The Conclusion of the case was that there was no indication of a crime

[debunker]

...against the McCanns.

This excludes the dog 'evidence' and the Forensic evidence. Both of which are doubtful becasue of the reservations I have laid out elsewhere.

So if someone believes that the McCanns did commit a crime, there are three questions:

1/ Why and how did the Prosecutor and AG get it so wrong and websleuths get it right?
2/ Is there anything in the files that could be said to indicate a crime committed by the McCanns?
2/ What sort of evidence might emerge in future to indicate a crime against the McCanns?

[ferryman]

...against the McCanns.

This excludes the dog 'evidence' and the Forensic evidence. Both of which are doubtful becasue of the reservations I have laid out elsewhere.

So if someone believes that the McCanns did commit a crime, there are three questions:

1/ Why and how did the Prosecutor and AG get it so wrong and websleuths get it right?
2/ Is there anything in the files that could be said to indicate a crime committed by the McCanns?
2/ What sort of evidence might emerge in future to indicate a crime against the McCanns?

Arguably the closest is Martin Smith's second statement.

Then again, there has to be some reason (besides an easily rectifiable administrative error) why Martin Smith was never interviewed a second time other than by the Irish Gardia police

[Carana]

...against the McCanns.

This excludes the dog 'evidence' and the Forensic evidence. Both of which are doubtful becasue of the reservations I have laid out elsewhere.

So if someone believes that the McCanns did commit a crime, there are three questions:

1/ Why and how did the Prosecutor and AG get it so wrong and websleuths get it right?
2/ Is there anything in the files that could be said to indicate a crime committed by the McCanns?
2/ What sort of evidence might emerge in future to indicate a crime against the McCanns?

Arguably the closest is Martin Smith's second statement.

Then again, there has to be some reason (besides an easily rectifiable administrative error) why Martin Smith was never interviewed a second time other than by the Irish Gardia police

To say what more than he already had? He had a doubt, the kids didn't agree.

What I find odd is that the police apparently never got an artist's sketch done.

[icabodcrane]

"No evidence of any crime against the McCanns"  ?

 

I though he said there was no evidence of a crime at all  ...  any  crime  ( including abduction therefore )

Isn't that what he said ? 

[debunker]

"No evidence of any crime against the McCanns"  ?

 

I though he said there was no evidence of a crime at all  ...  any  crime  ( including abduction therefore )

Isn't that what he said ?

No. No indication of any crime by the arguidos. Leaving the possibility of abduction open.

[icabodcrane]

"No evidence of any crime against the McCanns"  ?

 

I though he said there was no evidence of a crime at all  ...  any  crime  ( including abduction therefore )

Isn't that what he said ?

No. No indication of any crime by the arguidos. Leaving the possibility of abduction open.

Why do you say that when it is misleading to say the least ?

I have checked,  and this is what the prosector had to say about evidence of a crime  ( any crime )

"Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment  ( whether dead or alive, or whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively to establish where she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely"

When you insist that it was only a crime committed by the McCanns that was unevidenced in the Prosecutor's opinion and summing up,   you are, quite simply,   wrong (  which  is something you are making a habit of being,  I must say )

[debunker]

"No evidence of any crime against the McCanns"  ?

 

I though he said there was no evidence of a crime at all  ...  any  crime  ( including abduction therefore )

Isn't that what he said ?

No. No indication of any crime by the arguidos. Leaving the possibility of abduction open.

Why do you say that when it is misleading to say the least ?

I have checked,  and this is what the prosector had to say about evidence of a crime  ( any crime )

"Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment  ( whether dead or alive, or whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction ) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively to establish where she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely"

When you insist that it was only a crime committed by the McCanns that was unevidenced in the Prosecutor's opinion and summing up,   you are, quite simply,   wrong (  which  is something you are making a habit of being,  I must say )

Link please for that quote.

Note the summary of the case:

"8.31. Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:-
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code. Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled. Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the Arguidos are declared extinct."

http://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html

I am happy to accept your grovelling apology!

[debunker]

Icabod - The passage you've quoted clearly outlines that they believe a crime was committed, they just have no evidence of specifically what that crime was.  These are the only possibilities given consideration - "whether dead or alive, or whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction".

Let us see if hem has the good grace to apologise.

[ferryman]

about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment

Explicitly ruling out woke and wandered, as does Joao Carlos' final report.

