The Cracked Mirror.

[ferryman]

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.

The edit in the post above was to replace the word sap with the word supporter

He is spouting ignorance which is probably not a bannable offence.

But name-calling (by the, I presume, round-robin, PM) is.

So, are the moderators going to show teeth and ban this name-caller?

[Redblossom]

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?

If they were official suspects its slightly different to just *anyone*, isn't it?

The PP is afaiaw the equivalent of the CPS here. They do not decide on guilt or innocence, they only look at the evidence and decide whether they have a good enough case to take it to court. Stephen is technically correct. The PP decided not to charge them. Not surprised, when the *type of crime was unknown*.

[ferryman]

If they were official suspects its slightly different to just *anyone*, isn't it?

The PP is afaiaw the equivalent of the CPS here. They do not decide on guilt or innocence, they only look at the evidence and decide whether they have a good enough case to take it to court. Stephen is technically correct. The PP decided not to charge them. Not surprised, when the *type of crime was unknown*.

The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.

The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.

[Redblossom]

The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.

The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.

Whats that got to do with my post?

In any case Kate was not offered any deal. Unless you can provide independent  documented proof that she was, it can only be regarded as hearsay.

[Albertini]

The edit in the post above was to replace the word sap with the word supporter

He is spouting ignorance which is probably not a bannable offence.

But name-calling (by the, I presume, round-robin, PM) is.

So, are the moderators going to show teeth and ban this name-caller?

Lol, it was because i hadn't seen the PM and once i had i changed it.

Can you expand upon my ignorance, or is that why you want me banned? Because you cannot so it's easier for you if i am banned - although the PM says:

Any poster who refers to or calls another member a derogatory name will receive a final warning that a repeat will result in a ban

You appear, for some strange reason, to have missed that bit out.

I wonder why?

Given ignroance of rules is no defence if the admin see fit to give me a final warning i'm happy to accept that.

Now on to this ignorance you speak of, care to elaborate?

[ferryman]

Both McCanns were accused of murder and Kate was accused of finding and concealing a body.

The prosecutors could find no evidence of any crime by either of the couple.

Therefore the McCanns' innocence was established.
Simple as that.

[Albertini]

The McCanns were offered deal by which, if Kate pleaded guilty to finding and concealing a body, Gerry would get off scott free; or they would both be charged with murder.

The McCanns stood their ground and the PJ bluff was called.

Do you have evidence of this so called deal other than Philomena McCann's say so?

[Albertini]

Both McCanns were accused of murder and Kate was accused of finding and concealing a body.

The prosecutors could find no evidence of any crime by either of the couple.

Therefore the McCanns' innocence was established.
Simple as that.

Really? When were the McCann's formally "charged"?

They were made "Arguidos" but not formally charged.

Can you advise in which Court and when they were found "innocent"?

Do you understand that only a Court can determine guilt or innocence of a crime, it is a Juidical process and the case had not gone before a Judge?

Let me quote a piece:

But what did "failing to demonstrate their innocence" mean? How can anyone demonstrate their innocence? There is no provision for doing so by the judicial process in European democracies, since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence. And, in any case, no judicial process had taken place.

So the prosecutors were not talking judicially. Then in what sense were they talking? They were talking in the context of investigation, the process which has to be completed before a trial, any criminal trial, can take place. And their investigation, even though it made clear that the couple were being released from their arguido status because of the absence of evidence against them, had been unable to exclude Kate & Gerry McCann as possible perpetrators of a crime against the child.

Of course you could argue – especially if you were determined to make excuses for the parents – that this is all nonsense, an absurdity and that nobody can "demonstrate innocence" in this way. But that is wrong: in the investigative phase, which is precisely what the prosecutors are summarising, they certainly can.

And the law recognises it. People who have irreproachable alibis demonstrate their innocence; people incapable of committing a specific crime by dint of their inability to have executed it – by physical disability or other lack of means – do that; people whose DNA does not match that of the perpetrator at the crime scene do so. And the reader can no doubt think of other examples: while Kate McCann was made a suspect, for instance, her mother was not, since she was physically too far away from the crime scene to have had any direct involvement. Such "demonstrable" innocence can form the basis of a wrongful arrest claim – something which, by the way, the McCanns and their spokesman said they would pursue but – what do you expect? – never did.

