Another repeat - The McCanns

[JamesW]

No, it doesn't mean they are innocent. Stating that the McCanns are not suspects in the case means that the police don't think there's any evidence to justify questioning them again or continuing to investigate them.

[JamesW]

The police were not addressing the question of whether the McCanns were innocent or not, they were addressing the question of whether they were being investigated or not. They said the McCanns were not being investigated.

It is not the function of the police to declare that people are innocent or guilty. That's the function of the courts.

[crofter]

Jr of course nothing is as it seems with this case ... but just maybe let's give the Portugese authorities (who should know the full story not what they read on the interweb and youtube) a bit of clout. Now by my reading of it not making them suspects does say that they are not involved in the direct disappearance of Maddy ... now how do you have to answer a case when you are not being accused of ANYTHING???

I believe Portugese Law is the same as English/Scottish Law - innocent until proven guilty ... so if they don't have a case to answer for where is all this hatred coming from??

[colonel]

I reckon JRPornstar did Maddy.

The dirty fucker etc.

[Gator]

I say that they are guilty as hell.

Completely unconvincing every damn time they appear on TV.

[JamesW]

"These are not accusations, there is no libel here, they are things which have actually happened and which a great number of people would like to have explained."


Yes there is libel. A great many of the comments above do constitute libel.

For example, Murat has been formally stated to be not under suspicion of involvement, but despite that the above comments suggest he may have been involved and implies that he has something to explain. Mr Murat has already sued for libel on several occasions over similar remarks and has received damages on every occasion.

Similarly, on 4 August 2008 the Portuguese police stated that, after reviewing the forensic evidence found in the car, nothing had been found that was signiicant or meaningful to the case. To prove the point, the forensic reports were released on the same day to demonstrate that the forensic evidence found in the car was of no value. In the above post it is said that forensic evidence was found which needs explaining and as this is contrary to the published facts it is a clear libel.

I could go on........