Wandering Off Topic

[Mr Gray]

I think you will find that was in a different context.

I think you will find it wasn't...it was in general...but I'm not one dwell

[Alice Purjorick]

I think you will find it wasn't...it was in general...but I'm not one dwell

I expect I posted:
The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was either:

    Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).

    Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

They are the only grounds. Fresh evidence may be heard if the court of appeal allow it:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
 But the fresh evidence is not grounds for appeal.

[Mr Gray]

I expect I posted:
The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was either:

    Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).

    Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

They are the only grounds. Fresh evidence may be heard if the court of appeal allow it:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
 But the fresh evidence is not grounds for appeal.

but  fresh evidence is grounds for appeal as Cheddars has shown

[Carana]

I see Ched Evans has had his conviction quashed and because of new evidence can have a retrial.

I couldn't remember who this chap is, and went off to Google: An English criminal conviction being retried.

Somewhat different from a PT civil trial in which a former initial senior officer, with next to no knowledge of missing children investigations, cited some facts from the files (while not citing others) and then presented his analyis in an authoritative way that many may accept as "fact". 

What he can be credited with as having got right is still one of the shortest threads on this forum.

The PT civil system, IMO, seems far more attuned to the more concrete cases of "your kid threw a football through my window, and this is what it cost me to replace the window in question".

[pegasus]

At the time, did Amaral understand spoken English, or not?

+++
In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to search the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport.
Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: “He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.
+++
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/485524/Portuguese-detective-says-MI5-spies-know-what-happened-to-Madeleine-McCann

Therefore the PJ officer who accompanies the unnamed UK expert to Faro airport is not Mr Amaral, it is one of Mr Amaral's colleagues. As Carana has deduced, it is a PJ officer who is able to converse in English with the UK expert. It is probably Freitas (excellent english-speaker) or Paiva (good english-speaker). Does anyone have a link to the actual Amaral interview in portuguese please?

[misty]

+++
In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to search the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport.
Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: “He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.
+++
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/485524/Portuguese-detective-says-MI5-spies-know-what-happened-to-Madeleine-McCann

Therefore the PJ officer who accompanies the unnamed UK expert to Faro airport is not Mr Amaral, it is one of Mr Amaral's colleagues. As Carana has deduced, it is a PJ officer who is able to converse in English with the UK expert. It is probably Freitas (excellent english-speaker) or Paiva (good english-speaker). Does anyone have a link to the actual Amaral interview in portuguese please?

Try this one.
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-teoria-de-rapto-de-maddie-nao-passa-de-uma-farsa.html

[pegasus]

Try this one.
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-teoria-de-rapto-de-maddie-nao-passa-de-uma-farsa.html

Thankyou Misty yes that is the interview.
The account of PJ accompanying a UK expert to Faro airport, and that expert being met in the UK by MI5, is at 14m45. Does anyone know where there is a portuguese transcript of 14m45 onwards?

[pegasus]

"Local Portuguese Woman [with excavation site as backdrop] - That has no logic. What thief breaks into a house, takes the child away, murders her, carries the child on his arms in everyone's sight on the street and then comes here to bury her in an place that is only ground rock? Only a fool would do that! That's all I have to say about that. [laughs at the idea]"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/goncalo-amaral-there-was-no-breaking-in.html

This lady in the street is talking common-sense, however note that
Part 1 of SY theory ("thief breaks into a house") which if a window is unlocked does not require force, is good.
Excellent theory so far, because that is exactly what burglars do, and it's confirmed by the open shutter and window.

Part 2 of SY theory ("takes the child away") is rubbish.
No burglar would do that, as that lady on the street can easily tell SY.
The answer is to retain part 1, but replace part 2, with the SIO actually imagining they are a burglar, they think everyone is out, open a shutter and window, but then inside they see children.

The obvious result will be that the SIO turned burglar will immediately flee empty-handed (confirmed by the fact that no material items were stolen), and any awakened mobile child will simultaneously flee in the opposite direction, out of that room into another room (confirmed by the fact the child is missing from the first room).

That doesn't completely solve the disappearance, but it is the first step IMO.

[Brietta]

"Local Portuguese Woman [with excavation site as backdrop] - That has no logic. What thief breaks into a house, takes the child away, murders her, carries the child on his arms in everyone's sight on the street and then comes here to bury her in an place that is only ground rock? Only a fool would do that! That's all I have to say about that. [laughs at the idea]"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/goncalo-amaral-there-was-no-breaking-in.html

This lady in the street is talking common-sense, however note that
Part 1 of SY theory ("thief breaks into a house") which if a window is unlocked does not require force, is good.
Excellent theory so far, because that is exactly what burglars do, and it's confirmed by the open shutter and window.

Part 2 of SY theory ("takes the child away") is rubbish.
No burglar would do that, as that lady on the street can easily tell SY.
The answer is to retain part 1, but replace part 2, with the SIO actually imagining they are a burglar, they think everyone is out, open a shutter and window, but then inside they see children.

