"We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night" says former Portuguese police chief.

[Mr Gray]

Please do not mis-quote my position on the case.  I made it clear I think there are multiple options, and that there is insufficient evidence to rule these out.

As to my bias, I happen to be biased against opinion posted as fact.  A while back you posted that the forum had agreed the McCanns had been interviewed, when it is crystal clear there is no such agreement.

Stop posting your opinion as fact and I will be happy to not respond to you.

It may or may not be significant, but I note other supporters are not insisting such interviews definitely have occurred, as opposed to should have occurred or some other similar option.  I am therefore of the opinion that while the supporters think interviews make sense, they cannot actually supply evidence of them, and if they are of that opinion, then it is an opinion I share.

As to any process SY might or might not have gone through to conduct these speculated interviews, that is yet more speculation.

lets just get to the important point...are you suggesting  that SY have not taken detailed statements from the mcCanns as part of their investigation into the abduction

[Mr Gray]

And you are removing context, which is that I am considering a range of options, of which this is but one, and a very minor one at that.

And that has no bearing on whether the McCanns have been interviewed or not, or how the remit of OG came about, so you are deflecting.

Do you, or do you not, have any evidence that such interviews were carried out?

you are deflecting...are you suggesting SY have not interviewed the McCanns

[Mr Gray]

I am convinced that the initial diligence carried out by Scotland Yard would have been to interview the McCanns ... it would have been remiss and stupid of them not to have done so.

I think it may have been part of the scoping exercise but it may have been as part of the review.  I do not think they would have recommended reopening Madeleine's case without having done so.

The fact there is no chapter and verse about who they did and who they did not interview does not preclude that interviews took place.
Since there is no documentation to that effect we must simply 'presume' ... but I think it is a fairly educated presumption.

but do you have any evidence SY interviewed the mccanns.....how can you be convinced with no evidence..please do not state opinion as fact...

apart from that ...absolutely spot on...the sceptics cannot keep denying it

[Mr Gray]

And you are removing context, which is that I am considering a range of options, of which this is but one, and a very minor one at that.

And that has no bearing on whether the McCanns have been interviewed or not, or how the remit of OG came about, so you are deflecting.

Do you, or do you not, have any evidence that such interviews were carried out?

It seems Brietta is in total agreement with me

[stephen25000]

There is NO EVIDENCE SY talked to or interviewed the mccanns.

[ShiningInLuz]

lets just get to the important point...are you suggesting  that SY have not taken detailed statements from the mcCanns as part of their investigation into the abduction

Why on Earth are you asking me a question you have asked me several times and I have answered several times?  Do you think my answer will change if you simply ask me often enough?

Note the difference between Brietta's approach and yours.  Brietta makes it clear she has no evidence, and that it is a presumption that such interviews have been done.  I can hardly debate that as it is clear it is Brietta's opinion.

And if you would start making it clear you are merely presuming, then this exchange would be over.  So yet again.  Is there any shred of evidence to support further interviews, and that such interviews took place BEFORE the OG remit was drawn up?  Without such evidence, we cannot know if any police work scoped the exercise; we can only assume.

[ChloeR]

Interviewing or taking statements about an 'abduction' is VERY different to 'investigating and ruling out' the McCanns, as was claimed..

[Mr Gray]

Why on Earth are you asking me a question you have asked me several times and I have answered several times?  Do you think my answer will change if you simply ask me often enough?

Note the difference between Brietta's approach and yours.  Brietta makes it clear she has no evidence, and that it is a presumption that such interviews have been done.  I can hardly debate that as it is clear it is Brietta's opinion.

