Albertini. This is where you and I have a fundamental difference in perspective.
Only because you do not understand.
The fundamental role of the police service in this context is to solve the crime.
Correct
The police will of course view each "person of interest" as potentially guilty and will see if they can find any evidence which will suggest guilt (of whatever crime they are investigating). However, the onus is firmly on the police to find that evidence. It is emphatically not on the "person of interest" to prove their innocence.
Incorrect! As has been stated countless times potential suspects are asked questions by investigators such as:
Where were you on the night of the 3rd?
Who were you with on the night of the 3rd?
What were you doing there on the night of the 3rd?
Or in Kate McCann's case, 48 questions which she refused to answer to demonstrate her innocence.
If the suspect can answer these questions to the satisfaction of the investigators, which fits in with the times, places and evidence found (amongst other things) at the crime scene then they have "proven their innocence".
If they cannot to use the police terminology "rule themselves out" by not demonstrating their innocence they remain suspects until such time as evidence is found to incriminate them (see the Stephen Lawrence case as an example), they remain suspects until clear and verifiable evidence comes along which rules them out (at which point they have proven their innocence), or another suspect is found with clear evidence against him or her (in which case the original suspects have their innocence proved by the weight of evidence against someone else).
In the McCann case, the police have not managed to find any proof of wrongdoing by the McCanns or by any of the "Tapas 7" and there the matter rests.
No, you are right (to a point in this case) and you must ask why that is? The best way to describe it is to run through the scenario and put oursleves in the mind of an investigator.
The first question is to look at the investigation itself and ask:
"Was the investigation completed"?
The answer is no, it was not completed, after all the archiving report clearly stated the investigation was "disturbed".
Then you would ask:
"Why was the investigation disturbed?"
The answer to that question again comes from the archiving report which states it was disturbed by the group's refusal to take part in a reconstruction.
Then as an investigator you must ask:
"Why would the group refuse to take part in an investigation which has been set up to look for their friend's missing child?"
You look at the evidence from the email exchanges when they were asked to take part and th reasons the group gave for not attending. These comprise of issues such as they do not see the benefit it will add to the investigation and they think the PJ are trying to set up their friends.
Then you ask:
"Are these credible reasons for not taking part when the group know the importance of the reconstruction to the investigation into their friend's missing child?"
The answer to that question is:
It is not normal for witnesses to dictate the reasons of why a reconstruction is needed, which ultimately is designed to help find their friend's missing child. Why should they question the way the investigation is seeking to move forward? They are doctors not policemen.
An investigator would conclude:
They would not expect us how to tell them to treat a patient so why are they questioning how we go about our work?
So in answer to that question, the querying of operational techniques - and what it will add to the investigation- is not a valid reason for the witnesses not to attend.
Ok, so what about the issue of "fit up". You then see that the group were offered, at the reconstruction, the presence of legal representation, the Foreign Office and leicestershire Police. So you can only conclude refusing to take part for fear of fit up is not a valid reason to not attend given the evidence.
So you are left feeling that it is highly suspicious as to why they would want to kill the reconstruction which seeks to move the investigation forward and generate new evidence when the reasons they have given for not taking part do not stand up to investigative scrutiny.
An investigator would ask:
"Why are they seeking to not take part in the recon and kill the investigation with reasons which are weak and have no basis in factual reality"?
And then conclude that the group refused to take part specifically and deliberately to prevent the generation of new evidence.
Then you must ask
"Why would they do that"?
You would conclude that there are only three possible outcomes of a reconstruction.
The first one is that no new evidence or leads would be generated, in which case, the status quo remains and there is no damage to the group in taking part, and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The second is that evidence and leads would be generated which would help police find an abductor. As this is what the group have been stating this is what has happened all along there is no damage to the group in taking part, (indeed it would help the McCann's prove their innocence) and there is no justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
The third option is that new leads and evidence would be generated against the parents. Then there is damage to the group in taking part and a justifiable reason why the group should not take part.
So an investigator looking at these scenarios could only conclude that they did not attend and the only logical reason for that fits in with option three. It is the only one which makes sense of their decision not to attend.
As a consequence the McCann's have not only been unable to prove their innocence, but also the suspicion increases against them as a result of theirs and their friend's decision to kill the reconstruction and in turn the investigation.
So in answer to your point about lack of evidence the reason there is no evidence against them is because the investigation was/is incomplete and that it is only incomplete due to their refusal to take part in the reconstruction.
Which is highly suspicious in itself given my reasoning above.
The McCanns et al do not have to do anything at all, and their is no obligation on them to "prove their innocence" to the police, to any forumite or indeed to your goodself.
Wrong! Because once again the archiving report and Leicestershire Police's statement specifically say otherwise, don't they?
It's not me that has said it is the AG and LP, i am explaining to you what they mean.
