The Prosecution Shelving of the Madeleine McCann case

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

Great- I have it on my desktop but not here.

GOogle failed me or I failed Google.

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[faithlilly]

You could indeed Martha. It doesn't, however, change the fact.

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[faithlilly]

@ 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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

@ 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.

[faithlilly]

@bedbunker

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

[debunker]

@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.

[Chinagirl]

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!