Author Topic: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?  (Read 87867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #390 on: October 22, 2018, 11:22:30 PM »
Rob I understand that but Davel went from the dogs alerts were not proven to they were proven. That was my point

I can see his point for there is no way to prove what a dog alerts to, but both parties to the case can agree there was a cadaver alert to cadaver odour.  (One of the proven facts.)

Amaral can say the dog alerted to a cadaver (as a theory).
The McCanns may know there had been a cadaver in the apartment so it is possible the dogs alerted to that.  So it is possible to agree the dogs alerted to cadaver odour.

But what was Gerry arguing when the judged closed him down?  Certainly there was no admission from the McCanns that the cadaver odour came from Madeleine.

I'm imaging Amaral thought it did mean Madeleine had died in the apartment (as he claimed), and the McCanns are saying they think Madeleine is alive (both at odds).  So they never agreed to Madeleine's death.  That was not one of the "proven facts".
« Last Edit: October 22, 2018, 11:26:15 PM by Robittybob1 »
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #391 on: October 22, 2018, 11:32:36 PM »
"In the proven facts...it states.  The dog alerted to cadaver odour" that does not equate to "Madeleine died in the apartment".

So how can they both agree to "The dog alerted to cadaver odour"?   That is a difficult question and the only answer I see as a solution is that there was another cadaver in the apartment at some stage.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Sunny

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #392 on: October 22, 2018, 11:52:42 PM »
"In the proven facts...it states.  The dog alerted to cadaver odour" that does not equate to "Madeleine died in the apartment".

So how can they both agree to "The dog alerted to cadaver odour"?   That is a difficult question and the only answer I see as a solution is that there was another cadaver in the apartment at some stage.

Rob neither of your posts explain why davel said the alerts went from unproven to proven.   He doesn't make sense but I do understand your point though.
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline sadie

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #393 on: October 23, 2018, 12:48:02 AM »
I have no idea.  I don't study that case.
What a pity.

You might change your mind about certain things had you studied the Cipriano case.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #394 on: October 23, 2018, 02:15:13 AM »
Rob neither of your posts explain why davel said the alerts went from unproven to proven.   He doesn't make sense but I do understand your point though.
I would say if you read that Davel wrote "the dogs alerted to cadaver odour" he is merely repeating the the line from the court transcript.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline barrier

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #395 on: October 23, 2018, 07:03:19 AM »
What a pity.

You might change your mind about certain things had you studied the Cipriano case.
Or it could cloud your judgement.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #396 on: October 23, 2018, 07:45:21 AM »
Or it could cloud your judgement.
I have thought about it, but there is no reward on offer.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #397 on: October 23, 2018, 07:48:23 AM »
Or it could cloud your judgement.

Comparisons are a waste of time. The same Met officer who led the Jill Dando investigation also led Operation Grange in the beginning. Does that mean mistakes would be made? Not necessarily.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Carana

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #398 on: October 24, 2018, 09:39:15 AM »
She was convicted for it in a country where the legal system rules that information obtained under duress is inadmissible.

In theory...

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #399 on: October 24, 2018, 01:29:40 PM »
In theory...

?
In practice she was convicted.
The Portuguese codes state that information obtained under duress is inadmissible; that is more than theory.
If you have evidence the codes were not adhered to let's see it.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline sadie

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #400 on: October 24, 2018, 05:00:31 PM »
?
In practice she was convicted.
The Portuguese codes state that information obtained under duress is inadmissible; that is more than theory.
If you have evidence the codes were not adhered to let's see it.


This has all been gone over ad nauseam over the past few years. 

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #401 on: October 24, 2018, 07:13:12 PM »
This has all been gone over ad nauseam over the past few years. 

You have failed to address the question I posed.
It's simple enough, discussion of the Cipriano Torture case being totally unnecessary.
What I have asked to be demonstated is that information obtained under duress was declared admissible by the courts and used in the prosecution and conviction of L.Cipriano in contravention of Portugals legal codes.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 02:57:48 PM by John »
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline sadie

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #402 on: October 25, 2018, 01:52:27 AM »
You have failed to address the question I posed.
It's simple enough, discussion of the Cipriano Torture case being totally unnecessary.
What I have asked to be demonstated is that information obtained under duress was declared admissible by the courts and used in the prosecution and conviction of L.Cipriano in contravention of Portugals legal codes.

