A Simple Question.

[Alice Purjorick]

Not according to Rowley they didn't.

They are happy that had been dealt with by the original investigation.

If the McCanns had been re-investigated & subsequently ruled out, why wouldn't they just say so?

In the transcript of his "famous" interview he laboured that specific point.
I sometimes wonder if folk realise what a button labelled "Download Entire Document Here" means !

[Carana]

"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?

[faithlilly]

Back in 2013 Redwood was asked whether the McCanns or their friends were suspects. Redwood said no. Rowley was asked the same thing in 2017 to which he no. 

Two things.  Point one, if the McCanns were not suspects in 2013 why are journalists asking the same question in 2017 ? Weren’t they convinced by the denial in 2013 ? Point two, by asking the same question again does this mean that there is an acceptance that the McCann’s and their friend’s status within the investigation may have changed and is therefore not static ?

[faithlilly]

"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?

But as you know Carana this isn’t a normal case.

[John]

"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?

I have to agree with the waffly answer because that is what police say when they are up a blind alley and facing a brick wall.  There are only a handful of possibilities in this case yet it is clear that neither the PJ nor the Met have been able to whittle them down.  I don't personally hold with the theories that the parents had a direct criminal involvement in Madeleine's disappearance but events post disappearance do leave me with serious concerns.

[misty]

Back in 2013 Redwood was asked whether the McCanns or their friends were suspects. Redwood said no. Rowley was asked the same thing in 2017 to which he no. 

Two things.  Point one, if the McCanns were not suspects in 2013 why are journalists asking the same question in 2017 ? Weren’t they convinced by the denial in 2013 ? Point two, by asking the same question again does this mean that there is an acceptance that the McCann’s and their friend’s status within the investigation may have changed and is therefore not static ?

If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?

[John]

If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?

SY are extremely mindful of the public interest in this case and would spend any amount of money if they knew they could solve it and bring someone to justice.  They will have looked at every scenario early on including the parents but now they are casting their nets further afield to see what is dragged up.  I fear they are no closer to solving this case successfully than the PJ were when it was originally shelved.

[faithlilly]

If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?

Because the Portuguese have primacy.

[jassi]

If the McCanns or their friends were being investigated as suspects, why would SY need to apply for additional money from a special fund rather than switching the case to fall within the UK policing budget?

Why would SY use its own budget when it could use someone else's ?

[Mr Gray]

Because the Portuguese have primacy.

I really think posters are in total denial if they think the McCann's are, still being investigated

[misty]

Why would SY use its own budget when it could use someone else's ?

So if the McCanns were still suspects, it would be in SY's interests to wait for Portugal to issue ILORs so PJ detectives could re-question the Tapas 9 in the UK.

[Alice Purjorick]

"All lines of enquiry are still being pursued" is the normal waffly answer, isn't it, if a specific question pops up that hadn't been eliminated or that they didn't want to formally confirm at a particular presser?

I think the waffly answer is de rigeur because that's what they do.
We are left with perming one possibility from about four by my reckoning [for the waffly answer that is]. The question is why would any one of those wafflibilties be a better bet than the others?

Remember Bob Dylan and Robert Browning on what they meant by what they had written,when asked.
The answers were remarkably similar, synthesing and paraphrasing it summed up as:
"God knows I have forgotten already but you make it mean whatever you want it to mean"

[Alice Purjorick]

I really think posters are in total denial if they think the McCann's are, still being investigated

In the broadest sense they remain part of the investigation, whilst they may not be under suspicion/investigation at this point in time that may change who knows? For certain Mr Rowley alleges they have no definitive evidence and only ideas of what may have happened. With a Rumsfeldish "when we know we will know".
Unless the investigation has already been closed of course.

[Mr Gray]

In the broadest sense they remain part of the investigation, whilst they may not be under suspicion/investigation at this point in time that may change who knows? For certain Mr Rowley alleges they have no definitive evidence and only ideas of what may have happened. With a Rumsfeldish "when we know we will know".
Unless the investigation has already been closed of course.

I think denial is more accurate..

[Angelo222]

In the broadest sense they remain part of the investigation, whilst they may not be under suspicion/investigation at this point in time that may change who knows? For certain Mr Rowley alleges they have no definitive evidence and only ideas of what may have happened. With a Rumsfeldish "when we know we will know".
Unless the investigation has already been closed of course.

Rowley has his hands full with the latest botch in Salisbury.  The mind boggles as to how many people have come into contact with the nerve agent before they secured the area properly.