For Albertini ...

[Mr Gray]

Well you should know that when someone says "do you speak" it also means to be able to read it.

So you don't use it daily but you can read it pretty well, er ok.

Once again, i ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion that the translation i presented from the PJ files is incorrect and what the correct translation should be.

That should be a piece of cake for you if you can read it "pretty well".

I'm waiting....


 
[/quote

never said it was incorrect... that is a definitive statement.. I said I don't think he said that...that is an opinion

wheres the original portuguese]

[Albertini]

never said it was incorrect... that is a definitive statement.. I said I don't think he said that...that is an opinion

wheres the original portuguese

Ok, so now you're moving the goalposts, what do you think he said, and what's your evidence to support that assertion?

ETA

The original Portuguese is contained on the same link.

[Mr Gray]

Terrific, has the investigation finished?

so had the Mccanns ruled themselves out it would have been meaningless as the investigation hadn't finished

[Mr Gray]

Well you should know that when someone says "do you speak" it also means to be able to read it.
So you don't use it daily but you can read it pretty well, er ok.

Once again, i ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion that the translation i presented from the PJ files is incorrect and what the correct translation should be.

That should be a piece of cake for you if you can read it "pretty well".

I'm waiting....

wrong again...I can speak a little mandarin, certainly cant read  it.

[Albertini]

so had the Mccanns ruled themselves out it would have been meaningless as the investigation hadn't finished

Nope. Because irrespective of what stage the review was at, definitive proof they weren't involved "demonstrating their innocence" is not time constrained. It is clear and undoubtable proof of non involvement.

[Mr Gray]

Ok, so now you're moving the goalposts, what do you think he said, and what's your evidence to support that assertion?

ETA

The original Portuguese is contained on the same link.

haven't moved the goalposts, you just didn't read the posts properly

[Albertini]

wrong again...I can speak a little mandarin, certainly cant read  it.

Pedantics and semantics.

I'm still waiting for you tell me that why it isn't what i think it means.....

[Albertini]

haven't moved the goalposts, you just didn't read the posts properly

Oh you have.

I'm still waiting for your evidence and explaination......

[Mr Gray]

Pedantics and semantics.

I'm still waiting for you tell me that why it isn't what i think it means.....

im still waiti ng for you to tell me what proving their innocence means

[Albertini]

im still waiti ng for you to tell me what proving their innocence means

I have told you many times. Please read the forum back, concentrate and try to understand.

Now back to your evidence.....

You haven't got any have you?

[Mr Gray]

I have told you many times. Please read the forum back, concentrate and try to understand.

Now back to your evidence.....

You haven't got any have you?

evidence of what

[Mr Gray]

I have told you many times. Please read the forum back, concentrate and try to understand.

Now back to your evidence.....

You haven't got any have you?

you have never explained what proving their innocence means.you are telling lies again, as I caught you out yesterday

[Albertini]

evidence of what

Lolz! Are you on a wind up?

Evidence to support your assertion that:

I don't think he said what you think he said

In relation to the AG report.

[Mr Gray]

Lolz! Are you on a wind up?

Evidence to support your assertion that:

In relation to the AG report.

As I have posted several times, could you post the original in Portuguese that you are referring to

[Albertini]

you have never explained what proving their innocence means.you are telling lies again, as I caught you out yesterday

No you really didn't "catch me out" at all. You'd love to think you did but you haven't produced any evidence of it.

How about this post from:

 

« Reply #508 on: July 27, 2013, 12:39:05 PM »

It has pefect logic if you are able or want to see it.

Stagg was acquitted on the basis of the evidence presented to the court. Because the police had not gathered enough evidence to secure a conviction DID NOT MEAN that the Police thought he was no longer a suspect, but, put as simply as i can, that their evidence wasn't strong enough to turn their suspicions into a conviction.

A court case reviews the evidence presented. A police investigation focuses on suspects and ruling them out by the demonstration of innocence by either direct or indirect means.

I have not said the McCann's can "demonstrate their innocence by answering question". I have said that investigations use a multitude of means, often together, to rule someone out. One is obviously answering questions.

For example, and it's a really simple example, Kate Mccann's mother was not a suspect. Had she been questioned the Police would have said:

"Where were you on the 3rd May 2007".

She would have answered:

"In the UK".

Having verified that the police would have been able to rule out her mother because she had proven her innocence to the investigation by not being in Portugal on the night of the disappearance.