AG said he couldn't explain how the McCanns could be responsible - Can you?

[Mrs. B]

Yes, I agree, but it still remains a fact that this little girl was there at one moment, then she was gone. Yet nobody can come up with a reasonable, credible or even possible scenario that involves the parents. Surely, that's the least you can ask from those who feel they have the right to accuse others of committing horrendous crimes. Just my opinion, of course.

[AnneGuedes]

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.

[south of the river]

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.

what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport  as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later

It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might

[AnneGuedes]

I don't see any dilemma.
Magalhães e Menezes felt certainly sorry not to be able to "dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents", but he says clearly this fact is above his responsibility since "for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they (the TP) chose not to attend (the reconstruction)".
Doubts will remain for ever and the PGR is neither the victim nor the persecutor.

[Chinagirl]

Doubts about the parents' innocence are confined to those with an intractable prejudice.

There's an English saying which goes:  There's none so blind (or deaf) and those who will not see (or hear).

[Mrs. B]

Yes, & why the aversion to post up complete quotes or at least full sentences, without inserted personal "opinions" in the middle to render the quotes completely useless? I assume the above is supposed to refer to the reconstruction & the damage done TO the McCann by the Tapas group for not agreeing to travel to Portugal, but who can tell?

[AnneGuedes]

what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport  as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later

It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might

Someone in the village (it's not traditionally speaking a "village") having means to hide a stolen little girl in the first hours ?

[Mrs. B]

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.

what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport  as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later

It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might

If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.

[AnneGuedes]

Doubts about the parents' innocence are confined to those with an intractable prejudice.

There's an English saying which goes:  There's none so blind (or deaf) and those who will not see (or hear).

None so deaf as those that will not hear, it's a universal saying.
You can't manipulate opinion, everyone has the right to think for him/herself. If you believe something, it's ok, but don't pretend to make others to believe it as well.

[AnneGuedes]

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 E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution

[south of the river]

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.

what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport  as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later

It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might

If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.

yes of course anyone apart from family would be stranger abduction I was trying to distinguish from complete persons unknown to individuals in the vicinity that are already know to have been in the vicinity of the complex - that means staff , residents of the town , etc .

To be clear I don't think the McCann's were involved - It was either an opportune snatch by someone in the town who had inclination and also means to hide and dispose quickly ie knowledge and transport - or a more organised abduction from the room by persons from out of the town who planned it in a more structured way over a couple of days

[Mrs. B]

Yes, so he's blaming the Tapas Group for having caused damage TO the McCann as they did not agree to travel to Portugal for a reconstruction. Thanks, we knew that.

Whether he was right or wrong in his assumption that a reconstruction would have been helpful to implicate OR clear the parents, is another question. As we know, Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call

[Mrs. B]

It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc

Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.

what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport  as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later

It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might

If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.

yes of course anyone apart from family would be stranger abduction I was trying to distinguish from complete persons unknown to individuals in the vicinity that are already know to have been in the vicinity of the complex - that means staff , residents of the town , etc .

To be clear I don't think the McCann's were involved - It was either an opportune snatch by someone in the town who had inclination and also means to hide and dispose quickly ie knowledge and transport - or a more organised abduction from the room by persons from out of the town who planned it in a more structured way over a couple of days

Ah, I see what you mean now - thanks for clarifying 

[AnneGuedes]

" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they,  apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.

[Mrs. B]

Is there any specific law in Portugal that requires the dismissal of "doubt" that every Tom, Dick & Harry around may, or may not, have in order to be officially regarded as "innocent" in the eyes of the law?

If so, would someone please provide some type of link to it, I must have missed it.