At random, from the final PJ report ....

Post Reply
honestbroker1
Posts: 7145
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

At random, from the final PJ report ....

Post by honestbroker1 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:57 pm

On pages 4163 to 4165, the situation that involved the abduction and murder of a minor of gipsy ethnicity, in the city of Huelva, Spain, was considered and duly correlated with the disappearance of MADELEINE McCANN. After several contacts were established with the investigation that was ongoing in the neighbouring country, it was concluded that the occurrences are disparate among themselves.
OK, so it was concluded that there is no correlation between the case in Spain and Madeleine's abduction.

But if there is general consensus/belief (actually held by the Portuguese Supreme Court!) that the McCanns were accorded 'technical benefit of the doubt', why was the possibility of a connection ever, even, considered?

User avatar
scoobydoo
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:46 am

Re: At random, from the final PJ report ....

Post by scoobydoo » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:10 pm

I don't think from reading the final phase report that they were given technical benefits of the doubt. The report states there was not a single shred of evidence suggesting their guilt, says the only evidence they ever thought they had was the dogs and the DNA and that turned out to be nothing, and it goes as far as to discuss how they just do not see how it would have been possible for the McCanns to have hidden Madeleine in such a short time.

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19425
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: At random, from the final PJ report ....

Post by Carana » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:41 pm

scoobydoo wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:10 pm
I don't think from reading the final phase report that they were given technical benefits of the doubt. The report states there was not a single shred of evidence suggesting their guilt, says the only evidence they ever thought they had was the dogs and the DNA and that turned out to be nothing, and it goes as far as to discuss how they just do not see how it would have been possible for the McCanns to have hidden Madeleine in such a short time.
I don't read it as being the "technical benefit of the doubt" either. More that their hypothetical involvement couldn't be formally excluded, BUT... a list of all the things that either amounted to a hill of beans, or that made it highly unlikely.

That might sound like a half-empty, half-full glass, but that's not how I read it: the idea that it can't be formally excluded isn't on the same end of the spectrum as there's not enough to nail them in court.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

Post Reply