Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[SapphireSteel]

The final report states that they cannot conclude the investigation or carry it any further until they get cooperation and clarity from those involved.

It DOES NOT state "The McCann is innocent and uninvolved".

Despite Team McCann reports to the contrary.

Amaral has said that all it would take for the investigation to be reopened would be a letter requesting it from Kate and Gerry.

This letter has not been written.

In my opinion, this is because they do not want the case reopened.

:furious:

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

Amarel is incorrect (this is a convicted criminal with a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, so i am not sure he is someone to trust), it needs new evidence according to the PJ and AG of portugal.

The final report states quiete clearly the mccanns are not guilty, that they have no explanation as to how they could possibly have removed the body from the flat, and that the evidence they thought they had against them when they were made arguidos did not turn out be any such thing.

The same report also stated Murat was not guilty.

 

[Clutchbag]

Amarel is incorrect (this is a convicted criminal with a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, so i am not sure he is someone to trust), it needs new evidence according to the PJ and AG of portugal.

The final report states quiete clearly the mccanns are not guilty, that they have no explanation as to how they could possibly have removed the body from the flat, and that the evidence they thought they had against them when they were made arguidos did not turn out be any such thing.

The same report also stated Murat was not guilty.

the final report does not state anyones innocence at all, all it states is that no evidence of a crime committed was found therefore they were released of suspect status
in britain its called released without charge, only a jury can vote on guilt or innocence, there has been no court case therefore no guilt or innocence has been established legally in any way shape or form

Therefore a citation is needed for the claim that the final report has declared them not guilty

 

[SapphireSteel]

Perhaps Andy Redmond and his team will shed some light once they've finished going through the 40,000 pieces of information - oh wait, he has already decided it's a "criminal act by a stranger" hasn't he? Even though they're only a quarter of the way through?

:banghead:

This declaration is based on as yet unprocessed information, so it is quite remarkable that Andy has managed for form an opinion at all, let alone spare the time to go on tv and talk about it. Perhaps he's clairvoyant?

:dunno:

 

[brit1981]

Well since there were only nine adults there that were not strangers to madeleine it may be he has seen enough to be able to rule them out as suspects. Police investigations rule people out as the investigation proceeds. Since not one person here has seen the evidence he has seen, nor knows exactly what evidence he based his opinion on one cannot claim he is just guessing.

cluthbag
Innocence is a person's automatic status. It doe snot need to be established, only guilt needs to be established. In the Uk a jury cannot rule on innocence or guilt at all. they can only rule guilty beyond all reasonable doubt or not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. people are innocent by default.
It is taken as a given that every person, me, you, the mccanns included, are innocent until they are proven guilty. Therefore police do not make a point of declaring innocence because it is a given that the person is innocent. Look at the McAlpine case in the UK. No police force has come out and said he is innocent because they do not need to since he has never been found guilty or even tried for the crimes he was accused of committing by vile individuels who should have remembered the law. Therefore thousands of people on twitter are going to get sued, and may even face criminal prosecution. Somehow I do not think they will be able to claim that McAlpine has to prove his innocence to them as a defence. If we went down the road of saying innocence must be proven then any single one of us could be accused of umerous vile acts and it would be OK.

 

[Donjeta]

The person who abducted Madeleine, whoever that is, is legally completely innocent by the same definition, yet he is in fact guilty.


It would be good imo to conceptually separate "presumed innocent because one hasn't been proven guilty at a court of law" from "proven to be innocent". The two are not synonymous. If there is an unsolved crime there must be at least one person whose default innocent status is undeserved.

 

[Gem2626]

The person who abducted Madeleine, whoever that is, is legally completely innocent by the same definition, yet he is in fact guilty.


It would be good imo to conceptually separate "presumed innocent because one hasn't been proven guilty at a court of law" from "proven to be innocent". The two are not synonymous. If there is an unsolved crime there must be at least one person whose default innocent status is undeserved.

The problem with this is who would have the power to give someone that title? Surely with our current legal system you would have to go to court and be trialed by jurors to determine how innocent you may or may not be which is a bit like having half a trial.

Not sure if i'm making sense.

 

[Donjeta]

The problem with this is who would have the power to give someone that title? Surely with our current legal system you would have to go to court and be trialed by jurors to determine how innocent you may or may not be which is a bit like having half a trial.

Not sure if i'm making sense.

Well, I think that's kinda half my point, if I understand what you're getting at. The fact that people are presumed innocent if they haven't been charged is being rather freely thrown in the discussion trying to say that they're been ruled out and shown to be innocent although we may not in fact know it for a fact.

