For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

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.

Once again, please learn and understand the difference between judicial and investigative clearance.

Until you do understand that, because that is the essence of what we are discussing, you will continue to thrash around the board embarrassing yourself with your ignorance on the subject.

[Jean-Pierre]

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.

Or the police find no evidence against them - that would also rule a suspect out of the investigation, for all practical purposes.

Albertini - I can see that you are extremely passionate about this subject, and about your thesis that suspects have to rule themselves out of a police investigation, but I fear you may have been misled by google and wikipedia.  In the real, practical day to day world, the onus is on the police to further their case - and if they cannot then the matter ends.   

This is where Bennett went wrong - he listened to those who were telling him what he wanted to hear, and ignored advice from more experienced hands.   

[Chinagirl]

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.

I promised myself never to post in this forum again, but I simply cannot bypass that above outrageous and utterly incorrect statement.

No one (there is no such word as "noone") in a democracy, which includes Portugal, ever has "to demonstrate their innocence."  They don't have to do so to be ruled out of an investigation, nor at trial.  The presumption of innocence is an absolute, basic legal principle of all democratic societies.  It's an insult to Portugal to imply that it is different there.

It is time the moderation here put a stop to the nonsense being spouted that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence.

[stephen25000]

Why do some people continue to ignore this ?

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

'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'

[Albertini]

Or the police find no evidence against them - that would also rule a suspect out of the investigation, for all practical purposes.

Wrong. That happens all the time. As we discussed previously see the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case. There was no/ insufficient evidence against them but they still remained suspects to the investigation.

A lack of evidence against someone does not automaitcally rule them out as a suspect. 

Albertini - I can see that you are extremely passionate about this subject, and about your thesis that suspects have to rule themselves out of a police investigation, but I fear you may have been misled by google and wikipedia.  In the real, practical day to day world, the onus is on the police to further their case - and if they cannot then the matter ends.   

I am passionate about it because people like you ignore or rewrite a clear and unambiguous statement in the AG report to fit in with your belief that the McCann's were exonerated.

Of course the police have to further their case with evidence, to present to a court, and that hasn't happened with the McCann's as of yet.

But no one is talking about the evidence gathering required to present to a court. The AG report wasn't and neither am I.

However in the real world of the AG report the statement is clear and it matches what Leicestershire Police said in court, and in Portugal that archiving report remains the investigation's final word on them, until such time as the case is reopened if new evidence comes to light.

There was no evidence found in a disturbed investigation and the Mccann's failed to demonstrate their innocence to the investigation.

Now as much as you might not believe it, or want to believe it, it is in there, and it is clear as day as to what it means.

This is where Bennett went wrong - he listened to those who were telling him what he wanted to hear, and ignored advice from more experienced hands.   

Lol, well for an "experienced hand" (and i presume you are referring to yourself there) you appear to have no knowledge of nor indeed answer for the AG report's statement regarding their failure to demonstrate their innocence.

And my understanding of where Bennett went wrong was to sign a court order saying he wouldn't comment on the case and then contiuned to comment on it. Which is totally different.

[Albertini]

I promised myself never to post in this forum again, but I simply cannot bypass that above outrageous and utterly incorrect statement.

No one (there is no such word as "noone") in a democracy, which includes Portugal, ever has "to demonstrate their innocence."  They don't have to do so to be ruled out of an investigation, nor at trial.  The presumption of innocence is an absolute, basic legal principle of all democratic societies.  It's an insult to Portugal to imply that it is different there.

It is time the moderation here put a stop to the nonsense being spouted that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence.

So what you are syaing is that posts should be moderated which quote the AG report?

What sort of Maoist dictator are you? Perhaps you have spent too much time in China as you appear to have a problem with freedom of speech relating to a statement made in the Archving Report of the offical PJ investigation.

Let me ask you the same question:

What do you think the paragraph regarding about them losiing the possibility to prove their innocence means?

