Why do people quote the police files and ignore the Prosecutor's final statemen

[debunker]

Any suggestions?

[debunker]

No-one want to comment?

[sika]

Because it doesn't fit in with their twisted theories.
I don't wish to break any forum rules but I have to say, that the people who support these theories, come across as a little cranky!

[Eleanor]

Because it doesn't fit in with their twisted theories.
I don't wish to break any forum rules but I have to say, that the people who support these theories, come across as a little cranky!

A little cranky?  Some of them are depraved.  In my opinion.  But not on this Forum, thankfully.

[icabodcrane]

I don't understand ...  what is the problem with posters quoting from the police files ?

It is the most valuable source of information we have,  and can only add weight to the debate

[Jean-Pierre]

There is no problem at all with people quoting from the police files.  Of course.  But it should be balanced.

It is the selective use of certain extracts,  (such as the "Tavares" iterim report), whilst ignoring or denying other parts which do not support the belief that "the McCanns dun it" (such as the prosecutors statement) that is the problem.

 

[registrar]

I don't understand ...  what is the problem with posters quoting from the police files ?

It is the most valuable source of information we have,  and can only add weight to the debate

Not disagreeing - but are you sure all the files are on public record?

Would you not agree that had only one A4 page been kept from public scrutiny - that page could change our views
on the case entirely?

The prosecutor's final statement is therefore - the bottom line - the final outcome, unless credible new evidence comes along. And IMHO I believe the prosecutor would have read the files in their entirety - unlike you or I.

And the final statement exonerates the McCanns

'The McCanns were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance, on 21 July, and their arguido status was lifted "due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation'

[icabodcrane]

There is no problem at all with people quoting from the police files.  Of course.  But it should be balanced.

It is the selective use of certain extracts,  (such as the "Tavares" iterim report), whilst ignoring or denying other parts which do not support the belief that "the McCanns dun it" (such as the prosecutors statement) that is the problem.

 

Any  information in the police files is valuable to the debate,  and we are all free to 'select'  quotes which support the points we are making

 

[stephen25000]

I don't understand ...  what is the problem with posters quoting from the police files ?

It is the most valuable source of information we have,  and can only add weight to the debate

Not disagreeing - but are you sure all the files are on public record?

Would you not agree that had only one A4 page been kept from public scrutiny - that page could change our views
on the case entirely?

The prosecutor's final statement is therefore - the bottom line - the final outcome, unless credible new evidence comes along. And IMHO I believe the prosecutor would have read the files in their entirety - unlike you or I.

And the final statement exonerates the McCanns

'The McCanns were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance, on 21 July, and their arguido status was lifted "due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation'

No a lack of evidence means merely that. No more.

Their arguido status can be re instigated for up to twenty years after the initial period, if evidence comes to light to warrant it.

[icabodcrane]

I don't understand ...  what is the problem with posters quoting from the police files ?

It is the most valuable source of information we have,  and can only add weight to the debate

Not disagreeing - but are you sure all the files are on public record?

Would you not agree that had only one A4 page been kept from public scrutiny - that page could change our views
on the case entirely?

The prosecutor's final statement is therefore - the bottom line - the final outcome, unless credible new evidence comes along. And IMHO I believe the prosecutor would have read the files in their entirety - unlike you or I.

And the final statement exonerates the McCanns

'The McCanns were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance, on 21 July, and their arguido status was lifted "due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation'

The case was not solved

As long as it  remains unsolved then it is fair and reasonable to revisit any evidence in the police files

[debunker]

I don't understand ...  what is the problem with posters quoting from the police files ?

It is the most valuable source of information we have,  and can only add weight to the debate

Not disagreeing - but are you sure all the files are on public record?

Would you not agree that had only one A4 page been kept from public scrutiny - that page could change our views
on the case entirely?


The prosecutor's final statement is therefore - the bottom line - the final outcome, unless credible new evidence comes along. And IMHO I believe the prosecutor would have read the files in their entirety - unlike you or I.

And the final statement exonerates the McCanns



'The McCanns were cleared of any involvement in the disappearance, on 21 July, and their arguido status was lifted "due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation'

No a lack of evidence means merely that. No more.

Their arguido status can be re instigated for up to twenty years after the initial period, if evidence comes to light to warrant it.

And anyone else in the world could equally well be made arguido..........if new evidence was produced.