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: Angelo222 on January 30, 2016, 12:18:00 AM
-
When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent. Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.
56
-
When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent. Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.
With what happened inn the Michael Cook case, The Leonor Cipriano case and in the Madeleine case?
Physical torture , physical torture again and mental torture in ther Mccann case and disinformation in abundance in each case
At that stage with the same group of detectives at the helm, they would have been mad to consider them tbh.
-
When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent. Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.
By the rules of Portuguese Law, The McCanns needed new evidence before they could make such a request, which they didn't have at the time.
-
When they were offered the opportunity to have the case reopened by the investigating authority who counts ie the Portuguese, they were strangely silent. Mr Amaral commented, the parents only had to ask for the case to be reopened but they didn't avail of the opportunity.
Angelo, this was discussed, again, just a few days ago. It was not, as Amaral has asserted, just a matter of a stamp on a letter.
G-Unit dug out the relevant passage:
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.
-
Angelo, this was discussed, again, just a few days ago. It was not, as Amaral has asserted, just a matter of a stamp on a letter.
G-Unit dug out the relevant passage:
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.
I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;
Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.
Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.
Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.
-
I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;
Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.
Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.
Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.
As you said, the key point in the instruction phase is whether a trial should take place or not. That may well be important if you have been charged, but how does it help against a decision to archive the case?
-
I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;
Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.
Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.
Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.
Sufficed to do what?
Keeping the investigation open would have required providing new evidence that hadn't been taken into account in the archival ruling.
Where do you start? And how are you supposed to provide that new evidence that would have overturned the ruling?
-
I have no cite for this, but as I understand it;
Once the archiving was announced, the arguidos had 20 days to ask for the case to move to the 'instruction' phase. This involves an 'instruction judge' holding an autonomous investigation and an instruction debate between all the parties. At the end of this the judge decides whether a trial should take place or not.
Asking for this would have given the McCanns' lawyer a chance to put their arguments to a judge. Had he decided not to proceed to trial it would have helped to allay suspicions, I would think.
Even after the 20 day deadline offering to take part in the reconstruction or to answer the questions Kate declined to answer would have sufficed.
please do not state your opinion as fact...it detracts from your credibility.
-
Sufficed to do what?
Keeping the investigation open would have required providing new evidence that hadn't been taken into account in the archival ruling.
Where do you start? And how are you supposed to provide that new evidence that would have overturned the ruling?
Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....
-
Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....
How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.
It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.
-
How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.
It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.
In Portuguese ....
Robert Murat had a head-start on them there.
He could read Portuguese.
But it would have been a tall order, even for him ....
-
In Portuguese ....
Robert Murat had a head-start on them there.
He could read Portuguese.
But it would have been a tall order, even for him ....
I have no idea whether Murat was privy to the entire process file or not.
What on earth could he have presented as evidence to overturn the archiving ruling?
-
Especially hard on the heels of a shelved investigation that was deemed to have exhausted all extant avenues ....
There was a diligence which couldn't be carried out due to the witnesses refusing to take part in the reconstruction. Approaching the PJ and offering to take part would have constituted new evidence I would think.
-
How on earth were they supposed to have read and digested the entire process and pinpointed what could have been investigated further within 20 days (even allowing for the summer recess) in order to keep the investigation active.
It would have required new "pertinent, relevant and credible" evidence to have overturned the verdict... which was to archive the case.
What were they paying lawyers for?
-
There was a diligence which couldn't be carried out due to the witnesses refusing to take part in the reconstruction. Approaching the PJ and offering to take part would have constituted new evidence I would think.
How, bearing in mind the laws?
-
How, bearing in mind the laws?
It would have allowed quite a few points to be clarified;
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi7
-
How would any of that have overturned the decision to archive the process with a view to continuing the search for a missing child, bearing in mind the laws?
-
How would any of that have overturned the decision to archive the process with a view to continuing the search for a missing child, bearing in mind the laws?
