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

[Alice Purjorick]

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

Who knows?
But wherever it is one thing is certain, because it is part of the process:
The decision to file the case does not examine the merits of the proceedings to date.
It might help to determine the definition of "File" in this particular instance.
Sort out the process, what means what, take less notice of The Sun and more of authoritative documents and less time will be wasted looking for Reds under the bed and grasping the wrong end of the stick.

[Robittybob1]

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

"B - Detailed Analysis

[this section to be completed soon]"  Maybe it was never released hence not translated.  Is there evidence it has been ever released?

[misty]

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.

What a pity the PJ didn't ask the Tapas receptionist, who was on duty until 7pm, about her recollections of the groups' comings & goings after 5pm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

[Brietta]

"B - Detailed Analysis

[this section to be completed soon]"  Maybe it was never released hence not translated.  Is there evidence it has been ever released?

I believe there may be. Perhaps in 2013?

[Robittybob1]

What a pity the PJ didn't ask the Tapas receptionist, who was on duty until 7pm, about her recollections of the groups' comings & goings after 5pm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

Looking at the statement by Vitor (Head of the reception staff) there seems a very similar section of wording used in both statements
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
"In this concrete case the reasonable option was the Tapas as the distance was only 40 metres from the accommodation as opposed to 200 m from the Millenium."

Compared to Vitor:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
"In this case in concrete, the rational choice for dinner would be the Tapas restaurant as it is 100 metres distance from the apartment, whilst the Millenium is situated 600 metres away." 

Luisa has definitely got her distances all wrong but the total structure of the sentence and effect suggests these two had a conversation prior to giving evidence.

Vitor gave his statement on the 7th and Luisa on the 8th.

[G-Unit]

What a pity the PJ didn't ask the Tapas receptionist, who was on duty until 7pm, about her recollections of the groups' comings & goings after 5pm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

It would indeed have helped, as would more searching questions to the other Tapas staff, but that's not what we're discussing is it?

[misty]

It would indeed have helped, as would more searching questions to the other Tapas staff, but that's not what we're discussing is it?

Sorry, but what are we discussing, exactly?
You previously said:-
"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."


The movements of the group between 5.30 & 7.30pm ish could have been independently verified by other guests playing tennis & those in the bar & restaurant who may well have been wearing wristw..ches. Likewise, between 8.30pm & 10pm - surely the bar wasn't empty, even if the restaurant was?
Quite why only the Tapas 9's descriptions of their movements provide unallayed suspicion without reference to other witness statements is beyond me - but maybe the PJ just didn't bother with the finer detail because they already decided whodunit.

[sadie]

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

As you say there was no evuidence that the Mccanns committed a crime, but suspiciions on Amarals and senior officers part, it seems.

Such a pity that Amaral did not allow a reconstruction at the time to enable The Mccanns to have those suspicions lifted off their shoulders and prove their innocence of any crime.

But Amaral said that such a reconstruction was not possible because of the media and public interest.   That seemed a weak excuse to me


AIMHO

[sadie]

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.

I think that the Crimewatch video illustrates exactly what Benice was saying.   Gerry and Jane rememberd were Gerry and Jez stood talking differently and had a minor spat.

Things get mixed up with time ...and traumatic events can cause the mind to get befuudled and memory loss

[misty]

Looking at the statement by Vitor (Head of the reception staff) there seems a very similar section of wording used in both statements
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm
"In this concrete case the reasonable option was the Tapas as the distance was only 40 metres from the accommodation as opposed to 200 m from the Millenium."

Compared to Vitor:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR-SANTOS.htm
"In this case in concrete, the rational choice for dinner would be the Tapas restaurant as it is 100 metres distance from the apartment, whilst the Millenium is situated 600 metres away." 

Luisa has definitely got her distances all wrong but the total structure of the sentence and effect suggests these two had a conversation prior to giving evidence.

Vitor gave his statement on the 7th and Luisa on the 8th.

Both statements were recorded by the same Inspector, Hugo Silva, which would explain the similar sentence structure.

[Brietta]

I think the McCann case is a prime example of enduring "fake news".  It all began as a result of judicial secrecy creating a vacuum in which as suspicion of the McCanns was encouraged became filled with all sorts of tales of innuendo and downright lies.

Misinformation about the McCanns was not only tolerated, it was encouraged.  It has also stood the test of time with normally sensible people who would spot a con if not immediately but eventually and be outraged by it, still discussing clones and the arrangement of the pixels in the last photograph ten years down the line.
All the while studiously avoiding all the inconvenient facts which indicate without a doubt the inaccuracy of the core belief of McCann culpability.

