This thread is to examine motive - motive for asking for a fully independent, transparent and thorough review of all the information held by police forces about a crime *you* have already been investigated for, a case which has long since been shelved. It is not to discuss how the review actually turned out, that's a separate thread. Get it now?
It could be for;
To find out what mistakes were made, what lessons have been learned and what information has not yet been collated.
If something like the above was the motivation then those calling for the review would clearly hold the opinion that mistakes
were made, there
were lessons to be learned and there
was uncollated information.
So the desired outcome was for the review to find and highlight the 'mistakes' that were allegedly made, to demonstrate what lessons should be learned and to gather all information in one place.
Finding and highlighting 'mistakes' would officially discredit the original investigation and the direction it took. The people asking for the review may have had reason to believe that their own police force would indeed find the original investigation substandard. Discrediting the original investigation would also discredit it's findings.
Lessons to be learned might include a Europe-wide system such as the US Amber Alert one and perhaps more cross-jurisdiction investigations, which occur in relation to some crimes but not child disappearances. That would would change the fact that the country where the disappearance occurs have primacy.
Gathering all the information together could be very useful in the event that the case remained unsolved. The people concerned could be planning an unprecedented legal bid for the release of the information in such cases, rather than it just gathering dust in an archive. Interested parties could then examine it and use it themselves.