The legal presumption of innocence does not equal "ruled out", or "it has been shown that this person could not have committed this crime", it might just mean that there is not enough evidence to go to court and be trialed by jurors.

Actually even at a trial the jurors don't have to render a verdict of "innocent", I think, just "not guilty" which means that the prosecutor failed to prove the charges.

I suppose most of the people who could in fact be proven to be "innocent" in a court of law, if there was such a verdict, never end up in court in the current legal system because it would be pointless to charge people who have rock solid alibis etc. as the result is a foregone conclusion.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Unfortunately, we have had no trial.

If there had've been one, it is my belief Madeleine's parents would be in jail.

The only people who are entitled to a presumption of innocence in my opinion, are those fighting for their freedom in a court of law.

The rest of us can and do come under suspicion for all sorts of real and imagined offences, large and small, and just have to deal with it. It's called "life".

Yet another attempt to elevate the McCann above the common man.

ullhair:

Attempting to gag or curb free speech about a possible interference and secret boys clubs reaching high up into the Establishment, is the exact opposite of what our democracies stand for.

People are defending the honour of politicians, for God's sake! Like they're a bunch of saints!

:banghead:

We must ask questions. It's our right, and our duty to demand answers from those "in charge", when something appears murky.

The mess surrounding Madeleine is as murky as it gets and we have every right to speculate, suspect, and demand some clarity.

:maddening:

 

[Gem2626]

Unfortunately, we have had no trial.

If there had've been one, it is my belief Madeleine's parents would be in jail.

The only people who are entitled to a presumption of innocence in my opinion, are those fighting for their freedom in a court of law.

The rest of us can and do come under suspicion for all sorts of real and imagined offences, large and small, and just have to deal with it. It's called "life".

Yet another attempt to elevate the McCann above the common man.

ullhair:

Attempting to gag or curb free speech about a possible interference and secret boys clubs reaching high up into the Establishment, is the exact opposite of what our democracies stand for.

People are defending the honour of politicians, for God's sake! Like they're a bunch of saints!

:banghead:

We must ask questions. It's our right, and our duty to demand answers from those "in charge", when something appears murky.

The mess surrounding Madeleine is as murky as it gets and we have every right to speculate, suspect, and demand some clarity.

:maddening:

The thing is if you are genuinely innocent of a crime you are not just going to sit down and take it and say 'well that's life' you are going to fight to clear your name. It is a natural instinct.

I wish the McCanns were taken to court because it would clear up all the mistruths floating about and the facts would come out. Obviously our opinions differ on which way it would go.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The thing is if you are genuinely innocent of a crime you are not just going to sit down and take it and say 'well that's life' you are going to fight to clear your name. It is a natural instinct.

I wish the McCanns were taken to court because it would clear up all the mistruths floating about and the facts would come out. Obviously our opinions differ on which way it would go.

Agree 100%.

I would like the British coroner to hold an inquest at least and I really don't understand why this hasn't been done.

:cow:

 

[gord]

The British Coroner camnt just hold an inquest as this has and always was a Portugese case. The british LE can help advise but they have no juristriction

also I still claim that all people are innocent until proven guilty - that is the way it works. you dont go to court get found not guilty and then say oh because were not found innocent then you are not cleared .......if that was the case millions of not guilty people in this world in this logic must all now be told that they in some limbo state of not innocent ??

we can argue / debate about lots of things but innocence until proven guilty is the cornerstone of human rights

 

[Donjeta]

The British Coroner camnt just hold an inquest as this has and always was a Portugese case. The british LE can help advise but they have no juristriction

also I still claim that all people are innocent until proven guilty - that is the way it works. you dont go to court get found not guilty and then say oh because were not found innocent then you are not cleared .......if that was the case millions of not guilty people in this world in this logic must all now be told that they in some limbo state of not innocent ??

we can argue / debate about lots of things but innocence until proven guilty is the cornerstone of human rights

Human rights are not threatened. The right of anyone to be considered innocent until proven guilty is not under attack.

It's just necessary to differentiate this from "cleared". There is no human right to be "cleared". "Cleared" means that there is evidence that can show that you did not commit the crime. It's not a default position bestowed upon you because you've got you human rights, it's related to whether there is evidence to clear you or not, and whether the investigation has been thorough enough to find that.

We also need to differentiate "not cleared" from "guilty" or "not innocent".
People who are not cleared may or may not have done it. "Not cleared" does not say you're guilty or that you're not innocent, it just says there is no evidence that can rule you out at the moment.

