Was the refusal to partake in a reconstruction to their detriment?

[stephen25000]

They were not trying consciously to fit up the McCanns. They truly believed that they were guilty, they truly believed the DNA and Dogs, they felt the Justice system was conspiring against them by changing the Arguido terms, they thought they had solved the case. They acted honestly but in the end, stupidly.

There was never enough evidence to secure a conviction- especially when the DNA and dogs were given their true value.

It shows all the hallmarks of the Policeman's Error-

Belief in Certainty of their actions
Belief they had special skills
Distrust of Prosecutors and Legal systems
Distrust of the Press and Public, Home and Abroad
Failure to use rational and scientific critiquing of the operation
Belief that a confession rather than skilled police work was the way to go
Intimidating suspects
Acting beyond their powers or at least attempting to
Briefing the press to get the public on their side
Blaming Politicians
Blaming Foreigners
Blaming anyone but themselves

I could go on, but will stop there. A clear case of Policeman's error.
Over valuing of evidence

The D.N.A, evidence was inconclusive.

FACT.

It has not been disproved that Madeleine died in the apartment.

As long as the case remains unsolved, many people will believe she died there unless there is evidence to the contrary.

You have given a critique of the PJ in the case, now if you're neutral as you claim, now provide a one of the Mccanns.

[stephen25000]

I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.

People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.

"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.

The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.

Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.

Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.

As I stated.

I know exactly who you are, even with a different user name.

That matter has been dealt with.

The Mccanns are totally responsible for what happened in this case and not a fictional abductor.

If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

You like others have an obsession with the PJ, even though you try to hide it.

Now from you, I expect a rationale response, and remember this, Madeleine is the victim, not her parents.

[Angelo222]

I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.

People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.

"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.

The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.

Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.

Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.

You appear to be as outdated as the police you so fondly criticise.   This novel belief in innocent until proven guilty might very well be the utopia you aspire to and believe in but in the real world it is usually a case of guilty until proven innocent.

As far as the op is concerned the McCanns continued resistance to taking part in a reconstruction or reconstitution as Anne calls it is very evident.  This is but one factor which fires this continuing conspiracy beyond the six year point.

[C.Edwards]

This technique has been shown to lead to major miscarriages of justice (this is after all a Justice Board.) For instance, in the US it is quite legal to mislead a suspect (about for instance DNA and Dogs) and then elicit a confession based on fear of death or long term imprisonment; US courts do not see that as illegal but English courts will not allow that under PACE or even previously under Judges Rules where such lying was cause to have the evidence thrown out.

So... what about a hypothetical situation where the DNA tests are underway but there is not yet a clear response and mr. plod tells the suspect, "you know these dna results are going to incriminate you, make it easy on yourself and confess before the results are back and you'll get credit from the judge to make your sentence less..." even though the results aren't yet known?

An innocent person would surely say, "bring it on." The not-so-innocent may get stressed by such a cunning ruse but surely that's the whole point of such a technique - to test the resolve of those who aren't telling the truth.  The hypothetical situation described above does not contain any lies, neither would it cause any confessions elicited to be overruled in an English court.

Nice to see such an influx of people from STM, eh? 

[C.Edwards]

"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.

Here is where you jumped the shark and crossed into complete nonsense.  It was all going so well up until then!

I (and many other sceptics, I'm sure) just *love* the way that you bastions of moral superiority (i.e. Pros) lump every sceptic/doubter into the category marked "dribbling lunatic p-forking h-word with no empathy/compassion".

[stephen25000]

Here is where you jumped the shark and crossed into complete nonsense.  It was all going so well up until then!

I (and many other sceptics, I'm sure) just *love* the way that you bastions of moral superiority (i.e. Pros) lump every sceptic/doubter into the category marked "dribbling lunatic p-forking h-word with no empathy/compassion".

Nicely put C. Edwards.

[C.Edwards]

As I stated.

I know exactly who you are, even with a different user name.

I wasn't sure at first but the posting frequency and style is beginning to look all too familiar.  I'm sure the mods have got an eye on him.

[Benice]

As I stated.

I know exactly who you are, even with a different user name.

That matter has been dealt with.

The Mccanns are totally responsible for what happened in this case and not a fictional abductor.

If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

You like others have an obsession with the PJ, even though you try to hide it.

Now from you, I expect a rationale response, and remember this, Madeleine is the victim, not her parents.

What?     We have intelligent informative posts from 'newbies' and your response is not to enter into civilised debate but to 'deal with them' ?   Why don't you actually read the posts instead of apparently devoting your time to getting rid of the authors.

