Madeleine McCann: to review or not to review - spot the differences!

............................................
...........................................

On February 21st, the Sunday Express reported that Kate and Gerry McCann had had a private meeting with David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, in the hope that if he wins the election he will give priority to the case of their daughter's disappearance and order a review of all the evidence.

The McCanns had also met with the Home Secretary:

"Last week it was disclosed that Kate and Gerry, 41-year-old doctors from Rothley, Leics, have had a private meeting with Home Secretary Alan Johnson to request a review of the evidence.

He has been notably silent on the case, seemingly preferring to sit on the fence rather than use his influence to demand a breakthrough and there are no indications he will order a review."

According to today's Daily Express a review is underway:

"Evidence in the hunt for Madeleine McCann is being reviewed by the Home Office and could lead to a fresh inquiry, it was claimed yesterday."

"According to sources close to the McCanns, Home Secretary Alan Johnson has ordered ­officials to examine the “feasibility” of British or Portuguese detectives having a fresh look at all the evidence."

Surely some mistake here. The Portuguese police are responsible for the Madeleine McCann case, though if we examine the above wording, it might appear that the order is to think about thinking about whether a review should be undertaken.

Further down this brief article in the Express, we read:

"The source said: “The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a ‘scoping exercise’ to look into the possibility of a review of the case."

So, who is it, who, according to the first paragraph of the Express article, claimed that the evidence "is being reviewed."? Who did this claiming?

The Express article opens with stating that the evidence is being reviewed, sources close to the McCanns intimate that Home Office officials are thinking about it, and the Home Office?

"A Home Office spokesman said: “Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete inquiries if further information comes to light in the UK.”

No mention of a review there and the Home Office acknowledges with the comment that the Madeleine McCann case is not within the jurisdiction of the UK authorities unless new evidence comes to light in the UK. So, I guess that means the Home Secretary is not about to order a review of the evidence in the case of a child who disappeared on the territory of the sovereign state of Portugal and for which the Portuguese Prosecutor, as far as I am aware, still holds responsibility and authority to review or not to review the evidence.

So, why is the title of the Express article, "MADELEINE MCCANN: A NEW LOOK AT EVIDENCE."? This and their un-credited claim about evidence being reviewed appear to be rather misleading, but then the Home Office is thinking about thinking about whether they should think about whether they can review the evidence doesn't have the same pull for the reader!

My advice to the McCanns is that they request the reopening of the case. Dr Amaral has always affirmed that the case was closed when there were many diligences that had not been completed. Instead of running from one UK official to another, the McCanns would be much better advised to approach the Portuguese Public Prosecutor with a request to reopen the case in order to clear up those leads which they say have not been investigated and also to carry out those diligences referred to by Dr Amaral.