Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Are you seriously suggesting the McCanns did not want the investigation re-opened.. I find your post delusional

I'm repeating what they actually petitioned for;

Please write to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister, urging the British and Portuguese authorities to commission a joint, independent and comprehensive review of Madeleine’s case.
[madeleine page 386]

I see no mention of reopening the investigation, but maybe you can provide a cite for them asking for that? Perhaps it isn't my posts which are delusional?

[Mr Gray]

I'm repeating what they actually petitioned for;

Please write to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister, urging the British and Portuguese authorities to commission a joint, independent and comprehensive review of Madeleine’s case.
[madeleine page 386]

I see no mention of reopening the investigation, but maybe you can provide a cite for them asking for that? Perhaps it isn't my posts which are delusional?

Do you understand that they could not petition to have the investigation re-opened without finding new evidence... It seems a review by SY acheived the aim of the re-opening

[G-Unit]

Do you understand that they could not petition to have the investigation re-opened without finding new evidence... It seems a review by SY acheived the aim of the re-opening

So we're agreed that they did not ask for the investigation to be reopened. Wether or not that's what they wanted is speculation therefore.

[Mr Gray]

So we're agreed that they did not ask for the investigation to be reopened. Wether or not that's what they wanted is speculation therefore.

I think to deny their purpose was to get SY to reinvestigate is absurd.  I seem to remember you wrte mistaken in your belief that they could had the case re-opened in the early stages just by asking.  You were shown to be wrong then and I'm sure you are wrong again

[G-Unit]

I think to deny their purpose was to get SY to reinvestigate is absurd.  I seem to remember you wrte mistaken in your belief that they could had the case re-opened in the early stages just by asking.  You were shown to be wrong then and I'm sure you are wrong again

Absurd, imo, is claiming to know what others thought when the only evidence available is what they actually said.

As to your other point;

"The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said the couple's lawyers would be making an immediate application for full access to the police files so they could follow up any new leads.

They have 20 days to appeal the decision to drop the case, although this is unlikely to happen. After that period limited access will be made available to other interested parties."

(Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann officially cleared of 'arguido' status, 22 July 2008
Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann officially cleared of 'arguido' status Telegraph
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id134.htm)

[Mr Gray]

Absurd, imo, is claiming to know what others thought when the only evidence available is what they actually said.

As to your other point;

"The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said the couple's lawyers would be making an immediate application for full access to the police files so they could follow up any new leads.

They have 20 days to appeal the decision to drop the case, although this is unlikely to happen. After that period limited access will be made available to other interested parties."

(Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann officially cleared of 'arguido' status, 22 July 2008
Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann officially cleared of 'arguido' status Telegraph
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id134.htm)

We went through the 20 days.... And it was shown to be wrong... Don't you remember

[G-Unit]

We went through the 20 days.... And it was shown to be wrong... Don't you remember

I remember you being convinced that you were right.

[Mr Gray]

I remember you being convinced that you were right.

I was.... Do you have a cite for the source who said they had 20 days.... The Telegraph doesn't give one.

[Brietta]

You always insist that the McCanns lobbyed for an investigation, but imo that wasn't what they wanted the authorities to do, they wanted a review. They are not the same thing.

Of course I insist on the truth of the matter.  Why do you think they ended their open letter to the PM by stating thus
They added: "It is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to identify all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the inquiry."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13370591

The McCanns obviously had been told or had worked it out that nothing would happen to progress further investigation of Madeleine's case until it had been reviewed.

They were looking to the present and to the future very much not as you continually insist on the past.

The new information duly arrived but not until Madeleine's case was reviewed and opened by Scotland Yard and re-opened by the Judicial Police: so your opinion is markedly off kilter on all accounts.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Case reviews often examine how an investigation was handled in order to identify mistakes made by investigators. As Kate McCann refers to 'deficiencies in the investigation' I assume she wanted those deficiencies officially highlighted. That never happened, of course, as no findings were ever publicised.

Why would she want those highlighted when (as a supposedly guilty person) she would have been far wiser to let sleeping dogs lie and not run the risk of opening a can of worms she may rather not want opened?  After all, she wasn’t in charge of conducting the review was she?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You always insist that the McCanns lobbyed for an investigation, but imo that wasn't what they wanted the authorities to do, they wanted a review. They are not the same thing.

OK, explain precisely what a review does and how it would have benefited two people guilty of the crime being reviewed.

[G-Unit]

Of course I insist on the truth of the matter.  Why do you think they ended their open letter to the PM by stating thus
They added: "It is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to identify all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the inquiry."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13370591

The McCanns obviously had been told or had worked it out that nothing would happen to progress further investigation of Madeleine's case until it had been reviewed.

They were looking to the present and to the future very much not as you continually insist on the past.

The new information duly arrived but not until Madeleine's case was reviewed and opened by Scotland Yard and re-opened by the Judicial Police: so your opinion is markedly off kilter on all accounts.

There was only one inquiry in place when that was written; the one being paid for by the Fund. Imo that was being referred to, rather than something in the future.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There was only one inquiry in place when that was written; the one being paid for by the Fund. Imo that was being referred to, rather than something in the future.

Why would they be talking about their own inquiry when the were appealing to the Government to start one?

[G-Unit]

Why would they be talking about their own inquiry when the were appealing to the Government to start one?

They were appealing for;

"a joint independent, transparent and comprehensive review of all information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance."

and looking at Brietta's source, there's a heading;

Private detectives
They added: "It is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to identify all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the inquiry."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13370591

Clearly the BBC thought they were referring to the inquiry being conducted by their Private detectives, as do I.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They were appealing for;

"a joint independent, transparent and comprehensive review of all information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance."

and looking at Brietta's source, there's a heading;

Private detectives
They added: "It is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to identify all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the inquiry."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13370591

Clearly the BBC thought they were referring to the inquiry being conducted by their Private detectives, as do I.

I really have lost track of what point you are actually trying to make, all I know is you have studiously avoided giving any logical explanation for why anyone guilty of a serious crime would lobby not one, not two, but THREE home secretaries to have the evidence of their crimes reviewed by the British police.  I’m sure you have one of course and that you just can’t be bothered to explain.