This post from Jean-Pierre deserves a further airing as it succinctly and accurately sums up the position, and shows why no one ever has to "prove their innocence":
The fundamental difference is that legally and practically the onus remains on the police to find and substantiate reasons why a suspect may be guilty. They may have suspicions about all sorts of people, but unless they can find credible evidence then the matter will rest there. THere is absolutely no onus on any suspect to do anything that will "prove their innocence".
There is also no sanction that can be applied to require any suspect to either provide "proof of innocence" or indeed to say anything. For practical purposes the right to silence still remains in UK criminal law (although somewhat diluted). It certainly exists under Portuguese law, where even a confession needs to repeated in court.
The list of 48 questions put to the McCanns were absolutely disgraceful, had nothing to do with finding the missing child, and in my opinion Kate McCann received very good advice to refuse to answer them. The final question (49 from memory) should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings.
Thank heavens we live in jurisdictions where the presumption of innocence applies, rather than presumption of guilt.
Given that the McCanns appear to have the unequivocal support of the Met, and remain entirely at liberty, I suggest the argument is more in favour.
**Sighs** how many times does it need to be said before it starts going in?
I agree with what Jean Pierre is saying but he is not addressing the point i have been making for several pages.
His reply is actually to a point i have not made. This appears to be where the confusion is stemming from, unless of course it is simply another supporter tactic of not budging an inch despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Look, of course it is up to the police to find evidence, it is up to the police to prove guilt which would then lead to evidence presented to a prosecutor to take before a court. Of course it is up to a witness or suspect to have the right to remain silent.
However the actions of a witness determines whether they can "prove their innocence" and be ruled out of an investigation as a suspect.
If a suspect cooperates and can either through direct or indirect means rule himself out then he has proven his innocence to the police (note not a court - see the difference) and the investigators can pursue other suspects.
If a suspect uses his right to silence then he has not proven his innocence to the investigation and will remain a suspect until such time as his actions and statements can be independently verified and ruled out (or in as the case may be).
Of course IN A COURTROOM there is a presumption of innocence applies.
But we are not talking about a court room, we are talking about a police investigation, for which the archiving report is based upon.
In police investigations all over the world, people the investigators believe may be suspects have to show to the police how they were not involved in the crime in order to be ruled out.
That can be through verifiable means like alibis, through third party statements (such as say descriptions from victims or witnesses to the event), or through things like forensics.
The whole premise of police investigations is to start with suspects and rule them out as you go along.
The ruling out of a suspect is essentially a "demonstration of innocence".
This is the only way to explain the apparently contradictory statements in the archiving report, which stated there was no evidence against the parents yet on the other hand they had not demonstrated their innocence.
I note supporters of the family are quick to jump on the "innocent until proven guilty" line in response but there appears to be no answer to the riposte that that applies in a court case and not a police investigation.
Furthermore supporters have never been able to offer an alternative explanation for these two statements in the final report.
An example i can cite to justify what i am saying is the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case.
They were the main suspects as they were unable to demonstrate their innocence to the police when they were identified as suspects, yet there was no or insufficient evidence in order to prosecute them in a court.
They remained the suspects for 19 years as they had failed to demonstrate their innocence to the police but there was no evidence that they had committed a crime that could be brought before a court.
So they were "innocent until proven guilty" in court terms for 19 years but they remained suspects in the investigation even though there was no or insufficient evidence against them.
So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.
It really is that simple.
