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

[stephen25000]

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

Admit what Rob ?

Accidental death remains on the table.

...and how can you know what happened. You weren't there.

[G-Unit]

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

The truth is that the McCanns lost their case against Amaral. During the course of the case it emerged that they were mistaken in their belief that the archiving report cleared them.

Operation Grange appears to have believed that the McCanns had been cleared, so their investigative review has concentrated on exploring theories which didn't include them and their friends.

The McCanns may or may not be innocent, but the truth is they have never been ruled out.

No amount of denigration of Portugal, it's people or it's Judiciary can change that, although those who wish to deny the truth seem to think it might.

[Mr Gray]

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.

the reason there was a change of mind was because amaral thought he had some evidence ...he didn't...don't use the incompetence of the PJ to suggest the McCann's may still be suspects

[G-Unit]

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 Attorney General wrote no report.

[Benice]

The Attorney General wrote no report.

Nitpicking imo.  IIRC the final report was sent to the AG - who obviously approved it.

[Mr Gray]

The truth is that the McCanns lost their case against Amaral. During the course of the case it emerged that they were mistaken in their belief that the archiving report cleared them.

Operation Grange appears to have believed that the McCanns had been cleared, so their investigative review has concentrated on exploring theories which didn't include them and their friends.

The McCanns may or may not be innocent, but the truth is they have never been ruled out.

No amount of denigration of Portugal, it's people or it's Judiciary can change that, although those who wish to deny the truth seem to think it might.

you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...

The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.

the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.

so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME  evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved

[Alice Purjorick]

you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...

The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.

the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.

so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME  evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved

The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.

[Lace]

The Attorney General wrote no report.

http://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html

[Mr Gray]

The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.

As I have said no ones opinon on here is of any importance...but there are some who think theres is

[stephen25000]

The SC made a ruling that now stands. In that ruling the SC found for Sr Amaral futhermore saying the Mccanns had not been cleared.
I doubt they are bothered neither about your opinion informed or otherwise nor your drawn inference from AC Rowley said.

Some people are deluded their opinion will change what has happened, and/or just arguing the toss.

[carlymichelle]

Some people are deluded their opinion will change what has happened, and/or just arguing the toss.

some supporters argue for the sake of it imo

[G-Unit]

you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...

The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.

the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.

so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME  evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved

As I have said, the facts are there but some people are determined to ignore or undermine them.

[Mr Gray]

As I have said, the facts are there but some people are determined to ignore or undermine them.

and you have failed to answer the point made in my post...but its of no importance as SY regard them as cleared

[ferryman]

you have admitted the attorney General made a mistake ...supposedly...

The archiving report stated clearly archiving was taking place because there was NO EVIDENCE against the mcanns
I think its quite reasonable to interpret that as being cleared.

the SC then changed it from no evidence to insufficient evidence which was pounced on by the sceptics to imply guilt.

so we have gone from no evidence to insufficient evidence which implies there is now SOME  evidence...so the question is where did the SC get this evidence from....I think the denigration is well deserved

Agh!

No, it isn't.

This is a lesson Jean-Pierre taught me way back and I've remembered it.

To be 'cleared' you first have to be charged and tried.

The McCanns were never charged and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.

Rather, via the imposition of their 'arguido' status, they were wrongly accused.

[stephen25000]

Agh!

No, it isn't.

This is a lesson Jean-Pierre taught me way back and I've remembered it.

To be 'cleared' you first have to be charged and tried.

The McCanns were never charged and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.

Rather, via the imposition of their 'arguido' status, they were wrongly accused.

As a reminder, the arguida status can still be re-invoked.