UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on October 16, 2018, 06:21:55 PM
-
Do you have a cite that Goncalo Amaral decided Madeleine was dead on Day 1 please?
This would be an important cite being requested.
-
Do you have a cite that Goncalo Amaral decided Madeleine was dead on Day 1 please?
This would be an important cite being requested.
Misty - "There are also selective paragraphs in Chapter 3 of TToTL which indicate the train of thought."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10257.msg496113#msg496113
I think anything like this can be claimed with hindsight. I have a feeling that GA suspected something happened at the time David visited Kate between 6:30 - 7:00.
No second statements were taken from David and Kate. I don't understand their investigation technique but obviously Kate felt Ricardo Paiva was a spy once he turned against her once she became an arguido.
-
Misty - "There are also selective paragraphs in Chapter 3 of TToTL which indicate the train of thought."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10257.msg496113#msg496113
I think anything like this can be claimed with hindsight. I have a feeling that GA suspected something happened at the time David visited Kate between 6:30 - 7:00.
No second statements were taken from David and Kate. I don't understand their investigation technique but obviously Kate felt Ricardo Paiva was a spy once he turned against her once she became an arguido.
I don't see Goncalo Amaral being named, in fact I see no named policemen. Who's to say it wasn't one of the GNR officers with their opinion. Personally I see nothing to substantiate the claim that Goncalo Amaral decided that Madeleine was dead from day 1.
-
I don't see Goncalo Amaral being named, in fact I see no named policemen. Who's to say it wasn't one of the GNR officers with their opinion. Personally I see nothing to substantiate the claim that Goncalo Amaral decided that Madeleine was dead from day 1.
Is 'feeling it' not the same as a cite then? Oh bother...
-
Is 'feeling it' not the same as a cite then? Oh bother...
How can we ever know what he thought on the 4th May?
He can give us some clues by his book or interviews but they were all produced later, so can there ever be proof of his "train of thought" on the day after?
Vitor Martins was the first PJ to write a report. He basically says she is missing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
"It is important to state that when the police arrived at the scene, there were already several people inside the apartment who could have contaminated this space.
It is also important to state that the GNR officers carried out several searches around the apartment in an attempt to locate the missing girl, however these efforts have been fruitless."
-
How can we ever know what he thought on the 4th May?
He can give us some clues by his book or interviews but they were all produced later, so can there ever be proof of his "train of thought" on the day after?
Vitor Martins was the first PJ to write a report. He basically says she is missing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
"It is important to state that when the police arrived at the scene, there were already several people inside the apartment who could have contaminated this space.
It is also important to state that the GNR officers carried out several searches around the apartment in an attempt to locate the missing girl, however these efforts have been fruitless."
Therefore misty is incorrect in her statement about Goncalo Amaral and should amend her post accordingly as I have done in the past. I don't believe that Goncalo Amaral had any opinions on the case on day one.
-
Therefore misty is incorrect in her statement about Goncalo Amaral and should amend her post accordingly as I have done in the past. I don't believe that Goncalo Amaral had any opinions on the case on day one.
"....indicate the train of thought ..." - I wouldn't get too upset about that.
-
"....indicate the train of thought ..." - I wouldn't get too upset about that.
Except this is what Misty said and why I requested the cite
Not necessarily the car owner's hand, though (but it the cited case it almost certainly was).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/03/22/one-ten-people-have-never-used-cocaine-have-traces-fingertips/
There is always the risk of cross-contamination & in an area where the locals slaughter pigs as a way of life, it is not unreasonable to speculate contamination from shoes brought into 5A from elsewhere. (http://www.saomarcosdaserra.com/a-way-of-life.php)
However, none of that explains why Amaral had already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
This portion below being the reason for my cite request
However, none of that explains why Amaral had already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
No indication of a train of thought there IMO.
-
True, but her answer I believe is correct for he seems to claim it was what he thought. But it is always debatable if that is what he really meant.
-
True, but her answer I believe is correct for he seems to claim it was what he thought. But it is always debatable if that is what he really meant.
I would say more than debatable. I think that is a very strong statement that misty has made and needs a strong cite to go with it. So far I have seen nothing of the sort.
-
I would say more than debatable. I think that is a very strong statement that misty has made and needs a strong cite to go with it. So far I have seen nothing of the sort.
I cited chapter 3 of TToTL so perhaps you should read it in its entirety. Amaral was the coordinator during the first 72 hours so he was responsible for any collective "we believe" records. Somewhere on this forum is a quote from an interview, taken from the Morais blog, where Amaral confirms he suspected the parents from Day 1 - i.e. death, concealment & simulated abduction. I can't locate it at present but it's on here somewhere.
-
Rob. This has got to stop. It is just one step too far. I believe that Moderators should not be allowed to Approve their own Threads. And this is a prime example. You must not be a party to this. This is all so wrong.
-
Rob. This has got to stop. It is just one step too far. I believe that Moderators should not be allowed to Approve their own Threads. And this is a prime example. You must not be a party to this. This is all so wrong.
I think it is for editors who have the ability to move all relevant posts in a discussion to a new thread to make decisions such as this.
Particularly when one member's post is singled out as a catalyst ... with or without that member's permission?? This way of doing so in isolation confuses the issue I think and fragments discussion on the threads.
I agree this is not something Moderators should be doing ... although conceding you have done it with the best will in the world because you do keep things moving when there isn't much going on.
