Wandering Off Topic

[pathfinder73]

If they have new evidence they won't be telling us until they have ALL the evidence required.  12 million and counting - why is this case special? They know who did it IMO.

[Brietta]

Future argumentative posts will be deleted.  Thank you.

[slartibartfast]

If posters stick to the rules there wouldn’t be a problem.

[barrier]

As regards the mcanns not being suspects..we have..

Both police forces stating the mccanns are not suspects

IMO The mcanns have not been interviewed under caution

IMO The mccanns do not appear to being investigated by SY or the PJ

SY have spent 12 million pounds and as far as we can see have chasing leads in portugal

The archiving despatch stating no evidence against the McCanns

Based on all that I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude the McCanns  are not suspects and not naive or gullible in the slightest...in fact i would say the imo anyone who thinks the McCanns are suspects is simply ignoring the evidence

SY spent £12 million chasing one lead in Portugal, the supposed failed burglary, which is a strange set of affairs seeing has they have no jurisdiction in Portugal. Any other leads were all newspaper nonsense including the woman in purple.imo.

[slartibartfast]

we have been told clearly the mccanns have not been intervied under caution...stephen has posted it several times as fact

When i say "it appears"...that is obviously my opinion

Doesn’t make it a fact.

[slartibartfast]

Some seem to be struggling telling the difference between fact and opinion. I can say that there is no evidence of them being interviewed as a fact that doesn’t mean it is a fact they haven’t been interviewed.

[Mr Gray]

Some seem to be struggling telling the difference between fact and opinion. I can say that there is no evidence of them being interviewed as a fact that doesn’t mean it is a fact they haven’t been interviewed.

do you have a cite for no evidence of interview as you are staing it as fact...it sounds more like opinion

[Robittybob1]

Some seem to be struggling telling the difference between fact and opinion. I can say that there is no evidence of them being interviewed as a fact that doesn’t mean it is a fact they haven’t been interviewed.

That logic made me think.   Was person A. interviewed or not?
There could be documented evidence of an interview.
Surveillance could have been kept on Person A. for a period of time so one could say no interview between start and finish of surveillance.

[Mr Gray]

That logic made me think.   Was person A. interviewed or not?
There could be documented evidence of an interview.
Surveillance could have been kept on Person A. for a period of time so one could say no interview between start and finish of surveillance.

Yes...there may well be evidence in the form of witness statements...it is therefore incorrect to say no evidence exists

[slartibartfast]

Stop attacking moderation or face the consequences.

[John]

I know there isn't much news about on this case at the moment but can we please keep posts relevant and amiable.  Flaunting of forum rules will attract sanctions. TY

[Mr Gray]

Everyone knows that cops never ever ever reveal the entire story.  The reason for this is because they are evidence gatherers, it is not within their brief to determine anyone innocent or guilty.  And that is why I accept the Portuguese SC ruling and not anything the police feel they are free to declare.

the SC are in no position to declare the mccanns innocent or guilty as their has been no trial and they have not heard the evidence...AFAIAC they did not give their opinion on the innocence of the mccanns..in fact they cannot...no court deals with the concept of innocence...its guilty or not guilty

[slartibartfast]

the SC are in no position to declare the mccanns innocent or guilty as their has been no trial and they have not heard the evidence...AFAIAC they did not give their opinion on the innocence of the mccanns..in fact they cannot...no court deals with the concept of innocence...its guilty or not guilty

They reviewed the evidence and declared that they had not been cleared as per their claim. Simple.

[stephen25000]

the SC are in no position to declare the mccanns innocent or guilty as their has been no trial and they have not heard the evidence...AFAIAC they did not give their opinion on the innocence of the mccanns..in fact they cannot...no court deals with the concept of innocence...its guilty or not guilty

Case done and dusted.

Mccanns lost.

Time to get over it.

[Mr Gray]

Case done and dusted.

Mccanns lost.

Time to get over it.

You are mistaken if you think the case affects me and that has nothing to do with what angelo has claimed...the SC did NOT rule on the mccanns innocence as angelo seeems to think