Former McCann PI "Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper?"

[Mr Gray]

The SC offered no judgement on their innocence or guilt. It dealt with just one scenario;

The McCanns claimed, in their appeal, that the archiving dispatch cleared them.
In reply, the SC judges said it didn't.

Didn't they claim the archiving report was evidence of innocence and the SC disagreed
There's a big diference between the two

[ferryman]

Refer to post 524 above.

I'm hoping that people with influence are taking it up with the Supreme Court.

[Brietta]

Would anyone who knew that Madeleine was a kidnap victim have any crisis of conscience about it after living with the knowledge for ten years?

Perhaps anyone 'in the know' is quite content with the situation as it is. 

There seems to be little encouragement for feelings of guilt to be generated; particularly if they are familiar with the attitudes expressed and publicised on the internet, to which they might even be instigators and/or contributors.

Perhaps those who ignorantly push the failed Amaral death thesis have a bigger role in protecting Madeleine McCann's kidnapper than they could possibly realise.

[G-Unit]

The archiving dispatch did know who committed no crime, and very clearly stated that.

There ought to be the rub.

1. It is not the job of the Public Prosecutors to decide on anyone's guilt or innocence.
2. Unless the crime is identified no-one can be declared innocent.
3. Three SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch did not clear the McCanns, and they are the experts on Portuguese law.

[Robittybob1]

The SC offered no judgement on their innocence or guilt. It dealt with just one scenario;

The McCanns claimed, in their appeal, that the archiving dispatch cleared them.
In reply, the SC judges said it didn't.

If there was no crime how could they be guilty of anything?  It seems a very circular argument.

[John]

If there was no crime how could they be guilty of anything?  It seems a very circular argument.

G-unit is correct Rob, the Supreme Court had to address the claim by the McCanns and did so. A veritable own goal in any language. The SC merely confirmed what many have stated for nearly ten years and that it that the Archiving Report cleared nobody. At the time the investigation had hit a brick wall, the Attorney General had no option but to archive the investigation due to a lack of evidence. He did state that it could be reopened at any time for as long as the case remained unsolved.

[ferryman]

1. It is not the job of the Public Prosecutors to decide on anyone's guilt or innocence.
2. Unless the crime is identified no-one can be declared innocent.
3. Three SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch did not clear the McCanns, and they are the experts on Portuguese law.

It is the job of prosecutors to decide whether there is a basis for pressing charges against someone.

If they decide there isn't, their conclusion is that the person (or persons) has/have no case to answer.

The McCanns had and have no case to answer.

Madeleine's kidnappers do. 

If Operation Grange bring Madeleine's kidnappers to book, the Supreme Court judges will look very silly.

[stephen25000]

Would anyone who knew that Madeleine was a kidnap victim have any crisis of conscience about it after living with the knowledge for ten years?

Perhaps anyone 'in the know' is quite content with the situation as it is. 

There seems to be little encouragement for feelings of guilt to be generated; particularly if they are familiar with the attitudes expressed and publicised on the internet, to which they might even be instigators and/or contributors.

Perhaps those who ignorantly push the failed Amaral death thesis have a bigger role in protecting Madeleine McCann's kidnapper than they could possibly realise.

We do not know she was a kidnap victim.

Perhaps, as you have stated to me and others,  it is best not to post opinion as fact

[ferryman]

G-unit is correct Rob, the Supreme Court had to address the claim by the McCanns and did so. A veritable own goal in any language. The SC merely confirmed what many have stated for nearly ten years and that it that the Archiving Report cleared nobody. At the time thev investigation had hit a brick wall, the Attorney General had no option but to archive the investigation due to a lack of evidence.

Is it not salutary, though, John, that Operation Grange's remit is to treat Madeleine's abduction as if her abduction had happened in England?

[stephen25000]

It is the job of prosecutors to decide whether there is a basis for pressing charges against someone.

If they decide there isn't, their conclusion is that the person (or persons) has/have no case to answer.

The McCanns had and have no case to answer.

Madeleine's kidnappers do. 

If Operation Grange bring Madeleine's kidnappers to book, the Supreme Court judges will look very silly.

You are at it as well.


The crime, if one occurred hasn't been determined.

[stephen25000]

Is it not salutary, though, John, that Operation Grange's remit is to treat Madeleine's abduction as if her abduction had happened in England?

Let's have some proof of abduction, and not rhetoric ferryman.

[John]

It is the job of prosecutors to decide whether there is a basis for pressing charges against someone.

If they decide there isn't, their conclusion is that the person (or persons) has/have no case to answer.

The McCanns had and have no case to answer.

Madeleine's kidnappers do. 

If Operation Grange bring Madeleine's kidnappers to book, the Supreme Court judges will look very silly.

Firstly the prosecutors were unable to make that determination as to whether there was a case to answer.  The Attorney General was clear about this when he stated that the McCann arguidos had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed because the reconstruction requested by Portuguese investigators was thwarted and never took place.  That for them is most unfortunate but I suspect there is a lot which went on between witnesses which brought this situation about.  Such conduct would never have been tolerated had the suspected crime occurred in England.

[Alice Purjorick]

Would anyone who knew that Madeleine was a kidnap victim have any crisis of conscience about it after living with the knowledge for ten years?

Perhaps anyone 'in the know' is quite content with the situation as it is. 

There seems to be little encouragement for feelings of guilt to be generated; particularly if they are familiar with the attitudes expressed and publicised on the internet, to which they might even be instigators and/or contributors.

Perhaps those who ignorantly push the failed Amaral death thesis have a bigger role in protecting Madeleine McCann's kidnapper than they could possibly realise.

An interesting postulation.
Considering there has been no resolution to the mystery you are in no position to say with any degree of certainty whether or not Sr Amaral's thesis has failed? What are you using as your bench mark for failure?
If you seriously believe that, say my belief that Sr Amaral could be right is manifesting itself as aid and succour to a kidnapper, who may or may not exist, then may be TocH has a position for you to fill.

[ferryman]

Firstly the prosecutors were unable to make that determination as to whether there was a case to answer.  The Attorney General was clear about this when he stated that the McCann arguidos had failed to demonstrate what they had claimed because the reconstruction requested by Portuguese investigators was thwarted and never took place.  That for them is most unfortunate but I suspect there is a lot which went on between witnesses which brought this situation about.  Such conduct would never have been tolerated had the suspected crime occurred in England.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

[John]

Members should not post opinion as fact.  Please keep the following in mind when commenting.

* It is unknown what happened to Madeleine McCann.
* Abduction and every other scenario are unproven.
* It is unknown what SY think.