New DCI

by G-Unit 13.02.15 9:58

"They didn't do nuffink gov"
"'Ow d'ya know that lad?"
"Somebody I admire told me so gov"
"Oh, that's alright then, we'll 'av to believe you, won't we?"

duh

No offence meant, but a theory based on quotable evidence is useful. A theory with no supporting evidence is just an opinion or a rumour.

Gerald and Kate McCann and their friends may be innocent as lambs, but they have lied and lied and lied again. Liars usually lie to cover up wrongdoing, or to protect someone else's wrongdoing. If they hadn't lied, none of us would be here.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.02.15 10:10

Gaggzy wrote:
Oh-oh. Looks as if we've got someone who is ITK (in-the-know) and surprise surprise - is not prepared to 'reveal their source.'

The disruptors on this forum come in all sorts of guises.

We have the bored time-wasters. Shrieking, attention-seeking poseurs.

And also cunning infiltrators, like 'woodforthetrees'.

Joining on 19 March 2014, 'woodforthetrees' soon raised eyebroiws with this post:

8 May

BK got involved at the request of his wife, as she (and he) was so shocked at the original thought of a child being kidnapped. She wanted to help and BK agreed.

I'm sure he would've seen self promoting opportunities along the way as well. Looks like hustling01 is from camp McCann as all posts i have seen point to that. Anyway...

++++++

This was an obviously bogus claim to have personal knowledge of why Brian Kennedy got involved in the case.

Then came this post, just as DCI Redwood was preparing to take his pick-axes, shovels and augers down to a piece of scrubland in Praia da Luz:

20 May

I have to admit, i am yet to be 100% convinced. So far, i'm 90% convinced of the McCanns involvement in the concealment. My only hope is that shallow digs (wherever they may actually be taking place) turn up items which hold vital DNA evidence..... or not, to either point to a 3rd party purpotrator, or eliminate anyone else by only having Gerrys DNA on the items.

My only doubt is the lack of DNA on Gerrys clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes and sports bag. I think if those items are found, it would answer a lot of questions

++++++

Now 'wodforthetrees' claims:

All i will say is that they [person he has met recently] have first hand experience and access to information and are 100% credible. Quite possibly the most interesting person i have ever known and their career path through various agencies is fascinating, more so the differences between what the general public see/know and what is actually happening.

As such, my view on the parents guilt on the murder/disposal and the fact that SY are secretly putting a case together against them, have done a complete u-turn.

++++++

What a great compliment it is to CMOMM that a bogus poseur like 'woodforthetrees' comes here and makes over 250 posts, giving up his valuable time in a cunning disruption exercise.

It is fascinating to behold

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 11:14

Gaggzy wrote:
j.rob wrote:Absolutely not. I would not jeopardize their 20+yr career, or put myself in that situation. Sorry.

All i will say is that they have first hand experience and access to information and are 100% credible. Quite possibly the most interesting person i have ever known and their career path through various agencies is fascinating, more so the differences between what the general public see/know and what is actually happening.

As such, my view on the parents guilt on the murder/disposal and the fact that SY are secretly putting a case together against them, have done a complete u-turn.

-----

Well - you might be in a minority of one. There is nothing that indicates to me that the parents and their friends are not complicit in what happened, in some way. Nothing whatsoever. From the very beginning and right up to this day.

Oh-oh. Looks as if we've got someone who is ITK (in-the-know) and surprise surprise - is not prepared to 'reveal their source.'

I completely agree with red highlighted quote by j.rob.

Of course i'm not going to advertise their name and role on the internet!!

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 11:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gaggzy wrote:
Oh-oh. Looks as if we've got someone who is ITK (in-the-know) and surprise surprise - is not prepared to 'reveal their source.'
The disruptors on this forum come in all sorts of guises.

We have the bored time-wasters. Shrieking, attention-seeking poseurs.

And also cunning infiltrators, like 'woodforthetrees'.

