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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

So you’re not claiming that the 2017 statement means the McCanns are suspected but not suspects then?

[Miss Taken Identity]

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.

And how would this be done and who would do anything?

Would the McCanns really have a sauce claim they are being investigated?  nah...You are trying to just cause an argument over nothing at all. leaving theory out of it, If the PJ /OG say they are investigating the McCanns in an open media this would cause major issues,because if it became a court case this  could be jeopardised/compromised.

  They first have to investigate WHAT crime was committed before looking for suspects! however, they can suspect the  behaviour of the tapas  and parents that they are involved in some way of the disappeared child. They cannot treat them as suspects of a non discript crime? 

I am charging you of a crime  we have not yet established...yeah good right...Next...

[Vertigo Swirl]

And how would this be done and who would do anything? You are trying to just cause an argument over nothing at all. leaving theory out of it.

 If the PJ /OG say they are investigating the McCanns in an open media this would cause major issues,because if it became a court case this  could be jeopardised/compromised.

  They first have to investigate WHAT crime was committed before looking for suspects! however, they can suspect the  behaviour of the tapas  and parents that they are involved in some way-something.They cannot treat them as suspects of a non descript crime? 

I am charging you of a crime  we have not yet established...yeah good right...Next...

I can think of several individuals suspected by the police, with their names plastered across the papers, who were never charged and in some cases never even arrested.  Next...

[Miss Taken Identity]

I can think of several individuals suspected by the police, with their names plastered across the papers, who were never charged and in some cases never even arrested.  Next...

Yes so could I  Cliff Richard being one, however he was suspected of a crime he was accused of... next

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yes so could I  Cliff Richard being one, however he was suspected of a crime he was accused of... next

Are you telling me the police cannot suspect someone of foulplay until they know the precise nature of the crime?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Are you telling me the police cannot suspect someone of foulplay until they know the precise nature of the crime?

Are you telling me anyone can be suspected of a crime which has not be committed?  seriously hahahahhaha

someone can act suspicious , but cannot be a named suspect if a crime has not been established...

Sorry if this is too difficult to understand.


Officer " I am charging you wif .. erm  um well something I will let you know what it is and when you dun it.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you telling me anyone can be suspected of a crime which has not be committed?  seriously hahahahhaha

someone can act suspicious , but cannot be a named suspect if a crime has not been established...

Sorry if this is too difficult to understand.


Officer " I am charging you wif .. erm  um well something I will let you know what it is and when you dun it.

You are conflating being a suspect with being charged with a specific crime.  When Murat and the McCanns were made arguidos what specific crimes were they suspected of?

[G-Unit]

So you’re not claiming that the 2017 statement means the McCanns are suspected but not suspects then?

No. You claimed it meant something else. I just pointed out what it meant previously. I asked on what evidence you were basing your opinion on, but it seems you have none.

[Miss Taken Identity]

You are conflating being a suspect with being charged with a specific crime.  When Murat and the McCanns were made arguidos what specific crimes were they suspected of?

I don't know did they say?  I believe it was in relation to MBMs disappearance. The crime was not fully established as they had not enough evidence to change anyone whom they may have suspected committed a crime.

So  crime= evidence  of a crime= suspect/s

no crime established= some evidence of a crime, not enough to charge and convict anyone= can suspect people of being involved in a crime, but cannot hold them as suspects unless they have enought evidence... aw you know how this works,  except in the USA  where being a Muslim=being a terrorist= is enought to sent you off to....

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. You claimed it meant something else. I just pointed out what it meant previously. I asked on what evidence you were basing your opinion on, but it seems you have none.

What relevance does a statement made in 2007 made by one officer in one set of circumstances have to a 2017 statement made by another officer in a different set of circumstances and if the answer is none, then why bring it up in the first place?   

[Vertigo Swirl]

I don't know did they say?  I believe it was in relation to MBMs disappearance. The crime was not fully established as they had not enough evidence to change anyone whom they may have suspected committed a crime.

So  crime= evidence  of a crime= suspect/s

no crime established= some evidence of a crime, not enough to charge and convict anyone= can suspect people of being involved in a crime, but cannot hold them as suspects unless they have enought evidence... aw you know how this works,  except in the USA  where being a Muslim=being a terrorist= is enought to sent you off to....

right, so the precise nature of the crime does not need to have been determined before someone is made an arguido / suspect and or having their name plastered all over the papers.

[slartibartfast]

What relevance does a statement made in 2007 made by one officer in one set of circumstances have to a 2017 statement made by another officer in a different set of circumstances and if the answer is none, then why bring it up in the first place?

May be you can explain the different circumstances?

[Vertigo Swirl]

May be you can explain the different circumstances?

The principle one would be that in August 2007 McCanns had not been exhaustively investigated, or made arguidos, nor had the case been archived with a final report which concluded that there was a lack of any evidence of a crime committed by the McCanns.

[G-Unit]

Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.

But at least we know they have both ruled out parental involvement.