What has Redwood achieved in the Mccann case ?

[stephen25000]

I find it fascinating to observe those who back the abduction scenario 100%, without a shred of credible evidence, forensic or otherwise to back it, believe  people like me don't want the case solved.

That is far from the truth.

However, I do question a one sided investigation, where no other scenarios are examined.

and the basic question still applies..........

How long will this investigation to be allowed to continue with NO RESULTS. &%+((£

[John]

Posters are reminded to stay within the bounds of the opening post/thread title.  TY

[Alfred R Jones]

I find it fascinating to observe those who back the abduction scenario 100%, without a shred of credible evidence, forensic or otherwise to back it, believe  people like me don't want the case solved.

That is far from the truth.

However, I do question a one sided investigation, where no other scenarios are examined.

and the basic question still applies..........

How long will this investigation to be allowed to continue with NO RESULTS. &%+((£

If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?

[stephen25000]

If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?

You answer my question first, then i'll answer yours.

[John]

If you were able to pull the plug on the investigation now would you do so?

As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment.  Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.

Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.

[Brietta]

As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment.  Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.

Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.

I think one may follow on from the other whichever in whichever order that may be.

However, finding Madeleine would be my priority.

[Alfred R Jones]

You answer my question first, then i'll answer yours.

which question?

[Alfred R Jones]

As I stated the other day Alfred, the priority for the parents of a missing child should be to have them returned safe and sound. If the child is deceased then the priority should be to have their remains returned for a proper internment.  Punishing the culprit is not important whilst the whereabouts of the child remains unknown.

Finding a culprit should never be allowed to take precedence over closure.

That does not answer the question I posed to Stephen.  In any case this is not about the McCanns' priorities but the Met's.

[Albertini]

No need to be rude.

Unless you are privy to SY and the PJ's 'deliberations' you can have no idea that 'nothing has been found' and 'the case has got nowhere'.

No-one knows what has or has not been achieved -  because we are not being kept informed.   Speculation and wishful thinking doesn't count.

The one major achievement by SY that we do know about - because the public WAS informed by SY -  is that they have specifically ruled out 9 people from the case.  i.e. the McCanns and their friends.    The PJ have also eliminated them from the enquiry.

Quite a massive achievement by both police forces IMO - as it is a total reversal of the original decision by the original investigators.

So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?

Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?

If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?

[Mr Gray]

So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?

Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?

If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?

of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change...however it seems SY is looking at the crime as a stranger abduction

[Albertini]

of course if new evidence comes to light that implicates the McCanns then their status may change...however it seems SY is looking at the crime as a stranger abduction

So you're accepting it is possible? That's good and a major turning point in the discussion of those immortal words.

If the McCann's were suspects do you think the Yard would announce it or leave the previous statement in place until such time as sufficiently strong evidence was found to warrant questioning?

[Mr Gray]

So you're accepting it is possible? That's good and a major turning point in the discussion of those immortal words.

If the McCann's were suspects do you think the Yard would announce it or leave the previous statement in place until such time as sufficiently strong evidence was found to warrant questioning?

Don't get too excited...it is no turning point...my views have not changed...possible does not mean probable...it is theoretically possible that amaral himself is responsible...though not probable

[Albertini]

Don't get too excited...it is no turning point...my views have not changed...possible does not mean probable...it is theoretically possible that amaral himself is responsible...though not probable

Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.

You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.

That's saying that at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.

Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.

[Mr Gray]

Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.

You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.

That's saying at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.

Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.

You are imagining things..where are the facts to support you accusations...you don't have any...you should try and read and understand posts more accurately...you have failed to do so

[Mr Gray]

Yes it is. Previously it was accepted by many on here that the declaration about the 9 was a statment of fact that was set in stone til the end of the investigation.

You have admitted that actually it could change if evidence is uncovered.

That's saying that at the point he was asked the question based on the work he and his team had done they weren't suspects, but further work could change that.

Which is what I for one have said all along about that particular pearl of wisdom from DCI Redwood.

let me spell it out nice and simply for you...based on the existing evidence the McCanns are not suspects