Goncalo Amaral.

[kizzy]

I find your post quite childish...not really sure if its worth discussing anything with you

Don't then - your opinion means very little to may anyway D

[Brietta]

I'm fairly sure that he was looked at both by PJ and Grange.
Whether they were thorough is something else altogether.

Grange would be as thorough as the information emanating from Portuguese colleagues allowed them to be.  If the Judicial Police had allegedly discarded him after interview - perhaps as a petty fuel thief with no record of burglary or paedophilia despite him confessing to having one apparently - why do you expect Scotland Yard would second guess that?

[barrier]

Grange would be as thorough as the information emanating from Portuguese colleagues allowed them to be.  If the Judicial Police had allegedly discarded him after interview - perhaps as a petty fuel thief with no record of burglary or paedophilia despite him confessing to having one apparently - why do you expect Scotland Yard would second guess that?

Whats the point of Grange in that case,

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.

[Brietta]

Whats the point of Grange in that case,

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.

Many of the personnel involved in Madeleine's reopened case have spent many precious hours poring over the repercussions of Amaral's botched investigation ~ Portuguese ~ British ~ and it now appears to be Germany's turn.

[Holly Goodhead]

Grange would be as thorough as the information emanating from Portuguese colleagues allowed them to be.  If the Judicial Police had allegedly discarded him after interview - perhaps as a petty fuel thief with no record of burglary or paedophilia despite him confessing to having one apparently - why do you expect Scotland Yard would second guess that?

What do you think OG has spent some 12 million on?

It's OG's responsibility to carry out its own due diligence checks on everyone within a certain radius of PDL whether a permanent resident or visiting.

Afaik all modern democracies maintain a register of criminal convictions.

https://www.bundesjustizamt.de/EN/Topics/citizen_services/BZR/BZR_node.html

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/tools-judicial-cooperation/european-criminal-records-information-system-ecris_en

https://dgaj.justica.gov.pt/Registo-criminal/Criminal-record-certificate

https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

[kizzy]

Many of the personnel involved in Madeleine's reopened case have spent many precious hours poring over the repercussions of Amaral's botched investigation ~ Portuguese ~ British ~ and it now appears to be Germany's turn.

Well so much you thinking they was doing something and all working together IMO its a joke

12 million spent on what - they should have gone back to the very beginning when they took over

Looked at it from the beginning with fresh eyes.

[Carana]

What do you think OG has spent some 12 million on?

It's OG's responsibility to carry out its own due diligence checks on everyone within a certain radius of PDL whether a permanent resident or visiting.

Afaik all modern democracies maintain a register of criminal convictions.

https://www.bundesjustizamt.de/EN/Topics/citizen_services/BZR/BZR_node.html

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/tools-judicial-cooperation/european-criminal-records-information-system-ecris_en

https://dgaj.justica.gov.pt/Registo-criminal/Criminal-record-certificate

https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

If this was the case in 2007, why didn't the PJ access the records of foreign nationals on their soil themselves?

[Anthro]

This is a comment by someone studying Madeleine’s disappearance:

The forensic technician, taking finger prints on the bedroom window:

This whole area should have been covered with a tent, to prevent further contamination!
She had her hair down which was blowing in the breeze!
She had on only ONE glove and that was on her LEFT hand.
She was applying the powder with the brush with her RIGHT UNGLOVED hand.
Her overalls were not fastened.
She did not have a mask on.
She could have blown away a single hair with her breath, (apart from other contamination's)!
Her case was on the BARE ground, allowing further matter to be carried inside the apartment.
She did NOT have her correct footwear on, or even overshoes, thus allowing further contamination.

[The General]

This is a comment by someone studying Madeleine’s disappearance:

The forensic technician, taking finger prints on the bedroom window:

This whole area should have been covered with a tent, to prevent further contamination!
She had her hair down which was blowing in the breeze!
She had on only ONE glove and that was on her LEFT hand.
She was applying the powder with the brush with her RIGHT UNGLOVED hand.
Her overalls were not fastened.
She did not have a mask on.
She could have blown away a single hair with her breath, (apart from other contamination's)!
Her case was on the BARE ground, allowing further matter to be carried inside the apartment.
She did NOT have her correct footwear on, or even overshoes, thus allowing further contamination.

For a break in?

[barrier]

For a break in?

Or not as the case maybe.

[Brietta]

For a break in?

   
           For a missing child.

[The General]

   
           For a missing child.

Really? When? Ever?

[The General]

Or not as the case maybe.

Mobilise CSI: Lagos for what, at the time, was a missing person.

[Carana]

This is a comment by someone studying Madeleine’s disappearance:

The forensic technician, taking finger prints on the bedroom window:

This whole area should have been covered with a tent, to prevent further contamination!
She had her hair down which was blowing in the breeze!
She had on only ONE glove and that was on her LEFT hand.
She was applying the powder with the brush with her RIGHT UNGLOVED hand.
Her overalls were not fastened.
She did not have a mask on.
She could have blown away a single hair with her breath, (apart from other contamination's)!
Her case was on the BARE ground, allowing further matter to be carried inside the apartment.
She did NOT have her correct footwear on, or even overshoes, thus allowing further contamination.

I feel a bit sorry for that lady who seems to have taken most of the heat over the forensics. Maybe there wasn't enough forensic gear?

I guess they did what they could with what they had, but - objectively - it was hardly a thorough sweep. Not all their fault, either. By the time they arrived, several people had been in and out of there, including GNR dog paw prints all over the place as well.

Not the GNR's fault, either. There was no manual at the time for first responders.

[misty]

For anyone interested there is a full translation of Amaral's TVI interview over on the Textusa blog.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2020/06/goncalo-amaral-jornal-das-8-tvi-june-21.html
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2020/06/goncalo-amaral-jornal-das-8-tvi-june-21_24.html