The Cracked Mirror.

[Albertini]

At that juncture, he probably would not have read the case files, then (at least officially) still under secrecy.

He emphatically and unreservedly would not say the same today ...

Wrong! As the archiving report states:

The PJ, as in probably no other investigation in Portugal, withheld no effort, in the sense of providing exceptional technical means, manpower and financing towards the discovery of the child and the determination of the truth of the facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police department headquartered in the city of Leicestershire, from where most of the elements of the holiday group are from.

If they have changed their mind why have they not withdrawn it?

[Albertini]

'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)

No he would not because in an investigation ther can be no evidence to show suspects have committed a crime BUT those suspects can still not have demonstrated their innocence.

What it means here is that in the incomplete investigation the facts gathered (only in the prosecutor's opinion) weren't suggestive that the Mccann's had committed a crime but they had still not demonstrated their innocence.

It's similar to a case not moving forward from investigation to trial becuase of a "lack of evidence".

The two statements regarding there being no evidence of a crime being committed and them not demonstrating their innocence are not mutually exclusive.

[Albertini]

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 ...

So can you tell me what evidence came out, and quote your sources, between 7th July and 21st July which would have changed the assessment made by LP?

[Redblossom]

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 ...

Harrison was tasked to consider a murder and a concealment of the body nearby, nowhere in the task is it mentioned that the mccanns killed her! thats just your spin on it.

And no, the madeleine investigation was not a murder enquiry, only after a certain amount of time had lapsed looking for a live child
Quote
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases
Unquote
Mark Harrison


Apologies for interrupting the discussion on whether Mccanns have been cleared. They obviously have not been. Not by police, not by any lawyer, or prosecutor, not by any judge, only by journalists and internet posters. Oh and ferryman, you cannnot speak for the police and state they would not say the same today!Unless you can read their minds
 

Oh and for the record no authorities are classing this case as an abduction

PJ - type of crime unknown
British Foreign Office - no evidence of abduction, therefore classed as missing

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Why are you always changing the meaning of the post you reply to ? Who said they didn't care ?
Photos transmit a feeling, that's all.
If you contemplate the hypothesis, as possible as the abduction one, that they disposed of their daughter's body, you can understand they felt relieved (no suspicion on them).

[Redblossom]

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.

And what do you make of this paparazzi video taken a few days after??? Hardly  a picture of a grieving parent? Hmmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Benice]

No he would not because in an investigation ther can be no evidence to show suspects have committed a crime BUT those suspects can still not have demonstrated their innocence.

What it means here is that in the incomplete investigation the facts gathered (only in the prosecutor's opinion) weren't suggestive that the Mccann's had committed a crime but they had still not demonstrated their innocence.

It's similar to a case not moving forward from investigation to trial becuase of a "lack of evidence".

The two statements regarding there being no evidence of a crime being committed and them not demonstrating their innocence are not mutually exclusive.

Could you cite a few cases, or even one,  where people who have never been arrested, never been charged or taken to court because there is no evidence against them, have been declared innocent.   

[Albertini]

Could you cite a few cases, or even one,  where people who have never been arrested, never been charged or taken to court because there is no evidence against them, have been declared innocent.

How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT  a prosecutor.

No court has declared the McCann's innocent.

The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.

A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.

[Rachel Granada]

How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT  a prosecutor.

No court has declared the McCann's innocent.

The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.

A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.

Hi Albertini.  How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?

[Chinagirl]

Hi Albertini.  How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?

Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!

[Albertini]

Hi Albertini.  How can someone be declared innocent of a crime they have never been charged with?

You are mixing up the processes and procedures.

I know i am repeating myself BUT during an investigation to remove themselves as suspects people have to "demonstrate their innocence" to the investigators.

If they can do so and rule themselves out as suspects then it is safe to assume they were to use your term "innocent".

You do not have to be charged with a crime to remain a suspect, as that usually means there is either not enough evidence to charge you or no evidence that investigators have yet found.

But the absence of evidence does not automatically mean that you are no longer a suspect in an investigation.

[Redblossom]

Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!

Terrible derisory spin, of course they knew what they were investigating, initially a disappearance/abduction and search for a live child, later a possible murder, and search for a dead child,  the PJ concluded it was unclear what had happened

[Albertini]

Particularly when the Portuguese authorities hadn't even ascertained what type of crime they were investigating!

The McCann's were in 2008 when the case was archived, and to this date, as no new evidence has come forward, regarded as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal. 

Hence the archiving report's "failure to demonstrate innocence" paragraph.

[Benice]

How many times do i have to say this. Only a Court can "declare" innocence NOT  a prosecutor.

No court has declared the McCann's innocent.

The archiving report stated that from the information gathered from the files there was no evidence that they had committed a crime but they still had not demonstrated their innocence.

 A Judge ruled that the Prosecutor's report was an INTERPRETATION (not a deifinite ruling) of the facts of the case and the Court said that the PJ's thesis was an equally valid interpretation of those self same facts.

But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case  - and so should be investigated?   Do these people know they are suspects? 

Incidentally Judge Tug doesn't appear to agree with you - as he allowed the AG's Final Report to be produced in court as valid and legally accredited evidence that the McCanns were not guilty of any crime.  If it was merely someone's personal INTERPRETATION of the case then it was not worth the paper it was written on - and IMO would not have been allowed to be presented as evidence as surely it would just be Hearsay?   (McCann v Bennett)

[Rachel Granada]

But surely that would mean than anyone who was in PdL that night - or even further afield, who did not have an alibi and so could not 'demonstrate their innocence' - is a suspect in this case  - and so should be investigated?   Do these people know they are suspects? 

Incidentally Judge Tug doesn't appear to agree with you - as he allowed the AG's Final Report to be produced in court as valid and legally accredited evidence that the McCanns were not guilty of any crime.  If it was merely someone's personal INTERPRETATION of the case then it was not worth the paper it was written on - and IMO would not have been allowed to be presented as evidence as surely it would just be Hearsay?   (McCann v Bennett)

Hi Benice, I was just trying to put together a post saying the same thing.