Wandering Off Topic

[Benice]

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

Unless and until we know what the crime is -  which ( according to the PJ)  a recon would prove the McCanns innocent of - it's too vague to be taken seriously IMO.   Prove their innocence of what! ?

IIRC one of the points the PJ believed would be proved by a recon is regarding the breeze which according to Kate caused the door to slam.   For that to happen the weather would have to be identical to what it was on 3rd May the previous year -  and the breeze would have to gust at exactly the same moment as it did on that date.   

It's difficult to believe that whoever claimed a recon would clear this question up - didn't notice that very large elephant in the room. 

AIMHO

[Eleanor]

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.

The second investigation is not required to prove anything at this stage, so will you please stop suggesting that they are.

[slartibartfast]

The second investigation is not required to prove anything at this stage, so will you please stop suggesting that they are.

The second investigation has provided nothing for us to discuss so any discussion will always be based on the initial investigation.

[Eleanor]

The second investigation has provided nothing for us to discuss so any discussion will always be based on the initial investigation.

May I remind you that the second investigation is not required to prove anything to you.

[G-Unit]

The second investigation is not required to prove anything at this stage, so will you please stop suggesting that they are.

I'm not suggesting that they should, merely pointing out that I am not in the habit of accepting anyone's pronunciations without question. 'Why do you say that?' is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable question.

[Eleanor]

I'm not suggesting that they should, merely pointing out that I am not in the habit of accepting anyone's pronunciations without question. 'Why do you say that?' is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable question.

It is not a reasonable question when you know that there is no answer.

Please stop deflecting.

[G-Unit]

It is not a reasonable question when you know that there is no answer.

Please stop deflecting.

How can there be no answer? SY and the PJ must have some reason for saying the parents are not suspects.

What do you think I'm deflecting from?

[slartibartfast]

May I remind you that the second investigation is not required to prove anything to you.

I didn’t suggest it did, I was more pointing out that posters making assumptions about the second investigations to bolster their argument is not on.

[Mr Gray]

The second investigation has provided nothing for us to discuss so any discussion will always be based on the initial investigation.

The archiving report stated clearly there was no evidence against the McCann's....

[slartibartfast]

The archiving report stated clearly there was no evidence against the McCann's....

And?

[G-Unit]

Scotland Yard and The PJ have said that The McCanns are not Suspects.  Any other suggestion is Deflecting.  Or seriously suggesting that Scotland Yard and The PJ are lying.

This is Libel, and I'm not having it.  So please desist.

Otherwise I will be forced to Delete your comments.

I'm sorry but your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.

I have not denied that SY and the PJ said that the McCanns are not suspects.
I have not accused either of them of lying.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

[Mr Gray]

And?

And that explains why they are not suspects

[stephen25000]

The simple truth is the Mccanns still remain the last kmown people to have seen Madeleine alive.

There is no forensic evidence of a third party in the apartment that night, and the latest headlines in the MSM are quite frankly laughable.

I.M.H.O.

[Eleanor]

I'm sorry but your explanation still doesn't make sense to me.

I have not denied that SY and the PJ said that the McCanns are not suspects.
I have not accused either of them of lying.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

You are expecting answers when there are none. And suggesting that someone is lying.  This is Libel.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not suggesting that they should, merely pointing out that I am not in the habit of accepting anyone's pronunciations without question. 'Why do you say that?' is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable question.

I certainly don't simply accept something just because they say so
I don't just believe the McCann's are innocent because they are not suspects
I've looked at the evidence and to me it is obvious they are not involved
SY have simply confirmed this