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

[Benice]

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  ?

To begin with SY would interview the professionals/experts who spent hours and hours with the McCanns from the start.  I'm thinking of the Family Liaison Officers, the Trauma counsellors and others.

The FLO's are trained to observe as well as liaise with the parents.   I would imagine those officers submitted reports on their observations etc to their superiors on a regular basis.    As far as I know, we have only seen the very basic reports from those officers which said they saw nothing untoward or strange or suspicious in the McCanns behaviour.       I'm sure an interview with Alan Pike and others would also confirm the same observations.

Sy have the means at their disposal to extensively check into the McCanns backgrounds - going back years.

Common sense dictates that if anything was found to cause suspicion in any way shape or form, then there is no way they would have come to the conclusion that the McCanns were telling the truth and be able to rule them out of the enquiry so emphatically IMO

To believe that the McCanns (and their friends) were all able to keep up a massive  pretence  - with all the skill of oscar winning actors which that would require -  is just too far fetched and fantastical for serious consideration IMO.

 

[Benice]

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.

But they didn't have to - even when they were asked.

[Wonderfulspam]

But they didn't have to - even when they were asked.

Whatever.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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  ?

We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.

All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.

We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.

[John]

We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.

All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.

We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.

SY are keeping their powder dry.  They learned an important lesson on the Dando case.

[Lyall]

We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.

All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.

We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.

They were just TV interviews guys. Nothing has been said officially.

But you know that very well.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They were just TV interviews guys. Nothing has been said officially.

But you know that very well.

No one can fathom the workings of The Yard

[Lyall]

No one can fathom the workings of The Yard

They didn't ask to be involved in this case. We should always remember that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

They didn't ask to be involved in this case. We should always remember that.

It's an important point, Lyall, but at the same time they are public servants. They don't have a choice about any of the cases they take on, any more than a soldier makes political decisions about war.

Consciencious objectors they are not.

[Lyall]

It's an important point, Lyall, but at the same time they are public servants. They don't have a choice about any of the cases they take on, any more than a soldier makes political decisions about war.

Consciencious objectors they are not.

But this investigation is different: the PM indicated - in Parliament - his opinion of how the investigation should proceed.

So it's surely no surprise that has been reflected in everything Mr Redwood has said in interviews.

To do otherwise invites press speculation.

[AnneGuedes]

But this investigation is different: the PM indicated - in Parliament - his opinion of how the investigation should proceed.

So it's surely no surprise that has been reflected in everything Mr Redwood has said in interviews.

To do otherwise invites press speculation.

This wasn't an investigation when it started, just a review. And mainly a political decision.
DCI Redwood wasn't supposed either to re-interview all witnesses or to carry on the investigation where the Portuguese had to stop it.
There was enough matter to question, had the press been properly informed.

[icabodcrane]

We don't know what information they have so it is not possible for us to say specifically why they have ruled the McCanns out as suspects. They may have concrete proofs; they may have information that gives them compelling reasons to believe the McCanns are innocent. We don't know.

All we know is that they have said that the McCanns are not suspects. They are not obliged, and perhaps not even able, to tell us exactly why.

We cannot assume that because we have not been given details that SY have got it wrong. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the situation according what we know of it.

I think your post is  misleading

The suggestion that Scotland Yard  have 'ruled out'  the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns )   were,  at some point,  suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent   investigation and evidence had  proven that they were not

There is a world of difference between being  ( currently )  not suspect and being  'ruled out'  as suspects

Scotland Yard have  never   said the McCanns have been  ruled out

With regard to Scotland Yard being  'not obliged'  to speak of their reasons for   'ruling out'  the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic

If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance  then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so  ? 

I mean,  they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw,  didn't they  ? 

They said that he was no longer  a suspect because evidence had been found that  'ruled him out'

Why  havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence  has been found that  'rules them  out'    ? 

[Mr Gray]

I think your post is  misleading

The suggestion that Scotland Yard  have 'ruled out'  the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns )   were,  at some point,  suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent   investigation and evidence had  proven that they were not

There is a world of difference between being  ( currently )  not suspect and being  'ruled out'  as suspects

Scotland Yard have  never   said the McCanns have been  ruled out

With regard to Scotland Yard being  'not obliged'  to speak of their reasons for   'ruling out'  the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic

If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance  then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so  ? 

I mean,  they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw,  didn't they  ? 

They said that he was no longer  a suspect because evidence had been found that  'ruled him out'

Why  havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence  has been found that  'rules them  out'    ?

You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough

[Lyall]

You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough

[sadie]

You are just using semantics to try to pretend that somehow the McCanns have not been ruled out. Redwood has said they are not suspects...isn't that clear enough

It's clear enough to me, but then I understand english.  Despite Scottish, French and Irish blood and possibly some German Jewish, I still understand english

Even if I dont write it very well