Do you have a cite that Goncalo Amaral decided Madeleine was dead on Day 1?

[Sunny]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Sunny]

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.

[G-Unit]

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. 

[misty]

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.

[Sunny]

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?

[Brietta]

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?

[Sunny]

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

[Eleanor]

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.

[misty]

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).

[barrier]

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.

[misty]

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.

[Brietta]

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?

[G-Unit]

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