I'm 100% with Eleanor on this one.
-
I think it is for editors who have the ability to move all relevant posts in a discussion to a new thread to make decisions such as this.
Particularly when one member's post is singled out as a catalyst ... with or without that member's permission?? This way of doing so in isolation confuses the issue I think and fragments discussion on the threads.
I agree this is not something Moderators should be doing ... although conceding you have done it with the best will in the world because you do keep things moving when there isn't much going on.
I'm 100% with Eleanor on this one.
Yes indeed, Rob does this with the best of intentions. But it simply will not do because it is a personal choice to promote one's own Thread regardless of what anyone else thinks.
I Approve Threads sometimes but I would never Approve mine own. And if someone cannot see the sense of this then we have yet another problem.
-
I would say more than debatable. I think that is a very strong statement that misty has made and needs a strong cite to go with it. So far I have seen nothing of the sort.
I've replied on your thread. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id119.htm has the Baldly told story" article translation.
What can you make out of that?
-
Yes indeed, Rob does this with the best of intentions. But it simply will not do because it is a personal choice to promote one's own Thread regardless of what anyone else thinks.
I Approve Threads sometimes but I would never Approve mine own. And if someone cannot see the sense of this then we have yet another problem.
I have no control over that - if I start a thread it is approved. I am trying to tidy up the cite requests and their responses. I feel we are getting to the bottom of this issue.
GA could never publicly announce that the parents are suspects without having made them suspects (arguidos). But there was little stopping leaks appearing in the papers.
-
I cited chapter 3 of TToTL so perhaps you should read it in its entirety. Amaral was the coordinator during the first 72 hours so he was responsible for any collective "we believe" records. Somewhere on this forum is a quote from an interview, taken from the Morais blog, where Amaral confirms he suspected the parents from Day 1 - i.e. death, concealment & simulated abduction. I can't locate it at present but it's on here somewhere.
Misty I have read chapter 3 and the part that you have attached and although I see doubts as to whether it was an abduction I don't see the concrete certainty that you seem to think Goncalo Amaral had. He appears to be looking at many different causes for Madeleine's disappearance.
If you could find the blog entry that may clear up the question.
-
Misty I have read chapter 3 and the part that you have attached and although I see doubts as to whether it was an abduction I don't see the concrete certainty that you seem to think Goncalo Amaral had. He appears to be looking at many different causes for Madeleine's disappearance.
If you could find the blog entry that may clear up the question.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/exclusive-interview-w-former-pj-coordinator-gon-al-t6.html
*snipped*
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].
-
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/exclusive-interview-w-former-pj-coordinator-gon-al-t6.html
*snipped*
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].
Thank you Misty.
-
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/exclusive-interview-w-former-pj-coordinator-gon-al-t6.html
*snipped*
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].
He says that is just a suspicion. That is a bit different to a decision isn't it?
-
He says that is just a suspicion. That is a bit different to a decision isn't it?
I don't believe that he made a decision in his mind that the parents were guilty Rob, but I believe that misty thought that was the case. That is why I dropped the cite request in this case.
Reading Goncalo Amaral's book chapter 3 there were investigating many ways of Madeleine disappearing and one of them was abduction.
-
I don't believe that he made a decision in his mind that the parents were guilty Rob, but I believe that misty thought that was the case. That is why I dropped the cite request in this case.
Reading Goncalo Amaral's book chapter 3 there were investigating many ways of Madeleine disappearing and one of them was abduction.
Do you believe that Goncalo was suspicious of the parents from very the first hour?
-
Do you believe that Goncalo was suspicious of the parents from very the first hour?
Definitely not as he wouldn't be aware of the full facts before the PJ arrived on scene and got back to him with their report. I don't believe he:
decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
He didn't "decide" he was suspicious that is not the same at all.
-
Definitely not as he wouldn't be aware of the full facts before the PJ arrived on scene and got back to him with their report. I don't believe he:
decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
He didn't "decide" he was suspicious that is not the same at all.
When did he actually turn up at the scene of Madeleine's disappearance.
I don't believe he went there when informed as he was dining and left from there to go home.
He was made a suspect in a torture case on 4th May ... so did that tie him up any?
-
When did he actually turn up at the scene of Madeleine's disappearance.
I don't believe he went there when informed as he was dining and left from there to go home.
He was made a suspect in a torture case on 4th May ... so did that tie him up any?
Could you tell me what that has to do with the Madeleine case, Brietta. That post is beneath you IMO.
-
Could you tell me what that has to do with the Madeleine case, Brietta. That post is beneath you IMO.
Explain please ... I do not understand your post at all with the exception of your unnecessary ad hom.
I asked if anyone knew when the senior investigating officer showed up at the scene of Madeleine's disappearance.
In my opinion ... it has a lot to do with Madeleine's case.
I had no idea it was a 'touchy' subject for you or anyone.
-
Explain please ... I do not understand your post at all with the exception of your unnecessary ad hom.
I asked if anyone knew when the senior investigating officer showed up at the scene of Madeleine's disappearance.
In my opinion ... it has a lot to do with Madeleine's case.
I had no idea it was a 'touchy' subject for you or anyone.
In what way does it impact on the case any more than any other event.
-
Do you have a cite that Goncalo Amaral decided Madeleine was dead on Day 1 please?
This would be an important cite being requested.
