According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[faithlilly]

It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not but I am asking you to consider how this investigation into the parents is being conducted, what the police are actually doing on a day to day basis, what the vast sums of money are being spent on?  Staking out the McCanns home? Wire-tapping?  Honey traps?  What?  Why, if the McCanns are chief suspects, have they not been recalled to Portugal and reconstituted as arguidos?  How many more years of merely sniffing round them are the police going to take before going in for the kill, and what would it take to precipitate such action, apart from a full confession from one or both of them, or their friends?

Perhaps the early visit to Portugal by the CPS should be added to the mix ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps the early visit to Portugal by the CPS should be added to the mix ?

when did that happen?  What is everyone waiting for, in your opinion?

[faithlilly]

Presumably that would possible apply whoever they eventually take to court?

So why did Redwood speak to the press about the ongoing investigation and not Wall ? That is the odd thing.

[Robittybob1]

It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not but I am asking you to consider how this investigation into the parents is being conducted, what the police are actually doing on a day to day basis, what the vast sums of money are being spent on?  Staking out the McCanns home? Wire-tapping?  Honey traps?  What?  Why, if the McCanns are chief suspects, have they not been recalled to Portugal and reconstituted as arguidos?  How many more years of merely sniffing round them are the police going to take before going in for the kill, and what would it take to precipitate such action, apart from a full confession from one or both of them, or their friends?

If you ask me a question and I answer I would like you to tell me if you agree or disagree. 
Your question was "They (the Met and the PJ) have repeatedly told us the parents are not suspects so how come you seem to know they haven't been ruled out?"  I said from listening to what Pedro do Carmo said.  So do you agree or not?
All those other questions no one can answer as we are not really told what they are doing.  But to me IMO if GA was right and there is a UK cover-up going on, the funding will have to continue.

[faithlilly]

when did that happen?  What is everyone waiting for, in your opinion?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fresh-hope-in-madeleine-mccann-inquiry-as-cps-lawyers-travel-to-portugal-8668335.html

The middle of June 2013 shortly before Redwood’s retirement. It would appear his last appearance as head of the investigation was Crimewatch in November 2013 and at no time in that interview did he mention the parents. He did mention that the PJ had just reopened the case, apparently within months of the visit to Portugal from the CPS.

[ShiningInLuz]

Rowley has told you the parents have not been ruled out?

He told everyone who listened to his interview that the parents had not been ruled out.

[Robittybob1]

He told everyone who listened to his interview that the parents had not been ruled out.

When was this interview?

[ShiningInLuz]

When was this interview?

It has been plastered all over this forum.

[Robittybob1]

It has been plastered all over this forum.

I think there is a transcript was it last year or before that?  you put his name down as "A C Rowley"  but the only Rowley I know of was Mark Rowley.  I see it now his name is A. C. Mark Rowley.

http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743 

"Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is
that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.
Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No"


They must have accepted the work by the PJ in that it didn't reveal any evidence against the parents.  How do you read that?

[G-Unit]

I think it was considered she would have run to the, reception...

Did you invent that or have you a cite?

[G-Unit]

Because there was no sign of her after 12 hours plus, and also because Kate felt certain (knowing her child better than anyone else) that she would not / could not have left the apartment in the way it was left.  If they thought burglary was a posssibilty then that puts a criminally minded individual in very close proximity to  their children, so it's hardly surprising that they believed a criminal act had befallen their daughter is it.

Forget 12 hours later, they were saying it, with conviction, much earlier than that. Kate McCann told her friends that evening that the patio door was unlocked so Madeleine could get out. She said Madeleine wouldn't have closed the door and gates behind herself, apparently. So she left the door unlocked knowing that if Madeleine did use it she would have left it, the child gate and the garden gate open with the twins still in the apartment.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Forget 12 hours later, they were saying it, with conviction, much earlier than that. Kate McCann told her friends that evening that the patio door was unlocked so Madeleine could get out. She said Madeleine wouldn't have closed the door and gates behind herself, apparently. So she left the door unlocked knowing that if Madeleine did use it she would have left it, the child gate and the garden gate open with the twins still in the apartment.

Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night.  The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she? 

[Robittybob1]

Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night.  The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?

But it doesn't make it a fact.  How come Kate doesn't discuss the front door?  OK what Does Kate say about the front door?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night.  The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?

Of course she has the right to an opinion. But they were setting it up as fact!

They wanted to control what was said and tell how things happened and what happened. A wee story developed into an actual -this is what happened and this is what didn't happen.

[G-Unit]

Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night.  The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?

She had the right to an opinion. I'm not sure if she had the right to publicise her opinion as a fact.