Sceptics beliefs ?

[G-Unit]

It's not not  just my belief that the McCann's are not suspects, it does seem so far that two investigating police forces have not found any evidence suggesting otherwise.

I'm unsure of why you felt the need to bring Amaral into our exchange of posts..
Guilty of what.
Perjury?

Repeating your opinions doesn't make them correct, imo. They remain opinions.
 
You mentioned presumption of innocence. I mentioned Amaral as an example of people assuming guilt even after the courts have ruled otherwise.

[Venturi Swirl]

If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.

If she is found alive it will prove Amaral failed in his duty to investigate her disappearance properly.  Why would she thank him for being not very good at his job and determined to stitch up her parents instead?

[pathfinder73]

I have no doubt they do.
I'm just interested in why sceptics cling to their beliefs in spite of a lengthy police investigation by two police forces who will surely have noted all the obvious ( to sceptics) alarming doubts.

Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

[Erngath]

Here's the truth:

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

[faithlilly]

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.

[Brietta]

If, and that's a very big IF imo,  she ever turns up, it wasn't Amaral who had a duty of care to the child, and it wasn't Amaral that made her do a disappearing act. She'll have plenty of others to thank before she gets a chance to thank Amaral.

It was Amaral who declared her death ... in conjunction with many other core sceptic beliefs.

Snip

• Madeleine died in the apartment of the Ocean Club
• there was a simulation of an abduction
• the McCann couple are suspected of participating in the concealment of the body
• death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident
• there is evidence of negligence in the care and safety of the children

These are the final theses defended by Gonçalo Amaral
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id173.htm


There is no evidence for any of that ... it is opinion.  So why did Amaral's opinions become entrenched in the sceptic beliefs.

[Erngath]

And no official indication that anyone else is involved either.

True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?

[faithlilly]

True.
But still you cling to the belief that Madeleine's parents are involved.
Why?

Do you believe that two current Investigations are ignoring the obvious truths sceptics hold so dearly?

We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.

[Erngath]

We know that something happened to Madeleine.
There is no indication that her parents are suspected.
There is no indication that anyone else is suspected.
 But we know someone is involved and at this point it is just as likely to be the parents as AN Othet.

I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..
I assume you mean another.
But do appreciate that you accept there is no indication that her parents are suspected

[faithlilly]

I do believe that proving her parents are involved in her disappearance would be a slightly easier task than ANOthet..

It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.

[Erngath]

It’s so easy to believe something from a position of ignorance so be my guest.

Is it my ignorance you are referring to?

[pathfinder73]

Yesterday's news
Still two current police forces have not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
Do keep up.

The police can do it however they please. Their job is to gather enough evidence to solve it. They don't need to prewarn the suspect(s) or the public that would result in a media circus that could ruin an investigation!

28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

[Erngath]

28 January 2009 - Police confirm Prout is no longer suspected of murdering his wife.

10 March 2009 - Prout is arrested and charged with murder and appears at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-15794829

Ten years ago and absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance?
You do seem to bring random quotes and newspapers articles and historic criminal cases into the debate.

[pathfinder73]

You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

[Erngath]

You haven't got a clue. Police can do it anyway they want. They don't need to prewarn anyone!

Yes I'm sure they do.
It's possibly the way the best way to operate an investigation.