Should we have faith in SY given the wrongful conviction of Barry George?

[John]

I have severe reservations about the ability of Scotland Yard to conduct a proper investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann given that several members of the team were involved in the wrongful conviction of Barry George who as a consequence of their actions served a term of some 8 years in prison.

It is bad enough that someone of sound mind should serve time in prison for a crime they did not commit but to implicate a guy with learning difficulties in what was most probably a professional assination is despicable in my book.


120

[stephen25000]

That is a matter of faith, and no more than that.

[Lace]

Yes, faith in SY.

[stephen25000]

Yes, faith in SY.

Did you have faith in the conviction of Barry George by the same team ?

All I see largely in the mccann supporters is blind faith.

[Lace]

I bet you did when they found him guilty.

Remember he was not alone in that decision.

He was not sacked he is still working and thought highly of or he wouldn't be in  charge of this review.

By the way my faith is not blind,  they are getting somewhere, they have found new evidence and are progressing with the review.

Sorry if it is a disappointment to you Stephen that SY are doing so well and saying that they believe that Madeleine was abducted,  but don't be bitter,  they might find a little girl and reunite her with her parents.

[stephen25000]

I bet you did when they found him guilty.

Remember he was not alone in that decision.

He was not sacked he is still working and thought highly of or he wouldn't be in  charge of this review.

By the way my faith is not blind,  they are getting somewhere, they have found new evidence and are progressing with the review.

Sorry if it is a disappointment to you Stephen that SY are doing so well and saying that they believe that Madeleine was abducted,  but don't be bitter,  they might find a little girl and reunite her with her parents.

It was wrong.

Fact.

[Lace]

SY believe Madeleine was abducted.

Fact.

[stephen25000]

SY believe Madeleine was abducted.

Fact.

SY got it wrong in the Dando case.

FACT.

Do you have idea of the percentage of cases solved by SY ?

Likewise, do you have any idea of how many times they get it wrong ?

As to the SY view on abduction, well that's simple.

All they have to do is find Madeleine.

[Albertini]

The Yard investigation is not complete ( i believe Redwood said they were two thirds of the way through the review) so we do not know what, at the end of their investigation, they are going to determine happened (if indeed they can solve the case).

As such the theory put forward by the PJ is still valid for discussion in a discussion forum about the case.

It comes back to what i said yesterday, you seem to want to stifle debate about the case so that this forum becomes one of a myriad of closed talking shops, which seem to dominate the web about this case.

Provided the issues from both sides can be discussed in a civil and respectful manner this forum provides a refreshing change in that there are posters from both sides of the spectrum, debating and increasing each others knowledge.

I, for example, are learning more about the abduction scenarios and i value that in terms of my understanding of the overall case.

[Chinagirl]

You are quite wrong about my wanting to stifle debate, providing it is proper debate.  There are perfectly valid issues for discussion about this case - issues for which there is some evidence, but pointless to discuss anything that was just a figment of Amaral's (or even the collective PJ's) mind in the first place, and for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

The investigation has moved on since 2007 when the "accident" hypothesis was first mooted, and in any case, it is absolutely impossible to debate what someone else may or may do in a given hypothetical situation, as was proposed in Icabodcrane's post above.

[Albertini]

You are quite wrong about my wanting to stifle debate, providing it is proper debate.  There are perfectly valid issues for discussion about this case - issues for which there is some evidence, but pointless to discuss anything that was just a figment of Amaral's (or even the collective PJ's) mind in the first place, and for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

The investigation has moved on since 2007 when the "accident" hypothesis was first mooted, and in any case, it is absolutely impossible to debate what someone else may or may do in a given hypothetical situation, as was proposed in Icabodcrane's post above.

I don't think i am wrong, this is the second time in two days you have tried to stifle debate regarding the PJ's theories.

Theories, lest we forget, which have never been superceded since in Portugal (for if they had the case would have been reopened).

You claim the case has moved on since 2007 but as i have previously stated the PJ have never sought to reopen the case as new evidence to support either scenario has not been found or presented since then.

Given the gaps in the evidence gathered, on the basis that the investigation was incomplete at the point of archiving it, hypotheticals are what forums dedicated to discussing the case have to rely on in the absence of concrete information.

Indeed based on what is in the files, and based on the lack of detail the Yard have presented hypotheticals are all the abduction scenario has to support it.

If you want us not to discuss hypotheticals then that, by your definition, removes the ability to discuss the abduction scenario, doesn't it?

[stephen25000]

You are quite wrong about my wanting to stifle debate, providing it is proper debate.  There are perfectly valid issues for discussion about this case - issues for which there is some evidence, but pointless to discuss anything that was just a figment of Amaral's (or even the collective PJ's) mind in the first place, and for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.

The investigation has moved on since 2007 when the "accident" hypothesis was first mooted, and in any case, it is absolutely impossible to debate what someone else may or may do in a given hypothetical situation, as was proposed in Icabodcrane's post above.

Now by 'proper debate' what you really mean is the abduction only scenario, and as to figments of the imagination, that's what the abduction remains, without a scintilla of proof.

[Lace]

Now by 'proper debate' what you really mean is the abduction only scenario, and as to figments of the imagination, that's what the abduction remains, without a scintilla of proof.

Your debate consists of 'there is no evidence of abduction'.    So if as you say there is no evidence of abduction,  tell me why this it the route that SY is taking?

Also please could you give me your theory if you believe Madeleine was not abducted.

[stephen25000]

Your debate consists of 'there is no evidence of abduction'.    So if as you say there is no evidence of abduction,  tell me why this it the route that SY is taking?

Also please could you give me your theory if you believe Madeleine was not abducted.

If SY had a 'clue' , the case would be over.

However, like you, SY literally don't have a clue.

Don't you remember Redwood asking the public to look for Madeleine ?

Now does that sound like a man on top of the case ?

[Albertini]

If SY had a 'clue' , the case would be over.

However, like you, SY literally don't have a clue.

Don't you remember Redwood asking the public to look for Madeleine ?

Now does that sound like a man on top of the case ?

Those who believe the abduction scenario have everything invested in Andy Redwood's recent words.

I asked a question the other day which never received an answer.

If Redwood comes back to us and says that all the 38 persons of interest have been checked out and cleared and if he says there is no evidence that the Yard can find to support abduction or an abductor, then will the McCann supporters be happy for Redwood to go back and look at the group?