“ The McCanns Are Not Suspects”

[Brietta]

Over 5 years ago.

Uh huh ... which is precisely why I am so puzzled about why Faithlilly keeps raising it ... didn't she start a thread about it too?

[slartibartfast]

Uh huh ... which is precisely why I am so puzzled about why Faithlilly keeps raising it ... didn't she start a thread about it too?

It’s to do with certain supporters clinging to the “SY/PG said” and discussing whether it is still the case. I have lost count of the number of “final” leads that have been mentioned over the last few years. They appear to be reexamining all the reports that had been discounted and ending up at the same conclusions.

[carlymichelle]

It’s to do with certain supporters clinging to the “SY/PG said” and discussing whether it is still the case. I have lost count of the number of “final” leads that have been mentioned over the last few years. They appear to be reexamining all the reports that had been discounted and ending up at the same conclusions.

exactly nothing has changed  in 5 years and i doubt it will

[Mr Gray]

It’s to do with certain supporters clinging to the “SY/PG said” and discussing whether it is still the case. I have lost count of the number of “final” leads that have been mentioned over the last few years. They appear to be reexamining all the reports that had been discounted and ending up at the same conclusions.

I don't think supporters are clinging to anything... More sceptics clinging to their belief that somehow the McCanns are, still under suspicion when there is nothing to support it...
I dint find anything strange in believing SY and the PJ are being truthful when everything else supports that view  ..

And you do not know exactly what SY are investigating

[Brietta]

It’s to do with certain supporters clinging to the “SY/PG said” and discussing whether it is still the case. I have lost count of the number of “final” leads that have been mentioned over the last few years. They appear to be reexamining all the reports that had been discounted and ending up at the same conclusions.

That seems to be the way that the Portuguese police appear to operate don't you know.  Even the information given to the public that Madeleine's case was to be reopened was announced via a press release;

Quote
Portuguese police have reopened the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, according to an announcement by the Public Prosecutor’s office.

A press statement revealed that “new elements of evidence” which were presented by the PJ police justified the "continuation of the investigation". The case had been closed by Portuguese police in 2008 - a year after Madeleine McCann disappeared from the tourist complex in Praia da Luz where her family was spending their vacation."
http://portugalresident.com/portuguese-police-reopen-madeleine-mccann-inquiry


No names no pack drill - and do please note from the same article   ...
Quote
Media reports are stating that the request to reopen the case was made by PJ police as a result of a two-year-long investigation led by a team of detectives from Porto. It is reported that the squad of four investigators identified witnesses who had never been queried when the case was still open, and that they travelled to the Algarve on several occasions to gather evidence and carry out informal interrogations.

It is also said that the only way that these investigations could be conducted ‘on the record’ would be if the inquiry was reopened and that the police’s leads are, as British police suspect as well, based around the theory of a kidnapping.
http://portugalresident.com/portuguese-police-reopen-madeleine-mccann-inquiry


It may seem odd to us but it appears to be the Portuguese way which makes it all the more remarkable that Pedro do Carmo chose to declare (2017) that the McCanns ARE NOT SUSPECTS following on from Andy Redwood saying (2013) the same some years ago.  Making the police position consistent whether you like it or not ... and to borrow on from the title of the thread ... The McCanns Are Not Suspects.

[Alice Purjorick]

That article is 2 years later.  The paper has still gone bust and they are looking to sue Amaral at that stage.

Are you trying to tell me that the McCanns did not drop their action against T & Q?
And futher their reason for doing so was on legal advice?
Presented as to "concentrate on the action against Sr Amaral"?
And further this latter action was successful for the McCanns?
An interesting concept is all that.

[Mr Gray]

Are you trying to tell me that the McCanns did not drop their action against T & Q?
And futher their reason for doing so was on legal advice?
Presented as to "concentrate on the action against Sr Amaral"?
And further this latter action was successful for the McCanns?
An interesting concept is all that.

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

[slartibartfast]

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

No money in it.

[Mr Gray]

No money in it.

so the paper would not even defend the action ...so no point

[Alice Purjorick]

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

They could have sued the author of the piece.

[Mr Gray]

They could have sued the author of the piece.

did he have any assets

[Alice Purjorick]

did he have any assets

Dunno. But we are lead to believe it was not about money.

[Mr Gray]

Dunno. But we are lead to believe it was not about money.

Who said it was .....if you sue someone and they have assets they can be forced to issue an apology  to reduce damages... No assets..they probably don't even have to turn up at court and leave you with hefty legal bills

[Alice Purjorick]

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

It would appear you have some of this posterior about facade.
If a writ were issued there had of necessity to be two legal persons involved [plaintiff v defendant]
ergo T & Q existed at the time any writ was issued............................ join up the dots

[Alice Purjorick]

Who said it was .....if you sue someone and they have assets they can be forced to issue an apology  to reduce damages... No assets..they probably don't even have to turn up at court and leave you with hefty legal bills

You are struggling now.

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