It's not about the size of the mountain if the evidence - sorry, I keep forgetting - admissible evidence is circumstantial. If the AG currently doesn't think there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, he's not going to get them charged until he feels there is. I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Before you say, "this is the same AG who found no practise of any crime, etc." yes, it is the same one. The same one who also said this in his archiving summary but it tends to be ignored/forgotten about by those of you who have pink candyfloss in your eyes.
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
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;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
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);
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.;
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.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
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.
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
There are things about this 'document' that dont read right to me. I have tried to google it, to check, but every website except two is Jill Haverns, aimoo, or Joana Morais. It is reputed that at least one of those alters facts. I do not know whether this is true, but I dont trust them.
The google page is flooded with Jill Havern pages and Joana Morais pages ... WHAT IS GOING ON?
Interestingly the only other two sites do not work. These are:
1) Regrets and Ramblings, which I do trust .... but it takes you to another page? Despite Google specifying it, there is nothing about this document on that page. So why is there nothing on this page about this document when Google seems to think there is?
[Bren if you are reading, pls could you confirm, or otherwise, whether this document should have been there. Catkins and Cath have my email address. ]2)
https://99.153.248.206:8888/freenet.../maddie.../pj-final-report.html which opens to "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"
So no-one can get an independant, as opposed to anti, copy of this document
JUST WHAT IS GOING ON? Seems. once again, evidence is being supressed .. or altered
I hope I am wrong ... cos it is extemely dangerous to us all if I am right ... so many "facts" are being altered.... think Pat Brown especially.
