Most journalists, particularly British journalist's reports, reflected the parents views imo. Mark Saunokonoko has chosen to examine other issues, some of which raised red flags at the time.
He wasn't investigating, he was pointing out unanswered questions which Operation Grange in particular seemed uninterested in.
To me that suggests that there was a whole lot of questions which that particular police investigation didn't attempt to answer.
It seems to me that there was prejudice in what Op Grange were prepared to examine and red flags that they were prepared to ignore.
Most journalists, particularly British journalist's reports, reflect an awareness of the libel laws in this country with maybe sometimes a little bit of decency and compassion thrown in for good measure.
It must be hell for someone stuck in a time warp like Saunokonoko et al to realise that not only are they waving a huge red flag over the past they should also be sending up distress flares over what might remain of their credibility if they ever had any in the first instance.
There is a new kid on the block who perhaps might merit questions being asked of him and I am sure investigators are mulling over what those questions should be for when the time comes. Certainly accredited journalists are.
I think flogging the dead horse of McCann opprobrium has had its day. Only thirteen years too late, but better late than never.
