Wandering Off Topic

[Venturi Swirl]

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

Also, by your logic does that mean that no one is eliminated until another suspect is charged, tried and found guilty,  or are they still even then not really eliminated?  After all they could still have been involved somehow so best not eliminate them, eh?

[Venturi Swirl]

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

Has Robert Murat been eliminated?  If so why?

[Mr Gray]

Major incident investigations in the UK use a TIE strategy; trace/interview/eliminate. Those eliminated/not eliminated are marked in HOLMES2 by a code. The possibilities are;

1. Forensic elimination, eg, DNA, footwear impressions, fingerprints
2. Description (suspect parameters)
3. Independent witness (alibi)
4. Associate or relative (alibi)
5. Spouse or common law relationship (alibi)
6. Not eliminated.

Imo the only possibilities for the elimination of the McCanns are 4 & 5, which are not the most reliable. As the time of the crime isn't known, it's difficult to see how they could be recorded as eliminated.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#elimination-criteria

I think it's all a bit silly... You still haven't said exactly what you mean by eliminated.  As the crime is unknown you could therefore argue that no one has been eliminated.  I would day the McCanns along with others have been eliminated on the present evidence but obviously if more evidence arises that could change.


The McCanns can't really be totally ruled out unless the crime is solved... Even then it could be said it's a miscarriage  of justice and the mccanns are guilty

[Brietta]

You have relied heavily on the McCanns testimony, on your belief that they have been eliminated (no evidence of that) and on the fact that OG are not investigating them (because of their remit).

The main focus of the investigation in Madeleine's case moved to Brueckner ten years after Madeleine's disappearance as a result of information stemming from her parents' appeal on German television for information.

No-one with any locus or with any authority in or knowledge regarding Madeleine's case has viewed her parents with suspicion for a very - very - long time and are on record as saying so. (Google it!).

I think your constant reiteration of the sceptic shibboleth (whichever one fits your bill) becomes more threadbare with overuse as time progresses and serves only to reinforce their irrelevance.

[Wonderfulspam]

I think it's all a bit silly... You still haven't said exactly what you mean by eliminated.  As the crime is unknown you could therefore argue that no one has been eliminated.  I would day the McCanns along with others have been eliminated on the present evidence but obviously if more evidence arises that could change.

The McCanns can't really be totally ruled out unless the crime is solved... Even then it could be said it's a miscarriage  of justice and the mccanns are guilty

The crime has been determined, according to Redwood, Rowley, Wolters etc etc.

[Venturi Swirl]

The crime has been determined, according to Redwood, Rowley, Wolters etc etc.

Yes, sometimes clever cops are able to deduce what crime has been committed by looking at the available evidence, even if they can't be 100% certain.  Being clever cops they have arrived at the conclusion that it's the only logical, plausible explanation and we know that they have eliminated, ruled out, and cleared the McCanns of being involved (galling as this realisation may be, and despite the fact that some people simply cannot and will not accept it).

[G-Unit]

I think it's all a bit silly... You still haven't said exactly what you mean by eliminated.  As the crime is unknown you could therefore argue that no one has been eliminated.  I would day the McCanns along with others have been eliminated on the present evidence but obviously if more evidence arises that could change.


The McCanns can't really be totally ruled out unless the crime is solved... Even then it could be said it's a miscarriage  of justice and the mccanns are guilty

I was replying to someone who thought eliminating someone was related to actively suspecting them.

[G-Unit]

Yes, sometimes clever cops are able to deduce what crime has been committed by looking at the available evidence, even if they can't be 100% certain.  Being clever cops they have arrived at the conclusion that it's the only logical, plausible explanation and we know that they have eliminated, ruled out, and cleared the McCanns of being involved (galling as this realisation may be, and despite the fact that some people simply cannot and will not accept it).

Alternatively, as with Operation Grange, policemen investigate what they are told to investigate by their remit.

Someone's remit is the area of activity which they are expected to deal with, or which they have authority to deal with.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/remit

[Wonderfulspam]

Yes, sometimes clever cops are able to deduce what crime has been committed by looking at the available evidence, even if they can't be 100% certain.  Being clever cops they have arrived at the conclusion that it's the only logical, plausible explanation and we know that they have eliminated, ruled out, and cleared the McCanns of being involved (galling as this realisation may be, and despite the fact that some people simply cannot and will not accept it).

Well they still haven't shown a shred of abduction evidence, other than a sighting of Gerry, so it's not unreasonable to believe the parents dunnit, imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

Alternatively, as with Operation Grange, policemen investigate what they are told to investigate by their remit.

Someone's remit is the area of activity which they are expected to deal with, or which they have authority to deal with.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/remit

Have you any examples of serving or ex-police who were told that they couldn’t follow the evidence in a criminal investigation they were part of because their remit forbade it?   Has Murat been eliminated?

[Venturi Swirl]

Well they still haven't shown a shred of abduction evidence, other than a sighting of Gerry, so it's not unreasonable to believe the parents dunnit, imo.

An alleged sighting of Gerry, there have also been alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann all over the world, some by people who were 100% certain it was her.  Are they all evidence then?

[Wonderfulspam]

An alleged sighting of Gerry, there have also been alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann all over the world, some by people who were 100% certain it was her.  Are they all evidence then?

Yes, they are evidence of wishful thinking.

[Mr Gray]

Alternatively, as with Operation Grange, policemen investigate what they are told to investigate by their remit.

Someone's remit is the area of activity which they are expected to deal with, or which they have authority to deal with.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/remit

So you don't think that when investigating an abduction one possible result is that an abduction didn't happen

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes, they are evidence of wishful thinking.

So not necessarily evidence that the person identified was the person actually seen.  Thank you.

[Venturi Swirl]

I was replying to someone who thought eliminating someone was related to actively suspecting them.

If you don't eliminate them it's because you still suspect they may be involved.  The act of elimination is the act of removing them from any suspicion of involvement.  If there is lingering suspicion that they are involved, then of course they are not eliminated and remain suspects.  So please explain how you can not be a suspect whilst also not eliminated from suspected involvement?