No, you didn't mention the L. Cipriano case at all Alice

Here is mention of a case that demonstrated that information obtained under duress MUST have been accepted by the Courts, because after the perseverance of Virgolino Bourges, (railway official) for 13 years  (!!!) the Courts finally accepted that he was tortured and Inspector Tavares de Almeida + another inspector were guilty of that torture



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061

Re: The Tavares de Almeida conviction and its relevance to the Madeleine Mccann case


DCI Reply #14 on: August 28, 2013, 11:40:37 AM »

Quote
Two inspectors PJ convicted of torture
Lawyer shows the victim was relieved by the end of a process that has dragged on for 13 years. "From what I understand, it is the first time that such a process leads to the conviction of persons in concrete," says the Express.

Rui Gustavo and Ricardo Marques
17:44 Friday, January 25, 2013

Two chief inspectors of the PJ were sentenced today to prison terms of two and a half years, suspended upon payment of a fine in that monthly period, for having tortured a man DCCB's premises in March 2000. Another element of PJ was acquitted.

In a judgment with about 40 pages, the Lisbon Criminal Court sentenced the two chief inspectors of the Judicial Police to pay each month, each, the sum of 80 euros for a fund that will ultimately accrue to the victim, Virgolino Borges, who was assistant in the process. The decision was known in 3. ª stick, by 14h30.

Jerónimo Martins, lawyer Virgolino Borges, was relieved by the end of a process that has dragged on for 13 years. "From what I understand, it is the first time that such a process leads to the conviction of persons in concrete," he told Expresso.

The three inspectors - Diamond José dos Santos, Vitor Tavares de Almeida and Antonio Alves da Cunha, were part of the same brigade of the then Central Directorate for Combating Gangsterism (DCCB). In March 2000, Virgolino Borges was taken to the PJ on suspicion of theft (a process that eventually involved). On days 2 and 3, he complained, was beaten repeatedly with a board and punched in the feet by PJ inspectors.

In a first phase investigation, the prosecutor eventually dismiss the case. At that time, consisted Virgolino assistant and requested the opening statement - which culminated in the indictment of three police for the crime of torture, criminal whose frame varies between one and five years in prison.

The two defendants, Diamantino dos Santos de Almeida and Tavares were convicted co-author and should appeal the conviction.

The three inspectors Judicial, both now convicted and who was acquitted, all remain active.

http://expresso.sapo.pt/dois-inspetores ... ra=f782292




Incedentally you will notice that this website will not open ... and that is because it has been tampered with

Also all the references to Almeidas Criminal Offence, along with reports on the Torture of Virgolino Borges have been wiped off the internet



Just who is wiping all the evidence away ?     Sinister IMO
.

Offline Sunny

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #403 on: October 25, 2018, 07:09:44 AM »
No, you didn't mention the L. Cipriano case at all Alice

Here is mention of a case that demonstrated that information obtained under duress MUST have been accepted by the Courts, because after the perseverance of Virgolino Bourges, (railway official) for 13 years  (!!!) the Courts finally accepted that he was tortured and Inspector Tavares de Almeida + another inspector were guilty of that torture



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71061#msg71061

Re: The Tavares de Almeida conviction and its relevance to the Madeleine Mccann case


DCI Reply #14 on: August 28, 2013, 11:40:37 AM »




Incedentally you will notice that this website will not open ... and that is because it has been tampered with

Also all the references to Almeidas Criminal Offence, along with reports on the Torture of Virgolino Borges have been wiped off the internet



Just who is wiping all the evidence away ?     Sinister IMO
.

No not "Sinister" Sadie just a dodgy link posted back in 2013.  If you look at the original poster's link it is not complete.

Edited.   I have found the original on the Espresso website, so no conspiracy at all.   It took me all of 5 seconds.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2018, 07:14:17 AM by Sunny »
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Brietta

Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #404 on: October 25, 2018, 10:05:36 AM »
No not "Sinister" Sadie just a dodgy link posted back in 2013.  If you look at the original poster's link it is not complete.

Edited.   I have found the original on the Espresso website, so no conspiracy at all.   It took me all of 5 seconds.

Thank you Sunny.

Would it be possible for you to provide the link?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....