[debunker]

I must admit this is the first time I've come across anyone who believed that the PT AG's conclusion was that Madeleine disappeared of her own volition and that no crime was committed.

There are many seriously uninformed people who will not accept facts and just accuse others. Almost every factual challenge I have posted has been ignored by the [ censored word ]s.

[icabodcrane]

I must admit this is the first time I've come across anyone who believed that the PT AG's conclusion was that Madeleine disappeared of her own volition and that no crime was committed.

Of course the  Prosecutor did not conclude that no crime had been commited  ( one clearly had )  ...  what he concluded was that whatever crime had  been commited ( and he left all possibilities on the table ) ,  no   evidence  of it had been found

It is wrong to pretend that the Prosector was of the opinion that only a crime committed by the McCann's was unevidenced, when that is clearly not the case

[debunker]

I must admit this is the first time I've come across anyone who believed that the PT AG's conclusion was that Madeleine disappeared of her own volition and that no crime was committed.

Of course the  Prosecutor did not conclude that no crime had been commited  ( one clearly had )  ...  what he concluded was that whatever crime had  been commited ( and he left all possibilities on the table ) ,  no   evidence  of it had been found

It is wrong to pretend that the Prosector was of the opinion that only a crime committed by the McCann's was unevidenced, when that is clearly not the case

No sign of that apology then.

You wrongly stated:

"When you insist that it was only a crime committed by the McCanns that was unevidenced in the Prosecutor's opinion and summing up,   you are, quite simply,   wrong (  which  is something you are making a habit of being,  I must say )"

and I then showed that I used the exact words in the report.

"No indication of any crime by the arguidos. Leaving the possibility of abduction open."

[icabodcrane]

I must admit this is the first time I've come across anyone who believed that the PT AG's conclusion was that Madeleine disappeared of her own volition and that no crime was committed.

Of course the  Prosecutor did not conclude that no crime had been commited  ( one clearly had )  ...  what he concluded was that whatever crime had  been commited ( and he left all possibilities on the table ) ,  no   evidence  of it had been found

It is wrong to pretend that the Prosector was of the opinion that only a crime committed by the McCann's was unevidenced, when that is clearly not the case

No sign of that apology then.

You wrongly stated:

"When you insist that it was only a crime committed by the McCanns that was unevidenced in the Prosecutor's opinion and summing up,   you are, quite simply,   wrong (  which  is something you are making a habit of being,  I must say )"

and I then showed that I used the exact words in the report.

"No indication of any crime by the arguidos. Leaving the possibility of abduction open."

debunker,  are you being deliberately dense ?

No evidence of a crime committed by the McCanns  was found  ... I accepted that

When I asked if the prosecutor had concluded that there was no  evidence of  any  crime,  you responded that,  "No",  he hadn't  ...  it was just evidence against the McCanns that he found to be  was lacking

You were wrong

[icabodcrane]

Icabod - The passage you've quoted clearly outlines that they believe a crime was committed, they just have no evidence of specifically what that crime was.  These are the only possibilities given consideration - "whether dead or alive, or whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction".

Absolutely Martha

The Prosecutor acknowledged all possibilities and confirmed that they remain possibilities

He concluded that there was no evidence on which to assume  any of those possibilites was more likely than the other

Debunkers statement  that the Prosecutor concluded that only the possibility of abduction was left open,  is entirely inaccurate 

[peter claridge]

...against the McCanns.

This excludes the dog 'evidence' and the Forensic evidence. Both of which are doubtful becasue of the reservations I have laid out elsewhere.

So if someone believes that the McCanns did commit a crime, there are three questions:

1/ Why and how did the Prosecutor and AG get it so wrong and websleuths get it right?
2/ Is there anything in the files that could be said to indicate a crime committed by the McCanns?
2/ What sort of evidence might emerge in future to indicate a crime against the McCanns?

Arguably the closest is Martin Smith's second statement.

Then again, there has to be some reason (besides an easily rectifiable administrative error) why Martin Smith was never interviewed a second time other than by the Irish Gardia police

To say what more than he already had? He had a doubt, the kids didn't agree.

What I find odd is that the police apparently never got an artist's sketch done.

What I find odd is that the leave no stone unturned McCann's have never got an artists sketch done of this totally independent sighting of their daughter being abducted.  They could have held a press conference to announce it.