Re: 'Faked Abduction' Book - The Sun 27.01.2010

by vaguely1 08.02.10 9:19

No, I know he doesn't Ruby. Again, that wasn't really the question I was raising.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 9:22

UK police would have treated scene as murder scene from day one. UK police would have treated parents as suspects from day one.

I have no idea from listening to this man's words broken down to fit in to a 140 character tweet whether this is what he's referring to or not.

by Ruby 08.02.10 9:28

Have you read his tweets from the beginning?
You really need to to make sense of them.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 9:34

Ruby wrote:Have you read his tweets from the beginning?
You really need to to make sense of them.

Yeah thanks Ruby, I actually posted them all up as they were coming in so I have read them, copied them, posted them, and read them again - I can make sense of the tweets, I just don't think that they're particularly useful. Although I'm sure that they were a morale boost to those that have faith in the investigation. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Ruby 08.02.10 9:43

Not useful? Is that like 'unhelpful' big grin

I bet you do... it shows that Amaral was not, as you and other *ahem* selective people would have you believe, a lone voice in the wilderness.

Really worth taking the time out for, to re-enlighten yourself... I recommend you re-read them for a recap.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 9:54

Ruby wrote:Not useful? Is that like 'unhelpful'

I bet you do... it shows that Amaral was not, as you and other *ahem* selective people would have you believe, a lone voice in the wilderness.

Really worth taking the time out for, to re-enlighten yourself... I recommend you re-read them for a recap.

No, not useful as in a bloke trying to condense his reports down in to 140 characters.
If the McCanns are guilty they should be charged. If they're not guilty then the investigation should be ongoing. I have no preference for either outcome. I'd just like to see an outcome.

Just trying to maintain a level of realism in what is meaningful evidence and what isn't. If a witness had spoken to say that Scotland Yard thought that the McCanns were as pure as the driven snow I'd also say this was of no use or evidential value.

There's no comfort in words and opinion - they neither find Madeleine or convict an offender. The only piece of evidence given at that trial that has any importance was the fact that there is a 50:50 chance of her being alive whether her parents or anyone else was involved.

That's not a bad way to look at things right?

by Ruby 08.02.10 10:21

vaguely 'The only piece of evidence given at that trial that has any importance was the fact that there is a 50:50 chance of her being alive whether her parents or anyone else was involved.'

Hmmm well I think you're cherry picking somewhat there, vaguely.

Who decides what's important?

You?

by Ruby 08.02.10 10:23

I have to go on a couple of conference calls now but I look forward to continuing this discussion.

by figaro 08.02.10 10:26

Ruby wrote:vaguely 'The only piece of evidence given at that trial that has any importance was the fact that there is a 50:50 chance of her being alive whether her parents or anyone else was involved.'

Hmmm well I think you're cherry picking somewhat there, vaguely.

Who decides what's important?

You?

The judge with regard to libel and the prosecutor with regard to pressing charges against the McCanns for Madeliens disappearance I would have thought.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 10:29

Ruby wrote:vaguely 'The only piece of evidence given at that trial that has any importance was the fact that there is a 50:50 chance of her being alive whether her parents or anyone else was involved.'

Hmmm well I think you're cherry picking somewhat there, vaguely.

Who decides what's important?

You?

No, but I'd like to think that I have a realistic view of what can be used to form a court case whether we like that or not. Whether one of Mr Amaral's witnesses says Scotland Yard thought it was a murder case is neither evidence, or useful in getting anybody to trial. Unless you can show me how it amounts to securing a conviction then I don't see why you take issue with my statement.

I think the summing up of the prosecutor is important because it's the only thing that takes the child in to consideration.

by Cath 08.02.10 10:40

Vaguely1: I think the summing up of the prosecutor is important because it's the only thing that takes the child in to consideration.

And rightly so. She's more important as anybody else's hurt feelings or ego.
Charging and convicting someone of committing a crime is based on evidence, not on opinion. Or at least it should be.
Sometimes it looks like people, even some (ex) police officers, forget about that.

by Ruby 08.02.10 12:11

Now vaguely you have been editing your posts, removing items I have referred to (e.g. 'not useful) so that it makes it very hard to follow who has said what. Why would that be?

- edit - apologies. I have found the post in question.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 12:13

Ruby wrote:Now vaguely you have been editing your posts, removing items I have referred to (e.g. 'not useful) so that it makes it very hard to follow who has said what. Why would that be?

I haven't edited my posts.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 12:14

If you read up I think you were referring to my comment of "not particularly useful". If you edit a post it leaves an edit note at the bottom of the post.

Maybe you might like to amend your post suggesting I have edited?

by Ruby 08.02.10 15:03

My bad - apologies. I have edited the post in question.

by vaguely1 08.02.10 15:41

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