Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs didnt make sense new ninemsn article

[Mr Gray]

Only if you watched a different Sky documentary to me.  It majored on the fact that the McCanns had been excluded from investigation before OG was established.

I read the transcript supplied by Heriberto...perhaps you should do the same and you will see the words I used are there

[ShiningInLuz]

What do you think Jim Gamble & his team were looking at when they reviewed the case prior to reporting to the Home Office pre. the launch of OG?

Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.

Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.

[ShiningInLuz]

I read the transcript supplied by Heriberto...perhaps you should do the same and you will see the words I used are there

Then perhaps you should view the Sky documentary.  It majored on the fact that the parents were not ruled out by investigation, so OG has a massive flaw.

[Mr Gray]

Then perhaps you should view the Sky documentary.  It majored on the fact that the parents were not ruled out by investigation, so OG has a massive flaw.

I prefer to take the verbatim words...live...from the SY spokesman....SY have stated clearly they have looked at all the evidence...they have also stated that the parents are not suspects. you are referring to a heavily edited TV programme. The paremts are not suspects in the investigation of SY or the PJ

[Mr Gray]

Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.

Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.

do you have a cite for this?...Ive never seen it before

[misty]

Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.

Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.

Do you have a cite for Gamble's comment, please?

[Mr Gray]

with respect most of us have followed the case closely and I dont believe gamble ever said that.

unless you can supply a cite any statement you make is highly questionable re its accuracy

[ShiningInLuz]

do you have a cite for this?...Ive never seen it before

It's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic

By the way, if you are going to ask for cites, kindly provide them yourself.

[Mr Gray]

It's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic

By the way, if you are going to ask for cites, kindly provide them yourself.

I always do when asked

[Mr Gray]

Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.

Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.

no surprise you are wrong...Gamble is talking about the original portuguese investigation and he makes that very clear

[ShiningInLuz]

with respect most of us have followed the case closely and I dont believe gamble ever said that.

unless you can supply a cite any statement you make is highly questionable re its accuracy

With respect, I have no interest in your belief.  For someone claiming not to have watched the programme to claim what was or was not in it is beyond fanciful.

[misty]

It's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic

By the way, if you are going to ask for cites, kindly provide them yourself.

If you listen to it, you will hear that he is referring to the original PJ investigation, not his scoping exercise.

[Mr Gray]

With respect, I have no interest in your belief.  For someone claiming not to have watched the programme to claim what was or was not in it is beyond fanciful.

Gamble never said that....my belief is  a fact...misty has confirmed you are wrong. That really casts doubt on anything you say...off out now#

Ive just watched the clip

[G-Unit]

If you listen to it, you will hear that he is referring to the original PJ investigation, not his scoping exercise.

He says the PJ should have investigated those closest to the child immediately. As they didn't, their investigation can be said to have 'dealt with' parental involvement, but was it dealt with too late to be meaningful?

[misty]

He says the PJ should have investigated those closest to the child immediately. As they didn't, their investigation can be said to have 'dealt with' parental involvement, but was it dealt with too late to be meaningful?

If the PJ couldn't even conduct a proper investigation into those closest to Madeleine, for elimination purposes, how can anyone have faith in the rest of their work & the conclusion reached by September 2007?
Kate & Gerry have subsequently been scrutinised by several agencies & the fact remains both the current investigation teams have publicly stated they are not suspects.