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

[Brietta]

Do you actually believe everyone tells the truth at inquiries.

Perhaps where you are coming from the expectation for those testifying under oath is different from the expectation of those where I am coming from.

[stephen25000]

Perhaps where you are coming from the expectation for those testifying under oath is different from the expectation of those where I am coming from.

I didn't think you were that naive Brietta.

I have seen people lie until they are blue in the face, even when presented with their actual lies.

Have you ever watched court cases where people are under oath and still lie ?

Jury duty was quite an experience as regards that.

For some, an oath is meaningless.

[sadie]

Perhaps where you are coming from the expectation for those testifying under oath is different from the expectation of those where I am coming from.

Touchee Brietta 

[stephen25000]

Touchee Brietta 

Hardly.

[stephen25000]

Yet again.

Posters are reminded to follow forum rules.

[Alice Purjorick]

I've read Leveson ... did you?

Yes and have quoted from it on this very forum.

[Brietta]

Yes and have quoted from it on this very forum.

I think the evidence presented to Leveson makes clear that Kate and Gerry McCann were not best served by the newspaper reports copied from various Portuguese sources and printed in the British press.

Of far more importance is how it all impinged on Madeleine.

Being declared dead without a hair of her head being found to indicate any suggestion let alone proof of that, could not be considered helpful; especially to encouraging the continuation of an active search for a child who might well be alive.

Has it never occurred to sceptics that after the intensive questioning and investigation carried out by the Portuguese police on them that they were not arrested and charged with an offence?
Instead their arguido status was lifted and in their report the Public Prosecutors put on record that there are no indications of the practise of any crime with regards to Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat.

[G-Unit]

I think the evidence presented to Leveson makes clear that Kate and Gerry McCann were not best served by the newspaper reports copied from various Portuguese sources and printed in the British press.

Of far more importance is how it all impinged on Madeleine.

Being declared dead without a hair of her head being found to indicate any suggestion let alone proof of that, could not be considered helpful; especially to encouraging the continuation of an active search for a child who might well be alive.

Has it never occurred to sceptics that after the intensive questioning and investigation carried out by the Portuguese police on them that they were not arrested and charged with an offence?
Instead their arguido status was lifted and in their report the Public Prosecutors put on record that there are no indications of the practise of any crime with regards to Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat.

The McCanns chose to interact with the UK media in pursuit of their own ends. They wanted the media reports to be supportive. Once they were under scrutiny by the PJ the media coverage became more about them than their missing daughter. Dancing with the devil is always risky.

There was no intensive questioning of the couple. Over five months Kate was interviewed twice as a witness and once as an arguida. Gerry three times as a witness and once as an arguido. Kate's friends were interviewed more intensively and more often than she was.

The fact that there was no evidence to show the arguidos had committed a crime doesn't mean they didn't. It means there was no evidence. There were clearly suspicions which were not allayed;

 there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The reconstitution could have allowed the authorities to;

dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

As it didn't take place,

said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Benice]

The McCanns chose to interact with the UK media in pursuit of their own ends. They wanted the media reports to be supportive. Once they were under scrutiny by the PJ the media coverage became more about them than their missing daughter. Dancing with the devil is always risky.

There was no intensive questioning of the couple. Over five months Kate was interviewed twice as a witness and once as an arguida. Gerry three times as a witness and once as an arguido. Kate's friends were interviewed more intensively and more often than she was.

The fact that there was no evidence to show the arguidos had committed a crime doesn't mean they didn't. It means there was no evidence. There were clearly suspicions which were not allayed;

 there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The reconstitution could have allowed the authorities to;

dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

As it didn't take place,

said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

All you have to do now is explain how a recon could prove anything at all except that it isn't humanly possible for 10 people to recreate all their movements between the hours of 5.30 and 11.00p.m from a day a year previous in an accurate enough manner - timewise -  to be of any use whatsoever.

IMO it can't be done, but if anyone knows differently I would love to hear their explanation.

I would also like to know what 'demonstrate their innocence' means re the McCanns.   Their innocence of what?

[G-Unit]

All you have to do now is explain how a recon could prove anything at all except that it isn't humanly possible for 10 people to recreate all their movements between the hours of 5.30 and 11.00p.m from a day a
 year previous in an accurate enough manner - timewise -  to be of any use whatsoever.

IMO it can't be done, but if anyone knows differently I would love to hear their explanation.

I would also like to know what 'demonstrate their innocence' means re the McCanns.   Their innocence of what?

It seems the Met and the BBC had no hesitation in 2013, six years after the event;

The dramatic Madeleine McCann Crimewatch appeal featured what investigators have described as "the most detailed reconstruction of the case yet".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-watch-2372789

It wasn't detailed, of course, and contained errors.

