The Cracked Mirror.

[Albertini]

So, Albertini.  Did you think Colin Stagg was guilty?  After all. he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he?

No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.

[Rachel Granada]

No i don't think he was guilty. His innocence was demonstrated by a third party confessing to the murder and that then "proved his innocence" and ruled him out as a suspect.

Yet by your argument, an innocent man would still be a "suspect" if a third-party had not confessed, because he had not "demonstrated his innocence".

I'm fed up of this now.  We will have to agree to disagree.

[Albertini]

Quote:"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." Unquote

No.  The police have to find the evidence to make their case.  The suspect is not required to rule himself out, or to prove his innocence.

Quote: "So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence." Unquote

Again, incorrect.  Undoubtedly in the eyes of the poilice investigators they may have been considered as suspects, but not because they had "failed to demonstrate their innocence," but because the police had failed to find the required evidence to bring the case to court.

Have you not read the last God knows how many pages?

Quote:"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." Unquote

No.  The police have to find the evidence to make their case.  The suspect is not required to rule himself out, or to prove his innocence.

Correct the police have to find evidence to make their case TO TAKE IT TO A COURT. However in an investigation the suspect is required to rule himself out otherwise he will remain a suspect until such time as he can either directly or indirectly prove his innocence and be ruled out as a suspect. 

Quote: "So no evidence they had committed a crime BUT they were still suspected because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence." Unquote

Again, incorrect.  Undoubtedly in the eyes of the poilice investigators they may have been considered as suspects, but not because they had "failed to demonstrate their innocence," but because the police had failed to find the required evidence to bring the case to court.

No it is not, because the AG report that you cling to clearly states that the parents did indeed "fail to demonstrate their innocence".

Do you really think that when the police can't find evidence they just drop interest interest in that suspect? No doesn't work like that.

They either keep looking for evidence, shelve the case or evidence presents itself that does demonstrate their innocence.

As i keep saying see the Lawrence case as a perfect example.

[Albertini]

Yet by your argument, an innocent man would still be a "suspect" if a third-party had not confessed, because he had not "demonstrated his innocence".

I'm fed up of this now.  We will have to agree to disagree.

And Colin Stagg was indeed still a suspect, from 1993 right up until 2002 (and despite his acquital) when the cold case team started looking at it which ultimately led to Napper's confession, which demonstrated Stagg's innocence.

[Chinagirl]

There is no need to insult me - I have indeed read ALL the posts in this thread, and my point still stands.  During a police investigation it is up to the police to make their case - not for the suspect to demonstrate his innocence.  Once the police have found sufficiently strong evidence the matter proceeds to court where the accused remains innocent unless or until the prosecution proves their guilt.

The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law.  This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it.  You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.

[Albertini]

There is no need to insult me - I have indeed read ALL the posts in this thread, and my point still stands.  During a police investigation it is up to the police to make their case - not for the suspect to demonstrate his innocence.  Once the police have found sufficiently strong evidence the matter proceeds to court where the accused remains innocent unless or until the prosecution proves their guilt.

The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law.  This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it.  You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.

How do you think suspects are ruled out of a police investigation?

What do you think the AG report meant when it said they had failed to demonstrate their innocence?

[Rachel Granada]

How do you think suspects are ruled out of a police investigation?

Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him?  Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...

[Albertini]

Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him?  Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...

Lol, that old fallback when an argument is lost!

"But.....but Uncle Andy says they are not suspects!"

 It's been covered by me many times. Let's see AT THE END (not the beginning) of the investigation where we are up to with them.

Anyway i thought you wanted to talk about Colin Stagg? Now that the detail i have given of that case has proven my point you seem less keen on discussing it.

I wonder why that is?

[Rachel Granada]

Lol, that old fallback when a argument is lost!

"But.....but Uncle Andy says they are not suspects!"

 It's been covered by me many times. Let's see AT THE END (not the beginning) of the investigation where we are up to with them.

Anyway i thought you wanted to talk about Colin Stagg? Now that the detail i have given of that case has proven my point you seem less keen on discussing it.

I wonder why that is?

I'd rather go with what Uncle Andy says, with his years of police experience and access to all info, than an internet poster with no knowledge of what the Yard have.

As for Stagg, he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he?  If a third party hadn't come into the equation, an innocent man would still be regarded with the stink of suspicion by armchair detectives.