Quote
It should be mentioned in passing that this case illustrates in an exuberant and paradigmatic way,
the long known risks and disadvantages that arise from “trial by newspapers”, which are not “fair
trials”, the “verdicts” of which lead, at times, to distort directly or indirectly, the course of the
investigation and have an effect of detracting attention and even assume, in certain sectors, aspects
of a global media orgy and anticipated blame of the those involved in the case as arguidos, with
disrespect for the persons’ dignity, including that of the missing girl herself.

As Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias commented in “Penal Process Law!, Volume 1, Coimbra
Editora, 1974 p.227 and following “This represents a violation of the most basic principles in our
penal law, by substituting the legal trial by court, the due process of law, by an absolutely illegal
and unconstitutional trial by newspaper. And it is a sociologically proven fact that the excess of
publicity of the penal process can even contribute to the creation of an informal system of “penal
justice without judgement” where it is clear, irreparable damage is done to the presumption of
innocence of the arguido and their fundamental guarantees.”
http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf

Might statements like that contained within it, explain why B-Detailed analysis was not translated into English at the same time as the rest of the document?

[Brietta]

Quote
The disappearance of the British girl, under the circumstances mentioned previously, implied the
involvement of the most diverse entities, especially the intervention of the PJ, which was joined by
other police authorities. In parallel, this disappearance drew the unprecedented attention of the
national and international media, with particular emphasis in the UK during the following days in
their peak hour news bulletins, with live reporting from Praia da Luz, as well as programmes
specially dedicated to the issue.

Meanwhile, the girl’s parents dedicated themselves to making the most diverse contacts and
appeals, divulging images of Madeleine, whilst the British authorities opened a permanent and
specialised contact line in order to gather information regarding the disappearance, in addition to
information from Interpol and other police partners.

This activity (divulgation), as well as the informative aspects coming from the media, aimed to
obtain, within the shortest possible period of time, information that would help the investigation in
two ways: finding Madeleine alive and the compilation of material concerning the concrete
circumstances of her disappearance.
http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf


This one part of the archiving document document presents many aspects which differ fundamentally from the perceived wisdom which has become part and parcel of the narrative.

I am left with the thought; "the narrative according to who ... and the narrative to what end?"

On reading the above what I am missing is the 'outrage against publicity'.  The prosecutors seem to be perfectly at ease with its use from start to finish. Recognising the value of publicity in the case of a missing child and speaking well of the parents' role in raising that awareness.

Why have we been told otherwise and Portugal portrayed as a backwater as a result? ... I believe the above comment proves we have been misinformed.

[Brietta]

On an internet forum Paulo Reis was asked if there was an index accompanying the files on DVD, which he as a journalist had been given after Madeleine's case was archived and if so, would he be able to publish the content.

Quoting the Portuguese Penal Code; Paolo Reis explained he was unable to reproduce anything from the DVD unless it was as a precis in his own words or he risked two years imprisonment.

I've never understood why no-one among those responsible for internet publishing a substantial amount of information covered by the same legislation, did so with impunity ... it is not as if they were not easy enough to find.

Internet detectives have had a field day invading the privacy of everyone mentioned in the illegally published material.  Clearly that should not have happened ... but it did ... doesn't the fact there was no penalty make a bit of a mockery of a law that apparently cannot be enforced when it suits?

[ShiningInLuz]

On an internet forum Paulo Reis was asked if there was an index accompanying the files on DVD, which he as a journalist had been given after Madeleine's case was archived and if so, would he be able to publish the content.

Quoting the Portuguese Penal Code; Paolo Reis explained he was unable to reproduce anything from the DVD unless it was as a precis in his own words or he risked two years imprisonment.

I've never understood why no-one among those responsible for internet publishing a substantial amount of information covered by the same legislation, did so with impunity ... it is not as if they were not easy enough to find.

Internet detectives have had a field day invading the privacy of everyone mentioned in the illegally published material.  Clearly that should not have happened ... but it did ... doesn't the fact there was no penalty make a bit of a mockery of a law that apparently cannot be enforced when it suits?

Invading the privacy ... ?

Is there some particular reason why you think journalists should have access to private details if the general public are to be denied?

If you consider laws have been breached, you have the option of reporting it to the authorities.  Somewhat akin to the report-to-moderator button.

[misty]

Invading the privacy ... ?

Is there some particular reason why you think journalists should have access to private details if the general public are to be denied?

If you consider laws have been breached, you have the option of reporting it to the authorities.  Somewhat akin to the report-to-moderator button.

Why do you think the Portuguese authorities would take any action over private details appearing on the internet when the authorised recipient of such data did not personally upload it from within Portugal?