Joining on 19 March 2014, 'woodforthetrees' soon raised eyebroiws with this post:

8 May

BK got involved at the request of his wife, as she (and he) was so shocked at the original thought of a child being kidnapped. She wanted to help and BK agreed.

I'm sure he would've seen self promoting opportunities along the way as well. Looks like hustling01 is from camp McCann as all posts i have seen point to that. Anyway...

++++++

This was an obviously bogus claim to have personal knowledge of why Brian Kennedy got involved in the case.

Then came this post, just as DCI Redwood was preparing to take his pick-axes, shovels and augers down to a piece of scrubland in Praia da Luz:

20 May

I have to admit, i am yet to be 100% convinced. So far, i'm 90% convinced of the McCanns involvement in the concealment. My only hope is that shallow digs (wherever they may actually be taking place) turn up items which hold vital DNA evidence..... or not, to either point to a 3rd party purpotrator, or eliminate anyone else by only having Gerrys DNA on the items.

My only doubt is the lack of DNA on Gerrys clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes and sports bag. I think if those items are found, it would answer a lot of questions

++++++

Now 'wodforthetrees' claims:

All i will say is that they [person he has met recently] have first hand experience and access to information and are 100% credible. Quite possibly the most interesting person i have ever known and their career path through various agencies is fascinating, more so the differences between what the general public see/know and what is actually happening.

As such, my view on the parents guilt on the murder/disposal and the fact that SY are secretly putting a case together against them, have done a complete u-turn.

++++++

What a great compliment it is to CMOMM that a bogus poseur like 'woodforthetrees' comes here and makes over 250 posts, giving up his valuable time in a cunning disruption exercise.

It is fascinating to behold

Tony, just because i have changed my views recently on what SY are investigating, which doesn't fit in with what people would like SY to be 'secretly doing', it does not mean that i undertake deliberate disruption and your accusations of me being a 'cunning infiltrator' i can only presume stem from your years of paranoia and theorising that everything has an undertone or hidden agenda.

Believe it or not, i have a life outside of internet forums and as such have no desire to waste my time deliberately disrupting anything or anyone. This is meant to be a discussion forum to find out the truth about what happened to Madeleine, not solely a witch hunt to nail the McCanns to a cross regardless. It is becoming increasingly evident that that this is not the case and any discussion outside of Amarals theory is instantly deemed as a 'cunning disruption exercise'. Next you'll be claiming i work for the McCanns laughat

I have up until very lately believed that the parents have been responsible for covering up an accident in the apartment, but when speaking to the person (who of course i will not name on an internet forum, not because it is a false claim, but more because i don't want to get me or them in any trouble, which should be obvious to anyone!) and they have categorically told me that they are not investigating the McCanns, i am inclined to believe them (who have access to the case) over what people 'think' on the internet. That, Tony, is just logical, not cunning or disruptive.

That said, i do feel that the McCanns should be accountable for their actions (or lack of actions) on that holiday and i do also agree there is a level of protection going on that needs to be addressed.

In relation to your BK dig.... i was in a relationship with his daughters best friend for 6 months and due to my interest in the case, asked about why he got involved. That was the response i got, whether you want to believe it or not (which you won't because according to your paranoid delusions, everything is false and has a hidden agenda).

I am simply trying to ensure that people don't waste their time theorising, speculating or being drawn away from anything that detracts from focusing on piecing together what really happened on that holiday. If people chose not to believe anything i write, then so be it, no skin off my nose and everybody is entitled to their opinion.

As previously stated... i am not saying SY are 100% right in what they are searching, but i, me, one person, am now entirely satisfied that SY are not investigating the couple or the tapas group.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe anything else, regardless of what logic, SY statements, on-going investigations etc etc are going on, then that's your choice.

