Met Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley gives update on the search for Madeleine McCann.

[stephen25000]

In a nutshell under Article 277-1 the investigation would not have been eligible for reopening. It was stated at the time that the investigation could be reopened if new evidence was found. Therefore it was archived under Article 277-2.

although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1......what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.

Now what is obviously underscored in that order is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had been convinced that the appellants did not commit any crime but because it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants.

It means that the archiving would have been determined under article 277-2 of the CPP, and not under the first paragraph of that article, although the latter is quoted in the order.

In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).

The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.

In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

Like I said G-Unit, some people will never accept the truth.

[Mr Gray]

Have you got the text of these two standards?  So we can compare the meaning of each please.

misty posted it a liitle earlier...basically
the archiving  report quoted 277 (1) which refers to there being no evidence to charge....and implies innocence

the SC changed this to 277(2) which refers to insufficient evidence to charge...which implies some doubt of innocence

[Mr Gray]

Like I said G-Unit, some people will never accept the truth.

when we know the truth i will accept it...perhaps you should do the same

[stephen25000]

The Supreme Court laid out the judgement.

That is the only one that counts.

The law in Portugal has been satisfied.

Anything else now, is a sign of the par for the course strop and the resulting 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court laid out the judgement.

That is the only one that counts.

The law in Portugal has been satisfied.

Anything else now, is a sign of the par for the course strop and the resulting 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.

this is a discussin forum...could you stop trying to stop discussion

[jassi]

If we are playing mods this morning , this line about SC is well off topic 

[carlymichelle]

this is a discussin forum...could you stop trying to stop discussion

you do that all the  time   

[Mr Gray]

If we are playing mods this morning , this line about SC is well off topic 

If you have followed the discussion it's on topic
Rowley is implying the Portuguese cleared the McCanns
Posters are saying he is wrong

[Eleanor]

The Supreme Court obviously doesn't think much of The Attorney General.  A waste of time having one, if you ask me.

[slartibartfast]

Q: Do you have some evidence, in your six years of investigation, have you unearthed some evidence to explain what happened?
MR: We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we’re pursuing those. And those link into the key lines of enquiry we’re doing now. As I said, those are very much live investigations and I know that’s frustrating when you’re doing a programme looking back but it’s hard to talk about that now, it’s going to frustrate the investigation.

Says it all really.

[Montclair]

Deleted

[Lace]

This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code. Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled. Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the Arguidos are declared extinct.

Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread,  he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them.   Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's'   in my way of thinking.    He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.

So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.

[stephen25000]

This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code. Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled. Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the Arguidos are declared extinct.

Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread,  he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them.   Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's'   in my way of thinking.    He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.

So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.

The Portuguese shelved the case, because they found insufficient evidence of anything.

The accidental death scenario has not been disproven or proven, just like the other possibilities.

[Robittybob1]

The Portuguese shelved the case, because they found insufficient evidence of anything.

The accidental death scenario has not been disproven or proven, just like the other possibilities.

If there had been an accidental death who removed the body Stephen?  It definitely wasn't the McCanns.  Admit it.

[Montclair]

This is what the Attorney General said in his final report on the McCann's -

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code. Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled. Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the Arguidos are declared extinct.

Listening to what Mark Rowley had to say in the video that davel posted at the beginning of this thread,  he says the Portuguese dealt with the case and he has no intention of starting rumours that it is a line of inquiry by them.   Which means 'no they are not investigating the McCann's'   in my way of thinking.    He goes on to say the McCann's are the parents of a missing child.

So in my opinion anyone thinking they haven't ruled the parents out are delusional.

I remember Olegário de Sousa saying more or less the same thing just before the McCanns were made arguidos. No police force would show their hand and state that they suspected the parents.