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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making.  You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected. 

[Mr Gray]

So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making.  You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected.

There are posters, who have spent 11 years of their lives convinced that maddie died due to an accident and her parents covered it up and have posted this belief everyday... How can we expect them... Even though  the evidence is now overwhelming   to realise that they have been wrong all this time

[Robittybob1]

They could be questioned under caution

"the police caution: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”"

So they would ask for a lawyer and say nothing.

[Robittybob1]

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

Is that like "not yet ruled out"?

[Mr Gray]

"the police caution: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”"

So they would ask for a lawyer and say nothing.

Is that your opinion... If so you need to say so

[Mr Gray]

Is that like "not yet ruled out"?

Look at the evidence against them

[Robittybob1]

Look at the evidence against them

I asking the forum for their view. 

[Mr Gray]

I asking the forum for their view.

Doesn't matter what the forum view is... What is, the evidence of the mccanns involvement

[G-Unit]

So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making.  You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected.

Some people appear to think the 2017 statement means something different than the 2007 statement. Perhaps it does, but where's the supporting evidence?

[G-Unit]

Is that like "not yet ruled out"?

If the PJ haven't identified the crime, how can anyone have been 'ruled out'?

[misty]

If the Met are investigating a crime carried out against a UK minor by another 2 of this country's citizens, why do they keep having to apply for additional funding from the Home Office?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Some people appear to think the 2017 statement means something different than the 2007 statement. Perhaps it does, but where's the supporting evidence?

Where’s the supporting evidence that there is any inference in the 2017 statement?  Why should both statements (uttered by different officers 11 years apart, in different circumstances) have the same hidden meaning?

[jassi]

If the Met are investigating a crime carried out against a UK minor by another 2 of this country's citizens, why do they keep having to apply for additional funding from the Home Office?

Why spend your own budget (Met) when you can spend someone else's (Home Office) ?

[misty]

Why spend your own budget (Met) when you can spend someone else's (Home Office) ?

Ditto PJ budget & UK budget......why are the Portuguese spending money on something the UK could deal with?

[G-Unit]

Where’s the supporting evidence that there is any inference in the 2017 statement?  Why should both statements (uttered by different officers 11 years apart, in different circumstances) have the same hidden meaning?

I'm not claiming anything, it's others who're doing that. It's up to those who claim that the meanings are different to provide evidence to support that claim.