UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on September 24, 2013, 06:22:17 PM
-
With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
-
With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
Cherry picking extracts from the Prosecutor's report is rather pointless
For instance, someone else can come along and copy and paste the paragraph where he says the McCanns failed to prove their innocence when they refused to do a reconstruction
-
So you think
Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
is saying nothing...perhaps you should read it again
We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.
-
So it seems up to yet its the normal try to ignore the elephant in the room and it will soon go away...but it wont
The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns
Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table
I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime, there is, equally, no evidence that they did not
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
-
The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns
Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table
I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime, there is, equally, no evidence that they did not
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
You are posting what you guess it means.....it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
-
You are posting what you guess it means.....it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
Does it state the crime was definitely abduction?
-
We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.
Including Amaral?
Or excluding Amaral?
He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.
Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...
-
The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns
Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table
I guess that means that whilst there is no evidence that the McCanns commited a crime, there is, equally, no evidence that they did not
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
Where do you get that from...are you making it up
-
Does it state the crime was definitely abduction?
it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
-
Including Amaral?
Or excluding Amaral?
He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.
Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...
So why do you think it appears Duarte isn't arguing this in the courtroom?
btw They were both most definitely simultaneously absent from the restaurant before they even arrived there.
-
it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
So that's a 'No' then.
-
We've all read it hundreds of times, but the fact is the investigation could not determine the nature of the crime that occurred - and if you can't state that definitively, you can't say anything definitively about suspects.
you can state that there is no evidence...if that is the case and that is what they have done...no evidence
-
So that's a 'No' then.
are you unable to read it yourself..there are a million things it doesn't say..like ant statement..whats important is what it does say
-
Including Amaral?
Or excluding Amaral?
He says some very specific things (about the McCanns).
For the McCanns to be truely justified in claiming that the Prosecutor's report 'cleared them' I suppose he would needed to have concluded that there WAS evidence that the McCanns had commited no crime
There is evidence that they committed no crime; their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert; no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200; the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting; the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry; even the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.
Amaral's defence has shipped gallons of water, as a bare minimum ...
There is no evidence that they did not commit a crime ... if there were, the Prosecutor would not have left the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table
-
you can state that there is no evidence...if that is the case and that is what they have done...no evidence
No evidence to conclude anything definitively. That's where the investigation was in 2008, and it's where it is still.
-
No evidence to conclude anything definitively. That's where the investigation was in 2008, and it's where it is still.
thats right...no evidence against the McCanns of any crime
-
thats right...no evidence against the McCanns of any crime
But something happened to the poor child, and if nothing can be proven definitively - nothing has been ruled out.
-
You are posting what you guess it means.....it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
Whilst leaving the possibility of neglectful homicide open
In other words ... It can't be proven that they were involved ... but they might have been
-
There is no evidence that they did not commit a crime ... if there were, the Prosecutor would not have left the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table
Directed against the McCanns, they didn't!
Obviously the prosecutors could not account for the actions of an abductor, hence the possibility of homicide
-
But something happened to the poor child, and if nothing can be proven definitively - nothing has been ruled out.
Of course...but there is no evidence against the MCcANNS
-
Of course...but there is no evidence against the MCcANNS
Or anybody else.
Do you get it now?
-
Whilst leaving the possibility of neglectful homicide open
In other words ... It can't be proven that they were involved ... but they might have been
Who says the possibility of neglectful homicide is still open
-
Or anybody else.
Do you get it now?
I got it a long time ago when idiots were writing pages about the dogs proving Maddie was dead...they've all gone quiet now
-
Who says the possibility of neglectful homicide is still open
It is still listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
It is interesting that SY doesn't reflect this.
On this basis options are still open. >@@(*&)
-
Who says the possibility of neglectful homicide is still open
It was when the case was archived ... and so it has remained without fresh evidence ( of which there has been none )
-
It is still listed by the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.
It is interesting that SY doesn't reflect this.
On this basis options are still open. >@@(*&)
And you think the FCO are better informed about the case than SY?
Yeah OK!
-
It was when the case was archived ... and so it has remained without fresh evidence ( of which there has been none )
you stated...
"The Prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of any crime having been commited by the Mcanns
Yet he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table "
Could you tell me where the prosecutor says he leaves the possibility of neglectful homicide on the table...I haven't seen it
-
Isabel Diarte first has to establish damage. It's a long trial. I don't think it finishes until November.
That's true but at 1 or 2 days a week there are not many days in court between now and then.
Does it not look like Duarte isn't actually going to try to demonstrate there are inaccuracies in the book? She, like you, is relying on that 2008 document.
-
it states very clearly there is no evidence that they committed any crime...
Incredible isn't it? I sometimes think they must be reading a different extract to us. 8-)(--)
-
This is the full summation at the end of the conclusions in the archival report.
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" – because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the time, to logic.
Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.
The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
Portimão, 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
The Joint General Prosecutor
(João Melchior Gomes)
-
His booklet was a great deal more extreme than Mr Amaral's book 8(0(* It was clearly indefensible.
He didn't have lawyers, or co-defendants either. The book will surely have been checked by the publisher's lawyer(s) before publication.
in the same way as lawyers for the express checked their article...I just think amaral et al never dreamt they would be held to account for what they said
-
Of course...but there is no evidence against the MCcANNS
So, according to your logic the parents have been cleared. Therefore, if that is the case why didn't the McCanns ask the Portuguese authorities not to shelve the case since they did not have to fear being implicated.
As the judge pointed out during the current trial, the archiving report is a piece of evidence, not a judgement. Also, the judge pointed out the investigation is inconclusive. Therefore, nothing has been decided as to innocence or guilt of those involved, nor what crime has actually been committed. The problem was that the investigation was interrupted and it was not yet possible to find out the truth.
