Has Amaral dropped a clanger?

Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

Not sure....I'll have to think about that one

I think he proved that there may have been an alternative to what happened to Madeleine. Other than abduction by a stranger. If the case is open. That means all lines of enquiry are open. Surely. That I think must be the bottom line. We cannot be told a certain line of enquiry or possiblity has been ruled out if the case is not solved.

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

It depends what you mean by 'proof'. I don't think Mr Amaral has ever said he proved conclusively that Madeleine is dead, simply that the available evidence pointed in the direction of a death and away from the theory of abduction. The public prosecutor's summing-up apparently agreed that Madeleine being dead is more likely -

'whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.'

This doesn't mean they have proved Madeleine is dead, simply that the probability of death is stronger than the probability of abduction.

(That's if I understand this correctly; I'm sure someone will put me right if I'm wrong. )

Thats my understanding too.

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

The book is a factual account of the investigation told by the man who coordinated that investigation. Everything in the book corresponds to the official police files which have been released for public viewing. The conclusions drawn in the book are those drawn by the actual team investigating the case. The book is not written on the basis that Amaral can prove anything. As such the book is an interesting account of how the investigation was conducted from the initial phase through to the impasse which led to Dr. Amaral's removal from the case. The book clearly illustrates the political interference and the problems encountered with the English police, but more seriously for the McCanns, it reveals the extent of their tactics of misinformation, obfuscation and outright refusal to cooperate and this is particularly damning.

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

Another context, you know someone is guilty but proving it is another matter, and because it was not proved although you know they are guilty, this does not make them innocent.

Because this is what the McCann's are saying they have not been charged so we are innocent.
Mr Amaral is saying we can't prove it but we know, and this does not make the McCann's innocent because no charges have been brought against them in this Case.

One Day.

Hi peeps :-)

I think I understand what Mr Amaral means, although the evidence might not hold in court, it is there for all to see they are guilty!

He is not the sort to drop clangers. All he does and says is carefully thought out. A trait which the Mccanns would do to follow.

Dimsie wrote:It depends what you mean by 'proof'. I don't think Mr Amaral has ever said he proved conclusively that Madeleine is dead, simply that the available evidence pointed in the direction of a death and away from the theory of abduction. The public prosecutor's summing-up apparently agreed that Madeleine being dead is more likely -

'whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.'

This doesn't mean they have proved Madeleine is dead, simply that the probability of death is stronger than the probability of abduction.

(That's if I understand this correctly; I'm sure someone will put me right if I'm wrong. )

this is how i understand it.

Well, one thing I'm certain of is that there are a lot more 'innocent' guilty people who avoid conviction due to the onus of evidence required by the C.P.S. than there are wrongly convicted innocents.
However, maybe it was unwise of Amaral to make this statement.

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watching Sky interactive and apparently Amaral said outside the court today 'just because you cannot prove someone is guilty, this doesn't make them innocent'.

I agree wholeheartedly, but surely his book is written on the basis that he has proved it, sufficiently enough to write a book about it?

He is saying HE and the PJ believe the mccanns are guilty but taking it to court without sufficient evidence will see them get off thus get people thinking they are innocent, which the are NOT.

YOU NEED A BODY TO BE 100% IN A COURT OFF LAW even tho cases where there hasnt been a body but their was other evidence to prove a death has happened.

fedrules wrote:Well, one thing I'm certain of is that there are a lot more 'innocent' guilty people who avoid conviction due to the onus of evidence required by the C.P.S. than there are wrongly convicted innocents.
However, maybe it was unwise of Amaral to make this statement.

Lots of times, people are not convicted in a Court of Law, due to lack of significant evidence. Like you said, it doesn't mean they're innocent, it just means evidence is not enough. In this case, even if a Judge(s) believe the defendant is guilty, they have to apply the principle called "in dubio pro reo", which means "when there's a doubt, they can not be convicted". This may sound harsh, but it's better to have a guilty person outside prison, than an innocent in jail.

I read a while ago that the Portugese Prosecutor had gone to a Judge with all the evidence he had and asked
if it was sufficient to charge the McCanns, the Judge answered, "show me the body".

This is exactly what the McCanns are using to prove Madeleine is alive. This Judge is apparently young and for
such an important decision for her to have to make is I think unfair, a more experienced Judge should have
been given the case. I hope she reaches a decision that the injunction is lifted until the Trial takes place because
there will be three Judges then.