I think you will need to explain why you think the two cases have any parallel. I can see no similairity whatever.
Really? The parallels in terms of what we are discussing i would have thought are obvious.
Ok then in a nutshell.
The initial suspects in the Lawrence case were not taken to court because there was no evidence against them (according to the police) at that time that could have been presented to a court.
Despite this they still remained suspects in terms of the investigation because the police did not look for anyone else and shelved the case.
Now using your logic you would say that they have been "cleared" but that is not the case becuase they were later convicted of the crime.
How can you be "cleared" and then later convicted?
So it is common practice for suspects to remain as suspects if and despite there being no evidence against them at the point of the case being shelved.
The same remains with the McCann's in Portugal. There was no evidence gathered according to the prosecutor that the Mccann's had committed a crime but at the same time they had not proven they were innocent to the investigation. The case was shelved and remains at that very same point in Portugal. If new evidence had come to light showing the McCann's innocence the case would have been reopened.
The important point here is that the investigation was incomplete and therefore the PJ were prevented from completing it by the refusal of the group to take part in the reconstruction.
So an
incomplete investigation had not gathered evidence in the prosecutor's view that the Mccann's had committed a crime.
The fact that the PJ have not managed to find any evidence against the McCanns and they have been released from auguido status is teh fatal falw in your arugument.
Not at all. It is the fatal flaw in your understanding of my argument.
As per the Lawrence case it took 19 years to find sufficient evidence against the perpetrators and for them to be convicted.
19 years! So it is clear from that case the lack of evidence did not stop them being suspects and they were not cleared.
The Arguido status is a formal suspect status. I believe it can only be applied to someone for a specific length of time.
Given the group's refusal to participate in the reconstruction, the investigation was "disturbed" and there was no prospect of gathering sufficient evidence to put before a court, hence the shelving and removal of Arguido status.
That does not change the fact that the Mccann's are still "suspects" in Portugal (given they have been unable to demonstrate their innocence) but not formal suspects as the law does not allow it.
In exactly the same way that the Lawrence killers remained suspects for the 19 years between the murder and their conviction.
I happily accept that you may be utterly convinced that the McCanns are still suspects in the eyes of the Portuguese ploice and possibly some members of the judiciary, and that some members here support that argument. It is is free world, and you are entitled to your opinon.
By the same token, I assume that you will allow that I choose to interpet the facts differently. You do seem to have a problem with posters here disagreeing with you.
No i look at the facts, which were stated in the Family Court and by the Ag report and i have explained ad infinitum the reasons for the comments regarding demonstrating innocence and i have given you example cases which illustrate my reasoning.
You on the other hand have not been able to rebut my assertions nor provide any evidence or examples to support your assertion.
So i have no problem in people having different opinions.
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.
