1001 users online (197 members and 804 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 263
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    The legal status they had in this investigation was "Arguido" which doesn't really have a direction translation into our respective court systems.

    Arguidos have special rights as well as obligations, including being provided with all evidence against them.

    The Arguido status was dropped, it doesn't follow the POI status is dropped, the two are quite different.

    It could be argued Portugese LE drop the Arguido status sometimes when they wish to stop having to supply the suspect with the evidence.

    In this case, the refusal of the Tapas to cooperate any further forced the shelving of the investigation. No one has ever been "cleared" as we understand it.
    Thank you for that information.

    Well, they are not considered persons of interest then, because they never were in the first place, yes?. They were considered Arguido, but that has been dropped.

    Regarding the sentence that I have put into bold, its not about proving innocence, its about proving guilt. One is always innocent unless they have been found guilty in a court of law.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Oh good, Madeleine must not be missing then. Everybody is innocent so no one did anything to her.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,786
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowdancer View Post
    Thank you for that information.

    Well, they are not considered persons of interest then, because they never were in the first place, yes?. They were considered Arguido, but that has been dropped.

    Regarding the sentence that I have put into bold, its not about proving innocence, its about proving guilt. One is always innocent unless they have been found guilty in a court of law.
    Maybe I didn't make it clear, but POI is not "official" in Portugal.

    They remain POI as an American would understand it - ie, not cleared.
    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    Oh good, Madeleine must not be missing then. Everybody is innocent so no one did anything to her.
    Who said everybody is innocent?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    Maybe I didn't make it clear, but POI is not "official" in Portugal.

    They remain POI as an American would understand it - ie, not cleared.
    The system must be different in America then. My apologies, I am unfamiliar with the American legal system. However, in the EU where the crime actually occurred they are not persons of interest because the term doesn't exist here.

    They now have no legal status in the investigation apart from as parents of the victim (ie Madeleine).

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowdancer View Post
    Who said everybody is innocent?
    You.

    One is always innocent unless they have been found guilty in a court of law.
    No one has been found guilty in a court of law regarding Madeleine's disappearance. So everybody is innocent.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,350
    Legally speaking, yes.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    You.



    No one has been found guilty in a court of law regarding Madeleine's disappearance. So everybody is innocent.
    You have obviously misunderstood me.

    As Cappuccino said, legally speaking everybody is innocent, but of course it is obvious that somebody is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

    As to which person (or persons) that is, well we won't know unless they are found guilty in a court of law.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    Legally speaking, yes.
    If and when somebody gets charged for Madeleine's disappearance they will be innocent in a court of law until proven guilty but the person who actually did it is as guilty as they come right now. JMO.

    In every unsolved crime there is at least one person who is innocent in the eyes of the court of law but guilty in every other way.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,350
    We all know that. But shadowdancer was still right to point out that the McCanns are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, given the stridency with which some accuse them.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowdancer View Post
    You have obviously misunderstood me.

    As Cappuccino said, legally speaking everybody is innocent, but of course it is obvious that somebody is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

    As to which person (or persons) that is, well we won't know unless they are found guilty in a court of law.
    JMO but it is in fact a bit about clearing people too, not just proving people guilty because it helps to narrow the field and the prosecutor is happier if the police can actually clear the victim's family and other interested parties who the defense might bring up as alternative theories, not just shrug and say that they haven't been proven guilty, so there.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    19,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    We all know that. But shadowdancer was still right to point out that the McCanns are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, given the stridency with which some accuse them.
    Yes, they are, and so is the actual guilty party.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,631
    Well, hmmm. Now the timeline of Madeleine's going missing has been moved back to 8:30, when the McCanns left the apartment on their way to the restaurant. Matthew Oldfield went to check on his kids at 9, and then Gerry went to look in on his at 9:15, when he had his chat with (?) Jeremy (?), and around the time Jane saw the eggman.

    At 9:30, Kate started to go check, even though Gerry had just checked. Matthew Oldfield volunteered to look in on the kids, and Jane's partner went to check on theirs (he stayed with them because one of them was sick. Then at 10, Kate went to check and discovered that Madeleine was gone.

    So the kids were alone and unchecked from 8:30-9:15, then checked at 9:15 and 9:30. And now the timeline for the window of disappearance has been opened up wider. Do the police think that she was gone when Gerry and Oldfield checked, and that they just didn't notice? No wonder no one wanted a re-inactment when it had first happened.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    JMO but it is in fact a bit about clearing people too, not just proving people guilty because it helps to narrow the field and the prosecutor is happier if the police can actually clear the victim's family and other interested parties who the defense might bring up as alternative theories, not just shrug and say that they haven't been proven guilty, so there.
    But even if somebody cannot be cleared through the investigation, it does not in anyway imply that they are guilty.

    You probably couldn't rule out half of the residents and tourists in the town at the time! Anyone who was home alone for example couldn't be ruled out, because they have no witnesses to corroborate that they stayed home and didn't go down to the holiday apartments to abduct Madeleine.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,631

    The sleepover

    I went back to look at some of my old posts, and found this, which I had totally forgotten about.

    If true, this changes everything. It explains the random leaving the table to check on the kids- each couple was removing their children from the McCann apartment. And if this is true, it means that they mostly knew Madeleine had died or was in extremis at some point. What they probably didn't know was how it was going to play out.


    http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...cle2621809.ece

    Quote:
    However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

    “Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”


    I've always thought that the truth of what happened is known to a majority of the Tapas group. And looking back over only my own posts, I came across the part about the elderly British woman who lived upstairs. Not only did she hear Madeleine and one of the twins weeping the previous evening, she heard them the night of the abduction as well. So how could the Tapas 'listening squad' not have heard them when doing their checks?

    I certainly have a theory about what happened, and I had it at the very beginning.

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. UK UK - Old Crimewatch UK cases - any information?
    By Bobby88 in forum Cold Cases
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-25-2017, 08:54 PM
  2. Crimewatch redux
    By Ellmau in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 09:25 PM
  3. CAN we discuss crimewatch discrepancies please
    By goldengirl57 in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-15-2013, 06:56 PM