Goncalo Amaral.

[Eleanor]

I've never seen a Portuguese person agree to "the incompetence of the Amaral investigation".   They might have agreed to reopen the case, but at that time (2017) the case had not advanced beyond what Amaral had brought out.

Maybe a bit different now with CB in the frame, but even that might end up inconclusive.

You should have read some of the Comments under the Portuguese Media articles.

And I believe there are a couple of videos mocking Amaral and The Investigation.  I have seen these and they are really funny.  But I wouldn't know where to find them now.

[Mr Gray]

Judging by the UK police's knowledge of the layout of PdL I would say they know less than the PJ. Rowley made no claim to know more than the PJ either; according to him they 'dealt with' the possibility of parental involvement. According to the archive reports they didn't.

Can you show where in the archive report it says the UK police didn't deal with parental involvement.
Da Carmo said no evidence against the parents...not suspects remember

[barrier]

The PJ are still trying to work out how MM got out of the apartment (so they wanted a reconstruction).
But the UK take the view "however Madeleine got out of the apartment, she was abducted".

I can only think the UK police discovered something via Crimestoppers with confidentiality being a requirement.

Well they neve shared with Do Carmo,he answered when asked do you accept the girl was abducted,"we don't know what happened and have to be prepared for different scenario's.

[Robittybob1]

Well they neve shared with Do Carmo,he answered when asked do you accept the girl was abducted,"we don't know what happened and have to be prepared for different scenario's.

Were you able to review the full documentary?

[barrier]

Were you able to review the full documentary?

Yes this was a sky one.

Its on utube.

[faithlilly]

She publically stated her views just after the "dogs" interview and a decade before Netflix, so I don't see how Netflix could have "hastened her road to Damascus moment".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg610801#msg610801

I've no idea why she was still "combative" towards the parents over the dogs. Something to do with asking "pertinent" questions, apparently, according to the screen-grab summary.

If she was trying to - perhaps playfully - goad Gerry into saying something "juicy", I find "ask the dogs, Sandra" to have put a stop to it.

As I’ve said unless or until we have a transcript of her interview on Portuguese TV all we have is a few comments on a blog...hardly compelling evidence of her stance before Netflix.

And as I’ve also said before if SF knew she had been lied to over the forensics, as she must have at the time of the interview if her claim is true,  then why ask about the dogs when she knew their alerts had to be corroborated by the forensics she had discovered proved nothing ?

For me her behaviour can be summed up in two, cynical opportunism. I’d guess she no more supports the parents now than she ever did...it’s just it’s not acceptable to say that now...or perhaps the threat of libel may have done the trick.

[G-Unit]

Where is the "archive report" detailing Dr Totman's interviews with the police.  I have seen the result but I have never seen the 'archive report' leading up to the release of that information.
Have you?

That's because he didn't make a statement to the PJ, despite being in PdL until 12th May 2007.

[Brietta]

That's because he didn't make a statement to the PJ, despite being in PdL until 12th May 2007.

You misunderstand what I have posted.

My reference is to the sceptic denial that the McCanns were not interviewed by Scotland Yard,

I have pointed out that going on that logic ... neither was Dr Totman.

In my opinion it is patently obvious that Dr Totman was interviewed.  It is patently obvious that he was despite there being no record of that in the public domain.

Neither is there a record of Kate and Gerry McCann being interested not as suspects but as witnesses just as Dr Totman so obviously was.

In my opinion it is naive to assume they were not ... but that is because I don't believe in any of the 'theories' expounded by Amaral of which can be said you pays your money and you takes your choice.

[The General]

You misunderstand what I have posted.

My reference is to the sceptic denial that the McCanns were not interviewed by Scotland Yard,

I have pointed out that going on that logic ... neither was Dr Totman.

In my opinion it is patently obvious that Dr Totman was interviewed.  It is patently obvious that he was despite there being no record of that in the public domain.

Neither is there a record of Kate and Gerry McCann being interested not as suspects but as witnesses just as Dr Totman so obviously was.

In my opinion it is naive to assume they were not ... but that is because I don't believe in any of the 'theories' expounded by Amaral of which can be said you pays your money and you takes your choice.

That's a lot of words for a simple moonwalk.
You didn't know, get over it, we will. In time.

[Venturi Swirl]

Here is the video of Pedro do Carmo explaining his view, in his own words.  My recollection was nearly right, but so that there is no dispute here is Pedro do Carmo: https://youtu.be/8wOKQTsrpd4?t=45

Anything that was said then was "at this point" in time and things could change in the future, so he doesn't rule them out.

Nearly right is not good enough.

[Robittybob1]

Nearly right is not good enough.

Is that the standard you set for yourself too?  I'm a bit more forgiving in that respect.  Nearly right is good enough.

[Mr Gray]

There is no fact...at this point...or evidence...That they were involved in Madeleine McCanns disappearnce...

thats pretty clear

[Robittybob1]

There is no fact...at this point...or evidence...That they were involved in Madeleine McCanns disappearnce...

thats pretty clear

Exactly, at that point in time.  Has anything changed since then?  Could it change in the future?  So the PJ won't budge.

At that point in time, was May 2017 and we are now July 2020.

[Mr Gray]

At that point in time.  Has anything changed since then?  Could it change in the future?  So the PJ won't budge.

He can only answer for the present moment he was asked the question. This is post the archiving report when the SC changed  from no evidence to insufficient evidence. do carmo made it clear it was no evidence

[Robittybob1]

He can only answer for the present moment he was asked the question. This is post the archiving report when the SC changed  from no evidence to insufficient evidence. do carmo made it clear it was no evidence

There was two different benchmarks - evidence needed to convict and evidence needed to clear a suspect.

I'll show you using your words "This is post the archiving report when the SC changed  from no evidence to [convict] to insufficient evidence [to clear their name].  Pedro do carmo made it clear it was no evidence [to convict].   I agree with you on that.