We know that SY have information on this case that we don't have. Does it never occur to you that there is evidence amongst that info which led them to firmly believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A and that the parents were not involved? Evidence that we don't know about because we've never seen it.
People seem to forget that we only have some of the information on this case. To believe in these circumstances that amateur armchair detectives are not only on a par with experienced SY detectives (who do have all the information) - but actually believe they know better than they do is ludicrous imo.
AIMHO
A C Rowley doesn't refer to any information except that found in the PJ files, so you are merely speculating.
At the time the remit was written they were still entering the PJ information into HOLMES too. That information was dealt with first.
Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right
back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an
abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from
the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine
simply walking out of the apartment.
MR: Two points to that, firstly
the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation.
