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

[Mr Gray]

Yet you have clearly blind belief in the McCanns.

stephen quoted the odds of winning the lottery ...but unfortunately he got the number of the balls wrong....for the mcccanns to be involved we would have to take those odds and raise them to the power of 4

[Alfred R Jones]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

Brilliant   

[Alice Purjorick]

because that's what amaral said happened

So?

[stephen25000]

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

Redwood said, she might be alive or dead.

Perhaps we should consult Schrodinger on this. 

[Mr Gray]

So?

so...all the sceptics think amarals a genioss

[ferryman]

Why legal? It means something has been excluded or someone has been exonerated or eliminated. That has never been said by any policeman, senior or otherwise to my knowledge. You can use it as much as you like, but you can't attribute it to the police.

The McCanns have been ruled out.

That need not be permanent.

The precise meaning (in context) is that nothing indicates guilt (of the McCanns).

New information could change that.

Absence of contrary information (or apprehension of the true culprit(s) will make the 'ruled out' status permanent.

The McCanns are ruled out (having initially been suspected) at the present juncture.

[Mr Gray]

Redwood said, she might be alive or dead.

Perhaps we should consult Schrodinger on this. 

whether she is alive or dead the mccanns are not suspects...and schrodinger's dead

[G-Unit]

for the third time...what definition of ruled out are you using...could you provide a cite...if SY say the mccanns are not suspects then they have ruled them out

Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.

[Mr Gray]

Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.

for the fourth time ..on what basis do you define "ruled out"...just your personal view without a cite...you continue to prove my point

[Mr Gray]

Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.

you are making all this up...pleas provide a cite....fifth time...to show I am wrong

[Alfred R Jones]

Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

why are sceptics reluctant to consider what may have happened and how it could have happened?  Is it because it gets in the way of their blind belief in the McCanns guilt?

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.

[Mr Gray]

Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.

you are making up your own definition of ruled out

[stephen25000]

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

and why did gerry mccann mention the dogs in court ?