Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[The General]

OH KIZZY! 

Please be realistic!   The harm done to them their children and all the family is immense.   They are to be admired for having shouldered it all without suing some of you.   

I wonder if that will come when the case is wound up ?

I think their suing days are over after the monumental smackdown delivered last time out.
Arrogance and other people's money will only get you so far. (Another German phrase I just made up)

[kizzy]

OH KIZZY! 

Please be realistic!   The harm done to them their children and all the family is immense.   They are to be admired for having shouldered it all without suing some of you.   

I wonder if that will come when the case is wound up ?

Sadie with all due respect. I believe the mccs are involved in in covering up what happened to maddie.  They have also not been cleared of that.IMO

So how in any way could I admire them ...for what I believe they have done.

That is my opinion.

Do you honestly think this case will ever be wound up.

[Mr Gray]

Sadie with all due respect. I believe the mccs are involved in in covering up what happened to maddie.  They have also not been cleared of that.

So how in any way could I admire them ...for what I believe they have done.

That is my opinion.

Do you honestly think this case will ever be wound up.

the SC did not say they have not beem cleared ...reda it again

[kizzy]

the SC did not say they have not beem cleared ...reda it again

Who mentioned SC reda my post again ...although should have put IMO.

[Mr Gray]

Who mentioned SC reda my post again ...although should have put IMO.

you said they have not been cleared....the SC never said that

P D Carmo said not suspects and no evidence against them

[kizzy]

you said they have not been cleared....the SC never said that

P D Carmo said not suspects and no evidence against them

I didn't mention SC in my post ...but now you have mentioned them twice so

Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/09/kate-and-gerry-mccann-havent-been-proved-innocent-over-maddies-disappearance-6436728/?ito=cbshare

[Mr Gray]

I didn't mention SC in my post ...but now you have mentioned them twice so

Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/09/kate-and-gerry-mccann-havent-been-proved-innocent-over-maddies-disappearance-6436728/?ito=cbshare

That's the paper..it's an inaccurate claim ...that isn't what the SC said.  Even they aren't that stupid

Read what the SC said and you will understand

[kizzy]

That's the paper..it's an inaccurate claim ...that isn't what the SC said.  Even they aren't that stupid

Read what the SC said and you will understand

Ihave read it.


Page 03
...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).

A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

Page 03
...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).

A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

[Mr Gray]

Ihave read it.


Page 03
...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).

A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

Page 03
...(pp. 53, 57, 59, 144), the statements of the Smith family (p. 115) and the evidence collected by the K9 team (pp. 157, 162, 167).

A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis" (truth exception).

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

You do realise the SC are not saying Maddie died in tha apartment

[kizzy]

You do realise the SC are not saying Maddie died in tha apartment

They are not saying she didn't either IMO

[Mr Gray]

They are not saying she didn't either IMO

They aren't saying either..that wasn't what they were asked to do

[G-Unit]

They aren't saying either..that wasn't what they were asked to do

To be exact they were addressing the claim by the McCann's lawyer that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. The SC decided they weren't. The MSM printed stories such as the one quoted because they had previously claimed the McCanns had been cleared. They were correcting their previous misunderstanding;

Kate and Gerry McCann are "relieved" to be cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine but there is "no degree of celebration", their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/mccanns-cleared-as-maddie-case-is-closed-metro-21--t12066.html

[Mr Gray]

To be exact they were addressing the claim by the McCann's lawyer that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. The SC decided they weren't. The MSM printed stories such as the one quoted because they had previously claimed the McCanns had been cleared. They were correcting their previous misunderstanding;

Kate and Gerry McCann are "relieved" to be cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine but there is "no degree of celebration", their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/mccanns-cleared-as-maddie-case-is-closed-metro-21--t12066.html

The point is the SC have not said the McCanns have not been cleared and they have not said they have not been proven innocent. These are untrue claims believed by some sceptics.

I think its fair to say they have been cleared since they were suspects and are no longer suspects. In reality the term cleared dosnt really have any precise legal definition. It seems its Ok by sceptics to consider the three burglars and Murta cleared but in reality neither have...because there is no process of being cleared. Even  a not guilty verdict in court is not  a declaration or proof of innocence.

IMO its just sceptic mudslinging. The McCanns are not suspects in the Portuguese...UK or German investigation.

thats not proof of innocence...that may well come soon if CB is convicted. ..but it is evidence of innocence.

the only contention is did the SC use the term no proof or no evidence of innocence re the archiving despatch.

I think the ECHR will have  a lot to say about the handling of the appeal by the SC and as  a previous post by you showed the SC have  a poor record at the ECHR when it come to their respect of human rights...we will see

[G-Unit]

The point is the SC have not said the McCanns have not been cleared and they have not said they have not been proven innocent. These are untrue claims believed by some sceptics.

I think its fair to say they have been cleared since they were suspects and are no longer suspects. In reality the term cleared dosnt really have any precise legal definition. It seems its Ok by sceptics to consider the three burglars and Murta cleared but in reality neither have...because there is no process of being cleared. Even  a not guilty verdict in court is not  a declaration or proof of innocence.

IMO its just sceptic mudslinging. The McCanns are not suspects in the Portuguese...UK or German investigation.

thats not proof of innocence...that may well come soon if CB is convicted. ..but it is evidence of innocence.

the only contention is did the SC use the term no proof or no evidence of innocence re the archiving despatch.

I think the ECHR will have  a lot to say about the handling of the appeal by the SC and as  a previous post by you showed the SC have  a poor record at the ECHR when it come to their respect of human rights...we will see

I think it's the McCanns, their representatives and the MSM who you need to address, because it was them who claimed they were cleared in 2008. All that money spent on lawyers who seemed to misunderstand the law!

[Mr Gray]

I think it's the McCanns, their representatives and the MSM who you need to address, because it was them who claimed they were cleared in 2008. All that money spent on lawyers who seemed to misunderstand the law!

No its sceptics who misquote the  SC who I wish to address. I think its the SC who misunderstand the law. I think claiming to have been cleared when the suspect is told there is no evidence of any crime is quite reasonable...but the SC decided to rewrite the despatch