What do you think this means

[Mr Gray]

With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

[icabodcrane]

With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

Cherry picking extracts from the Prosecutor's report is rather pointless

For instance,  someone else can come along and copy and paste the paragraph  where he says the McCanns failed to prove their innocence when they refused to do a reconstruction

[Lyall]

So you think

Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

is saying nothing...perhaps you should read it again

We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.

[icabodcrane]

So it seems up to yet its the normal try to ignore the elephant in the room and it will soon go away...but it wont

The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns 

Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table

I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime,  there is, equally,  no evidence that they did not

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime 

[Mr Gray]

The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns 

Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table

I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime,  there is, equally,  no evidence that they did not

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime

You are posting what you guess it means.....it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...

[Lyall]

You are posting what you guess it means.....it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...

Does it state the crime was definitely abduction?

[ferryman]

We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.

Including Amaral?

Or excluding Amaral?

He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime 

There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.

Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...

[Mr Gray]

The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns 

Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table

I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime,  there is, equally,  no evidence that they did not

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime

Where do you get that from...are you making it up

[Mr Gray]

Does it state the crime was definitely abduction?

it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...

[Lyall]

Including Amaral?

Or excluding Amaral?

He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime 

There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.

Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...

So why do you think it appears Duarte isn't arguing this in the courtroom?

btw They were both most definitely simultaneously absent from the restaurant before they even arrived there.

[Lyall]

it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...

So that's a 'No' then.

[Mr Gray]

We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.

you can state that there is no evidence...if that is the case and that is what they have done...no evidence

[Mr Gray]

So that's a 'No' then.

are you unable to read it yourself..there are a million things it doesn't say..like ant statement..whats important is what it does say

[icabodcrane]

Including Amaral?

Or excluding Amaral?

He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).

For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report  'cleared them'  I suppose  he would needed to have concluded  that there   WAS  evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime 

There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.

Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...

There is no evidence that they did not commit a crime  ...  if there were,  the Prosecutor would not have left the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table 

[Lyall]

you can state that there is no evidence...if that is the case and that is what they have done...no evidence

No evidence to conclude anything definitively. That's where the investigation was in 2008, and it's where it is still.