“A Laughable Story”

[G-Unit]

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

I think they know exactly what Rowley said and that the first investigation didn't dismiss the possibility of parental involvement. If OG thought they had, their misunderstanding was clearly exposed by the Portuguese Supreme Court just before the 10th anniversary.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

I don’t think you should be reading so much into one unscripted remark in a TV interview by the guy, it’s more than a bit pedantic IMO and certainly doesn’t cast anything in stone as you seem to think it does.  If he was wrong the PJ had ample opportunity to put him and the rest of us right.  They didn’t which speaks volumes as does the fact that neither parent was ever reconstituted as an arguido.

[barrier]

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

Rowley:Two points to that, 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.

[Mr Gray]

Rowley:Two points to that, 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.

Rowley said a lot more...perhaps you didnt read all of it...


MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward.

It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.

MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.

so Rowley confirms they looked at all the evidence and decide what it did and didnt prove....what it ruled out...and it seems it ruled out the parents

[Mr Gray]

I think they know exactly what Rowley said and that the first investigation didn't dismiss the possibility of parental involvement. If OG thought they had, their misunderstanding was clearly exposed by the Portuguese Supreme Court just before the 10th anniversary.

Perhaps like myself and others  Rowley doesnt think the SC is fit for purpose

[G-Unit]

I don’t think you should be reading so much into one unscripted remark in a TV interview by the guy, it’s more than a bit pedantic IMO and certainly doesn’t cast anything in stone as you seem to think it does.  If he was wrong the PJ had ample opportunity to put him and the rest of us right.  They didn’t which speaks volumes as does the fact that neither parent was ever reconstituted as an arguido.

An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?

[Mr Gray]

An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?

i think if you look at what Rowley actually says in full...not just choosing one sentence...it's clear they ahve had  alook at all the evidence and ruled the parents out. AFAIAA...the SC did not look at any evidence

[Vertigo Swirl]

An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?

Did you watch the video?  Was he reading from a script?

[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.

I'm more than happy for you to tell me that in your opinion I have  a poor understanding of the judicial system in portugal...mods please note... it gives me carte blanche to accuse others..including yourself of poor understanding...

remenber i have just corrected you on your poor understanding of portuguese law re the McCanns right to challenge the shelving of the case..you clearly didnt understand it

[G-Unit]

Perhaps like myself and others  Rowley doesnt think the SC is fit for purpose

According to Jim Gamble the British police certainly upset the Portuguese by treating them as inferior beings during the first investigation, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is their attitude. It doesn't change the fact that Rowley claimed that the investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement when it didn't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Jim Gamble the British police certainly upset the Portuguese by treating them as inferior beings during the first investigation, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is their attitude. It doesn't change the fact that Rowley claimed that the investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement when it didn't.

Why have the PJ made no attempt to “deal with the parents” since the re-opening of the investigation? Has Murat not been dealt with either?

[G-Unit]

Why have the PJ made no attempt to “deal with the parents” since the re-opening of the investigation? Has Murat not been dealt with either?

I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.

Do you have a cite for "OG saw no reason to do so" a propos parental involvement or is that just your interpretation?

[Mr Gray]

I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.

What you are saying isnt true imo. The initial investigation interviewed the mcCanns who gave a full account of their
actions. Rowley said he looked at everything which would include the revised statements the mcCanns made which they said corrected mistakes due to translation errors in the original statements. based on all this evidence Rowley was happy to rule the parents out which seems perfectly sensible to me. There is no real evidence of their involvement as confirmed by P D Carmo. if you think there is real  evidence please state it...

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.

While you're at it, you still haven't explained why I should value the opinion of experienced professionals with full access to ALL the information gathered on this case to someone such as yourself who is not an experienced professional and who does not have full access to all the information gathered.  This was the point you challenged me on before deciding to deflect onto Mark Rowley.