The Cracked Mirror.

[Mr Gray]

You too have made the same mistake as others.

Yes in a CRIMINAL TRIAL but NOT in a police investigation where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence to be ruled out of investigative enquiries.

We have both the archiving report that so many McCann supporters cling to AND THE Leicestershire Police BOTH stating the Mccann's have failed to "demonstrate their innocence".

What is waffle? Which bit? Pick any of the points you call as waffle and i will walk you through it.

1. Could you tell me where LP state that the McCanns have failed to  "demonstrate their innocence".

2 No one has to prove or demonstrate their innocence. A defendant has the right to silence.

[ferryman]

The comment was made on the 7th July 2008 in open court. The archiving report was dated 21st July 2008 (and was worked on with LP who worked with the PJ all the way through the case and process)

It has never publically been rescinded has it.

What does that tell you?

edited to add: It was the assistant chief constable on behalf of the force.

That the comment was made a fortnight before the process was archived -- and 3 weeks before the files were made public.

And your point is?

[AnneGuedes]

In States of Law, it belongs to the accusation to show a suspect is guilty and not to the suspect to prove he's not.
But everybody knows that mysteries left without a solution generate irreparably a lot of suspicions based or not on facts or convictions from which the protagonists and the persons close to them will have to suffer.   
I think that this is the reality the PGR meant. It's a kind of bonus pater familias remark.
They imo childishly chose to postpone a confrontation that sooner or later will require from them to be reasonable.

[Carana]

No, of course suspects are under no obligation to prove their innocence but that means they will still remain suspects precisely because they do not or cannot rules themselves out and prove to the investigation that they are innocent.

Clear now?

Nope. Not clear at all.

As far as I've been able to work out, once people become arguidos, they retain that status until the end of the investigation, i.e., when the authorities decide to charge someone or archive a case. And there are laws governing how long an investigation may remain ongoing.

Depending on which version of this ever-changing code one examines, the timeframe for a criminal investigation ranges from 6 months to an exceptional 18 months, depending on various factors.

[ferryman]

These are the exact words of the assistant chief constable:

 "While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

Made (I repeat and emphasise) before the files were released.

And Benice, earlier, neatly put the words of the Portuguese prosecutor into proper context.

There is (now) a great deal of very clear evidence that eliminates them [the McCanns and Murat] from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ...

[AnneGuedes]

As the investigation was ended because Mr Murat couldn't be arguido any longer, the McCanns likely would have been granted an "inquiry" (instrucção) had they required it (it was their right as arguidos). It is the magistrate hierarchically superior to the magistrate who decided to shelve the case who accepts or rejects such a request. The inquiry is directed by a special judge. He is the one who decides which interventions must be performed. There's always an oral and contradictory debate in which participate the Ministério Público, the arguidos and their lawyers. After that the judge decides whether charges are enough or not for Court.
I'm not sure but it seems that if the McCanns had made that option, their arguido status wouldn't have been lifted. It seems likely that the Inquiry Judge would have first required the reconstruction of events since the boosting of the investigation needed it. But they would have had some rights, as they had rights in the investigation, being arguidos, though they didn't use them. The main right was to require specific interventions related to the disappearance of Madeleine.

[AnneGuedes]

These are the exact words of the assistant chief constable:

 "While one or both of them [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

Made (I repeat and emphasise) before the files were released.

And Benice, earlier, neatly put the words of the Portuguese prosecutor into proper context.

There is (now) a great deal of very clear evidence that eliminates them [the McCanns and Murat] from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance ...

You know very well that it is wishful thinking, Ferryman. You can argue 24 hours a day and up to the end of your life they're innocent because of this or that (which eventually is true), the McCanns started to be looked at with suspicion when they came out of church smiling like superstars on Madeleine's 2007 birthday. Photos were taken and the planet unfortunately saw them. This was reversible nevertheless, had they collaborated with the police. But there again they said they did, but they didn't. This is what people remember, whatever the LC or the AG claimed, and documented books will be written calling a cat a cat, no matter CR.