And if you would start making it clear you are merely presuming, then this exchange would be over.  So yet again.  Is there any shred of evidence to support further interviews, and that such interviews took place BEFORE the OG remit was drawn up?  Without such evidence, we cannot know if any police work scoped the exercise; we can only assume.

we would need proof not evidence to know for sure...we have some evidence...the statement by SY

[Mr Gray]

Interviewing or taking statements about an 'abduction' is VERY different to 'investigating and ruling out' the McCanns, as was claimed..

is it.. it is absolutely obvious that SY have interviewed the McCanns...despite the attempts by some to pretend it hasn't happened. We are then asked to believe that any discrepancies found would be ignored..total BS ...in any sensible persons opinion

[Mr Gray]

There is NO EVIDENCE SY talked to or interviewed the mccanns.

are you thinking of doing any parachute jumps?

[ShiningInLuz]

you are deflecting...are you suggesting SY have not interviewed the McCanns

Everyone taking part in the debate re interviews and the remit of OG happens to be off-topic but ...

You quote a post in which I was answering your post about whether I considered the McCanns to be suspects.  Let me see.  You raise an issue which has nothing to with the thread title, which has nothing to do with the interviews, and which has nothing to do with the OG remit.  And I answer it.  And you then accuse me of deflecting.  WOW!

Your debating technique leaves a lot of room for improvement, IMO.

Umpteenth time.  There is no shred of evidence to prove that the McCanns were interviewed, that intelligence gained was sufficient to rule them out, and then an unnecessary clause was inserted into the remit.  If the McCanns had already been ruled out by police work, there was no need to restrict the remit.

Umpteenth time.  If you can provide evidence of the alleged interviews, then do so.

The fact that no-one has provided any evidence suggests there is no such evidence, at least in the public domain.  I am not seeing a single Clarence comment, a single media report, or a single OG comment that such interviews were carried out prior to the remit being imposed.  Given how leaky this case is, surely someone must have such a link?

[ChloeR]

is it.. it is absolutely obvious that SY have interviewed the McCanns...despite the attempts by some to pretend it hasn't happened. We are then asked to believe that any discrepancies found would be ignored..total BS ...in any sensible persons opinion

Quite simply, yes. Interviewing them about an abduction, and actually investigating (and as claimed, ruling them out) IF they had a part in the disappearance of the child are very very different things.

And nice baiting attempt on the end of the post too 

[Mr Gray]

Quite simply, yes. Interviewing them about an abduction, and actually investigating (and as claimed, ruling them out) IF they had a part in the disappearance of the child are very very different things.

And nice baiting attempt on the end of the post too 

so you think that if SY found important inconsistencies in the statements they  would simply ignore them...

[ChloeR]

so you think that if SY found important inconsistencies in the statements they  would simply ignore them...

Why would there be inconsistencies at this stage when interviewed or spoken to about the abduction storyline? They have had 9 years to get their stories straight 

[Mr Gray]

Everyone taking part in the debate re interviews and the remit of OG happens to be off-topic but ...

You quote a post in which I was answering your post about whether I considered the McCanns to be suspects.  Let me see.  You raise an issue which has nothing to with the thread title, which has nothing to do with the interviews, and which has nothing to do with the OG remit.  And I answer it.  And you then accuse me of deflecting.  WOW!

Your debating technique leaves a lot of room for improvement, IMO.

Umpteenth time.  There is no shred of evidence to prove that the McCanns were interviewed, that intelligence gained was sufficient to rule them out, and then an unnecessary clause was inserted into the remit.  If the McCanns had already been ruled out by police work, there was no need to restrict the remit.

Umpteenth time.  If you can provide evidence of the alleged interviews, then do so.

The fact that no-one has provided any evidence suggests there is no such evidence, at least in the public domain.  I am not seeing a single Clarence comment, a single media report, or a single OG comment that such interviews were carried out prior to the remit being imposed.  Given how leaky this case is, surely someone must have such a link?

so now you are asking for not just evidence...but evidence that proves the interviews took place.....moving goalpost alert...

More personal criticism from you re my debating style....because you are losing the argument..IMO..

you ask for evidence. the portugues have a quaint evidence rule...the rule of common experience....interviews proved by the evidence of common experience