McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Carana]

Evidence.... The available body of information which indicates whether a belief is true...

So indications are evidence... Imo

LOL This reminds me of someone else I frequently nit-pick with.

I disagree because there's a hierarchy, IMO, and indication is at the bottom of it. I understand it as a pointer, or some form of intelligence, that then leads to searching for evidence.

The legal summary goes into some depth how these indications led to various actions in order to try to find evidence. in the end, there was none of any relevance.

Perhaps someone would care to have a go at wading through the CPP to find instances of indícios versus evidência.

[Mr Gray]

LOL This reminds me of someone else I frequently nit-pick with.

I disagree because there's a hierarchy, IMO, and indication is at the bottom of it. I understand it as a pointer, or some form of intelligence, that then leads to searching for evidence.

The legal summary goes into some depth how these indications led to various actions in order to try to find evidence. in the end, there was none of any relevance.

Perhaps someone would care to have a go at wading through the CPP to find instances of indícios versus evidência.

I think if you list the indications that Maddie, wad, abducted and the evidence.... They will be the same

It may be that the prosecutor regarded evidence as some thing that would, stand up in court... As opposed  to indications that would not.... So the dog alerts would be indications... Not evidence

[G-Unit]

Which crimes do you mean? He provided a wide range of possible crimes near the beginning, incuding various types of abduction, parental involvement, etc.

Later, aside from his doubts over the frequency of the checks (he seems to assume that it was Madeleine that Mrs Fenn had heard) and his consideration of the crime of abandonment, which he dismissed due to the absence of intent, he then goes to give his reasons for the "non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action".



The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

All this bearing in mind that:


- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" - because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.

Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.



If concrete evidence came to light of whichever crime - if any, envisaged or not - had befallen her, then that might that might shed more light on who may have been responsible.

The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;

even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.

[Carana]

I think if you list the indications that Maddie, wad, abducted and the evidence.... They will be the same

I don't think there is any evidence of what actually happened to her. It's not as if someone filmed her being taken from the flat and shoved in the boot of a car, preferably with license plates visible - as that would have pushed the button, via a magistrate, for an abduction alert. Hopefully.

IMO, an indication is Kate's assertion that she found the shutter raised and the window open. Evidence, IMO, would have been a video camera recording someone lifting it. Proof, IMO, would be that the video evidence hadn't been tampered with and that it was indeed that shutter and that any other explanation was impossible.

If it had ever come to court, her assertion would be her evidence as to what she saw, but whether that was deemed to be evidence as to the actual state of the shutters/ window could be open to question.

Gerry had also stated that he'd seen it open when he arrived, but again, that's not evidence of who lifted it.

On the other hand, there is evidence that the dogs alerted in the form of the video recordings. There is no evidence, however, as to what the dogs actually alerted to. Therefore, IMO, the alerts themselves were an indication, but despite the forensic lot hunting for evidence, none was found warranting any "meaningful interpretation".

In a court case, Mrs Fenn's statement could have been used as evidence that the McCanns didn't check as frequently as they'd said. However, her statement wasn't corroborated, and IMO, there are other potential explanations that make more sense to me. In any event, she didn't even see Madeleine crying, she just heard a child crying, who she believed to have been the same child, and that the noise came from below. It's not evidence that it was actually Madeleine crying.

The DNA results are evidence that could have beenn presented in court, circa Cipriano time, but not worthy of any "meaningful interpretation", or as the prosecutor put it "innocuous". Not even an indication, IMO. There never was any "blood spatter" or "100% DNA result" which is a long-enduring and much-cherished myth for some.

There were indications that Murat might have been involved, which is why the PJ checked out that possibility, but there is no evidence that he was.

As the prosecutor said, although the PJ felt that they had grounds for suspicion (I could quibble as to whether they were actually confronted with the text of the Lowe email or not... which I doubt), it all fizzled into nothingness.

[Mr Gray]

The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;

even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.

Could you quote the areas in the archiving report where it raises serious reservations Re abduction... If you can't then the SCare simply making things up.... Which raises serious questions

[Carana]

The McCann's lawyers quoted those passages too in their request for annulment. In reply the SC judges said;

even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
In the said order, it was concluded also that the appellants had neglected, although not recklessly or grossly, the duty of custody of their children, and still that, although it had not been possible to determine if the child was alive or not, it seemed more likely she was dead.