[Albertini]

I'd rather go with what Uncle Andy says, with his years of police experience and access to all info, than an internet poster with no knowledge of what the Yard have.

As for Stagg, he didn't "demonstrate his innocence", did he?  If a third party hadn't come into the equation, an innocent man would still be regarded with the stink of suspicion by armchair detectives.

Like i say let's see what is said at the end of the investigation not at the start. He's only two thirds of the way through the review let alone starting a new investigation based on the outcome of that review.

Since when i have said that the demonstration of innocence can only be done by the suspect himself?

If you look i have consistently said that it can be done directly (by the suspect himelf) or indirectly (by third parties).

In this case Stagg's innocence was demonstrated when Napper confessed to the crime.

Thus this confession demonstrated to the police Stagg's innocence.

It is of course important to note that until this point Stagg was still a suspect becuase his innocence had not been demonstrated to the police despite the fact there was no evidence to allow a case to proceed to court.

Any clearer yet?

[Rachel Granada]

Like i say let's see what is said at the end of the investigation not at the start. He's only two thirds of the way through the review let alone starting a new investigation based on the outcome of that review.

Since when i have said that the demonstration of innocence can only be done by the suspect himself?

If you look i have consistently said that it can be done directly (by the suspect himelf) or indirectly (by third parties).

In this case Stagg's innocence was demonstrated when Napper confessed to the crime.

Thus this confession demonstrated to the police Stagg's innocence.

It is of course important to note that until this point Stagg was still a suspect becuase his innocence had not been demonstrated to the police despite the fact there was no evidence to allow a case to proceed to court.

Any clearer yet?

Not biting.  I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Albertini.

[Albertini]

Not biting.  I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one, Albertini.

There is nothing to "agree to disagree on". Your arguments in response to mine are simply not valid and my points have not been countered or rebutted in any sensible or convincing way.

Furthermore your use (not mine) of the Colin Stagg case has simply highlighted my points further.

So you can tell youself we "agreed to disagree" until you are blue in the face but it does not change the fact that anyone with any degree of sense or nous will know that your arguments do not stack up and that you are wrong.

[Redblossom]

Why don't you give DCI Redwood a ring at Grange and ask him?  Looks like Grange have ruled out the McCanns and friends...

I thought he said none of the tapas group were in the list of the 38 people. Did he say that SY had ruled them out? I must have missed it.

[Redblossom]

The burden is always on the accuser; never the accused, whether at the point of suspect under police investigation, or in a court of law.  This is a bedrock concept of our legal system, and thank God for it.  You can spend the rest of your life arguing the opposite, but you will never be right.

When one is a suspect or person of interest they are not accused. That only happens  when they are CHARGED.

Then the burden is on the accuser and not before to prove they are guilty.

When a person is arrested on suspicion of x y z or even just brought in  for questioning, without arrest, but on suspicion, they DO have to give alibis, answer questions etc etc, this constitutes trying  or achieving to demonstrate their innocence

Its that simple really. And Mr Menesez said exactly  that, they failed to do so, ergo they were never cleared by him! You can spend the rest of your life arguing against that you will never be right
 


oh, and he did not have the same words for Murat, in fact, all suspicions over him*evaporated*, he was the only one actually cleared

In  other words, the PT authorities to this day consider the Mccanns as suspects.
They were never cleared by any law enforcement prosecutor or judge, only except in Clarence Mitchells head and the British media and of course internet posters like you.

[Benice]

But that sentence regarding "demonstrating their innocence" just won't go away will it?

The AG makes it clear that the reason the reconstruction didn't take place was not the fault of the McCanns.   He recognised that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction by the 'rules' set by the PJ and decisions by others that were completely beyond their control.   He even states that they were the ones damaged   - not that they caused damage to themselves.

He accepts that they were prevented from attending a reconstruction, and that it was not a case of them refusing to attend which IMO is why he did not consider that non-event should be used against then when he was making his final deliberations.

I notice you insist that the part of the report re 'demonstrating their innocence' is proof that the McCanns are still suspects, but when it comes to the AG's Final conclusion where he clearly states there is no evidence against them, the report suddenly becomes just  'someone's opinion' ?

IMO the fact is it's only some members of the public like yourself who have decided the McCanns are still suspects, but the Law of the Land clearly says they are not -  and until the law changes from 'Innocent until proved Guilty' and becomes 'Guilty until proved innocent' - then your claim that they are still suspects is - and will remain, nothing more than your own personal opinion.