Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[ferryman]

So baso the McCanns could never be cleared, even if they had been found "not guilty" in court it still wouldn't prove their innocence.  In other words proving their innocence would be an actual impossibility, yet something the PT expected them to be able to do, through a reconstruction.  How bizarre is that?!

The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.

Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.

[G-Unit]

The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.

Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.

I'm pleased to see you agree with the SC judges. The archiving dispatch didn't clear them, as they and their lawyer mistakenly argued.

[G-Unit]

The McCanns have never been defendants to be found either innocent or guilty.  By your own definition like all innocent people they enjoy the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence, in my understanding, is a specific legal term which applies only to those accused of a crime. Unless and until someone is accused it doesn't apply.

[ferryman]

I'm pleased to see you agree with the SC judges. The archiving dispatch didn't clear them, as they and their lawyer mistakenly argued.

Read what I wrote again.

There was never any need for them to be 'cleared'.

The basis upon which their arguido status was imposed was flawed.

[jassi]

The McCanns were not 'cleared' because they were never in need of being 'cleared'.

Rather, the entire basis upon which they were made 'arguido' was found flawed, so the status was dropped.

Where do you get that concept from?

[G-Unit]

Read what I wrote again.

There was never any need for them to be 'cleared'.

The basis upon which their arguido status was imposed was flawed.

What a pity their lawyer didn't think of that instead of the mistaken argument she came up with.

The Prosecutors didn't share your opinion of course;

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[ferryman]

Where do you get that concept from?

'Concept'?

just the only rational interpretation of available information in the files.

[jassi]

'Concept'?

just the only rational interpretation of available information in the files.

You mean something you've made up  and are trying to pass off as fact.  Say no more.

[ferryman]

You mean something you've made up  and are trying to pass off as fact.  Say no more.

Not at all.  The McCanns's arguido status was rushed through just before a change to Portuguese law.

McCann suspect move 'too hasty'
    
Kate and Gerry McCann
The McCanns are formal suspects in Madeleine's disappearance

 McCann's spokesman
The decision by detectives to make Madeleine McCann's parents suspects in her disappearance was too hasty, Portugal's top policeman has said.
Kate and Gerry McCann were named as formal suspects - or "arguidos" - four months after their daughter vanished from their holiday flat in the Algarve.

Alipio Ribeiro, head of the Policia Judiciaria, said another assessment should perhaps have taken place first.

Madeleine disappeared from the resort of Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May.

In an interview with Portugal's Radio Renascenca being broadcast on Sunday, Mr Ribeiro, national director of the PJ - Portugal's equivalent to the CID - stressed he did not give his officers orders about who should be named an arguido.

But he said there was a "certain hastiness" in making the McCanns suspects.

'Act humanely'

The couple's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "Now the national director of the Policia Judiciaria apparently accepts they should not have been made arguido, it follows that there is no case for Kate and Gerry to answer.

"As I have consistently said, Kate and Gerry are entirely innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine."

He urged Portuguese judicial authorities to "act humanely" by removing their arguido status as swiftly as possible.

"If the Portuguese police, under Mr Ribeiro, now do the only proper thing by eliminating Kate and Gerry from their inquiry, they and our own investigators can work together rapidly and effectively to find Madeleine and to bring those responsible for her abduction to justice."

Speaking from Lisbon, the BBC's Alison Roberts said: "It is not clear whether Mr Ribeiro means tactically it was wrong to make them arguidos at that point or that they should not have been made arguidos at all."

She stressed the full text of the interview has not been published yet, adding: "These comments are likely to stir up controversy, but would not carry legal weight.

Forensic tests

"Mr Ribeiro makes the point that he does not give orders to officers to declare arguido status and it would not be normal for him to step in and order them to remove it."

And she emphasised that arguido status was intended as a means of protection, giving those involved in investigations more rights than witnesses - for example over access to lawyers.

Mr Ribeiro has previously expressed caution about the case.

On 10 September - three days after Mr and Mrs McCann were named suspects - he suggested forensic tests had not been conclusive.

Mr and Mrs McCann have been marking the third birthday of their other two children, twins Sean and Amelie, with family friends at their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.

In his latest internet blog entry, Mr McCann wrote: "We hope and pray that they will never have another birthday without Madeleine here."

[Brietta]

What a pity their lawyer didn't think of that instead of the mistaken argument she came up with.

The Prosecutors didn't share your opinion of course;

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Therein lies proof positive of the abrogation of the McCanns legal rights ~ there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects ~ neither was there proof to enable charges to be made.  Denial of that along with other statements made by the appeal court judges have left their final judgement in what should be tatters.  It will be interesting to see how Portugal deals with that situation.

[ShiningInLuz]

Therein lies proof positive of the abrogation of the McCanns legal rights ~ there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects ~ neither was there proof to enable charges to be made.  Denial of that along with other statements made by the appeal court judges have left their final judgement in what should be tatters.  It will be interesting to see how Portugal deals with that situation.

Perhaps I'm being particularly slow today, so please help me out.

How do you get from "there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos" to "there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects"?

These appear to me to be total opposites.  What have I missed?

[Brietta]

Perhaps I'm being particularly slow today, so please help me out.

How do you get from "there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos" to "there was no prior proof justifying them being made suspects"?

These appear to me to be total opposites.  What have I missed?

Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.

[jassi]

I though people were made aguido to give them certain legal rights.

[ferryman]

Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.

The arguido status (of the McCanns) was also rushed through just before a change to Portuguese law that (pre the change!) meant you didn't have to justify your reasons for imposing arguido status.

If the shelved enquiry had missed that deadline, the McCanns' arguido status would certainly not have been legal (by Portuguese law).

[G-Unit]

Quite simply ... there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects ... nor was there evidence against them enabling any charges to be laid.

The prosecutors said;

"there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos"

They didn't say;

"there was neither evidence justifying them being made suspects"