The Cracked Mirror.

[Benice]

Because you are selectively quoting from the same Archiving report.

What about this from the same report:

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.

That refers only to the reconstruction and he does not say that because the reconstruction didn't take place then it is proof that the McCanns were guilty of anything - only that some facts remained unclarified.     

Furthermore -  it's obvious that the innocence of the McCanns was not considered by the AG to be affected by the ''said facts that remained unclarified'  -  otherwise he would not have been in a position to state any of  the following - which he did after ''considering all of the foregoing'' - which I presume included the fact that no recon took place.     

Quote
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2.    they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,

3.     their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,

4.     the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…  None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;

5.    there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,

6 .    the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and

7.     the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….

 Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

[Albertini]

That refers only to the reconstruction and he does not say that because the reconstruction didn't take place then it is proof that the McCanns were guilty of anything - only that some facts remained unclarified.     

Furthermore -  it's obvious that the innocence of the McCanns was not considered by the AG to be affected by the ''said facts that remained unclarified'  -  otherwise he would not have been in a position to state any of  the following - which he did after ''considering all of the foregoing'' - which I presume included the fact that no recon took place.     

Quote
1. "With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that
2.    they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,

3.     their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses,

4.     the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…  None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later;

5.    there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police,

6 .    the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and

7.     the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
….

 Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Deary me, no matter how much you try to spin it the text is clear in the archiving report:

As a result of the McCann's not taking part in the reconstruction the investigation was disturbed and the Mccann's damaged their ability prove their innocence.

This was a claim that Menezez REPEATED in court for the book trial.

Again, for the umpteenth time, that was a prosecution lawyer's assessment of the facts of the case as he saw it AND NOT A JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW!!

When this evidence and the archiving report went before an actual Judge in a real Court, they stated, as i have quoted several times, that Amaral's thesis was of equal merit and a police led interpretation of the facts.

What the archiving report says has no merit of guilt or innocence in any legal sense because Menezez is a public prosecutor, a government lawyer AND NOT A JUDGE.

How many times do i have to repeat this until you accept it?

[AnneGuedes]

I guess it's difficult to accept this when you project a manichaean grid on things.
Unless solid evidence is found to determine the nature of the crime and charge somebody, we'll never know what happened to Madeleine McCann and interested people will have to debate with themselves and with others whether ultimately it was Mr McCann or a lookalike who carried Madeleine's body in the street of PDL.
See the case of the writer Michael Peterson, who was granted a new trial after 8 years in jail (though no new evidence was brought but because of some irregularity in the process) and was liberated, did he or did he not push his wife in the staircase ? The French film maker of the documentary series on the case and the second trial, said recently he wasn't sure.

[Benice]

Deary me, no matter how much you try to spin it the text is clear in the archiving report:

As a result of the McCann's not taking part in the reconstruction the investigation was disturbed and the Mccann's damaged their ability prove their innocence.

This was a claim that Menezez REPEATED in court for the book trial.

Again, for the umpteenth time, that was a prosecution lawyer's assessment of the facts of the case as he saw it AND NOT A JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW!!

When this evidence and the archiving report went before an actual Judge in a real Court, they stated, as i have quoted several times, that Amaral's thesis was of equal merit and a police led interpretation of the facts.

What the archiving report says has no merit of guilt or innocence in any legal sense because Menezez is a public prosecutor, a government lawyer AND NOT A JUDGE.

How many times do i have to repeat this until you accept it?

Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.    The only issue the court  had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale.   It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous.  - that is why they were able to overturn the ban.   Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.

As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence  ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.

As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime.  i.e. INNOCENT.









       

[ferryman]

The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing.  It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.

Curiously, it was found that Amaral stuck to what was written in the files.  He didn't.

According to Amaral, the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses.

According to the final PJ report, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.

No one other than Amaral says half the DNA from the boot of the car was Gerry's.

It isn't written in the files that Kate sacked one of the liaison officers.  It is in Amaral's book.

It isn't written in the files that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral would be booted off the case.  It is in Amaral's book.

It isn't written in the files that Amaral had UK police officers trailed after they arrived in Portugal.

It is in Amaral's book.

And so on.  And so forth ...

[stephen25000]

Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.    The only issue the court  had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale.   It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous.  - that is why they were able to overturn the ban.   Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.

As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence  ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.

As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime.  i.e. INNOCENT.












       

You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.

Arguido status, yet again can be invoked for up to 20 years after the initial in-statement.

[ferryman]

You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.

By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.

Where do people get this guff from?

[stephen25000]

You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.

By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.

Where do people get this guff from?

Not guff, simply a fact.

If you haven't been charged with a crime 'ferryman' how can you be innocent or guilty ?

[AnneGuedes]

Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.    The only issue the court  had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale.   It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous.  - that is why they were able to overturn the ban.   Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.

As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence  ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.

As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime.  i.e. INNOCENT.
       

