What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose

[Mr Gray]

The principle of innocent until proved guilty is a procedural guide to the treatment of those charged with a crime. As the McCanns were never charged their right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty was never either involved or breached.

 "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.". Article 6, ECHR

I thought we had established it's a right of suspects too

[Carana]

Prior to being charged, you may be hung, drawn and quartered by

a) the media, whether traditional or not;
b) by vigilante action which may be a consequence of the above.

Article 6.100

[Mr Gray]

Prior to being charged, you may be hung, drawn and quartered by

a) the media, whether traditional or not;
b) by vigilante action which may be a consequence of the above.

Article 6.100

From article 6.100

A. General principles
1. The concept of a “criminal charge” has an “autonomous” meaning, independent of the
categorisations employed by the national legal systems of the member States (Adolf v. Austria, § 30).
2. The concept of “charge” has to be understood within the meaning of the Convention. It may thus
be defined as “the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an
allegation that he has committed a criminal offence”

[Carana]

We seem to have two threads going, here and the Operation Task debrief. A bit difficult to know which thread to post on as Op Task is part and parcel of the initial investigation.

Having now read the debrief, it confirms my impression of a chaotic situation.

On the one hand, the PJ were under-resourced (in every sense, including a lack of experience); the UK agencies could offer expertise and other resources, but in the enthusiasm, were perceived as an unwanted foreign "invasion" by the PJ with a pride issue (IMO), understandable to a certain extent, led by a coordinator, himself under investigation in the only other investigation of that nature...

There was no doubt frustration on both sides and, sadly, investigative opportunities were no doubt missed.

IMO, this debrief may well have been a background document for the later "scoping excercise", which eventually led to the UK review/investigation.

[John]

As with most child abduction cases, there was a hive of activity initially as there was hope of recovering the child alive and unharmed but this soon tailed off as it became clear that all might not be as it initially seemed to investigators.  This situation wasn't helped by the various other activities which were going on which only served as a distraction.

The Portuguese police were ill equipped for such a widespread enquiry and so inevitably they attracted much criticism from the British media which ironically were part of the problem.

[Mr Gray]

We know from the files and from amaral that the PJ completely misunderstood the value of the evidence and this misunderstanding convinced them that the McCann's were guilty.....amaral has told us he could prove Maddie died in the partment
This failing to understand took the investigation in the wrong direction imo

[Carana]

As with most child abduction cases, there was a hive of activity initially as there was hope of recovering the child alive and unharmed but this soon tailed off as it became clear that all might not be as it initially seemed to investigators.  This situation wasn't helped by the various other activities which were going on which only served as a distraction.

The Portuguese police were ill equipped for such a widespread enquiry and so inevitably they attracted much criticism from the British media which ironically were part of the problem.

The tabloid media frenzy, both in the UK and in PT, most certainly didn't help.

Neither did the so-called judicial secrecy laws which, in an official vacuum, fuelled speculation. Some will no doubt maintain that judicial secrecy was meticulously maintained: it's really all the fault of that naughty fan in a PJ office that had a tendency to inadvertently blow scraps of paper out the window, unfortunately just as hacks happened to be wandering by.

[Admin]

To be fair, one could probably argue that the initial investigation was fit for purpose by Portuguese standards if the Cipriano debacle was anything to go by but by British standards is an entirely different matter.

[Alice Purjorick]

 What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose:

None

[Mr Gray]

What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose:

None

Then you don't understand what evidence means

[Carana]

To be fair, one could probably argue that the initial investigation was fit for purpose by Portuguese standards if the Cipriano debacle was anything to go by but by British standards is an entirely different matter.

Erm... With several members of the same team.


To be fair, the UK police wasn't a 40-year-old democracy, with several senior officers still used to the "old way" of "dealing" with crime.

The UK has had time to invest in strategy, leading down to investment in training and other resources, perhaps now less so due to financial cutbacks. Not that the UK doesn't screw up, as every country does. Nor is it exempt from bad apples.

Some of the boys from Lisbon seemed on the ball re the phone analysis (although seemingly only concentrated on who the local team were interested in), and a few other aspects, but it's not entirely clear how much influence they had on the local investigation.

By the time that Rebelo got whisked down, it was count-down time until the investigation had to conclude one way or another.

[Alice Purjorick]

Then you don't understand what evidence means

Possibly but that is not the issue.

This is the issue:
"What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose"

The correct answer remains "none"

[Carana]

What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose:

None

I've mentioned a few points, whether you find them valid not is a different matter.

[Carana]

I'm not criticising the poor forensic lady, maybe there was only one glove left in stock.

[Mr Gray]

Possibly but that is not the issue.

This is the issue:
"What evidence is there that the initial investigation was not fit for purpose"

The correct answer remains "none"

you need to add...imo....to your post