According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

It is you who made a claim, not me;

"It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents"

You seem to be basing that on do Carmo's statement that the parents are not suspects. I simply pointed out that they have said that before, so relying on it might be a little naive.

It is not naive at all.  The mccanns we're not suspects in the original investigation until the pj completely misunderstood  the evidence.  Amaral thought he had proof that Maddie. died in the, apartment and the parents, we're involved... He was mistaken
The mccanns are now not suspects but we, all realise that if new evidence, came to light that could change...

[Alice Purjorick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9mdFMOaHlY

[G-Unit]

I asked for evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents.  There is none, though back in 2007 there was plenty to suggest they were under suspicion, even when blokey from the PJ said they weren't.  There is nothing whatsover to suggest they are under suspicion now.  IMO it is naive to get your hopes up based on something said by one man 11 years ago.

I never claimed that the PJ were investigating the parents, so why ask me for evidence? I repeat, it was you making claims about the PJ's activities, not me.

[Brietta]

I admire your faith in the PJ, although I'm a little surprised given their track record.

8th August 2007

"The family are not suspects. This is the official position," said a spokesman for the Portuguese police, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports:_Parents_of_missing_girl_Madeleine_McCann_are_suspects_in_her_disappearance

Could the McCanns become suspects?
“Up until now, they are not suspects. If we have any suspicions we are compelled by law to charge them in order to preserve their rights.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Sousa, when questioned over whether police have admitted a mistake in charging Robert Murat, the only formal suspect in the case so far, he responds: “I am unaware that Portuguese police have apologised to Robert Murat, and for us to apologise, it would mean we have done something wrong. Whenever someone is suspected of involvement in a crime this person needs to be constituted a formal suspect to protect their rights”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brendan de Beer
During the 90 minutes I spent with Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa, it became clear that nothing will please him more than announcing to the world that Madeleine McCann has been found alive and well. While Kate and Gerry have been facing growing criticism - it was quite apparent that Mr Sousa, as a person (and not a police detective) is one of their biggest sympathisers. He even banged his desk, breaking what had been a statue-like posture to illustrate the point that, albeit an official one, the McCanns are not suspected of being involved in their daughter’s disappearance. While secrecy laws restrict and the austere image portrayed by PJ detectives seems a prerequisite of being accepted into the force, Mr Sousa is very human and if he is any way a reflection of how his colleagues operate, than Portugal can be proud of its police force and that all is being done to find Madeleine.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-chief-inspector-olegario-sousa/22774


It has been said on the forum that being constituted arguido in Portugal is the equivalent of being questioned under caution in Britain.
That should be borne in mind in this instance particularly as no charges were laid.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I never claimed that the PJ were investigating the parents, so why ask me for evidence? I repeat, it was you making claims about the PJ's activities, not me.

You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO.  It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007".   This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents.  Why bring it up otherwise?

[G-Unit]

You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO.

Thank you. I made no inference either; you are mistaken.

[Robittybob1]

You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO.  It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007".   This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents.  Why bring it up otherwise?

What sort of investigation could be done against the McCanns at this stage.

[Mr Gray]

What sort of investigation could be done against the McCanns at this stage.

They could be questioned under caution

[G-Unit]

You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO.  It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007".   This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents.  Why bring it up otherwise?

Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?

[jassi]

Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?

As far as I'm aware the PJ haven't given any details of their activities.

[sadie]

As far as I'm aware the PJ haven't given any details of their activities.

And well done for that to the special Madeleine PJ group up in Porto. 

[faithlilly]

And well done for that to the special Madeleine PJ group up in Porto. 

Didn’t Heri give us news of a Portuguese leak only yesterday ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Thank you. I made no inference either; you are mistaken.

in your opinion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?

A cite has been given for the McCanns not being suspects, so unless you believe the McCanns whilst not suspects, are still being investigated I think it’s safe to say they are not, unless you can give me another instance of non-suspects being investigated?

[G-Unit]

in your opinion.

It's not my opinion, I know what I have written and what it meant. It is only in your opinion that I meant something I didn't write.