What has Redwood achieved in the Mccann case ?

[Mr Gray]

As a brief reminder to the mccann followers.


There is no concrete evidence of anything and it is not known except by those responsible who removed her body from the apartment, and that's not counting the theory, she walked out herself.

So how can the mccanns and associates have been eliminated from their inquires ?

It is on a par with a certain other case, as we have seen.

SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact

[stephen25000]

SY have declared McCanns not suspects...fact

How can you ignore potential suspects in a crime, when the crime has yet to be established as to what happened /

Unless of course SY are lying, or they have been told to eliminate them from their inquiries. &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

How can you ignore potential suspects in a crime, when the crime has yet to be established as to what happened /

Unless of course SY are lying, or they have been told to eliminate them from their inquiries. &%+((£

so you think SY might be lying...and deliberately releasing false information

[Alfred R Jones]

Nope that won't do Alfred.

You are deliberately missing the point.

Benice stated that the one achievement of the yard was the declaration that the McCann's werent suspects or persons of interest (made right at the start of the investigation).

But then it was also stated that by Benice that the yard won't be giving a running commentary.

I therefore asked the question that given the yards lack of running commentary how do we know for certain that that statement made many months ago has not changed?

The only reasonable answer is there is absolutely no guarantee that that statement still stands within the investigation.

Why can't you accept that basic concept?

Where in my post did you find evidence that I don't accept that basic concept?   I do however think that it is important to base assumptions on evidence and in this case there is plenty to back up the belief that the McCanns are not currently under investigation (note also recent arguidos questioned, none of whom were from the Tapas 9) and precisely ZILCH evidence to suggest that the Met has changed its mind and is now investigating any of the Tapas 9.  Why do you find it so hard to accept that basic concept?

[Wonderfulspam]

Because the last OFFICIAL word on the investigation, the archiving report,stated that the group wouldn't help the investigation move forward by refusing to participate in the reconstruction and that the McCann's had as a result failed to demonstrate their innocence.

Why would the Yard leave the group exposed to that condemnation if they had clear exoneration evidence?

Hell they could have given it to Clarence to release, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to spin that.

Finally it would have been jolly helpful to have that information in Durates back pocket over in Lisbon recently, wouldn't it?

I wonder why it wasn't produced in the trial? Surely that would have made their case against Amaral watertight?

SY are well aware of the torrent of online abuse the McCanns suffer at the keyboard tapping fingers of vicious doubter trolls who attack these innocent parents of an abducted child, yet, what have they done about it?

A simple, 'the McCanns are completey innocent we have evidence to prove as much, so leave 'em alone', would be a start.

But they haven't said that.

[Alfred R Jones]

You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?

The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all,  exonerate all of them?

It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.

I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't  and couldn't be released to the public.

Can you?

Yes, the Met does not exist to supply information to warring groups on the internet, it's a bit above that.  Hope that helps.

[Alfred R Jones]

So, if the Met once again reiterated that the McCanns were not suspects, how long would that pronouncement be valid for "sceptics"?  More or less than the time it takes you to spin it into something that means the complete opposite is the answer!

[stephen25000]

so you think SY might be lying...and deliberately releasing false information

..or dave, they were told to eliminate them from their inquiries.

REMEMBER dave, the nature of Madeleine's disappearance has not been determined, no matter how much you would like to procrastinate.

P.S. dave, do you really think the police always tell the truth.

[Mr Gray]

SY are well aware of the torrent of online abuse the McCanns suffer at the keyboard tapping fingers of vicious doubter trolls who attack these innocent parents of an abducted child, yet, what have they done about it?

A simple, 'the McCanns are completey innocent we have evidence to prove as much, so leave 'em alone', would be a start.

But they haven't said that.

as Stephen has very kindly pointed out even if SY made this statement  posters would claim they were lying...thank you stephen

[stephen25000]

as Stephen has very kindly pointed out even if SY made this statement  posters would claim they were lying...thank you stephen

You should be a politician dave.

You are economical with the truth and frequently mis-quote.

Try reading what I said again.

Now dave, do the police always tell the truth ?

