Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?

[Angelo222]

Who say he said "they are suspected to be involved". Isn't it legitimate to suspect parents to be involved ? Is it outrageous to suspect them when they refuse to answer to police questions, even if it's a right ? Is it a blaspheme to think they didn't say all the truth when they don't claim in the media they're so sorry that their acquaintances found it useless to do a reconstitution ?

Yes, the reconstruction Anne (as we say in England)

Had the tapas 9 wanted to do everything possible to help in the Madeleine case they would have been falling over each other to get back to Praia da Luz in order to take part in a reconstruction.  Truth however is very different which for me says it all.

[gilet]

Yes, the reconstruction Anne (as we say in England)

Had the tapas 9 wanted to do everything possible to help in the Madeleine case they would have been falling over each other to get back to Praia da Luz in order to take part in a reconstruction.  Truth however is very different which for me says it all.

Please tell us what the reconstruction (as envisaged) by the PJ would actually have achieved. How, specifically, would it have helped find the missing child?

[gilet]

Unless SY meanwhile manages to determine the crime, i.e of course necessarily of abduction, a crime, as the AG deplored it, the McCanns couldn't demonstrate since their friends rejected the reconstitution.
This sounds like millions of pounds were wasted.

That you should post such a lie is most odd.

Whether the AG deplored it or not, the fact remains that under neither UK nor Portuguese criminal codes is it invumbent on the defendant to prove his innocence.

And whether he deplored it or not you seem to be forgetting that the AG stated that there were four possible options as to what happened to Madeleine. Two variants of murder and two variants of abduction.

That is the reality.

[icabodcrane]

That you should post such a lie is most odd.

Whether the AG deplored it or not, the fact remains that under neither UK nor Portuguese criminal codes is it invumbent on the defendant to prove his innocence.

And whether he deplored it or not you seem to be forgetting that the AG stated that there were four possible options as to what happened to Madeleine. Two variants of murder and two variants of abduction.

That is the reality.

That is not the reality

The Public Prosecutor did  not  allow for  two variants of  'murder'  ...  he allowed for two variants  of  'homicide' 

There is a very important distinction between the two

When the Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility  of  'Intended Homicide'  he was, indeed, allowing for the possiblity of  'murder'  ...   the crucial element being  'intent'

Homicide   though,   unlike murder,   encompasses the possiblity of a death being caused  without  'intent'

When the Public Prosecutor  concluded that there was a possibility of  Negligent Homicide,  it was precisely this  'lack of intent'  he was allowing for  ....  that a death may have  been caused  unintenionally  ...  an accidental death ...  caused by negligence

[gilet]

That is not the reality

The Public Prosecutor did  not  allow for  two variants of  'murder'  ...  he allowed for two variants  of  'homicide' 

There is a very important distinction between the two

When the Prosecutor concluded that there was a possibility  of  'Intended Homicide'  he was, indeed, allowing for the possiblity of  'murder'  ...   the crucial element being  'intent'

Homicide   though,   unlike murder,   encompasses the possiblity of a death being caused  without  'intent'

When the Public Prosecutor  concluded that there was a possibility of  Negligent Homicide,  it was precisely this  'lack of intent'  he was allowing for  ....  that a death may have  been caused  unintenionally  ...  an accidental death ...  caused by negligence

I accept your correction of my use of the word murder instead of homicide.
However this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making which was that the AG was also specifically allowing for two variants of abduction.
And that under neither code of law (UK or PT) is it incumbent on the accused to prove their innocence.

[icabodcrane]

I accept your correction of my use of the word murder instead of homicide.
However this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making which was that the AG was also specifically allowing for two variants of abduction.
And that under neither code of law (UK or PT) is it incumbent on the accused to prove their innocence.

Neither  Anne  ( who you wrongly accused of  'posting a lie'  ) nor the Public Prosecutor himself,  suggested that it was  'incumbent'  on the McCanns to  'prove their innocence' 

The Public Prosecutor ,  as Anne pointed out,  concluded that the McCanns had been given the  'opportunity'  to prove their innocence,  and had chosen not to take it

You  do concede that there is a difference between 'having  to '  and  'choosing not to'  ? 

