Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

The McCanns...


Chris
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TK421 said:

I'm not going to try and convince you, Anny.  If you think they had nothing to do with it I think it makes you very gullible.  

I don't think they are innocent. But they are until proved otherwise. Stuff that is a bit dodgy is not proof.

Show me motive, murder weapon, body, witness, crime scene and I will start to consider but going to bed and not answering questions falls a lot short of that. I wish I could cross examine the dogs but we cannot. The top copper is corrupt and was booted out of the force for fitting up someone else for murder, which is never mentioned.

There is no eveidence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anny Road said:

I don't think they are innocent. But they are until proved otherwise. Stuff that is a bit dodgy is not proof.

Show me motive, murder weapon, body, witness, crime scene and I will start to consider but going to bed and not answering questions falls a lot short of that. I wish I could cross examine the dogs but we cannot. The top copper is corrupt and was booted out of the force for fitting up someone else for murder, which is never mentioned.

There is no eveidence.

Saying "there is no evidence" just means you know nothing about the case.  There's 11,223 pages of evidence on the PJ file website.  But like I say, I'm not going to try and change your mind, just can't be arsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TK421 said:

The PJ were heading that way until political pressure intervened.  Hence Kate McCann being questioned under caution.  

Ah so it is political as well. Rather all they have is circumstantial and no doubt the UK have insisted as much.

No political establishment has any investment in the McCanns if they were guilty they would be done.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

Ah so it is political as well. Rather all they have is circumstantial and no doubt the UK have insisted as much.

No political establishment has any investment in the McCanns if they were guilty they would be done.

No, it's not circumstantial.  They have DNA evidence - a blood sample from the apartment. 

 

The McCanns are being protected by the UK government, that's why they haven't been questioned under the remit of Operation Grange.  If Operation Grange was a serious investigation the McCanns would be questioned along with the rest of the Tapas 7.  Operation Grange is a sham and was instigated following threats from Rebekah Brooks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TK421 said:

No, it's not circumstantial.  They have DNA evidence - a blood sample from the apartment. 

 

The McCanns are being protected by the UK government, that's why they haven't been questioned under the remit of Operation Grange.  If Operation Grange was a serious investigation the McCanns would be questioned along with the rest of the Tapas 7.  Operation Grange is a sham and was instigated following threats from Rebekah Brooks. 

Show us the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

I fear we may have strayed into conspiracy theory territory.

All a conspiracy is, in the legal sense, is two or more people conspiring to commit a crime.  Not a big deal, really.  When people use that word it's a pretty cheap shot.  I take it as an insult, because I know what they really mean by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TK421 said:

All a conspiracy is, in the legal sense, is two or more people conspiring to commit a crime.  Not a big deal, really.  When people use that word it's a pretty cheap shot.  I take it as an insult, because I know what they really mean by it. 

For clarity I mean it as an insult. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TK421 said:

All a conspiracy is, in the legal sense, is two or more people conspiring to commit a crime.  Not a big deal, really.  When people use that word it's a pretty cheap shot.  I take it as an insult, because I know what they really mean by it. 

And on the flip side of that coin is you calling someone gullible for not believing they had anything to do with it. 

 

Or is that not an insult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs.  That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded.  To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense.  Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not.

 

http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs.  That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded.  To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense.  Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not.

 

http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html

If you are going to quote add some context.

 

'My brush with that investigation – and I call it that because I was never actually involved with it'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

If you are going to quote add some context.

 

'My brush with that investigation – and I call it that because I was never actually involved with it'

It's by Colin Sutton, he's a retired policeman.  He had learned that he was going to be approached to lead the Operation Grange investigation, but refused to take part because he was forewarned that the only avenue that would be explored was the abduction theory and that the McCanns/tapas 7 would not be questioned.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF7fR0J5HOw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...