In europe, there is a presumption of innocence. People do not need to prove their innocence, not even in court. They are presumed innocent, and it is for others to prove their guilt. Therefore anyone, including the mccanns, who are not found guilty are deemed innocent. They do not need to be formally declared innocent, hence the phrase cleared has no legally standing. Like Gord says the mccanns were never charged, and were only aguidos which is not the same as suspects (it just gives people legal rights when being interviewed, and is a status that people can request themselves), so there is no way they could be cleared any more thna they ever have been. The Pj says there is no evidence they are guilty, what more can be said. If someone is not guilty then they are innocent.
And a coronor can only hold an inquest if someone is declared dead, since madeleine is still legally alive as she has not been declared dead there can be no coronor's inquest. I do have a feeling that post Helen Smith who died in the KSA in 1979, UK coronors can hold inquests onto UK nationals who died abroad, but will ahve to double check that, it may just be that they can do PMs.
i think the libel cases are good, because it means people have to prove the claims they have made about the mccanns. If they cannot prove their claims it shows they have not a shred of evidence and have been lying. In portugal I believe the onus is on the claiments to disprove the libelous claims, which in the mccann case is still quite easy i.e they can prove that the dna found in the car was not likely to madeleine's like some have claimed etc. I know the madeleine foundations fifty fact leaflet has been debunked online, so that should be even easier to dispell in court.
In the mccann case, it is interesting that the PJ not only stated there was no evidence the mccanns had committed any crime, including that of neglect, but they also specifically stated they did not see how it was feasible for the mccanns to have hidden a body which they would had to have done if they were responsible for the disappearence. The head of operation grange has also stated that they believe a stranger was repsonsible so they have obviously ruled out the parents (since they are not strangers).
i disagree with the notion that someone found not guilty beyond all doubt in court is deemed more innocent that someone who has not even been charged, or not taken to trial. If someone is not taken to trial it is because there is not enough evidence against them, if someone is taken to trial it means there is more eveidence against them even if that evidence ends up not proving their guilt. Also in the UK a person foudn not guilty can face trial again if new evidence is found. The most recent example of this are the killers of stephen lawrence, who were originally found not guilty, the a decade later retried and found guilty.
The mccanns could though prove their innocence, by simply demonstrating the impossibility of their being able to hide a body in such a short time frame. That to me is the main sticking point, it just is not prossible for them to have hidden a body in such a short time, and so well with not a single witness. Whereas it is possible ten people saw a man abducting madeleine.
The mccanns are not the only people facing trial by anonymous people on the internet, but thanks to Lord McAlpine's legal actions the trend for making false accusations against people via twitter and the like may come to an end in the UK at least.