The Prosector drew attention to the fact that a police reconstruction had been actively avoided because it had a direct impact on the investigation,  and also,  therefore,   on the conclusion he would ultimately draw

[Mr Gray]

Neither  Anne  ( who you wrongly accused of  'posting a lie'  ) nor the Public Prosecutor himself,  suggested that it was  'incumbent'  on the McCanns to  'prove their innocence' 

The Public Prosecutor ,  as Anne pointed out,  concluded that the McCanns had been given the  'opportunity'  to prove their innocence,  and had chosen not to take it

You  do concede that there is a difference between 'having  to '  and  'choosing not to'  ? 

The Prosector drew attention to the fact that a police reconstruction had been actively avoided because it had a direct impact on the investigation,  and also,  therefore,   on the conclusion he would ultimately draw

I think you will find that both you and anne are wrong as the word "prove" is not in the document

[icabodcrane]

This is a new thread.

Thanks John

We often vere off topic without meaning to,  and it's good that you monitor threads to make sure important points are not lost amongst the flotsam and jetsam

I know you get some stick sometimes for starting threads with a post that has been snipped from an already existing one  ...  but I think it is top-notch modding   


Thank you Icabodcrane

[Luz]

There is a huge difference when one speaks from a criminal investigation point of view and from a legal point of view. To the investigation, every potential suspects is "guilty" until discarded by the investigation itself; from a legal point of view, even if charged, you are "innocent" until proven guilty in a Court of Law.
When potential suspects refuse to partake in any initiative proposed by the criminal investigation, even though they may be innocent, they have chosen to remain suspects.
In the present case, and the Archival Report transmitted that (which is very rare), the most obvious suspects chose to remain so.

The lack of existing evidence to charge anyone is not the same as declaring them innocent.

[Albertini]

So everyone is presumed guilty then? When people choose not to take part in a reconstruction they are exercising their presumption of innocence in practice. They most certainly are not choosing to remain suspects. Your view is a presumption of guilt that puts the onus on them to prove innocence. That is the wrong way round. Like them or not the McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent. They do not have to prove anything. That is what innocent until proven guilty means and the presumption of innocence remains until such time as guilt has been proven. That is for everyone, not just the McCanns.

No, you like other McCann supporters, are confusing the difference between police investigation and criminal trial.

Under law and in a court they are innocenct until proven guilty.

In an investigation all those who may be suspected to have had the opportunity to be involved in a crime have to rule themselves out of the police  investigation to satisfy the police they are not involved. This can take the form of verifiable alibi or physical distance away from the crime scene for example.

When a suspect does not provide evidence of innocence they are not then guilty, far from it, that's where evidence then comes in, but they remain a suspect until such time as they can be ruled out with definitive and verifiable evidence (including of course guilt against another suspect) or until evidence is discovered which shows guilt of those suspects.

As the McCann's have not been able to rule themselves out (and the AG report specifically states the effort they and their friends expended to cancel the reconstruction is directly attributable) in the Portuguese investigation (currently shelved) they will remain suspects (although not arguidos).

[Luz]

You seem to have a strange conception of the Law, the State and Human Rights.

Let us look at your sentences exactly as you constructed them, and question what unspoken assumptions lie behind them:

You said:  "There is a huge difference when one speaks from a criminal investigation point of view and from a legal point of view.  To the investigation, every potential suspects is "guilty" until discarded by the investigation itself; from a legal point of view, even if charged, you are "innocent" until proven guilty in a Court of Law."

There is no justification for this statement. The Police in Portugal and the UK operate under the rule of law. That in its most elevated existence is in the European Declaration on Human Rights which says: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ... Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If the ECHR insists that a charged person must be presumed innocent, then so must an un-charged person. The police are bound to consider any suspect, charged or uncharged, as innocent. The fact that you allow the police to assume guilt is a sign of your bias. And perhaps where this investigation (as many others elsewhere) went wrong. It is the Policeman's Assumption of Guilt- a state of mind that is often rebuffed by Prosecutors.

