"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did" claim.

[Admin]

Several members have requested a new thread in order to discuss the assertion by the Chief Prosecutor in Portugal within the Archive Report to the effect that "the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did".  It has been pointed out that Judge Emilia Melo e Castro chose to include this assertion within her Judgement of 27 April 2015 in the Goncalo Amaral v McCanns & Others damages trial.

First of all and to assist readers the original transcripts are linked below:

The Final Police Report by Inspector João Carlos

The Archive Report by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joint General Prosecutor Joao Melchior Gomes.

The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Trial in Lisbon - Judgement dated 27 April 2015


Background to the aforementioned assertion can be traced to the final police report which includes the following:

On page 2412, is the interview with PAMELA FENN, who relates several details, of which, though not clarifying the facts, are elucidating. PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own.


The Archive Report refers to the above observation in the following terms:

Par E

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

Par G

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.

If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.


More recently Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, presiding over the McCann v Goncalo Amaral trial referenced in her Judgement:

Par 15 (5) In the archiving report, 21.07.08

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."(...)

"This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a reckless, or gross, manner" (...)



The above claim which originated with the Portuguese police, stated as fact by the Republic's Prosecutor and more recently referenced by the Judge in the damages trial requires little clarification. The language might be convoluted but the message was clear.

Please discuss.

202

[Carana]

There was only Mrs Fenn's statement to go off that Madeleine had been crying for over an hour. If the PJ had done a sound reconstruction of that with her, or even contacted the friend she'd phoned to verify the date, there might have been a bit more substance. As it stands, it's not clear who she heard, nor even whether she heard more than one child over the course of the evening.

If you want a conviction, then don't bother to cross-check.

[Angelo222]

The Portuguese judge included the observation by the senior prosecutor within the Archve Report and placed it within the proven facts section.

I would call this a revelation moment!

[Alice Purjorick]

Inferred from that which the judge implied.
It's now a question of whether the inference drawn was reasonable in light of the implication.

[Alfred R Jones]

The Portuguese judge included the observation by the senior prosecutor within the Archve Report and placed it within the proven facts section.

I would call this a revelation moment!

I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony?  CCTV?  What exactly?

[ferryman]

I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony?  CCTV?  What exactly?

Me too.

There is an abundance of evidence of checks by the whole group, including by waiters who recall having to return meals to the kitchen to re-heat because various members of the group were off checking the children, Jez Wikins' conversation with Gerry outside the apartment on the occasion of Gerry's check, the recollection of Steven Carpenter, who was in the restaurant the night Madeleine vanished and much else ....

[Mr Gray]

I would like to know what evidence was considered by the Portuguese judge to arrive at the conclusion that the McCanns lied about their checks - witness testimony?  CCTV?  What exactly?

the trial was held in public and every witness statement is on record,,,the checks were never once discussed at the trial...never mind anything being proved

[Alfred R Jones]

This appeared in the Archiving Report also, why did the Damages Judge not repeat it in her judgement?  Did she decide it was a false statement?

On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy – like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established – headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;

[Mr Gray]

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

 This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.


so it seems it is a proven fact based on Mrs Fenns statement...what an absolute load of rubbish..

[Angelo222]

They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared.  Maybe something lost in translation? 

[Mr Gray]

They didn't check on them like they afterwards declared.  Maybe something lost in translation?

based on what evidence...based on mrs Fenn....that's it

[Carana]

What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.

[Mr Gray]

for angelo.....

What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.

and for what its worth...that's why she wasn't interested in Gerry's statement re the dogs...because as carana says..... She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do

[Angelo222]

for angelo.....

What she considered to be proven fact is that the passages she quoted are in the prosecutor's report. Further up she also quoted some of TdA's "anaysis" as well. She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do.

and for what its worth...that's why she wasn't interested in Gerry's statement re the dogs...because as carana says..... She wasn't making any judgement as to whether what is written is accurate or not. That wasn't what she was there to do

Glad we got that sorted but the observation stands albeit that it was the Republics Prosecutor who made it with the recent trial judge merely referencing it.  I hasten to add, I hardly think she would have included such a comment had she not been content that it was valid.

[Admin]

The judge must have found the comment to be of sufficient significance otherwise why reproduce it in her own judgement document?   Why reproduce extracts at all, its not as if they were precedents handed down from a previous trial?