*Awaits long winded, nit-picking, probably paranoid, quote finding babble reply to make me look like a McCann paid shill etc etc etc

by Rogue-a-Tory 13.02.15 11:39

woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:To repeat once more, there is a only 1 in 25 chance that the disappearance DIDN'T involve the parents or friends - that's before examining the SOC evidence of - no break in, no break out or no forensic evidence of any person other than the McCs or friends being in 5A.
To repeat once more.... SY are following their review and evidence findings and are not building a case against the McCanns or the tapas group, but on an unidentified intruder.
Which is why they can't close their enquiry. Their theory doesn't square the circle with the facts. Going to an OG team briefing must be a kin to attending a monthly meeting of the Flat Earth Society
This is a very vague assumption based on your thinking that the released PII files are the entire files and also 'fact' and not just Amarals theory.

A more plausible one is that they have evidence (DNA) and intelligence, but cannot locate the person or have enough evidence for a clear conviction. More importantly, they will be focusing on trying to locate the body, as that will hold vital clues.

Regardless of whether the parents are guilty or not (only Amarals investigation thinks they are and after recent conversations i have had, i now do not believe they disposed of her), SY do not think they are guilty and are not investigating the parents or tapas.
Let's face it, the three point outcome of the Portuguese investigation was anything but vague - as you well know.
I was referring to the assumption being vague, not the case files. Apologies.

If it was so watertight and a slam dunk, this would have been tied up years ago and the McCanns incarcerated.

There are many reasons why the McCanns have never faced the judiciary, which let's face it would be a prelude to any incarceration. One alluded to in Amaral's book being the protection afforded to them by UK Govt Agencies. I'd add another theory, not just protection but direct assistance.

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 11:54

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:To repeat once more, there is a only 1 in 25 chance that the disappearance DIDN'T involve the parents or friends - that's before examining the SOC evidence of - no break in, no break out or no forensic evidence of any person other than the McCs or friends being in 5A.
To repeat once more.... SY are following their review and evidence findings and are not building a case against the McCanns or the tapas group, but on an unidentified intruder.
Which is why they can't close their enquiry. Their theory doesn't square the circle with the facts. Going to an OG team briefing must be a kin to attending a monthly meeting of the Flat Earth Society
This is a very vague assumption based on your thinking that the released PII files are the entire files and also 'fact' and not just Amarals theory.

A more plausible one is that they have evidence (DNA) and intelligence, but cannot locate the person or have enough evidence for a clear conviction. More importantly, they will be focusing on trying to locate the body, as that will hold vital clues.

Regardless of whether the parents are guilty or not (only Amarals investigation thinks they are and after recent conversations i have had, i now do not believe they disposed of her), SY do not think they are guilty and are not investigating the parents or tapas.
Let's face it, the three point outcome of the Portuguese investigation was anything but vague - as you well know.
I was referring to the assumption being vague, not the case files. Apologies.

If it was so watertight and a slam dunk, this would have been tied up years ago and the McCanns incarcerated.
There are many reasons why the McCanns have never faced the judiciary, which let's face it would be a prelude to any incarceration. One alluded to in Amaral's book being the protection afforded to them by UK Govt Agencies. I'd add another theory, not just protection but direct assistance.

They have got very good protection, agreed and have connections which have got them more assistance in both media and police resources yes, hence not been held accountable for anything, regardless of their culpability in relation to the main event.

by Guest 13.02.15 11:57

woodforthetrees wrote:

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns

They are not looking at the McCanns in relation to an abduction,which was the original brief of operation Grange,because there wasn't one, Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation,can you point to any where to which a statement being made of who is or who is not being investigated in respect of this crime.

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 12:06

WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns
They are not looking at the McCanns in relation to an abduction,which was the original brief of operation Grange,because there wasn't one, Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation,can you point to any where to which a statement being made of who is or who is not being investigated in respect of this crime.

No of course not, it is a live investigation, so SY do not publish statements on the internet with the names of who they are/not investigating, or any on-going investigation. I am happy with what i have discussed recently that they are not looking at the McCanns or the tapas group in relation to abduction, disposal or cover up of a murder and are looking for a lone intruder.

Redwood has however said on national tv that they are not looking at the McCanns or the Tapas group, so it you are looking for something visual, that's the best you will get from them i'm afraid.