I don't believe the Portuguese authorities would have rolled out all the search resources they did if they believed for a moment that Madeleine was deceased on day 1. I think the truth of it might be that he decided on day 1 that accidental death was one of several possibilities.
-
Definitely not as he wouldn't be aware of the full facts before the PJ arrived on scene and got back to him with their report. I don't believe he:
decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
He didn't "decide" he was suspicious that is not the same at all.
How do you account for this then?
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour.
-
In what way does it impact on the case any more than any other event.
Is it unnecessary for a senior investigating officer to attend the scene of an incident involving the disappearance of a child.
You tell me ... I'm not the one whose cage seems to have been rattled by my question asking if anyone did know when he attended.
According to his book, Amaral did make certain assumptions when he did turn up but was not specific about when that was.
Day 1 appears in the thread title ... so I think when he did turn up is relevant in that context if nothing else.
-
Is it unnecessary for a senior investigating officer to attend the scene of an incident involving the disappearance of a child.
You tell me ... I'm not the one whose cage seems to have been rattled by my question asking if anyone did know when he attended.
According to his book, Amaral did make certain assumptions when he did turn up but was not specific about when that was.
Day 1 appears in the thread title ... so I think when he did turn up is relevant in that context if nothing else.
fair enough so has anyone a cite ref the thread title.
-
How do you account for this then?
DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?
GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour.
Do we know how suspicious he was in the first hour? No we do not. Surely the correct way to treat an abduction is to suspect anyone and everyone until they are excluded.
-
Do we know how suspicious he was in the first hour? No we do not. Surely the correct way to treat an abduction is to suspect anyone and everyone until they are excluded.
Suspicious is suspicious, I didn't ask you to quantify it. So Amaral was suspicious from the off. The question is - what made him suspicious before the McCanns and friends had even given their first statements?
-
Suspicious is suspicious, I didn't ask you to quantify it. So Amaral was suspicious from the off. The question is - what made him suspicious before the McCanns and friends had even given their first statements?
Initial reports from his officers on the ground, maybe ?
-
Initial reports from his officers on the ground, maybe ?
About what specifically though? Praying like Arabs I suppose. (&^&
-
Suspicious is suspicious, I didn't ask you to quantify it. So Amaral was suspicious from the off. The question is - what made him suspicious before the McCanns and friends had even given their first statements?
My post had two parts VS. Perhaps you read the second sentence. Police should be suspicious of everyone right from the start.
-
About what specifically though? Praying like Arabs I suppose. (&^&
Well I see it going something like this -
GA OK , you been at the scene, give me your first impressions
PJ Right Gov, Something not right about this. Parents claim they left children locked in apartment with regular checking. Sometime between 9 and 10 eldest child disappeared. Parents claim a break in but no sign of forced entry.
Parents dead dodgy. She screaming head off in some foreign lingo, punching the wall, but no tears while he’s lying on floor like a preying arab with this sly smirk on his face
I reckon it’s an inside job.
-
My post had two parts VS. Perhaps you read the second sentence. Police should be suspicious of everyone right from the start.
Then why did you claim he would not have been suspicious in the first hour?
-
Well I see it going something like this -
GA OK , you been at the scene, give me your first impressions
PJ Right Gov, Something not right about this. Parents claim they left children locked in apartment with regular checking. Sometime between 9 and 10 eldest child disappeared. Parents claim a break in but no sign of forced entry.
Parents dead dodgy. She screaming head off in some foreign lingo, punching the wall, but no tears while he’s lying on floor like a preying arab with this sly smirk on his face
I reckon it’s an inside job.
Cite for “no tears” and “sly smirk” please, or are those your own imaginative embellishments?
-
Cite for “no tears” and “sly smirk” please, or are those your own imaginative embellishments?
It should be obvious that this was an imagined scenario in response to your question.
-
It should be obvious that this was an imagined scenario in response to your question.
Just so’s we’re clear it was a product of your fevered imagination.
-
Just so’s we’re clear it was a product of your fevered imagination.
Fertile imagination, if you don't mind @)(++(*
-
Do you believe that Goncalo was suspicious of the parents from very the first hour?
It is rather interesting for GA would have been aware that stats tell us that parents can be involved in missing child cases.
So if everyone is a suspect to begin with, you can't say one or other is suspicious without reason.
As soon as you are suspicious you have to be aware of it. I do think "from very the first hour?" is a bit of an exaggeration. When did his timing start?
-
Well I see it going something like this -
GA OK , you been at the scene, give me your first impressions
PJ Right Gov, Something not right about this. Parents claim they left children locked in apartment with regular checking. Sometime between 9 and 10 eldest child disappeared. Parents claim a break in but no sign of forced entry.
Parents dead dodgy. She screaming head off in some foreign lingo, punching the wall, but no tears while he’s lying on floor like a preying arab with this sly smirk on his face
I reckon it’s an inside job.
In this imagined conversation who is the person talking to GA? Only the two GNR officers and Silvia Batista are reported to have been present when those events occurred.
-
Then why did you claim he would not have been suspicious in the first hour?
Simply because in the first hour he wouldn't have known about the facts in the case. I didn't say he was suspicious I said police should be suspicious. I don't mean he was about to make them arguidos, but he should look at all possibilities and parental involvement and also stranger abduction would be amongst those possibilities IMO.
