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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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. 

It's your opinion that I am mistaken.  In my opinion I am not.  In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it?  Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?

[faithlilly]

It's your opinion that I am mistaken.  In my opinion I am not.  In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it?  Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?

And do you think the public would be told if the McCanns were suspects?

[Vertigo Swirl]

And do you think the public would be told if the McCanns were suspects?

Is it Groundhog Day again?  Didn't we do this a few days ago?

Yep - you've asked the same question twice before in recent days

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg451917#msg451917

[faithlilly]

Is it Groundhog Day again?  Didn't we do this a few days ago?

Yep - you've asked the same question twice before in recent days

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg451917#msg451917

And? The question is still relevant.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And? The question is still relevant.

Can I refer you to Brietta's post earlier in which she posted an excerpt of an interview in which a member of the PJ stated that if they had any suspicions about the McCanns they would have to make them arguidos, so yes I do think the public would be told if they were suspects, just as the public were told they were suspects in the first investigation. 

[faithlilly]

Can I refer you to Brietta's post earlier in which she posted an excerpt of an interview in which a member of the PJ stated that if they had any suspicions about the McCanns they would have to make them arguidos, so yes I do think the public would be told if they were suspects, just as the public were told they were suspects in the first investigation.

Then let me rephrase the question. Do you really think we’d be told if the McCanns are being investigated?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Then let me rephrase the question. Do you really think we’d be told if the McCanns are being investigated?

No, I don't think we'd be told directly but I think we'd have found out indirectly, and after 5 years there's not even a whisper of a shred of evidence to suggest they are being investigated.  They have not been recalled to Portugal, they have not been made arguidos, the police HAVE investigated several people unconnected to the McCanns however, and we know about them.  All the evidence supports the Met & PJ's public statements that the McCanns are not suspects. 

[faithlilly]

No, I don't think we'd be told directly but I think we'd hae found out indirectly, and after 5 years there's not even a whisper of a shred of evidence to suggest they are being investigated.  They have not been recalled to Portugal, they have not been made arguidos, the police HAVE investigated several people unconnected to the McCanns however, and we know about them.  All the evidence supports the Met & PJ's public statements that the McCanns are not suspects.

No you are right, we wouldn’t be told directly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No you are right, we wouldn’t be told directly.

And no one has claimed otherwise.  But surely even you must agree that (in theory) after 5 years of being investigated, we would have a few big clues that the McCanns were in the frame by now.   

[G-Unit]

It's your opinion that I am mistaken.  In my opinion I am not.  In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it?  Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?

You are mistaken in your interpretation of my posts, I assure you. I'm sure do Carmo meant that they are not suspects, but I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. The only evidence I have is what the phrase meant in August 2007. Do you have any evidence that it meant something else in 2017?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You are mistaken in your interpretation of my posts, I assure you. I'm sure do Carmo meant that they are not suspects, but I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. The only evidence I have is what the phrase meant in August 2007. Do you have any evidence that it meant something else in 2017?

What did the phrase mean in 2007 then? 

[faithlilly]

And no one has claimed otherwise.  But surely even you must agree that (in theory) after 5 years of being investigated, we would have a few big clues that the McCanns were in the frame by now.

After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all  surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.

[Mr Gray]

After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all  surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.

I would say that after the last episode in 2007 when the PJ led by amaral thought they had evidence which solved the case but he hadnt ...which must have been a major embarrassment to the PJ... this investigation is beeing far more realistic 

[Vertigo Swirl]

After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all  surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.

Based on their incontinence in the past, I would be very surprised if the PJ had managed not to let a tiny Anti McCann leak to seap out in five years.  Do you really think the McCanns are so powerful that the PJ are afraid of another so-called “war of attrition”?

[G-Unit]

What did the phrase mean in 2007 then?

Judging by what happened in September 2007 it meant they were suspected but not 'suspects'.