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.

by Dr What 13.02.15 12:10

I agree with what WMD has just posted.

As we said earlier in this post, the SY statements have always been carefully worded.

But the way woodforthetrees, if you have never said that SY are 100% right in what they are searching, then by logic you are agreeing that they could be 100% wrong in what they are searching.Which then takes us back to the one and only official report with it's findings and conclusions that has been produced by the PJ. You seem to dismiss these conclusions because your 'source' has told you that SY are pursuing other theories....and yet you concede by logic that SY could be 100% wrong in their searching

by Guest 13.02.15 12:18

woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns
They are not looking at the McCanns in relation to an abduction,which was the original brief of operation Grange,because there wasn't one, Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation,can you point to any where to which a statement being made of who is or who is not being investigated in respect of this crime.
No of course not, it is a live investigation, so SY do not publish statements on the internet with the names of who they are/not investigating, or any on-going investigation. I am happy with what i have discussed recently that they are not looking at the McCanns or the tapas group in relation to abduction, disposal or cover up of a murder and are looking for a lone intruder.

Redwood has however said on national tv that they are not looking at the McCanns or the Tapas group, so it you are looking for something visual, that's the best you will get from them i'm afraid.

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.

I've highlighted once again in red,you are missing the point I'm making,the original brief of OG was to treat it as if an abduction were to happen in Uk,its blindingly obvious they weren't to be investigated in respect of an abduction,no one any where as said as much,once more has any one any where been ruled out of what now Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation.

by HelenMeg 13.02.15 12:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gaggzy wrote:
Oh-oh. Looks as if we've got someone who is ITK (in-the-know) and surprise surprise - is not prepared to 'reveal their source.'
The disruptors on this forum come in all sorts of guises.

We have the bored time-wasters. Shrieking, attention-seeking poseurs.

And also cunning infiltrators, like 'woodforthetrees'.

Joining on 19 March 2014, 'woodforthetrees' soon raised eyebroiws with this post:

8 May

BK got involved at the request of his wife, as she (and he) was so shocked at the original thought of a child being kidnapped. She wanted to help and BK agreed.

I'm sure he would've seen self promoting opportunities along the way as well. Looks like hustling01 is from camp McCann as all posts i have seen point to that. Anyway...

++++++

This was an obviously bogus claim to have personal knowledge of why Brian Kennedy got involved in the case.

Then came this post, just as DCI Redwood was preparing to take his pick-axes, shovels and augers down to a piece of scrubland in Praia da Luz:

20 May

I have to admit, i am yet to be 100% convinced. So far, i'm 90% convinced of the McCanns involvement in the concealment. My only hope is that shallow digs (wherever they may actually be taking place) turn up items which hold vital DNA evidence..... or not, to either point to a 3rd party purpotrator, or eliminate anyone else by only having Gerrys DNA on the items.

My only doubt is the lack of DNA on Gerrys clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes and sports bag. I think if those items are found, it would answer a lot of questions

++++++

Now 'wodforthetrees' claims:

All i will say is that they [person he has met recently] have first hand experience and access to information and are 100% credible. Quite possibly the most interesting person i have ever known and their career path through various agencies is fascinating, more so the differences between what the general public see/know and what is actually happening.

As such, my view on the parents guilt on the murder/disposal and the fact that SY are secretly putting a case together against them, have done a complete u-turn.

++++++

What a great compliment it is to CMOMM that a bogus poseur like 'woodforthetrees' comes here and makes over 250 posts, giving up his valuable time in a cunning disruption exercise.

It is fascinating to behold

In total agreement and it is fascinating.

by HelenMeg 13.02.15 12:28

No credible 'source' is going to be discussing this case - I'm afraid I dismiss anyone who
has a reliable source - just another fairy story to mislead.

by G-Unit 13.02.15 12:33

The police can do what they wish, but convincing the public that what they have done is reasonable will be hard. The comments on their FB page are there for all to see;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Jamming 13.02.15 12:34

woodforthetrees wrote:No of course not, it is a live investigation, so SY do not publish statements on the internet with the names of who they are/not investigating, or any on-going investigation. I am happy with what i have discussed recently that they are not looking at the McCanns or the tapas group in relation to abduction, disposal or cover up of a murder and are looking for a lone intruder.