There are probably lots of crimes that I am innocent of committing but am currently "not cleared" for. Legally I am of course innocent until proven guilty.

It's pretty simple imo.

 

[gord]

Human rights are not threatened. The right of anyone to be considered innocent until proven guilty is not under attack.

It's just necessary to differentiate this from "cleared". There is no human right to be "cleared". "Cleared" means that there is evidence that can show that you did not commit the crime. It's not related to your human rights, it's
related to whether there is evidence to clear you or not, and whether the
investigation has been thorough enough to find that.

We also need to differentiate "not cleared" from "guilty" or "not innocent".
People who are not cleared may or may not have done it. "Not cleared" does not say you're guilty or that you're not innocent, it just says there is no evidence that can rule you out at the moment.

There are lots of crimes that I am innocent of committing and innocent until proven guilty but am currently "not cleared" for.

It's pretty simple imo.

but " not cleared " doesnt exist in English Law ?? It is not a desicion that juries are asked to judge on . They are asked pretty straightforward questions - is the accused guilty or not guilty ? Actualy in scottish law there is a seperate finding of not proven - which might be closer to what you are perhaps looking at .

Say I was arrested for fraud because my firm though I had stolen money - but in the trial it was found the evidence to find me guilty was shaky and not legal and I am found not guilty - what does that mean then ? in my logic I am innocent of all charges and a free man
in the case we are discussion teh Mccans they were never ever charged anyway - so they had no charges to be cleared of - they were arguidos which is a legal term to give all people being interviewed legal rights,

 

[Donjeta]

but " not cleared " doesnt exist in English Law ?? It is not a desicion that juries are asked to judge on . They are asked pretty straightforward questions - is the accused guilty or not guilty ? Actualy in scottish law there is a seperate finding of not proven - which might be closer to what you are perhaps looking at .

Say I was arrested for fraud because my firm though I had stolen money - but in the trial it was found the evidence to find me guilty was shaky and not legal and I am found not guilty - what does that mean then ? in my logic I am innocent of all charges and a free man
in the case we are discussion teh Mccans they were never ever charged anyway - so they had no charges to be cleared of - they were arguidos which is a legal term to give all people being interviewed legal rights,

I think "cleared" would be an investigative decision usually, not a question for the courts. If the detectives investigating the crime find that there is evidence to clear someone of the crime they would never be indicted and there is no reason to take them to the court.

If someone has been charged and tried and acquitted I think they are legally considered more innocent, in a way, than the others who haven't been charged, because they couldn't be charged for the same crime again (well, legal systems may vary). Any of the other people who are presumed innocent may be charged if new evidence appears.

Being acquitted means you are a free man but it still doesn't mean that you could not have done it. Guilty people have been acquitted lots of times. and innocent people have been sentenced to death, even. Trials are not a foolproof system but it's the best we have.


I think "not proven" would be yet another thing from "not cleared". What they're looking for at courts is whether the guilt has been proven, not whether innocence has been proven. A person does not have to be "cleared" or proven to be innocent to get an acquittal, there just needs to be reasonable doubt that they're guilty. The prosecutor did not prove their case. The defendant does not have to prove his case, although if he can it obviously helps a lot.

 

[gord]

I think "cleared" would be an investigative decision usually, not a question for the courts. If the detectives investigating the crime find that there is evidence to clear someone of the crime they would never be indicted and there is no reason to take them to the court.

If someone has been charged and tried and acquitted I think they are legally considered more innocent, in a way, than the others who haven't been charged, because they couldn't be charged for the same crime again (well, legal systems may vary). Any of the other people who are presumed innocent may be charged if new evidence appears.

Being acquitted means you are a free man but it still doesn't mean that you could not have done it. Guilty people have been acquitted lots of times. and innocent people have been sentenced to death, even. Trials are not a foolproof system but it's the best we have.


I think "not proven" would be yet another thing from "not cleared". What they're looking for at courts is whether the guilt has been proven, not whether innocence has been proven. A person does not have to be "cleared" or proven to be innocent to get an acquittal, there just needs to be reasonable doubt that they're guilty. The prosecutor did not prove their case. The defendant does not have to prove his case, although if he can it obviously helps a lot.

