Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

The evidence gathered by the PJ didn't include anything suggesting that the crime against Madeleine was stranger abduction and nothing else. Nevertheless OG have spent years investigating just that.

So did they find evidence the PJ had missed? No, because the decision to concentrate on investigating stranger abduction was taken before OG had examined the evidence it had amassed.

Groundhog day has indeed occurred; the Portuguese  police have been denigrated, the Met's praises have been sung and those who have presented the facts have been accused of being nasty. All predictable and very boring, and none of that is relevant or changes the facts.

You've not provided a single scrap of evidence to support your belief that the Met were ordered by the High Ups to concentrate solely on abduction and to ignore any evidence that suggested another crime was committed.  Not one single scrap.  You're right about Groundhog Day though.  "I Got You Babe" woke me up again this morning.

[Vertigo Swirl]

This conspiracy theory wholly rests on one single phrase from the remit, as if this phrase was carved on tablets and handed to Redwood by God.  IMO the remit writer probably had no idea how significant his or her use of the word "abduction" in the remit would be to the Tin foil Hat brigade.  I mean, for all we know it was a used a tad carelessly as a synonym for the word "disappearance" and could equally have applied to mean that either parent or any of their friends, or extended family members may have been responsible.  As we have no way of knowing this really is a pointless discussion, apart from it has helped shine a light on some of the more conspira loon beliefs of those sceptics amongst us.

[G-Unit]

You've not provided a single scrap of evidence to support your belief that the Met were ordered by the High Ups to concentrate solely on abduction and to ignore any evidence that suggested another crime was committed.  Not one single scrap.  You're right about Groundhog Day though.  "I Got You Babe" woke me up again this morning.

I never claimed that 'the Met were ordered by the High Ups to concentrate solely on abduction and to ignore any evidence that suggested another crime was committed'. That's a strawman argument therefore.

I claimed that the Met's decision to concentrate on investigating abduction wasn't based on a new assessment of the evidence.

[Eleanor]

This conspiracy theory wholly rests on one single phrase from the remit, as if this phrase was carved on tablets and handed to Redwood by God.  IMO the remit writer probably had no idea how significant his or her use of the word "abduction" in the remit would be to the Tin foil Hat brigade.  I mean, for all we know it was a used a tad carelessly as a synonym for the word "disappearance" and could equally have applied to mean that either parent or any of their friends, or extended family members may have been responsible.  As we have no way of knowing this really is a pointless discussion, apart from it has helped shine a light on some of the more conspira loon beliefs of those sceptics amongst us.

I use Disappearance and Abduction, depending the gist of the conversation.  Either will do.

[G-Unit]

This conspiracy theory wholly rests on one single phrase from the remit, as if this phrase was carved on tablets and handed to Redwood by God.  IMO the remit writer probably had no idea how significant his or her use of the word "abduction" in the remit would be to the Tin foil Hat brigade.  I mean, for all we know it was a used a tad carelessly as a synonym for the word "disappearance" and could equally have applied to mean that either parent or any of their friends, or extended family members may have been responsible.  As we have no way of knowing this really is a pointless discussion, apart from it has helped shine a light on some of the more conspira loon beliefs of those sceptics amongst us.

If you want to believe that the remit writer was careless feel free. I think they said exactly what they meant.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I never claimed that 'the Met were ordered by the High Ups to concentrate solely on abduction and to ignore any evidence that suggested another crime was committed'. That's a strawman argument therefore.

I claimed that the Met's decision to concentrate on investigating abduction wasn't based on a new assessment of the evidence.

What was it based on then and who made that decision and why?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you want to believe that the remit writer was careless feel free. I think they said exactly what they meant.

Of course you would, because you read something conspiratorial into every word (where it suits you) particularly when written or spoken by those who you disagree with or suspect of nefarious doings.

[Eleanor]

This is all getting really boring now because there is nothing left to say, other than to yet again to point out what really happened and the fibs being used.

Perhaps The Sceptics are hoping to drive us  all away and leave the field open to their conspiracy theories.  This might be quite a goos idea as they can only get worse and show themselves up even more than they have already done.

[G-Unit]

This is all getting really boring now because there is nothing left to say, other than to yet again to point out what really happened and the fibs being used.

Perhaps The Sceptics are hoping to drive us  all away and leave the field open to their conspiracy theories.  This might be quite a goos idea as they can only get worse and show themselves up even more than they have already done.

There is nothing left to say because there's nothing to suggest that the decision to investigate an abduction was evidence-based. No fibs were told and no conspiracies were suggested.

[Eleanor]

There is nothing left to say because there's nothing to suggest that the decision to investigate an abduction was evidence-based. No fibs were told and no conspiracies were suggested.

Rubbish.

[faithlilly]

There is nothing left to say because there's nothing to suggest that the decision to investigate an abduction was evidence-based. No fibs were told and no conspiracies were suggested.

In time the remit of OG may be more damaging to the parents than anyone. If Brueckner is never charged and OG and it’s corresponding investigations in Portugal and Germany are closed with no result there will always be the question hanging in the air that if the remit had been wider would the case have been solved?

[G-Unit]

In time the remit of OG may be more damaging to the parents than anyone. If Brueckner is never charged and OG and it’s corresponding investigations in Portugal and Germany are closed with no result there will always be the question hanging in the air that if the remit had been wider would the case have been solved?

If there is ever an enquiry into OG one of the first questions will surely be why only one possible crime was investigated.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is nothing left to say because there's nothing to suggest that the decision to investigate an abduction was evidence-based. No fibs were told and no conspiracies were suggested.

Did the Met not conduct a thorough review of all the evidence and identify numerous lines for further investigation?  How would they have done this if not based on evidence?  Perhaps you could explain...?

[Vertigo Swirl]

In time the remit of OG may be more damaging to the parents than anyone. If Brueckner is never charged and OG and it’s corresponding investigations in Portugal and Germany are closed with no result there will always be the question hanging in the air that if the remit had been wider would the case have been solved?

Wishful thinking dear, wishful thinking (and utterly illogical too).

[Vertigo Swirl]

If there is ever an enquiry into OG one of the first questions will surely be why only one possible crime was investigated.

What evidence is there that "only one possible crime" was investigated?