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

[ShiningInLuz]

This scenario obviously makes sense to you, it makes very little sense to me for all the reasons I have previously stated.  Anyone supremely confident that they have gotten away with it can happily get on their lives without a backward glance.  As I said before, the media furore surrounding the case, which our protagonist had continually stoked with interviews, book serializations, crimewatch appearances, etc - none of that would have been necessary from the moment the case had been shelved.  The protagonist would, a decade after the event have been a footnote in the public's and media's collective consciousness.  I don't of course expect you to agree but my opinion is at least as valid as yours, so that'll do me.

We're making more progress, I think.

Now we have that your outcome is merely your opinion.  I am happy to agree that your opinion is worth no less and no more than mine, ditto anyone else on the forum.

However, we are discussing a purely hypothetical scenario, so it is not really about opinion.  It is about speculation, and creative thinking.  A simple mental exercise that is telling us very little of worth.

You have constructed a thread that has produced, thus far, multiple alternative solutions.  Why?  Because real life evidence has been excluded.

I'm hoping the environment in Portelas will be conducive to running a murder mystery dinner party.  This thread strikes me as being on a par - a jolly bash with no real consequence, but unfortunately minus the dinner.

[Alfie]

We're making more progress, I think.

Now we have that your outcome is merely your opinion.  I am happy to agree that your opinion is worth no less and no more than mine, ditto anyone else on the forum.

However, we are discussing a purely hypothetical scenario, so it is not really about opinion.  It is about speculation, and creative thinking.  A simple mental exercise that is telling us very little of worth.

You have constructed a thread that has produced, thus far, multiple alternative solutions.  Why?  Because real life evidence has been excluded.

I'm hoping the environment in Portelas will be conducive to running a murder mystery dinner party.  This thread strikes me as being on a par - a jolly bash with no real consequence, but unfortunately minus the dinner.

Since when has speculation and creative thinking not been a product of an opinionated mind?  Denigrate this thread as much as you like, I think (note: my opinion) it has been interesting, and I think (note: my opinion again) that others (not you obviously despite your regular contributions to the thread) have found it interesting too.  Of course it is of no consequence.  Nothing on this forum is of any real consequence, only someone very deluded would think otherwise (note: my opinion yet again).

[ShiningInLuz]

There are all sorts of ways to draw attention to yourself and maintaining your C-List celeb status without involving Scotland Yard.  Katie Hopkins manages it! 

Your hypothetical couple achieve it by the 'missingness' of their child.  Are you now suggesting they should seek an alternative route to fame later in life?

Just as a point of interest, does your scenario involve the couple knowingly getting SY involved?  Does your hypothetical couple live in London?  Otherwise, doesn't it make more sense to assume the couple thought a review would be done by the police in their neck of the woods?

[John]

I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.

Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility?   Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?

[Alfie]

Your hypothetical couple achieve it by the 'missingness' of their child.  Are you now suggesting they should seek an alternative route to fame later in life?

Just as a point of interest, does your scenario involve the couple knowingly getting SY involved?  Does your hypothetical couple live in London?  Otherwise, doesn't it make more sense to assume the couple thought a review would be done by the police in their neck of the woods?

I'm not suggesting anything - but anyone who is desperate for fame and attention does not need to enlist the services of the police (any police force will do btw) in order to keep their profile high. 

[Alfie]

I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.

Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility?   Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?

Yes, this has all been covered already John.  If you're interested you might want to read back.

[G-Unit]

Explain how a review conducted by the Met gives the protagonist control again...? &%+((£  Surely a comprehensive and thorough review of all the evidence by the country's leading police force is the most likely way of getting yourself back under the spotlight of suspicion.  The stress of a review, followed by a renewed investigation would be utterly magnified not diminished.  Nah, you'd have to be a masochist to put yourself through that.  If the guilt really was that bad then I guess we can dispense with the notion that our protagonist is a psychopath.  A confession would be a less stressful option to adressing that guilt IMO, than putting yourself through yet more years of police scrutiny.

Without the review control can never be regained; I did say it was a gamble. There was no mention of the Met, just that all the evidence held by two police forces should be independently reviewed, not investigated. There is also the point that it may have been seen as a good marketing ploy - there was no reason to believe the request would be granted. One of the police forces in particular was unlikely to agree as they would see it as an attempt to discredit them. Maybe it was a case of beware what you ask for.

[Alfie]

Without the review control can never be regained; I did say it was a gamble. There was no mention of the Met, just that all the evidence held by two police forces should be independently reviewed, not investigated. There is also the point that it may have been seen as a good marketing ploy - there was no reason to believe the request would be granted. One of the police forces in particular was unlikely to agree as they would see it as an attempt to discredit them. Maybe it was a case of beware what you ask for.

How does asking the police for a review into your own crimes and misdemeanours constitute a good marketing ploy? 

[Mr Gray]

I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.

Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility?   Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?

Do we know of one person who would change their mind on the guilt of the couple based on them asking for a review
I doubt that many of the general public may be aware a review was asked for
This would also predispose that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population thought the couple were guilty of nothing more than neglect

[Alice Purjorick]

I have relocated the posts relating to statistics to the relevant historic thread.

Has anyone considered that the guilty parents in Alf's scenario might have had no option but to pursue the need for a continued investigation if they were to retain an ounce of credibility?   Surely abandoning all hope would in itself be suspicious?

Yep! quite sometime ago.

[G-Unit]

How does asking the police for a review into your own crimes and misdemeanours constitute a good marketing ploy?

Imagine the pair had written a book about their ordeal. They are approached by a newspaper wanting to serialise the book. ThTey refuse, but are persuaded when the group which owns the newspaper offers to back their campaign for the Home Secretary to order a review. The news group now have an exclusive serialsation and a good marketing ploy. Sales should rise. The open letter may have been the idea of the news group; one of their executives 'persuaded the Prime Minister to agree to help.

[Alfie]

Imagine the pair had written a book about their ordeal. They are approached by a newspaper wanting to serialise the book. ThTey refuse, but are persuaded when the group which owns the newspaper offers to back their campaign for the Home Secretary to order a review. The news group now have an exclusive serialsation and a good marketing ploy. Sales should rise. The open letter may have been the idea of the news group; one of their executives 'persuaded the Prime Minister to agree to help.

So they'd be gambling with their own liberty in order to help a newspaper sell more copies...?

[G-Unit]

So they'd be gambling with their own liberty in order to help a newspaper sell more copies...?

What? You asked about the marketing ploy. i said it was useful to the newspaper group to offer to back THE ALREADY EXISTING campaign for a review as it would help them to sell more copy. It would help the people to sell more books, it would help publicise their campaign for a review and they got half a million quid to boot.

[Brietta]

Having discovered my eldest child missing while on holiday abroad, when the police arrive, I am dismayed that they seem to be very relaxed about the situation being certain that she just got up and wandered out.
This despite me telling them through an interpreter about finding an open window in her bedroom ... and her shoes still being there.

Why weren't they publicising her disappearance?  What's 'judicial secrecy'?

[G-Unit]

I have been wondering about a real life case with similarities to Alfie's scenario. Ben Butler seems to have assaulted his daughter twice and was prosecuted, found guilty and jailed. On appeal his conviction was overturned. Why did he not cut his losses and fade into obscurity? Instead he campaigned relentlessly for three years, protesting his innocence and asking for his daughter to be returned to him.