[Benice]

You know very well that it is wishful thinking, Ferryman. You can argue 24 hours a day and up to the end of your life they're innocent because of this or that (which eventually is true), the McCanns started to be looked at with suspicion when they came out of church smiling like superstars on Madeleine's 2007 birthday. Photos were taken and the planet unfortunately saw them. This was reversible nevertheless, had they collaborated with the police. But there again they said they did, but they didn't. This is what people remember, whatever the LC or the AG claimed, and documented books will be written calling a cat a cat, no matter CR.

They didn't come out of the church smiling like superstars.   An unexpected incident happened with balloons which caused everyone to laugh. 

So let me get this straight Anne -  when people were being kind to them and offering them their best wishes and smiling at them -  you think they should have glared back at them do you?  Is that what you would do to people who were showing you kindness at a terrible time in your life.     Since when has an appreciative smile been a sign of guilt.   

I've never heard such spiteful nonsense.

 









 

[AnneGuedes]

They didn't come out of the church smiling like superstars.   An unexpected incident happened with balloons which caused everyone to laugh. 

So let me get this straight Anne -  when people were being kind to them and offering them their best wishes and smiling at them -  you think they should have glared back at them do you?  Is that what you would do to people who were showing you kindness at a terrible time in your life.     Since when has an appreciative smile been a sign of guilt.   

I've never heard such spiteful nonsense.

 









 

Were you there, Benice, or is it a balloon explanation hearsay ? What is striking isn't an eventual laughing, what's striking is that they look relieved. 
If you "never heard such spiteful nonsense", you haven't heard much !

[ferryman]

I have a vague and unpalatable memory of some patently doctored you-tube clip.

But suspicion on the McCanns took a grip when the Eddie and Keela roadshow hit town ...

I'll get my wrists slapped if I go on ...

[Benice]

Were you there, Benice, or is it a balloon explanation hearsay ? What is striking isn't an eventual laughing, what's striking is that they look relieved. 
If you "never heard such spiteful nonsense", you haven't heard much !

It's on a video.    They probably smiled at their twins too - and even laughed with them when they played with them - even though they were devastated over the loss of their beloved daughter.     Perhaps you think it would be better for those little children if they never saw their their mummy and daddy smile at them ever again?   

Your comment was spiteful and grossly unfair IMO.

[AnneGuedes]

It's on a video.    They probably smiled at their twins too - and even laughed with them when they played with them - even though they were devastated over the loss of their beloved daughter.     Perhaps you think it would be better for those little children if they never saw their their mummy and daddy smile at them ever again?   

Your comment was spiteful and grossly unfair IMO.

Grossly unfair to pretend they were smiling at their kids on the photos, Benice, they weren't.
If you read honestly, you'll see that I never said I started to suspect the McCanns when I saw those photos. I said people started to suspect them thenand I'm sure you are aware of this.
When those photos were taken, I vaguely knew, through my fluent English speaking kids who were mimicking Mr McCann's accent, a little girl had disappeared. I thought she wandered off and could have been killed by a car because she was small and it was dark. I didn't think more of it.  Months after, in Paris, I was shocked because people were believing the parents were involved. This is when I decided I had to learn more about it.

[Benice]

Grossly unfair to pretend they were smiling at their kids on the photos, Benice, they weren't.

I was discussing the point that they would still smile and laugh with their twins despite what had happened.

Apparently according to some, if they smiled at all it was 'proof' that they didn't care.

If people are going to use photographs of the McCanns smiling as 'evidence' against them,  then there are far more photos around of them looking very sad and serious which, by the same token, could be put forward as 'evidence' of how badly affected they were by the loss of their daughter.  There are plenty to choose from.

[Albertini]

1. Could you tell me where LP state that the McCanns have failed to  "demonstrate their innocence".

2 No one has to prove or demonstrate their innocence. A defendant has the right to silence.

1) What part of the statement read out in open court don't you understand matches that they have not proven their innocence?

2) Yes in court, but in an investigation their right to silence does not eliminate them from suspicion becuase by reminaing silent they have not demonstrated their innocence.

[Albertini]

That the comment was made a fortnight before the process was archived -- and 3 weeks before the files were made public.

And your point is?

It's quite clear what my point is. I have been saying it for the last two or three pages.