McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[misty]

Starting with the first one:


1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.

How, concretly, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?

IMO the reconstitution described was not an exercise to demonstrate Kate & Gerry's innocence. IMO it was an exercise to disprove the testimony of Jane, her sighting & the abduction of Madeleine through the open window.

[Carana]

3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

So, they have a stop-watch and they all get up and walk around, spend x seconds / minutes in their flats and go back to sit again in the Tapas.

They do go on about an abductor climbing through a window. No one said they'd seen someone climb in, it was just their initial assumption on seeing it open.

What were they thinking of doing? Having an officer attempting to climb in and checking how long it would have taken, if ever it was even possible? If he did manage to squash through in time, does that prove the parents are innocent? Were they trying to see if it would have been impossible to walk towards the block's main entrance and not notice? Were they going to replant a tree of the same size and change the lighting?

Were they also going to check if someone could have gone in via either of the doors, or if officer x couldn't get in or not before the next person, the parents were guilty?

[Carana]

IMO the reconstitution described was not an exercise to demonstrate Kate & Gerry's innocence. IMO it was an exercise to disprove the testimony of Jane, her sighting & the abduction of Madeleine through the open window.

Didn't see your post, Misty. Yes, but re the last point, I think they were trying to disprove that an abductor could have got through the window without anyone noticing. I've no idea why they were fixated on the fact that at some point that's what the parents had assumed. It's not as if they'd stated that they'd actually seen it happen.

[Carana]

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;

Ok, so David leaves... Kate carries on with the kids, reading stories or giving them their milk. Gerry comes back from tennis. The kids go to bed. They sit down with their glass of wine... They chat for a bit, no noise from the kids, all fine, then go out to the restaurant, via the patio,

What would going through that again prove? Scratching my head over that one.

[misty]

Didn't see your post, Misty. Yes, but re the last point, I think they were trying to disprove that an abductor could have got through the window without anyone noticing. I've no idea why they were fixated on the fact that at some point that's what the parents had assumed. It's not as if they'd stated that they'd actually seen it happen.

I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?

[Brietta]

Starting with the first one:


1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

Ok. Neither Gerry nor Jez saw Jane and they don't agree on their recollections of exactly where the three of them were standing. The road had two pavements and the road appears to be 3 car-widths wide.

How, concretly, would having Jane flip-flop by again with Gerry and Jez chatting away with a baby in a buggy demonstrate the parents' innocence? Or even their guilt, for that matter?

I'm not sure that just the presence and location of even one parked vehicle could have had a bearing on what was seen, or not seen as the case may be, by the two men whatever side of the road they stood on.
Jane had a clear view of the top of the road; but if Jes was content to be standing on the road with his son in a buggy while having a conversation, it suggests to me he may well have been standing behind a parked car.
It was of no importance to them at the time and would therefore not register but the presence of a vehicle or more than one, could materially alter the whole scenario.

I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.

[Carana]

5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.

OK the boys are chatting away and Jane is roughly where she remembered being (somewhere between 5 and 10 metres, but she thinks probably closer to 5). Lighting is changed back to what it was. Male actor & child walk by. She's asked to describe them. She does so. Her description is mostly right or partially right, or perhaps totally wrong.

However that turned out, how would it prove the parents' innocence?

[Brietta]

I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?

Agreed. It was an impossibility for the McCanns to 'prove' anything for the reason they simply did not know what had happened or the reason for the window being open and the shutter raised short of the fact that was not how it had been left.
It would have been impossible for them to determine whether the shutter had been raised from the inside or the outside, they just did not know.

[Carana]

I agree. There is absolutely no way a reconstruction involving Kate & Gerry could have shown that someone did enter by the window, especially as forensics showed nothing. If the McCanns couldn't prove that entry was gained in that manner, where did it leave their testimonies/innocence once Jane had been discredited?

Why should they have to prove that someone did get in that way? How about their initial assumption was simply wrong?

[misty]

5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.

OK the boys are chatting away and Jane is roughly where she remembered being (somewhere between 5 and 20 metres, but she thinks probably closer to 5). Lighting is changed back to what it was. Male actor & child walk by. She's asked to describe them. She does so. Her description is mostly right or partially right, or perhaps totally wrong.

However that turned out, how would it prove the parents' innocence?

If her sighting was indeed the duly identified Dr. Totman, it added nothing to the McCanns presumption of innocence & ruled out that potential abductor. So what would the PJ then have done about Smithman?

[Carana]

I'm not sure that just the presence and location of even one parked vehicle could have had a bearing on what was seen, or not seen as the case may be, by the two men whatever side of the road they stood on.
Jane had a clear view of the top of the road; but if Jes was content to be standing on the road with his son in a buggy while having a conversation, it suggests to me he may well have been standing behind a parked car.
It was of no importance to them at the time and would therefore not register but the presence of a vehicle or more than one, could materially alter the whole scenario.

I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.

I can't remember if anyone had stated that they'd seen any cars. I'd said that the road was about 3 cars-width wide, as I'd looked at a random Google image in which a car was parked, and estimated that two more could have fitted side by side to give me an idea of how wide it was.

[misty]

Why should they have to prove that someone did get in that way? How about their initial assumption was simply wrong?

I guess because access couldn't have been gained via the front door (without a key) & the officers had already decided the rear patio was too well-lit for entry to be attempted there. IMO (again) the reconstruction was not designed to assist in solving the crime.

[Carana]

(snip)
I think the whole notion of a reconstruction involving only the individuals named is a nonsense which would have clarified nothing and since there was the possibility in my opinion, of self incrimination by participating no doubt they would also have to have been constituted arguidos. Including Jes Wilkins.

And roughly a year later.

Yes, I hadn't thought that the rest of them might have to have become arguidos.

[Carana]

Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).

Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence


https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf

[Robittybob1]

No! I missed a comma after the word ordered.

a comma is like the word but.