I can't see "serious reservations" as to the abduction possibility. How I read it is that there's nothing concrete to come to any sensible conclusion in either direction as to what did happen to her, and even if, hypothetically, her parents had been involved, there was no logical explanation as to the logistics of how they could have disposed of the body, let alone evidence to support it.

I find the summary to be impartial. There are only two bits that I'd quibble: one is the assumption that it was definitely Madeleine that Mrs Fenn heard (discussed on various other threads), and what, to me, seems like an unlikely potential outcome of the reconstruction, although I can understand the it was felt necessary to slap some knuckles.

[G-Unit]

Could you quote the areas in the archiving report where it raises serious reservations Re abduction... If you can't then the SCare simply making things up.... Which raises serious questions

I don't need to quote anything, I agree with the judges. Are you seriously accusing them of making things up? I find that highly amusing, sorry. 

[Mr Gray]

I can't see "serious reservations" as to the abduction possibility. How I read it is that there's nothing concrete to come to any sensible conclusion in either direction as to what did happen to her, and even if, hypothetically, her parents had been involved, there was no logical explanation as to the logistics of how they could have disposed of the body, let alone evidence to support it.

I find the summary to be impartial. There are only two bits that I'd quibble: one is the assumption that it was definitely Madeleine that Mrs Fenn heard (discussed on various other threads), and what, to me, seems like an unlikely potential outcome of the reconstruction, although I can understand the it was felt necessary to slap some knuckles.

Saying there are serious reservations with the abduction scenario when the archiving report never said that is far from impartial and IMO questions the impartiality if the SC

[Mr Gray]

I don't need to quote anything, I agree with the judges. Are you seriously accusing them of making things up? I find that highly amusing, sorry. 

As it's not in the archiving report... Then they are making it up..

[Carana]

Saying there are serious reservations with the abduction scenario when the archiving report never said that is far from impartial and IMO questions the impartiality if the SC

I don't see any "serious reservations" either. More F..k knows what actually happened to her.

As there was no evidence of what had happened to her, all he could go on concerning the analysis of the parents was listing the indications, followed up in order to try to find evidence, of which there was none of any penally-relevant significance.

In view of that, I agree with the decision to file it under 277/1.

The SC appears to disagree. However, I have still not found an explanation as to why they said that it couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1. Particularly as reports from three years prior appear to substantiate that it was indeed reopened under 277/1 and Pedro do Carmo made what I presume to be a rare public statement to say that the parents weren't suspects.

[G-Unit]

As it's not in the archiving report... Then they are making it up..

Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong

[Mr Gray]

Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong

As there is no evidence to suport their claim of serious reservations in the archiving report then they must be wrong.... Where is the evidence... Or do you just take their word for it..

IMO it raises serious  questions Re their impartiality... And if they are, wrong about that...and possibly wrong that under 277/1...the case, cannot be reopened... What else could they be wrong about

[Carana]

Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong

Are you suggesting that translation  might be an issue? ;)

The only one I've raised was in response Davel's belief that indício equalled evidence, and we disagree on that.
If there's an issue over the meaning of a word, I'm happy to check it out, as anyone else could. Lucky she didn't disappear in Mongolia.

Otherwise, in terms of the general substance, no, I don't see the grounds for "serious reservations" as to an abduction. I found it to be 50/50, but with nothing of relevance to implicate the parents.

Have you found why they said that it couldn't have been reopened if archived under 277/1 yet?

[Mr Gray]

Well, if you and Carana have formed that opinion we will have to defer to your superior knowledge, won't we? Three Supreme Court judges analysing a document written in their native language must be wrong

The archiving report is online for us all to read...both in the original portuguese and the english translation...there is no mention of serious reservations of abduction...fact

[Carana]

Can anyone find what they think "serious reservations" re an abduction scenario might have referred to in the text of the legal summary?

For the record, I ddn't find that he had a bias one way or the other. He did consider that the parents could have been involved, but explained why none of the initial indications that were found to be suspicious had any basis in reality.