Proof of abduction

[barrier]

Neither do they have the luxury of choosing a theory and sticking to it as Amaral wrote he did on the fourth of May.

Of course SY wouldn't do such a thing,oh hang on,they decided it was an abduction with out reading any thing of the files first.

[slartibartfast]

Neither do they have the luxury of choosing a theory and sticking to it as Amaral wrote he did on the fourth of May.

Can you provide a cite for that?

[jassi]

Of course SY wouldn't do such a thing,oh hang on,they decided it was an abduction with out reading any thing of the files first.

Not so much deciding, as being instructed from above.  Their remit was abduction, from the very start.

[Brietta]

Can you provide a cite for that?

Of course I can.

Although one wonders why you require one  &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

Not so much deciding, as being instructed from above.  Their remit was abduction, from the very start.

It wasn't
Proof has been shown that the remit was drawn up sometime after the review startred

[Mr Gray]

Kate is no longer a suspect
That would suggest her statement is believed

[ShiningInLuz]

It wasn't
Proof has been shown that the remit was drawn up sometime after the review startred

The issue is WHY the remit excludes the McCanns, not WHEN it was drawn up.

[Mr Gray]

The issue is WHY the remit excludes the McCanns, not WHEN it was drawn up.

Have you looked at when the review started and when the remit was drawn up
Are you under the impression they both happened at the same time

[Brietta]

The issue is WHY the remit excludes the McCanns, not WHEN it was drawn up.

With respect ... I disagree.

It is usual in cold cases to re interview witnesses and check existing evidence for omissions as well as evidence which has continued to come in regarding the case.

The exclusion of the McCanns and their friends could only have been achieved after going through that process ... that is the when.  The why was simply because having concluded an investigation of what they had to say for themselves, when analysed in conjunction with the existing records, the police police reached the conclusion they were neither persons of interest nor suspects in the case.

Which allowed the investigation to proceed to the next step.

[ShiningInLuz]

Have you looked at when the review started and when the remit was drawn up
Are you under the impression they both happened at the same time

Try relying to my post. The key point is not WHEN the remit was drawn up.  It is WHY the remit was drawn up.

[ShiningInLuz]

With respect ... I disagree.

It is usual in cold cases to re interview witnesses and check existing evidence for omissions as well as evidence which has continued to come in regarding the case.

The exclusion of the McCanns and their friends could only have been achieved after going through that process ... that is the when.  The why was simply because having concluded an investigation of what they had to say for themselves, when analysed in conjunction with the existing records, the police police reached the conclusion they were neither persons of interest nor suspects in the case.

Which allowed the investigation to proceed to the next step.

With respect, 100% speculation, unless you have a jot of evidence otherwise.

I tend to look at the absence of activity of activity of OG going through the T9 in the media to suggest that there was no combing over the T9.

Of course, if you can point me at such reports, I will be grateful to thank you for your enlightenment, and be pleased to agree the step prior to the remit was to check out the T9 and rule them out.

Is there anything whatsoever to show the McCanns were investigated by OG before the remit?  Or the remainder of the T9?

[Mr Gray]

Try relying to my post. The key point is not WHEN the remit was drawn up.  It is WHY the remit was drawn up.

Your question was why the remit excludes the McCanns
That's when..WHEN... the remit was drawn up becomes important
From memory...we have examined this in depth here before... the remit was drawn up some six months after the review started by this time SY had excluded the McCanns

[ShiningInLuz]

Your question was why the remit excludes the McCanns
That's when..WHEN... the remit was drawn up becomes important
From memory...we have examined this in depth here before... the remit was drawn up some six months after the review started by this time SY had excluded the McCanns

So all you need is WHY the McCanns were excluded.  Simples.

Except there is no proof, evidence or reports of WHY.

[Mr Gray]

With respect, 100% speculation, unless you have a jot of evidence otherwise.

I tend to look at the absence of activity of activity of OG going through the T9 in the media to suggest that there was no combing over the T9.

Of course, if you can point me at such reports, I will be grateful to thank you for your enlightenment, and be pleased to agree the step prior to the remit was to check out the T9 and rule them out.

Is there anything whatsoever to show the McCanns were investigated by OG before the remit?  Or the remainder of the T9?

And your post is 100 speculation
The thought that SY would rely on non verbatim translated statements is absurd
They would want to speak to the McCanns and go through everything themselves and again the idea that they didn't is absurd

[ShiningInLuz]

And your post is 100 speculation
The thought that SY would rely on non verbatim translated statements is absurd
They would want to speak to the McCanns and go through everything themselves and again the idea that they didn't is absurd

Evidence thereof?