For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

Anyone who resorts to racism loses the argument and condemns themselves from their own mouth.

Excuse me? Can you advise what part of stating that there is no freedom of speech in China is "racist"?

What an ignorant self-centred thread!

Lol, but i did not start the thread so are you accusing Ferryman of that, seeing as it was he who created the thread?

[Albertini]

Don't worry Lace ..the phrase... I'm sorry but you appear to be as thick as a whale omelette....is from blackadder and is spoken by George.... who isn't very clever

The first incarnation of the character was a caricature of George, Prince of Wales. The second, Lt. The Hon. George Colthurst St Barleigh, was a young officer in the British Army during World War I. Both portrayals were of "dim-witted upper-class twits",[1][2] who depended greatly on Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson). The character garnered positive responses from critics.

Oh, at last you Googled it, whereas last night you said whales didn't come from eggs they were mammals.

I thought you were taking the mick, seems you were being serious.

Oh dear.

[Albertini]

that wasn't the answer you gave yesterday, yesterday you said

"As i have said to you before had their innocence been demonstrated either directly or indirectly then they would have been cleared of involvement"

Cant seem to make your mind up

When you give completely different answers to the same question you have no credibility.

Nope.

You still haven't grasped the concept of judicial clearance and clearance in an investigative phase, neither of which the McCann's have attained.

Two completely different concepts you have once again spectacularly failed to understand, comprehend or accept, to such a degree that you have stated on several occasions that the reason the "failed to prove their innocence" line was there because the Attorney General of Portugal, was to use your own words, "an idiot"!

Yes Dave, that's what it is, the AG of Portugal is "idiot".

Give me strength.

[Chinagirl]

You still haven't grasped the concept of judicial clearance and clearance in an investigative phase, neither of which the McCann's have attained.

There is NO difference.  Once again, NO ONE, not even the McCanns, are required to "prove/demonstrate their innocence" at ANY stage of an investigation or trial.  Innocence is presumed.

This is a perfect example of a circular argument where a point in a debate has been amply demonstrated over and over again in m ore than one thread on this board, yet the other side will not accept it and continues to assert a misconception, and tries to make his point by snide personal comments.

Moderators should adjudicate the discussion and lock the thread.

[Albertini]

Can I ask a question guys?

Does anyone know if the presumption of innocence under the law is the same in Portugal as it is under English Law?  8-)(--)

I ask because much has been said about the parents having to prove their innocence yet this is not required under English Law.  Could it be that this issue is more of a moral dilemma rather than a legal one?

Hi John.

Allow me to shed some light on it. The AG report appears to throw up a huge contradiction in that it states there was no evidence to show the McCann's had committed a crime BUT they had failed to prove their innocence.

This was also backed up by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire's declaration in open court in the UK in relation to the Mccann's attempts to gain access to the LP's files on the McCann's where he said that whilst one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence to rule them out of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

Not one of the McCann supporters on here has ever attempted to explain how this apparent contradiction can exist.

In reality it is simple.

The AG report was written by a civil servant with none of the judicial powers of a court or judge. Only a court can determine if someone is innocent or guilty of a crime they are accused of.

Now DaveL has attempted to explain this  by saying the AG report was written by "an idiot".

Clearly that is not the case, you don't get to be a Public Prosecutor or the AG of Portugal by being "an idiot".

So there must be some basis and standing for these seemingly contradictory statements to co-exist.

So on the understanding that the AG report was referencing a police investigation what can it mean?

First of all is important to state that in the AG report it was said there was no evidence of a crime being committed by the McCann's.

However it also said that the investigation was incomplete.

It said it was incomplete because of the refusal of the group to take part in the reconstruction.

So in essence what we have is no evidence found in an incomplete police investigation. That does not mean that this is a definitive and final exoneration of the McCann's, it means that in the evidence they had gathered in an incomplete investigation they determined there was no evidence of the McCann's being involved.

However the Mccann's and their friends specifically, and for unknown reasons, ended the investigation early and before it could complete gatheirng ALL evidence.

As such like any other police investigation in the world the McCann's had been unable to rule themselves out and prove their innocence to the investigation.

