Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[pathfinder73]

One thing they weren't confused about was the position of the bedroom door.

THURSDAY, MAY 3: Milk and biscuits for the kids. I left them with this and books and games and went to have a quick shower/wash my hair. M (Madeleine) tired' sitting on my lap' I read the story of Mog (favourite children's book).

Brush teeth. To the bedroom with the kids. M pulls away and puts her head on pillow. Kisses goodnight for M. Pulled the door to as far as possible without shutting it. Silence.

Dry hair. Put make-up on. Glass of wine. Restaurant. KM Diary

He noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described. GM 10 May statement

That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open. MO 10 May statement

[Alfie]

Twofold
If she had woke & wandered then they are responsible for allowing that to happen. No one else to blame.
Secondly if  abduction from the apartment is exclude by W&W then they have to explain the open window, the raised shutter and the ever changing door angle, on all of which they have put such emphasis

Therefore the woke & wandered theory has to be played down and denied.  All IMO, of course

Hmm....well, in the case of Ben Needham it's gone from abduction to wandered off, without causing danger to the Needham family, so I don't really agree with your first point.  If they were going to have been done for neglect it would have happened already, woke or wandered or not. 
As for your second point, they wouldn't need to explain it, it would be just one of those mysteries - maybe Madeleine opened it, she certainly could have moved the door.  Yes, let's settle on that explanation.  No danger caused to anyone.

[Miss Taken Identity]

A matter of perception.

You defend the indefensible.

They are not innocent in the eyes of the law at all. They have not been charge with anything due to lack of evidence, therfore not declared innocent.  I read they are still under suspicion after all this time. Also it is worth noting the crime they did commit and could have been charged with was neglect or the Portuguese equivelant. I am sure they would have been found guilty for that.

They won the PR round in the beginning by talking about abductors breaking in and stealing their daughter.

[Alfie]

They are not innocent in the eyes of the law at all. They have not been charge with anything due to lack of evidence, therfore not declared innocent.  I read they are still under suspicion after all this time. Also it is worth noting the crime they did commit and could have been charged with was neglect or the Portuguese equivelant. I am sure they would have been found guilty for that.

They won the PR round in the beginning by talking about abductors breaking in and stealing their daughter.

Dear oh dear, where to begin with this post?  Let's start with asking "if the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law then what exactly is their legal status, in the eyes of the law?"

[Robittybob1]

PR - well could you call it that?

[jassi]

Dear oh dear, where to begin with this post?  Let's start with asking "if the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law then what exactly is their legal status, in the eyes of the law?"

Pending while awaiting confirmation ?

[Robittybob1]

Pending while awaiting confirmation ?

Pending while awaiting confirmation of their guilt.

[Alfie]

Pending while awaiting confirmation ?

"Pending" is a legal status is it?  Hilarious!

[Robittybob1]

"Pending" is a legal status is it?  Hilarious!

As in patent pending.

[Alice Purjorick]

"Pending" is a legal status is it?  Hilarious!

That would depend upon you ae defining status.
Hilarious that you should not know

[Alfie]

As in patent pending.

As in patent nonsense.

[G-Unit]

The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.

So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

[Brietta]

The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.

So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

The McCanns have never been defendants to be found either innocent or guilty.  By your own definition like all innocent people they enjoy the presumption of innocence.

[Alfie]

The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.

So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

So baso the McCanns could never be cleared, even if they had been found "not guilty" in court it still wouldn't prove their innocence.  In other words proving their innocence would be an actual impossibility, yet something the PT expected them to be able to do, through a reconstruction.  How bizarre is that?!

[ferryman]

The law is not required to decide between guilt and innocence, it is there to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. In the McCann case the law wasn't required to make a decision. Even if it had, 'innocence' would not have entered into the judgement. Even 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent', it simply means 'the law' was unable to prove guilt.

So in reality there is no legal status of 'innocence'. There is the status of entitlement to the presumption of innocence, but that's related to a defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

What kind of convoluted and twisted (il)logic is that?

The McCanns' arguido status was dropped because there was no evidence against them.