Why did Amaral and PJ suspect the McCanns and Murat as being somehow involved?

[ferryman]

I haven't because they weren't.

But you think that, if you want!

It revolves again around "failing to demonstrate innocence" which you appear incapable of understanding.

Only people who are extra-legal delude themselves that there is any such thing as "failing to demonstrate innocence".

There is no presumption of guilt, including in Portugal ...

[Albertini]

Only people who are extra-legal delude themselves that there is any such thing as "failing to demonstrate innocence".

There is no presumption of guilt, including in Portugal ...

So are you saying that:

The Public Prosecutor
The AG of Portugal
The assistant chief Constable of Leicestershire & his legal team
Lord Justice Hogg

Are "deluded"?

Can i ask what your authority is on legal matters to allow you to come to that conclusion?

[AnneGuedes]

Ferryman, I'm not sure it's a good idea to insist on the innocence issue when you're not treated as guilty. The risk is people start wondering whether finally you're so really innocent, a very common mechanism, as you know.

[Jazzy]

So if you are accused of the murder of your child, insisting on your innocence makes you look guilty?

[Albertini]

So if you are accused of the murder of your child, insisting on your innocence makes you look guilty?

This just won't do. You're going off at a tangent without addressing the previous issue.

To repeat we are waiting for you to provide a quote from the AG report which says the parents are "innocent" and more specifically which uses your "innocence" word.

Either provide the quote or admit it isn't there and that you were wrong because the AG report says no such thing.

[Jazzy]

If you want the quote, Albertini, find it for yourself, it's actually on the forum.

On a tangent? I was asking Anne to clarify her post.

It won't do for whom? Are you under the impression I am here to somehow please you? That most certainly wouldn't be correct.

[Albertini]

If you want the quote, Albertini, find it for yourself, it's actually on the forum.

Nope, you have said that it says they are "innocent", so it's on you to cite your claim. I'm not looking for something to support what you said.

that's upto you to back up your claims.

I take it then you can't find it? If you can't find it then you must accept that it does not exist and that you are wrong.

So are you going to admit that so we can all move on?

On a tangent? I was asking Anne to clarify her post.

It won't do for whom? Are you under the impression I am here to somehow please you? That most certainly wouldn't be correct.

Nope, what i am saying won't do is for you to make an unsupported claim to try and prove me wrong, then when asked to support your claim you then ignore the whole issue and move onto debating with someone else.

You've made a false claim and when called out on it, you have simply ignored it, hoping it will go away.

I am asking you, please, to provide evidence or to admit defeat before you move on to discuss other things with other posters.

That way we and the whole forum can be clear on the point and claim you have made so there no chance of us having this same conversation again in later posts and threads.

[ferryman]

So are you saying that:

The Public Prosecutor
The AG of Portugal
The assistant chief Constable of Leicestershire & his legal team
Lord Justice Hogg

Are "deluded"?

Can i ask what your authority is on legal matters to allow you to come to that conclusion?

No.

Only you (and others who adhere to your erroneous belief, none of whom figure in your list).

[Albertini]

No.

Only you (and others who adhere to your erroneous belief, none of whom figure in your list).

But they all said it, advised it, or allowed it to be said in their court.

So how come those legal minds allow and accept it but you don't?

[Jazzy]

Nope, you have said that it says they are "innocent", so it's on you to cite your claim. I'm not looking for something to support what you said.

that's upto you to back up your claims.

I take it then you can't find it? If you can't find it then you must accept that it does not exist and that you are wrong.

So are you going to admit that so we can all move on?

Nope, what i am saying won't do is for you to make an unsupported claim to try and prove me wrong, then when asked to support your claim you then ignore the whole issue and move onto debating with someone else.

You've made a false claim and when called out on it, you have simply ignored it, hoping it will go away.

I am asking you, please, to provide evidence or to admit defeat before you move on to discuss other things with other posters.

That way we and the whole forum can be clear on the point and claim you have made so there no chance of us having this same conversation again in later posts and threads.

I have no intention of going to any effort for you, if you want to find it, go and have a look, I'm under no obligation to please you.

As for false claim, you'll find you are mistaken.


All of my claims are based on the facts that no evidence was found to be enough to arrest and charge the Mccanns, and that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Albertini]

I have no intention of going to any effort for you, if you want to find it, go and have a look, I'm under no obligation to please you.

You don't understand this debating malarkey, do you?

If you wish to state something as a fact you need to bring evidence (or cites) to support that fact.

It is not up to the person debating with you to prove your assertion.

If you are unwilling to provide evidence then that is a sign you cannot, and that's the point at which you must concede that your "fact" is wrong.

Of course you won't but that's what you should do.

As for false claim, you'll find you are mistaken.

Again stating a fact with not a shred of evidence to support it. Cite please.

All of my claims are based on the facts that no evidence was found to be enough to arrest and charge the Mccanns, and that situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

We aren't talking about any evidence found against them, we are talking about your assertion that the AG report stated they were innocent.

Where is it?

[Jazzy]

I came across this, Albert, it was an effort but there we are, I've been too busy watching the fun and games elsewhere in cyberspace.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html

[Lace]

They weren't arrested as there was an insufficiency of evidence against them relating to any crime.  End off!!

EXACTLY !!

Saying they fled Portugual  is a lot of rubbish to make it sound as though the McCann's were guilty of something and ran away.

1

[stephen25000]

Sterphen

This is happening too often.  You have done it again.

Please will you sort your post out and NOT add words within my post

Done.


Meanwhile, you have failed to answer the question posed more than once.

Have you been in contact with SY with your 'theories' on solving the case ?

Meanwhile as to the title of the thread. The PJ believed the Mccanns had a case to answer, but they lacked the forensics to back it up.

[Chinagirl]

Sadie is n ot obliged to answer your silly question, Stephen.  Who she discusses her theories with, or doesn't, is none of your business, frankly.