The process was archived because the PJ had no more diligences to perform. Agreeing to the reconstruction would have allowed that diligence to be performed, may have uncovered new evidence and could have had the added bonus of clearing up PJ suspicions about the parents. That would have been a win-win situation all round.
-
It is known why, less or more, The MPS are/were involved in the case. The MPS also remind everyone that the Portuguese have primacy in the investigation. It has also been suggested that the Portuguese had started to review the original investigation before The MPS started their review in 2011. The Portuguese reopened their investigation in October 2013.
Portuguese law vis a vis reopening archived cases presumably had not changed worth a damn since July 2008.
So what new evidence had been found to justify reopening the case by the Portuguese judiciary?
There have been no charges or arrests made public in the ensuing two and a bit years as a consequence of the new evidence.
-
It is known why, less or more, The MPS are/were involved in the case. The MPS also remind everyone that the Portuguese have primacy in the investigation. It has also been suggested that the Portuguese had started to review the original investigation before The MPS started their review in 2011. The Portuguese reopened their investigation in October 2013.
Portuguese law vis a vis reopening archived cases presumably had not changed worth a damn since July 2008.
So what new evidence had been found to justify reopening the case by the Portuguese judiciary?
There have been no charges or arrests made public in the ensuing two and a bit years as a consequence of the new evidence.
are you really not aware of the answer to this...the feeble new evidence the pj came up with to save their embarrassment
-
The process was archived because the PJ had no more diligences to perform. Agreeing to the reconstruction would have allowed that diligence to be performed, may have uncovered new evidence and could have had the added bonus of clearing up PJ suspicions about the parents. That would have been a win-win situation all round.
How so?
-
The process was archived because the PJ had no more diligences to perform. Agreeing to the reconstruction would have allowed that diligence to be performed, may have uncovered new evidence and could have had the added bonus of clearing up PJ suspicions about the parents. That would have been a win-win situation all round.
First you have to explain how ten people can recreate their movements to the necessary level of accuracy required for it to be of any use - when 9 of them could only give approximate times of their movements.
All an attempted recon would prove IMO - is that is not possible to achieve the above in bold.
How were the PJ going to arrange for the weather to be exactly the same as it was on 3rd May?
I've asked these questions before - but no-one has come up with an answer.
-
First you have to explain how ten people can recreate their movements to the necessary level of accuracy required for it to be of any use - when 9 of them could only give approximate times of their movements.
All an attempted recon would prove IMO - is that is not possible to achieve the above in bold.
How were the PJ going to arrange for the weather to be exactly the same as it was on 3rd May?
I've asked these questions before - but no-one has come up with an answer.
Aside from that, how would it have contributed to the required "credible, pertinent and relevant" new evidence needed to investigate hitherto ignored leads?
-
First you have to explain how ten people can recreate their movements to the necessary level of accuracy required for it to be of any use - when 9 of them could only give approximate times of their movements.
All an attempted recon would prove IMO - is that is not possible to achieve the above in bold.
How were the PJ going to arrange for the weather to be exactly the same as it was on 3rd May?
I've asked these questions before - but no-one has come up with an answer.
Firstly, DCI Redwod told us he forensically examined the timeline. I would love to know how he knew that what he was examining was accurate, given what you have just said!
I can think of some things the PJ could have done anyway. I would like to know what time the meal began and how long it took to complete. This could be compared with the statements and would demonstrate any differences. There was nothing to stop the PJ from interviewing the Tapas staff again with regard to this question. I have read that the whole meal was over on another evening by 9.30pm.
There was also nothing to stop the PJ from visiting the site at 9.15pm and seeing if a person wearing flip-flops could pass two others without being seen or heard. I would have asked (in the rogs) why Matt didn't go with Kate at 10pm, because his child was surely due another check.
-
Firstly, DCI Redwod told us he forensically examined the timeline. I would love to know how he knew that what he was examining was accurate, given what you have just said!
