Interesting to note that Albertini has declined to answer two questions raised yesterday by davel and me. Perhaps - hopefully - he has realised how erroneous is his contention that the archiving summary stated that the McCanns had "failed to demonstrate their innocence." Repeatedly Albertini has asserted that this is what the AG stated in his summary. Not so. Here, yet again, are the relevant paragraphs from the summary:
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
Despite the laboured English of the above translation, the AG clearly states: "We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos." Note the preposition "to," not "by." This is the crux of the whole matter.
As has been manifestly pointed out in this thread and several others on this subject, in a democratic legal system no one is ever required to "prove their innocence." Whether a suspect subject to a police investigation, or an accused at trial, one retains the presumption of innocence until a verdict is handed down in court.
This matter should now, finally, be put to bed.
No not all. As i stated yesterday i have family and work commitments at the moment so i'm not on with the same frequency as previously.
My points are not incorrect at all. You and others of a similar persuasion consistently state that you do not have to "prove innocence" yet none of you attempt to explain why, if that is the case, it is in a report signed off by the AG of Portugal?
You are right that the language is laboured but your assertion that the use "to" implies a different meaning to the use of proving their innocence is wholly false.
What it means of course is that the failure for the group to comply with request for a reconstruction damaged the Mccann's as it failed to prove their innocence.
That does not change the fact that irrespective of the group's reasons for not attending the bottom line is at the end of the incomplete investigation the McCann's had failed to prove their innocence.
Plus of course we have the second use of the term in the report which makes no mention of the cancelled reconstruction as a proof of innocence:
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.
The matter should not be put to bed until you accept the AG's report and the blindingly unambiguous statements that the McCann's failed to prove their innocence to the investigation.
Remember this is not my interpreatation of different words, this is exactly what the AG report said. If you don't understand why it was said and what it means i suggest you contact the AG's office in Portugal to ask them to explain it to you.
It clearly has a basis of viability, for if it did not, then it would not have gone in the AG's report.
You may squawk as much as you like about it not being right or "legal" but it is in there and nothing you will say on this thread will change that fact.