-
In this imagined conversation who is the person talking to GA? Only the two GNR officers and Silvia Batista are reported to have been present when those events occurred.
???? Are you being serious????
-
Definitely not as he wouldn't be aware of the full facts before the PJ arrived on scene and got back to him with their report. I don't believe he:
decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
He didn't "decide" he was suspicious that is not the same at all.
Can you explain what he suspected the parents of, if not death & concealment, without any evidence or having visited the crime scene, as the parents were still at the Ocean Club but Madeleine was nowhere to be found in the first 24 hours? I can provide a few examples, if required, of very young children wandering many miles before being found days later, some of which may well include "a badly told story".
-
Can you explain what he suspected the parents of, if not death & concealment, without any evidence or having visited the crime scene, as the parents were still at the Ocean Club but Madeleine was nowhere to be found in the first 24 hours? I can provide a few examples, if required, of very young children wandering many miles before being found days later, some of which may well include "a badly told story".
I have already said that IMO the police should always look at everyone as a possible criminal. This will include the people closest to the crime scene as well as others. We don't know what the individual police officers told Goncalo Amaral and his higher ranking officers about their impressions of the tapas friends and the McCanns so we can never know the full story of how the investigation progressed and why he started to really suspect the McCanns IMO.
-
???? Are you being serious????
I wrote that a bit wrong, The two GNR and SB are the only persons who report these events.
-
I have already said that IMO the police should always look at everyone as a possible criminal. This will include the people closest to the crime scene as well as others. We don't know what the individual police officers told Goncalo Amaral and his higher ranking officers about their impressions of the tapas friends and the McCanns so we can never know the full story of how the investigation progressed and why he started to really suspect the McCanns IMO.
Amaral was in the crisis room in Portimao. The first officers on the scene were GNR - I cannot see that they made any statements which would have been seen by Amaral in the first 24 hours - can you?
-
Amaral was in the crisis room in Portimao. The first officers on the scene were GNR - I cannot see that they made any statements which would have been seen by Amaral in the first 24 hours - can you?
The PJ were there within an hour or so after the GNR, it was those police officers I was thinking about with reference to conversations with Goncalo Amaral, not the GNR officers.
-
The PJ were there within an hour or so after the GNR, it was those police officers I was thinking about with reference to conversations with Goncalo Amaral, not the GNR officers.
There were 2 CSI officers from the PJ who arrived at OC overnight. Which other PJ officers arrived, please?
-
The PJ were there within an hour or so after the GNR, it was those police officers I was thinking about with reference to conversations with Goncalo Amaral, not the GNR officers.
But it was those PJ officers who spoke to the GNR and the civilians at the scene. So it was at least 3rd hand by the time GA was told. Plenty of time for individual opinion to start colouring the facts by that stage IMO.
-
Well I see it going something like this -
GA OK , you been at the scene, give me your first impressions
PJ Right Gov, Something not right about this. Parents claim they left children locked in apartment with regular checking. Sometime between 9 and 10 eldest child disappeared. Parents claim a break in but no sign of forced entry.
Parents dead dodgy. She screaming head off in some foreign lingo, punching the wall, but no tears while he’s lying on floor like a preying arab with this sly smirk on his face
I reckon it’s an inside job.
Do you know that when I lost my dearly loved only son to brain cancer at the age of nine, I never shed a tear for ten years. Very strange, and different circumstances, I know ... but it happened
The human body is strange in the way it reacts to heart rending things, and everyone is different.
However we have all seen photos of Kate crying.
Little doubt some of you will say it was play acting, but then some people are not sensitive and overly suspicious. Such a shame imo
-
But it was those PJ officers who spoke to the GNR and the civilians at the scene. So it was at least 3rd had by the time GA was told. Plenty of time for individual opinion to start colouring the facts by that stage IMO.
You could be right in that Robitty. Certainly in Britain police officers are trained observers. But the only thing which should be colouring the facts of a case are not value judgements but the protection and gathering of evidence.
-
But it was those PJ officers who spoke to the GNR and the civilians at the scene. So it was at least 3rd hand by the time GA was told. Plenty of time for individual opinion to start colouring the facts by that stage IMO.
No Rob it would be secondhand. The PJ spoke to the witnesses, then they spoke to Goncalo Amaral.
Misty I didn't say how many PJ officers visited the Ocean Club I only said PJ "officers" - two would be enough for the plural use of the word.
However, Vitor Martins, Joao Franciso Barreiras were both on the scene and gave statements but Manuel Joaquim Pessoa de Lencastre Queiroz who didn't appear to go to the Ocean Club may have mentioned some concerns which it is clear to me he had, when I read his statement.
Snipped
At the beginning the possibility was considered that the child had left the apartment of her own will, and that she couldn't have gone far from the scene and that she would be found wandering/lost (at this time there were already dozens of people looking for her).
However, a little more than an hour later, about 02.00/02.30, as the child had not been found, he decided to contact SEF at Faro airport with the aim of alerting them in case anyone would board accompanied by some child, whoever she was and those accompanying her should be duly identified, however the various calls made were not attended. In the face of this situation I contacted the Faro Station from the police and told them what was going on and asked them to alert the SEF.
I also decided to alert the GNR in Lagos so that they would send out a warning so that the car and foot patrols that were out on the ground would pay attention and identify cars with people out driving at that time who were accompanied by a child (children).
