Re: Slightly off topic but . . .

by plebgate 06.03.14 17:23

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Well, reading that statement from Mr. Redwood and being your average Joe, I would say that they are ruled out.

They may well become persons of interests at a later date, but reading that I would say that for now, Mr. Redwood has ruled them out.

Do you think the same about this statement?

'The family are not suspects. This is the official position'

We are talking about Mr. Redwood's comments in 2013, not the PJ in 2007 or am I reading Doug D's last post incorrectly?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.03.14 17:34

plebgate wrote:
We are talking about Mr. Redwood's comments in 2013, not the PJ in 2007 or am I reading Doug D's last post incorrectly?

I'm asking you about this statement, regardless of who made it and when :)

If an official police statement is this:

''The family are not suspects. This is the official position'

Does that rule the family out?

by plebgate 06.03.14 17:41

the point being, Mr. Redwood is leading the SY enquiry and that is who British Joe Public are listening to. smilie

by whatliesbehindthesofa 06.03.14 17:44

plebgate wrote:the point being, Mr. Redwood is leading the SY enquiry and that is who British Joe Public are listening to.

Okay I hear that, but I'm interested in whether Redwood is telling the truth, not the conclusions that the public have drawn. Which is why I asked about the statement 'The family are not suspects. This is the official position', considering that it is a similar statement to that made by Redwood. Some members of this forum claim that Redwood's statement rules the McCanns out, not just that the public interpret his statement as such.

by plebgate 06.03.14 17:48

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
plebgate wrote:the point being, Mr. Redwood is leading the SY enquiry and that is who British Joe Public are listening to.

Okay I hear that, but I'm interested in whether Redwood is telling the truth, not the conclusions that the public have drawn. Which is why I asked about the statement 'The family are not suspects. This is the official position', considering that it is a similar statement to that made by Redwood. Some members of this forum claim that Redwood's statement rules the McCanns out, not just that the public interpret his statement as such.

How can we know if he is telling the truth or not? I suppose you could alway ask him but other than that we do not know. Even if at some point they are made suspects, as pointed out earlier in the thread he will say at the time of his statement they were not.

by comperedna 06.03.14 18:19

'What is truth?', said jesting Pilate.

I would rather DCI Redwood STF up. I think the Portuguese 'silence of justice' is superior to the British tabloid tosh and twaddle daily with supposed leaks from the Met to back them. (Don't believe that for a minute.) It is simply not credible that the main players and their friends are not key suspects, let alone 'persons of interest'. It is beyond naivety to think otherwise. It is plain daft! If so, why does inscrutible DCI say otherwise?

EITHER - It is 'softly, softly catchee monkey' and it is the only way he can get the slightest co-operation from the sainted duo
OR - He is beating about the bush testing out all other remotely possible 'abduction' persons and purposes, to end up with the only thing left... the truth! He can always say...'New evidence has come to light...'
OR - The whole shebang is completely mad and corrupt and a whitewash and all, but that isn't really credible to me, considering all the money that has been spent, and is still going to be spent... There were much simpler and cheaper ways of shutting this case down.
AND/OR - There are factors none of us know about and can't currently begin to add in to the mix...

by Doug D 06.03.14 18:22

If we are so desperate to ‘rule somebody somewhere’, which is not what Redwood said, I would suggest that at the time of the statement, he had not ruled any of the T9 in.

At no time has he ruled any of them out.

Ruling someone out, to my mind, is tantamount to saying they are innocent, as they must have first been ruled (written) in, investigated and then ruled (crossed) out. This does not appear to be the case and would also have fallen outside the original Grange remit.

The statement by Police spokesman Olegario Sousa in August 2007:
'The family are not suspects. This is the official position' was soon followed by the Mc’s being made arguido’s.

I am suggesting that Redwoods statement:
‘neither her parents or any of the member(s) of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects’
is comparable to the PJ statement of August 2007 and we should keep our fingers crossed that a proper investigation is indeed now being carried out, resulting in an eventual proper conclusion, whatever that may be.

by plebgate 06.03.14 18:31

Made arguidos and then de-arguidoed (is that the word), this is what the British public know, so if the statement is comparable to the PJ's, can we expect the same with SY investigation?

IMO no point in trying to make comparisons between statements and until I hear differently I am believing that at the moment they are ruled out.

by comperedna 06.03.14 18:33

I hear you, Doug D, and I will hang on to that last thought.

Log in for more topics