“ The McCanns Are Not Suspects”

[Mr Gray]

You are struggling now.

Ifs and probablies all over the oche , meaning you don't know

I'm not struggling at all... Stop posting your opinions as facts

Neither of us know

[Miss Taken Identity]

they certainl did drop the case   ...on legal advice..as to exactly why we cannot be certain...imo. Certinly suing a bankrupt newspaper wouldnt be the wisest thing to do

But,but,but what about the truth? what about people not believing they are innocent, what about their dignity and good name  I mean surely you can't put a price on those things?


well...  hm maybe you can!
... and there was no pickings from this skeleton. I mean they didn't even want an apology.

[Robittybob1]

But,but,but what about the truth? what about people not believing they are innocent, what about their dignity and good name  I mean surely you can't put a price on those things?


well...  hm maybe you can!
... and there was no pickings from this skeleton. I mean they didn't even want an apology.

Do we know if they asked for an apology?

[Carana]

I assume it would be easy to make Portuguese nationals living in Portugal arguidos. Not so easy British nationals living in the UK. Perhaps that’s why the input of the CPS was needed.

Not sure if you mean when whoever it was from the CPS went over to Portugal or not. If so, sorting out the legal common ground / nearest equivalents would have been a key part of that meeting, iMO.

The T7 + 1 were all interviewed under caution (IIRC) via the rogs. If they'd still been in PT at that time, I've no idea whether they would have had to have had arguido status or whether it would have just been another round of interviews for clarification (i.e. not meeting the requirement for the status).

[G-Unit]

Not sure if you mean when whoever it was from the CPS went over to Portugal or not. If so, sorting out the legal common ground / nearest equivalents would have been a key part of that meeting, iMO.

The T7 + 1 were all interviewed under caution (IIRC) via the rogs. If they'd still been in PT at that time, I've no idea whether they would have had to have had arguido status or whether it would have just been another round of interviews for clarification (i.e. not meeting the requirement for the status).

Who was the + 1? I thought they were interviewed as significant witnesses, not as suspects.

[Carana]

Who was the + 1? I thought they were interviewed as significant witnesses, not as suspects.

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF JEREMY WILKINS
Occupation:

This statement, consisting of five pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[Carana]

Who was the + 1? I thought they were interviewed as significant witnesses, not as suspects.

I never said they were considered as suspects.

[G-Unit]

I never said they were considered as suspects.

The rogatory interviews included a list of people so I'm not sure why you've highlighted Jes Wilkins in particular. I still believe no one was questioned under caution.

[Mr Gray]

The rogatory interviews included a list of people so I'm not sure why you've highlighted Jes Wilkins in particular. I still believe no one was questioned under caution.

If they were questioned under caution then the caution would have been recorded as part of the interview...so depends if we have the full transcript

[faithlilly]

The rogatory interviews included a list of people so I'm not sure why you've highlighted Jes Wilkins in particular. I still believe no one was questioned under caution.

I agree.

[Robittybob1]

Not sure if you mean when whoever it was from the CPS went over to Portugal or not. If so, sorting out the legal common ground / nearest equivalents would have been a key part of that meeting, iMO.

The T7 + 1 were all interviewed under caution (IIRC) via the rogs. If they'd still been in PT at that time, I've no idea whether they would have had to have had arguido status or whether it would have just been another round of interviews for clarification (i.e. not meeting the requirement for the status).

What did you mean by "interviewed under caution"?  Was that just saying they swear to tell the truth?

[Gertrude]

And what possible forensic evidence could that yield to prove the McCanns hid the body?

 A body would not just yield forensic evidence. The location would be highly significant too. The investigation could then work out who was in that place at what time ( phone records and witness statements could be re-examined) and who might have known about that place if it was somewhere remote, how did it get there? There are all kinds of possibilities for the investigation if they found a body.

   On the subject of the McCanns being declared 'not suspects'.  That could change, investigations don't stand still they evolve.  There are plenty of cases where people were 'not suspects' and then became suspects.

[Mr Gray]

A body would not just yield forensic evidence. The location would be highly significant too. The investigation could then work out who was in that place at what time ( phone records and witness statements could be re-examined) and who might have known about that place if it was somewhere remote, how did it get there? There are all kinds of possibilities for the investigation if they found a body.

   On the subject of the McCanns being declared 'not suspects'.  That could change, investigations don't stand still they evolve.  There are plenty of cases where people were 'not suspects' and then became suspects.

so on the present evidence teh mccanns are not suspects...which puts amarals book into perspective...obviously if new evidence comes to light things could change....thats what Ive been saying for some time

[Mr Gray]

What did you mean by "interviewed under caution"?  Was that just saying they swear to tell the truth?

its a bit more than that...google explains it well..

[Robittybob1]

its a bit more than that...google explains it well..

"The interview should take place at a police station unless delay in bringing a suspect there would be damaging. A person cautioned is told: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."