Wandering Off Topic

[ShiningInLuz]

Please remind me of the bit where it says who the prime suspects are considered to be ... that is the part which confounds me.

If you choose to dodge the question I asked, so be it.

[Alice Purjorick]

Have it your own way ... I'm of the opinion the Portuguese might be slightly miffed to have their townships dug up by foreigners without as much as a say so ... but obviously you must have your finger on the pulse and know better.

It is a question of how the law is configured nothing more nothing less.
Show me an authoritative statement for any police force having authority in any country other than it's own.
You seem to be attempting to divert btw; the location of my digit is of no relevance.
The law is what it is whether it suits us or not.

[Brietta]

If you choose to dodge the question I asked, so be it.

There was no question though was there? and if I am less than inclined to join in the game, entirely my decision. 

[ShiningInLuz]

Cite for the piece I have bolded?  I would be most interested, because that part has passed me by totally.

It would also mean Sky's 10 anniversary special got its major point wrong, so this is not insignificant.

This was the question.

To date on this forum, I have seen it alleged many times that the McCanns were investigated and cleared.

I have yet to see one iota of evidence that this is the case.

I take it from your response that you have no such evidence.

[Brietta]

It is a question of how the law is configured nothing more nothing less.
Show me an authoritative statement for any police force having authority in any country other than it's own.
You seem to be attempting to divert btw; the location of my digit is of no relevance.
The law is what it is whether it suits us or not.

I consider diversion to be your forte so I must bow to your superior knowledge in that respect.  As for the rest, I recommend you read the various threads on the forum in which differences in the application of law and order in Portugal and Britain receive a mention, sometimes in great detail.

[John]

This was the question.

To date on this forum, I have seen it alleged many times that the McCanns were investigated and cleared.

I have yet to see one iota of evidence that this is the case.

I take it from your response that you have no such evidence.

My understanding is that this 'cleared' suggestion comes from the removal of the arguido status which was applied to Robert Murat and Kate and Gerry McCann initially. This reflects a complete misunderstanding as to what the arguido status actually represents.    The Portuguese Supreme Court in their wisdom could see that this was the case thus why they deemed it necessary to clarify the situation in their judgement in the recent defamation case instigated by the McCanns.

[John]

Posters are reminded of the forum rules.  In particular, comments should not be antagonistic or goading. TY

[Brietta]

This was the question.

To date on this forum, I have seen it alleged many times that the McCanns were investigated and cleared.

I have yet to see one iota of evidence that this is the case.

I take it from your response that you have no such evidence.

Oh, I see ... "Cite for the piece I have bolded?" translates to the above. 


Since the 'allegations' you cite will have cites to support them there is little point in my reiteration since your entrenched position doesn't already appear to have been dented by them.

Conversely ... what is your supporting evidence?

[ShiningInLuz]

Oh, I see ... "Cite for the piece I have bolded?" translates to the above. 


Since the 'allegations' you cite will have cites to support them there is little point in my reiteration since your entrenched position doesn't already appear to have been dented by them.

Conversely ... what is your supporting evidence?

Note the question mark, hence it was a question.

You cannot re-iterate.  For the simple reason that you did not iterate in the first instance.  And when you were asked to iterate, you declined to do so.

I have made it clear I am interested in hearing of the alleged investigation of McCann involvement.

You have made it clear you have no evidence of such an alleged investigation.

TY.

Dinner calls.  Our 'new' neighbour has provided us with produce grown in his back garden, so I am keen on a home-grown meal, even though we have yet another month before we move.

The tw*t called our builder went off yesterday leaving all the water cut off.  When the kids switched it back on above, they did not realise that the under-build was flooding.  So the stuff I move in about 3 months ago is probably ruined.

A Year In Provence?  Try 5 years in Barlavento.     *&*%£

[Brietta]

Note the question mark, hence it was a question.

You cannot re-iterate.  For the simple reason that you did not iterate in the first instance.  And when you were asked to iterate, you declined to do so.

I have made it clear I am interested in hearing of the alleged investigation of McCann involvement.

You have made it clear you have no evidence of such an alleged investigation.

TY.

Dinner calls.  Our 'new' neighbour has provided us with produce grown in his back garden, so I am keen on a home-grown meal, even though we have yet another month before we move.

The tw*t called our builder went off yesterday leaving all the water cut off.  When the kids switched it back on above, they did not realise that the under-build was flooding.  So the stuff I move in about 3 months ago is probably ruined.

A Year In Provence?  Try 5 years in Barlavento.     *&*%£

Conversely ... what is your supporting evidence?   &%+((£

[ShiningInLuz]

Conversely ... what is your supporting evidence?   &%+((£

Given that you have failed to provide any evidence of an investigation (4th request?), why should I attempt to provide evidence of a negative?

Time to either cough up or move on.

[Eleanor]

What a good idea.  Let's all move on.

[misty]

It would be really beneficial if people would concentrate less on what they think the current investigators haven't addressed and more on what SY & the PJ hope to achieve following identification of viable leads.
 There are reputations on the line here, not least the PJ's who could redeem themselves following the mistakes made by the original team. They will not be chasing shadows or paying lip-service to the Brits - what a coup it will be for them if they can finish what SY started in reviewing the files.

[Brietta]

It would be the same asking me to read a kids Meccano magazine in lieu of one of Tim O'Shenko's works to obtain a factual opinion on applied mecahnics 

eta: or applied mechanics even

Don't knock it until you try it. 
I once passed a science exam very well indeed having studied only from a child's book.

[Miss Taken Identity]

SY  believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers  because no evidence of foul play by the parents or their friends exists  or has ever emerged - whereas evidence of the non-involvement of any of them in her disappearance does exist -  as well as evidence that an intruder entered 5A via a window.   

The fact that some people choose to believe that 9 people are all lying their heads off while SY detectives believe they are all telling the truth[/color] is irrelevant to SY.

SY are professional detectives not barmy conspiracy theorists  - and are not interested in entertaining the outlandish allegations - (all manifestly based on personal spite and animosity towards the parents), which pervade the 'sceptic' sites.

AIMHO

"SY  believe that Madeleine was abducted by strangers  because no evidence of foul play by the parents or their friends exists  or has ever emerged -no evidence of stranger abduction so that is a bit of a  daft sentence!
No evidence of parents friends exist? really?

 - whereas evidence of the non-involvement of any of them in her disappearance does exist
Show us the evidence of this [proving a negatve is always a B.....]
 -  as well as evidence that an intruder entered 5A via a window.
  Show us the evidence, as it has been checked and there was no evidence found...