The sad mantra about neglect

[Redblossom]

Luz claims that a murderer who has not been prosecuted is still a murderer.

Murder is a crime, therefore a murderer is someone who is convicted of committing the crime of murder.  One can only be convicted of a crime after being prosecuted, brought to trial and found to be gulity beyond reasonable doubt. So if someone has not even been prosecuted, s/he cannot be labelled a murderer.

Why do you post like this? Talking about legal technicalities. Who cares about them? If you murder someone, yes, you are a murderer, plain and simple, whether you get caught or not, tried or not.
 


Same if you stole from a shop unseen, you stole, therefore you are a thief. If you have an affair and cheat on your wife you are an adulterer. Etc etc Your argument that no crime can have been committed unless the committer was tried and found guilty, if that is what you are saying, is just plain silly and I wonder what the point is. people who resort to legal technicalities are normaly those who are either guilty or defend guilty people!

LOL

[Redblossom]

The moment Amaral stepped over the line, and wrote a book about the case (using his former position as a policeman coordinating the case to gain credibility), he lost any protection or privilege afforded in law to protect police officers from being sued.

By using his book pubically to accuse the McCanns of committing a crime (thereby in effect pursuing a vendetta against them in relation to a crime he was unable to solve) he was liable to legal action. 

He is thus author of whatever may befall him.   

What was the line  he stepped over? And so far he has been vindicated in the courts, so.....???? What is your point

[sadie]

Yes, how curious ! No woman mentioned at all.

Well the staff were wrong weren't they.

Fiona searched and also kate ran up and down the road, and again searched at the crack of dawn with Gerry.

Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

[sadie]

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.

Brilliant analysis, gilet

[Redblossom]

Well the staff were wrong weren't they.

Fiona searched and also kate ran up and down the road, and again searched at the crack of dawn with Gerry.

Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

The reference was to CHECKS not searches, do keep up

Oh and still waiting for your source on the what happened between 6 and 8 pm thread for Gerry not returning to the flat until 8pm

[sadie]

Am studying the timeline again atm.  A lot of reading and I dont have much time available.

[sadie]

The reference was to CHECKS not searches, do keep up

I am responding to YOUR original post in this thread

Quote from: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 03:13:11 PM

- staff talked about the men only getting up to check

Anne

Yes, how curious ! No woman mentioned at all.

and
sadie

Well the staff were wrong weren't they.

Fiona searched and also kate ran up and down the road, and again searched at the crack of dawn with Gerry.

Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

Do KEEP UP Red.

Had you forgotten your own post?



Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

[Redblossom]

Am studying the timeline again atm.  A lot of reading and I dont have much time available.

Save yourself the time and dont bother, you wont find anything to support GM going home at 8, you must have misread or assumed something here

[Redblossom]

I am responding to YOUR original post in this thread

Quote from: Redblossom on August 04, 2013, 03:13:11 PM

Anneand
sadie
Do KEEP UP Red.

Had you forgotten your own post?



Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

My original post was in response to Johns about Jane Tanner doing a check that night and me saying  the staff only mentioned the men getting up to do checks, Annes post in response to mine was about how curious that no women were mentioned by the staff checking. Thats it. Your bringing up Jane Tanner searching for Madeleine later that night has nothing to do with the conversation.

Read back and see

 

[sadie]

Red


Why do you think that neither Jane nor Rachael searched?

[AnneGuedes]

Your idée fixe of victimizing the McCanns can't, on a terre à terre point of view, lead you to ignore witnesses' statements !

[AnneGuedes]

Does not grock!

Please post in recognisable English.

As you know the duc de Normandie, Guillaume le Conquérant, was king of England !  He took with him the French language that the actual Queen Elizabeth II speaks quite well. She also likes to give her English a little touch of French, sign of aristocracy.
But I will translate for you. Idée fixe is obsession. And terre à terre is pragmatic.

[AnneGuedes]

Ignoring which witness statements. I am not aware of doing that.

Sure, they seem not to exist for you, so obsessed you are in claiming the McCanns are innocent. Analyse, just for a change !

[AnneGuedes]

All witnesses' statements ! You ignore the files, having the one and only idée fixe to defend McCanns sceptics aren't interested in. We, sceptics, care for Madeleine's fate, can't you understand that ?

[Carana]

Are you pretending to practice wild psychoanalysis on this forum, Carana ?

No. Just observation. Luz must have some reason to despise the British so much, and I was curious as to whether she could provide an explanation.

There wouldn't be a bit of projection behind your comment, would there?