Scotland Yard and the PJ have stated the McCanns are not suspects.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think your post is  misleading

The suggestion that Scotland Yard  have 'ruled out'  the McCanns as suspects implies that they ( the McCanns )   were,  at some point,  suspected of involvement by Scotland Yard and that subsequent   investigation and evidence had  proven that they were not

There is a world of difference between being  ( currently )  not suspect and being  'ruled out'  as suspects

Scotland Yard have  never   said the McCanns have been  ruled out

With regard to Scotland Yard being  'not obliged'  to speak of their reasons for   'ruling out'  the McCanns as suspects I do not follow the logic

If they have uncovered irrefutable evidence that the McCanns were not involved in their child's dissappearance  then what possible reason could Scotland Yard have for not saying so  ? 

I mean,  they did it with regard to the man Jane Tanner saw,  didn't they  ? 

They said that he was no longer  a suspect because evidence had been found that  'ruled him out'

Why  havn't they done the same thing with the McCanns and simply announced that evidence  has been found that  'rules them  out'    ?

I have explained my opinions on all of these points before, except the Jane Tanner question.

I would imagine that Scotland Yard broadcast this aspect of their inquiry because they wished to appeal to the public regarding the newly-emphasised Smith sighting. That was the context in which they gave over the information.

Even in that context, however,  they chose not go into all the details behind their ruling out of Tannerman - in keeping with what seems to be their policy of 'not giving a running commentary'.

[Luz]

The Portuguese Attorney General & the National Director of the PJ were very clear when they affirmed that the original investigation was being reopened.

They didn't say the McCann were not suspects, and as the investigation is the same, the McCann are still suspects as they were when the investigation was archived in 2008.

[Luz]

I am sorry most people don't understand, but what the Scotland Yard may say about this case has no consequence in Portugal.

[Angelo222]

I am sorry most people don't understand, but what the Scotland Yard may say about this case has no consequence in Portugal.

If you think that Luz then you are solely mistaken.   You are also wrong when you claim that the PJ have not said that the McCanns are not suspects. The McCanns arguido status was removed as part of the original investigation.

Turning this thread on its head, neither SY nor the PJ have ever said that the McCanns are 'innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance'.

[Mr Gray]

If you think that Luz then you are solely mistaken.   You are also wrong when you claim that the PJ have not said that the McCanns are not suspects. The McCanns arguido status was removed as part of the original investigation.

Turning this thread on its head, neither SY nor the PJ have ever said that the McCanns are 'innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance'.

This is something that comes up again and again. Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty there would be plenty on this board who would point out that they had not been declared innocent...Barry George has been found not guilty but he has not been found not innocent

[Mo Stache]

The Portuguese Attorney General & the National Director of the PJ were very clear when they affirmed that the original investigation was being reopened.

They didn't say the McCann were not suspects, and as the investigation is the same, the McCann are still suspects as they were when the investigation was archived in 2008.

Kate and Gerry McCann have been told for the first time by the Portuguese authorities that they are no longer suspects in their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.

The couple were told in a police briefing last week in Lisbon where they were also updated on the new leads that have been unearthed.

Their Portuguese lawyer Rogerio Alves said yesterday: “The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011#ixzz2vh47cpdF
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

[Mr Gray]

definitely cleared by the portuguese

[John]

This is something that comes up again and again. Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty there would be plenty on this board who would point out that they had not been declared innocent...Barry George has been found not guilty but he has not been found not innocent

By the very nature of the beast, courts are only concerned with the balance of possibilities Dave.  That is why a jury is asked the question, guilty or not guilty?   A jury is never asked, innocent or not innocent?

One also has to ask the question how anyone can be convicted on the basis of a majority verdict.  To take this to an extreme, in the fantastic Scottish system a defendant can be convicted even if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 jurors vote not guilty.  A monumental farce if there ever was one.

In Scotland, justice is dispensed on the basis of numbers, not on evidence! 

[Carana]

By the very nature of the beast, courts are only concerned with the balance of possibilities Dave.  That is why a jury is asked the question, guilty or not guilty?   A jury is never asked, innocent or not innocent?

One also has to ask the question how anyone can be convicted on the basis of a majority verdict.  To take this to an extreme, in the fantastic Scottish system a defendant can be convicted even if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 7 jurors vote not guilty.  A monumental farce if there ever was one.

In Scotland, justice is dispensed on the basis of numbers, not on evidence!

What is your suggestion for a fairer system?

[John]

What is your suggestion for a fairer system?

A jury must be magnanimous and unanimous for any sort of verdict to count.  I notice that even in England now, judges are increasingly allowing up to two dissenters in any guilty verdict.   

[Eleanor]

A jury must be magnanimous and unanimous for any sort of verdict to count.  I notice that even in England now, judges are increasingly allowing up to two dissenters in any guilty verdict.

I most definitely agree with this.  It was a sad day when UK Justice decided that majority verdicts would do.
If we don't watch out it will be half and half next, with the balance of probabilities going to The Prosecution.

[Carana]

I most definitely agree with this.  It was a sad day when UK Justice decided that majority verdicts would do.
If we don't watch out it will be half and half next, with the balance of probabilities going to The Prosecution.

What about countries in which there are occasionally juries in the most serious cases? What is the selection process? What preparation are the jury members given? How could they be immune to a media frenzy, particularly if the tabloids get leaks from the prosecution? If juries are rare, how much would ordinary citizens question so-called expert evidence in the absence of an effective defence?

[Eleanor]

What about countries in which there are occasionally juries in the most serious cases? What is the selection process? What preparation are the jury members given? How could they be immune to a media frenzy, particularly if the tabloids get leaks from the prosecution? If juries are rare, how much would ordinary citizens question so-called expert evidence in the absence of an effective defence?

This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
 If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.

[Benice]

This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
 If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.

Also if the defendant has already been villified, tried and found guilty in the press and the general public have been whipped up to 'lynch' mode by the time the case came to court,  then it would be a brave Juror  - who would be able to ignore the possible repercussions to themselves of a 'Not guilty' verdict IMO - especially if they were not anonymous.

[Carana]

This could well depend on the mind set of the ordinary people called to Jury Service.
 If some evidence is suppressed, and other supposedly inadmissible evidence is allowed then there isn't much doubt that an incorrect verdict will be reached.

Or if a defendant has a lousy defence counsel, there is nothing to stimulate the minds of jurors.