For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

albertini.. everyone can see you have made a fool of yourself

Keep digging Dave, keep digging.

[Mr Gray]

Keep digging Dave, keep digging.

ok... lets have a look at your other post

[Mr Gray]

Yes, if their innocence had been demonstrated either directly or indirectly how could they be involved?

you made this statement in response to my post



if they had demonstrated their innocence, would they have been deemed innocent.

Another load of rubbish

[Mr Gray]

you made this statement in response to my post



if they had demonstrated their innocence, would they have been deemed innocent.

Another load of rubbish

Albertini says that had the Mcanns "demonstrated their innocence" to the prosecutors they would have been deemed innocent....

but one of his earlier posts include this statement....

We need,  to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.


So if they had done what Albertini suggested and "proved " their innocence to the prosecutors...

those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

so the opinion of the prosecutors would be deemed worthless.

[Jean-Pierre]

The crux of the matter is that the opinion of the public prosecutor is simply that - it is an opinion. 

The only thing that actually counts is the judgement of the court - and until such judgement is given the individual is INNOCENT. 

In this case, there was no evidence even to get to first base - to put the case before the court.



 

[Eleanor]

The opinion of The Prosecutor is deemed worthless.  I mean, who the hell does he think he is?  How can you argue with that?

[Jean-Pierre]

Eleanor - it is an important role.  The follwoing link may help:

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_prof/legal_prof_por_en.htm#2.

[Eleanor]

Eleanor - it is an important role.  The follwoing link may help:

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_prof/legal_prof_por_en.htm#2.

Really?  An important role?  You could have fooled me.  Phew.  And there was me thinking he was innit.

[Carana]

I still don't understand why some of you seem to think that a reconstruction would have had any impact on the search for Madeleine.

A reconstruction wouldn't have proven innocence anyway. If whatever they wanted to be checked was feasible, it wouldn't mean that that was actually what happened, only that it was possible.

Unless it led to charging them, the case would have been archived anyway.

From what I can decipher, in Article 276 of the 2000 Penal Process Code, a criminal investigation was supposed to be wound up in 6 months starting from when the investigation was focused on a particular person or persons, or when someone was made an arguido; or in 8 months if that was not the case. (The Code has since been updated several times, but that basic timeframe is still the same.)

In that Article, there were only two lines referring to a different Article (Art. 109) on justifying why it hadn't been wound up and there was a whole procedure to justify getting an extension. There was also a provision with specific deadlines if someone was in pre-trial detention, which is irrelevant in this case. (Interestingly, the latest Code (2010) has a sub-section in the event of letters of request, which effectively freezes the timeframe until the results are received, with a cap of 50% of the initial timeframe.)

Murat was made arguido on 15 May 2007. In theory, by 14 November 2007, he would have had to have been charged or the case would have been archived then.

Then they decide to make the McCanns arguidos on 7 September 2007, so Murat had to tag along until 6 March 2008. Same thing, one, two or all three would have had to have been charged or the case archived.

It was then extended to get all the rogs sorted out. Most of that was in by May, bar one outstanding one. On 16 June, Frances Kenagh asked again for justification for requesting 6 months's worth of Gerry's credit card use (following her initial request for clarification in March to which there had apparently been no reply). That was finally dropped.

The PJ finished its report on 20 June. And the case was archived on 21 July.

If the T9 had done the reconstruction and the PJ had deemed their version feasible, they wouldn't - as people seem to think - start looking for an abductor with no concrete new leads to go on. It was already a very long process by Portuguese standards.

Some people also seem to think that if they had subsequently requested to go back to do one, it would somehow reopen the investigation. On what basis? The process was already archived without it. So what new, significant, credible, and relevant evidence would it have provided to take the case forward towards finding Madeleine?

2000 Penal Process Code http://paulosantos-adv.planetaclix.pt/CPP.htm
I can't provide a link to the 2007 version (which entered into force on 15 September) as I can't find a link that works any more. I have a copy, though.
If anyone is interested, the 2010 one is here: http://www.legix.pt/docs/CPP-30_Ago_2010.pdf

[AnneGuedes]

Carana, instead of speculating a reconstitution (let's use that word as the concept is different from the reconstruction one) was of no use if it didn't lead to charge the McCanns, could you please try to review with a critical mind the following "very important details":
1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;

3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;

5 - 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.

[Lace]

I'm sorry but you appear to be as thick as a whale omelette.

There was no need at all to be so rude.

[sadie]

Carana, instead of speculating a reconstitution (let's use that word as the concept is different from the reconstruction one) was of no use if it didn't lead to charge the McCanns, could you please try to review with a critical mind the following "very important details":

Recostitution is completely the wrong word Anne.

It is a very unfortunate word to have chosen, in fact



http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/reconstitute

1.  to change the form or structure of something


Who knows, a reconstitution may well have happened had a reconstruction taken place.   Amaral has shown himself capable of devious methods

For example: 
When he was made an arguido, Gerry was lied to and told they had evidence that Madeleines body had been carried in their hire car.  This was not true.  Falsification of the facts, all in an effort to try to make Gerry confess


You are right, in one way, Anne.
A reconstitution may well have happened. 

THank God that they were unable to do the Reconstruction.

[Albertini]

"Ram Home?"  I think you have just given your own reasons for why I don't want to debate with you.

But i thought you were all about the facts?

[Albertini]

The crux of the matter is that the opinion of the public prosecutor is simply that - it is an opinion. 

The only thing that actually counts is the judgement of the court - and until such judgement is given the individual is INNOCENT. 

In this case, there was no evidence even to get to first base - to put the case before the court.

Correct, under law the McCann's are innocent. Noone has ever said anything other than that.

However the archiving report was not concluding judicial findings, it was concluding the police investigation, where suspects have to demonstrate their innocence in order to be ruled out of the investigation.

[Albertini]

There was no need at all to be so rude.

Really? Normally i would agree but if you look back DaveL appears to follow me around calling me "stupid" and "idiot".

Wheras in fact he simply embarasses himself because does not understand the nature of what is being said.