For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

Which Criminal Case is that ever likely to be?

But only a criminal court can "clear" people. So if there has been no criminal case, how can they be cleared?

[Eleanor]

I am not interested in whether or not The McCanns were "Cleared" as it has no relevance.

A Reconstruction at that late date would have done nothing to find Madeleine.

[Albertini]

I am not interested in whether or not The McCanns were "Cleared" as it has no relevance.

But Dave does, which is the post i was replying to which you jumped in on.

A Reconstruction at that late date would have done nothing to find Madeleine.

It would have done, for the reasons i started in my previous post.

[Eleanor]

I must have missed your previous post.  Was it as illogical and nasty as most of your posts are?

[Jean-Pierre]

The LPs comments were of course made before the archiving despatch, when asked to share information with the McCanns.   Since then the UK police seem to be of a mind that the McCanns are innocent of involvement.

The passage you refer to above relates to a time during the investigation, when they had been made arguidos, and appears to make reference to a reconstruction being helpful "to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents". 

He then goes on to dismiss evidence against the McCanns, and suggestions that they may be guilty of neglect.

Finally, you will be familiar with the provisions of article 277 paragrahps 1 and 3, which exonerate the arguidos and realse them from the restrictions imposed.  (I suggest you read article 277, article 214 and article 311.)





 

[AnneGuedes]

There's no evidence of Madeleine's death but none as well of the parents being absent from the flat when she disappeared as indicated by the AG's use of "seems" in the following sentence : (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).

[Albertini]

I must have missed your previous post.  Was it as illogical and nasty as most of your posts are?

Pot, kettle black.

Yet, you do not ever seem to want to try and debate how illogical my posts are?

[Eleanor]

Pot, kettle black.

Yet, you do not ever seem to want to try and debate how illogical my posts are?

What would be the point?

[Albertini]

The LPs comments were of course made before the archiving despatch, when asked to share information with the McCanns.   Since then the UK police seem to be of a mind that the McCanns are innocent of involvement.

2 weeks difference between comments in court and the PUBLICATION of the AG's report. What evidence can you find which came out in that 2 week period which would have changed LP's position?

Which UK police? LP who made the claim have never since withdrawn it, have they?

The passage you refer to above relates to a time during the investigation, when they had been made arguidos, and appears to make reference to a reconstruction being helpful "to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents". 

He then goes on to dismiss evidence against the McCanns, and suggestions that they may be guilty of neglect.

But states that as the last item in the investigation was the failed reconstruction and they failed to demonstrate their innocence which was the by product of their failure to take part in that final act of the investigation before it was shelved.

And of course the report never says that as a result they did demonstrate their innocence. Therefore it still remains.

Finally, you will be familiar with the provisions of article 277 paragrahps 1 and 3, which exonerate the arguidos and realse them from the restrictions imposed.  (I suggest you read article 277, article 214 and article 311.)

Yes, because under law they cannot remain Arguido's forever, and at the point of shelving there was no evidence found to proceed to a formal case against them.

But of course the investigation, as the Ag report stated, was disturbed (i.e incomplete).

The fact is though that the investigation ended with them, according to the AG & LP as being unable to prove their innocence.

And as much as you spin it and try and twist the words that stain still remains.

[Albertini]

What would be the point?

Er.... becuase that is the whole point of joining and participating in a debating forum??

Why don't you go back to stopthemyths or somewhere else where everyone can agree with you?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Actually he corrected "lies" into "untruths", which seemed to be diplomatic. But in fact he was protecting himself as well for having accepted the TPs' refusal to clear lies, if supposed to be eventually intentional.

[Eleanor]

Er.... becuase that is the whole point of joining and participating in a debating forum??

Why don't you go back to stopthemyths or somewhere else where everyone can agree with you?

It is not possible to debate with people like you.  And I don't have the time or the patience.  I am only here to refute the lies.

[Jean-Pierre]

Pot, kettle black.

Yet, you do not ever seem to want to try and debate how illogical my posts are?

Your posts consist of selective extracts from quite a long report, and ignore the narrative aspect of the way in which the report is constructed.


But that is by the by.  May I assume you have taken the logical approach, gone back to the source, and actually looked at the provisions of the relevant sections of the penal code - article 277 (p1 and p3), article 214 and article 311, and that we start duscussing from there?

Where under those articles is there any room for doubt that the McCanns are not involved?   

[Albertini]

Actually he corrected "lies" into "untruths", which seemed to be diplomatic. But in fact he was protecting himself as well for having accepted the TPs' refusal to clear lies, if supposed to be eventually intentional.

It is a bit of legal speak there as a lie is an untruth, isn't it?

In much the same way the appeal court judges in the book case said their statements were incongruent

[Albertini]

Your posts consist of selective extracts from quite a long report, and ignore the narrative aspect of the way in which the report is constructed.


But that is by the by.  May I assume you have taken the logical approach, gone back to the source, and actually looked at the provisions of the relevant sections of the penal code - article 277 (p1 and p3), article 214 and article 311, and that we start duscussing from there?

Where under those articles is there any room for doubt that the McCanns are not involved?   

Not at all. My point in debating so much on this issue to try and clear the falsehood that a civil servant can apportion guilt, innocence, exoneration or clearance.

The fact remains, that although badly written the final report makes perfect sense, if you are prepared to understand it.

That is, in a nut shell (or case as seems more appropriate with some) that the investigation was disturbed (i.e. incomplete and no evidence was found in that incomplete investigation to take them to criminal trial in this civil servant's opinion.

And that as a reuslt of their failure to take part in the investigation and reconstruction, they failed to demonstrate their innocence to the fateful event.

Which fits in perfectly, more or less with what LP said in open court.