For Albertini ...

[ferryman]

Lord Justice Tugendhat quoting from the files in his judgment in McCann v Bennett ...

"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

What was that you were saying about the McCanns not being cleared?

[Albertini]

in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)

The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
 
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
 
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
 
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.

It just won't go away Ferryman!

[ferryman]

Your copious use of bold print and large type-face apart, I take you can't produce any evidence the McCanns have been anything other than cleared?

[Mr Gray]

Lord Justice Tugendhat quoting from the files in his judgment in McCann v Bennett ...

"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

What was that you were saying about the McCanns not being cleared?

this is evidence that the McCanns have been cleared.
as for proving innocence, if this is a correct translation then the man who made it is an idiot . it is virtually impossible to prove innocence. .

Barry George has been cleared but he has not been proved innocent. Would anyone disagree with that.

[Eleanor]

The McCanns never refused to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction.  In fact they were in no position to do so.  Only their friends refused.  And if I had been spoken to in the same fashion as they were, then I would have refused, for my own protection.

Such a pity that Amaral refused to do a reconstruction in the beginning when it might actually have helped.  And since a similar reconstruction was offered some one year later at almost the same time of the year, then the reasons for Amaral's refusal were looking decidedly thin.

But then Amaral probably already had his own twisted reconstruction in mind, which he then proceeded to do.  Strange is that, don't you think?

[Albertini]

Your copious use of bold print and large type-face apart, I take you can't produce any evidence the McCanns have been anything other than cleared?

What do you think the Ag report meant with regards to them being unable to prove their innocence?

[Albertini]

The McCanns never refused to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction.  In fact they were in no position to do so.  Only their friends refused.  And if I had been spoken to in the same fashion as they were, then I would have refused, for my own protection.

Well they told the investigation they would return but they told the media, through their spokesman that their lawyers would block their return anyway. Funny that.

The only way to fix that conundrum was to agree to go but get their friends, who weren't under the same legal constraints to refuse.

Which they did. Funny that, as well.

In what fashion were they spoken to?

What protection would they have needed given they were told their lawyers (subject to AG approval), Leicestershire Police and the Foreign Office would be in attendance?

Such a pity that Amaral refused to do a reconstruction in the beginning when it might actually have helped.  And since a similar reconstruction was offered some one year later at almost the same time of the year, then the reasons for Amaral's refusal were looking decidedly thin.

But then Amaral probably already had his own twisted reconstruction in mind, which he then proceeded to do.  Strange is that, don't you think?

What has this issue of the AG report and the McCann's failure to demonstrate their innocence got to do with your obsession with Amaral?

[Albertini]

this is evidence that the McCanns have been cleared.
as for proving innocence, if this is a correct translation then the man who made it is an idiot . it is virtually impossible to prove innocence. .

Barry George has been cleared but he has not been proved innocent. Would anyone disagree with that.

Yeah, that's what it will be, the Attorney General of Portugal is an idiot. 

In relation to Barry George he failed to gain compensation because the judges felt there was a good chance he would be convicted.

How can he "be cleared" on the one hand but on the other have judges ruled there was a good chance he would have been convicted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23241520

In January, the High Court had ruled that Mr George did not qualify for compensation because jurors could still reasonably have convicted him despite new evidence that led to his acquittal.

Are these Judges also idiots, Dave?

Or is it that you don't understand what it means?

[Albertini]

Your copious use of bold print and large type-face apart, I take you can't produce any evidence the McCanns have been anything other than cleared?

I have produced the evidence from the AG report which states that they have not proven their innocence towards the fateful event.

Add to it the LP's comments.

You now need to explain how someone can be cleared whilst not demonstrating their innocence. 

[Eleanor]

Goncalo Amaral is simply a dishonourable man, although I am not sure if I have an obsession with that.  Although I suppose that I might have.  I don't like bent coppers of any nationality.

You obviously did not follow the requests for the return of The McCann friends.  It was very rude, to say the least.  You might think that The PJ would have been a bit more careful if that is what The PJ actually wanted, which I suspect they didn't.

But the fact remains that there was no legal obligations.  And it would have done nothing to find Madeleine.  That was the crux of the matter.

[Mr Gray]

I have produced the evidence from the AG report which states that they have not proven their innocence towards the fateful event.

Add to it the LP's comments.

You now need to explain how someone can be cleared whilst not demonstrating their innocence.

Because cleared does not mean innocent...is that simple enough for you.

[Albertini]

Because cleared does not mean innocent...is that simple enough for you.

Which criminal court case, with the McCann's as defendents, cleared them?

[Eleanor]

Which criminal court case, with the McCann's as defendents, cleared them?

Which Criminal Case is that ever likely to be?

[Lyall]

"they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance" >@@(*&)

Ferryman, how does anyone know at what time Madeleine disappeared?

[Albertini]

Goncalo Amaral is simply a dishonourable man, although I am not sure if I have an obsession with that.  Although I suppose that I might have.  I don't like bent coppers of any nationality.

Trust me you do, which is your wont but it has nothing to do with this thread so no idea why you keep mentioning it.

You obviously did not follow the requests for the return of The McCann friends.  It was very rude, to say the least.  You might think that The PJ would have been a bit more careful if that is what The PJ actually wanted, which I suspect they didn't.

No i have read this whole area very closely, only recently again, and there was not no rudeness that i can say.

Frustration at a reminder of the nature of the request under the Portuguese Penal code, which was only natural given the spurious reasons for non attendance which were rendered utterly unfounded when the Pj agreed to have lawyers LP and the FO all in attendance.

But the fact remains that there was no legal obligations.  And it would have done nothing to find Madeleine.  That was the crux of the matter.

It would have kept the investigation open into Madeliene's disappearance which is better for finding her than the case being shelved.

If as you no doubt believe the friends had no case to asnwer and everything was above aboard, and with the protection they would have had in attendance, surely the reconstruction would have removed all doubt about the parents and their friends and forced the PJ, under Rebelo,  to pursue the abduction theory.

So actually, it would have had everything to do with finding Madeline.

Unless of course the parents or the group didn't want to reconstruct the "lies" (according to the Menezes in Lisbon under oath) that were in the statement.

That should make you ask "why".