Re: Pat Brown - What's Wrong with the Dead Black Man?

by Lance De Boils 20.01.14 22:06

Re the patsy
I can't see why the (potential) patsy would need to look like Gerry. Ruling Tanner-man out so that a Smith-man look-alike could be found makes no sense to me. If they wanted to whitewash (in favour of the T9), they could have left Tanner-man be and kept their options of finding a look-alike patsy more open. Ok, a black man wouldn't pass, but there would be no need for the patsy to look much like Gerry.

Re the PJ and SY following different lines of enquiry, well that's quite vague. I can think of several possibilities of 'different lines of enquiry' and not all are mutually exclusive.

e.g.
pre-planned / spontaneous
events before / events after
Maddie was in Portugal / Maddie was never in Portugal
enablers in UK / enablers in Pt
Maddie disappeared on 3rd May / Maddie disappeared earlier in the week

As well as the obvious; abduction / no abduction; parents involved / not involved

There must be plenty of other scenarios whereby the police in each country could be described as working on different lines of enquiry. But surely, it must all come together in the end? Whatever one country's force concludes cannot completely contradict the other's.

Re Crimewatch
There must have been good reason for it. Otherwise, why bother? As others have said, a whitewash could have been done without the need for CW.

I am, by nature, an immensely cynical person. And I have to really make an effort not to be quite so.

I am not yet ready to give in to my inner cynic on this one. Not yet....

by Okeydokey 21.01.14 0:58

Lance De Boils wrote:Re the patsy
I can't see why the (potential) patsy would need to look like Gerry. Ruling Tanner-man out so that a Smith-man look-alike could be found makes no sense to me. If they wanted to whitewash (in favour of the T9), they could have left Tanner-man be and kept their options of finding a look-alike patsy more open. Ok, a black man wouldn't pass, but there would be no need for the patsy to look much like Gerry.

Re the PJ and SY following different lines of enquiry, well that's quite vague. I can think of several possibilities of 'different lines of enquiry' and not all are mutually exclusive.

e.g.
pre-planned / spontaneous
events before / events after
Maddie was in Portugal / Maddie was never in Portugal
enablers in UK / enablers in Pt
Maddie disappeared on 3rd May / Maddie disappeared earlier in the week

As well as the obvious; abduction / no abduction; parents involved / not involved

There must be plenty of other scenarios whereby the police in each country could be described as working on different lines of enquiry. But surely, it must all come together in the end? Whatever one country's force concludes cannot completely contradict the other's.

Re Crimewatch
There must have been good reason for it. Otherwise, why bother? As others have said, a whitewash could have been done without the need for CW.

I am, by nature, an immensely cynical person. And I have to really make an effort not to be quite so.

I am not yet ready to give in to my inner cynic on this one. Not yet....

Crimewatch was a political necessity, to show the money spent on the inquiry wasn't being wasted. You're quite right to be cynical! AR will not have made the CW decision himself - there is probably a committee of civil servants and top police officers still managing the McCann case.

Why did AR abandon the JT sighting as the central line of inquiry? And why has he switched emphasis to the Smith sighthing?

I am not sure why.

I do feel AR is heavily conflicted. So perhaps where he can he is doing real police work on "safe" areas. Non-safe areas include doing anything to challenge the T9 version of events, or going over their rogatory interviews with a fine toothcomb...or - God forbid - reinterviewing them (the most obvious thing to do!).

by Bishop Brennan 21.01.14 3:25

Okeydokey wrote:
I do feel AR is heavily conflicted. So perhaps where he can he is doing real police work on "safe" areas. Non-safe areas include doing anything to challenge the T9 version of events, or going over their rogatory interviews with a fine toothcomb...or - God forbid - reinterviewing them (the most obvious thing to do!).

Spot on. It's important to remember that the case was reopened specifically due to D.Cameron / T.May's insistence. NOT because SY thought they could crack the case.

So, if you are not allowed to investigate the T9, what then can you do? Answer - soldier on, chasing long-shot leads, creating new possible scenarios using the existing data, and asking for help in a CW program. What else CAN you do? And if you discover that 'tannerman' was indeed fake, then sure - call it out - why not. If you discover old efits - show them - why not.

Remember, AR and his team may well realise they are all chasing shadows - but what else can they do? They just have to get on with it, avoid rocking the boat by looking at the T9, and eventually when all these 'leads' fizzle out, they will say "oh well, we gave it our best shot".

Creating a whitewash was NOT their plan I don't believe. Carrying out some fiendish master-plan against the McCanns is equally unlikely. I think they SY are simply unwilling participants in an entirely pointless political game. CW was part of the game, and AR was chosen as someone emotionless who could safely go through the motions on national TV without blinking (literally!).