Scotland Yard and the PJ have stated the McCanns are not suspects.

[Redblossom]

Well they probably have their own ideas of course, but in general they must all be working towards the same end.

They're not sitting around arguing about it all like us!

Erm, the assertion was all the uk detectives think the same, a stupid assertion at best! whether they are working towards a same aim has nothing to do with that at all

[icabodcrane]

He-she had no car? It was a helper who drove him 'somewhere'.. maybe where he lives.. or similar..maybe there were arguments between the two people..

This theory is somehow possible but I don't think this is what happened..  but I think it is possible..

My own strongest theory is that she was stolen to order...

Please forgive me if I come across as dismissive VIXTE,    ( you are certainly entitled to imagine what happened to the three year old that disappeared almost seven years ago  )   but unless there is some significant and provable evidence to support it then your theory is of no more value than any  'story' every member on the forum could dream up

I only mention it because there are several threads now  where your theory is being promoted  ...  I just think it is important that we establish it is groundless as far as evidence is concerned,  and merely an abstract  'idea'  that you are throwing out there for discussion 

[Redblossom]

Damn, I cant find the photo that shows that Mrs Fenns flat spreads over the Oldfield flat as well as the Mccann flat.

But I tell you something Red, had Madeleine been yelling her head off as carly believes, there would have been three kids bawling.  Madeleine would have got them all at it ... as you as a parent will know

Oh ok it must havebeen the Oldfields that didnt check their kid for an hour and a quarter then, ok if you prefer that! terrible isnt it

 But their kid was a baby, Mrs Fenn said it was an older child, try again dear

[Redblossom]

Thats for the Mccanns if they can be bothered with him

you could send a few screenshots though couldnt you!!!! Like you threatened posters on here in the past, do your best sadie!!

 

threats are sooooo nasty and despicable sleep well though wont you

[VIXTE]

In a police investigation smearing and political talk doesn't count

Only clear facts and evidence works..

And in this case while we all are blah blahing and playing armchair detectives the real detectives work with real facts..

Like phone call pings for example..

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am simply repeating the words of Scotland Yard.

As most people on this forum are aware, I do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Reacting to posts by shoehorning them into one of two extreme categories, rather than viewing them as threads in a long discussion, does not serve at all in trying to work out what did.

[icabodcrane]

That is interpretation, icabod.

I am simply repeating the words of Scotland Yard.

As most people on this forum are aware, I do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Reacting to posts by shoehorning them into one of two extreme categories, rather than viewing them as threads in a long discussion, does not serve at all in trying to work out what did.

But in your post above you implied that Scotland Yard had relegated any suggestion that the missing child's parents were involved in her disappearance to the [ censored word ] file  ...  that  IS what you were implying,  isn't it   ?   

If you genuinely do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine, then you can't do that,  can you  ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

But in your post above you implied that Scotland Yard had relegated any suggestion that the missing child's parents were involved in her disappearance to the [ censored word ] file  ...  that  IS what you were implying,  isn't it   ?   

If you genuinely do not claim to know what happened to Madeleine, then you can't do that,  can you  ?

Scotland Yard have said quite clearly that they do not believe that the McCanns are involved. It's as simple as that.

Claims, implications and the like don't really come into it.

Of course it may be the case that Scotland Yard are saying one thing and working on the other. Hard to imagine how that would work, but it's possible.

But is that really how Scotland Yard operate?

Have there been any other high profile cases where Scotland Yard have used major news outlets to send the public ( or someone else they are targeting) an essentially false message, or one which goes against their own findings, as part of a clever tactic?

If we are not able to think of a reasonable precedent, then it would be unlikely that this tactic - if indeed it is ever used - is being employed by Scotland Yard on this occasion.

[icabodcrane]

Scotland Yard have said quite clearly that they do not believe that the McCanns are involved. It's as simple as that.

Claims, implications and the like don't really come into it.

Of course it may be the case that Scotland Yard are saying one thing and working on the other. Hard to imagine how that would work, but it's possible.

But is that really how Scotland Yard operate?

Have there been any other high profile cases where Scotland Yard have used major news outlets to send the public ( or someone else they are targeting) an essentially false message, or one which goes against their own findings, as part of a clever tactic?

If we are not able to think of a reasonable precedent, then it would be unlikely that this tactic - if indeed it is ever used - is being employed by Scotland Yard on this occasion.

I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard  operate

...  but here's the thing

How can they possibily  say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual,  conclusive,  and definitive   evidence  to the contrary    ? 

There is not is there  ?  ...  otherwise they'd say so,  wouldn't they  ? 

So the most the McCanns can expect,  or  hope for,  at this point,  is for Scotland Yard to say they are  "almost  certainly not involved 

Which raises another conundrum

Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was  'almost  certainly'   not an abductor ,   didn't they  ?  ....  and the McCanns felt that  'almost'  wasn't good enough  ... didn't they  ?   

If an   'almost'  certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned,  why should it be for us  ?

[AnneGuedes]

I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard  operate

...  but here's the thing

How can they possibily  say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual,  conclusive,  and definitive   evidence  to the contrary    ? 

There is not is there  ?  ...  otherwise they'd say so,  wouldn't they  ? 

So the most the McCanns can expect,  or  hope for,  at this point,  is for Scotland Yard to say they are  "almost  certainly not involved 

Which raises another conundrum

Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was  'almost  certainly'   not an abductor ,   didn't they  ?  ....  and the McCanns felt that  'almost'  wasn't good enough  ... didn't they  ?   