I can think of some things the PJ could have done anyway. I would like to know what time the meal began and how long it took to complete. This could be compared with the statements and would demonstrate any differences. There was nothing to stop the PJ from interviewing the Tapas staff again with regard to this question. I have read that the whole meal was over on another evening by 9.30pm.
There was also nothing to stop the PJ from visiting the site at 9.15pm and seeing if a person wearing flip-flops could pass two others without being seen or heard. I would have asked (in the rogs) why Matt didn't go with Kate at 10pm, because his child was surely due another check.
Probably much more effectively than any reconstruction could, and secure in the knowledge that principal witnesses had given information truthfully to the best of their (honest) recollections.
-
By the rules of Portuguese Law, The McCanns needed new evidence before they could make such a request, which they didn't have at the time.
According to Amaral they could have had it reopened very easily because there were new elements of evidence which were never taken into account.
snip
Exclusive interview with Goncalo Amaral on 23rd February 2009
GA: Now a process of this kind that is archived like this and remains waiting for better evidence, it needs just that: new elements of evidence, which means, new data. There are situations in the process which in our opinion have not been taken into account, which have not even been read or became known to those who had the duty to know it. Namely that statement from the couple of English doctors who mention a vacation in Mallorca, those situations where there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people who were on vacation and not even that was taken into account, because they didn't read it, they had no knowledge. I cannot believe that they read such statements and passed over them.
If eventually those persons would make a new statement, again, with other details, certainly there are details that they didn't remember, the process might be reopened. But also other data, other situations that might lead to the reopening of the process, namely someone from within the group may come to talk about something, for example, the invention of the surveillance scheme; it would have to be reopened. There are situations, like the FSS's work, if some report appears, which might exist, that in fact there were not only 15 alleles but more than 15 alleles from the little girl's DNA profile, situations of this type have to lead to the reopening of the process.
The political will does not exist; there is no political will to reopen at the moment, because if there was a political will it would mean that there was a political will before the process was closed, in order to continue the investigation. And when a process of this type is archived, with so many diligences to take care of, with so many facts that needed clarification, that's because there was no will to continue the investigation and that was clear when we left the investigation on the 2nd of October [2007]. That will was lacking, what was necessary was to archive the process, there was a strong will to archive the process. Now, it will be very difficult for the process to be reopened but every citizen has a word to say and there are ways to intervene with the Attorney General in a manner that the process is reopened.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
-
According to Amaral they could have had it reopened very easily because there were new elements of evidence which were never taken into account.
Such as?
I hope that you aren't thinking of Sargento's non-missing pink blanket...
-
In the bad old days, in Portugal, getting convictions was easy; solving crimes and apprehending the guilty much more difficult.
The above extract depressingly illustrates why ...
-
Probably much more effectively than any reconstruction could, and secure in the knowledge that principal witnesses had given information truthfully to the best of their (honest) recollections.
Most of the truthful and honest recollections made no sense.
-
Such as?
I hope that you aren't thinking of Sargento's non-missing pink blanket...
I've posted the quote and the link.
-
Amaral was all in favour of the process being reopened. Now it has been.
What's the problem?
-
Amaral was all in favour of the process being reopened. Now it has been.
What's the problem?
There is no problem. Both sides should be positively ecstatic that the case has been reopened and is being investigated by two police forces. That's what they wanted that's what they have. Watch this space.
-
There is no problem. Both sides should be positively ecstatic that the case has been reopened and is being investigated by two police forces. That's what they wanted that's what they have. Watch this space.
Members of one side seem very sour about the cost of the investigation and seem to want it to be wound up asap...
-
Members of one side seem very sour about the cost of the investigation and seem to want it to be wound up asap...
I am sure it will be.
But the winding up will be at the initiation of the old bill imo.
-
Members of one side seem very sour about the cost of the investigation and seem to want it to be wound up asap...
I doubt they care very much about the cost of the operation (at least most of them)
They just want to maximise pain and misery inflicted on Kate and Gerry.
That is because they hate them ....
-
Sufficed to do what?
