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

[Alfie]

The 4 people are no longer persons of interest.  That came from the UK, not Portugal.

I have no information as to whether the 4 have been de-arguidoed in Portugal.

So what?  My point stands.  It seems these people have not been cleared.   Now tell me they have. 

[ShiningInLuz]

So what?  My point stands.  It seems these people have not been cleared.   Now tell me they have. 

I gave you the source.

If you think otherwise, time for a cite.

Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.

[G-Unit]

that's just your opinion
The fact is they are not under suspicion and are not being investigated

The judge's opinions, not mine. The archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns, although, unfortunately for them, they rested a lot on their belief that it did. They thought it said they were innocent, but it didn't.

SY are not interested in the McCanns, but we've known that for years. The only difference now is that they've explained their thinking; they too thought the first investigation had reached a favourable conclusion about the McCanns. It didn't.

[Mr Gray]

I gave you the source.

If you think otherwise, time for a cite.

Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.

Good to see you feel these 4 have been cleared

[pathfinder73]

[Alfie]

I gave you the source.

If you think otherwise, time for a cite.

Otherwise this non-debate is dead in the water.

You just don't get it do you?  Have the McCanns been cleared?  No?  Why not?  Because you say not?  Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos?  Have they been cleared?  Yes?  Why so?  Because you say so?  OK!

[G-Unit]

You just don't get it do you?  Have the McCanns been cleared?  No?  Why not?  Because you say not?  Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos?  Have they been cleared?  Yes?  Why so?  Because you say so?  OK!

The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Alfie]

The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Not one single ex-arguido has been cleared in this case, that was the point I was making - do you agree or disagree?

[ShiningInLuz]

You just don't get it do you?  Have the McCanns been cleared?  No?  Why not?  Because you say not?  Then what is the difference between their status as ex-arguidos and the latest set of (ex) arguidos?  Have they been cleared?  Yes?  Why so?  Because you say so?  OK!

Is there something difficult about the difference between a statement made in Portugal in the archiving report and a statement made (presumably) in London by the Met?

[G-Unit]

Not one single ex-arguido has been cleared in this case, that was the point I was making - do you agree or disagree?

Have they claimed they were? Or was that just the McCanns...........

[misty]

The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor


Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.

Rogerio Alves
Lawyer



The McCanns did not lose the possibility of proving their innocence. It was taken away from them by the PJ's insistence that all the required witnesses took part in the reconstitution plus the non-compliance of said witnesses due to certain assurances not being given by the PJ. Quite what sort of prima facie evidence a reconstitution would have provided is anyone's guess & the PJ held no other evidence to allow a successful prosecution.

[Mr Gray]

The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary, although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

so does article 277(2) also apply to murat

[ferryman]

The 'not cleared' status of the McCanns is referred to in the Legal Summary,

Where?

although no-one ever acknowledges it. How anyone can argue that the final paragraph 'cleared' them when this was in the text escapes me;

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

In what you cite, substitute the word 'demonstrate' for 'prove' (what the prosecutors actually said) and you have something closer to what the prosecutors said.

The prosecutors, presumably, didn't feel it necessary to add that there was no need for those (falsely) accused (via the arguido status) to (demonstrate!) their innocence.

More's the pity.

[Alfie]

Have they claimed they were? Or was that just the McCanns...........

I think if you told Murat he hadn't been cleared of suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann he wouldn't be best pleased, what do you think?

[ShiningInLuz]

I think if you told Murat he hadn't been cleared of suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann he wouldn't be best pleased, what do you think?

Does he give a jot?