UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 10:34:38 AM

Title: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 10:34:38 AM
I was planning a post starting with the quote from the Prosecutor that there was no evidence to charge the Drs McCann with any criminal offence.

MY desktop is currently unavailable, so I searched on line for it. None of the Anti McCann archives seem to have it according to Google.

Interesting!

MAybe that explains why [ censored word] are so ill-informed.

ANyone have a link to the full absolution on the internet.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 10:45:05 AM
Great- I have it on my desktop but not here.

GOogle failed me or I failed Google.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 10:49:08 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.

You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 10:54:44 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.

You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?

I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 11:05:02 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.

You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?


I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.

The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 11:15:04 AM
You could indeed Martha. It doesn't, however, change the fact.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: Luz on April 05, 2013, 11:21:46 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.



You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?

I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.

TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS?! Are the McCann being investigated for more than the missing of their daughter in Portugal?

And by the way, the "there are no indications" does not mean they are off the hook, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to charge. That's why they never required the re-opening of the process as it meant that they would have to answer the questions they refused to previously.

There is an aspect I feel I have to clarify about the status of arguido. Arguido is a right that is granted to anyone that is subjected to questions whose responses may compromise them - very much like the Miranda in USA. For example the Arguido may lie or not respond while a witness is obliged to answer every question and truly.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 11:22:06 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.



You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?




I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.

The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different.


DO you have a cite for that?

A decision such as this is more than an opinion, it is THE opinion of the Justice system.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 11:32:31 AM
@ bedbunker The cite is freely available on the web and I'm sure you yourself have seen it many times.

That Amaral's opinion, based on the investigation files, is valid has been agreed at appeal. The appeal was also part of the justice system.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
The words of the Portuguese Prosecutor:

"The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime"

Pretty definitive. IMHO.


You would think so, wouldn't you ? So why are you still here defending them some six years later ?







I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.




TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS?! Are the McCann being investigated for more than the missing of their daughter in Portugal?

And by the way, the "there are no indications" does not mean they are off the hook, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to charge. That's why they never required the re-opening of the process as it meant that they would have to answer the questions they refused to previously.

There is an aspect I feel I have to clarify about the status of arguido. Arguido is a right that is granted to anyone that is subjected to questions whose responses may compromise them - very much like the Miranda in USA. For example the Arguido may lie or not respond while a witness is obliged to answer every question and truly.


THe busybody Tony Bennet tried to bring a case against the McCanns for child neglect- it was thrown out as an abuse of process. It remains a crime to kill abroad a British Resident. British police advised the PJ that the family should initially be treated as suspects; they have not sought to further investigate this possible crime.



THe Portuguese decision means that the McCanns now have the same legal status as any other person with the opportunity to have acted against Madeleine.

IT is a myth that the case could be reopened on a simple request with no further evidence- no supporting cite for this has ever been produced despite repeated requests.

REgarding your definition of arguido, you cannot have it both ways. [ censored word] screamed from the rooftops that Arguido meant "suspects" when the McCanns were made arguido; you cannot then claim that the lifting of arguido status does not also lift the suspect label. Either they were never suspects or they ceased to be on removal of their status.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 11:42:15 AM
@ bedbunker The cite is freely available on the web and I'm sure you yourself have seen it many times.

That Amaral's opinion, based on the investigation files, is valid has been agreed at appeal. The appeal was also part of the justice system.

@Fartlillet
(Mess with my handle and I will mess with yours)

IN that case you will have no problem producing a cite for your doubtful suggestion.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
@bedbunker

Hang on to that thought. I'm off to work but will find it for you later.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 11:49:11 AM
@bedbunker

Hang on to that thought. I'm off to work but will find it for you later.

@Fartlillet

IF it was so easy to find you could have posted it. I suspect a delaying tactic in hopes that I will forget. I do not usually forget.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: Chinagirl on April 05, 2013, 11:55:25 AM
The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different.

Gosh - what a strange judicial system must pertain in Portugal, where a ruling by that country's Attorney General can be dismissed as merely "an opinion"!   And therefore, presumably, carries no weight.

If that were the case in the UK, Bennett would be able to argue that Tugendhat J's judgment on him in February is irrelevant, and can be ignored as a different judge may have arrived at a different conclusion!
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 11:57:00 AM
The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different.

Gosh - what a strange judicial system must pertain in Portugal, where a ruling by that country's Attorney General can be dismissed as merely "an opinion"!   And therefore, presumably, carries no weight.

