The Cracked Mirror.

[Rachel Granada]

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.

Dunno, but I would read "not persons of interest" as being ruled out?

[DCI]

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.     

PJ Final Report

pages 1 and 2

Ministry Of Justice

Judiciary Police

Investigative Criminal Department of Portimao

NUIPC-201/07.0 GALGS

4th Brigade

Inspector Joao Carlos

Denouncer/Offended – Judiciary Police

Denunciated/Arguidos - Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, identified and questioned at fls. 1170, 1947 and 1959.

*Gerald Patrick McCann, identified and questioned at fls. 2569.

*Kate Marie Healy, identified and questioned at fls. 2557.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Does the AG speak of "not the fault of the McCanns" or of "recognising they were prevented from attending" ?
And what are those "rules" ? And what allows you to state the "others were completely beyond (McCann's) control" ?
This is like a cat and mouse game. They couldn't care less for Madeleine.

[Benice]

Does the AG speak of "not the fault of the McCanns" or of "recognising they were prevented from attending" ?
And what are those "rules" ? And what allows you to state the "others were completely beyond (McCann's) control" ?
This is like a cat and mouse game. They couldn't care less for Madeleine.

The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse.  (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO

[faithlilly]

The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse.  (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO

The McCanns were able to talk several of their friends into taking part in their own reconstruction, why didn't they use the same powers of persuasion when it really mattered ?

[AnneGuedes]

The 'rules' of the PJ were that unless everyone attended the reconstruction it would not take place.
Kate and Gerry did not refuse.
Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 did refuse.  (and who could blame them)
Therefore the reconstruction could not take place.
The AG recognised that the McCanns were not responsible for that fact.
IMO

The McCanns didn't refuse, yes, but they couldn't, being arguidos, they had no choice.
Just one refusal was enough to cancel the reconstruction.
To be honest, I think the AG built them golden bridges, as, not Clausewitz but Sun Tzu (I think) said.
But nobody will believe the "no" of their trip companions horrified the McCanns. They were relieved, otherwise they would have publicly stated they were disillusioned.

[Jean-Pierre]

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

I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true.  It does not. 

China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police.  Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.   

[AnneGuedes]

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

I am afraid you may be under the illusion that if one repeates something enough times it becomes true.  It does not. 

China girl is quite correct - there is no onus on anyone to "prove their innocence" to the police.  Nor, incidentally Redblossom, is there any requirement to answer any police questions, to provide alibis or indeed anything.

Nothing like this was said. If one repeats a lie again and again, one will end up believing it is true. Nobody has the power to make things become true just by saying so. Only fairies.
If you're a suspect and refuse to answer questions and to produce an alibi, in Romano-Germanic law, you are brought to a inquiry judge whom it might appear easier to answer to. If you don't and the charges are sufficient, you go to court. You're then innocent until eventually been judged guilty.

[Benice]

The McCanns were able to talk several of their friends into taking part in their own reconstruction, why didn't they use the same powers of persuasion when it really mattered ?

Are you being serious?  The Tapas 7 with the aid and blessing of the PJ were crucified in the Portuguese media and then they had to watch Amaral's attempts to fit Kate and Gerry up for Madeleine's disappearance.   If they thought the reconstruction, (which apparently was not considered by the PJ to be at all necessary in the days following the abduction - when it really did matter)  was really for the purpose of finding Madeleine  - they would have been there like a shot. 

 But even their Lawyers could see what the score was and advised them all not to go.   Anyone who thinks Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 should have had any trust whatsoever in the PJs motives regarding a reconstruction after what they had experienced and witnessed is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

   

[faithlilly]

Are you being serious?  The Tapas 7 with the aid and blessing of the PJ were crucified in the Portuguese media and then they had to watch Amaral's attempts to fit Kate and Gerry up for Madeleine's disappearance.   If they thought the reconstruction, (which apparently was not considered by the PJ to be at all necessary in the days following the abduction - when it really did matter)  was really for the purpose of finding Madeleine  - they would have been there like a shot. 

 But even their Lawyers could see what the score was and advised them all not to go.   Anyone who thinks Jez Wilkins and the Tapas 7 should have had any trust whatsoever in the PJs motives regarding a reconstruction after what they had experienced and witnessed is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

 

But Rebelo was the new broom that swept the mess left by Amaral to the side, wasn't he ? What reason did they have for not trusting Rebelo ?

According to many supporters Rebelo was as good as Amaral was bad. He stopped the leaks to the newspapers, was, allegedly appalled at Amaral's handling of the case and reassured the McCanns and their friends when they voiced their concerns about the reconstruction, so what exactly did they have to be concerned about ?

[AnneGuedes]

And moreover the reconstruction was requested by the AG, the only authority entitled to decide and an authority the believers don't contest..
It is difficult for UK citizens to realize that : the UK police has much more power than the PT one, though it seems that now it has not as much as it had.

[Benice]

But Rebelo was the new broom that swept the mess left by Amaral to the side, wasn't he ? What reason did they have for not trusting Rebelo ?

According to many supporters Rebelo was as good as Amaral was bad. He stopped the leaks to the newspapers, was, allegedly appalled at Amaral's handling of the case and reassured the McCanns and their friends when they voiced their concerns about the reconstruction, so what exactly did they have to be concerned about ?

Yes Rebelo was a new broom, but he was stuck with Amaral's legacy.  When the world is watching  it's quite natural to want your country's police force to be seen in a good light which IMO is why they allowed Amaral to resign rather than be sacked.  I don't think Rebelo necessarily stopped the leaks to the newspapers, that stopped automatically when Amaral was taken off the case.

IMO - and it is only my opinion, the PJ knew the Tapas 7 would never agree to return to Portugal after the way they had been treated at the hands of the PJ under Amaral, and also after seeing the attempts to pin the crime on the McCAnns.       The PJ could not recover from the damage Amaral had done and knew they were on a loser, but if they could say ''Well we were prevented by the Tapas 7 and Jez Wilkins from conducting a reconstruction - so it's their fault not ours that the case could not be continued.''  then that was a face-saver for them.     And to a large extent it worked as it meant the Final Report was able to be 'watered down' and criticism attached to both sides rather than just to one.

As I say, this is just my opinion, if you don't agree with it that's fine by me.

[Chinagirl]

Nothing like this was said. If one repeats a lie again and again, one will end up believing it is true. Nobody has the power to make things become true just by saying so. Only fairies.
If you're a suspect and refuse to answer questions and to produce an alibi, in Romano-Germanic law, you are brought to a inquiry judge whom it might appear easier to answer to. If you don't and the charges are sufficient, you go to court. You're then innocent until eventually been judged guilty.

I have never lived in a "Germano-Romanic" jurisdiction, but the system you are describing is essentially the same, where the onus is the investigating authorities (whether police or enquiry judge) to produce the evidence leading to trial in court, not on the suspect to demonstrate innocence.

[Jean-Pierre]

In an attempt to cut to the heart of the matter, A couple of brief questions for, in particular, Ann, Redblossom and Albertini.  But of course all repsponses welcome

A person is arrested by the police, and taken to an interview room

(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him?

(b) does he have to give truthful answers

(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions.

How would the answers differ under UK and Portuguese law?

Thanks

[Mr Gray]

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.

You are wrong albertini
Stagg was cleared and paid compensation before Napper confessed. He did not have to prove his innocence, the evidence provided did not prove his guilt.