The archiving report ...

[ferryman]

It is abundantly plain from the archiving report that the Prosecutors considered the McCanns innocent.

I will add more in edits:

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments. 

[Albertini]

It is abundantly plain from the archiving report that the Prosecutors considered the McCanns innocent.

I will add more in edits:

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Oh Jesus, this has been done to death on the other thread.

What's the need?

That paragraph about demonstrating innocence just won't go away, nor will the lack of McCann supporter explaination for it other than the prosecutor was an "idiot" for saying it (but presumably not an idiot for saying there was no evidence against the parents).

So in other words he was brilliant in deducing the Mccann's were not guilty of any crime (something McCann supporters agree with) but then at the same time an idiot for saying they had failed to demonstrate their innocence (something McCann supporters disagree with).

If you are intent on discussing this again probably best to cut and paste all the posts from the last 20 pages or so of the other thread.

[ferryman]

this has been done to death on the other thread.

I'm delighted about that.

Obviously the truth cannot be reppeated often enough


The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
#]
Why are those of a cetain persuasion hung up on one sentence of a very long report?

It's clear the prosecutores had no doubts about the McCanns' innocence

[Albertini]

Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.

So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.

[ferryman]

Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.

So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.

I think it's more you sticking your fingers in your ears ....

[Rachel Granada]

Oh dear! You think what you want love but it won't change the fact that that pesky paragraph is in there!
It's been explained to you in great detail, you've not been able to explain the paragraph, nor counter the explanations provided and evidenced.

So you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la, it won't change the facts that have been explained to you.

Albertini, why don't you dip your toe into the rest of the forum instead of the incessant "prove their innocence" business?  There is plenty more to debate. 

[Benice]

this has been done to death on the other thread.

I'm delighted about that.

Obviously the truth cannot be reppeated often enough


The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
#]
Why are those of a cetain persuasion hung up on one sentence of a very long report?

It's clear the prosecutores had no doubts about the McCanns' innocence

From what I have read on other forums it's common practice to take a sentence from a para, or even a few words from a sentence - and worry them and twist them until they have completely changed the true meaning which was already glaringly apparent when read in their full context.  In this way they convince themselves that black is actually white imo. 

To keep promoting one point made in an extremely long report, and ignore all the other points made in the same report  - points which when taken in their entirety enabled the the final conclusion to be arrived at - is a similar exercise.  IMO. 

[Albertini]

I think it's more you sticking your fingers in your ears ....

Well you would say that because you cannot see what is clear in front of you.

Unlike you i have addressed both the "no evidence" claim AND the failure to demonstrate innocence statement (which you have spectacularly ignored).

I have explained it, gave reasons for it and given examples of it in real cases.

As i have stated you have ignored the demonstration of innocence part, you've given no explaination whatsoever for it and, moreover, you have failed to be able to rebut my explaination and supporting cases.

Lest we forget it was not me saying they failed to demonstrate their innocence it was:

The Public Prosecutor in Portugal who wrote the report
The Attorney General in Portugal who accepted the report
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and his lawyers advsing him
Lord Justice Hogg who allowed the statement to be read in his court

So forgive me if i am prepared to accept what those legal minds say rather than McCann supporting forumites who seek to deny it such as yourself.

[stephen25000]

Well you would say that because as they say you cannot see what is clear in front of you.

Unlike you i have addressed both the "no evidence" claim AND the failure to demonstrate innocence statement (which you have spectacularly ignored).

I have explained it, gave reasons for it and given examples of it in real cases.

As i have stated you have ignored the demonstration of innocence part, you've given no explaination whatsoever for it and, moreover, you have failed to be able to rebut my explaination and supporting cases.

Lest we forget it was not me saying they failed to demonstrate their innocence it was:

The Public Prosecutor in Portugal who wrote the report
The Attorney General in Portugal who accepted the report
The Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire and his lawyers advsing him
Lord Justice Hogg who allowed the statement to be read in his court

So forgive me if i am preapred to accept what those legal minds say rather than McCann supporting forumites who seek to deny it such as yourself.