I think you need to ask the prosecutors to answer your second question. All I pointed out was that suspicions were not allayed.

[Alice Purjorick]

I think the evidence presented to Leveson makes clear that Kate and Gerry McCann were not best served by the newspaper reports copied from various Portuguese sources and printed in the British press.

Of far more importance is how it all impinged on Madeleine.

Being declared dead without a hair of her head being found to indicate any suggestion let alone proof of that, could not be considered helpful; especially to encouraging the continuation of an active search for a child who might well be alive.

Has it never occurred to sceptics that after the intensive questioning and investigation carried out by the Portuguese police on them that they were not arrested and charged with an offence?
Instead their arguido status was lifted and in their report the Public Prosecutors put on record that there are no indications of the practise of any crime with regards to Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat.

You would appear to be wandering off the original track.
The bit in bold had not escaped my attention. As to what sceptics think I haven't a clue; try asking one.
To correct your last sentence. The case was filed because during the investigation sufficient evidence was not gathered to show that either the  crime occured or the identity of its perpetrator. I am sure you will appreciate the difference.

[Benice]

It seems the Met and the BBC had no hesitation in 2013, six years after the event;

The dramatic Madeleine McCann Crimewatch appeal featured what investigators have described as "the most detailed reconstruction of the case yet".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-watch-2372789

It wasn't detailed, of course, and contained errors.

I think you need to ask the prosecutors to answer your second question. All I pointed out was that suspicions were not allayed.

There is absolutely no comparison between that 'recon' and the recon the PJ were proposing.  But I'm sure you know that G.

Sceptics are very keen to condemn the McCanns and their friends for not agreeing to do the recon, but never offer any explanation as to how the major problem of no-one remembering the exact times they did anything between the hours of 5.30 and 11.00 could possibly be overcome.    IMO there is no way it could be overcome and without that crucial knowledge the whole exercise was doomed to failure from the onset.   It would have been a shambles.

The same goes for the 'failure to demonstrate their innocence' comment.   Sceptics are keen to bring it up - but never offer an explanation as to what it actually means. 

AIMHO

[Brietta]

You would appear to be wandering off the original track.
The bit in bold had not escaped my attention. As to what sceptics think I haven't a clue; try asking one.
To correct your last sentence. The case was filed because during the investigation sufficient evidence was not gathered to show that either the  crime occured or the identity of its perpetrator. I am sure you will appreciate the difference.

Now, mention of the case being filed and therefore archived, the archiving document to which we have access raises a question.

Where is the translation of section B - Detailed Analysis? 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Brietta]

The McCanns chose to interact with the UK media in pursuit of their own ends. They wanted the media reports to be supportive. Once they were under scrutiny by the PJ the media coverage became more about them than their missing daughter. Dancing with the devil is always risky.

There was no intensive questioning of the couple. Over five months Kate was interviewed twice as a witness and once as an arguida. Gerry three times as a witness and once as an arguido. Kate's friends were interviewed more intensively and more often than she was.

The fact that there was no evidence to show the arguidos had committed a crime doesn't mean they didn't. It means there was no evidence. There were clearly suspicions which were not allayed;

 there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The reconstitution could have allowed the authorities to;

dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

As it didn't take place,

said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

"The McCanns chose to interact with the UK media in pursuit of their own ends." is merely in your opinion.  I do wish you would remember to state that when voicing it.
 

My opinion is that they used the media to do what the media does best ... that is disseminate information ... the reason the McCanns interacted with the media was to get the word out there regarding their missing child.

Why do you criticise them for that?

[G-Unit]

There is absolutely no comparison between that 'recon' and the recon the PJ were proposing.  But I'm sure you know that G.

Sceptics are very keen to condemn the McCanns and their friends for not agreeing to do the recon, but never offer any explanation as to how the major problem of no-one remembering the exact times they did anything between the hours of 5.30 and 11.00 could possibly be overcome.    IMO there is no way it could be overcome and without that crucial knowledge the whole exercise was doomed to failure from the onset.   It would have been a shambles.

The same goes for the 'failure to demonstrate their innocence' comment.   Sceptics are keen to bring it up - but never offer an explanation as to what it actually means. 

AIMHO

The Crimewatch reconstruction definitely bore no resemblance to the reconstruction proposed by the PJ. The Crimewatch one was a mere sketch with very little detail. The PJ proposed that the group acted out what they said they did in real time. Correct times could have been identified. For example;

The men left the beach between 18.13 and 18.36. What time would they arrive at the Tapas reception? We now have an almost correct time.

The women left the beach shortly after 18.36. What time would they arrive at the Tapas reception? We now have an almost correct time.

And so on...........not all the answers, but nearer than when different statements are compared.

I never mentioned demonstrating innocence. I mentioned unallayed suspicions which remained at the time of archiving and remain still.