Portuguese judicial secrecy law and its impact on the Madeleine case.

[slartibartfast]

If your comment is directed at me ... have the courtesy to put up or shut up.  Thank you.

No thanks.

[Brietta]

There really is nothing new under the sun as far as the appearance of information detrimental to Madeleine's case and her parents emanating from illegally leaked information from the investigation is concerned.
All accompanied with the usual denials.
For example ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5973.75

taken from
Jonbenet and Maddie: Case Studies in the Ethical Deficit of Contemporary Journalism
Professor Michael Tracey
Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309
USA

2.2 The Case of Madeleine McCann

By the following day at least one detective was telling journalists that there were doubts about whether Madeleine had really been abducted and that “police thought the couple were not telling the truth…” (Chrisman, 2007).

The story appeared the following day, Saturday May 5, in the respected Portuguese newspaper, Diario de Noticias.

The story, headlined “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,”had been written by Jose Manuel Oliveira who had received an off the record briefing by one of the top investigators of the Policia Judiciaria ( PJ ), the Portuguese criminal investigation police and said that “the headline/quote is based on the police and PJ sense that the testimonies gathered from the initial questioning of the McCanns, friends, and staff of the Ocean Club were confusing.

Oliveira believes this report was leaked because the PJ were beginning to have ‘doubts’ about the McCanns – that they were somehow connected or they knew someone who had had something to do with her disappearance – not at this stage that she might be dead.

Astonishingly Oliveria says he got the information from the PJ for this leak by 5pm., on the 4th May – less than 24 hours after Maddie disappeared…” ( Chrisman, 2007).

This was immediately denied by the JP, but on the 7th May Diario de Noticias published an article headlined “Police clues points to Madeleine’s death,” with an inside page headline “Port authority already looking for Madeleine’s body,” citing “police sources.”

At the same time another paper was reporting that police suspicions were based on the couple’s behavior, and one said that detectives “suspected them because their wives said Kate was too controlled to be the distraught mother” while another claimed forensic scientists reported that her controlled public appearance and make up indicated a “cold and manipulative” personality.

This narrative was unfolding at a time when Maddie’s disappearance could still be counted in hours.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_15_August_2013/1.pdf

The thing is, information was being leaked directly from the police investigation to the Portuguese media et al some of which is reiterated on a daily basis ten years after the event.

Who was responsible for that if not the police ... and why did no-one in authority in Portugal think it might be appropriate to stop the law breaker from cocking a snook at the law of the land?

[ShiningInLuz]

There really is nothing new under the sun as far as the appearance of information detrimental to Madeleine's case and her parents emanating from illegally leaked information from the investigation is concerned.
All accompanied with the usual denials.
For example ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5973.75

taken from
Jonbenet and Maddie: Case Studies in the Ethical Deficit of Contemporary Journalism
Professor Michael Tracey
Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309
USA

2.2 The Case of Madeleine McCann

By the following day at least one detective was telling journalists that there were doubts about whether Madeleine had really been abducted and that “police thought the couple were not telling the truth…” (Chrisman, 2007).

The story appeared the following day, Saturday May 5, in the respected Portuguese newspaper, Diario de Noticias.

The story, headlined “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,”had been written by Jose Manuel Oliveira who had received an off the record briefing by one of the top investigators of the Policia Judiciaria ( PJ ), the Portuguese criminal investigation police and said that “the headline/quote is based on the police and PJ sense that the testimonies gathered from the initial questioning of the McCanns, friends, and staff of the Ocean Club were confusing.

Oliveira believes this report was leaked because the PJ were beginning to have ‘doubts’ about the McCanns – that they were somehow connected or they knew someone who had had something to do with her disappearance – not at this stage that she might be dead.

Astonishingly Oliveria says he got the information from the PJ for this leak by 5pm., on the 4th May – less than 24 hours after Maddie disappeared…” ( Chrisman, 2007).

This was immediately denied by the JP, but on the 7th May Diario de Noticias published an article headlined “Police clues points to Madeleine’s death,” with an inside page headline “Port authority already looking for Madeleine’s body,” citing “police sources.”

At the same time another paper was reporting that police suspicions were based on the couple’s behavior, and one said that detectives “suspected them because their wives said Kate was too controlled to be the distraught mother” while another claimed forensic scientists reported that her controlled public appearance and make up indicated a “cold and manipulative” personality.

This narrative was unfolding at a time when Maddie’s disappearance could still be counted in hours.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_15_August_2013/1.pdf

The thing is, information was being leaked directly from the police investigation to the Portuguese media et al some of which is reiterated on a daily basis ten years after the event.

Who was responsible for that if not the police ... and why did no-one in authority in Portugal think it might be appropriate to stop the law breaker from cocking a snook at the law of the land?

Were the Tapas 9 interviews completed by 5pm on 4 May 2007?  And how many staff had been interviewed?  The latter telling the police what, exactly?