I'm sorry to say, Benice, you've got it all wrong.
1) Had you been at the trial in which the McCanns were present as the accusers, you would have seen their legal representant Mrs Duarte arguing against Mr Amaral, his editor and the TV producer.
At the time of this trial Mr Amaral's book had been banned from sale for about 6 months following an injunction made by the McCanns' legal representant, Mrs Duarte. A trial was required in order to confirm or infirm the ban decision. It confirmed it. So it wasn't at all a trial to determine whether Mr Amaral's book could go on sale, but to determine whether the ban for libel reasons was justified or not (you don't think that in a democracy you can ban a book just because you hate the author or because he doesn't believe you, do you ?).
2) You'll convince nobody that, whereas the Portuguese spent so much time trying to obtain the participation of the group in a reconstruction, the facts to clarify "weren't of enough significance". Please read the AG's report.
3) The AG removed the arguido status as a result not of a decision, but of an obligation to end the investigation because of Mr Murat, who couldn't be arguido longer. The arguido status cannot be lifted before the end of the investigation. Thanks to Mr Murat, the arguido "ordeal" of the McCanns finished in July 2008. BUT they could have claimed to pursue. They didn't, they certainly had a superior reason for not requiring an inquest that would be contradictory.

[Albertini]

Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.    The only issue the court  had to consider was whether Amaral's book could go on sale.   It is quite plain that as no libel trial had taken place and because no libel had been proved they could not say that the content of Amarals book was libellous.  - that is why they were able to overturn the ban.   Now as a result of that the McCanns are sueing Amaral to provide the proof that his book is libellous.

As far as I am concerned the AG looked at all the evidence, including the reconstruction, and although he felt that particular non event meant certain facts remained unclarified, they were not of enough significance to make any difference to his final decision. - which was that there was NO evidence  ....that is NO evidence ....not insufficient evidence ....that the McCanns had committed any crime.

As a result of his final decision, he ordered the removal of the Arguido status and so the McCanns are now exactly the same as any other person, who has never been charged with any crime.  i.e. INNOCENT.       

Well for a start I don't accept anything you quote from the Book Trial - the McCanns were not on trial there and if IIRC neither did they have any legal representation.   

I don't normally quote specific extracts from posts, but I'll make an exception on this one.

Good grief! The McCann's brought the action against Amaral so of course they had representation.

If you aren't prepared to accept documented rulings by a Judge in a Court of Law, readily available on the web, then you should not really be commentating on the case.

This one sentence alone shows that you see only what you want to see and disregard irrefutable evidence that doesn't match your preconceived ideas.

For the record i did not not say it THE JUDGES DID!

Clearly you do not understand the following:

The nature and role of a public prosecutor
The difference, legally, between what is essentially a "District Attorney" and a Judge
The nature of what the archiving summary states and it's legal weight
The difference between proving your innocence in an investigation and being "innocent until proven guilty" in a court case.
The nature of the legal position in Portugal of the archiving summary in comparison to the PJ's thesis as ruled by the Judges

If you did understand these things then you would, as those McCann supporters who do, not touch the archiving report nor the Judges summary with a barge pole, as it does your case no good to keep quoting it and embarrassing yourself.

For the final time to you let's review once again.

The archiving report stated the investigation was "disturbed" because for reasons unknown the Tapas crew wouldn't come back to perform the reconstruction.

The archiving report IN THE AUTHORS OPINION (I.E. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) said that no evidence had been found that the Mccann's had committed a crime.

However as a result of the "disturbed" (i.e. incomplete investigation) the Mccann's had not proven their innocence.

The book Judges ruled that the PJ's interpretation was an equally valid interpretation of the same facts.

Until you grasp these fairly basic concepts we will get nowhere and you will continue to look silly.

[Albertini]

The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing.  It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.

Curiously, it was found that Amaral stuck to what was written in the files.  He didn't.

According to Amaral, the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses.

According to the final PJ report, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.

No one other than Amaral says half the DNA from the boot of the car was Gerry's.

It isn't written in the files that Kate sacked one of the liaison officers.  It is in Amaral's book.

It isn't written in the files that Gordon Brown was told before Amaral that Amaral would be booted off the case.  It is in Amaral's book.

It isn't written in the files that Amaral had UK police officers trailed after they arrived in Portugal.

It is in Amaral's book.

And so on.  And so forth ...

So why didn't Duarte blow Amaral out of the water in this case then? Either she's incompetent or it wasn't there.

After all the Judges said:

we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.

[ferryman]

So why didn't Duarte blow Amaral out of the water in this case then? Either she's incompetent or it wasn't there.

After all the Judges said:

Because it was an ex parte judgment.  No one representing the McCanns was there to contest the ruling or take part in the proceedings.

First the McCanns knew that the injuunction had been overruled was when it was announced after the hearing.

[Albertini]

You cannot be judged innocent of a crime, if you haven't been charged with one.

By that defintion (I use the word loosely) anyone who has not been charged with something can be considered guilty.

Where do people get this guff from?

Oh dear. Another poor supporter who doesn't understand the difference between an investigation ruling out suspects and innocent until proven guilt in a court!

Two completely different things.

No doubt you do not understand either the degree of innocence courts apply so recently exemplified by the Barry George compensation case.

[Albertini]

Because it was an ex parte judgment.  No one representing the McCanns was there to contest the ruling or take part in the proceedings.

First the McCanns knew that the injuunction had been overruled was when it was announced after the hearing.

Which reviewed the evidence from the initial trial. So why didn't Durate bring it up then? Or in the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court which turned down their appeal.

[Albertini]

The question of libel was not considered at this ex-parte hearing.  It was decided that Amaral's right to free speech should override the McCanns' right to a good name, with all question of libel irrelevant to the question of the injunction.

To be fair the ruling said far more than that.

It specifcally stated Amaral's thesis was a valid police led interpretation of the facts.

"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."