Met Commissioner Sir Hogan-Howe uses the 'murder' word for the first time.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why a Freudian slip ?- we all know that SY realise that Madeleine may be dead - and if so she will have been murdered by her abductor.   If you're hoping that he meant by the McCanns - then I think you will be very disappointed.

IMO This is just another example of picking over ever word - hoping to turn what was actually said into what some people wish had been said.

As far as I understood the comments, unrehearsed as they appeared to be, he certainly was not saying or implying that the McCanns were the murderers. He was speaking of how terrible the two scenarios he mentioned were for the parents.

Not much doubt about it.

[Eleanor]

As far as I understood the comments, unrehearsed as they appeared to be, he certainly was not saying or implying that the McCanns were the murderers. He was speaking of how terrible the two scenarios he mentioned were for the parents.

Not much doubt about it.

Of course that is what he meant.  And Benice is correct.  Some people can read anything they like into anything.

[Benice]

Stop dreaming, Benice, nobody wishes anything you phantasm.

I'm not dreaming Anne - I'm observing a familiar pattern gradually emerging.

[Wonderfulspam]

Why a Freudian slip ?- we all know that SY realise that Madeleine may be dead - and if so she will have been murdered by her abductor.   If you're hoping that he meant by the McCanns - then I think you will be very disappointed.

IMO This is just another example of picking over ever word - hoping to turn what was actually said into what some people wish had been said.

No, he was quite clear with the OR bit. 

He said it three times just to be sure.

" Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

There is a cleary a difference here between the murdered & stolen part,  with murder taking first place in hulks thoughts on the case.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, he was quite clear with the OR bit. 

He said it three times just to be sure.

" Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

There is a cleary a difference here between the murdered & stolen part,  with murder taking first place in hulks thoughts on the case.

He may have repeated it several times, but it still makes no sense.

Murder and abduction are not either / ors.

[Wonderfulspam]

He may have repeated it several times, but it still makes no sense.

Murder and abduction are not either / ors.

Are you suggesting that all murder victims are also abducted?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you suggesting that all murder victims are also abducted?

No, I am suggesting that in drawing a distinction between murder and abduction, the commissioner was not referring to the parents as murderers  vs an abduction scenario.

He was pointing to two possible scenarios, one in which Madeleine has been murdered and another in which she is  being kept alive (both of which, in the circumstances, would involve an abductor)

He framed his statement in a very clumsy and contradictory way - implying that murder and abduction could be mutually exclusive - but we know what he meant.

[Redblossom]

He may have repeated it several times, but it still makes no sense.

Murder and abduction are not either / ors.

He does make a distinction between a murderer and an abductor though, that much is clear IMO and especially by adding the words "by someone else"

[Benice]

No, he was quite clear with the OR bit. 

He said it three times just to be sure.

" Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

There is a cleary a difference here between the murdered & stolen part,  with murder taking first place in hulks thoughts on the case.

Yes - people do that when they are in conversation.     They are rarely as perfectly concise and correct in their speech  as they would be if they were writing the same thing down.     All perfectly normal IMO.

[Mr Gray]

It seems because suspicion has turned away from the McCanns there is a desperate grasping at straws to try to find any words that potentially incriminates them

[Sherlock Holmes]

He does make a distinction between a murderer and an abductor though, that much is clear IMO and especially by adding the words "by someone else"

The words just don't make sense as he says them.

Who would have murdered Madeleine, in the circumstances as we understand them, other than an abductor or someone connected with an abductor?

(Given that he does not believe, and is not saying here, that her parents murdered her).

[Wonderfulspam]

He does make a distinction between a murderer and an abductor though, that much is clear IMO and especially by adding the words "by someone else"

Indeed, the someone else was afixed to the abductor & not to murderer, it leaves us to wonder just who Hogan had in mind as the murderer, clearly someone, but not someone else.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It seems because suspicion has turned away from the McCanns there is a desperate grasping at straws to try to find any words that potentially incriminates them

It seems so.

Just does not add up that SY and the British establishment would know of information incriminating the McCanns and could be in a cover-up to protect them.

Folderol.

[Wonderfulspam]

'Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them.

Nicky Campbell: Awful.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe: Either way, errr... they've got that terrible uncertainty, so we're all trying our best to help resolve that. We...

[Sherlock Holmes]

'Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them.

Nicky Campbell: Awful.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe: Either way, errr... they've got that terrible uncertainty, so we're all trying our best to help resolve that. We...

I think he just made a mistake.

He is not a professor of English.