7th May DdN.  Why would a police source say the port authorities were looking for a dead body?  Were the McCanns supposed to have a magic flying carpet to transport a body to any port, even the nearest one, Lagos?

Sorry, there is a lot of drivel in here.  I'm not shooting the messenger - I'm shooting the message, or parts of it.

I can imagine the 4 May 2007 'leak' emanating from Gerry saying he and Kate used the door requiring a key, whilst Kate torpedoed that saying she used the patio doors.

I also happen to find aspects of Matthew Oldfield's testimony baffling - the check on Madeleine that wasn't and an inability to state anything about the shutter, window and curtains.  Off the top of my head, I cannot remember if his non-call to the police was in his first statement.

And I don't know when the jemmied shutters story was 'leaked' to the UK press, nor do I really care.

There was a lot of strange stuff going on, and unless Mr DdN man reveals his source, this remains part of the legacy of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

[Benice]

There really is nothing new under the sun as far as the appearance of information detrimental to Madeleine's case and her parents emanating from illegally leaked information from the investigation is concerned.
All accompanied with the usual denials.
For example ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5973.75

taken from
Jonbenet and Maddie: Case Studies in the Ethical Deficit of Contemporary Journalism
Professor Michael Tracey
Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309
USA

2.2 The Case of Madeleine McCann

By the following day at least one detective was telling journalists that there were doubts about whether Madeleine had really been abducted and that “police thought the couple were not telling the truth…” (Chrisman, 2007).

The story appeared the following day, Saturday May 5, in the respected Portuguese newspaper, Diario de Noticias.

The story, headlined “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,”had been written by Jose Manuel Oliveira who had received an off the record briefing by one of the top investigators of the Policia Judiciaria ( PJ ), the Portuguese criminal investigation police and said that “the headline/quote is based on the police and PJ sense that the testimonies gathered from the initial questioning of the McCanns, friends, and staff of the Ocean Club were confusing.

Oliveira believes this report was leaked because the PJ were beginning to have ‘doubts’ about the McCanns – that they were somehow connected or they knew someone who had had something to do with her disappearance – not at this stage that she might be dead.

Astonishingly Oliveria says he got the information from the PJ for this leak by 5pm., on the 4th May – less than 24 hours after Maddie disappeared…” ( Chrisman, 2007).

This was immediately denied by the JP, but on the 7th May Diario de Noticias published an article headlined “Police clues points to Madeleine’s death,” with an inside page headline “Port authority already looking for Madeleine’s body,” citing “police sources.”

At the same time another paper was reporting that police suspicions were based on the couple’s behavior, and one said that detectives “suspected them because their wives said Kate was too controlled to be the distraught mother” while another claimed forensic scientists reported that her controlled public appearance and make up indicated a “cold and manipulative” personality.

This narrative was unfolding at a time when Maddie’s disappearance could still be counted in hours.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_15_August_2013/1.pdf

The thing is, information was being leaked directly from the police investigation to the Portuguese media et al some of which is reiterated on a daily basis ten years after the event.

Who was responsible for that if not the police ... and why did no-one in authority in Portugal think it might be appropriate to stop the law breaker from cocking a snook at the law of the land?

IMO the potential damaging effect on their tourist industry was paramount in the decision of some of those in authority to turn a blind eye to the blatant lawbreaking -  in the hope that it would transpire that it was the British parents wot dunnit and the crime had nothing to do with any Portuguese person(s).

Bad news for Madeleine without a doubt imo.

[Brietta]

Were the Tapas 9 interviews completed by 5pm on 4 May 2007?  And how many staff had been interviewed?  The latter telling the police what, exactly?

7th May DdN.  Why would a police source say the port authorities were looking for a dead body?  Were the McCanns supposed to have a magic flying carpet to transport a body to any port, even the nearest one, Lagos?

Sorry, there is a lot of drivel in here.  I'm not shooting the messenger - I'm shooting the message, or parts of it.

I can imagine the 4 May 2007 'leak' emanating from Gerry saying he and Kate used the door requiring a key, whilst Kate torpedoed that saying she used the patio doors.

I also happen to find aspects of Matthew Oldfield's testimony baffling - the check on Madeleine that wasn't and an inability to state anything about the shutter, window and curtains.  Off the top of my head, I cannot remember if his non-call to the police was in his first statement.

And I don't know when the jemmied shutters story was 'leaked' to the UK press, nor do I really care.

There was a lot of strange stuff going on, and unless Mr DdN man reveals his source, this remains part of the legacy of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

In my opinion there have been many legacies of the 'strange stuff' which was in circulation emanating from Madeleine's disappearance.

First and foremost ... to date, Madeleine McCann has not been found.

There is a residue of those who are still victim of beliefs fabricated as part of the propaganda campaign waged to discredit her parents ... none of which has any foundation in fact.

What happened was inexcusable.
The secrecy law was being broken on a daily basis; no action was taken against the lawbreakers either to trace them or stop them; therefore condoning a shameful episode while undermining Portuguese jurisprudence.

