I think we've got to a point now where,as outsiders, we can't be sure of any of the "facts"
There seems to be a lot of double standards here, most of the time the DM gets a slating, people don't believe what they print yet suddenly today it's assumed by most that what MM says is true even though it's been published by the DM. I don't understand that, IMO it seems that because he's choosed to stay silent until now he must be right and NU must be worng.
I haven't always been NU's greatest suppporter but there are 2 grown adult men who have clearly choosen to side with her (for want of a better word), the press conference seems to have been the final straw but it doesn't make sense that it was the only factor. We have to remember that this happened when C had only been missing for a few days, no one knew what was going to happen so no stress of living in hell for 6 months to factor in. IMO there must be longer standing familly issues that are none of our business and I feel very sorry for them all that it's become so public
JMo
I think the type of article matters, too, when considering things like the DM or other tabloids as sources.
This one appears to be pretty well done, on the surface, the quotes seem verbatim rather than words put into someone's mouth or taken out of context (which would be one of my criticisms of a lot of articles in those type of papers). We're not talking about "scientist say" or "meteorologists reckon". It's not been printed to be incendiary to things like race relations or to repeat conspiracy theories about whatever the current favourite conspiracy is.
Having said that, I'm not sure what it brings to the case at this point in time. We still don't have evidence of Corrie leaving the horseshoe on foot. The police appear to think the bin lorry is the most likely vehicle to have carried Corrie out of the horseshoe.
Maybe it's not so much a question of whether Corrie was drinking because he was happy, because he was miserable, or because he liked a night out drinking with the lads, but more that he
was out on the town drinking heavily that led to what happened next.
If they did know about the pregnancy, in a lot of ways that gives them more reason to want to 'cover up' certain aspects of Corrie's private life to protect the very vulnerable April. But as Cherwell said, it wasn't an outright lie to say that Corrie was single...single and seeing girls, sometimes switching back and forth or even seeing two at the same time...it's certainly not a sign of heavy attachment, is it? I don't know when the other girl was taken up to Scotland or whether that relationship had since fizzled out or whether the baby news (if true) might have made him feel he should concentrate one one woman or what. And people don't have to be in solid relationships to have babies...men can be fathers without being married to the mother...the news doesn't have to mean someone's going to commit suicide over it, they can decide to step back or make a decision later on.
The incinerator thing is interesting. It says that we still don't know if or what processing the bin collection went through. Where do the ashes/remnants from the incinerator go? I would have thought they would go to landfill? If they are looking for incinerated remains, or even if they're not, they seem to have a specialist team on the landfill search who can hopefully recognise bone fragments.
As for the length of time of the search. It might not be practical to go straight to a particular day's waste position. Maybe it's more a case of covering what's around that day's waste as it might have been moved around or smoothed out by the heavy machinery when it was put into the landfill, so the first few weeks of the search were low probability to find something but had to be done to ensure nothing was missed...now we would be getting to the primary, higher probability location in the mound?
