Author Topic: A Simple Question.  (Read 5614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Faithlilly

A Simple Question.
« on: March 11, 2018, 02:23:58 PM »
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.

If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 05:49:11 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline jassi

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2018, 03:15:05 PM »
No
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2018, 03:17:03 PM »
No

I don’t think so either jassi. In fact I think the idea that anyone would think that they would frankly ridiculous.
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline jassi

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2018, 03:30:53 PM »
No other takers, I see. Still, early days  8(0(*
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -   11 years and still no solution.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2018, 03:31:54 PM »

Yes, Yes I do.

I think they'd take every available opportunity to stress the fact.

They'd make it front page on every paper & hire a mobile billboard, there'd be a picture of Kate & Gerry on it, with a big arrow pointed right at them, above that would be flashing neon lights spelling out 'suspects'.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2018, 03:41:24 PM »
Yes, Yes I do.

I think they'd take every available opportunity to stress the fact.

They'd make it front page on every paper & hire a mobile billboard, there'd be a picture of Kate & Gerry on it, with a big arrow pointed right at them, above that would be flashing neon lights spelling out 'suspects'.

 @)(++(*
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Online Eleanor

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2018, 03:47:37 PM »

I thought that this was going to be a serious Thread.  Silly me.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2018, 03:48:48 PM »
I thought that this was going to be a serious Thread.  Silly me.

It is. Your thoughts Eleanor ?
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline Carana

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2018, 03:52:10 PM »
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.

If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?

Would they have denied it, as they did? As opposed to something waffly such as "all leads of enquiry are still being pursued" ?

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2018, 03:53:52 PM »

This has me thinking about the burglary abduction gang.

Am I right in thinking that SY never named them publicly as suspects?

Wasn't it anonymous sources who spilled the beans?

Have SY named any suspects in the investigation?

Offline barrier

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2018, 04:02:30 PM »
A very, very simple question that only requires only a yes or no answer.

If OG and the PJ were investigating the McCann’s and their friend’s role in Madeleine’s disappearance do you think they would tell the general public ?

I think they may have learnt their lesson, back in 2014,there were leaks about imminent arrest's early in the year , arguido status for three or four locals later on,rather tellingly since Wall became lead dci nada,its been left to the likes of Rowley who will not comment nor confirm one way or the other if they think Madeleine is alive or dead.
Ah,but I may as well try and catch the wind.

Offline barrier

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2018, 04:03:21 PM »
This has me thinking about the burglary abduction gang.

Am I right in thinking that SY never named them publicly as suspects?

Wasn't it anonymous sources who spilled the beans?

Have SY named any suspects in the investigation?

Bilton tracked them down,interfereing in an ongoing enquiry?
Ah,but I may as well try and catch the wind.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2018, 04:06:01 PM »
Would they have denied it, as they did? As opposed to something waffly such as "all leads of enquiry are still being pursued" ?

What else could they have done ?

Can you imagine the scenario.......are the McCanns and their friends suspects ? ........all leads of enquiry are still being pursued"
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 04:10:14 PM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Offline Carana

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2018, 04:22:12 PM »
This has me thinking about the burglary abduction gang.

Am I right in thinking that SY never named them publicly as suspects?

Wasn't it anonymous sources who spilled the beans?

Have SY named any suspects in the investigation?

How could they? There's no such thing in the UK.

Some of the people the PJ interviewed on behalf of SY were named as having arguido status in the media; others weren't.

Assuming that that is correct, it may have been the witnesses themselves who requested the status in order to benefit from certain rights. My reasoning for that is that when I last checked, at the time, I couldn't find any legal provision for temporary arguido status in the Portuguese CPP, but neither did I find any provision as to a temporary status in the event of a foreign police force requesting such interviews.

AIFAIK, they are no longer arguidos, which makes me think that it was an ad hoc provision to allow temporary status for the purpose of UK inquiries.


Offline barrier

Re: A Simple Question.
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2018, 04:46:32 PM »
How could they? There's no such thing in the UK.

Some of the people the PJ interviewed on behalf of SY were named as having arguido status in the media; others weren't.

Assuming that that is correct, it may have been the witnesses themselves who requested the status in order to benefit from certain rights. My reasoning for that is that when I last checked, at the time, I couldn't find any legal provision for temporary arguido status in the Portuguese CPP, but neither did I find any provision as to a temporary status in the event of a foreign police force requesting such interviews.

AIFAIK, they are no longer arguidos, which makes me think that it was an ad hoc provision to allow temporary status for the purpose of UK inquiries.

It never advanced it,or if it did it ruled out the burglar gone wrong rubbish imo.
Ah,but I may as well try and catch the wind.