Sceptics beliefs ?

[G-Unit]

we have been told they have not been interviewed under caution but not told tehy have not been interviewed

But you choose to believe they have been. 

[barrier]

we have been told they have not been interviewed under caution but not told tehy have not been interviewed

We were told fast enough about a visit,I'm sure an interview would illicit the same.

The Operation Grange team, who had been thought to be focusing on just one, told Kate and Gerry during a meeting thought to be at their Leicestershire home, that they had 'two specific and active' lines of inquiry.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6402835/Fresh-hope-Kate-Gerry-McCann-police-pursue-two-leads.html

[Venturi Swirl]

Just a reminder what Rowley said of the parents.

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation".


So theres no evidence that the parents have been interviewed by SY.

And yet apparently this statement cannot be counted as evidence that the McCanns are not being investigated according to G-Unit.  Go figure!

[Brietta]

But you choose to believe they have been. 

Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.

[barrier]

Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.

What of Totman,Redwood never indentified him.

[G-Unit]

Do you really believe that the police have not already interviewed material witnesses?  What about Dr Totman et al?

Just because the police have played their cards very close to their chest doesn't mean they have neglected procedure.

I don't believe I gave my opinion. I was discussing what the evidence says. I don't know what OG have doneand neither does anyone else.

Perhaps you can tell me where these 'procedures' can be found?

[Brietta]

What of Totman,Redwood never indentified him.

How terribly remiss of him. 

[Brietta]

I don't believe I gave my opinion. I was discussing what the evidence says. I don't know what OG have doneand neither does anyone else.

Perhaps you can tell me where these 'procedures' can be found?

Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.

[jassi]

Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.

Well up on police procedure?

[barrier]

How terribly remiss of him.

Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530

[G-Unit]

Actually, did my post say anything about 'opinion'?  You were discussing belief which I took up and asked you a question about belief ... a fairly innocuous one I would have thought at that: "Do you really believe ... " which I would have thought was fine on the current thread on 'sceptic belief'.
But there you go ... seems not.

By the way, don't police have standard procedures which they follow in your neck of the woods?  Well there's a thing 🐱‍👓 as I know for certain they do in mine.

The only belief I can see is a belief that OG have interviewed the McCanns. If it's a standard procedure of some kind then no doubt they have. Where is the evidence of the nature of these procedures?

[pathfinder73]

Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530

McCann supporters believe Tannerman was the abductor. They think Matt missed the open window after hearing no sounds and feeling no draught. And here is Tannerman on their masters site:

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

[Wonderfulspam]

McCann supporters believe Tannerman was the abductor. They think Matt missed the open window after hearing no sounds and feeling no draught. And here is Tannerman on their masters site:

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

And no word of protest from Jane Tanner since Tannerman was eliminated. She was happy to talk to the media previously. Not a peep from her since. If she was still convinced she witnessed Maddie's abduction she would have spoken out by now imo

[Brietta]

Why?,it may well have not been Totman,but what is known by being able to indentify whoever it was allowed a complete shift of emphasis.

He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530

The 'almost certain' is what jumps out at me ...

[pathfinder73]

And no word of protest from Jane Tanner since Tannerman was eliminated. She was happy to talk to the media previously. Not a peep from her since. If she was still convinced she witnessed Maddie's abduction she would have spoken out by now imo

Tannerman is most important to the McCanns abduction theory because Jane saw Gerry at the same time. Then Gerry noticed the moving door but Madeleine hasn't changed position since the beginning of the night so it wasn't her. Who does that leave? Abductor Tannerman! He will remain on their site Forever!