Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

All I know is that they never requested an investigation by a UK police force.

You seem content to view this particular issue with your blinkers firmly in place.  Your choice.

[G-Unit]

You seem content to view this particular issue with your blinkers firmly in place.  Your choice.

I find and report the available facts. Those who are blinkered by their own preferences try to deny or manipulate those facts to fit their narrative. The facts are still the facts, and one of them is that the McCanns didn't ask for a UK investigation, they asked for a review.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I find and report the available facts. Those who are blinkered by their own preferences try to deny or manipulate those facts to fit their narrative. The facts are still the facts, and one of them is that the McCanns didn't ask for a UK investigation, they asked for a review.

Well I certainly haven't denied that they asked for a review.  In fact earlier I asked:
"Thank you, so now you might like to give some thought as to why the McCanns were so desperate for a case review that they petitioned three home secretaries to re-open an investigation into the crimes you seem to think they themselves may have committed".
Where your blinkers are firmly in place is that you cannot see how utterly absurd it would be for any criminal to ask the British police to conduct a full and comprehensive review into all the evidence of the crimes they have allegedly committed.  It's a ludicrous illogical fantasy which you are fully prepared to go along with it seems.

[Brietta]

You seem to believe that the investigation has progressed beyond the stage reached by the PJ. I see no progression.

I think your posts tend to indicate that ~ "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[G-Unit]

Well I certainly haven't denied that they asked for a review.  In fact earlier I asked:
"Thank you, so now you might like to give some thought as to why the McCanns were so desperate for a case review that they petitioned three home secretaries to re-open an investigation into the crimes you seem to think they themselves may have committed".
Where your blinkers are firmly in place is that you cannot see how utterly absurd it would be for any criminal to ask the British police to conduct a full and comprehensive review into all the evidence of the crimes they have allegedly committed.  It's a ludicrous illogical fantasy which you are fully prepared to go along with it seems.

According to Kate McCann a review would allow her and her husband access to information which they had so far been unable to examine. She was wrong, but that is what she said.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Kate McCann a review would allow her and her husband access to information which they had so far been unable to examine. She was wrong, but that is what she said.

It still doesn't make a jot of sense (why anyone would demand that the police review all the evidence of their alleged crimes even if they were labouring under the misapprehension that the police would then share their findings with them), and as someone who is supposedly intelligent you must surely recognise that?  That's a question by the way. 

[jassi]

According to Kate McCann a review would allow her and her husband access to information which they had so far been unable to examine. She was wrong, but that is what she said.

Never understood why they would have expected access to police information in the first place.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Never understood why they would have expected access to police information in the first place.

That's because you haven't really given it any serious thought.  Your child is missing.  No one is looking for her.  You suspect the police first charged with investigating her disappearance didn't do a very efficient and thorough job.  You have meanwhile employed private detectives to investigate.  Their job would be enhanced by having access to the original police files because it would give them access to statements of witnesses and reports that were done at the time, which would allow them to follow any leads previously ignored by incompetent / lazy police.  Given that the PJ allowed the majority of the files to be accessible to any old Tom, Dick or Pedro why is it so incomprehensible that the McCanns might also like access to the full files too? 

[Nicholas]

I’ve just watched the first two parts of the Docu-drama “When They See Us” about the Central Park Five, a truly appalling case of miscarriage of justice.  It has reinforced to me why you should always answer no comment to police questions, but if the police start roughing you up and torturing you, then it’s easy for them to get you to say anything they want you to say, regardless of the fact that there is literally no evidence against you.  This is a brilliant series, and should be watched by anyone with an interest in miscarriages of justice and prejudiced, corrupt and brutal police tactics in their pursuit of a conviction.

The truth about the Central Park 5 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg649493#msg649493

[Nicholas]

‘Is The Wrongful Conviction Movement Unstoppable?’ Ft. Devon Tracey aka "Atheism is Unstoppable"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=laujRg3W5C4&feature=youtu.be

[barrier]

Its a circle which will need to be squared at some stage in the McCann case.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57002010


Emma Faulds: Police dog indicated body scent during car search

Later in the footage, the dog appears to repeatedly bark at the boot area of the Jaguar.

PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Its a circle which will need to be squared at some stage in the McCann case.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57002010


Emma Faulds: Police dog indicated body scent during car search

Later in the footage, the dog appears to repeatedly bark at the boot area of the Jaguar.

PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".

But,but, but….. it has been repeated many times on these esteemed pages that dog alerts are NOT evidence. In fact on the very thread concerning this issue on this forum one poster postulated that the only reason previous dog alert evidence had been heard in court before was because the judges had erred in allowing them. Wait until the press get hold of this, another judge so untrained in the matters of law that he allows cadaver dog evidence to be heard in court. Surely there will be a mistrial

[Eleanor]

But,but, but….. it has been repeated many times on these esteemed pages that dog alerts are NOT evidence. In fact on the very thread concerning this issue on this forum one poster postulated that the only reason previous dog alert evidence had been heard in court before was because the judges had erred in allowing them. Wait until the press get hold of this, another judge so untrained in the matters of law that he allows cadaver dog evidence to be heard in court. Surely there will be a mistrial

Dog Alerts have to be backed up by other Evidence.  They never stand alone.

[kizzy]

Will be interesting to see the outcome.


'Positive indication'
Later in the footage, the dog appears to repeatedly bark at the boot area of the Jaguar.

PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".

Mr Kearney asked: "Do you have any doubt of it being a positive indication from your dog in what he is trained to find?"

PC Gunderson: "I have no doubt whatsoever."

Mr Willox denies the accusations.

[barrier]

Dog Alerts have to be backed up by other Evidence.  They never stand alone.

Wolters has evidence we are repeatedly told.