The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.
Why do I say this?
Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority It doesn't prove anything....Just as a murderer that is not prosecuted doesn't cease to be a murderer....however, let's continue. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.
The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.Bullshit. Either they did leave the kids alone or they didn't. After all what is your position? Is it okay to abandon children as long as you devious enough to do it in such a way that authorities can't or won't charge you??????
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement DID THEY? Or were they compelled to it by the evidence that if they didn't create that subterfuge they would be charged, at the minimum, with kidnapping and/or murder and cadaver occultation?. They are living with the consequences of that Wonderful consequences: crime pays. They have a much better living level now than they had in 2007 - after all they got millions on donations.[/color]. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society As a matter of fact the only vigilantes in this case were McCann tycoon supporter handymen - that Kennedy double-glaser creature that sent bullies harass witnesses .
People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child They were cleared of nothing - it's explicit in the final report when it says "they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent" . I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about. That is what I recommend you do. READ without blindfolds
Processo Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649
The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why
1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge
and
2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.
Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
It's you and your friends that insist on misreading what is very obvious in the reports: First, the McCann have not been cleared, in fact they remain the first and only persons of interest in the investigation;
Second, they used the argument of neglect to obfuscate the death and discard of their daughter's body....unless there is any other proof that there is anyone else involved in that death and cadaver occultation.
Temper, temper.
The rather incompetently posted insertions into my post above (making it difficult to see what was my original post and what are your temperamental insertions) tell us a great deal about the poster's anger management issues, inability to understand legal arguments and willingness to post blatant libel but tell us nothing about the disappearance of a little child six years ago.
For example, you claim that the lack of charges is not a sign of innocence. Just because you are unable to understand or accept the norm of presumed innocent until proven guilty does not mean that the rest of society has to revert to the kind of barbaric kangaroo court system you apparently favour.
I believe neither Portugal nor the UK have juridical systems in place which demand that all suspects are deemed guilty whether the police/courts can manage to find evidence against them or not. You apparently think they do. Sorry to disabuse you of such a ridiculous notion.
On the question of neglect or abandonment of the children there is no question whatsoever that in the archival report the McCanns were cleared of any such crime. Indeed the document states that the very idea of such a crime has been eliminated from the range of those being considered in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. Just because you cannot bring yourself to believe what your own authorities wrote does not mean it was not written and does not stand as the legal situation.
If you read the archival report properly it becomes very clear that the system of checking which was in place meant that the authorities did not believe as you claim the children were left alone. They were being supervised (albeit with hindsight we know that supervision was inadequate). But supervised children are not neglected or abandoned.
And yes to answer your question the McCanns did admit their error of judgement. Very clearly and very much in the public eye. Your rather bitter and nasty speculation as to the motive is simply that, speculation. It is not the kind of rather vicious speculation that I agree with. I am more inclined to believe that the loss of their daughter has made the parents realise with hindsight that their judgement about the checking arrangements was erroneous. I would also add that unless the police had some evidence on which to charge the parents with kidnapping or murder or some other crime then it would never have happened whether they had admitted an error of judgement or not. You seem to forget that the police need evidence to prove guilt of anything and none was found. That is also made very, very clear in the archival report.
Your lie about the use of the donations by the McCanns is unfounded and disgusting libel. The use of the fund to protect the search for Madeleine from the gross libel of people such as Bennett and Amaral is not an improvement to the living standard of the McCanns as you claim. I am certain that you are unable to back up this lie you have posted with facts and figures to support an improvement in the "living level" of the McCanns.
And again there may be a need for you to prove your claim of bullying and harrassment by the person you named because unless you have that proof then you are once again posting libel. If you have such proof, post it up and show the truth. If no such proof appears we can presume you have none.
Your last, particularly angry insertion into my post is possibly the most appalling, in that it shows a disgraceful lack of understanding of both the archival report your garbled mis-quotation is supposed to come from and the law in general.
There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the writer of the Archival Report is stating the the McCanns failed to prove their innocence. This just is not the case. Legal authorities such as Prosecutors and Attorney Generals would not be so ignorant of the law.
The reason for this misapprehension comes from people like you deliberately (or through shambolic ignorance) mis-quoting the relevant section of the report and moreover doing so without reference to the context.
Your mis-quotation is:
"they failed to prove what they insisted since the beginning, that they were innocent"
The actual text is:
"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
Those reading and comparing will see that you have twisted the meaning which in context will be seen to be much clearer. The context being that the writer is referring to the lack of a reconstruction and is stating that this lack caused damage
to the McCanns, not that the McCanns caused damage to themselves. At no point did the McCanns refuse a reconstruction.
To go from this mis-quotation and twisting as you have done and to suggest the bizarre notion that the Portuguese authorities are claiming that innocent people should have to prove that innocence is risible. Lawyers understand that is not the case even if you don't.
When there is no evidence of any crime by a person, when there are no charges against that person then that person in a civilised society such as Portugal claims to be, have the right to be presumed innocent.
When you show that you or the police have evidence enough to charge either of the McCanns then maybe they will become suspects again. Till then, I repeat they are presumed innocent and it is libel to claim them guilty of any crime.
I believe I have demonstrated a more accurate reading of the files than you have done. Your mis-quotation shows a very flimsy regard to the content of the files.
I repeat that they have been specifically cleared of the crime of neglect/abandonment because the authorities have demonstrated that no such crime occurred.
I will also correct you in that they are not "the first and only suspects" in this case. The archived case has no current suspects at all or it would not be archived. Should some evidence appear incriminating anyone then that person/persons would be the prime suspects. And in the case of the parallel investigation from Scotland Yard, you appear unaware that the McCanns and the Tapas group have specifically been named as not being suspects or persons of interest. Your comment is therefore simply wrong both within Portugal and within the UK.
Your last point about using neglect as obfuscation is simply nasty speculation as I demonstrated above. And the second section of your final comment is illogical. As there is no evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann (no more than there is of abduction) your conclusion simply lacks logic.
Edited to remove two small grammatical errors.