That does not alter one iota, there assumption in law that they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It simply means that they remain supsects until either directly or indirectly their innocence is proven or evidence is found against them.

[Albertini]

You still haven't grasped the concept of judicial clearance and clearance in an investigative phase, neither of which the McCann's have attained.

There is NO difference.  Once again, NO ONE, not even the McCanns, are required to "prove/demonstrate their innocence" at ANY stage of an investigation or trial.  Innocence is presumed.

This is a perfect example of a circular argument where a point in a debate has been amply demonstrated over and over again in m ore than one thread on this board, yet the other side will not accept it and continues to assert a misconception, and tries to make his point by snide personal comments.

Moderators should adjudicate the discussion and lock the thread.

Oh here you go again attempting to adjudicate and moderate.

I have told you before your attempts to moderate posts relating to what is contained in the AG report is pathetic.

There is NO difference.  Once again, NO ONE, not even the McCanns, are required to "prove/demonstrate their innocence" at ANY stage of an investigation or trial.  Innocence is presumed.

So you think BUT the AG report was absolutely clear that they hadn't proven their innocence.

Why are you trying to airbrush out this part of the AG report?

Why do you never attempt to explain what it means in the AG report?

Why do you believe the McCann's don't have to prove their innocence WHEN THE AG'S REPORT SPECIFICALLY STATES THEY FAILED TO DO SO!!

[sadie]

Oh here you go again attempting to adjudicate and moderate.

I have told you before your attempts to moderate posts relating to what is contained in the AG report is pathetic.

So you think BUT the AG report was absolutely clear that they hadn't proven their innocence.

Why are you trying to airbrush out this part of the AG report?

Why do you never attempt to explain what it means in the AG report?

Why do you believe the McCann's don't have to prove their innocence WHEN THE AG'S REPORT SPECIFICALLY STATES THEY FAILED TO DO SO!!

As you well know, there is no way that it is possible to prove innocence, unless miles away or witnesses are present

There were a number of witnesses present, who verified accounts given by The Mccanns, but YOU and some refuse to accept the witness statements.  Anything said by a BRIT appears to be considerd a lie.

So if, say, Fionas mother had been made an arguido, then she would have been in the same position.  Totally unable to prove anything because all BRIT statements are considered lies. 

And all Nationalistic Portuguese would have been after her "head on a plate"


What a fine justice system you have Albertini ... NOT

You are clearly NOT a democracy, but still a fascist type State.

[John]

What mistakes did they make Sadie?

[Chinagirl]

What mistakes did they make Sadie?

Where did Sadie mention "mistakes?"  And who/what do you mean by "they?"

[Chinagirl]

Instead of "the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence," would we be having this argument if the AG had said instead, "the police failed to find evidence of the McCann's complicity in their daughter's disappearance?"

[Mr Gray]

Ask the Attorney General Of Portugal. He said it in his archiving report.

you have used the phrase "demonstrating their innocence" many times. You have stated on this thread that this means the McCanns would be cleared. you have now changed your mind . if you are going to use this phrase you should tell us what you mean by it. It seems now that you use the phrase but are unable to explain it.
once again, what do you mean by proving their innocence. could you answer the question

[Lace]

Instead of "the McCanns failed to demonstrate their innocence," would we be having this argument if the AG had said instead, "the police failed to find evidence of the McCann's complicity in their daughter's disappearance?"

Exactly Chinagirl.

They would have arrested them otherwise.

They were not arrested they were allowed to return to Britain.

[Chinagirl]

If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed some crime, and you offer a rock-solid alibi, have you "demonstrated your innocence," or have the police failed to make their case against you?

[Mr Gray]

If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed some crime, and you offer a rock-solid alibi, have you "demonstrated your innocence," or have the police failed to make their case against you?

As Albertini has constantly used this phrase I would think he must understand what it means. He sees unwilling to answer the question...therefore he has lost the argument...end of

[Mr Gray]

If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed some crime, and you offer a rock-solid alibi, have you "demonstrated your innocence," or have the police failed to make their case against you?

Perhaps albertini would answer this question too