If that were the case in the UK, Bennett would be able to argue that Tugendhat J's judgment on him in February is irrelevant, and can be ignored as a different judge may have arrived at a different conclusion!

MAybe Fartlillet will provide a cite.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: icabodcrane on April 05, 2013, 01:43:23 PM
My understanding is that the Portugues Prosecutor is the equivilant of our own Crown Prosection Service  ...  is that correct  ?

If so,  then his job was to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction

Where the decision not to charge is made  (  as it was in the McCann case )  then the prosecutor explains what additional work or evidence could raise the case to the required standard.  If further evidence is not available, no further action may be taken against the suspect

The Prosecutor in the McCann case pointed out the desirability of a reconstruction of events and highlighted several of the discrepencies such a reconstruction would address

He acknowledged that this additional evidence had been denied to the police

"In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the begining they adhered to that process diligence

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they had 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 costituted arguidos:  their innocence towards the fateful event;  the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarrified
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 01:46:59 PM
The state cannot require an accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. There were no indications that a crime had been committed by the McCanns.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: icabodcrane on April 05, 2013, 02:00:57 PM
The state cannot require an accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. There were no indications that a crime had been committed by the McCanns.

The McCanns were not  'required'  to prove their innocence  ...  that is not what the prosecutor said

He said that they had been afforded the  'opportunity'  to do so, and that  opportunity  had not been taken advantage of

It is fair, then,  to conclude that whilst the Prosecutor felt there was no evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime ,  he was equally persuaded that there was no evidence of their innocence   
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: Luz on April 05, 2013, 02:09:42 PM
(indiscriminated snips)

[/quote]

I am not defending the McCanns. My goal is to examine and destroy fallacious arguments by people insisting they know better than the decisions of two judicial systems.
[/quote]




TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS?! Are the McCann being investigated for more than the missing of their daughter in Portugal?

And by the way, the "there are no indications" does not mean they are off the hook, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to charge. That's why they never required the re-opening of the process as it meant that they would have to answer the questions they refused to previously.

There is an aspect I feel I have to clarify about the status of arguido. Arguido is a right that is granted to anyone that is subjected to questions whose responses may compromise them - very much like the Miranda in USA. For example the Arguido may lie or not respond while a witness is obliged to answer every question and truly.
[/quote]


THe busybody Tony Bennet tried to bring a case against the McCanns for child neglect- it was thrown out as an abuse of process. It remains a crime to kill abroad a British Resident. British police advised the PJ that the family should initially be treated as suspects; they have not sought to further investigate this possible crime.



THe Portuguese decision means that the McCanns now have the same legal status as any other person with the opportunity to have acted against Madeleine.

IT is a myth that the case could be reopened on a simple request with no further evidence- no supporting cite for this has ever been produced despite repeated requests.

REgarding your definition of arguido, you cannot have it both ways. [ censored word] screamed from the rooftops that Arguido meant "suspects" when the McCanns were made arguido; you cannot then claim that the lifting of arguido status does not also lift the suspect label. Either they were never suspects or they ceased to be on removal of their status.
[/quote]


You do love to make noise, don't you?
Yes, arguidos are either persons of interest or suspects...The status is given in order to protect the human and civil rights of anyone that is questioned about a crime and whose responses could incriminate them. There is nothing special about being an Arguido, unless you have committed a crime. And it seems that Mr and Mrs McCann didn't feel comfortable about it - it says a lot.

They were not authorized to leave Portugal - they would have to request that from  the PJ. But as they were under the restriction of not abandoning their residence, which was Rothley, the GNR could not hold them and helped them get to the airport.

Now a little xenoph for you: I wish they had kept their butts in the UK and never came over here.  8**8:/:
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 02:14:29 PM
The state cannot require an accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. There were no indications that a crime had been committed by the McCanns.

The McCanns were not  'required'  to prove their innocence  ...  that is not what the prosecutor said

He said that they had been afforded the  'opportunity'  to do so, and that  opportunity  had not been taken advantage of

It is fair, then,  to conclude that whilst the Prosecutor felt there was no evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime ,  he was equally persuaded that there was no evidence of their innocence   


He is not tasked with deciding innocence. He is tasked with deciding whether there was evidence sufficient to bring charges. The police failed to provide such evidence. Hence no charges were brought.

