The Cracked Mirror.

[Albertini]

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.

No you have twisted and changed my contention to make it appear silly by stating anyone in PDL could be a suspect.

As i have told you there has to be grounds for suspicion. Usually the follow their SOP's and look first at those last in contact with the victim.

In this case family and friends were the last people to see the child alive and well and statistically family and friends are more likely to have been involved than a stranger.

This coupled with, as the judges in the book trial put it, "incogruant and contradictory statements" added to that suspicion.

Just because the police have found no evidence of guilt does not automatically mean that person is no longer a suspect.

They just haven't found the evidence to support it.

[Eleanor]

It is a basic fact of Law that no one has to prove their innocence to The Police or to a Court.  Good God, how often does anyone have to say this?
Where are the arrests and where are the charges?  Not even The PJ or The Portuguese Prosecutor can come up with either of those.  And I am quite certain that they did try.

[Benice]

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.

But that applies to everyone in and around PdL that night who, for whatever reason,  cannot 'demonstrate their innocence' and therefore according to you must  be regarded as suspects.

You can't just apply your theory to the McCanns.  If it's a legal requirement then it must apply to everyone.

[Eleanor]

But that applies to everyone in and around PdL that night who, for whatever reason,  cannot 'demonstrate their innocence' and therefore according to you must  be regarded as suspects.

You can't just apply your theory to the McCanns.  If it's a legal requirement then it must apply to everyone.

And since there are a great deal more of them, then the perpetrator is far more likely to be among the others.  This is statistically more likely.

[Jean-Pierre]

Albertini.  This is where you and I have a fundamental difference in perspective.  The fundamental role of the police service in this context is to solve the crime.  The police will of course view each "person of interest" as potentially guilty and will see if they can find any evidence which will suggest guilt (of whatever crime they are investigating).  However, the onus is firmly on the police to find that evidence.  It is emphatically not on the "person of interest" to prove their innocence.

In the McCann case, the police have not managed to find any proof of wrongdoing by the McCanns or by any of the "Tapas 7" and there the matter rests.  The McCanns et al do not have to do anything at all, and their is no obligation on them to "prove their innocence" to the police, to any forumite or indeed to your goodself.   

[Angelo222]

I personally think that SY are confusing the search for Madeleine with the overwhelming need to prosecute someone as we have seen with Barry George.  Political and other pressures are unfortunately combining to create a situation whereby the wrong person ends up serving a prison sentence.

I thought it was all about getting Madeleine back?  Who gives a stuff about the perpetrator as long as she is safe.  Finding and prosecuting someone is a secondary consideration and SY should realise this!!

[Mr Gray]

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.

1. I asked where is the statement that you have claimed to have been made. what was the wording

2 I'm not suspicious of them and it appears the SY isn't either

[Eleanor]

I personally think that SY are confusing the search for Madeleine with the overwhelming need to prosecute someone as we have seen with Barry George.  Political and other pressures are unfortunately combining to create a situation whereby the wrong person ends up serving a prison sentence.

I thought it was all about getting Madeleine back?  Who gives a stuff about the perpetrator as long as she is safe.  Finding and prosecuting someone is a secondary consideration and SY should realise this!!

Unfortunately, at this late stage, they have to find the perpetrator before they can find Madeleine.  I would have thought that this was obvious.

[Angelo222]

Unfortunately, at this late stage, they have to find the perpetrator before they can find Madeleine.  I would have thought that this was obvious.

Not at all.   If Madeleine is still alive she us probably with people who don't even know the original abductor.

As far as the McCanns innocence is concerned Kate well and truly messed that one up by refusing to answer police questions.  Little did she know then that everything would soon be in the public domain.

[AnneGuedes]

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

I'm aware Conan Doyle based his character, Sherlock Holmes, on one of the first SY's inspectors, Mr Whicher.

[AnneGuedes]

It seems everybody admits that Madeleine, if alive, is fine. Hence the overwhelming issue of guilt or innocence of her parents, as if it was so simple. Why isn't that question left to justice ?

[Albertini]

It is a basic fact of Law that no one has to prove their innocence to The Police or to a Court.  Good God, how often does anyone have to say this?
Where are the arrests and where are the charges?  Not even The PJ or The Portuguese Prosecutor can come up with either of those.  And I am quite certain that they did try.

Well clearly they do otherwise the archiving report and the leicester Police statment would not have said they have not demonstrated their evidence.

It is a fundamental part of policing that those suspected of involvement in a crime have to eliminate themselves from the Police's enquiries.

It is that process of elimination which is in essence "demonstrating your innocence" by ruling out the possibility you are guilty.

Good God, how many times do i have to say it?

It's basic stuff.

[John]

Can I just say, how can they be elimimated if they don't even know what the crime was??

[AnneGuedes]

Can I just say, how can they be elimimated if they don't even know what the crime was??

Yes. In the only crime contemplated by SY, abduction, it was neither difficult nor risky for Mr Redwood to claim the McCanns et al were not suspects.

[Albertini]

1. I asked where is the statement that you have claimed to have been made. what was the wording

2 I'm not suspicious of them and it appears the SY isn't either

1) I believe amongst other places Kate McCann quoted it verbatim in her book Madeleine.

2) Good for you! Let's see what happens when the investigation is complete.