The Archiving Report...proof of innocence...

[Mr Gray]

I don't see what you are trying to achieve with this game of semantics?

doesn't surprise me

[Luz]

That's because they don't have to do either. the pj seems to want to sit back, go on long alcoholic lunches and expects the McCanns to prove themselves innocenct because the pj cant be bothered to gather any evidence themselves

Very nice indeed.
I often wonder why people like you follow the McCann. I hope they don't endorse your behaviour.

That's typical of the weak, when they don't have defense they attack/insult. I pity you.

[Mr Gray]

Your're quite right, they neither have to confirm or prove their innocence. It's the law's job to prove guilt. It might have been helpful for the investigation if the Mccanns could have helped to eliminate themselves as soon as possible though in the hopes that more resources were spent on other avenues.

I disagree that the PJ "couldn't be bothered" and I'm convinced that the "boozy lunches" were a cultural difference which has been blown out of all proportion.

how could they rule themselves out when it is clear from the AG report that the investigating officers misunderstood the evidence

[Rachel Granada]

But they failed to do either didn't they?

Nosda, Cariad.

As has been said further up the post, Kate and Gerry McCann don't need to prove their innocence, it's up to LE to prove their guilt.

I think the fact that they weren't even arrested speaks for itself, do you have any thoughts on that?

PS) Hope I have spelt nosda right! 

[Mr Gray]

Very nice indeed.
I often wonder why people like you follow the McCann. I hope they don't endorse your behaviour.

That's typical of the weak, when they don't have defense they attack/insult. I pity you.

you must see my response in context. Im totally sick of posters asking why the MccANNS  didn't prove their innocence. A stupid statement like that brings out the worst in me. lets settle it for once...THE MCCANNS DO NOT, NOR SHOULD BE ASKED TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE

[Cariad]

Nosda, Cariad.

As has been said further up the post, Kate and Gerry McCann don't need to prove their innocence, it's up to LE to prove their guilt.

I think the fact that they weren't even arrested speaks for itself, do you have any thoughts on that?

PS) Hope I have spelt nosda right!

I agree that they don't have to prove their innocence. I posted the same thing a couple above this.

Nos da is good night, night being nos, da being good. Thank you for trying though! Few people do 

[Luz]

If you are charged of a crime you do not have to prove your innocence. But if you are looking for your child you wish to make sure that no time and resources are being lost investigating you, if you are certain that there is a third party that may be holding her/him.

[Mr Gray]

If you are charged of a crime you do not have to prove your innocence. But if you are looking for your child you wish to make sure that no time and resources are being lost investigating you, if you are certain that there is a third party that may be holding her/him.

But amaral has confirmed that they weren't looking for anyone else..he and all his colleagues believed the MccAnns were responsible

[AnneGuedes]

"Provar" is a passive process whereas "comprovar" is an active one.
This innocence issue has nothing to do with justice but with the doubt about the McCann this case has stirred up in public opinion. The AG report anticipated what I think is a really serious issue. The simple fact of accepting the reconstitution (I use this word on purpose because "reconstruction" is something else) and encouraging to participate group members who insisted on their will to help, would have been a considerable step towards dissipating the doubt. They were imo badly advised by lawyers who saw no further than the tip of their nose.

[Admin]

"Provar" is a passive process whereas "comprovar" is an active one.
This innocence issue has nothing to do with justice but with the doubt about the McCann this case has stirred up in public opinion. The AG report anticipated what I think is a really serious issue. The simple fact of accepting the reconstitution (I use this word on purpose because "reconstruction" is something else) and encouraging to participate group members who insisted on their will to help, would have been a considerable step towards dissipating the doubt. They were imo badly advised by lawyers who saw no further than the tip of their nose.

In the UK we use the word "reconstruction" when describing the reenactment of a criminal event by police.  In such an undertaking a combination of participants may be used eg the original participants, police officers, actors or any combination of these.

[Luz]

In the UK we use the word "reconstruction" when describing the reenactment of a criminal event by police.  In such an undertaking a combination of participants may be used eg the original participants, police officers, actors or any combination of these.

It's the same in Portugal. Although as part of a legal procedure to "gather proof", it must be made by all the original intervenients, if possible, and never as a dramatization with actors, and for public consumption, as it is common in documentaries produced by the TVs in UK and US. In fact the law specifically advises that such reconstitutions (as is classified in the law) must not be public or publicized.

[Mr Gray]

To clarify then, the archiving report is effectively declaring that the McCanns failed to take every opportunity provided to them in order to prove their innocence and by their own actions created a situation whereby the investigation had to be shelved.

Far from being cleared the archiving report raises more questions than provides answers.

The 48 questions which Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine.

These are the questions:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45.  When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46.  When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

49. THE QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER:

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz34VCmDWYw

Just to correct you...the word "prove" is not in the archiving report

[Mr Gray]

Then please give the exact link to the report, AND NOT YOUR 'WORDS' .

this has already been discussed at length and confirmed by anne gueddes

[stephen25000]

this has already been discussed at length and confirmed by anne gueddes

Then provide it.

Are you saying therefore Mr. Moderator is lying ?

[John]

Just to correct you...the word "prove" is not in the archiving report

Extract Archiving Report - Section E

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.

www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html


Last paragraph Section E.   Comprovarem > Prove