The archiving report could only consider neglect in the context of the children being left unattended, it did not consider whether the actions of her parents contributed to the disappearance. The report was also very clear in that it could not come to a conclusion as to the parents direct involvement in the disappearance because of the refusal of their friends to assist the enquiry.
The investigation has now moved on, it is becoming very clear that the child was not abducted by an intruder as the parents have always claimed. IMO what comes next in the current investigation could very well blow the lid on everything that has gone before.
I think we all may have been misled by a total misunderstanding or it may even be a misrepresentation of what was actually said in the archiving document by the Attorney General if I am following correctly a previous discussion on the forum:
SnipThere seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the writer of the Archival Report is stating the the McCanns failed to prove their innocence.
This just is not the case.
Legal authorities such as Prosecutors and Attorney Generals would not be so ignorant of the law.
The reason for this misapprehension comes from people like you deliberately (or through shambolic ignorance) mis-quoting the relevant section of the report and moreover doing so without reference to the context.
Your mis-quotation is:
"they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent"
The actual text is:"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."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer.
The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves.
At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
To go from this mis-quotation and twisting as you have done and to suggest the bizarre notion that the Portuguese authorities are claiming that innocent people should have to prove that innocence is risible.
Lawyers understand that is not the case even if you don't.
When there is no evidence of any crime by a person, when there are no charges against that person then that person in a civilised society such as Portugal claims to be, have the right to be presumed innocent.
When you show that you or the police have evidence enough to charge either of the McCanns then maybe they will become suspects again.
Till then, I repeat they are presumed innocent and it is libel to claim them guilty of any crime.
I believe I have demonstrated a more accurate reading of the files than you have done. Your mis-quotation shows a very flimsy regard to the content of the files.
I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred.
I will also correct you in that they are not "the first and only suspects" in this case.
The archived case has no current suspects at all or it would not be archived.
Should some evidence appear incriminating anyone then that person/persons would be the prime suspects. And in the case of the parallel investigation from Scotland Yard, you appear unaware that the McCanns and the Tapas group have specifically been named as not being suspects or persons of interest. Your comment is therefore simply wrong both within Portugal and within the UK.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2001.msg66153#msg66153Anne Guedes confirms Gilet's translation:
SnipYes, the AG report says "they lost the possibility to prove" and not "they failed to prove".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2001.msg66155#msg66155