And in answer to this point:

No one (there is no such word as "noone") in a democracy, which includes Portugal, ever has "to demonstrate their innocence."  They don't have to do so to be ruled out of an investigation, nor at trial.

Yes clearly they do because it specifically said so in the AG report!!

How many times do you have to be told what the AG report actually says!

[AnneGuedes]

The AG means the McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate the (felt infamous) arguido status had no basis whatsoever and suspicions no place in people's minds. The same applies to the investigation : however forlorn the hope to determine what had happened to Madeleine McCann, the opportunity to rule out the implication of her parents was lost.
Surely the best virtue of a united reconstitution (different from crimewatch type "reconstruction") had been to convince the public those people could be messy as witnesses but were authentically desperate to find Madeleine. The spotting of the operation by both UK and PT institutions had been the best warrant ever.
Had the proceedings been so kind (we're asking but it's up to you to decide if yes or not), if Madeleine's body had been found, with or without signs of violence ? Had the investigation been shelved ? I don't think so.

[Jean-Pierre]

Wrong. That happens all the time. As we discussed previously see the suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case. There was no/ insufficient evidence against them but they still remained suspects to the investigation.

A lack of evidence against someone does not automaitcally rule them out as a suspect. 

I am passionate about it because people like you ignore or rewrite a clear and unambiguous statement in the AG report to fit in with your belief that the McCann's were exonerated.

Of course the police have to further their case with evidence, to present to a court, and that hasn't happened with the McCann's as of yet.

But no one is talking about the evidence gathering required to present to a court. The AG report wasn't and neither am I.

However in the real world of the AG report the statement is clear and it matches what Leicestershire Police said in court, and in Portugal that archiving report remains the investigation's final word on them, until such time as the case is reopened if new evidence comes to light.

There was no evidence found in a disturbed investigation and the Mccann's failed to demonstrate their innocence to the investigation.

Now as much as you might not believe it, or want to believe it, it is in there, and it is clear as day as to what it means.

Lol, well for an "experienced hand" (and i presume you are referring to yourself there) you appear to have no knowledge of nor indeed answer for the AG report's statement regarding their failure to demonstrate their innocence.

And my understanding of where Bennett went wrong was to sign a court order saying he wouldn't comment on the case and then contiuned to comment on it. Which is totally different.

You simply cannot draw a parallel between the two cases.  They are totally different.  And indeed the Lawrence case required a change in the law to produce the outcome it did.   You know what the say about hard cases.

As far as the PP report is concerened, you are using the same logic that Amaral does (when he quoted on the interim report produced by Tavares).  The PP's final conculsion is key.

[Albertini]

You simply cannot draw a parallel between the two cases.  They are totally different.  And indeed the Lawrence case required a change in the law to produce the outcome it did.   You know what the say about hard cases.

You don't need, it's not about the detail of the case. It is about the nature of no/insufficient evidence against a suspect and whether that then removes the suspect from the investigation as you implied it does.

The Lawrence case proved that simply having no evidence DID NOT automatically mean they weren't suspects.

And that's the only detail you need to understand.

As far as the PP report is concerened, you are using the same logic that Amaral does (when he quoted on the interim report produced by Tavares).  The PP's final conculsion is key.

No with respect, it is you who are using wonky logic. The conclusion of no evidence in an incomplete investigation is not final or binding "innocence" and is offset with a failure to prove their innocence.

You simply will not accept nor explain why the passage is in the report. I on the other hand accept, and have stated, the no evidence part of the report but also accept and understand the failure to prove their innocence which you appear to have great difficulty in understanding and indeed acknowledging.

[Carana]

How would it have proven their innocence as opposed to simply demonstrating that it was possible?

[AnneGuedes]

How would it have proven their innocence as opposed to simply demonstrating that it was possible?

I agree with you on this, Carana. Proving their innocence through a reconstitution doesn't sound very realistic. But, apart from possibly clearing devil's details, all had at least proven their good faith, which isn't something to put in the bin. I'm not sure Mr Amaral would have written the same book.

