The Cracked Mirror.

[Rachel Granada]

Yes, they did and their lawyers blocked them from taking part.

I think you are mistaken, Albertini.  Perhaps you could produce a cite for that?

[Albertini]

We have had no reports from anyone that the T9 have been re-interviewed and i'm sure had they been it would have come out.

Of course not - SY are not obliged to keep us informed of the nitty-gritty of their investigation!

As for the rest of your post - wishful thinking on your part.

So we cannot take it as read that they have been re-interviewed, then can we?

Which is what you stated.

What part of the rest of my post is "wishful thinking"?

Either these leads will lead somewhere and new evidence will come forward.

Or failing that all possible abduction leads and scenarios will lead to nought. 

Those are surely the only two options.

I covered the first outcome in my post which you described as "wishful thinking".

You haven't provided an answer to the second outcome.

Given that these are the only two outcomes of the current leads i fail to see how you could dismiss them as "wishful thinking".

[Albertini]

I think you are mistaken, Albertini.  Perhaps you could produce a cite for that?

No i am not!

April 6th 2008, some three weeks after the formal requests started coming through to the T7 to attend a reconstruction Clarence Mitchell said in the People:

Byline: By TOM CARLIN

"If they returned now to Portugal it would be a distraction and would put pressure on police. Their lawyers would block it anyway.

"But once their arguido status has been lifted, they will feel differently. "

Yet when their Arguido status was lifted they did not seek to go back to perform it, why is that?

[stephen25000]

I don't accept the possibility that Madeleine had an accident in the apartment.  How on earth do you imagine that they managed to dispose of Madeleine and then go to dinner as if nothing had happened? All in a matter of a couple of hours, without access to a car in a foreign country.

You ask me to have an open mind, yet yours is closed.

Says everything.

One dimensional as with all true mccannites.

[Benice]

Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:

That is also echoed by the judge in an actual court (rather than a public prosecutor) in the libel trial who also, in round about terms, accused them of lying.

What Libel trial?  - there hasn't been one yet, which is why his book ban was able to be overturned - i.e. because libel had not yet been established.

[Carana]

Well without going into the detail of who the AG in Portugal is (NOT a judge), and without going into the facts of the libel case where the Judges ruled that the PJ's theory was a valid police led theory based on the facts gathered and one of equal validity to the AG report, even the AG himself said:

Could you clarify?

[Albertini]

What Libel trial?  - there hasn't been one yet, which is why his book ban was able to be overturned - i.e. because libel had not yet been established.

The book banning/ libel trial went further than that if you read the judgment.

Here are some quotes from the summary judgement:

"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."

"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

"We need,, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors."

Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

That is clear indication that the verdict determined the book and indeed Amaral's thesis was not libellous and Amaral has that judgement tucked in his pocket next time round.

Furthermore it opens the door to the fact that an actual Court, not a public prosecutor, may make a different decision regarding the gathered facts than the AG did.

But without the AG referring it to a Court that could not be tested.

[Albertini]

Could you clarify?

The Archiving report was written by a public prosecutor, a lawyer, a public servant.

He has no power to determine guilt or innocence in a legal sense. Only a Court and a Judge can do that.

If you look at my previous post regarding the final Judges report in the book banning/libel trial you will see what real judges have to say about the facts gathered.

They say that the archiving report was an INTERPRETATION of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's) interpretation was an equally valid thesis under law.

[Angelo222]

I agree.  Why on earth would the McCanns have pushed for this investigation by the Yard if they were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance.  It would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

I like your analogy Rachel. 

[Rachel Granada]

No i am not!

April 6th 2008, some three weeks after the formal requests started coming through to the T7 to attend a reconstruction Clarence Mitchell said in the People:

Yet when their Arguido status was lifted they did not seek to go back to perform it, why is that?

I don't set much store with what newspapers say.  I prefer to have a look at the files, which say something a bit different.  I believe it was a letter/E-mail from Rogerio Alves to the PT powers-that-be, indicating dates etc.  I don't have the appropriate page ref to hand, but I can find it (unless someone can help in the meantime).

[Rachel Granada]

I like your analogy Rachel. 

Cheers, Angelo!

[Albertini]

I don't set much store with what newspapers say.  I prefer to have a look at the files, which say something a bit different.  I believe it was a letter/E-mail from Rogerio Alves to the PT powers-that-be, indicating dates etc.  I don't have the appropriate page ref to hand, but I can find it (unless someone can help in the meantime).

But that was a quote from the Mccann's press spokesman!

Are you saying you do not believe it?

Does that mean we should not believe anything Clarence Mitchell has said on the McCann's behalf?

If so i would be happy to go over with you the reasons why you think they offered to go back alongside your supporting evidence.

[Benice]

The book banning/ libel trial went further than that if you read the judgment.

That is clear indication that the verdict determined the book and indeed Amaral's thesis was not libellous and Amaral has that judgement tucked in his pocket next time round.

Furthermore it opens the door to the fact that an actual Court, not a public prosecutor, may make a different decision regarding the gathered facts than the AG did.

But without the AG referring it to a Court that could not be tested.

I think you are wrong.    If a court has decreed that the content of Amaral's book is not libellous, why are the MCanns taking him to court on the grounds that the content of his book is libellous?  That would be a pointless exercise.     And why if a court has already  proved that Amaral's book is not libellous, has he kept delaying the case?     One would think he wouldn't be able to get to court quick enough if he knew it was in the bag - so that he could unfreeze his assets.

[Rachel Granada]

But that was a quote from the Mccann's press spokesman!

Are you saying you do not believe it?

Does that mean we should not believe anything Clarence Mitchell has said on the McCann's behalf?

If so i would be happy to go over with you the reasons why you think they offered to go back alongside your supporting evidence.

I have no idea what Clarence Mitchell may or may not have said.  In the meantime, if you have a look at "09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139" in the files you will see that McCanns did not refuse.  Link below, scroll down to the bottom.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139

[Albertini]

I have no idea what Clarence Mitchell may or may not have said.  In the meantime, if you have a look at "09 01 Apensos IX Vol I Page 139" in the files you will see that McCanns did not refuse.  Link below, scroll down to the bottom.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139

Do you have the date of that email?