Excellent response Albertini.

[Albertini]

From what I have read on other forums it's common practice to take a sentence from a para, or even a few words from a sentence - and worry them and twist them until they have completely changed the true meaning which was already glaringly apparent when read in their full context.  In this way they convince themselves that black is actually white imo. 

To keep promoting one point made in an extremely long report, and ignore all the other points made in the same report  - points which when taken in their entirety enabled the the final conclusion to be arrived at - is a similar exercise.  IMO.

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim and complete denial about the demonstration of innocence part?

Because you can't surely be talking about my involvement where i have both acknowledged the no evidence and the failure to demonstrate to innocence elements of the report?

From what i have seen it is those McCann supporters who seek to ignore the part of the report which deals with demonstration of innocence who seek to convince themselves that black is white.

So if you are referring to me then I'm getting the words, pot, kettle black.

The fact is that the two statements which appear to be causing so much excitement in the minds of the supporters, are actually linked.

But either through intellectual naivety or sheer blind faith stubbornness supporters either cannot or will not attempt to understand the statements and draw them together.

There was no evidence in the disturbed investigation to suggest the McCann's had any involvement (in the mind of a public prosecutor) BUT there was no evidence they were not involved either.

And that's because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence in the disappearance of the child.

Perhaps had the group let the investigation FINISH rather than kill it before it was completed the Mccann's could have demonstrated their innocence.

But as the report says it was the refusal to take part in the recon which damaged the mcCann's because it was impossible for them to prove their innocence.

So, and once again, for those at the back, you cannot be "cleared" if you have failed to demonstrate your innocence.

And as much as you may want to wish it wasn't so that is the fact of the matter as validated by everyone from Menezez through to Lord Justice Hogg.

So you can either accept it, as most normal people would, or you can continue to deny it like some strange flat earth cult.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, as i, like others on here, know what it means and accept it for what it is.

[Albertini]

Albertini, why don't you dip your toe into the rest of the forum instead of the incessant "prove their innocence" business?  There is plenty more to debate.

I have contributed to many of the other threads as well, thanks.

[ferryman]

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim and complete denial about the demonstration of innocence part?

Because you can't surely be talking about my involvement where i have both acknowledged the no evidence and the failure to demonstrate to innocence elements of the report?

From what i have seen it is those McCann supporters who seek to ignore the part of the report which deals with demonstration of innocence who seek to convince themselves that black is white.

So if you are referring to me then I'm getting the words, pot, kettle black.

The fact is that the two statements which appear to be causing so much excitement in the minds of the supporters, are actually linked.

But either through intellectual naivety or sheer blind faith stubbornness supporters either cannot or will not attempt to understand the statements and draw them together.

There was no evidence in the disturbed investigation to suggest the McCann's had any involvement (in the mind of a public prosecutor) BUT there was no evidence they were not involved either.

And that's because they had failed to demonstrate their innocence in the disappearance of the child.

Perhaps had the group let the investigation FINISH rather than kill it before it was completed the Mccann's could have demonstrated their innocence.

But as the report says it was the refusal to take part in the recon which damaged the mcCann's because it was impossible for them to prove their innocence.

So, and once again, for those at the back, you cannot be "cleared" if you have failed to demonstrate your innocence.

And as much as you may want to wish it wasn't so that is the fact of the matter as validated by everyone from Menezez through to Lord Justice Hogg.

So you can either accept it, as most normal people would, or you can continue to deny it like some strange flat earth cult.

I'm not fussed either way to be honest, as i, like others on here, know what it means and accept it for what it is.

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim

Claim?

One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine.  By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.

Fact!

I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?

[Redblossom]

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim

Claim?

One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine.  By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.

Fact!

I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?

Did he really say that? Where? I am reading the tweets from the court session and cant find what you claim anywhere.

11:20 jondipaolo:
The first witness is being called by videoconference

11:23 jondipaolo:
It is the attorney who was in charge of the original inqury into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes.

11:25 jondipaolo:
His testimony is marred by a high-pitched whine of feedback from the microphone - and the fact the screen can't be seen by the public.

