Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case

[Mr Gray]

We have only one fact. The child disappeared into thin air on 3rd May 2007 sometime between 17:30 hrs and 22:00 hrs. In 9 years less or more since that date two national police forces and three possibly four private detective agencies have investigated and thus far come up empty handed.
So until the definitive solution of the conundrum has been established anything is possible.
To expand upon the one fact we have would be speculation which we are urged not to do by the forum management.

there are a lot more facts than that...that's why the mccanns are not suspects..

[Mr Gray]

If the McCanns have nothing to fear, why all this commotion ?

and why did gerry mccann mention the dogs in court ?

because the dogs tell us nothing...didnt realise this was the dog thread.

[Alfred R Jones]

We have only one fact. The child disappeared into thin air on 3rd May 2007 sometime between 17:30 hrs and 22:00 hrs. In 9 years less or more since that date two national police forces and three possibly four private detective agencies have investigated and thus far come up empty handed.
So until the definitive solution of the conundrum has been established anything is possible.
To expand upon the one fact we have would be speculation which we are urged not to do by the forum management.

Don't be daft.  There are thousands of established facts concerning this case and anything is possible is just a get out to enable sceptics not to have to apply their logical faculties to all the known facts.

[G-Unit]

Slightly contradictory post there as you concede people can be ruled in again at a later date, ie: it's not a permanent designation as you previously said.

Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.

[Alfred R Jones]

Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.

and your point is...?  You claimed being ruled out was a permanent state which implies you cannot be ruled back in.  Now you're saying that based on new evidence you can, which is exactly what the rest of us have been saying!!

[ferryman]

Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.

Until your alibi was exposed as false, you were ruled out

[Alfred R Jones]

Who has ever claimed that "being ruled out" is a status that is carved in stone, never to change?  The McCanns and / or their friends and / or Robert Murat could become suspects again who knows?  I think that's highly unlikely but from everything we know currently they remain "ruled out" and will remain "ruled out" until or unless we and they are informed otherwise.

Bumping for G-Unit.  So which bit of what I wrote above do you disagree with?

[Alfred R Jones]

Until your alibi was exposed as false, you were ruled out

the expression "it's like pulling teeth" comes to mind again.

[Alice Purjorick]

Don't be daft.  There are thousands of established facts concerning this case and anything is possible is just a get out to enable sceptics not to have to apply their logical faculties to all the known facts.

I have applied my logic to it and posted it several times.

[G-Unit]

Andy Redwood: "Neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects (but we haven't ruled them out") 

DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'

Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.

[ferryman]

DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'

Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.

What do you think the shelved enquiry was all about?

[Alfred R Jones]

DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'

Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.

So now you're hearing imaginary conversations in your head, I see...

[ferryman]

"Not ruled out" would be a status of "suspected" (but not necessarily charged).

On all (available) evidence, the McCanns are "ruled out"; also, their friends ....

[G-Unit]

and your point is...?  You claimed being ruled out was a permanent state which implies you cannot be ruled back in.  Now you're saying that based on new evidence you can, which is exactly what the rest of us have been saying!!

By your own admission therefore the mantra of 'the Mccanns are not suspects' is a waste of time as an argument. That could have changed the day after Redwood said it, so hopefully people will now stop using it as the 'answer to the world the universe and everything'. It's not evidence and never was.

[G-Unit]

there are a lot more facts than that...that's why the mccanns are not suspects..

Name one other fact please. If we have to do it one fact at a time I'm a very patient person.