The obvious result will be that the SIO turned burglar will immediately flee empty-handed (confirmed by the fact that no material items were stolen), and any awakened mobile child will simultaneously flee in the opposite direction, out of that room into another room (confirmed by the fact the child is missing from the first room).

That doesn't completely solve the disappearance, but it is the first step IMO.

It is horses for courses, Pegasus, what normal law abiding citizen who would never dream of illicitly entering someone's home know about what a criminal burglar might or might not do?
Burglars are not nice people they are criminals capable of heinous actions.

Who could contemplate a fourteen year old girl and a fourteen year old boy entering a home with the murderous intention of killing a mother and daughter ... but it happened.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/18/two-14-year-olds-lincoln-court-mother-elizabeth-edwards-daughter-katie-found-dead

Who would have believed two children were capable of kidnapping and murdering James Bulger ... and how long would the police have searched for adults if Thomson and Venables hadn't been caught on CCTV taking him from the shopping centre?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2006/12/04/local_history_bulger_feature.shtml

I don't think your theory works ...
(a)  there is no supporting evidence
(b)  there is no explanation of what subsequently happened to Madeleine

Mr Amaral also struggles to expand his accidental death theory by his failure to suggest subsequent events.

Evidence of absence should have been enough to ensure all theories were checked to conclusion ... deciding on one (according to his unbanned book translations of which his supporters should be giving serious thought to removing from the internet as he is in a bit of a litigious mood) on the 4th of May and sticking to it really isn't good investigative practice.

[pegasus]

It is horses for courses, Pegasus, what normal law abiding citizen who would never dream of illicitly entering someone's home know about what a criminal burglar might or might not do? (snip)

Brietta do you not agree that a good detectives must be able to think like the perp?.
If NW and MD put themselves in the shoes of a burglar, complete with striped t-shirt and swag bag, who thinks everyone is out, but then on opening a window, is shocked to find people are in, what would they do?
And do you agree good detectives must be able to transform themselves into the innocent victim? In this case that means travelling back in time a few decades- what would the 3-yr old MD or NW have done if awoken at night by a stranger outside opening the window of their bedroom while their parents were out?

[pegasus]

(snip)  (a)  there is no supporting evidence (snip)

I admit Brietta my hypothesis has absolutely no evidence supporting it except for the open shutter, the open window, the open bedroom door, and the absence of the child from her bedroom.

[Brietta]

Brietta do you not agree that a good detectives must be able to think like the perp?.
If NW and MD put themselves in the shoes of a burglar, complete with striped t-shirt and swag bag, who thinks everyone is out, but then on opening a window, is shocked to find people are in, what would they do?
And do you agree good detectives must be able to transform themselves into the innocent victim? In this case that means travelling back in time a few decades- what would the 3-yr old MD or NW have done if awoken at night by a stranger outside opening the window of their bedroom while their parents were out?

I think there may be a very fine line in some instances ... witness the arrests of former and presently employed detectives in Portugal.
If found guilty of the heinous charges made against them, they will have the book thrown at them, depending on which book ~ they could do a long stretch which on appeal is reduced to a couple of hours community service.

In my opinion the views expressed by many of the detectives working on Madeleine's case were indeed regressive ... so actually acting out the behaviour of a four year old should have presented no difficulty.

I think it is clear from his book ~ various interviews ~ statements from Ricardo Piava ... that Mr Amaral formed a firm view of events from which he never deviated.
He was totally inflexible and remains so nearly nine years down the line ... confirmed by his intention to publish a book containing so many mistakes and basic misunderstandings that to be relevant would require to be rewritten ... perhaps he has done that, I don't know.
But in the light of present day knowledge if he hasn't ~ he runs the risk of being ridiculed when it is scrutinised in the English speaking world and comparisons are made between his assertions and actual events.

One of the first things he needs to address is explaining exactly the mechanics of how and where Madeleine's parents hid her remains to complete his thesis.

[pegasus]

(snip) In my opinion the views expressed by many of the detectives working on Madeleine's case were indeed regressive ... so actually acting out the behaviour of a four year old should have presented no difficulty.(snip)

I was suggesting that the Met SIO whoever it is now should travel back in time to when they were an almost 4 yr old boy or girl and ask themselves which direction they would run if a stranger outside opened their bedroom shutter and window. Thinking like a child is a positive and, to solve this case, essential skill.

[pegasus]

(snip) I think it is clear from his book ~ various interviews ~ statements from Ricardo Piava ... that Mr Amaral formed a firm view of events from which he never deviated. (snip)

I disagree with some of Mr Amaral's deductions, for example his claim that KM opened the window

[misty]

I was suggesting that the Met SIO whoever it is now should travel back in time to when they were an almost 4 yr old boy or girl and ask themselves which direction they would run if a stranger outside opened their bedroom shutter and window. Thinking like a child is a positive and, to solve this case, essential skill.

A four year old cannot conceal her own cadaver from all available resources for 9 years.