'Smithman' is a suspect and Andy Redwood will either
a) identify him and arrest him
b)identify and eliminate him( as he did 'Jane Tannerman')
c)not be able to identify him
Look at it this way
a) Mr Totally-New- Suspect is arrested and accused.
Whoa! his defence lawyer says- Let's point the finger elsewhere-What about the evidence of Eddie and Keela? 'Unreliable' you say?
Okay, and what about the evidence of the sniffer dogs who followed a trail to the car park area? 'Unreliable' too? Was normal procedure followed?
b)Mr Totally-Believable-Only -just remembered -it -was -me after-six-years -of media-saturation-New-Suspect comes forward and is eliminated.
Back to zero.What other leads are there? See a) above
c) Despite a huge campaign covering all relevant countries,
Of course there is another possibility. 'Smithman' is identified but he is not a totally new suspect. In which case Whoops! What shall we say about the 'evidence' of British dogs? Are those dogs reliable or unreliable? But on the other hand, the trail followed by the sniffer dogs , leading in a different direction,suggesting a different perpetrator could that be reliable, as it points away from the 'Smithman ' sighting?
Whoever gets arrested, the 'evidence' of the dogs is bound to come up.
Surely we can have it both ways, can't we? The dogs are both reliable and unreliable? Catch 22?
- Posts : 1632
Reputation : 251
Join date : 2012-01-17