You then say: "When potential suspects refuse to partake in any initiative proposed by the criminal investigation, even though they may be innocent, they have chosen to remain suspects."

There is no piece of Law that I know of that requires potential suspects to do anything to oppose their supposed condition. In fact the law is always written the other way- that the State must have evidence that allows them to continue to suspect the. Merely refusing to answer questions or do any other bidding of the police does not mean that a person has 'chosen' to remain a suspect. The requirement is for the State to maintain its suggestion that the person is under suspicion. This suggestion needs to be reasonable and sufficient- a fact that was enforced on Portugal days after the McCanns were made arguido.

Are you a police officer. I have dealt with many in my time and they have similar biases to the ones you exhibit above.

Obviously you never worked in criminal investigation.
When there is a crime you have to investigate anyone that could have potentially been involved in it. You have to do everything within your power to find out who is innocent and which ones may be guilty. But if you depart from a stand point that some one is innocent because they say so or because the Media find it lucrative, then you get nowhere.
No, I'm not a police officer. And yes, I have professional experience in criminal investigations.

Repeating myself, but using your own words:
« Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law»; when there is no charge, it is the obligation of the investigative police and other professionals, to consider everybody as potential suspects and to investigate them in order to exonerate or gather evidence to charge them. Everybody is free to avoid giving evidence, but that doesn't help if they are innocent.

[Montclair]

So everyone is presumed guilty then? When people choose not to take part in a reconstruction they are exercising their presumption of innocence in practice. They most certainly are not choosing to remain suspects. Your view is a presumption of guilt that puts the onus on them to prove innocence. That is the wrong way round. Like them or not the McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent. They do not have to prove anything. That is what innocent until proven guilty means and the presumption of innocence remains until such time as guilt has been proven. That is for everyone, not just the McCanns.

Be realistic FGS! This is how all investigations are carried out the world over. As long as an official suspect has not been found, those who are involved in the case will always be considered possible suspects until they have been officially cleared. If they considered everyone innocent until proven guilty the police would not be able to do the investigation. You need only watch the many crime series on television to see how this done.

[Montclair]

Police officers may have a working assumption that someone may have committed an act, but if they start to believe in that assumption and fail to consider alternatives (the policeman's fallacy) then they will make mistakes common to all police and investigatory bodies. Any policeman who loses sight of the true legal status of a suspect- that they are presumed innocent- is in breach of their professional duty.

I guess that you will never understand how criminal investigations are carried out. BTW, policemen consider all alternatives, no matter bizarre they could be.

[Luz]

Police officers may have a working assumption that someone may have committed an act, but if they start to believe in that assumption and fail to consider alternatives (the policeman's fallacy) then they will make mistakes common to all police and investigatory bodies. Any policeman who loses sight of the true legal status of a suspect- that they are presumed innocent- is in breach of their professional duty.

There are no assumptions prior to the observation/gathering of facts. During the investigation nobody can assume that anyone is innocent or guilty. When the first facts are obtained, obviously there is a need to start formulating potential theories, otherwise it would be impossible to investigate.
But I repeat, at the beginning, everyone has to be looked as suspect, only when charged is the person(s) considered innocent until the Court decides that he/she/them are guilty or innocent.

[AnneGuedes]

When witnesses refuse to partake in a reconstitution of events requested by the Ministério Publico to help the investigation, even though they say they have nothing to hide, they surely know there's a good chance that their refusal will originate doubts (why aren't they collaborating in an initiative that likely not but hopefully would boost an investigation where clues and facts are so rare ? Are they afraid to be faced with the discrepancies of their statements ? As the MP made clear the purpose was to clear and not to catch anyone red handed, what actually were they scared of ? What had they to lose in the process ? Etc.). Those doubts (unfortunately taking the simplistic form of "guitly or not guilty?") unless some improbable miracle, are bound to stick to public opinion.
There's no Law system that can erase doubts in people's minds. This surely irksome situation only could be avoided or reduced if media activity was pondered and limited to official reports, during the investigation of such cases.