There are people here with totally opposing viewpoints but who are perfectly capable and willing to enter into reasoned debate  - and to my knowledge this is the only Forum where that actually happens.        The fact that you are not one of them should not be a reason to spoil that  IMO.     

[Albertini]

You do not give any reference for this 'suspect' status. Which law decides who has this status and who does not? If you are just saying that anyone who wants to say they are suspects can do so, then that is probably right (though potentially libelous) but I know of no legal definable status that can be applied or removed that bears any resemblance to your concept of 'suspect'.

May i also extend my warmest welcome back Debunker.

A person suspected of potentially being involved is called a suspect in police investigations the world over.

There is no law to cover whether the police suspect someone, and indeed the suspect remains innocent until proven guilty by a court.

That suspect is still innocent until proven guilty whilst the police investigate and indeed, as in this case, after the case is shelved. 

They are innocent in the eyes of the law and remain so until such time is evidence is found against them or someone else BUT that does not mean the police cannot and do not suspect they may be involved.

Don't be ridiculous about anyone being a suspect. That's plainly ludicrous. Police would suspect those with the means or the motive or the opportunity to carry out the crime.

The parents would automatically assume suspect status given they were the last to see the victim alive and well and that a high number of missing child crimes are committed by family members.

It is then  the job of the police and/or the parents to provide evidence against them or for the parents to  "prove their innocence" to the investigation so they can be ruled out of their enquiries.

Usually in the case of missing children the parents are only too happy to rule themselves out in order that the police may then follow other leads.

[carlymichelle]

May i also extend my warmest welcome back Debunker.

A person suspected of potentially being involved is called a suspect in police investigations the world over.

There is no law to cover whether the police suspect someone, and indeed the suspect remains innocent until proven guilty by a court.

That suspect is still innocent until proven guilty whilst the police investigate and indeed, as in this case, after the case is shelved. 

They are innocent in the eyes of the law and remain so until such time is evidence is found against them or someone else BUT that does not mean the police cannot and do not suspect they may be involved.

Don't be ridiculous about anyone being a suspect. That's plainly ludicrous. Police would suspect those with the means or the motive or the opportunity to carry out the crime.

The parents would automatically assume suspect status given they were the last to see the victim alive and well and that a high number of missing child crimes are committed by family members.

It is then  the job of the police and/or the parents to provide evidence against them or for the parents to  "prove their innocence" to the investigation so they can be ruled out of their enquiries.

Usually in the case of missing children the parents are only too happy to rule themselves out in order that the police may then follow other leads.

well said!!  and oh that is debunker? luckly i have it on ignore

[Albertini]

If you believe that, you are seriously I'll informed. Read the Human Rights Act which in British Law guarantees the right to presumption of innocence.

The McCann never refused to do a reconstruction- the letter is in the files.

How naive! They couldn't refuse due to their arguido status so went about it the back door route by getting their Tapas pals to refuse it knowing their acceptance of it was irrelevant if the others wouldn't take part.

Do you think if the parents really wanted a reconstruction to go ahead their pals would have refused?

Come off it.

[Lyall]

  Any intelligent and compassionate person would support the principle of innocent until proven otherwise. Simple.

I said nothing about the epithets that you use - just a straw man again

Nothing's simple in cases involving missing and/or deceased children Sepe. Some defend the parents irrespective of what happened to their child, and that's been the problem since May 4 2007.

[carlymichelle]

Nothing's simple in cases involving missing and/or deceased children Sepe. Some defend the parents irrespective of what happened to their child, and that's been the problem since May 4 2007.

theres no defence for leaving  3 children under 4 alone NONE

[sadie]

I am not interested in suspects, only in the application of the law. I have a strict rule (possibly unknown to you) which is 'innocent until proven guilty. I have a standing in criticising the exercise of authority in a matter of state versus citizen; I have no standing (legal, personal or practical) in a criminal case against an individual which has been subject to investigation and for which no-one has been charged.

People are free to believe what they want, but may reach limits of the Libel Law or good taste.

"Not being disproved" has no standing in law, or in the lexicon of any intelligent and compassionate person.

The DNA evidence was so inconclusive that the same result could have been achieved by mixing three random Europeans' blood samples.

Congratulations on a post that avoid insults.

Now work on a rational response to the proven existence of the Policeman's Fallacy which is widespread and well investigated.

Pwew!  Brilliant post 

I think I know who you are too.  Welcome back.

sadie x

[C.Edwards]

Pwew!  Brilliant post 

I think I know who you are too.  Welcome back.

sadie x

...and I thought we only had one Sherlock in here...