Police launch huge trawl to trace phones

fred wrote:My money is still on Hewlitt taking the rap!  Dead swarthy paedo fit's the bill.

agree fred

LJC wrote:

Cold case review[edit]Scotland Yard annually came under pressure for progress on the anniversary of the murder (of Rachel Nickell). Under new management, they began to collate evidence and files related to the case from 2000.[21]

In 2002, ten years after the murder, the Scotland Yard used a cold case review team, which used refined DNA techniques only recently made available. A small team of officers and retired veteran investigators working from secret offices in South London analysed statements from witnesses, reassessed files on a number of potential suspects, and examined the possibility that the case was linked to other crimes. Officers compared the injuries suffered by Nickell with other attacks and consulted forensic scientists about improvements in DNA matching.[22]

This bit is very enlightening in fact.  SY initially investigated and got is so badly wrong.  SY re-investigated it and got it right next time around.

Whatever we think of the costs involved in the current SY investigation into the McCanns, at the end of the day a serious crime was committed against Madeleine and all we want is the truth and SY must be allowed to investigate this case for the truth to be finally unearthed.

I don't really see the relevance. It wasn't SY who did the original investigation, it was the PJ. The question is (and we cannot possibly know the answer) is did they get it wrong or did they get it right but can't prove the case. None of us really know the level of co-operation between SY and the PJ etc etc but I've always felt that to review a case you need to go right back to the beginning and look at everything, starting with interviewing the main people involved and possibly doing a reconstruction....but perhaps I've just watched too many episodes of New Tricks!

fred wrote:My money is still on Hewlitt taking the rap!  Dead swarthy paedo fit's the bill.

and then years and years later, long after all the disbelievers have popped their clogs, there just might be another review and they then say they had the wrong man after all. I hold out no hope that the McCanns will ever be brought to justice.

No Angelina, I agree with you.  let us not also forget it wasnt only the PJ, that Leicestershire police were out there on the ground so to speak, and I understand it was they who said the parents should be looked at, and also suggested bringing in the dogs.  have those who were from Leciester police been questioned as to their findings,  has Martin Grimes ever been asked again about the dogs.  interesting times ahead.

tanszi wrote:No Angelina, I agree with you.  let us not also forget it wasnt only the PJ, that Leicestershire police were out there on the ground so to speak, and I understand it was they who said the parents should be looked at, and also suggested bringing in the dogs.  have those who were from Leciester police been questioned as to their findings,  has Martin Grimes every been asked again about the dogs.  interesting times ahead.

I doubt that they have or that they will.

Angelina wrote:

LJC wrote:

Cold case review[edit]Scotland Yard annually came under pressure for progress on the anniversary of the murder (of Rachel Nickell). Under new management, they began to collate evidence and files related to the case from 2000.[21]

In 2002, ten years after the murder, the Scotland Yard used a cold case review team, which used refined DNA techniques only recently made available. A small team of officers and retired veteran investigators working from secret offices in South London analysed statements from witnesses, reassessed files on a number of potential suspects, and examined the possibility that the case was linked to other crimes. Officers compared the injuries suffered by Nickell with other attacks and consulted forensic scientists about improvements in DNA matching.[22]

This bit is very enlightening in fact.  SY initially investigated and got is so badly wrong.  SY re-investigated it and got it right next time around.

Whatever we think of the costs involved in the current SY investigation into the McCanns, at the end of the day a serious crime was committed against Madeleine and all we want is the truth and SY must be allowed to investigate this case for the truth to be finally unearthed.

I don't really see the relevance.   It wasn't SY who did the original investigation, it was the PJ.  The question is (and we cannot possibly know the answer) is did they get it wrong or did they get it right but can't prove the case.     None of us really know the level of co-operation between SY and the PJ etc etc but I've always felt that to review a case you need to go right back to the beginning and look at everything, starting with interviewing the main people involved and possibly doing a reconstruction....but perhaps I've just watched too many episodes of New Tricks!

Yes, the PJ investigated first time around, but this is a good example of re-investigating a case.

I just feel there we do not know enough of what SY have done so far and, you are right, they do need to go back to the very beginning - I am sure they have in fact.

Whatever we may think, SY have to do this properly and if they feel something is being hidden from them they will know in the fullness of time.

SY are not private detectives, working on behalf of the McCanns, they are doing this at tax payers expense and nothing less than a full and thorough investigation will do from them, which I believe is what we will get.

This investigation is being conducted on a need to know basis by SY, and as far as they are concerned, the likes of us do not need to know.

If they have leads to follow up, that's positive but without hard proof it will crumble. If SY feel, after investigating thoroughly all 41 persons, that there is something concrete on someone, they then have to come up with sufficient hard evidence against this person/s for any conviction to be brought.

The biggest disappointment all round, for anti's and pro's alike, is if they cannot provide a conclusion, backed by proof in order to solve this case.

Keela wrote:

tanszi wrote:No Angelina, I agree with you.  let us not also forget it wasnt only the PJ, that Leicestershire police were out there on the ground so to speak, and I understand it was they who said the parents should be looked at, and also suggested bringing in the dogs.  have those who were from Leciester police been questioned as to their findings,  has Martin Grimes every been asked again about the dogs.  interesting times ahead.

I doubt that they have or that they will.

I'm glad that there are some here who feel optimistic about the SY review but I'm with you and think that no matter how much it's costing, nothing will come of it. Cyril Smith and Jimmy Saville, to name but a couple, were never brought to book during their lifetime and lots of high ranking police etc. knew just what was going on and chose to bury it, no doubt on orders from even higher ranking officialdom.