I think Benice may very well have hit on part of the explanation for that when she says concern for the tourist industry may have been the catalyst.
I think those concerns would have been allayed by a swift and speedy response which cast a seriously intentioned net much wider than a Portuguese/British resident and two distraught parents who were causing waves by their insistence on remaining in Luz until it was made impossible for them to do so.

[G-Unit]

There really is nothing new under the sun as far as the appearance of information detrimental to Madeleine's case and her parents emanating from illegally leaked information from the investigation is concerned.
All accompanied with the usual denials.
For example ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5973.75

taken from
Jonbenet and Maddie: Case Studies in the Ethical Deficit of Contemporary Journalism
Professor Michael Tracey
Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309
USA

2.2 The Case of Madeleine McCann

By the following day at least one detective was telling journalists that there were doubts about whether Madeleine had really been abducted and that “police thought the couple were not telling the truth…” (Chrisman, 2007).

The story appeared the following day, Saturday May 5, in the respected Portuguese newspaper, Diario de Noticias.

The story, headlined “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,”had been written by Jose Manuel Oliveira who had received an off the record briefing by one of the top investigators of the Policia Judiciaria ( PJ ), the Portuguese criminal investigation police and said that “the headline/quote is based on the police and PJ sense that the testimonies gathered from the initial questioning of the McCanns, friends, and staff of the Ocean Club were confusing.

Oliveira believes this report was leaked because the PJ were beginning to have ‘doubts’ about the McCanns – that they were somehow connected or they knew someone who had had something to do with her disappearance – not at this stage that she might be dead.

Astonishingly Oliveria says he got the information from the PJ for this leak by 5pm., on the 4th May – less than 24 hours after Maddie disappeared…” ( Chrisman, 2007).

This was immediately denied by the JP, but on the 7th May Diario de Noticias published an article headlined “Police clues points to Madeleine’s death,” with an inside page headline “Port authority already looking for Madeleine’s body,” citing “police sources.”

At the same time another paper was reporting that police suspicions were based on the couple’s behavior, and one said that detectives “suspected them because their wives said Kate was too controlled to be the distraught mother” while another claimed forensic scientists reported that her controlled public appearance and make up indicated a “cold and manipulative” personality.

This narrative was unfolding at a time when Maddie’s disappearance could still be counted in hours.

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_15_August_2013/1.pdf

The thing is, information was being leaked directly from the police investigation to the Portuguese media et al some of which is reiterated on a daily basis ten years after the event.

Who was responsible for that if not the police ... and why did no-one in authority in Portugal think it might be appropriate to stop the law breaker from cocking a snook at the law of the land?

Many stories have appeared about what Operation Grange are thinking and doing. Is Operation Grange leaking too? Most of the stories quote 'a source'.

[Brietta]

Many stories have appeared about what Operation Grange are thinking and doing. Is Operation Grange leaking too? Most of the stories quote 'a source'.

I'm not familiar with the 'leaks' you claim ... can you cite them?

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm not familiar with the 'leaks' you claim ... can you cite them?

'Operation Grange is going to dig 3 sites in Luz' - all through the press in May 2014.

June 2014 Operation Grange digs 3 sites in Luz.

[Eleanor]

'Operation Grange is going to dig 3 sites in Luz' - all through the press in May 2014.

June 2014 Operation Grange digs 3 sites in Luz.

Who said that came from Operation Grange?

[ShiningInLuz]

Who said that came from Operation Grange?

Give me a source in the Portuguese press and it is up for grabs.  Until then, as this effort was splattered across the UK press, work it out.

[Eleanor]

Give me a source in the Portuguese press and it is up for grabs.  Until then, as this effort was splattered across the UK press, work it out.

The UK Press have been known to pick up leaks from Portugal in the past.

[barrier]

Who said that came from Operation Grange?

Unlikely to be from any where else.Jan 2014.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-arrests-imminent-after-british-police-request-assistance-from-portuguese-9056176.html

A spokesperson representing Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry told The Mirror: “The letter is a significant development. It is necessary for British police to request the Portuguese authorities allow them to operate on their turf.
“It means they have the intention of arresting and interviewing X, Y or Z. We don’t know who they have their sights on but it’s likely it is the burglars.
“Whether the Portuguese will co-operate remains to be seen. It is a very sensitive issue with differences they have had.”
The spokesperson added that while it could be a “significant new lead”, Kate and Gerry did not want to build their hopes up too high.

July 2014 questioning of arguidos who lo and behold were supposed to be burglars.

[Eleanor]

Let's have a few Cites, shall we.

[G-Unit]

I'm not familiar with the 'leaks' you claim ... can you cite them?

I expect you've cut and pasted a lot of them. Any media story which says 'a source close to the investigation' or some such.

[Eleanor]

I expect you've cut and pasted a lot of them. Any media story which says 'a source close to the investigation' or some such.

In reply to Brietta's comment, this doesn't make sense.  Please could you explain?