Redwood has however said on national tv that they are not looking at the McCanns or the Tapas group, so it you are looking for something visual, that's the best you will get from them i'm afraid.

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.

Well somebody does, hence the names being out there of those that they have been to Portugal to question, surely ?

From my perspective you aren't a disruptor, just giving your views (and I may be right or wrong in that), and we are all entitled to differing views. But I am sure that you would also agree that it's difficult for others to give your views too much credibility when you state that someone who 'knows' has told you things, but cannot/will not back that up as to who. Maybe you could message the site owner privately, in confidence, with evidence to back that up?

On here it's no different really to me or anyone else claiming we have spoken to someone who 'knows' the operation who believes that the Mc's are 100% involved, but refuse to reveal our source

ETA: WMD - good point you made on previous page

by Liz Eagles 13.02.15 12:53

HelenMeg wrote:No credible 'source' is going to be discussing this case - I'm afraid I dismiss anyone who
has a reliable source - just another fairy story to mislead.

I agree...a bit like when Cristobell disclosed that Sonia Poulton was in contact with Martin Grime who 'might be making an appearance on PVT'.....which when questioned on this forum as to the veracity of such a claim (with the usual insults for daring to question) then miraculously morphed into it being something sent by a direct mail on Twitter.

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 13:12

Dr What wrote:I agree with what WMD has just posted.

As we said earlier in this post, the SY statements have always been carefully worded.

But the way woodforthetrees, if you have never said that SY are 100% right in what they are searching, then by logic you are agreeing that they could be 100% wrong in what they are searching.Which then takes us back to the one and only official report with it's findings and conclusions that has been produced by the PJ. You seem to dismiss these conclusions because your 'source' has told you that SY are pursuing other theories....and yet you concede by logic that SY could be 100% wrong in their searching

Just to clarify..... i have spent a long time thinking Amarals theory was right therefore it would take a lot of persuading to convince me otherwise.

However, the fact that SY are not interested in the McCanns or Tapas at all and are following their findings and evidence in another direction, would logically say that SY believe that Aramarals theory is wrong and they have something on someone else.

HOWEVER....as there is no perp found, no body found and after 3 years the investigation is on-going, they might be looking at the wrong person/s. One thing i am confident about is that whoever the person/s SY are going after, it is not who most people on here would like it to be (the parents).

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 13:14

WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns
They are not looking at the McCanns in relation to an abduction,which was the original brief of operation Grange,because there wasn't one, Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation,can you point to any where to which a statement being made of who is or who is not being investigated in respect of this crime.
No of course not, it is a live investigation, so SY do not publish statements on the internet with the names of who they are/not investigating, or any on-going investigation. I am happy with what i have discussed recently that they are not looking at the McCanns or the tapas group in relation to abduction, disposal or cover up of a murder and are looking for a lone intruder.

Redwood has however said on national tv that they are not looking at the McCanns or the Tapas group, so it you are looking for something visual, that's the best you will get from them i'm afraid.

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.
I've highlighted once again in red,you are missing the point I'm making,the original brief of OG was to treat it as if an abduction were to happen in Uk,its blindingly obvious they weren't to be investigated in respect of an abduction,no one any where as said as much,once more has any one any where been ruled out of what now Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation.

Ok, i see what you are getting at here "they are not being investigated for an abduction, but they could be being investigated for a murder".

Believe what you want. They are not being investigated full stop.

by woodforthetrees 13.02.15 13:20

aquila wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:No credible 'source' is going to be discussing this case - I'm afraid I dismiss anyone who
has a reliable source - just another fairy story to mislead.
I agree...a bit like when Cristobell disclosed that Sonia Poulton was in contact with Martin Grime who 'might be making an appearance on PVT'.....which when questioned on this forum as to the veracity of such a claim (with the usual insults for daring to question) then miraculously morphed into it being something sent by a direct mail on Twitter.

