Met Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley gives update on the search for Madeleine McCann.

[Eleanor]

I think it is a mistake to assume that Kate and Gerry have not been looked at ... or anyone else for that matter.

"Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"

Means just that ... they have not been interviewed as potential suspects ... not that they haven't been interviewed at all as witnesses.

That's how I read it.

[Mr Gray]

Part 2

Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.

So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

I understand that as saying that they looked at the evidence from the Portuguese investigation, decided they had found nothing to support parental involvement, and moved forward from there. They therefore ignored the questions raised during the archiving process. The legal summary is quite clear that there were unanswered questions which, it was said, only a reconstitution could answer. As no reconstitution took place, those questions remained unanswered. Those questions are listed under this heading;

E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The MET had Holmes
May well have made a virtual reconstruction
The bottom line is that the MET having looked at all the evidence have ruled out the parents

[Montclair]

I noticed that when asked if the McCanns were ever considered suspects, Rowley does not answer the question. He only states, when pushed by Brunt, that they were not questioned as suspects, that is under caution.

[Angelo222]

It appears that far from clearing matters SY have inadvertently raised more questions.

[Eleanor]

If Madeleine was stolen by some sort of trafficking Organization and then passed on to whoever wanted her, then it is likely that The PJ and Scotland Yard don't know where she is now, or if she is still alive.
I don't suppose that the people who have her have kept the abductors updated on their whereabouts.

[G-Unit]

It appears that far from clearing matters SY have inadvertently raised more questions.

I think they have confirmed what some have suspected from the beginning; that they were set up to find an abductor. What the McCanns (and everyone else) needed to hear was that the parents and their friends are not suspects and, more importantly, why.

Rowley confirmed they are not suspects but was unable to give a convincing reason why they're not. In light of recent developments his claim that the original investigation dealt with the question is clearly wrong.

[Mr Gray]

I noticed that when asked if the McCanns were ever considered suspects, Rowley does not answer the question. He only states, when pushed by Brunt, that they were not questioned as suspects, that is under caution.

You can infer all you like as can others
The fact is that SY consider them not to be suspects

[Mr Gray]

Pretty well every post by sceptics on every thread attempts to show why the McCanns should be and are implicated

The fact is they are not

Simple

[G-Unit]

You can infer all you like as can others
The fact is that SY consider them not to be suspects

Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.

[ferryman]

Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.

Such breathtaking arrogance.

Who cares about justice?

Clearly not G-Unit.

[stephen25000]

Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.

Exactly.

The trouble is, certain people will remain in denial, no matter what what information is given them.

Then you wonder why.

[Mr Gray]

Who cares what SY think? They have told us what their opinion is based on and it's based on a misunderstanding of the conclusions reached by the original investigation.

It's based on the evidence which we have all seen

The fact is you and others think the dogs are significant
That the minor inconsistencies in th statements are significant
That Gerry touching his ear is significant
None of them are

[stephen25000]

Such breathtaking arrogance.

Who cares about justice?

Clearly not G-Unit.

Justice would be finding out what really happened.

It doesn't mean protection of the McCann's from investigation, as they should have been.

[ferryman]

Justice would be finding out what really happened.

It doesn't mean protection of the McCann's from investigation, as they should have been.

Why?

There was/is no evidence against them.

[Benice]

I think they have confirmed what some have suspected from the beginning; that they were set up to find an abductor. What the McCanns (and everyone else) needed to hear was that the parents and their friends are not suspects and, more importantly, why.

Rowley confirmed they are not suspects but was unable to give a convincing reason why they're not. In light of recent developments his claim that the original investigation dealt with the question is clearly wrong.

SY went back to the beginning and studied all the information they had to hand- including all the information they had concerning the McCanns - which according to the following quote  - they clearly did not ignore or exclude from the investigation, until they were satisfied that the McCanns were not a line of enquiry that needed to be pursued.


Quote
 we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value.
End quote

People forget that SY had tens of thousands of documents that we have never seen.  It is highly likely that SY have information that we don't have - which assisted them to come to their various conclusions - one of which is that the McCanns are not suspects.

AIMHO