The Cracked Mirror.

[DCI]

It's the suspect's interest to get rid of a pain in the neck, if he's innocent. There's no reason why he shouldn't answer, unless he/she wants to protect someone.
How can a person be forced to answer ? There's no way under human civil rights. If the charges are heavy the lawyer (an arguido has to have a lawyer) will likely advise answering is better.
I mentioned already here a case which isn't so rare. A man suspect of paedophilia and with charges enough to be condemned. Though the lawyer advises that confessing the guilt could reduce the sentence, the accused insists, because he prefers the remaining doubt that always exists when the accused doesn't confess than having his children hearing him confess the crime.
An arguido isn't "accused". He's accused only if the MP decides to proceed to court. And then he's presumed innocent up to eventually proven guilty.

Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case, Anne?

[AnneGuedes]

(a) Is he obliged to answer whatever questions are put to him? - No, but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.

(b) does he have to give truthful answers - No but a refusal to give truthful answers will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation

(c) What are the legal consquences to not answering their questions. - None but a suspects refusal to answer questions will ensure the suspect remains a suspect in the police investigation.

I agree with this, but would say b) No, but discrepancies and incoherences will ensure he remains a suspect in the police investigation.

[AnneGuedes]

The police were satisfied with Mr Murat's statements and answers, they weren't concerning the TP9, that's why the MP requested a reconstruction, etc. etc.
The unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance is darkened by the mystery of the reconstruction's refusal. This second mystery is far to be as famous as the first. At least yet.

[DCI]

But, Did the MP proceed to court, in the McCann's case, Anne?

[Chinagirl]

A suspect starts out presumed innocent.  The police (or investigating judge in those jurisdictions that have them) question the suspect and undertake whatever investigations are necessary to try to find evidence against the suspect.  During the investigation the suspect is still, in legal terms, innocent.  If the investigation officers ascertain sufficient evidence, the matter proceeds to trial, and the suspect then becomes the accused or defendant, and is still presumed innocent.  S/he remains so throughout the trial until a verdict is reached.

At no time in this entire procedure - from first being considered a suspect up until the end of the trial - does this person ever lose the presumption of innocence, or ever required to "prove their innocence."  The onus is on the police to produce the evidence, then on the prosecution to use this evidence to prove guilt.

Albertini seems to want to argue that the suspect loses the presumption of innocence during the investigative phase, but somehow regains it during a trial.  This is not so, and it has been pointed out to him by a real, practicing legal professional, but Albertini thinks he knows better ....

[Chinagirl]

The police were satisfied with Mr Murat's statements and answers, they weren't concerning the TP9, that's why the MP requested a reconstruction, etc. etc.
The unsolved mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance is darkened by the mystery of the reconstruction's refusal. This second mystery is far to be as famous as the first. At least yet.

The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents.  The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part.  The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.

[AnneGuedes]

The "losing the possibility to prove what they claimed, their innocence" sounds slightly sarcastic and refers to a public image that counts a lot for the McCanns (cf. "Madeleine", cf. Mr McCann's erased blog). 
After all the AG's request was rejected..
It would be more interesting to list, in the AG's report, all the points that remained unexplained. There are quite a few.

[AnneGuedes]

The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents.  The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part.  The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.

Read the AG's report, Chinagirl, and you will see underlined many obscure points that would have been investigated, had they solicited a inquiry.
They didn't make that choice : un bon tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Puffin]

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

  Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character.   Puffin

[AnneGuedes]

  Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character.   Puffin

Many thanks for these informations, Puffin. I wasn't suggesting Mr Whicher was the only inspiration source, but he was one, and particularly due to his remarkable perspicacity in the Road Hill House murder.

[Rachel Granada]

  Allow me to correct you, Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on Doctor Joseph Bell, a surgeon and teacher he had studied with while attending Edinburgh University. Dr. Bell had the uncanny ability to reveal a patient's symptoms, diagnose patients and report on their origins before they would speak a word to him about their afflictions. Sir Henry Littlejohn, who taught forensic medicine to Doyle also made a large impression and contributed to the development of Holmes' character.   Puffin

Interesting info - cheers!

[Albertini]

The refusal of the T9 to attend a reconstruction is irrelevant to the presumed innocence of the Mccann parents.  The case was shelved and the arguido status lifted because the investigating authorities failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents' part.  The case could not proceed because of lack of evidence; not because the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence.

But the AG report specfically stated they failed to demonstrate their innocence.

How do you explain that?

[Albertini]

A suspect starts out presumed innocent.  The police (or investigating judge in those jurisdictions that have them) question the suspect and undertake whatever investigations are necessary to try to find evidence against the suspect.  During the investigation the suspect is still, in legal terms, innocent.  If the investigation officers ascertain sufficient evidence, the matter proceeds to trial, and the suspect then becomes the accused or defendant, and is still presumed innocent.  S/he remains so throughout the trial until a verdict is reached.

At no time in this entire procedure - from first being considered a suspect up until the end of the trial - does this person ever lose the presumption of innocence, or ever required to "prove their innocence."  The onus is on the police to produce the evidence, then on the prosecution to use this evidence to prove guilt.

Albertini seems to want to argue that the suspect loses the presumption of innocence during the investigative phase, but somehow regains it during a trial.  This is not so, and it has been pointed out to him by a real, practicing legal professional, but Albertini thinks he knows better ....

Er no. And what was it you said the other day about insults?

Once again you arguing an argument i have not made about a legal preumption of innocence?

One question for you to answer which may help us move things along:

How are suspects ruled out in crimes by an investigation?

[Mr Gray]

But the AG report specfically stated they failed to demonstrate their innocence.

How do you explain that?

the AG report is ridiculous. How could the McCanns have proved their innocence, its impossible, as it was for Stagg.
Even if the McCanns went to court and were found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.

[Albertini]

So would you agree that Stagg was unable to prove his innocence, despite being put on trial for the murder. What more could he have done. it was impossible for him to prove his innocence.

Because then the police have to build up sufficient evidence which will prove beyond reasonable doubt that Stagg was the perpetratorand take it to a court which would presume he was innocent until proven guilty.