What has Redwood achieved in the Mccann case ?

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.

It makes sense that if that once the mccanns are eliminated the only option is abduction

[Mr Gray]

Are SY wrongs then  sadie to eliminate him and couldn't that also be true of the McCanns ?

SY have not totally eliminated Tannerman..if you listen carefully to what Redwood said

[pathfinder73]

I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.

This investigation is the Disappearance of MM not the Abduction. They have to eliminate all abduction possibilities first before arriving at the truth. Once you eliminate all other possibilities you are left with one. They won't make the same mistakes as last time by jumping the gun.

They need to ID Smithman that's why he was the focus of the CW programme. He took Maddy and he knows where!

[faithlilly]

[quote removed]

And shall we add the decision of the appeal court judges who overturned the banning of Amaral's book :

"
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

[John]

SY have not totally eliminated Tannerman..if you listen carefully to what Redwood said

That's true which only goes to show that this chappie who came forward cannot fit with the scene as snugly as some believe.  Redwood never did explain why he was going in the wrong direction for someone who was supposed to have been returning from the night crèche and as for carrying a scantily clad child on a cold May evening...that's another piece which just doesn't fit too well.

[John]

Please do not introduce comments into this thread referring to the Brenda Leyland case.

[faithlilly]

That's true which only goes to show that this chappie who came forward cannot fit with the scene as snugly as some believe.  Redwood never did explain why he was going in the wrong direction for someone who was supposed to have been returning from the night crèche and as for carrying a scantily clad child on a cold May evening...that's another piece which just doesn't fit too well.

You have to wonder why Redwood eliminated him when so little fits.

[pathfinder73]

You have to wonder why Redwood eliminated him when so little fits.

Because they suspect who did it but need to prove it.

[Matthew Wyse]

Because they know who did it but need to prove it.

Suspect would be a better word

[pathfinder73]

Suspect would be a better word

Correct thanks

[faithlilly]

Because they suspect who did it but need to prove it.

Give that man a coconut !

[Brietta]

I have seen no evidence which eliminates them of involvement in the disappearance. I have seen no reference to any such evidence either. I have seen a statement by DCI Redwood saying they were not suspects or persons of interest in his investigation. That makes sense as his remit was to investigate an abduction.

You are cherry picking again;  Colin Sutton has promoted many opinions on many occasions in a sort of pick and mix fashion.  You seem to have picked the flavour that suits you best 😁

[G-Unit]

You are cherry picking again;  Colin Sutton has promoted many opinions on many occasions in a sort of pick and mix fashion.  You seem to have picked the flavour that suits you best 😁

When I wrote my post above, Colin Sutton's opinions had not yet been expressed.

[Brietta]

When I wrote my post above, Colin Sutton's opinions had not yet been expressed.

T'wouldn't have made one whit of difference though would it 😁 - since despite knowledge of the quixotic meanderings of the retired detective's literary history you posted today ~ "Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out."

Textusa did the homework - so we didn't have to, but your very entrenched opinions are not subject to alteration particularly if one mentions the "CW" word "coconut shell" 😖

[G-Unit]

T'wouldn't have made one whit of difference though would it 😁 - since despite knowledge of the quixotic meanderings of the retired detective's literary history you posted today ~ "Colin Sutton merely confirmed my opinion about Operation Grange's remit, which I held long before he spoke out."

Textusa did the homework - so we didn't have to, but your very entrenched opinions are not subject to alteration particularly if one mentions the "CW" word "coconut shell" 😖

I don't fully understand what your post is trying to establish.

I mentioned my opinion that Operation Grange's investigation was set up purely to investigate stranger abduction, as demonstrated by their remit.

You suggested that the source of my opinion was Colin Sutton.

I pointed out that it wasn't, I held that opinion before Sutton spoke about the case.

Do you dispute that?