During the early morning in question I received some telephone calls from people whom, with the exception of one, expressed themselves in Portuguese to ask whether an English girl had really disappeared in Lagos and about what was being done with relation to this and I informed them that this was true and that inquiries were being made in order to find her. One of these calls, from the person who did not express themselves in Portuguese but in English and which was received between 04.30 and 05.30, was made by someone who identified themselves as being from the Sky News TV chain and who requested the same information mentioned earlier.
No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MANUEL_QUEIROZ.htm
-
Is day 1 the 3rd or 4th?
-
Is day 1 the 3rd or 4th?
First 24 hour period I'd say.
-
I think it is for editors who have the ability to move all relevant posts in a discussion to a new thread to make decisions such as this.
Particularly when one member's post is singled out as a catalyst ... with or without that member's permission?? This way of doing so in isolation confuses the issue I think and fragments discussion on the threads.
I agree this is not something Moderators should be doing ... although conceding you have done it with the best will in the world because you do keep things moving when there isn't much going on.
I'm 100% with Eleanor on this one.
I am glad that you noticed this and have brought it to light.
1) I am feeling very sore because the thread supposedly attributed to me called "Was the PJ right to decide that Madeleine had died so early on?" was not started by me at all.
2) It was two days before I even knew this thread had been started in my name
That is not fair imo
3) Furthermore it was started with a post from another thread which had been changed, so the opening post was not fully in line with my thoughts. Diabolical
4) In the past, I had publicly asked that there be no opening of new threads in my name without my permission. That request was ignored.
5) As most of you know i have been thrashed by several life threatening conditions and procedures/ operations in the past 3+ years and that along with old age has tired me. Very often I dont come in at all, for days on end.
6) With my lack of typing skills along with extreme tiredness, and especially with sore, streaming eyes, Ii had no chance to catch up with necessary responses
7) Furthermore this seemed a new thread intended to give everyone the chance to put the boot in, specifically at me.
I would like to thank everyone of you that supported me with your posts; I really appreciated that 8((()*/
I think that such starting of threads behind a posters back should be ruled 'Out of Order'.
I hope others agree with me and make their feelings known. After all it could be your turn next.
-
Well whoever does the compilation could make it clear that the thread is a new compilation.
-
No Rob it would be secondhand. The PJ spoke to the witnesses, then they spoke to Goncalo Amaral.
Misty I didn't say how many PJ officers visited the Ocean Club I only said PJ "officers" - two would be enough for the plural use of the word.
However, Vitor Martins, Joao Franciso Barreiras were both on the scene and gave statements but Manuel Joaquim Pessoa de Lencastre Queiroz who didn't appear to go to the Ocean Club may have mentioned some concerns which it is clear to me he had, when I read his statement........SNIPPED
Did Vitor Martins or the CSI Officer Barreiras mention any concerns in their statements given later than 6 months after the night in question?
Joao Barreiras (20 Nov 2007; Vol 15 page 3856)
Vitor Martins (4 Dec 2007; Vol 15 page 3862)
-
Did Vitor Martins or the CSI Officer Barreiras mention any concerns in their statements given later than 6 months after the night in question?
Joao Barreiras (20 Nov 2007; Vol 15 page 3856)
Vitor Martins (4 Dec 2007; Vol 15 page 3862)
The issue I have in my mind, and it is still unresolved was did Vitor Martins take the notes himself or did he use the notes taken by the GNR officers earlier?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
Like in his second statement he talks about clearing everyone out of the apartment. Well did he clear Jane Tanner out of the apartment and then when does he get to talk to her to record: "At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers."
Does Jane ever say she spoke to two police officers on the first night?
-
IF Amaral said he had suspicions in the first hour then he must be a mind reader. He was in a restaurant and then went home to bed, if I recall correctly.
-
IF Amaral said he had suspicions in the first hour then he must be a mind reader. He was in a restaurant and then went home to bed, if I recall correctly.
It was nearly 1:00 AM by the time the PJ arrived.
-
The issue I have in my mind, and it is still unresolved was did Vitor Martins take the notes himself or did he use the notes taken by the GNR officers earlier?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
Like in his second statement he talks about clearing everyone out of the apartment. Well did he clear Jane Tanner out of the apartment and then when does he get to talk to her to record: "At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers."
Does Jane ever say she spoke to two police officers on the first night?
Jane says she spoke to the PJ at 3am. The PJ don't mention speaking to anyone but Gerry.
-
IF Amaral said he had suspicions in the first hour then he must be a mind reader. He was in a restaurant and then went home to bed, if I recall correctly.
As he mentions it was after the interviews it was unlikely to be in the first hour.
-
IF Amaral said he had suspicions in the first hour then he must be a mind reader. He was in a restaurant and then went home to bed, if I recall correctly.
So in reference to the thread title " there is none".
-
So in reference to the thread title " there is none".
This depends on whether or not Amaral said it.
-
Jane says she spoke to the PJ at 3am. The PJ don't mention speaking to anyone but Gerry.
In my opinion witness statements are cross referenced. Do you know if anyone else mentions Jane speaking to the police at the time in question?
-
Jane says she spoke to the PJ at 3am. The PJ don't mention speaking to anyone but Gerry.
JT rogatory "4078 “But you told the Police when they came?”
Reply “Yeah, when they arrived Rachael I think went and got the GNR and I told the GNR chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to the, the PJ” end quote.