11:26 jondipaolo:
The McCanns can't see the person giving evidence. Mr Amaral can, but doesn't seem to be looking at him.

11:26 jondipaolo:
Mr Amaral's lawyer is cross-examining the witness.

11:38 jondipaolo:
He says that the decision to make the McCanns 'arguidos' - suspects - was taken by the police and then confirmed by the public attorney.

11:39 jondipaolo:
The decision to designate Kate and Gerry as 'arguidos' was taken after the sniffer dogs carried out their searches.

11:40 jondipaolo:
There were several possible charges that could have been brought against the McCanns: kidnapping and selling a child were among them.

11:48 jondipaolo:
The witness was asked what the probability was of Madeleine still being alive. He replied that he thought it was 50/50.

11:55 jondipaolo:
Mr Menezes said that a claim made by the McCanns on the first day after Madeleine's disappearance was not true.

11:56 jondipaolo:
The witness said that Kate and Gerry's report that they had been checking on their daughter every half an hour was inaccurate.

11:57 jondipaolo:
He claimed that although the parents had been checking on Madeleine, it was not as often as every 30 minutes.

12:01 jondipaolo:
Police intercepted text messages sent by the McCanns because they were suspicious of the parents' role in Madeleine's disappearance.

12:02 jondipaolo:
The text messages sent by Kate and Gerry were never admitted as evidence gathered as part of the investigation.

12:08 jondipaolo:
Mr Menezes said he has not read the book written by Mr Amaral that triggered this case, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.

12:18 jondipaolo:
A report signed by Chief Inspector Tavares De Almeida said that Madeleine died in the flat in Praia da Luz, the witness adds.

12:19 jondipaolo:
Now it's the turn of the McCanns' legal team to cross-question the witness.

12:24 jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer makes the point that 'evidence' usually sightings - has suggested Madeleine is still alive.

12:25 jondipaolo:
He says that the McCanns are not responsible for generating any of this 'evidence' that their daughter is not dead.

12:26 jondipaolo:
Another of the McCanns' lawyers moves to quiz the witness - literally. She gets out of her seat and walks right up to the video screen.

12:33 jondipaolo:
She says that the McCanns were always totally prepared to come back to Portugal to take part in a reconstruction of the disappearance.

12:34 jondipaolo:
The McCanns' lawyer asks the witness whether he understands the title of Mr Amaral's book to imply some sort of dishonesty by the McCanns.

12:38 jondipaolo:
Who suggested the checking of the McCanns' text messages, Mr Menezes is asked. The police, he replies.

12:39 jondipaolo:
The text messages were never considered as part of the investigation because the judge did not allow it, the court hears.

12:45 jondipaolo:
The senior lawyer for the McCanns has approached them on the front bench of the public gallery for a quick huddled conversation.

12:48 jondipaolo:
Tavares de Almeida, chief inspector of police at the time of Madeleine's disapperance, has taken the stand to give evidence.

[Albertini]

I take it you are talking here about Ferryman's obsession with the "no evidence" claim

Claim?

One of the prosecutors said at the first hearing into the injunction on Amaral's book that it is 50-50 whether Madeleine is alive or dead because there is no evidence the McCanns harmed Madeleine.  By inference we can extend the same status to Robert Murat.

Fact!

I'm unclear why you persist in accusing the Prosecutors of lying?

It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.

It is a fact that the prosecutor said that the group lied (in the same courtroom as he made his 50:50 claim)

It is also a fact that the prosecutor said the McCann's had failed to demonstrate their innocence.

I'm unclear why you persist in cherry picking what the Prosecutor has said to suit your agenda?

And one more fact for you.

It is a fact the book banning Judges said that Amaral's thesis was an equally valid police led interpretation of the same facts the prosecutor used to surmise no evidence of the parents involvement.

[ferryman]

It is a fact that the prosecutor said it was 50:50.

Perhaps you'd care to bring Redblossom up to speed on that fact.

Then bring yourself up to speed on the fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns.

The prosecutors said that as well.