The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.

[ferryman]

SY did not investigate the McCann's.

They relied on the shelving report.

Which is what the Supreme Court referred to.

Why are some unwilling to accept the truth ?

That the Supreme Court screwed up, you mean?

Why indeed.

[stephen25000]

All in your opinion.

No Erngath.

A matter of fact.

[ferryman]

So you agree that OG have not investigated the parents then.

Operation Grange have no need to investigate the parents.

That has already been done.

[stephen25000]

That the Supreme Court screwed up, you mean?

Why indeed.

Is that in your opinion ?

[carlymichelle]

police forces change their opinion about  things  all the  time    they are not   set in their  ways like  the public  are 

[Erngath]

No Erngath.

A matter of fact.

No it is not.
You can have no idea of what has taken place throughout the entire investigation and your post (imo) is against the new forum rules.

[stephen25000]

No it is not.
You can have no idea of what has taken place throughout the entire investigation and your post (imo) is against the new forum rules.

Have you not read what Rowley said ?

Have you read John's posts on this issue ?

[misty]

Wouldn't it be far easier for the purposes of debate if we all pretended to be ex-PJ officers on TV? Freedom of speech to talk about Child Catchers & Body Occulters not an issue.

[Erngath]

Have you not read what Rowley said ?

Have you read John's posts on this issue ?

Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns  which may have been noted, discovered, found will  have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?

[jassi]

Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns  which may have been noted, discovered, found will  have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?

We don't know what decisions may have been made.

Rowley is not exactly close to the investigation and must rely heavily on his briefing notes

[barrier]

Operation Grange have no need to investigate the parents.

That has already been done.

I wonder if I can pose Erngaths question to you.

Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns  which may have been noted, discovered, found will  have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?

[Mr Gray]

No Erngath.

A matter of fact.

It is certain Imo that SY interviewed the McCann as witnesses and came to the conclusion combined with everything else that they were not suspects
You are stating your opinion as fact

[Miss Taken Identity]

The shape (circle or square) fits perfectly.

The shelved enquiry thoroughly investigated the McCanns and their friends and found they had no case to answer.

The logical next step (and the smooth progression) from there is to investigate the crime as if afresh, but starting with the premise that no one close to Madeleine has any case to answer.

There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to answer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence  not that there was NONE  just a lack of...

[Erngath]

We don't know what decisions may have been made.

Rowley is not exactly close to the investigation and must rely heavily on his briefing notes

Does not answer my question.
Do you believe that during this long investigation that any indication of the Mccann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance would just be brushed aside/ignored/by a professional police force?

[Mr Gray]

There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to fast swer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence  not that there was NONE  just a lack of...

There was no case for the McCann to answer... Fact