Wandering Off Topic

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Who has said they did?

OK, maybe no one has said that SY had independently investigated parental involvement.
So at least we all agree that after looking at the previous evidence in this case SY did not open any investigation into parental involvement.

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK, maybe no one has said that SY had independently investigated parental involvement.
So at least we all agree that after looking at the previous evidence in this case SY did not open any investigation into parental involvement.

AFAIK noone here has ever suggested that they did, however what HAS been suggested is that the Met deliberately ignored any evidence against the parents because the Remit forbade it.

[Brietta]

Exactly, so they didn't re open any investigation into the parents after reading all the previous evidence. That's what I am saying.

I wonder if there might have been a reason why the police "didn't re open any investigation into the parents after reading all the previous evidence".

Might it have been because there was no evidence justifying further investigation of the parents but there was evidence which justified investigating the many other avenues ignored by the Portuguese.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

AFAIK noone here has ever suggested that they did, however what HAS been suggested is that the Met deliberately ignored any evidence against the parents because the Remit forbade it.

OK happy days, it's nice to get a consensus on this site, it seems to happen rarely.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I wonder if there might have been a reason why the police "didn't re open any investigation into the parents after reading all the previous evidence".

Might it have been because there was no evidence justifying further investigation of the parents but there was evidence which justified investigating the many other avenues ignored by the Portuguese.

Throw it all out and start again. From the ground up. Start with no exclusions. Why not? Its surely the correct way to do it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

OK happy days, it's nice to get a consensus on this site, it seems to happen rarely.

Do you think there’s consensus for the Met deliberately ignoring all the so-called evidence against the McCanns because the remit forbade them to look at parental involvement?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Do you think there’s consensus for the Met deliberately ignoring all the so-called evidence against the McCanns because the remit forbade them to look at parental involvement?

No, no consensus there I am afraid. But, little steps, we have achieved a consensus concerning whether SY investigated parental involvement after reading the evidence, it seems they didn't.

[Brietta]

Throw it all out and start again. From the ground up. Start with no exclusions. Why not? Its surely the correct way to do it.

Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Didn't you bother to read the link provided by VS http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg651516#msg651516 because if you have I'm afraid you've failed to understand the process outlined for

• reviewing a cold case
• opening a case

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Didn't you bother to read the link provided by VS http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg651516#msg651516 because if you have I'm afraid you've failed to understand the process outlined for

• reviewing a cold case
• opening a case

So don't throw it all out, investigate the dog alerts, investigate the timelines, question the people closest involved just don't focus on a single scenario based on evidence you didn't even gather yourself.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So don't throw it all out, investigate the dog alerts, investigate the timelines, question the people closest involved just don't focus on a single scenario based on evidence you didn't even gather yourself.

How would you have advised Operation Grange to investigate the dog alerts out of interest?  They did investigate the timeline, forensically was the word they used for it.  The people involved were all repeatedly questioned at the time, what questions did they not answer that might have helped OG to gain further understanding of what happened?

[Vertigo Swirl]

No, no consensus there I am afraid. But, little steps, we have achieved a consensus concerning whether SY investigated parental involvement after reading the evidence, it seems they didn't.

They didn’t investigate Robert Murat either afaik, oversight iyo?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

They didn’t investigate Robert Murat either afaik, oversight iyo?

Definitely.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

How would you have advised Operation Grange to investigate the dog alerts out of interest?  They did investigate the timeline, forensically was the word they used for it.  The people involved were all repeatedly questioned at the time, what questions did they not answer that might have helped OG to gain further understanding of what happened?

Interview Grime, Harrison. Re-interview the people involved, maybe something new comes up. Just don't focus on one scenario based on evidence they didn't even gather.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Definitely.

Seriously, on what basis do you think there was any reason to reinvestigate him?  Do you actually think there’s the remotest likelihood he was involved?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Seriously, on what basis do you think there was any reason to reinvestigate him?  Do you actually think there’s the remotest likelihood he was involved?

I have no idea if he was involved, if it was an abduction what rules him out? Maybe he has information on other aspects. Keep an open mind.