Do you really want to suggest a parallel? Especially given that the initial investigation was not exactly the Met's finest hour. And the suspects were a racist gang of thugs. Who it seems were possibly "protected " by the police because they were white and the victim was black. I am not sure the PJ would welcome such a comparison, but so be it.
In the Lawrence case, the five suspects were arrested after a fortnight. The charges were dropped a couple of months later after the CPS cited "insufficient evidence". A subsequent private prosecution also failed. The inquest jury returned a verdict after 30 minutes' deliberation of unlawful killing "in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths"; this finding went beyond the bounds of their instructions.
It was suggested during the course of the Lawrence enquiry that the murder was racially motivated and that Lawrence was killed because he was black, and that the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. A public inquiry was held in 1998,[4] headed by Sir William Macpherson, that examined the original Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation and concluded that the force was "institutionally racist"
A BBC investigation alleged that the murder inquiry's Det. Sgt. John Davidson had taken money from known drug smuggler Clifford Norris, the father of David Norris, a chief suspect in the investigation.[67] Neil Putnam, a former corrupt police detective turned whistleblower, told a BBC investigation that Clifford Norris was paying Mr Davidson to obstruct the case and to protect the suspects.
You are correct that eventually two of the initial suspects were convicted.
In the McCann case, the "suspects" did not even reach the stage of being arrested. And indeed were only constitued arguidos because by mid September an upcome change in the regulations would have raised the bar significantly (i.e. that there would actually need to be evidence in order for the police to make an arguido).
Attorney-general Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said the 14-month investigation had uncovered no evidence of a crime by any of the suspects or "arguidos".
You say: I have a problem when people bring false and misleading opinions which are not supported by facts or evidence simply so they can cling to the belief that the McCann's are innocent.
I have a problem with people when presented with logic and reasoning, and examples and evidence who refuse to change their beliefs but are not able to support said beliefs and opinions with facts and evidence.
That, I am afraid, exists only in your opinion. My interpetation of the facts, and of the law differ from yours. The McCanns are under no obligation to "prove their innocence".
If you have a problem with that, then it is your problem.
I have no idea why you think quoting superflous background info to the Lawrence case either counters my argument or indeed strengthens yours.
The detail of the case is irrelevant in the context of our discussion.
What is important is the broader outline of that case to provide demonstrative evidence to counter your false assumption that when there is no evidence to bring a suspect to court they are automatically "cleared".
As i pointed out there was no evidence against the Lawrence suspects, therefore under your assertion, they were "cleared".
However they were found guilty 19 years later.
The pertinent question which you have avoided like the plague is how your theory stacks up in the Lawrence case, when they were convicted of the crime after, using your theory, being cleared in 1993?
The facts of that case are that the lack of evidence against them did not clear them because subsequently they were convicted of the crime.
And that boils down to the fact that only a court can clear someone, not the police.
The real fact of the matter is that the Prosecutor's report said there was no evidence but they had not demonstrated their innocence, supported by the Assistant Cheif Constable of Leicestershire's statement in court.
And that is because whilst there was no evidence found in the incomplete investigation there was no evidence which specfically ruled them out of involvement either.
You claim to understand the law yet you are not only saying i am wrong, you are also saying that:
The Public Proescutor who wrote the report ( A professional lawyer)
The Portuguese Attorney General who validated the report (Portugal's most senior lawyer)
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and their lawyers who advised them
Lord Justice Hogg (who allowed the comments to be made in court)
Are all wrong and all know less about the law than you do.
So forgive me if appear not to be taking no for an answer but clearly your knoweldge of the law is less than the above mentioned legal and Judicial professionals who all stated the same.
You are free to believe what you want but when it is so manifestly wrong don't expeoct opthers to simply accept it as fact.