YES or NO will suffice.

[Mr Gray]

You should be a politician dave.

You are economical with the truth and frequently mis-quote.

Try reading what I said again.

Now dave, do the police always tell the truth ?

YES or NO will suffice.

so what you are saying is that even if SY made a statement every day...said they had evidence to prove the mccanns innocent...they could just be lying.....

[stephen25000]

so what you are saying is that even if SY made a statement every day...said they had evidence to prove the mccanns innocent...they could just be lying.....

They have had every opportunity to say why they are not investigating the mccanns or their associates.

They have failed to do so.

Meanwhile , we can engage in more 'banter' later dave.

 

[Benice]

So if we are not privy to what has happened in the investigation since the statement about the 9 was made right at the start of the investigation how do you know for certain that that position about the 9 not being suspects or persons of interest remains in place now?

Do you accept, and I'm using your logic here, that information could have come to light over the course of the investigation, making them suspects but we wouldn't know about it becuase SY aren't as you say providing a running commentary?

If you do not accept this then please can you explain why you don't in light of your post I have quoted?

No  - I do not accept it is possible that the McCanns will ever be suspected of being involved in their daughter's removal from 5A.

This is my explanation as requested:-

If you want me to believe they may be complicit in this crime  - then first of all you would have to prove that they are both psychopaths.

Then you would have to prove that their 7 friends are either all mentally deranged or as thick as two planks that they would happily make themselves accomplices to an horrendous crime as if it was  no big deal whatsoever for them to become involved.

Then you would have to prove that every single expert in their field  who have actually met/observed/spent time with the McCanns which include police officers, FLO's, trauma counsellors, psychologists to name but a few - are all incompetent/completely wrong.      Especially the Detectives in this case who do have ALL the professionally translated files at their disposal - and the ability to interview people as and when they wish.

Then having proved that none of the above know what they are talking about you would then have to convince me that with only SOME of the available information - ( mainly from files translated by amateurs), people with NO expertise, who have never met or spoken to the McCanns, know more about them and the details of this case than the professionals.

Then you would need to explain why everything the McCanns have done in the last 7 years is the exact opposite of what guilty people would do.      No guilty person would press so strongly to have a case re-opened and meticulously examined - including having themselves examined by SY if they knew they were the guilty parties . It would also need to be explained why their 7 accomplices would sit back and allow the McCanns to put all of them in the horrific position of 'waiting for a knock on the door' every day of their lives - especially knowing that they had the option of simply keeping their heads down and waiting for it all to die away naturally.

IMO nothing which can happen in the meantime can change any of the above.  In the light of that - coupled with the fact that I am not a conspiracy theorist -  I do not believe the McCanns or their friends will ever be made suspects in this case.   

[Brietta]

Because the last OFFICIAL word on the investigation, the archiving report,stated that the group wouldn't help the investigation move forward by refusing to participate in the reconstruction and that the McCann's had as a result failed to demonstrate their innocence.

Why would the Yard leave the group exposed to that condemnation if they had clear exoneration evidence?

Hell they could have given it to Clarence to release, I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to spin that.

Finally it would have been jolly helpful to have that information in Durates back pocket over in Lisbon recently, wouldn't it?

I wonder why it wasn't produced in the trial? Surely that would have made their case against Amaral watertight?

I have no idea who or what Durates is ... so you will have to enlighten me on that one.

[ferryman]

You see here's the weird thing. If the Yard had clear and incontrovertible evidence which exonerated the group why haven't the details of that evidence been released to the media?

The Yard are surely aware of the cloud of suspicion that still hangs over the group, so why couldn't they simply release the information they had to clear them to then, once and for all,  exonerate all of them?

It would free the whole group from all the net and public speculation and would at a stroke remove all anti forums and twitterists.

I can't think of one good reason why, if this exoneration evidence existed, it wouldn't  and couldn't be released to the public.

Can you?

Exonerated?

I used that word, once, and Jean-Pierre (on this board!) corrected me.

To be exonerated, you first have to be charged and tried in court.

The McCanns have never been charged ....