Keeping the investigation open would have required providing new evidence that hadn't been taken into account in the archival ruling.
Where do you start? And how are you supposed to provide that new evidence that would have overturned the ruling?
Is a twenty day time limit sufficient to have the DVDs of the files translated and then studied? I think not, judging by the amount of time it took for Scotland Yard to do so.
-
Is a twenty day time limit sufficient to have the DVDs of the files translated and then studied? I think not, judging by the amount of time it took for Scotland Yard to do so.
As I understood it there was no need for new evidence within the 20 day time limit, just a request for the 'instruction' stage to be begun.
-
As I understood it there was no need for new evidence within the 20 day time limit, just a request for the 'instruction' stage to be begun.
And what are you basing your understanding on
I presume it is not your extensive knowledge of Portuguese law
-
And what are you basing your understanding on
I presume it is not your extensive knowledge of Portuguese law
I'm sure you can look at the relevant legislation and disprove what I'm saying. Please feel free.
-
As I understood it there was no need for new evidence within the 20 day time limit, just a request for the 'instruction' stage to be begun.
The instruction phase being?
-
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.
-
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.
They had a Portuguese lawyer or two did they not?
-
Here are the two articles in question from the 2007 Penal Process Code:
Artigo 278.o
Intervenção hierárquica
1 — No prazo de 20 dias a contar da data em que a abertura de instrução já não puder ser requerida, o imediato superior hierárquico do magistrado do Ministério Público pode, por sua iniciativa ou a requerimento do assistente ou do denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente, determinar que seja formulada acusação ou que as investigações prossigam, indicando, neste caso, as diligências a efectuar e o prazo para o seu cumprimento.
2 — O assistente e o denunciante com a faculdade de se constituir assistente podem, se optarem por não requerer a abertura da instrução, suscitar a intervenção hierárquica, ao abrigo do número anterior, no prazo previsto para aquele requerimento.
Artigo 279.o
Reabertura do inquérito
1 — Esgotado o prazo a que se refere o artigo anterior, o inquérito só pode ser reaberto se surgirem novos elementos de prova que invalidem os fundamentos invocados pelo Ministério Público no despacho de arquivamento.
2 — Do despacho do Ministério Público que deferir ou recusar a reabertura do inquérito há reclamação para o superior hierárquico imediato.
With thanks to Joana for the translation:
Article 278 - Hierarchical Intervention
1) During the period of 20 days counting after the date when the opening of the instruction can no longer be requested, the immediate hierarchical superior of the magistrate from the Public Ministry may, by is own initiative or by request of the assistant or of the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, determine that the accusation is formally made or that the investigation proceeds, indicating, in this case, which are the diligences to be made as well as the deadline within which they must be completed.
2) The assistant and the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant may, if they opt not to request the opening of the instruction, appeal for a hierarchical intervention, according to the previous article, within the deadline foreseen for said appeal.
Article 279 - Reopening of the Inquest
1) After the ending of the deadline which is referred in the previous article, the inquest can only be reopened if new elements of proof emerge which invalidate the fundamentation argued by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch.
2) From the dispatch of the Public Ministry which delays or refuses the reopening of the inquest there is a complaint made to the immediate hierarchical superior. [This part means that one can appeal to, and make a complaint of the Public Ministry's decision to archive the inquest, but only if the number one of this article is established]
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/open-letter-doubts-on-mccann-process.html
The despatch also mentions 287 1.b, which I can't find in English. It seems to concern the ability for an assistente to request the opening of the instruction phase to clarify the facts as to why no charges were laid.
Artigo 287o
Requerimento para abertura da instrução
1 – A abertura da instrução pode ser requerida, no prazo de 20 dias a contar da notificação da acusação ou do arquivamento:
a) Pelo arguido, relativamente a factos pelos quais o Ministério Público ou o assistente, em caso de procedimento dependente de acusação particular, tiverem deduzido acusação; ou
b) Pelo assistente, se o procedimento não depender de acusação particular, relativamente a factos pelos quais o Ministério Público não tiver deduzido acusação.
