For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

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.

Since when were you appointed head of the investigation? Who are you, or indeed the other witnesses to tell the the investigation how it should be conducted?

Under Rebelo they had determined a need for it in order to keep the investigation into their missing child open.

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.

The McCann's i believe had to be there under their Arguido status but their spokesman let the cat out of the bag by saying their lawyers would block their return anyway.

So to rephrase your point, trying to arrange it after the McCann's had fled the country was doomed to failure.

The only way they could thwart it was to get their pals to block it. Which they of course dutifully did. 

Most normal people can blame the T7 for not attending. There was no valid reason not to attend given the extraordinary protection offered by the PJ and the fact that it was the only way the official police investigation into their friends missing child would be kept open.

Utterly dispicable and only done to prevent further questions being asked about the untruths in their statement.

What untruths are so bad that the friends of the parents of a missing child are and were willing to close the investigation looking for that child rather than face upto the consequneces of explaining their untruths.

[Carana]

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.

How does that work?

Let's assume they'd gone back.

- The PJ decide that something is impossible. Let's say Kate couldn't get the door to slam on the night of the reconstruction or they found it impossible for two men and a baby deep in conversation not to notice Jane pass by (despite the fact that they couldn't agree on where they were actually standng).

Then what? Charge them? What with?

- They decide that everything is feasible. Then what? They had no other leads and Murat had already been arguido since May 2007.

There are limits as to how long people can remain arguidos, even though there can be extensions if warranted.

[Jean-Pierre]

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.

As I am sure you willl be aware, the Portuguese penal code has quite a range of possibilities.  Ranging from shelving the process (if there is no evidence) to keeping it open (if there is some evidence to go on), and ranging all the way to charge etc.

The fact that the PP said what he did in teh conclusion to his report, coupled with the penal code, is a very clear indication that altjough at one point in the investigation they were pursuing a particular line of enquiry (dogs, forensics etc) no evidence had emerged and therefore there is nothing to suggest the McCanns (and murat) had committed any crime.

Therefore they are, legally and practically, innocent.

. 

[Eleanor]

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.

Well done, you have got it.  I have done my time at debating, even as lately as on this Forum.

However, since no one ever attempts to question my statements of fact, I can only presume that you have no argument to offer.  That is the true art of Debate.

[AnneGuedes]

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

Perhaps inspector Amaral thought the emergency was to search for Madeleine, who was too young to resist long, if resilience was possible at all.

[Albertini]

How does that work?

Let's assume they'd gone back.

- The PJ decide that something is impossible. Let's say Kate couldn't get the door to slam on the night of the reconstruction or they found it impossible for two men and a baby deep in conversation not to notice Jane pass by (despite the fact that they couldn't agree on where they were actually standng).

Then what? Charge them? What with?

- They decide that everything is feasible. Then what? They had no other leads and Murat had already been arguido since May 2007.

There are limits as to how long people can remain arguidos, even though there can be extensions if warranted.

Well in the first instance they could have gone back to "demonstrate their innocence" if they felt their accounts were truthful and recreatable.

In relation to the results of the excercise it is impossible to say what results it would have yielded and what direction it would have taken the investigation in.

That's not the point and you know it.

The point is it was requested by Rebelo and his team, the importance of it was stressed and they refused thus shelving the investigation looking for their friend's child, at that point the only force in the world looking for Madeleine McCann.

They took a decision which resulted in no law agency in the world continuing to look for Madeleine.

I don't know how they can sleep at night.

[Albertini]

Well done, you have got it.  I have done my time at debating, even as lately as on this Forum.

However, since no one ever attempts to question my statements of fact, I can only presume that you have no argument to offer.  That is the true art of Debate.

Bully for you!

And er what facts are those then in this thread?

[Eleanor]

Bully for you!

And er what facts are those then in this thread?

Just the facts.  I don't generally make assumptions.  Although no doubt you could find one if you try hard enough.

[Albertini]

As I am sure you willl be aware, the Portuguese penal code has quite a range of possibilities.  Ranging from shelving the process (if there is no evidence) to keeping it open (if there is some evidence to go on), and ranging all the way to charge etc.

The fact that the PP said what he did in teh conclusion to his report, coupled with the penal code, is a very clear indication that altjough at one point in the investigation they were pursuing a particular line of enquiry (dogs, forensics etc) no evidence had emerged and therefore there is nothing to suggest the McCanns (and murat) had committed any crime.

Therefore they are, legally and practically, innocent.

.

Of coruse they are legally innocent but the AG report was not reporting on a judicial matter.

In the investigation they failed to demonstrate their innocence ergo whilst one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance

Which sums up the AG report's position and Leicestershire Police's position as well.

And you are also failing to take into account the fact it was an incomplete investigation, but you do that frequently whilst discussing this subject i notice.

