[/quote]
The Portuguese Prosecutor was clear that there was no evidence to charge anyone with anything.
[/quote]
Do you by any chance understand the meaning of that statement?!
I'll tell you by giving you a very extreme example.
More than 30 years ago the then Prime Minister, Sá Carneiro and the Defense Minister, Amaro da Costa died in an aircraft crash just close to the Lisbon airport. This was first reported as an accident, but soon it became obvious that it was a crime because Amaro da Costa " had documents concerning the «October surprise conspiracy theory» and was planning on taking them to the United Nations's General Assembly. According to this conspiracy theory, Reagan promised to sell American weapons to Iran, to replace the old Portuguese ones; the Portuguese military were acting as middlemen (two of the Portuguese Presidential candidates, in 1980, were Generals, and one of them was promptly accused as responsible for the assassination by many Sá Carneiro supporters); a boat with the weapons was almost seized at Lisbon's harbor. This theory is reinforced with the fact that Amaro da Costa was the one renting the plane, and Sá Carneiro a last minute passenger (possibly as a decoy)" (Wikipedia)
For the past 20 years there has been lots of forensic evidence and the man that planted the bomb, finally, and now he can no longer be convicted, has confessed to his crime. However, despite the huge amount of evidence no judge would press charges because "there was no evidence".
What it meant is that putting the forensics and the witnesses' testimonies in a Court of law would compromise too many important people that no judge would dare to.