-
Coming back to this hierarchical intervention business, once the deadline for calling for an instruction had passed (and I haven't checked how long that deadline is), they could, with assistente status, and within 20 days, have requested specific diligences to be carried out (with an indication of the time needed).
My understanding it that that would make sense in a case in which the McCanns felt that it was glaringly obvious that X should be charged but specific actions needed to be undertaken to provide more evidence.
Beyond that, getting the case reopened required fresh evidence that was considered important enough to move the case forward.
Article 278 - Hierarchical Intervention
1) During the period of 20 days counting after the date when the opening of the instruction can no longer be requested, the immediate hierarchical superior of the magistrate from the Public Ministry may, by is own initiative or by request of the assistant or of the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant, determine that the accusation is formally made or that the investigation proceeds, indicating, in this case, which are the diligences to be made as well as the deadline within which they must be completed.
2) The assistant and the denouncer with capacity to be constituted as an assistant may, if they opt not to request the opening of the instruction, appeal for a hierarchical intervention, according to the previous article, within the deadline foreseen for said appeal.
-
So they had 20 days in which to ask for an 'instruction' phase to be opened. Once that deadline passed they had another 20 days to request hierarchically that the investigation should continue. Had they offered to do the reconstruction I think that would have been carried out.
-
So they had 20 days in which to ask for an 'instruction' phase to be opened. Once that deadline passed they had another 20 days to request hierarchically that the investigation should continue. Had they offered to do the reconstruction I think that would have been carried out.
I haven't found what the deadline was for requesting an instruction phase. It's whenever that deadline had passed that there were 20 days to pinpoint what exactly the PJ ought to have checked but hadn't.
ETA: Yes, the deadline was 20 days to request that the case go to instruction (which is when the instruction judge and the other bods get together to see if there was enough evidence to lay charges).
-
I haven't found what the deadline was for requesting an instruction phase. It's whenever that deadline had passed that there were 20 days to pinpoint what exactly the PJ ought to have checked but hadn't.
ETA: Yes, the deadline was 20 days to request that the case go to instruction (which is when the instruction judge and the other bods get together to see if there was enough evidence to lay charges).
I can understand why they just gave up and went home after being made arguidos, whether they were innocent or guilty. I can't understand why, from the safety of the UK, they didn't ask for the investigation to continue. They had more than nine months to make a case for it.
-
So they had 20 days in which to ask for an 'instruction' phase to be opened. Once that deadline passed they had another 20 days to request hierarchically that the investigation should continue. Had they offered to do the reconstruction I think that would have been carried out.
That's not my understanding at all.
Mine is that the situation was that the prosecutor had weighed up what was in the files and had decided that there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone.
The McCanns could have argued that there was enough evidence to charge X on the basis of what was already in the files. Or that there was a clear indication as to where Madeleine was and what had happened to her.
Failing that, they had 20 more days to get the PJ to check out a, b, or c to see if that could lead to fresh evidence to nail X (and hopefully find Madeleine). Technically, that would have kept the investigation going for however more days were needed for the PJ to check out the specific points.
As nothing emerged during that time to be able to consider laying charges, the case was formally archived.
What on earth would have been the point of asking for a reconstruction? The prosecutor had decided to archive it despite the fact that the recon hadn't taken place. It wouldn't have set the investigation clock back to zero.
-
I can understand why they just gave up and went home after being made arguidos, whether they were innocent or guilty. I can't understand why, from the safety of the UK, they didn't ask for the investigation to continue. They had more than nine months to make a case for it.
Because they needed to find and present new evidence...
-
Because they needed to find and present new evidence...
