For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

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.

It is perfectly possible, you just don't want to.

I really think this is not the forum for you then.

[ferryman]

In what sense so you consider that:

… 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".

requires clarification, elucidation or expansion?

[Jean-Pierre]

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 LP who made the claim have never since withdrawn it, have they?



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.

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.

OK Albertini - this is why detail and source is so important.  Could you tell me what the time limit on "arguido" status is?

[Lace]

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

Sorry what do you mean by your post?

I know nothing about law but surely there wouldn't have to be a criminal court case in order to clear the McCann's?

Here in Britain people are brought in for questioning as suspects or persons of interest.    Then after questioning they are released as there is nothing to arrest them for.

These people are 'cleared'   they don't have to go before a criminal court to be cleared.

[Eleanor]

It is perfectly possible, you just don't want to.

I really think this is not the forum for you then.

You could be right.  Don't have the patience or don't want to.

Do let me know when you have some say in where I may post to refute lies.

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Actually the AG reports says the "lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event".
The McCanns having claimed their innocence since they were made arguidos, one would presume they would seize any opportunity to back their claim. But no. On the contrary they lost that opportunity, due to the refusal by their friends and acquaintances of a reconstruction the MP had offered like a chance either for proving the MC's thesis of abduction or for boosting the stagnant investigation.
The MP, when writing the report, couldn't know whether the McCanns would seize a second chance to prove that their claim of innocence wasn't just a word : the contradictory inquiry.

[Lace]

Actually the AG reports says the "lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event".
The McCanns having claimed their innocence since they were made arguidos, one would presume they would seize any opportunity to back their claim. But no. On the contrary they lost that opportunity, due to the refusal by their friends and acquaintances of a reconstruction the MP had offered like a chance either for proving the MC's thesis of abduction or for boosting the stagnant investigation.
The MP, when writing the report, couldn't know whether the McCanns would seize a second chance to prove that their claim of innocence wasn't just a word : the contradictory inquiry.

Why did Amaral not go through with reconstruction when they were all in Portugal?

[Eleanor]

Actually the AG reports says the "lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event".
The McCanns having claimed their innocence since they were made arguidos, one would presume they would seize any opportunity to back their claim. But no. On the contrary they lost that opportunity, due to the refusal by their friends and acquaintances of a reconstruction the MP had offered like a chance either for proving the MC's thesis of abduction or for boosting the stagnant investigation.
The MP, when writing the report, couldn't know whether the McCanns would seize a second chance to prove that their claim of innocence wasn't just a word : the contradictory inquiry.

Perhaps you can tell me why Amaral refused to do a reconstruction in 2007.  Why would it have been better in 2008?  One whole year later.

[Albertini]

Sorry what do you mean by your post?

I know nothing about law but surely there wouldn't have to be a criminal court case in order to clear the McCann's?

This is what i have been saying all along. People can be cleared either in a judicial sense in court or they can be ruled out of an investigation by demonstrating their innocence.

As the AG report says they have not demonstrated their innocence to the investigation and no court has cleared them.

So they haven't been cleared, there is no evidence according to a civil servant that they committed a crime in an incomplete investigation.

Here in Britain people are brought in for questioning as suspects or persons of interest.    Then after questioning they are released as there is nothing to arrest them for.

These people are 'cleared'   they don't have to go before a criminal court to be cleared.

Yes once they have been ruled out they are "cleared" by the investigation. This involves essentially suspects either directly or indirectly demonstrating their innocence to the events in question.

As the AG report states they haven't done that.

[Albertini]

In what sense so you consider that:

… 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".

requires clarification, elucidation or expansion?

I don't need it clarifying i need to you to tell me what you think the bit about demonstrating their innocence means.

I want your explanation to the particular part of the report dealing with failure to demonstrate innocence. Your comments regarding it and explanation for it seem to be conspicuous by its absence.

Wonder why?

[Jean-Pierre]

Albertini, I am loth to jump in here, but you said earlier that a person cannot reamin an arguido for ever.  Can you say what the legal time limit is?

[Albertini]

OK Albertini - this is why detail and source is so important.  Could you tell me what the time limit on "arguido" status is?

My understanding from what i have read is that there is actual no time limit on Arguido status BUT if a case is to  be shelved due to lack of evdience then, of course, has to be lifted.

Which of course fits in with natural justice as well.

But i'm sure Anne knows more about it than me.

[Albertini]

Perhaps you can tell me why Amaral refused to do a reconstruction in 2007.  Why would it have been better in 2008?  One whole year later.

There you go again, Amaral mad! This thread is not about Amaral!!

The new team under Rebelo (note: not Amaral) determined it was necessary then in roder to move the investigation forward.

I don't know but i'm guessing because the statements were such a mess they need clarification of the window of opportunity, but i'm not Rebelo.

The point is the investigation wanted it, the group were offered legal, Foreigh Office and Leicestershire Police representation and they still refused, knowing full well, it would end the investigation.

[Albertini]

You could be right.  Don't have the patience or don't want to.

Do let me know when you have some say in where I may post to refute lies.

Wow, you're a team player aren't you? You want to swoop in as you see fit as some self appointed "lie refuter" but can't be bothered to actually engage in debate on a discussion forum?

Thanks for your contributions.

[Jean-Pierre]

the optimum time to do a reconstruction was as soon after the event as possible.  When thise involved directly and peripherlly were there, or could be got back, and events were fresh in the mind.

Trying to arrange it after the McCanns had been made arguidos was doomed to failure.  The McCanns would have been there - but nobody can blame teh others for avoiding Portugal like the plague.