Wandering Off Topic

[barrier]

Thank you for your answer, Gunit, but the post was aimed at Mistaken, who seems to be depending only on things found and thought to be the case in 2007/ 2008.

Several of those thoughts have been proved to be wrong, yet she still clings to them and takes no account of more up to date thoughts and findings.

Yet you allow your theory to be mired in the sticky toffee of the past with Tannerman. Redwood moved the timeline along.

[Brietta]

Yet you allow your theory to be mired in the sticky toffee of the past with Tannerman,Redwood moved the time along.

Please take it to the appropriate thread ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1327.0

[Mr Gray]

According to Rowley and Foy OG looked at the 2007 evidence and decided it was OK to move swiftly on. According to the Portuguese Supreme Court ruling a mere nine months ago the 2007 evidence contained unanswered questions. It is extremely relevant therefore until the answers to those questions are found.

could you give cite for your claim of unanswered questions......

[Mr Gray]

According to Rowley and Foy OG looked at the 2007 evidence and decided it was OK to move swiftly on. According to the Portuguese Supreme Court ruling a mere nine months ago the 2007 evidence contained unanswered questions. It is extremely relevant therefore until the answers to those questions are found.

Thats a very big accusation...is there any truth in it

[G-Unit]

Thank you for your answer, Gunit, but the post was aimed at Mistaken, who seems to be depending only on things found and thought to be the case in 2007/ 2008.

Several of those thoughts have been proved to be wrong, yet she still clings to them and takes no account of more up to date thoughts and findings.

I have seen no evidence of new thoughts or findings which have added anything to the evidence gathered in 2007.

[G-Unit]

Thats a very big accusation...is there any truth in it

You cab read the ruling here

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

[Mr Gray]

You cab read the ruling here

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

could you point out where it claims there are unanswerred questions as you have claimed....I think you are mistaken
and I thought you would be unable to provide a cite

[slartibartfast]

looks like this is an outrageous false claim and should therefore be removed

I think ...

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown reasons, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, witnesses chose not to attend, which made the reconstitution impractical.

Provides proof of unanswered questions.

[Mr Gray]

I think ...

Provides proof of unanswered questions.

So its a referral to to the reconstruction in your opinion....yet even without the reconstruction the archiving report stated there was no evidence against the mccanns.  So the mysterious unsanswerred questions relate to the reconstruction that neither of the present investigations felt was necessary.....what an utter damp squib

[G-Unit]

So its a referral to to the reconstruction in your opinion....yet even without the reconstruction the archiving report stated there was no evidence against the mccanns.  So the mysterious unsanswerred questions relate to the reconstruction that neither of the present investigations felt was necessary.....what an utter damp squib

No matter how much scorn you pour on the first investigation and the Supreme Court ruling the facts remain, whether later investigators ignored them or not. Until they fully explain why they ignored them we don't know whether it's justified or not.

[Mr Gray]

No matter how much scorn you pour on the first investigation and the Supreme Court ruling the facts remain, whether later investigators ignored them or not. Until they fully explain why they ignored them we don't know whether it's justified or not.

the fact remain that neither investigtion consider the parents suspects...something you seem to find impossible to accept

[G-Unit]

the fact remain that neither investigtion consider the parents suspects...something you seem to find impossible to accept

Apparently they have based their opinions on the first investigation, which was not convinced of their innocence. If it had been it wouldn't have included this in it's legal summary;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Mr Gray]

Apparently they have based their opinions on the first investigation, which was not convinced of their innocence. If it had been it wouldn't have included this in it's legal summary;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

the key part is "we believe"......and as has been discussed at lenghth it is basically impossible to prove innocence so its rather a ridiculous statement ...since when does a suspect have to prove innocence....what happened to the presumption of innocence.....the ECHR will no doubt answer that.

both investigating police forces have said teh mccanns are not suspects and unless any new evidence surfaces that is the case

[Mr Gray]

The fact is that SY believe Maddie was abducted. They are a highly respected police force with access to all the evidence. The PJ do not consider the McCanns suspects. Unless there is a giant conspiracy in place involving hundreds of professionals who would have to be acting dishonestly then according to SY the evidence points to an abduction.

[G-Unit]

the key part is "we believe"......and as has been discussed at lenghth it is basically impossible to prove innocence so its rather a ridiculous statement ...since when does a suspect have to prove innocence....what happened to the presumption of innocence.....the ECHR will no doubt answer that.

both investigating police forces have said teh mccanns are not suspects and unless any new evidence surfaces that is the case

The first investigation provided the evidence upon which they based their conclusions. The present investigations have provided none. You may be prepared to accept the 'because we say so' argument, but that concept was rejected wholesale by my generation many years ago.