What do you think this means

[Mr Gray]

His booklet was a great deal more extreme than Mr Amaral's book It was clearly indefensible.

He didn't have lawyers, or co-defendants either. The book will surely have been checked by the publisher's lawyer(s) before publication.

in the same way as lawyers for the express checked their article...I just think amaral et al never dreamt they would be held to account for what they said

[Montclair]

Of course...but there is no evidence against the MCcANNS

So, according to your logic the parents have been cleared. Therefore, if that is the case why didn't the McCanns ask the Portuguese authorities not to shelve the case since they did not have to fear being implicated.

As the judge pointed out during the current trial, the archiving report is a piece of evidence, not a judgement. Also, the judge pointed out the investigation is inconclusive. Therefore, nothing has been decided as to innocence or guilt of those involved, nor what crime has actually been committed. The problem was that the investigation was interrupted and it was not yet possible to find out the truth.

[Lyall]

in the same way as lawyers for the express checked their article...I just think amaral et al never dreamt they would be held to account for what they said

Did the newspapers check the legality of their articles? >@@(*&) Doubtful. They just gambled. They thought the McCanns would be charged in Portugal.

By the following summer I don't think the publishers would have been in any doubt about the possibility of being challenged would they, after seeing that the English press had already paid compensation. Think about it.

They still released the book.

[Mr Gray]

Did the newspapers check the legality of their articles? >@@(*&) Doubtful. They just gambled. They thought the McCanns would be charged in Portugal.

By the following summer I don't think the publishers would have been in any doubt about the possibility of being challenged would they, after seeing that the English press had already paid compensation. Think about it.

They still released the book.

Amaral and his publishers gambled likewise

[Montclair]

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

The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.

[stephen25000]

And you think the FCO are better informed about the case than SY?
Yeah OK!

Tough.

Perhaps we should examine the success rate of SY compared to other forces around the world, and you only have to look around a bit to see cock-ups by UK police forces, including the current SY team in this investigation.

Meanwhile if SY are right, why haven't the FCO revised their view of the crime ?

[Lyall]

Amaral and his publishers gambled likewise

Unlikely. In July 2008 they'd be in no doubt about the legal power possessed by the McCanns. By then it had been obvious for nine months.

You might just have to consider they knew what they were doing

[Luz]

The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.

Exactly. Look at Rui Pedro's that even after they had to close the investigation due to legal timings was re-opened in order to charge and condemn the only suspect found.

[The new fact for the re-opening was the acceptance of a witness that before had been discarded]

[gilet]

The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.

So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?

What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.

[Montclair]

So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?

What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.

The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.

[stephen25000]

The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.

Indeed it does, whether gilet or the Mccanns like it or not.

[Lyall]

So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?

What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.

I think you have to remember the intense pressure that existed in 2008. Some of it still exists today, as is apparent in the Lisbon courtroom.

There was pressure to resolve the arguido status, so that's what they did.

[AnneGuedes]

Ferryman in black..

There is evidence that they committed no crime
vs
There is no evidence that they committed a crime.
their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert
vs
Their having to behave normally 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
vs no evidence that they were simultaneously present in the flat after Kate's alert
the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting
vs the conclusion of the final AG report that Gerry's presence in the restaurant when the alert was launched was not denied by the restaurant's employees.
the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry
vs
the testimony of Mr Smith that the man they saw could be Gerry, that his wife agreed and their children didn't.
the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.
vs
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer said we don't know whether Madeleine is alive or dead, as the AG report says.

[AnneGuedes]

The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.

Innocent parents, after a shelving due to the lifting of Mr Murat's arguido status and convinced there was a good chance their daughter was alive, would be expected to request an instruction to be led under the control of a special judge (and not of the MP).
They could play an active part, as assistants of the process, a function they had solicited in August 2007. They could have their lawyers examining the files and ask interventions but might in turn have to collaborate in a reconstitution of the events.

[Albertini]

But good ol Dave L in a previous thread stated the report was written by an "idiot" in attempting to explain away the failure to prove their innocence part which is mentioned TWICE in the archiving report.

I find it hilarious that Dave is using the archiving report as a beacon of intelligence and correctness on the "no evidence" part but he calls the author an idiot on the bit that goes against his pre conceived ideas about the McCann's on the "failure to demonstrate innocence" part.

It destroys his credibility to call the author of the report on the one hand "an idiot" (on the bit he doesn't like) and then to quote from it as some kind of definitive finding of fact on the bit he does approve of.