The parents of a missing child don't matter.

[Alice Purjorick]

Dear me, G, if the McCanns stories did not add up they would be arguidos again, can you rationalise why they are not?  Please use your undoubted intelligence to explain that to us.

Always provided that Portuguese law has the status "arguido(a) in absentia" as it were.
Anyone know for sure.
On yer marks, set, "Google"

[G-Unit]

Dear me, G, if the McCanns stories did not add up they would be arguidos again, can you rationalise why they are not?  Please use your undoubted intelligence to explain that to us.

As I have no idea what the investigators are doing I can't answer that question. I haven't said, remember, that the McCanns are guilty of anything except lax parenting and telling really confusing stories. That may mean they are guilty of something, it may just mean they tell illogical stories. Their confusing stories have led to them being suspected by the PJ and by others.

[G-Unit]

Always provided that Portuguese law has the status "arguido(a) in absentia" as it were.
Anyone know for sure.
On yer marks, set, "Google"

 

[Alfred R Jones]

Always provided that Portuguese law has the status "arguido(a) in absentia" as it were.
Anyone know for sure.
On yer marks, set, "Google"

Well I seem to remember some legal expert sceptic trying to convince us that the McCanns would automatically become arguidos again the very nano-second the case was re-opened.  Perhaps Montclair knows the answer to your question - he or she seems to know everything you ever needed to know about the Portuguese legal system (but were afraid to ask!)

[Alfred R Jones]

As I have no idea what the investigators are doing I can't answer that question. I haven't said, remember, that the McCanns are guilty of anything except lax parenting and telling really confusing stories. That may mean they are guilty of something, it may just mean they tell illogical stories. Their confusing stories have led to them being suspected by the PJ and by others.

that's not strictly true is it?  We have some idea of what they've been up to over the last couple of years, but very oddly none of it seems to involve treating the McCanns as suspects, I wonder why.... &%+((£

[G-Unit]

Let me see now  &%+((£ pathological liar ~ pathological hatred ~ pathological compulsion ~ pathological obsession ~ et all cannot be used unless unless one has a qualification determined by you ??

Just as you have it entirely wrong on your defence of the abuse of the parents of a missing child ~ you have it entirely wrong on the usage of the English Language ... don't rely on the on-line dictionary in the attempt to support your prejudices try listening to colloquial language, or even English as it is spoke.

I truly hope you don't speak as you write.   

You can say what you like, it doesn't make it correct.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well I seem to remember some legal expert sceptic trying to convince us that the McCanns would automatically become arguidos again the very nano-second the case was re-opened.  Perhaps Montclair knows the answer to your question - he or she seems to know everything you ever needed to know about the Portuguese legal system (but were afraid to ask!)

You said:
Dear me, G, if the McCanns stories did not add up they would be arguidos again, can you rationalise why they are not?  Please use your undoubted intelligence to explain that to us.

Presumably then you either believed Montclair or know yourself from another source that is the case, otherwise from whence thine opinion ?.

[Alfred R Jones]

You said:
Dear me, G, if the McCanns stories did not add up they would be arguidos again, can you rationalise why they are not?  Please use your undoubted intelligence to explain that to us.

Presumably then you either believed Montclair or know yourself from another source that is the case, otherwise from whence thine opinion ?.

I was led to believe by someone claiming to be an authority on the subject, from "your" side of the divide.  If you know better ( you usually do!) then do tell....

[Brietta]

I truly hope you don't speak as you write.   

You can say what you like, it doesn't make it correct.

Guess what?  I always have although I have had to "dumb it down" of late ... communicating with teenagers who do not know what simple words like "incline" or "akimbo" mean has necessitated I do so.  I have also had to take into account the level of language capable of being understood by some other posters and adjust accordingly.

There seems to be extreme difficulty with "empathy" ~ "innocence" ~ "compassion" ~ particularly as these relate to the parents of a missing child.

Kind of you though to give me permission to exercise my freedom of speech.

[G-Unit]

that's not strictly true is it?  We have some idea of what they've been up to over the last couple of years, but very oddly none of it seems to involve treating the McCanns as suspects, I wonder why.... &%+((£

Well if I knew how suspects are treated I might have an opinion, but I don't. The police seem to go along doing whatever they do and then they pounce. There's been no pouncing obviously. Whether any pouncing is planned and upon whom I don't know.

[ShiningInLuz]

Dear me, G, if the McCanns stories did not add up they would be arguidos again, can you rationalise why they are not?  Please use your undoubted intelligence to explain that to us.

SY has a remit that does not involve, directly, investigating the McCanns.

PJ are pursuing a line of enquiry that does not involve the McCanns.

Why should pursuing alternative lines of enquiry make the McCanns arguidos?

Thinks out loud ... was the Brit media bleating on about arguido status expiring on the last 3 from autumn 2014?  Then things went quiet, so what actually happened has joined other info, mysteriously lost without trace in the Algarve triangle.

[Alfred R Jones]

SY has a remit that does not involve, directly, investigating the McCanns.

PJ are pursuing a line of enquiry that does not involve the McCanns.

Why should pursuing alternative lines of enquiry make the McCanns arguidos?

Thinks out loud ... was the Brit media bleating on about arguido status expiring on the last 3 from autumn 2014?  Then things went quiet, so what actually happened has joined other info, mysteriously lost without trace in the Algarve triangle.

Correct, neither the Met nor the PJ are investigating the McCanns, which must be a real puzzle to those who have convinced themselves that their stories don't add up.

[slartibartfast]

As I have no idea what the investigators are doing I can't answer that question. I haven't said, remember, that the McCanns are guilty of anything except lax parenting and telling really confusing stories. That may mean they are guilty of something, it may just mean they tell illogical stories. Their confusing stories have led to them being suspected by the PJ and by others.

Good post, reflects my thoughts.

[Alice Purjorick]

I was led to believe by someone claiming to be an authority on the subject, from "your" side of the divide.  If you know better ( you usually do!) then do tell....

In common with most on here I haven't a bleeding clue mate.
It just struck me that "arguido(a) in absentia" did not have much purpose. I could be wrong , I frequently am, unlike some on here who profess to have a batting average of 0.330.

[Alfred R Jones]

In common with most on here I haven't a bleeding clue mate.
It just struck me that "arguido(a) in absentia" did not have much purpose. I could be wrong , I frequently am, unlike some on here who profess to have a batting average of 0.330.

Ironside was a bit of a leading sceptic authority, his or her pronouncements are recorded on Pamalam's blog for posterity, must be important, eh?

The McCanns have not been cleared , their arguido status has been lifted. If the investigation were to be re-opened tomorrow the McCanns would once again become arguidos. They have both also made it very clear they are not to be question on their version of what they claim happened to Madeleine.