If an   'almost'  certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned,  why should it be for us  ?

I'll never believe that SY would deliberately neglect the priority of determining the nature of a crime before hypothetico-deduct the responsible(s) for it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't pretend to know how Scotland Yard  operate

...  but here's the thing

How can they possibily  say that the McCanns were not involved in their child's disappearance unless there is actual,  conclusive,  and definitive   evidence  to the contrary    ? 

There is not is there  ?  ...  otherwise they'd say so,  wouldn't they  ? 

So the most the McCanns can expect,  or  hope for,  at this point,  is for Scotland Yard to say they are  "almost  certainly not involved 

Which raises another conundrum

Scotland Yard said that the man Jane Tanner saw was  'almost  certainly'   not an abductor ,   didn't they  ?  ....  and the McCanns felt that  'almost'  wasn't good enough  ... didn't they  ?   

If an   'almost'  certainty is not good enough for the McCanns where Scotland Yard is concerned,  why should it be for us  ?

As I have put forward in the past regarding this point, I think that Scotland Yard are being deliberately vague in the language they are using.

They have said that they do not claim to be able to solve this crime, and in my view, for what it's worth, their language in all the interviews they give is in line with that.

Most terms they use, such as 'drawing everything back to zero', are deliberately undefined. Statements like 'Madeleine may be alive, or sadly she may be dead' can seem facile and contradictory - and they are deliberately so. Likewise, they say they are 'almost certainly' sure they have ruled Tannerman out.  What does that mean? Vagueness and ambiguity seem to be important here.

If Scotland Yard fail to get to the bottom of what happened to Madeleine, then at the very least they will not have egg on their faces in having posited a specific theory which they could not prove.

As for the McCanns themselves, Scotland Yard have said that they are not 'suspects', and I disagree with you here because I think Scotland Yard must  have taken steps to satisfy themselves of the veracity of that before saying it.

Nonetheless,  there remains the possibility, according to what we know or don't know so far, that information may come to light at some point in the future which would implicate the McCanns, and in that case  the language of Scotland Yard would again be important. DCI Redwood uses the word 'suspect' - a status that can be imposed or lifted according to changing information and context.

[icabodcrane]

As for the McCanns themselves, Scotland Yard have said that they are not 'suspects', and I disagree with you here because I think Scotland Yard must  have taken steps to satisfy themselves of the veracity of that before saying it.

How could they have done that  ? 

How could Scotland Yard have  'satisfied themselves'   that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved   they were not  ? 

...  and if such evidence existed,  why wouldn't  Scotland Yard have  confirmed it  ? 

Why wouldn't  they have come out and made  a simple statement to that  effect   ....  just saying that the McCanns are  not suspecst because they have conclusive  EVIDENCE that  suggests  otherwise  ? 

[Silkywhiskers]

How could they have done that  ? 

How could Scotland Yard have  'satisfied themselves'   that the McCanns were not involved in their missing child's disappearance unless they had evidence that proved   they were not  ? 

...  and if such evidence existed,  why wouldn't  Scotland Yard have  confirmed it  ? 

Why wouldn't  they have come out and made  a simple statement to that  effect   ....  just saying that the McCanns are  not suspecst because they have conclusive  EVIDENCE that  suggests  otherwise  ?

I think its amusing that the British still believe policemen are always honest upfront and without alterior motives.  So Enid Blyton.

SY s just as capable of weasel speak as the next big corporation - check out their lies misrepresentations of Ian Tomlinson's death.

In he case of Danilo Restivo, they actually planted false information in the papers, to draw him out.  It worked.

The US cops lied several times in the papers when they were chasing BTK.

Right now the Daniel Morecombe case is on, you simply would not believe the elaborate undercover operation police had going...absolutely mind boggling conniving by police, who BEFRIENDED the suspect to the point he showed them where he'd buried Daniel, only to have the star force burst out of the greenery to arrest them all - including the undercover offices!

Oh yes LE are quite good at using deception.  After all they deal with experts all day.

[Benice]

I think its amusing that the British still believe policemen are always honest upfront and without alterior motives.  So Enid Blyton.

SY s just as capable of weasel speak as the next big corporation - check out their lies misrepresentations of Ian Tomlinson's death.

In he case of Danilo Restivo, they actually planted false information in the papers, to draw him out.  It worked.

The US cops lied several times in the papers when they were chasing BTK.

Right now the Daniel Morecombe case is on, you simply would not believe the elaborate undercover operation police had going...absolutely mind boggling conniving by police, who BEFRIENDED the suspect to the point he showed them where he'd buried Daniel, only to have the star force burst out of the greenery to arrest them all - including the undercover offices!

Oh yes LE are quite good at using deception.  After all they deal with experts all day.

SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong.    But they have.

Anyone who thinks this is all a vast conspiracy by the UK government and SY in cohoots with the PT team and it's really a massive undercover operation to 'snare' the McCanns is going to be very disappointed IMO.

[Wonderfulspam]

SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong.    But they have.

Anyone who thinks this is all a vast conspiracy by the UK government and SY in cohoots with the PT team and it's really a massive undercover operation to 'snare' the McCanns is going to be very disappointed IMO.

SY have no need or obligation whatsoever to state publically that the McCanns and their friends are not suspects or even persons of interest if they think there is a possibility they are wrong.    But they have.

When asked. Not before.