For Albertini ...

[Mr Gray]

so what innocence was the final report referring to ...actual innocence or innocence in the eyes of the law..please provide supporting evidence with your answer...I don't mind if you copy and paste

[Eleanor]

I haven't but it is complex as the law is. Hopefully you will understand in a post or two when albertini answers the question, I think he has to phone a friend

Don't worry, Darling.  I do understand what you are saying, both of you, actually.  But each case is different.  That's the rub.

Nope, The McCanns would have proved nothing by going back to Portugal and doing a reconstruction.  But since they never refused to do this, I don't understand how they failed.

[Mr Gray]

As i have stated many times, it was proving their innocence to the investigation, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

Completely different concept and nothing to do with judicial innocence.

The phrase you used continually was proving their innocence. you have now resorted to lies to try to justify your posts.

[Albertini]

Don't worry, Darling.  I do understand what you are saying, both of you, actually.  But each case is different.  That's the rub.

Nope, The McCanns would have proved nothing by going back to Portugal and doing a reconstruction.  But since they never refused to do this, I don't understand how they failed.

Well, you may think it would have proven nothing but that is not the conclusion of the AG report.

And of course they could not refuse directly to go, although their spokesman said their lawyers would block the request to go back so they got their friends to refuse to go to solve the conundrum for them.

[Albertini]

The phrase you used continually was proving their innocence

And always in the context of the AG report which was summarising a police investigation i.e. proving their innocence to the investigation.

Why would i be talking about proving their innocence to a court when they have never been to court.

Think you've just got hopelessly confused with the difference between police investigations and judicial cases.

[Albertini]

The phrase you used continually was proving their innocence. you have now resorted to lies to try to justify your posts.

Sorry, which lies?

[Mr Gray]

Sorry, which lies?

As i have stated many times, it was proving their innocence to the investigation, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

The phrase you have used most often is proving.....demonstrating their innocence

[Albertini]

As i have stated many times, it was proving their innocence to the investigation, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

The phrase you have used most often is proving.....demonstrating their innocence

And why is that a lie?

[Mr Gray]

, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

That's the lie

the phrase you have used ad nauseam is proving their innocence

[Albertini]

, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

That's the lie

You keep saying that but not expanding upon it.

[Eleanor]

Well, you may think it would have proven nothing but that is not the conclusion of the AG report.

And of course they could not refuse directly to go, although their spokesman said their lawyers would block the request to go back so they got their friends to refuse to go to solve the conundrum for them.

I understand perfectly why their friends refused to go, for their own sakes.

Have you any proof that The McCanns brought this about?

[Mr Gray]

You keep saying that but not expanding upon it.

its very clear, again you must be the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand it.

Off out now

[Albertini]

, the phrase i have used most often is "ruling themselves out" as suspects.

That's the lie

the phrase you have used ad nauseam is proving their innocence

And proving their innocence to the investigation equals or is the same as ruling themselves out!

It's the same thing, for heavens sake!

[Eleanor]

And proving their innocence to the investigation equals or is the same as ruling themselves out!

It's the same thing, for heavens sake!

No it isn't.

[Albertini]

No it isn't.

So how is a suspect ruled out of an investigation? What must they do?