But then was this just a subjective, general opinion of the prosecutors that could be ignored or rebutted? No it was not. The prosecutors cited the facts on which their statement was founded, drawing attention to events on May 3 2007 which gave cause for concern and needed further investigation. One of these was the troubling problem of how it was possible for Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry McCann to have missed the mystery figure seen by Jane Tanner. Then there was the children's bedroom window which Kate McCann claimed was so wide open at 10PM that a door slammed in the draught – yet none of the people who had passed the apartment, the last of them only twenty minutes or so before, had spotted an open window. Furthermore, although the group had provided "timelines" of their movements in writing, the investigators did not accept that they were truthful and accurate. Indeed, even in July 2008 the prosecutors still had no confirmed account of what the holiday group's movements had been for the period between 6.45 and 10PM. And, lastly, the prosecutors had not accepted Jane Tanner's sighting of what they called "the supposed abductor" as an accurate and complete account.

It was these critical problem areas – "among others", as the prosecutors wrote – that prompted police and prosecution to appeal to the Tapas 7 to join the parents in a clarification and reconstruction exercise. As we know the Seven refused and so the prosecutors had to write the archiving report in 2008 without the assistance of the Nine and with the problems completely unresolved. As a result the McCanns "protestations of innocence" as the prosecutors called them, remained just that, protestations not demonstrations. Prosecutors cannot demonstrate innocence or guilt: only the evidence can do that. Since there was no evidence of a crime the prosecutors said so; since there was no evidence to demonstrate their innocence the prosecutors said that too.

Leicester police, the main UK arm of the investigation, said the same thing, although, unlike the Portuguese, they did not provide the evidence on which their statement was based. The assistant chief constable of that force used almost the same words as the Portuguese prosecutors: "while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

That remains their position today, although some of the parents' less intelligent supporters have danced on the head of a pin to claim that the Leicester police statement was made in ignorance of the Portuguese findings and was therefore somehow rendered out of date by them. Nonsense. The assistant chief constable knew the findings: his officers were in Portugal discussing them at the same time as he made his statement.

[ferryman]

Plenty:

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/plea-bargains-and-lies-but-not-lies-you.html

[ferryman]

I will read the rest, but this took my eye:

 ...since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence

By that reckoning, then, no one tried is ever found innocent ...

Is the rest of the article worth reading?

[ferryman]

The short answer (to my own question) is no!

[sadie]

This post is most observant and deserves being bumped.  My emboldening and sizing

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 ...

[AnneGuedes]

This is astonishing to see old rumours come back after 6 years !
Everything in this story started with the rumour of the broken shutters (actually it wouldn't have started at all without that spectacular rumour). Though John Hill tried vainly to deny it, the more he did, the more it was propagated (media suspecting him to defend MW resorts' security). Hallucinating ! Even after Mr Mitchell had to confess no evidence proved the shutters had been broken (almost 6 months later), the rumour here and there pops up again.

[Albertini]

I will read the rest, but this took my eye:

 ...since a criminal trial is exclusively concerned with determining guilt, not innocence

By that reckoning, then, no one tried is ever found innocent ...

Is the rest of the article worth reading?

Nope you haven't understood it.

What that means is that suspects are brought to trial by prosecutors who are concerned with determining the guilt of that suspect.

You don't have a criminal court case with the remit frpm the outset to be "shall we put them trial just to see if they are innocent".

They are put on trial to determine if they are guilty or not.

[ferryman]

Nope you haven't understood it.

What that means is that suspects are brought to trial by prosecutors who are concerned with determining the guilt of that suspect.

You don't have a criminal court case with the remit frpm the outset to be "shall we put them trial just to see if they are innocent".

They are put on trial to determine if they are guilty or not.

Try again

The clue is in the last two words of your post, or not