Where did you say you know everything? Well how about the bit above I have bolded? Where in the files does it say that the mound does not contain anything of relevance to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? You claim not to give a fig for any information that OG may have received that led them to search the mound - why not? Someone comes forward to the police and claims there is something significant to be discovered on the mound and your reply would be "don't bother - it's says in the files the mound is not of interest to us"? Really? So, your advice to the Met would be "don't follow up leads, don't investigate places in PdL or rule things out unless I've approved them as worth investigating, because I know more than you about the subject", is that right ?
The bit you have bolded says "Therefore I know certain things that neither you nor OG know." You have done another of your sweeping generalisations to turn "certain things" into "everything".
It would be interesting to know if you actually know you are doing this, at the time you are doing it. But I guess I'm not going to find out.
You are either speculating about someone coming forward or proposing a hypothetical situation. We have not been given the 'intelligence' that led to the dig. So this an instance where you don't know the prompt, I don't know the prompt, but OG does have that information.
However, had I known in advance of the plan to dig the mound, (and knowing what I know now from the PJ Files), I would have supplied OG with the names of 4 people, their relevant statements, hopefully their contact details, and suggest that these 4 should be asked a simple question. "Can you confirm that you were up that hill on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007?"
I would further provide them with details of the traffic system in Luz, to demonstrate why the dig area was an unlikely site.
I would further provide them with details of premises nearby that were likely to be open late on 3 May 2007, explain the likely traffic this would have generated, hopefully provided contact details, and suggested they might like to make enquiries.
I happen to know the guy who lived in 2007 at the north end of the dig. For him, I had a contact number. He appeared under a thin disguise in UK media at the time of the dig. He was quoted as saying the mound was searched extensively in the days after Madeleine disappeared. What 'extensively' means, I do not know. I lost interest in the mound for while, given that OG found nothing of interest, before I realised it had other significance.
Of course, this is hypothetical as OG is not going run its plans past me in advance.
It prefers to load up the troops, get them shiny new digging implements, seal off central Luz, get the PJ and GNR to participate, bring in the dogs, throw in a helicopter chase and put on a real show for the media.
You are ignorant of Luz, just as OG was. I have a decent knowledge of the incident scene.
Hence I have certain advantages over both you and OG.
Before you write any response, just think to yourself of one simple question. If the challenge was "who can best build local knowledge into a crime occurring in
your neck of the woods?, and I took on every single member of this forum, I have no doubt I would lose every single time the issue was
their neck of the woods. That's their turf. On your turf, you would win.
Luz is my turf, which is why I would 'beat' any and all members of this forum, if the debate is about my turf.