[Albertini]

Just the facts.  I don't generally make assumptions.  Although no doubt you could find one if you try hard enough.

So far in this thread you have said:

I am only here to refute the lies

Just the facts

Who are you, some kind of forum Wyatt Earp?

Do you have any idea how pompous and preposterous statements like that make you sound?

[AnneGuedes]

How does that work?

Let's assume they'd gone back.

- The PJ decide that something is impossible. Let's say Kate couldn't get the door to slam on the night of the reconstruction or they found it impossible for two men and a baby deep in conversation not to notice Jane pass by (despite the fact that they couldn't agree on where they were actually standng).

Then what? Charge them? What with?

- They decide that everything is feasible. Then what? They had no other leads and Murat had already been arguido since May 2007.

There are limits as to how long people can remain arguidos, even though there can be extensions if warranted.

It's obvious that any reconstruction is useful and clears doubts if and only if the protagonists intend to make it fruitful. Imo it is the meaning of the MP's requirement that all had to be present. It wasn't to be taken literally.

[Jean-Pierre]

Of coruse they are legally innocent but the AG report was not reporting on a judicial matter.

In the investigation they failed to demonstrate their innocence ergo whilst one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence which clears them of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance

Which sums up the AG report's position and Leicestershire Police's position as well.

And you are also failing to take into account the fact it was an incomplete investigation, but you do that frequently whilst discussing this subject i notice.

"Since when were you appointed head of the investigation? Who are you, or indeed the other witnesses to tell the the investigation how it should be conducted?" 

No need to get touchy.  I konw you love to stride about this forum, gradly telling everyone where they are wrong.  But I am afraid just because you say it is so does not make it so, and all you are doing is expressing your opnion, in the same way that all of us are. 

A tip, Albertini - you will get a lot further if you actually engage in debate rather than insisting you must be right all the time.  I am afraid that is rather reminscent of Violet Elizabeth.

And I know you have an obsession with "failed to prove theior innocence".  It is getitng a trifle tedious.  Innocence of what?  Which bit of "no evidence of any wrongdoing" are you having a problem with.

You say that nobody wants to engage in debate - well, I am afraid you may need to look closer to home for the reasons for that. 

   

[Eleanor]

So far in this thread you have said:

Who are you, some kind of forum Wyatt Earp?

Do you have any idea how pompous and preposterous statements like that make you sound?

Think whatever you like of me.  I don't really care.  I shall keep my opinion of you to myself.

[Mr Gray]

Albertini
So... if they had demonstrated their innocence to the satisfaction of the Portuguese would they have been cleared

[Albertini]

"Since when were you appointed head of the investigation? Who are you, or indeed the other witnesses to tell the the investigation how it should be conducted?" 

No need to get touchy.  I konw you love to stride about this forum, gradly telling everyone where they are wrong.  But I am afraid just because you say it is so does not make it so, and all you are doing is expressing your opnion, in the same way that all of us are. 

i'm not getting touchy, i am trying to get you to understand that the witnesses (or indeed those who support the witnesses) have no rights to dictate, question or query the need for an investigative procedure that the PJ wanted.

A tip, Albertini - you will get a lot further if you actually engage in debate rather than insisting you must be right all the time.  I am afraid that is rather reminscent of Violet Elizabeth.

I think you will find that is all i do here, engage in debate. I do not have to be right all the time, but i am not prepared to leave unanswered posts, where such clear falsehoods are left unchallenged so that they somehow become accepted as fact on the board.

And I know you have an obsession with "failed to prove their innocence".  It is getitng a trifle tedious.  Innocence of what?  Which bit of "no evidence of any wrongdoing" are you having a problem with.

No i don't actually, what i try to ram home is exactly what the AG report and LP said, which you and others have never been able to explain becuase of your obsession with the part regarding no evidence of a crime.

Here's the difference between us. I accept and understand what the Ag report said about there being no evidence. I understand it in the context of how it was written and against the backdrop of an incomplete investigation.

I have never once said that there was evidence generated which would secure a conviction against them. Not once, so your repeated "what part of no evidence of a crime don't you understand" is an argument you are having on a point i have never made.

What i have always said is this:

No evidence of a crime commited by the McCann's
The investigation was not complete though
The reason the investigation was incomplete was because the group refused to return for the reconstruction
As a result of this there is no clear evidence that rules them out of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

This is in essence exactly what the AG report has stated.

But you have so far not once ever tried to explain the demonstrating innocence statement, not once.

Why is that?

And that's why we go round and round in circles because that part of the Ag report presents an inconvenient truth for your beliefs about the McCann's which you will not or cannot face up to and accept.

You say that nobody wants to engage in debate - well, I am afraid you may need to look closer to home for the reasons for that.   

No i said Eleanor didn't wish to engage in debate, and she said that herself.