"Reply “Well when the GNR people came, so the first lot of Police, the local Police came, erm, I spoke to them and I think that was through the translator, which was, I think she’s called Sylvie, she’s the Head of Housekeeping or something, she was doing the translating at that point. So I’d spoken to the GNR Police and then when the PJ came, they came to get me to talk to them to say, to say what, what I’d seen. And then I can remember the same GNR person saying to me later on in the night ‘Oh have you spoken to the PJ’ and I had by that stage, so”. end quote.
How did you work it out it was 03.00?
-
JT rogatory "4078 “But you told the Police when they came?”
Reply “Yeah, when they arrived Rachael I think went and got the GNR and I told the GNR chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to the, the PJ” end quote.
"Reply “Well when the GNR people came, so the first lot of Police, the local Police came, erm, I spoke to them and I think that was through the translator, which was, I think she’s called Sylvie, she’s the Head of Housekeeping or something, she was doing the translating at that point. So I’d spoken to the GNR Police and then when the PJ came, they came to get me to talk to them to say, to say what, what I’d seen. And then I can remember the same GNR person saying to me later on in the night ‘Oh have you spoken to the PJ’ and I had by that stage, so”. end quote.
How did you work it out it was 03.00?
I can remember Russell coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ.........
“That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
For those who continually feel they are in a position to give other posters a lesson in English..... Then if amaral decided that Maddie died on the 3rd.... Then he decided she was dead on day one
-
In my opinion witness statements are cross referenced. Do you know if anyone else mentions Jane speaking to the police at the time in question?
No.
-
I can remember Russell coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ.........
“That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Did you notice that was on the next morning i.e. on the 5th not the 4th! see the bold bit so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning,
"4078 “Were you able to then show them sort of in real terms where you had seen the man by actually physically taking them and showing them?”
Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
-
Did you notice that was on the next morning i.e. on the 5th not the 4th! see the bold bit so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning,
"4078 “Were you able to then show them sort of in real terms where you had seen the man by actually physically taking them and showing them?”
Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
Well spotted Rob.
The 3am was the night after, not the night that Madeleine vanished.
Maybe you shouls edit your post, Gunit?
-
Well spotted Rob.
The 3am was the night after, not the night that Madeleine vanished.
Maybe you shouls edit your post, Gunit?
But it seems clear that Jane did speak to the PJ Vitor Martins who seemed to be able to converse in English.
-
Did you notice that was on the next morning i.e. on the 5th not the 4th! see the bold bit so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning,
"4078 “Were you able to then show them sort of in real terms where you had seen the man by actually physically taking them and showing them?”
Reply “No, they didn’t, they didn’t take me, the only time I ever showed them where I saw it is when (inaudible), but the chap on the stairs here again, brought me back in the middle of the night from, erm, erm, from doing the sketch, so this was like the second, the night after, so this was quite late, it was like three o’clock in the morning, erm, after coming, well about three o’clock in the morning after coming back from trying to do the egg with hair sketch, I said to him then. I said ‘Can I show you where I saw this person’, because the Press had all gone by that stage and the rest of the day there’d been obviously quite a lot of Press there, but they’d all gone. So I actually took him then and said, you know, ‘This is where, this is where I saw him’, but at that time in the night all the, all the, you know, I, I honestly can’t remember what I, you know, exactly what I said, but, but I just said I’d seen somebody and they just sort of wrote it down and that was, that was it really”.
According to Jane she spoke to the PJ at 3am, in 5A, on 4th. In the above passage she's talking about doing an 'egg with hair' sketch at the police station and being brought back at 3am, probably on 5th. Notice the press had arrived. There's no record in the files of this second visit by Jane to the police station. She was interviewed on the morning of 4th and when she returned Russell went and was interviewed in the evening.
-
Jane saying more about her second trip to the police station AFTER the interviews in 4th;
There was the interview on the day after and then, I can’t think it was that night they came back about two, well about half one, to pick me up again to go back to do the sketch, so I think that was the night of the fourth or it could have been the fifth, but I think it was the night of the fourth.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
-
Well spotted Rob.
The 3am was the night after, not the night that Madeleine vanished.
Maybe you shouls edit your post, Gunit?
You're very quick to assume (wrongly) that I'm wrong and Rob's right, Sadie. Perhaps an apology is in order?
-
You're very quick to assume (wrongly) that I'm wrong and Rob's right, Sadie. Perhaps an apology is in order?
My mistake - I hadn't matched the quotes perfectly. You are right this time.
"Reply “Well him and Matt they were doing the, they were, I think they were sort of searching, I don’t know where they searched, but they, they were actually sort of running around actually looking farther afield, so didn’t really see them much at all. I think that they did come back and as I say I can’t remember when they came back but I remember them coming back and then they went off again. And then I think they, Russell was there when I spoke to the PJ, because I can remember Russell coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ. And that was the first time I’d ever been into their, into Kate and Gerry’s apartment through the whole week, I hadn’t, it might seem like, but we hadn’t really been into their apartment before”.
4078 “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?”
Reply “That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”."
-
My mistake - I hadn't matched the quotes perfectly. You are right this time.