[Carana]

I agree with you on this, Carana. Proving their innocence through a reconstitution doesn't sound very realistic. But, apart from possibly clearing devil's details, all had at least proven their good faith, which isn't something to put in the bin. I'm not sure Mr Amaral would have written the same book.

You sure about that? The book covers the time he was involved in the investigation and his primary purpose was to defend his honour.

His book wouldn't have covered it, but his interviews might have done. He would have been the first to say that it didn't prove anything, merely that it was possible. 

[AnneGuedes]

You sure about that? The book covers the time he was involved in the investigation and his primary purpose was to defend his honour.

His book wouldn't have covered it, but his interviews might have done. He would have been the first to say that it didn't prove anything, merely that it was possible.

I said I wasn't sure he would..
He might have written the same but differently, following the useful principles of Baltasar Gracián y Morales.

[Carana]

The AG means the McCanns lost the opportunity to demonstrate the (felt infamous) arguido status had no basis whatsoever and suspicions no place in people's minds. The same applies to the investigation : however forlorn the hope to determine what had happened to Madeleine McCann, the opportunity to rule out the implication of her parents was lost.
Surely the best virtue of a united reconstitution (different from crimewatch type "reconstruction") had been to convince the public those people could be messy as witnesses but were authentically desperate to find Madeleine. The spotting of the operation by both UK and PT institutions had been the best warrant ever.
Had the proceedings been so kind (we're asking but it's up to you to decide if yes or not), if Madeleine's body had been found, with or without signs of violence ? Had the investigation been shelved ? I don't think so.

The purpose of the reconstruction wasn't an opportunity to sway public opinion.

The purpose of a reconstruction in the UK is to appeal to witnesses to come forward. In PT, it is a technique to help establish potential guilt. Supposedly, the PJ didn't carry out one early in the process as they were worried that the McCanns might have realised that they were suspected. It's not rocket science to realise that the police need to eliminate those closest to the victim of a crime. They would have welcomed anything to get the PJ focused on finding her. In any case, the T9 wouldn't have even known that that was the purpose of a reconstruction in Portugal.

If it had been done right at the beginning when the main protagonists were there (including OC staff), many other details could have also been clarified, e.g., if the T9 had sat at the table, a waiter might have remembered which place was empty, where a plate taken back to reheat had been on the table, etc.

A reconstruction towards the end of the investigation wouldn't have proven innocence, as I have already said. What it would have done is to reassure the police (and the prosecutor) that they had done everything possible to investigate their potential guilt. 

[AnneGuedes]

The purpose of the reconstruction wasn't an opportunity to sway public opinion.

Not the purpose, but an important side effect.

The purpose of a reconstruction in the UK is to appeal to witnesses to come forward. In PT, it is a technique to help establish potential guilt.

No, the purpose in Portugal or in France is to clarify doubts about the events, mainly because witnesses' statements often don't match.

Supposedly, the PJ didn't carry out one early in the process as they were worried that the McCanns might have realised that they were suspected.

It's not what they said. They were worried the media might infer so and that would disturb a secret of instruction that had already many unhealthy holes.

It's not rocket science to realise that the police need to eliminate those closest to the victim of a crime. They would have welcomed anything to get the PJ focused on finding her. In any case, the T9 wouldn't have even known that that was the purpose of a reconstruction in Portugal.

How that would have been accepted is nothing but speculation.

If it had been done right at the beginning when the main protagonists were there (including OC staff), many other details could have also been clarified, e.g., if the T9 had sat at the table, a waiter might have remembered which place was empty, where a plate taken back to reheat had been on the table, etc.

I agree with that. Many things could have been done. I can't dismiss the pressure that was on them though. Basically ones wanted a reconstitution that hardly could be done discreetly and the others wanted exactly the contrary, a spectacle spotted by cameras (for the good cause).

A reconstruction towards the end of the investigation wouldn't have proven innocence, as I have already said. What it would have done is to reassure the police (and the prosecutor) that they had done everything possible to investigate their potential guilt.

I guess it was a likely reason. But not the only one.