Aquilla, please do not compare me to either Cristobell or Sonia Poulton, they are both internet attention seekers who are wanting to promote their careers in either book writing or journalism.

Both of those IMO are deluded, people who love the argument and reaction, rather than collective discussion to find the truth.

As i have previously stated, i will not be posting details of who i have spoken to and have said that from the start and if that means i get hounded with messages saying "you are a liar, you must prove this otherwise you must be working for the Mccanns etc et" and other ramblings then so be it. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, other than myself and if it helps pave the way for a more accurate picture of current events in this case then i will offer that information (knowing full well that the pitch fork crew will be straight on the attack!)

I am a normal person with a normal job, living a normal life, not an author, a jouro, a shill or anything else. don't do twitter, i couldn't be bothered with all the cranks on there, so please do not compare me to such person.

As i've stated many times already, i can only discuss what i have heard and i believe. What everyone else believes is their choice.

by HelenMeg 13.02.15 13:22

it is not who most people on here would like it to be (the parents).

I dont consider myself to be part of a majority who would 'like it to be the parents' who are being investigated.
I'd like the investigation to uncover the truth.
Your statement is reminiscent of that of a child who wants his words to be believed at all cost. You have shown no grounds to back up your statements whatsoever. You want us to believe you - but all you have done is convince me that you are here simply to mislead. laughat

by Liz Eagles 13.02.15 13:29

woodforthetrees wrote:
aquila wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:No credible 'source' is going to be discussing this case - I'm afraid I dismiss anyone who
has a reliable source - just another fairy story to mislead.
I agree...a bit like when Cristobell disclosed that Sonia Poulton was in contact with Martin Grime who 'might be making an appearance on PVT'.....which when questioned on this forum as to the veracity of such a claim (with the usual insults for daring to question) then miraculously morphed into it being something sent by a direct mail on Twitter.
Aquilla, please do not compare me to either Cristobell or Sonia Poulton, they are both internet attention seekers who are wanting to promote their careers in either book writing or journalism.

Both of those IMO are deluded, people who love the argument and reaction, rather than collective discussion to find the truth.

As i have previously stated, i will not be posting details of who i have spoken to and have said that from the start and if that means i get hounded with messages saying "you are a liar, you must prove this otherwise you must be working for the Mccanns etc et" and other ramblings then so be it. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, other than myself and if it helps pave the way for a more accurate picture of current events in this case then i will offer that information (knowing full well that the pitch fork crew will be straight on the attack!)

I am a normal person with a normal job, living a normal life, not an author, a jouro, a shill or anything else. don't do twitter, i couldn't be bothered with all the cranks on there, so please do not compare me to such person.

As i've stated many times already, i can only discuss what i have heard and i believe. What everyone else believes is their choice.

Did you ask your undisclosed source why the UK police are not investigating the Tapas 9?

by Guest 13.02.15 13:40

woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns
They are not looking at the McCanns in relation to an abduction,which was the original brief of operation Grange,because there wasn't one, Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation,can you point to any where to which a statement being made of who is or who is not being investigated in respect of this crime.
No of course not, it is a live investigation, so SY do not publish statements on the internet with the names of who they are/not investigating, or any on-going investigation. I am happy with what i have discussed recently that they are not looking at the McCanns or the tapas group in relation to abduction, disposal or cover up of a murder and are looking for a lone intruder.

Redwood has however said on national tv that they are not looking at the McCanns or the Tapas group, so it you are looking for something visual, that's the best you will get from them i'm afraid.

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.
I've highlighted once again in red,you are missing the point I'm making,the original brief of OG was to treat it as if an abduction were to happen in Uk,its blindingly obvious they weren't to be investigated in respect of an abduction,no one any where as said as much,once more has any one any where been ruled out of what now Hogan Howe tells us its a murder investigation.
Ok, i see what you are getting at here "they are not being investigated for an abduction, but they could be being investigated for a murder".

