 |
Original Source:
SKY: 19 JULY 2007 |
By Mark Williams-Thomas
Crime Expert Updated: 13:08, Thursday July 19, 2007 |
|
|
|
The Madeleine McCann inquiry has reached a
critical stage and the next steps taken by Portuguese police are crucial.
It is 75 days since Madeleine was abducted form the quiet holiday resort of
Praia de Luz in the Algarve.
For much of the time we have heard or seen little police action, although over
the past week this has changed with police re-interviewing witnesses and
providing a visible presence around the resort.
Last week the main suspect, Robert Murat - indeed the only formal suspect or
"arguido" - was re-questioned for two days.
This was to check the information he had provided against information given by
other witnesses, in particular the three McCann family friends.
One area of discrepancy relates directly to the evening that Madeleine was
abducted.
Murat states he was at his mother's address and not near the Ocean club resort.
This alibi is supported by his mother but is contradicted by the McCann family
friends.
To deal with this conflicting evidence in the UK, the police would set out to
prove or disprove Murat's alibi by examining calls from landlines and mobile
phones, and computer usage such as emails sent and websites visited.
They would also examine the description of the clothes worn by Murat on the day
Madeleine disappeared.
They would then hold a series of identification parades. What is in question
here is identification.
It is also important for the police to find independent witnesses who are
unconnected with either party to provide evidence either in support of the fact
Murat was at the resort or if, as he states, he was 150 yards away at his mother
's house.
So with such an issue resting on identification, how can the Portuguese police
take this further?
The law allows them to challenge witness/suspect evidence outside of a court system.This would normally be done by keeping the witnesses
and suspect apart and then the police acting as go-betweens, from each witness
to the suspect.
However in this inquiry, which by the admission of the investigating officer Olegario Sousa is exceptional, they have opted to put the
witnesses and the suspect in the same room, allowing challenges from both
parties - an "acareamento". The reason for this is to
establish the "truth". But what if neither party changes their account?
With identification evidence forming such a vital part of this inquiry I
question how the process adopted by the police will help them. I accept that the
Portuguese legal system is so different from the British system and therefore it
is not appropriate to compare one with the other. But I can see that this
process is fraught with problems.
Whatever the outcome of this inquiry, the Portuguese legal system is in urgent
need of review.
So the Portuguese police are at a critical stage - they are fast approaching the
point at which they either need to charge Murat or formally release him from his
status as an 'arguido'. |
|
 |
|