"Reply “Well him and Matt they were doing the, they were, I think they were sort of searching, I don’t know where they searched, but they, they were actually sort of running around actually looking farther afield, so didn’t really see them much at all. I think that they did come back and as I say I can’t remember when they came back but I remember them coming back and then they went off again. And then I think they, Russell was there when I spoke to the PJ, because I can remember Russell coming in with me when I spoke to the PJ, because there was Russell and Gerry was there as well in the apartment when I spoke to the PJ. And that was the first time I’d ever been into their, into Kate and Gerry’s apartment through the whole week, I hadn’t, it might seem like, but we hadn’t really been into their apartment before”.
4078 “Sorry, was that on the night that Madeleine had disappeared?”
Reply “That was at three o’clock in the morning after she’d disappeared, yeah”."
Thank you.
-
As per usual, the thread header asks about a cite. None forth coming so -made up- myth making at play. If supporters are so very sure about their version of events they really should offer a cite at least. Er, one that actuually cites what they claim.
-
As per usual, the thread header asks about a cite. None forth coming so -made up- myth making at play. If supporters are so very sure about their version of events they really should offer a cite at least. Er, one that actuually cites what they claim.
I thought Amaral said this in his book.
-
I thought Amaral said this in his book.
Ah ok I never read the book. would be greatful for a cite for " Amaral claims he decided MBM was dead in the first hour"?
-
I thought Amaral said this in his book.
Eleanor, I suggest you read back in this thread. This has already been covered. Goncalo Amaral did have suspicions but he hadn't
"already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene"
As was in Misty's post. Unless you can find a cite to the contrary of course.
-
Eleanor, I suggest you read back in this thread. This has already been covered. Goncalo Amaral did have suspicions but he hadn't
"already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene"
As was in Misty's post. Unless you can find a cite to the contrary of course.
Okay, he only had suspicions before he visited the crime scene. I apologise for any distress caused by my incorrect assumption.
However, I would still like to know how and why he had suspicions even before he visited the crime scene, especially on the day in which he was constituted an Arguido himself, in the case of another missing child.
Personally I think he must have thought that all his birthdays had come at once. But that is another assumption on my part.
-
I thought Amaral said this in his book.
In chapter three of his book (translated by Anna Esse) he makes no secret to his opinions and immediate rush to premature judgement ... in which the magic word appears to be "inconsistency" and plural of.
If what he has written about his thoughts and actions on 4th May as detailed in this chapter, it is my opinion that the thread title is well on its way to being proven.
-
In chapter three of his book (translated by Anna Esse) he makes no secret to his opinions and immediate rush to premature judgement ... in which the magic word appears to be "inconsistency" and plural of.
If what he has written about his thoughts and actions on 4th May as detailed in this chapter, it is my opinion that the thread title is well on its way to being proven.
reading the words IN YOUR OPINION which counts for nothing. So we can all take a sigh of relief and stick to actual cites.
-
reading the words IN YOUR OPINION which counts for nothing. So we can all take a sigh of relief and stick to actual cites.
Amaral wrote ...
- In fact, something isn't right.
- Someone is hiding something...
- You could say they were sharing a secret.
_______________________________________________________________________
Saturday May 5th
Someone puts forward the hypothesis according to which Madeleine would have died in her apartment, and that a member of the group would have removed her.
It's a possibility, but nothing so far, no evidence, happens to support that theory.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
So when was it that Madeleine McCann became less important to the investigation than proving the hypothesis formulated in chapter three of his book?
-
In chapter three of his book (translated by Anna Esse) he makes no secret to his opinions and immediate rush to premature judgement ... in which the magic word appears to be "inconsistency" and plural of.
If what he has written about his thoughts and actions on 4th May as detailed in this chapter, it is my opinion that the thread title is well on its way to being proven.
Tis mortal hard to decided, innit. Amaral certainly wasn't giving The McCanns the benefit of the doubt.
-
Tis mortal hard to decided, innit. Amaral certainly wasn't giving The McCanns the benefit of the doubt.
But he hadn't
already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
Unless any of the supporters have anything further to add I consider the cite not provided and the post by misty needs deleting.
-
In chapter three of his book (translated by Anna Esse) he makes no secret to his opinions and immediate rush to premature judgement ... in which the magic word appears to be "inconsistency" and plural of.
If what he has written about his thoughts and actions on 4th May as detailed in this chapter, it is my opinion that the thread title is well on its way to being proven.
On the morning of 4th he says;
There is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. Then the interviews begin and yes, there are questions arising. If Jane saw an abductor and Kate found an open window and shutters then Matthew should have noticed them too.
Between 8pm and 10pm Amaral is in Luz. He notices the lack of people on the streets and the difficulty Jane Tanner would have had to see what she says she saw given the dim lighting.
Returning to Portimao there's a discussion in the Incident room. "The original hypotheses are still valid; voluntary disappearance, abduction or death.
We are now 24 hours since Madeleine disappeared and Amaral definitely hasn't decided which crime has been committed, so the answer to the thread title is 'No' in my opinion.
-
But he hadn't
already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
Unless any of the supporters have anything further to add I consider the cite not provided and the post by misty needs deleting.
I think you may be on shaky ground there if you read chapter three with an open mind. For example why the immediate and painstaking ... in my opinion ... rubbishing of all aspects of Jane Tanner's evidence quite obviously before there had been any opportunity for full investigation?
I do not think you have carried your argument.
-
I think you may be on shaky ground there if you read chapter three with an open mind. For example why the immediate and painstaking ... in my opinion ... rubbishing of all aspects of Jane Tanner's evidence quite obviously before there had been any opportunity for full investigation?