As far as I know the legal system at least here in the UK is that police to not make any judgements on innocennce or guilt - their role in the process is to gather evidence and then pass that on to the legal system - who then decide if their is enough evidence to go to trial - we have a legal system whilst not perfect - as innocent people do go to jail and guilty people sometimes avoid it - is as good as our society has. at the core is everyone is entitled to a proper legal defence , in fact the European human rights means we have terroriist who have been convicted in other countries living in the UK as we will not extradite to countries that have evidence of torture

any way Crimibnal Law can get complicated and I am just a simple layman - but we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I cant see how people who have not been charged or found not guilty can be anything but innocent and free individuls who are in the eyes of the law ( and this is all we have as civilised nations ) innocent.

 

[brit1981]

In europe, there is a presumption of innocence. People do not need to prove their innocence, not even in court. They are presumed innocent, and it is for others to prove their guilt. Therefore anyone, including the mccanns, who are not found guilty are deemed innocent. They do not need to be formally declared innocent, hence the phrase cleared has no legally standing. Like Gord says the mccanns were never charged, and were only aguidos which is not the same as suspects (it just gives people legal rights when being interviewed, and is a status that people can request themselves), so there is no way they could be cleared any more thna they ever have been. The Pj says there is no evidence they are guilty, what more can be said. If someone is not guilty then they are innocent.

And a coronor can only hold an inquest if someone is declared dead, since madeleine is still legally alive as she has not been declared dead there can be no coronor's inquest. I do have a feeling that post Helen Smith who died in the KSA in 1979, UK coronors can hold inquests onto UK nationals who died abroad, but will ahve to double check that, it may just be that they can do PMs.

i think the libel cases are good, because it means people have to prove the claims they have made about the mccanns. If they cannot prove their claims it shows they have not a shred of evidence and have been lying. In portugal I believe the onus is on the claiments to disprove the libelous claims, which in the mccann case is still quite easy i.e they can prove that the dna found in the car was not likely to madeleine's like some have claimed etc. I know the madeleine foundations fifty fact leaflet has been debunked online, so that should be even easier to dispell in court.

In the mccann case, it is interesting that the PJ not only stated there was no evidence the mccanns had committed any crime, including that of neglect, but they also specifically stated they did not see how it was feasible for the mccanns to have hidden a body which they would had to have done if they were responsible for the disappearence. The head of operation grange has also stated that they believe a stranger was repsonsible so they have obviously ruled out the parents (since they are not strangers).

i disagree with the notion that someone found not guilty beyond all doubt in court is deemed more innocent that someone who has not even been charged, or not taken to trial. If someone is not taken to trial it is because there is not enough evidence against them, if someone is taken to trial it means there is more eveidence against them even if that evidence ends up not proving their guilt. Also in the UK a person foudn not guilty can face trial again if new evidence is found. The most recent example of this are the killers of stephen lawrence, who were originally found not guilty, the a decade later retried and found guilty.

The mccanns could though prove their innocence, by simply demonstrating the impossibility of their being able to hide a body in such a short time frame. That to me is the main sticking point, it just is not prossible for them to have hidden a body in such a short time, and so well with not a single witness. Whereas it is possible ten people saw a man abducting madeleine.

The mccanns are not the only people facing trial by anonymous people on the internet, but thanks to Lord McAlpine's legal actions the trend for making false accusations against people via twitter and the like may come to an end in the UK at least.

 

[Donjeta]

As far as I know the legal system at least here in the UK is that police to not make any judgements on innocennce or guilt - their role in the process is to gather evidence and then pass that on to the legal system - who then decide if their is enough evidence to go to trial

It's not the job of the police to indict, charge, make the verdict or sentence but I guarantee you that while they're conducting the investigation they make judgements about probable innocence or guilt all the time. A detective's opinions don't have any official legal standing but it's not possible to collect evidence on everything at once so these professional judgements direct their investigation. We have examples of police making these judgements in this very forum.

- we have a legal system whilst not perfect - as innocent people do go to jail and guilty people sometimes avoid it - is as good as our society has. at the core is everyone is entitled to a proper legal defence , in fact the European human rights means we have terroriist who have been convicted in other countries living in the UK as we will not extradite to countries that have evidence of torture

Agreed.

any way Crimibnal Law can get complicated and I am just a simple layman - but we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I cant see how people who have not been charged or found not guilty can be anything but innocent and free individuls who are in the eyes of the law ( and this is all we have as civilised nations ) innocent.

It seems to me that you and I both recognize that people are presumed innocent if they haven't been convicted of a crime and of course they're free individuals if they aren't in prison, and we also both recognize that sometimes the justice system gets things wrong and guilty people get off and innocent people. It means that we both recognize that factual guilt and the legal status of the case may be two different animals. I don't really see anything we disagree about. If guilty people can be acquitted and are considered innocent afterwards it just means these are different levels or categories of innocence.