THe important fact is that Police reports are observations and records of what they think might have happened, but these assumptions arenot tested against the law. It is the job of the prosecutor to make this judgement; he did and decided there was no case to answer
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: icabodcrane on April 05, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
The state cannot require an accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. There were no indications that a crime had been committed by the McCanns.

The McCanns were not  'required'  to prove their innocence  ...  that is not what the prosecutor said

He said that they had been afforded the  'opportunity'  to do so, and that  opportunity  had not been taken advantage of

It is fair, then,  to conclude that whilst the Prosecutor felt there was no evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime ,  he was equally persuaded that there was no evidence of their innocence   


He is not tasked with deciding innocence. He is tasked with deciding whether there was evidence sufficient to bring charges. The police failed to provide such evidence. Hence no charges were brought.



oh I agree, absolutely

Like me,  you must get frustrated when it is suggested the McCanns  were  'cleared'    (  as in, declared innocent )  by the Portuguese Prosecutor

As you point out,  that was never in his remit   
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 02:21:49 PM
The state cannot require an accused to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. There were no indications that a crime had been committed by the McCanns.

The McCanns were not  'required'  to prove their innocence  ...  that is not what the prosecutor said

He said that they had been afforded the  'opportunity'  to do so, and that  opportunity  had not been taken advantage of

It is fair, then,  to conclude that whilst the Prosecutor felt there was no evidence of the McCanns having committed a crime ,  he was equally persuaded that there was no evidence of their innocence   


He is not tasked with deciding innocence. He is tasked with deciding whether there was evidence sufficient to bring charges. The police failed to provide such evidence. Hence no charges were brought.


oh I agree, absolutely

Like me,  you must get frustrated when it is suggested the McCanns  were  'cleared'    (  as in, declared innocent )  by the Portuguese Prosecutor


As you point out,  that was never in his remit

I agree. They are now in the same legal position as any other person with access to Madeleine at that time, or persons controlling such persons.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 05:54:59 PM
@ bedbunker

This tells you all you need to know http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

But I feel the quote below is the most relevant to this discussion :

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: HiDeHo on April 05, 2013, 06:09:58 PM
I had posted this in the VIDEO  thead but felt the information should be availale in this thread also.


The Tavares Intercalary Report was written during the investigation on September 10th 2007 a couple of days after the McCanns were declared Arguidos (suspects) and the day after they returned to UK.

A portion of it with illustrations can be seen on this thread:

From the OFFICIAL PORTUGUESE POLICE FILES (and more)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1085.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1085.0)

It was based on the details of the investigation until that point.

From what I understand, Portuguese law requires after, 8 months (with approved 3 month extensions) Arguido status to be lifted or the Arguido charged with the crime.

On 21st July 2008 the Public Prosecutor  issued his  Archiving Dispatch Final Report a 57 page summary can be seen here (voluntarily translated by 'astro', 'debk' and 'JM'  )

The PJ's Final Report, 57-page summary, 21 July 2008

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html)

It appears that a decision had to be made whether to charge the Arguidos or whether to shelve the case.

The PJ had requested that the McCanns and their friends return to Portugal for a RECONSTRUCTION which could have helped them establish the timeline of that night and ultimately removed doubt about the inconsistent statements. The McCanns and their friends have, to date, refused to comply. ('chose not to attend')

Quote
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.
 
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)

There are two things to keep in mind here.

A reconstruction MAY have helped establish some details that could have helped in the SEARCH for Madeleine, so WHY did the refuse?

 

RECONSTRUCTION: Why McCanns and Tapas 7 won't participate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugXW5LD32Sg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugXW5LD32Sg)



They subsequently returned to Portugal to create their own reconstruction for Channel 4. For unknown reasons the actress chosen to play 'Kate' was never used. WHY did they choose NOT to assist the Portuguese police in the investigation?



McCLIP: 'Kate' Actress not used in McCann Documentary...WHY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcQkNsPT64 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcQkNsPT64)



Partially because the McCanns had refused to help the investigation, the decision was made to 'shelve' the case pending new evidence. (I believe a reconstruction could be classified as new evidence)

The McCanns had the opportunity to have prevent the investigation being shelved but they chose not to use that option. 

They STILL have the option of applying officially to the Public Prosecutor to reopen the case but for reasons unknown they have not used that option either They wanted a 'Review' instead at a cost to taxpayers of approx £4,000,000!

Kate also refused to answer 48 questions which, regardless of whether her lawyer suggested she didn't answer, MAY have helped with the investigation.

The ONE question she did answer was this..

