“A Laughable Story”

[Mr Gray]

So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.

Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved.  They didn't just take someones word for it.  You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo

[Mr Gray]

When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.

I think Grange just doesn't see as real the evidence you and others imagine

[Brietta]

Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved.  They didn't just take someones word for it.  You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo

We know that witnesses were interviewed during the review stage;  I think it is preposterous to imagine that all material witnesses hadn't been similarly approached. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved.  They didn't just take someones word for it.  You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo

Rowley's exact words
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that's a line of investigation. The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we're trying to get to the bottom of what happened."

[Vertigo Swirl]

The video of Rowley being interviewed in which he makes it crystal clear that a huge amount of additional material has been received as a result of various appeals (some of which threw light on information gathered in the original investigation) which confirms my original point (disputed by G-Unit) that the opinion of the experienced professionals with recourse to ALL the gathered information is worth far more than the opinion of armchair detectives and internet trolls.  I would love anyone here to tell me why my opinion on that is wrong.  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917

[G-Unit]

Rowley's exact words
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that's a line of investigation. The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we're trying to get to the bottom of what happened."

He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[Mr Gray]

He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is  talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont

[Vertigo Swirl]

He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

You're getting hung up on one sentence uttered by Mark Rowley in a TV interview to distract from the fact that I made a perfectly valid point that you challenged by erecting some strawman argument around, why did you do that?  Can you please tell me why I should value YOUR opinion over experienced professional with all the gathered informaton at their disposal?  In your own time...

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is  talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont

I wonder if sceptics accept that Robert Murat's involvement was "dealt with" by the initial investigation, or do they think the SC allows for his possible involvement too?

[G-Unit]

Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is  talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont

In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.

Imo you and others have a very very poor understanding of the evidence... Plus your failure to understand the mccanns failure to ask for the case to be continued shows a poor understanding of the written word

[Vertigo Swirl]

In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.

Perhaps the Pj should pipe up and tell OG  they’ve got it all wrong then and that as fsr as they’re concerned the parents are still the main suspects.   They could do this via their Rent-A-Gob Amaral.  I wonder why they haven’t...?

[G-Unit]

Perhaps the Pj should pipe up and tell OG  they’ve got it all wrong then and that as fsr as they’re concerned the parents are still the main suspects.   They could do this via their Rent-A-Gob Amaral.  I wonder why they haven’t...?

I'm not discussing what they think now, I'm discussing whether Rowley was justified in his claim that the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement so OG didn't need to.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not discussing what they think now, I'm discussing whether Rowley was justified in his claim that the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement so OG didn't need to.

Rowley didn't say that... From what I remember  SY reviewed all the evidence... And ruled the parents ou
It seems they didn't think the dog alerts.. The inconsistent statements.. the forensics.. Kates dream.. Or anything  else had any significance.... I totally agree, with them

[faithlilly]

Rowley didn't say that... From what I remember  SY reviewed all the evidence... And ruled the parents ou
It seems they didn't think the dog alerts.. The inconsistent statements.. the forensics.. Kates dream.. Or anything  else had any significance.... I totally agree, with them

Did you actually read what Rowley said ? G is right on the button