I think we will have to agree to disagree. The PJ gave up on the case, it seems to me, when the reconstruction was refused. Had the group agreed to do it the PJ could hardly have refused. Imagine the headlines! I think it would fulfill what you wrote;
Failing that, they had 20 more days to get the PJ to check out a, b, or c to see if that could lead to fresh evidence
-
I think we will have to agree to disagree. The PJ gave up on the case, it seems to me, when the reconstruction was refused. Had the group agreed to do it the PJ could hardly have refused. Imagine the headlines! I think it would fulfill what you wrote;
Failing that, they had 20 more days to get the PJ to check out a, b, or c to see if that could lead to fresh evidence
LOL
I understand the diligences (in the context of the legal code concerning the hierarchical intervention point) are a means of obtaining extra evidence in order to push for charges.
How would a recon have helped them to do that? And to push for charges against whom? Themselves?
-
LOL
I understand the diligences (in the context of the legal code concerning the hierarchical intervention point) are a means of obtaining extra evidence in order to push for charges.
How would a recon have helped them to do that? And to push for charges against whom? Themselves?
As was pointed out, the reconstruction may have allowed them to demonstrate their innocence.
-
As was pointed out, the reconstruction may have allowed them to demonstrate their innocence.
it is pretty well impossible to demonstrate innocence...after two full trials Barry George has still not managed..it is an absolutely ridiculous concept
-
As was pointed out, the reconstruction may have allowed them to demonstrate their innocence.
But it wouldn't have sent the PJ back to the drawing board to start from scratch once the appeal clock was ticking (nor even when Rebelo tried to get one organised). It was a matter of archiving the process or charging someone.
When it might have made a difference to the course of the investigation was right at the beginning - but the PJ decided against it.
-
But it wouldn't have sent the PJ back to the drawing board to start from scratch once the appeal clock was ticking (nor even when Rebelo tried to get one organised). It was a matter of archiving the process or charging someone.
When it might have made a difference to the course of the investigation was right at the beginning - but the PJ decided against it.
The only way reconstructions can assist an investigation is by prompting memories and encouraging new witnesses to come forward, a use strictly prohibited by Portuguese secrecy laws (as were then; it may have changed since)
-
it is pretty well impossible to demonstrate innocence...after two full trials Barry George has still not managed..it is an absolutely ridiculous concept
I still can't see how coming back to do one at that late stage would have helped.
If they had gone back either during Rebelo time or as part of an appeal to keep the investigation going:
- The recon could have shown their movements to be plausible within the limits of circumstances that had changed (lighting) or which couldn't be assured to be identical (wind), or simply the fact that various people couldn't agree on exactly where they were positioned on the street (the trio).
- With hindsight unlikely under Rebelo, but there was still the risk that the PJ could have decided that as they couldn't agree one year later where they were in the street, then they must have been lying. And that's if they weren't ordered to move according to PJ preconceived scenarios.
I'm not even sure that the prosecutor / judge would have been willing to accept the request as, unless they were going back to demonstrate that they were guilty (which doesn't make much sense), it wouldn't have changed the end result.
-
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far. Madeleleine's parents were undoubtedly extremely relieved when the Archive was decided and they were released from their arguido status, this allowed them an opportunity to get home and start to rebuild their lives. I couldn't see them being in any great rush to have the case reopened given the direction it had taken. Unfortunately, this did little for the search for Madeleine.
-
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far. Madeleleine's parents were undoubtedly extremely relieved when the Archive was decided and they were released from their arguido status, this allowed them an opportunity to get home and start to rebuild their lives. I couldn't see them being in any great rush to have the case reopened given the direction it had taken. Unfortunately, this did little for the search for Madeleine.
Unless there was an obvious "smoking gun" that the McCanns could have identified within the judicial timeframe, there wasn't much else to do other than wade through the files hunting for potential needles in the haystack...
-
Unless there was an obvious "smoking gun" that the McCanns could have identified within the judicial timeframe, there wasn't much else to do other than wade through the files hunting for potential needles in the haystack...
Or employ failed PIs after failed PIs after failed PIs...but never mind, maybe their next set will find their child, succeed where 3 police forces/7 sets of PIs/their own efforts / counting on 20m or so failed, like thats gonna happen