A Simple Question.

[Mr Gray]

Which brings us full circle. How do we know the McCanns are not suspects, because Redwood/Rowley said so. If they McCanns were suspects would Redwood/Rowley admit it ? IMO definitely not. How say you Davel ?

I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence

[Wonderfulspam]

How do you understand this?
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-investigation-12944725

And... from the PT side:

Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?

Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html

I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.

[Wonderfulspam]

I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence

I agree. There is no evidence which shows their innocence.

[jassi]

I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.

I doubt we shall ever know.

[Carana]

I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.

They may not have conclusive evidence, but I would find it extraordinary if they hadn't examined the T9 in minute detail as a precursor.

[faithlilly]

How do you understand this?
Mr Rowley said: "The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.

“We’re happy that’s completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that’s a line of investigation."

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-investigation-12944725

And... from the PT side:

Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?

Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html

And yet the journalists keep asking.

[jassi]

The PJ must have done an exemplary job, if OG was unable to fault their investigation of the Tapas group and were willing to accept it verbatim.

[Robittybob1]

The PJ must have done an exemplary job, if OG was unable to fault their investigation of the Tapas group and were willing to accept it verbatim.

My hunch (IMO) is that the Tapas 9 have owned up to what happened (so they know the no matter how Madeleine got out of the apartment part - that is solved), but the MPS  still want an answer to the abduction.  Where did she go?

[faithlilly]

The PJ must have done an exemplary job, if OG was unable to fault their investigation of the Tapas group and were willing to accept it verbatim.

And we were all lead to believe that they were an incompetent bunch of country yokels who couldn’t run a brothel never mind an investigation. Just goes to show !

[Angelo222]

I think that makes it quite clear that SY didn't bother investigating the McCanns & instead chose to focus on anything other than the possibility of parental involvement.
So, they must have found some quite conclusive abduction evidence.
I wonder what it is.

If that were true then that would fly in the face of the publicly known evidence and that revealed by Goncalo Amaral which indicated that nobody entered 5a via the bedroom window.  Add to this the evidence provided by two tracker dogs and abduction appears a remote possibility.  I for one would love to know how SY explain this all away in favour of an abduction.

[Wonderfulspam]

They may not have conclusive evidence, but I would find it extraordinary if they hadn't examined the T9 in minute detail as a precursor.

I suppose you must imagine that Kate answered all questions put to her during this top secret examination, which has never been reported by anyone.

Maybe she explained how she searched the wardrobe & looked out of the open window.

It must have annoyed her a bit though, given this was time wasted which would be better spent looking for Maddie.

[Alice Purjorick]

That's not the impression I get from the strategy debrief in the Shannon case, nor from other documents / clips I've read / watched.

IMO, the aspects seem to be a) what and when to inform the media (on or off the record) about details related to the actual investigation; b) another seems to be broader in terms of public perception of the credibility of the police, and c) any impact on community relations.

We can all think of times when police forces (anywhere) have had egg-on-face situations for all sorts of reasons. I presume that a goal is to minimise them.

If that's the case, I can't think of a logical reason why the Met would have been so blunt early on that the McCanns and their friends were not suspects if they had not gone over everything that they had access to (including possibly informal interviews for any points that needed to be clarified subsequent to the review). IMO, it would have been much easier to stay waffly: all options open, egg-on-face avoidance.

I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.

[Mr Gray]

I find it pays not to try to second guess something on the basis of what I know to be incomplete information.

More than half the forum consider the McCann's guilty of several crimes without  the complete information... Practically the whole forum is a discussion  without complete information

[Alice Purjorick]

I dont just place my belief on what both investigations have said but in everything we know about the case and the fact that there is no evidence against the McCann's and evidence which shows their innocence

Therein lies the rub.
Unless you have been into the Portuguese archive to read the files which are there, you know only that which has been spoonfed to you by the press/media/tinternet.

[Alice Purjorick]

More than half the forum consider the McCann's guilty of several crimes without  the complete information... Practically the whole forum is a discussion  without complete information

So?