The Cracked Mirror.

[Albertini]

You have not acknowledged the fact that in an investigative phase there is no presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to a defendent in court.


If investigators discontinue an inquiry against someone originally considered a suspect, they have determined that the person is innocent.

It really is that simple

No they haven't, and no it is not.

If investigators discontinue an investigation against a suspect it is because either they have another suspect who they believe is actually guilty OR they have insufficient evidence for the likelihood of conviction against the people they suspect.

See here for details:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9745679/CPS-criticised-for-dropping-one-in-ten-cases-after-suspect-is-charged.html

Although many cases were dropped because of a lack of evidence, 20,000 were not pursued because prosecutors decided it was "not in the public interest" to go to court, despite there being sufficient evidence in the vast majority of cases.

Hence, going back to the Maddie case you have in the archiving report the fact that Menezez says there was no evidence (in his opinion) that the McCann's had committed a crime yet in the same report the famous phrase that the McCann's had " failed to demonstrate their innocence".

What i have been telling you is the reason those two apparently contradictory (to you) statements reside in the same document.

[Albertini]

This is some convoluted, unintelligent and many-times-before tried attempt to fabricate an "argument" that the McCanns cannot, truly, be declared innocent unless there is a trial, which is complete rubbish ...

No it is not! You are either intellectually unable to grasp the meaning of the evidence before you or are stubbornly refusing to accept it because you support the McCann's.

It has been explained by myself and others in detail, quoting evidence and examples yet you still have the audacity to claim that we/i are using "convoluted, unintelligent and many-times-before tried attempt to fabricate an "argument" that the McCanns cannot, truly, be declared innocent unless there is a trial, which is complete rubbish"

You have not been able to rebut one iota of what has been put before you.

[ferryman]

(Sic) after a suspect is charged.

The McCanns were never charged.

Now, perhaps, you'd like to produce something relevant to whatever argument you think you are trying to make?

[Benice]

Morning Benice.

I do not agree as the archiving report has a lengthy section regarding the reconstruction which clearly states:

''In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
 
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.''

'Morning Albertini,

We are in danger of going round in circles here.  What you quote is part of the 'foregoing' all of which the AG studied and took into account before making his final decision.   If he had thought the above was an impediment to the final decision he did make, he would have said so and arrived at a different conclusion. 

It seems clear to me that because the recon didn't happen, the AG felt that damage had been done TO the McCanns not BY them.   However it's also clear that he did not believe the non-recon (and the facts that were left unclarified because of it), constituted a strong enough reason to affect his final conclusion.   Probably because he had no way of predicting what the outcome of a reconstruction would have been.

(must go out now)



 

 

 

[Albertini]

(Sic) after a suspect is charged.

The McCanns were never charged.

Now, perhaps, you'd like to produce something relevant to whatever argument you think you are trying to make?

I have laid my argument out in several posts and you haven't been able to rebutt or counter any of the points i have made with evidence or examples.

We are not going to get anywhere until you do.

[ferryman]

I have laid my argument out in several posts and you haven't been able to rebutt or counter any of the points i have made with evidence or examples.

We are not going to get anywhere until you do.

This is a crude and tried before attempt to make a (non-existent) "case" that the McCanns cannot be declared truly innocent unless there is a trial.

Complete rubbish.

There never was a trial in the first place because the McCanns' innocence was established by the original enquiry.

[AnneGuedes]

The AG judged
1) the MC weren't a danger for society
2) they had been cruelly punished whatever their guilt in what happened to Madeleine.
So no reason to be not politically correct and have the tiring tabloid army time-consumingly attacking Portugal.
After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter. Of course the police lost time and energy running after a walking abductor without a face, but no drama.
Of course the Fund etc. are excluded, having nothing to do with the AG.

[ferryman]

After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter.

Not true.  The Madeleine investigation was a murder enquiry ...

[AnneGuedes]

After all the suspicion, in the investigation, was their disposing of a body not their killing their daughter.

Not true.  The Madeleine investigation was a murder enquiry ...

An inquiry on a disappearance.

[ferryman]

An inquiry on a disappearance.

Must dash.

But nope.

Harrison is quite specific.  He was tasked to consider that Madeleine had been murdered

[Albertini]

This is a crude and tried before attempt to make a (non-existent) "case" that the McCanns cannot be declared truly innocent unless there is a trial.

Complete rubbish.

There never was a trial in the first place because the McCanns' innocence was established by the original enquiry.

Well clearly you do not understand the difference between a "District Attorney" and a Court & a Judge.

Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers in a legal sense to determine guilt or innocence and that only a court and Judge can LEGALLY do that.

You also do not understand that when tested in A COURT the AG's report was described as "an interpretation" of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's thesis) was an equally valid police led interpretation of those self same facts.

You also do not understand why the AG report stated the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

How can you be judged (by a prosecutor - with no legal powers to detemrine guilt ior innoncence - not a Judge remember) to be "innocent" when you have, according to that self same  report, NOT demonstrated your innocence?

If you are still struggling to understand i will be happy to oblige by answering that in my next post.

[AnneGuedes]

You have to understand, Ferryman, that the AG was kind of compassionate with the McCanns. He knew very well that, unless an abductor and Madeleine were found, the black cloud of doubt will flap over them for ever. Your and other's repeating again and again they're innocent will never change the public opinion. The only way would be a positive proof they weren't involved. Why don't you try to find it ?

[Albertini]

You have to understand, Ferryman, that the AG was kind of compassionate with the McCanns. He knew very well that, unless an abductor and Madeleine were found, the black cloud of doubt will flap over them for ever. Your and other's repeating again and again they're innocent will never change the public opinion. The only way would be a positive proof they weren't involved. Why don't you try to find it ?

Anna, the AG report is quite clear. In their opinion at that time there was no evidence to suggest the parents had committed a crime AT THE TIME OF SHELVING THE CASE, ON WHAT WAS A "DISTURBED" (I.E. INCOMPLETE) INVESTIGATION.

However the same report also said that the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

So what that means as i have tried to explain countless times is that whilst in the AG's opinion there was no evidence based on the collected evidence so far (but remember the investigation was incomplete), as suspects they had still not demonstrated their innocence (those are the AG's words not mine).

We know that an AG is not a court and cannot make a legal judgement of guilt or innocence. Only a court can do that and not a public prosecutor.

And we also know that this is a correct interpretion because the book banning judges confirmed it and added that from a Court's perspective the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretion of the same facts as far as a court was concerned.

Our friend Ferryman can try and cloud or ignore these cold hard facts as much as he likes but it is irrefutable.

[ferryman]

Well clearly you do not understand the difference between a "District Attorney" and a Court & a Judge.

Because if you did you would know that a District Attorney / Public Prosecutor has no powers in a legal sense to determine guilt or innocence and that only a court and Judge can LEGALLY do that.

You also do not understand that when tested in A COURT the AG's report was described as "an interpretation" of the facts and that Amaral's (and the PJ's thesis) was an equally valid police led interpretation of those self same facts.

You also do not understand why the AG report stated the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

How can you be judged (by a prosecutor - with no legal powers to detemrine guilt ior innoncence - not a Judge remember) to be "innocent" when you have, according to that self same  report, NOT demonstrated your innocence?

If you are still struggling to understand i will be happy to oblige by answering that in my next post.

District Attorney

District Attorneys operate in the US.

Over and out ...

[Albertini]

District Attorney

District Attorneys operate in the US.

Over and out ...

Notice the quotation marks around the phrase.

I'm trying to simplify the terms for you so you understand what a public prosecutor is (clue, not a Judge) because it doesn't appear to be going in at your end.