Believe what you want. They are not being investigated full stop.

When the new DCI issues a statement to that effect I'll listen.

by Rogue-a-Tory 13.02.15 13:45

woodforthetrees wrote:

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.

Of course they don't - hence the reason why a posse MSM gathered outside of Cliff Richard's mansion when it was being raid, other examples are available too. Fact is SY does whatever it seems fit to stimulate public interest in a case and tease possible evidence out of the public. With the exception of course being leaking sensitive info to a friend of a mate of the bloke in a pub yes

by Liz Eagles 13.02.15 13:55

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

Fact is, they won't put anything in the public domain without a conviction.
Of course they don't - hence the reason why a posse MSM gathered outside of Cliff Richard's mansion when it was being raid, other examples are available too. Fact is SY does whatever it seems fit to stimulate public interest in a case and tease possible evidence out of the public. With the exception of course being leaking sensitive info to a friend of a mate of the bloke in a pub

Oh what will Leicester Police say with all their extraordinary (remember those extra special, hitherto unknown confidentiality agreements) when a person on this forum says they've a tip from an undisclosed police officer friend - not just any old police officer but a police officer with a great range of duties under their belt and very close to the case'.

by HelenMeg 13.02.15 14:00

wftt appears to have temporarily left the building to go and seek further clarification from his 'friend'

by Smokeandmirrors 13.02.15 14:06

Indeed

by Rogue-a-Tory 13.02.15 14:15

HelenMeg wrote:wftt appears to have temporarily left the building to go and seek further clarification from his 'friend'

All for a good debate, but not the kind where facts are wrapped up in the paper of - can't reveal my source, believe me it's correct & you are wrong. Been using internet forums too long to fall for that old chestnut, the type where the argument is darkened so much with unsubstantiated twaddle you really can't see the WFTT.

I'm with Tony on this, disruption.

by HelenMeg 13.02.15 14:17

Yes - but as Tony inferred - in a way disruption is good - it means there is something to disrupt - if it didn't occur - the form would be considered harnless

by Rogue-a-Tory 13.02.15 14:22

HelenMeg wrote:Yes - but as Tony inferred - in a way disruption is good - it means there is something to disrupt - if it didn't occur - the form would be considered harnless

by comperedna 13.02.15 14:40

I will never forget Coldwater who also had a 'very reliable source.' Anyone else remember him? NOT that I'm mking a comparison in this case.

by lj 13.02.15 15:52

woodforthetrees wrote:
Gaggzy wrote:
j.rob wrote:Absolutely not. I would not jeopardize their 20+yr career, or put myself in that situation. Sorry.

All i will say is that they have first hand experience and access to information and are 100% credible. Quite possibly the most interesting person i have ever known and their career path through various agencies is fascinating, more so the differences between what the general public see/know and what is actually happening.

As such, my view on the parents guilt on the murder/disposal and the fact that SY are secretly putting a case together against them, have done a complete u-turn.

-----

Well - you might be in a minority of one. There is nothing that indicates to me that the parents and their friends are not complicit in what happened, in some way. Nothing whatsoever. From the very beginning and right up to this day.

Oh-oh. Looks as if we've got someone who is ITK (in-the-know) and surprise surprise - is not prepared to 'reveal their source.'

I completely agree with red highlighted quote by j.rob.
Of course i'm not going to advertise their name and role on the internet!!

I have never stated that SY are 100% right, i have only stated that they are not looking at the McCanns

Oh I believe that SY is not looking at the McCanns, I just think it is wrong to state here something as a fact (that you have inside information) without proof.

I am LMAO that the fact that SY is not looking at the parents convinced you they are innocent.

Their remit was that: look at an abduction.

Their goal was always supposed to be to whitewash the whole thing. Seems they have a hard time doing that.

But your fell for their trap.

That "I know people" does not really work here.