-
in the same way as lawyers for the express checked their article...I just think amaral et al never dreamt they would be held to account for what they said
Did the newspapers check the legality of their articles? >@@(*&) Doubtful. They just gambled. They thought the McCanns would be charged in Portugal.
By the following summer I don't think the publishers would have been in any doubt about the possibility of being challenged would they, after seeing that the English press had already paid compensation. Think about it.
They still released the book.
-
Did the newspapers check the legality of their articles? >@@(*&) Doubtful. They just gambled. They thought the McCanns would be charged in Portugal.
By the following summer I don't think the publishers would have been in any doubt about the possibility of being challenged would they, after seeing that the English press had already paid compensation. Think about it.
They still released the book.
Amaral and his publishers gambled likewise
-
Cherry picking extracts from the Prosecutor's report is rather pointless
For instance, someone else can come along and copy and paste the paragraph where he says the McCanns failed to prove their innocence when they refused to do a reconstruction
The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.
-
And you think the FCO are better informed about the case than SY?
Yeah OK!
Tough.
Perhaps we should examine the success rate of SY compared to other forces around the world, and you only have to look around a bit to see cock-ups by UK police forces, including the current SY team in this investigation.
Meanwhile if SY are right, why haven't the FCO revised their view of the crime ?
-
Amaral and his publishers gambled likewise
Unlikely. In July 2008 they'd be in no doubt about the legal power possessed by the McCanns. By then it had been obvious for nine months.
You might just have to consider they knew what they were doing ?>)()<
-
The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.
Exactly. Look at Rui Pedro's that even after they had to close the investigation due to legal timings was re-opened in order to charge and condemn the only suspect found.
[The new fact for the re-opening was the acceptance of a witness that before had been discarded]
-
The archiving report was a simple expedient to satisfy everyone and to get rid of a problem. As Pinto Monteiro said "They had to find a solution" and he did not mean resolving the case. It is obvious that if the Portuguese authorities believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that there was the slightest possibility that she was alive, the case would never have been shelved. Never has a case of a missing child been shelved in Portugal until this one.
So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?
What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.
-
So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?
What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.
The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.
-
The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.
Indeed it does, whether gilet or the Mccanns like it or not.
-
So you are stating that the closure of the case was simple expediency on the part of the Portuguese?
That is the way a missing little girl was treated by them?
What you claim to be obvious is no such thing.
It may suit a certain viewpoint but it is not the proven truth.
I think you have to remember the intense pressure that existed in 2008. Some of it still exists today, as is apparent in the Lisbon courtroom.
There was pressure to resolve the arguido status, so that's what they did.
-
Ferryman in black..
There is evidence that they committed no crime
vs
There is no evidence that they committed a crime.
their normal behaviour up to the point of Kate's alert
vs
Their having to behave normally up to the point of Kate's alert
no evidence that they were simultaneously absent from the restaurant from the point of their (joint) arrival until Kate's alert at around 2200
vs no evidence that they were simultaneously present in the flat after Kate's alert
the conclusion of the final PJ report that Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting
vs the conclusion of the final AG report that Gerry's presence in the restaurant when the alert was launched was not denied by the restaurant's employees.
the testimony of Mr Smith's children that the man they saw was not Gerry
vs
the testimony of Mr Smith that the man they saw could be Gerry, that his wife agreed and their children didn't.
the contention of Amaral's own lawyer that Madeleine could be alive.
vs
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer said we don't know whether Madeleine is alive or dead, as the AG report says.
-
The case was not closed but shelved. The parents didn't seem particularly bothered with the shelving of the case. The Portuguese authorities even extended the deadline for the McCanns to make their decision but of course they said nothing and then started complaining that there was no official search for their daughter.
Innocent parents, after a shelving due to the lifting of Mr Murat's arguido status and convinced there was a good chance their daughter was alive, would be expected to request an instruction to be led under the control of a special judge (and not of the MP).
They could play an active part, as assistants of the process, a function they had solicited in August 2007. They could have their lawyers examining the files and ask interventions but might in turn have to collaborate in a reconstitution of the events.
-
But good ol Dave L in a previous thread stated the report was written by an "idiot" in attempting to explain away the failure to prove their innocence part which is mentioned TWICE in the archiving report.
I find it hilarious that Dave is using the archiving report as a beacon of intelligence and correctness on the "no evidence" part but he calls the author an idiot on the bit that goes against his pre conceived ideas about the McCann's on the "failure to demonstrate innocence" part.
It destroys his credibility to call the author of the report on the one hand "an idiot" (on the bit he doesn't like) and then to quote from it as some kind of definitive finding of fact on the bit he does approve of.
-
But good ol Dave L in a previous thread stated the report was written by an "idiot" in attempting to explain away the failure to prove their innocence part which is mentioned TWICE in the archiving report.
I find it hilarious that Dave is using the archiving report as a beacon of intelligence and correctness on the "no evidence" part but he calls the author an idiot on the bit that goes against his pre conceived ideas about the McCann's on the "failure to demonstrate innocence" part.
It destroys his credibility to call the author of the report on the one hand "an idiot" (on the bit he doesn't like) and then to quote from it as some kind of definitive finding of fact on the bit he does approve of.
If you check my posts you will see that I said the AG was an idiot if he asked the McCanns to PROVE...the word you continually use ...their innocence as it is virtually impossible to prove innocence. So is he an idiot? Did he say prove or is it a mistranslation...if it is a mistranslation you have a lot of backtracking to do