The Cracked Mirror.

[AnneGuedes]

The investigation was interrupted due to end up Mr Murat's arguido status. By no way had been collected enough evidence for a State vs McCanns. The McCanns had the choice to request an inquiry (which, if innocent, could prove them so) or to quit. Had they been suspected to kill their daughter, this option wouldn't have existed, the upper magistrate would have ordered the contradictory inquiry.

[Albertini]

the AG report is ridiculous. How could the McCanns have proved their innocence, its impossible, as it was for Stagg.

So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?

Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.

To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.

Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.

[Puffin]

Many thanks for these informations, Puffin. I wasn't suggesting Mr Whicher was the only inspiration source, but he was one, and particularly due to his remarkable perspicacity in the Road Hill House murder.

  Ah, the Constance Kent case.  She was guilty, later confessing she killed her little half-brother.  But I do not remember Whicher's name ever coming up as being an influence on Conan Doyle, whereas Dr Bell was.  Oh, maybe that was claime in the recent TV series?   Puffin

[AnneGuedes]

Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.

You're kidding. What are courts for ? Mainly to put an end to cases. Our societies can't afford dragging old cold cases, this is too much a weight and undermines dynamism.
If someone can't be judged for lack of sufficient evidence, a court is of no use at all.
You can lament someone will have for ever a shadow on his/her head, but there's no remedy, except for sticking to the truth as much as you can. And if you're innocent, fortunately it's usually not a problem.

[insider]

I'm afraid they're many.

Think outside the box Anne.   Which area have they never searched near Luz?

[AnneGuedes]

  Ah, the Constance Kent case.  She was guilty, later confessing she killed her little half-brother.  But I do not remember Whicher's name ever coming up as being an influence on Conan Doyle, whereas Dr Bell was.  Oh, maybe that was claime in the recent TV series?   Puffin

I don't know, I don't have TV. But I read the very interesting book of Kate Summerscale.
www.mrwhicher.com

[Mr Gray]

So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?

To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.

Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.

so you agree that the McCanns cannot prove their innocence and therefore to expect them to is ridiculous.
I have no preconceived idea re the McCanns. All my ideas are post conceived, ie based on what I have heard re the case

[AnneGuedes]

Think outside the box Anne.   Which area have they never searched near Luz?

Is it some scavenger hunt ?
I know of one person who searched in a place where nobody else did.

[Jean-Pierre]

So the part which says there is no evidence against them is also ridiculous? Or are you cherry picking the bits which you feel are ridiculous to fit around your pre conceived idea of the McCann's?

To the police, yes no doubt based on the evidence collected. They would remain suspects until verifiable information "ruled them out" or strenghtend the case against them.

Just like Colin Stagg was and just like the Lawrence killers were.

Sorry Albertini, you cannot have it both ways.

In order to "prove innocence" ,if such a thing were possible in absolute terms, it first needs to be establish "innocentof what".   Even in the face of The PP statement said no evidence of a crime.   Madeleine is missing, and it would appear to the authorites that the overwhelmingly likely cause is abduction.

The Portugese police have demonstrably failed to provide any actual evidence against them, they have at no stage been arrested or charged, and have not appeared in court.  So perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the McCanns are supposed to "prove their innocence" of?

It would appear that you have a vested interest in convincing members of this forum that the McCanns are still suspects.  Although god know what you agenda is. 

[Puffin]

I don't know, I don't have TV. But I read the very interesting book of Kate Summerscale.
www.mrwhicher.com

  That was the book the TV Program was based on.  Although I have heard of Whicher, I cannot remember his name being mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes Society archives.  I may be wrong, but I think it would have stuck in my mind as I am a confirmed Holmes fan.

[Albertini]

Sorry Albertini, you cannot have it both ways.

Have what both ways?

In order to "prove innocence" ,if such a thing were possible in absolute terms,

Eminently possible. The first step towards that was, as the AG report stated, the reconstruction, which their friends officially vetoed (in consultation with the whole group) and via their press spokesman's words that their lawyers would block the Mccann's return to Portugal.

it first needs to be establish "innocentof what".   Even in the face of The PP statement said no evidence of a crime.   

How obtuse! Clearly by the very fact that a child has gone missing a crime has been committed.

