Lawyers and Such

[stephen25000]

LOL I think most of us are capable of understanding what NO INDICATION OF ANY CRIME means in the circumstances, thanks.

No the point was pertinent, because you and others would like like to imply the Mccanns have nothing to answer for.

However, they do.

Their irresponsible actions are why we are here today arguing the case.

[Mrs. B]

Clearly not what the legal summary says at all.

[AnneGuedes]

we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
If the crime isn't defined, who could be charged of what ?

[Mrs. B]

Yes, exactly.

[Rachel Granada]

Already seen sometime ago.

However, please do note, 'no indications of the practice of any crime', does not mean no crime was not committed.

It means evidence was insufficient at the time to bring a prosecution.

"Evidence" that the PJ had was insufficient to even warrant arresting the McCanns, never mind charge or prosecute them.  So it sounds like the PJ's evidence was rubbish, doesn't it?

[Mrs. B]

"Evidence" that the PJ had was insufficient to even warrant arresting the McCanns, never mind charge or prosecute them.  So it sounds like the PJ's evidence was rubbish, doesn't it?

From the legal summary

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

So in effect, not ONE of the indications that were the basis for Amaral's suspicions was later confirmed. Not ONE....that's must be some record.

[stephen25000]

"Evidence" that the PJ had was insufficient to even warrant arresting the McCanns, never mind charge or prosecute them.  So it sounds like the PJ's evidence was rubbish, doesn't it?

Tell me Rachel or whatever your real name is, who is to blame for leaving 3 children undefended in a locked/unlocked apartment, whilst they wined and dined ?

Was it the tooth fairy ?

Don't bother with an 'abductor', remember there is 'NO EVIDENCE'. >@@(*&)

[Mrs. B]

Process of elimination, there is no evidence of any criminal activity by the McCann, the forensic timeline shows that there was opportunity for a stranger abduction to have happened (according to Scotland Yard). You have eye witnesses seeing someone leaving the area with carrying a child. That person has never come forward, hence logical explanation is abduction by stranger.

[Rachel Granada]

Tell me Rachel or whatever your real name is, who is to blame for leaving 3 children undefended in a locked/unlocked apartment, whilst they wined and dined ?
 
Was it the tooth fairy ?

Don't bother with an 'abductor', remember there is 'NO EVIDENCE'. >@@(*&)

Tell me, stephen, or whatever your real name is, why were Kate and Gerry McCann not even arrested, never mind charged?

Don't bother with "dogs don't lie". Remember there was "NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE".   >@@(*&)

[stephen25000]

Tell me, stephen, or whatever your real name is, why were Kate and Gerry McCann not even arrested, never mind charged?

Don't bother with "dogs don't lie". Remember there was "NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE".   >@@(*&)

Unfortunately, there is FA evidence of an abduction at all.

Back to square one.

Wow and 6+ years of worldwide publicity and not one lead........................... >@@(*&)

[Rachel Granada]

Unfortunately, there is FA evidence of an abduction at all.

Back to square one.

Wow and 6+ years of worldwide publicity and not one lead........................... >@@(*&)

There is also FA evidence that the McCanns "did it".

Back to square one.

I believe Scotland Yard have a number of new leads.

[Mrs. B]

There is always going to be that problem, those who rely on Scotland Yard to know what they're talking about & those who rely on their own abilities as arm chair detectives. Guess whose opinions will matter in the end?

[Rachel Granada]

There is always going to be that problem, those who rely on Scotland Yard to know what they're talking about & those who rely on their own abilities as arm chair detectives. Guess whose opinions will matter in the end?

It beggars belief that some seem to think they know better than Scotland Yard! I feel sorry for the poor souls at SY who had to suffer Bennett's "dossier", HideHo's lie-strewn videos and the frankly insane phone-ping and creche records "evidence" from Dewi Lennard.  GCHQ? More like B+Q (sweeping up in the stockroom).

[icabodcrane]

It beggars belief that some seem to think they know better than Scotland Yard! I feel sorry for the poor souls at SY who had to suffer Bennett's "dossier", HideHo's lie-strewn videos and the frankly insane phone-ping and creche records "evidence" from Dewi Lennard.  GCHQ? More like B+Q (sweeping up in the stockroom).

That won't have taken them long

They must have spent ages, though,  going through the box loads of information gathered by the rag-tag of private detectives hired by the McCanns 

I wonder what they made of all that

[Mrs. B]

It beggars belief that some seem to think they know better than Scotland Yard! I feel sorry for the poor souls at SY who had to suffer Bennett's "dossier", HideHo's lie-strewn videos and the frankly insane phone-ping and creche records "evidence" from Dewi Lennard.  GCHQ? More like B+Q (sweeping up in the stockroom).

Bet they found poor Dewi's cloning/substitute child theory quite riveting, but it seems they didn't take it seriously, as he currently thinks he's working with the FBI instead. Mad as a box of frogs.