Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have never claimed that there is evidence which implicates the parents.

Do you think there is?

[G-Unit]

Do you think there is?

I have seen no evidence which rules them out, and in my opinion their story doesn't ring true.

[The General]

My concern was whether WS was allowed to tamper with my post.
You said you didn't know.
Perhaps in your role as a Moderator it is you who should find out the answer.

There is no rule.
There's an informal rule in regard to modifying / deleting, but all I can see is a font change and a strike through. Ergo your original post's content and intent has not changed. Thank you for your enquiry.*




*I am not a moderator and all information supplied above was literally made up - but it looks about right to me.

[The General]

Well list them

Do you accept the question modification?
Is your intention to simply create more division and enmity among the group with your subsequent answers?

[Vertigo Swirl]

I have seen no evidence which rules them out, and in my opinion their story doesn't ring true.

So you think there is evidence against them?

[Brietta]

The first investigators, led by the public prosecutor, Encarnacao, Neves, Amaral and Rebelo were unable to gather enough evidence to charge the McCanns, but they had enough to suspect them.

The German investigators are reluctant to share their evidence and media stories don't amount to reliable records imo. Very little of their evidence is known.

There wasn't any evidence to sustain the decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann suspects in Madeleine's disappearance though, was there.
More than enough propaganda 'leaked' to the Portuguese press ... but absolutely NO EVIDENCE.

In my opinion they hoped to frighten Kate into confessing something she hadn't done but with her lawyer in attendance and the eyes of the world on them, they miscalculated that one badly.

In contrast the present German investigation - which has gone out of its way to confirm that Kate and Gerry are in the clear - are very well aware that they do not yet have grounds to lay charges against their prime suspect who they have not yet named in accordance with German law.

Of course the Germans are not 'sharing' evidence in a very active and current case, apart from seeking information.

Why on earth do you see fit criticise their professional and ethical stance on this while harping back to mistakes made in the embarrassment that was the Amaral fiasco mystifies me.

[G-Unit]

There wasn't any evidence to sustain the decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann suspects in Madeleine's disappearance though, was there.
More than enough propaganda 'leaked' to the Portuguese press ... but absolutely NO EVIDENCE.

In my opinion they hoped to frighten Kate into confessing something she hadn't done but with her lawyer in attendance and the eyes of the world on them, they miscalculated that one badly.

In contrast the present German investigation - which has gone out of its way to confirm that Kate and Gerry are in the clear - are very well aware that they do not yet have grounds to lay charges against their prime suspect who they have not yet named in accordance with German law.

Of course the Germans are not 'sharing' evidence in a very active and current case, apart from seeking information.

Why on earth do you see fit criticise their professional and ethical stance on this while harping back to mistakes made in the embarrassment that was the Amaral fiasco mystifies me.

According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.

In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.

In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.

did you think the evidence against Murat was “well founded “ when he was made arguido?

[Brietta]

According to Portuguese law a person about whom there are well founded suspicions must be constituted arguido if they are to be asked to make further statements. Clearly the PJ were of the opinion that their suspicions were well founded.

In light of the fact that imo people are quoting Hans Christian Wolters as if he has all the answers, I feel it's necessary to point out that his known evidence is very weak.

The McCanns were made arguidos days before a change in the law which introduced a requirement for firm evidence to enable such a step to be taken.  So called "well founded suspicions" were not enough the new law required firm evidence, very likely was the reason the law was changed was abuse of the practice of "WFS".

The German investigation has acted lawfully to secure evidence against their prime suspect.  In my opinion you are hardly in any position to voice opinion about the quality of the evidence the Germans are working from for the simple fact you know absolutely nothing about the evidence they hold.
None of us do and that is the way it should be.

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no evidence which rules them out, and in my opinion their story doesn't ring true.

Is that it

[Brietta]

did you think the evidence against Murat was “well founded “ when he was made arguido?

Actually, I thought it was at the time.

But I believed the propaganda put out about him.  And don't forget much of it was backed up by information in the files.

So I think there is a lesson to be learned there.

[G-Unit]

did you think the evidence against Murat was “well founded “ when he was made arguido?

That was a decision for the PJ, and it's well founded suspicion, not evidence that triggers arguido status.

https://dre.pt/web/guest/legislacao-consolidada/-/lc/117352444/201903111102/73648326/diploma/indice

[Vertigo Swirl]

That was a decision for the PJ, and it's well founded suspicion, not evidence that triggers arguido status.

https://dre.pt/web/guest/legislacao-consolidada/-/lc/117352444/201903111102/73648326/diploma/indice

So no need for any evidence to be considered a suspect, OK, that makes sense as according to the final report there was none of any consequence to demonstrate that any of the original arguidos were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.  So it seems that you still have a well founded (in your opinion) suspicion but cannot say that there is any evidence against the McCanns?

[Mr Gray]

That was a decision for the PJ, and it's well founded suspicion, not evidence that triggers arguido status.

https://dre.pt/web/guest/legislacao-consolidada/-/lc/117352444/201903111102/73648326/diploma/indice

Their suspicions were not well founded... They were ill  founded.. As evidenced by the archiving report

[Mr Gray]

I have seen no evidence which rules them out, and in my opinion their story doesn't ring true.

So this is the sum of the evidence against the McCanns according to gunit