A Room With A View...

[Vertigo Swirl]

That depends what 'not suspects' means in police speak. Does it mean 'not involved' or is that just your interpretation?

What other ways are there of interpreting “not suspects”?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I agree with the conclusion of the archiving report;

we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

So that shows how much weight they put on the dog alerts then.  Not a lot!

[sadie]

Look, I'm all for people having a go, even, as Sadie has, going and touching and sniffing, which is commendable in itself. But I also believe that all rational thought is dispensed with once a theory has been decided upon and dogma takes hold.
I don't believe a crack band of abductors positioned themselves in an overlooking apartment waiting on their prey. If this unlikely scenario were to play out, this highly organised unit would not be faffing about observing anything. Certainly not hiring a holiday let in the name of K Templar, Rosslyn, Midlothian. As for procuring a special key from a complicit member of staff? The back door was literally open. Our elite grab team didn't deem it necessary to check if the doors were unlocked?

Going and looking, but no touching and sniffing ... I leave that to the sniffer dogs.

[The General]

Going and looking, but no touching and sniffing ... I leave that to the sniffer dogs.

Well they are very useful, it has to be said.

[G-Unit]

What other ways are there of interpreting “not suspects”?

It depends what the police mean when they say it for a st"art.

Do they mean "We've investigated them thooughly and have eliminated them from our enquiries" Why not say that then?

Do they mean "We are investigating a strannger abduction so obviously the parents aren't suspects" That, in my opinion is probably OG's position.

Do they mean "We are open to parental involvement but can't prove it so they aren't formal suspects at the moment." In my opinion that may be the PJ's position.

[Mr Gray]

Beiief v evidence? I'll stay with the evidence.

You believe Harrison contradicted himself... Based on the evidence.. We would need Harrison to clarify what he, said before your belief has any real substance... Your beliefs are not facts as you seem to think they are

[Vertigo Swirl]

It depends what the police mean when they say it for a st"art.

Do they mean "We've investigated them thooughly and have eliminated them from our enquiries" Why not say that then?

Do they mean "We are investigating a strannger abduction so obviously the parents aren't suspects" That, in my opinion is probably OG's position.

Do they mean "We are open to parental involvement but can't prove it so they aren't formal suspects at the moment." In my opinion that may be the PJ's position.

So the parents are not suspects, which you must find utterly staggering considering you believe abduction is virtually impossible and that pretty much every word and deed of the McCanns points to something fishy.  How is it possible that the McCannd are not arguidos again when everything (in your opinion) points to their involvement?

[Mr Gray]

It depends what the police mean when they say it for a st"art.

Do they mean "We've investigated them thooughly and have eliminated them from our enquiries" Why not say that then?

Do they mean "We are investigating a strannger abduction so obviously the parents aren't suspects" That, in my opinion is probably OG's position.

Do they mean "We are open to parental involvement but can't prove it so they aren't formal suspects at the moment." In my opinion that may be the PJ's position.

..

You are inventing a few things there.. It means they are not suspect s and are not being investigated ..the PJ also said there is no evidence against the McCanns... That's pretty clear too

[Mr Gray]

I disagree.
The dogs alerts, even in their flimsiest form, don't jive with the official narrative. So 'significant', to coin your phrase means, in this case, incongruent. So the police, given their expertise in such matters, will also know that the dog alerts are at odds with the theory of an abduction.
Whether anyone puts any store in the circumstantial evidence provided by the dogs, and, let's never forget that 1. that's what they were brought in for, and 2. I doubt anybody expected them to 'find' anything, any investigation has to somehow square that circle.

In addition, it is a product of the failings on the part of a number of parties, in collection and analysis of the forensic evidence and the failure to adequately preserve the scene (and the obvious fact that she's still missing), why the mystery prevails.

According to Harrison the cadaver dog was brought in to search for remains

[G-Unit]

..

You are inventing a few things there.. It means they are not suspect s and are not being investigated ..the PJ also said there is no evidence against the McCanns... That's pretty clear too

I'm hypothesising. You're absolutely sure you're right, as usual, without being able to prove it.

[Robittybob1]

That's your opinion... You rate the dog alerts and statement discrepancies as significant.. I dont... And as the parents, aren't suspects I don't  think either police force does

Well are the parents suspects in my theory?  The child replacement theory.  They didn't agree to a child replacement.

[Mr Gray]

I disagree.
The dogs alerts, even in their flimsiest form, don't jive with the official narrative. So 'significant', to coin your phrase means, in this case, incongruent. So the police, given their expertise in such matters, will also know that the dog alerts are at odds with the theory of an abduction.
Whether anyone puts any store in the circumstantial evidence provided by the dogs, and, let's never forget that 1. that's what they were brought in for, and 2. I doubt anybody expected them to 'find' anything, any investigation has to somehow square that circle.

In addition, it is a product of the failings on the part of a number of parties, in collection and analysis of the forensic evidence and the failure to adequately preserve the scene (and the obvious fact that she's still missing), why the mystery prevails.

I might be dogmatic but I don't think it's worth discussing the value if the alerts.. We each have our own view and change is doubtful... I think they are, absolute junk science... Others think they are near 100% accurate. Note I'm referring to the alerts... Not the dogs... The dogs, will reliably find cadaver odour if it's, there... It's, when it's not there the problem arises

[Robittybob1]

What I do is pay attention to all the evidence rather than trying to explain away that which I don't like. I don't invent watchers, getaway cars and abductors either like some.

Well you can't have a theory then.  If you do how about expounding it?

[Robittybob1]

Harrison contradicted himself. How do you explain it?

Did you post the contradiction?  Cite please.

[The General]

I might be dogmatic but I don't think it's worth discussing the value if the alerts.. We each have our own view and change is doubtful... I think they are, absolute junk science... Others think they are near 100% accurate. Note I'm referring to the alerts... Not the dogs... The dogs, will reliably find cadaver odour if it's, there... It's, when it's not there the problem arises

I get it. Ad nauseum. Not sure you need to pounce on it every time it's mentioned. We know your stance.