The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent.

[Wonderfulspam]

It really doesn’t matter what your opinion is, the fact is the McCanns are not suspects which was my original point which you raged against impotently and illogically.

But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

[Admin]

It really doesn’t matter what your opinion is, in my opinion however, the McCanns are not suspects, which was my original point which you raged against impotently and illogically.

The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.

Straw clutching. 

[Admin]

Straw clutching.

I have my own views on this which I don't normally share but on this occasion I will.  In my view, Scotland Yard have drawn a total blank in this investigation and have no suspects at all.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have my own views on this which I don't normally share but on this occasion I will.  In my view, Scotland Yard have drawn a total blank in this investigation and have no suspects at all.

Upon what do you base this view? 

[Mr Gray]

The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.

it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly  unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated

[The General]

it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly  unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated

I think you're right. I think there's currently nobody being investigated.
But SY will have to convince, or at least brief, a new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who, in the current climate, does not appear to be long for her post. I doubt Tory leadership will let her make any decisions with the sword of Damocles hanging over her, including Coronavirus / COBRA issues - haven't seen much from her at this most pivotal time.

[kizzy]

it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly  unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated

Its just speculation from you - that they re not also

[Mr Gray]

Its just speculation from you - that they re not also

Based on evidence as I've pointed out...note the title of the tread . You posted that the McCanns claim to have been declared innocent...they didn't..you're wrong

[G-Unit]

Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;

The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.

It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.

The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'

They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.

Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;

The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.

It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.

The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'

They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.

Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the equivalent to proof of innocence.

Any point of view can be argued, but is it accepted?

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;

The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.

It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.

The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'

They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.

Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.

perhasp you can understand this......have the McCanns lawyers ever claimed the McCanns have been proved innocent...nothing you have posted supports the claim you have made.

a not guilty verdict in court is not proof of innocence....so why should the removal of the arguido status  be.

as for the SC claim of proof of innocence...as i understand the translation is evidence of innocence...which it is.

you are once again giving your opinion as to what the court meant and are not stating facts

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;

The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.

It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.

The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'

They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.

Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.

just noticed you are quoting the Daily mail when previously you have criticised the press for being innaccurate.

as ive said I think the document actually said evidence  of innocence....do you have  alink to the document to support your claim

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;

The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.

It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.

The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'

They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.

Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html

It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.

Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

Looks like im right again

[pathfinder73]

The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.

They don't carry on after drastically reducing the team unless they are certain who is involved.