AG said he couldn't explain how the McCanns could be responsible - Can you?

[Carana]

" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.

Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?

[AnneGuedes]

Is there any specific law in Portugal that requires the dismissal of "doubt" that every Tom, Dick & Harry around may, or may not, have in order to be officially regarded as "innocent" in the eyes of the law?

If so, would someone please provide some type of link to it, I must have missed it.

No specific law in Portugal and nowhere else !
The eyes of the law aren't in question. The public opinion is. It's not a secret that many people have a doubt and will always have about the involvement of the Mr and Mrs McCann.
There's no evidence whatsoever that an abduction did or didn't occurred. Doubting is then absolutely legitimate. 

[AnneGuedes]

" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.

Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?

Well, SY of course doesn't "have to", but you surely understand that it's not enough to claim that "abduction is a likely scenario" to turn abduction likely and erase people's doubts. Some kind of evidence is needed.

[AnneGuedes]

Doubting  is not legitimate if you do it in public on the internet and your doubts as expressed in print make it clear that you believe the McCanns are liars who have covered up the death of their child.  The latest ruling by Judge T in the Bercow case proves this beyond doubt!

Not believing is a right and it's certainly healthy to be critical. I never treated "liars" Mr and Mrs McCann, rather than believing them or not (which in itself has no interest whatsoever), I find Eddie's findings disturbing, among some other things.

[Mrs. B]

Yes, and STILL has no explanation whatsoever HOW this supposed crime could have taken place given.

[Carana]

" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.

Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?

Well, SY of course doesn't "have to", but you surely understand that it's not enough to claim that "abduction is a likely scenario" to turn abduction likely and erase people's doubts. Some kind of evidence is needed.

Nothing - at this stage - will erase entrenched doubts.

How do you prove a negative, Anne?

There were no CCTV images which would have been objective data.

In my view, if a virtual reconstruction of the timeline (including variations) had concluded that there was NO opportunity for an abduction, then that would have been a big red flag. But this doesn't seem to be the case.

[Mrs. B]

Let's be clear here, the ruling in the Bercow case is a simple fact, it's not something anyone has invented to cause upset to the McCann "doubters".

It dispels the misconception that you can write whatever you like about people online & not be held legally responsible. Clearly, it's a good idea to think through what we write before posting potentially libelous & deeply hurtful comments or accusations on social media or online.

Most of those who call themselves McCann skeptics would not change their minds if Madeleine turned up tomorrow, IMO. They would instead claim the abduction was a hoax, or a government conspiracy or it wasn't Madeleine at all, just a substitute clone or whatever. In the eyes of those people, the parents will ALWAYS be guilty of something or other. & I repeat, IMO.

[John]

So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?

"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "

Obviously they weren't able to do it Mrs B.  Which doesn't surprise me in the least as they are so obviously innocent of anything more than being somewhat naïve where the security of their three children was concerned!

[John]

Yes, so he's blaming the Tapas Group for having caused damage TO the McCann as they did not agree to travel to Portugal for a reconstruction. Thanks, we knew that.

Whether he was right or wrong in his assumption that a reconstruction would have been helpful to implicate OR clear the parents, is another question. As we know, Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call

In my opinion that report is just bullshit for we haven't got a clue where to go from here so we will blame the tapas 7.  They have all they need for a reconstruction not that it would serve any purpose in any event!

What would they reconstruct anyway?  The Gerry, Jez and Jane event and the Jane and abductor event?  The Smith and the mystery man carrying child event?  What would any of this serve to accomplish anyway as it has all been done before at least twice?