Madeleine is missing, and it would appear to the authorities that the overwhelmingly likely cause is abduction.

Not the authorities in Portugal.

The Portuguese police have demonstrably failed to provide any actual evidence against them, they have at no stage been arrested or charged, and have not appeared in court.  So perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the McCanns are supposed to "prove their innocence" of?

They need to prove their innocence to the investigators that they were not involved in the disappearance of the child.

No evidence or indeed lack of evidence is NOT proof of innocence. See the convicted men in the Lawrence case for reference.

Are you familiar with this phrase:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

It would appear that you have a vested interest in convincing members of this forum that the McCanns are still suspects.  Although god know what you agenda is.

You remain both pompous and condescending and it's hugely irritating because, despite your attempts at superiority in your posts, you do not appear to have the intellectual capacity to back it up, prove your point nor indeed rebut mine.

It is not my fault you will not accept fairly simple and legitimate reasoning which has been given which explains the AG's report (coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court), which i have supported with two example cases.

I have no agenda other than ensuring the truth of the affair comes out. I am not going to debate on the subject and have people with pre conceived ideas about the innocence of the parents misinterpret or blatantly mislead over the evidence of the AG's report and the investigative principles which underpin it, in order to defend their beliefs.

[Albertini]

The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents.

it is highly relevant and is referred to in the AG' report specifically and explicitly as such:

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.

The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part. 

Correct. But that must be caveated by the fact that the AG said the investigation was "disturbed", which means it was incomplete.

It states quite clearly it was disturbed specifcally because of the refusal of the group to participate in the reconstruction.

The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.

The case could not proceed because of the refusal to participate in the reconstruction. There were no other "diligences" open to the PJ at that time other than the reconstruction.

Howver as is clear in the archving report the Mccann's did indeed fail to demonstrate their innocence but that is something which is not mutually exlusive to a lack of evidece.

There can be no evidence of a crime being committed by suspects BUT they can still fail to demonstrate their innocence.

If it was not possible to have both why do you think both were in the report?

[ferryman]

Excellent rebuttal skills! Keep up the good work!

 

(coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court)

If you are interested in truth why do you not make it clear that the Assistant Chief Constable made certain remarks while the McCanns were still arguidos and before the files were released?

That is the truth ...

[Rachel Granada]

Its all there in the files but Amaral couldnt finish the job because of political interference.

Sorry, I can't go with the political interference claim.  I think we only have Amaral's "word" for this? 

[Albertini]

(coupled with the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire's own comments in the family Court)

If you are interested in truth why do you not make it clear that the Assistant Chief Constable made certain remarks while the McCanns were still arguidos and before the files were released?

That is the truth ...

Not this again, we've gone over this already.

The comment was made on 7th July 2008 and the archiving report was released on the 21st July 2008.

The archiving report paragraph stating the McCann's failure to demonstrate their innocence is exactly the same as the Assistant Chief Constable's assertion.

They are saying the same thing!

In relation to the released files, Leicestershire Police had access to all the info as the investigation proceded.

This is apparent from the contents of the files itself with the involvment of amongst others Bob Small and Stu Prior along with specific menions in the AG's report itself:

Shortly after the beginning of the investigation, continuous relationships were created with the Leicestershire Constabulary which sent, in support, various of their members to Portugal, having, equally, the PJ sending employees to the UK.

It is emphasized, specifically, that the level of cooperation and of understanding between the PJ and the Leicestershire Constabulary achieved, always, very high levels, united in the common pursuit of the missing child and the truth.

The PJ, as in probably no other investigation in Portugal, withheld no effort, in the sense of providing exceptional technical means, manpower and financing towards the discovery of the child and the determination of the truth of the facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police department headquartered in the city of Leicestershire, from where most of the elements of the holiday group are from.

- The obliging cooperation and commitment of Police forces from many countries, with a very special mention for the British police entities, was counted upon;

No evidence came to light between the 7th and 21st which demonstrated the parent's innocence and do you really believe if it did this evidence could be digested and then a report of this magnitude could be written up in a sub two week timeframe?

There is no valid reason to mention the two week difference because the ACC and the Archiving report make the same basic point about the Mccann's not proving their innocence!