

If guilty people were so supremely confident that they were already' home and dry' without a review  - and could never be found out -   why even bother to ask for one?    That makes no sense.

What did they have to personally gain by a review if they knew no 'perpetrator' existed and so could never be found?  What is the advantage to them in that outcome.

There's only one credible reason IMO why anyone would continually press for a review - and that is if they knew they were innocent and they hoped that the guilty party, who was still out there, could still be tracked down.

Anything else is way too far fetched for me.

AIMHO

Re: the above in bold - it's Occam's Razor isn't it?  Any other explanation is too convoluted, far-fetched and illogical.  Unless anyone can come up with one that isn't convoluted, far-fetched and illogical?  I've yet to see one so far on this thread...

[G-Unit]

I believe that assumption is more likely to stem from ignorance of how roller shutters/blinds and their tensioning devices work rather than at what latitude one lived.

Not to mention how assuming the shutters were security related leads you to leave a door unlocked.

[Alice Purjorick]

Scenario:

Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you claim he or she must have been abducted.

As a result, the case attracts the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country. 

The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child. 

Eventually you are made chief suspect in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your relationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope.  The police bust their guts trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.

Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.

Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they lack any evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects.  The case is shelved indefinitely.  You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.

Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then slink away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers. 

But no.  This is not what you do.

Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know what happened.

Then to cap it all, three whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in your land,  the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:

"a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".

You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse. 

You make yourself available for more TV appearances, BBC Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen something.

The question I have to ask you is:

ARE YOU F@@KING MAD????

If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?

69

In this scenario is the bit in bold being done by the hypothetical parties alone or the by hypothetical parties actively "encouraged" by one particular hypothetical news paper ?

[G-Unit]

In this scenario is the bit in bold being done by the hypothetical parties alone or the by hypothetical parties actively "encouraged" by one particular hypothetical news paper ?

The hypothetical newspaper which was serialising a book by the hypothetical parties at the time?

[Alice Purjorick]

The hypothetical newspaper which was serialising a book by the hypothetical parties at the time?

I couldn't possibly say but it may have gone just a little bit loik this Me Dearios:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/539087/open-up-the-maddie-files/

[Alfie]

The hypothetical newspaper which was serialising a book by the hypothetical parties at the time?

You're being a bit silly now, perhaps because you have no other option but to try ridicule to deflect from the point being made.  What difference does it make to the scenario or *your* motive if a newspaper was assisting *you* in pushing for a review?