I think even our legal system admits that these two conceptual levels of guilt are separate and may not always coincide. That's why they charge and try people in the first place - because it's thought that these people may in fact be guilty even though they're innocent in the eyes of the law since they haven't been convicted of anything yet, and that's why there are appeals: because there is the possibility that the court got things wrong and an innocent person got convicted wrongfully.

 

[Donjeta]

In europe, there is a presumption of innocence. People do not need to prove their innocence, not even in court. They are presumed innocent, and it is for others to prove their guilt. Therefore anyone, including the mccanns, who are not found guilty are deemed innocent. They do not need to be formally declared innocent, hence the phrase cleared has no legally standing. Like Gord says the mccanns were never charged, and were only aguidos which is not the same as suspects (it just gives people legal rights when being interviewed, and is a status that people can request themselves), so there is no way they could be cleared any more thna they ever have been.

The arguido status does not seem to mean much as both the McCanns and Murat were arguidos at the same time and I don't think there was any theory that they were both guilty of anything at the same time.

The Pj says there is no evidence they are guilty, what more can be said. If someone is not guilty then they are innocent.

I just can't agree about this one. They have no evidence that anyoneis guilty. Yet someone must have done it.

A) "I am guilty of abducting a child."
B) "The police have evidence that I am guilty of abducting a child."

are very clearly two different statements and even if A is true it does not mean that B) is also true and sometimes B) can be true although A is not true.

What happened and what evidence there is are two different animals again.

The mccanns could though prove their innocence, by simply demonstrating the impossibility of their being able to hide a body in such a short time frame. That to me is the main sticking point, it just is not prossible for them to have hidden a body in such a short time, and so well with not a single witness. Whereas it is possible ten people saw a man abducting madeleine.

Ten people? How many people are in the Smith party? Is there someone else besides them and Jane Tanner?

I just wish I could see why it's considered impossible that the McCanns could have hidden a body at the available time. How much time does it take to dump a plastic bag in a dumpster? IIRC it was discussed here that not all the trash containers nearby were properly searched in the early investigation. I could be wrong about that. Someone could have seen them doing it but as Jez and Gerry demonstrate it's also possible to not see anything even if you're right there when someone walks past if you're not paying attention.

 

[gord]

It's not the job of the police to indict, charge, make the verdict or sentence but I guarantee you that while they're conducting the investigation they make judgements about probable innocence or guilt all the time. A detective's opinions don't have any official legal standing but it's not possible to collect evidence on everything at once so these professional judgements direct their investigation. We have examples of police making these judgements in this very forum.



Agreed.



It seems to me that you and I both recognize that people are presumed innocent if they haven't been convicted of a crime and of course they're free individuals if they aren't in prison, and we also both recognize that sometimes the justice system gets things wrong and guilty people get off and innocent people. It means that we both recognize that factual guilt and the legal status of the case may be two different animals. I don't really see anything we disagree about. If guilty people can be acquitted and are considered innocent afterwards it just means these are different levels or categories of innocence.

I think even our legal system admits that these two conceptual levels of guilt are separate and may not always coincide. That's why they charge and try people in the first place - because it's thought that these people may in fact be guilty even though they're innocent in the eyes of the law since they haven't been convicted of anything yet, and that's why there are appeals: because there is the possibility that the court got things wrong and an innocent person got convicted wrongfully.

I think the point I am making is of course everyone has opinions - people are found not guilty by a jury but you will find loads of oponions on their status - of course Police Detectives have opinions and they regularly voice them - but in all thuis they are just opinions they do not have legal status or mean anything in law - and in absolute terms it is the legal status that means everything.

If I was found guilty and put in prison I am still guilty pending appeal . I am not half guilty or some sort of half way house - I am guilty.

If in appeal it is found my trial was wrong or there wasa misscarriage then I would be declared not guilty released and in my eyes innocent. We dont paraphrase it youes innocent - but not really cleared as we still think you did it but you got off on a technicality - ( maybe we should LOL )

Indeed lots of people might have tons of opinions on my legal status but the only one that counts is in the eye of the law - and not guilty of all charges means to me innocent regardless of what people think.

That is why we have trials and juries and judges because it seperates us from the law of the mob or law of public opinion or in modern day parlance law of the internet.


As we see from this very forum we have many differing views on the mccaans - are they innocent are they guilty - maybe only of neglect etc etc - but only one view matters - the view of the legal system which tries its best to be black and white and at present they are innocent people - they dont have any other status - sure lots of opinions but until new evidence occurs and they are either re arrested then thats where we are