I do not think you have carried your argument.
No, Amaral says this
Returning to Portimao there's a discussion in the Incident room. "The original hypotheses are still valid; voluntary disappearance, abduction or death.
So I still stand by my statement. He still had abduction as an option he had not "already decided that Madeleine was dead".
You and other supporters seem to want to believe something that you cannot show to be true.
-
I think you may be on shaky ground there if you read chapter three with an open mind. For example why the immediate and painstaking ... in my opinion ... rubbishing of all aspects of Jane Tanner's evidence quite obviously before there had been any opportunity for full investigation?
I do not think you have carried your argument.
No-one has been able to provide the cite required by the thread title. Chapter 3, in fact, documents that 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance the crime had not been identified.
-
No-one has been able to provide the cite required by the thread title. Chapter 3, in fact, documents that 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance the crime had not been identified.
The crime was reported as an abduction. That's how it should have been dealt with until shown to be otherwise - but it clearly wasn't by the coordinator. IMO.
-
The crime was reported as an abduction. That's how it should have been dealt with until shown to be otherwise - but it clearly wasn't by the coordinator. IMO.
I am glad you put IMO this time misty. Do you have a cite regarding the OP or are you prepared to admit it was your own opinion too?
-
No-one has been able to provide the cite required by the thread title. Chapter 3, in fact, documents that 24 hours after Madeleine's disappearance the crime had not been identified.
What was actually said and in what context in the post which originated the title of this thread?
-
What was actually said and in what context in the post which originated the title of this thread?
Brietta you have already replied to my quote of misty here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10277.msg497233#msg497233
And here is Misty's original post
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10257.msg495967#msg495967
-
The crime was reported as an abduction. That's how it should have been dealt with until shown to be otherwise - but it clearly wasn't by the coordinator. IMO.
The Coordinator had his own agenda.
-
I am glad you put IMO this time misty. Do you have a cite regarding the OP or are you prepared to admit it was your own opinion too?
I have already supplied cites regarding Amaral's mindset with zero evidence to support same, so no, I consider it a fact. Now perhaps people will understand the Met's remit "to investigate the ABDUCTION as if it occurred within the UK" i.e. to deal with it as originally reported until evidence/proof shows otherwise (imo).
-
I have already supplied cites regarding Amaral's mindset with zero evidence to support same, so no, I consider it a fact. Now perhaps people will understand the Met's remit "to investigate the ABDUCTION as if it occurred within the UK" i.e. to deal with it as originally reported until evidence/proof shows otherwise (imo).
Then that suggests they have gone in with a closed mind,no wonder its not advanced except ruling all and sundry in a supposed abduction.
-
Then that suggests they have gone in with a closed mind,no wonder its not advanced except ruling all and sundry in a supposed abduction.
Quite the opposite, Barrier. The Met went back to the very beginning when the McCanns reported the crime of abduction. That was the very first fact - not a child who may have wandered or who had died in the apartment. No police officer investigating a burglary report decides from the outset it may have been faked or an inside job.
All IMO.
-
Quite the opposite, Barrier. The Met went back to the very beginning when the McCanns reported the crime of abduction. That was the very first fact - not a child who may have wandered or who had died in the apartment. No police officer investigating a burglary report decides from the outset it may have been faked or an inside job.
All IMO.
Is it for police personnel to take it upon themselves to make conclusive decisions like that about any case?
If so ... why bother with prosecution services and courts if the police can do it all?
-
The crime was reported as an abduction. That's how it should have been dealt with until shown to be otherwise - but it clearly wasn't by the coordinator. IMO.
At the end of day one the PJ still had various possibilities on the table, including abduction. Therefore Amaral hadn't;
already decided that Madeleine was dead on Day 1 without a shred of evidence to substantiate that & before he'd even visited the crime scene.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10257.msg495967#msg495967
-
I have already supplied cites regarding Amaral's mindset with zero evidence to support same, so no, I consider it a fact. Now perhaps people will understand the Met's remit "to investigate the ABDUCTION as if it occurred within the UK" i.e. to deal with it as originally reported until evidence/proof shows otherwise (imo).
Could you explain your first sentence again misty. I read it as you agree your original post should have had IMO on the end. As regards the second sentence I agree that that was the remit of the review.
-
Could you explain your first sentence again misty. I read it as you agree your original post should have had IMO on the end. As regards the second sentence I agree that that was the remit of the review.
IMO I don't think it needs explaining any further. If John is not happy with how I have interpreted Amaral's own words, both written & spoken. then I'm sure he will delete posts accordingly.
-
Could you explain your first sentence again misty. I read it as you agree your original post should have had IMO on the end. As regards the second sentence I agree that that was the remit of the review.
A statement "I consider it a fact" is an opinion not a statement of fact.
-
IMO I don't think it needs explaining any further. If John is not happy with how I have interpreted Amaral's own words, both written & spoken. then I'm sure he will delete posts accordingly.
I think the best we can hope for is that we have all made progress.
-
A statement "I consider it a fact" is an opinion not a statement of fact.
Which was my understanding of misty's post and I replied as such Rob. Her initial post was somewhat more definitive of course.
I believe she has now accepted though that the initial post was her opinion on what he said rather than factual, so a line can be drawn IMO.