Is there now grudging but growing acceptance that the McCanns didn't do it?

[Alfie]

They were investigating all possibilities last time I looked and came up empty on all counts.

Last time you looked they were investigating the parents?  Please provide a cite for this thanks.

[John]

Last time you looked they were investigating the parents?  Please provide a cite for this thanks.

You might not know this but it is the job of a police officer to look beyond the obvious.

[John]

Demonstrate distinct from prove!

In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to demonstrate their innocence.

The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.

[ferryman]

The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.

The prosecutors were very clear that the McCanns committed no crime, including that their child-care arrangements passed muster legally. 

[Alfie]

You might not know this but it is the job of a police officer to look beyond the obvious.

I'm sorry that won't do.  Last time you looked you say the police were investigating ALL possibilities.  Where did you look, and kindly show us what you saw!

ETA: What is the obvious in this case, btw?

[slartibartfast]

Demonstrate distinct from prove!

In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to demonstrate their innocence.

Are you unaware of the concept of an alibi? Providing a solid alibi is one commonly used method of proving/demonstrating innocence.

[John]

The prosecutors were very clear that the McCanns committed no crime, including that their child-care arrangements passed muster legally.

I think you have conveniently misinterpreted what they stated.  What they actually recorded was that there was no evidence that the parents or anyone else for that matter engaged in any crime.  A somewhat subtle difference.

[Alfie]

Are you unaware of the concept of an alibi? Providing a solid alibi is one commonly used method of proving/demonstrating innocence.

Yes, one reason why the police were able to categorically dismiss Gerry as Smithman.

[ferryman]

The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.

The original:

Demonstrate distinct from prove!

In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.

I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.

[John]

I'm sorry that won't do.  Last time you looked you say the police were investigating ALL possibilities.  Where did you look, and kindly show us what you saw!

ETA: What is the obvious in this case, btw?

I saw the same as you, two investigations and nothing found.  Police don't simply investigate a case based on what might appear to be obvious, they start at the beginning and pursue all possible scenarios.

[ferryman]

I think you have conveniently misinterpreted what they stated.  What they actually recorded was that there was no evidence that the parents or anyone else for that matter engaged in any crime.  A somewhat subtle difference.

I suppose, in a just about, still, free country, you are entitled to your erroneous thoughts.

If there is no evidence of a crime, there is legally no crime.

Entertaining the hypothetical notion of something could come to light to alter that is one thing.

Tending to a view that something will come to light to alter that is another.

[John]

The original:

Demonstrate distinct from prove!

In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.

I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.

You are mistaken, your post was not edited.   The actual word used by the AG was confirmar which translates literally as demonstrate.

[jassi]

I saw the same as you, two investigations and nothing found.  Police don't simply investigate a case based on what might appear to be obvious, they start at the beginning and pursue all possible scenarios.

They certainly do when conducting an honest investigation.

[ShiningInLuz]

The original:

Demonstrate distinct from prove!

In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.

I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.

To be honest, I am getting offended by repeated trotting out of the idea that Portugal is a Fascist state.

Prove it.  Demonstrate it.  Whatever.

You are entitled to your opinion, as long as you make clear it is simply that - your opinion.  Otherwise provide some support for your claim.

[John]

I suppose, in a just about, still, free country, you are entitled to your erroneous thoughts.

If there is no evidence of a crime, there is legally no crime.

Entertaining the hypothetical notion of something could come to light to alter that is one thing.

Tending to a view that something will come to light to alter that is another.

But I agree, as has been point out ad nauseum, nobody except possibly those involved (if there was anyone) know what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.  The best we can do is theorise based on known established facts.