The Cracked Mirror.

[Rachel Granada]

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.

They are not "to this date" regarded as suspects, Albertini.  The arguido status, along with Murat, was lifted in July 2008.

[Redblossom]

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? 

Thats being silly now. Of course not everyne is a suspect. Police make people suspects for a REASON.

[Benice]

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

How do you know he's not laughing at something his children are saying or doing. 

People do smile and laugh in times of grief - it's not a sign of anything sinister or proof that they are not grieving.  They may not smile anywhere near as often as they did before tragedy struck  but it does happen.    I speak from experience - and I'm sure lots of other people can say the same.

[Redblossom]

How do you know he's not laughing at something his children are saying or doing. 

I dont and neither do you, chances are the kids were in the creche anyway, and the laugh was with some blonde haired woman if you look, being happy as larry is not normal IMO! So lets agree to differ.

[Benice]

I dont and neither do you, chances are the kids were in the creche anyway, and the laugh was with some blonde haired woman if you look, being happy as larry is not normal IMO! So lets agree to differ.

OK.

[Benice]

Thats being silly now. Of course not everyne is a suspect. Police make people suspects for a REASON.

Not so apparently Red.  If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect.   I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved.   Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.

It's not my theory - obviously.

[Redblossom]

Not so apparently Red.  If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect.   I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved.   Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.

It's not my theory - obviously.

No, it has gone over your head seemingly, you have got it backwards. Only persons of interest to the police are relevant here.

[Albertini]

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)

No that is being silly, clearly there has to be a reason for suspicion and as the Mccann's were the last people to see the child alive and well they fell into the bracket of supsects who had to prove their innocence to investigators in order to be ruled out.

Of course the AG report is worth the paper it is written on, it was an official document after all that shelved the case. However the fact does remain that that document clearly and uneqivocally states the Mccann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

It also clearly states that there was no evidence that the Mccann's had committed a crime.

The view that it the AG report is an interpretation is not one i have made up, it is the clearly stated view of the Judges in the book case.

[Albertini]

Not so apparently Red.  If you can't 'demonstrate your innocence' then you are a suspect.   I can demonstrate my innocence because I can prove I wasn't in PdL that day, but what about the people who were - but who can't prove they were not involved.   Apparently even if there is NO evidence that you have committed a crime and it is apparent that you were not involved - until you can 'demonstrate your innocence' you are a suspect.

It's not my theory - obviously.

What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were not involved?

After all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again my position and explanation is based on what both Leicestershirte Police and the AG report have said.

What's yours based on taking into account those two statements?

[Jean-Pierre]

Albertini, you really do have this arse about face.

The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"

You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence.   And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this. 

   

[AnneGuedes]

This part of the report leaves everybody dreaming and will remain as a piece of anthology : "The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared".

[AnneGuedes]

Albertini, you really do have this ar.. about face.

The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"

You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence.   And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this. 

 

Every reader of basic criminal literature like Sir A. Conan Doyle's knows that the last person who saw the victim is a suspect as long as he has no alibi for the crime's hour.

[Jean-Pierre]

Anne - are you aware that Conan Doyle was a writer of fiction?

[Benice]

No that is being silly, clearly there has to be a reason for suspicion and as the Mccann's were the last people to see the child alive and well they fell into the bracket of supsects who had to prove their innocence to investigators in order to be ruled out.

Of course the AG report is worth the paper it is written on, it was an official document after all that shelved the case. However the fact does remain that that document clearly and uneqivocally states the Mccann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

It also clearly states that there was no evidence that the Mccann's had committed a crime.

The view that it the AG report is an interpretation is not one i have made up, it is the clearly stated view of the Judges in the book case.

Yes it is silly, but it's not my contention it's yours.

Nobody ever declares anybody innocent when there is no evidence of any crime by them.  The statement that there is NO evidence of any crime or that they are NOT considered to be suspects or persons of interest is what is declared in that case. 

And that is precisely what the PT authorities and SY have stated about the McCanns.

[Albertini]

Albertini, you really do have this ar.. about face.

The relevant question is "What firm and verified evidence exists that makes it apparent they were involved"

You seem to be living in some sort of weird parallel universe where the onus is on "suspects" to prove their innocence.   And you do seem to have a lot invested in trying to convince a bunch of forum members of this. 

 

I couldn't care less whether people believe it or not. It's one of the mysteries of debating the McCann case online, the lengths people will go to defend their pre conceived ideas about the involvement of the parents.

For the umpteenth time, in an investigation, those people who have the scope and means to be involved in a crime have to prove their innocence to the police to be ruled out as suspects.

That is not the same position or statement about a court case where a defendent is innocent until proven guilty.

Although as we have seen in the Barry George case even courts seem to indicate there are degrees of innocence.

Now if you can not or will not understand the difference between a police investigation and a criminal trial then i cannot help you.

But once you do understand that difference and if you have an open mind, it is clear what i am saying.