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'



Quote
These are the questions:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45.  When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46.  When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


MCMINUTE: Why didn't Kate McCann answer these 48 QUESTIONS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBE_fM8Sd1I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBE_fM8Sd1I)



I believe it can be clearly seen why the Portuguese Public Prosecutor could do no more than to archive the investigation.

Had the McCanns COMPLIED with the reconstruction and answered the 48 questions they could have helped the investigation and shown their innocence and helped in the SEARCH for their daughter.  They DIDN'T!

The Public Prosecutor needed more evidence and the Portuguese law gives a limited time for anyone to remain Arguido.

The case was SHELVED and the Arguido (suspect) status was lifted and the OFFICIAL POTUGUESE POLICE FILES were released.

However, there was a FURTHER OPTION....

They could have been declared INNOCENT....but they weren't. WHY?



(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy69/HiDeHo1/Madeleine%20private/lusa_zpse5031c25.jpg)



Quote
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann – apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment – or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
 
(...)
 
Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them  and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.
 
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened,  officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.
 
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
 
(...)
 
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
 
Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.
 
Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.
 
Portimão, 21.07.08
 
The Republic's Prosecutor
 
(José de Magalhães e Menezes)
 
The Joint General Prosecutor
 
(João Melchior Gomes)
 
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)



The OFFICIAL PORTUGUESE POLICE FILES (translated)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/)
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 06:21:21 PM
@ bedbunker

This tells you all you need to know http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

But I feel the quote below is the most relevant to this discussion :

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

@fartlillet

Not quite what you claimed and you seem to have truncated your quote to make it seem stronger.

You said

"The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different."

Whereas what they really said was:

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

Where does it say that:

"...the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion"

NOWHERE,

and you omit the rest of the paragraph:

" – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

Which rather changes the meaning of the paragraph.

I will leave it to others to decide whether your acts of commission and omissions were accidental or purposefully misleading.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 05, 2013, 06:34:58 PM
@ bedbunker

Please explain how you think the section I left out alerts what I asserted ?
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: Cudge on April 05, 2013, 06:37:12 PM
@ bedbunker

This tells you all you need to know http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

But I feel the quote below is the most relevant to this discussion :

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

@fartlillet

Not quite what you claimed and you seem to have truncated your quote to make it seem stronger.

You said

"The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different."

Whereas what they really said was:

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

Where does it say that:

"...the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion"

NOWHERE,

and you omit the rest of the paragraph:

" – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

Which rather changes the meaning of the paragraph.

I will leave it to others to decide whether your acts of commission and omissions were accidental or purposefully misleading.

Disingenuous is the word that springs to mind
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: gilet on April 05, 2013, 06:54:44 PM
@ bedbunker

This tells you all you need to know http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

But I feel the quote below is the most relevant to this discussion :

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

@fartlillet

Not quite what you claimed and you seem to have truncated your quote to make it seem stronger.

You said

"The judges at the overturning of the book ban stated that the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion, and if looked at through a different set of learned eyes the conclusions could have been different."

Whereas what they really said was:

'We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates'

Where does it say that:

"...the opinion of the AG was merely that, an opinion"

NOWHERE,

and you omit the rest of the paragraph:

" – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."

Which rather changes the meaning of the paragraph.

I will leave it to others to decide whether your acts of commission and omissions were accidental or purposefully misleading.

Disingenuous is the word that springs to mind

Not the word that sprang to my mind but...

I was trying to think of a single word which sums up "attempting to deceive by selective misquotation" and the only word I could think of was Bennett. Yours is possibly more appropriate though its a close one.
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: debunker on April 05, 2013, 07:01:53 PM
@ bedbunker

Please explain how you think the section I left out alerts what I asserted ?

@Fartlillet

IF you cannot see how it alters the paragraph's meaning, that would explain your other errors.

ANd you have omitted to comment on your serious misquote
Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: faithlilly on April 06, 2013, 12:13:50 AM
@ bedbunker

Please explain how you think the section I left out alerts what I asserted ?

@Fartlillet

IF you cannot see how it alters the paragraph's meaning, that would explain your other errors.

ANd you have omitted to comment on your serious misquote


The broad meaning of the quote, whether in full or as I posted, remains the same. The AG's report was his  interpretation of the facts available which, in his opinion, were not sufficient to lead to a criminal conviction but this was by no means the only interpretation.


Title: Re: The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case
Post by: John on April 06, 2013, 02:37:49 AM
Please keep to topic where possible.